Jump to content

Who was baptized?


hrabia
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don’t think people living in the south fully understand the consequences were they to attempt a break away. I recall reading somewhere that California on its own has an economy strong enough to write it in the top 30 or so countries with a two separate from the rest of America. As far as the Supreme Court goes why hasn’t there been an impeachment of Clarence Thomas when there seems to be so much evidence suggesting he was at least partially involved in the January 6 attempted insurrection? I know I’m not in the states so I might be missing some sort of context here but that would seem like a logical thing to do 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, GoatmasterGeneral said:

R v W was not limiting our personal freedoms, it was prohibiting the individual states from making laws to limit our personal freedoms. Now that it's been overturned some states have aready put laws in place severely limiting personal freedoms. And people are already dying because of this, so I'd say it's definitely something, not nothing.

As far as the south breaking away from US federal authority is concerned, that might sound good to you on the surface Luxi, but like everything else it's a bit more complicated than that. Because once they'd broken away, then what? They would only be setting up their own new more oppressive southern federal authority. So then what would be gained? Nothing! People in the south would then have less freedoms as being in the "bible belt" the religious nuts would undoubtedly be in control. A scary thought for any halfway intelligent free thinkers living in the south, and they'd all have to get their asses out of there asap before it was too late and they were stuck down there.

Deleted some crap that I wrote after drinking 2 bottles of wine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly anarchy would be the absence of government in a far left interpretation of the word, America certainly isn’t heading towards that any time soon. Secondly it is somewhat naive to think the ordinary citizenry would be poised to overthrow even a state government, and I’m trying really hard not to get sidetracked here and start talking about other more political issues. Third people who subscribed to a progressive ideology are either already trying to move to more tolerant parts of the country or, through acts of political activism and involvement in the democratic process, attempting to actually bring about change in the south. I also I’m a little confused  as to the relevance of seat belts in this discussion? The majority of people agree wearing seatbelts is probably a good idea, and so there are laws in place to deter people from acting in a manner which is judged to not be in societies best interests. The majority of people also believe women should have the right to bodily autonomy and and therefore it isn’t unreasonable to expect a federal government, voted for bye the people, to pass laws which reflect this belief. A very good example of just how widespread that particular view point is would be the recent  constitutional referendum in Kansas which was heavily voted in the negative for trying to strip away women’s rights.

 

anyway I should probably go back to talking about less serious subjects are, show neutrality and restraint etc etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, RelentlessOblivion said:

Firstly anarchy would be the absence of government in a far left interpretation of the word, America certainly isn’t heading towards that any time soon. Secondly it is somewhat naive to think the ordinary citizenry would be poised to overthrow even a state government, and I’m trying really hard not to get sidetracked here and start talking about other more political issues. Third people who subscribed to a progressive ideology are either already trying to move to more tolerant parts of the country or, through acts of political activism and involvement in the democratic process, attempting to actually bring about change in the south. I also I’m a little confused  as to the relevance of seat belts in this discussion? The majority of people agree wearing seatbelts is probably a good idea, and so there are laws in place to deter people from acting in a manner which is judged to not be in societies best interests. The majority of people also believe women should have the right to bodily autonomy and and therefore it isn’t unreasonable to expect a federal government, voted for bye the people, to pass laws which reflect this belief. A very good example of just how widespread that particular view point is would be the recent  constitutional referendum in Kansas which was heavily voted in the negative for trying to strip away women’s rights.

 

anyway I should probably go back to talking about less serious subjects are, show neutrality and restraint etc etc

No, you're showing a lot of restraint, actually.  Even as a classical liberal with lightly-right economic beliefs, I can at least appreciate Michael Moore documentaries for not being anger-central, even if I don't agree with EVERYTHING he says.  What matters to me most is restraint during serious discussions, something both sides of the political spectrum in America have difficulty with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, RelentlessOblivion said:

I don’t think people living in the south fully understand the consequences were they to attempt a break away. I recall reading somewhere that California on its own has an economy strong enough to rank it in the top 30 or so countries were they to separate from the rest of America. As far as the Supreme Court goes why hasn’t there been an impeachment of Clarence Thomas when there seems to be so much evidence suggesting he was at least partially involved in the January 6 attempted insurrection? I know I’m not in the states so I might be missing some sort of context here but that would seem like a logical thing to do 

 

If California were a separate country it would have the 5th largest economy in the world.

Texas in particular has been making noise about seceeding for years. All talk imo because I don't think they'd really like the consequences. I think they just like making a ruckus about it and stirring up right-wing voters to keep them voting their way.

