Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Unless the perspective itself is wrong, and then NOTHING makes sense.

---

Quote:

---

Why? What would happen if "someone else" [MOST LIKELY CHINA] took that position? Be specific.

---

Quote:

---

So? Don't let them "manage" you and you'll be alright.

---

Quote:

---

OH, THEY TRIED! Don't you remember the "shock treatment" that was applied to Russia, which caused the GDP to drop 25% and the reduced the male lifespan by 10 years?

---

Quote:

---

Why does it make any difference how much Hannity made?

---

Quote:

---

Yanno, JO, when you stop obsessing about RUSSIA!!! you actually make some sense. For example, how can you say that we're an oligarchy controlled by the moneyed, and at the same time say that Putin is controlling us?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
House probe ignored most Trump-Russia contacts, report claims

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-probe-ignored-most-trump
-russia-contacts-report-claims/ar-BBKyhIL?ocid=spartanntp


T

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
House probe ignored most Trump-Russia contacts, report claims

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-probe-ignored-most-trump
-russia-contacts-report-claims/ar-BBKyhIL?ocid=spartanntp


T

---

It's sad that at the end of the day the big casualty out of all of this is Wikileaks and other whistleblowers in general.

The report linked in the above article calls wikileaks a "Russian Operative".



The report linked also doesn't say anything new. It reads as a point by point collection of things that have been posted to this forum over the months about the Russian narrative.

The report linked also doesn't even claim that the house probe ignored anything. It simply points out denials of contact with Russia, alleged contacts between Trumps Team and Russia, alleged meetings between them and high ranking campaign officials and advisors who were allegedly aware of these alleged relationships.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/TODAY/z_Creative/MoscowProject.pdf

---

I always find myself saying shit jack. So again, shit jack. The article says that, "the House committee charged with investigating Russian involvement in the 2016 election obtained either no or incomplete information on about 81 percent of the known contacts between Trump officials and Russians, or groups and individuals with strong Russia ties like Wikileaks."

That means they ignored or paid little attention to 81% of the evidence. Learn to understand what you are reading. One way to do that is to avoid reading it though biased eyes. Try to avoid searching for I got ya moments.


T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
House probe ignored most Trump-Russia contacts, report claims

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-probe-ignored-most-trump
-russia-contacts-report-claims/ar-BBKyhIL?ocid=spartanntp


T

---

It's sad that at the end of the day the big casualty out of all of this is Wikileaks and other whistleblowers in general.

The report linked in the above article calls wikileaks a "Russian Operative".



The report linked also doesn't say anything new. It reads as a point by point collection of things that have been posted to this forum over the months about the Russian narrative.

The report linked also doesn't even claim that the house probe ignored anything. It simply points out denials of contact with Russia, alleged contacts between Trumps Team and Russia, alleged meetings between them and high ranking campaign officials and advisors who were allegedly aware of these alleged relationships.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/TODAY/z_Creative/MoscowProject.pdf

---

I always find myself saying shit jack. So again, shit jack. The article says that, "the House committee charged with investigating Russian involvement in the 2016 election obtained either no or incomplete information on about 81 percent of the known contacts between Trump officials and Russians, or groups and individuals with strong Russia ties like Wikileaks."

That means they ignored or paid little attention to 81% of the evidence. Learn to understand what you are reading. One way to do that is to avoid reading it though biased eyes. Try to avoid searching for I got ya moments.


T

---

Quote:

---

quoted off of anonymous sources?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
House probe ignored most Trump-Russia contacts, report claims

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-probe-ignored-most-trump
-russia-contacts-report-claims/ar-BBKyhIL?ocid=spartanntp


T

---

It's sad that at the end of the day the big casualty out of all of this is Wikileaks and other whistleblowers in general.

The report linked in the above article calls wikileaks a "Russian Operative".



The report linked also doesn't say anything new. It reads as a point by point collection of things that have been posted to this forum over the months about the Russian narrative.

The report linked also doesn't even claim that the house probe ignored anything. It simply points out denials of contact with Russia, alleged contacts between Trumps Team and Russia, alleged meetings between them and high ranking campaign officials and advisors who were allegedly aware of these alleged relationships.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/TODAY/z_Creative/MoscowProject.pdf

---

I always find myself saying shit jack. So again, shit jack. The article says that, "the House committee charged with investigating Russian involvement in the 2016 election obtained either no or incomplete information on about 81 percent of the known contacts between Trump officials and Russians, or groups and individuals with strong Russia ties like Wikileaks."

That means they ignored or paid little attention to 81% of the evidence. Learn to understand what you are reading. One way to do that is to avoid reading it though biased eyes. Try to avoid searching for I got ya moments.


T

---

81% of "evidence". You mean alleged incidents over the last year that were quoted off of anonymous sources?

