Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
“Irreverence is the champion of liberty, and its only sure defense.” – Mark Twain - 1888
Blog Archive
About Me
- Dave Dubya
- History will not judge us kindly if we as a nation fail to defend and promote democracy. I am an old-fashioned American citizen who believes in our traditional values of freedom, truth, and justice. When I see our laws and government subverted and twisted into service of the undemocratic, powerful, corporate oligarchy, I must react with a patriotic defense of our values. I strongly oppose the ongoing destruction of what is left of American democracy and shall give voice to our common cause of freedom. I invite you to share my thoughts. I also welcome your comments, be they contradictory, corrective, or complimentary. Only one comment and response will be allowed for anonymous trolls. Repeated, unidentified, and off-topic trolling will be deleted as spam.
Posts
53 comments:
Bryan Fischer said something similar, something like "it's the end of the Republican Party as we know it" if Obama gets re-elected.
Let's hope they're right.
If you do a web search for the Republican Party platform from 1956, you'll see how far to the Right the GOP has lurched since then.
We've heard this before. They said it about the Democrats after Bush won in 2004 and about the Republicans after 2008. Its B.S.
Though considering my party would take its place, I'd be happy to see it happen. And trust me, you'd miss those old Bible thumping, stuffy conservatives once you had to deal with us shutting the government down every time the President doesn't balance the budget. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
Limbaugh is a drama queen and probably off his meds, prescribed or otherwise.
How well I remember a lot of talk about the GOP being on the brink extinction in the aftermath of Richard Nixon's resignation in disgrace. Some of that talk was from Republican pols themselves. Like the shingles residual of chickenpox, Republicans came back in an even worse form. Unlike shingles, the return didn't take decades, unfortunately.
As I've said elsewhere, until the GOP gets rid of this albatross that is the Tea Party, they are courting disaster as more moderate conservatives flee the party.I think we're already seeing signs of it. Conservatism is one thing; extremism is another.
The Democrats have turned more to the center and the Republicans have veered off to the irrational. They are no longer a party.....more of a NASCAR race of moronic sound bytes.
Tom,
Reagan would be a RINO today.
Free,
BS it is. The Bible thumpers want exactly what the elites want. They fall in line.
SW,
For a bunch of tough guys, they whine like crybabies.
Leslie,
"Conservatism" is now whatever the economic elites say it is.
Okjimm,
They are still the powerful party of uncompromising shills for the elites.
The Republican Party doesn't exist. The Republicans of Eisenhower are called Kenyan Marxists today.
I'd like Obama to support a return to the Budget of Esienhower with 52-54% effective tax rates on Corporations. Then we would have the balanced budgets free0352 desires.
A Libertarian is just a Tea Partier with a little more organization. Not much more. And a slightly better vocabulary.
Oh you know Libertarians, we're famous Bible Thumpers... oh wait quite the opposite.
What planet do you live on? Libertarians are famous for being the party with the most atheists in it. For good or ill, its a fact. In fact, I don't bring it up much because people's religious beliefs generally doesn't hurt me what-so-ever, but religion... any religion... is stupid and ignorant superstition. That's not my "opinion" that is a scientific verifiable fact I'm simply accepting. Period. If you have a problem with that, I absolutely don't care. I'm not interested in a debate about your faith belief. I come from a Catholic family, trust me I get enough at home. Being superstitious doesn't make you a bad person, but I'd be lying to you if I told you I thought your faith belief is anything other that totally insane- and no I don't respect it. However I'm a tolerant guy so I tolerate it. You have an absolute right to believe in your superstition without anyone bothering you about it least of all me. Nor will Libertarian atheists (and we're about 60% of the card carrying party) because while we believe you are ignorant and deny reality we also believe you have an absolute right to do that so long as your whacked out superstition doesn't hurt anyone else. My party is known for being "pro gay" and is 70% pro-choice (though I'm not 100% pro choice by admition), we're pro drug legalization and give no support to laws against strippers, porn, prostitution, or any number of things that get Pat Robertson's panties in a wad- hardly positions of the moral majority types.
So if it makes you kids feel better to call Libertarians Bible Thumpers, be my guest. Just know I'll look at your ignorance the same way I do people who think they come back from the dead as other people, Jesus rose from the dead, crystals have healing powers, L. Ron Hubbard wasn't a cult leader and con artist, or the world was made in six days. Totally fucking insane and in reality denial and in total rejection mode of modern science.
Free0352: "Libertarians are famous for being the party with the most atheists in it."
Possibly...
"...but religion... any religion... is stupid and ignorant superstition."
Something we might be able to agree on, although there's a difference between religious dogma and spirituality.
"That's not my 'opinion' that is a scientific verifiable fact..."
No, it's really an opinion. The existence of a supreme being, or spiritual life, is unprovable either way. You'll have to cite your source of "scientific verifiable fact".
"However I'm a tolerant guy so I tolerate it."
Like your tolerance of Islam? ;-)
"...because while we believe you are ignorant and deny reality we also believe you have an absolute right to do that so long as your whacked out superstition doesn't hurt anyone else."
Like the libertarian religion of kneeling at the alter of unrestrained free-markets; your whacked-out superstition that the laissez faire absence of regulations are good for everyone?
Do you mean that denial of reality?
"Totally fucking insane and in reality denial and in total rejection mode of modern science."
Like your rejection of modern science that verifies global warming is, indeed, occurring, and that the causes correlate perfectly with man-made activities?
Faith, religion, beliefs, axioms, and the ever elusive "common sense" are crutches and tools, blessings and curses.
Sometimes real good can be done, other times things degrade into hatred and violence.
Politicians know how to manipulate true believers. They always have.
Many Bible thumpers have been loyal to the very money changers their Savior scorned. They ignore "render unto Caesar" and "camel through the eye of a needle" and believe Jesus wants them to be rich.
Many self-proclaimed Christians follow the party of Mammon (R) (wealth) despite Jesus's warning that they cannot serve two masters.
Now they'll be voting for a Mormon, who many believe to be a cult member.
As long as libertarians don't openly offend and insult their beliefs, many Bible thumpers would follow them.
After all, to them, Democrats are agents of Satan.
There's no reasoning with them, so they are to be manipulated. Their fears, resentments and beliefs are quite easy for the televangelists to profit from, and the GOP, or Libertarians can be counted on to take that course as well.