I believe it was Clarence Thomas' wife Ginny who was most heavily involved by sending Trump dozens of texts with all kinds of ideas and tips about how to get away with the Jan 6th insurrection. As far as impeachment of a SC justice is concerned, I looked it up and it has happened one time to a SC justice named Samuel Chase back in 1805, but he was acquitted by the Senate. It all comes down to having the votes. Basically everyone in the Senate votes along party lines so it's rare that you'd ever have the votes needed to actually remove someone. This is one of the flaws in a two party system that when you have anything close to a 50/50 split in the Senate it becomes very difficult for either side to get anything passed.

 

12 hours ago, RelentlessOblivion said:

Firstly anarchy would be the absence of government in a far left interpretation of the word, America certainly isn’t heading towards that any time soon. Secondly it is somewhat naive to think the ordinary citizenry would be poised to overthrow even a state government, and I’m trying really hard not to get sidetracked here and start talking about other more political issues. Third people who subscribed to a progressive ideology are either already trying to move to more tolerant parts of the country or, through acts of political activism and involvement in the democratic process, attempting to actually bring about change in the south. I also I’m a little confused  as to the relevance of seat belts in this discussion? The majority of people agree wearing seatbelts is probably a good idea, and so there are laws in place to deter people from acting in a manner which is judged to not be in societies best interests. The majority of people also believe women should have the right to bodily autonomy and and therefore it isn’t unreasonable to expect a federal government, voted for bye the people, to pass laws which reflect this belief. A very good example of just how widespread that particular view point is would be the recent  constitutional referendum in Kansas which was heavily voted in the negative for trying to strip away women’s rights.

I'll assume this was in response to Luxi's inebriated post that he deleted, but while I'm here...shouldn't I also have the right to bodily autonomy and not be forced to wear my seat belt? Freedom of choice doesn't apply here? It's not like I'm stopping anyone else from wearing theirs and I can't see how I'm hurting anyone else by not bucking up so why should anyone else have a say or care what I do in the privacy of my own vehicle?

I have gotten in the habit of wearing mine all the time now in my car the last decade or so because the thing dings at me if I don't, and I feel an obligation to set a good example for my 8 year old. But back in the days when I was in and out of the truck all day by myself and there was no ding ding ding I never bothered with it and I racked up dozens of traffic tickets for it. Unconstitutional if you aske me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah but as you have previously stated you will follow laws decided upon by government when a majority of people agree with that legislation. Also consider this if you are in an accident, and flung from your vehicle because you are not wearing your seatbelt, the trauma into it by paramedics and law-enforcement when they have to scrape you from the asphalt is impacting other people not to mention any potential witnesses to the accident.  As a society we agree that certain actions want to be prohibited in an effort to reduce harm to those living within the community, we also agree certain rights want to be protected what the same reason. Is it a perfect system no, of course not, but the absence of any government control results in a society just as chaotic and dysfunctional as absolute government control. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've had Western Australia wanting to secede from the rest of the country for the last 50 years. They are a bit stupid about it, especially now because despite how self sufficient they are over there they do rely heavily on the rest of the country. But none the less some dick in the media keeps bringing the topic up every few years.

However there is one guy in WA who has seceded from the entire country. He actually has his own recognised municipality where he is ruler and he makes the laws, which are surprisingly similar to the rest of the country. It's quite humorous to think he got the shits up with the country he lives in and actually did something about it which has stood now for several decades. It's all wrapped up in technicalities but we (as a country) humour him to keep his dream alive.

 

Re seatbelts: I never used to wear one in truck, during the 80's and 90's many big rigs here didn't even have them fitted. But even in those that did I never used one until about 15 years ago when hi-vis shirts became work attire and the fuzz or roads corps could see the belt over the bright yellow shirt in the daylight hours. I've always used them in cars, partly because here it's been law since about 1980, and I never use one in the tractor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to be careful bagging out WA when my wife is watching, but you're not wrong. Their problem over there is that because they do grow a lot of their own produce, have the own utilities etc many do think they can be self sufficient but even while they were closed off from the rest of the country they still had heaps truck drivers bringing shit across the border, many miners working FIFO and they still took government support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RelentlessOblivion said:

Ah but as you have previously stated you will follow laws decided upon by government when a majority of people agree with that legislation. Also consider this if you are in an accident, and flung from your vehicle because you are not wearing your seatbelt, the trauma into it by paramedics and law-enforcement when they have to scrape you from the asphalt is impacting other people not to mention any potential witnesses to the accident. As a society we agree that certain actions want to be prohibited in an effort to reduce harm to those living within the community, we also agree certain rights want to be protected what the same reason. Is it a perfect system no, of course not, but the absence of any government control results in a society just as chaotic and dysfunctional as absolute government control. 