How would one go about investigating things that have no witnesses on the record? Would they strap everyone down for a polygraph test that we've already established has no place in the real world today?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
McMaster to Resign as National Security Adviser, and Will Be Replaced by John Bolton

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mcmaster-to-resign-as-national
-security-adviser-and-will-be-replaced-by-john-bolton/ar-BBKzUaa?ocid=spartanntp


T

---

Quote:

---

The Deep State isn't needed for that, no. But they know everything that is going on. They can't lose that rigged game because, unlike Krugman, they know how the game is going to play out before it even happens. You don't need a crystal ball when you're controlling the game.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

What I'm trying to understand is who exactly is the Deep State that these guys are so obsessed about. I want them to explain just who the players are; and what their agenda is.

---

Boy, you're not asking for much, are you? The deep state has been working overtime to stay hidden, and you want a predigested answer that lays everything out in simple terms?

Like Mafia dons who are divided geographically and by income stream (some do hookers and blow in Nevada, others run numbers and smuggling in New Jersey) the elites have varying interests: some are globalists and some are nationalists; some are industrialists while others do finances or intellectual property or commodities. The elite controls the media, which is how your behavior is determined. (You really should watch "100 Centuries of Self" and then imagine that kind of manipulation applied to the news and the internet. Just sayin'.)

The DEEP STATE are those politicians*, government employees, spooks, and generals who turn the wishes of the elite into enforced policy. Here, the winnowing has been done primarily through the consistent application of money to elections and the media, but elsewhere - if the government isn't compliant enough- more direct measures are taken, such as engineering bribes, coups, assassinations, and invasions. Because, as KIKI says, the elites don't do their own military and police .... that's too expensive. Far cheaper (for them) to get the poor sods (that's us) to pay for our own exploitation with our own tax dollars. That's quite a trick!

So, who are the Deep Staters?
Who ISN'T a Deep Stater?

By the time you get to be President or Congressperson, or have wormed your way up the military, spook, or judicial ladder, you have likely sold your soul ten times over.

So that includes all past Presidents since Johnson, (Carter was a useful idiot, Bill Clinton was a born sociopath) and excluding Trump, more than likely all heads and most top-tier employees of the spook agencies and the State Department, and (probably since Bush) half of the military brass and all of the Congressional neocons of both parties. And altho technically not part of "the state", all heads of media corporations are pretty good at spreading pro-corporate and pro-government propaganda.

It's a pretty deep swamp!

* Most people don't include politicians as part of the deep state. The usual definition for a deep stater is that they must be an UNELECTED official. But in order to get those unelected officials in place, they must be appointed by an ELECTED official, or promoted under the aegis of an appointed official, because if you go up the chain or appointments/ promotions far enough you'll eventually find a politician. That's how the bureau phonebooks gets stacked with deep-staters. (You would think that the CEO of a government agency has no effect on the lower rank employees, but au contraire! Having worked thru the tenure of four CEOs in a government-agency, I can tell you that even low-ranking staffers are highly aware who is crooked and who isn't, and which way the wind is blowing. Competent staffers resent working in crooked organizations.)


-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I've got a lot to learn. I'm not sure I'm up to the task. This Deep State stuff is beyond my comprehension.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

What I'm trying to understand is who exactly is the Deep State that these guys are so obsessed about. I want them to explain just who the players are; and what their agenda is.

---

Boy, you're not asking for much, are you? The deep state has been working overtime to stay hidden, and you want a predigested answer that lays everything out in simple terms?

Like Mafia dons who are divided geographically and by income stream (some do hookers and blow in Nevada, others run numbers and smuggling in New Jersey) the elites have varying interests: some are globalists and some are nationalists; some are industrialists while others do finances or intellectual property or commodities. The elite controls the media, which is how your behavior is determined. (You really should watch "100 Centuries of Self" and then imagine that kind of manipulation applied to the news and the internet. Just sayin'.)

The DEEP STATE are those politicians*, government employees, spooks, and generals who turn the wishes of the elite into enforced policy. Here, the winnowing has been done primarily through the consistent application of money to elections and the media, but elsewhere - if the government isn't compliant enough- more direct measures are taken, such as engineering bribes, coups, assassinations, and invasions. Because, as KIKI says, the elites don't do their own military and police .... that's too expensive. Far cheaper (for them) to get the poor sods (that's us) to pay for our own exploitation with our own tax dollars. That's quite a trick!

So, who are the Deep Staters?
Who ISN'T a Deep Stater?

By the time you get to be President or Congressperson, or have wormed your way up the military, spook, or judicial ladder, you have likely sold your soul ten times over.

