:rasta

I distrust everyone and everything until they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt they are trustworthy.

It's the only way.

In your view, is a conformist anyone who follows the "majority" way of thinking, or anyone who fits in comfortably with any particular categorical viewpoint?

Can one conform to being a "radical"?

Grenade thrown at US troops.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...936428,00.html

Pro US/UK muslim leader assassinated in south Iraq.
http://www.asahi.com/english/op-ed/K2003041400312.html

So much for that idiot who posted the 'US takes control' posts.

More ? ...

The war is about oil. Period.
Read this;
http://www.online.ie/news/irish_exam...rticle=1990352
Then ask yourself why the US has not 'taken charge' of hospitals, schools, humanitatian aid ??? Fucking obvious or what ?


And, while I'm educating the morons, where *are* those weapons of mass destruction ? Why arn't US troops writhing in gas induced pain. It's not like Saddam has anything to lose now is it ?

I'll accept the definition I found at www.dictionary.com

"A person who uncritically or habitually conforms to the customs, rules, or styles of a group."

I think they key word in that definition is "uncritically".

Can people conform to being a "radical"? I suppose it's possible but highly unlikely because radicals favour revolutionary change. It's much easier to "uncritically" conform to the status quo. One assumes that to favour and advocate "revolutionary change" you must have at least thought about it first. Conformists believe the media or the government or their priest or guru when they really should be thinking about things themselves. It's simply accepting the views of beliefs of something or someone else instead of expending the necessary brainpower to work it out for yourself based on your value system and/or code of ethics.

Is that really a bad thing?

I for one think it's great that the US isn't conforming to world opinion.

How is that tens of millions of people who go around claiming they are the ones with independent thoughts while claiming everyone else are sheep aren't sheep themselves?

You can tell someone's lost an argument once they play the "sheep card".

Joe, if you're such an "independent" "free-thinking" "non-conformist" how come everything you say on this topic is stuff that's been said elswhere? Which thoughts that you've
espoused on the subject can you honestly say are yours and yours alone? How is quoting Einstein on nationalism in your tagline demonstrating your ability to "think independently"?

As far as saying that no one in the military could possibly be considered a "free-thinker", how do you think new military tactics and policies arise?

Your argument regarding nationalism is only valid in a fictitous world where no one else is nationalistic. It loses applicability in the real world. It makes sense to be nationalistic in a world where other people are nationalistic. Say there are only two countries. Both of them have no weapons and are peaceful. Over time, one of them begins to think they are the "better nation". They begin to develop weapons. They start to talk about their way of life being better than yours. They begin to talk about destroying your nation. They begin to talk about ethnic cleansing, they begin to talk about subverting your way of life. What is your best strategy? Better start building weapons or you are going to end up in a world of hurt.

Nationalism is the best strategy in a world that contains nationalism.

the obnoxious thing about the far left is they are never right. Yet they have the loudest voices.


I can just imagine the look on their faces when the iraqis dance in the street and piss on saddam statues.

Now their spin is ' where are the weapons'. lol. I wonder what their next spin will be. I can hardly wait.

Was that the first spin put on it? I think it may have been... "It's all staged". Or something like that. Weren't they bringing up the notion that all those Iraqis were paid, and the crowds were not impressive enough for them? Something like that.

You are so painfully ignorant it makes me sick to my stomach.

What you would call the "left" has been responsible for civil rights, abortion rights, birth control, womens suffage, the ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Amnesty International, and any environmental cause. Just to name a few off the top of my head.

How you manage to function on a daily basis is beyond me.

The funny thing is... you are never right. So sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up. Why you always butt into adult conversations?

I work in porn and support the right.

fuck, you people are retards.

What is it exactly that you do in this industry Rooster?

HAHA I love how everyone always tells the other side they're brainwashed. That's so retarded.

I also love how if you agree with the govt on a certain issue you've suddenly lost your ability to think for yourself, as if disagreeing with everything across the board makes you some free thinking intellectual.

