Is this for real? Please, tell me it ain't... by chrisisall

No, this is a new member. This post is tame compared to his others on the 'Reaver" thread. Just knowledgeable enough for me to read, but if what he says about Bush and co. is true, then Bush is the ACTUAL anti-Christ.
Me, I just think Bush is a idiot, and I leave it at that.

Chrisisall, apparently not as much a Conspiracy Theorist as some....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 24, 2005 8:22 AM

CITIZEN

I prescrib lots and lots of pills. Red ones, blue ones, it don't matter.

Just make them Tranquillisers.

I hear Ketamine is good, works on Horses anyway.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 24, 2005 8:31 AM

LOL!
Piratenews is like an anti-matter LynchAJ on crack!

Andrew, are you reading this?
*chuckle*

Bad Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 24, 2005 9:30 AM

RUXTON

Chris:

Look up MK Ultra. Here's one link:
" http://www.michael-robinett.com/declass/c000.htm"

Read some of it and quake.

It goes back way before the current admin. But is quite real.

BTW, the Woodpecker Grid is something else (at least). It is Russian-originated EMF signals that cross, creating a continuous radio (and other) intereference that any ham radio operator can tell you about. So can Tom Bearden, cheniere.org

Stay well....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 24, 2005 9:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
Read some of it and quake.

It goes back way before the current admin. But is quite real.

Holy crap! Then this guy IS on the level (in some ways, at least)!

Project Manticore, for real!

BTW, Ruxton, GREAT to see your post, been missing you around here!

Chrisisall, somewhat more so unsettled

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 24, 2005 9:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:

Please tell me you can discern between my postings and this stuff.

You both take facts and stretch them to a great degree to make points, but you, Andrew, do it with style and grace.
And no crack.

Piratenews makes me dizzy....

Chrisisalldiscombobulated

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 24, 2005 5:05 PM

You know, I keep thinking the reason more people don't get on these boards and make Firefly a true internet phenom that helps revive the series is that people insist on talking about, and then pissing off, the other half of the political spectrum that loves Firefly. If there is one thing I am certain, it's that fans of Firefly inhabit every nook and cranny of the political spectrum (except for neo-Dadaists...it's a long story).

Here's a thought- no matter who you are and how clever you think you're being in relating your particular politics to Firefly, someone smarter, more sophisticated and vastly more knowledgable than your hipster self is reading you right now and rolling his eyes at your pedestrian efforts at sneaking in mini-screeds complete with link-whoring (excuse me, "link companioning") to sites clearly run by hobos, tye-dyed 60 year old balding hippy graduate students and people known by law enforcement euphemistically as "Montana mountain men"*. I am singling noone out but making a general observation applied to everyone. Even the polite ones.

Please, if you feel the need to discuss politics, keep it general and speculatively based about the Firefly 'verse. Do not relate it to your politics. I feel pretty sure that, as fascinating as my politics are, you could not care less about them... and I am completely certain that I could not care less about yours.

*- As for the length of that sentence, I have no excuse. If my writing gets any worse, I will soon be forced at gunpoint into ghostwriting for Garrison Keeler.

"Generalizations, indeed, all have their limits- even this one. Apply them often enough, and you will come inevitably upon some disconcerting exception...But because philosophy is long and life is short we must assume, even when we can't entirely believe, that things fall into groups and classes, else we could never hope to study them at all" -HL Mencken

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 24, 2005 7:03 PM

GELASSENHEIT

Truthfully, was that politics? Or something else?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 24, 2005 8:52 PM

You: "Truthfully, was that politics? Or something else?"

Him: "As Governor of Texas, George W Bush notched 152 - count -em! - confirmed kills. A personal best, until 9/11"

Silly me, I thought that was political. My mistake. Now that I re-read it, it's clearly just a general discussion of orchid horticulture in Northeast Umbria.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 24, 2005 11:49 PM

HKCAVALIER

Hey BB, ain't you a little new here to be explaining forum norms to Chrisisall? The Real World Event Discussion is set appart from the rest of the forum precisely to distance it from specific discussion of Firefly. As you've noticed, Firefly fans comprise the full spectrum of political belief. And we're nothing if not oppinionated.

