BREAKING: Gunman opens fire on GOP congressional baseball team practice session

[osan]

We are supposed to believe in not imposing our political philosophy on others through force and violence, or do you think we should go around the world conquering people in order to "Free" them? after all we are right and they are wrong.

You infer things from my words that are not correct.

 

[osan]

There were those who promoted Marxism but that was not heart and soul of the hippy movement. If you want to understand the true focus of the movement you really need only study one man. Dr. Timothy Leary. Yes, he was a bit of a kook but then so am I (and maybe those who know you might say the same - I have no idea). Leary was the man who coined the phrase "Question Authority" which I use a lot. In his speeches he would often tell the audience to "question authority - even mine". You will find that Leary also supported Ron Paul in his 88 bid for president...

No. What one needs study are the outcomes. Men have started movements which promptly took on lives of their own and left them in the dust, and even killed them at times. Results are all that matter. Intentions mean nothing and count for the same. Great intellects with valid messages count for nothing when the wad of humanity takes what they offer and mangles it into some ravaged, maimed thing wholly unrelated. That is what went on with the hippies. THAT is where the statistical mean fell and THAT is what counts. Great men are irrelevant when the mob mutates their ideas into stupidity that leads to evil results.

 

[nikcers]

No. What one needs study are the outcomes. Men have started movements which promptly took on lives of their own and left them in the dust, and even killed them at times. Results are all that matter. Intentions mean nothing and count for the same. Great intellects with valid messages count for nothing when the wad of humanity takes what they offer and mangles it into some ravaged, maimed thing wholly unrelated. That is what went on with the hippies. THAT is where the statistical mean fell and THAT is what counts. Great men are irrelevant when the mob mutates their ideas into stupidity that leads to evil results.

"The unreal is more powerful than the real. Because nothing is as perfect as you can imagine it. Because it's only intangibles, ideas, concepts, beliefs, fantasies that last. Stone crumbles. Wood rots. People, well, they die. But things as fragile as a thought, a dream, a legend, they can go on and on. If you can change the way people think. The way they see themselves. The way they see the world. You can change the way people live their lives. That’s the only lasting thing you can create."

-chuck palahniuk

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

No. What one needs study are the outcomes. Men have started movements which promptly took on lives of their own and left them in the dust, and even killed them at times. Results are all that matter. Intentions mean nothing and count for the same. Great intellects with valid messages count for nothing when the wad of humanity takes what they offer and mangles it into some ravaged, maimed thing wholly unrelated. That is what went on with the hippies. THAT is where the statistical mean fell and THAT is what counts. Great men are irrelevant when the mob mutates their ideas into stupidity that leads to evil results.

It's the same then with the "Ron Paul" movement. That is one of the two greatest movements I've seen in my lifetime (the other was the peace movement in the 60's). The Ron Paul Liberty movement has been transformed in the most part to the MAGA Trump, Trump, Trump movement. A far cry from what Ron stood for but it's the same as the peace movement. It was based on "peace" and "questioning authority" and it morphed into Marxism. I'm not going to bad mouth the movement started by Ron and I'm not going to bad mouth the movement of peace. People are responsible for taking a good thing and distorting it. Even so, the ideas of peace, love and liberty are still here smoldering. It will take some wind to fan them into raging infernos again...

 

[nikcers]

It's the same then with the "Ron Paul" movement. That is one of the two greatest movements I've seen in my lifetime (the other was the peace movement in the 60's). The Ron Paul Liberty movement has been transformed in the most part to the MAGA Trump, Trump, Trump movement. A far cry from what Ron stood for but it's the same as the peace movement. It was based on "peace" and "questioning authority" and it morphed into Marxism. I'm not going to bad mouth the movement started by Ron and I'm not going to bad mouth the movement of peace. People are responsible for taking a good thing and distorting it. Even so, the ideas of peace, love and liberty are still here smoldering. It will take some wind to fan them into raging infernos again...

"For me and my entire generation, we took on this kind of sarcastic, ironic, snarkiness because it seemed the most extreme reaction to the earnestness of hippies."

-chuck palahniuk

 

[Ender]

It's the same then with the "Ron Paul" movement. That is one of the two greatest movements I've seen in my lifetime (the other was the peace movement in the 60's). The Ron Paul Liberty movement has been transformed in the most part to the MAGA Trump, Trump, Trump movement. A far cry from what Ron stood for but it's the same as the peace movement. It was based on "peace" and "questioning authority" and it morphed into Marxism. I'm not going to bad mouth the movement started by Ron and I'm not going to bad mouth the movement of peace. People are responsible for taking a good thing and distorting it. Even so, the ideas of peace, love and liberty are still here smoldering. It will take some wind to fan them into raging infernos again...