Well I did say that I've gotten in the habit of wearing it all the time now, it's just that I found it very difficult to remember to click it back in the days when it hadn't yet become a habit and seat belt alarms hadn't become standard equipment yet. You have to remember I've been driving since before there were any laws about seat belts, so it was a new concept to me at one point. And as a creature of habit I don't do well with remembering new things that aren't part of my routine, especially if I'm not real keen on doing them in the first place.

That shoulder strap drove me nuts in the truck when I was working because I couldn't get shit in and out of my shirt pocket. But the very first truck they gave me at that job back in '95 before I got a bigger truck was a little step van. And it did have a seat belt for the lone driver's seat in it, but the vehicle was over 20 years old and it was not operational. Not that I minded. No air conditioning in that piece of shit either so that first summer I had to drive with both sliding doors open for the breeze.

I never wore a seat belt when driving the big rig but that job was before the other job and I never had a problem or got pulled over in that vehicle. But they sent me all over the country and into Canada on that job and I really had no idea which states might have had seat belt laws in effect yet back then in the early 90's. I do know that my home state of NY was the very first one to sign it into law back in '84.

Guess I could always move to New Hampshire where they have no seat belt laws, and as a bonus they also have the coolest license plates ever with their state motto: "Live Free or Die" on them. Always wanted to have one of those.

But let's be serious here, we're talking about seat belts, I'm not some kind of an outlaw renegade, and I'm not advocating for total anarchy or the absence of any governmental control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am aware, it was just a non-controversial comparison to draw. Either way we both agree government should enact laws based on the will of the majority in a democracy. I also think politicians should have to declare all donations they receive as a matter of public interest. I would say all donations to politicians should be banned but let’s face it that’s not happening

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our state licence plate motto is "The Education State" although I'm not quite sure what we are educated in.

I had a Volvo N10 1977 long nose log truck at one stage and it had the worst air conditioning/heater box ever. None of this wonderful cool or warm air blowing through from the dashboard, this mother trucker had the box behind the driver's seat. In winter it would blow arm air onto your kidneys slowly roasting them until you got out or moved and they felt like they'd boiled. Or in the summer it blew ice cold air onto your kidneys until they froze and you got chills. The rest of you body either sweated or shivered but your kidneys were always sore, or you just got used to no heating and cooling and wore a jacket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RelentlessOblivion said:

I am aware, it was just a non-controversial comparison to draw. Either way we both agree government should enact laws based on the will of the majority in a democracy. I also think politicians should have to declare all donations they receive as a matter of public interest. I would say all donations to politicians should be banned but let’s face it that’s not happening

Yeah corporate campaign donations are a huge problem here (imo) and every time they make a new law to try and limit this the corporate slimeball lawyers go to work finding ways to get around it. There are these "pacs" and "super pacs" that the corporations basically use to "launder" their campaign donations and disguise where the money is actually coming from. This is why so many Congressmen sometimes vote the way they do against their constituents' wishes because they know where the money came from and they know they're obligated to vote in favor of these corporations if they want to get reelected.

 I really believe they should put strict term limits on ALL of these elected officials. One term and that's it. Takes campaigning and fund raising completely out of the equation and it would give legislators more time to legislate if they didn't have to even think about running for reelection. And then outlaw lobbying, crack down on bribery and kickbacks. This will never in a million years happen though because too many crooks are just making way too much money. And since the crooks are the ones in charge, we can't expect them to do the right thing or police themselves now can we. And don't even get me started on all the illegal insider trading that simply gets overlooked. These are supposed to be public service positions, not lucrative careers to make them all multi millionaires dozens of times over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes lifetime appointments are ridiculous, they should have a defined term like any other position. 10 years maybe, or until they're 70 or something. This whole thing where they have to try to predict when they're going to die and then try to convince them to step down before they're on their death bed so we can get one of our guys in there before our window closes and the other side gains power and can put one of their guys in is not ideal. Or when Mitch McConnell blocked the appointment of a new justice to fill a vacant seat for 14 months until they could get a Republican in the white house to appoint a conservative justice is not how the system is supposed to work. Then 5 years later they rammed a conservative one through the confirmation process just a week before the 2020 election that they lost. 

If the Democrats were to ever manage a clear majority in the Senate (which doesn't seem likely tbh) I think they'd try to kill the Electoral College. It was put in place 150 years ago after the Civil War as part of a deal to entice the southern states to come back and rejoin the country. They were afraid that being rural and less populated that their votes wouldn't count and they wouldn't be represented in the government.

