# The Most Disgusting Song of All Time



## PoliticalChic

Relax....this is about politics.

1. Here the song at issue:

 "Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too"
"Imagine," by John Lennon

Yup....*the universal anthem of Liberalism:* "Imagine," by John Lennon.






2. *No countries...the end of sovereignty....*.only United Nations global government.
Unelected elites making the rules for all of us.* Imagine.*

a. *Global governance*, the idea of all humankind united under one common political authority, has not existed so far in human history. This is not to say that it hasnt been debated, called for, fought forand as recently as the 20th century, enforced on large swaths of the planet.called *communism..*.. data is available documenting the deleterious effects: responsible for *over 100 million slaughtered*. How to explain its endorsement by the Western elites? Simple: it is *a religious belief called, among other things, Liberalism.*
"Sovereignty or Submission: Will Americans Rule Themselves or be Ruled by Others?" by John Fonte




3. *Imagaine....if there were no counties, it stands to reason, "Nothing to kill or die for."* 
I'm guessing that we could find a few things that people kill or die for in both the history of mankind and the penal code.  Any disagree?

4. And, possibly the most invidious lie told, and believed by Liberals..*."more have died because of religion...." Got that covered: " And no religion too"  Imagine.*
a. First World War (191418): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 million
Russian Civil War (191722): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 million
Soviet Union, Stalins regime (192453): . . . . . . . . . 20 million
Second World War (193745): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 million
Chinese Civil War (194549): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 million
Peoples Republic of China, Mao Zedongs 
regime (194975): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 million
Korean War (195053): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 million
North Korea (1948 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 million
Rwanda and Burundi (195995): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.35 million
What was the religious basis for those?* The only religion I see in there is the religion of Leftism.*





5. And, of course, the attraction of Liberalism for many is no recriminations, *no judgments *about anyone....after all, each person is entitled to his or her *personal morality...true? Got that covered, too: 
"Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us*
Above us only sky"

6. And, if there is no societal morality, then " Imagine all the people
*Living for today..."*  Yup...'do your own thing.'





7. But there is some *good news..*...

" Often as people mature they out-grow their *naïve embrace of leftist ideology *and begin to see things in their true light,...*' John Lennon was a closet Republican, who felt a little embarrassed by his former radicalism, *at the time of his death - according to the tragic Beatles star's last personal assistant.' 

He says, "John, basically, made it very clear that if he were an American he would vote for *Reagan *because he was really sour on (Democrat) Jimmy Carter. By 1979 he looked back on that guy and was *embarrassed by that guy's naiveté."(He wrote 'Imagine' in 1970).*

This new revelation about the late rock & roll legend should give us all pause to *reflect upon the hollow nature of liberalism. * For those of us who have misguided friends, family and associates who continue to cling to *the factually devoid ideology of the left, *be patient yet unrelenting in exposing these lost souls to the truth and Imagine them discovering the world of reality."
Blog: Imagine John Lennon as a Republican 





So.....perhaps there is hope?

Maybe?


----------



## RDD_1210

Slow day for finding things to complain about?


----------



## Spoonman

There was a reason pangea separated and drifted apart


----------



## DiamondDave

Musically a great song.. 

Do I agree with all the subject matter? No.. But then again, I am a huge fan of Black Sabbath's War Pigs, and I am a huge proponent of the military..


----------



## Sallow

it's a song about peace.

Naturally something Political Chica opposes..


----------



## G.T.

DiamondDave said:


> Musically a great song..
> 
> Do I agree with all the subject matter? No.. But then again, I am a huge fan of Black Sabbath's War Pigs, and I am a huge proponent of the military..



That's the good thing about art. 

You can love the content but not the message. 

You can love the message but not the content. 

You can love both, you can love neither.


----------



## DiamondDave

Sallow said:


> it's a song about peace.
> 
> Naturally something Political Chica opposes..




No.. actually a song about the mythical idea of utopia


----------



## Dutch

I can see Political Chic frantically searching her archives for a book to quote  3/4 of her post to and settling for the John Lennon angle.


----------



## G.T.

Islam kills for Religion to this day.


----------



## FJO

I am a (literally) dying kind of guy. I love CLASSICAL music, and firmly believe that Rock 'n Roll died a premature death when the Rolling Stones contaminated the music scene with their drug-infested noise and disgusting on-stage and off-stage antics.

Having said that, when I read the title of the thread, immediately the same John Lennon abomination of a "song" came to mind.

Thank, PoliticalChic, you said it for me better than I could have, myself.


----------



## G.T.

FJO said:


> I am a (literally) dying kind of guy. I love CLASSICAL music, and firmly believe that Rock 'n Roll died a premature death when the Rolling Stones contaminated the music scene with their drug-infested noise and disgusting on-stage and off-stage antics.
> 
> Having said that, when I read the title of the thread, immediately the same John Lennon abomination of a "song" came to mind.
> 
> Thank, PoliticalChic, you said it for me better than I could have, myself.



I wish you well, my friend.


----------



## Spoonman

this song makes me see images of a bunch of lazy dirty hippies laying around doing nothing all day.


----------



## thanatos144

Stoned idiots always believe in utopia 

tapatalk post


----------



## Capstone

Disgusting, taken literally; brilliant, taken sardonically:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqXAW2snGMI]Oingo Boingo - Capitalism - 1983 - YouTube[/ame]

I like the sardonic interpretion.


----------



## Mr Natural

Right wingers sure do love their strife and misery.


----------



## Capstone

Mr Clean said:


> Right wingers sure do love their strife and misery.



A small price to pay for keeping women and faggots in check!


----------



## Camp

Imagine, John Lennon's words, poetry, music and name are known by more people in the world and will continue to be known far into the future. More than any US President or world leader in history. Perhaps Hitler gives him a run, but who else? And Hitler is only known in name and being an evil man. Few actually know what he had to say.


----------



## FJO

Mr Clean said:


> Right wingers sure do love their strife and misery.



Strife and misery is a whining multimillionaire crying and bitching about and "Imagine" things that no normal person would want to be part of, rolling and writhing in bed, 24/7, with his hippy skank. 

The Beatles in general and John Lennon in particular should have stopped and enjoy their success as great composers and mediocre singers before butting their noses into a field totally out their field of expertise: politics.


----------



## NYcarbineer

PC apparently saw that John Lennon pic that was on a magazine cover that's currently on the racks at grocery store checkouts,

and she promptly had a fainting spell and awoke with a topic.


----------



## dblack

PoliticalChic said:


> Relax....this is about politics.
> 
> 1. Here the song at issue:
> 
> "Imagine there's no countries
> It isn't hard to do
> Nothing to kill or die for
> And no religion too"
> "Imagine," by John Lennon...


----------



## NYcarbineer

Wasn't John Lennon already under the influence of that crazy Asian woman when he wrote that dreadful song?

I wonder if that's the lesson PC is trying to convey?  

lol


----------



## dblack

NYcarbineer said:


> Wasn't John Lennon already under the influence of that crazy Asian woman when he wrote that dreadful song?
> 
> I wonder if that's the lesson PC is trying to convey?
> 
> lol



What's wrong with you people??

It's one of the most beautiful songs ever written.


----------



## PixieStix

This is THE most sickening song ever! Makes me wanna literally puke

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVi4rUzf-0Q]American Prayer - Dave Stewart (Barack Obama Music Video) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## PoliticalChic

RDD_1210 said:


> Slow day for finding things to complain about?





You find it less than important that Liberals/progressives/Leftists wish to end our sovereignty, dispense with the religious basis for the founding of this great nation, endorse private morality based on some warped moral equivalency?


And you present no cogent argument for same?


Gee...you must be some sort of dunce, huh?


----------



## PixieStix

I think John Lennon made a great point with this song.

It can be taken on several different levels, it probably depends on the listener

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhhJqJV_u6M]John Lennon - Mind Games HD 720p - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## PoliticalChic

Sallow said:


> it's a song about peace.
> 
> Naturally something Political Chica opposes..





A peace based on lock-step Liberalism, requiring mandates, force, gulag, re-education camps, torture, lawlessness and corruption....and the slaughter of millions.


I'm always amazed that history has taught you nothing.



The Leftist Weatherman, the predecessors of Obama, actually admitted that "force, gulag, re-education camps, torture, lawlessness and corruption....and the slaughter of millions"
was exactly......exactly....what they had in mind for any Americans who weren't as brainless, testosterone-challenged, and easily led as you are.


Here, a former FBI agent stating exactly what they said:



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWMIwziGrAQ]Larry Grathwohl on Ayers' plan for American re-education camps and the need to kill millions - YouTube[/ame]




If we have Americans like you to rely on, ...all is lost.


----------



## rightwinger

Great tune

I can "imagine" why conservatives hate it so

All he is saying........is give peace a chance


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dutch said:


> I can see Political Chic frantically searching her archives for a book to quote  3/4 of her post to and settling for the John Lennon angle.





I can understand why and how you fail to understand the workings of a sentient mind....having nothing to compare it with.


----------



## NYcarbineer

dblack said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't John Lennon already under the influence of that crazy Asian woman when he wrote that dreadful song?
> 
> I wonder if that's the lesson PC is trying to convey?
> 
> lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with you people??
> 
> It's one of the most beautiful songs ever written.
Click to expand...


John Lennon post-Beatles is the most overrated singer/songwriter in history.


----------



## Spoonman

Sallow said:


> it's a song about peace.
> 
> Naturally something Political Chica opposes..



peace at what expense?  the loss of liberties, freedom and personal choice?


----------



## PixieStix

DiamondDave said:


> Musically a great song..
> 
> Do I agree with all the subject matter? No.. But then again, I am a huge fan of Black Sabbath's War Pigs, and I am a huge proponent of the military..



I like Pink Floyd because they were anti mind control  And anti government control,






The Machine, and Another Brick in The Wall, for instance


----------



## PoliticalChic

Spoonman said:


> this song makes me see images of a bunch of lazy dirty hippies laying around doing nothing all day.



....with the pipe drooping from their lips......


----------



## dblack

NYcarbineer said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't John Lennon already under the influence of that crazy Asian woman when he wrote that dreadful song?
> 
> I wonder if that's the lesson PC is trying to convey?
> 
> lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with you people??
> 
> It's one of the most beautiful songs ever written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> John Lennon post-Beatles is the most overrated singer/songwriter in history.
Click to expand...


I wonder if there have been any serious studies correlating artistic taste and political preference?


----------



## rightwinger

Actually, it is a little known fact that John Lennon got the idea for that song on the Dick Cavett Show

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPZ4nY0kFWs"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPZ4nY0kFWs[/ame]


----------



## rightwinger

NYcarbineer said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't John Lennon already under the influence of that crazy Asian woman when he wrote that dreadful song?
> 
> I wonder if that's the lesson PC is trying to convey?
> 
> lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with you people??
> 
> It's one of the most beautiful songs ever written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> John Lennon post-Beatles is the most overrated singer/songwriter in history.
Click to expand...


Did you hear the crap Paul McCartney put out?


----------



## dblack

Spoonman said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's a song about peace.
> 
> Naturally something Political Chica opposes..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peace at what expense?  the loss of liberties, freedom and personal choice?
Click to expand...


It's an innocent fantasy, expressing yearning for peace and brotherhood. Not a manifesto.

It has more in common with "Wouldn't It Be Nice" by the Beach Boys than with a political screed.

Will remain one of my favorites.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Mr Clean said:


> Right wingers sure do love their strife and misery.



You moron.


Over 100 million killed by the Left in the last century.


"The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression" by Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartosek and Jean-Louis Margolin



"Already famous throughout Europe, this international bestseller plumbs recently opened archives in the former Soviet bloc to reveal* the actual, practical accomplishments of Communism around the world: terror, torture, famine, mass deportations, and massacres. *Astonishing in the sheer detail it amasses, the book is the first comprehensive attempt to *catalogue and analyze the crimes of Communism over seventy years.*

"Revolutions, like trees, must be judged by their fruit," Ignazio Silone wrote, and this is the standard the authors apply to the Communist experience*in the China of "the Great Helmsman," Kim Il Sung's Korea, Vietnam under "Uncle Ho" and Cuba under Castro, Ethiopia under Mengistu, Angola under Neto, and Afghanistan under Najibullah. *The authors, all distinguished scholars based in Europe, document Communist crimes against humanity, but also crimes against national and universal culture, from Stalin's destruction of hundreds of churches in Moscow to Ceausescu's leveling of the historic heart of Bucharest to the widescale devastation visited on Chinese culture by Mao's Red Guards."
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/The-Black-Book-Communism-Repression/dp/0674076087/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1384531264&sr=8-1&keywords=the+black+book+of+communism]The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression: Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartosek, Jean-Louis Margolin, Nicolas Werth, Stéphane Courtois, Mark Kramer, Jonathan Murphy: 9780674076082: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]



You sure are lucky....you can get a copy, used, for 30 bucks....

.....when I read it, it cost me nearly $50.



What????
You're a Liberal.....so you never have to read???

What a time-saver.....


.....as long as you don't mind being recognized as a moron.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Capstone said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right wingers sure do love their strife and misery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A small price to pay for keeping women and faggots in check!
Click to expand...



Another moron.


Be advised....it is due to the Republicans that women have the vote in this great nation.


----------



## Mr Natural

For your listening pleasure.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRhq-yO1KN8]John Lennon - Imagine (official video) - YouTube[/ame]

And PoliticalChic, go fuck yourself.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> Imagine, John Lennon's words, poetry, music and name are known by more people in the world and will continue to be known far into the future. More than any US President or world leader in history. Perhaps Hitler gives him a run, but who else? And Hitler is only known in name and being an evil man. Few actually know what he had to say.





With respect to the OP.....could you try to digest the premise, and then attempt to make an actual point.


----------



## PixieStix

I think John Lennon was simply imagining
*
Imagine no heaven*. It really isn't hard to do, since we live in this evil world. 

*Imagine no countries*, meaning hope for people not fighting across the globe. I think we could all agree that we would like to get along with everyone. But it is in a lot of people's imagination to hope for some peace across the globe. No one really likes war 

*No hell below us*, I am pretty sure we would all hope for that. But then again that is probably what keeps some humans if not most in check


----------



## thanatos144

Capstone said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right wingers sure do love their strife and misery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A small price to pay for keeping women and faggots in check!
Click to expand...


We leave the hate to you democrats who created the kkk and started a civil war to keep blacks as slaves 

tapatalk post


----------



## PoliticalChic

NYcarbineer said:


> PC apparently saw that John Lennon pic that was on a magazine cover that's currently on the racks at grocery store checkouts,
> 
> and she promptly had a fainting spell and awoke with a topic.




Notice...I have a proprietary pride in veracity.
I've told you before....I have nothing but revulsion for despicable liars like yourself.

Remain in your sewer.


----------



## PoliticalChic

dblack said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Relax....this is about politics.
> 
> 1. Here the song at issue:
> 
> "Imagine there's no countries
> It isn't hard to do
> Nothing to kill or die for
> And no religion too"
> "Imagine," by John Lennon...
Click to expand...




I'm sure you're more articulate than this post indicates.....

...go ahead, make an argument for your position.


----------



## PoliticalChic

dblack said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't John Lennon already under the influence of that crazy Asian woman when he wrote that dreadful song?
> 
> I wonder if that's the lesson PC is trying to convey?
> 
> lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with you people??
> 
> It's one of the most beautiful songs ever written.
Click to expand...




Hitler was a great painter!
Two coats in an afternoon!
(Great line from "The Producers")


Clearly you didn't read the OP: John Lennon was embarrassed that he once believed what he wrote in "Imagine."

You should be, too.


----------



## dblack

PoliticalChic said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Relax....this is about politics.
> 
> 1. Here the song at issue:
> 
> "Imagine there's no countries
> It isn't hard to do
> Nothing to kill or die for
> And no religion too"
> "Imagine," by John Lennon...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you're more articulate than this post indicates.....
> 
> ...go ahead, make an argument for your position.
Click to expand...


LOL ... it's a pop song! I'm not going to bother with a 'position', much less argue for it.


----------



## PoliticalChic

PixieStix said:


> This is THE most sickening song ever! Makes me wanna literally puke
> 
> American Prayer - Dave Stewart (Barack Obama Music Video) - YouTube





I'll see that steaming pile of offal...and raise you this one:




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJFC1qFCgyA]School children sing praises to their savior Obama - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## G.T.

Oddly enough, this song is more successful than anything pathetic message boarder "politicalchic" will ever do in her life. 

You are just a side line hater. Preach on.


----------



## RDD_1210

PoliticalChic said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slow day for finding things to complain about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You find it less than important that Liberals/progressives/Leftists wish to end our sovereignty, dispense with the religious basis for the founding of this great nation, endorse private morality based on some warped moral equivalency?
> 
> 
> And you present no cogent argument for same?
> 
> 
> Gee...you must be some sort of dunce, huh?
Click to expand...


Please number your discussion points. I cannot respond until this happens. 

Thank you for your anticipated compliance.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> Great tune
> 
> I can "imagine" why conservatives hate it so
> 
> All he is saying........is give peace a chance







Wait....aren't you the pretender who claims constantly that you don't read my OP's???




Did you get up to the part where Lennon renounced the nonsense in the song "Imagine"?


----------



## PixieStix

PoliticalChic said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is THE most sickening song ever! Makes me wanna literally puke
> 
> American Prayer - Dave Stewart (Barack Obama Music Video) - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll see that steaming pile of offal...and raise you this one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJFC1qFCgyA]School children sing praises to their savior Obama - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Ugh, I know right. That is the kind of thing we need to watch, it is utter brainwashing our children.

Have you see this one?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1z2fPi2VtQI]'Yes We Can' - A Beautiful Song Proving Dreams Can Really Co - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## RDD_1210

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine, John Lennon's words, poetry, music and name are known by more people in the world and will continue to be known far into the future. More than any US President or world leader in history. Perhaps Hitler gives him a run, but who else? And Hitler is only known in name and being an evil man. Few actually know what he had to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With respect to the OP.....could you try to digest the premise, and then attempt to make an actual point.
Click to expand...


This is where you're mistaken. The OP doesn't deserve any respect.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Mr Clean said:


> For your listening pleasure.
> 
> John Lennon - Imagine (official video) - YouTube
> 
> And PoliticalChic, go fuck yourself.





What a classy Liberal....
...That's your only response when I put you in your place.



That is what folks mean when they say this:

"Let me give you a little tip: if you want liberalism to continue in this country, you have to realize that liberal students are being let down by their professors!  
They have liberal school teachers, and read the liberal press!  Because of this weak preparation, *they are unable to argue, to think beyond the first knee-jerk impulse. *They cant put together a logical thought. Now, compare that to a college Republican"
Coulter



Thanks for helping to prove it.


----------



## G.T.

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great tune
> 
> I can "imagine" why conservatives hate it so
> 
> All he is saying........is give peace a chance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait....aren't you the pretender who claims constantly that you don't read my OP's???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you get up to the part where Lennon renounced the nonsense in the song "Imagine"?
Click to expand...



No, his former assistant claims that. & that's all you have.


----------



## G.T.

She's taking the word of one man in full faith. The same man who went to prison for stealing from John. That's how easy it is to brainwash p.c., her vetting skills are uber sub par.


----------



## PoliticalChic

dblack said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you're more articulate than this post indicates.....
> 
> ...go ahead, make an argument for your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL ... it's a pop song! I'm not going to bother with a 'position', much less argue for it.
Click to expand...





And yet you did take a position earlier.....

....but can't defend it.


----------



## PoliticalChic

G.T. said:


> Oddly enough, this song is more successful than anything pathetic message boarder "politicalchic" will ever do in her life.
> 
> You are just a side line hater. Preach on.





This is probably the best attempt at rebuttal one can expect from the imbecile bench.

I must admit that your side, having no possible defense.....

...loves to make the argument about me.


I kinda like that.


----------



## G.T.

_*&#8220;We are with you in spirit.&#8230; In this beautiful country where democracy is the very foundation of its constitution, it is sad that we have to still fight for equal rights and equal pay for the citizens. Boycott it must be, if it is the only way to bring justice and restore the dignity of the constitution for the sake of all citizens of the US and their children.

&#8220;Peace and love, John Lennon and Yoko Ono. New York City, December, 1980.&#8221;

That was Lennon&#8217;s last written political statement. It doesn&#8217;t seem to be the work of a &#8220;closet Republican.&#8221;*_


----------



## PoliticalChic

RDD_1210 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slow day for finding things to complain about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You find it less than important that Liberals/progressives/Leftists wish to end our sovereignty, dispense with the religious basis for the founding of this great nation, endorse private morality based on some warped moral equivalency?
> 
> 
> And you present no cogent argument for same?
> 
> 
> Gee...you must be some sort of dunce, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please number your discussion points. I cannot respond until this happens.
> 
> Thank you for your anticipated compliance.
Click to expand...




Did you actually believe that this obfuscation attempt 

a) was like humor....only different

or

b) hid the fact that you still haven't found a way to answer my post.




I kinda like how I eviscerated you, here:


"You find it less than important that Liberals/progressives/Leftists wish to end our sovereignty, dispense with the religious basis for the founding of this great nation, endorse private morality based on some warped moral equivalency?


*And you present no cogent argument for same?*


Gee...you must be some sort of dunce, huh?"



Dunce.


----------



## PoliticalChic

PixieStix said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is THE most sickening song ever! Makes me wanna literally puke
> 
> American Prayer - Dave Stewart (Barack Obama Music Video) - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll see that steaming pile of offal...and raise you this one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJFC1qFCgyA]School children sing praises to their savior Obama - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ugh, I know right. That is the kind of thing we need to watch, it is utter brainwashing our children.
> 
> Have you see this one?
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1z2fPi2VtQI]'Yes We Can' - A Beautiful Song Proving Dreams Can Really Co - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...





Uhhhhhggggg...


....there goes my appetite....


----------



## Spoonman

G.T. said:


> Oddly enough, this song is more successful than anything pathetic message boarder "politicalchic" will ever do in her life.
> 
> You are just a side line hater. Preach on.



i wonder how much profit the capitalist john lennon made off this sing?  I wonder how much royalties yoko is still pulling in?  I wonder how much of that money went to peace as opposed to drugs and other hedonistic pleasures?


----------



## G.T.

From the time I met John in 1971 until the end, all of those things he expressed in Imagine were part of his belief system until the last breath of his life, says Mintz. If you listen to the last recorded interviews that were done with John, youll hear him express in his own words   his own beliefs  which are virtually identical to the beliefs he held in 71. "

-Lennon's personal friend and publicist, Elliot Mintz

So - we take the word of Lennon himself, Yoko, and his close friend...

Or - we take the word of a guy who stole from him. 

Only a genius could tell.


----------



## PoliticalChic

RDD_1210 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine, John Lennon's words, poetry, music and name are known by more people in the world and will continue to be known far into the future. More than any US President or world leader in history. Perhaps Hitler gives him a run, but who else? And Hitler is only known in name and being an evil man. Few actually know what he had to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With respect to the OP.....could you try to digest the premise, and then attempt to make an actual point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is where you're mistaken. The OP doesn't deserve any respect.
Click to expand...





So....as you still have no answer.....

...is this your pathetic attempt to become relevant?


To pretend that that you actually understood the OP?



Which is it?


----------



## PoliticalChic

G.T. said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great tune
> 
> I can "imagine" why conservatives hate it so
> 
> All he is saying........is give peace a chance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait....aren't you the pretender who claims constantly that you don't read my OP's???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you get up to the part where Lennon renounced the nonsense in the song "Imagine"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, his former assistant claims that. & that's all you have.
Click to expand...





"...his former assistant claims that."
That's right.

And you have your constant and unaccompanied " is not, is not."


Great work.



Anyone ever point out to you that something beats nothing?

Oh....no one ever thought you'd have the IQ to understand it?
Got it.


----------



## PoliticalChic

G.T. said:


> She's taking the word of one man in full faith. The same man who went to prison for stealing from John. That's how easy it is to brainwash p.c., her vetting skills are uber sub par.





"Uber" requires an umlaut.
Versteht?


So....you're actually stupid in how many languages?


----------



## Spoonman

G.T. said:


> From the time I met John in 1971 until the end, all of those things he expressed in Imagine were part of his belief system until the last breath of his life, says Mintz. If you listen to the last recorded interviews that were done with John, youll hear him express in his own words   his own beliefs  which are virtually identical to the beliefs he held in 71. "
> 
> -Lennon's personal friend and publicist, Elliot Mintz
> 
> So - we take the word of Lennon himself, Yoko, and his close friend...
> 
> Or - we take the word of a guy who stole from him.
> 
> Only a genius could tell.



dude, john was so strung out on heroin he didn't even wipe his own ass or bother to dress half the time.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great tune
> 
> I can "imagine" why conservatives hate it so
> 
> All he is saying........is give peace a chance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait....aren't you the pretender who claims constantly that you don't read my OP's???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you get up to the part where Lennon renounced the nonsense in the song "Imagine"?
Click to expand...


Keep on playing those mind games...........forever


----------



## G.T.

PoliticalChic said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait....aren't you the pretender who claims constantly that you don't read my OP's???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you get up to the part where Lennon renounced the nonsense in the song "Imagine"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, his former assistant claims that. & that's all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...his former assistant claims that."
> That's right.
> 
> And you have your constant and unaccompanied " is not, is not."
> 
> 
> Great work.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone ever point out to you that something beats nothing?
> 
> Oh....no one ever thought you'd have the IQ to understand it?
> Got it.
Click to expand...


Anyone ever point out to you that you're willing to gamble your integrity on a convicted scumbag thief JUST because it adds to the heap of confirmation bias which makes your world view? Your brain is sick, pretty obviously.


----------



## G.T.

Spoonman said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the time I met John in 1971 until the end, all of those things he expressed in Imagine were part of his belief system until the last breath of his life, says Mintz. If you listen to the last recorded interviews that were done with John, youll hear him express in his own words   his own beliefs  which are virtually identical to the beliefs he held in 71. "
> 
> -Lennon's personal friend and publicist, Elliot Mintz
> 
> So - we take the word of Lennon himself, Yoko, and his close friend...
> 
> Or - we take the word of a guy who stole from him.
> 
> Only a genius could tell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dude, john was so strung out on heroin he didn't even wipe his own ass or bother to dress half the time.
Click to expand...


which has zilch to do with whether or not he regretted writing Imagine.


----------



## G.T.

Another failed OP in the Hall of Shame that is PC.


----------



## PoliticalChic

G.T. said:


> _*We are with you in spirit. In this beautiful country where democracy is the very foundation of its constitution, it is sad that we have to still fight for equal rights and equal pay for the citizens. Boycott it must be, if it is the only way to bring justice and restore the dignity of the constitution for the sake of all citizens of the US and their children.
> 
> Peace and love, John Lennon and Yoko Ono. New York City, December, 1980.
> 
> That was Lennons last written political statement. It doesnt seem to be the work of a closet Republican.*_



Why?

Republicans led the fight for equal rights,....fought the Democrats and still do.

I'm not a Democrat, but have supported unions.




Try again?


----------



## G.T.




----------



## PixieStix

PoliticalChic said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll see that steaming pile of offal...and raise you this one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> School children sing praises to their savior Obama - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ugh, I know right. That is the kind of thing we need to watch, it is utter brainwashing our children.
> 
> Have you see this one?
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1z2fPi2VtQI]'Yes We Can' - A Beautiful Song Proving Dreams Can Really Co - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhhhhggggg...
> 
> 
> ....there goes my appetite....
Click to expand...


Exactly. My point is that these songs have an indoctrinating effect, where John Lennon's songs have a soothing and thoughtful effect for many people. His songs had to be sought out. Although, I understand the point of your OP.

These other "songs", (and I say that with all due respect to real music), have a brainwashing affect on our children and the adult moronic masses, like those who re in hollywood feeling all self righteous and stuff. In your face all over the internet for their god obama


----------



## Spoonman

G.T. said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the time I met John in 1971 until the end, all of those things he expressed in Imagine were part of his belief system until the last breath of his life, says Mintz. If you listen to the last recorded interviews that were done with John, youll hear him express in his own words   his own beliefs  which are virtually identical to the beliefs he held in 71. "
> 
> -Lennon's personal friend and publicist, Elliot Mintz
> 
> So - we take the word of Lennon himself, Yoko, and his close friend...
> 
> Or - we take the word of a guy who stole from him.
> 
> Only a genius could tell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dude, john was so strung out on heroin he didn't even wipe his own ass or bother to dress half the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> which has zilch to do with whether or not he regretted writing Imagine.
Click to expand...


so lets see how seriously you really believe in his words.  start giving up your possesions and living your life in peace.  we'll see how it works out for you.  if it does, maybe we'll even join you.  lead by example but please, drop your hypocritical bullshit.   you don't believe this is possible any more than i do.


----------



## G.T.

Spoonman said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude, john was so strung out on heroin he didn't even wipe his own ass or bother to dress half the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which has zilch to do with whether or not he regretted writing Imagine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so lets see how seriously you really believe in his words.  start giving up your possesions and living your life in peace.  we'll see how it works out for you.  if it does, maybe we'll even join you.  lead by example but please, drop your hypocritical bullshit.   you don't believe this is possible any more than i do.
Click to expand...


Never said I belied in his words. 

#fail


----------



## Spoonman

G.T. said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> which has zilch to do with whether or not he regretted writing Imagine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so lets see how seriously you really believe in his words.  start giving up your possesions and living your life in peace.  we'll see how it works out for you.  if it does, maybe we'll even join you.  lead by example but please, drop your hypocritical bullshit.   you don't believe this is possible any more than i do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said I belied in his words.
> 
> #fail
Click to expand...


lol, someone who is supporting him doesn't even believe in his words.  now that is fail


----------



## G.T.

Spoonman said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> so lets see how seriously you really believe in his words.  start giving up your possesions and living your life in peace.  we'll see how it works out for you.  if it does, maybe we'll even join you.  lead by example but please, drop your hypocritical bullshit.   you don't believe this is possible any more than i do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never said I belied in his words.
> 
> #fail
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, someone who is supporting him doesn't even believe in his words.  now that is fail
Click to expand...


No, not really. In the world exists nuance. It's hard if you're not much of a thinker, I understand.


----------



## PixieStix

I do not believe all the words in every song I like or listen to.


----------



## PoliticalChic

G.T. said:


> From the time I met John in 1971 until the end, all of those things he expressed in Imagine were part of his belief system until the last breath of his life, says Mintz. If you listen to the last recorded interviews that were done with John, youll hear him express in his own words   his own beliefs  which are virtually identical to the beliefs he held in 71. "
> 
> -Lennon's personal friend and publicist, Elliot Mintz
> 
> So - we take the word of Lennon himself, Yoko, and his close friend...
> 
> Or - we take the word of a guy who stole from him.
> 
> Only a genius could tell.






I was soooooo hoping one of the dolts would post that!!!


I kept pushing....but didn't guess that the dumbest of the bunch would do it.




Here's what I was waiting to use:

James Delingpole wrote this....

 "I on the other hand like to think that the story contains a kernel of what you might call Hari-esque emotional truth. I mean, Lennon was a maverick figure. 

The taxes in New York where he spent his last years are incredibly high. *Intelligent people do tend to grow more right wing as they get older.* And besides,* how could you write a song like Imagine and not grow increasingly embarrassed *by the sixth-form revolutionary crassness of those lyrics about a world with no possessions? Would it not corrode your soul to the point where you found yourself *suddenly possessed of an insatiable urge secretly to donate millions of pounds to the Republican Party,* and possibly the National Rifle Association too to make amends for all *the tiresome left-wing propaganda *you foisted on the world in your misspent youth?
Just sayin'.


But why let that get in the way of* the delicious schadenfreude I'm feeling right now over the recent claims by his former personal assistant Fred Seaman  and the apparent discomfort it is causing lefties.*"
Was John Lennon a secret Reagan Republican? ? Telegraph Blogs



Again?
*
".... the delicious schadenfreude I'm feeling right now over ...the apparent discomfort it is causing lefties."*


Love it!!!!


.....and thanks for fallin' right into that!


----------



## Spoonman

G.T. said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never said I belied in his words.
> 
> #fail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol, someone who is supporting him doesn't even believe in his words.  now that is fail
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not really. In the world exists nuance. It's hard if you're not much of a thinker, I understand.
Click to expand...


think all you want. only actions change things.  and thats the problem with liberalism.  its a bunch of pie in the sky thoughts that don't function in the real world.


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> With respect to the OP.....could you try to digest the premise, and then attempt to make an actual point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where you're mistaken. The OP doesn't deserve any respect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So....as you still have no answer.....
> 
> ...is this your pathetic attempt to become relevant?
> 
> 
> To pretend that that you actually understood the OP?
> 
> 
> 
> Which is it?
Click to expand...


The point is that you can go anywhere in the world and people know the words of John Lennon and what he wanted to say to the world. His music has been loved and continues to be loved by millions since he first appeared and long after he has gone. Maybe tens of millions. Maybe hundreds of millions. Maybe as time goes by, billions. He had a tremendous impact on the world. Unlike the temporary impacts world leaders have, John Lennon will continue to have an impact on the world. That is what happens with art. It lives on after the artist dies. The artist name may live on, and his or her's work may live on, and some written works may live on, but the message of those artist can become changed and forgotten with time. Poetry and music can go on forever. The message of a song can go on forever. John Lennon put his feeling into poetry and song. His feelings will continue to influence the beliefs and opinions of countless people far into the future. Not many in world history have ever gained that claim and status. Perhaps you can or someone else can name some. That would be an interesting debate.


----------



## G.T.

Umm, I didn't fall into anything. You just posted a writer's opinion who has never even met John Lennon to refute his publicists' quote?

You're one gosh golly big retard, huh?

Look how dishonest this dumbass is. 

The quote she posted and where she cut it: *But why let that get in the way of the delicious schadenfreude I'm feeling right now over the recent claims by his former personal assistant Fred Seaman &#8211; and the apparent discomfort it is causing lefties."*

What's before "but," you dishonest hack?


----------



## Capstone

PoliticalChic said:


> Be advised....it is due to the Republicans that women have the vote in this great nation.



Too simplistic - almost _moronically_ so.

Be advised: even in the late teens and early twenties, money talked and bullshit walked. Accordingly, it was due to _progressives_ and to the big money interests served by integrating women into the voting pool ...that women _won_ the right to vote.

Nothing to say about the fags though?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Spoonman said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> so lets see how seriously you really believe in his words.  start giving up your possesions and living your life in peace.  we'll see how it works out for you.  if it does, maybe we'll even join you.  lead by example but please, drop your hypocritical bullshit.   you don't believe this is possible any more than i do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never said I belied in his words.
> 
> #fail
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, someone who is supporting him doesn't even believe in his words.  now that is fail
Click to expand...





Our pal G.T. has trouble with the English language...and all other ones,too....

...didn't he say "Never said I belied in his words."


That means he never said he disagreed with, contradicted,  the words in Lennon's song....

be·lie
bi&#712;l&#299;/Submit
verb
1.
(of an appearance) fail to give a true notion or impression of (something); disguise or contradict.
"his lively alert manner belied his years"
synonyms:	contradict, be at odds with, call into question, show/prove to be false, disprove, debunk, discredit, controvert, negate; More




The poor boy......

....should have stayed in school beyond the third grade.....


----------



## G.T.

"*Was John Lennon a secret Reagan Republican? You know what? I think the answer's probably no. But why let that get in the way of the delicious schadenfreude I'm feeling right now over the recent claims by his former personal assistant Fred Seaman &#8211; and the apparent discomfort it is causing lefties.*"


This is your noble "out" after using the words of a convicted thief as support for one of the points in your OP. 

Another politicalchic failed OP. Who's got the fork?


----------



## NoNukes

NYcarbineer said:


> Wasn't John Lennon already under the influence of that crazy Asian woman when he wrote that dreadful song?
> 
> I wonder if that's the lesson PC is trying to convey?
> 
> lol



PC is an Asian woman who hides behind an avatar of a White super woman.


----------



## G.T.

PoliticalChic said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never said I belied in his words.
> 
> #fail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol, someone who is supporting him doesn't even believe in his words.  now that is fail
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our pal G.T. has trouble with the English language...and all other ones,too....
> 
> ...didn't he say "Never said I belied in his words."
> 
> 
> That means he never said he disagreed with, contradicted,  the words in Lennon's song....
> 
> be·lie
> bi&#712;l&#299;/Submit
> verb
> 1.
> (of an appearance) fail to give a true notion or impression of (something); disguise or contradict.
> "his lively alert manner belied his years"
> synonyms:	contradict, be at odds with, call into question, show/prove to be false, disprove, debunk, discredit, controvert, negate; More
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The poor boy......
> 
> ....should have stayed in school beyond the third grade.....
Click to expand...


 @ writing an entire post based on an obvious typo.


_*#walloftext*_


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is where you're mistaken. The OP doesn't deserve any respect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So....as you still have no answer.....
> 
> ...is this your pathetic attempt to become relevant?
> 
> 
> To pretend that that you actually understood the OP?
> 
> 
> 
> Which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that you can go anywhere in the world and people know the words of John Lennon and what he wanted to say to the world. His music has been loved and continues to be loved by millions since he first appeared and long after he has gone. Maybe tens of millions. Maybe hundreds of millions. Maybe as time goes by, billions. He had a tremendous impact on the world. Unlike the temporary impacts world leaders have, John Lennon will continue to have an impact on the world. That is what happens with art. It lives on after the artist dies. The artist name may live on, and his or her's work may live on, and some written works may live on, but the message of those artist can become changed and forgotten with time. Poetry and music can go on forever. The message of a song can go on forever. John Lennon put his feeling into poetry and song. His feelings will continue to influence the beliefs and opinions of countless people far into the future. Not many in world history have ever gained that claim and status. Perhaps you can or someone else can name some. That would be an interesting debate.
Click to expand...




Seems you failed to understand the import of the OP.....

It isn't about his musical ability.


"The message of a song can go on forever."

Seems not. Lennon himself disagreed with it.


----------



## G.T.

Spoonman said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol, someone who is supporting him doesn't even believe in his words.  now that is fail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not really. In the world exists nuance. It's hard if you're not much of a thinker, I understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> think all you want. only actions change things.  and thats the problem with liberalism.  its a bunch of pie in the sky thoughts that don't function in the real world.
Click to expand...


Right, because being a thinker means you don't act. 



Scary that people think life is a big one liner.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great tune
> 
> I can "imagine" why conservatives hate it so
> 
> All he is saying........is give peace a chance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait....aren't you the pretender who claims constantly that you don't read my OP's???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you get up to the part where Lennon renounced the nonsense in the song "Imagine"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep on playing those mind games...........forever
Click to expand...





You mean making you tell the truth?


----------



## kiwiman127

This is very ironic in a sense.  Do those who hate "Imagine" also hate all the Christian hymns that are about peace, hope and the Utopian heaven?


----------



## G.T.

PoliticalChic said:


> Seems not. Lennon himself disagreed with it.



Not according to himself, his wife & his publicist he didn't. 

But we could always take the word of a guy who was convicted of stealing from him. 

Also funny is that you posted an article in which the writer doesn't believe it, either.


----------



## G.T.

"*You know what? I think the answer's probably no. But why let that get in the way of the delicious schadenfreude I'm feeling right now over the recent claims by his former personal assistant Fred Seaman &#8211; and the apparent discomfort it is causing lefties.*"

 @ she cut it at "but"


----------



## NoNukes

Mr Clean said:


> For your listening pleasure.
> 
> John Lennon - Imagine (official video) - YouTube
> 
> And PoliticalChic, go fuck yourself.



Who else would fuck her? You would have to talk to her when it was over.


----------



## PoliticalChic

G.T. said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, his former assistant claims that. & that's all you have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...his former assistant claims that."
> That's right.
> 
> And you have your constant and unaccompanied " is not, is not."
> 
> 
> Great work.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone ever point out to you that something beats nothing?
> 
> Oh....no one ever thought you'd have the IQ to understand it?
> Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone ever point out to you that you're willing to gamble your integrity on a convicted scumbag thief JUST because it adds to the heap of confirmation bias which makes your world view? Your brain is sick, pretty obviously.
Click to expand...




Another pretend post?


Kind of a sign of one taking a terrible beating....and has no real way to avoid it.



But....you deserve it.


----------



## G.T.

PoliticalChic said:


> Was John Lennon a secret Reagan Republican? ? Telegraph Blogs
> !



Writer's quote: "James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. "


Writer's quote: "Was John Lennon a secret Reagan Republican? You know what? I think the answer's probably no. "


----------



## PoliticalChic

G.T. said:


> Another failed OP in the Hall of Shame that is PC.





And yet another!


Just wipe the egg off your face.


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC apparently saw that John Lennon pic that was on a magazine cover that's currently on the racks at grocery store checkouts,
> 
> and she promptly had a fainting spell and awoke with a topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice...I have a proprietary pride in veracity.
> I've told you before....I have nothing but revulsion for despicable liars like yourself.
> 
> Remain in your sewer.
Click to expand...


Get out of the gutter, you are blocking my view.