Profit, wealth and the power of wealth are the gods and faith the GOP and Libertarians share.
The gullible will always revere wealth and the wealthy; no matter how little “trickles down”.
One way or another, the sheep will be fleeced.
L. Ron Hubbard, Sun Myung Moon, etc. were "free market" titans who were experts at such manipulation.
All kinds of people will pay good money to be told how to think, what to believe, and how to serve.
They produced nothing of value, but amassed great wealth. I wonder where they would fit in Rand's good opionion.
Whatever Limbaugh says on any subject is said only to advance his career as the Emperor of the Low-Information Voters.
His paranoid rants have crossed over from batshit crazy into the realms of mental instability.
He knows that fewer and fewer people listen to him, sponsors have pulled out of his show, and the only way to keep what's left of his intelligence-challenged audience is to go full-on frenzied maniac.
It's really quite amusing.
although there's a difference between religious dogma and spirituality.
No there isn't. You do not have a "spirit," there is nothing supernatural to you, you will not live forever in some other worldly realm, you are not connected to anything. You are a species of great ape. You are a mammal. Everything you do is a product of your genetics and instincts, and the only way you differ from other members of the animal kingdom is your exceptionally large brain and how that brain works, allowing you to temper your instinctual behaviors through a learned thought process. Basically you have the power of choice. Every other species does not. You are 98% identical on a genetic level to a chimp. You are not special, you are not a unique, beautiful snowflake. You're just another omniverous monkey. Thats a harsh way of putting it, but it has be benefit of being provable and true an natural and very normal.
The existence of a supreme being, or spiritual life, is unprovable either way
A supernatural force is indeed unprovable and has indeed never been proven and likely never will. However, clearly we're here. So science wins that one purely by default. I don't claim to hold the secrets to life or the universe. However, by examining evidence and data I can at the least conclude what the answer is not and the answer is not that some super powerful all knowing force created humanity or even exists.
Actually, science can't disprove the idea that chimps have spirits.
Lack of evidence doesn't disprove anything in science. You need contrarian evidence to disprove something.
Science has no evidence to prove this either way.
Atoms were once unknown to science. The lack of evidence didn't prove that they don't exist.
There may come a time when some 'spiritual' beliefs will be backed up by string theory, with it's notions of multiple dimensions, stacked in the same space. Or maybe it won't.
By it's nature, the notion of spirituality is not disprovable by science. Nor is it now provable.
So your opinion is reasonable from a scientific point of view, Free0352.
Actually, science can't disprove the idea that chimps have spirits.
It can't prove it either. And since there isn't any evidence, well... you have to take it on faith. I say fuck faith.
The lack of evidence didn't prove that they don't exist
The evidence was there, it hadn't been found yet. There is no evidence to be found for the supernatural. And people have definitely been looking. Just ask the intelligent design morons.
So your opinion is reasonable from a scientific point of view, Free0352
I know it is. Thanks.
Free0352: "No there isn't [a difference between religious dogma and spirituality]. You do not have a 'spirit', there is nothing supernatural to you, you will not live forever..."
Yes, there is [a difference]. Dogma is defined as a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds -- sort of like your libertarian body of doctrine you're persistently espousing as "gospel". Spirituality is a whole different animal, which doesn't necessarily have to include (or exclude) a supreme being.
"You are a mammal."
Physically, yes.
"You are 98% identical on a genetic level to a chimp."
The sharing of an almost identical genome doesn't preclude the possibility of a spiritual self.
"You're just another omniverous monkey. Thats a harsh way of putting it, but it has be benefit of being provable and true an natural and very normal."
It's not harsh to me. I totally accept Darwinist thought on evolution of the species -- every species. Your argument still doesn't disprove the concept of spirituality.
"A supernatural force is indeed unprovable and has indeed never been proven and likely never will. However, clearly we're here."
Good, you're finally coming around...
"So science wins that one purely by default."
Wins what? That it's the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural? Yes, I guess science is the winner when it comes to studying our physical being.
But it [science] never makes claims that a spiritual realm doesn't exist. It can't. It would be going beyond its scope of study.
"However, by examining evidence and data I can at the least conclude what the answer is not and the answer is not that some super powerful all knowing force created humanity or even exists."
I don't believe modern "science" has ever made a claim that our universal creation was or wasn't, because frankly, it's out of the realm of science to do such a thing (as previously mentioned). If you feel it isn't (or is), it's purely your personal opinion. And you know what opinions are like...everybody has one.
By the way, please share with me the "evidence and data" that you claim disproves the existence of a spiritual self. I'd be very interested in finally finding some.
"It can't prove it either. And since there isn't any evidence, well... you have to take it on faith. I say fuck faith."
You can fuck faith all you want, but fucking faith doesn't automatically prove our spiritual sides don't exist. Which, if you'll reread what I originally stated (at time-stamp 10:05 AM), "there's a difference between religious dogma and spirituality."
Oh, and am I the only one who finds it funny that originally you were accusing Libertarians of being members of the religious right, and you are now debating me on the side of religion while I am opposing it?
Like I said earlier, you can't debate faith because faith suspends logic, evidence and reason.
I can't prove to you that Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy aren't real either, and I won't try.
If you choose to accept them on faith, no amount of evidence will sway you to the truth.
Free0352: "By accepting faith you totally surrender your powers of observation and ability to examine evidence. You're so open minded your brain fell out."
You mean like your faith in the government and its 9/11 report? ;-)
"Using your logic..."
What you fail to grasp, is logic is of the mind; spirituality is of another dimension. It can't be explained; it can't be unexplained. As Weaseldog already expertly mentioned, The lack of evidence doesn't prove that something doesn't exist.
"Its not possible dude."
Oh, it's possible...but maybe not for someone as closed-minded as yourself.
"Oh, and am I the only one who finds it funny that originally you were accusing Libertarians of being members of the religious right..."
You must have confused me with someone else. I've never made such a claim. Please cite my exact words.
"I can't prove to you that Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy aren't real either..."
You mean like I can't prove that Al Qaida wasn't behind the 9/11 mass-murder...or that "the war on terror" is a made-up sham?
"If you choose to accept them on faith, no amount of evidence will sway you to the truth."
But there isn't any evidence, remember? You've already agreed to that! So please, as I've already asked, show me the "evidence and data" you said proves there isn't a spiritual life.
