The Most Disgusting Song of All Time

[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. “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.

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

Your point is?

 

[Camp]

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.

Your point is?

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

 

[Pogo]

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]

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.

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

 

[Camp]

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.

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 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]

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]

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

Your point is?

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[Pogo]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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?

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

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

Speaking of whores, how are you Pogo?

 

[Pogo]

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?

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...

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

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.

"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]

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.

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 or the ability to be sensible. These conclusions you draw from my post are perfect examples of that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

~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.

 

[waltky]

Uncle Ferd likes the one...

... `bout diggin' lint...

... outta yer belly-button.