Charles Manson - Finally

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:02 pm

Finally, after a year or more of rumors, It has been confirmed that Manson is dead.

Perhaps, finally we can close the book on him.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:11 pm

Just rot and be gone.

Post by **spot** » Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:34 pm

To be honest I'm not quite certain why Mr Manson was demonized by his countrymen these last fifty years. He had what he regarded as a legitimate political objective and seven people died. Every damned President since Mr Manson was in short trousers has done exactly that with far more extensive collateral damage. I'd much rather the Presidents were brought to book than the very obscure would-be coup-leader who just died.

xfrodobagginsx · Post by **xfrodobagginsx** » Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:03 pm

spot;1514771 wrote: To be honest I'm not quite certain why Mr Manson was demonized by his countrymen these last fifty years. He had what he regarded as a legitimate political objective and seven people died. Every damned President since Mr Manson was in short trousers has done exactly that with far more extensive collateral damage. I'd much rather the Presidents were brought to book than the very obscure would-be coup-leader who just died.

The man was a cold blooded killer and had innocent people murdered. War is not murder, unless you are intentionally killing civilians.

Post by **spot** » Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:17 pm

xfrodobagginsx;1514777 wrote: War is not murder, unless you are intentionally killing civilians.So I've heard said, especially by Americans. It seems to be their preferred get-out clause. I find it disgusting and thoroughly amoral.

Perhaps we could use "what would Jesus do" instead.

xfrodobagginsx · Post by **xfrodobagginsx** » Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:00 pm

spot;1514781 wrote: So I've heard said, especially by Americans. It seems to be their preferred get-out clause. I find it disgusting and thoroughly amoral.

Perhaps we could use "what would Jesus do" instead.

I'm glad we are wimpy like the Europeans who are now allowing islam to take over while they rape their women and rob and kill them. Glad to be an American. Sometimes war is the only answer, but it should be the last resort instead of being a wimp and letting your enemies take over, while attacking those who are defending your freedom. That's insanity.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:17 pm

Manson was a murderous religious cult leader. xfrodobaggins is just a wannabe follower.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:28 am

spot;1514771 wrote: To be honest I'm not quite certain why Mr Manson was demonized by his countrymen these last fifty years. He had what he regarded as a legitimate political objective and seven people died. Every damned President since Mr Manson was in short trousers has done exactly that with far more extensive collateral damage. I'd much rather the Presidents were brought to book than the very obscure would-be coup-leader who just died.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Thu Nov 23, 2017 7:18 am

Good riddance ! This savage should have been 'topped' years ago, when he was first found guilty.

Post by **spot** » Thu Nov 23, 2017 7:22 am

I've can think of uninsured boy-racer drivers I'd put in that category.

magentaflame · Post by **magentaflame** » Fri Nov 24, 2017 2:08 am

spot;1514878 wrote: I've can think of uninsured boy-racer drivers I'd put in that category.
Okay, that's confused me.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Fri Nov 24, 2017 2:41 am

xfrodobagginsx;1514786 wrote: I'm glad we are wimpy like the Europeans who are now allowing islam to take over while they rape their women and rob and kill them. Glad to be an American. Sometimes war is the only answer, but it should be the last resort instead of being a wimp and letting your enemies take over, while attacking those who are defending your freedom. That's insanity.

oh my word what a statement :rolleyes:

Post by **spot** » Fri Nov 24, 2017 3:03 am

magentaflame;1514918 wrote: Okay, that's confused me.

I expect I meant that if there were a death penalty, I'd probably regard uninsured boy-racer drivers - youths who kill someone on the public streets while driving illegally and fast and out of control - as more fit for execution than I would someone like Charles Manson who thought beforehand and had a reason for ordering his deliberate killings.