----------



## G.T.




----------



## L.K.Eder

mark chapman approves of this thread.


----------



## PoliticalChic

PixieStix said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ugh, I know right. That is the kind of thing we need to watch, it is utter brainwashing our children.
> 
> Have you see this one?
> 
> 'Yes We Can' - A Beautiful Song Proving Dreams Can Really Co - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhhhhggggg...
> 
> 
> ....there goes my appetite....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. My point is that these songs have an indoctrinating effect, where John Lennon's songs have a soothing and thoughtful effect for many people. His songs had to be sought out. Although, I understand the point of your OP.
> 
> These other "songs", (and I say that with all due respect to real music), have a brainwashing affect on our children and the adult moronic masses, like those who re in hollywood feeling all self righteous and stuff. In your face all over the internet for their god obama
Click to expand...




You know who I really feel sorry for?

The dummies who named their children "Barack"....


...it's gonna be like wearing a "kick me" sign their whole lives.



"Nobody Names Their Baby 'Barack' Anymore

149 kids named Barack from 2008-2010
Nobody Names Their Baby 'Barack' Anymore - Eric Randall - The Atlantic Wire


----------



## NoNukes

G.T. said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great tune
> 
> I can "imagine" why conservatives hate it so
> 
> All he is saying........is give peace a chance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait....aren't you the pretender who claims constantly that you don't read my OP's???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you get up to the part where Lennon renounced the nonsense in the song "Imagine"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, his former assistant claims that. & that's all you have.
Click to expand...


She does not need facts.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Capstone said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be advised....it is due to the Republicans that women have the vote in this great nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too simplistic - almost _moronically_ so.
> 
> Be advised: even in the late teens and early twenties, money talked and bullshit walked. Accordingly, it was due to _progressives_ and to the big money interests served by integrating women into the voting pool ...that women _won_ the right to vote.
> 
> Nothing to say about the fags though?
Click to expand...





I don't mind teaching a moron.....get a pencil and paper.


1.	*It was a Republican who introduced what became the 19th Amendment,* womens suffrage. On May 21, 1919, U.S. Representative James R. Mann (1856-1922), a Republican from Illinois and chairman of the Suffrage Committee, proposed the House resolution to approve the Susan Anthony Amendment granting women the right to vote. The measure passed the House 304-89a full 42 votes above the required two-thirds majority. 19th Amendment ? History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts


2.	The 1919 vote in the House of Representatives was possible because *Republicans had retaken control of the House.* Attempts to get it passed through Democrat-controlled Congresses had failed.

3.	The Senate vote was approved only after *a Democrat filibuster*; and 82% of the Republican Senators voted for it.and 54% of the Democrats.

4.	26 of the 36 states that ratified the 19th Amendment had *Republican legislatures.* 

5.	Two weeks later, on June 4, 1919, the Senate passed the 19th Amendment by two votes over its two-thirds required majority, 56-25. The amendment was then sent to the states for ratification. Within six days of the ratification cycle, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin each ratified the amendment. Kansas, New York and Ohio followed on June 16, 1919. By March of the following year, a total of 35 states had approved the amendment, one state shy of the two-thirds required for ratification. Southern states were adamantly opposed to the amendment, however, and seven of themAlabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, South Carolina and Virginiahad already rejected it before Tennessee's vote on August 18, 1920. It was up to Tennessee to tip the scale for woman suffrage. Op. Cit.


6.	The outlook appeared bleak, given the outcomes in other Southern states and given the position of Tennessee's state legislators in their 48-48 tie. The state's decision came down to 23-year-old Representative Harry T. Burn (1895-1977),* a Republican from McMinn County, to cast the deciding vote. *Although Burn opposed the amendment, his mother convinced him to approve it. (Mrs. Burn reportedly wrote to her son: "Don't forget to be a good boy and help Mrs. Catt put the 'rat' in ratification.") With Burn's vote, the 19th Amendment was ratified. Certification by U.S. Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby (1869-1950) followed on August 26, 1920. Op. Cit.


----------



## G.T.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK6KrImNY2A]This Thread Sucks But Here's A Killer Jam - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## PoliticalChic

G.T. said:


> "*Was John Lennon a secret Reagan Republican? You know what? I think the answer's probably no. But why let that get in the way of the delicious schadenfreude I'm feeling right now over the recent claims by his former personal assistant Fred Seaman  and the apparent discomfort it is causing lefties.*"
> 
> 
> This is your noble "out" after using the words of a convicted thief as support for one of the points in your OP.
> 
> Another politicalchic failed OP. Who's got the fork?





*".... the delicious schadenfreude I'm feeling right now over ...the apparent discomfort it is causing lefties."*



Busted...you dunce.


----------



## G.T.

PoliticalChic said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "*Was John Lennon a secret Reagan Republican? You know what? I think the answer's probably no. But why let that get in the way of the delicious schadenfreude I'm feeling right now over the recent claims by his former personal assistant Fred Seaman  and the apparent discomfort it is causing lefties.*"
> 
> 
> This is your noble "out" after using the words of a convicted thief as support for one of the points in your OP.
> 
> Another politicalchic failed OP. Who's got the fork?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *".... the delicious schadenfreude I'm feeling right now over ...the apparent discomfort it is causing lefties."*
> 
> 
> 
> Busted...you dunce.
Click to expand...


 @ you trying to save face


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't John Lennon already under the influence of that crazy Asian woman when he wrote that dreadful song?
> 
> I wonder if that's the lesson PC is trying to convey?
> 
> lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PC is an Asian woman who hides behind an avatar of a White super woman.
Click to expand...





I love making you sound this stupid.


----------



## PoliticalChic

G.T. said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol, someone who is supporting him doesn't even believe in his words.  now that is fail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our pal G.T. has trouble with the English language...and all other ones,too....
> 
> ...didn't he say "Never said I belied in his words."
> 
> 
> That means he never said he disagreed with, contradicted,  the words in Lennon's song....
> 
> be·lie
> bi&#712;l&#299;/Submit
> verb
> 1.
> (of an appearance) fail to give a true notion or impression of (something); disguise or contradict.
> "his lively alert manner belied his years"
> synonyms:	contradict, be at odds with, call into question, show/prove to be false, disprove, debunk, discredit, controvert, negate; More
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The poor boy......
> 
> ....should have stayed in school beyond the third grade.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> @ writing an entire post based on an obvious typo.
> 
> 
> _*#walloftext*_
Click to expand...




I was reading it in English.....

....isn't that what you had in mind?



OMG!!! I said mind in connection with your post!!!!

Funny, huh?


----------



## G.T.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4siKr6qY8w]Toronto mayor Rob Ford says he gets enough pussy to eat at home - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## PoliticalChic

kiwiman127 said:


> This is very ironic in a sense.  Do those who hate "Imagine" also hate all the Christian hymns that are about peace, hope and the Utopian heaven?





How do you like this one:


Dare to be a Daniel, Dare to stand alone
Dare to have a purpose firm, Dare to make it known!
From From the hymn &#8220;Hold the Fort!&#8221; First Congregational Church of Chicago, Illinois.


One of my favs.


I try to live by it.


----------



## RDD_1210

PoliticalChic said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You find it less than important that Liberals/progressives/Leftists wish to end our sovereignty, dispense with the religious basis for the founding of this great nation, endorse private morality based on some warped moral equivalency?
> 
> 
> And you present no cogent argument for same?
> 
> 
> Gee...you must be some sort of dunce, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please number your discussion points. I cannot respond until this happens.
> 
> Thank you for your anticipated compliance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you actually believe that this obfuscation attempt
> 
> a) was like humor....only different
> 
> or
> 
> b) hid the fact that you still haven't found a way to answer my post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I kinda like how I eviscerated you, here:
> 
> 
> "You find it less than important that Liberals/progressives/Leftists wish to end our sovereignty, dispense with the religious basis for the founding of this great nation, endorse private morality based on some warped moral equivalency?
> 
> 
> *And you present no cogent argument for same?*
> 
> 
> Gee...you must be some sort of dunce, huh?"
> 
> 
> 
> Dunce.
Click to expand...


Fail. I requested numbering. You used a lettering system. Please go back and correct.


----------



## G.T.




----------



## NYcarbineer

PoliticalChic said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be advised....it is due to the Republicans that women have the vote in this great nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too simplistic - almost _moronically_ so.
> 
> Be advised: even in the late teens and early twenties, money talked and bullshit walked. Accordingly, it was due to _progressives_ and to the big money interests served by integrating women into the voting pool ...that women _won_ the right to vote.
> 
> Nothing to say about the fags though?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mind teaching a moron.....get a pencil and paper.
> 
> 
> 1.	*It was a Republican who introduced what became the 19th Amendment,* womens suffrage. On May 21, 1919, U.S. Representative James R. Mann (1856-1922), a Republican from Illinois and chairman of the Suffrage Committee, proposed the House resolution to approve the Susan Anthony Amendment granting women the right to vote. The measure passed the House 304-89a full 42 votes above the required two-thirds majority. 19th Amendment ? History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts
> 
> 
> 2.	The 1919 vote in the House of Representatives was possible because *Republicans had retaken control of the House.* Attempts to get it passed through Democrat-controlled Congresses had failed.
> 
> 3.	The Senate vote was approved only after *a Democrat filibuster*; and 82% of the Republican Senators voted for it.and 54% of the Democrats.
> 
> 4.	26 of the 36 states that ratified the 19th Amendment had *Republican legislatures.*
> 
> 5.	Two weeks later, on June 4, 1919, the Senate passed the 19th Amendment by two votes over its two-thirds required majority, 56-25. The amendment was then sent to the states for ratification. Within six days of the ratification cycle, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin each ratified the amendment. Kansas, New York and Ohio followed on June 16, 1919. By March of the following year, a total of 35 states had approved the amendment, one state shy of the two-thirds required for ratification. Southern states were adamantly opposed to the amendment, however, and seven of themAlabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, South Carolina and Virginiahad already rejected it before Tennessee's vote on August 18, 1920. It was up to Tennessee to tip the scale for woman suffrage. Op. Cit.
> 
> 
> 6.	The outlook appeared bleak, given the outcomes in other Southern states and given the position of Tennessee's state legislators in their 48-48 tie. The state's decision came down to 23-year-old Representative Harry T. Burn (1895-1977),* a Republican from McMinn County, to cast the deciding vote. *Although Burn opposed the amendment, his mother convinced him to approve it. (Mrs. Burn reportedly wrote to her son: "Don't forget to be a good boy and help Mrs. Catt put the 'rat' in ratification.") With Burn's vote, the 19th Amendment was ratified. Certification by U.S. Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby (1869-1950) followed on August 26, 1920. Op. Cit.
Click to expand...


That's a lot of effort to be wrong.


----------



## PoliticalChic

G.T. said:


> "*You know what? I think the answer's probably no. But why let that get in the way of the delicious schadenfreude I'm feeling right now over the recent claims by his former personal assistant Fred Seaman  and the apparent discomfort it is causing lefties.*"
> 
> @ she cut it at "but"



So....where did you get the full article?

Oh...right....I gave you the link.


----------



## G.T.




----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> For your listening pleasure.
> 
> John Lennon - Imagine (official video) - YouTube
> 
> And PoliticalChic, go fuck yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who else would fuck her? You would have to talk to her when it was over.
Click to expand...




Disgusting.

Imagine...you have to live with yourself.


----------



## G.T.




----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....as you still have no answer.....
> 
> ...is this your pathetic attempt to become relevant?
> 
> 
> To pretend that that you actually understood the OP?
> 
> 
> 
> Which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that you can go anywhere in the world and people know the words of John Lennon and what he wanted to say to the world. His music has been loved and continues to be loved by millions since he first appeared and long after he has gone. Maybe tens of millions. Maybe hundreds of millions. Maybe as time goes by, billions. He had a tremendous impact on the world. Unlike the temporary impacts world leaders have, John Lennon will continue to have an impact on the world. That is what happens with art. It lives on after the artist dies. The artist name may live on, and his or her's work may live on, and some written works may live on, but the message of those artist can become changed and forgotten with time. Poetry and music can go on forever. The message of a song can go on forever. John Lennon put his feeling into poetry and song. His feelings will continue to influence the beliefs and opinions of countless people far into the future. Not many in world history have ever gained that claim and status. Perhaps you can or someone else can name some. That would be an interesting debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems you failed to understand the import of the OP.....
> 
> It isn't about his musical ability.
> 
> 
> "The message of a song can go on forever."
> 
> Seems not. Lennon himself disagreed with it.
Click to expand...


I understand you do not understand art. I am an artist. Many works I created long ago do not make me happy. You create what you are feeling at the time. You can look at your art and wish you had done something different. You can make new art that incorporates your changed feelings. That does not mean you throw out the older piece. If the older piece makes people happy and they like it, so be it.
You are attempting to brand a persons art to having significance to people of a specific political viewpoint and ideology. The song is about a dream, a what if, a thought.


----------



## G.T.




----------



## bodecea

Sallow said:


> it's a song about peace.
> 
> Naturally something Political Chica opposes..



Hey!   "Give War A Chance".


----------



## Spoonman

G.T. said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, not really. In the world exists nuance. It's hard if you're not much of a thinker, I understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> think all you want. only actions change things.  and thats the problem with liberalism.  its a bunch of pie in the sky thoughts that don't function in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, because being a thinker means you don't act.
> 
> 
> 
> Scary that people think life is a big one liner.
Click to expand...


so again.  lets get acting on this if it is even remotely possible.


----------



## G.T.

Spoonman said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> think all you want. only actions change things.  and thats the problem with liberalism.  its a bunch of pie in the sky thoughts that don't function in the real world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, because being a thinker means you don't act.
> 
> 
> 
> Scary that people think life is a big one liner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so again.  lets get acting on this if it is even remotely possible.
Click to expand...


On what? The song? I don't believe the song is possible, bruv.


----------



## Spoonman

G.T. said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, because being a thinker means you don't act.
> 
> 
> 
> Scary that people think life is a big one liner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so again.  lets get acting on this if it is even remotely possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On what? The song? I don't believe the song is possible, bruv.
Click to expand...


so politicalchic was right.


----------



## rightwinger

The most disgusting song of all time

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wSzPBy0GgI"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wSzPBy0GgI[/ame]


----------



## G.T.

Spoonman said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> so again.  lets get acting on this if it is even remotely possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On what? The song? I don't believe the song is possible, bruv.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so politicalchic was right.
Click to expand...


Well, no - the point I'm challenging her on is that John Lennon regretted the song. 

Her source is a former assistant who was convicted of stealing from Lennon, whereas sources closer to him, and himself, stated he maintained the belief. 

As far as my feelings regarding the lyrics, personally? I haven't shared those.


----------



## RDD_1210

Spoonman said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> so again.  lets get acting on this if it is even remotely possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On what? The song? I don't believe the song is possible, bruv.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so politicalchic was right.
Click to expand...




You're not this dumb are you? 

Don't answer. I already know. I just had to say it out loud.


----------



## Spoonman

G.T. said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> On what? The song? I don't believe the song is possible, bruv.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so politicalchic was right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no - the point I'm challenging her on is that John Lennon regretted the song.
> 
> Her source is a former assistant who was convicted of stealing from Lennon, whereas sources closer to him, and himself, stated he maintained the belief.
> 
> As far as my feelings regarding the lyrics, personally? I haven't shared those.
Click to expand...


hey, we all know he got the idea from forrest gump anyway.


----------



## G.T.

Spoonman said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> so politicalchic was right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no - the point I'm challenging her on is that John Lennon regretted the song.
> 
> Her source is a former assistant who was convicted of stealing from Lennon, whereas sources closer to him, and himself, stated he maintained the belief.
> 
> As far as my feelings regarding the lyrics, personally? I haven't shared those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hey, we all know he got the idea from forrest gump anyway.
Click to expand...


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't John Lennon already under the influence of that crazy Asian woman when he wrote that dreadful song?
> 
> I wonder if that's the lesson PC is trying to convey?
> 
> lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PC is an Asian woman who hides behind an avatar of a White super woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love making you sound this stupid.
Click to expand...


It is the truth, so you are the one sounding stupid. Like this statement about you making me sound stupid.


----------



## NYcarbineer

dblack said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with you people??
> 
> It's one of the most beautiful songs ever written.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Lennon post-Beatles is the most overrated singer/songwriter in history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder if there have been any serious studies correlating artistic taste and political preference?
Click to expand...


I'm a liberal who thinks most of Lennon's late work was shit.  How does that correlate?

If you want the 'good' Lennon, you look at stuff like 'A Day in the Life' for starters...


----------



## RDD_1210

Political Chic - What is your favorite song? Who is your favorite singer? 

I'd love to know.


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> For your listening pleasure.
> 
> John Lennon - Imagine (official video) - YouTube
> 
> And PoliticalChic, go fuck yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who else would fuck her? You would have to talk to her when it was over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disgusting.
> 
> Imagine...you have to live with yourself.
Click to expand...


I am a great person to live with, so why would that bother me?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Spoonman said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> so again.  lets get acting on this if it is even remotely possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On what? The song? I don't believe the song is possible, bruv.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so politicalchic was right.
Click to expand...


Imagining there isn't a heaven, or imagining there is one.  Which is crazier?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

PoliticalChic said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right wingers sure do love their strife and misery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You moron.
> 
> 
> Over 100 million killed by the Left in the last century.
> 
> 
> "The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression" by Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartosek and Jean-Louis Margolin
> 
> 
> 
> "Already famous throughout Europe, this international bestseller plumbs recently opened archives in the former Soviet bloc to reveal* the actual, practical accomplishments of Communism around the world: terror, torture, famine, mass deportations, and massacres. *Astonishing in the sheer detail it amasses, the book is the first comprehensive attempt to *catalogue and analyze the crimes of Communism over seventy years.*
> 
> "Revolutions, like trees, must be judged by their fruit," Ignazio Silone wrote, and this is the standard the authors apply to the Communist experience*in the China of "the Great Helmsman," Kim Il Sung's Korea, Vietnam under "Uncle Ho" and Cuba under Castro, Ethiopia under Mengistu, Angola under Neto, and Afghanistan under Najibullah. *The authors, all distinguished scholars based in Europe, document Communist crimes against humanity, but also crimes against national and universal culture, from Stalin's destruction of hundreds of churches in Moscow to Ceausescu's leveling of the historic heart of Bucharest to the widescale devastation visited on Chinese culture by Mao's Red Guards."
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/The-Black-Book-Communism-Repression/dp/0674076087/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1384531264&sr=8-1&keywords=the+black+book+of+communism]The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression: Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartosek, Jean-Louis Margolin, Nicolas Werth, Stéphane Courtois, Mark Kramer, Jonathan Murphy: 9780674076082: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> You sure are lucky....you can get a copy, used, for 30 bucks....
> 
> .....when I read it, it cost me nearly $50.
> 
> 
> 
> What????
> You're a Liberal.....so you never have to read???
> 
> What a time-saver.....
> 
> 
> .....as long as you don't mind being recognized as a moron.
Click to expand...


Now that's ignorant and moronic, John Lennon was no "communist."


----------



## Moonglow

thanatos144 said:


> Stoned idiots always believe in utopia
> 
> tapatalk post


Yeah that Heaven thing is a real stoner issue.


----------



## Spoonman

NYcarbineer said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> On what? The song? I don't believe the song is possible, bruv.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so politicalchic was right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Imagining there isn't a heaven, or imagining there is one.  Which is crazier?
Click to expand...


john must have believed their is one if he had to imagine there wasn't one.


----------



## boilermaker55

And religion is not mythical? 




DiamondDave said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's a song about peace.
> 
> Naturally something Political Chica opposes..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.. actually a song about the mythical idea of utopia
Click to expand...


----------



## NYcarbineer

RDD_1210 said:


> Political Chic - What is your favorite song? Who is your favorite singer?
> 
> I'd love to know.



lol, my guess?

 the Masochism Tango, by Tom Lehrer.


----------



## JWBooth

Ole' Ben Lucas


----------



## NYcarbineer

Spoonman said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> so politicalchic was right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imagining there isn't a heaven, or imagining there is one.  Which is crazier?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> john must have believed their is one if he had to imagine there wasn't one.
Click to expand...


I think he was addressing that to the believers.


----------



## Spoonman

NYcarbineer said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagining there isn't a heaven, or imagining there is one.  Which is crazier?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> john must have believed their is one if he had to imagine there wasn't one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think he was addressing that to the believers.
Click to expand...


so what he was trying to do was alter others thinking to his way of thinking.  again, getting back to turning us into a bunch of mindless bots willing to give up our freedoms and personal choices


----------



## Capstone

PoliticalChic said:


> I don't mind teaching a moron.....



How gracious of you. 

 Since I'm not so patient with childish half-wits, I'll make this quick and to the point.

I never denied the GOP's role in the advent of voting rights for women; I simply pointed out that crediting "the Republicans" was too simplistic.

And guess what, ignoring sub-categories (such as "progressive") _within_ the confines of party affiliation is an *exemplification* of 'over-simplification'.

Looking past the less than altruistic motives of men like John D. Rockefeller, it's encouraging to see that greed and big money influence have occasionally served a greater good in the political arena.

One thing's for sure, though: the GOP and DNC of today are certainly NOT the parties they were during the first quarter of the 20th century; so the most relevant question for women and LGBT advocates ...is clearly "What have you done for me lately?".


----------



## Capstone

Still waiting for _something_ about the homos, PC.


----------



## Pogo

PoliticalChic said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slow day for finding things to complain about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You find it less than important that Liberals/progressives/Leftists wish to end our sovereignty, dispense with the religious basis for the founding of this great nation, endorse private morality based on some warped moral equivalency?
> 
> 
> And you present no cogent argument for same?
> 
> 
> Gee...you must be some sort of dunce, huh?
Click to expand...


Right in with the ad hominem when called on her bullshit.  Nothing if not predictable.

This country doesn't have a religious basis, Toots.  Quite the opposite; the *Liberals *who founded it specifically steered us away from theocracy.

Here we have a song beckoning to imagine a world without countries pushing each other around (doesn't say a word about the UN - that would still be a country) and a world without jihads and inquisitions and powder kegs in Palestine Pakistan and Northern Ireland &c. 

Gee... you must be some kind of conspiracy nut who likes war, huh?


----------



## Camp

Spoonman said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> john must have believed their is one if he had to imagine there wasn't one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think he was addressing that to the believers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so what he was trying to do was alter others thinking to his way of thinking.  again, getting back to turning us into a bunch of mindless bots willing to give up our freedoms and personal choices
Click to expand...


Everyone does the first sentence of your post. We do it here. That is what writing and art are all about. The second part of your post is just your opinion based on who knows what. The idea that John Lennon was trying to turn everyone into mindless bots by influenceing them to think about things is kind of wacky.  The suggestion that he wanted folks to give up freedom and choices is beyond ridiculous. You just can't handle the fact that so many people accept or like an idea that is so different from your own. You can't attack the message because the debate was settled long ago. The message resonates decades after the world first heard them. Kids in China and Brazil, South Africa and India, Russia and the USA still sing the song. Artist continue to record it. Attacking the messenger at this late date is just a useless waste of time, and to many probably seems a bit stupid.


----------



## Pogo

Camp said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he was addressing that to the believers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so what he was trying to do was alter others thinking to his way of thinking.  again, getting back to turning us into a bunch of mindless bots willing to give up our freedoms and personal choices
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone does the first sentence of your post. We do it here. That is what writing and art are all about. The second part of your post is just your opinion based on who knows what. The idea that John Lennon was trying to turn everyone into mindless bots by influenceing them to think about things is kind of wacky.  The suggestion that he wanted folks to give up freedom and choices is beyond ridiculous. You just can't handle the fact that so many people accept or like an idea that is so different from your own. You can't attack the message because the debate was settled long ago. The message resonates decades after the world first heard them. Kids in China and Brazil, South Africa and India, Russia and the USA still sing the song. Artist continue to record it. Attacking the messenger at this late date is just a useless waste of time, and to many probably seems a bit stupid.
Click to expand...



The idea of indoctrinating thought is the domain of the demagogue, not the artist.  What the latter does is paint the world in a different light that we might question it -- and draw our own conclusions.  Crucial difference.  Lennon was always an artist.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Spoonman said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> john must have believed their is one if he had to imagine there wasn't one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think he was addressing that to the believers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so what he was trying to do was alter others thinking to his way of thinking.  again, getting back to turning us into a bunch of mindless bots willing to give up our freedoms and personal choices
Click to expand...


That's what every good Christian is supposed to do isn't it?


----------



## PoliticalChic

What an interesting thread.

I OP that the Liberal doctrine is memorialized in Lennon's disgusting "Imagine," and none of the Libs deny that it, and they, are all about:

1. Getting rid of our sovereignty,and placing us all under the heel of the heels at the United Nations,

2. That it is religion that they hate, largely because it suggests that there is some sort of morality to which we owe civilization.

3. That they endorse a private, meaning rationalized, morality....'whatever feels good...'


And, since they cannot deny the above.....the Libs pretend that the thread is about me!




Just one more inadvertent admission that I've nailed 'em.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Pogo said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> so what he was trying to do was alter others thinking to his way of thinking.  again, getting back to turning us into a bunch of mindless bots willing to give up our freedoms and personal choices
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone does the first sentence of your post. We do it here. That is what writing and art are all about. The second part of your post is just your opinion based on who knows what. The idea that John Lennon was trying to turn everyone into mindless bots by influenceing them to think about things is kind of wacky.  The suggestion that he wanted folks to give up freedom and choices is beyond ridiculous. You just can't handle the fact that so many people accept or like an idea that is so different from your own. You can't attack the message because the debate was settled long ago. The message resonates decades after the world first heard them. Kids in China and Brazil, South Africa and India, Russia and the USA still sing the song. Artist continue to record it. Attacking the messenger at this late date is just a useless waste of time, and to many probably seems a bit stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The idea of indoctrinating thought is the domain of the demagogue, not the artist.  What the latter does is paint the world in a different light that we might question it -- and draw our own conclusions.  Crucial difference.  Lennon was always an artist.
Click to expand...


Exactly. 

Hence the OPs premise fails and serves as evidence that she is indeed a demagogue.


----------



## Esmeralda

PoliticalChic said:


> " Often as people mature they out-grow their *naïve embrace of leftist ideology *and begin to see things in their true light,...*' John Lennon was a closet Republican, who felt a little embarrassed by his former radicalism, *at the time of his death - according to the tragic Beatles star's last personal assistant.'
> 
> He says, "John, basically, made it very clear that if he were an American he would vote for *Reagan *because he was really sour on (Democrat) Jimmy Carter. By 1979 he looked back on that guy and was *embarrassed by that guy's naiveté."(He wrote 'Imagine' in 1970).*
> 
> This new revelation about the late rock & roll legend should give us all pause to *reflect upon the hollow nature of liberalism. * For those of us who have misguided friends, family and associates who continue to cling to *the factually devoid ideology of the left, *be patient yet unrelenting in exposing these lost souls to the truth and Imagine them discovering the world of reality."
> Blog: Imagine John Lennon as a Republican



You're such a sweet, innocent, naive person OP. I don't suppose it ever occured to you that there are some people in the world who will say anything in order to sell a lot of books and make a lot of money?  I don't suppose it occured to you to consider that his partner, Yoko Ono, who is still living and has maintained John's views and values, as well as his son's, all know and believe in the same values John held, which were not conservative, Republican values.  This 'last personal assistant' is just trying to make some big bucks.  It's also pretty damned pathetic that the Right is so desperate to gain some value that they are trying to hoodwink the public into believing John Lenon was actually one of them.  Really quite laughable.  Take any dead Democrat, anyone, and turn him into a Republican: that's what you need to do to bolster belief in being a pub?  LMAO


----------



## Esmeralda

Camp said:


> Imagine, John Lennon's words, poetry, music and name are known by more people in the world and will continue to be known far into the future. More than any US President or world leader in history. Perhaps Hitler gives him a run, but who else? And Hitler is only known in name and being an evil man. Few actually know what he had to say.



True. Lennon's song is known throughout the world, known and loved. It is a simple statement of peace, not about utopia at all. It refers to what we all know, that people make war primarily over land (and it's resources), nationality and religion, and if those things didn't exist, there would be no  more war.....unfortunately, it is unrealistic and very idealistic because it genuinely appears that people will fight over anything; if it isn't religion, land, resources, or nationality, it will be something else.


----------



## Papageorgio

Esmeralda said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> " Often as people mature they out-grow their *naïve embrace of leftist ideology *and begin to see things in their true light,...*' John Lennon was a closet Republican, who felt a little embarrassed by his former radicalism, *at the time of his death - according to the tragic Beatles star's last personal assistant.'
> 
> He says, "John, basically, made it very clear that if he were an American he would vote for *Reagan *because he was really sour on (Democrat) Jimmy Carter. By 1979 he looked back on that guy and was *embarrassed by that guy's naiveté."(He wrote 'Imagine' in 1970).*
> 
> This new revelation about the late rock & roll legend should give us all pause to *reflect upon the hollow nature of liberalism. * For those of us who have misguided friends, family and associates who continue to cling to *the factually devoid ideology of the left, *be patient yet unrelenting in exposing these lost souls to the truth and Imagine them discovering the world of reality."
> Blog: Imagine John Lennon as a Republican
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a sweet, innocent, naive person OP. I don't suppose it ever occured to you that there are some people in the world who will say anything in order to sell a lot of books and make a lot of money?  I don't suppose it occured to you to consider that his partner, Yoko Ono, who is still living and has maintained John's views and values, as well as his son's, all know and believe in the same values John held, which were not conservative, Republican values.  This 'last personal assistant' is just trying to make some big bucks.  It's also pretty damned pathetic that the Right is so desperate to gain some value that they are trying to hoodwink the public into believing John Lenon was actually one of them.  Really quite laughable.  Take any dead Democrat, anyone, and turn him into a Republican: that's what you need to do to bolster belief in being a pub?  LMAO
Click to expand...


How do you know what Lennon's values were? 
How do you know that Ono maintains John's views and values? 
Julian Lennon and Yoko Ono are not very close at all, "cordial" is the word Julian uses. 
People and views change, if Lennon were alive today, you have no clue as to his views. 
I used to be a liberal, in the 80's after the Carter debacle, I evolved in my thinking. 
It happens all the time.


----------



## Trajan

RDD_1210 said:


> Slow day for finding things to complain about?



its not a slow day for ignorance apparently


----------



## Esmeralda

Papageorgio said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> " Often as people mature they out-grow their *naïve embrace of leftist ideology *and begin to see things in their true light,...*' John Lennon was a closet Republican, who felt a little embarrassed by his former radicalism, *at the time of his death - according to the tragic Beatles star's last personal assistant.'
> 
> He says, "John, basically, made it very clear that if he were an American he would vote for *Reagan *because he was really sour on (Democrat) Jimmy Carter. By 1979 he looked back on that guy and was *embarrassed by that guy's naiveté."(He wrote 'Imagine' in 1970).*
> 
> This new revelation about the late rock & roll legend should give us all pause to *reflect upon the hollow nature of liberalism. * For those of us who have misguided friends, family and associates who continue to cling to *the factually devoid ideology of the left, *be patient yet unrelenting in exposing these lost souls to the truth and Imagine them discovering the world of reality."
> Blog: Imagine John Lennon as a Republican
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a sweet, innocent, naive person OP. I don't suppose it ever occured to you that there are some people in the world who will say anything in order to sell a lot of books and make a lot of money?  I don't suppose it occured to you to consider that his partner, Yoko Ono, who is still living and has maintained John's views and values, as well as his sons, all know and believe in the same values John held, which were not conservative, Republican values.  This 'last personal assistant' is just trying to make some big bucks.  It's also pretty damned pathetic that the Right is so desperate to gain some value that they are trying to hoodwink the public into believing John Lenon was actually one of them.  Really quite laughable.  Take any dead Democrat, anyone, and turn him into a Republican: that's what you need to do to bolster belief in being a pub?  LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know what Lennon's values were?
> How do you know that Ono maintains John's views and values?
> Julian Lennon and Yoko Ono are not very close at all, "cordial" is the word Julian uses.
> People and views change, if Lennon were alive today, you have no clue as to his views.
> I used to be a liberal, in the 80's after the Carter debacle, I evolved in my thinking.
> It happens all the time.
Click to expand...


Ono makes her view clear regularly.  Julian is Ono's stepson.  It is not unusual for a stepchild to not be close, especially when the biological parent is dead.  But Julian does not live by conservative Republican values.  Lennon, whatever he was, was a quite brilliant man.  Comparing yourself to him is kind of, well, not realistic.  I doubt your thinking in your youth was as developed or mature as was Lennon's in his.  It's more likely you haven't evolved but, rather, have grown into your true self.


----------



## Papageorgio

dblack said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't John Lennon already under the influence of that crazy Asian woman when he wrote that dreadful song?
> 
> I wonder if that's the lesson PC is trying to convey?
> 
> lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with you people??
> 
> It's one of the most beautiful songs ever written.
Click to expand...


It was an okay song, the lyrics were well written, I think others could have sang it better. I think Paul Simon is a great song writer. 

I like music arrangements, it can give you two focus points on liking a song, the music and/or the lyrics.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Esmeralda said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> " Often as people mature they out-grow their *naïve embrace of leftist ideology *and begin to see things in their true light,...*' John Lennon was a closet Republican, who felt a little embarrassed by his former radicalism, *at the time of his death - according to the tragic Beatles star's last personal assistant.'
> 
> He says, "John, basically, made it very clear that if he were an American he would vote for *Reagan *because he was really sour on (Democrat) Jimmy Carter. By 1979 he looked back on that guy and was *embarrassed by that guy's naiveté."(He wrote 'Imagine' in 1970).*
> 
> This new revelation about the late rock & roll legend should give us all pause to *reflect upon the hollow nature of liberalism. * For those of us who have misguided friends, family and associates who continue to cling to *the factually devoid ideology of the left, *be patient yet unrelenting in exposing these lost souls to the truth and Imagine them discovering the world of reality."
> Blog: Imagine John Lennon as a Republican
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a sweet, innocent, naive person OP. I don't suppose it ever occured to you that there are some people in the world who will say anything in order to sell a lot of books and make a lot of money?  I don't suppose it occured to you to consider that his partner, Yoko Ono, who is still living and has maintained John's views and values, as well as his son's, all know and believe in the same values John held, which were not conservative, Republican values.  This 'last personal assistant' is just trying to make some big bucks.  It's also pretty damned pathetic that the Right is so desperate to gain some value that they are trying to hoodwink the public into believing John Lenon was actually one of them.  Really quite laughable.  Take any dead Democrat, anyone, and turn him into a Republican: that's what you need to do to bolster belief in being a pub?  LMAO
Click to expand...






1. "You're such a sweet, innocent, naive person OP."
Well....you'er battin' .667....two out of three ain't bad.


2. " I don't suppose it ever occured to you that there are some people in the world who will say anything in order to sell a lot of books and make a lot of money?"

Or....for other reasons: you can keep your insurance....your doctor.....save $2500....
Yeah....I see where you're goin.'


3. "....know and believe in the same values John held, which were not conservative, Republican values."

Why so afraid that he grew, matured, in his views?



4. "It's also pretty damned pathetic that the Right is so desperate to gain some value that they are trying to hoodwink the public into believing John Lenon was actually one of them."

Well...by all means.....go right ahead and contest the following Liberal catechism:

"1. Getting rid of our sovereignty,and placing us all under the heel of the heels at the United Nations,

2. That it is religion that they hate, largely because it suggests that there is some sort of morality to which we owe civilization.

3. That they endorse a private, meaning rationalized, morality....'whatever feels good...'"




Waiting......



Hey...if you can't, it will be "Really quite laughable." 




Get to it.


----------



## Papageorgio

Esmeralda said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a sweet, innocent, naive person OP. I don't suppose it ever occured to you that there are some people in the world who will say anything in order to sell a lot of books and make a lot of money?  I don't suppose it occured to you to consider that his partner, Yoko Ono, who is still living and has maintained John's views and values, as well as his sons, all know and believe in the same values John held, which were not conservative, Republican values.  This 'last personal assistant' is just trying to make some big bucks.  It's also pretty damned pathetic that the Right is so desperate to gain some value that they are trying to hoodwink the public into believing John Lenon was actually one of them.  Really quite laughable.  Take any dead Democrat, anyone, and turn him into a Republican: that's what you need to do to bolster belief in being a pub?  LMAO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know what Lennon's values were?
> How do you know that Ono maintains John's views and values?
> Julian Lennon and Yoko Ono are not very close at all, "cordial" is the word Julian uses.
> People and views change, if Lennon were alive today, you have no clue as to his views.
> I used to be a liberal, in the 80's after the Carter debacle, I evolved in my thinking.
> It happens all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ono makes her view clear regularly.  Julian is Ono's stepson.  It is not unusual for a stepchild to not be close, especially when the biological parent is dead.  But Julian does not live by conservative Republican values.  Lennon, whatever he was, was a quite brilliant man.  Comparing yourself to him is kind of, well, not realistic.  I doubt your thinking in your youth was as developed or mature as was Lennon's in his.  It's more likely you haven't evolved but, rather, have grown into your true self.
Click to expand...


I never compared myself to him, I said values change, I used myself as an example, quit being stupid, 

You don't know me, you don't know my past, you are back to your ASSumptive thinking. As far as developed thinking, you are correct, I didn't need take drugs, or smoke weed, get drunk or sleep with groupies, it wasn't my thing. For all his creative genius, he fell short in other ways. 

So spare me your off hand comments. You give liberals a bad name.


----------



## Pogo

This is pretty hilarious actually -- some people, when they don't like the way actual history went, no problem, they just rewrite it.

Thus we get, retroactively of course, Liberalism turning into Fascism, FDR causing WWII, O'bama born in Kenya, the KKK gets founded by the Democratic Party... and now they want to trade Adolf Hitler for John Lennon and a player to be named later.


----------



## Esmeralda

> Julian:  In 2009, Lennon founded The White Feather Foundation, whose mission "embraces environmental and humanitarian issues and in conjunction with partners from around the world helps to raise funds for the betterment of all life, and to honour those who have truly made a difference."[30] Its name came from a conversation Lennon once had with his father. &#8220;Dad once said to me that should he pass away, if there was some way of letting me know he was going to be OK &#8211; that we were all going to be OK &#8211; the message would come to me in the form of a white feather. ... the white feather has always represented peace to me
> 
> Yoko:  She has made significant philanthropic contributions to arts, peace and AIDS outreach programs. Mother to Kyoko Chan Cox and Sean Lennon, she also brought feminism to the forefront in her music
> 
> Sean Lennon:  On October 19, 2011, Lennon was asked by Josh Sigurdson over Twitter what his opinion on the Occupy Wall Street protests was. Sean replied with this statement: "I'm heading down there this weekend." which he did. On October 22, 2011, Sean showed up on Wall Street with Rufus Wainwright and Josh Fox. The three played music throughout the day to protesters and others joined in. Lennon has not yet spoken to the media or press about the event.On August 28, 2012, Lennon's opposition to hydraulic fracking was published as an editorial, "Destroying Precious Land for Gas," by the New York Times.
> On October 16, 2013 Lennon, along with Spacehog and Liv Tyler, is scheduled to play "Live on Earth" - an Internet-only performance - to benefit the David Lynch Foundation which promotes Transcendental Meditation.



John Lennon was a progressive liberal; not a closet Republican. The idea is ludicrous. It is pathetic and telling that the right is trying to steal his true memory and identity away in order to bolster their decrepit status in America.  As well, I've noticed how many folks  here seem to think Orwell was one of you too. Orwell was a liberal progressive. His book, probably the only one any of you have read, _1984_, was against totalitarianism, not against progressive liberalism. Read some of his other works, such as _Burmese Days _and _Down and Out in Paris and London_.  _Animal Farm _, as well, was against the totalitarian dictatorship that the Soviet Union became.  He was not against liberal or progressive ideas, quite the contrary. The fact you all don't understand the difference says a lot about your ignorance and narrow minded, tunnel vision.  You can have Ayn Rand, and welcome to her.


