A cultural elite that rejects middle class values and censors debate - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-27-2009, 10:55 AM   #61
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 11:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post

Artists, writers and thinkers whose works have endured and had lasting, powerful cultural influence were almost by definition nonconformist and envelope-pushing in their own time, which tends to make one the subject of lots of nasty rumors and allegations, regardless of what the reality is. Plato's mentor Socrates was convicted for corrupting the youth by turning them against the gods of Athens; Thomas Aquinas wound up getting some of his followers--and quite possibly himself, though that's not clear--excommunicated for heresy; Shakespeare could never have won the hand of a respectable wealthy man's daughter in his day because he lived and worked in London's theater district, which 'proper' people considered a cesspool of debauchery, except of course when they felt like catching a boat across the Thames for a little entertainment themselves. Etc., etc., etc. Regardless of whether particular reverence for some great artist, writer or thinker tends to be stereotypically associated with being 'moral' 'conservative' today (since you seem to be treating the two as synonymous here), it's generally unlikely s/he was credited with being an exemplar of high ethical standards at the time.
Honestly, purpleoscar's posts in this thread make me think that his main issue with art is that he perceives artists to be leftist-leaning immoral freeloaders.
__________________

__________________
anitram is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2009, 03:48 PM   #62
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 12:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Honestly, purpleoscar's posts in this thread make me think that his main issue with art is that he perceives artists to be leftist-leaning immoral freeloaders.
They aren't? Well, fuck, that's what makes 'em fun!
__________________

__________________
indra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2009, 10:53 PM   #63
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 09:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
Do you think technique-oriented classes really suffice to make someone an informed consumer of art, though?
I like the idea of techniques because there is a whole raft of techniques developed over time that it would be good for students to all work on water-colors or acrylic or oils. Different sketching techniques would have been fun to work on. We did little of that in my class so it ended up being pretty aimless. I just like the idea because if you focus and practice and repeat the same technique you’ll likely get better at it and as you work on many techniques over the years you’ll be better at art in a measurable way. Once it’s measurable it should be easier to promote art classes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
I wouldn't consider having won one partially government-funded prize for one work to make you a 'government-supported artist,' no, which I thought was what you were complaining about (in Canada).
Well it’s a little different except again the choice is still with bureaucrats on who gets the money. Of course this becomes less of a problem if the art is actually aesthetically pleasing. Most people wouldn’t complain as much if it was. Shock art can only go so far until the public becomes jaded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
Again, how many professional artists do you know? Art 'scenes' do vary a lot depending on where you are--or at least in the US they do--but I live in an area with a proportionately large concentration of artists, I know quite a few of them, and this just sounds to me like an unrecognizable caricature of the painters and musicians I know.
Well then you are around different artists than me. Most of the artists I’ve known were poets and they were uniformly left-wing. Outside of that I’ve been to the art gallery and the art gallery and art festivals and seen many strange works of art. The funniest was global warming art with end of the world scenarios in the paintings. Another funny one was an Argentinean setup with a room and speakers in the corners of the room and you sit in the middle of the room and listen to overlapping voices say "I love you" in spanish and other languages. I was sitting there thinking, "is this art"? I got a good laugh out of Scotty from Star Trek in a comic strip wall painting getting bagpipes rammed up his ass. There was a Cezanne exhibit that passed by some years ago but I missed it. S&*T! That would have been much better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
Mainstream country music is as much about entertainment as it is about music as art, so a lot of it can be derivative in the sense of endlessly recycling certain tropes and cliches expected by fans of the genre. And the same is true of mainstream rock music, of course. They involve an established image and style, they have certain characteristic aesthetic boundaries; that doesn't mean innovation and presence isn't possible for gifted artists working in whichever genre to achieve. You can certainly find overtly political artists in both genres, but to credit either in general with having significant political import is cheapening to real political discourse and participation, which is hardly their reason for being.
An example I can use would be the hippie movement and the 60s culture that had a lot of influence and art was used for political purposes. Even members of U2 were a little skeptical of some of the hard-line Marxist punk movement and felt they went too hard to the left. Rock ‘n roll is definitely out there to make fun of the middle class in many instances. Again I don’t how bohemians would be able to do otherwise with their lifestyles and point of view. Some music is politically neutral but a lot of artists like to push their agendas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
OK, now I'm completely befuddled as to what your point is or was. How is "a website...supportive of classical academic paintings...defending themselves against the modern art circle" an example of "radical claptrap"?
I’m just mentioning the irony that a conservative type website like it still has some over the top art in a political sense. Then I referenced a pro-Maoist redbook painting (very skillfully painted). That painting gives me the shivers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
Regardless of whether particular reverence for some great artist, writer or thinker tends to be stereotypically associated with being 'moral' 'conservative' today (since you seem to be treating the two as synonymous here), it's generally unlikely s/he was credited with being an exemplar of high ethical standards at the time.
Well he is a part of the Chinese government so I don’t think the painting could be made in the opposite way without some career backlash. Call the painting "every word is a lie" and he would have a different career path afterwards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
What I was talking about is how out of touch with life that you are outside your bubble. And that being out of touch makes you very susceptible to 1950's paranoid McCarthyism type of "thinking".
Tell me where do I have to live to be "in touch"; Washington D.C.? Should I join a community activist group?
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2009, 11:03 PM   #64
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 10:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Tell me where do I have to live to be "in touch"; Washington D.C.?
I would suggest travel, reading outside of hard right opinion, community service, etc... It's not where you live physically...
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2009, 11:08 PM   #65
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 11:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post

