Do You Think Hollywood is So Satanic?



CAMPYBOB

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
11,945
2,086
113
Quote from JTE83:
"Maybe they lie about the true unemployment figures just so things don't look bad."

That they do. They've done it for many years, but never in the history of statistics have numbers been so massively manipulated to support a fairy tale. The printing presses have burned out their bearings printing money out of thin air.

When the bill comes due there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
 

alienator

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2004
12,596
310
0
This is what God said on his Facebook page. Seems like he's got it right.
*
 

mpre53

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2013
1,098
179
48
69
Cape Cod, MA, USA
Originally Posted by PoorInRichfield

Your claim is that videos of live concerts, videos of live testimonies from musicians, and the Bible cannot be used as proof that some musicians sell their soles to Satan.
Hey, Satan can have all of my old shoes for free. He doesn't have to buy them.
big-smile.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: alienator

Volnix

Well-Known Member
Feb 19, 2011
2,883
281
63
See what Satan is doing to you... A bunch of crazy people fighting in the soapbox!
big-smile.png


We must repent and offer Alienator to some deity or another (preferably to one with lots of tentacles) so we can be saved.
big-smile.png


0.jpg
 

danfoz

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2011
2,432
184
48
Originally Posted by Cycle Drama
Amen to both Dan and Campybob!!
Cycle drama, I will take your amen as long as you still offer it knowing I'm a non-believer.

You wanna know what I believe in? I believe in the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

I fail to understand how the right ignores this fact when seeking to limit the right of gay folks to get married the argument against which is primarily a religious argument, and which essentially ignores the tenants of the 1st Amendment that state “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. I'm not gay but my mom is, and to hear some old coot include that sweet old lady who gives nothing but kindness to the world in the same sentence with terrorists is sickening. And I fail to understand how the left ignores it when seeking to put limits on the 2nd Amendment, which states “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. How could either of these simple statements be interpreted in any way other than in which they are so clearly put forth? There are enemies to our Constitution on both sides of the fence, make make no mistake about it.

Maybe I have avoided partisan indoctrination because I came to this country as a young man and am a naturalized not a born citizen. As for religion, my mom read me bible stories as a kid and the most important lesson I picked up is that it's important to do unto others as you wish them to do unto you. I don't really give a **** what arguments people use about what's on our money, or written (after the fact) in The Pledge of Allegiance, they ain't the Constitution. Turn the other cheek? It's nonsense imo and I have no problem returning any unsolicited wrong twofold.


Once any standing government in the US starts making changes to our Constitution it has the potential to render the entire document essentially meaningless.

Now off to load some Madonna onto my playlist for VO2 work.

Cheers.
 

CAMPYBOB

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
11,945
2,086
113
Quote by Dan:
“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”


So...if I call myself Mullah Bob and start an exciting new religion in which we practice human sacrifice (with willing volunteers for the coveted position on the alter)...you'ld be good with that?

Madonna? Really?!
sad.png
I am disappoint...

iTunes yourself some 150 BPM vocal trance! If you can stay on those rollers at 150 RPM, I'll buy you a Great Lakes ale of your choice!
 

danfoz

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2011
2,432
184
48
Originally Posted by CAMPYBOB

Madonna? Really?!
sad.png
I am disappoint...
I’m a product of the 80’s, waddaya want? I coulda mentioned my Ozzy and Priest playlists but I didn’t want to freak OP out. I’m already convinced one forum member won’t respond to me directly in posts because of my Yolandi thread.



As far as your um human sacrifices, do unto others Bob, do unto others...
 

alienator

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2004
12,596
310
0
danfoz said:
Cycle drama, I will take your amen as long as you still offer it knowing I'm a non-believer. You wanna know what I believe in? I believe in the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land. I fail to understand how the right ignores this fact when seeking to limit the right of gay folks to get married the argument against which is primarily a religious argument, and which essentially ignores the tenants of the 1st Amendment that state “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. I'm not gay but my mom is, and to hear some old coot include that sweet old lady who gives nothing but kindness to the world in the same sentence with terrorists is sickening. And I fail to understand how the left ignores it when seeking to put limits on the 2nd Amendment, which states “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.  How could either of these simple statements be interpreted in any way other than in which they are so clearly put forth? There are enemies to our Constitution on both sides of the fence, make make no mistake about it. Maybe I have avoided partisan indoctrination because I came to this country as a young man and am a naturalized not a born citizen. As for religion, my mom read me bible stories as a kid and the most important lesson I picked up is that it's important to do unto others as you wish them to do unto you. I don't really give a **** what arguments people use about what's on our money, or written (after the fact) in The Pledge of Allegiance, they ain't the Constitution. Turn the other cheek? It's nonsense imo and I have no problem returning any unsolicited wrong twofold. Once any standing government in the US starts making changes to our Constitution it has the potential to render the entire document essentially meaningless. Now off to load some Madonna onto my playlist for VO2 work. Cheers.
Really? There are limits on all of our rights. If you don't know that and know that has been the case for a long time, you haven't been paying attention.
 

CAMPYBOB

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
11,945
2,086
113
Originally Posted by danfoz




As far as your um human sacrifices, do unto others Bob, do unto others...
Didn't your father teach you?

"Son, never stick yer **** in the crazy."