----------



## Camp

Esmeralda said:


> Julian:  In 2009, Lennon founded The White Feather Foundation, whose mission "embraces environmental and humanitarian issues and in conjunction with partners from around the world helps to raise funds for the betterment of all life, and to honour those who have truly made a difference."[30] Its name came from a conversation Lennon once had with his father. Dad once said to me that should he pass away, if there was some way of letting me know he was going to be OK  that we were all going to be OK  the message would come to me in the form of a white feather. ... the white feather has always represented peace to me
> 
> Yoko:  She has made significant philanthropic contributions to arts, peace and AIDS outreach programs. Mother to Kyoko Chan Cox and Sean Lennon, she also brought feminism to the forefront in her music
> 
> Sean Lennon:  On October 19, 2011, Lennon was asked by Josh Sigurdson over Twitter what his opinion on the Occupy Wall Street protests was. Sean replied with this statement: "I'm heading down there this weekend." which he did. On October 22, 2011, Sean showed up on Wall Street with Rufus Wainwright and Josh Fox. The three played music throughout the day to protesters and others joined in. Lennon has not yet spoken to the media or press about the event.On August 28, 2012, Lennon's opposition to hydraulic fracking was published as an editorial, "Destroying Precious Land for Gas," by the New York Times.
> On October 16, 2013 Lennon, along with Spacehog and Liv Tyler, is scheduled to play "Live on Earth" - an Internet-only performance - to benefit the David Lynch Foundation which promotes Transcendental Meditation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Lennon was a progressive liberal; not a closet Republican. The idea is ludicrous. It is pathetic and telling that the right is trying to steal his true memory and identity away in order to bolster their decrepit status in America.  As well, I've noticed how many folks  here seem to think Orwell was one of you too. Orwell was a liberal progressive. His book, probably the only one any of you have read, _1984_, was against totalitarianism, not against progressive liberalism. Read some of his other works, such as _Burmese Days _and _Down and Out in Paris and London_.  _Animal Farm _, as well, was against the totalitarian dictatorship that the Soviet Union became.  He was not against liberal or progressive ideas, quite the contrary. The fact you all don't understand the difference says a lot about your ignorance and narrow minded, tunnel vision.  You can have Ayn Rand, and welcome to her.
Click to expand...


The song was written by a British citizen during the Vietnam War.


----------



## Esmeralda

Camp said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Julian:  In 2009, Lennon founded The White Feather Foundation, whose mission "embraces environmental and humanitarian issues and in conjunction with partners from around the world helps to raise funds for the betterment of all life, and to honour those who have truly made a difference."[30] Its name came from a conversation Lennon once had with his father. Dad once said to me that should he pass away, if there was some way of letting me know he was going to be OK  that we were all going to be OK  the message would come to me in the form of a white feather. ... the white feather has always represented peace to me
> 
> Yoko:  She has made significant philanthropic contributions to arts, peace and AIDS outreach programs. Mother to Kyoko Chan Cox and Sean Lennon, she also brought feminism to the forefront in her music
> 
> Sean Lennon:  On October 19, 2011, Lennon was asked by Josh Sigurdson over Twitter what his opinion on the Occupy Wall Street protests was. Sean replied with this statement: "I'm heading down there this weekend." which he did. On October 22, 2011, Sean showed up on Wall Street with Rufus Wainwright and Josh Fox. The three played music throughout the day to protesters and others joined in. Lennon has not yet spoken to the media or press about the event.On August 28, 2012, Lennon's opposition to hydraulic fracking was published as an editorial, "Destroying Precious Land for Gas," by the New York Times.
> On October 16, 2013 Lennon, along with Spacehog and Liv Tyler, is scheduled to play "Live on Earth" - an Internet-only performance - to benefit the David Lynch Foundation which promotes Transcendental Meditation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Lennon was a progressive liberal; not a closet Republican. The idea is ludicrous. It is pathetic and telling that the right is trying to steal his true memory and identity away in order to bolster their decrepit status in America.  As well, I've noticed how many folks  here seem to think Orwell was one of you too. Orwell was a liberal progressive. His book, probably the only one any of you have read, _1984_, was against totalitarianism, not against progressive liberalism. Read some of his other works, such as _Burmese Days _and _Down and Out in Paris and London_.  _Animal Farm _, as well, was against the totalitarian dictatorship that the Soviet Union became.  He was not against liberal or progressive ideas, quite the contrary. The fact you all don't understand the difference says a lot about your ignorance and narrow minded, tunnel vision.  You can have Ayn Rand, and welcome to her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The song was written by a British citizen during the Vietnam War.
Click to expand...


Your point is?


----------



## Camp

Esmeralda said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Lennon was a progressive liberal; not a closet Republican. The idea is ludicrous. It is pathetic and telling that the right is trying to steal his true memory and identity away in order to bolster their decrepit status in America.  As well, I've noticed how many folks  here seem to think Orwell was one of you too. Orwell was a liberal progressive. His book, probably the only one any of you have read, _1984_, was against totalitarianism, not against progressive liberalism. Read some of his other works, such as _Burmese Days _and _Down and Out in Paris and London_.  _Animal Farm _, as well, was against the totalitarian dictatorship that the Soviet Union became.  He was not against liberal or progressive ideas, quite the contrary. The fact you all don't understand the difference says a lot about your ignorance and narrow minded, tunnel vision.  You can have Ayn Rand, and welcome to her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The song was written by a British citizen during the Vietnam War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your point is?
Click to expand...

During that period, American forces were being withdrawn from Vietnam and the fighting was being turned over to the the S. Vietnamese. There was a feeling that the war was coming to a close, at least with American involvement. However, an invasion of Laos by S. Vietnam with American air support, an invasion of S. Vietnam by N. Vietnam that included heavy armor (tanks) caused great concern that the US would be pulled back into a more active role and activate a more intense war and stop the withdrawal. These concerns were confirmed when Nixon ordered Operation Linebacker. Operation Linebacker included the carpet bombings of Hanoi and Haphong, the two major cities of N. Vietnam, by B-52's. Carpet bombing of cities had not been used since WWII. England suffered from carpet bombing. Lennon was fully aware of what it meant. Linebacker began in April '71 and was still being conducted when Lennon wrote Imagine in May of 71'. The anti-war movement was reinvigorating itself. The timing of the creation of Imagine was not an accident or coincidence.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Esmeralda said:


> Julian:  In 2009, Lennon founded The White Feather Foundation, whose mission "embraces environmental and humanitarian issues and in conjunction with partners from around the world helps to raise funds for the betterment of all life, and to honour those who have truly made a difference."[30] Its name came from a conversation Lennon once had with his father. Dad once said to me that should he pass away, if there was some way of letting me know he was going to be OK  that we were all going to be OK  the message would come to me in the form of a white feather. ... the white feather has always represented peace to me
> 
> Yoko:  She has made significant philanthropic contributions to arts, peace and AIDS outreach programs. Mother to Kyoko Chan Cox and Sean Lennon, she also brought feminism to the forefront in her music
> 
> Sean Lennon:  On October 19, 2011, Lennon was asked by Josh Sigurdson over Twitter what his opinion on the Occupy Wall Street protests was. Sean replied with this statement: "I'm heading down there this weekend." which he did. On October 22, 2011, Sean showed up on Wall Street with Rufus Wainwright and Josh Fox. The three played music throughout the day to protesters and others joined in. Lennon has not yet spoken to the media or press about the event.On August 28, 2012, Lennon's opposition to hydraulic fracking was published as an editorial, "Destroying Precious Land for Gas," by the New York Times.
> On October 16, 2013 Lennon, along with Spacehog and Liv Tyler, is scheduled to play "Live on Earth" - an Internet-only performance - to benefit the David Lynch Foundation which promotes Transcendental Meditation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Lennon was a progressive liberal; not a closet Republican. The idea is ludicrous. It is pathetic and telling that the right is trying to steal his true memory and identity away in order to bolster their decrepit status in America.  As well, I've noticed how many folks  here seem to think Orwell was one of you too. Orwell was a liberal progressive. His book, probably the only one any of you have read, _1984_, was against totalitarianism, not against progressive liberalism. Read some of his other works, such as _Burmese Days _and _Down and Out in Paris and London_.  _Animal Farm _, as well, was against the totalitarian dictatorship that the Soviet Union became.  He was not against liberal or progressive ideas, quite the contrary. The fact you all don't understand the difference says a lot about your ignorance and narrow minded, tunnel vision.  You can have Ayn Rand, and welcome to her.
Click to expand...




Well....so you prove that Lennon wasn't a Progressive/Liberal/dunce....

Now let's examine the proposal....let's stipulate that Lennon was a good deal brighter than you are.....
....your posts in evidence.

....as you could not, therefore, arguendo, he could not have supported the Liberal catechisms....

This was the challenge:
Well...by all means.....go right ahead and contest the following Liberal catechism:

"1. *Getting rid of our sovereignty,*and placing us all under the heel of the heels at the United Nations,

2. That it is *religion that they hate*, largely because it suggests that there is some sort of morality to which we owe civilization.

3. That they *endorse a private, meaning rationalized, morality*...in effect, no morality....'whatever feels good...'"


...just as you couldn't.




I contend that a more astute individual, i.e., *John Lennon,  would have realized the fallacy of Liberalism, and 'adjusted.'*

And that adjustment would be in the direction of conservatism.


QED....OP is, if not proven, at least more reliable than your premise due to the preponderance of the evidence.


----------



## Billo_Really

I know a lot of women are pretty disgusted with this song...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awY1MRlMKMc]Henry Rollins - Liar - Higher Quality - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Sunshine

PoliticalChic said:


> Relax....this is about politics.
> 
> 1. Here the song at issue:
> 
> "Imagine there's no countries
> It isn't hard to do
> Nothing to kill or die for
> And no religion too"
> "Imagine," by John Lennon
> 
> Yup....*the universal anthem of Liberalism:* "Imagine," by John Lennon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. *No countries...the end of sovereignty....*.only United Nations global government.
> Unelected elites making the rules for all of us.* Imagine.*
> 
> a. *Global governance*, the idea of all humankind united under one common political authority, has not existed so far in human history. This is not to say that it hasnt been debated, called for, fought forand as recently as the 20th century, enforced on large swaths of the planet.called *communism..*.. data is available documenting the deleterious effects: responsible for *over 100 million slaughtered*. How to explain its endorsement by the Western elites? Simple: it is *a religious belief called, among other things, Liberalism.*
> "Sovereignty or Submission: Will Americans Rule Themselves or be Ruled by Others?" by John Fonte
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Imagaine....if there were no counties, it stands to reason, "Nothing to kill or die for."*
> I'm guessing that we could find a few things that people kill or die for in both the history of mankind and the penal code.  Any disagree?
> 
> 4. And, possibly the most invidious lie told, and believed by Liberals..*."more have died because of religion...." Got that covered: " And no religion too"  Imagine.*
> a. First World War (191418): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 million
> Russian Civil War (191722): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 million
> Soviet Union, Stalins regime (192453): . . . . . . . . . 20 million
> Second World War (193745): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 million
> Chinese Civil War (194549): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 million
> Peoples Republic of China, Mao Zedongs
> regime (194975): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 million
> Korean War (195053): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 million
> North Korea (1948 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 million
> Rwanda and Burundi (195995): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.35 million
> What was the religious basis for those?* The only religion I see in there is the religion of Leftism.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. And, of course, the attraction of Liberalism for many is no recriminations, *no judgments *about anyone....after all, each person is entitled to his or her *personal morality...true? Got that covered, too:
> "Imagine there's no heaven
> It's easy if you try
> No hell below us*
> Above us only sky"
> 
> 6. And, if there is no societal morality, then " Imagine all the people
> *Living for today..."*  Yup...'do your own thing.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7. But there is some *good news..*...
> 
> " Often as people mature they out-grow their *naïve embrace of leftist ideology *and begin to see things in their true light,...*' John Lennon was a closet Republican, who felt a little embarrassed by his former radicalism, *at the time of his death - according to the tragic Beatles star's last personal assistant.'
> 
> He says, "John, basically, made it very clear that if he were an American he would vote for *Reagan *because he was really sour on (Democrat) Jimmy Carter. By 1979 he looked back on that guy and was *embarrassed by that guy's naiveté."(He wrote 'Imagine' in 1970).*
> 
> This new revelation about the late rock & roll legend should give us all pause to *reflect upon the hollow nature of liberalism. * For those of us who have misguided friends, family and associates who continue to cling to *the factually devoid ideology of the left, *be patient yet unrelenting in exposing these lost souls to the truth and Imagine them discovering the world of reality."
> Blog: Imagine John Lennon as a Republican
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So.....perhaps there is hope?
> 
> 
> Maybe?



I never understood rich Americans promoting socialism.  There has to be a disconnect there somewhere.


----------



## Esmeralda

PoliticalChic said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Julian:  In 2009, Lennon founded The White Feather Foundation, whose mission "embraces environmental and humanitarian issues and in conjunction with partners from around the world helps to raise funds for the betterment of all life, and to honour those who have truly made a difference."[30] Its name came from a conversation Lennon once had with his father. Dad once said to me that should he pass away, if there was some way of letting me know he was going to be OK  that we were all going to be OK  the message would come to me in the form of a white feather. ... the white feather has always represented peace to me
> 
> Yoko:  She has made significant philanthropic contributions to arts, peace and AIDS outreach programs. Mother to Kyoko Chan Cox and Sean Lennon, she also brought feminism to the forefront in her music
> 
> Sean Lennon:  On October 19, 2011, Lennon was asked by Josh Sigurdson over Twitter what his opinion on the Occupy Wall Street protests was. Sean replied with this statement: "I'm heading down there this weekend." which he did. On October 22, 2011, Sean showed up on Wall Street with Rufus Wainwright and Josh Fox. The three played music throughout the day to protesters and others joined in. Lennon has not yet spoken to the media or press about the event.On August 28, 2012, Lennon's opposition to hydraulic fracking was published as an editorial, "Destroying Precious Land for Gas," by the New York Times.
> On October 16, 2013 Lennon, along with Spacehog and Liv Tyler, is scheduled to play "Live on Earth" - an Internet-only performance - to benefit the David Lynch Foundation which promotes Transcendental Meditation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Lennon was a progressive liberal; not a closet Republican. The idea is ludicrous. It is pathetic and telling that the right is trying to steal his true memory and identity away in order to bolster their decrepit status in America.  As well, I've noticed how many folks  here seem to think Orwell was one of you too. Orwell was a liberal progressive. His book, probably the only one any of you have read, _1984_, was against totalitarianism, not against progressive liberalism. Read some of his other works, such as _Burmese Days _and _Down and Out in Paris and London_.  _Animal Farm _, as well, was against the totalitarian dictatorship that the Soviet Union became.  He was not against liberal or progressive ideas, quite the contrary. The fact you all don't understand the difference says a lot about your ignorance and narrow minded, tunnel vision.  You can have Ayn Rand, and welcome to her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well....so you prove that Lennon wasn't a Progressive/Liberal/dunce....
> 
> Now let's examine the proposal....let's stipulate that Lennon was a good deal brighter than you are.....
> ....your posts in evidence.
> 
> ....as you could not, therefore, arguendo, he could not have supported the Liberal catechisms....
> 
> This was the challenge:
> Well...by all means.....go right ahead and contest the following Liberal catechism:
> 
> "1. *Getting rid of our sovereignty,*and placing us all under the heel of the heels at the United Nations,
> 
> 2. That it is *religion that they hate*, largely because it suggests that there is some sort of morality to which we owe civilization.
> 
> 3. That they *endorse a private, meaning rationalized, morality*...in effect, no morality....'whatever feels good...'"
> 
> 
> ...just as you couldn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I contend that a more astute individual, i.e., *John Lennon,  would have realized the fallacy of Liberalism, and 'adjusted.'*
> 
> And that adjustment would be in the direction of conservatism.
> 
> 
> QED....OP is, if not proven, at least more reliable than your premise due to the preponderance of the evidence.
Click to expand...


You're fucking crazy, you are. It's pointless to discuss anything with you.  I've heard it over and over again on here, how you are one major nut case, now I see what they mean.


----------



## Pogo

PoliticalChic said:


> I contend that a more astute individual, i.e., *John Lennon,  would have realized the fallacy of Liberalism, and 'adjusted.'*
> 
> And that adjustment would be in the direction of conservatism.
> 
> 
> QED....OP is, if not proven, at least more reliable than your premise due to the preponderance of the evidence.



Woulda, coulda, shoulda.  Speculative fallacy.  Followed by Danth's Law. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





And that's only a slice.  A Supergirl post is like a rhetorical bullion cube: concentrated fallacy soup.  Just add water, and it's _still_ bland and tasteless.


The most entertaining part for me is on the one hand trying to claim John Lennon (a Brit) as a Republican, while simultaneously calling his signature work "the most disgusting song of all time".


----------



## Esmeralda

Pogo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I contend that a more astute individual, i.e., *John Lennon,  would have realized the fallacy of Liberalism, and 'adjusted.'*
> 
> And that adjustment would be in the direction of conservatism.
> 
> 
> QED....OP is, if not proven, at least more reliable than your premise due to the preponderance of the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speculative fallacy.  Followed by Danth's Law.
> 
> A Supergirl post is like a rhetorical bullion cube: concentrated fallacy soup.  Just add water.
Click to expand...


Yes.  Completely illogical, and, thus, impossible to deal with.


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Julian:  In 2009, Lennon founded The White Feather Foundation, whose mission "embraces environmental and humanitarian issues and in conjunction with partners from around the world helps to raise funds for the betterment of all life, and to honour those who have truly made a difference."[30] Its name came from a conversation Lennon once had with his father. Dad once said to me that should he pass away, if there was some way of letting me know he was going to be OK  that we were all going to be OK  the message would come to me in the form of a white feather. ... the white feather has always represented peace to me
> 
> Yoko:  She has made significant philanthropic contributions to arts, peace and AIDS outreach programs. Mother to Kyoko Chan Cox and Sean Lennon, she also brought feminism to the forefront in her music
> 
> Sean Lennon:  On October 19, 2011, Lennon was asked by Josh Sigurdson over Twitter what his opinion on the Occupy Wall Street protests was. Sean replied with this statement: "I'm heading down there this weekend." which he did. On October 22, 2011, Sean showed up on Wall Street with Rufus Wainwright and Josh Fox. The three played music throughout the day to protesters and others joined in. Lennon has not yet spoken to the media or press about the event.On August 28, 2012, Lennon's opposition to hydraulic fracking was published as an editorial, "Destroying Precious Land for Gas," by the New York Times.
> On October 16, 2013 Lennon, along with Spacehog and Liv Tyler, is scheduled to play "Live on Earth" - an Internet-only performance - to benefit the David Lynch Foundation which promotes Transcendental Meditation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Lennon was a progressive liberal; not a closet Republican. The idea is ludicrous. It is pathetic and telling that the right is trying to steal his true memory and identity away in order to bolster their decrepit status in America.  As well, I've noticed how many folks  here seem to think Orwell was one of you too. Orwell was a liberal progressive. His book, probably the only one any of you have read, _1984_, was against totalitarianism, not against progressive liberalism. Read some of his other works, such as _Burmese Days _and _Down and Out in Paris and London_.  _Animal Farm _, as well, was against the totalitarian dictatorship that the Soviet Union became.  He was not against liberal or progressive ideas, quite the contrary. The fact you all don't understand the difference says a lot about your ignorance and narrow minded, tunnel vision.  You can have Ayn Rand, and welcome to her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well....so you prove that Lennon wasn't a Progressive/Liberal/dunce....
> 
> Now let's examine the proposal....let's stipulate that Lennon was a good deal brighter than you are.....
> ....your posts in evidence.
> 
> ....as you could not, therefore, arguendo, he could not have supported the Liberal catechisms....
> 
> This was the challenge:
> Well...by all means.....go right ahead and contest the following Liberal catechism:
> 
> "1. *Getting rid of our sovereignty,*and placing us all under the heel of the heels at the United Nations,
> 
> 2. That it is *religion that they hate*, largely because it suggests that there is some sort of morality to which we owe civilization.
> 
> 3. That they *endorse a private, meaning rationalized, morality*...in effect, no morality....'whatever feels good...'"
> 
> 
> ...just as you couldn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I contend that a more astute individual, i.e., *John Lennon,  would have realized the fallacy of Liberalism, and 'adjusted.'*
> 
> And that adjustment would be in the direction of conservatism.
> 
> 
> QED....OP is, if not proven, at least more reliable than your premise due to the preponderance of the evidence.
Click to expand...


You are making that United Nations stuff up. He never said anything about the United Nations ruling the world. You are unable to think in the abstract. The United Nations rule would be an authoritarian rule, not much different than any other kind of government rule.
Lennon wasn't against religion, he was against a religions claim their God was better than the other guys God. He was against corrupted organized religion.
You are just making stuff up.


----------



## Billo_Really

PoliticalChic said:


> Well....so you prove that Lennon wasn't a Progressive/Liberal/dunce....
> 
> Now let's examine the proposal....let's stipulate that Lennon was a good deal brighter than you are.....
> ....your posts in evidence.
> 
> ....as you could not, therefore, arguendo, he could not have supported the Liberal catechisms....
> 
> This was the challenge:
> Well...by all means.....go right ahead and contest the following Liberal catechism:
> 
> "1. *Getting rid of our sovereignty,*and placing us all under the heel of the heels at the United Nations,
> 
> 2. That it is *religion that they hate*, largely because it suggests that there is some sort of morality to which we owe civilization.
> 
> 3. That they *endorse a private, meaning rationalized, morality*...in effect, no morality....'whatever feels good...'"
> 
> 
> ...just as you couldn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I contend that a more astute individual, i.e., *John Lennon,  would have realized the fallacy of Liberalism, and 'adjusted.'*
> 
> And that adjustment would be in the direction of conservatism.
> 
> 
> QED....OP is, if not proven, at least more reliable than your premise due to the preponderance of the evidence.


You really are delusional.

Conservatives started these bullshit wars we've been fighting the last 10 years.

John Lennon's message to the world was _*"give peace a chance".*_

There was nothing conservative about John Lennon.


----------



## Esmeralda

Camp said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> The song was written by a British citizen during the Vietnam War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> During that period, American forces were being withdrawn from Vietnam and the fighting was being turned over to the the S. Vietnamese. There was a feeling that the war was coming to a close, at least with American involvement. However, an invasion of Laos by S. Vietnam with American air support, an invasion of S. Vietnam by N. Vietnam that included heavy armor (tanks) caused great concern that the US would be pulled back into a more active role and activate a more intense war and stop the withdrawal. These concerns were confirmed when Nixon ordered Operation Linebacker. Operation Linebacker included the carpet bombings of Hanoi and Haphong, the two major cities of N. Vietnam, by B-52's. Carpet bombing of cities had not been used since WWII. England suffered from carpet bombing. Lennon was fully aware of what it meant. Linebacker began in April '71 and was still being conducted when Lennon wrote Imagine in May of 71'. The anti-war movement was reinvigorating itself. The timing of the creation of Imagine was not an accident or coincidence.
Click to expand...


Yes. It's an anti-war song. Nothing to do with being politically right or left, unless we assume only liberals are against war.  It is against war.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Esmeralda said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Lennon was a progressive liberal; not a closet Republican. The idea is ludicrous. It is pathetic and telling that the right is trying to steal his true memory and identity away in order to bolster their decrepit status in America.  As well, I've noticed how many folks  here seem to think Orwell was one of you too. Orwell was a liberal progressive. His book, probably the only one any of you have read, _1984_, was against totalitarianism, not against progressive liberalism. Read some of his other works, such as _Burmese Days _and _Down and Out in Paris and London_.  _Animal Farm _, as well, was against the totalitarian dictatorship that the Soviet Union became.  He was not against liberal or progressive ideas, quite the contrary. The fact you all don't understand the difference says a lot about your ignorance and narrow minded, tunnel vision.  You can have Ayn Rand, and welcome to her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well....so you prove that Lennon wasn't a Progressive/Liberal/dunce....
> 
> Now let's examine the proposal....let's stipulate that Lennon was a good deal brighter than you are.....
> ....your posts in evidence.
> 
> ....as you could not, therefore, arguendo, he could not have supported the Liberal catechisms....
> 
> This was the challenge:
> Well...by all means.....go right ahead and contest the following Liberal catechism:
> 
> "1. *Getting rid of our sovereignty,*and placing us all under the heel of the heels at the United Nations,
> 
> 2. That it is *religion that they hate*, largely because it suggests that there is some sort of morality to which we owe civilization.
> 
> 3. That they *endorse a private, meaning rationalized, morality*...in effect, no morality....'whatever feels good...'"
> 
> 
> ...just as you couldn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I contend that a more astute individual, i.e., *John Lennon,  would have realized the fallacy of Liberalism, and 'adjusted.'*
> 
> And that adjustment would be in the direction of conservatism.
> 
> 
> QED....OP is, if not proven, at least more reliable than your premise due to the preponderance of the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're fucking crazy, you are. It's pointless to discuss anything with you.  I've heard it over and over again on here, how you are one major nut case, now I see what they mean.
Click to expand...




Nothing screams 'loser' more than when I reduce one of you dolts to vulgarity.

Try to remember this:

Profanity is the effort of a feeble mind to express itself forcefully.




" I've heard it over and over again on here, how you are one major nut case, now I see what they mean."

I appreciate my fame.....

...now, the translation of "one major nut case,..."

It means "she beats the heck out of us every time!"


As I just did with you.


----------



## Pogo

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Lennon was a progressive liberal; not a closet Republican. The idea is ludicrous. It is pathetic and telling that the right is trying to steal his true memory and identity away in order to bolster their decrepit status in America.  As well, I've noticed how many folks  here seem to think Orwell was one of you too. Orwell was a liberal progressive. His book, probably the only one any of you have read, _1984_, was against totalitarianism, not against progressive liberalism. Read some of his other works, such as _Burmese Days _and _Down and Out in Paris and London_.  _Animal Farm _, as well, was against the totalitarian dictatorship that the Soviet Union became.  He was not against liberal or progressive ideas, quite the contrary. The fact you all don't understand the difference says a lot about your ignorance and narrow minded, tunnel vision.  You can have Ayn Rand, and welcome to her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well....so you prove that Lennon wasn't a Progressive/Liberal/dunce....
> 
> Now let's examine the proposal....let's stipulate that Lennon was a good deal brighter than you are.....
> ....your posts in evidence.
> 
> ....as you could not, therefore, arguendo, he could not have supported the Liberal catechisms....
> 
> This was the challenge:
> Well...by all means.....go right ahead and contest the following Liberal catechism:
> 
> "1. *Getting rid of our sovereignty,*and placing us all under the heel of the heels at the United Nations,
> 
> 2. That it is *religion that they hate*, largely because it suggests that there is some sort of morality to which we owe civilization.
> 
> 3. That they *endorse a private, meaning rationalized, morality*...in effect, no morality....'whatever feels good...'"
> 
> 
> ...just as you couldn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I contend that a more astute individual, i.e., *John Lennon,  would have realized the fallacy of Liberalism, and 'adjusted.'*
> 
> And that adjustment would be in the direction of conservatism.
> 
> 
> QED....OP is, if not proven, at least more reliable than your premise due to the preponderance of the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are making that United Nations stuff up. He never said anything about the United Nations ruling the world. You are unable to think in the abstract. The United Nations rule would be an authoritarian rule, not much different than any other kind of government rule.
> Lennon wasn't against religion, he was against a religions claim their God was better than the other guys God. He was against corrupted organized religion.
> You are just making stuff up.
Click to expand...


True but remember, she's from Krypton, which means she's fluent in Kryptic.  And as a Kryptonian female she has powers of Super Makeup.


----------



## Pogo

PoliticalChic said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well....so you prove that Lennon wasn't a Progressive/Liberal/dunce....
> 
> Now let's examine the proposal....let's stipulate that Lennon was a good deal brighter than you are.....
> ....your posts in evidence.
> 
> ....as you could not, therefore, arguendo, he could not have supported the Liberal catechisms....
> 
> This was the challenge:
> Well...by all means.....go right ahead and contest the following Liberal catechism:
> 
> "1. *Getting rid of our sovereignty,*and placing us all under the heel of the heels at the United Nations,
> 
> 2. That it is *religion that they hate*, largely because it suggests that there is some sort of morality to which we owe civilization.
> 
> 3. That they *endorse a private, meaning rationalized, morality*...in effect, no morality....'whatever feels good...'"
> 
> 
> ...just as you couldn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I contend that a more astute individual, i.e., *John Lennon,  would have realized the fallacy of Liberalism, and 'adjusted.'*
> 
> And that adjustment would be in the direction of conservatism.
> 
> 
> QED....OP is, if not proven, at least more reliable than your premise due to the preponderance of the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're fucking crazy, you are. It's pointless to discuss anything with you.  I've heard it over and over again on here, how you are one major nut case, now I see what they mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing screams 'loser' more than when I reduce one of you dolts to vulgarity.
> 
> Try to remember this:
> 
> Profanity is the effort of a feeble mind to express itself forcefully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " I've heard it over and over again on here, how you are one major nut case, now I see what they mean."
> 
> I appreciate my fame.....
> 
> ...now, the translation of "one major nut case,..."
> 
> It means "she beats the heck out of us every time!"
> 
> 
> As I just did with you.
Click to expand...


Quite the little Danth's Law whore, aren't we?


----------



## Papageorgio

Pogo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're fucking crazy, you are. It's pointless to discuss anything with you.  I've heard it over and over again on here, how you are one major nut case, now I see what they mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing screams 'loser' more than when I reduce one of you dolts to vulgarity.
> 
> Try to remember this:
> 
> Profanity is the effort of a feeble mind to express itself forcefully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " I've heard it over and over again on here, how you are one major nut case, now I see what they mean."
> 
> I appreciate my fame.....
> 
> ...now, the translation of "one major nut case,..."
> 
> It means "she beats the heck out of us every time!"
> 
> 
> As I just did with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite the little Danth's Law whore, aren't we?
Click to expand...


Speaking of whores, how are you Pogo?


----------



## Pogo

Papageorgio said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing screams 'loser' more than when I reduce one of you dolts to vulgarity.
> 
> Try to remember this:
> 
> Profanity is the effort of a feeble mind to express itself forcefully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " I've heard it over and over again on here, how you are one major nut case, now I see what they mean."
> 
> I appreciate my fame.....
> 
> ...now, the translation of "one major nut case,..."
> 
> It means "she beats the heck out of us every time!"
> 
> 
> As I just did with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the little Danth's Law whore, aren't we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of whores, how are you Pogo?
Click to expand...


Well hey there Ron Burgundy.  I'm OK, thanks for asking.  At least not painting myself into corners, you know...


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Lennon was a progressive liberal; not a closet Republican. The idea is ludicrous. It is pathetic and telling that the right is trying to steal his true memory and identity away in order to bolster their decrepit status in America.  As well, I've noticed how many folks  here seem to think Orwell was one of you too. Orwell was a liberal progressive. His book, probably the only one any of you have read, _1984_, was against totalitarianism, not against progressive liberalism. Read some of his other works, such as _Burmese Days _and _Down and Out in Paris and London_.  _Animal Farm _, as well, was against the totalitarian dictatorship that the Soviet Union became.  He was not against liberal or progressive ideas, quite the contrary. The fact you all don't understand the difference says a lot about your ignorance and narrow minded, tunnel vision.  You can have Ayn Rand, and welcome to her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well....so you prove that Lennon wasn't a Progressive/Liberal/dunce....
> 
> Now let's examine the proposal....let's stipulate that Lennon was a good deal brighter than you are.....
> ....your posts in evidence.
> 
> ....as you could not, therefore, arguendo, he could not have supported the Liberal catechisms....
> 
> This was the challenge:
> Well...by all means.....go right ahead and contest the following Liberal catechism:
> 
> "1. *Getting rid of our sovereignty,*and placing us all under the heel of the heels at the United Nations,
> 
> 2. That it is *religion that they hate*, largely because it suggests that there is some sort of morality to which we owe civilization.
> 
> 3. That they *endorse a private, meaning rationalized, morality*...in effect, no morality....'whatever feels good...'"
> 
> 
> ...just as you couldn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I contend that a more astute individual, i.e., *John Lennon,  would have realized the fallacy of Liberalism, and 'adjusted.'*
> 
> And that adjustment would be in the direction of conservatism.
> 
> 
> QED....OP is, if not proven, at least more reliable than your premise due to the preponderance of the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are making that United Nations stuff up. He never said anything about the United Nations ruling the world. You are unable to think in the abstract. The United Nations rule would be an authoritarian rule, not much different than any other kind of government rule.
> Lennon wasn't against religion, he was against a religions claim their God was better than the other guys God. He was against corrupted organized religion.
> You are just making stuff up.
Click to expand...





"You are making that United Nations stuff up. He never said anything about the United Nations ruling the world."


Dead wrong.


That is exactly what the loss of American sovereignty means.

The lessons you require are extensive...
But begin here:
1. The first Progressive President, Woodrow Wilson, wrote "The Administrative State," endorsing the idea that bureaucrats and technocrats would simply write and enforce regulations because they are good-hearted individuals. They would have no need for oversight.
Typical Liberal misunderstanding of human nature.

2. The current permutation of global domination, the United Nations, is on the march once again. A prominent spokesman, Strobe Talbot, current president of the Brookings Institution, and a former deputy secretary of state, he refers to nations as artificial and temporary. Speaking of nations, he quotes Julian Huxley:  a society united by a common error as to its origin and a common aversion to its neighbors.

3.  Lord Acton: Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupt absolutely.  
Our Founders, in their brilliance, incorporated this idea in the Constitution, with checks and balances, and separation of powers.  World government emphasizes the potential power and oppressiveness of a global political authority, and inescapable tyranny. Nations giving up sovereignty abolishes the prime check on the power of other nations.

Why global governance?     Some ideas are so stupid, only an intellectual could believe them. George Orwell



I recommend John Forte's "Sovereignty or Submission. 
Of course, if you are a Liberal....you don't read books, only bumper-stickers.


"Lennon wasn't against religion,..."

My first witness...John Lennon:
"Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too"


Astounding how the easily-led will be shown a red wall and claim it to be blue.


----------



## Esmeralda

PoliticalChic said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well....so you prove that Lennon wasn't a Progressive/Liberal/dunce....
> 
> Now let's examine the proposal....let's stipulate that Lennon was a good deal brighter than you are.....
> ....your posts in evidence.
> 
> ....as you could not, therefore, arguendo, he could not have supported the Liberal catechisms....
> 
> This was the challenge:
> Well...by all means.....go right ahead and contest the following Liberal catechism:
> 
> "1. *Getting rid of our sovereignty,*and placing us all under the heel of the heels at the United Nations,
> 
> 2. That it is *religion that they hate*, largely because it suggests that there is some sort of morality to which we owe civilization.
> 
> 3. That they *endorse a private, meaning rationalized, morality*...in effect, no morality....'whatever feels good...'"
> 
> 
> ...just as you couldn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I contend that a more astute individual, i.e., *John Lennon,  would have realized the fallacy of Liberalism, and 'adjusted.'*
> 
> And that adjustment would be in the direction of conservatism.
> 
> 
> QED....OP is, if not proven, at least more reliable than your premise due to the preponderance of the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're fucking crazy, you are. It's pointless to discuss anything with you.  I've heard it over and over again on here, how you are one major nut case, now I see what they mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing screams 'loser' more than when I reduce one of you dolts to vulgarity.
> 
> Try to remember this:
> 
> Profanity is the effort of a feeble mind to express itself forcefully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " I've heard it over and over again on here, how you are one major nut case, now I see what they mean."
> 
> I appreciate my fame.....
> 
> ...now, the translation of "one major nut case,..."
> 
> It means "she beats the heck out of us every time!"
> 
> 
> As I just did with you.
Click to expand...


~What you do is drive intelligent, reasonable people up the wall trying to discuss anything with you because you are without reason or the ability to be sensible.  These conclusions you draw from my post are perfect examples of that.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Esmeralda said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're fucking crazy, you are. It's pointless to discuss anything with you.  I've heard it over and over again on here, how you are one major nut case, now I see what they mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing screams 'loser' more than when I reduce one of you dolts to vulgarity.
> 
> Try to remember this:
> 
> Profanity is the effort of a feeble mind to express itself forcefully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " I've heard it over and over again on here, how you are one major nut case, now I see what they mean."
> 
> I appreciate my fame.....
> 
> ...now, the translation of "one major nut case,..."
> 
> It means "she beats the heck out of us every time!"
> 
> 
> As I just did with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ~What you do is drive intelligent, reasonable people up the wall trying to discuss anything with you because you are without reason and sensibility.  These conclusions you draw from my post are perfect examples of that.
Click to expand...



What I do is use logic and erudition.

You're dismissed.


----------



## waltky

Uncle Ferd likes the one...

... `bout diggin' lint...

... outta yer belly-button.


----------



## Esmeralda

PoliticalChic said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing screams 'loser' more than when I reduce one of you dolts to vulgarity.
> 
> Try to remember this:
> 
> Profanity is the effort of a feeble mind to express itself forcefully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " I've heard it over and over again on here, how you are one major nut case, now I see what they mean."
> 
> I appreciate my fame.....
> 
> ...now, the translation of "one major nut case,..."
> 
> It means "she beats the heck out of us every time!"
> 
> 
> As I just did with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~What you do is drive intelligent, reasonable people up the wall trying to discuss anything with you because you are without reason and sensibility.  These conclusions you draw from my post are perfect examples of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What I do is use logic and erudition.
> 
> You're dismissed.
Click to expand...


You are completely delusional.  I'd say get help, but it's obvious  you like being a nut case.  As long as people  of sense repeatedly give up on you, you can tell yourself you are winning all arguments, and you don't have to face the truth.  Crazy people are often very crafty in that way.


----------



## Billo_Really

PoliticalChic said:


> I recommend John Forte's "Sovereignty or Submission.&#8221;
> Of course, if you are a Liberal....you don't read books, only bumper-stickers.
> 
> 
> "Lennon wasn't against religion,..."
> 
> My first witness...John Lennon:
> "Nothing to kill or die for
> And no religion too"
> 
> 
> Astounding how the easily-led will be shown a red wall and claim it to be blue.


Here's Lennon's message to you *PC*...



> _*As soon as you're born they make you feel small
> By giving you no time instead of it all
> Till the pain is so big you feel nothing at all
> 
> 
> They hurt you at home and they hit you at school
> They hate you if you're clever and they despise a fool
> Till you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules
> 
> 
> When they've tortured and scared you for twenty-odd years
> Then they expect you to pick a career
> When you can't really function you're so full of fear
> 
> 
> Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV
> And you think you're so clever and classless and free
> But you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see
> 
> 
> There's room at the top they're telling you still
> But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
> If you want to be like the folks on the hill* _


Lennon didn't like people hiding behind religion as they killed their fellow man.


----------



## Sunshine

Esmeralda said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> ~What you do is drive intelligent, reasonable people up the wall trying to discuss anything with you because you are without reason and sensibility.  These conclusions you draw from my post are perfect examples of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I do is use logic and erudition.
> 
> You're dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are completely delusional.  I'd say get help, but it's obvious  you like being a nut case.  As long as people  of sense repeatedly give up on you, you can tell yourself you are winning all arguments, and you don't have to face the truth.  Crazy people are often very crafty in that way.
Click to expand...


FYI:  The word 'crazy' is no longer politically correct.


----------



## Papageorgio

Pogo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the little Danth's Law whore, aren't we?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of whores, how are you Pogo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well hey there Ron Burgundy.  I'm OK, thanks for asking.  At least not painting myself into corners, you know...
Click to expand...


You do paint yourself into corners, you aren't bright enough to realize it.


----------



## Esmeralda

Papageorgio said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of whores, how are you Pogo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well hey there Ron Burgundy.  I'm OK, thanks for asking.  At least not painting myself into corners, you know...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do paint yourself into corners, you aren't bright enough to realize it.
Click to expand...


Oh the irony!  LMAO


----------



## PoliticalChic

Esmeralda said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> ~What you do is drive intelligent, reasonable people up the wall trying to discuss anything with you because you are without reason and sensibility.  These conclusions you draw from my post are perfect examples of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I do is use logic and erudition.
> 
> You're dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are completely delusional.  I'd say get help, but it's obvious  you like being a nut case.  As long as people  of sense repeatedly give up on you, you can tell yourself you are winning all arguments, and you don't have to face the truth.  Crazy people are often very crafty in that way.
Click to expand...




Yours is the boilerplate post of on who has lost the argument.


----------



## Papageorgio

Esmeralda said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well hey there Ron Burgundy.  I'm OK, thanks for asking.  At least not painting myself into corners, you know...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do paint yourself into corners, you aren't bright enough to realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh the irony!  LMAO
Click to expand...


Esmeralda, Pogo is a fine person, the posts are well grounded in his belief system. I can accept when I disagree and I will joke. 

You on the other hand are a mean and spiteful person. I don't think you believe any of what you post, I think you post to make you feel superior. 
Have a good day.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Billo_Really said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I recommend John Forte's "Sovereignty or Submission.
> Of course, if you are a Liberal....you don't read books, only bumper-stickers.
> 
> 
> "Lennon wasn't against religion,..."
> 
> My first witness...John Lennon:
> "Nothing to kill or die for
> And no religion too"
> 
> 
> Astounding how the easily-led will be shown a red wall and claim it to be blue.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's Lennon's message to you *PC*...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*As soon as you're born they make you feel small
> By giving you no time instead of it all
> Till the pain is so big you feel nothing at all
> 
> 
> They hurt you at home and they hit you at school
> They hate you if you're clever and they despise a fool
> Till you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules
> 
> 
> When they've tortured and scared you for twenty-odd years
> Then they expect you to pick a career
> When you can't really function you're so full of fear
> 
> 
> Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV
> And you think you're so clever and classless and free
> But you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see
> 
> 
> There's room at the top they're telling you still
> But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
> If you want to be like the folks on the hill* _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lennon didn't like people hiding behind religion as they killed their fellow man.
Click to expand...





Nonsense.

