crowley was a reknowned occultist and mystic.
he created his own tarot deck based on the egyptian god THOTH but he did not write the satanic bible,that was anton zandor levy a particularly self involved douchebag.
"do what thou whilt,may it harm none" is a wiccan edict drawn from the amalgamation of druidic,celtic and nordic theosophy and was adopted by crowley but was not created by him.wicca was brought to the states in 1952 by brent gardner from england and the secretive coven,which had remained so from the eyes of the church for years,ex-communicated him for his revealing of their ways.

i would not call the artist and musicians who balked at the churchs authoritarian ways as demonic philosophy but rather a true hearted rebellion against the stranglehold the church represented on many who may see things different.
not everyone is god-fearing and the church has never truly established a concise and singular explanation concerning original sin and even if it DID succeed in doing that,chirst died for the forgiveness of those sins.so the point is moot if you have accepted jesus as savior.

again i find videos such as these highly manipulative using imagery and cherry picked material to promote a narrative and for the layman this video may be seen as informative but it is more akin to propaganda meant to frighten those who may not know the facts.

be scared of mick jagger..booga booga!

Awesome. Mick Foley's books are great and even though it's choreographed fighting, his wrestling personas were hilarious. I wonder how much money is enough money for him to mow my lawn...

He is.

In reply to this comment by kymbos:
'Prof' implies he is a professor. Perhaps he is, I'm not judging. I just thought you might like to know.

>> ^residue:

Is that @dag wearing a wig? Seriously, that's uncanny


Not unless he likes to jump from meters high and land on tables with tacks on them.

oh thats right hes fucking Mick from the rocky movies. "GOOOOO GETTEM ROCK !"

Yes. If only she'd have been sober enough to deliver the masses unto the land of milky honey.

Milk hound Hyundai.

Mick 'n Monkey.

Something like that.

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^therealblankman:
In my 15 or so years of professional concert production, on thing I've learned above all else is that nothing clears a room faster than a bass solo.
promote

What about Geddy Lee? Or Billy Sheehan? Victor Wooten? Jean Baudin? Larry Graham? Louis Johnson? Norwood Fisher? Flea? Les Claypool? Mick Karn?


Thank you for helping me prove my point.

>> ^therealblankman:
In my 15 or so years of professional concert production, on thing I've learned above all else is that nothing clears a room faster than a bass solo.
promote


What about Geddy Lee? Or Billy Sheehan? Victor Wooten? Jean Baudin? Larry Graham? Louis Johnson? Norwood Fisher? Flea? Les Claypool? Mick Karn?

David Johansen and Mick Jagger: Separated at birth? Always thought they looked like brothers.

I would much rather hear Aretha sing it than Mick.

So for sources, you're basically you're holding up a website I've never heard of, and a few dictionary entries? Here I thought you'd at least produce a book written by a historian, or written by one of the National Republicans.

>> ^blankfist:
I know you like obtuse analogies to explain your point, so let me try one for you. If you moved out of your home and I moved in after you, am I now you? If I dress up in a Spider-Man costume, am I Spider-Man? If started a band and called it The Rolling, was Mick Jager the founder of my band?

Your first two analogies they don't apply -- they presuppose that the essence of the Democratic-Republican party left the party with the people who left to create their own party. You're back to saying it's a different party because the platform changed; even though the accounts I read usually point to a clash of personality, not ideology (more like Hillary vs. Obama rather than Humphrey vs. Muskie).

In your Rolling Stones analogy, it's more like if a band member left because he thought Jagger did something illicit to become lead singer, and that band member decided to start his own band named the Spinning Stones. Before, people used to refer to the Rolling Stones as "the Stones" before that split, but they now had to emphasize "Rolling" rather than "Stones" to avoid confusion. Eventually they just dropped the word "Stones" from their name. That's a new band, in your view, because the Rolling Stones "dissolved".

The name "Democratic-Republican party" is what historians have assigned as the name of the party; the members themselves often shortened it to just "Republican". Even in Martin Van Buren's book he frustratingly uses all three names (Democratic, Republican, Democratic-Republican) to refer to the party he's in, which just highlights how irresponsible it is to claim it's a wholly new, distinct party. Also, the fact that many sources disagree on the exact timing of the name change seems to imply it was a gradual, conversational change that wasn't formalized until well after the tussle in 1824.