Well it’s a little different except again the choice is still with bureaucrats on who gets the money. Of course this becomes less of a problem if the art is actually aesthetically pleasing. Most people wouldn’t complain as much if it was.
Aesthetically pleasing to whom??

Nevermind what most people would consider "weird" modern art (like the one exhibit I saw of rocks and cheetos glued to hardwood), but I bet that you would find a lot of modern paintings or modern sculpture to not be aesthetically pleasing, and yet other people would. Is there some sort of committee who gets to decide?
__________________
anitram is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2009, 07:31 PM   #66
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 09:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
I would suggest travel, reading outside of hard right opinion, community service, etc... It's not where you live physically...
Hard as it might be to believe I actually have had left-wing exposure from university professors (talking about Marx) and read Marx myself and that's partly the reason I'm right wing. Then after exposing myself to the left-wing point of view I got nauseated at the self-serving agenda and I then moved to libertarianism as a gut reaction. Then I read more neo-conservative points of view (that doesn't start with Bush BTW but include most of the conservative movement of the twentieth century) and finally got some eurekas on politics and economics. Bastiat and Hazlitt on the libertarian side helped enormously and Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher helped as well. To me neo-conservatives are any conservatives that don't follow classical conservative attitudes of the 19th century. Back then I would have been a liberal because they believed in free trade and classical conservatives were mercantalists. Neo-conservatives believe in having some government where the benefit to society as a whole is demonstrable. As soon as it's shown that the money is being wasted or not yielding results then there should be an audit and a decision made on whether to pursue that government activity further in a different fashion or not at all. If there are two social programs that overlap and provide the same services then they should be consolidated into one to reduce waste. Where competition creates better results then that should be pursued. If the private sector tries to break the rules of ethics or creates another situation of entitlement at the expense of others then the government (justice system) needs to step and enforce laws. Like Bastiat said:

Quote:
The origin of this desire is also found in human nature—in “that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels [man] to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain” (Bastiat 1850). When he incurs less disutility in stealing a product from another person than he would in producing the same product or obtaining it through noncoercive exchange, an individual will steal it: “since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain – and since labor is pain in itself – it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work” (Bastiat 1850). Where plunder presents less disutility than production, the same self-interest motive that might otherwise create harmonious market societies will result in a society of universal antagonisms—where everyone tries to plunder everyone else.

The way to stop plunder is to render it more painful than work. This, for Bastiat, is the function of the law: “the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder” (Bastiat 1850). Protecting individuals’ inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property is both necessary and sufficient for a legal system that preserves the beneficent tendencies of self-interest while restraining its
harmful ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Aesthetically pleasing to whom??

