One wonders, have cons lost their fucking minds, listening to idiot asshats like this moron? He’s wrong every single time, but he hates liberals with a passion that outshines reality and is appropriately smarmy and dishonest, so you follow along.

What nonsense. It’s cons who hate America enough to physically attack it and attempt to take it over so they can change it, hate democracy enough to try to overthrow an election to become a dictatorship, and hate the flag so much that they disrespectfully wear it as clothing, even underwear, actually wiping their shit stained asses with the flag. (Yes, wearing the flag shows you don’t respect it or the nation it stands for, officially and undeniably.). People used to know that those that drape themselves in the flag, or religion, never actually believe in either, they only use the symbology to faux virtue signal to others that would use them as tools of division. Sadly, the cons abandoned that knowledge to embrace Trump, who exemplifies the issue.

I only had to hear one sentence of this twaddle for him to have spread 3 lies, ridiculously accusing liberals of considering acting out these anti American sentiments he claims they hold…like the cons actually did last year.

No state in the union should in any way celebrate symbology crafted to symbolize the attempted destruction of that union in the name of imagined racial superiority.

That should not need to be said.

Which party just had another 88 paid adds online pulled today for using hate group insignia, specifically for using Nazi symbology AGAIN, this time using the inverted red triangle used to identify political prisoners, Communists, Social Democrats, liberals, Freemasons, people accused of helping Jews, and other members of opposition parties in concentration camps now being used by Trump and Pence to paint Antifa as social democrats- the enemy and instigators of violence, contrary to the actual arrest records that indicates Antifa involvement in riots and vandalism is minimal at most, but right wing hate groups have been repeatedly caught being the real dangerous instigators, with multiple instances of shootings, arson, repeatedly caught with bombs and written plans to instigate riots then blame BLM in their possession (because they are that stupid)? One guess.

Which party has gladly taken well over $40 million from the Mellons, who repeatedly make public, overtly and blatantly racist and derogatory comments about black and brown people? One guess.

Again I ask, how many civil rights leaders are Republicans today, or in this century?
Because I know you're too embarrassed to answer, I'll do it for you, ZERO.

It's undeniably clear during my lifetime which party is the best for unity and which is divisive, which strives for equality and which denies inequality exists, and which pushed and pushed equality more.
If you wipe the orange meconium from your eyes you can tell just by looking at their representatives, one party is full of non white men and is outraged by racism, one party is almost exclusively white men and claims racism and inequality doesn't exist, it's fake news.
*facepalm

It's actually a pretty good film, as I remember it. A lot better than I was expecting at the time. It handled the whole coming-of-age / werewolf symbology pretty well on both sides... well enough that I remember it ten or so years later.

I must admit, though, that my favourite thing about it is the multiple puns in the title.

There are no absolute logical principles <---- including that one. This is simply another way of describing the problem of induction and under determination. Like so many philosophical arguments you have attacked my position based upon the language it was described in and not due to its underlying thought process. This has resulted in a fallacy. Language merely conveys knowledge, it does not in an of itself contain it (and excellent example incidentally of what I was talking about).

Your argument eats itself. If there aren't any absolute laws of logic (including that one), then there are no rules period, and thus no logic. If there is no such thing as logic then I could say "The cucumber faints west in the umbrage" and it would be an entirely valid response to anything you say. Yet you continue to make absolute statements like:

"All principles (save the observation "thinking exists") can only ever derived by induction."

"This is the case because one can never know for certain if any or all of ones experiences are fabrications"

"you can't ever be certain about any judgement one makes about the universe or anything in it because one cannot observe an exhaustive perspective"

The sea cucumber faints west in the umbrage, my friend.

All principles (save the observation "thinking exists") can only ever derived by induction. This is the case because one can never know for certain if any or all of ones experiences are fabrications, and furthermore that they never encompass all possible variables/possibilities. To put it another way, you can't ever be certain about any judgement one makes about the universe or anything in it because one cannot observe an exhaustive perspective (i.e. all of time and space for the thing in question). Thus there may always exist an example that could falsify your assumption. e.g. if I inducted that all swans are white because I had only ever seen white swans I would ultimately be incorrect as black swans can be observed to exist. Unless you can verify the entirety of existence across time there might always exist and experience/example to falsify any objective assertion. (you could be a brain in a jar, you can't prove 100% that your not)

No, I can't 100 percent prove I am not actually a circus peanut dreaming I'm a man, but it doesn't matter what I can prove to you. What matters is what is true. You have absolute freedom to live in total denial of reality if you want to, but reality isn't what we dictate it is. Just because you have no way of figuring it out doesn't mean no one does. The one who does have it figured out is God, because He created it. Because He is God He can make us absolutely certain of who He is and what He wants from us, transcending all physical or mental rationale.