I got an ex-wife that looked hotter that that.

We can discuss our rights (BTW, they come from God. NOT from some group of men in powdered wigs.) over a few of these...I suggest starting with Burning River.



My rights existed long before the Cuyahoga caught fire...repeatedly. They will exist long after that crooked river runs dry.
 

danfoz

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2011
2,432
184
48
Originally Posted by alienator


Really?

There are limits on all of our rights. If you don't know that and know that has been the case for a long time, you haven't been paying attention.
Of course there are limits on rights, limits we are capable of inducing ourselves via some perceived social contract as well as limits capable of being induced by the courts, which are of course subject to reversal by higher courts. In the two amendments I include in my post above there are inherent limits. Obscenity, the clichéd example of yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theater, etc. Regarding the second, there are only two things that the Supreme Court has made clear: the first is that there is a personal right to have a gun for self-defense in the home, and the second is that the right is not unlimited. It would be possible for me to obtain a permit for a semi-automatic rifle in my locale, but not a bazooka. We do have an ongoing ebb and flow of such “rights” with a tug of war across the political spectrum but the Constitution still stands as the supreme law of the land and the document itself, as far as I understand, has only been added to but I am no expert. What I do know is there are some who feel parts of it outdated who would have no problem flushing those pieces down the toilet, I’m hoping that doesn’t happen in my lifetime.
 

danfoz

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2011
2,432
184
48
Originally Posted by CAMPYBOB

Coming soon to a theater near you... me banging out 150rpm on my rollers to 150 BPM vocal trance, as soon as I install that cadence thingy. Better start frosting up my mug.
 

CAMPYBOB

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
11,945
2,086
113
Yeah...no Lucas fridges on this side of the pond!

Split screen footage required:
Screen 1: Tight shot of computer with roller in background
Screen 2: Side shot of blurred legs
Screen 3: Full front showing Dan & bike flying sideways off rollers and off camera
Screen 4: Crowd reaction focusing on the spectator in row two gasping in horror

House Techno will work and allowing you're a furiner, Euro Dance...if it's fast enough.
 

urge2kill

Member
Aug 13, 2013
448
20
0
Originally Posted by CAMPYBOB

"Son, never stick yer **** in the crazy."
If we lived under a theocracy, there would be a lot more constraints on your sexual behaviour than that. Have you read the fine print?
 

danfoz

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2011
2,432
184
48
Originally Posted by CAMPYBOB

Screen 3: Full front showing Dan & bike flying sideways off rollers and off camera
It hit the side bumpers HARD when I was zoning out loosing consciousness doing 5 minute VO2 intervals last week. Blue and orange sparks, literal sparks, I kid you not. Metal/rubber on rubber... static?

Master of Puppets or Damage Inc. would probably do better for a soundtrack, haven't listened to them in ages but somehow they were the first two that came to mind when I thought about it seriously.
 

alienator

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2004
12,596
310
0
danfoz said:
Of course there are limits on rights, limits we are capable of inducing ourselves via some perceived social contract as well as limits capable of being induced by the courts, which are of course subject to reversal by higher courts. In the two amendments I include in my post above there are inherent limits. Obscenity, the clichéd example of yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theater, etc. Regarding the second, there are only two things that the Supreme Court has made clear: the first is that there is a personal right to have a gun for self-defense in the home, and the second is that the right is not unlimited. It would be possible for me to obtain a permit for a semi-automatic rifle in my locale, but not a bazooka. We do have an ongoing ebb and flow of such “rights” with a tug of war across the political spectrum but the Constitution still stands as the supreme law of the land and the document itself, as far as I understand, has only been added to but I am no expert. What I do know is there are some who feel parts of it outdated who would have no problem flushing those pieces down the toilet, I’m hoping that doesn’t happen in my lifetime.
It's an imperfect Constitution, at best, made my imperfect men. Were it not imperfect, there would have been no need to add so many amendments and repeal one. So, it would seem that no only were the founding fathers imperfect but they also had imperfect vision. Given as much, the Bill of Rights and other parts of the constitution can't be viewed as if they are cast in stone. That much is actually understood by much of the public in that much of the public would like to get of rid of some amendments but hold sacred others. To reinforce the idea, it's just not one amendment but several that different groups would like to see trashed. If you don't see that, you're not paying attention.
 

danfoz

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2011
2,432
184
48
Originally Posted by alienator


To reinforce the idea, it's just not one amendment but several that different groups would like to see trashed. If you don't see that, you're not paying attention.

What I wrote was "parts". Your contention to my post seems to indicate you're the one not paying attention. One thing I will say is the founding fathers got it correct when it came to personal sovereignty and freedom from nutcases seeking to impose their will on others. That's my opinion, and unless you feel I'm not entitled to it there's no arguing the point.
 

urge2kill

Member
Aug 13, 2013
448
20
0
Originally Posted by alienator

It's an imperfect Constitution, at best [...] the Bill of Rights and other parts of the constitution can't be viewed as if they are cast in stone. That much is actually understood by much of the public in that much of the public would like to get of rid of some amendments but hold sacred others. To reinforce the idea, it's just not one amendment but several that different groups would like to see trashed. [...] = content snipped out
If something is imperfect, it should be refined, not tossed out.