Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 64 of total 64 in this topic |
couchmaster
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Feb 13, 2007 - 06:26pm PT
|
Why Al Gore sucked worse than Bush, and the reason I voted for Bush once.
On another thread, it came up that I had voted the first time for George Bush.
Fool me once, shame on me…....no question - there was no “fool me twice” however.
This is to share the reason why Bush got that vote, which was more a slam on Al Gore than an affirmation of Geo Bush. To start with, at that time, I repeatly heard from many of my countrymen that they would not vote for Bush as it was a vote for “Big Oil”. Having invested in "Big Oil", and filled my car up frequently with their fine products, I didn't feel that in and of itself was a slam.
The reality was that both candidates’ were “Big Oil”. But upon examining their parents, history and backgrounds, there was clearly one candidate with less blood in the oil.
Years ago, I had read the Armand Hammer autobiography. In it, this fascinating individual makes the stunning claim that his success as chairman at Occidental Petroleum, and the rapid rise of that company, was directly attributable to him “owning” Al Gore Sr.”. That’s pretty much the way Hammer put it. That King Idris of Libya granted Occidental the massive land grant drilling rights that brought Occidental scalability of size which made it a global player and one of the majors, due to lobbying from Gore Sr (and plenty of other Hammer machinations as well). Gore paid Hammer back in this manner for the contributions and gifts Hammer had showered on Gore Senior – he de facto owned Al Gore Senior, who was then a prominent US Senator from Tennessee.
http://www.hermes-press.com/oilupdate.htm
I felt Gore Jr was a capable person, and had nothing against the guy.
It was Edward Jay Epstein’s book “Dossier: The Secret History of Armand Hammer” which changed my mind about both Gore and Ronald Reagan.
In it, after spending time with Hammer, using FBI files received via the freedom of information act, and old Soviet files, Epstein lays out well researched and documented proof that Armand Hammer was, at a minimum, a working agent for the Soviet Union. An agent who even supposedly helped fund Al Gore Jr’s education, expecting payback for all his kindnesses. It is a full sized work crammed full of names, dates, acts and info which support this shocking fact and various crimes of high treason.
This is not a work of fiction. It is not a Clive Cussler novel which is made up in the authors mind. Epstien details how Reagan, after accessing the FBI info, refused to meet, hear and accept money from Hammer. The way Hammer eventually weasels his way in to close to the Reagan inner circle after the initial rebuffing – I believe it was by establishing and funding a charity of something Nancy Reagan was interested in. I apologize if some of the facts are off; it’s been years since I’ve read these books. In either case, Ronald Reagan, despite the fact that Hammer did get close enough to have his pic taken with Ron and Nancy, stuck to his principles and refused to play with Hammer..at all. No money accepted. It changed my opinion of that man radically.
You are now thinking….yeah, but that doesn’t say anything about Al Gore Jr.
Perhaps. Al Gore released his financial statements, as do all candidates running for President. Gores largest block of wealth?
Occidental Petroleum Stock.
That and the existance of claims of corruption in Tennesee. I just couldn’t vote for the dude – period. More damning facts compiled, click the link to read it, and unlike many articals we see, I do not feel these were done for anothers political gain (although who can really say):
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17675
It was truly and election wherein the American people got the shaft and our country is still paying the price.
|
|
Apocalypsenow
Trad climber
Cali
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2007 - 06:29pm PT
|
Wow...you seem to have found such indepth truth!
Or was it because George cheated?
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2007 - 06:30pm PT
|
I hope Gore runs in 2008.
|
|
L
climber
The City of Lost Angels
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2007 - 06:44pm PT
|
Couchmaster--Very interesting. I can understand your dilemma now, and I thank you for sharing that.
My take on being a politician is this: Sometimes you're screwing the American people, and sometimes it's an intern. Which one is worse? Nixon broke a herd of laws; he also gave us China. Rumors about Gore; miles of footage on Bush.
I look at the majority of the people who supported Gore and their reasons for it...they seemed significantly more concerned with the world as a whole, not just their own bank accounts.
Thanks again for this post. Brain cells reviving...
|
|
Forest
Trad climber
Tucson, AZ
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2007 - 07:31pm PT
|
and yet Reagan's fervent anti-communists feelings also led him to blatantly break the law...
anyone who gets within spitting distance of that office has got to be slimy, a stupid puppet, or maybe both.