Judicial execution can't be punishment for the person being executed because once it's done he's not being punished any longer, he's dead and gone. It's claimed to have a deterrent effect on others who might in future consider a similar crime, yes? If every damnable uninsured boy racer who killed another road user were executed as a matter of course, fewer would drive furiously because of this deterrent effect. The death penalty certainly wouldn't ever deter another extremist like Charles Manson from trying to destroy his country's constitution, which is what Charles Manson was trying to do with his false-flag murders.

magentaflame · Post by **magentaflame** » Fri Nov 24, 2017 3:44 am

I find your reasoning beyond reproach....so im leaving now

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Fri Nov 24, 2017 1:11 pm

spot;1514923 wrote: I expect I meant that if there were a death penalty, I'd probably regard uninsured boy-racer drivers - youths who kill someone on the public streets while driving illegally and fast and out of control

That is your opinion and entitled to it.

spot;1514923 wrote: - as more fit for execution than I would someone like Charles Manson who thought beforehand and had a reason for ordering his deliberate murders.

I fixed that for you.

spot;1514923 wrote: Judicial execution can't be punishment for the person being executed because once it's done he's not being punished any longer, he's dead and gone.

Yup, dead and gone. :guitarist

spot;1514923 wrote: It's claimed to have a deterrent effect on others who might in future consider a similar crime, yes? If every damnable uninsured boy racer who killed another road user were executed as a matter of course, fewer would drive furiously because of this deterrent effect. The death penalty certainly wouldn't ever deter another extremist like Charles Manson from trying to destroy his country's constitution, which is what Charles Manson was trying to do with his false-flag murders.

I am not interested if execution deters another murder, though I can't help but to believe on occasion it may. No better way for civilized people to demonstrate our condemnation of such acts.

Post by **spot** » Fri Nov 24, 2017 1:27 pm

Ah.

A demonizer has entered the fray.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Nov 24, 2017 1:31 pm

Don't allow road-kill to fool you.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Nov 24, 2017 1:49 pm

Go on! I won't interfere.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Nov 24, 2017 1:51 pm

Betty Boop;1514920 wrote: oh my word what a statement :rolleyes:Everyday language coming from the political and religious right in my country.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Fri Nov 24, 2017 4:18 pm

spot;1514950 wrote: Ah.

A demonizer has entered the fray.

Ugly words

Post by **spot** » Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:44 am

tude dog;1514966 wrote: [QUOTE=spot;1514950]Ah.

A demonizer has entered the fray.Ugly words

Really?

I thought it was someone who referred to another as a devil or demon. Is that not a fair meaning?

An agent of evil? Someone for whom there is no prospect of redemption?

You carry these words like evil and devil around like ammunition. And curious cartoons in which I quite often fail to see any relevance at all.

Are you saying you've not spoken of Charles Manson as irreclaimably evil, a devil or demon, for whom death at the hand of the posse or state is the only acceptable outcome among "civilized folk"?

xfrodobagginsx · Post by **xfrodobagginsx** » Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:19 pm

spot;1514781 wrote: So I've heard said, especially by Americans. It seems to be their preferred get-out clause. I find it disgusting and thoroughly amoral.

Perhaps we could use "what would Jesus do" instead.

Jesus would tell His followers to defend themselves, that's what Jesus would do. You honestly think that we should just roll over and die and let our enemies KILL us? How illogical!

Jesus told His disciples to buy a sword for protection. That would be like telling them to buy a gun in this day and age:

Lu 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Post by **spot** » Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:14 am

xfrodobagginsx;1514987 wrote: Jesus would tell His followers to defend themselves, that's what Jesus would do. You honestly think that we should just roll over and die and let our enemies KILL us? How illogical!

Jesus told His disciples to buy a sword for protection. That would be like telling them to buy a gun in this day and age:

Lu 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Goodness, you're not one for context are you.

He's been fulfilling old testament prophesies before the sacrifice, yes? There's another to tick off - "For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.". As in someone go and get a sword, that will let them say I transgressed. People checking the signs for whether I'm Messiah or not will know why I have one. It's absolutely nothing at all to do with defending themselves and if you had the slightest integrity you'd acknowledge it.