[It's interesting, isn't it, that I can say the same about you and your unwavering belief in the "official" 9/11 story?]
Show me the evidence there isn't an invisible, weightless elephant on your nose?
You mean like your faith in the government and its 9/11 report?
A lot of evidence went into that report. You can read it if you wish. As a matter of fact, I helped collect some. So know- I've seen Al'Queda up close. Seen the videos, documents, plans, and spoken with its members. I've never talked to god. Accepting evidence (in this case abundant evidence) isn't faith, its rationality.
You've been provided with evidence many times here and elsewhere. You've first heard the criminals admit to the crime. You saw with your own eyes the event on TV. You've talked to a demolitions expert (Yes, me) and must know that all mainstream media and politics and even the most left wing of political thought finds your contention mad.
But your faith sustains you, no matter the data or evidence. Deep down, thats a result of your very primitive mind as you evidence when you said-
logic is of the mind; spirituality is of another dimension
If I were visiting a mental institution and met someone who thought they were Napoleon or that they were being stalked by demons we would call that person insane. Yet you are talking about other dimensions now and I'm supposed to take that seriously.
I think instead I'll stick to the mind.
You suggested I'm closed minded.
As I said, you're so open minded your brain fell out. You are in effect a mystic. The good, say the mystics, is God (in one form or another), a being(s) or "higher power" whose only definition is that he/it is beyond man's power to conceive. A definition that invalidates consciousness and nullifies our concepts of existence. That sense of blind belief, unsupported by, and contrary to, the facts of reality and the conclusions of reason is faith. Faith, as such, is detrimental to human life- it is the negation of reason, the human species chief survival mechanism.
Remember that religion and mystisism is an early form of philosophy, the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man's life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy. Therefore to accept religion or primitive supernatural concepts is a de-evolution and a surrender of thought, and as thought is our species chief survival mechanism it is anti human. I can think of few things more close minded than a believer who adopts such a thought destroying system. You know your superstition is not provable, so when you get caught in your lie by which you live your life when I tell you that your doctrine doesn't make sense - you're ready for me. You tell me there's something above sense. That here I must not try to think, instead I must feel. I must believe. Suspend reason and logic and my powers of observation. Suspend my human mechanism for survival.
No thanks Jeff, I'll stick to what I can see and quantify instead of closing my mind by accepting the walls of superstition. I value what is real. The greatest gratification in life doesn't come from make believe, but from real life things and events and accomplishments.
There is no absolution or relief or connection in the mystic and supernatural. There is no meaning in the senseless and no answers to be found in a fraud. A life lived for or by a lie will never be satisfying, which is why mystical and religious people are often deeply unhappy and confused about their actions and nature and are often the most closed of minds.
Free0352: "A lot of evidence went into that report."
Sure, evidence that supported the government's claim. If it was contrary to their claim, it didn't make the report.
"You can read it if you wish."
I have. It's incomplete.
"As a matter of fact, I helped collect some."
Sure you did. I did too! ;-)
"I've never talked to god."
That doesn't prove a non-existence.
"You've first heard the criminals admit to the crime."
I heard voice-over video that was a fraud.
"You saw with your own eyes the event on TV."
I saw with my own eyes Building 7 fall at 5:15 p.m., in an unobstructed free-fall, also. This event wasn't even mentioned in the official 9/11 Report.
"You've talked to a demolitions expert (Yes, me)"
You're not an expert in highrise demolition. Several who are, claim it was a an unobstructed free-fall, and they believe the evidence presented within the official investigation was lacking.
"You know your superstition is not provable..."
Of course spirituality isn't provable by scientific methods. We've already beat that dead horse. Why do you insist upon returning to it over and over?
"I can think of few things more close minded than a believer who adopts such a thought destroying system."
It's actually just the opposite -- it's mind-expanding. It doesn't destroy the mind; it awakens the soul.
"You tell me there's something above sense. That here I must not try to think, instead I must feel. I must believe. Suspend reason and logic and my powers of observation."
You obviously aren't familiar with Eckhart Tolle and his body of work. You ought to look into it. You could benefit from it.
Needless to say, nobody is advocating the suspension of reason and logic and your senses -- just not relying upon them for all the answers.
"The greatest gratification in life doesn't come from make believe, but from real life things and events and accomplishments."
I agree. That's why I'm a believer. It's also why I don't believe the "official" government story-line, and why I know the "war on terror" is just another in a series of heists and hoaxes perpetrated on the citizens of not only this nation, but also innocent people all around the world. And people like you perpetrate the lies, and undertake the killing, because your insecurity and lack of understanding disallows you to make those critical connections. I feel sorry for you.
"There is no meaning in the senseless and no answers to be found in a fraud."
I know, so why to do continue to live a lie? Why do you do their bidding and prostitute yourself as their tool?
"A life lived for or by a lie will never be satisfying, which is why mystical and religious people are often deeply unhappy and confused about their actions and nature and are often the most closed of minds."
Actually, people who have truly made that connection (and I'm not speaking of religious zealots, and followers of dogma, who have intellectualized their ideas of a supernatural force) are the happiest and most satisfied people in the world. That's a fact. They've learned to live totally and happily within the present moment -- which is all we as physical beings can really do.
Sure you did. I did too!
Really? Where were you in Afghanistan? When were you there? Oh wait, you were never there and never did anything.
I heard voice-over video that was a fraud.
It wasn't a fraud and you know better. You sound like an evangelical insisting the Bible is 100% accurate. Next you'll tell me the CIA walked on water.
You're not an expert in highrise demolition.
True the largest building I've taken down was eight stories, but the fact remains I have far, far, far more experience than you do. Also, there are only a few "architects" and so called blast engineers who end up being exposed as nobodies in the industry even making claims -none of which is substantiated by even one peer reviewed paper- that support your faith belief that a super secret conspiracy blew up tower 7.
Not. One. Paper.
Zero.
Yet your faith is strong. A true believer is unshakable in his faith. You would have made a good monk if this were 1300.
Why do you insist upon returning to it over and over?