So some idiot came up with this Electoral College system which lets the little rural states' votes count more proportionally than a straight popular vote. It gives them not just a little, but a lot more weight than they deserve in national elections. But I think its time has come. Because now we have a bunch of ignorant farmers and bumpkins with a lot more political power than they deserve. Not to mention that each of our 50 states also gets 2 Senators regardless of their population. But the population is much more lopsided now, the difference between the little states and big states much greater than in 1776 when we had 13 states and only 2.5 million people. No one back in 1865 could have envisioned a gigantic state like California having 40 million people and still only having 2 Senators. The tail's wagging the dog here.

At the very least they need to tweak the system and give the more populated states more electoral votes to balance it out a bit. Because California with their 40 million people gets 55 electoral votes, but Wyoming with less than half a million people gets the minimum 3. So by that math 3 electoral votes for every 500k people California should have 240 electoral votes. Or New Jersey with 9 million people currently has 14 electoral votes, but by Wyoming standards we should have 54. Or my former state of NY and their 19.5 million people should get 117, not their current 29. Or even don't use Wyoming, use little Rhode Island. They have just over a million residents and that seems to be the threshold, because they're the smallest state with 4 electoral votes and not the minimum 3. So even at 4 electoral votes per million California would get 160, NY 78, and NJ 36. Even just giving the more populated states 2 EV's per million people while the little states get 4 per million would balance it more than enough. Because it's time for the sane, rational educated people to take our country back from the yahoos & ignoramuses & crazies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/17/2022 at 7:39 PM, Terrorvision13 said:

honestly i would go for slayers repentless, the atmosphere is just so dark and its a really awesome piece of artwork

That is cool artwork. All those images. Had to look at that  again to see if the eyes had been gouged out. Ouch. Don't look they have.  Kind of dark. Still prefer reign in blood cover though. That is just quality. It reminds me of bosch  pictures.  It used to disturb me a little then I read Dante's inferno. Not so concerned now😉 have you got any offensive t shirts. I don't go out of my way to offend people. But I  have a few that people say I shouldn't wear. Something about some characters on them look demonic. Some people. Still wear them. Who are they to tell me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to have an SOD t-shirt, the one with Speak English Or Die on it, back in the 90's, wasn't really the wisest choice of shirts in the area I lived in, but I had it nonetheless. Wore it once while I was holidaying with my grand mother for a week and never saw it again. She commented several times about how terrible it was, I don't know that she binned it but I also can't think of what else could have happened to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/23/2022 at 10:46 PM, blaaacdoommmmfan said:

That is cool artwork. All those images. Had to look at that  again to see if the eyes had been gouged out. Ouch. Don't look they have.  Kind of dark. Still prefer reign in blood cover though. That is just quality. It reminds me of bosch  pictures.  It used to disturb me a little then I read Dante's inferno. Not so concerned now😉 have you got any offensive t shirts. I don't go out of my way to offend people. But I  have a few that people say I shouldn't wear. Something about some characters on them look demonic. Some people. Still wear them. Who are they to tell me. 

i WOULD get a tomb of the mutilated shirt, but my parents wont let me as im not "18 and viable to make my own decisions" 

to be honest i dont think im going to mature anymore from this point. the mental aging cuts out here for me; if you see a 30 year old bloke in a venom hoodie in church thats me, being viable 👍

 

the MOST offensive shirt i own is a slayer christmas jumper with satanic imagery made out of candy canes. the logo is in its original format but is spelt SLEIGHER which is fucking LEGENDARY. 

im gonna read inferno it sounds mint

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, FatherAlabaster said:

I don't always pose my eviscerated corpses, but when I do, it's usually to make them look like they're in the middle of a gynecological exam.

Yeah and imagine what an impact those crime scene photos would have on the jury at your trial. Personally I would have arranged them in more of a 69 kind of a thing, but that might be overdoing it. And I'm sure it would be difficult to get them to stay positioned like that long enough for the forensic team to arrive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back in the late 80's there was reports here in Oz (Sydney) of adults being asked by cops to turn their Fuck You t-shirts inside out because they were offensive. It was only a few years later Tomb Of The Mutilated shirts and others similar started to arrive. I never heard any stories about those shirts being spotted by cops, but then the Overkill shirts were a lot more obvious in their meaning. These days though I think I only see kids, mostly those who weren't alive when it was released, wearing shirts like Tomb Of The Mutilated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, KillaKukumba said:

Back in the late 80's there was reports here in Oz (Sydney) of adults being asked by cops to turn their Fuck You t-shirts inside out because they were offensive. It was only a few years later Tomb of the Mutilated shirts and others similar started to arrive. I never heard any stories about those shirts being spotted by cops, but then the Overkill shirts were a lot more obvious in their meaning. These days though I think I only see kids, mostly those who weren't alive when it was released, wearing shirts like Tomb of the Mutilated.