This bit about recognizing the Jewish Messiah because "he was reckoned among the transgressors" (along with requirements like being descended from David) was the first thing would-be False Jewish Messiahs dealt with. They tended to disrupt synagogue meetings and fornicate with Torah scrolls, for example, which everyone would recognize as transgression. I'm not suggesting Jesus was a False Jewish Messiah, I'm suggesting being "reckoned among the transgressors" was an essential qualification for being the real one and he wanted to be the real one, so he deliberately transgressed. By acquiring weapons. And you're offering this as Jesus "Jesus told His disciples to buy a sword for protection"? I thought you claimed to study your bible.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sun Nov 26, 2017 12:35 pm

spot;1514974 wrote: Really?

I thought it was someone who referred to another as a devil or demon. Is that not a fair meaning?

I dunno, could mean a lot of things, cant't find a dictionary definition.

spot;1514974 wrote: An agent of evil? Someone for whom there is no prospect of redemption?

Not sure what that means.

spot;1514974 wrote: You carry these words like evil and devil around like ammunition.

Talking about me? There is a place for the word evil but I don't believe I ever used it in the way you describe. As far as devil, there is no place for him in my theology or philosophy and I don't regard him a real.

spot;1514974 wrote: And curious cartoons in which I quite often fail to see any relevance at all.

Oh well, on occasion even the great Casey strikes one at bat.

spot;1514974 wrote: Are you saying you've not spoken of Charles Manson as irreclaimably evil, a devil or demon,

Not at all. I will say he was about as evil as any person can get. As far as a demon or devil, that somethings you made up.

spot;1514974 wrote: for whom death at the hand of the posse or state is the only acceptable outcome among "civilized folk"?

I do believe in justice. One cannot expect to keep something one stole from another.

Demonizer

Post by **spot** » Sun Nov 26, 2017 4:14 pm

tude dog;1515067 wrote: I dunno, could mean a lot of things, cant't find a dictionary definition.

What you do is you look up Demonize, and then it's someone who does that.

OED: b. To portray (a person or thing) as wicked and threatening, (now) esp. in an inaccurate or misrepresentative way. (Now the usual sense.)

I think that's what you do with Charles Manson, that's why I used the word.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:11 pm

spot;1515081 wrote: What you do is you look up Demonize, and then it's someone who does that.

OED: b. To portray (a person or thing) as wicked and threatening, (now) esp. in an inaccurate or misrepresentative way. (Now the usual sense.)

Oh gee, the OED, fair enough.

spot;1515081 wrote: I think that's what you do with Charles Manson, that's why I used the word.

Think what you want. The actions of Manson and his followers who actually committed the murders speak for themselves.

Post by **spot** » Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:33 pm

The actions of your assorted Presidents and their military assets speak for themselves too, except they juggle the law to make their killings "not murder". Obviously Charles Manson murdered. The definition of murder is set by legislators and Charles Manson wasn't a legislator. He was a political activist trying to overthrow the Constitution of the United States. Had he asked my opinion I'd have said he was pressing the wrong buttons and, given what came of his scheme, I'd have been right.

Post by **spot** » Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:06 am

tude dog;1515091 wrote: Think what you want. The actions of Manson and his followers who actually committed the murders speak for themselves.

I have no doubt that they are. Their motives, on the other hand, seem widely misinterpreted. The motives have been interpreted by others as:

We have two antagonistic groups in this society, divided (on this particular occasion) by race.

If we can kill a few on one side and make the other side think it was cross-racial attacks we might generate a mushrooming series of backlash responses leading to the collapse of law and order nationwide.

Our kind will then step in at a suitable point and rebuild society from the roots up.

Which has been a pretty standard template for grass-roots revolution worldwide since civilization first graced the Indus valley. I expect Sun Tzu has a chapter on it - Machiavelli certainly did.

xfrodobagginsx · Post by **xfrodobagginsx** » Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:51 pm

spot;1515044 wrote: Goodness, you're not one for context are you.

