The Song Fight Bulletin Board

Caravan Ray wrote:Isn't not payng taxes the whole point of being American? Wasn't that the reason the country was created in the first place - the Founding Fathers expected that their slave-driven economy should be able to happily carry on under the protective umberella of the Britsh Empire - but they didn't want to actually pay for it.

Well, no. Taxation without representation was the driving inspiration there. They didn't get the protection those at home had (trial by jury, for instance), were caught in the cross fire between the French and the native Americans, and then the stamp and tea tax acts broke the camel's back. They appealed to the crown many, many, many times, only to be ignored and in some cases punished for simply stating their case. Read our declaration. Jefferson put it all in there.

roymond wrote: Read our declaration. Jefferson put it all in there.

Yes - I've always liked the:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" bit.

Did he add a footnote to say - "though this probably doesn't appy to the slave I'm shagging..."?

Caravan Ray wrote:Did he add a footnote to say - "though this probably doesn't apply to the slave I'm shagging..."?

Hey, I'm not defending him there. But slavery was an active subject and many felt the cause made no sense if slavery wasn't abolished, but also knew they'd get absolutely nowhere at that time with it and that it would one day tear our country apart (as it did). They knew things were imperfect and built a structure that allowed for amendments. Your question was about the inspiration for revolution. But whatever...

roymond wrote:

Caravan Ray wrote:Did he add a footnote to say - "though this probably doesn't apply to the slave I'm shagging..."?

Hey, I'm not defending him there. But slavery was an active subject and many felt the cause made no sense if slavery wasn't abolished, but knew they'd get absolutely nowhere at that time with it and that it would one day tear our country apart (as it did). Your question was about the inspiration for revolution. But whatever...

I will abandon my goading , ...but on the question of slavery, there was a wonderful moment here recently where a 17-year-old student asked our Foreign Minister if "if Mr Downer saw a moral comparison between tackling climate change and the recent 200th anniversary of the British Government outlawing slavery."

It is a very interesting comparison - given that 200 years ago people would have said "the economy will be ruined if we don't use slaves!" "Market forces" cannot be relied upon to create social change (see my earlier mini-rant about economics (and politics) not being a science - science doesn't deal with externalities).

Poor Alexander Downer came out looking like a complete fool. Not surprising really - Alexander Downer is a complete fool. I have no time for any politicians really, but he is undoubtably the worst of a very poor bunch

Caravan Ray wrote:Poor Alexander Downer came out looking like a complete fool.

Your PM has much to learn from us, yet. Our president doesn't allow unscreened, unrehearsed questions

erik wrote:

Wages wrote:Would not the silent hands of the elite be able to hide their involvement? This is why there is no proof.

If you start with the premise "The following scenario was caused by someone who was able to remove all evidence of their involvement", then you end up believing damn near anything. We've never been on the moon. The *real* Paul McCartney is dead. A plane didn't fly into the pentagon. Don't be that dude.

You could say that... but.... even without proof, there is motive. But, just because I have a perceived motive, it doesn't mean I did it. It just means it is possible.

<b>Motives and Other Nonsense</b>

Moon = JFK said we were going and the people needed a distraction from Vietnam. Those are obvious. But I don't know if the moon landing was faked. I believe it is possible either way, but lets not go there.

Paul McCartney = The only logical way I can see this would be true would be an identical impostor (let's say, a long lost twin) were to take his place. We'll call him Saul McCartney. Hey, how 'bout that? The Bible has a Saul who became a Paul and a Jesus who was murdered, JUST - LIKE - JOHN - LENNON! OMG! It's a brand new conspiracy! Thanks dude!

Plane & Pentagon = Did you watch the documentary? They claimed that the government said the plane was incinerated when the fuel takes exploded. BUT, how could that be? Why didn't the majority of the building in the area of the plane incinerate? And how does titanium and the other materials the plane is constructed of completely incinerate? They also claimed that NO piece of the plane was found. Even with incineration, surely some small portion of the plane would remain. I don't know, I just think these are questions that need to be answered and in detail by the people involved.

Oh boy, this was a big can of worms!

<b>and now for something remotely similar</b>

Anyone/Everyone, at what point do you decide something "may not be a conspiracy" any longer?

roymond wrote:

Caravan Ray wrote:Poor Alexander Downer came out looking like a complete fool.