I used to think I'd prefer stupid to evil, but after 6 years of total incompetence, I no longer feel that way.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2007 - 07:37pm PT
|
Swiftboat season, comin' round again. Anybody can play.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2007 - 08:22pm PT
|
Personally, I think Armand single-handedly kept the peace between us and the Soviet Union for decades. Reagan's problem was that Armand had played that role for so long and Reagan's team no longer wanted to play nice, but rather wanted to take a hard line against the Soviets and Armand stood in the way of that. He was declared personna non grata and widely smeared. As for his robber baron status - he grew up in a wildcatting days in the wake of the real robber barons and I don't think he ever made any apologies for his renegade business ways. Did he help the Soviets? Again and again, but I think the Soviet Union, internally and externally would have been a much more dangerous place than it already was without him.
I haven't read Epsteins treatise on the man but do recall his Warren Commission work and some of his 9/11 Commission comments. He's made a career out of studying the shortcomings of other's investigations and suggesting conspiracy without really ever blatantly coming out and accusing folks of it directly. Nothing especially wrong with that, but I think in Armand's case, Armand's life was just such fertile ground Epstein couldn't resist and Armand had no shortage of Regeanesque republicans who destested what they perceived as a disloyal republican who played both sides of the fence - which he did - I just think it's also possible to interpret Armand's life in the context of the era and culture he came up in and just as easily come away being thankful he occasionally kept some very itchy fingers off the big trigger...
In general he was always a case of taking the good with the bad and deciding which way you want to look at the glass. Actually, in a climbing context I think of Becky when I think of Armand...
|
|
JuanDeFuca
Big Wall climber
Stoney Point
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2007 - 08:38pm PT
|
I think Bush should declare Marshal Law and put on hold any future elections. Round up the subversives and put them in camps.
JDF
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2007 - 08:43pm PT
|
You don't have to rationalize, couch, today is the first day of the rest of your life, start over and don't look back. We've all f*#ked up, before.
|
|
L
climber
The City of Lost Angels
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2007 - 08:44pm PT
|
Brain cells slowly reverting to Play-Doh...
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2007 - 08:59pm PT
|
Healyje has it correct about Armand.
|
|
Tomcat
Trad climber
Chatham N.H.
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 08:33am PT
|
The centerpoint of Gore's campaign was a prescription drug plan for the elderly.He promised to get that done if elected.If a guy serves 8 years as vice president and can't get a little thing like that pulled together,why would you even consider him as president?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 11:38am PT
|
Yeah, look at all that Cheney has done as Vice.
|
|
Forest
Trad climber
Tucson, AZ
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 12:52pm PT
|
Sheesh. if you want to talk about questionable financial family histories, take a look at W's grandpappy. There was a man with a unique moral flexibility when it came to who he was willing to do business with. And where do you think the Bush family fortune came from?
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 01:00pm PT
|
"I have some politically incorrect stock or - perhaps better put - personally distasteful stock in my portfolio in the form of Microsoft stock. I happen to dislike Microsoft intensely and disapprove of their business practices. Their stock, however, makes money for me and thus allows me to whatever "good" things I might not otherwise have funding to accomplish. "
Really? I never made sh#@ from Microsoft. Perhaps I invested too late?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 01:04pm PT
|
The compromises and accommodations required to gain and hold any significant political office in the U.S. (national or state) ensure that vitually all plausible candidates for president are compromised. Which is why people like Barack Obama and Eliot Spitzer have such credibility - they're exceptions to the rule. A few years in office may change that, but for now they're seen as mavericks, as threats. Simply because they're somewhat independent, and actually act as though they are.
A few presidents rise above their murky pasts, and actually govern in the interests of the country as a whole. Not many, even given that they usually have less freedom to maneuver on important issues than people give them credit for. (Bush II had rare freedom to decide in autumn 2001 - and squandered the opportunity.)
Bush and Gore started on a level playing field in that regard - both children of the Eastern establishment, both from prominent families that had long ago been bought. Gore seems somewhat more competent and trustworthy, and with his interest in the environment seems to be rising above his background. Bush has failed miserably.
State governors running for president often position themselves as "outsiders", who'll "clean up the mess in Washington". Carter. Reagan. Clinton. George II. They're as dirty as the rest, possibly dirtier. They can't have won state elections without having been thoroughly compromised. Elections are a retail business, and when/if a candidate gets to the point of being credible, they've long since been bought, one way or the other. They're almost entirely beholden to special interests.
Money talks and, with luck, also fools the voters.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 01:10pm PT
|
Am I supposed to understand that you voted for Bush because you thought he was not corrupt and Gore might be? That was your emphatic epiphany?