^ Pardon me? Did you even read what I wrote by way of explanation for that? What part of "everything is permitted" even remotely precludes me (or anyone) from anything, let alone arguing against Christianity?!?!?

If everything is permitted then it is equally valid not to permit, which means you have no argument. Your way isn't better than any other way according to your logic so all that you can argue is that you prefer it.

What I felt I'd explained fairly clearly was the idea that the only demonstrable moral authority was yourself, or to put it another way that there are no moral authorities to be found anywhere else but within peoples minds.
Even if God himself speaks to you directly, that is an experience reducible only to the mind because ALL EXPERIENCES WITHIN HUMAN CONCEPTION OCCUR IN or at best VIA THE MIND!

I can't prove God exists to you, but He can. God isn't hiding from you; He has been knocking on your door your entire life. It's your choice whether you want to open the door, but you are going to meet Him one day regardless of what you choose.

Nothing has ever happened to any human being anywhere that was not experienced entirely in the mind (notice I didn't say "brain" ). When you see a chair you don't see the photons of light hitting your retina, you see something your mind made up to be representative (at best) of whatever phenomenon your eyes detected.

With that in mind (<- mind lol), "everything is permitted". The universe will continue on, unmoved by our moralities (or lack of). Only other humans will cry or rejoice at your actions and only within the sovereignty of your own mind will you find an irrefutable and absolute moral judge...

I was created before I had a mind. The Universe has a beginning, it was created, and the Creator is the judge.

Apart from all the same major dates for festivals and holy days (25th dec etc.),

The Catholics borrowed those from the Pagans..you won't find those in the bible.

the entire symbology of dieing on a cross for three days then being resurrected, the "last supper" with 12 disciples, 3 wise men from the east bearing gifts. etc. etc.

Sources?

I'd have more time for the Christian counter argument that the Mithraists stole this stuff from them if the same themes, dates and symoblogy didn't pop up in ancient cultures going back a few 1000 years over and over and over. The list of Messianic figures with the above characteristics in western folklore & myth is so long its almost a joke! & naturally is no co-incidence as they are describing the movement of the heavens (specifically the sun) by way of allegory. Speaking of which..

Let's see some sources..

But then the Catholic Church did it level best to suppress and destroy any trace of Gnosticism through the ages so its no surprise to me that you're not entirely familiar with it. (most people haven't even heard of it and those that do tend to be under the misapprehension that its a Christian thing (again understandable under the circumstances))

I know exactly what it is and I am very familar with it.

I'll come with you a little on that one. Before Rex Mundi (Jehova) showed up to fk everything up for them the Kabbalistic (and essentially Pagan) Jews possessed great wisdom and insight. Naturally not all of this was lost! (though after Solomon passed it would appear a regrettably large amount was)

Abraham is the father of the Jewish people and he worshiped the LORD.

I'm not sure I even want to grace that with a response. How could you possibly know what came from the mouth of God to a man 2000 years ago? If you say "because it says in the bible" please don't expect a sensible reply (I'm happy to fight non-sense with none-sense)

Because I know Him personally and His Spirit lives within me.

^This one amused be greatly. I would say Buddhism & Zoroastranism were clearly superior for exactly that reason but that's not what I think you were alluding to? I assume you were suggesting that certain parts of the whole Jesus shebang could only have come from Jesus/God/Holy spirit because he made himself the centre of attention?

To be a Christian is to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Therefore there is no Christianity without Him. He is the only way to know God:

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

He wasn't pointing to Himself, He was pointing to God.

This is why I make a very distinct separation between the "Jesus" and the "Christ". Christ (or anointed one) goes back at least to Egypt. Horus is clearly "Christ" by basically any sensible measure I can think of, and by "Christ" I mean the "Sun of God" i.e. the freaking Sun.