Your PM has much to learn from us, yet. Our president doesn't allow unscreened, unrehearsed questions

Downer as PM - what a horrible thought! No he is our Foreign Minister, and as dumb as a box of dogshit. (I don't know if this was news over there - but Downer was the Minister responsible for the Australian Wheat Board paying millions of dollars of bribes to Saddam Hussein at exactly the same time that the PM and your President were telling lies about have proof of Saddam having WMDs. When questioned, Downer produced the response that has become almost a mantra for the Howard government..."I didn't know")

No the PM is John Howard, who though a duplicitous liar - is also no dill, and as cunning as a shithouse rat. He regularly takes unrehearsed questions without too much problem.

roymond wrote: You live on through THEIR memories of you and through the way you've affected THEM, directly or otherwise. This, instead of the egocentric version of an afterlife having YOUR own body and seeing those people YOU miss.

Yep, that sums it up for me! Thanks for sharing your story too Roymond and thanks to everyone who took the time to read my post and comment!

Wages wrote:But I don't know if the moon landing was faked. I believe it is possible either way, but lets not go there.

Wow. You are that dude.

You might want to read up on Faul McCartney in that case:

http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/

erik wrote:

Wages wrote:But I don't know if the moon landing was faked. I believe it is possible either way, but lets not go there.

Wow. You are that dude.

You might want to read up on Faul McCartney in that case:

http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/

I thought that was joke at first. Good lord.

Hoblit wrote:

erik wrote:

Wages wrote:But I don't know if the moon landing was faked. I believe it is possible either way, but lets not go there.

Wow. You are that dude.

You might want to read up on Faul McCartney in that case:

http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/

I thought that was joke at first. Good lord.

Oh man! Honestly, it doesn't matter to me if Paul is dead or not. The new guy works just fine. Actually, I think given the current Paul's talent, I don't know if it is possible he is a fake. I mean with songs like "Live and Let Die", "The Long and Winding Road", "Maybe I'm Amazed", and ALL of his body of work... nope, I think it is 95% safe to say Paul is Paul.

Moon landing on the other hand... I saw something about the direction of shadows in "moon photographs" that sounds pretty compelling, but it is far from a call to a witch hunt.

Biggest possible conspiracies to me that are significant? The assassination of JFK (fuckin' magic bullet; that seems a no-brainer to me), the Jesus thing really is compelling enough to warrant some serious consideration, and all wars, especially since WW2.

Basically, I feel that people see their government as their own flesh and blood kid: he could do no wrong and if he does, he must have our best interests at heart. But that's such bullshit! My parents think I'm a pretty damn good kid, but there are lots of aspects of my life they don't know about (and wouldn't like) and it isn't that hard to keep them from finding out. Now, if you magnify that scenario into the American people and our government, think about how many Ivy League fucking smart people there are in the government. Do you not think it is possible that at least occasionally some are so smart (at least in a group, like a pack of wolves) to be able to pull the wool over our eyes?

And if that is possible, then it is also possible that we are constantly kept in the dark. In fact, the few who might know what's going on (those "crazies" like Alex Jones, David Icke, Michael Moore, Ron Paul, and so on and so on) are such a minority that the majority of us want to believe they are full of shit, and we do. So I say, "<a href="http://lorien.sdsu.edu/~carroll/audio/ni.wav">Ni!"</a>

Dude, the right way to avoid being played for a sucker (by the government or whomever) is not to lower the bar for retarded ideas you're willing to consider.

Jefff wrote:Dude, the right way to avoid being played for a sucker (by the government or whomever) is not to lower the bar for retarded ideas you're willing to consider.

I'm not sure what you mean. It sounds like you are saying I should just not think and let whomever is "respected" as an authority (the media, government, you, my parents, etc) tell me what is right/wrong, smart/dumb, truth/fiction, but NOT let someone who is perceived as "whacked out" (such as the documentary filmmaker or anyone from the far end of the political spectrum) share their ideas with me. Or let them share their ideas and simply say "oh, you are below my bar, tough luck". But it really has nothing to do with lowering or raising a bar (this ain't limbo!). I think trying to measure everything to a standard or bar is wrong thinking, but of course, that is how we are told to think.

From my perspective, I think I should keep an open mind to ALL ideas without immediately dismissing them. But maybe that way of thinking is "lowering the bar".

P.S. I'm really not trying to keep this going, so this will be my last defense of myself on this topic unless I'm specifically asked to speak up. Peace everyone!

"Don't lower the bar" means keep your standards HIGH.

Keep your standards high as to how much merit something must have before you express support or interest. And "crazy" doesn't equal "stupid", by the way.

An aspect of this philosophy that I usually don't adhere to even though I should, is that you shouldn't give people the benefit of the doubt regarding your best interest. Fewer people know what they're doing than you think.