Me:- Hey Redneck, I noticed your anti-Obama post. I know that you're not a rich man, so I'm proud of you for wanting to shoulder more of the tax burden in your country.
"Broaden the tax base" is the operating phrase, which means, well, you'll be paying more. It's that simple. ... I hope you don't consider the word 'tax' a profane word. LOL I realise you're not going to believe me about that tax thing even tho' I live in B.C. and indeed we have a 12% Harmonized Sales Tax making 12 bucks worth of groceries cost 13 bucks. our B.C. Liberals are badly named they're very right wing.
Redneck1:- @ IAN- LOL!!!! I am for less government, which really means I'm Anti most of the bozo's in office today. And the national sales tax idea is not a bad idea, one I have pondered a lot latley.
Redneck2"- Well you all need to realize that they all ready get way more taxes than they need to take care of this country so more taxes is not going to help any thing except give them more to waste. A plague should wipe all politicians off the face of The earth so we can start over.
Me:- Oh, the idea is no new net taxes, so a few billionaires will get the appropriate giant cut in theirs while you'll get to pay 12% on top of the price you see on the shelf. See something for 12 bucks? That'll cost you $13.44! When you start paying a surtax on everything, if they don't just hide it in the cost, you'll be reminded every single time that you buy something that your State and your Country is not one tiny bit better off for it.
And Redneck2, you're not going to get less government, just less governing. Some pictures of guys clearing the brush down on the ranch, that there had to be worth the 400 grand a year for the Prez, yea?
Redneck2:- Yes there will be less govering caues it will cause utter chaos and throw the world in a panic, in which case I would be way more happy to deal with than what we have now! Case closed.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
There we have a peek into the mind of madness, I suppose. Redneck2 WANTS utter chaos, he's rooting for utter chaos, case closed!
Friday, July 29, 2011
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Two dogs humping.
Imagine looking around at reality without having any prejudices concerning what it's all about, just 'being there' observing, noticing the kinds of things going on and so on and so forth, then being told by someone that bestiality and homosexuality were not natural.
"Well, I don't know about you but when I look around I see dogs naturally being drawn to the smell of a bitch in heat and being so overcome by it that they'll hump just about anything. What better advocate of 'natural' could you have than animals doing what animals do?"
This idea, that what animals do sometimes just isn't natural, seems to stretch the meaning of the word 'natural' to it's breaking point, and I don't think that this goes totally unnoticed by people.
Seems to me that this is an area where religion is deliberately clashing with reality, making it's point that it can convince you of anything at all really.
Interspecies sex you say? TOTALLY UNNATURAL! DISGUSTING! A dog humping your leg now, now THAT is natural, he's just a dog and doesn't know any better than to be, you know, unnatural.
Isn't that the point, when ideas are brought together and they don't match up, where you realise that this religion 'thing' is just fucking with your mind? Hey, I'm a product of my environment, it gives me 'the creeps' just to think about dogs humping humans or vice versa and I'm not advocating it as something I'd like to see on the way to pick up a Big Breakfast. I'm just saying that it's not not natural, or it wouldn't be not natural.
I think that part of the problem there is that we get programmed with the notion that natural is good but the 'natural' we're thinking of that is good doesn't include yucky stuff like sex or poo or sex in the poo-hole or 'GAWDFORBID' poo in the sex-hole! YUCK!!!
I just don't think we're taking reality into account when we avoid the idea that we're walking bags of shit and that if it could be put to a life for life vote, just our own personal space would be billions, if not trillions to one in favour of poop, yummy poop!
Yea, I understand that E. Coli doesn't have a vote and shouldn't have a vote in the matter, I'm just pointing out that the idea that life is sacred is very specific to human life or at least 'higher forms of life', or at least 'naked-eye-visible' life, which just has to count when we're discussing whether we're 'accountable' for what we do with fertilized human eggs surely? It's just that there's another thing that is deemed 'not natural' therefore unGodly by the religious when controlling your own(if you're a woman) body seems at least 'as natural' to me.
I think it says something about us that comedians make good livings off of exposing our hyp9crisy when it comes to 'nature', you know, along the lines of, "By applause who here is kind of disgusted by poop?", followed by, "Now, by applause, who here refuses to take a shit on account of their disgust with it?"
What is that I hear you think, "But we're naturally disgusted by poop!"? Yes, yes and dogs are naturally NOT disgusted by eating a good lump of poo if they happen on one, isn't THAT right?