This also forms the basis for an "as above so below" parable/allegory for the spiritual journey to enlightenment. You can find your way to heaven and God via the "Sun of God's" wisdom. No Miracle performing hippie Jew's were required before and I fail to see how sprouting the same fundamental idea just with a figurehead for a disenfranchised Jewish noble family anchored to everything helps?

You do realize that the word son and the word sun, in hebrew or in egyptian, aren't even remotely similar don't you? The word Christ does mean the anointed one, that is what the Messiah is. Jesus *is* the Christ. In regards to Horus being Christ, and a lot of other things you said, please take a look at this:

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/#horus

Are there some pearl's of Jesus's wisdom I missed? Thus far I have yet to come across anything that didn't strike me as either a rewording of things wise men had preached for 1000's of years previously, or a power play by an unscrupulous or deluded individual.

Read the gospel of John and pray to God and ask Him to help you understand it.

I happen to know its hotly contested even to this day but lets for the sake of this just take it as a given. When I said "at best a fabrication" it was because I consider the historical figure to be an impostor and a fraud. If anyone was a "true" messiah then John the Baptist and moreover Simon Magus are far better contenders but then that's a colossal can of worms I'm not sure I can be bothered to open at the moment.

John the baptist said he wasn't the Messiah and Simon was outdone by Philip.

I'll just say in summary that I am of the opinion that Mr. Ben Yosef and his crew were plotting to return the house of David to power but largely failed in the end as the Roman establishment usurped most of the legacy they tried to create (though not entirely).

The missing part of this theory is the explanation for the empty tomb.

Either way they worshiped and championed a being (Psychological archetype) which I feel I have little choice but to call Satan i.e. the God of Abraham. This alone is a pretty major indictment for me and any historic figure that puts said "being" at the center of their belief system will garner my suspicion.

How can the God that appeared to Abraham be anything but malevolent if the accounts in the Torah and Quran are accurate?

The quran isn't accurate, but if you read the Old Testament without humanistic glasses on, you'll find it was the humans who were malevolent and God was who long suffering with them.

@ shinyblurry

This had already turned into an essay and I didn't want to take up even more room by quoting you verbatim so I've tried to break it down to save space.



1. "Except that?"

There are no absolute logical principles <---- including that one.
This is simply another way of describing the problem of induction and under determination. Like so many philosophical arguments you have attacked my position based upon the language it was described in and not due to its underlying thought process. This has resulted in a fallacy. Language merely conveys knowledge, it does not in an of itself contain it (and excellent example incidentally of what I was talking about).

2. "Is that absolutely true?"

All principles (save the observation "thinking exists") can only ever derived by induction. This is the case because one can never know for certain if any or all of ones experiences are fabrications, and furthermore that they never encompass all possible variables/possibilities. To put it another way, you can't ever be certain about any judgement one makes about the universe or anything in it because one cannot observe an exhaustive perspective (i.e. all of time and space for the thing in question). Thus there may always exist an example that could falsify your assumption. e.g. if I inducted that all swans are white because I had only ever seen white swans I would ultimately be incorrect as black swans can be observed to exist. Unless you can verify the entirety of existence across time there might always exist and experience/example to falsify any objective assertion. (you could be a brain in a jar, you can't prove 100% that your not)


3. "Including not permitting..which means you have no further argument against Christianity."

^ Pardon me? Did you even read what I wrote by way of explanation for that? What part of "everything is permitted" even remotely precludes me (or anyone) from anything, let alone arguing against Christianity?!?!?

What I felt I'd explained fairly clearly was the idea that the only demonstrable moral authority was yourself, or to put it another way that there are no moral authorities to be found anywhere else but within peoples minds.
Even if God himself speaks to you directly, that is an experience reducible only to the mind because ALL EXPERIENCES WITHIN HUMAN CONCEPTION OCCUR IN or at best VIA THE MIND!

Nothing has ever happened to any human being anywhere that was not experienced entirely in the mind (notice I didn't say "brain" ). When you see a chair you don't see the photons of light hitting your retina, you see something your mind made up to be representative (at best) of whatever phenomenon your eyes detected.

With that in mind (<- mind lol), "everything is permitted". The universe will continue on, unmoved by our moralities (or lack of). Only other humans will cry or rejoice at your actions and only within the sovereignty of your own mind will you find an irrefutable and absolute moral judge...