So that includes all past Presidents since Johnson, (Carter was a useful idiot, Bill Clinton was a born sociopath) and excluding Trump, more than likely all heads and most top-tier employees of the spook agencies and the State Department, and (probably since Bush) half of the military brass and all of the Congressional neocons of both parties. And altho technically not part of "the state", all heads of media corporations are pretty good at spreading pro-corporate and pro-government propaganda.

It's a pretty deep swamp!

* Most people don't include politicians as part of the deep state. The usual definition for a deep stater is that they must be an UNELECTED official. But in order to get those unelected officials in place, they must be appointed by an ELECTED official, or promoted under the aegis of an appointed official, because if you go up the chain or appointments/ promotions far enough you'll eventually find a politician. That's how the bureau phonebooks gets stacked with deep-staters. (You would think that the CEO of a government agency has no effect on the lower rank employees, but au contraire! Having worked thru the tenure of four CEOs in a government-agency, I can tell you that even low-ranking staffers are highly aware who is crooked and who isn't, and which way the wind is blowing. Competent staffers resent working in crooked organizations.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I've got a lot to learn. I'm not sure I'm up to the task. This Deep State stuff is beyond my comprehension.

---

That's what people who throw that phrase around want! They don't want you to know who that is. The unknown is scarier than the known. It's for the masses, who don't have much time to read or question what they read. They (pro Trumpers) can just trot that word out like it has magical powers to deflect and explain away all the bad, terrible, unfair things that have befallen poor sad Mr. Trump. "The Deep State" is the bogey man wants to hurt him. Think of that the next time you see it or read it - is it just a nonsense word used for EFFECT? Sure, of course.

And this? What a crock. Everyone is a Deep Stater. No one is a Deep Stater. Anyone could be a Deep Stater. We should be laughing our butts off on this magic trick.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Yeah, I know, I'm asking a lot. I guess I'm trying to get a crash course in Deep State thinking. I'm still a bit curious, mainly due to something that Six said; and I'm paraphrasing - that it's all coldly calculated and that it's an inevitable outcome.

Quote:

---

The Deep State isn't needed for that, no. But they know everything that is going on. They can't lose that rigged game because, unlike Krugman, they know how the game is going to play out before it even happens. You don't need a crystal ball when you're controlling the game.

---

So basically, it's a lost cause for anyone running counter to their agenda; which, according to you guys is world domination or NWO, and there's no sense in fighting them off.

So why, if this is true, why do the Koch Brothers, the Mercers, etc. spend hundreds of millions, even a few billion, trying to affect change throughout the country....gerrymandering, backing local state Republicans and the like, having them pass voter fraud laws, etc. when all is doomed to fail because the Deep State is secretly running things. And if that were so, wouldn't they control the above gerrymandering and voter registration laws, etc. Wouldn't they also give LaPeePee the boot and replace him with a more liberal leader of the NRA?

I've got a lot to learn. I'm not sure I'm up to the task. This Deep State stuff is beyond my comprehension.

---

Quote:

---

Snowden Explains Deep State’s Influence on Presidents Obama, Trump

Famed whistleblower Edward Snowden was recently interviewed by Italian publication La Repubblic. The publication noted the 5-year mark of Snowden’s historic act of blowing the whistle on the NSA’s expansive surveillance programs and that “many thought he would end up very badly, but when he connects via videolink for this interview with la Repubblica, he seems to be doing very well: the frank smile and peaceful face of someone who is easy in his mind.”

In an excerpt from the exclusive interview, Snowden explained how the presidencies of both Obama and Trump are shaped by the Deep State following an illuminating question by journalist Stefania Maurizi.

Stefania Maurizi: We saw that President Obama, who was an outsider to the US military-intelligence complex, initially wanted to reign in the abuses of agencies like the CIA and the NSA, but in the end he did very little. Now we see a confrontation between president Trump and so-called Deep State, which includes the CIA and the NSA. Can a US president govern in opposition to such powerful entities?
truth in media

Edward Snowden: Obama is certainly an instructive case. This is a president who campaigned on a platform of ending warrantless wiretapping in the United States, he said “that’s not who we are, that’s not what we do,” and once he became the president, he expanded the program. He said he was going to close Guantanamo but he kept it open, he said he was going to limit extrajudicial killings and drone strikes that has been so routine in the Bush years. But Obama went on to authorize vastly more drone strikes than Bush. It became an industry.

As for this idea that there is a Deep State, now the Deep State is not just the intelligence agencies, it is really a way of referring to the career bureaucracy of government. These are officials who sit in powerful positions, who don’t leave when presidents do, who watch presidents come and go, they influence policy, they influence presidents and say: this is what we have always done, this is what we must do, and if you don’t do this, people will die.