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 01:11pm PT
|
I think I bought it in 2002. It wasn't very expensive at the time--something like $25/share--but it never really did anything while I had it. I dumped it 2005 or 2006 (can't remember).
|
|
L
climber
The City of Lost Angels
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 01:23pm PT
|
Locker--Stop it! You're starting to sound like Fattrad...or Crowley...or me. Like you're actually taking sides!!!!
Let's go back to singing hymns on the UC Davis thread...
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 01:34pm PT
|
Lois, I can't really complain about Microsoft. I didn't lose any money and at the time, the stock market was in a funk. I've lost $$$ on other stocks, but usually have come out ahead. Things are humming along right now.
|
|
L
climber
The City of Lost Angels
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 01:35pm PT
|
Hey Brother Locker--I wasn't trying to insult you! I was trying to get you back to Davis to read the Hymn I wrote you!
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 01:35pm PT
|
Locker, do you think there was no difference between Clinton and Bush? On issues ranging from Iraq, the environment, taxes, etc.? I see a TON of differences.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 01:45pm PT
|
That wasn't my point Lois. My post was a response to Locker who basically said they're all the same. And the point is, they're not all the same.
I'm not trying to pick a fight with Locker, but I honestly don't understand how anyone can say that they are basically all the same.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 01:56pm PT
|
Lois, the only thing I feel confident about is that if Gore was elected, we would not be in Iraq.
|
|
wootles
climber
Gamma Quadrant
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 02:00pm PT
|
LEB, Isn't that more or less the question we ask ourselves when we choose who to vote for in the first place?
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 02:02pm PT
|
BTW, I read this morning that Rudy married his second cousin several years ago. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 02:03pm PT
|
Anyone ever hear of the Elk Hills Strategic Naval Oil Reserves? Well Al Gore+Elk Hills+Occidental=corrupt hippocrit.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=468
And all we ever hear about is Bush/Cheney oil ties...At least they're (relatively) open about it.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 02:08pm PT
|
I hope Gore runs in 2008!
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 02:51pm PT
|
My my you have come a long way LEB! It doesn't make for interesting speculation though, it makes for convenient topic shifting. Its kind of like blaming Clinton, using the "well at least Gore isn't in charge" line it rediculous. It is hard to imagine that this could have gone any worse than it is has. To speculate that Gore would have been "soft on terror" is to presume that the current Administrations "tough on terror" talk is actually working. Judging from the level of global violence and the overall global attitude toward US foreign policy I think that is a tough sell.
The American people sure didn't seem to think it was working last Novemeber.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 02:59pm PT
|
"We will never be able to definitively answer that question because we can't re-run it both ways and compare."
LEB, this is not true. Cheney and Rumsfeld demanded the war be executed with a very particular strategy which explicitly and implicitly dictated specifics on planning, troop levels, engagement policy, material logistics, and even tactics. This well-defined approach was explicitly dictated by and served to pursue a neocon 'vison' which would, and was, better described as a recipe for a nightmarish disaster. The current outcome was inequivocably predicted by both his father's team and by pretty much every pre-war assessment done by career folks from State, CIA, and the Pentagon.
The 'man at the top' makes all the difference in the world when they decide to override the best minds in our military and dictate exactly how they should fight a war. Any talk to the contrary is complete apologist hogwash. Make no mistake, this was a bad idea which was forced on the military and then executed with a breathtaking level of incompetence by the Rumsfeld / Cheney team.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 03:08pm PT
|
Lois, Thomas Jefferson married either his 1st or 2d cousin. Apparently it was common back then.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 03:30pm PT
|
Lois, I had a very bad feeling about Bush before the election. He was pretty open about his right-wing views and I was not impressed with his intelligence. I viewed him as a man with mediocre abilities about to take on the toughest job in the world. I thought he was going to be in over his head.
I was confident many of his policies were going to be a mess. For example, before the Iraq War started I was unpersuaded by the rhetoric he used to make the case for the war. I had a very strong feeling--gut feeling, as much as anything else--that they were overhyping this thing. I also knew it would be much more difficult than the let on. Early on, Cheney and Bush were awfully dodgy about the costs. That set off more warning bells.
Re marrying cousins: really, you probably didn't have much choice back then in rural areas with poor transportation, especially if you were looking for someone with a similar background.
|
|
Forest
Trad climber
Tucson, AZ
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 04:00pm PT
|
Regardless of foresight in 2000, Surely it was obvious that the disaster would continue by november of 2004?
|
|
Tomcat
Trad climber
Chatham N.H.
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 04:08pm PT
|
I hope Gore runs too....lol!
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 04:09pm PT
|
Good!