So Haken set up this little playground for the more politically outspoken among us to play in. I've seen some of the most respectful and well-informed political debate on the internet in the RWED; most recently Dreamtrove has contributed some very interesting information to this forum and his informal debate last week with Andrew Lynch was impressive (I've also seen a lot of typical internet noise, but that doesn't negate what I've learned from the discussions here). Lately, a whole lot of people who formerly backed W. have been coming up with personal exit strategies and the debate here has suffered.

Besides, W. did kill a ton of people in Texas. Isn't it even a little disturbing that he pardoned Henry Lucas, of all people? Bush supporters love to cry bias when something like this happens, but who wouldn't be criticized for something like that? Sometimes wrong is just wrong, no matter who's in office.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 25, 2005 7:43 AM

GORANDEN

You may be able to weaken the alliance by bringing up some evidence to prove that they are corrupt, but you won't stop them.

Alliance can be defined as any governing body.

So what does all this really matter. I'll just keep flying under the radar. Heck, we only live a few years anyway. Truth is, corruption has been going on since the creation of man. Doesn't change a thing does it? The world is a horrible place and it will be a horrible place for years to come. So conspiracy theories aside, just deal with it.

I'm just here for the blinkies.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 25, 2005 9:17 AM

CITIZEN

BITTERBIERCE:
Actually I've grown alot of respect for many of the members of these forums that i've disagreed with, Finn, Hero, even AJ.

I can only hope they have for me too.

I have to say that a lot of people on this site steer clear of the RWED. Those of us that are here WANT to be here discussing these matters with intelligent people we can respect (they must be intelligent and worthy of respect, they like firefly).
Basically, you don't want to talk about this kinda stuff, no problem, just steer clear of the RWED, like everyone else who doesn't want to talk about it does

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 25, 2005 5:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
As you've noticed, Firefly fans comprise the full spectrum of political belief. And we're nothing if not oppinionated.

And lynchaj:
This is one of those rare moments where I have to agree with HK
I think Haken wisely set up this RWED sandbox to allow the various FF fans to discuss and vent without the collateral destruction of the main forums.

And Citizen:
Actually I've grown alot of respect for many of the members of these forums that i've disagreed with, Finn, Hero, even AJ.

I must agree with all of you. We need every intellegent point of view available to come closer to truth. Even the 'wacky' fringe ones.

We need a group Browncoat hug

Chrisisall, sometimes left, sometimes right, but tryin' to stay off the edge...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 25, 2005 7:30 PM

Two things. One, I'm not explaining any forum rules, I'm asking politely 'can we not cause friction with our politics?' I argue and write politics for a living and I love it, but it's a full contact sport. And as such has its place. For people like those here, it can only detract from should be a comradely enterprise.

And I don't care who or what Bush did. If the man had said the same thing aboutr Kerry, I would have said the same thing back, this is NOT because I disagree or agree with any particular political position expressed: if you're taking it to mean I don't like YOUR politics, you're taking it wrong. I mean all politics. My position on Bush is frankly none of your business.

And you have a good quote (I think was, I can't tell if you wrote it or were paraphrasing Buckaroo Banzai) that fits quite well: "Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are."

Very easy to avoid meanness. Don't talk politics! It's adversarial by it's very nature, and thus naturally conducive to meanness. Opinionated people do better staying opinionated about things that don't lend themselves to violent disagreement. So Let's not do it, huh? Besides, wouldn't you much rather discuss the virtues or Jewell's butt versus Summer's? I sure do. I mean, it's clear Summer has a much better tush.