Because I like to remind the reader I'm arguing from science and you're taking the witch doctor position. Maybe you can get some totems and jiggle your gris gris and try to convince me you'll put a voodoo curse on me.
nobody is advocating the suspension of reason and logic and your senses
YES, you are. YOU ARE, right NOW. You'll point to 9-11 and flail and tell me YOU MUST BELIEVE and whatever superstitious none-sense you can try to conjure from your mystical faith but in the end I'm standing on peer reviewed, 100% scientific fact and all you've got weather it be your false "spirituality" or your 9-11 tin foil hat conspiracy is superstition, paranoia and a mind on par with the screaming savages from a time soon forgotten and long past. You're not just wrong, you're obsolete.
I'll let that staunch defender or right wing authoritarianism.... Noam Chomsky school your ass.
You know when a guy like me and Chomsky are in very close agreement... well dude you have traveled FAR outside the realm of conventional thought.
Free0352: "Next you'll tell me the CIA walked on water."
Well, I'm not sure about that, but they certainly walked...
So did Mossad.
"...but the fact remains I have far, far, far more experience than you do."
That doesn't make you an expert.
"...there are only a few 'architects' and so called blast engineers who end up being exposed as nobodies..."
Not true. This 2:19:03 film is filled with experts. A few world-renowned experts, as a matter of fact. Please cite for me where each of these experts have been exposed as "nobodies". They discuss, just within the first few minutes, how national standards were not complied with during the investigation -- especially given the melted steel and concrete which would indicate the existence of thermite. Because they didn't comply with these standards in their (most probably, purposely) botched investigation, there's definitely criminal liability involved.
I prefer to believe their expertise, over that of a lowly foot-soldier.
"...none of which is substantiated by even one peer reviewed paper- that support your faith belief that a super secret conspiracy blew up tower 7. Not. One. Paper."
Not yet.
"Because I like to remind the reader I'm arguing from science..."
I argue from the basis of science, also, in areas dealing with the physical. As we've gone over for the "upteenth" time, science can't analyze and come to any logical conclusions outside of the physical realm. It's impossible. Unless, as you've already mentioned, you have a cache of "evidence and data" that proves otherwise. I'm still waiting for you to provide that to me.
I seem to recall that you deny science when it comes to the very valid concept of global warming. So, you pick-and-choose when it suits your own political ideology?
"I'm standing on peer reviewed, 100% scientific fact and all you've got weather [sic] it be your false 'spirituality'..."
If you're "standing on peer-reviewed" evidence ("facts") -- that proves it once-and-for-all -- please share it with me.
I'm anxiously awaiting.
Not yet.
Its been eleven years dude. It ain't coming. And your "filled with experts" video is filled with quacks and nobodies. Literally nobodies.
As for my expert opinion - and it is just that - you spent a few hours on the internet so what do I know? Never mind that the "evil conspirators" would have to use non-experts like me to do what you're accusing them of doing. Where do you think the CIA would get its bombers... the military guy. Again, you don't make sense and your assertion doesn't jibe with even your own contention, but I'm sure that won't get in the way of your faith.
As we've gone over for the "upteenth" time, science can't analyze and come to any logical conclusions outside of the physical realm.
There IS NOTING beyond the physical realm. That is the point.
Its funny the relation between your twooferism and your mystisism. I see now they are related, and that is something about your kind I have learned from this blog thread I didn't realize before. Both are manifestations of a primitive mind, one that has self grandiose notions of possession of "secret" knowledge or more appropriately named intuition that is unknowable to mere mortals or petty science... and that you, the keeper of TRUTH is somehow more evolved than others. In truth, both are manifestations of a shamanistic pseudointelect that is more reflective of western civilization's tribal past.
Interesting indeed.
As for global warming, I have never disputed the climate changes. That is self evident and has been going on since time began. I dispute data collection method's and conclusions drawn from flawed data, as well as courses of action based on flawed data. You seem to support science when it suits your political intuition which is based on emotion, paranoia, fear, and envy - with no real understanding or the subject but instead an intuitive knee jerk of support based on bias personal faith beliefs. Just like the intelligent design crowd or the Birthers do. Interesting the correlation between the two.
Faith in the face of reality.
Free0352: "There IS NOTING [sic] beyond the physical realm. That is the point."
Prove it.
That's what I've asked for from you -- proof -- for at least three cycles of this conversation.
Prove it to me. You said you have "evidence and data" (your words).
Then show it to me.
I'm waiting with amused anticipation...
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
...or in any philosophy, or science.
The black hole information paradox, parallel universes, dark matter, dark energy, eleven dimensions...
Beyond my immediate and knowable experience, I'm certainly not going to make pronouncements about what is to be, or not to be.
Who knows? There may be another version of me, who totally disagrees with this version of me.
The mysteries beckon to the open, not the closed, minds.
My "faith" tells me this.
Prove it.
Self evident. YOUR lack of any proof, proves MY point.
Point 1 - Clearly existence exists.
Point 2 - There is zero evidence in any supernatural force.
Conclusion - A supernatural force did not create nor influences existence.
I don't claim to hold the secrets of the universe or the meaning of life. However as I said, I am a smart enough person to realize what the answer is not.
If I told you I could walk on water, even if I really believed it and dared you to prove otherwise and you wouldn't need to. The answer is obvious. And so goes it with miraculous free0352 water walking so too goes the theory of ghosts, goblins, spirits, higher powers, and assorted silliness. Its the total absence of YOUR evidence that proves one and only one thing.
You're full of shit, right along with the Pope, David Miscavige, the Dali Lama and a thousand other witch doctors and related mystics of today and those handed down to us from history.
Being "open minded" in this regard does not make one intelligent, enlightened or wise. It simply makes you a fool, and if you'll believe in that shit I hope you have some faith in the bridge I've got to sell you.
It's pretty simple then. If Free0352 doesn't know about something, then he knows for a fact that it doesn't exist.
Its science according to Free0352.
Likewise, in 1800, no one knew that that stars were powered by nuclear reactions. that is undeniable Free0352 scientific proof, that stars were not powered by nuclear reactions in 1800.
Now we know they are, so now it is true.
See, your view remains reasonable Free, so long as our view is relative to your belief system.
There is a fundamental difference between stars and God. Stars are real and people became curious about what they were and how they worked. Its a specific question, with a specific and very knowable answer. Once upon a time many cultures thought stars (especially the sun) were gods and only later we learn that these people were believing a lie and that the originators were not open minded spiritual people but literally just made that shit up, most likely to take advantage of people in some way.