As for the other bits

A. "The earliest records of Mithraism bear no similarity to Christianity at all....."

Apart from all the same major dates for festivals and holy days (25th dec etc.), the entire symbology of dieing on a cross for three days then being resurrected, the "last supper" with 12 disciples, 3 wise men from the east bearing gifts. etc. etc.

I'd have more time for the Christian counter argument that the Mithraists stole this stuff from them if the same themes, dates and symoblogy didn't pop up in ancient cultures going back a few 1000 years over and over and over. The list of Messianic figures with the above characteristics in western folklore & myth is so long its almost a joke! & naturally is no co-incidence as they are describing the movement of the heavens (specifically the sun) by way of allegory. Speaking of which............

Pagan & Gnostic traditions are deeply intertwined to the point where one could consider many examples to be one and the same. Mithraism would be one such example. Pagan just means many Gods/worship of nature & archetypes in the human psyche. Mithraism fulfils this definition but it also fulfils the Gnostic one i.e. it teaches that one finds god of and within oneself, not as an external force, or indeed a force which is separate from oneself.

But then the Catholic Church did it level best to suppress and destroy any trace of Gnosticism through the ages so its no surprise to me that you're not entirely familiar with it. (most people haven't even heard of it and those that do tend to be under the misapprehension that its a Christian thing (again understandable under the circumstances))


B. "Actually, they came from a progressive revelation of Judiasm which preceeded all of that."

I'll come with you a little on that one. Before Rex Mundi (Jehova) showed up to fk everything up for them the Kabbalistic (and essentially Pagan) Jews possessed great wisdom and insight. Naturally not all of this was lost! (though after Solomon passed it would appear a regrettably large amount was)


C. "What Jesus did not teach that came from Judiasm was wholly His and entirely unique, and they came from the mouth of God Himself."


I'm not sure I even want to grace that with a response. How could you possibly know what came from the mouth of God to a man 2000 years ago? If you say "because it says in the bible" please don't expect a sensible reply (I'm happy to fight non-sense with none-sense)


D. "The difference is Jesus Himself. You could take buddha out of buddhism, or zoroaster out of zoroastrianism and you would still have something. Without Jesus there is no Christianity."

^This one amused be greatly. I would say Buddhism & Zoroastranism were clearly superior for exactly that reason but that's not what I think you were alluding to? I assume you were suggesting that certain parts of the whole Jesus shebang could only have come from Jesus/God/Holy spirit because he made himself the centre of attention?
This is why I make a very distinct separation between the "Jesus" and the "Christ". Christ (or anointed one) goes back at least to Egypt. Horus is clearly "Christ" by basically any sensible measure I can think of, and by "Christ" I mean the "Sun of God" i.e. the freaking Sun.
This also forms the basis for an "as above so below" parable/allegory for the spiritual journey to enlightenment. You can find your way to heaven and God via the "Sun of God's" wisdom. No Miracle performing hippie Jew's were required before and I fail to see how sprouting the same fundamental idea just with a figurehead for a disenfranchised Jewish noble family anchored to everything helps?

Are there some pearl's of Jesus's wisdom I missed? Thus far I have yet to come across anything that didn't strike me as either a rewording of things wise men had preached for 1000's of years previously, or a power play by an unscrupulous or deluded individual.


E. "The Jesus myth theory isn't taken seriously by even skeptical bible scholars. There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than for Alexander the Great."

I happen to know its hotly contested even to this day but lets for the sake of this just take it as a given. When I said "at best a fabrication" it was because I consider the historical figure to be an impostor and a fraud. If anyone was a "true" messiah then John the Baptist and moreover Simon Magus are far better contenders but then that's a colossal can of worms I'm not sure I can be bothered to open at the moment. I'll just say in summary that I am of the opinion that Mr. Ben Yosef and his crew were plotting to return the house of David to power but largely failed in the end as the Roman establishment usurped most of the legacy they tried to create (though not entirely).
Either way they worshiped and championed a being (Psychological archetype) which I feel I have little choice but to call Satan i.e. the God of Abraham. This alone is a pretty major indictment for me and any historic figure that puts said "being" at the center of their belief system will garner my suspicion.

How can the God that appeared to Abraham be anything but malevolent if the accounts in the Torah and Quran are accurate?

(I hope that made sense towards the end, getting very late & tired here...)