If it wasnt for the left, none of you ******s would be working in this industry.

But I suspect most of you dont even work in this industry, just riding on the cocks of those of us who actually do.

Name me a conservative group that is gonna run to your rescue when everything you own is confiscated and sold at auction because you choose to sell porn? Me? I know of a number of left leaning groups that will help me in my fight. Who will you little Bush loving sheep run to?

Tell the judge you support the war and the Bush administration and how much you battle the evil left on a message board for internet pornographers. Im sure you will get a reduced sentence.

I honestly hate you people. Not because you dislike the left, I dislike most of the left, but because you are so god damn ignorant.

Labret,

I think the same distribution of idiots and savants exists on both the "left" and the "right".

A two party system forces one to choose between what are for many people incompatible philosophic policies. It seems to me that in this business nearly everyone is quite libertarian in their social views. It would be very strange if someone was not. That WOULD be an incompatibility of interest and stated belief.

Where many of us disagree is in our philosophies of what economic policy should be. How large should the welfare system be? Should there be a progressive tax? Should the state or the individual be more responsible for one's health?

Many of those in our business that label themselves as conservative do so because they believe people should be responsible for their own individual welfare more than the state should be. They are, to borrow the language of a previous generation, "rugged individualists".

It's interesting. Laissez faire economics and laissez faire social policies exist most together in the libertarian party. However, that party is a non-entity in national elections.

I myself have found that no party can speak for me. Though I believe strongly in self-reliance and the principles of responsibility and accountability, I believe too that people should be left alone. I also believe in the rule of law.

How could one choose a party based on these beliefs and principles? I choose not to. Someone else may choose to. Depends on what principles are most important to them.

Agreed. Very well stated as usual.

However,



Given that definition, I would be considered a conservative. I dont believe for a single minute that the Roosters, the Gmans, the Fatpads of the world have ever even read that definition of conservative, nor do I believe for a second that that is how they think of themselves when they stand in line to suck on the Bush cock.

When I say conservative, I am using it exactly how "they" understand it.

But as usual, you are the voice of reason and your comments are appreciated.

HAHA

So now if you agree with Bush on one thing, you're suddenly incapable of thinking for yourself and standing in line to suck his cock?

Interesting.

........

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

goes to show how much you know about hippies...

Labret,

Let me rephrase then. My friends in this business who consider themselves "conservatives" fit what I described. That's a pretty select group and I am not sure at all how well I can apply it en masse.

Maybe some here will answer for themselves. In what way can a pornographer identify themselves as being "conservative" without contradicting one's actions? [I should ask people what they think instead of generalizing].

I'll admit my usage of the phrase "conservative" was not an according-to-Webster definition. It was more of a combination of the text-book definition and the common usage definition where Republican = conservative and Democrat = liberal. In the midst of mud-slinging, Republicans call Democrats "liberals" and Democrats call Republicans "conservatives" and everyone intends so as an insult.

So are you a member of the Democratic party, Labret or would you consider yourself to be independent or otherwise? You don't like Bush but did you like Clinton?

amen, and hippies are the most hypocritical of all groups as they preach non comformity so vehemently

You got the definition pretty much right.

I know lots of people who are economic/financial conservatives and tend to be liberal on the social side.

I don't vote for either party. I pretty much hate them both and think they're both equally responsible for the out of control spending that takes place in our govt, and the incredibly high taxes we pay.

I don't like welfare. I don't believe people should be raised to rely on the govt to take care of themselves.

But I also happened to believe the war on Iraq was the right thing to do, so now I have people like Labret telling me I'm a sheep who blindly agrees with everything Bush says and does.

Ahhh well. :)

I have no political affiliation. There is no party for me.

And no, wasnt a big fan of Clinton. But I didnt hate him either. Didnt really pay him much attention.

A-FUCKIN-MEN!

I'd shit on saddam's face too... even if I liked the guy -- all these symbolic gestures mean shit...