Pretty much right on.

 

[AuH20]

It's the same then with the "Ron Paul" movement. That is one of the two greatest movements I've seen in my lifetime (the other was the peace movement in the 60's). The Ron Paul Liberty movement has been transformed in the most part to the MAGA Trump, Trump, Trump movement. A far cry from what Ron stood for but it's the same as the peace movement. It was based on "peace" and "questioning authority" and it morphed into Marxism. I'm not going to bad mouth the movement started by Ron and I'm not going to bad mouth the movement of peace. People are responsible for taking a good thing and distorting it. Even so, the ideas of peace, love and liberty are still here smoldering. It will take some wind to fan them into raging infernos again...

Screw domestic peace. We have people who want us dead. Peace left town decades ago. Sorry you missed the memo.

 

[CPUd]

Screw domestic peace. We have people who want us dead. Peace left town decades ago. Sorry you missed the memo.

Are you advocating for violence?

 

[AuH20]

Are you advocating for violence?

I didn't advocate violence. I'm responding to decades of violence camouflaged as the American Way. How many more false flags are willing to put up with? The entire country should have frozen to a stop after they (as opposed to the brilliant scapegoat) blew up that daycare center in Oklahoma City. These animals need to be exterminated.

 

[CPUd]

I didn't advocate violence.

... These animals need to be exterminated.

Thanks for clarifying

 

[Anti Federalist]

Are you advocating for violence?

What does that mean?

Does it mean "using violence as a means to achieve a political goal"?

That's terrorism...and the Pentagon.

If a man tries to mug me for my wallet, and I stick a gun in his face and tell him to fuck off, am I "advocating" violence?

 

[osan]

It's the same then with the "Ron Paul" movement.

In some cases, I am sure it is. It is the nature of things where humans are concerned. People communicate like absolute crap these days, on average. Honestly, I am surprised they are able to order a pizza and manage not to have a low-yield nuke delivered. While we display manifold flaws, it is possible to train people to manifest fewer of them and in less egregious degree than commonly found. But that takes work, determination, smarts, self-control, courage, etc.: all qualities that act in opposition to the entropy that is our basic nature. Most people simply do not want to live their lives that way. Why bother when it is so much easier to be a slacker - to feed all the worst qualities in oneself, rather than oppose them in favor of those the better?

That is one of the two greatest movements I've seen in my lifetime (the other was the peace movement in the 60's).

Ugh... really? The "peace" movement was absolute nonsense; a gloablist contrivance pursuant to Theire goal of one-world government. How does one approach the objective of global dominion in a world where sovereignty is so very popular? War. Incite, invoke, and finance war on all sides such that all are threatened by it; all are drained by the losses personal, national, and financial. These things were all laid out in black and white by men like Nathan Rothschild, Jacob Schiff, and so forth. They have been exposed time after time over the past 200+ years. Theire dialectic is pure Hegel and what we see today meshes to it without flaw. I strongly suspect the "peace movement" was part of this lunacy. If it wasn't, then its rise, especially given the timing, constitutes one of the most impossible coincidences in all human history. Wear people down with enough war, so the theory goes, and they will submit to any tyranny that promises with a straight face peace and safety and no more dead children. What has transpired in the United States these past 50 years is textbook bolshevism at work. It could not fit the blueprint any more perfectly. If anyone wants to believe it is coincidental, then by all means go ahead, but I doubt it would be the right move.

The Ron Paul Liberty movement has been transformed in the most part to the MAGA Trump, Trump, Trump movement.

What leads you to believe this? What is the evidence? I am sure you are correct in some cases, but methinks you cast a bit too broad a net here, but perhaps I am mistaken.

...the peace movement... was based on "peace" and "questioning authority" and it morphed into Marxism.

Which bolsters my very point. That said, I would take some care in how you formulate your expression. I would ask what authority did it recommend be questioned. I was alive in those days and actually paid attention to all that rot. The authority to be questioned was anything that was not collectivist-authoritarian, which was never to be questioned at any time, by any person, for any reason, regardless of purpose or purport. The assumptions, tacit or otherwise, of that movement were NEVER to be questioned because they represented the absolute and irrefutable truth. I remember all this very clearly; it was all very cleverly contrived and couched such that anyone questioning "peace, love, and dope" was not of the body and had to be excised and forever distrusted. Remember "never trust anyone over thirty"? That crap was forwarded by that flaming, suppurating anus Abby Hoffman, was it not? Either way, it was formulaic use of the mind where such thinking was wholly and dangerously inappropriate.