"We live in a land of abounding quackeries, and if we do not learn how to laugh we succumb to the melancholy disease which afflicts the race of viewers-with-alarm...In no other country known to me is life as safe and agreeable, taking one day with another, as it is in These States. Even in a great Depression few if any starve, and even in a great war the number who suffer by it is vastly surpassed by the number who fatten on it and enjoy it. Thus my view of my country is predominantly tolerant and amiable. I do not believe in democracy, but I am perfectly willing to admit that it provides the only really amusing form of government ever endured by mankind" -HL Mencken

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 25, 2005 7:37 PM

"I have to say that a lot of people on this site steer clear of the RWED. Those of us that are here WANT to be here discussing these matters with intelligent people we can respect (they must be intelligent and worthy of respect, they like firefly)."

I understand. You seem to have a reasonable approach to the matter and I appreciate your approach. But I still rather appreciate my position more. I mean remember, in Firely, the political discussion between Mal and Simon was punctuated by Mal popping Simon in the jaw.

"If you point out that human progress, as I have defined it, involves the practical enslavement of two-thirds of the human race, my answer is that I can't help it. If you point out that a slave always runs the risk of being oppressed by a particularly cruel master, I answer that a master always runs the risk of having his brains knocked out by a particularly enterprising slave"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 25, 2005 8:51 PM

Okay, here is me, back, with the I disagree with what you say but defend to the death your right to say it.

So, once more, for the record:

1. RWED [IS] a political discussion forum.
2. Even if it wasn't, the post is totally valid. If there's a chance that firefly is about Bush, than it's valid.
3. Firefly is at least to some extent about Bush.
4. I'm a conservative and I've said much worse things than that about Bush.
5. Bush deserves it. Kerry might have if he had been president and done those things, certainly Clinton deserves it. It's all totally fair.

Now about the post itself

I think it's flawed.
Bush is a crackhead cokehead alcoholic jesusfreak serial killer chimpanzee.
I grant that.
But he also isn't really in power.
Taking the scull and bonesman thing out of context makes it look much worse than it is. S&B is really more of a left wing conspiracy to control the media and education born out drug money. The fact that Bushes are mixed up in it only strengthens my Bush is a stealth leftie plug.
And to those of you on the other side of the aisle, hey, if Bush were you're candidate wouldn't you try to disown him? :)

But sure. Bush is a sicko, and he definitely gets off on death. But the S&B death initiation is really about making the pawns (S&B members) feell small. Torture is about making the Iraqis feel small. Bush kills people to make himself feel big.

So it's all the same I guess, but it's different also. In S&B they're really being kind of philosophical about it, ie. we're all dust so we have to be part of something greater, okay, now serve the cause.

But Bush's power in the govt. is less than zero.

So, back to Dick Cheney, who is the real CIC. Cheney and Rummy go way back to Ford if I recall. They are tied to all these PNAC people and this doesn't really have much to do with S&B and has more to with the social dems and troskyism in the 60s-70s, max schachtman and all of that.

Any similarities between Bush's admin and his own life are probably coincidence since he makes zero executive decisions.

Plus, we all know that reavers aren't the product of their experience, they're the product of chemistry. If it weren't so Joss would lose some respect from me. Just a little because I mean, he'd still be Joss, but he seems to understand loonies so very well, and situation lunacy is just, well, a myth.

Bush himself is a drug-based psychopath. But a powerless psychopath.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 26, 2005 1:45 PM

Lynch,

I get your latest spin to get your crooks out of any scrape, but I've had a bad day and really can't take this anymore.

You can't make a joke out of "Don't mention PNAC!" because PNAC is the f^&king govt. of the f^&king united states of america, the most powerful nation on earth.

If you try to cover up this undeniable reality that dick cheney and co are actually the ones in control in this country, you're like chiang kai shek claiming to rule all of china.

Here was my point, and I'll say it stronger now that I've been ridiculed and also had a really bad day:

Bush is NOT in charge. The idea that Bush is in charge is spin. It's worse than spin. It's a blatant lie.

Because of this, character references for Bush are really pretty irrelevant when it comes to assessing his motives, actions, etc.

Who is in charge is vice president cheney and the rest of the govt. What most all of these people have in common in some connection or direct membership in the very group, lately called PNAC, which set the agenda the administration is following.