We know you still have that Entrails Ripped From a Virgin's Cunt wallpaper in the dunny that Eugene helped you put up. Your wife keeps asking you to change it, but you've been putting her off for sentimental reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • Join Metal Forum

    joinus-home.jpg

  • Our picks

    • Whichever tier of thrash metal you consigned Sacred Reich back in the 80's/90's they still had their moments.  "Ignorance" & "Surf Nicaragura" did a great job of establishing the band, whereas "The American Way" just got a little to comfortable and accessible (the title track grates nowadays) for my ears.  A couple more records better left forgotten about and then nothing for twenty three years.  2019 alone has now seen three releases from Phil Rind and co.  A live EP, a split EP with Iron Reagan and now a full length.

      Notable addition to the ranks for the current throng of releases is former Machine Head sticksman, Dave McClean.  Love or hate Machine Head, McClean is a more than capable drummer and his presence here is felt from the off with the opening and title track kicking things off with some real gusto.  'Divide & Conquer' and 'Salvation' muddle along nicely, never quite reaching any quality that would make my balls tingle but comfortable enough.  The looming build to 'Manifest Reality' delivers a real punch when the song starts proper.  Frenzied riffs and drums with shots of lead work to hold the interest.


      There's a problem already though (I know, I am such a fucking mood hoover).  I don't like Phil's vocals.  I never had if I am being honest.  The aggression to them seems a little forced even when they are at their best on tracks like 'Manifest Reality'.  When he tries to sing it just feels weak though ('Salvation') and tracks lose real punch.  Give him a riffy number such as 'Killing Machine' and he is fine with the Reich engine (probably a poor choice of phrase) up in sixth gear.  For every thrashy riff there's a fair share of rock edged, local bar act rhythm aplenty too.

      Let's not poo-poo proceedings though, because overall I actually enjoy "Awakening".  It is stacked full of catchy riffs that are sticky on the old ears.  Whilst not as raw as perhaps the - brilliant - artwork suggests with its black and white, tattoo flash sheet style design it is enjoyable enough.  Yes, 'Death Valley' & 'Something to Believe' have no place here, saved only by Arnett and Radziwill's lead work but 'Revolution' is a fucking 80's thrash heyday throwback to the extent that if you turn the TV on during it you might catch a new episode of Cheers!

      3/5
      • Reputation Points

      • 11 replies
    • I
      • Reputation Points

      • 1 reply
    • https://www.metalforum.com/blogs/entry/52-vltimas-something-wicked-marches-in/
      • Reputation Points

      • 3 replies

    • https://www.metalforum.com/blogs/entry/48-candlemass-the-door-to-doom/
      • Reputation Points

      • 1 reply
    • Full length number 19 from overkill certainly makes a splash in the energy stakes, I mean there's some modern thrash bands that are a good two decades younger than Overkill who can only hope to achieve the levels of spunk that New Jersey's finest produce here.  That in itself is an achievement, for a band of Overkill's stature and reputation to be able to still sound relevant four decades into their career is no mean feat.  Even in the albums weaker moments it never gets redundant and the energy levels remain high.  There's a real sense of a band in a state of some renewed vigour, helped in no small part by the addition of Jason Bittner on drums.  The former Flotsam & Jetsam skinsman is nothing short of superb throughout "The Wings of War" and seems to have squeezed a little extra out of the rest of his peers.

      The album kicks of with a great build to opening track "Last Man Standing" and for the first 4 tracks of the album the Overkill crew stomp, bash and groove their way to a solid level of consistency.  The lead work is of particular note and Blitz sounds as sneery and scathing as ever.  The album is well produced and mixed too with all parts of the thrash machine audible as the five piece hammer away at your skull with the usual blend of chugging riffs and infectious anthems.  


      There are weak moments as mentioned but they are more a victim of how good the strong tracks are.  In it's own right "Distortion" is a solid enough - if not slightly varied a journey from the last offering - but it just doesn't stand up well against a "Bat Shit Crazy" or a "Head of a Pin".  As the album draws to a close you get the increasing impression that the last few tracks are rescued really by some great solos and stomping skin work which is a shame because trimming of a couple of tracks may have made this less obvious. 

      4/5
      • Reputation Points

      • 4 replies
×
×
  • Create New...