Those stupid bastards thought sitting around, half-naked and stoned out of their minds while singing insipid, idiotic songs was going to change the world for the better. Well, they were half-right anyhow.

I'm not going to bad mouth the movement started by Ron

Kind of difficult to define it as a monobloc. Doing so take on the "they all look the same to me" quality. The same can be said for the "peace" movement, to a point. However, the root origin of the latter stands in glaring question as to its authenticity, whereas I have little to no doubt about the sincerity, intentions, and aptitude of Dr. Paul. He was a single-point source, whereas the hippy-shit cannot be identified as having issued from a readily and specifically identifiable spring.

I'm not going to bad mouth the movement of peace.

Not to worry my friend, you don't have to. I will save you the responsibility by doing so myself. On the whole, it was complete shyte, most likely contrived by agents of those whose malevolence may be trusted implicitly and with absolute confidence.

People are responsible for taking a good thing and distorting it.

Completely agree. But your assumption that the "peace movement" was at its roots a good thing is eminently questionable. And were it to prove so, it would nonetheless fail to pass the smell-test for rationality/validity as structured. It was typical product of bunnies, light, and unicorn-poo thinking by (at best) hopelessly naive and doltish people who'd had their heads filled full of air by a cadre of malevolent bastards such that those kids ended up wanting and expecting the world to bend to the satisfaction of their wills. Now take that kind of brattish, spoiled-child, self-absorbed nitwittery and apply it in today's context of, for example, Muslim's seeking to saw off your head, rape your children unto their deaths, and corn-hole your cat. All of a sudden what seemed perhaps "noble" or somehow otherwise appealing takes on the appearance, flavor, and odor of the most rankly insane stupidity imaginable, given what we know about the boys of ISIS, and so forth.

Well guess what: it was no different then. The world was full of people who want to hurt us even then, meaning the blind eye approach to solving the problems to which such threats give rise is wholly invalid. That is not to say there was nothing valid in the movement, but only that such points were comparatively few and far between. Therefore, the position that asserted "peace at any cost", which was precisely what the hippies called for, was and remains invalid. When your neighbor is fixing to make war upon you, the solution is not to offer him hugs and a blowjob. At the very least, you do your best to convince him you will seriously degrade the quality of his day if he tries anything cute.

 

[osan]

Are you advocating for violence?

You read like a textbook communist here.

I will not speak for him, but my read is that he is advocating for self defense, most likely against an implacable foe for whom the only response is to wipe them out because nothing less will remove the threat.

 

[osan]

What does that mean?

Does it mean "using violence as a means to achieve a political goal"?

That's terrorism...and the Pentagon.

If a man tries to mug me for my wallet, and I stick a gun in his face and tell him to fuck off, am I "advocating" violence?

Nicely done. Have to spread it around before I can give it to you again.

Good God, that didn't quite come out sounding right. Some idiot is now going to think we're set to get married... perhaps in NY state.

Ugh.

 

[Origanalist]

Nicely done. Have to spread it around before I can give it to you again.

Good God, that didn't quite come out sounding right. Some idiot is now going to think we're set to get married... perhaps in NY state.

Ugh.

 

[Origanalist]

In some cases, I am sure it is. It is the nature of things where humans are concerned. People communicate like absolute crap these days, on average. Honestly, I am surprised they are able to order a pizza and manage not to have a low-yield nuke delivered. While we display manifold flaws, it is possible to train people to manifest fewer of them and in less egregious degree than commonly found. But that takes work, determination, smarts, self-control, courage, etc.: all qualities that act in opposition to the entropy that is our basic nature. Most people simply do not want to live their lives that way. Why bother when it is so much easier to be a slacker - to feed all the worst qualities in oneself, rather than oppose them in favor of those the better?



Ugh... really? The "peace" movement was absolute nonsense; a gloablist contrivance pursuant to Theire goal of one-world government. How does one approach the objective of global dominion in a world where sovereignty is so very popular? War. Incite, invoke, and finance war on all sides such that all are threatened by it; all are drained by the losses personal, national, and financial. These things were all laid out in black and white by men like Nathan Rothschild, Jacob Schiff, and so forth. They have been exposed time after time over the past 200+ years. Theire dialectic is pure Hegel and what we see today meshes to it without flaw. I strongly suspect the "peace movement" was part of this lunacy. If it wasn't, then its rise, especially given the timing, constitutes one of the most impossible coincidences in all human history. Wear people down with enough war, so the theory goes, and they will submit to any tyranny that promises with a straight face peace and safety and no more dead children. What has transpired in the United States these past 50 years is textbook bolshevism at work. It could not fit the blueprint any more perfectly. If anyone wants to believe it is coincidental, then by all means go ahead, but I doubt it would be the right move.