It is very easy to persuade a new president who comes in, who has never had these powers, but has always wanted this job and wants very, very badly to do that job well. A bureaucrat sitting there for the last twenty years says: I understand what you said, I respect your principles, but if you do what you promised, people will die. It is very easy for a president to go: well, for now, I am going to set this controversy to the side, I’m going to take your advice, let you guys decide how these things should be done, and then I will revisit it, when I have a little more experience, maybe in a few months, maybe in a few years, but then they never do.

This is what we saw quite clearly happen in the case of Barack Obama: when this story [of Snowden exposing the NSA’s mass surveillance] came forward in 2013, when Obama had been president for five years, one of the defences for this from his aides and political allies was: oh, Obama was just about to fix this problem! And sure enough, he eventually was forced from the wave of criticism to make some limited reforms, but he did not go far enough to end all of the programs that were in violation of the law or the constitution of the United States. That too was an intentional choice: he could have certainly used the scandal to advocate for all of the changes that he had campaigned on, to deliver on all of his promises, but in those five years he had become president, he discovered something else, which is that there are benefits from having very powerful intelligence agencies, there are benefits from having these career bureaucrats on your side, using their spider web over government for your benefit.

[RELATED: Snowden Documents: NSA Worked to Track Bitcoin Users]

Imagine you are Barack Obama, and you realise – yes, when you were campaigning you were saying: spying on people without a warrant is a problem, but then you realise: you can read Angela Merkel’s text messages. Why bother calling her and asking her opinion, when you can just read her mind by breaking the law? It sounds like a joke, but it is a very seductive thing. Secrecy is perhaps the most corrupting of all government powers, because it takes public officials and divorces them from accountability to the public.

When we look at the case of Trump, who is perhaps the worst of politicians, we see the same dynamic occurring. This is a president who said the CIA is the enemy, it’s like Nazi Germany, they’re listening to his phone calls, and all of these other things, some claims which are true, some claims which are absolutely not. A few months later, he is authorizing major powers for these same agencies that he has called his enemies.

And this gets to the central crux of your question, which is: can any president oppose this? The answer is certainly. The president has to have some familiarity going in with the fact that this pitch is going to be made, that they are going to try to scare him or her into compliance. The president has to be willing to stand strongly on line and say: ‘I was elected to represent the interests of the American people, and if you’re not willing to respect the constitution and our rights, I will disband your agency, and create a new one’. I think they can definitely be forced into compliance, because these officials fear prison, just like every one of us.

---

Quote:

---

Unless the perspective itself is wrong, and then NOTHING makes sense. - SIGNY

The test being if thingz make sens. If they do, the perspectiv iz useful. = JO

---

Quote:

---

Why? What would happen if "someone else" [MOST LIKELY CHINA] took that position? Be specific.- SIGNY

I agree that China iz a bigger thret.
The leader coud deside that America iz a problem that he can fix. Or he coud see an oportunity for himself and grab it. you no - just like Putin did. - JO

---

Quote:

---

So? Don't let them "manage" you and you'll be alright.- SIGNY

Woud you mind if sum forin rich 20 y.o. punk showed up 1 day and kikt you out uv your house? 'My dad own bank dat hold you morgaj. New polisy: Pay off now or get out!' - JO

---

Quote:

---

OH, THEY TRIED! Don't you remember the "shock treatment" that was applied to Russia, which caused the GDP to drop 25% and the reduced the male lifespan by 10 years?- SIGNY

I do not. Tell us about it. - JO

---

Quote:

---

Those advocating shock therapy tended to stress that quickness was the only way to prevent entrenched factions from taking advantage of the situation. They also had a general confidence that once market forces were introduced, institutions would reform or emerge to meet the new conditions. Iwasaki and Suzuki (2014) subdivide the shock therapists into “universal radicalism” and “conditional radicalism.” The former, represented by Murphy et al. (1992), de Melo et al. (1996), and Aslund (2007a), claimed that radical shock therapy ought to be applied universally to all post-Soviet countries. The latter was represented by Klaus (1993) and others who believed that shock therapy is preferable over gradualism as long as certain conditions are met (e.g. the government has the capacity to implement reforms and its citizens are open to capitalism).

---

Quote:

---

Why does it make any difference how much Hannity made?- SIGNY

Ask 6string. He wuz the wun hoo complained about it. - JO

---

Quote:

---

Herez your cheif Deep State story teller in action- JO

He's not the chief of anything. I don't watch FOX News and never have ... The Deep State was around long before Hannity was a thing - SIX

---

Quote:

---

Yanno, JO, when you stop obsessing about RUSSIA!!! you actually make some sense. For example, how can you say that we're an oligarchy controlled by the moneyed, and at the same time say that Putin is controlling us? - SIGNY

Kuz Putin iz an oligark. He got hiz money by taking over a nation. Cant blame sumwun for taking an opportunity to be sumbudy. But you can question their methodz. Maybe it iz nesessary to be a ruthless killer to attain the pozition? - JO

---

Quote:

---

The thing to keep in mind about the super-rich iz that they see goverments az the enemy, (OK, even lots uv nonrich peepl do also) and they hav sum power to fite back. - JO

---

Quote:

---

Did you ever see Rollerball? Its about a future in wich the big corporationz
took over the world. It can happen. - JO

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Anyone who doesn't buy that there is are much more powerful people pulling the strings of the world behind the curtains has little to no imagination. That is a disability.