"4. And, possibly the most invidious lie told, and believed by Liberals..."more have died because of religion...." Got that covered: " And no religion too" Imagine.
a. First World War (191418): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 million
Russian Civil War (191722): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 million
Soviet Union, Stalins regime (192453): . . . . . . . . . 20 million
Second World War (193745): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 million
Chinese Civil War (194549): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 million
Peoples Republic of China, Mao Zedongs 
regime (194975): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 million
Korean War (195053): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 million
North Korea (1948 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 million
Rwanda and Burundi (195995): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.35 million
What was the religious basis for those? The only religion I see in there is the religion of Leftism."


----------



## Wry Catcher

DiamondDave said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's a song about peace.
> 
> Naturally something Political Chica opposes..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.. actually a song about the mythical idea of utopia
Click to expand...


For those who believe in a Heaven and a Hell, I wonder:  Is it a song about the former or the latter?


----------



## Billo_Really

PoliticalChic said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> "4. And, possibly the most invidious lie told, and believed by Liberals..."more have died because of religion...." Got that covered: " And no religion too" Imagine.
> a. First World War (191418): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 million
> Russian Civil War (191722): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 million
> Soviet Union, Stalins regime (192453): . . . . . . . . . 20 million
> Second World War (193745): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 million
> Chinese Civil War (194549): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 million
> Peoples Republic of China, Mao Zedongs
> regime (194975): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 million
> Korean War (195053): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 million
> North Korea (1948 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 million
> Rwanda and Burundi (195995): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.35 million
> What was the religious basis for those? The only religion I see in there is the religion of Leftism."


It's not nonsense.  These wars we've been fighting the last 10 years were started by people who "claimed" to be people of faith.


----------



## Billo_Really

Wry Catcher said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's a song about peace.
> 
> Naturally something Political Chica opposes..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.. actually a song about the mythical idea of utopia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For those who believe in a Heaven and a Hell, I wonder:  Is it a song about the former or the latter?
Click to expand...

Personally, I like his other two songs better:

*"Women are the ****** of the world"

"Instant Karma is going to get you!"*​


----------



## NoNukes

Camp said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he was addressing that to the believers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so what he was trying to do was alter others thinking to his way of thinking.  again, getting back to turning us into a bunch of mindless bots willing to give up our freedoms and personal choices
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone does the first sentence of your post. We do it here. That is what writing and art are all about. The second part of your post is just your opinion based on who knows what. The idea that John Lennon was trying to turn everyone into mindless bots by influenceing them to think about things is kind of wacky.  The suggestion that he wanted folks to give up freedom and choices is beyond ridiculous. You just can't handle the fact that so many people accept or like an idea that is so different from your own. You can't attack the message because the debate was settled long ago. The message resonates decades after the world first heard them. Kids in China and Brazil, South Africa and India, Russia and the USA still sing the song. Artist continue to record it. Attacking the messenger at this late date is just a useless waste of time, and to many probably seems a bit stupid.
Click to expand...


One would have to be asinine to suggest Lennon was against freedom and choices.


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> " Often as people mature they out-grow their *naïve embrace of leftist ideology *and begin to see things in their true light,...*' John Lennon was a closet Republican, who felt a little embarrassed by his former radicalism, *at the time of his death - according to the tragic Beatles star's last personal assistant.'
> 
> He says, "John, basically, made it very clear that if he were an American he would vote for *Reagan *because he was really sour on (Democrat) Jimmy Carter. By 1979 he looked back on that guy and was *embarrassed by that guy's naiveté."(He wrote 'Imagine' in 1970).*
> 
> This new revelation about the late rock & roll legend should give us all pause to *reflect upon the hollow nature of liberalism. * For those of us who have misguided friends, family and associates who continue to cling to *the factually devoid ideology of the left, *be patient yet unrelenting in exposing these lost souls to the truth and Imagine them discovering the world of reality."
> Blog: Imagine John Lennon as a Republican
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a sweet, innocent, naive person OP. I don't suppose it ever occured to you that there are some people in the world who will say anything in order to sell a lot of books and make a lot of money?  I don't suppose it occured to you to consider that his partner, Yoko Ono, who is still living and has maintained John's views and values, as well as his son's, all know and believe in the same values John held, which were not conservative, Republican values.  This 'last personal assistant' is just trying to make some big bucks.  It's also pretty damned pathetic that the Right is so desperate to gain some value that they are trying to hoodwink the public into believing John Lenon was actually one of them.  Really quite laughable.  Take any dead Democrat, anyone, and turn him into a Republican: that's what you need to do to bolster belief in being a pub?  LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "You're such a sweet, innocent, naive person OP."
> Well....you'er battin' .667....two out of three ain't bad.
> 
> 
> 2. " I don't suppose it ever occured to you that there are some people in the world who will say anything in order to sell a lot of books and make a lot of money?"
> 
> Or....for other reasons: you can keep your insurance....your doctor.....save $2500....
> Yeah....I see where you're goin.'
> 
> 
> 3. "....know and believe in the same values John held, which were not conservative, Republican values."
> 
> Why so afraid that he grew, matured, in his views?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. "It's also pretty damned pathetic that the Right is so desperate to gain some value that they are trying to hoodwink the public into believing John Lenon was actually one of them."
> 
> Well...by all means.....go right ahead and contest the following Liberal catechism:
> 
> "1. Getting rid of our sovereignty,and placing us all under the heel of the heels at the United Nations,
> 
> 2. That it is religion that they hate, largely because it suggests that there is some sort of morality to which we owe civilization.
> 
> 3. That they endorse a private, meaning rationalized, morality....'whatever feels good...'"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waiting......
> 
> 
> 
> Hey...if you can't, it will be "Really quite laughable."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get to it.
Click to expand...


If you got into some of the 'whatever feels good', you might not be such a miserable person. That goes for a lot of the right wingers on this board.


----------



## Papageorgio

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a sweet, innocent, naive person OP. I don't suppose it ever occured to you that there are some people in the world who will say anything in order to sell a lot of books and make a lot of money?  I don't suppose it occured to you to consider that his partner, Yoko Ono, who is still living and has maintained John's views and values, as well as his son's, all know and believe in the same values John held, which were not conservative, Republican values.  This 'last personal assistant' is just trying to make some big bucks.  It's also pretty damned pathetic that the Right is so desperate to gain some value that they are trying to hoodwink the public into believing John Lenon was actually one of them.  Really quite laughable.  Take any dead Democrat, anyone, and turn him into a Republican: that's what you need to do to bolster belief in being a pub?  LMAO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "You're such a sweet, innocent, naive person OP."
> Well....you'er battin' .667....two out of three ain't bad.
> 
> 
> 2. " I don't suppose it ever occured to you that there are some people in the world who will say anything in order to sell a lot of books and make a lot of money?"
> 
> Or....for other reasons: you can keep your insurance....your doctor.....save $2500....
> Yeah....I see where you're goin.'
> 
> 
> 3. "....know and believe in the same values John held, which were not conservative, Republican values."
> 
> Why so afraid that he grew, matured, in his views?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. "It's also pretty damned pathetic that the Right is so desperate to gain some value that they are trying to hoodwink the public into believing John Lenon was actually one of them."
> 
> Well...by all means.....go right ahead and contest the following Liberal catechism:
> 
> "1. Getting rid of our sovereignty,and placing us all under the heel of the heels at the United Nations,
> 
> 2. That it is religion that they hate, largely because it suggests that there is some sort of morality to which we owe civilization.
> 
> 3. That they endorse a private, meaning rationalized, morality....'whatever feels good...'"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waiting......
> 
> 
> 
> Hey...if you can't, it will be "Really quite laughable."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you got into some of the 'whatever feels good', you might not be such a miserable person. That goes for a lot of the right wingers on this board.
Click to expand...


I do what is right, that feels good.


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well....so you prove that Lennon wasn't a Progressive/Liberal/dunce....
> 
> Now let's examine the proposal....let's stipulate that Lennon was a good deal brighter than you are.....
> ....your posts in evidence.
> 
> ....as you could not, therefore, arguendo, he could not have supported the Liberal catechisms....
> 
> This was the challenge:
> Well...by all means.....go right ahead and contest the following Liberal catechism:
> 
> "1. *Getting rid of our sovereignty,*and placing us all under the heel of the heels at the United Nations,
> 
> 2. That it is *religion that they hate*, largely because it suggests that there is some sort of morality to which we owe civilization.
> 
> 3. That they *endorse a private, meaning rationalized, morality*...in effect, no morality....'whatever feels good...'"
> 
> 
> ...just as you couldn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I contend that a more astute individual, i.e., *John Lennon,  would have realized the fallacy of Liberalism, and 'adjusted.'*
> 
> And that adjustment would be in the direction of conservatism.
> 
> 
> QED....OP is, if not proven, at least more reliable than your premise due to the preponderance of the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're fucking crazy, you are. It's pointless to discuss anything with you.  I've heard it over and over again on here, how you are one major nut case, now I see what they mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing screams 'loser' more than when I reduce one of you dolts to vulgarity.
> 
> Try to remember this:
> 
> Profanity is the effort of a feeble mind to express itself forcefully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " I've heard it over and over again on here, how you are one major nut case, now I see what they mean."
> 
> I appreciate my fame.....
> 
> ...now, the translation of "one major nut case,..."
> 
> It means "she beats the heck out of us every time!"
> 
> 
> As I just did with you.
Click to expand...


I have said it before, you are a legend in your own mind, a pathetic little girl trying so hard to be recognized.


----------



## Camp

Imagine all the people  listening to John instead of Rush.


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a sweet, innocent, naive person OP. I don't suppose it ever occured to you that there are some people in the world who will say anything in order to sell a lot of books and make a lot of money?  I don't suppose it occured to you to consider that his partner, Yoko Ono, who is still living and has maintained John's views and values, as well as his son's, all know and believe in the same values John held, which were not conservative, Republican values.  This 'last personal assistant' is just trying to make some big bucks.  It's also pretty damned pathetic that the Right is so desperate to gain some value that they are trying to hoodwink the public into believing John Lenon was actually one of them.  Really quite laughable.  Take any dead Democrat, anyone, and turn him into a Republican: that's what you need to do to bolster belief in being a pub?  LMAO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "You're such a sweet, innocent, naive person OP."
> Well....you'er battin' .667....two out of three ain't bad.
> 
> 
> 2. " I don't suppose it ever occured to you that there are some people in the world who will say anything in order to sell a lot of books and make a lot of money?"
> 
> Or....for other reasons: you can keep your insurance....your doctor.....save $2500....
> Yeah....I see where you're goin.'
> 
> 
> 3. "....know and believe in the same values John held, which were not conservative, Republican values."
> 
> Why so afraid that he grew, matured, in his views?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. "It's also pretty damned pathetic that the Right is so desperate to gain some value that they are trying to hoodwink the public into believing John Lenon was actually one of them."
> 
> Well...by all means.....go right ahead and contest the following Liberal catechism:
> 
> "1. Getting rid of our sovereignty,and placing us all under the heel of the heels at the United Nations,
> 
> 2. That it is religion that they hate, largely because it suggests that there is some sort of morality to which we owe civilization.
> 
> 3. That they endorse a private, meaning rationalized, morality....'whatever feels good...'"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waiting......
> 
> 
> 
> Hey...if you can't, it will be "Really quite laughable."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you got into some of the 'whatever feels good', you might not be such a miserable person. That goes for a lot of the right wingers on this board.
Click to expand...




You are a fool, NoClass.....


Rather than take the usual defeat you Leftists take in debate with the Right, you either lie, or, as is common with lowlifes like yourself, reduce the debate to what passes for witty repartee in junior high school lavatories.


As for your current post....

 "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."


----------



## Papageorgio

Camp said:


> Imagine all the people  listening to John instead of Rush.



I don't listen to either.


----------



## NoNukes

Papageorgio said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "You're such a sweet, innocent, naive person OP."
> Well....you'er battin' .667....two out of three ain't bad.
> 
> 
> 2. " I don't suppose it ever occured to you that there are some people in the world who will say anything in order to sell a lot of books and make a lot of money?"
> 
> Or....for other reasons: you can keep your insurance....your doctor.....save $2500....
> Yeah....I see where you're goin.'
> 
> 
> 3. "....know and believe in the same values John held, which were not conservative, Republican values."
> 
> Why so afraid that he grew, matured, in his views?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. "It's also pretty damned pathetic that the Right is so desperate to gain some value that they are trying to hoodwink the public into believing John Lenon was actually one of them."
> 
> Well...by all means.....go right ahead and contest the following Liberal catechism:
> 
> "1. Getting rid of our sovereignty,and placing us all under the heel of the heels at the United Nations,
> 
> 2. That it is religion that they hate, largely because it suggests that there is some sort of morality to which we owe civilization.
> 
> 3. That they endorse a private, meaning rationalized, morality....'whatever feels good...'"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waiting......
> 
> 
> 
> Hey...if you can't, it will be "Really quite laughable."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you got into some of the 'whatever feels good', you might not be such a miserable person. That goes for a lot of the right wingers on this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do what is right, that feels good.
Click to expand...


And mommy and daddy are so proud of their little one.


----------



## Camp

Papageorgio said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine all the people  listening to John instead of Rush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't listen to either.
Click to expand...


I'm probably one of the last Dean Martin fans on the planet.


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "You're such a sweet, innocent, naive person OP."
> Well....you'er battin' .667....two out of three ain't bad.
> 
> 
> 2. " I don't suppose it ever occured to you that there are some people in the world who will say anything in order to sell a lot of books and make a lot of money?"
> 
> Or....for other reasons: you can keep your insurance....your doctor.....save $2500....
> Yeah....I see where you're goin.'
> 
> 
> 3. "....know and believe in the same values John held, which were not conservative, Republican values."
> 
> Why so afraid that he grew, matured, in his views?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. "It's also pretty damned pathetic that the Right is so desperate to gain some value that they are trying to hoodwink the public into believing John Lenon was actually one of them."
> 
> Well...by all means.....go right ahead and contest the following Liberal catechism:
> 
> "1. Getting rid of our sovereignty,and placing us all under the heel of the heels at the United Nations,
> 
> 2. That it is religion that they hate, largely because it suggests that there is some sort of morality to which we owe civilization.
> 
> 3. That they endorse a private, meaning rationalized, morality....'whatever feels good...'"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waiting......
> 
> 
> 
> Hey...if you can't, it will be "Really quite laughable."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you got into some of the 'whatever feels good', you might not be such a miserable person. That goes for a lot of the right wingers on this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fool, NoClass.....
> 
> 
> Rather than take the usual defeat you Leftists take in debate with the Right, you either lie, or, as is common with lowlifes like yourself, reduce the debate to what passes for witty repartee in junior high school lavatories.
> 
> 
> As for your current post....
> 
> "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Click to expand...


You would not recognize defeat if it smacked you in the face, that is the problem. 

I have never lied on these boards, quit making things up to disguise your defeat.


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're fucking crazy, you are. It's pointless to discuss anything with you.  I've heard it over and over again on here, how you are one major nut case, now I see what they mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing screams 'loser' more than when I reduce one of you dolts to vulgarity.
> 
> Try to remember this:
> 
> Profanity is the effort of a feeble mind to express itself forcefully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " I've heard it over and over again on here, how you are one major nut case, now I see what they mean."
> 
> I appreciate my fame.....
> 
> ...now, the translation of "one major nut case,..."
> 
> It means "she beats the heck out of us every time!"
> 
> 
> As I just did with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have said it before, you are a legend in your own mind, a pathetic little girl trying so hard to be recognized.
Click to expand...




Your posts about me are due to

a) the beating I have given you in debates, and will continue to do....


b) an attempt to become relevant while avoiding actually confronting the points I've made.


Loser.



I bet not a day goes by that you don't wish you were clever enough to compete.


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing screams 'loser' more than when I reduce one of you dolts to vulgarity.
> 
> Try to remember this:
> 
> Profanity is the effort of a feeble mind to express itself forcefully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " I've heard it over and over again on here, how you are one major nut case, now I see what they mean."
> 
> I appreciate my fame.....
> 
> ...now, the translation of "one major nut case,..."
> 
> It means "she beats the heck out of us every time!"
> 
> 
> As I just did with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have said it before, you are a legend in your own mind, a pathetic little girl trying so hard to be recognized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your posts about me are due to
> 
> a) the beating I have given you in debates, and will continue to do....
> 
> 
> b) an attempt to become relevant while avoiding actually confronting the points I've made.
> 
> 
> Loser.
> 
> 
> 
> I bet not a day goes by that you don't wish you were clever enough to compete.
Click to expand...


one of your problems is that you THINK that you are clever. You are pathetic and one of the laughing stocks of the boards. especially when you claim victory and tell people much smarter than yourself that you have beaten them. Lie to yourself all that you want, it obviously helps you deal with the pain.


----------



## Camp

Hey, chic and the RW has Ted the kid fucker Nugent. 30 million life time record sales. The left according to chic has John Lennon. Over 2 billion in record sales. The dead guy still outsells the living poopy pants by tens of millions every year.


----------



## Papageorgio

NoNukes said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you got into some of the 'whatever feels good', you might not be such a miserable person. That goes for a lot of the right wingers on this board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do what is right, that feels good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And mommy and daddy are so proud of their little one.
Click to expand...



I am someone that thinks about my decisions and how they impact others, unlike assholes that go off do drugs, abort kids, spread VD and commit crimes.

Sorry if you don't like the way I effect others in a positive way, it seems counter productive to losers like you.


----------



## Papageorgio

Camp said:


> Hey, chic and the RW has Ted the kid fucker Nugent. 30 million life time record sales. The left according to chic has John Lennon. Over 2 billion in record sales. The dead guy still outsells the living poopy pants by tens of millions every year.



What are you, a four year old?


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have said it before, you are a legend in your own mind, a pathetic little girl trying so hard to be recognized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your posts about me are due to
> 
> a) the beating I have given you in debates, and will continue to do....
> 
> 
> b) an attempt to become relevant while avoiding actually confronting the points I've made.
> 
> 
> Loser.
> 
> 
> 
> I bet not a day goes by that you don't wish you were clever enough to compete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> one of your problems is that you THINK that you are clever. You are pathetic and one of the laughing stocks of the boards. especially when you claim victory and tell people much smarter than yourself that you have beaten them. Lie to yourself all that you want, it obviously helps you deal with the pain.
Click to expand...



"....you THINK that you are clever."

And don't think I don't appreciate how clever your posts make me look, NoClass!

Keep up the bad work!


----------



## Luddly Neddite

What an incredibility informative thread this is. And, ain't no way that "this is about politics". When I saw the thread title, I expected the song to be something about hate or or harming people. But no - Its the exact opposite.  Its a song about peace and prosperity so of course, the radical rw's hate it.

I often wonder if rw's still believe in that old puritan ethic that says they must be miserable in life so they can get into what they believe is a "heaven". These are very frightened people who see The Big Bad Bogey Man behind every little bush. 

I don't usually read Political Chic's posts but I did read some of this idiotic OP. The obvious first reaction is stunned disbelief but thinking about the things the radical rw's write every day, they would naturally be against a world like Lennon describes. 

Look at what the radical rw's write about fighting and hating:


women
children
gays
transgendered
people of any and all color
vets
the disabled
elderly
education
jobs and economic recovery
science
progress of any kind
their own country

They are dead set against liberty, freedom and personal responsibility and choice. They fight against and hate what they fear.  

And, what do they post in favor of:


hungry/homeless children
hungry/homeless elderly
hungry/homeless vets
hungry/homeless disabled
permanent suspension of Constitutionally guaranteed rights for certain segments of our population
war
global climate change
ending small family business in favor of huge corporations controlling all enterprise
increasing the wealth and power of their overlords

Those are partial lists and many would say they don't believe in some of what I've written. That's why I wrote that they post and write these things.

Radical rw's do not think for themselves. They simply cannot "imagine" and rely on Limbaugh, Fox, Beck and other really nutty ideologues to tell them what to think. They say they are against helping their fellow human being and they desperately need to be controlled. In view of what they write here every day, they would have no choice but to hate the philosophical beliefs Lennon wrote about in that song. 

And they would especially hate that he (and the Beatles) were well paid for their work.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Camp said:


> Hey, chic and the RW has Ted the kid fucker Nugent. 30 million life time record sales. The left according to chic has John Lennon. Over 2 billion in record sales. The dead guy still outsells the living poopy pants by tens of millions every year.



Yep. They whine if a famous person speaks in favor of liberal progress or gives money to needy people while celebrating their own famous spokes"man", who is an admitted pedophile draft dodger. 

That pretty much sums it up.


----------



## Papageorgio

Luddly Neddite said:


> What an incredibility informative thread this is. And, ain't no way that "this is about politics". When I saw the thread title, I expected the song to be something about hate or or harming people. But no - Its the exact opposite.  Its a song about peace and prosperity so of course, the radical rw's hate it.
> 
> I often wonder if rw's still believe in that old puritan ethic that says they must be miserable in life so they can get into what they believe is a "heaven". These are very frightened people who see The Big Bad Bogey Man behind every little bush.
> 
> I don't usually read Political Chic's posts but I did read some of this idiotic OP. The obvious first reaction is stunned disbelief but thinking about the things the radical rw's write every day, they would naturally be against a world like Lennon describes.
> 
> Look at what the radical rw's write about fighting and hating:
> 
> 
> women
> children
> gays
> transgendered
> people of any and all color
> vets
> the disabled
> elderly
> education
> jobs and economic recovery
> science
> progress of any kind
> their own country
> 
> They are dead set against liberty, freedom and personal responsibility and choice. They fight against and hate what they fear.
> 
> And, what do they post in favor of:
> 
> 
> hungry/homeless children
> hungry/homeless elderly
> hungry/homeless vets
> hungry/homeless disabled
> permanent suspension of Constitutionally guaranteed rights for certain segments of our population
> war
> global climate change
> ending small family business in favor of huge corporations controlling all enterprise
> increasing the wealth and power of their overlords
> 
> Those are partial lists and many would say they don't believe in some of what I've written. That's why I wrote that they post and write these things.
> 
> Radical rw's do not think for themselves. They simply cannot "imagine" and rely on Limbaugh, Fox, Beck and other really nutty ideologues to tell them what to think. They say they are against helping their fellow human being and they desperately need to be controlled. In view of what they write here every day, they would have no choice but to hate the philosophical beliefs Lennon wrote about in that song.
> 
> And they would especially hate that he (and the Beatles) were well paid for their work.



Wow, talk about an over dramatic nut job. You really need to quit smoking meth, it's really effecting your reasoning ability.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Luddly Neddite said:


> What an incredibility informative thread this is. And, ain't no way that "this is about politics". When I saw the thread title, I expected the song to be something about hate or or harming people. But no - Its the exact opposite.  Its a song about peace and prosperity so of course, the radical rw's hate it.
> 
> I often wonder if rw's still believe in that old puritan ethic that says they must be miserable in life so they can get into what they believe is a "heaven". These are very frightened people who see The Big Bad Bogey Man behind every little bush.
> 
> I don't usually read Political Chic's posts but I did read some of this idiotic OP. The obvious first reaction is stunned disbelief but thinking about the things the radical rw's write every day, they would naturally be against a world like Lennon describes.
> 
> Look at what the radical rw's write about fighting and hating:
> 
> 
> women
> children
> gays
> transgendered
> people of any and all color
> vets
> the disabled
> elderly
> education
> jobs and economic recovery
> science
> progress of any kind
> their own country
> 
> They are dead set against liberty, freedom and personal responsibility and choice. They fight against and hate what they fear.
> 
> And, what do they post in favor of:
> 
> 
> hungry/homeless children
> hungry/homeless elderly
> hungry/homeless vets
> hungry/homeless disabled
> permanent suspension of Constitutionally guaranteed rights for certain segments of our population
> war
> global climate change
> ending small family business in favor of huge corporations controlling all enterprise
> increasing the wealth and power of their overlords
> 
> Those are partial lists and many would say they don't believe in some of what I've written. That's why I wrote that they post and write these things.
> 
> Radical rw's do not think for themselves. They simply cannot "imagine" and rely on Limbaugh, Fox, Beck and other really nutty ideologues to tell them what to think. They say they are against helping their fellow human being and they desperately need to be controlled. In view of what they write here every day, they would have no choice but to hate the philosophical beliefs Lennon wrote about in that song.
> 
> And they would especially hate that he (and the Beatles) were well paid for their work.







I wonder why you left out any comments about the content of the OP....


This:

Well...by all means.....go right ahead and contest the following Liberal catechism:

"1. Getting rid of our sovereignty,and placing us all under the heel of the heels at the United Nations,

2. That it is religion that they hate, largely because it suggests that there is some sort of morality to which we owe civilization.

3. That they endorse a private, meaning rationalized, morality....'whatever feels good...'"





Could it be because the OP is dead on....and this is what Liberals are all about?


----------



## NoNukes

Papageorgio said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do what is right, that feels good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And mommy and daddy are so proud of their little one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am someone that thinks about my decisions and how they impact others, unlike assholes that go off do drugs, abort kids, spread VD and commit crimes.
> 
> Sorry if you don't like the way I effect others in a positive way, it seems counter productive to losers like you.
Click to expand...


You do what is right, like stooping to call people names. You are wonderful.


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your posts about me are due to
> 
> a) the beating I have given you in debates, and will continue to do....
> 
> 
> b) an attempt to become relevant while avoiding actually confronting the points I've made.
> 
> 
> Loser.
> 
> 
> 
> I bet not a day goes by that you don't wish you were clever enough to compete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> one of your problems is that you THINK that you are clever. You are pathetic and one of the laughing stocks of the boards. especially when you claim victory and tell people much smarter than yourself that you have beaten them. Lie to yourself all that you want, it obviously helps you deal with the pain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "....you THINK that you are clever."
> 
> And don't think I don't appreciate how clever your posts make me look, NoClass!
> 
> Keep up the bad work!
Click to expand...


If I had the ability to make you look clever, I could perform miracles.


----------



## thanatos144

Of course Democrats love this song that talks about no religion LOL We are talking about the party of slavery and the KKK after all. They know if there is a God they are not going to be looked down on favorably...


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> one of your problems is that you THINK that you are clever. You are pathetic and one of the laughing stocks of the boards. especially when you claim victory and tell people much smarter than yourself that you have beaten them. Lie to yourself all that you want, it obviously helps you deal with the pain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "....you THINK that you are clever."
> 
> And don't think I don't appreciate how clever your posts make me look, NoClass!
> 
> Keep up the bad work!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I had the ability to make you look clever, I could perform miracles.
Click to expand...




You, and every other dolt who chimes into a thread with the insightful 'it's not worthy of a reply, a rebuttal' manage that very same miracle.


And don't think I don't get a chuckle out of it.


Your current post serves as case in point, NoClass.


Don't ever change.


----------



## Papageorgio

NoNukes said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> And mommy and daddy are so proud of their little one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am someone that thinks about my decisions and how they impact others, unlike assholes that go off do drugs, abort kids, spread VD and commit crimes.
> 
> Sorry if you don't like the way I effect others in a positive way, it seems counter productive to losers like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do what is right, like stooping to call people names. You are wonderful.
Click to expand...


Yes I am, you seem up tight for a liberal.


----------



## freedombecki

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a sweet, innocent, naive person OP. I don't suppose it ever occured to you that there are some people in the world who will say anything in order to sell a lot of books and make a lot of money? I don't suppose it occured to you to consider that his partner, Yoko Ono, who is still living and has maintained John's views and values, as well as his son's, all know and believe in the same values John held, which were not conservative, Republican values. This 'last personal assistant' is just trying to make some big bucks. It's also pretty damned pathetic that the Right is so desperate to gain some value that they are trying to hoodwink the public into believing John Lenon was actually one of them. Really quite laughable. Take any dead Democrat, anyone, and turn him into a Republican: that's what you need to do to bolster belief in being a pub? LMAO
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "You're such a sweet, innocent, naive person OP."
> Well....you'er battin' .667....two out of three ain't bad.
> 2. " I don't suppose it ever occured to you that there are some people in the world who will say anything in order to sell a lot of books and make a lot of money?"
> Or....for other reasons: you can keep your insurance....your doctor.....save $2500....
> Yeah....I see where you're goin.'
> 3. "....know and believe in the same values John held, which were not conservative, Republican values."
> Why so afraid that he grew, matured, in his views?
> 4. "It's also pretty damned pathetic that the Right is so desperate to gain some value that they are trying to hoodwink the public into believing John Lenon was actually one of them."
> 
> Well...by all means.....go right ahead and contest the following Liberal catechism:
> 
> "1. Getting rid of our sovereignty,and placing us all under the heel of the heels at the United Nations,
> 
> 2. That it is religion that they hate, largely because it suggests that there is some sort of morality to which we owe civilization.
> 
> 3. That they endorse a private, meaning rationalized, morality....'whatever feels good...'"
> 
> Waiting......
> 
> Hey...if you can't, it will be "Really quite laughable."
> 
> Get to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you got into some of the 'whatever feels good', you might not be such a miserable person. That goes for a lot of the right wingers on this board.
Click to expand...

Don't you ever forget it's our military, supported by wise conservatives (and some good liberals) who are the reason why you can enjoy free speech without having to worry about going to a gulag. Should the desire to shut down free speech ever occur because conservatives are pointing to the facts, and if you object to the bloodbath that would bring that about, you are toast. And I do mean burnt. 

Freedom and its precepts takes discipline to keep. If the discipline goes aside due to lack of attention, freedoms disappear. The founders knew it. That's why Franklin said of our Republic's unique freedom: "*IF* you can keep it."


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

freedombecki said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "You're such a sweet, innocent, naive person OP."
> Well....you'er battin' .667....two out of three ain't bad.
> 2. " I don't suppose it ever occured to you that there are some people in the world who will say anything in order to sell a lot of books and make a lot of money?"
> Or....for other reasons: you can keep your insurance....your doctor.....save $2500....
> Yeah....I see where you're goin.'
> 3. "....know and believe in the same values John held, which were not conservative, Republican values."
> Why so afraid that he grew, matured, in his views?
> 4. "It's also pretty damned pathetic that the Right is so desperate to gain some value that they are trying to hoodwink the public into believing John Lenon was actually one of them."
> 
> Well...by all means.....go right ahead and contest the following Liberal catechism:
> 
> "1. Getting rid of our sovereignty,and placing us all under the heel of the heels at the United Nations,
> 
> 2. That it is religion that they hate, largely because it suggests that there is some sort of morality to which we owe civilization.
> 
> 3. That they endorse a private, meaning rationalized, morality....'whatever feels good...'"
> 
> Waiting......
> 
> Hey...if you can't, it will be "Really quite laughable."
> 
> Get to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you got into some of the 'whatever feels good', you might not be such a miserable person. That goes for a lot of the right wingers on this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't you ever forget it's our military, supported by wise conservatives (and some good liberals) who are the reason why you can enjoy free speech without having to worry about going to a gulag. Should the desire to shut down free speech ever occur because conservatives are pointing to the facts, and if you object to the bloodbath that would bring that about, you are toast. And I do mean burnt.
> 
> Freedom and its precepts takes discipline to keep. If the discipline goes aside due to lack of attention, freedoms disappear. The founders knew it. That's why Franklin said of our Republic's unique freedom: "*IF* you can keep it."
Click to expand...


Pity conservatives dont exhibit the same support for free expression as they do the military; otherwise they wouldnt be seeking to deny homosexuals, same-sex couples, and transgender persons their First Amendment right to freely express themselves. 

Indeed, liberals clearly possess the more comprehensive and accurate understanding of the right to free expression, by their of advocacy of diversity, dissent, and individual liberty.   

Liberals also understand the importance of religious liberty in the context of the right to free expression, an understanding lacking among many conservatives, where a significant number on the right are hostile toward Muslims and Islam.


----------



## PoliticalChic

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you got into some of the 'whatever feels good', you might not be such a miserable person. That goes for a lot of the right wingers on this board.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you ever forget it's our military, supported by wise conservatives (and some good liberals) who are the reason why you can enjoy free speech without having to worry about going to a gulag. Should the desire to shut down free speech ever occur because conservatives are pointing to the facts, and if you object to the bloodbath that would bring that about, you are toast. And I do mean burnt.
> 
> Freedom and its precepts takes discipline to keep. If the discipline goes aside due to lack of attention, freedoms disappear. The founders knew it. That's why Franklin said of our Republic's unique freedom: "*IF* you can keep it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pity conservatives don&#8217;t exhibit the same support for free expression as they do the military; otherwise they wouldn&#8217;t be seeking to deny homosexuals, same-sex couples, and transgender persons their First Amendment right to freely express themselves.
> 
> Indeed, liberals clearly possess the more comprehensive and accurate understanding of the right to free expression, by their of advocacy of diversity, dissent, and individual liberty.
> 
> Liberals also understand the importance of religious liberty in the context of the right to free expression, an understanding lacking among many conservatives, where a significant number on the right are hostile toward Muslims and Islam.
Click to expand...





How about we use this conservative approach....

Allow the people of the 50 (57???) 'laboratories of democracy' to vote on what they allow in their state.....


Get the darn black-robed tyrants who impose their will in place of the will of the people, out of the equation.



Get the oppression of the Liberals off the backs of the people.



You down wit' dat, C_Chamber_Pot?


----------



## thanatos144

Imagine there no liberals....It's not hard to do (all you have to do is replace college professors with actual competent teaches)


----------



## NoNukes

Papageorgio said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am someone that thinks about my decisions and how they impact others, unlike assholes that go off do drugs, abort kids, spread VD and commit crimes.
> 
> Sorry if you don't like the way I effect others in a positive way, it seems counter productive to losers like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do what is right, like stooping to call people names. You are wonderful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I am, you seem up tight for a liberal.
Click to expand...


You obviously know very little, and it does not surprise me a bit.


----------



## NoNukes

freedombecki said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "You're such a sweet, innocent, naive person OP."
> Well....you'er battin' .667....two out of three ain't bad.
> 2. " I don't suppose it ever occured to you that there are some people in the world who will say anything in order to sell a lot of books and make a lot of money?"
> Or....for other reasons: you can keep your insurance....your doctor.....save $2500....
> Yeah....I see where you're goin.'
> 3. "....know and believe in the same values John held, which were not conservative, Republican values."
> Why so afraid that he grew, matured, in his views?
> 4. "It's also pretty damned pathetic that the Right is so desperate to gain some value that they are trying to hoodwink the public into believing John Lenon was actually one of them."
> 
> Well...by all means.....go right ahead and contest the following Liberal catechism:
> 
> "1. Getting rid of our sovereignty,and placing us all under the heel of the heels at the United Nations,
> 
> 2. That it is religion that they hate, largely because it suggests that there is some sort of morality to which we owe civilization.
> 
> 3. That they endorse a private, meaning rationalized, morality....'whatever feels good...'"
> 
> Waiting......
> 
> Hey...if you can't, it will be "Really quite laughable."
> 
> Get to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you got into some of the 'whatever feels good', you might not be such a miserable person. That goes for a lot of the right wingers on this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't you ever forget it's our military, supported by wise conservatives (and some good liberals) who are the reason why you can enjoy free speech without having to worry about going to a gulag. Should the desire to shut down free speech ever occur because conservatives are pointing to the facts, and if you object to the bloodbath that would bring that about, you are toast. And I do mean burnt.
> 
> Freedom and its precepts takes discipline to keep. If the discipline goes aside due to lack of attention, freedoms disappear. The founders knew it. That's why Franklin said of our Republic's unique freedom: "*IF* you can keep it."
Click to expand...


You need a double dose of 'whatever feels good'.


----------



## NoNukes

thanatos144 said:


> Imagine there no liberals....It's not hard to do (all you have to do is replace college professors with *actual competent teaches*)



Probably because conservatives write things like this.


----------



## thanatos144

NoNukes said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you got into some of the 'whatever feels good', you might not be such a miserable person. That goes for a lot of the right wingers on this board.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you ever forget it's our military, supported by wise conservatives (and some good liberals) who are the reason why you can enjoy free speech without having to worry about going to a gulag. Should the desire to shut down free speech ever occur because conservatives are pointing to the facts, and if you object to the bloodbath that would bring that about, you are toast. And I do mean burnt.
> 
> Freedom and its precepts takes discipline to keep. If the discipline goes aside due to lack of attention, freedoms disappear. The founders knew it. That's why Franklin said of our Republic's unique freedom: "*IF* you can keep it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need a double dose of 'whatever feels good'.
Click to expand...


You truly are a useful idiot for the cause huh?


----------



## Papageorgio

NoNukes said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do what is right, like stooping to call people names. You are wonderful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I am, you seem up tight for a liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously know very little, and it does not surprise me a bit.
Click to expand...


I do know very little, however it is hundred times more than you know, so all is good. 

You should stop crying.


----------



## Papageorgio

thanatos144 said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you ever forget it's our military, supported by wise conservatives (and some good liberals) who are the reason why you can enjoy free speech without having to worry about going to a gulag. Should the desire to shut down free speech ever occur because conservatives are pointing to the facts, and if you object to the bloodbath that would bring that about, you are toast. And I do mean burnt.
> 
> Freedom and its precepts takes discipline to keep. If the discipline goes aside due to lack of attention, freedoms disappear. The founders knew it. That's why Franklin said of our Republic's unique freedom: "*IF* you can keep it."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need a double dose of 'whatever feels good'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You truly are a useful idiot for the cause huh?
Click to expand...


Does watching Obama and Pelosi look like idiots because of Obamacare count as whatever feels good? 

What is amusing is that no nookie can't refute anything so he just goes to insults.


----------



## thanatos144

NoNukes said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine there no liberals....It's not hard to do (all you have to do is replace college professors with *actual competent teaches*)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because conservatives write things like this.
Click to expand...


Is the truth that foreign to you?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

thanatos144 said:


> Of course Democrats love this song that talks about no religion LOL We are talking about the party of slavery and the KKK after all. They know if there is a God they are not going to be looked down on favorably...



First, he wrote "no religion".
He did not write "no god".
There IS a difference.

Second, it was the conservative party that started the KKK. At that time, that was the Democrats. 

The Democrats are no longer the party of conservatives and I DARE YOU to find even one liberal who is the anti-American, racist, slime buckets that YOU rw's are on this board.


----------



## NoNukes

thanatos144 said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine there no liberals....It's not hard to do (all you have to do is replace college professors with *actual competent teaches*)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because conservatives write things like this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the truth that foreign to you?
Click to expand...


You cannot read either???


----------



## NoNukes

Papageorgio said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I am, you seem up tight for a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously know very little, and it does not surprise me a bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do know very little, however it is hundred times more than you know, so all is good.
> 
> You should stop crying.
Click to expand...


Now you stoop to childish replies, and it does not surprose me a bit.


----------



## thanatos144

Luddly Neddite said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Democrats love this song that talks about no religion LOL We are talking about the party of slavery and the KKK after all. They know if there is a God they are not going to be looked down on favorably...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, he wrote "no religion".
> He did not write "no god".
> There IS a difference.
> 
> Second, it was the conservative party that started the KKK. At that time, that was the Democrats.
> 
> The Democrats are no longer the party of conservatives and I DARE YOU to find even one liberal who is the anti-American, racist, slime buckets that YOU rw's are on this board.
Click to expand...

Look at you try and rewrite history.... Democrats made the KKK to scare black men from voting Republican ....Then as natural progression with fanatic democrats they proceeded to killing....The only difference between Democrats then as opposed to now is they now want them dead before they are born.


----------



## NoNukes

Papageorgio said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need a double dose of 'whatever feels good'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You truly are a useful idiot for the cause huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does watching Obama and Pelosi look like idiots because of Obamacare count as whatever feels good?
> 
> What is amusing is that no nookie can't refute anything so he just goes to insults.
Click to expand...


Just pointing out what idiots you guys are. there is nothing worth refuting.

Have to put the kids to bed. You kids have a good night too.


----------



## Papageorgio

NoNukes said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously know very little, and it does not surprise me a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do know very little, however it is hundred times more than you know, so all is good.
> 
> You should stop crying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you stoop to childish replies, and it does not surprose me a bit.
Click to expand...


Really? And your reply to me was what. I was matching your grade level.


----------



## Papageorgio

NoNukes said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You truly are a useful idiot for the cause huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does watching Obama and Pelosi look like idiots because of Obamacare count as whatever feels good?
> 
> What is amusing is that no nookie can't refute anything so he just goes to insults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just pointing out what idiots you guys are. there is nothing worth refuting.
> 
> Have to put the kids to bed. You kids have a good night too.
Click to expand...


Hope you learn something.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Luddly Neddite said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Democrats love this song that talks about no religion LOL We are talking about the party of slavery and the KKK after all. They know if there is a God they are not going to be looked down on favorably...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, he wrote "no religion".
> He did not write "no god".
> There IS a difference.
> 
> Second, it was the conservative party that started the KKK. At that time, that was the Democrats.
> 
> The Democrats are no longer the party of conservatives and I DARE YOU to find even one liberal who is the anti-American, racist, slime buckets that YOU rw's are on this board.
Click to expand...





First, he wrote "no religion".
He did not write "no god".
There IS a difference.