>> ^enoch:

>> ^Enzoblue:
Everyone whose ever been tempted by conspiracy theories should read Foucault's Pendulum. It's mandatory reading. Changed me from a potential sheep to an amused observer. Man's a genius.

this is the first time i have heard of this man.
maybe he brings insight to such things as exposing humanities penchant for buying into conspiracy theories but i have to say i wholeheartedly disagree with his take on love,the power of love and passionate creative force it can be in regards to life.
what he is speaking of concerning "love",is ego-love,which is a want/desire and is a purely selfish animal and has the tendency to slip in to hatred quite easily.
of course i am basing my opinion solely on this interview which is not really fair at all.
i am surprised i never heard of him considering i am quite fascinated with symbology.
methinks this man deserves a bit of investigating.


The book doesn't really expose the penchant for buying into conspiracy theories, it delves deep into the penchant for creating them and techniques involved, (and when I say deep, I mean deep). As far as ego-love, I struggle with this myself and, (if intellectually honest), can't really place my finger on any love that isn't ego-love.

Edit: Egads wait, lemme rephrase. I guess love of nature doesn't apply.... Nor does love of siblings/children. In personal relationships, (the kind that make me sick to my stomach in love), I'm crazy possessive though. I guess I need to work on this.

If you are fascinated with semiotics/symbology I would really recommend his book The Name of the Rose. It's an amazing read.>> ^enoch:

>> ^Enzoblue:
Everyone whose ever been tempted by conspiracy theories should read Foucault's Pendulum. It's mandatory reading. Changed me from a potential sheep to an amused observer. Man's a genius.

this is the first time i have heard of this man.
maybe he brings insight to such things as exposing humanities penchant for buying into conspiracy theories but i have to say i wholeheartedly disagree with his take on love,the power of love and passionate creative force it can be in regards to life.
what he is speaking of concerning "love",is ego-love,which is a want/desire and is a purely selfish animal and has the tendency to slip in to hatred quite easily.
of course i am basing my opinion solely on this interview which is not really fair at all.
i am surprised i never heard of him considering i am quite fascinated with symbology.
methinks this man deserves a bit of investigating.

>> ^Enzoblue:

Everyone whose ever been tempted by conspiracy theories should read Foucault's Pendulum. It's mandatory reading. Changed me from a potential sheep to an amused observer. Man's a genius.


this is the first time i have heard of this man.
maybe he brings insight to such things as exposing humanities penchant for buying into conspiracy theories but i have to say i wholeheartedly disagree with his take on love,the power of love and passionate creative force it can be in regards to life.
what he is speaking of concerning "love",is ego-love,which is a want/desire and is a purely selfish animal and has the tendency to slip in to hatred quite easily.
of course i am basing my opinion solely on this interview which is not really fair at all.
i am surprised i never heard of him considering i am quite fascinated with symbology.
methinks this man deserves a bit of investigating.

i was going to respond to shiny's post but pho3nix cleared it up nicely.
let me just add that pagan translates to mean "the old ways" and occult to mean "hidden".
what is interesting is just how much pagan ritual and symbology has made it into chrsitian mass and even in the churches themselves.
while not surprising considering the history involved,i do find it ironic the fear and misinformation coming from people surrounded by pagan symbols and practicing the old rituals (co-opted as they are).

i dont know what kind of pagans you hung out with shiny,
sounds like they have issues.

I'm not sure where you're getting that John was a rebel or disagreed with Jesus, or that the book of John contridicts a single thing Jesus said.. on the contrary John was the beloved disciple and perhaps more than the others was privy to the deeper meaning of what Jesus said. The book of John goes right to the heart of His teachings.

I'm also not sure where you're drawing this imaginary contention between Revelation and the apocryphal vision of paul from..they are completely different animals..Revelation is pure prophecy, whereas the supposed pauline doctrine is very similiar to the gnostic mystery texts, which describes the various artifices of heavenly processions, but fails to expand on or add any meaningful truths. It has the words but not the content. Revelation is about the future, and it makes several predictions which are happening today, such as the formation of a one world government, economy and religion. This is what seperates the word of God from everything else.