"Spirituality" is a very broad topic, that unlike stars or nuclear physics is filled not with nuclear fusion but pure bullshit. A good demonstration of that, is I don't have to convince people to have blind faith in the belief in either nuclear reaction or stars. I would for either God or some other flying spaghetti monster.
Belief in spirituality is at heart a bastion of the mentally weak. I mean, why do people do it? I think the answer is that they are afraid to assume total responsibility for their lives and as adults with an absence of parents, choose instead a mythical supernatural force and pretend it watches over them just like mommy and daddy used to.
Its like an invisible friend for insecure grown ups. Mostly harmless though occasionally catastrophic - but always pathetic.
I mean, why do people do it? I think the answer is that they are afraid to assume total responsibility for their lives and as adults with an absence of parents
Or also common, they simply learned it from Mom and Dad and never bothered to question it. However, since most people in life at one point or another will have a crisis of faith and fail that logical test- most of these "spiritual people" are of the weak minded variety. I suppose with little to no scientific context like people didn't have -in say 1300- it was a little more forgivable than in 2012. In today's modern age, it gets harder and harder to defend the faith. This is likely why in most civilized places the rolls of the religious thin more and more yearly, and in the truly savage and primitive bastions "spirituality" is still valued highly.
It can be seen as a kind of societal evolution. The tribal parts of the world (example Africa and certain south Pacific islands) still worship the shamanistic totems of primitive man, and more developed countries subscribe largely to organized religion (example South America or the Mid East) while the most evolved societies (western Europe and the more developed Asian states) embrace atheism more and more.
The conclusion being those of organized religion are simply behind the power curve and the mystical types (at least in western nations) are howling throwbacks to a darker era in human evolution. Jews, Christians, Buddhists for example are merely ignorant, sometimes hyper violent and often annoying. The folks who think rocks have healing powers or are one with Gaia, or worst of all on the annoying factor Wiccan are throwbacks who are de-evolving themselves but luckily as there numbers fade into history aren't taking many with them.
Free0352: "Self evident. YOUR lack of any proof, proves MY point."
Self evident? Possibly to you. "Your" self, but not evident to "my" self. I'm sorry, but it doesn't.
That's your "evidence and data"?!?! C'mon, you can do better than that...
Well, maybe I'm giving you too much credit.
"There is zero evidence in any supernatural force."
There is zero evidence in there being no supernatural force.
"Conclusion - A supernatural force did not create nor influences existence."
Your conclusion is not valid, simply because your premises are not.
"And so goes it with miraculous free0352 water walking so too goes the theory..."
No, "water-walking" is a physical phenomenon. It can be substantiated and proven, or not proven, by the scientific method.
You're bringing extraneous and unrelated subjects into the conversation. I never claimed such nonsense.
"You're full of shit, right along with the Pope, David Miscavige, the Dali Lama and a thousand other witch doctors and related mystics of today and those handed down to us from history."
Maybe...or you are.
"Being 'open minded' in this regard does not make one intelligent, enlightened or wise. It simply makes you a fool..."
I don't think so, but I'll take my chances. It certainly makes me happy. That's what's important.
Really, why would you care? I'm perfectly satisfied with you being an atheist. Why would you care that I'm not?
"...and if you'll believe in that shit I hope you have some faith in the bridge I've got to sell you."
Like the faith you have in the government's propaganda story-line?
That's your "evidence and data"?!?! C'mon, you can do better than that...
Talk about a flawed premise. You cannot be called upon to prove a negative. That's logic 101 guy. You're making a falsification (There is a [God]) and I am the one asking for evidence. You have none. You have faith, and faith as I have said is antilogic. You replied there is something beyond sense and logic. That's laughable on its face.
I never claimed such nonsense.
You've claimed nothing BUT nonsense and substituted faith as evidence.
It certainly makes me happy.
Ignorance is bliss, at least with you Jeff.
I'm perfectly satisfied with you being an atheist. Why would you care that I'm not?
I don't care in the least and you have every right to be wrong. I'm tolerant of that completely. What I WILL NOT DO is lie to you and say I respect your belief. I don't. Tolerance and respect are not the same thing. Your faith belief has no impact on me at all. Therefore, knock yourself out. But since it came up, I told you what I think of religion and spirituality when you suggested or implied, myself and the Libertarian Party, were part of or at least allied with the religious right. Since more than 60% of Libertarians agree with me at least on this issue I think we can definitively establish that claim is emphatically wrong. Can you imagine Billy Graham, George W. Bush or Pat Robertson's reaction to my side of this argument? Clearly, they would be on YOUR side which makes your side closer to them than mine. In fact, you are the flip side to their coin.
Like the faith you have in the government's propaganda story-line?
This one is the easiest of all to refute. As I said, when you have a consensus on plain evidence between myself, George Bush, Barack Obama and Noam Chomsky; and that consensus is Twoofers are wrong and possibly paranoid lunatics and least of all gullible and laughable fools and you find yourself on the other side of that consensus it shouldn't be too hard to figure out who is playing with the full deck in this conversation and who is the slave to a faith belief.
Free0352: "You cannot be called upon to prove a negative. That's logic 101 guy. You're making a falsification..."
But you already claimed you had "evidence and data" that proves the nonexistence of a spiritual life. I'm only asking for that proof (which you offered and are not able to provide, after all). That was the whole point.
"Ignorance is bliss, at least with you Jeff."
Actually, wouldn't it be more appropriate to say you're the one that's ignorant? After all, you're the one with the closed mind.
"I don't care in the least and you have every right to be wrong."
Yet you feel a need to get angry about this. That's really interesting. Is it because you're worried if I'm right, and you're wrong, that there just may be ramifications for all the injustice you've supported and murder you've committed?
"I told you what I think of religion and spirituality when you suggested or implied, myself and the Libertarian Party, were part of or at least allied with the religious right."
As I already corrected you, I never said, or even indicated, that the libertarian movement was allied with the religious right. Go back into the thread and you'll find it was someone else. But, as we've seen many times previously, you have a reading comprehension challenge. If you'll recall, I only made the claim that there's a difference between religious dogma and spirituality. Your explosive rant started from there.
"Can you imagine Billy Graham, George W. Bush or Pat Robertson's reaction to my side of this argument? Clearly, they would be on YOUR side which makes your side closer to them than mine."
