Would liberals allow the Beatles to play this song on college campuses?

[Misty]

I'm not elderly. You're the one that acts 90.

How so?

Pogo's posts are illegible.

He's using the same font as everyone else here.

Or did you mean "incomprehensible"?

I typed unintelligible but spell check changed it.

 

[Pogo]

I'm not elderly. You're the one that acts 90.

How so?

Pogo's posts are illegible.

He's using the same font as everyone else here.

Or did you mean "incomprehensible"?

I typed unintelligible but spell check changed it.

I am an enigma, wrapped in a mystery, locked inside a riddle. A ginger sling with a pineapple heart.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Are liberals in control of what songs get played on a college campus?

 

[tyroneweaver]

That's cause tyroneweaver is one of the 7 mysteries of the USMB.
USMB has 7 mysteries, and tyrone is one of them.

 

[Mustang]

Are liberals in control of what songs get played on a college campus?

Didn't you know that liberals control everything?

You see, every time a conservative is upset about something (anything, really), it's a liberal's fault. Or more correctly stated, it's the fault of liberals...ALL liberals.

It reminds me of Stuper Duck flying around and attributing every crime (even events that were NOT crimes) to his arch nemesis, Aardvark Ratnick.

 

[Arianrhod]

I'm not elderly. You're the one that acts 90.

How so?

Pogo's posts are illegible.

He's using the same font as everyone else here.

Or did you mean "incomprehensible"?

Both.

"Whose is the possessive form of who (or, occasionally, which). It means "belonging to whom or which." Who's is a contraction of who is or who has. Notice the apostrophe replacing the missing letters."

See, you can write intelligently. I look forward to more of the same.

Are liberals in control of what songs get played on a college campus?

I've come to the conclusion that "librul" is RW code for "anything that I don't like/scares me." It does not mean what they think it means.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Banning the Beatles is a very old story, but those behind the banning attempts were conservatives, not liberals:

August 8, 1966: "Hundreds of Beatles Records Are to Be Pulverized in a Giant Municipal Tree-Grinding Machine"

Mississippi 1966:

In the spirit of Berlin 1933:

 

[turzovka]

Personally, I'd love to see some American evangelical Christian leader (and his one true God, of course) duke it out with some Imam (and his one true God, naturally) and leave the rest of us out of it.

As for me, I'm perfectly content to look up and see only sky. That means no gods in some supposed Heaven, or on Mount Olympus, and no chariots OF the gods, either.

Well in this morning’s paper we read of a very commonplace occurrence in the world of Islam. A nine year old Muslim girl in Afghanistan was beheaded by some other Muslim band of fanatical believers because they did not like the way that nine year old girl believed… or was it dressed?

My point is this. 21st century man is far more educated and civilized than mankind was in the middle ages and dark ages. Most ideologies do not settle their differences by torturing or killing their opponents. The one exception appears to be Islam. There are still hundreds of thousands or millions of roving bands of devils killing in the name of Allah or Muhammad. If there is a God above it cannot be found in Islam. Because God would never allow His one true religion to turn out such an enormous fringe element that is the antithesis of love and kindness. Maybe mankind had to work things out (more brutally) a thousand years ago because life was so harsh and difficult and survival was the name of the game. But now that we have all progressed we are able to work out our differences in a much more kinder and reasonable ways.

Except for Islam. Their god or their “inspired word” has spawned devils galore who thrive on murder and hate.

So you can rule out Islam. You can rule out the Greek mythological god Zeus, the Roman god Jupiter, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster because no one ever took those pretend types seriously. Hindu gods and Buddhism and animism and Eastern gods and native tribal gods all lack empirical evidence for their existence. That is, if anyone was ever serious enough to do an honest study.

So that leaves Judaism and Christianity. If you choose to lump them in with all the rest, well that is your choice. But in Hosea 4:6 their God says “my people perish for lack of knowledge.”

 

[Pogo]

Personally, I'd love to see some American evangelical Christian leader (and his one true God, of course) duke it out with some Imam (and his one true God, naturally) and leave the rest of us out of it.

As for me, I'm perfectly content to look up and see only sky. That means no gods in some supposed Heaven, or on Mount Olympus, and no chariots OF the gods, either.

Well in this morning’s paper we read of a very commonplace occurrence in the world of Islam. A nine year old Muslim girl in Afghanistan was beheaded by some other Muslim band of fanatical believers because they did not like the way that nine year old girl believed… or was it dressed?