I'm sure there are people who only believe the Deep State is true because somebody like Hannity told them it's true. This is also a disability.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Anyone who doesn't buy that there is are much more powerful people pulling the strings of the world behind the curtains has little to no imagination. That is a disability.

I'm sure there are people who only believe the Deep State is true because somebody like Hannity told them it's true. This is also a disability.

---

The mistake, the offense, is when people use The Deep State to explain something they can't otherwise explain and don't want to be bothered with the details. It's the same kind of lie a 5 year old tells. "Um, uh, The Jimmy Next Door did it." If you're stuck on thinking that most people (especially here) DON'T already know that rich and powerful people will try and bend things to their will, and often against the will and desires of other rich and powerful people, then you are a capital D Dunce.
People might as well say "Jedi" or "Airbenders."

---

Deep state is the place were those who live in reality don't go. That's because it's where conspiracy theorists live. Deep state is akin to choosing fancy over science.


T

Quote:

---

The mistake, the offense, is when people use The Deep State to explain something they can't otherwise explain and don't want to be bothered with the details.- CC

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Anyone who doesn't buy that there is are much more powerful people pulling the strings of the world behind the curtains has little to no imagination. That is a disability.

I'm sure there are people who only believe the Deep State is true because somebody like Hannity told them it's true. This is also a disability.

---

The mistake, the offense, is when people use The Deep State to explain something they can't otherwise explain and don't want to be bothered with the details. It's the same kind of lie a 5 year old tells. "Um, uh, The Jimmy Next Door did it." If you're stuck on thinking that most people (especially here) DON'T already know that rich and powerful people will try and bend things to their will, and often against the will and desires of other rich and powerful people, then you are a capital D Dunce.
People might as well say "Jedi" or "Airbenders."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Deep state is the place were those who live in reality don't go. That's because it's where conspiracy theorists live. Deep state is akin to choosing fancy over science.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

The mistake, the offense, is when people use The Deep State to explain something they can't otherwise explain and don't want to be bothered with the details.- CC

---

The REAL shame, the REAL offense, is when people can't be bothered to even ask questions.

Here are a few:

After our experience in Afghanistan, when nation-destruction turned out to be so much easier than nation-building, why did we make the same "mistake" of destroying the nation of Iraq and creating a power vacuum?

Long after our dual "mistakes" in Afghanistan and Iraq, why did we then go on to make the same "mistake" in Libya?

And then attempt to do the same thing to Syria?

Why did successive administrations make the same "mistakes" as their predecessors?

******

Why do successive administrations promise peace and freedom, but deliver more wars and more surveillance?

******

Why have successive administrations failed to deliver truly universal, effective health care, despite a great desire of the population to have such a program, and many promises of such a program, starting with Bill and Hillary Clinton in 1992?

******

Why do successive Presidents, both Democrats and Republicans, repeatedly sign on to additional "free trade" agreements, despite clear evidence that they hollow out the middle class, cause trade imbalances, and decrease our security?

******

Are all of those Presidents really that stupid?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Anyone who doesn't buy that there is are much more powerful people pulling the strings of the world behind the curtains has little to no imagination. That is a disability.

I'm sure there are people who only believe the Deep State is true because somebody like Hannity told them it's true. This is also a disability.

---

The mistake, the offense, is when people use The Deep State to explain something they can't otherwise explain and don't want to be bothered with the details. It's the same kind of lie a 5 year old tells. "Um, uh, The Jimmy Next Door did it." If you're stuck on thinking that most people (especially here) DON'T already know that rich and powerful people will try and bend things to their will, and often against the will and desires of other rich and powerful people, then you are a capital D Dunce.
People might as well say "Jedi" or "Airbenders."

---

Quote:

---

Asking questions is easy. Answers are tough.- CC

---

Quote:

---

Most scholars get this. When they say the NRA’s influence doesn’t come from money, they mean that it doesn’t come from face-to-face bribery [of politicians]. But this overly simplistic argument, made in good faith, is dangerous. Our country desperately needs to reckon with the complex relationship between money and political power — and yet our intellectual and political leaders are telling us that money doesn’t matter in the case of guns. No wonder we can’t solve our paralysis on gun policy [or a hundred other policies]. We can’t even properly diagnose its causes. - SECOND

---

Quote:

---

Anyone who doesn't buy that there is are much more powerful people pulling the strings of the world behind the curtains has little to no imagination. That is a disability.