This is in stark contrast to the National Republicans, who clearly left the party to create a new one.

>> ^blankfist:
Though, I do see that written history favors the idea of The Democratic Party coming out of the Democratic Republican Party more than it favors the National Republican Party coming out of it. I will concede that much. Still, it appears the Dem-Repub Party was properly dissolved, as I said.

Yawn, in other words, you realize you're wrong, but won't admit it because you're a pigfucker Jackass like Jackson. Not surprising.

To be fair, the more I read, the more it becomes clear that this argument is mostly a product of how very formal and factionalized political parties are now, compared to the early 1800's. I think parties back then were very loose, informal arrangements, and no one bothered trying to settle the question of "what is the name of our party?" until well after the whole Jackson/Adams drama had fully played out. Nowadays, you would need to figure such things out before getting your name on the ballot for elections.

I suspect the historians disagree about when the name "Democratic Party" was first used, because they can't agree on what event or document to pin it on. Political parties had not yet become legal entities with official names, so there was no official name change document on record.

I do think that the people who attended the "first" Democratic Party convention all felt that they were part of the party founded by Jefferson, and that the National Republicans and Whigs felt that they "didn't leave the Democratic-Republican Party, the Democratic-Republican party left me", and felt they were in more strict keeping with Jefferson's legacy.

However, I do think they would admit they had left the Democratic-Republican party to form their own, even if they feel it's what Jefferson himself would've done.

First, I never said it disappeared into thin air. I get that there was a split, and people left that party. But, the party itself is gone. Just like the National Republican Party is gone. You don't hear people running as a Democratic Republican, do you?

Second, what straw man? The point of a straw man is to deceive. I wasn't trying to deceive you. Just because I don't dance for you when you ask me to dance, doesn't mean I created a straw man. I found your Virginia/West Virginia question to be needlessly verbose and irrelevant. Shall I entertain you like a good monkey and answer it?

Third, I'm not hung up on the "logo". I am trying my best to illustrate to you how that party was created as a separate party under Jackson. Period. Changing a logo or a mascot does not make a new party. Now you're just being childish.

From http://www.bartleby.com/61/39/D0123900.html:
"A political party in the United States that was opposed to the Federalist Party and was founded by Thomas Jefferson in 1792 and dissolved in 1828."

And why was it "dissolved" in 1828? What big party was formed in 1828? Hmmm. Oh, that's right, the Democratic Party! Want more examples? How about your own Answers.com site: http://www.answers.com/topic/democratic-republican-party. They claim it was "dissolved" in 1828, as well.

How about here: http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Democratic-Republican_Party_United_States_-_History/id/4978465 "In the late 1820s, the party split into factions and dissolved. Along with some ex-Federalists, supporters of Andrew Jackson, led by Martin Van Buren, organized themselves into an offshoot of the Democratic-Republican Party called the Democratic Party. The link between today's Democratic Party and the party founded by Jefferson was a theme emphasized by Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s and other Democratic politicans throughout the years."

Though, I do see that written history favors the idea of The Democratic Party coming out of the Democratic Republican Party more than it favors the National Republican Party coming out of it. I will concede that much. Still, it appears the Dem-Repub Party was properly dissolved, as I said.

I know you like obtuse analogies to explain your point, so let me try one for you. If you moved out of your home and I moved in after you, am I now you? If I dress up in a Spider-Man costume, am I Spider-Man? If started a band and called it The Rolling, was Mick Jager the founder of my band?

When I was in college (1981-1984) I saw Denny Dent paint. Also to music, no rotating canvas but HUGE (taller than he was). He painted Mick Jagger for us to, of course, Rolling Stones music. I have got to say, it's been at least 25 years since then and this one's not as good.

When I was in college (1981-1984) I saw Denny Dent paint. Also to music, no rotating canvas but HUGE (taller than he was). He painted Mick Jagger for us to, of course, Rolling Stones music. I have got to say, it's been at least 25 years since then and this guy's not as good.

*promote

and upvote it yourself, as well, mick!