As far as predictions about the end go, no one is ever supposed to make them..and anyone who does is automatically wrong. >> ^enoch:
book of john.
the man who disagreed with jesus most of all and was a true zealot.
i prefer the book of revelation according to paul.the writing is better and not as much hallucinagenic influences.
the book of john was a last minute addition to the bible to be canonized by the council of nicea.the revelation according to paul was rejected because johns was allegedly more emotionally and imagery provoking than pauls.
because of the addition of the prophecy of john there have been so many christians who read the book literally.when we consider the times that these books were written and the punishment if exposed,we need to take in to account that much of what is written is metaphorical.representing much of the cosmology and symbology of the time by way of inferrence rather than literal translations.wish some devout christians understood that.
see millerites:http://historicaldigression.com/2011/05/20/the-rapture-millerites-and-the-great-disappointment/
they are still around today.seventh day adventists

book of john.
the man who disagreed with jesus most of all and was a true zealot.
i prefer the book of revelation according to paul.the writing is better and not as much hallucinagenic influences.
the book of john was a last minute addition to the bible to be canonized by the council of nicea.the revelation according to paul was rejected because johns was *allegedly more emotionally and imagery provoking than pauls.
because of the addition of the prophecy of john there have been so many christians who read the book literally.when we consider the times that these books were written and the punishment if exposed,we need to take in to account that much of what is written is metaphorical.representing much of the cosmology and symbology of the time by way of inferrence rather than literal translations.wish some devout christians understood that.
see millerites:http://historicaldigression.com/2011/05/20/the-rapture-millerites-and-the-great-disappointment/

*they are still around today.seventh day adventists

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

@Farhad2000 - looking back it's easy to declare that the GUI would have happened anyway, but I would posit that there are certain crucial points where innovation has moved everybody forward in a big leap. I know that Windows has been around for most of your life - and must seem like it always has been - but I remember when "windowing" didn't exist - and the joy of discovering how a mouse works, trash cans, WYSIWYG, etc, etc. I also remember what platform that was on. All credit to Xerox PARC - but Apple brought you the window metaphor, mice and pretty much all the symbology on your Windows® desktop. (wallpaper, screen savers, draggable icons, control panels, paint programs). If Apple didn't change the paradigm of how we use computers at that point, then I would argue with your definition of paradigm changing.

I would also posit that the same thing has happened, albeit in a smaller way, with the iPhone and iPad. finger optimised UI, Flick to scroll, bounce back scrolling, pinch to zoom and more are innovations out of Apple's skunkworks. These innovations exist on Android and Pre phones - but to assume that this would have happened without Apple is naive.

When I first came to Thailand, I saw the occasional swastika emblazoned on things that made me double-take -- a kid's t-shirt being the one that I remember the most. When I asked Thai people about it (just politely asking, not like 'ohMyGawd, why is everyone racist WHARRGARBLE') I got the response that the symbol here isn't linked to nazism, it is a Buddhist symbol, etc., as mentioned above.

That was enough explanation for me until I started to see street vendor stands with nazi flags (red background, white circle, black swastika), eagle with swastika logos, and even motorcycle helmets in the SS soldier style with SS logos.

Now my impression is that an average Thai person doesn't associate a swastika with nazism, and might purchase some item displaying the symbol because either:
A) they don't know/care about the symbol's link to WW2/Hitler/Nazis OR any Buddhist symbology and just think it looks cool (which I tend to agree with -- it is a simple yet striking shape if you try to mentally disassociate it from any ethos etc.), or
B) they know it as a Buddhist symbol, and feel that link overrides any to nazism.

But those explanations go out the window for the vendors that sell the flags, symbols, SS posters etc. all in one location, with no "Eastern"/Buddhist swastikas in the mix.

>> ^HaricotVert:
>> ^Throbbin:
I'm pretty sure the word you're looking for is 'symbology'.

sym⋅bol⋅ism
  /ˈsɪmbəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sim-buh-liz-uhm]
–noun
1. the practice of representing things by symbols, or of investing things with a symbolic meaning or character.
His vote is a symbol of what he truly believes and/or what he believes is representative of the state/district that elected him. By the time it was his turn to actually vote, it was irrelevant whether he was for or against the health care bill - hence, his vote was purely symbolic.
Also,
sym⋅bol⋅o⋅gy
  /sɪmˈbɒlədʒi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sim-bol-uh-jee]
–noun
1. the study of symbols.
2. the use of symbols; symbolism.


Haha, over your head I suppose?

Watch 'The Boondock Saints', come back, and you owe me a promote.