I hardly think so. They're all free-market "faith" believers like yourself; believers that laissez faire capitalism is the modern world's panacea for everything. To equate their brand of religious fanaticism and trickery with my belief in a spiritual dimension, would be like you saying you're like me because we both enjoy drinking a cold beer once in awhile. That's hardly a basis to claim similarity.
My faith comes down to the unknowing; thus the term "faith". Yet, your faith is based upon something within the physical world that has never worked, doesn't exist anywhere in the world, and only works in theory (if at all). So it would appear it's your faith that is blind. If the best you can say about spirituality is that it's not provable, what does it say about your "faith" which has been proven not to work?
My faith may be blind, but yours is deaf, dumb, and stupid.
PART II COMING UP...
PART II...
Freeo0352: "As I said, when you have a consensus on plain evidence between myself, George Bush, Barack Obama and Noam Chomsky..."
George Bush? He allowed it to occur. Chomsky even noted that. Barack Obama? He protects the linage of corporatists, just as the next corporatist president will protect him. As far as Noam Chomsky, although he's a brilliant linguist, philosopher and historian, he's certainly not a structural engineer, physicist, chemist, mechanical engineer, or a highrise architect. The people interviewed in that film are. Also, to espouse anything other than the "official" government storyline right now would be suicidal for people in prominent positions and careers. Anyone who proposes any alternative scenario is sought out and browbeaten by the corporate mainstream media, or sufficiently marginalized. I'm sure Chomsky would prefer to avoid the ridicule. He still has many books he wants to write and sell.
"...it shouldn't be too hard to figure out who is playing with the full deck in this conversation and who is the slave to a faith belief."
Like your slavery to the military-industrial-security complex, which has convinced you "terrorism" is under every rock and behind every bush? Do you mean that faith belief? Or do you mean your libertarian religion of laying prostrate at the alter of unrestrained free-markets?
Which one?
Nice article about the people paid to derail discussions on blogs and forums.
"I Was a Paid Internet Shill"
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread826545/pg1
Wease,
Thanks for that one. As we know the Right is fond of military mercenaries. There's no reason to doubt they contract propaganda mercenaries. After all, they use every other dirty trick in the book.
Just go to Mother Jones, FAIR, and Media Matters to see their work. They're not fooling anyone, of course, at least at those high information sites. Their damage is done at corporate media and other sites.
Who knows, maybe some of the posters here are paid, but I doubt it. Our guys are likely true believers, rather than paid propaganda mercenaries. Although I wouldn't be surprised if they have popped in on occasion if only for sport. F&B appears most like a professional propaganda mercenary.
If so, I'm flattered.
Otherwise I don't think my meager blog would draw their attention. Maybe for the less than bright trainees or wannabes... ;-)
That's what most of them sound like anyway.
Dave Dubya: "There's no reason to doubt they contract propaganda mercenaries. After all, they use every other dirty trick in the book."
and...
"Although I wouldn't be surprised if they have popped in on occasion if only for sport. F&B appears most like a professional propaganda mercenary."
I agree -- I've had my doubts at times. As far as Free0352, though, he's just a typical military wannabe with an over-inflated ego. He's undoubtedly goldbricking while his underlings are "falling out" doing jumping-jacks or digging latrines. You'll always notice he only comments during the week -- never on weekends.
He's spending your tax dollars while at the same time railing against government waste.
He's the epitome of hypocrisy.
you already claimed you had "evidence and data"
Your ADMITTED lack of evidence IS data. A sure way to see if nothing is there, is to look and not find anything.
After all, you're the one with the closed mind.
The advocate of religion (no cop outs with "spiritual" its the same thing) talking to the atheist about an open mind. How bout you open YOUR mind to the possibility (and in reality fact) that ghosts, goblins and invisible men in the sky with 10 rules are just figments of the imagination.
Yet you feel a need to get angry about this.
Nah, just not going to bullshit you.
just may be ramifications for all the injustice you've supported and murder you've committed?
Trust me, if there is a hell and I go there I'll be surrounded by all the people I shot.
I hardly think so.
Yeah, because those I mentioned are just huge fans of atheism **rolling eyes**
To equate their brand of religious fanaticism and trickery with my belief in a spiritual dimension, would be like you saying you're like me because we both enjoy drinking a cold beer once in awhile
In that regard we are alike cause I like beer. Of course if I were anti-beer the way I am atheist then we would not be alike in that regard. When it comes to religion or "Spirituality" as you refer to it, you and old Pat Robertson are two peas in a pod selling the same bullshit. The difference between you is like Coke to Pepsi.
My faith comes down to the unknowing; thus the term "faith"
on this we agree, you do demonstrate "un-knowing" which is a slightly nicer way of saying ignorant. Whats sad is its willful ignorance.
George Bush? He allowed it to occur.
Thats a little harsh on old George and while we're at it Clinton too. Look, I'm not a big fan of either Bush Presidency but I know what happened with Al'Queda. I guess you could say they "allowed" it to happen and cast it in the worst possible light, but then you'd have to say FDR "allowed" Pear Harbor to happen.
.
Look, the defense and intelligence community just didn't take Al'Queda seriously. Should they have? Yes, with 20/20 hindsight we see that now. And they truly didn't. I was doing counter terror work from the beginning of my military career and guess what? The principle focus and scary boogie man of terrorism prior to 9-11 was communist backed drug narco-terrorists from South America. Even after the first WTC bombing, the embassies in Africa, and the USS Cole. Was that stupid? Yes. Was it negligent? Yes. Was it deliberate? No. There was a lot of institutional inertia after the cold war to fear communists more so that Islamic radicals. It was they enemy they knew and feared. They just didn't take 13th century people living in caves as a serious threat, even after they had fought Israel to a stand still and beat the Russians. I don't know for the life of me why that was, but it is what was going on. Of course now, we forgot communism and drug trafficers all together and are laser focused on Islamic Radicalism, which indeed makes sense. However, with the rise of the Mexican cartels especially the Zetas -who we trained to stop drug cartels back in the 90s when they were Mexican Special Forces, face palm- we might want to keep an eye on that too now. Just say'n. I'm not a fan of the drug war by any stretch of the imagination, but I along with pretty much anyone with any sense is anti-Zetas. Read up on them, and you'll see what I mean. Their human trafficing alone is reason enough to take a close interest in seeing them die.
which has convinced you "terrorism" is under every rock and behind every bush?