My point is this. 21st century man is far more educated and civilized than mankind was in the middle ages and dark ages. Most ideologies do not settle their differences by torturing or killing their opponents. The one exception appears to be Islam. There are still hundreds of thousands or millions of roving bands of devils killing in the name of Allah or Muhammad. If there is a God above it cannot be found in Islam. Because God would never allow His one true religion to turn out such an enormous fringe element that is the antithesis of love and kindness. Maybe mankind had to work things out (more brutally) a thousand years ago because life was so harsh and difficult and survival was the name of the game. But now that we have all progressed we are able to work out our differences in a much more kinder and reasonable ways.

Except for Islam. Their god or their “inspired word” has spawned devils galore who thrive on murder and hate.

So you can rule out Islam. You can rule out the Greek mythological god Zeus, the Roman god Jupiter, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster because no one ever took those pretend types seriously. Hindu gods and Buddhism and animism and Eastern gods and native tribal gods all lack empirical evidence for their existence. That is, if anyone was ever serious enough to do an honest study.

So that leaves Judaism and Christianity. If you choose to lump them in with all the rest, well that is your choice. But in Hosea 4:6 their God says “my people perish for lack of knowledge.”

This is not a religion thread, K? That's why I quit responding to you -- you're completely off topic here. If you want to develop this, it's a worthy topic in itself but it's got jack shit to do with this thread-- please take it to the Religion forum.

Thank you.

 

[BlindBoo]

I think one could see the PC crowd objecting to some words in that song. Liberals no, PC Snowflakes yeah.

 

[BlindBoo]

It's a crap song with a condescending meaning. And it's degrading to women.

"Degrading" ?

Care to essplain ..... how?

For a white man to write a song about something he couldn't possible understand, like he knows, is degrading.

and Yoko?

 

[turzovka]

Personally, I'd love to see some American evangelical Christian leader (and his one true God, of course) duke it out with some Imam (and his one true God, naturally) and leave the rest of us out of it.

As for me, I'm perfectly content to look up and see only sky. That means no gods in some supposed Heaven, or on Mount Olympus, and no chariots OF the gods, either.

Well in this morning’s paper we read of a very commonplace occurrence in the world of Islam. A nine year old Muslim girl in Afghanistan was beheaded by some other Muslim band of fanatical believers because they did not like the way that nine year old girl believed… or was it dressed?

My point is this. 21st century man is far more educated and civilized than mankind was in the middle ages and dark ages. Most ideologies do not settle their differences by torturing or killing their opponents. The one exception appears to be Islam. There are still hundreds of thousands or millions of roving bands of devils killing in the name of Allah or Muhammad. If there is a God above it cannot be found in Islam. Because God would never allow His one true religion to turn out such an enormous fringe element that is the antithesis of love and kindness. Maybe mankind had to work things out (more brutally) a thousand years ago because life was so harsh and difficult and survival was the name of the game. But now that we have all progressed we are able to work out our differences in a much more kinder and reasonable ways.

Except for Islam. Their god or their “inspired word” has spawned devils galore who thrive on murder and hate.

So you can rule out Islam. You can rule out the Greek mythological god Zeus, the Roman god Jupiter, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster because no one ever took those pretend types seriously. Hindu gods and Buddhism and animism and Eastern gods and native tribal gods all lack empirical evidence for their existence. That is, if anyone was ever serious enough to do an honest study.

So that leaves Judaism and Christianity. If you choose to lump them in with all the rest, well that is your choice. But in Hosea 4:6 their God says “my people perish for lack of knowledge.”

This is not a religion thread, K? That's why I quit responding to you -- you're completely off topic here. If you want to develop this, it's a worthy topic in itself but it's got jack shit to do with this thread-- please take it to the Religion forum.

Thank you.

That’s a perfectly fair response pogo, albeit I was talking to Mustang, not you?
As it were, I brought up “Imagine” as a compliment to the other controversial John Lennon song this thread was about. I did not think my comment was so inappropriate and no one was required to respond to it either.

Having said that, I, personally, could not care less if a thread is “hijacked” or goes another route. If some find it of interest it can be worth discussing. And this other “rule” that it is “out of its category” is both capricious and silly, IMO. It is hardly invasive upon anyone else’s time and can simply be ignored.

It also seems to me, the only time anyone gets uptight about a "diversion" is when religion is introduced. What a surprise. Religion always gets those uptight who are not that religious. All one needs do is watch the national news to realize that.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Who are the bitches of the world?

 

[Pogo]

That’s a perfectly fair response pogo, albeit I was talking to Mustang, not you?
As it were, I brought up “Imagine” as a compliment to the other controversial John Lennon song this thread was about. I did not think my comment was so inappropriate and no one was required to respond to it either.

You were originally talking to me about it; as I said that's why I stopped responding -- it was derailing the topic.

Having said that, I, personally, could not care less if a thread is “hijacked” or goes another route. If some find it of interest it can be worth discussing. And this other “rule” that it is “out of its category” is both capricious and silly, IMO. It is hardly invasive upon anyone else’s time and can simply be ignored.