Even the Tibetan monks had to learn judo... but they never had much problem... all they had to do was reincarnate into enemy ranks... :thumbsup

I would think I'd rather live in a relatively civil & ordered society rather than watching over my shoulder everywhere I went because basically this was an 'every man for himself' world. Rules aren't made to please everyone, it's greatest good for the greatest number.

I'm not sure what's up with the hippie anti-war agenda. I'm sorry if we can't all sit around in drum circles all day and toke up. If they want to have a real political agenda why not put together some formal and educated lobbying efforts rather than perching on a street corner with 'bombs are bad' signs.

ditto

Hmm... The next time an army of well-armed murderous conformist soldiers swarms over the hill, be sure to send some of your kind of independent-thinking hippie folk up to meet them. Me? I'll be calling on OUR idiots to go up to meet them, and I hope to GOD they are even better-armed and more murderous than the other army is.

I think he's talking about who he'd prefer to CHAT to, not wage war for him. slight difference :)

all i have to say is that if you think ppl shouldn't be allowed to protest and disagree with the decisions their government makes well, your thinking fits in perfect in places like iraq where they are not allowed that freedom. freedom of speech is a beautiful thing. its allows us our jobs in part...

In this case the hippies should be happy. Are we not trying to free Iraq from the bonds of regime control so they can have hippie protesters of their very own? How long do we have to beat around the bush with corrupt leaders before it's time to use brute force. Maybe the hippies should go hang out on the Iraqi borders with anti-regime signs if they care so much about the Iraqi people. Or do they just care about the American soldiers who's lives were sacraficed? In that case they could care less about the Iraqi people and that would make them a bunch of humanitarian hippie-crits.

Perhaps you should ask him:


http://eur.news1.yimg.com/eur.yimg.c.../413736133.jpg

Ali Ismail Abbas, 12, wounded during an airstrike according to hospital sources, lies in a hospital bed in Baghdad, April 6, 2003. Abbas was fast asleep when war shattered his life. A missile obliterated his home and most of his family, leaving him orphaned, badly burned and blowing off both his arms. 'It was midnight when the missile fell on us. My father, my mother and my brother died. My mother was five months pregnant,' the traumatized boy told Reuters at Baghdad's Kindi hospital. 'Our neighbors pulled me out and brought me here. I was unconscious,' he said on Sunday.

yeah, or maybe ask the hundreds of thousands of others killed / torchered by iraq.

The kid needed to be liberated.

You won't see him complaining when at some point in the future he'll be able to enjoy a juicy, wholesome Big Mac just just like the rest of us here in the first world can!

Of course he'll need someone to feed it to him....

ask him what happen to his grandfather when the iraqi police arrested him,

Saddam has killed more people before he takes a piss in the morning than the total dropped bombs.

Did you seriously think there wouldn't of been any civilian causulties when they purpose put military weapons in schools and hospitals

the far left will never look at anything logically. Its not worth the time to try to get them to do anything but spin.

We all feel for this kid but casualties of war are inevitable. For this one kid there were probably hundreds released from Iraqi prisons for believing in something other than what Saddam wanted them to.

You're of the mind that it would be okay to let Saddam starve another 400K children (while building fantastic palaces for himself) just so the we could keep our hands clean and hurt no one? War is not pretty and there's no way to do it to keep our little handies clean. Sorry. What does count in the long run, when you're dealing with aggregates of people is what works out best for the most in the long run. On the whole, the Iraqis seem happy to be free of Saddam. Are there people who got hurt? Of course. Could Saddam have been negotiated out of power? Dream on.

our hands aren't entirely clean of those 400k kids.. they wouldn't have starved if we hadn't have forced sanctions on them.. I mean hey I know Saddam could have forgone some gold finishings and whatnot, but what do you expect from a brutal dictator?.. when Madelene Albright was asked whether the death of 400k kids was worth the sanctions she said "yes, it's worth it".