Every rock and bush? Really? Care to over state my position for me? On terrorism I'm moderate guy. I think you can tell from this thread I'm not fan of religion, but I don't see mainstream Islam as being any more kooky that any other religion- and I have many muslim friends. In fact one of the reasons I'm such a hawk when it comes to authentic terrorists is because of how absolutely vicious they are towards their fellow Muslims. Fact is, groups like Al'Queda and Islamic Jihad (which is part of AQ now anyway) have killed by far more Muslims than we EVER have let alone Americans. They are a very credible threat to everybody who doesn't subscribe to their very radical interpretation of the Koran which is rejected by nearly every Muslim scholar known to man. You can't really make the argument that they target Americans because -Americans are bad- when they are targeting people of all faiths in places like Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, Australia, Germany, England, Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark, Russia, and the people of every last Islamic country and most of Africa.
These folks are nuts. You can't reason or compromise with them. You just have to kill them. Thats the only way.
The people interviewed in that film are
Not really, they're quacks. Again. Not. One. Peer Reviewed Paper. Not one. In over a decade. Reason being they don't have a scientific leg to stand on. That is not an accident, and its not a conspiracy. Nuff said. The reason your "sources" are marginalized is because their conclusions are laughable, both from a common sense stand point and a scientific one. It can't stand up to review. You've never demolished a building, I have. Plain and simple people would have noticed the days of preparation that go into knocking a building down in a controlled fashion, and the 9-11 collapse was hardly controlled... hence why tower 7 came down. You're letting your paranoia and loathing for government get in the way, or maybe not. Perhaps you're just a legend in your own mind and like to think you're smarter than all the "sheeple" out there who "accept the corporate line," but in reality you just look like an idiot. You sound like someone who insists you got an alien anal probe
Look Jeff, if you want to have a conversation about the mistakes made prior to 9-11, so be it. There is a lot to talk about. I know when the USMC kicked off Operation Andean Initiative and Andean Action back in 99-2000 time frame, especially after the Cole bombing a lot of us were like "HEY THIS BIN LADEN GUY!!! What about him?" and the powers that be were like "Yeah, yeah, but the commies!" I mean after the 79 hostage crisis, about a hundred plane hijackings in the 80s, the Intifada, the WTC bombing, the Africa embassies, the Cole and on and on, you'd think they'd have learned. But it took 9-11 to pound it home. That's pitiful, but that's they way it is. And now there are we voices who are saying "Iran, Iran, its Iran guys! Do something!" and they're calling us crazy warmongers again, just like they said that about us in 2000 with Afghanistan.
Guess some people never learn. Spotting radical Islamists bent on violence isn't hard, but denial has been a US strategy since after Vietnam and some institutional inertia is hard or impossible to change without a sledgehammer like 9-11. So don't think our government, military, or intelligence community is as all knowing as you give them credit for being. In my experience they are usually the LAST to get it.
Dave Dubya: "I agree -- I've had my doubts at times. As far as Free0352, though..."
Now I'm having second thoughts...again. ;-)
As for my military career, I can blog twice as much standing on my head. I've been doing this for nearly 15 years and frankly its not challenging any more because now I ride a desk. My days in the field are sadly behind me, as I'm at that super fun administrative portion of my career which blows goats. My platoon sergeant time is all done and the Army won't let me have anymore, and I wouldn't lead troops again forever till I picked up 1SG... if I got lucky enough to be selected. Being the assistant Operations NCO and Intel Fusion guy sucks ass. I'm cool off it, so I'm out by next year. I liked being a squad leader, and wish I could have done that job for 30 years... but thats just not how the Infantry works. All those field grade officers need NCO bitches, and thats just how it goes unless I qualified for Delta which I freely admit I did not. I wish the Army didn't work this way, but it does and the contract world awaits. The private sector doesn't pay what it once did, but they still need guys with my skillsets. And of course, the pay is still a little better ;)
Oh as for the PT, come on down to Ft Riley Jeff, you're such an early riser and everything, I'm sure you could all show us a thing or two in the humble leg infantry. That is assuming of course you could get your fat ass out of your mom's basement.
Free0352: "A sure way to see if nothing is there, is to look and not find anything."
Like gravitation...or electromagnetism?
Is it possible we just haven't figured a way to measure it yet? Food for thought...
"Nah, just not going to bullshit you."
Why change now?
By the way, I'm still waiting for your "evidence and data".
"Trust me, if there is a hell and I go there I'll be surrounded by all the people I shot."
Do you mean those defending their homeland...against foreign invaders and occupiers? Were there any women and children?
"When it comes to religion or 'Spirituality' as you refer to it..."
That's where your whole rant started, isn't it, with me claiming they're distinctly different? I don't put an ounce of faith in religion -- political, or otherwise. How about you?
"[O]n this we agree, you do demonstrate 'un-knowing' which is a slightly nicer way of saying ignorant."
No, it's more like "unknowable" -- at least in our physical form. Intuitively, I know it's right. It's like I can't prove "love" exists, either, but I know it's real.
Tell me, have you ever loved someone? If so, how did you know? How did you measure it?
"That's a little harsh on old George [Bush]..."
Why is that? You cited Chomsky as proof that 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy, yet in the same interview he claimed that Bush allowed the attacks to occur. Why, now, do you consider Chomsky wrong?
END OF PART I...PART II COMING...
Free0352: "Not really, they're quacks."
and...
"You've never demolished a building, I have."
They seemed pretty legitimate to me. They all graduated from fine schools and have degrees in their respective fields, plus their years of experience doesn't go without notice. Are they "quacks" because they disagree with the official storyline -- as incomplete and as botched as it was?
I know, I've never demolished a building -- but several of those "quacks" (as you describe them) have. Do you have an undergraduate or graduate degree in structural engineering? Architecture? Mechanical engineering? How about physics?
No...I didn't think so. (Those "quacks" do.)
"Plain and simple people would have noticed the days of preparation that go into knocking a building down in a controlled fashion, and the 9-11 collapse was hardly controlled... hence why tower 7 came down."
Not according to a lot of people -- those "quacks" included.
Gee, I'm afraid to enter a highrise now. Never in the history of modern highrise architecture has a building collapsed due to internal fire. Never before that day, and never since. On 9/11, three buildings did.
Have you ever taken a course in statistical probability? If so, what do you think are the chances of that?
"You're letting your paranoia and loathing for government..."
That's like the pot calling the kettle black...