No there isn't.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Luddly Neddite said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Democrats love this song that talks about no religion LOL We are talking about the party of slavery and the KKK after all. They know if there is a God they are not going to be looked down on favorably...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, he wrote "no religion".
> He did not write "no god".
> There IS a difference.
> 
> Second, it was the conservative party that started the KKK. At that time, that was the Democrats.
> 
> The Democrats are no longer the party of conservatives and I DARE YOU to find even one liberal who is the anti-American, racist, slime buckets that YOU rw's are on this board.
Click to expand...




"Second, it was the conservative party that started the KKK. At that time, that was the Democrats."

A fabrication designed to hide the history of the Democrats.


1. It was Republicans who fought for civil rights for blacks.
a. It was Republicans who overwhelmingly introduced, promoted, and passed every civil rights act from the end of the Civil War right up to and including the 1964 Civil Rights Act. President Eisenhower pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, written by Attorney General Herbert Brownell, guaranteeing black voting rights, to be enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice.

b. "Three years after Brown, President Eisenhower won passage of his landmark Civil Rights Act of 1957. Republican Senator Everett Dirksen authored and introduced the 1960 Civil Rights Act, and saw it through to passage. Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act overwhelmingly, and by much higher percentages in both House and Senate than the Democrats. Indeed, the 1964 Civil Rights Act became law only after overcoming a Democrat filibuster."
Everything I Know Is Wrong: History of the Republican Party


2. The Democrats in the Senate blocked every anti-lynching bill. Let's see how many Senate Democrats were 'conservative.'

a.The most important points: all the segregationists in the Senate were Democrats, and remained same for the rest of their livesexcept for one. And they were not conservative.

b.	Strom Thurmond became a Republican, albeit 16 years later. Lets see how many of the 12 in the Senate were conservative.

c.	Senator Harry Byrd, staunch opponent of anti-communist McCarthy

d.	Senator Robert Byrd, proabortion, opposed Gulf Wars, supported ERA, high grades from NARAL and ACLU

e.	Senator Allen Ellender, McCarthy opponent, pacifist

f.	Senator Sam Ervin, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, Nixon antagonist

g.	Senator Albert Gore, Sr., McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War

h.	Senator James Eastland, strong anti-communist

i.	Senator Wm. Fulbright, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, big UN  supporter

j.	Senator Walter F. George, supported TVA, and Great Society programs

k.	Senator Ernest Hollings, initiated federal food stamp program, but supported Clarence Thomas nomination

l.	Senator Russell Long, led the campaign for Great Society programs

m.	Senator Richard Russell, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, supported FDRs New Deal

n.	Senator John Stennis, McCarthy opponent, opposed Robert Borks nomination
Covered in chapter 12 of "Mugged," by Coulter

Notice how segregationist positions went hand-in-hand with opposition to McCarthy? Not all Democrats.Robert Kennedy worked for McCarthy, and Senator John F. Kenned refused to censure him. 




Now, if you are puzzled as to what just happened, I've proven that you are either a liar or a simpleton.

I'll let you announce which one it is.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

RDD_1210 said:


> Slow day for finding things to complain about?



RDD is offended that someone insulted the liberal anthem?

Instead of addressing any of the points she made, you tools jump to simply take a cheap _ad hominem_ shot as though your group think is a substitute for useful discussion.

Frankly, she has a couple of really good points.

I FAVOR sovereignty and oppose one world government.

And for any problems CAUSED by "religion," it is certainly true that many people have been helped because of religion.

You libs really should pay more than just lip service to having an open mind.  You know.  Someday.

Imagine.


----------



## R.C. Christian

Sallow said:


> it's a song about peace.
> 
> Naturally something Political Chica opposes..



It's about collectivism scumbag.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Luddly Neddite said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Democrats love this song that talks about no religion LOL We are talking about the party of slavery and the KKK after all. They know if there is a God they are not going to be looked down on favorably...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, he wrote "no religion".
> He did not write "no god".
> There IS a difference.
> 
> Second, it was the conservative party that started the KKK. At that time, that was the Democrats.
> 
> The Democrats are no longer the party of conservatives and I DARE YOU to find even one liberal who is the anti-American, racist, slime buckets that YOU rw's are on this board.
Click to expand...




"The Democrats are no longer the party of conservatives and *I DARE YOU to find even one liberal who is the anti-American, racist, slime buckets* that YOU rw's are on this board."

No problem, *you brain-dead sycophant.....*


1. Know this guy?

a.* Governor Bill Clinton *was among three state officials the NAACP sued in 1989 under the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. Plaintiffs offered plenty of proof of monolithic voting along racial lines, intimidation of black voters and candidates and other official acts that made voting harder for blacks, the Arkansas Gazette reported December 6, 1989.


b. Bill Clinton had a Confederate flag-like issue, every year he was governor: Arkansas Code Annotated, Section 1-5-107, provides as follows:

(a) The Saturday immediately preceding Easter Sunday of each year is designated as Confederate Flag Day in this state.

(b) No person, firm, or corporation shall display an Confederate flag or replica thereof in connection with any advertisement of any commercial enterprise, or in any manner for any purpose except to honor the Confederate States of America. [Emphasis added.]

(c) Any person, firm, or corporation violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000).

Bill Clinton took no steps during his twelve years as governor to repeal this law.
Hillary Clinton's Confederacy Hypocrisy | The Gateway Pundit
Hillary Clinton's Confederacy Hypocrisy | The Gateway Pundit


(BTW...Orval Eugene Faubus, attended Bill Clintons 1979 gubernatorial inauguration, where the two pols hugged, as Arkansas Democrat-Gazette editorial page editor Paul Greenberg recalls.)
Know who Faubus was?
Yup...he used the National Guard to prevent blacks from going to school



c. Bill Clinton wrote his first letter, dated June 21, 1994, of congratulations to the UDC [Untied Daughters of the Confederacy] celebrating their 100th anniversary. Later Clinton wrote a letter September 8, 1994 letter of congratulation to the Georgia Division of the UDC celebrating their 100th anniversary, then August 9, 1995 welcoming to Washington, D.C. for their 1995 national convention. Each letter was given a full page with Clintons picture in the United Daughters of the Confederacy Magazine (UDC Magazine) giving legitimacy to the UDC.

For reference, the UDC magazine includes " a Ku Klux Klan praising book, not just the Klan of Reconstruction but the Klan of the 1920s, a book which recommends the racist books of Thomas Dixon, The Clansman ...
Anti-Neo-Confederate: Bill Clinton Enables Neo-Confederates & Betrays Carol Moseley-Braun: UPDATED

d. "Clinton praised Arkansas late Democratic senator J. William Fulbright, a notorious segregationist who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. He also signed the Southern Manifesto, which denounced the U.S. Supreme Courts landmark Brown vs. Board of Education school desegregation decision in 1954. Clinton called Fulbright My mentor, a visionary, a humanitarian.Dems Need to Houseclean - Deroy Murdock - National Review Online

and....

Fulbright was a full-bore segregationist, voting against the 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1965 civil rights bills.
But...in 1993, Bill Clinton gave the Medal of Freedom award to a lifelong segregationist, Democrat Wm. J. Fulbright. And another life-long segregationist, Democrat Albert Gore, Sr. was in attendance.



Hey...didn't Bill Clinton just recently speak at the Democrat National Convention?



e.  President Bill Clinton
argued that Colin Powell, promoted
to brigadier general during Mr.
Alexanders tenure, was the product
of an af&#64257;rmative action program.
http://cdn.virtuallearningcourses.com/ivtcontent/images/edw12_ch05_e.pdf

f. 'BILL CLINTON: IN PAST, OBAMA WOULD BE 'CARRYING OUR BAGS'
Bill Clinton: In Past, Obama Would Be 'Carrying Our Bags'






2. *Did you ask for a Democrat....the most popular Democrat....who is a "slime bucket"?*

Clinton Misogyny - Sex
Juanita Broaddrick (AR)- rape 
Eileen Wellstone (Oxford) - rape
Elizabeth Ward Gracen - rape - quid pro quo, post incident intimidation 
Regina Hopper Blakely - "forced himself on her, biting, bruising her"
Kathleen Willey (WH) - sexual assault, intimidations, threats
Sandra Allen James (DC) - sexual assault 
22 Year Old 1972 (Yale) - sexual assault 
Kathy Bradshaw (AK) - sexual assault
Cristy Zercher - unwelcomed sexual advance, intimidations 
Paula Jones (AR) - unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
Carolyn Moffet -unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
1974 student at University of Arkansas - unwelcomed physical contact
1978-1980 - seven complaints per Arkansas state troopers
Monica Lewinsky - quid pro quo, post incident character assault 
Gennifer Flowers - quid pro quo, post incident character assault 
Dolly Kyle Browning - post incident character assault 
Sally Perdue - post incident threats
Betty Dalton - rebuffed his advances, married to one of his supporters
Denise Reeder - apologetic note scanned
CLINTON'S ROGUES GALLERY:




*How's that for ripping you a new one, Ugly_Necktie???*


This is where you yell "check please."



You don't have the guts to respond......do you....


----------



## Pogo

PoliticalChic said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Democrats love this song that talks about no religion LOL We are talking about the party of slavery and the KKK after all. They know if there is a God they are not going to be looked down on favorably...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, he wrote "no religion".
> He did not write "no god".
> There IS a difference.
> 
> Second, it was the conservative party that started the KKK. At that time, that was the Democrats.
> 
> The Democrats are no longer the party of conservatives and I DARE YOU to find even one liberal who is the anti-American, racist, slime buckets that YOU rw's are on this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Second, it was the conservative party that started the KKK. At that time, that was the Democrats."
> 
> A fabrication designed to hide the history of the Democrats.
> 
> 
> 1. It was Republicans who fought for civil rights for blacks.
> a. It was Republicans who overwhelmingly introduced, promoted, and passed every civil rights act from the end of the Civil War right up to and including the 1964 Civil Rights Act. President Eisenhower pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, written by Attorney General Herbert Brownell, guaranteeing black voting rights, to be enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice.
> 
> b. "Three years after Brown, President Eisenhower won passage of his landmark Civil Rights Act of 1957. Republican Senator Everett Dirksen authored and introduced the 1960 Civil Rights Act, and saw it through to passage. Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act overwhelmingly, and by much higher percentages in both House and Senate than the Democrats. Indeed, the 1964 Civil Rights Act became law only after overcoming a Democrat filibuster."
> Everything I Know Is Wrong: History of the Republican Party
> 
> 
> 2. The Democrats in the Senate blocked every anti-lynching bill. Let's see how many Senate Democrats were 'conservative.'
> 
> a.The most important points: all the segregationists in the Senate were Democrats, and remained same for the rest of their lives&#8230;except for one. And they were not conservative.
> 
> b.	Strom Thurmond became a Republican, albeit 16 years later. Lets see how many of the 12 in the Senate were conservative.
> 
> c.	Senator Harry Byrd, staunch opponent of anti-communist McCarthy
> 
> d.	Senator Robert Byrd, proabortion, opposed Gulf Wars, supported ERA, high grades from NARAL and ACLU
> 
> e.	Senator Allen Ellender, McCarthy opponent, pacifist
> 
> f.	Senator Sam Ervin, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, Nixon antagonist
> 
> g.	Senator Albert Gore, Sr., McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War
> 
> h.	Senator James Eastland, strong anti-communist
> 
> i.	Senator Wm. Fulbright, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, big UN  supporter
> 
> j.	Senator Walter F. George, supported TVA, and Great Society programs
> 
> k.	Senator Ernest Hollings, initiated federal food stamp program, &#8230;but supported Clarence Thomas&#8217; nomination
> 
> l.	Senator Russell Long, led the campaign for Great Society programs
> 
> m.	Senator Richard Russell, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, supported FDR&#8217;s New Deal
> 
> n.	Senator John Stennis, McCarthy opponent, opposed Robert Bork&#8217;s nomination
> Covered in chapter 12 of "Mugged," by Coulter
> 
> Notice how segregationist positions went hand-in-hand with opposition to McCarthy? Not all Democrats&#8230;.Robert Kennedy worked for McCarthy, and Senator John F. Kenned refused to censure him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, if you are puzzled as to what just happened, I've proven that you are either a liar or a simpleton.
> 
> I'll let you announce which one it is.
Click to expand...


"McCarthy opponents" ??

What do you do, practice being stupid in front of a mirror before posting here?

Being opposed to a lying scumbag demagogue out for personal megalomania doesn't make one "anti-conservative".  Idiot.

Take it, Senator...

>> The United States Senate has long enjoyed worldwide respect as the greatest deliberative body in the world.  But recently that deliberative character has too often been debased to the level of a forum of hate and character assassination sheltered by the shield of congressional immunity.

It is ironical that we Senators can in debate in the Senate directly or indirectly, by any form of words, impute to any American who is not a Senator any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming an American -- and without that non-Senator American having any legal redress against us -- yet if we say the same thing in the Senate about our colleagues we can be stopped on the grounds of being out of order.

It is strange that we can verbally attack anyone else without restraint and with full protection and yet we hold ourselves above the same type of criticism here on the Senate Floor.  Surely the United States Senate is big enough to take self-criticism and self-appraisal.  Surely we should be able to take the same kind of character attacks that we "dish out" to outsiders.
...

I think that it is high time that we remembered that we have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.  I think that it is high time that we remembered that the Constitution, as amended, speaks not only of the freedom of speech but also of trial by jury instead of trial by accusation.

Whether it be a criminal prosecution in court or a character prosecution in the Senate, there is little practical distinction when the life of a person has been ruined.

Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism:

            The right to criticize;

            The right to hold unpopular beliefs;

            The right to protest;

            The right of independent thought.

The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who holds unpopular beliefs.  Who of us doesn&#8217;t?  Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own.  Otherwise thought control would have set in.

The American people are sick and tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically smeared as "Communists" or "Fascists" by their opponents.  Freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America.  It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others.

The American people are sick and tired of seeing innocent people smeared and guilty people whitewashed.  But there have been enough proved cases, such as the Amerasia case, the Hiss case, the Coplon case, the Gold case, to cause the nationwide distrust and strong suspicion that there may be something to the unproved, sensational accusations.

... The nation sorely needs a Republican victory.  But I don&#8217;t want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the Four Horsemen of Calumny -- Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear.

I doubt if the Republican Party could -- simply because I don&#8217;t believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest.  Surely we Republicans aren&#8217;t that desperate for victory.

I don&#8217;t want to see the Republican Party win that way. <<

-- Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME), June 1950


I'll leave to other fallacy hunters who have more time the low-hanging fruit canards of what the fuck sexual allegations, specious quotes and a public hug have to do with political philosophies.  Some fruit just hangs too low.

Not to mention what the fuck any of this has to do with a topic on a British songwriter, which has apparently been abandoned...


----------



## PoliticalChic

Pogo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, he wrote "no religion".
> He did not write "no god".
> There IS a difference.
> 
> Second, it was the conservative party that started the KKK. At that time, that was the Democrats.
> 
> The Democrats are no longer the party of conservatives and I DARE YOU to find even one liberal who is the anti-American, racist, slime buckets that YOU rw's are on this board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Second, it was the conservative party that started the KKK. At that time, that was the Democrats."
> 
> A fabrication designed to hide the history of the Democrats.
> 
> 
> 1. It was Republicans who fought for civil rights for blacks.
> a. It was Republicans who overwhelmingly introduced, promoted, and passed every civil rights act from the end of the Civil War right up to and including the 1964 Civil Rights Act. President Eisenhower pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, written by Attorney General Herbert Brownell, guaranteeing black voting rights, to be enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice.
> 
> b. "Three years after Brown, President Eisenhower won passage of his landmark Civil Rights Act of 1957. Republican Senator Everett Dirksen authored and introduced the 1960 Civil Rights Act, and saw it through to passage. Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act overwhelmingly, and by much higher percentages in both House and Senate than the Democrats. Indeed, the 1964 Civil Rights Act became law only after overcoming a Democrat filibuster."
> Everything I Know Is Wrong: History of the Republican Party
> 
> 
> 2. The Democrats in the Senate blocked every anti-lynching bill. Let's see how many Senate Democrats were 'conservative.'
> 
> a.The most important points: all the segregationists in the Senate were Democrats, and remained same for the rest of their livesexcept for one. And they were not conservative.
> 
> b.	Strom Thurmond became a Republican, albeit 16 years later. Lets see how many of the 12 in the Senate were conservative.
> 
> c.	Senator Harry Byrd, staunch opponent of anti-communist McCarthy
> 
> d.	Senator Robert Byrd, proabortion, opposed Gulf Wars, supported ERA, high grades from NARAL and ACLU
> 
> e.	Senator Allen Ellender, McCarthy opponent, pacifist
> 
> f.	Senator Sam Ervin, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, Nixon antagonist
> 
> g.	Senator Albert Gore, Sr., McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War
> 
> h.	Senator James Eastland, strong anti-communist
> 
> i.	Senator Wm. Fulbright, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, big UN  supporter
> 
> j.	Senator Walter F. George, supported TVA, and Great Society programs
> 
> k.	Senator Ernest Hollings, initiated federal food stamp program, but supported Clarence Thomas nomination
> 
> l.	Senator Russell Long, led the campaign for Great Society programs
> 
> m.	Senator Richard Russell, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, supported FDRs New Deal
> 
> n.	Senator John Stennis, McCarthy opponent, opposed Robert Borks nomination
> Covered in chapter 12 of "Mugged," by Coulter
> 
> Notice how segregationist positions went hand-in-hand with opposition to McCarthy? Not all Democrats.Robert Kennedy worked for McCarthy, and Senator John F. Kenned refused to censure him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, if you are puzzled as to what just happened, I've proven that you are either a liar or a simpleton.
> 
> I'll let you announce which one it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "McCarthy opponents" ??
> 
> What do you do, practice being stupid in front of a mirror before posting here?
> 
> Being opposed to a lying scumbag demagogue out for personal megalomania doesn't make one "anti-conservative".  Idiot.
> 
> Take it, Senator...
> 
> >> The United States Senate has long enjoyed worldwide respect as the greatest deliberative body in the world.  But recently that deliberative character has too often been debased to the level of a forum of hate and character assassination sheltered by the shield of congressional immunity.
> 
> It is ironical that we Senators can in debate in the Senate directly or indirectly, by any form of words, impute to any American who is not a Senator any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming an American -- and without that non-Senator American having any legal redress against us -- yet if we say the same thing in the Senate about our colleagues we can be stopped on the grounds of being out of order.
> 
> It is strange that we can verbally attack anyone else without restraint and with full protection and yet we hold ourselves above the same type of criticism here on the Senate Floor.  Surely the United States Senate is big enough to take self-criticism and self-appraisal.  Surely we should be able to take the same kind of character attacks that we "dish out" to outsiders.
> ...
> 
> I think that it is high time that we remembered that we have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.  I think that it is high time that we remembered that the Constitution, as amended, speaks not only of the freedom of speech but also of trial by jury instead of trial by accusation.
> 
> Whether it be a criminal prosecution in court or a character prosecution in the Senate, there is little practical distinction when the life of a person has been ruined.
> 
> Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism:
> 
> The right to criticize;
> 
> The right to hold unpopular beliefs;
> 
> The right to protest;
> 
> The right of independent thought.
> 
> The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who holds unpopular beliefs.  Who of us doesnt?  Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own.  Otherwise thought control would have set in.
> 
> The American people are sick and tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically smeared as "Communists" or "Fascists" by their opponents.  Freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America.  It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others.
> 
> The American people are sick and tired of seeing innocent people smeared and guilty people whitewashed.  But there have been enough proved cases, such as the Amerasia case, the Hiss case, the Coplon case, the Gold case, to cause the nationwide distrust and strong suspicion that there may be something to the unproved, sensational accusations.
> 
> ... The nation sorely needs a Republican victory.  But I dont want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the Four Horsemen of Calumny -- Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear.
> 
> I doubt if the Republican Party could -- simply because I dont believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest.  Surely we Republicans arent that desperate for victory.
> 
> I dont want to see the Republican Party win that way. <<
> 
> -- Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME), June 1950
> 
> 
> I'll leave to other fallacy hunters who have more time the low-hanging fruit canards of what the fuck sexual allegations, specious quotes and a public hug have to do with political philosophies.  Some fruit just hangs too low.
> 
> Not to mention what the fuck any of this has to do with a topic on a British songwriter, which has apparently been abandoned...
Click to expand...




Well, well....another moron who needs slapping down.

Coming right up.

"Being opposed to a lying scumbag demagogue out for personal megalomania doesn't make one "anti-conservative".  Idiot."


1. Whittaker Chambers wrote in his book WITNESS that* liberals are/were incapable of ever effectively fighting Communism because they did not see anything in Communism that was antithetical to their own beliefs. *In short, Liberals are Communists and Communists are Liberals. 

And, sure enough....a mentally incapacitated Liberal jumps right up to prove it.

Communists, Liberals...same thing. *You.*




2. *Only a Liberal *would claim that Senator McCarthy was more of a danger than the paid Soviet spies in the government....the ones who helped FDR send plans for the atomic bomb to Stalin, caused the Korean War, and....lost China to the homicidal maniac Mao.

Raise your paw.




3.	The thrust is that it was McCarthyism, more than Soviet espionage or Communism infiltration of government, that was  in the words of the October 23, 1998, NYTimes editorial, a lethal threat to American democracy. This, in the same editorial that admitted that the evidence against Julius Rosenberg, and most likely Alger Hiss, was clear.



And this:

4. As a result of the Venona Papers, and declassification of KGB files verifies pretty much all of McCarthys charges.and no one was ruined by McCarthy revelations.The greatest complaint against McCarthy was that he was unkind.even mean.to those in question.



Think of it....you might still be a virgin except for what nature did to your mind.


Man, that was fun.


Drop by when you need another lesson.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

thanatos144 said:


> Imagine there no liberals....It's not hard to do (all you have to do is replace college professors with actual competent teaches)



There it is again - that stark raving terror rw's have of real education. 

This is why China and India are leaving us in the dust. 

Really, we need to take all power away from the right. 

The backward right gets more government assistance than any other group and, of course, we will continue to subsidize them, but we cannot let the drag our country down into the gutter where they live.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Luddly Neddite said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine there no liberals....It's not hard to do (all you have to do is replace college professors with actual competent teaches)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There it is again - that stark raving terror rw's have of real education.
> 
> This is why China and India are leaving us in the dust.
> 
> Really, we need to take all power away from the right.
> 
> The backward right gets more government assistance than any other group and, of course, we will continue to subsidize them, but we cannot let the drag our country down into the gutter where they live.
Click to expand...






I posted three posts that slapped the stuff out of you.

You can slink away....typical of a Liberal.


----------



## thanatos144

Luddly Neddite said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine there no liberals....It's not hard to do (all you have to do is replace college professors with actual competent teaches)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There it is again - that stark raving terror rw's have of real education.
> 
> This is why China and India are leaving us in the dust.
> 
> Really, we need to take all power away from the right.
> 
> The backward right gets more government assistance than any other group and, of course, we will continue to subsidize them, but we cannot let the drag our country down into the gutter where they live.
Click to expand...


Idiot it is a plea FOR education instead of the indoctrination factorys we have now 

tapatalk post


----------



## Pogo

PoliticalChic said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Second, it was the conservative party that started the KKK. At that time, that was the Democrats."
> 
> A fabrication designed to hide the history of the Democrats.
> 
> 
> 1. It was Republicans who fought for civil rights for blacks.
> a. It was Republicans who overwhelmingly introduced, promoted, and passed every civil rights act from the end of the Civil War right up to and including the 1964 Civil Rights Act. President Eisenhower pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, written by Attorney General Herbert Brownell, guaranteeing black voting rights, to be enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice.
> 
> b. "Three years after Brown, President Eisenhower won passage of his landmark Civil Rights Act of 1957. Republican Senator Everett Dirksen authored and introduced the 1960 Civil Rights Act, and saw it through to passage. Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act overwhelmingly, and by much higher percentages in both House and Senate than the Democrats. Indeed, the 1964 Civil Rights Act became law only after overcoming a Democrat filibuster."
> Everything I Know Is Wrong: History of the Republican Party
> 
> 
> 2. The Democrats in the Senate blocked every anti-lynching bill. Let's see how many Senate Democrats were 'conservative.'
> 
> a.The most important points: all the segregationists in the Senate were Democrats, and remained same for the rest of their lives&#8230;except for one. And they were not conservative.
> 
> b.	Strom Thurmond became a Republican, albeit 16 years later. Lets see how many of the 12 in the Senate were conservative.
> 
> c.	Senator Harry Byrd, staunch opponent of anti-communist McCarthy
> 
> d.	Senator Robert Byrd, proabortion, opposed Gulf Wars, supported ERA, high grades from NARAL and ACLU
> 
> e.	Senator Allen Ellender, McCarthy opponent, pacifist
> 
> f.	Senator Sam Ervin, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, Nixon antagonist
> 
> g.	Senator Albert Gore, Sr., McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War
> 
> h.	Senator James Eastland, strong anti-communist
> 
> i.	Senator Wm. Fulbright, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, big UN  supporter
> 
> j.	Senator Walter F. George, supported TVA, and Great Society programs
> 
> k.	Senator Ernest Hollings, initiated federal food stamp program, &#8230;but supported Clarence Thomas&#8217; nomination
> 
> l.	Senator Russell Long, led the campaign for Great Society programs
> 
> m.	Senator Richard Russell, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, supported FDR&#8217;s New Deal
> 
> n.	Senator John Stennis, McCarthy opponent, opposed Robert Bork&#8217;s nomination
> Covered in chapter 12 of "Mugged," by Coulter
> 
> Notice how segregationist positions went hand-in-hand with opposition to McCarthy? Not all Democrats&#8230;.Robert Kennedy worked for McCarthy, and Senator John F. Kenned refused to censure him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, if you are puzzled as to what just happened, I've proven that you are either a liar or a simpleton.
> 
> I'll let you announce which one it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "McCarthy opponents" ??
> 
> What do you do, practice being stupid in front of a mirror before posting here?
> 
> Being opposed to a lying scumbag demagogue out for personal megalomania doesn't make one "anti-conservative".  Idiot.
> 
> Take it, Senator...
> 
> >> The United States Senate has long enjoyed worldwide respect as the greatest deliberative body in the world.  But recently that deliberative character has too often been debased to the level of a forum of hate and character assassination sheltered by the shield of congressional immunity.
> 
> It is ironical that we Senators can in debate in the Senate directly or indirectly, by any form of words, impute to any American who is not a Senator any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming an American -- and without that non-Senator American having any legal redress against us -- yet if we say the same thing in the Senate about our colleagues we can be stopped on the grounds of being out of order.
> 
> It is strange that we can verbally attack anyone else without restraint and with full protection and yet we hold ourselves above the same type of criticism here on the Senate Floor.  Surely the United States Senate is big enough to take self-criticism and self-appraisal.  Surely we should be able to take the same kind of character attacks that we "dish out" to outsiders.
> ...
> 
> I think that it is high time that we remembered that we have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.  I think that it is high time that we remembered that the Constitution, as amended, speaks not only of the freedom of speech but also of trial by jury instead of trial by accusation.
> 
> Whether it be a criminal prosecution in court or a character prosecution in the Senate, there is little practical distinction when the life of a person has been ruined.
> 
> Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism:
> 
> The right to criticize;
> 
> The right to hold unpopular beliefs;
> 
> The right to protest;
> 
> The right of independent thought.
> 
> The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who holds unpopular beliefs.  Who of us doesn&#8217;t?  Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own.  Otherwise thought control would have set in.
> 
> The American people are sick and tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically smeared as "Communists" or "Fascists" by their opponents.  Freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America.  It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others.
> 
> The American people are sick and tired of seeing innocent people smeared and guilty people whitewashed.  But there have been enough proved cases, such as the Amerasia case, the Hiss case, the Coplon case, the Gold case, to cause the nationwide distrust and strong suspicion that there may be something to the unproved, sensational accusations.
> 
> ... The nation sorely needs a Republican victory.  But I don&#8217;t want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the Four Horsemen of Calumny -- Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear.
> 
> I doubt if the Republican Party could -- simply because I don&#8217;t believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest.  Surely we Republicans aren&#8217;t that desperate for victory.
> 
> I don&#8217;t want to see the Republican Party win that way. <<
> 
> -- Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME), June 1950
> 
> 
> I'll leave to other fallacy hunters who have more time the low-hanging fruit canards of what the fuck sexual allegations, specious quotes and a public hug have to do with political philosophies.  Some fruit just hangs too low.
> 
> Not to mention what the fuck any of this has to do with a topic on a British songwriter, which has apparently been abandoned...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, well....another moron who needs slapping down.
> 
> Coming right up.
> 
> "Being opposed to a lying scumbag demagogue out for personal megalomania doesn't make one "anti-conservative".  Idiot."
> 
> 
> 1. Whittaker Chambers wrote in his book WITNESS that* liberals are/were incapable of ever effectively fighting Communism because they did not see anything in Communism that was antithetical to their own beliefs. *In short, Liberals are Communists and Communists are Liberals.
> 
> And, sure enough....a mentally incapacitated Liberal jumps right up to prove it.
> 
> Communists, Liberals...same thing. *You.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. *Only a Liberal *would claim that Senator McCarthy was more of a danger than the paid Soviet spies in the government....the ones who helped FDR send plans for the atomic bomb to Stalin, caused the Korean War, and....lost China to the homicidal maniac Mao.
> 
> Raise your paw.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.	The thrust is that it was McCarthyism, more than Soviet espionage or Communism infiltration of government, that was &#8211; in the words of the October 23, 1998, NYTimes editorial, &#8220;a lethal threat to American democracy.&#8221; This, in the same editorial that admitted that the evidence against Julius Rosenberg, and &#8220;most likely&#8221; Alger Hiss, was clear.
> 
> 
> 
> And this:
> 
> 4. As a result of the Venona Papers, and declassification of KGB files verifies pretty much all of McCarthy&#8217;s charges&#8230;.and no one was &#8216;ruined&#8217; by McCarthy revelations&#8230;.The greatest complaint against McCarthy was that he was unkind&#8230;.even mean&#8230;.to those in question.
> 
> 
> 
> Think of it....you might still be a virgin except for what nature did to your mind.
> 
> 
> Man, that was fun.
> 
> 
> Drop by when you need another lesson.
Click to expand...


In self-satisfied smirking snark swaddled n superficial spandex?  Hey, there's none better.

So much pig-ignorance, so little time... believe it or not there are more important threads than "John Lennon was a closet Republican who wrote the most disgusting song of all time and by the way Joe McCarthy" but I'll just repost this turd and let it stink on its own:



> Communists, Liberals...same thing. *You.*





Just pray I don't find the time to come back and kick your snarky spandex ass back to Krypton on this one like I did when I first got here.

Remember that?  Ah, those were the daze...


----------



## Luddly Neddite

PoliticalChic said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Democrats love this song that talks about no religion LOL We are talking about the party of slavery and the KKK after all. They know if there is a God they are not going to be looked down on favorably...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, he wrote "no religion".
> He did not write "no god".
> There IS a difference.
> 
> Second, it was the conservative party that started the KKK. At that time, that was the Democrats.
> 
> The Democrats are no longer the party of conservatives and I DARE YOU to find even one liberal who is the anti-American, racist, slime buckets that YOU rw's are on this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, he wrote "no religion".
> He did not write "no god".
> There IS a difference.
> 
> 
> No there isn't.
Click to expand...


Really?

So you believe that there are NO people on this planet who believe in a super being but do not subscribe to a particular religion. 

As always, you're more than welcome to your (idiotic and ignorant) opinion but you are not welcome to pretend its fact.

(Thanks Pogo, for knocking his/her/its dick in the dirt but don't expect him/her/it to admit that he/she/it doesn't have a friggin clue.)


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Seven pages wasted on a non-issue.

Typical of the rw's.


----------



## thanatos144

Luddly Neddite said:


> Seven pages wasted on a non-issue.
> 
> Typical of the rw's.



They make ointment for the butt hurt pc gave you 

tapatalk post


----------



## NoNukes

thanatos144 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine there no liberals....It's not hard to do (all you have to do is replace college professors with actual competent teaches)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There it is again - that stark raving terror rw's have of real education.
> 
> This is why China and India are leaving us in the dust.
> 
> Really, we need to take all power away from the right.
> 
> The backward right gets more government assistance than any other group and, of course, we will continue to subsidize them, but we cannot let the drag our country down into the gutter where they live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot it is a plea FOR education instead of the indoctrination factorys we have now
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


An intelligent plea for better teaches?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Pogo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "McCarthy opponents" ??
> 
> What do you do, practice being stupid in front of a mirror before posting here?
> 
> Being opposed to a lying scumbag demagogue out for personal megalomania doesn't make one "anti-conservative".  Idiot.
> 
> Take it, Senator...
> 
> >> The United States Senate has long enjoyed worldwide respect as the greatest deliberative body in the world.  But recently that deliberative character has too often been debased to the level of a forum of hate and character assassination sheltered by the shield of congressional immunity.
> 
> It is ironical that we Senators can in debate in the Senate directly or indirectly, by any form of words, impute to any American who is not a Senator any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming an American -- and without that non-Senator American having any legal redress against us -- yet if we say the same thing in the Senate about our colleagues we can be stopped on the grounds of being out of order.
> 
> It is strange that we can verbally attack anyone else without restraint and with full protection and yet we hold ourselves above the same type of criticism here on the Senate Floor.  Surely the United States Senate is big enough to take self-criticism and self-appraisal.  Surely we should be able to take the same kind of character attacks that we "dish out" to outsiders.
> ...
> 
> I think that it is high time that we remembered that we have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.  I think that it is high time that we remembered that the Constitution, as amended, speaks not only of the freedom of speech but also of trial by jury instead of trial by accusation.
> 
> Whether it be a criminal prosecution in court or a character prosecution in the Senate, there is little practical distinction when the life of a person has been ruined.
> 
> Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism:
> 
> The right to criticize;
> 
> The right to hold unpopular beliefs;
> 
> The right to protest;
> 
> The right of independent thought.
> 
> The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who holds unpopular beliefs.  Who of us doesnt?  Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own.  Otherwise thought control would have set in.
> 
> The American people are sick and tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically smeared as "Communists" or "Fascists" by their opponents.  Freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America.  It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others.
> 
> The American people are sick and tired of seeing innocent people smeared and guilty people whitewashed.  But there have been enough proved cases, such as the Amerasia case, the Hiss case, the Coplon case, the Gold case, to cause the nationwide distrust and strong suspicion that there may be something to the unproved, sensational accusations.
> 
> ... The nation sorely needs a Republican victory.  But I dont want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the Four Horsemen of Calumny -- Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear.
> 
> I doubt if the Republican Party could -- simply because I dont believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest.  Surely we Republicans arent that desperate for victory.
> 
> I dont want to see the Republican Party win that way. <<
> 
> -- Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME), June 1950
> 
> 
> I'll leave to other fallacy hunters who have more time the low-hanging fruit canards of what the fuck sexual allegations, specious quotes and a public hug have to do with political philosophies.  Some fruit just hangs too low.
> 
> Not to mention what the fuck any of this has to do with a topic on a British songwriter, which has apparently been abandoned...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, well....another moron who needs slapping down.
> 
> Coming right up.
> 
> "Being opposed to a lying scumbag demagogue out for personal megalomania doesn't make one "anti-conservative".  Idiot."
> 
> 
> 1. Whittaker Chambers wrote in his book WITNESS that* liberals are/were incapable of ever effectively fighting Communism because they did not see anything in Communism that was antithetical to their own beliefs. *In short, Liberals are Communists and Communists are Liberals.
> 
> And, sure enough....a mentally incapacitated Liberal jumps right up to prove it.
> 
> Communists, Liberals...same thing. *You.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. *Only a Liberal *would claim that Senator McCarthy was more of a danger than the paid Soviet spies in the government....the ones who helped FDR send plans for the atomic bomb to Stalin, caused the Korean War, and....lost China to the homicidal maniac Mao.
> 
> Raise your paw.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.	The thrust is that it was McCarthyism, more than Soviet espionage or Communism infiltration of government, that was  in the words of the October 23, 1998, NYTimes editorial, a lethal threat to American democracy. This, in the same editorial that admitted that the evidence against Julius Rosenberg, and most likely Alger Hiss, was clear.
> 
> 
> 
> And this:
> 
> 4. As a result of the Venona Papers, and declassification of KGB files verifies pretty much all of McCarthys charges.and no one was ruined by McCarthy revelations.The greatest complaint against McCarthy was that he was unkind.even mean.to those in question.
> 
> 
> 
> Think of it....you might still be a virgin except for what nature did to your mind.
> 
> 
> Man, that was fun.
> 
> 
> Drop by when you need another lesson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In self-satisfied smirking snark swaddled n superficial spandex?  Hey, there's none better.
> 
> So much pig-ignorance, so little time... believe it or not there are more important threads than "John Lennon was a closet Republican who wrote the most disgusting song of all time and by the way Joe McCarthy" but I'll just repost this turd and let it stink on its own:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Communists, Liberals...same thing. *You.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just pray I don't find the time to come back and kick your snarky spandex ass back to Krypton on this one like I did when I first got here.
> 
> Remember that?  Ah, those were the daze...
Click to expand...






So, you don't know who Whittaker Chambers was...nor why he is important to the conversation?

So, you didn't know that the FDR administration was riddled with paid Soviet spies?

So, you never read the Venona Papers?



Why, its so charming of you to attempt to join in the discussion, considering how little you know about the subject.
You know, Im tempted to give you the oh-so-Progressive E for Effort.

But that would, sadly, allow you to continue in that blue funk that in Progressive circles allows you to dispense with actual learning.
And I had such high hopes for you


Ive seen people like you beforebut then I had to pay admission.






I shredded you pretty well, huh?
Go home and lick your wounds.



Did I mention how much fun it was?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Luddly Neddite said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, he wrote "no religion".
> He did not write "no god".
> There IS a difference.
> 
> Second, it was the conservative party that started the KKK. At that time, that was the Democrats.
> 
> The Democrats are no longer the party of conservatives and I DARE YOU to find even one liberal who is the anti-American, racist, slime buckets that YOU rw's are on this board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, he wrote "no religion".
> He did not write "no god".
> There IS a difference.
> 
> 
> No there isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> So you believe that there are NO people on this planet who believe in a super being but do not subscribe to a particular religion.
> 
> As always, you're more than welcome to your (idiotic and ignorant) opinion but you are not welcome to pretend its fact.
> 
> (Thanks Pogo, for knocking his/her/its dick in the dirt but don't expect him/her/it to admit that he/she/it doesn't have a friggin clue.)
Click to expand...








Aren't you even competent to understand what you wrote??

Of course not....you're a liberal.


You wrote this:
First, he wrote "no religion".
He did not write "no god".
There IS a difference.


That means you are stating that Lennon- and Liberals- believe in a religion sans God.


Of course, that is exactly what 'personal morality' implies.
One can make it up as he goes along.

It means that any morality devolves to, simply, one's opinion.


I know that this is over your head, but I like doing it:

1. Can a human being be good without reference to God? Sure.there could be good pagans.or bad religious folks. But God is necessary for morality to survive. Take as an example, a sadist who gets satisfaction from murdering children. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is *simply my opinion versus that of the murderer. Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.*

2. 	If there's no God - making ourselves the source of ethics for everybody, or declaring that nobody can be the source of ethics for anybody, and therefore morality is, again, *purely subjective. *Abortion may be legal, and a womans right.but this doesnt it is ethically right. The Greeks believed in a version of same in which they placed deformed babies on the hillside. The reason I use the Greek example of ugly children is not because we do it today, but because they had reason on their side.* Reason supports a lot of things, as for example, a very liberal position on abortion. *If there is no God, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is *just a good idea.* That's why it is written, incidentally, in Leviticus, "Love your neighbor as yourself, I am God." I, God, tell you to be decent to other people.

The above based on the lectures of Dennis Prager.




So....what do we have?
You responded to only one of the three posts where I pounded you into the ground because you thought you might have a chance to same face with this one.

As you can see.....you failed.




Good to see you realized that I destroyed you in the other two.


----------



## G.T.

God is not necessary for morality. 

God is not even the proven source of morality - and neither is Religion.