Nevermind what most people would consider "weird" modern art (like the one exhibit I saw of rocks and cheetos glued to hardwood), but I bet that you would find a lot of modern paintings or modern sculpture to not be aesthetically pleasing, and yet other people would. Is there some sort of committee who gets to decide?
Well if government is funding art wouldn't there have to be committees involved? That's why I would prefer ideally to let the market decide and leave libraries and museums to display historically interesting art. If government funded art consistently that many in the public consume then there would be more clamour for the same kind of art. Also the market would get involved where it can to try and duplicate the success themselves. This is why you will see things like museums and libraries funded by governments because it benefits a broad group of people making unappealing to cut them. But if a large amount of art is just ugly to most people they won't see the value to it like a library or museum. Then if an individual likes rocks and cheetos glued to hardwood he can ante up his or her own money to hearts content.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2009, 08:07 PM   #67
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 05:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I like the idea of techniques because there is a whole raft of techniques developed over time that it would be good for students to all work on water-colors or acrylic or oils. Different sketching techniques would have been fun to work on. We did little of that in my class so it ended up being pretty aimless. I just like the idea because if you focus and practice and repeat the same technique you’ll likely get better at it and as you work on many techniques over the years you’ll be better at art in a measurable way. Once it’s measurable it should be easier to promote art classes.



Well it’s a little different except again the choice is still with bureaucrats on who gets the money. Of course this becomes less of a problem if the art is actually aesthetically pleasing. Most people wouldn’t complain as much if it was. Shock art can only go so far until the public becomes jaded.



Well then you are around different artists than me. Most of the artists I’ve known were poets and they were uniformly left-wing. Outside of that I’ve been to the art gallery and the art gallery and art festivals and seen many strange works of art. The funniest was global warming art with end of the world scenarios in the paintings. Another funny one was an Argentinean setup with a room and speakers in the corners of the room and you sit in the middle of the room and listen to overlapping voices say "I love you" in spanish and other languages. I was sitting there thinking, "is this art"? I got a good laugh out of Scotty from Star Trek in a comic strip wall painting getting bagpipes rammed up his ass. There was a Cezanne exhibit that passed by some years ago but I missed it. S&*T! That would have been much better.



An example I can use would be the hippie movement and the 60s culture that had a lot of influence and art was used for political purposes. Even members of U2 were a little skeptical of some of the hard-line Marxist punk movement and felt they went too hard to the left. Rock ‘n roll is definitely out there to make fun of the middle class in many instances. Again I don’t how bohemians would be able to do otherwise with their lifestyles and point of view. Some music is politically neutral but a lot of artists like to push their agendas.



I’m just mentioning the irony that a conservative type website like it still has some over the top art in a political sense. Then I referenced a pro-Maoist redbook painting (very skillfully painted). That painting gives me the shivers.



Well he is a part of the Chinese government so I don’t think the painting could be made in the opposite way without some career backlash. Call the painting "every word is a lie" and he would have a different career path afterwards.

Tell me where do I have to live to be "in touch"; Washington D.C.? Should I join a community activist group?
All good points.

But at a basic level, the broader environment we operate in in the earlier part of the twenty-first century is absolutely not a free market - what we have is the very definition of oligarchy. Larger and larger banks, larger and larger chemical companies, larger and larger media companies, not to mention a more aggressively intrusive state. If they are in agreement with your values as a conservative, then fine, but they're not mine.

As such, not surprisingly, we find that most of the ownership of art is in the hands of that same oligarchy. The system is currently geared towards very expensive art for the hyper rich. Whilst ultimately, like yourself, I would much prefer if art was entirely market driven and not taxpayer funded, this is unrealistic at present. (Let's not forget it was the free market that gave us such 'modern trends' as Dadaism, Surrealism and other good stuff.)

Before we go any further, genuine conservatives should address the problems of globalism and neo-liberalism. As such, I argue that genuine conservatives should build tactical alliances with the libertarians and, dare I say it, the far left, in order to defeat a common enemy. The end result should be going back to community values, which in my view is what a conservative value system should be about. Not fucking multi-corporations and globalism and bailed out banks and corporate welfare and all that crap.