I'm sure there are people who only believe the Deep State is true because somebody like Hannity told them it's true. This is also a disability.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Anyone who doesn't buy that there is are much more powerful people pulling the strings of the world behind the curtains has little to no imagination. That is a disability.

I'm sure there are people who only believe the Deep State is true because somebody like Hannity told them it's true. This is also a disability.

---

The mistake, the offense, is when people use The Deep State to explain something they can't otherwise explain and don't want to be bothered with the details. It's the same kind of lie a 5 year old tells. "Um, uh, The Jimmy Next Door did it." If you're stuck on thinking that most people (especially here) DON'T already know that rich and powerful people will try and bend things to their will, and often against the will and desires of other rich and powerful people, then you are a capital D Dunce.
People might as well say "Jedi" or "Airbenders."

---

I like that better. From now on, I'm calling them Airbenders.

The Shamalanian Variety.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

It's obvious that rich people want to remain, well, you know, rich. They like their position of privilege. So they plot and plan, connive and confuse. Simple really. Money is power and power is absolute.....or is it? - SGG

---

Quote:

---

French Revolution, anyone?

---

Quote:

---

power is absolute.....or is it?

---

Quote:

---

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.[1][2][3][4] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals,[5][6] while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[7] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right, per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

It's obvious that rich people want to remain, well, you know, rich. They like their position of privilege. So they plot and plan, connive and confuse. Simple really. Money is power and power is absolute.....or is it? - SGG

---

It is, until it isn't. French Revolution, anyone?

Until the invention of the vote, power turnovers were usually bloody events that took many lives. The idea behind the vote was to create a method of peaceful change. (and the idea behind the 2nd Amendment, at least for some FF, was as a backup in case the vote failed.)

And, honestly, the rich and powerful (and their "bought and paid for" media) wouldn't be putting in so much unrelenting effort to bamboolze "the people" if it didn't make any difference!

So now we get to see whether people STAY bamboozled, or whether they identify their real enemy (and, no, it's not black v white, or women v men, or straight v LGBTQ, or Christians v hedonists, or gun owners v non gun owners) and exert their peaceful alternative. They tried Occupy, they tried TEA Party, will they finally get their shit together?


-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

---

Quote:

---

The vote, yes, I agree, it was invented to produce turnover of power without violence, to avoid what took place in France. The peaceful transition of power. But no, I don't agree that the 2d Amendment was installed as a fail safe should re: peaceful transition of power.

It was, as the revolution continued, in response to the rule of the king, a tyrant, who compelled the newly liberated people of the United States to defend themselves against his tyrannical rule. It was a type of insurance against the people being "bamboozled," as you so aptly put it.- SHINY

---

Quote:

---

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.[1][2][3][4] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals,[5][6] while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[7] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right, per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

Fanatical people see it as an absolute. It is not. Nor is it written anywhere in that most important document, that one man can take that right away. And yet, I always hear people say that any president who dares utter the words "gun control" is hell bent on taking away people's guns - an NRA deep-rooted lie - and they see "black helicopters" approaching in the horizon. - SHINY

---

Quote:

---

The rich want what they want....Power. They wish to manipulate and control, and are not afraid to "rig" the system to suit their desires, wants and presumed needs. We, the people, lest we forget, have the power to take control if we stop bitching and moaning at each other. Until that happens, we will forever be at their mercy. You're right, this is US vs. Them - not black and white, etc. We must first agree upon that reality, instead of nitpicking and finding blame where "they" point. Until that day, we must use the vote to put into place those who will look to advance the country as a whole, and not those few privileged so-called elites.- SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
FEC probing Nunes for possible campaign violations

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fec-probing-nunes-for-possible
-campaign-violations/ar-BBKxmeH?ocid=spartanntp


T

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Wow, SHINY, I'm kinda shocked my own self. We ... actually ... agree on something??

Quote:

---

The vote, yes, I agree, it was invented to produce turnover of power without violence, to avoid what took place in France. The peaceful transition of power. But no, I don't agree that the 2d Amendment was installed as a fail safe should re: peaceful transition of power.

It was, as the revolution continued, in response to the rule of the king, a tyrant, who compelled the newly liberated people of the United States to defend themselves against his tyrannical rule. It was a type of insurance against the people being "bamboozled," as you so aptly put it.- SHINY

---

In response to the POTENTIAL rise of a tyrant is how I would put it. Some of the FF were desperately worried about the rise of another king in the USA. I'll see if I can find some of those FF quotes which point in that direction.