"I've been doing this for nearly 15 years and frankly its not challenging any more because now I ride a desk."
So, is this an admission that you're fucking-off at the taxpayers' expense?
"...you're such an early riser and everything, I'm sure you could all show us a thing or two in the humble leg infantry."
I actually could. But you're not ready yet.
"That is assuming of course you could get your fat ass out of your mom's basement.
You've obviously never bothered to check my picture in my profile. I'd hardly be considered a "fat ass". But, I remember seeing a couple of pictures of you on your now vanquished blog. If I recall, you're sort of chunky. You better amp-up your workout regimen. What you're doing isn't working.
Hey, could you excuse me while I wipe the grease off my fingers after eating this bag of Cheetos. Plus, I need to turn on some more lights -- it's really getting dark down here. ;-)
Like gravitation...or electromagnetism?
You know this thing holding me down to the Earth right now? I'm sure thats quantifiable. On a lot of levels. Give me a break. I've never "felt" the hand of God, and neither have you.
I can see why you'd want to change to subject away from agreeing with Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell to the war in Iraq. Standing with those cats can't be a comfortable position- especially for a liberal.
with me claiming they're distinctly different? I don't put an ounce of faith in religion -- political, or otherwise. How about you?
Saying they are different is a cop out, and I think I've CLEARLY established I don't put any stock what-so-ever in religion.
Do you mean those defending their homeland...against foreign invaders and occupiers? Were there any women and children?
Only shot men, holding weapons. Many of them weren't from either Iraq or Afghanistan, and the ones that were, were killing their own people. In droves. I wasn't occupying anybody, I was DEFENDING them- often side by side with people native to that country. I helped train the Iraqi Army that today does the job I used to do. The only women and children I saw killed (And I saw a lot) were killed by terrorists. Often execution style. Some freedom fighters... I'm not sure what freedoms you are fighting for when you line an entire family up against the wall in their own prayer room and spray 7.62x39 ammo into them, reload, and then headshot them just to make sure- but I guess in your sick book that qualifies. Shines some light onto your judgement.
I'll tell you a fun story. I was stationed at JSS Sadr city in 2008-2009. Sadr City was the hottest part of the war in Iraq at that time. One day some nice insurgents filled a vehicle up with HME and detonated it in Jamilla Market, a place that on that time of day was rock concert crowded. They killed 75 people instantly and wounded hundreds more, many of them children. American troops were not in the market at the time, and were about a miles away, we having just left. Please explain to me who these "freedom fighters" were fighting exactly? The Iraqis had begged us to stay, as one Iraqi in the link said-
"This is one of the biggest mistakes the U.S. has made," said Kadhum Irboee al-Quraishi, a local leader in Sadr City who has worked closely with the Americans. "Assassinations will start again, and the terrorists are going to show that Iraqi forces are not capable of receiving responsibility."
The truth is when we left, the people of Sadr City had lined the roads and waved goodbye to us with tears in their eyes and kept stopping our vehicles to give us gifts, and after the Jamilla bombing begged us to return. The showed up at FOB Taji and FOB Falcon where we were and literally begged my commander to return and said they trusted us more than their own soldiers. But of course, we didn't, because we were not allowed by our government. So really, please explain to me who these twisted people are fighting when they shoot rockets into people trying to buy food?
They seemed pretty legitimate to me
The murderers who slaughter children in a market seem pretty legitimate to you so what does that say about your personal judgement of people?
Never in the history of modern highrise architecture has a building collapsed due to internal fire.
Firstly thats false, secondly there was an explosion and 300,000 pounds of steel hitting those buildings too, and in the case of tower 7 over a million tons of debris landing on it traveling at over 700 miles per hour but hey... you spent an hour on the internet once and watched a video so I'm sure you know better.
So, is this an admission that you're fucking-off at the taxpayers' expense?
If you call pushing paper fucking off.
I actually could. But you're not ready yet.
Yeah right.
Oh and I guess for a guy old enough to have white hair you have some excuse for you gut. Mine is smaller of course, but I'm only 33 ;)
Free0352: "...this thing holding me down to the Earth right now? I'm sure thats quantifiable."
Absolutely...but it hasn't always been.
"I've never 'felt' the hand of God, and neither have you."
You can only speak for yourself; not others. You have no idea what others have experienced.
"Saying [spirituality and religious dogma is] different is a cop out..."
No...as previously mentioned, they're totally different. One's derived of the spirit; the other of the human mind.
"...and I think I've CLEARLY established I don't put any stock what-so-ever in religion."
Except, as I've mentioned at least twice (which you conveniently keep ignoring), your "religion" of libertarianism and its illusional tale of laissez-faire capitalism. That's clearly been established to work only for the benefit of the few -- yet you adamantly and feverishly continue to subscribe to it.
That's called blind faith.
"So really, please explain to me who these twisted people are fighting when they shoot rockets into people trying to buy food?"
In a nation invaded and occupied by foreign forces, savagery and lawlessness is exponentially increased. The same thing would occur here.
In response to your question, however, I often wonder the same thing about a country that indiscriminately bombs a city and praises its ability to create "shock & awe".
What kind of "twisted people" would do that?
"The murderers who slaughter children in a market seem pretty legitimate to you..."
I've never made such a claim, although are we really sure exactly who attacked the shoppers in Jamilla Market, or are we just taking the government's word for it -- like you do with the mass murders on 9/11?
"...so what does that say about your personal judgement of people?"
I've got you pegged, and I believe I'm more than accurate.
"Firstly thats false..."
Then please...do me the honor of citing some. Just one would be sufficient.
"...secondly there was an explosion and 300,000 pounds of steel hitting those buildings too, and in the case of tower 7 over a million tons of debris landing on it traveling at over 700 miles per hour..."
Even if your seat-of-the-pants exaggeration were accurate, none would explain the failure of all the primary interior support columns failing simultaneously and allowing a complete, unobstructed, free-fall.
None.
"If you call pushing paper fucking off."
No, I call keeping your browser open and responding to message alerts throughout the workday, at taxpayer expense, "fucking off".
"Oh and I guess for a guy old enough to have white hair you have some excuse for you gut."
You wish you had as flat a stomach as I do. You don't now, and you never will. I'm almost twice your age. I would have been totally embarrassed if I was as "chunky" as you are when I was your age. I certainly would have done something about it.
Post a Comment