Seeing as you mentioned the punk rock movement, I would mention in passing that I have a slightly different take on this. The punk rock movement were rebelling against their parents - who were all members of the socialist/social democrat clique that dominated social discourse and politics in the late 1940s through to late 1960s - particularly in Britain. The punk rock movement is reactionary, in that sense. Almost Thatcherite in its devotion to free market principles, actually. (Indeed, it is not at all the case that punk rockers were uniformly left wing even in terms of personal politics, far from it.)
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2009, 08:53 PM   #68
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 04:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Before we go any further, genuine conservatives should address the problems of globalism and neo-liberalism. As such, I argue that genuine conservatives should build tactical alliances with the libertarians and, dare I say it, the far left, in order to defeat a common enemy.
What do you think might precipitate these squabbling groups to rise above differences and even acknowledge a common enemy?
__________________
AliEnvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2009, 09:57 PM   #69
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 10:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Then after exposing myself to the left-wing point of view I got nauseated at the self-serving agenda and I then moved to libertarianism as a gut reaction.
I find this to be very very VERY ironic.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2009, 09:25 PM   #70
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 09:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
All good points.

But at a basic level, the broader environment we operate in in the earlier part of the twenty-first century is absolutely not a free market - what we have is the very definition of oligarchy. Larger and larger banks, larger and larger chemical companies, larger and larger media companies, not to mention a more aggressively intrusive state. If they are in agreement with your values as a conservative, then fine, but they're not mine.
I agree with some of this though I would say that some of it certainly has to do with what the public asked for and a consequence of dealing with the communists in the 20th century. Many modern liberals felt a compromise would better than all out Soviet revolution. A lot of people back then (especially in University) believed that communism was the future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
As such, not surprisingly, we find that most of the ownership of art is in the hands of that same oligarchy. The system is currently geared towards very expensive art for the hyper rich. Whilst ultimately, like yourself, I would much prefer if art was entirely market driven and not taxpayer funded, this is unrealistic at present. (Let's not forget it was the free market that gave us such 'modern trends' as Dadaism, Surrealism and other good stuff.)
It's true in that it's not realistic since many people would vote for that funding. I get the sense that many families have kids who have dreams for art as a profession and this is the closest they will ever get to it so they support it wholeheartedly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Before we go any further, genuine conservatives should address the problems of globalism and neo-liberalism. As such, I argue that genuine conservatives should build tactical alliances with the libertarians and, dare I say it, the far left, in order to defeat a common enemy. The end result should be going back to community values, which in my view is what a conservative value system should be about. Not fucking multi-corporations and globalism and bailed out banks and corporate welfare and all that crap.
I agree that libertarians and neo-conservatives (neo-liberals in europe?) should make an alliance but for the life of God I have no use for the far left. They are the people that have to be defeated every generation. Whether it's global governance via the green movement or any other scam they cannot be trusted. I met communists and debated with them. They basically believe in a system that in theory looks utopian and in practice looks like an atheistic model of the middle ages where inequality would increase and there would be a world government, (so no place to defect to).

When it comes to "community values" if you mean it in a Burkean sense and you support free trade then I agree. Corporate welfare is definately creating a situation where large government, big unions and "too big to fail" companies hijack taxpayers and shareholders to create another aristocratic class collecting unearned entitlements. Special interest groups are more organized than the general taxpayer or shareholder so some check against that would be a great innovation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Seeing as you mentioned the punk rock movement, I would mention in passing that I have a slightly different take on this. The punk rock movement were rebelling against their parents - who were all members of the socialist/social democrat clique that dominated social discourse and politics in the late 1940s through to late 1960s - particularly in Britain. The punk rock movement is reactionary, in that sense. Almost Thatcherite in its devotion to free market principles, actually. (Indeed, it is not at all the case that punk rockers were uniformly left wing even in terms of personal politics, far from it.)
Well I'm not an expert on punk rock though I would like to see some examples of them liking Thatcher. It's seemed to me to be the most politically incorrect thing to like her and be a part of a band of any kind. I wouldn't mind hearing the lyrics. I would also like to hear some music covering that since I would find that so rare.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
I find this to be very very VERY ironic.
"New right" point of view: "Hey I want to keep most of the money I earn."
"New left" point of view: "You're greedy and self-serving for saying that!"