As an aside: One of the things that the Constitution and its Amendments make clear is that it represents a COMPROMISE, cobbled together (at times) by using wording that might mean different things to different factions. For example, I was always puzzled by the "pursuit of happiness" phrase, it seems particularly meaningless, until I learned that the original wording was "ownership of property" and that Jefferson, in particular, fought against that "property" phrase. Hence, the substitution.

Quote:

---

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.[1][2][3][4] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals,[5][6] while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[7] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right, per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

Fanatical people see it as an absolute. It is not. Nor is it written anywhere in that most important document, that one man can take that right away. And yet, I always hear people say that any president who dares utter the words "gun control" is hell bent on taking away people's guns - an NRA deep-rooted lie - and they see "black helicopters" approaching in the horizon. - SHINY

---

I agree. even "freedom of speech" isn't unlimited: You can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, you can't defame others.

The 2nd Amendment, looks to me like another one of those compromises, between those FF who were worried about future kingship/tyranny in the United States, and those FF who were more worried about (yet another) revolt. It's no wonder people have been arguing about the level of state control over gun ownership ever since: It was deliberately vague.

Quote:

---

The rich want what they want....Power. They wish to manipulate and control, and are not afraid to "rig" the system to suit their desires, wants and presumed needs. We, the people, lest we forget, have the power to take control if we stop bitching and moaning at each other. Until that happens, we will forever be at their mercy. You're right, this is US vs. Them - not black and white, etc. We must first agree upon that reality, instead of nitpicking and finding blame where "they" point. Until that day, we must use the vote to put into place those who will look to advance the country as a whole, and not those few privileged so-called elites.- SGG

---

Amen, bother!

Now, to add one more thing: The elites not only control our political system, they also control the security state, the media, and the banks. That gives them quite a few extremely effective levers on society, not only here but worldwide.

As controllers of the banks, the wealthy can inflate or implode the economy at will by manipulating the financial system. But - as always- there are different factions among them. There is one identifiable faction that has been operating in the past four-and-a-half decades, and that is the petrodollar faction: Those determined to maintain the USA dollar as the world petro and reserve currency by whatever means necessary (including the military).

But I have to postulate, given that the USA has egregiously abused reserve currency status and indebted the dollar with unpayable debt, that there are internationalists who see the handwriting on the wall and are looking for an alternative. I know that people like Christine LaGarde/IMF are actively looking for an alternative/ flirting with China; alt media people are openly speculating about a "reset" to the world currency system .. the IMF is considering an IMF "Special Drawing Rights" for international trade, others are pushing national commodity-based cryptos).

There are also those who make money from war.

And of course the media (which they control) will tell you whichever narrative you need to hear in order to keep you in line. Of all of those levers, in a democracy controlling the narrative is the most important.

So when interpreting world events, you have to make sure that you're not just being fed a narrative that's convenient for the elite. People have been fed outrageous lies in the past (and believed them), there's no reason that's not happening now, and won't happen in the future.

And you also have to ask yourself cui bono? [WHO BENEFITS?] - remembering that there are many active factions amongst the elite, and now that the system is tapped out, the struggle among them is intensified.

OK, I'll shut up now.


-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

---

Quote:

---

To sum up, the Deep State = TPTB. This has been going on for centuries and is nothing new. Spain, The Dutch, Italy (Roman Empire), Brtish Empire, etc. have been playing this game for thousands of years, only the players have changed. - SHINY

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
What sig calls deep state and rails against is known to the rest of us as the establishment. Sigs solution is to tear it down. Putin's solution is also to tear it down.

It's easy to find fault with a semi-functional world. The way forward is the rule of law. Look back and you'll see we are moving in that direction. Sigs a fool...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
What sig calls deep state and rails against is known to the rest of us as the establishment. Sigs solution is to tear it down. Putin's solution is also to tear it down.

It's easy to find fault with a semi-functional world. The way forward is the rule of law. Look back and you'll see we are moving in that direction. Sigs a fool...

---

I always knew you were a deep-state, anti-democracy suckup, THUGR. You would have been backing King George and the East India Crown Corp in 1775. It's a good thing you and your kind got your asses whupped back then.

---

Shut up stupid. As Gandalf would say. I'm not here to banter with a witless worm like you comrade. What you claim makes no sense when compared to what I post. No surprise, you do that to everyone.


T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
What sig calls deep state and rails against is known to the rest of us as the establishment. Sigs solution is to tear it down. Putin's solution is also to tear it down.

It's easy to find fault with a semi-functional world. The way forward is the rule of law. Look back and you'll see we are moving in that direction. Sigs a fool... - THUGR

I always knew you were a deep-state, anti-democracy suckup, THUGR. You would have been backing King George and the East India Crown Corp in 1775. It's a good thing you and your kind got your asses whupped back then.
- SIGNY


Shut up stupid. As Gandalf would say. I'm not here to banter with a witless worm like you comrade. - THUGR

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
What sig calls deep state and rails against is known to the rest of us as the establishment. Sigs solution is to tear it down. Putin's solution is also to tear it down.