So mentioning PNAC in a thread about American politics is like mentioning the Kremlin in a discussion of the cold war, or mentioning Al Qaeda in connection with sept. 11th.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 26, 2005 2:57 PM

GUNRUNNER

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
The military, government and large corporations prove that intelligence is not mandatory for employment or promotion, since jobs are compartmentalized. Heck, even alcoholic doper GW Bush flew a jet fighter, somehow without killing himself, but then was stripped of his pilot license for refusing a direct order to take a piss test (a felony).

Ahemmmm he flew Interceptor Aircraft not a jet fighter, F-102 'Delta Daggers'. All his job was to point his jet in the direction of commie bombers and pop off a couple of nuclear tipped AIM-4 Falcons, landing of course was optional since there probably wouldn't have been a airbase to come back to. Being drunk and on dope was probably the only way they could get people to fly those damn things.

EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 26, 2005 6:11 PM

"So, once more, for the record:

"1. RWED [IS] a political discussion forum."

"2. Even if it wasn't, the post is totally valid. If there's a chance that firefly is about Bush, than it's valid."

Ok then fine. But please, no sniveling and whining about how mean I am when we talk about politics later on. And none of that Puritanical nonsense about how we can all be nice and happy and without conflict in politics: that's complete bullshit and more fanciful than Star Trek transporters.

The more viciously and mercilessly politics is discussed, the better it is. Everyone going back to Plato knows this. Politeness belongs in the real world, never politics. Remember- you asked.

'Whom do I hate most among the rabble of today? The socialist rabble, the chandala apostles, who undermine the instinct, the pleasure, the worker's sense of satisfaction with his small existence—who make him envious, who teach him revenge. The source of wrong is never unequal rights but the claim of “equal” rights' —Nietzsche, the Nachlass

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 26, 2005 6:29 PM

GUNRUNNER

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Have any of you actually MET any USAF pilots? Let me assure you, they are not a bunch of low IQ dope heads. Quite the opposite.

You are showing your ignorance if you actually believe any of that MSM junk about the President's National Guard service. USAF (including Air Guard) pilots have a pretty exclusive club for good reason.

Access to the controls any USAF aircraft means flight qualified and a security clearance. Access to nuclear weapons means even stricter background checks and restrictions.

What you are describing is an inherent self-contradiction.

Andrew Lynch

Back when Bush Jr. was flying people who were serving on nuclear (powered and armed) submarines were there because of an illiteracy program let them in to the military and put them there! I know people who have real frikken life security clearance from the US military and I wonder if the Pentagon misplaced their phyc evals. Back in the ’81 15 percent of the crew of the USS Parche was kicked out for drug use. On Seawolf (SSN 575) you were either a heavily armed nut job, a pothead or scared of the other two. Just because the USAF put them in the cockpit of some shiny pointy nose fighter that doesn’t mean they were fresh out of “The Right Stuff”.

BTW I wasn't trying to infer that USAF pilots are dope heads just that they get lost with out roads to follow or GCI to guide them.

EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 26, 2005 7:08 PM

Lynch,

Sorry,

The uninvited roomie has put my mood severely on edge. I kind of felt that it was an underserved flame when I wrote it. I kind of meant it about the slight though. Ridiculing conspiracy theories does serve the conspirators most. True, conspiracy theories are 99% bogus at least, but on the other hand, conspirators do weave conspiracy theories. But still, I know conspiracies exist on the left, on the right and over in islamolooneyland. So I'd like them all under watch. But PNAC=govt. isn't conspiracy. The names of many people in the govt. like I lewis libby, paul wolfowitz, dick cheney, et al. are on the PNAC home page as founding members. But I didn't mean to lash out at you the tone was uncalled for, I was just having a serious, well, it's a mess really.

Here's something to chew on re: conspiracy theories though.

This isn't so complicated, I know someone who was in the GOP hierarchy when they created RTL. I happen to agree with RTL, but that's not the point. A group within the GOP created RTL to get votes for the GOP, but they did it stealthily:

First they came up with the ideological position, and created small groups to support it. Then they spoke with many religious groups, who already supported the idea, about sermons that they might be able to voice RTL, then they ran candidates who would say key RTL phrases that would get into office.