Question for you: If I don't keep most of the money I earn am I really free?
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2009, 09:35 PM   #71
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 11:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post

Question for you: If I don't keep most of the money I earn am I really free?
Question for you: What's your marginal and effective tax rate in Alberta? I had no idea that you were surrendering over 50% to the government in the lowest tax jurisdiction in the nation...
__________________
anitram is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2009, 09:39 PM   #72
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 05:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I agree with some of this though I would say that some of it certainly has to do with what the public asked for and a consequence of dealing with the communists in the 20th century. Many modern liberals felt a compromise would better than all out Soviet revolution. A lot of people back then (especially in University) believed that communism was the future.
Fair point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I agree that libertarians and neo-conservatives (neo-liberals in europe?) should make an alliance but for the life of God I have no use for the far left. They are the people that have to be defeated every generation. Whether it's global governance via the green movement or any other scam they cannot be trusted. I met communists and debated with them. They basically believe in a system that in theory looks utopian and in practice looks like an atheistic model of the middle ages where inequality would increase and there would be a world government, (so no place to defect to).
Yes, when I say 'neoliberal' I essentially mean 'neoconservative'. However, I am not arguing for any sort of alliance between paleo-con libertarians and neocons, BTW, as I don't consider neoconservatives to be genuine conservatives, which is partially why I prefer the term neoliberal.

On the other hand, I know what you mean about dealing with the far left. I would distinguish between the violent and non-violent elements of the far left. In Europe, post war, most political violence - almost all of it - has come from the far left. Some of these people are quite dangerous, and it's correct, certainly, to be sceptical of any alliances with that particular element. That said, the anti-globalism protestors, for example, are largely non-violent, indeed, if violence occurs at these protests, it is largely the police causing it, which in my view are working for the statist oligarchy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
When it comes to "community values" if you mean it in a Burkean sense and you support free trade then I agree. Corporate welfare is definately creating a situation where large government, big unions and "too big to fail" companies hijack taxpayers and shareholders to create another aristocratic class collecting unearned entitlements. Special interest groups are more organized than the general taxpayer or shareholder so some check against that would be a great innovation.
Would agree completely. And the anti-globalism wing on the left, they are the people out on the streets protesting this, I admire them for it. When I talk of community values, I mean community values in the sense expounded by, for example, Roger Scruton, which I imagine is very much in the Burkean tradition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Well I'm not an expert on punk rock though I would like to see some examples of them liking Thatcher. It's seemed to me to be the most politically incorrect thing to like her and be a part of a band of any kind. I wouldn't mind hearing the lyrics. I would also like to hear some music covering that since I would find that so rare.
Well, I don't know of too many examples of punk rockers admitting to liking Thatcher. But I would tend to argue that the very essence of the DIY punk rock movement is entrepeneurial and quintessentially anti-statist. In terms of punk rockers who openly espoused right wing politics, I was thinking more of the 'Oi!' punk movement, which was very much of the right - the far right, actually. ( Oi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! )



Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Question for you: If I don't keep most of the money I earn am I really free?
I would probably argue 'taxation is theft' is a useful guideline. So, no, in answer to your question. Personally I very rarely give any money to charity as I already feel I am paying enough in tax. Some of my tax goes to good purposes, but other parts of it go to finance the lifestyles of scroungers, drug addicts, thugs, and other ne'er-do-wells. And as a result I feel aggrieved. It's interesting that the welfare state produces these results.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2009, 10:09 PM   #73
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auto Dafoe
Posts: 9,600
Local Time: 02:16 AM
The 'welfare state' for all its faults is an enlarged version of those community values you want to get back to, Financeguy.

Government started getting a whole lot bigger not just after 1950 but after the mid 19th century, as, you guessed it, industry started getting a whole lot bigger. Even in the ol' US of A, they couldn't very well have a company bigger than the Federal Government, could they?
__________________
Kieran McConville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2009, 10:13 PM   #74
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auto Dafoe
Posts: 9,600
Local Time: 02:16 AM
I object to a lot of things my taxes pay for, but that is not how the game operates. 'Taxation is theft' is the most stupid, irresponsible line of all time. Yeah, go live in fucking Somalia, would be my response.
__________________
Kieran McConville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2009, 11:45 PM   #75
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 10:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Question for you: If I don't keep most of the money I earn am I really free?

Money isn't freedom. Sending kids off to a pointless war isn't freedom. Denying rights to people who are not like you isn't freedom.

I have to laugh when conservatives speak the shit you do...

Conservatism by definition is about self preservation, it's all about keeping THEIR status quo, so for you to tell me I have a self serving agenda is just down right fucking laughable...
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com