It's easy to find fault with a semi-functional world. The way forward is the rule of law. Look back and you'll see we are moving in that direction. Sigs a fool... - THUGR

I always knew you were a deep-state, anti-democracy suckup, THUGR. You would have been backing King George and the East India Crown Corp in 1775. It's a good thing you and your kind got your asses whupped back then.
- SIGNY


Shut up stupid. As Gandalf would say. I'm not here to banter with a witless worm like you comrade. - THUGR

---

Then, why are you?

I'm arguing for bringing control of government back to the people. What are YOU arguing for? The wealthy having more and more control? It's easy to see which side you're on: Heil Hitler!

---

If that were true your guns would be pointed at Russia and Trump. Not America and our democratic institutions. And you would not be defending raciest and white supremacists like Putin and Trump.

No, those two things alone show who the Nationalist Socialist Party or fascist totalitarian dictatorship representative is here. You comrade troll, you.

Hey, I'm still awaiting a cease and desist order from your and kiki's lawyer. Lets get to it shall we you fucking Russian troll losers.

T

Quote:

---

If that were true your guns would be pointed at Russia and Trump. Not America and our democratic institutions. [emphasis added] And you would not be defending raciest and white supremacists like Putin and Trump.

---

Quote:

---

I always knew you were a deep-state, anti-democracy suckup, THUGR. You would have been backing King George and the East India Crown Corp in 1775. It's a good thing you and your kind got your asses whupped back then.

---

Quote:

---

So, I choose the nationalist/ isolationist faction of the deep state over the globalist/interventionist one.

---

Quote:

---

At least the nationalist faction localizes laws and judicial rulings to the United Stated court system -over which we have SOME control - instead of to some faraway private hearing room in Singapore where "they" get to decide what happens to our regulations according to some "free trade" agreement, where the USA Constitution is entirely meaningless and in which we have no hope of representation ever.

---

Quote:

---

Not all "deep state" factions are equally poisonous. I would be working extra-hard to remove the tentacles of globalist control from the USA government, and that includes the banks'

---

Quote:

---

So, I choose the nationalist/ isolationist faction of the deep state over the globalist/interventionist one.- SIGNY

Wait, what!? I've read here in RWED you rail against the Deep State, yet you now profess that if it's kept local, you're fine with it. - SHINY

---

Quote:

---

At least the nationalist faction localizes laws and judicial rulings to the United Stated court system -over which we have SOME control - instead of to some faraway private hearing room in Singapore where "they" get to decide what happens to our regulations according to some "free trade" agreement, where the USA Constitution is entirely meaningless and in which we have no hope of representation ever.- SIGNY

By the way, you really believe you can control the Deep State here in the US? You claim that, even though you don't even know who they are? How can that be?

---

Quote:

---

And you're really conflating the issue of international trade vs. our domestic laws and regs? You really think that Singapore can influence our domestic laws? No, I don't think so.- SHINY

---

Quote:

---

Not all "deep state" factions are equally poisonous. I would be working extra-hard to remove the tentacles of globalist control from the USA government, and that includes the banks'- SIGNY

Work hard all you want dearie, but I'm afraid that you're too late in regards to the banks. That ship has sailed! - SHINY

---

Quote:

---

So, domestic Deep State, good, but international Deep State, bad. Got it!
So you're good with the Deep State manipulating the vote, gun control efforts, banks, wages, health insurance, etc., etc., etc! (sorry, i was watching the King and I recently) and other assorted sundries. My, my I really thought you had it in for the Deep State. I stand corrected.- SHINY

---

Quote:

---

SGG, a part of what sig tries to promote to achieve her agenda, the destruction of democratic institutions here and abroad, is anarchy. Her posts consistently promote a rebellion against any authority, established order, or ruling power in an otherwise free or global society.

Sig is desperately trying to undermine the building of a fully integrated global entity. Or, any society observing a rule of law that helps to build one. To promote her agenda she is a purveyor of conspiracy theories. Using any lies or disinformation she can to usurp the facts regarding globalization and democratic institutions. Remember her insistence America vote against The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)?

Sig deceptively argues for the transfer of power to a lower level, especially from central government to local or regional administrations. When it comes to trade or dealing with unruly governments i.e. Russia, that leads to protectionism and inaction. That's anti globalization and what the anarchist is all about.

As she does this she labels others as being the very thing she is. She is a troll. She has always been one, or she has evolved into one. Either way she is nothing more than a troll that would see America devolve or retreat from the global stage entirely if she could.

Fuck you comrade sig

---