----------



## Sunshine

PoliticalChic said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, he wrote "no religion".
> He did not write "no god".
> There IS a difference.
> 
> 
> No there isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> So you believe that there are NO people on this planet who believe in a super being but do not subscribe to a particular religion.
> 
> As always, you're more than welcome to your (idiotic and ignorant) opinion but you are not welcome to pretend its fact.
> 
> (Thanks Pogo, for knocking his/her/its dick in the dirt but don't expect him/her/it to admit that he/she/it doesn't have a friggin clue.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't you even competent to understand what you wrote??
> 
> Of course not....you're a liberal.
> 
> 
> You wrote this:
> First, he wrote "no religion".
> He did not write "no god".
> There IS a difference.
> 
> 
> That means you are stating that Lennon- and Liberals- believe in a religion sans God.
> 
> 
> Of course, that is exactly what 'personal morality' implies.
> One can make it up as he goes along.
> 
> It means that any morality devolves to, simply, one's opinion.
> 
> 
> I know that this is over your head, but I like doing it:
> 
> 1. Can a human being be good without reference to God? Sure&#8230;.there could be good pagans&#8230;.or bad religious folks. But God is necessary for morality to survive. Take as an example, a sadist who gets satisfaction from murdering children. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is *simply my opinion versus that of the murderer. Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.*
> 
> 2. 	If there's no God - making ourselves the source of ethics for everybody, or declaring that nobody can be the source of ethics for anybody, and therefore morality is, again, *purely subjective. *Abortion may be legal, and a woman&#8217;s right&#8230;.but this doesn&#8217;t it is ethically right. The Greeks believed in a version of same in which they placed deformed babies on the hillside. The reason I use the Greek example of ugly children is not because we do it today, but because they had reason on their side.* Reason supports a lot of things, as for example, a very liberal position on abortion. *If there is no God, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is *just a good idea.* That's why it is written, incidentally, in Leviticus, "Love your neighbor as yourself, I am God." I, God, tell you to be decent to other people.
> 
> The above based on the lectures of Dennis Prager.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So....what do we have?
> You responded to only one of the three posts where I pounded you into the ground because you thought you might have a chance to same face with this one.
> 
> As you can see.....you failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good to see you realized that I destroyed you in the other two.
Click to expand...


The non religious are oh so quick to throw scripture into the face of the believer with whom they disagree!  LOL.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Luddly Neddite said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine there no liberals....It's not hard to do (all you have to do is replace college professors with actual competent teaches)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There it is again - that stark raving terror rw's have of real education.
> 
> This is why China and India are leaving us in the dust.
> 
> Really, we need to take all power away from the right.
> 
> The backward right gets more government assistance than any other group and, of course, we will continue to subsidize them, but we cannot let the drag our country down into the gutter where they live.
Click to expand...


^ there it is again.  A typical left wing goober's mistaken belief that liberal propaganda "is" a "real" education.  It's not even just a "belief."  It's a doctrine of faith and cannot even be questioned by these lolberal goofballs.


----------



## PoliticalChic

G.T. said:


> God is not necessary for morality.
> 
> God is not even the proven source of morality - and neither is Religion.






And so saith the model for the stone heads on Easter Island.



I know you try, but the subject revolves around religion and reason.
As you are a reservoir of neither.....it might be best if you go back to the 24-hour Cartoon Channel.


----------



## G.T.

PoliticalChic said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is not necessary for morality.
> 
> God is not even the proven source of morality - and neither is Religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so saith the model for the stone heads on Easter Island.
> 
> 
> 
> I know you try, but the subject revolves around religion and reason.
> As you are a reservoir of neither.....it might be best if you go back to the 24-hour Cartoon Channel.
Click to expand...


^mirror mirror. 

There is not a single moral of any Religious bible that was not, and could not be arrived at solely through reason and without a God or Gods. 

You cannot name a single one, aside from those referring back to the way said God or Gods is/are treated or worshipped. 

Not one.


----------



## PoliticalChic

G.T. said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is not necessary for morality.
> 
> God is not even the proven source of morality - and neither is Religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so saith the model for the stone heads on Easter Island.
> 
> 
> 
> I know you try, but the subject revolves around religion and reason.
> As you are a reservoir of neither.....it might be best if you go back to the 24-hour Cartoon Channel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^mirror mirror.
> 
> There is not a single moral of any Religious bible that was not, and could not be arrived at solely through reason and without a God or Gods.
> 
> You cannot name a single one, aside from those referring back to the way said God or Gods is/are treated or worshipped.
> 
> Not one.
Click to expand...







I don't know why I allow myself to get tricked into offering you insights, since we both know that you are no more than a head of stone....totally incapable of learning....


But....here in a way you won't understand it, is the difference between religion and reason:


1. In 1984, *Holland legalized euthanasia,* the right of Dutch doctors to kill their elderly patients. 
Would said doctors rely on religion and morality....or reason, and efficiency?
Would they do so based on their whim? 

a.	The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which *doctors had acted without explicit consent. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests. * 
Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland


b.	*Euthanasia, as Dr. Peggy Norris observed with some asperity, "cannot be controlled."* 
If this is so, why is Harris so sure that stem-cell research can be controlled? And if it cannot be controlled, just what is irrational about religious objections to social policies that when they reach the bottom of the slippery slope are bound to embody something Dutch, degraded, and disgusting? How many scientific atheists, I wonder, propose to spend their old age in Holland? [Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion"]



2.	What makes men good? 
Certainly they are not good by nature. In fact, frequently, the contrary. Does science have an opinion? Well, "Perhaps," Richard Dawkins speculates, "I... am a Pollyanna to believe that people would remain good when unobserved and unpoliced by God." Why should people remain good when unobserved and unpoliced by God? - Yahoo! Answers 


Is that what we see in the good doctors of Holland?       



Now go back to your Legos and build something nice.


----------



## G.T.

You offered examples of people doing bad things who happen to not be Religious. 

You did not provide any moral scripted in a Religious text that cannot be arrived at by Man through reason alone, without God or Religion. 

Not one. Not a single one that cannot be arrived at through reason.


----------



## G.T.

It's a bit more scary to think that some sickos out there only have their religion as their barricade from believing in these awful and disgusting things such as euthanasia. wow


----------



## PoliticalChic

G.T. said:


> You offered examples of people doing bad things who happen to not be Religious.
> 
> You did not provide any moral scripted in a Religious text that cannot be arrived at by Man through reason alone, without God or Religion.
> 
> Not one. Not a single one that cannot be arrived at through reason.






Once again you have proven to be as resistant to learning as a vampire is to embracing a cross.


No surprises here.


----------



## Moonglow

Vampires do not exist.


----------



## G.T.

PoliticalChic said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You offered examples of people doing bad things who happen to not be Religious.
> 
> You did not provide any moral scripted in a Religious text that cannot be arrived at by Man through reason alone, without God or Religion.
> 
> Not one. Not a single one that cannot be arrived at through reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you have proven to be as resistant to learning as a vampire is to embracing a cross.
> 
> 
> No surprises here.
Click to expand...




You avoid the question because you cannot answer it. Your obscure references to immoral acts committed by the non-religious have naught to do with the question of where morals come from. They are anecdotal garbage, and they do not answer the question that you've ducked 3 times now.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> Vampires do not exist.





Wrong again, Drop-Draws!!!

I know for a fact about vampires!

My uncle was one!!!!



I know he was, because when I pounded a stake through his heart he died!!!


----------



## Mr Natural

Moonglow said:


> Vampires do not exist.



There are talking snakes so why not vampires?


----------



## PoliticalChic

G.T. said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You offered examples of people doing bad things who happen to not be Religious.
> 
> You did not provide any moral scripted in a Religious text that cannot be arrived at by Man through reason alone, without God or Religion.
> 
> Not one. Not a single one that cannot be arrived at through reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you have proven to be as resistant to learning as a vampire is to embracing a cross.
> 
> 
> No surprises here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You avoid the question because you cannot answer it. Your obscure references to immoral acts committed by the non-religious have naught to do with the question of where morals come from. They are anecdotal garbage, and they do not answer the question that you've ducked 3 times now.
Click to expand...





I get it: you're too stupid to understand the concepts involved.

OK.

Not everyone is equipped to participate.


You should go back to the task for which you are better prepared, using silly putty to lift the comic page. Im sure somebody will open the egg for you.


----------



## G.T.

concept: morality.

fact: you cannot name a moral that needed religion to exist.


----------



## PoliticalChic

G.T. said:


> concept: morality.
> 
> fact: you cannot name a moral that needed religion to exist.






It's OK....you can stop trying to keep up with the adults.....


----------



## G.T.

says the most petulant sno0t on the board

hear ye, hear ye


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

G.T. said:


> You offered examples of people doing bad things who happen to not be Religious.
> 
> You did not provide any moral scripted in a Religious text that cannot be arrived at by Man through reason alone, without God or Religion.
> 
> Not one. Not a single one that cannot be arrived at through reason.



Correct.

Religion has no monopoly on morality, far from it in fact.


----------



## PoliticalChic

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You offered examples of people doing bad things who happen to not be Religious.
> 
> You did not provide any moral scripted in a Religious text that cannot be arrived at by Man through reason alone, without God or Religion.
> 
> Not one. Not a single one that cannot be arrived at through reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> Religion has no monopoly on morality, far from it in fact.
Click to expand...





The only example of "far from" is you, and education.


----------



## G.T.

"blah blah blah other people's quotes blah blah im smawwt youre dumb" is the sum total of your boring smug existence.


----------



## PoliticalChic

G.T. said:


> "blah blah blah other people's quotes blah blah im smawwt youre dumb" is the sum total of your boring smug existence.




Now stop striving for my attention.....time for your nap.


----------



## G.T.

Your character depth is the no diving area.


----------



## PoliticalChic

G.T. said:


> Your character depth is the no diving area.





I don't believe that one of your mental age can be accused of stalking.....

...but, still......


----------



## KevinWestern

PoliticalChic said:


> So.....perhaps there is hope?
> 
> Maybe?



Lol, sort of a major buzzkill PoliticalChic. 

Political divide, disputes between countries, wars of religion, etc are examples of some of the day to day stresses that consume people and prevent them from doing things they'd "like" to do. I agree with you in that *this is *reality and the best we got at the moment, however the song simply asks us to take a moment out of our day and imagine if we didn't have to worry about all those things. Like most art, it asks the listeners to relax and drift away for about 3 minutes. 

Think you need to chill out.


----------



## G.T.

PoliticalChic said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your character depth is the no diving area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that one of your mental age can be accused of stalking.....
> 
> ...but, still......
Click to expand...


<Generic shill response inserted above.>


----------



## PoliticalChic

KevinWestern said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So.....perhaps there is hope?
> 
> Maybe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, sort of a major buzzkill PoliticalChic.
> 
> Political divide, disputes between countries, wars of religion, etc are examples of some of the day to day stresses that consume people and prevent them from doing things they'd "like" to do. I agree with you in that *this is *reality and the best we got at the moment, however the song simply asks us to take a moment out of our day and imagine if we didn't have to worry about all those things. Like most art, it asks the listeners to relax and drift away for about 3 minutes.
> 
> Think you need to chill out.
Click to expand...




" however the song simply asks us to take a moment out of our day and imagine if we didn't have to worry about all those things."


No it doesn't.


Don't, be afraid to look closely at the meaning.
Perhaps you need to concentrate harder.


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So.....perhaps there is hope?
> 
> Maybe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, sort of a major buzzkill PoliticalChic.
> 
> Political divide, disputes between countries, wars of religion, etc are examples of some of the day to day stresses that consume people and prevent them from doing things they'd "like" to do. I agree with you in that *this is *reality and the best we got at the moment, however the song simply asks us to take a moment out of our day and imagine if we didn't have to worry about all those things. Like most art, it asks the listeners to relax and drift away for about 3 minutes.
> 
> Think you need to chill out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " however the song simply asks us to take a moment out of our day and imagine if we didn't have to worry about all those things."
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.
> 
> 
> Don't, be afraid to look closely at the meaning.
> Perhaps you need to concentrate harder.
Click to expand...


Your argument boils down to you being the one who will tell everyone else what an author is feeling or saying. Your interpretation is the only one that is right. People are not capable of evaluating works of art, poetry and witten works without your quidence and extreme wisdom. You are more intelligent than everyone else, even the creators of the art, poetry or written works. Oddly, you profess to be in favor of freedom. That doesn't seem to include freedom of thought.


----------



## KevinWestern

PoliticalChic said:


> " however the song simply asks us to take a moment out of our day and imagine if we didn't have to worry about all those things."
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.
> 
> 
> Don't, be afraid to look closely at the meaning.
> Perhaps you need to concentrate harder.



Hey, all I did was tell you what the song means to me, and quite frankly you have zero authority to tell me I'm incorrect. A song is a song; it means something different to every person. I suppose then you're entitled to your opinion on it too. But to say absolutely you're correct is not right..

..that is unless you're John Lennon's beyond the grave ambassador, communicating to all of us less fortunate folks all of his real time thoughts on songs he wrote..


----------



## irosie91

Chic------I am responding to your  OP-----I am into this thread very late. 

My comment-----I had my doubts about this song  very early on....
like decades ago.     It seems to me to be a commerical for every 
IDIOTIC     totalitarian utopian ideology-------like the ones that 
inevitably lead to bloody genocide.     The UTOPIAN STATE  is the promise 
of  NAZISM,   COMMUNISM,   ISLAMICISM   and a whole bunch of 
other  dangerous    UNIVERSAL ISMS -------imagine---no countries----
imagine ---everyone wanting, doing and believing the same thing 

                           OR ELSE!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Beaconoftruth

Left Wing and Right Wing aside... Rap music and many newer incarnations of 'country pop' need to be outlawed in the name of good taste.


----------



## Gracie

I love that song.


----------



## KevinWestern

irosie91 said:


> Chic------I am responding to your  OP-----I am into this thread very late.
> 
> My comment-----I had my doubts about this song  very early on....
> like decades ago.     It seems to me to be a commerical for every
> IDIOTIC     totalitarian utopian ideology-------like the ones that
> inevitably lead to bloody genocide.     The UTOPIAN STATE  is the promise
> of  NAZISM,   COMMUNISM,   ISLAMICISM   and a whole bunch of
> other  dangerous    UNIVERSAL ISMS -------imagine---no countries----
> imagine ---everyone wanting, doing and believing the same thing
> 
> OR ELSE!!!!!!!!!



Lol. See I always took the song in a more positive light. There are a lot of "universalisms" between humans such as we all want to be happy, we all want the best for our kids, nobody really wants war, etc, and felt like that song just sort of highlighted those things and said "hey, at the end of the day we're all remarkably similar". 

But like I said you're free to have your opinion, but probably need to lighten up a bit..


----------



## L.K.Eder

almost 20 pages and NO REBUTTAL?

clearly that means that polly wins AGAIN!

in your face(s), john lennon! and libruls!


----------



## KevinWestern

Beaconoftruth said:


> Left Wing and Right Wing aside... Rap music and many newer incarnations of 'country pop' need to be outlawed in the name of good taste.



Some rap, certainly not all of it.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Beaconoftruth said:


> Left Wing and Right Wing aside... Rap music and many newer incarnations of 'country pop' need to be outlawed in the name of good taste.





[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGd0p85qW9U]Verdi: Nabucco (Pons, Guleghina, Ramey, Jones)(2002) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

What&#8217;s disgusting is the right&#8217;s opposition to forms of free expression it perceives in conflict with conservative dogma, and to seek to demonize those expressing a dissenting viewpoint, as conservatives indeed fear diversity and dissent &#8211; the OP is proof of that.


----------



## PoliticalChic

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Whats disgusting is the rights opposition to forms of free expression it perceives in conflict with conservative dogma, and to seek to demonize those expressing a dissenting viewpoint, as conservatives indeed fear diversity and dissent  the OP is proof of that.







"Whats disgusting is the rights opposition to forms of free expression it perceives in conflict with conservative dogma,...."


I realize that* you are a dope, *but, believe me, it isn't necessary for you to put this much effort into proving it.


1. Where did you find any "opposition to forms of free expression" in the OP....or, in fact,from any in this thread?
If you cannot point to same, well, that *marks you pretty much as an imbeciile *(you're not smart enough to be a liar).

Should I wait?
Of course not, as the point is a total absurdity.





As it is already stipulated that *you are a dolt,* it is hardly necessary to provide *evidence of propaganda being used by the Left *to influence the masses.
But....here goes:

2. Arnold Hauser, "The Social History of Art"
a.	When the work appeared in English in the 1950s, it stirred up great controversy because of its *ideological orientation. It was not until the 1960s and 1970s that a Marxist approach *was accepted as a natural or fashionable part of academic research in Western Europe. 
Arnold Hauser

b.	From Hauser, a critical theory perspective: It depicts people and relationships in situations which arise once and only once and addresses itself to individuals who judge the depictions from a specific historical standpoint and a particular social position." (p. 77)

*"Imagine" is exactly that type of work.*




3. Although a dolt like C_Chamber_Pot fails to see the import of art in political discourse, *Barack Obama* certainly does.
He *co-opted the National Endowment for the Arts for political purpose early on.*


a.	At first glance,* the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) conference call of August 10th, 2009 *sounds innocent enough because its supposedly been organized by Michael Skolnik, political director for Russell Simmons and someone not officially associated with any government agency. Skolnik appears to be acting independently as a concerned citizen and to have taken it upon himself to gather together a group of artists and art organizations hoping to move them towards national service.

b.	* the conference call was a ruse, a front for a White House using Skolnik as a kind of beard in order to put an innocent spin on their abuse of the NEA *and two non-partisan volunteer organizations (United We Serve  an initiative overseen by The Corporation for National and Community Service  a federal agency, and the White House Office of Public Engagement).

c. Skolnik states openly that the White House and NEA asked him to round everyone up 
I have been asked by folks in the White House and folks in the NEA about a month ago in a conversation that was had.  *We had the idea that I would help bring together the independent artists community *around the country.  Breitbart News: Big Hollywood




And so, once again, *C_Chamber_Pot serves as an example of the result of indoctrination over education.*


----------



## L.K.Eder

sorry, you folks will have to accept that "The Star-Spangled Banner" will be replaced by "Imagine". anthem reform is on the list after patent law reform, health care reform, and immigration reform.


----------



## irosie91

KevinWestern said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chic------I am responding to your  OP-----I am into this thread very late.
> 
> My comment-----I had my doubts about this song  very early on....
> like decades ago.     It seems to me to be a commerical for every
> IDIOTIC     totalitarian utopian ideology-------like the ones that
> inevitably lead to bloody genocide.     The UTOPIAN STATE  is the promise
> of  NAZISM,   COMMUNISM,   ISLAMICISM   and a whole bunch of
> other  dangerous    UNIVERSAL ISMS -------imagine---no countries----
> imagine ---everyone wanting, doing and believing the same thing
> 
> OR ELSE!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. See I always took the song in a more positive light. There are a lot of "universalisms" between humans such as we all want to be happy, we all want the best for our kids, nobody really wants war, etc, and felt like that song just sort of highlighted those things and
> 
> said "hey, at the end of the day we're all remarkably similar".
> 
> But like I said you're free to have your opinion, but probably need to lighten up a bit..
Click to expand...



yes yes----ALL THE THINGS WE ALL WANT........all true------but all the things 
we all want ---is the very thing potentially dangerous people  EXPLOIT-----
the song is not the problem---------its the people who exploit that which  
ALL PEOPLE WANT  and can convince them --------to be the followers of 
the  PERSON WHO CLAIMS HE CAN PROVIDE IT.    John Lennon was not 
that person------he just sang a pretty song.


----------



## Noomi

One of the all time greatest songs. Love the lyrics and I agree with them, too.


----------



## Pogo

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, sort of a major buzzkill PoliticalChic.
> 
> Political divide, disputes between countries, wars of religion, etc are examples of some of the day to day stresses that consume people and prevent them from doing things they'd "like" to do. I agree with you in that *this is *reality and the best we got at the moment, however the song simply asks us to take a moment out of our day and imagine if we didn't have to worry about all those things. Like most art, it asks the listeners to relax and drift away for about 3 minutes.
> 
> Think you need to chill out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " however the song simply asks us to take a moment out of our day and imagine if we didn't have to worry about all those things."
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.
> 
> 
> Don't, be afraid to look closely at the meaning.
> Perhaps you need to concentrate harder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your argument boils down to you being the one who will tell everyone else what an author is feeling or saying. Your interpretation is the only one that is right. People are not capable of evaluating works of art, poetry and witten works without your quidence and extreme wisdom. You are more intelligent than everyone else, even the creators of the art, poetry or written works. Oddly, you profess to be in favor of freedom. That doesn't seem to include freedom of thought.
Click to expand...


 exactly.  It's her entire perpetual M.O.  Narcissism complex.

IOU rep for this one, Camp.  Board says I've given out "too much"


----------



## Tuatara

Anyone who has an Ann Coulter quote in their sig should be the last to call anyone a dope.


----------



## thanatos144

Tuatara said:


> Anyone who has an Ann Coulter quote in their sig should be the last to call anyone a dope.



Why do you liberas hate smart women so much ?

tapatalk post


----------



## Tuatara

thanatos144 said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who has an Ann Coulter quote in their sig should be the last to call anyone a dope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you liberas hate smart women so much ?
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...

Ann Coulter is not smart. I feel sorry for you as your perception has been blinded by political idealogy. Next you will be telling me Palin is a genius.


----------



## G.T.

Ann Coulter is just a pot stirrer. She's a tool for the useful idiots and their confirmation bias, gets them nice and fired up and gets paid handsomely for doing so. Being divisive FOR A LIVING is going leave a great karma debt on the heads of those who make a living by being evil & spiteful.


----------



## thanatos144

Tuatara said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who has an Ann Coulter quote in their sig should be the last to call anyone a dope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you liberas hate smart women so much ?
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ann Coulter is not smart. I feel sorry for you as your perception has been blinded by political idealogy. Next you will be telling me Palin is a genius.
Click to expand...


Only to a misogynist liberal would you consider a strong woman who speaks her mind stupid. 

tapatalk post


----------



## editec

Not Hippies..."Imagine" ought to be the anthem of the LIBERTARIAN MOVEMENT.

No religion, no government, no wars?

Sounds like the Utopia LIBERTARIANS talk about all the time.


----------



## thanatos144

editec said:


> Not Hippies..."Imagine" ought to be the anthem of the LIBERTARIAN MOVEMENT.
> 
> No religion, no government, no wars?
> 
> Sounds like the Utopia LIBERTARIANS talk about all the time.



That is what happens since  most of them are young and came out of liberal  indoctrinating schools 

tapatalk post


----------



## PoliticalChic

G.T. said:


> Ann Coulter is just a pot stirrer. She's a tool for the useful idiots and their confirmation bias, gets them nice and fired up and gets paid handsomely for doing so. Being divisive FOR A LIVING is going leave a great karma debt on the heads of those who make a living by being evil & spiteful.





OK, expert....let's see how simple it is to prove you are simple....

I believe Coulter has had 10 best sellers.

How many have you read?




More to the point....have you ever read a book?  Any book?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Tuatara said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who has an Ann Coulter quote in their sig should be the last to call anyone a dope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you liberas hate smart women so much ?
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ann Coulter is not smart. I feel sorry for you as your perception has been blinded by political idealogy. Next you will be telling me Palin is a genius.
Click to expand...






Words cannot limn the degree of how wrong you are.


----------



## G.T.

PoliticalChic said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ann Coulter is just a pot stirrer. She's a tool for the useful idiots and their confirmation bias, gets them nice and fired up and gets paid handsomely for doing so. Being divisive FOR A LIVING is going leave a great karma debt on the heads of those who make a living by being evil & spiteful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, expert....let's see how simple it is to prove you are simple....
> 
> I believe Coulter has had 10 best sellers.
> 
> How many have you read?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More to the point....have you ever read a book?  Any book?
Click to expand...


Ahh, so you're pointing to books she had written as proof of her intelligence. Well, then - I can't wait to hear how smart you think someone like Snookie is when her tell-all autobiography hits the best sellers list. 

Let alone non disclosure agreements regarding ghost-writers. 

Puhleeze. All we have to do is listen to her distorted (read: insane) faux world view. 

I say faux because word around her "circle" is that she's sensationalizing and being ridiculous on purpose because it's eaten right up. See: YOU, for example.


----------



## PoliticalChic

G.T. said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ann Coulter is just a pot stirrer. She's a tool for the useful idiots and their confirmation bias, gets them nice and fired up and gets paid handsomely for doing so. Being divisive FOR A LIVING is going leave a great karma debt on the heads of those who make a living by being evil & spiteful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, expert....let's see how simple it is to prove you are simple....
> 
> I believe Coulter has had 10 best sellers.
> 
> How many have you read?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More to the point....have you ever read a book?  Any book?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh, so you're pointing to books she had written as proof of her intelligence. Well, then - I can't wait to hear how smart you think someone like Snookie is when her tell-all autobiography hits the best sellers list.
> 
> Let alone non disclosure agreements regarding ghost-writers.
> 
> Puhleeze. All we have to do is listen to her distorted (read: insane) faux world view.
> 
> I say faux because word around her "circle" is that she's sensationalizing and being ridiculous on purpose because it's eaten right up. See: YOU, for example.
Click to expand...




No, you moron.

I'm demonstrating what a lying sack of offal you are in pretending that you know anything about Coulter.


I believe I've read all of her books, and....while this is beyond your ken....they are documented in a scholarly fashion.



Please....stop pretending that you know ANYTHING about ANYTHING.


And....for good measure, 
You're as handsome as the day you left Goldblum's flychamber.


----------



## G.T.

You should take your own advice, pretty much all of your OP's are created around a circumstance where you've read something that you did not comprehend. You're not as smart as you pretend to be, and you should find yourself instead of spending each and everyday constructing OP's in order to attempt to decimate what you view as opponents. Your thinking is small. 

As far as my looks? WTF? 

I am definitely handsome, but I'm not sure how you'd know and #2 - you HAVE your pic in your profile and are beat as fuck, to be commenting on looks? smfh, go get 'um, killer.


----------



## PoliticalChic

G.T. said:


> You should take your own advice, pretty much all of your OP's are created around a circumstance where you've read something that you did not comprehend. You're not as smart as you pretend to be, and you should find yourself instead of spending each and everyday constructing OP's in order to attempt to decimate what you view as opponents. Your thinking is small.
> 
> As far as my looks? WTF?
> 
> I am definitely handsome, but I'm not sure how you'd know and #2 - you HAVE your pic in your profile and are beat as fuck, to be commenting on looks? smfh, go get 'um, killer.






There you have it!


Stupid post from 'StupidFolk.com'


----------



## G.T.

You're about as funny and insulting as the guy who wrote Brown Wallpaper. 

I think his name was.... Whu-Flung-Poo


----------



## PoliticalChic

kiwiman127 said:


> This is very ironic in a sense.  Do those who hate "Imagine" also hate all the Christian hymns that are about peace, hope and the Utopian heaven?



And....another Liberal:

"Washington DC talk show host Chris Plante reported today that Barack Obama omitted the words "under God" from the Gettysburg Address when reciting the great speech for a Ken Burns documentary."
Obama Removes 'God' from Gettysburg Address



Bet he loved the song, too.


----------



## Casjah

Ultimately, the song's content is fiction. Humanity naturally divides itself. Has since its inception. And at heart, we are tribal which explains why organizations quickly become top heavy and implode when they expand past 200 people. According to the theory of "Dunbar's number," the human cerebral cortex cannot include more than 200 people into its family group. In other words, we cannot care for more than 200 people at a time. (Also known as the monkey's sphere) Which means that a global society is not possible. We can't even manage city-states, countries, or even just cities for that matter. 

Dunbar's number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Musically, the song is great. And Lennon's later political association is largely unknown.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Casjah said:


> Ultimately, the song's content is fiction. Humanity naturally divides itself. Has since its inception. And at heart, we are tribal which explains why organizations quickly become top heavy and implode when they expand past 200 people. According to the theory of "Dunbar's number," the human cerebral cortex cannot include more than 200 people into its family group. In other words, we cannot care for more than 200 people at a time. (Also known as the monkey's sphere) Which means that a global society is not possible. We can't even manage city-states, countries, or even just cities for that matter.
> 
> Dunbar's number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Musically, the song is great. And Lennon's later political association is largely unknown.





"Ultimately, the song's content is fiction."

I don't believe you'd deny that fiction is capable of moving the masses of folks,....would you?


1934: A New Deal for Artists, offers a panorama of the United States through the vision of artists in the Public Works of Art Project (PWAP), the first nationwide foray into public art....Programs such as PWAP, which began the series of programs that culminated most prominently with the Federal Art Project (1935-43) commissioned murals for schools, post offices, libraries and community centers, and put sculpture in national parks."

What?s the Deal about New Deal Art? | Arts & Culture | Smithsonian Magazine


----------



## KevinWestern

Political Chic, essentially what you're doing is taking a song with words designed to evoke certain emotions and images (like a poem) and analyze it as if it were a Gov't written handbook guide on some lifeless topic like taxes. You need to lighten up.

It's a freaking theoretical poem that breaks down the idea that we're constantly considering ourselves as "divided" and what life would be like if that weren't the case. It ponders the major "divisions" humans fight and kill over - food, resources, religions, and territory (national sovereignty) - and says what would happen if those divisions didn't exist? If the Pakistani man and the Indian man considered themselves humans sharing 1 planet vs 2 separate countries fighting for territory, perhaps would the general hatred subside (if they considered themselves "one in the same")? 

*This song is very much a representation (in my opinion) of many core Buddhist beliefs that we are essentially all "one" and that the duality is nothing more than an illusion. *

I have no freaking idea what you are so upset about here... 

Jeez Louise.....


----------



## IlarMeilyr

KevinWestern said:


> Political Chic, essentially what you're doing is taking a song with words designed to evoke certain emotions and images (like a poem) and analyze it as if it were a Gov't written handbook guide on some lifeless topic like taxes. You need to lighten up.
> 
> It's a freaking poem. It ponders the major things humans fight and kill over - food, resources, religions, and territory (national sovereignty) - and says what would happen if those divisions didn't exist? If the Pakistani man and the Indian man considered themselves humans sharing 1 planet vs 2 separate countries fighting for territory, perhaps would the general hatred subside (if they considered themselves "one in the same")?
> 
> *This song is very much a representation (in my opinion) of many core Buddhist beliefs that we are essentially all "one" and that the duality is nothing more than an illusion. *
> 
> I have no freaking idea what you are so upset about here. Do you dislike Buddhists as well, lol, or anyone who has ever murmured the words "we are all one"?
> 
> Jeez Louise.....



Wrong.  YOU, on the other hand, are busy denying reality.

The reality is that PoliticalChic has identified that the song is a liberal "anthem."

And her critique is therefore perfectly reasonable political analysis of what the "song/poem" means.


----------



## KevinWestern

IlarMeilyr said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Political Chic, essentially what you're doing is taking a song with words designed to evoke certain emotions and images (like a poem) and analyze it as if it were a Gov't written handbook guide on some lifeless topic like taxes. You need to lighten up.
> 
> It's a freaking poem. It ponders the major things humans fight and kill over - food, resources, religions, and territory (national sovereignty) - and says what would happen if those divisions didn't exist? If the Pakistani man and the Indian man considered themselves humans sharing 1 planet vs 2 separate countries fighting for territory, perhaps would the general hatred subside (if they considered themselves "one in the same")?
> 
> *This song is very much a representation (in my opinion) of many core Buddhist beliefs that we are essentially all "one" and that the duality is nothing more than an illusion. *
> 
> I have no freaking idea what you are so upset about here. Do you dislike Buddhists as well, lol, or anyone who has ever murmured the words "we are all one"?
> 
> Jeez Louise.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  YOU, on the other hand, are busy denying reality.
> 
> The reality is that PoliticalChic has identified that the song is a liberal "anthem."
> 
> And her critique is therefore perfectly reasonable political analysis of what the "song/poem" means.
Click to expand...


Busy denying what? That this song is nothing more than an endorsement/retelling of Buddhist beliefs that have been around for multiple thousands of years?

Is Buddhism _*equally *_disgusting to PoliticalChic? 

.


----------



## thanatos144

KevinWestern said:


> Political Chic, essentially what you're doing is taking a song with words designed to evoke certain emotions and images (like a poem) and analyze it as if it were a Gov't written handbook guide on some lifeless topic like taxes. You need to lighten up.
> 
> It's a freaking theoretical poem that breaks down the idea that we're constantly considering ourselves as "divided" and what life would be like if that weren't the case. It ponders the major "divisions" humans fight and kill over - food, resources, religions, and territory (national sovereignty) - and says what would happen if those divisions didn't exist? If the Pakistani man and the Indian man considered themselves humans sharing 1 planet vs 2 separate countries fighting for territory, perhaps would the general hatred subside (if they considered themselves "one in the same")?
> 
> *This song is very much a representation (in my opinion) of many core Buddhist beliefs that we are essentially all "one" and that the duality is nothing more than an illusion. *
> 
> I have no freaking idea what you are so upset about here...
> 
> Jeez Louise.....



Because it feeds fools like you utopian bullshit 

tapatalk post


----------



## KevinWestern

thanatos144 said:


> Because it feeds fools like you utopian bullshit
> 
> tapatalk post



LOL, what the hell are you talking about,    [MENTION=18909]thanatos144[/MENTION]? 

Are you saying that "we shant have poems, songs, or movies about utopias to incite wonder"? Are you against ALL art that idealizes an imagined utopia or do you inconsistently just direct your anger towards pieces written/performed by left leaning artists? 

Or, are you saying that you disagree that "oneness" and the breaking down the illusion of dualism is not a Buddhist concept?


----------



## thanatos144

KevinWestern said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it feeds fools like you utopian bullshit
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, what the hell are you talking about,    [MENTION=18909]thanatos144[/MENTION]?
> 
> Are you saying that "we shant have poems, songs, or movies about utopias to incite wonder"? Are you against ALL art that idealizes an imagined utopia or do you inconsistently just direct your anger towards pieces written/performed by left leaning artists?
> 
> Or, are you saying that you disagree that "oneness" and the breaking down the illusion of dualism is not a Buddhist concept?
Click to expand...


I believe that fools are sadly led 

tapatalk post


----------



## KevinWestern

thanatos144 said:


> I believe that fools are sadly led
> 
> tapatalk post



Yea, but I'm asking you whether or not you're against all art that imagines some sort of a utopia because it's "misleading"...

I'm not understanding your argument.


----------



## thanatos144

KevinWestern said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that fools are sadly led
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, but I'm asking you whether or not you're against all art that imagines some sort of a utopia because it's "misleading"...
> 
> I'm not understanding your argument.
Click to expand...


What you are inferring is that I am cor censorship because I have verbally said the song is garbage. 

tapatalk post


----------



## KevinWestern

thanatos144 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that fools are sadly led
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, but I'm asking you whether or not you're against all art that imagines some sort of a utopia because it's "misleading"...
> 
> I'm not understanding your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are inferring is that I am cor censorship because I have verbally said the song is garbage.
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


If it sounded like I was inferring that, I want to clarify it was not my intention. I'm talking strictly opinions here...

I was asking that since you dislike the song "Imagine" for the _specific reason _that it encourages the listener to dream about a utopian society without war, hunger, etc, are you also against all other forms of art that encourage the same sort of feelings? 

Just wonder if the belief is consistent, or only directed towards certain artists with certain political affiliations.


----------



## Dante

PoliticalChic said:


> Relax....this is about politics.
> 
> 1. Here the song at issue:
> 
> "Imagine there's no countries
> It isn't hard to do
> Nothing to kill or die for
> And no religion too"
> "Imagine," by John Lennon
> 
> Yup....*the universal anthem of Liberalism:* "Imagine," by John Lennon.
> 
> 2. *No countries...the end of sovereignty....*.only United Nations global government.
> Unelected elites making the rules for all of us.* Imagine.*
> 
> a. *Global governance*, the idea of all humankind united under one common political authority, has not existed so far in human history. This is not to say that it hasnt been debated, called for, fought forand as recently as the 20th century, enforced on large swaths of the planet.called *communism..*.. data is available documenting the deleterious effects: responsible for *over 100 million slaughtered*. How to explain its endorsement by the Western elites? Simple: it is *a religious belief called, among other things, Liberalism.*
> "Sovereignty or Submission: Will Americans Rule Themselves or be Ruled by Others?" by John Fonte
> 
> 3. *Imagaine....if there were no counties, it stands to reason, "Nothing to kill or die for."*
> I'm guessing that we could find a few things that people kill or die for in both the history of mankind and the penal code.  Any disagree?
> 
> 4. And, possibly the most invidious lie told, and believed by Liberals..*."more have died because of religion...." Got that covered: " And no religion too"  Imagine.*
> a. First World War (191418): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 million
> Russian Civil War (191722): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 million
> Soviet Union, Stalins regime (192453): . . . . . . . . . 20 million
> Second World War (193745): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 million
> Chinese Civil War (194549): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 million
> Peoples Republic of China, Mao Zedongs
> regime (194975): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 million
> Korean War (195053): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 million
> North Korea (1948 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 million
> Rwanda and Burundi (195995): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.35 million
> What was the religious basis for those?* The only religion I see in there is the religion of Leftism.*
> 
> 5. And, of course, the attraction of Liberalism for many is no recriminations, *no judgments *about anyone....after all, each person is entitled to his or her *personal morality...true? Got that covered, too:
> "Imagine there's no heaven
> It's easy if you try
> No hell below us*
> Above us only sky"
> 
> 6. And, if there is no societal morality, then " Imagine all the people
> *Living for today..."*  Yup...'do your own thing.'
> 
> 
> 7. But there is some *good news..*...
> 
> " Often as people mature they out-grow their *naïve embrace of leftist ideology *and begin to see things in their true light,...*' John Lennon was a closet Republican, who felt a little embarrassed by his former radicalism, *at the time of his death - according to the tragic Beatles star's last personal assistant.'
> 
> He says, "John, basically, made it very clear that if he were an American he would vote for *Reagan *because he was really sour on (Democrat) Jimmy Carter. By 1979 he looked back on that guy and was *embarrassed by that guy's naiveté."(He wrote 'Imagine' in 1970).*
> 
> This new revelation about the late rock & roll legend should give us all pause to *reflect upon the hollow nature of liberalism. * For those of us who have misguided friends, family and associates who continue to cling to *the factually devoid ideology of the left, *be patient yet unrelenting in exposing these lost souls to the truth and Imagine them discovering the world of reality."
> Blog: Imagine John Lennon as a Republican
> 
> 
> 
> So.....perhaps there is hope?
> 
> Maybe?




Good gawd, how the hell do you make it through life when you can completely miss the mark on what a song like this is all about?

Oh, maybe you take the Bible as a literal ...  never mind...


----------



## thanatos144

Dante said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Relax....this is about politics.
> 
> 1. Here the song at issue:
> 
> "Imagine there's no countries
> It isn't hard to do
> Nothing to kill or die for
> And no religion too"
> "Imagine," by John Lennon
> 
> Yup....*the universal anthem of Liberalism:* "Imagine," by John Lennon.
> 
> 2. *No countries...the end of sovereignty....*.only United Nations global government.
> Unelected elites making the rules for all of us.* Imagine.*
> 
> a. *Global governance*, the idea of all humankind united under one common political authority, has not existed so far in human history. This is not to say that it hasnt been debated, called for, fought forand as recently as the 20th century, enforced on large swaths of the planet.called *communism..*.. data is available documenting the deleterious effects: responsible for *over 100 million slaughtered*. How to explain its endorsement by the Western elites? Simple: it is *a religious belief called, among other things, Liberalism.*
> "Sovereignty or Submission: Will Americans Rule Themselves or be Ruled by Others?" by John Fonte
> 
> 3. *Imagaine....if there were no counties, it stands to reason, "Nothing to kill or die for."*
> I'm guessing that we could find a few things that people kill or die for in both the history of mankind and the penal code.  Any disagree?
> 
> 4. And, possibly the most invidious lie told, and believed by Liberals..*."more have died because of religion...." Got that covered: " And no religion too"  Imagine.*
> a. First World War (191418): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 million
> Russian Civil War (191722): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 million
> Soviet Union, Stalins regime (192453): . . . . . . . . . 20 million
> Second World War (193745): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 million
> Chinese Civil War (194549): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 million
> Peoples Republic of China, Mao Zedongs
> regime (194975): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 million
> Korean War (195053): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 million
> North Korea (1948 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 million
> Rwanda and Burundi (195995): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.35 million
> What was the religious basis for those?* The only religion I see in there is the religion of Leftism.*
> 
> 5. And, of course, the attraction of Liberalism for many is no recriminations, *no judgments *about anyone....after all, each person is entitled to his or her *personal morality...true? Got that covered, too:
> "Imagine there's no heaven
> It's easy if you try
> No hell below us*
> Above us only sky"
> 
> 6. And, if there is no societal morality, then " Imagine all the people
> *Living for today..."*  Yup...'do your own thing.'
> 
> 
> 7. But there is some *good news..*...
> 
> " Often as people mature they out-grow their *naïve embrace of leftist ideology *and begin to see things in their true light,...*' John Lennon was a closet Republican, who felt a little embarrassed by his former radicalism, *at the time of his death - according to the tragic Beatles star's last personal assistant.'
> 
> He says, "John, basically, made it very clear that if he were an American he would vote for *Reagan *because he was really sour on (Democrat) Jimmy Carter. By 1979 he looked back on that guy and was *embarrassed by that guy's naiveté."(He wrote 'Imagine' in 1970).*
> 
> This new revelation about the late rock & roll legend should give us all pause to *reflect upon the hollow nature of liberalism. * For those of us who have misguided friends, family and associates who continue to cling to *the factually devoid ideology of the left, *be patient yet unrelenting in exposing these lost souls to the truth and Imagine them discovering the world of reality."
> Blog: Imagine John Lennon as a Republican
> 
> 
> 
> So.....perhaps there is hope?
> 
> Maybe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good gawd, how the hell do you make it through life when you can completely miss the mark on what a song like this is all about?
> 
> Oh, maybe you take the Bible as a literal ...  never mind...
Click to expand...