Camus said that you either have to admit that it's all just absurd or get yourself some religion, but I suppose, in this rant, I'm saying that even if you do get religion it's absurd anyways, you've just blocked yourself from thinking it is.
"Thank goodness" hardly anyone reads the shit I micro-publish anyways.
:o)
"Well, I don't know about you but when I look around I see dogs naturally being drawn to the smell of a bitch in heat and being so overcome by it that they'll hump just about anything. What better advocate of 'natural' could you have than animals doing what animals do?"
This idea, that what animals do sometimes just isn't natural, seems to stretch the meaning of the word 'natural' to it's breaking point, and I don't think that this goes totally unnoticed by people.
Seems to me that this is an area where religion is deliberately clashing with reality, making it's point that it can convince you of anything at all really.
Interspecies sex you say? TOTALLY UNNATURAL! DISGUSTING! A dog humping your leg now, now THAT is natural, he's just a dog and doesn't know any better than to be, you know, unnatural.
Isn't that the point, when ideas are brought together and they don't match up, where you realise that this religion 'thing' is just fucking with your mind? Hey, I'm a product of my environment, it gives me 'the creeps' just to think about dogs humping humans or vice versa and I'm not advocating it as something I'd like to see on the way to pick up a Big Breakfast. I'm just saying that it's not not natural, or it wouldn't be not natural.
I think that part of the problem there is that we get programmed with the notion that natural is good but the 'natural' we're thinking of that is good doesn't include yucky stuff like sex or poo or sex in the poo-hole or 'GAWDFORBID' poo in the sex-hole! YUCK!!!
I just don't think we're taking reality into account when we avoid the idea that we're walking bags of shit and that if it could be put to a life for life vote, just our own personal space would be billions, if not trillions to one in favour of poop, yummy poop!
Yea, I understand that E. Coli doesn't have a vote and shouldn't have a vote in the matter, I'm just pointing out that the idea that life is sacred is very specific to human life or at least 'higher forms of life', or at least 'naked-eye-visible' life, which just has to count when we're discussing whether we're 'accountable' for what we do with fertilized human eggs surely? It's just that there's another thing that is deemed 'not natural' therefore unGodly by the religious when controlling your own(if you're a woman) body seems at least 'as natural' to me.
I think it says something about us that comedians make good livings off of exposing our hyp9crisy when it comes to 'nature', you know, along the lines of, "By applause who here is kind of disgusted by poop?", followed by, "Now, by applause, who here refuses to take a shit on account of their disgust with it?"
What is that I hear you think, "But we're naturally disgusted by poop!"? Yes, yes and dogs are naturally NOT disgusted by eating a good lump of poo if they happen on one, isn't THAT right?
Camus said that you either have to admit that it's all just absurd or get yourself some religion, but I suppose, in this rant, I'm saying that even if you do get religion it's absurd anyways, you've just blocked yourself from thinking it is.
"Thank goodness" hardly anyone reads the shit I micro-publish anyways.
:o)
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Spiritualism/Spirituality
'It' came up again in the conversation recently.
"What about emotions transmitted over distance?"
A couple of questions clarifying exactly what it was that was being asked, 'til we realised that it's that feeling you get that Grandma(for example) isn't doing so well, then you find out, "Oh. My. GOD! Grandma's had a stroke, I 'felt it'!"
Skeptics can point to the feelings you get sometimes that something is wrong when it turns out that there's nothing amiss. I don't think this helps much. True Believers are as apt to dismiss that as skeptics are to dismiss spiritual explanations. I don't think there is anything at all that one can say to a True Believer which could possibly step in between their idea that their feeling of impending doom for a loved one and the conclusion, that a loved one is in peril is valid evidence for, at the very least, an emotional level telepathy.
There's something seriously wrong with us, I think, when a huge portion of us take it for granted that there is some kind of mysterious force, more or less keeping us in contact with each other, but I do think I know it roots.
Have you ever noticed how you feel different when you are walking along the street by yourself compared to walking along with someone, or even with a dog?
Have you even noticed how the house feels different when there's someone else home?
I think it just has to do with how our brain works, how we are just paying attention to the fact that the wife is in the house somewhere, or that the dog is in the corner, or similarly that we're pacing our walk to accomodate our companion?