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 04:51pm PT
|
" Neither is a dummy, for sure, but I for one would like to know how much of their choice was because they really have such superior powers of perception and how much of their choice was simply because they are avowed Democrats. "
Maybe it is just smarter to be a Democrat if you care about people and the enviroment. Maybe neither party is perfect, but certainly if you look at the last 50 years you will see that more Democrates actually served in the military, hence, in my opinion, have a better understanding of what is needed.
Also, In the last 50 years Democrates have woken up to the need for a balanced budget and for fiscal responsibility. If you look at the last major presidents, spending has been less under the Democrats then the Rebublicans.
I also believe that that the Democrats idealogy of what type economy we should have is more fair. The Democrats support a supply side economy. This means that to create jobs, you take care of the poor and they will spend money, creating jobs. You create better jobs if more people have more money to spend. Ie, if the poor and middle class are strong, then more people will be able to buy things like automobiles. The more autos bought, the better jobs that are created.
The republicans favor a trickle down economy. This means putting money into the hands of the wealthy, presuming they will spend this money and thus create jobs. The problem with this is that most of the jobs they create are service type jobs. These are usually poor paying jobs.
I support a more balanced approach. I don't think we should put all of the burden on the wealthy, but I do think they should have a bigger burden percentage wise. I also think we need to redo our tax system. It is entirely too complicated.
As for this topic. It is too bad that you did not look into the bush family history more. You bought the hype. I knew from the begining that he was not smart enough. And it isn't because I usually vote for the Democratic party.
As for the war. I knew from the begining that it was going to be a major mistake. Even George Bush Senior knew better then to go deeply into Iraq. And even though I do not care for George Seniors ideology, I consider him to be intelligent.
|
|
L
climber
The City of Lost Angels
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 05:07pm PT
|
Well said John.
|
|
Pappy
Trad climber
Atlanta
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 05:30pm PT
|
Sorry John (and L) but like nearly all Democrats you have no f**king idea what you are talking about. 'Taking care of the poor' and creating jobs by goosing consumer spending is basic demand side Keynesian economics which has been thoroughly discredited. Supply side economics is reducing taxation on the productive sector, especially for capital returns, to ecourage investment, which has been vindicated by every tax cut for the last 50 years, including the Kennedy tax cuts, the Reagan tax cuts, the Republican Congress's capital gains tax cuts (which goosed tax receipts during the Clinton administration, thereby creating the "Clinton" surplus), and the Bush tax cuts, which has also goosed tax receipts to the point that not only has the deficit been cut dramatically but will likely disappear shortly if we don't have a recession.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 06:06pm PT
|
Yes Lois, and in addition, the people he listens to are radical and reckless.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 06:18pm PT
|
"I made my name by being compassionate."
"It's hard for me, living in this beautiful White House, to give you a first-hand assessment [of conditions on the ground in Iraq]."
More Dubya for that ass.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 06:20pm PT
|
I agree Lois.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 06:29pm PT
|
" Many here claim that they "knew" Bush would be a disaster. "
-It was the majority opinion at the time. Why do you thing the majority of the electorate DID NOT vote for Bush. Not even talking about the crooked election, even without that mess, Gore/Nader flattened the shrub.
Not knowing that at the time = not paying attention and following party line. "Clinton got a bj in the OO, vote for a stand up guy."
It's amazing how little it takes.
|
|
L
climber
The City of Lost Angels
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 06:31pm PT
|
Good Annotated Rant above, AC.
"His brain has an event horizon..." Too funny.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 06:37pm PT
|
From its title on, this thread reeks of rationalization -- folks who voted for the most disastrously bad president in US history, but need reasons why what's happened is not their fault. Damn those Democrats!
|
|
L
climber
The City of Lost Angels
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 07:55pm PT
|
That's what I like about you, AC--you ain't afraid a no stick in the eye. I was thinking about copying that thing and pasting it here, but it's sure to cause at least one death and possibly more...
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 08:11pm PT
|
The actual facts matter little. In these kinds of partisan battles, perception becomes simply a function of what one already preconceives.
Many, many people saw W more accurately than you did. A great deal was written, at the time, about his lack of knowledge regarding other countries, inability to speak in complete sentences, record of failures in business, and in general, potentially dangerous mix of arrogance with ignorance. OK, you were not among the many who noticed these things -- but you're spinning too hard here to avoid crediting those who did, because their "perception" would reflect badly on yours.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 08:26pm PT
|
What I am not fine with is persons (after the fact) taking credit for having "expert perceptions" when their vote was simply reflective of little more than partisanship.