In short, this is a conspiracy of our party to get other people in the party elected vs. democrats who would not know to say these RTL things. Clever, and also conspiratorial. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Let's say you and I and these people on the FFF decide we're going to make an alliance to take over both parties, the GOP and the dems, and then we arrange to enter TV writing careers to brainwash people into voting a certain way.

Similar to the RTL sermons, our TV episodes get the TV viewers thinking and caring about key issues we conspire to feed in through the episodes we write. Then later we could support candidates who would speak the key phrases we had taught the public that other politicians didn't know the significance of.

We as writers in the real world would have no obvious connection, people would have to know that we were all involved in this FFF forum conspiracy. Now someone would find us out eventually and print the FFF conspiracy.

We would move quickly to kill this FFF conspiracy. We would know that to kill it, we would have to discredit it. If we deny it, it only makes the conspiracy stronger. So we pick up the story, only we make a slight modification to it.

We say:

A bunch of candidates who work for the FFF ring now, and will give their member's companies lucrative contracts or fulfill some of their political agenda items were elected because the spoke key phrases in that came from TV shows the rest of us thought weren't important. Those shows were all written by members of a ring of people called FFF. FFF in turn is a group of space aliens which also started the masons and landed in south america to carve peculiar runes in the side of temples that forcast the coming of jesus. You can see the similarity in episode 19 of Fox's sunday night drama 'Snowstorm' and the story told by anceint hieroglyphs found in king tut's tomb... etc.

This is a good part of why conspiracy theories are bogus. They were made by conspirators, and by crazy people that conspirators really wanted to give some voice to.

So in part I was wigging becuase I was in a bad mood after a real unpleasant fight with an uninvited houseguest gone sour, and in part I was wigging because I'm serious about the ridicule being a dangerous thing. PNAC is our govt. whether we like it or not, and as soon as we can get past that, we can debate the positions they take. Even the idea of Bush really detracts because Bush has never written a singular policy in his life to the best of my knowledge. Hell, to the best of my knowledge the man cannot read or write at anything above an 8th grade level. So Bush is a non-issue, which was kind of the point I was trying to make before.

Cheney has an agenda. PNAC has an agenda. The christian right has an agenda. If Bush has an agenda it's to order a cheeseburger. Past that I think he really doesn't have an agenda.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 26, 2005 7:19 PM

Re: USAF Pilots

Lynch,

You have a point here.

I think GunRunner was on the this was a suicide mission nuclear war slant, but I don't know that this was the purpose. I mean, taking Project X for a moment. Sure, the USAF was really doing this stuff, so it was an idea that maybe we'd be dealing with disposable pilots. But I don't think that in reality we were ever at that point.

Bush was the worst student that his instructors had ever seen. And they had seen monkeys. But seriously. The only reason Bush stayed in the program was daddy's pull. He was fried all of the time. If instead of spinning if you would tell us why you support the people you do, I would be interested to know. I know what these people stand for, and I disagree with it. Not maybe as much as I disagree with what the democratic party stands for, but enough to get me to vote against it.

So I'm figuring either:

1. You're part of the christian right
2. You're pro-global social revolution
3. You work for one of the companies or groups that would profit from this new power structure.

just curious. I think everyone knows where I come from, I'm a pretty simple guy: no death to earth, no death to people, no death to freedom, yay competition and evolution so yay capitalism, nay communism, go gop. It's likt to hear your take on where you're coming from, if you care to share.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 27, 2005 4:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Anything you see from me in this forum is purely my personal opinion at that moment and subject to change.

*applauds*
Progress! Flexability!
More kudos, Andrew.

I'm even willing to state now that most people in government are not (intentionally) bad persons, and have the best in mind for this country, and all it's people!
*winces*

...wasn't..uhhh...easy to say....
...feel...weak......

Chrisis.....all....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 28, 2005 9:05 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
On Seawolf (SSN 575) you were either a heavily armed nut job, a pothead or scared of the other two.