What leads you to believe this? What is the evidence? I am sure you are correct in some cases, but methinks you cast a bit too broad a net here, but perhaps I am mistaken.



Which bolsters my very point. That said, I would take some care in how you formulate your expression. I would ask what authority did it recommend be questioned. I was alive in those days and actually paid attention to all that rot. The authority to be questioned was anything that was not collectivist-authoritarian, which was never to be questioned at any time, by any person, for any reason, regardless of purpose or purport. The assumptions, tacit or otherwise, of that movement were NEVER to be questioned because they represented the absolute and irrefutable truth. I remember all this very clearly; it was all very cleverly contrived and couched such that anyone questioning "peace, love, and dope" was not of the body and had to be excised and forever distrusted. Remember "never trust anyone over thirty"? That crap was forwarded by that flaming, suppurating anus Abby Hoffman, was it not? Either way, it was formulaic use of the mind where such thinking was wholly and dangerously inappropriate.

Those stupid bastards thought sitting around, half-naked and stoned out of their minds while singing insipid, idiotic songs was going to change the world for the better. Well, they were half-right anyhow.




Kind of difficult to define it as a monobloc. Doing so take on the "they all look the same to me" quality. The same can be said for the "peace" movement, to a point. However, the root origin of the latter stands in glaring question as to its authenticity, whereas I have little to no doubt about the sincerity, intentions, and aptitude of Dr. Paul. He was a single-point source, whereas the hippy-shit cannot be identified as having issued from a readily and specifically identifiable spring.



Not to worry my friend, you don't have to. I will save you the responsibility by doing so myself. On the whole, it was complete shyte, most likely contrived by agents of those whose malevolence may be trusted implicitly and with absolute confidence.



Completely agree. But your assumption that the "peace movement" was at its roots a good thing is eminently questionable. And were it to prove so, it would nonetheless fail to pass the smell-test for rationality/validity as structured. It was typical product of bunnies, light, and unicorn-poo thinking by (at best) hopelessly naive and doltish people who'd had their heads filled full of air by a cadre of malevolent bastards such that those kids ended up wanting and expecting the world to bend to the satisfaction of their wills. Now take that kind of brattish, spoiled-child, self-absorbed nitwittery and apply it in today's context of, for example, Muslim's seeking to saw off your head, rape your children unto their deaths, and corn-hole your cat. All of a sudden what seemed perhaps "noble" or somehow otherwise appealing takes on the appearance, flavor, and odor of the most rankly insane stupidity imaginable, given what we know about the boys of ISIS, and so forth.

Well guess what: it was no different then. The world was full of people who want to hurt us even then, meaning the blind eye approach to solving the problems to which such threats give rise is wholly invalid. That is not to say there was nothing valid in the movement, but only that such points were comparatively few and far between. Therefore, the position that asserted "peace at any cost", which was precisely what the hippies called for, was and remains invalid. When your neighbor is fixing to make war upon you, the solution is not to offer him hugs and a blowjob. At the very least, you do your best to convince him you will seriously degrade the quality of his day if he tries anything cute.

The people that brought us that peace 'movement' are the same ones that are now pushing the LGBTQRSTXYZ rights, BLM, safe spaces and 'wokeness'.

 

[CPUd]

What does that mean?

Does it mean "using violence as a means to achieve a political goal"?

That's terrorism...and the Pentagon.

If a man tries to mug me for my wallet, and I stick a gun in his face and tell him to fuck off, am I "advocating" violence?

Except the dude is not being robbed. He thinks he could be robbed, and is trying to get other people to "exterminate" the ones who he believes are planning to rob him. Do you support precrime actions?

 

[Anti Federalist]

Nicely done. Have to spread it around before I can give it to you again.

Good God, that didn't quite come out sounding right. Some idiot is now going to think we're set to get married... perhaps in NY state.

Ugh.

I'll invite [MENTION=6186]Danke[/MENTION] along...

 

[CPUd]

You read like a textbook communist here.

I will not speak for him, but my read is that he is advocating for self defense, most likely against an implacable foe for whom the only response is to wipe them out because nothing less will remove the threat.

No, he has made it clear that he no longer believes in a peaceful solution for his perceived problems, he is recruiting for his extermination force.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Except the dude is not being robbed. He thinks he could be robbed, and is trying to get other people to "exterminate" the ones who he believes are planning to rob him. Do you support precrime actions?

I'm not looking to exterminate anybody.

But I think that it has gone beyond "pre-crime".

I happen to think we are being robbed.

I would very much like to separate, peacefully.