That there is your basic 'emotional communication', you ARE 'attached' to that other because you're getting clues, a breath, a footstep, some sound perhaps at the edge of our hearing range which is nevertheless comforting.
I think it's that we react, not to 'the situation', but to the 'change in the situation', which is converted by us to imagining that we are reacting to the situation, there's not much difference in the framing of it.
"We had a good walk.", means, more or less, "No uncomfortable situations arose.", and the same with other situations where your home with someone just being there.
Funny thing happens when you're walking along with a companion and they don't do what it is that you think they should be doing, if for example you're walking and talking, look around and they're not there!
The same kind of thing happens when you're interacting with your companion and they start playing with you, disagreeing with everything you say, disagreeing with the you that is you, they're playing with the emotional bond that you feel you have with them.
I'm trying to paint a picture of the emotional stew that is our daily lives, all our friends, relatives, pets, strangers, other peoples' pets and so on provoke emotional reactions in us which becomes our background, part of the 'I' that I project onto others and part of the 'you' and the 'him/her' that she/she projects onto me.
A stray thought of Grandma coupled with an odd feeling that something is amiss is likely not unusual since Grandma is likely to be old and I might feel that it's been too long since I've contacted her. Couple that with news that something has befallen Grandma and we have the makings of a hit, an instance of long distance emotional communication. That same thought with a quick call confirming Grandma is fine, isn't a miss, "What? I was merely concerned that I hadn't heard from Grandma for a bit is all!"
How simple is it for the True Believer to use such mundane emotional connections to their advantage and declare the rest of us, who are likely in the minority, closed minded?
"What about emotions transmitted over distance?"
A couple of questions clarifying exactly what it was that was being asked, 'til we realised that it's that feeling you get that Grandma(for example) isn't doing so well, then you find out, "Oh. My. GOD! Grandma's had a stroke, I 'felt it'!"
Skeptics can point to the feelings you get sometimes that something is wrong when it turns out that there's nothing amiss. I don't think this helps much. True Believers are as apt to dismiss that as skeptics are to dismiss spiritual explanations. I don't think there is anything at all that one can say to a True Believer which could possibly step in between their idea that their feeling of impending doom for a loved one and the conclusion, that a loved one is in peril is valid evidence for, at the very least, an emotional level telepathy.
There's something seriously wrong with us, I think, when a huge portion of us take it for granted that there is some kind of mysterious force, more or less keeping us in contact with each other, but I do think I know it roots.
Have you ever noticed how you feel different when you are walking along the street by yourself compared to walking along with someone, or even with a dog?
Have you even noticed how the house feels different when there's someone else home?
I think it just has to do with how our brain works, how we are just paying attention to the fact that the wife is in the house somewhere, or that the dog is in the corner, or similarly that we're pacing our walk to accomodate our companion?
That there is your basic 'emotional communication', you ARE 'attached' to that other because you're getting clues, a breath, a footstep, some sound perhaps at the edge of our hearing range which is nevertheless comforting.
I think it's that we react, not to 'the situation', but to the 'change in the situation', which is converted by us to imagining that we are reacting to the situation, there's not much difference in the framing of it.
"We had a good walk.", means, more or less, "No uncomfortable situations arose.", and the same with other situations where your home with someone just being there.
Funny thing happens when you're walking along with a companion and they don't do what it is that you think they should be doing, if for example you're walking and talking, look around and they're not there!
The same kind of thing happens when you're interacting with your companion and they start playing with you, disagreeing with everything you say, disagreeing with the you that is you, they're playing with the emotional bond that you feel you have with them.
I'm trying to paint a picture of the emotional stew that is our daily lives, all our friends, relatives, pets, strangers, other peoples' pets and so on provoke emotional reactions in us which becomes our background, part of the 'I' that I project onto others and part of the 'you' and the 'him/her' that she/she projects onto me.
A stray thought of Grandma coupled with an odd feeling that something is amiss is likely not unusual since Grandma is likely to be old and I might feel that it's been too long since I've contacted her. Couple that with news that something has befallen Grandma and we have the makings of a hit, an instance of long distance emotional communication. That same thought with a quick call confirming Grandma is fine, isn't a miss, "What? I was merely concerned that I hadn't heard from Grandma for a bit is all!"
How simple is it for the True Believer to use such mundane emotional connections to their advantage and declare the rest of us, who are likely in the minority, closed minded?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)