He's been fulfilling old testament prophesies before the sacrifice, yes? There's another to tick off - "For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.". As in someone go and get a sword, that will let them say I transgressed. People checking the signs for whether I'm Messiah or not will know why I have one. It's absolutely nothing at all to do with defending themselves and if you had the slightest integrity you'd acknowledge it.

This bit about recognizing the Jewish Messiah because "he was reckoned among the transgressors" (along with requirements like being descended from David) was the first thing would-be False Jewish Messiahs dealt with. They tended to disrupt synagogue meetings and fornicate with Torah scrolls, for example, which everyone would recognize as transgression. I'm not suggesting Jesus was a False Jewish Messiah, I'm suggesting being "reckoned among the transgressors" was an essential qualification for being the real one and he wanted to be the real one, so he deliberately transgressed. By acquiring weapons. And you're offering this as Jesus "Jesus told His disciples to buy a sword for protection"? I thought you claimed to study your bible.

That's not the verse I quoted. Read the one I quoted again. Jesus did tell His disciples to buy a sword for protection. Read it again.

Post by **spot** » Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:55 pm

xfrodobagginsx;1515138 wrote: That's not the verse I quoted. Read the one I quoted again. Jesus did tell His disciples to buy a sword for protection. Read it again.

Gordon Bennett! The verse you quoted was IN A CONTEXT! You can't take it out of that context and just use it without knowing what it was said for!

This is the much-famed Bible Literalism, is it?

eta:

And no, while we're at it - "for protection" isn't biblical at all. Go and check your quoted verse, there's no sign of it. They're your words, they're not biblical.

What Luke 22 does say is that buying the swords was because this that is written must yet be accomplished in me: "And he was reckoned among the transgressors". I repunctuate the verse here solely for emphasis on my part, by all means remove the quote marks.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:13 pm

spot;1515117 wrote: I have no doubt that they are. Their motives, on the other hand, seem widely misinterpreted. The motives have been interpreted by others as:

We have two antagonistic groups in this society, divided (on this particular occasion) by race.

If we can kill a few on one side and make the other side think it was cross-racial attacks we might generate a mushrooming series of backlash responses leading to the collapse of law and order nationwide.

Our kind will then step in at a suitable point and rebuild society from the roots up.[/indent

Which has been a pretty standard template for grass-roots revolution worldwide since civilization first graced the Indus valley. I expect Sun Tzu has a chapter on it - Machiavelli certainly did.

Thanks

I really don't know what to make of all that.

Post by **spot** » Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:29 pm

Go on then - I'm interested. Why do you think Charles Manson organized the murders, and what reason do you have for thinking it?

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:23 pm

spot;1515140 wrote: gordon bennett! The verse you quoted was in a context! You can't take it out of that context and just use it without knowing what it was said for!

This is the much-famed bible literalism, is it?

bingo!

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:56 pm

spot;1515153 wrote: Go on then - I'm interested. Why do you think Charles Manson organized the murders, and what reason do you have for thinking it?

Read Helter Skelter.

Actually, I never had any interest in the working of his crazy mind.

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:24 pm

spot;1515153 wrote: Go on then - I'm interested. Why do you think Charles Manson organized the murders, and what reason do you have for thinking it?

Because he was batsh!t Crazy?

Post by **spot** » Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:09 pm

He certainly seems to have raised people's hackles.

But the idea of reading a book to find out what it is that tude has no interest in has little attraction. If anyone would like a brief look at one Wikipedia page, however, there's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helter_Sk ... _scenario). What I described was what the prosecution put to the trial jury, I thought it was the common view of why Charles Manson and his group did what they did.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:39 pm

Lars - I don't think this Manson Book will end.

There is a tug of war over Manson's body. One person claims to have a "will" & has filed probate. The other person claims to be Manson's grandson. crazy stuff.. why the fight?

Patsy

xfrodobagginsx · Post by **xfrodobagginsx** » Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:28 am

LarsMac;1515160 wrote: Because he was batsh!t Crazy?

We agree on something!!! Manson was a nut!!