She is dead on about what this song is about

tapatalk post


----------



## Impenitent

Everybody's talking about reverse racism, anti capitalism, cronyism, socialism, fascism , corporatism, elitism, this-ism, that-ism,
ism, ism, ism

All we are saying, is give Chris a chance
All we are saying, is give Chris a chance

Everybody's talking about perverse associations, Larry Sinclair, Derrick Bell, Saul Alinksy, Jeremiah Wright, Bernadette and Bill Ayers, 
fast and furious, bi-curious,
And smoking pot,
Pot pot pot

All we are saying, is give Chris a chance
All we are saying, is give Chris a chance

Everybody's talking about dwindling commerce, unemployment, job creators, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Eric Kanter, what a snob, where are the jobs,
Jobs jobs jobs

All we are saying, is give Chris a chance
All we are saying, is give Chris a chance


Everybody's talking about obverse certificates, long form, native born, Donald Trump, polling bumps,
Damn his mother, he's the other
Madrassa, Mombasa,
Kenya Kenya Kenya

All we are saying, is give Chris a chance
All we are saying, is give Chris a chance
All we are saying, is give Chris a chance


----------



## KevinWestern

thanatos144 said:


> She is dead on about what this song is about
> 
> tapatalk post



Friendly reminder that you still haven't answered my question.


----------



## thanatos144

KevinWestern said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> She is dead on about what this song is about
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friendly reminder that you still haven't answered my question.
Click to expand...


I did it sucks 

tapatalk post


----------



## KevinWestern

thanatos144 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> She is dead on about what this song is about
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friendly reminder that you still haven't answered my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did it sucks
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Don't think you did. Do you dislike all art that evokes the viewer or listener to think about a sort of imagined Utopia?


----------



## BDBoop

I'm going to respond to the thread title and submit "Muskrat Love."


----------



## thanatos144

KevinWestern said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Friendly reminder that you still haven't answered my question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did it sucks
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't think you did. Do you dislike all art that evokes the viewer or listener to think about a sort of imagined Utopia?
Click to expand...


Yes 

tapatalk post


----------



## thanatos144

BDBoop said:


> I'm going to respond to the thread title and submit "Muskrat Love."



You so aged yourself 

tapatalk post


----------



## KevinWestern

thanatos144 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did it sucks
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't think you did. Do you dislike all art that evokes the viewer or listener to think about a sort of imagined Utopia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Thanks for answering; I respect your right to opinion, but (personally) think it's a little strange to dislike any form of art that asks a viewer or listener to imagine some sort of utopia or "happy place".


----------



## thanatos144

KevinWestern said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't think you did. Do you dislike all art that evokes the viewer or listener to think about a sort of imagined Utopia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for answering; I respect your right to opinion, but (personally) think it's a little strange to dislike any form of art that asks a viewer or listener to imagine some sort of utopia or "happy place".
Click to expand...


It did more then that. It asked the listener to disregard the very things that made the singer s success.

tapatalk post


----------



## IlarMeilyr

KevinWestern said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Political Chic, essentially what you're doing is taking a song with words designed to evoke certain emotions and images (like a poem) and analyze it as if it were a Gov't written handbook guide on some lifeless topic like taxes. You need to lighten up.
> 
> It's a freaking poem. It ponders the major things humans fight and kill over - food, resources, religions, and territory (national sovereignty) - and says what would happen if those divisions didn't exist? If the Pakistani man and the Indian man considered themselves humans sharing 1 planet vs 2 separate countries fighting for territory, perhaps would the general hatred subside (if they considered themselves "one in the same")?
> 
> *This song is very much a representation (in my opinion) of many core Buddhist beliefs that we are essentially all "one" and that the duality is nothing more than an illusion. *
> 
> I have no freaking idea what you are so upset about here. Do you dislike Buddhists as well, lol, or anyone who has ever murmured the words "we are all one"?
> 
> Jeez Louise.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  YOU, on the other hand, are busy denying reality.
> 
> The reality is that PoliticalChic has identified that the song is a liberal "anthem."
> 
> And her critique is therefore perfectly reasonable political analysis of what the "song/poem" means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Busy denying what? That this song is nothing more than an endorsement/retelling of Buddhist beliefs that have been around for multiple thousands of years?
> 
> Is Buddhism _*equally *_disgusting to PoliticalChic?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


But of course, you are flatly wrong.

The song is absolutely NOT merely a retelling of or an endorsement of Buddhist beliefs.

Newsflash, to help you try to keep up.  "No religion too" would INCLUDE Buddhism.

Buddhist beliefs do not demand or even call forr the disbelief of Buddhist beliefs.


----------



## KevinWestern

IlarMeilyr said:


> But of course, you are flatly wrong.
> 
> The song is absolutely NOT merely a retelling of or an endorsement of Buddhist beliefs.



Lol, it most definitely is a retelling of beliefs that are consistent with Buddhism.  "Imagine&#8221; says that once we remove or do away with our divisions (no countries, no possessions, no greed), we would all live &#8220;as one&#8221; in harmony. Don't think there's any room for argument here. 



IlarMeilyr said:


> Newsflash, to help you try to keep up.  "No religion too" would INCLUDE Buddhism.
> 
> Buddhist beliefs do not demand or even call forr the disbelief of Buddhist beliefs.



How about _I help you_ try and keep up, lol (looks like you need it). 

Buddhism asks the practitioner to meditate and discover what are called &#8220;universal concepts&#8221; for him/herself. Buddha &#8220;owned&#8221; those concepts no more than a math teacher &#8220;owns&#8221; math. He was a simply a teacher (as opposed to Jesus who was a teacher but also actively asked his followers to worship him as God).

I never claimed that John Lennon was asking folks to "become Buddhists", I simply said that the ideas John Lennon covered in the song were extremely consistent with the teachings of Buddha and asked that since you guys hate this song do you _ALSO _hate Buddhism as well. 

You should brush up on your spiritualism; there's a very interesting world out there!


----------



## KevinWestern

thanatos144 said:


> It did more then that. It asked the listener to disregard the very things that made the singer s success.
> 
> tapatalk post



Ok gotcha. So here are some things I've learned about you so far.

Thanatos144 doesn't like:

1.) Any form of art that asks the viewer or listener to imagine a utopia of some sort. 
2.) Any song where the singer doesn't explicitly praise the economic factors that helped him/her achieve success.

Would you say those are fair statements?


----------



## westwall

G.T. said:


> Islam kills for Religion to this day.









And collectivist, totalitarian governments have killed more people in 100 years, than all the religions combined managed to kill in 2,000 years.


----------



## Camp

Do liberals sing this song when they get together for meetings or conventions and stuff?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> Do liberals sing this song when they get together for meetings or conventions and stuff?





My turn?

Does the song encompass the views of the majority of liberal elite?


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do liberals sing this song when they get together for meetings or conventions and stuff?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My turn?
> 
> Does the song encompass the views of the majority of liberal elite?
Click to expand...


I don't think so. Certainly not the way you have interpretated it.


----------



## KevinWestern

westwall said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Islam kills for Religion to this day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And collectivist, totalitarian governments have killed more people in 100 years, than all the religions combined managed to kill in 2,000 years.
Click to expand...


Which is why John Lennon asks us to theoretically to imagine a world without gov'ts ("imagine there's no countries")....


----------



## KevinWestern

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do liberals sing this song when they get together for meetings or conventions and stuff?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My turn?
> 
> Does the song encompass the views of the majority of liberal elite?
Click to expand...


It's a song that encapsulates many very traditional Eastern beliefs of spiritual enlightenment. Does the Dalai Lama , who in the linked article says "we have all been born on this earth as part of one great human family", also upset you to the point where you call his teachings *disgusting*? 

Just making sure you're staying consistent. 



.


----------



## westwall

KevinWestern said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Islam kills for Religion to this day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And collectivist, totalitarian governments have killed more people in 100 years, than all the religions combined managed to kill in 2,000 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why John Lennon asks us to theoretically to imagine a world without gov'ts ("imagine there's no countries")....
Click to expand...








Yes, I have no problem with the concept of utopia.  However, as we are dealing with people it is an unobtainable goal.  The problem is when people decide to live their lives based on the lyrics of a song.


----------



## KevinWestern

westwall said:


> Yes, I have no problem with the concept of utopia.  However, as we are dealing with people it is an unobtainable goal.  The problem is when people decide to live their lives based on the lyrics of a song.



But as I mentioned before, are we going to go so far to say that _any _piece of art that encourages the viewer/listener to imagine a "utopia" should be considered disgusting (words via the OP) because it may potentially encourage them to reach for unattainable goals? See how ridiculous this is getting?

I think the OP is being completely unfair here by singling out John Lennon for doing something that artists have been doing for literally tens of thousands of years, lol, and quite frankly it's bullshit.


----------



## Camp

westwall said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And collectivist, totalitarian governments have killed more people in 100 years, than all the religions combined managed to kill in 2,000 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why John Lennon asks us to theoretically to imagine a world without gov'ts ("imagine there's no countries")....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I have no problem with the concept of utopia.  However, as we are dealing with people it is an unobtainable goal.  The problem is when people decide to live their lives based on the lyrics of a song.
Click to expand...

Why is that a problem? Is there some authority that decides what an individual is allowed to think or the way they want to leed their spiritual and philosophical life?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do liberals sing this song when they get together for meetings or conventions and stuff?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My turn?
> 
> Does the song encompass the views of the majority of liberal elite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think so. Certainly not the way you have interpretated it.
Click to expand...




"I don't think so. Certainly not the way you have interpretated (sic) it."




Well....here ya' go:


2. No countries...the end of sovereignty.....only United Nations global government.
Unelected elites making the rules for all of us. Imagine.

a. Global governance, the idea of all humankind united under one common political authority, has not existed so far in human history. This is not to say that it hasnt been debated, called for, fought forand as recently as the 20th century, enforced on large swaths of the planet.called communism.... data is available documenting the deleterious effects: responsible for over 100 million slaughtered. How to explain its endorsement by the Western elites? Simple: it is a religious belief called, among other things, Liberalism.
"Sovereignty or Submission: Will Americans Rule Themselves or be Ruled by Others?" by John Fonte




3. Imagaine....if there were no counties, it stands to reason, "Nothing to kill or die for." 
I'm guessing that we could find a few things that people kill or die for in both the history of mankind and the penal code. Any disagree?

4. And, possibly the most invidious lie told, and believed by Liberals..."more have died because of religion...." Got that covered: " And no religion too" Imagine.
a. First World War (191418): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 million
Russian Civil War (191722): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 million
Soviet Union, Stalins regime (192453): . . . . . . . . . 20 million
Second World War (193745): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 million
Chinese Civil War (194549): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 million
Peoples Republic of China, Mao Zedongs 
regime (194975): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 million
Korean War (195053): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 million
North Korea (1948 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 million
Rwanda and Burundi (195995): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.35 million
What was the religious basis for those? The only religion I see in there is the religion of Leftism.





5. And, of course, the attraction of Liberalism for many is no recriminations, no judgments about anyone....after all, each person is entitled to his or her personal morality...true? Got that covered, too: 
"Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky"

6. And, if there is no societal morality, then " Imagine all the people
Living for today..." Yup...'do your own thing.'



You don't think those are the doctrines of the Left?


----------



## PoliticalChic

KevinWestern said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do liberals sing this song when they get together for meetings or conventions and stuff?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My turn?
> 
> Does the song encompass the views of the majority of liberal elite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a song that encapsulates many very traditional Eastern beliefs of spiritual enlightenment. Does the Dalai Lama , who in the linked article says "we have all been born on this earth as part of one great human family", also upset you to the point where you call his teachings *disgusting*?
> 
> Just making sure you're staying consistent.
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...




So sorry....better be sitting down; this is gonna hurt.


After Buddha was dead, his shadow was still shown for centuries in a cave-a tremendous, gruesome shadow. God is dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. -And we-we still have to vanquish his shadow, too.      
 From Nietzsche's "The Gay Science," (trans. W. Kaufmann), p.108


For the Left of every stripe....eradicating God in every place and every way is their strongest desire.


----------



## KevinWestern

PoliticalChic said:


> 2. No countries...the end of sovereignty.....only United Nations global government.
> Unelected elites making the rules for all of us. Imagine.


Lennon never said &#8220;imagine ONE country&#8221; (ie global government), he said imagine there were &#8220;NO countries&#8221; implying there would be no need for governance in this utopia. Again, &#8220;one country&#8221; vs &#8220;no countries&#8221; &#8211; which phrase did he use in the song? 




PoliticalChic said:


> 3. Imagaine....if there were no counties, it stands to reason, "Nothing to kill or die for."
> I'm guessing that we could find a few things that people kill or die for in both the history of mankind and the penal code. Any disagree?



He says &#8220;nothing to kill or die for&#8221; period. There are NO REASONS to kill or die for in this imagined utopia. 




PoliticalChic said:


> 4. And, possibly the most invidious lie told, and believed by Liberals..."more have died because of religion...." Got that covered: " And no religion too" Imagine.


He simply says &#8220;no religion&#8221;, which goes along with the theme of removing any and all divisions between us all. 



PoliticalChic said:


> 5. And, of course, the attraction of Liberalism for many is no recriminations, no judgments about anyone....after all, each person is entitled to his or her personal morality...true? Got that covered, too:
> "Imagine there's no heaven
> It's easy if you try
> No hell below us
> Above us only sky"



Lennon asks us how would people behave if there was no place we &#8220;go&#8221; so to speak after we perish. In other words this is it, and there is no separate afterlife (perhaps there&#8217;s a continuation/reincarnation) but no &#8220;separate place&#8221;. Therefore we need to make what we have now the best it could possibly be vs. blow up 30 school children in a bizarre attempt to &#8220;receive 72 virgins&#8221; via the hand of God.


----------



## R.C. Christian

Let's translate this pile of shit. 


"Imagine"

Imagine there's no heaven (commies hate religion)
It's easy if you try    (Of course it is comrade)
No hell below us     (The jokes on you pal)
Above us only sky   (aim high dude, command a drone)
Imagine all the people
Living for today...   (Fuck tomorrow, let's form a drum circle and use some drugs)

Imagine there's no countries (We don't need no stinkin' countries)
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for  (irony alert!)
And no religion too   (Christians=bad)
Imagine all the people 
Living life in peace... (In your dreams crack smoker, now pass the peace pipe)

You may say I'm a dreamer (Corpses dream?)
But I'm not the only one    
I hope someday you'll join us (You want us dead?)
And the world will be as one  

Imagine no possessions  (welcome to the collective comrade)
I wonder if you can  (Fuck you)
No need for greed or hunger (I could go for a steak right now or some soylent green)
A brotherhood of man (fag)
Imagine all the people 
Sharing all the world...(More collectivist bullshit)

You may say I'm a dreamer (you're stoned)
But I'm not the only one 
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one (Irony alert part deux)


----------



## KevinWestern

PoliticalChic said:


> So sorry....better be sitting down; this is gonna hurt.
> 
> 
> &#8220;After Buddha was dead, his shadow was still shown for centuries in a cave-a tremendous, gruesome shadow. God is dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. -And we-we still have to vanquish his shadow, too.&#8221;
> From Nietzsche's "The Gay Science," (trans. W. Kaufmann), p.108
> 
> 
> For the Left of every stripe....eradicating God in every place and every way is their strongest desire.



Haha, what? What does Nietzsche's opinion on Buddhism have anything to do with the conversation at hand? This is supposed to "hurt"? I'm sorry, but I'm literally laughing over here.

If you are against Buddhism/meditating/etc - fine - at least come out and say it and perhaps rephrase your OP to read "Imagine is a Disgusting song Because it Promotes Buddhism". Then we can have a discussion. 

But until then I'm less than impressed the points I've heard thus far. 


.


----------



## Camp

KevinWestern said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. No countries...the end of sovereignty.....only United Nations global government.
> Unelected elites making the rules for all of us. Imagine.
> 
> 
> 
> Lennon never said imagine ONE country (ie global government), he said imagine there were NO countries implying there would be no need for governance in this utopia. Again, one country vs no countries  which phrase did he use in the song?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Imagaine....if there were no counties, it stands to reason, "Nothing to kill or die for."
> I'm guessing that we could find a few things that people kill or die for in both the history of mankind and the penal code. Any disagree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He says nothing to kill or die for period. There are NO REASONS to kill or die for in this imagined utopia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. And, possibly the most invidious lie told, and believed by Liberals..."more have died because of religion...." Got that covered: " And no religion too" Imagine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He simply says no religion, which goes along with the theme of removing any and all divisions between us all.
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5. And, of course, the attraction of Liberalism for many is no recriminations, no judgments about anyone....after all, each person is entitled to his or her personal morality...true? Got that covered, too:
> "Imagine there's no heaven
> It's easy if you try
> No hell below us
> Above us only sky"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lennon asks us how would people behave if there was no place we go so to speak after we perish. In other words this is it, and there is no separate afterlife (perhaps theres a continuation/reincarnation) but no separate place. Therefore we need to make what we have now the best it could possibly be vs. blow up 30 school children in a bizarre attempt to receive 72 virgins via the hand of God.
Click to expand...


What I see here is a serious case of spinicitus. You have taken a song and line by line interpreted them and put your own spin on them. You then have made a conclusion based on your own spins. Spins are made by the use of exaggetation, distortion, fraud, lies, misinterpretations, misinformation, etc. Conclusions made from spins are never accurate. Spinicitus occurs when the individual fails to take into account that spins are not accurate to begin with. They believe the spins to be truth and fact when they are purposely designed to be the opposite.


----------



## PoliticalChic

KevinWestern said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. No countries...the end of sovereignty.....only United Nations global government.
> Unelected elites making the rules for all of us. Imagine.
> 
> 
> 
> Lennon never said imagine ONE country (ie global government), he said imagine there were NO countries implying there would be no need for governance in this utopia. Again, one country vs no countries  which phrase did he use in the song?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Imagaine....if there were no counties, it stands to reason, "Nothing to kill or die for."
> I'm guessing that we could find a few things that people kill or die for in both the history of mankind and the penal code. Any disagree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He says nothing to kill or die for period. There are NO REASONS to kill or die for in this imagined utopia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. And, possibly the most invidious lie told, and believed by Liberals..."more have died because of religion...." Got that covered: " And no religion too" Imagine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He simply says no religion, which goes along with the theme of removing any and all divisions between us all.
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5. And, of course, the attraction of Liberalism for many is no recriminations, no judgments about anyone....after all, each person is entitled to his or her personal morality...true? Got that covered, too:
> "Imagine there's no heaven
> It's easy if you try
> No hell below us
> Above us only sky"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lennon asks us how would people behave if there was no place we go so to speak after we perish. In other words this is it, and there is no separate afterlife (perhaps theres a continuation/reincarnation) but no separate place. Therefore we need to make what we have now the best it could possibly be vs. blow up 30 school children in a bizarre attempt to receive 72 virgins via the hand of God.
Click to expand...







You're pedaling faster than Ed Begley, Jr., trying to make himself a piece of toast.


----------



## KevinWestern

PoliticalChic said:


> You're pedaling faster than Ed Begley, Jr., trying to make himself a piece of toast.



How about instead of _attempting_ to somehow discredit me by using cheap catch phrases (that aren't even that witty), why not try using some of your logic to deconstruct some of the points I made earlier in true debate fashion? You addressed not a _single _point. 

We'll start here; did Lennon say "Imagine there's one country" (and one supreme government), or did he instead say "Imagine there's no countries"? 


.


----------



## PoliticalChic

KevinWestern said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're pedaling faster than Ed Begley, Jr., trying to make himself a piece of toast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about instead of _attempting_ to somehow discredit me by using cheap catch phrases (that aren't even that witty), why not try using some of your logic to deconstruct some of the points I made earlier in true debate fashion? You addressed not a _single _point.
> 
> We'll start here; did Lennon say "Imagine there's one country" (and one supreme government), or did he instead say "Imagine there's no countries"?
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...




My comment was spot on.

Your post is more smoke and mirrors than a fire in a brothel.


The words of the song are meant to support the ideas that the OP states....and explodes.


Not agreeing with the description I provided, that you were obfuscating....is your prerogative.
The description is my prerogative.


----------



## westwall

Camp said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why John Lennon asks us to theoretically to imagine a world without gov'ts ("imagine there's no countries")....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I have no problem with the concept of utopia.  However, as we are dealing with people it is an unobtainable goal.  The problem is when people decide to live their lives based on the lyrics of a song.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that a problem? Is there some authority that decides what an individual is allowed to think or the way they want to leed their spiritual and philosophical life?
Click to expand...









No.  So long as they choose to live their lives the way they want without infringing on others rights there is no problem.  The problems arise when those people decide they know better than anyone else and wish to impose_ their_ viewpoints on those who don't agree with them.  

That's why when they get into power, inevitably, evil people get into positions of power and then take over the governments and because they have been granted a lot of power, they then TAKE even more power and then it's Katie bar the door.  Millions have died because idealogues were able to impose their views on others and there was no way to stop them.


----------



## Camp

westwall said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I have no problem with the concept of utopia.  However, as we are dealing with people it is an unobtainable goal.  The problem is when people decide to live their lives based on the lyrics of a song.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that a problem? Is there some authority that decides what an individual is allowed to think or the way they want to leed their spiritual and philosophical life?[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  So long as they choose to live their lives the way they want without infringing on others rights there is no problem.  The problems arise when those people decide they know better than anyone else and wish to impose_ their_ viewpoints on those who don't agree with them.
> 
> That's why when they get into power, inevitably, evil people get into positions of power and then take over the governments and because they have been granted a lot of power, they then TAKE even more power and then it's Katie bar the door.  Millions have died because idealogues were able to impose their views on others and there was no way to stop them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You extrapolate all of that from a song and the way some may interpret the meaning of a song, which may or may not be accurate or fair?
Click to expand...


----------



## westwall

Camp said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that a problem? Is there some authority that decides what an individual is allowed to think or the way they want to leed their spiritual and philosophical life?[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  So long as they choose to live their lives the way they want without infringing on others rights there is no problem.  The problems arise when those people decide they know better than anyone else and wish to impose_ their_ viewpoints on those who don't agree with them.
> 
> That's why when they get into power, inevitably, evil people get into positions of power and then take over the governments and because they have been granted a lot of power, they then TAKE even more power and then it's Katie bar the door.  Millions have died because idealogues were able to impose their views on others and there was no way to stop them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You extrapolate all of that from a song and the way some may interpret the meaning of a song, which may or may not be accurate or fair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably unlike you I can remember when that song first came out and the reaction of the various hippies to hearing it.  Yeah, my observations are valid.  In light of what we know has historically occurred I have no problem with my assumption.
Click to expand...


----------



## KevinWestern

PoliticalChic said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're pedaling faster than Ed Begley, Jr., trying to make himself a piece of toast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about instead of _attempting_ to somehow discredit me by using cheap catch phrases (that aren't even that witty), why not try using some of your logic to deconstruct some of the points I made earlier in true debate fashion? You addressed not a _single _point.
> 
> We'll start here; did Lennon say "Imagine there's one country" (and one supreme government), or did he instead say "Imagine there's no countries"?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My comment was spot on.
> 
> Your post is more smoke and mirrors than a fire in a brothel.
> 
> 
> The words of the song are meant to support the ideas that the OP states....and explodes.
> 
> 
> Not agreeing with the description I provided, that you were obfuscating....is your prerogative.
> The description is my prerogative.
Click to expand...


But how come you didn't answer my painfully straightforward question?

I asked, did John Lennon ask listeners to "imagine there's one country" or "imagine there's no countries"?


----------



## PoliticalChic

KevinWestern said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about instead of _attempting_ to somehow discredit me by using cheap catch phrases (that aren't even that witty), why not try using some of your logic to deconstruct some of the points I made earlier in true debate fashion? You addressed not a _single _point.
> 
> We'll start here; did Lennon say "Imagine there's one country" (and one supreme government), or did he instead say "Imagine there's no countries"?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My comment was spot on.
> 
> Your post is more smoke and mirrors than a fire in a brothel.
> 
> 
> The words of the song are meant to support the ideas that the OP states....and explodes.
> 
> 
> Not agreeing with the description I provided, that you were obfuscating....is your prerogative.
> The description is my prerogative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But how come you didn't answer my painfully straightforward question?
> 
> I asked, did John Lennon ask listeners to "imagine there's one country" or "imagine there's no countries"?
Click to expand...




The OP is the answer.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Sallow said:


> it's a song about peace.
> 
> Naturally something Political Chica opposes..



It's a song about Communism - pure Marxism. It has very little to do with peace.

"War Pigs" is a much better example of a song advocating peace.


----------



## Uncensored2008

KevinWestern said:


> But how come you didn't answer my painfully straightforward question?
> 
> I asked, did John Lennon ask listeners to "imagine there's one country" or "imagine there's no countries"?



So Lennon is simply postulating the end game of the Communist Manifesto. Once the brutal dictatorship has beaten all into submission, the state will fall away, leaving a formless mass where no country is needed. Imaging no possessions, I wonder if you can, no need for pain and hunger, a brotherhood of man.

So get this, it is property rights, according to our sage, that cause pain and hunger, and stop brotherhood...

Communism - just fucking brilliant...


----------



## thanatos144

PoliticalChic said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> My comment was spot on.
> 
> Your post is more smoke and mirrors than a fire in a brothel.
> 
> 
> The words of the song are meant to support the ideas that the OP states....and explodes.
> 
> 
> Not agreeing with the description I provided, that you were obfuscating....is your prerogative.
> The description is my prerogative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But how come you didn't answer my painfully straightforward question?
> 
> I asked, did John Lennon ask listeners to "imagine there's one country" or "imagine there's no countries"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OP is the answer.
Click to expand...


He refuses to believe he is liberal 

tapatalk post


----------



## KevinWestern

Uncensored2008 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> But how come you didn't answer my painfully straightforward question?
> 
> I asked, did John Lennon ask listeners to "imagine there's one country" or "imagine there's no countries"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Lennon is simply postulating the end game of the Communist Manifesto. Once the brutal dictatorship has beaten all into submission, the state will fall away, leaving a formless mass where no country is needed. Imaging no possessions, I wonder if you can, no need for pain and hunger, a brotherhood of man.
> 
> So get this, it is property rights, according to our sage, that cause pain and hunger, and stop brotherhood...
> 
> Communism - just fucking brilliant...
Click to expand...


If "Imagine" was a song about communism, surely he would be singing about country, nationalism, and gov't - which he's not. 

He's asking us to to "imagine" a world with NO COUNTRY, no possessions, no divisions. A gov't (and brutal dictator) IS a division, and IS a good reason to fight and die for. 

It's an imagined, dreamy song that encourages the listener to dream of a utopia that probably never could exist on this earth. It's just one of millions of art pieces throughout the ages to do this; nothing new.


----------



## KevinWestern

PoliticalChic said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> My comment was spot on.
> 
> Your post is more smoke and mirrors than a fire in a brothel.
> 
> 
> The words of the song are meant to support the ideas that the OP states....and explodes.
> 
> 
> Not agreeing with the description I provided, that you were obfuscating....is your prerogative.
> The description is my prerogative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But how come you didn't answer my painfully straightforward question?
> 
> I asked, did John Lennon ask listeners to "imagine there's one country" or "imagine there's no countries"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OP is the answer.
Click to expand...


Why can't you answer my question directly?

What does John Lennon say in "imagine"?

a. "Imagine there's no countries"
b. "Imagine there's one country"


----------



## Uncensored2008

KevinWestern said:


> If it was a song about communism, then he would be singing about country, nationalism, and gov't - which he's not.



The song IS about Communism.

That you are ignorant of the theories of Marx and Engels is irrelevant to this fact.



> He's asking us to to "imagine" a world with NO COUNTRY, no possessions, no divisions. A gov't (and brutal dictator) IS a division, and IS a good reason to fight and die for.



Again, IF you had any grasp of Marx, you would understand that the dissolution of nations, governments, property rights, et al, is precisely what Marx promised.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is merely a transitional stage, to train humanity to accept communal ownership of all.

{Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
No religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace

You may say
I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will live as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people sharing all the world

You may say
That I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one }

We can map each of the ideas to a corresponding concept and passage in the Communist Manifesto. This is not accidental, Lennon was sugar coating Marxism for consumption by the mindless masses. Quite effectively.



> It's an imagined, dreamy song about a utopia that probably never could exist on this earth. It's just one of millions of art pieces throughout the ages to do this; nothing new.



It is a hymn to Communism. It was written for that purpose.


----------



## PoliticalChic

KevinWestern said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> But how come you didn't answer my painfully straightforward question?
> 
> I asked, did John Lennon ask listeners to "imagine there's one country" or "imagine there's no countries"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OP is the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can't you answer my question directly?
> 
> What does John Lennon say in "imagine"?
> 
> a. "Imagine there's no countries"
> b. "Imagine there's one country"
Click to expand...




I did answer it clearly, precisely, definitively.

Others seem not to have a problem understanding the OP. 

You claim not to understand it.

That implies that it was answered and you object to it's import.

You don't have to agree with me....I can't force you to be right.


----------



## KevinWestern

PoliticalChic said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP is the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't you answer my question directly?
> 
> What does John Lennon say in "imagine"?
> 
> a. "Imagine there's no countries"
> b. "Imagine there's one country"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did answer it clearly, precisely, definitively.
> 
> Others seem not to have a problem understanding the OP.
> 
> You claim not to understand it.
> 
> That implies that it was answered and you object to it's import.
> 
> You don't have to agree with me....I can't force you to be right.
Click to expand...


No you didn't answer it clearly, unfortunately. 

Imagine asks us to think about a world with "nothing to live or die for". An oppressive global government would be just the opposite of that (something to fight and die for). So I can only consider your analysis incorrect here. 

Imagine also asks us to think about a world without countries. A "Global Government" would imply sovereignty and ultimately the existence of one country/nation state. This is not a world without countries, it's a world with one country/nation (which conflicts with Lennon's phrasing in the song). Similar to above, I can only consider your analysis incorrect once again. 

Again, I don't think you can deny that _at the core_ the concepts touched on in this song run parallel with that of Buddhists; so, I ask you again - do you also consider Buddhism a "disgusting" practice/set of beliefs?


----------



## KevinWestern

Uncensored2008 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it was a song about communism, then he would be singing about country, nationalism, and gov't - which he's not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The song IS about Communism.
> 
> That you are ignorant of the theories of Marx and Engels is irrelevant to this fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's asking us to to "imagine" a world with NO COUNTRY, no possessions, no divisions. A gov't (and brutal dictator) IS a division, and IS a good reason to fight and die for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, IF you had any grasp of Marx, you would understand that the dissolution of nations, governments, property rights, et al, is precisely what Marx promised.
> 
> The dictatorship of the proletariat is merely a transitional stage, to train humanity to accept communal ownership of all.
> 
> {Imagine there's no heaven
> It's easy if you try
> No hell below us
> Above us only sky
> Imagine all the people living for today
> 
> Imagine there's no countries
> It isn't hard to do
> Nothing to kill or die for
> No religion too
> Imagine all the people living life in peace
> 
> You may say
> I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
> I hope some day you'll join us
> And the world will live as one
> 
> Imagine no possessions
> I wonder if you can
> No need for greed or hunger
> A brotherhood of man
> Imagine all the people sharing all the world
> 
> You may say
> That I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
> I hope some day you'll join us
> And the world will be as one }
> 
> We can map each of the ideas to a corresponding concept and passage in the Communist Manifesto. This is not accidental, Lennon was sugar coating Marxism for consumption by the mindless masses. Quite effectively.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's an imagined, dreamy song about a utopia that probably never could exist on this earth. It's just one of millions of art pieces throughout the ages to do this; nothing new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a hymn to Communism. It was written for that purpose.
Click to expand...


Problem is that Lennon asks us to imagine a world without hunger, and without things "to die for". You argue that this song is about creating communist nation states which have traditionally only yielded.... hunger and things "to die for". How do you reconcile this discrepancy??

The song encapsulates almost to a T many of the core beliefs of Buddhists; at the end of the day, we are all one and the illusion of separation is just that - an illusion. 

I've asked this a few times to some folks here: are you against Buddhist beliefs/practices too? If you are, that's fine but just need to establish for the sake of the convo..


----------



## Uncensored2008

KevinWestern said:


> Problem is that Lennon asks us to imagine a world without hunger,



No, Lennon sold the fiction that without property rights, there would result a world without hunger.

Reality is 180° from this.



> and without things "to die for".



A world with nothing to die for, has nothing to live for. 

But let's explore the basis of Lennon's idea;

{The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.

The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got.}

Communist Manifesto (Chapter 2)



> You argue that this song is about creating communist nation states which have traditionally only yielded.... hunger and things "to die for". How do you reconcile this discrepancy??



Again, Lennon is preaching Marxist Orthodoxy.

It is quite literally, and quite deliberately a hymn to Marxist orthodoxy.



> The song encapsulates almost to a T many of the core beliefs of Buddhists; at the end of the day, we are all one and the illusion of separation is just that - an illusion.



Utter bullshit.



> I've asked this a few times to some folks here: are you against Buddhist beliefs/practices too? If you are, that's fine but just need to establish for the sake of the convo..



If you see Buddhism as an advocacy of a stateless society, you are as ignorant of Buddhism as you are Marxism.

Buddhism is a spiritual, not a political system.


----------



## KevinWestern

Uncensored2008 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is that Lennon asks us to imagine a world without hunger,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Lennon sold the fiction that without property rights, there would result a world without hunger.
> 
> Reality is 180° from this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and without things "to die for".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A world with nothing to die for, has nothing to live for.
> 
> But let's explore the basis of Lennon's idea;
> 
> {The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.
> 
> The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got.}
> 
> Communist Manifesto (Chapter 2)
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Lennon is preaching Marxist Orthodoxy.
> 
> It is quite literally, and quite deliberately a hymn to Marxist orthodoxy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The song encapsulates almost to a T many of the core beliefs of Buddhists; at the end of the day, we are all one and the illusion of separation is just that - an illusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Utter bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked this a few times to some folks here: are you against Buddhist beliefs/practices too? If you are, that's fine but just need to establish for the sake of the convo..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you see Buddhism as an advocacy of a stateless society, you are as ignorant of Buddhism as you are Marxism.
> 
> Buddhism is a spiritual, not a political system.
Click to expand...


So you're claiming that unequivocally this song is not of a spiritual nature and is instead strictly political? Is that right? Did you get a chance to talk to Lennon about this before he passed, lol? Well I claim that this song is spiritual and my opinion is as good as yours. 

Also, are you claiming that "removing all divisions" is not a Buddhist principle? That - lol - would be quite a tough sell.


----------



## Casjah

KevinWestern said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is that Lennon asks us to imagine a world without hunger,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Lennon sold the fiction that without property rights, there would result a world without hunger.
> 
> Reality is 180° from this.
> 
> 
> 
> A world with nothing to die for, has nothing to live for.
> 
> But let's explore the basis of Lennon's idea;
> 
> {The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.
> 
> The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got.}
> 
> Communist Manifesto (Chapter 2)
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Lennon is preaching Marxist Orthodoxy.
> 
> It is quite literally, and quite deliberately a hymn to Marxist orthodoxy.
> 
> 
> 
> Utter bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked this a few times to some folks here: are you against Buddhist beliefs/practices too? If you are, that's fine but just need to establish for the sake of the convo..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you see Buddhism as an advocacy of a stateless society, you are as ignorant of Buddhism as you are Marxism.
> 
> Buddhism is a spiritual, not a political system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're claiming that unequivocally this song is not of a spiritual nature and is instead strictly political? Is that right? Did you get a chance to talk to Lennon about this before he passed, lol? Well I claim that this song is spiritual and my opinion is as good as yours.
> 
> Also, are you claiming that "removing all divisions" is not a Buddhist principle? That - lol - would be quite a tough sell.
Click to expand...


One could argue that the words of this song have a Native American philosophy, as well. Many Native American belief systems state that the earth and its resources cannot be owned. Rather, we are apart of that system. The earth is our mother. She provides for us, and we also give back as well as take from her. Modern humans seem to be in some kind of war with this fact (that we are apart of nature), and attempt to remain separated from the earth.

*Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...*


People can live for This moment.. reality, instead of a separate reality: a future after death which is the ultimate separation from this life. And in so doing, devote more of their energy to improving this world and knowing all that it has to offer us.

*Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...*

People divide themselves according to tribal demographics. Perhaps we (as a people) can evolve beyond this human tendency. If we did not divide ourselves, there would certainly be less strife and therefore less suffering in the world.

*You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...*

People combine their energy and resources to accomplish a United goal rather than fragmented goals of material accumulation and the stripping of the earth's natural resources. What if humanity did combine its efforts in just one goal.. say space travel. There were no personal agendas, no struggle for individual power and material wealth, and no corruption. Could we be a space-faring species exploring galaxies and discovering new worlds?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwUGSYDKUxU]John Lennon - Imagine - Lyrics - YouTube[/ame]

Either way, most of us can at least agree that musically this song is awesome.


----------



## thanatos144

Casjah said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Lennon sold the fiction that without property rights, there would result a world without hunger.
> 
> Reality is 180° from this.
> 
> 
> 
> A world with nothing to die for, has nothing to live for.
> 
> But let's explore the basis of Lennon's idea;
> 
> {The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.
> 
> The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got.}
> 
> Communist Manifesto (Chapter 2)
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Lennon is preaching Marxist Orthodoxy.
> 
> It is quite literally, and quite deliberately a hymn to Marxist orthodoxy.
> 
> 
> 
> Utter bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> If you see Buddhism as an advocacy of a stateless society, you are as ignorant of Buddhism as you are Marxism.
> 
> Buddhism is a spiritual, not a political system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're claiming that unequivocally this song is not of a spiritual nature and is instead strictly political? Is that right? Did you get a chance to talk to Lennon about this before he passed, lol? Well I claim that this song is spiritual and my opinion is as good as yours.
> 
> Also, are you claiming that "removing all divisions" is not a Buddhist principle? That - lol - would be quite a tough sell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One could argue that the words of this song have a Native American philosophy, as well. Many Native American belief systems state that the earth and its resources cannot be owned. Rather, we are apart of that system. The earth is our mother. She provides for us, and we also give back as well as take from her. Modern humans seem to be in some kind of war with this fact (that we are apart of nature), and attempt to remain separated from the earth.
> 
> *Imagine there's no heaven
> It's easy if you try
> No hell below us
> Above us only sky
> Imagine all the people
> Living for today...*
> 
> 
> People can live for This moment.. reality, instead of a separate reality: a future after death which is the ultimate separation from this life. And in so doing, devote more of their energy to improving this world and knowing all that it has to offer us.
> 
> *Imagine there's no countries
> It isn't hard to do
> Nothing to kill or die for
> And no religion too
> Imagine all the people
> Living life in peace...*
> 
> People divide themselves according to tribal demographics. Perhaps we (as a people) can evolve beyond this human tendency. If we did not divide ourselves, there would certainly be less strife and therefore less suffering in the world.
> 
> *You may say I'm a dreamer
> But I'm not the only one
> I hope someday you'll join us
> And the world will be as one
> 
> Imagine no possessions
> I wonder if you can
> No need for greed or hunger
> A brotherhood of man
> Imagine all the people
> Sharing all the world...*
> 
> People combine their energy and resources to accomplish a United goal rather than fragmented goals of material accumulation and the stripping of the earth's natural resources. What if humanity did combine its efforts in just one goal.. say space travel. There were no personal agendas, no struggle for individual power and material wealth, and no corruption. Could we be a space-faring species exploring galaxies and discovering new worlds?
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwUGSYDKUxU]John Lennon - Imagine - Lyrics - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Either way, most of us can at least agree that musically this song is awesome.
Click to expand...