Such people no doubt exist. You're focusing on them to deflect (your own?) criticism of your judgment, however.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 08:34pm PT
|
Read your own posts. You're criticizing others, by "name".
|
|
L
climber
The City of Lost Angels
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 09:18pm PT
|
LEB--I'm new to this forum and I was just wondering something: Do you always talk/write in this manner?
PLEASE don't get me wrong--I think you have some interesting points and appear to think deeply about things. But the way you write obfuscates your meaning.
For instance, I'm looking at your post "Well, actually you are quite insightful but not quite on target enough. You are on the right track, but you fell slightly short of the mark. You need to take it one step further. In fact, I am one of those people who vote in a partisan way. I am questioning whether this is a valid approach to voting and citizenship. Close but no cigar (you get some cigerettes, however).
There are four (4) sentences in that six-sentence post that say the same thing. I've noticed this in many of your other posts...saying the same thing several times in sequence. Now, this works in many settings--novel writing, for instance. But it seems to me that we've got the MTV crowd here. You know, brief, quick-n-dirty, big thoughts in few words. Crowley just puts links and leave it there, as do many others.
Again, I'm not trying to offend--I've been trying to read your posts as I think you bring an interesting perspective to the mix...but I'm getting so bogged down in the loquaciousness that I can't figure out what you're really trying to say.
Again, not meaning any harm, but maybe the Reader's Digest Condensed version would help get your point across.
|
|
L
climber
The City of Lost Angels
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 09:32pm PT
|
LEB--I like your sense of humor! And I was serious about your posts having good perspective.
|
|
L
climber
The City of Lost Angels
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 09:40pm PT
|
Who's Gary? Is that his posting name? Haven't seen anything from him yet.
|
|
WoodySt
Trad climber
Riverside
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2007 - 11:15pm PT
|
I keep reading that Bush is the most disastrous president in Us history. I must diagree. Bush is incompetent in numerous ways, but Buchanan, Kennedy and Carter will be deemed worse. Of course, Bush has more time to make number one on the list. And let me state, I voted for Kennedy and Carter. I don't remember if I voted for Buchanan, but it's always a possibility. My record in voting for presidents hasn't been too good.
Vietnam is the most disastrous war the US has fought, and Peanut not firmly confronting Iran has contributed greatly to our situation today.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2007 - 01:45am PT
|
It's true Crowley ....
Locker is exercising his God given right to vote in the form of dissent. (No Vote)
Real Freedom means standing up to what one believes.
Only the Ultimate will be the final judge of that.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2007 - 01:55am PT
|
Yes that is true, Crowley, because they have some material desire for their own personal enjoyment.
Caught in the mighty snare of duality the materialistic voter will never escape it's jaws of the false governments.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2007 - 01:58am PT
|
Not true locker you are bound.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2007 - 02:04am PT
|
Heh, how wrong you are!
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2007 - 02:09am PT
|
Not disagreement but in understanding.
Try
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2007 - 02:11am PT
|
Therefore everything I have said does not exist?
|
|
WoodySt
Trad climber
Riverside
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2007 - 02:15am PT
|
I wish I hadn't tried to follow all this; now my head hurts.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2007 - 02:25am PT
|
Crowley
From the distance we see the mountain, and the view is limited. As we come closer we understand some more. As we start the climb we gain even more.
It all depends on where we stand that gives us our understanding. Sometimes we fall off the mountain. Sometimes we do not even care for the mountain nor it's summit.
I know your heart is in the right place because you care. It's not an easy thing to understand. It can take lifetimes of repeated birth and death.
It's a very very difficult path.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2007 - 02:32am PT
|
One who continually looks outside of himself will fail.
It's you Crowley, not them.
Fix yourself first perfectly, then you can really change the world.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2007 - 02:38am PT
|
"Not true locker you are bound. "
So long as the question of that chicken remains, well, like Werner said, you'll never be free...
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2007 - 02:40am PT
|
And so will you (die). But you can not even understand how to save yourself, at the same time you are trying to save others.
You will fail .......
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2007 - 02:55am PT
|
No not Shiva, he's a demigod. He's in charge of the living entities in the mode of ignorance. He came as Shankacharya and preached the mayavadi philosophy. Anyone that follows that philosophy will be doomed.
Chaitanya Mahaprabhu severely defeated that philosophy.
Even Shankacharya himself in the end preached against his own philosophy because he knew the real truth. But Shankacharya was ordered to preach that nonsense for a purpose.
|
|
| Messages 1 - 64 of total 64 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!