However the thread isn't only about you, and those who wish to stay on topic DO care if it's hijacked.

It also seems to me, the only time anyone gets uptight about a "diversion" is when religion is introduced. What a surprise. Religion always gets those uptight who are not that religious. All one needs do is watch the national news to realize that.

Speculation fallacy and martyr complex. The thread is about a particular "feminist" song and how it would be perceived today. None of that has squat to do with "my god can beat up your god". That's not up do debate -- it's a fact.

 

[turzovka]

That’s a perfectly fair response pogo, albeit I was talking to Mustang, not you?
As it were, I brought up “Imagine” as a compliment to the other controversial John Lennon song this thread was about. I did not think my comment was so inappropriate and no one was required to respond to it either.

You were originally talking to me about it; as I said that's why I stopped responding -- it was derailing the topic.

Having said that, I, personally, could not care less if a thread is “hijacked” or goes another route. If some find it of interest it can be worth discussing. And this other “rule” that it is “out of its category” is both capricious and silly, IMO. It is hardly invasive upon anyone else’s time and can simply be ignored.

However the thread isn't only about you, and those who wish to stay on topic DO care if it's hijacked.

It also seems to me, the only time anyone gets uptight about a "diversion" is when religion is introduced. What a surprise. Religion always gets those uptight who are not that religious. All one needs do is watch the national news to realize that.

Speculation fallacy and martyr complex. The thread is about a particular "feminist" song and how it would be perceived today. None of that has squat to do with "my god can beat up your god". That's not up do debate -- it's a fact.

Oh dear, according to pogo, I made one comment out of what, 100?, and somehow I hijacked this thread. And not only that, such a matter is somehow a serious injustice to all the other people partaking in this thread. Because why? Because it probably confuses them where it must ruin a whole hour of their day before they can find their bearings again. (That is, assuming any of them even bothered to read it.)

But the real irony of you complaining about me daring to mention the song “Imagine” when the OP is about the Lennon song “Woman is the n----ger of the World” is that YOU were the only one to respond to my post which was not even directed at you. Not once mind you, but three or four times you engaged me which kept the sub-thread rolling. No one else commented, except well later on Mustang did. Also, moments after I expounded to you on the Imagine song, on post #42 someone wrote “Great thread!” (more irony)

So forget it Pogo. Your tirade in the Hillary Video thread I thought was rather childish, much adieu about nothing. This rebuke towards me here, not much different.

 

[Pogo]

That’s a perfectly fair response pogo, albeit I was talking to Mustang, not you?
As it were, I brought up “Imagine” as a compliment to the other controversial John Lennon song this thread was about. I did not think my comment was so inappropriate and no one was required to respond to it either.

You were originally talking to me about it; as I said that's why I stopped responding -- it was derailing the topic.

Having said that, I, personally, could not care less if a thread is “hijacked” or goes another route. If some find it of interest it can be worth discussing. And this other “rule” that it is “out of its category” is both capricious and silly, IMO. It is hardly invasive upon anyone else’s time and can simply be ignored.

However the thread isn't only about you, and those who wish to stay on topic DO care if it's hijacked.

It also seems to me, the only time anyone gets uptight about a "diversion" is when religion is introduced. What a surprise. Religion always gets those uptight who are not that religious. All one needs do is watch the national news to realize that.

Speculation fallacy and martyr complex. The thread is about a particular "feminist" song and how it would be perceived today. None of that has squat to do with "my god can beat up your god". That's not up do debate -- it's a fact.

Oh dear, according to pogo, I made one comment out of what, 100?, and somehow I hijacked this thread. And not only that, such a matter is somehow a serious injustice to all the other people partaking in this thread. Because why? Because it probably confuses them where it must ruin a whole hour of their day before they can find their bearings again. (That is, assuming any of them even bothered to read it.)

But the real irony of you complaining about me daring to mention the song “Imagine” when the OP is about the Lennon song “Woman is the n----ger of the World” is that YOU were the only one to respond to my post which was not even directed at you. Not once mind you, but three or four times you engaged me which kept the sub-thread rolling. No one else commented, except well later on Mustang did. Also, moments after I expounded to you on the Imagine song, on post #42 someone wrote “Great thread!” (more irony)

So forget it Pogo. Your tirade in the Hillary Video thread I thought was rather childish, much adieu about nothing. This rebuke towards me here, not much different.

"Much adieu about nothing" huh? I like it. As long as you're saying goodbye.

It's not "nothing" however. Your tangent has absolutely nothing to do with the topic here. Yes I engaged you at first on the presumption that there would be an exchange or two and then it would be dropped to return to topic. But noooooo..... you had to make an obsession out of it.

So not adieu but ... au revoir. Somewhere else.