No we won't agree it's awesome because it is crap

tapatalk post


----------



## Camp

thanatos144 said:


> Casjah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're claiming that unequivocally this song is not of a spiritual nature and is instead strictly political? Is that right? Did you get a chance to talk to Lennon about this before he passed, lol? Well I claim that this song is spiritual and my opinion is as good as yours.
> 
> Also, are you claiming that "removing all divisions" is not a Buddhist principle? That - lol - would be quite a tough sell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One could argue that the words of this song have a Native American philosophy, as well. Many Native American belief systems state that the earth and its resources cannot be owned. Rather, we are apart of that system. The earth is our mother. She provides for us, and we also give back as well as take from her. Modern humans seem to be in some kind of war with this fact (that we are apart of nature), and attempt to remain separated from the earth.
> 
> *Imagine there's no heaven
> It's easy if you try
> No hell below us
> Above us only sky
> Imagine all the people
> Living for today...*
> 
> 
> People can live for This moment.. reality, instead of a separate reality: a future after death which is the ultimate separation from this life. And in so doing, devote more of their energy to improving this world and knowing all that it has to offer us.
> 
> *Imagine there's no countries
> It isn't hard to do
> Nothing to kill or die for
> And no religion too
> Imagine all the people
> Living life in peace...*
> 
> People divide themselves according to tribal demographics. Perhaps we (as a people) can evolve beyond this human tendency. If we did not divide ourselves, there would certainly be less strife and therefore less suffering in the world.
> 
> *You may say I'm a dreamer
> But I'm not the only one
> I hope someday you'll join us
> And the world will be as one
> 
> Imagine no possessions
> I wonder if you can
> No need for greed or hunger
> A brotherhood of man
> Imagine all the people
> Sharing all the world...*
> 
> People combine their energy and resources to accomplish a United goal rather than fragmented goals of material accumulation and the stripping of the earth's natural resources. What if humanity did combine its efforts in just one goal.. say space travel. There were no personal agendas, no struggle for individual power and material wealth, and no corruption. Could we be a space-faring species exploring galaxies and discovering new worlds?
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwUGSYDKUxU]John Lennon - Imagine - Lyrics - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Either way, most of us can at least agree that musically this song is awesome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No we won't agree it's awesome because it is crap
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Ha Ha, you think John Lennon's song Imagine is crap. To bad a billion people who have heard the song think it's great and Lennon was a genius who captured a feeling shared by endless generations of earthlings in a short song using a few verses of poetry and a beautiful melody. Unknown millions hear it every new years eve as they lower the ball in Times Square, New York City. It gets recorded every year in countries all over the world and is learned by school children on every continent. How does it feel to know that most of the world would call you a total ignorant stupid jerk if they heard your comment.


----------



## thanatos144

Camp said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Casjah said:
> 
> 
> 
> One could argue that the words of this song have a Native American philosophy, as well. Many Native American belief systems state that the earth and its resources cannot be owned. Rather, we are apart of that system. The earth is our mother. She provides for us, and we also give back as well as take from her. Modern humans seem to be in some kind of war with this fact (that we are apart of nature), and attempt to remain separated from the earth.
> 
> *Imagine there's no heaven
> It's easy if you try
> No hell below us
> Above us only sky
> Imagine all the people
> Living for today...*
> 
> 
> People can live for This moment.. reality, instead of a separate reality: a future after death which is the ultimate separation from this life. And in so doing, devote more of their energy to improving this world and knowing all that it has to offer us.
> 
> *Imagine there's no countries
> It isn't hard to do
> Nothing to kill or die for
> And no religion too
> Imagine all the people
> Living life in peace...*
> 
> People divide themselves according to tribal demographics. Perhaps we (as a people) can evolve beyond this human tendency. If we did not divide ourselves, there would certainly be less strife and therefore less suffering in the world.
> 
> *You may say I'm a dreamer
> But I'm not the only one
> I hope someday you'll join us
> And the world will be as one
> 
> Imagine no possessions
> I wonder if you can
> No need for greed or hunger
> A brotherhood of man
> Imagine all the people
> Sharing all the world...*
> 
> People combine their energy and resources to accomplish a United goal rather than fragmented goals of material accumulation and the stripping of the earth's natural resources. What if humanity did combine its efforts in just one goal.. say space travel. There were no personal agendas, no struggle for individual power and material wealth, and no corruption. Could we be a space-faring species exploring galaxies and discovering new worlds?
> 
> John Lennon - Imagine - Lyrics - YouTube
> 
> Either way, most of us can at least agree that musically this song is awesome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No we won't agree it's awesome because it is crap
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha Ha, you think John Lennon's song Imagine is crap. To bad a billion people who have heard the song think it's great and Lennon was a genius who captured a feeling shared by endless generations of earthlings in a short song using a few verses of poetry and a beautiful melody. Unknown millions hear it every new years eve as they lower the ball in Times Square, New York City. It gets recorded every year in countries all over the world and is learned by school children on every continent. How does it feel to know that most of the world would call you a total ignorant stupid jerk if they heard your comment.
Click to expand...


Exaggerating I see 

tapatalk post


----------



## KevinWestern

thanatos144 said:


> No we won't agree it's awesome because it is crap
> 
> tapatalk post



A Miley fan I presume? I'm not judging; each listener has a right to his or her own opinion..


----------



## PoliticalChic

KevinWestern said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't you answer my question directly?
> 
> What does John Lennon say in "imagine"?
> 
> a. "Imagine there's no countries"
> b. "Imagine there's one country"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did answer it clearly, precisely, definitively.
> 
> Others seem not to have a problem understanding the OP.
> 
> You claim not to understand it.
> 
> That implies that it was answered and you object to it's import.
> 
> You don't have to agree with me....I can't force you to be right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you didn't answer it clearly, unfortunately.
> 
> Imagine asks us to think about a world with "nothing to live or die for". An oppressive global government would be just the opposite of that (something to fight and die for). So I can only consider your analysis incorrect here.
> 
> Imagine also asks us to think about a world without countries. A "Global Government" would imply sovereignty and ultimately the existence of one country/nation state. This is not a world without countries, it's a world with one country/nation (which conflicts with Lennon's phrasing in the song). Similar to above, I can only consider your analysis incorrect once again.
> 
> Again, I don't think you can deny that _at the core_ the concepts touched on in this song run parallel with that of Buddhists; so, I ask you again - do you also consider Buddhism a "disgusting" practice/set of beliefs?
Click to expand...




You can be as oblivious as you like.

Uncensored explained it .......again.


Somehow, you're the only one who can't seem to comprehend.......


----------



## KevinWestern

PoliticalChic said:


> You can be as oblivious as you like.
> 
> Uncensored explained it .......again.
> 
> Somehow, you're the only one who can't seem to comprehend.......



Your argument, PoliticalChic, is that I should "just take your opinion as fact" because there are three posters (including yourself) that seem to agree with the OP that you created? That is not a compelling argument. 

The song is called "imagine" - it's a fantasy. He's asking us to imagine a world where all the things that make us fight don't exist (ie greed, hunger, countries, religion, etc). It's simple, elegant, and is obviously not based in a tangible reality.

If it were a communist manifesto, he would say things like "imagine the beautiful leader" or "imagine one government" or "imagine one strong nation"; he says none of those things. He says _get rid_ of countries, in fact. No borders, no governments. 

In short, you're disgracing a classic tune. It's not a political song; get over it.


----------



## PoliticalChic

KevinWestern said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can be as oblivious as you like.
> 
> Uncensored explained it .......again.
> 
> Somehow, you're the only one who can't seem to comprehend.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument, PoliticalChic, is that I should "just take your opinion as fact" because there are three posters (including yourself) that seem to agree with the OP that you created? That is not a compelling argument.
> 
> The song is called "imagine" - it's a fantasy. He's asking us to imagine a world where all the things that make us fight don't exist (ie greed, hunger, countries, religion, etc). It's simple, elegant, and is obviously not based in a tangible reality.
> 
> If it were a communist manifesto, he would say things like "imagine the beautiful leader" or "imagine one government" or "imagine one strong nation"; he says none of those things. He says _get rid_ of countries, in fact. No borders, no governments.
> 
> In short, you're disgracing a classic tune. It's not a political song; get over it.
Click to expand...





The reason we have this administration is because far too many individuals have perfected the ability to turn a blind eye to reality.....

...and your series of posts is the textbook example.


----------



## thanatos144

KevinWestern said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No we won't agree it's awesome because it is crap
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Miley fan I presume? I'm not judging; each listener has a right to his or her own opinion..
Click to expand...


Yea that's it I am all about Hanna Montanna.

Still doesn't change the fact that imagine sucks balls. The only way you could enjoy Imagine is if A. you so fucking high you dont know your own name or B. your a fucking idiot who doesn't understand whats being said.....Which are you?


----------



## KevinWestern

PoliticalChic said:


> The reason we have this administration is because far too many individuals have perfected the ability to turn a blind eye to reality.....
> 
> ...and your series of posts is the textbook example.




Totally off topic, and does nothing to convince me of your OP. And for the record I'm extremely anti-Obama and anti-Modern Democrats.


----------



## thanatos144

KevinWestern said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason we have this administration is because far too many individuals have perfected the ability to turn a blind eye to reality.....
> 
> ...and your series of posts is the textbook example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Totally off topic, and does nothing to convince me of your OP. And for the record I'm extremely anti-Obama and anti-Modern Democrats.
Click to expand...


And apparently very pro totalitarian Communism.


----------



## Mr Natural

thanatos144 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason we have this administration is because far too many individuals have perfected the ability to turn a blind eye to reality.....
> 
> ...and your series of posts is the textbook example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Totally off topic, and does nothing to convince me of your OP. And for the record I'm extremely anti-Obama and anti-Modern Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And apparently very pro totalitarian Communism.
Click to expand...


Why, because he happens to find the message in the song uplifting?

Good grief, you people are fucked up beyond repair.


----------



## thanatos144

Mr Clean said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Totally off topic, and does nothing to convince me of your OP. And for the record I'm extremely anti-Obama and anti-Modern Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And apparently very pro totalitarian Communism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why, because he happens to find the message in the song uplifting?
> 
> Good grief, you people are fucked up beyond repair.
Click to expand...


You find it uplifting? boy you really are a sheep.


----------



## KevinWestern

thanatos144 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason we have this administration is because far too many individuals have perfected the ability to turn a blind eye to reality.....
> 
> ...and your series of posts is the textbook example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Totally off topic, and does nothing to convince me of your OP. And for the record I'm extremely anti-Obama and anti-Modern Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And apparently very pro totalitarian Communism.
Click to expand...


HAHA, why exactly? 

Because I don't believe your opinion that the song "Imagine" is a Communist Manifesto? 

Great reasons Thanatos - way to be a complete hack at debating..

.


----------



## thanatos144

KevinWestern said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Totally off topic, and does nothing to convince me of your OP. And for the record I'm extremely anti-Obama and anti-Modern Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And apparently very pro totalitarian Communism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HAHA, why exactly?
> 
> Because I don't believe your opinion that the song "Imagine" is a Communist Manifesto?
> 
> Great reasons Thanatos - way to be a complete hack at debating..
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Because your a idiot doesn't discount you are very pro fascism


----------



## KevinWestern

thanatos144 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And apparently very pro totalitarian Communism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HAHA, why exactly?
> 
> Because I don't believe your opinion that the song "Imagine" is a Communist Manifesto?
> 
> Great reasons Thanatos - way to be a complete hack at debating..
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because your a idiot doesn't discount you are very pro fascism
Click to expand...


*an idiot

..And that statement makes literally no sense. You have absolutely no reason to believe I am "pro fascism". The fact that you think "imagine" is pro-communist and I disagree with that does not make me a facist, lol. That means I disagree with you. 

You're behaving like a child who calls another classmate "gay" because they stick up for a gay person. Your argument is not based in logic, and I think you're well aware of this (at least I hope so).

So I urge you, don't be a hack. Debate intelligently. 


.


----------



## thanatos144

KevinWestern said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> HAHA, why exactly?
> 
> Because I don't believe your opinion that the song "Imagine" is a Communist Manifesto?
> 
> Great reasons Thanatos - way to be a complete hack at debating..
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Because your a idiot doesn't discount you are very pro fascism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *an idiot
> 
> ..And that statement makes literally no sense. You have absolutely no reason to believe I am "pro fascism". The fact that you think "imagine" is pro-communist and I disagree with that does not make me a facist, lol. That means I disagree with you.
> 
> You're behaving like a child who calls another classmate "gay" because they stick up for a gay person. Your argument is not based in logic, and I think you're well aware of this (at least I hope so).
> 
> So I urge you, don't be a hack. Debate intelligently.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Do you feel better now that you played the grammar police?


----------



## KevinWestern

thanatos144 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because your a idiot doesn't discount you are very pro fascism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *an idiot
> 
> ..And that statement makes literally no sense. You have absolutely no reason to believe I am "pro fascism". The fact that you think "imagine" is pro-communist and I disagree with that does not make me a facist, lol. That means I disagree with you.
> 
> You're behaving like a child who calls another classmate "gay" because they stick up for a gay person. Your argument is not based in logic, and I think you're well aware of this (at least I hope so).
> 
> So I urge you, don't be a hack. Debate intelligently.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you feel better now that you played the grammar police?
Click to expand...


The only reason I pointed it out is because the basic grammar error occurred in the same sentence you called me an idiot. Thought that was sort of ironic.

My point is, it's completely illogical to assume someone is a "fascist" solely because they disagree with your opinion that "Imagine" is a subversive communist manifesto. It's a ludicrous statement on your part. Am I supposed to agree with everything you say, lol?


----------



## thanatos144

KevinWestern said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> *an idiot
> 
> ..And that statement makes literally no sense. You have absolutely no reason to believe I am "pro fascism". The fact that you think "imagine" is pro-communist and I disagree with that does not make me a facist, lol. That means I disagree with you.
> 
> You're behaving like a child who calls another classmate "gay" because they stick up for a gay person. Your argument is not based in logic, and I think you're well aware of this (at least I hope so).
> 
> So I urge you, don't be a hack. Debate intelligently.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Do you feel better now that you played the grammar police?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only reason I pointed it out is because the basic grammar error occurred in the same sentence you called me an idiot. Thought that was sort of ironic.
> 
> My point is, it's completely illogical to assume someone is a "fascist" solely because they disagree with your opinion that "Imagine" is a subversive communist manifesto. It's a ludicrous statement on your part. Am I supposed to agree with everything you say, lol?
Click to expand...

 Your point is what that i type like shit? Hell I could have told you that.


----------



## Camp

thanatos144 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No we won't agree it's awesome because it is crap
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha Ha, you think John Lennon's song Imagine is crap. To bad a billion people who have heard the song think it's great and Lennon was a genius who captured a feeling shared by endless generations of earthlings in a short song using a few verses of poetry and a beautiful melody. Unknown millions hear it every new years eve as they lower the ball in Times Square, New York City. It gets recorded every year in countries all over the world and is learned by school children on every continent. How does it feel to know that most of the world would call you a total ignorant stupid jerk if they heard your comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exaggerating I see
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Not exaggerating at all. If anything, I'm giving a low number of 1 billion. You can reach 1 billion by adding the international audiences that heard the song at events like the closing ceremonies at the 1996 and 2012 Summer Olympics and THE TRIBUTE TO HEROES held in New York City following 9/11. Add to events like that all the record sales of the song by artist like Stevie Wonder, Madona, Neil Young, Blues Traveler, and a seemingly endless list and you can easily get to 1 billion. But we don't have to.
On October 9, 1990, at a celebration of the 50th anniversary of John Lennon's birth, Imagine was broadcast to over 130 nations by over 80 ARMED FORCES RADIO stations and 1,000 international radio stations along with MTV in 25 nations. The song was broadcast at 10:00am from a ceremony at the United Nations and was estimated to have been heard by over 1 billion citizens of the planet.
Guess that means Armed Forces Radio is guilty of broadcasting communist propaganda according some knuckleheads here.


----------



## KevinWestern

thanatos144 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you feel better now that you played the grammar police?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason I pointed it out is because the basic grammar error occurred in the same sentence you called me an idiot. Thought that was sort of ironic.
> 
> My point is, it's completely illogical to assume someone is a "fascist" solely because they disagree with your opinion that "Imagine" is a subversive communist manifesto. It's a ludicrous statement on your part. Am I supposed to agree with everything you say, lol?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point is what that i type like shit? Hell I could have told you that.
Click to expand...


Hey, lol, to be honest I really don't judge people on typing ability - we all make mistakes. Again, thought it was funny that at the exact moment you were calling me "an idiot" you were messing up some basic grammar. Anyways, moving on...

Do you get my point? Is it really fair to call someone a fascist just because they don't agree that "Imagine" is a secret communist manifesto? Do you see how silly that is?


----------



## PoliticalChic

KevinWestern said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason we have this administration is because far too many individuals have perfected the ability to turn a blind eye to reality.....
> 
> ...and your series of posts is the textbook example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Totally off topic, and does nothing to convince me of your OP. And for the record I'm extremely anti-Obama and anti-Modern Democrats.
Click to expand...




Why would I want to convince you?

Pretend what you wish.


----------



## KevinWestern

PoliticalChic said:


> Why would I want to convince you?
> 
> Pretend what you wish.



What am I "pretending"?


----------



## PoliticalChic

KevinWestern said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I want to convince you?
> 
> Pretend what you wish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What am I "pretending"?
Click to expand...




That you're not pretending.


I believe everything that need be said, has been.


----------



## KevinWestern

PoliticalChic said:


> That you're not pretending.
> 
> I believe everything that need be said, has been.



Well, apparently not because many of us are still not convinced.


----------



## thanatos144

KevinWestern said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you're not pretending.
> 
> I believe everything that need be said, has been.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, apparently not because many of us are still not convinced.
Click to expand...


Being stupid isnt a argument


----------



## LoneLaugher

dblack said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't John Lennon already under the influence of that crazy Asian woman when he wrote that dreadful song?
> 
> I wonder if that's the lesson PC is trying to convey?
> 
> lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with you people??
> 
> It's one of the most beautiful songs ever written.
Click to expand...


Sarcasm alert!


----------



## KevinWestern

thanatos144 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you're not pretending.
> 
> I believe everything that need be said, has been.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, apparently not because many of us are still not convinced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being stupid isnt a argument
Click to expand...


Nor is calling people stupid.


----------



## thanatos144

KevinWestern said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, apparently not because many of us are still not convinced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being stupid isnt a argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor is calling people stupid.
Click to expand...


Observing a truth


----------



## KevinWestern

thanatos144 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being stupid isnt a argument
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor is calling people stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Observing a truth
Click to expand...


Ah, I gotcha. So everyone who doesn't agree with you is "stupid", right? Lol. 

Let's try keeping this a grown up conversation - ok?


----------



## thanatos144

KevinWestern said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor is calling people stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Observing a truth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, I gotcha. So everyone who doesn't agree with you is "stupid", right? Lol.
> 
> Let's try keeping this a grown up conversation - ok?
Click to expand...


No you're stupid because youre incapable of understanding the obvious 

tapatalk post


----------



## KevinWestern

thanatos144 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Observing a truth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, I gotcha. So everyone who doesn't agree with you is "stupid", right? Lol.
> 
> Let's try keeping this a grown up conversation - ok?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you're stupid because youre incapable of understanding the obvious
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Things aren't "obvious" just because you and like two other people think they are, especially when you fail to present any resemblance of a compelling argument.


----------



## thanatos144

KevinWestern said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, I gotcha. So everyone who doesn't agree with you is "stupid", right? Lol.
> 
> Let's try keeping this a grown up conversation - ok?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you're stupid because youre incapable of understanding the obvious
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Things aren't "obvious" just because you and like two other people think they are, especially when you fail to present any resemblance of a compelling argument.
Click to expand...


And that's why you're stupid you can't even understand the argument

tapatalk post


----------



## KevinWestern

thanatos144 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you're stupid because youre incapable of understanding the obvious
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Things aren't "obvious" just because you and like two other people think they are, especially when you fail to present any resemblance of a compelling argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's why you're stupid you can't even understand the argument
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Alright, this is a total waste of time. Feel like I'm talking to an angry teenager or something (all you've offered to the discussion is that "I'm stupid"). 

I'll stick to my optimistic view, and you can stick to your sad, negative and angry view. I'd like to note that you're the first person I've ever met who *dislikes ALL art* that takes the viewer or listener temporarily to a utopia. Really, it's a bit sad. 

I'm going to go enjoy life for a bit, so talk later. Cheer up, lol...


----------



## thanatos144

KevinWestern said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Things aren't "obvious" just because you and like two other people think they are, especially when you fail to present any resemblance of a compelling argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's why you're stupid you can't even understand the argument
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alright, this is a total waste of time. Feel like I'm talking to an angry teenager or something (all you've offered to the discussion is that "I'm stupid").
> 
> I'll stick to my optimistic view, and you can stick to your sad, negative and angry view. I'd like to note that you're the first person I've ever met who *dislikes ALL art* that takes the viewer or listener temporarily to a utopia. Really, it's a bit sad.
> 
> I'm going to go enjoy life for a bit, so talk later. Cheer up, lol...
Click to expand...


You go right ahead and stick your optimism of fascism I'll stick to reality thank you

tapatalk post


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

KevinWestern said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you're not pretending.
> 
> I believe everything that need be said, has been.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, apparently not because many of us are still not convinced.
Click to expand...


Hardly anyones convinced, save that of the OP and her usual rightwing sycophants.


----------



## thanatos144

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you're not pretending.
> 
> I believe everything that need be said, has been.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, apparently not because many of us are still not convinced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly anyones convinced, save that of the OP and her usual rightwing sycophants.
Click to expand...


We know how you hate the truth 

tapatalk post


----------



## bayoubill

PoliticalChic said:


> Relax....this is about politics.
> 
> 1. Here the song at issue:
> 
> "Imagine there's no countries
> It isn't hard to do
> Nothing to kill or die for
> And no religion too"
> "Imagine," by John Lennon
> 
> Yup....*the universal anthem of Liberalism:* "Imagine," by John Lennon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. *No countries...the end of sovereignty....*.only United Nations global government.
> Unelected elites making the rules for all of us.* Imagine.*
> 
> a. *Global governance*, the idea of all humankind united under one common political authority, has not existed so far in human history. This is not to say that it hasnt been debated, called for, fought forand as recently as the 20th century, enforced on large swaths of the planet.called *communism..*.. data is available documenting the deleterious effects: responsible for *over 100 million slaughtered*. How to explain its endorsement by the Western elites? Simple: it is *a religious belief called, among other things, Liberalism.*
> "Sovereignty or Submission: Will Americans Rule Themselves or be Ruled by Others?" by John Fonte
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Imagaine....if there were no counties, it stands to reason, "Nothing to kill or die for."*
> I'm guessing that we could find a few things that people kill or die for in both the history of mankind and the penal code.  Any disagree?
> 
> 4. And, possibly the most invidious lie told, and believed by Liberals..*."more have died because of religion...." Got that covered: " And no religion too"  Imagine.*
> a. First World War (191418): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 million
> Russian Civil War (191722): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 million
> Soviet Union, Stalins regime (192453): . . . . . . . . . 20 million
> Second World War (193745): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 million
> Chinese Civil War (194549): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 million
> Peoples Republic of China, Mao Zedongs
> regime (194975): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 million
> Korean War (195053): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 million
> North Korea (1948 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 million
> Rwanda and Burundi (195995): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.35 million
> What was the religious basis for those?* The only religion I see in there is the religion of Leftism.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. And, of course, the attraction of Liberalism for many is no recriminations, *no judgments *about anyone....after all, each person is entitled to his or her *personal morality...true? Got that covered, too:
> "Imagine there's no heaven
> It's easy if you try
> No hell below us*
> Above us only sky"
> 
> 6. And, if there is no societal morality, then " Imagine all the people
> *Living for today..."*  Yup...'do your own thing.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7. But there is some *good news..*...
> 
> " Often as people mature they out-grow their *naïve embrace of leftist ideology *and begin to see things in their true light,...*' John Lennon was a closet Republican, who felt a little embarrassed by his former radicalism, *at the time of his death - according to the tragic Beatles star's last personal assistant.'
> 
> He says, "John, basically, made it very clear that if he were an American he would vote for *Reagan *because he was really sour on (Democrat) Jimmy Carter. By 1979 he looked back on that guy and was *embarrassed by that guy's naiveté."(He wrote 'Imagine' in 1970).*
> 
> This new revelation about the late rock & roll legend should give us all pause to *reflect upon the hollow nature of liberalism. * For those of us who have misguided friends, family and associates who continue to cling to *the factually devoid ideology of the left, *be patient yet unrelenting in exposing these lost souls to the truth and Imagine them discovering the world of reality."
> Blog: Imagine John Lennon as a Republican
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So.....perhaps there is hope?
> 
> Maybe?



a bit of a stretch, to say the least...


----------



## IlarMeilyr

KevinWestern said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> But of course, you are flatly wrong.
> 
> The song is absolutely NOT merely a retelling of or an endorsement of Buddhist beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, it most definitely is a retelling of beliefs that are consistent with Buddhism.  "Imagine says that once we remove or do away with our divisions (no countries, no possessions, no greed), we would all live as one in harmony. Don't think there's any room for argument here.
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Newsflash, to help you try to keep up.  "No religion too" would INCLUDE Buddhism.
> 
> Buddhist beliefs do not demand or even call forr the disbelief of Buddhist beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about _I help you_ try and keep up, lol (looks like you need it).
> 
> Buddhism asks the practitioner to meditate and discover what are called universal concepts for him/herself. Buddha owned those concepts no more than a math teacher owns math. He was a simply a teacher (as opposed to Jesus who was a teacher but also actively asked his followers to worship him as God).
> 
> I never claimed that John Lennon was asking folks to "become Buddhists", I simply said that the ideas John Lennon covered in the song were extremely consistent with the teachings of Buddha and asked that since you guys hate this song do you _ALSO _hate Buddhism as well.
> 
> You should brush up on your spiritualism; there's a very interesting world out there!
Click to expand...


^ 

Hoo'kay.

Yeah.  Sure.

"Imagine" is a retelling of Buddhism.


----------



## Uncensored2008

KevinWestern said:


> So you're claiming that unequivocally this song is not of a spiritual nature and is instead strictly political? Is that right? Did you get a chance to talk to Lennon about this before he passed, lol? Well I claim that this song is spiritual and my opinion is as good as yours.
> 
> Also, are you claiming that "removing all divisions" is not a Buddhist principle? That - lol - would be quite a tough sell.



Do you do ANY research prior to spouting off?

{*Lennon stated: "'Imagine', which says: 'Imagine that there was no more religion, no more country, no more politics,' is virtually the Communist manifesto, even though I'm not particularly a Communist and I do not belong to any movement."*}

Imagine (song) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## PoliticalChic

Uncensored2008 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're claiming that unequivocally this song is not of a spiritual nature and is instead strictly political? Is that right? Did you get a chance to talk to Lennon about this before he passed, lol? Well I claim that this song is spiritual and my opinion is as good as yours.
> 
> Also, are you claiming that "removing all divisions" is not a Buddhist principle? That - lol - would be quite a tough sell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you do ANY research prior to spouting off?
> 
> {*Lennon stated: "'Imagine', which says: 'Imagine that there was no more religion, no more country, no more politics,' is virtually the Communist manifesto, even though I'm not particularly a Communist and I do not belong to any movement."*}
> 
> Imagine (song) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...






A great big thank you to Uncensored who just DESTROYED the deniers!!


Great!!!!


----------



## manifold

PoliticalChic said:
			
		

> The Most Disgusting Song of All Time... Imagine by John Lennon







And right-wingers say they're not easily offended.


----------



## Uncensored2008

manifold said:


> And right-wingers say they're not easily offended.



At least, not easily fooled....


----------



## manifold

Uncensored2008 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And right-wingers say they're not easily offended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least, not easily fooled....
Click to expand...


Agree to disagree.


----------



## KevinWestern

Uncensored2008 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're claiming that unequivocally this song is not of a spiritual nature and is instead strictly political? Is that right? Did you get a chance to talk to Lennon about this before he passed, lol? Well I claim that this song is spiritual and my opinion is as good as yours.
> 
> Also, are you claiming that "removing all divisions" is not a Buddhist principle? That - lol - would be quite a tough sell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you do ANY research prior to spouting off?
> 
> {*Lennon stated: "'Imagine', which says: 'Imagine that there was no more religion, no more country, no more politics,' is virtually the Communist manifesto, even though I'm not particularly a Communist and I do not belong to any movement."*}
> 
> Imagine (song) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Well why didn&#8217;t you just post that comment at the beginning? You could have saved us all some time, lol.

I stand by my opinion that Lennon wrote this song as a fantasy piece describing his idea of a "utopia" or paradise. You quoted it yourself; Lennon says _explicitly _that he&#8217;s not a communist, nor does he subscribe to any particular movement. "Imagine" is a tune that touches on some rather universal concepts of what a utopia (or &#8220;heaven on Earth&#8221 would look like. 

*Wouldn&#8217;t a Christian consider &#8220;heaven&#8221; to be a place with no greed, no hunger, no nationalities, no possessions, and essentially &#8220;no religions&#8221; because there&#8217;s no longer a need for faith/questioning/or humanistic rituals? Wouldn&#8217;t we all be a part of a single brotherhood with no divisions, etc? Wouldn't there be nothing to kill or die for?*

If a Christian said those things about Heaven - would you consider him/her to be a Communist? Probably not. 

Again, I stand by my opinion that this song is meant to be a fantasy piece, and not to be taken literally as some blueprint on how to actually reorganize all of the world's governments.


----------



## PoliticalChic

KevinWestern said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're claiming that unequivocally this song is not of a spiritual nature and is instead strictly political? Is that right? Did you get a chance to talk to Lennon about this before he passed, lol? Well I claim that this song is spiritual and my opinion is as good as yours.
> 
> Also, are you claiming that "removing all divisions" is not a Buddhist principle? That - lol - would be quite a tough sell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you do ANY research prior to spouting off?
> 
> {*Lennon stated: "'Imagine', which says: 'Imagine that there was no more religion, no more country, no more politics,' is virtually the Communist manifesto, even though I'm not particularly a Communist and I do not belong to any movement."*}
> 
> Imagine (song) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well why didnt you just post that comment at the beginning? You could have saved us all some time, lol.
> 
> I stand by my opinion that Lennon wrote this song as a fantasy piece describing his idea of a "utopia" or paradise. You quoted it yourself; Lennon says _explicitly _that hes not a communist, nor does he subscribe to any particular movement. "Imagine" is a tune that touches on some rather universal concepts of what a utopia (or heaven on Earth) would look like.
> 
> *Wouldnt a Christian consider heaven to be a place with no greed, no hunger, no nationalities, no possessions, and essentially no religions because theres no longer a need for faith/questioning/or humanistic rituals? Wouldnt we all be a part of a single brotherhood with no divisions, etc? Wouldn't there be nothing to kill or die for?*
> 
> If a Christian said those things about Heaven - would you consider him/her to be a Communist? Probably not.
> 
> Again, I stand by my opinion that this song is meant to be a fantasy piece, and not to be taken literally as some blueprint on how to actually reorganize all of the world's governments.
Click to expand...






Kev....you should have left your post with the first sentence alone.


----------



## KevinWestern

PoliticalChic said:


> Kev....you should have left your post with the first sentence alone.



Hey, I&#8217;m just saying you guys are putting this song in a box (ie by implying that Lennon wrote this to brainwash kids into becoming Russian Fascists) whereas I don&#8217;t think that was the intention by the writer. 

Isn&#8217;t it a fair point that a Christian would describe &#8220;heaven&#8221; as a place with no greed, nothing to kill or die for, no nationalities, no hunger, and a &#8220;brotherhood of man&#8221;? I just don&#8217;t get why these concepts are so controversial when coming from the mouth of Lennon.


----------



## Uncensored2008

KevinWestern said:


> Well why didnt you just post that comment at the beginning? You could have saved us all some time, lol.



It's self-explanatory in the song.



> I stand by my opinion that Lennon wrote this song as a fantasy piece describing his idea of a "utopia" or paradise. You quoted it yourself; Lennon says _explicitly _that hes not a communist, nor does he subscribe to any particular movement. "Imagine" is a tune that touches on some rather universal concepts of what a utopia (or heaven on Earth) would look like.



The "utopia" is the Communism that Marx wrote of.



> *Wouldnt a Christian consider heaven to be a place with no greed, no hunger, no nationalities, no possessions, and essentially no religions because theres no longer a need for faith/questioning/or humanistic rituals? Wouldnt we all be a part of a single brotherhood with no divisions, etc? Wouldn't there be nothing to kill or die for?*
> 
> If a Christian said those things about Heaven - would you consider him/her to be a Communist? Probably not.
> 
> Again, I stand by my opinion that this song is meant to be a fantasy piece, and not to be taken literally as some blueprint on how to actually reorganize all of the world's governments.


----------



## Uncensored2008

KevinWestern said:


> Hey, Im just saying you guys are putting this song in a box (ie by implying that Lennon wrote this to brainwash kids into becoming Russian Fascists) whereas I dont think that was the intention by the writer.
> 
> Isnt it a fair point that a Christian would describe heaven as a place with no greed, nothing to kill or die for, no nationalities, no hunger, and a brotherhood of man? I just dont get why these concepts are so controversial when coming from the mouth of Lennon.



Lennon was a seriously fucked up dude. His moods were largely controlled by which drugs. and how much of them, he was on. On acid, he was just stupid; on meth, he got mean. On heroin he became the philosopher.

He wrote of the beauty of no possessions from his 5th Ave. Penthouse. And Lennon had a deep contempt for religion, ALL religion, including Buddhism. In fact, save for Hinduism, due to that fraud, the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Buddhism was top of his list for contempt. To believe that Lennon wrote anything positive about Buddhism post 1968 is absurd. Eastern religion burned him, and he had a deep-seated and public hatred of it.

{To a sneering John Lennon, he was a money-grubbing, sex-obsessed fraud who cynically abused his influence over The Beatles and many other awed celebrities who worshipped, cross-legged, at his painted feet during the Flower Power era.}

Lennon was right. The Giggling Guru was a shameless old fraud | Mail Online

The issue here Kevin, is that you really don't know anything about John Lennon.


----------



## Camp

KevinWestern said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're claiming that unequivocally this song is not of a spiritual nature and is instead strictly political? Is that right? Did you get a chance to talk to Lennon about this before he passed, lol? Well I claim that this song is spiritual and my opinion is as good as yours.
> 
> Also, are you claiming that "removing all divisions" is not a Buddhist principle? That - lol - would be quite a tough sell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you do ANY research prior to spouting off?
> 
> {*Lennon stated: "'Imagine', which says: 'Imagine that there was no more religion, no more country, no more politics,' is virtually the Communist manifesto, even though I'm not particularly a Communist and I do not belong to any movement."*}
> 
> Imagine (song) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well why didnt you just post that comment at the beginning? You could have saved us all some time, lol.
> 
> I stand by my opinion that Lennon wrote this song as a fantasy piece describing his idea of a "utopia" or paradise. You quoted it yourself; Lennon says _explicitly _that hes not a communist, nor does he subscribe to any particular movement. "Imagine" is a tune that touches on some rather universal concepts of what a utopia (or heaven on Earth) would look like.
> 
> *Wouldnt a Christian consider heaven to be a place with no greed, no hunger, no nationalities, no possessions, and essentially no religions because theres no longer a need for faith/questioning/or humanistic rituals? Wouldnt we all be a part of a single brotherhood with no divisions, etc? Wouldn't there be nothing to kill or die for?*
> 
> If a Christian said those things about Heaven - would you consider him/her to be a Communist? Probably not.
> 
> Again, I stand by my opinion that this song is meant to be a fantasy piece, and not to be taken literally as some blueprint on how to actually reorganize all of the world's governments.
Click to expand...


Good example of why wikipedia isn't considered a good source of information. The quote is incomplete and being taken out of context. Lennon was responding to a question in such a way as to mean the song could be interpreted that way if the listener so desired and admiting that it could be interpreted the way being implied by the interviewer. He didn't imply that it was his meaning or meant to be his meaning. He was actually mocking the interviewer in a polite way.


----------



## KevinWestern

Uncensored2008 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I&#8217;m just saying you guys are putting this song in a box (ie by implying that Lennon wrote this to brainwash kids into becoming Russian Fascists) whereas I don&#8217;t think that was the intention by the writer.
> 
> Isn&#8217;t it a fair point that a Christian would describe &#8220;heaven&#8221; as a place with no greed, nothing to kill or die for, no nationalities, no hunger, and a &#8220;brotherhood of man&#8221;? I just don&#8217;t get why these concepts are so controversial when coming from the mouth of Lennon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lennon was a seriously fucked up dude. His moods were largely controlled by which drugs. and how much of them, he was on. On acid, he was just stupid; on meth, he got mean. On heroin he became the philosopher.
> 
> He wrote of the beauty of no possessions from his 5th Ave. Penthouse. And Lennon had a deep contempt for religion, ALL religion, including Buddhism. In fact, save for Hinduism, due to that fraud, the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Buddhism was top of his list for contempt. To believe that Lennon wrote anything positive about Buddhism post 1968 is absurd. Eastern religion burned him, and he had a deep-seated and public hatred of it.
> 
> {To a sneering John Lennon, he was a money-grubbing, sex-obsessed fraud who cynically abused his influence over The Beatles and many other awed celebrities who worshipped, cross-legged, at his painted feet during the Flower Power era.}
> 
> Lennon was right. The Giggling Guru was a shameless old fraud | Mail Online
> 
> The issue here Kevin, is that you really don't know anything about John Lennon.
Click to expand...


Hey, I'm not discounting all you say and certainly here for an open debate. But, for "shits and giggles" - if a Christian were to describe "heaven" to you (ie an idealized paradise), would it be outrageous to assume it might be a place:

Where there's nothing to kill or die for
No greed
No hunger
No countries
No governments
No religion (as in no conflicting faiths, people KNOW for certain there is a God as we know there's a Sun that the Earth circles about)

Couldn't that fit the description of a heaven?


----------



## Camp

KevinWestern said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kev....you should have left your post with the first sentence alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Im just saying you guys are putting this song in a box (ie by implying that Lennon wrote this to brainwash kids into becoming Russian Fascists) whereas I dont think that was the intention by the writer.
> 
> Isnt it a fair point that a Christian would describe heaven as a place with no greed, nothing to kill or die for, no nationalities, no hunger, and a brotherhood of man? I just dont get why these concepts are so controversial when coming from the mouth of Lennon.
Click to expand...


Anyone who researches what inspired Lennon and his inspiration for Imagine beyond wikipedia will discover he claimed two sources for his inspiration. One was a poem by his wife Yoko, the other was a Christian prayer book they kept and used in their home. Lennon had professed to be an athiest in his twenties, but he had grown up as a Christian and even learned to sing as a choirboy. While he didn't profess to actually return to the religion in a formal way, he did admit that he had been reexamining the words of Jesus.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Camp said:


> Anyone who researches what inspired Lennon and his inspiration for Imagine beyond wikipedia will discover he claimed two sources for his inspiration. One was a poem by his wife Yoko, the other was a Christian prayer book they kept and used in their home. Lennon had professed to be an athiest in his twenties, but he had grown up as a Christian and even learned to sing as a choirboy. While he didn't profess to actually return to the religion in a formal way, he did admit that he had been reexamining the words of Jesus.



The bullshit you people come up with is just amazing.


----------



## Camp

Uncensored2008 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who researches what inspired Lennon and his inspiration for Imagine beyond wikipedia will discover he claimed two sources for his inspiration. One was a poem by his wife Yoko, the other was a Christian prayer book they kept and used in their home. Lennon had professed to be an athiest in his twenties, but he had grown up as a Christian and even learned to sing as a choirboy. While he didn't profess to actually return to the religion in a formal way, he did admit that he had been reexamining the words of Jesus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bullshit you people come up with is just amazing.
Click to expand...


"You don't need the package. Just as you don't need the Cristian package or the Marxist package to get the message.
People always got the image I was anti-Christ. I am not. I'm a most religious fellow. I was brought up a Christian and I only now understand some of the things Christ was saying in those parables." John Lennon Playboy interview Sept. 8-Sept. 28, 1980   Published Jan. 1981

Check it out. It's easy if you try.


----------



## manifold

Camp said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who researches what inspired Lennon and his inspiration for Imagine beyond wikipedia will discover he claimed two sources for his inspiration. One was a poem by his wife Yoko, the other was a Christian prayer book they kept and used in their home. Lennon had professed to be an athiest in his twenties, but he had grown up as a Christian and even learned to sing as a choirboy. While he didn't profess to actually return to the religion in a formal way, he did admit that he had been reexamining the words of Jesus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bullshit you people come up with is just amazing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "You don't need the package. Just as you don't need the Cristian package or the Marxist package to get the message.
> People always got the image I was anti-Christ. I am not. I'm a most religious fellow. I was brought up a Christian and I only now understand some of the things Christ was saying in those parables." John Lennon Playboy interview Sept. 8-Sept. 28, 1980   Published Jan. 1981
> 
> Check it out. *It's easy if you try.*
Click to expand...


Ha! I see what you did there.


----------



## Camp

manifold said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bullshit you people come up with is just amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You don't need the package. Just as you don't need the Cristian package or the Marxist package to get the message.
> People always got the image I was anti-Christ. I am not. I'm a most religious fellow. I was brought up a Christian and I only now understand some of the things Christ was saying in those parables." John Lennon Playboy interview Sept. 8-Sept. 28, 1980   Published Jan. 1981
> 
> Check it out. *It's easy if you try.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha! I see what you did there.
Click to expand...


"Dick Gregory gave Yoko and me a little kind of prayer book. Christian idiom, but you can apply it anywhere. It is the concept of positive prayer. If you want to get a car, get the car keys. Get it? IMAGINE IS SAYING that if you can imagine a world of peace, with no denominations of religion, not without religion but without this my god is bigger than your god thing then it can be true."  John Lennon   All We Are Saying by David Sheff.

Cloud Piece
Imagine the clouds dripping
dig a hole in your garden
put them in.  
by Yoko Ono   Book of Poetry Grapefruit


----------