Not to mention terrified of that flaky reactor, or the ungodly racket that heap made (for a sub, it was really, really loud) - which would be quite enough to make ME fry a phattie, considering what most of their missions involved.

One other interesting factoid about Seawolf.
Her original engineering officer was James Earl Carter, later to become a US President.

That boat has a lot of history behind it.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2005 3:04 PM

Lynch,

Yes, it helps a lot. Now I have to say huh? Why do you like bush? He has no concept of defense at all. Why'd you like clinton for that matter. Myself I hated both. I think they're way to close to state-control in their agenda.

I second that on the UN, but it will. The global social agenda is more focused though on the EU, nafta, asean, african alliance, and undoubtedly thry'll create another one if they can conquer the middle east.

I haven't been happy with an administration with the possible exceptions of Bush. sr., and carter. Reagan wasn't terrible, but he irked me with his deficit spending. Nothing compared to this though.

I think if you're on the level here, you might be being more loyal than this admin deserves. I think it's thoroughly corrupt on a level we haven't seen since at least johnson. maybe earlier. He's very very corrupt. like 19th century style. Anyway, that's not an accusation, and I'm not going to argue the point, it just seems obvious to me, as a summation of countless obsevervations of his foibles.

But from a conservative point of view, I don't think that the office is sacred at all, and if someone can get out today and be replaced with someone else, I'd say, if it's an upgrade, go for it. You know that the people election the GOP, along with electing bush, so even if bush folds, the gop stays in power. If someone can force out Cheney, which maybe they will in '06, then I say yay, and without cheney, maybe bush can stay, since he's a chimpanzee and won't be able to do jack on his own. McCain, Powell, Warner, Hagel, just to name a few, I think I could probably come up with easily 20 republicans I'd like to see take over.

But the main thing that gets me is I have a set of ideas which are consistant with j.q.adams, lincolkn, tr, coolidge, eisenhower, nixon, ford and to some extent reagan and bush sr. so if something doesn't mesh with that, i don't have to accept it, and I might question whether it's a solidly republican position.

There's certain things the Bush admin has done that really tick me off, and okay, if I have a quesiton, it's what is your (not their) justification for these:

1. Deficit Spending. It's way way ... it's just too much. I don't like any deficit spending. I'm real unhappy about this

2. Torture. WTF? When we set that defense policy saying it was okay to use physical coersion in interrogation, the president was in violation of a law banning such practices that was written by jesse helms, who is pretty damned conservative.

3. Pre-emptive war. This is a pre-emptive war whose justification keeps changing, but lately it's been a social militarism thing, we need to save these people from themselves. That's bad and very democrat, but originally it was pre-emptive war which is downright nazi. This not about saddam hussein, there are a billion ways to get rid of saddam if you want to, and for the most part, why bother, there are much worse leaders. Al Bashir of Sudan for example. Robert Mugabe and Thabo Mbeki rank pretty high as well, and I'm none too fond of Kim Jong Il. Saddam is why iraq, but it doesn't explain why pre-emptive war.

4. The Patriot Act. What an abomination. How can anyone say they have libertarian views and not be appalled?

5. Go it alone. The idea of diplomacy is that you get people on your side. You don't just flip the bird to the planet.

6. Business. Republicans are supposed to be pro-business, but all I see are a sinking dollar a dead market and GM and Ford are about to file for bankrupcy because someone pulled a program that supported fuel efficiency and pushed companies to make SUVs.

7. Stem Cell Research. I'm right to life too, but I can't see outlawing a cutting edge American technology and letting the South Koreans gain the lead on us. This isn't moral values, it's blind stupidity.

8. Endless deception. I've never seen someone lie this much. Ever. Even Clinton didn't lie this much. They make fake news, the reherse the president's impromptu meetings and they have a wirefeed in bush's ear because he can't think for himself.

The question here is not why the GOP, to me and anyone else on the right here the reasons are obvious.

The question is why Bush and co, vs. any other random republicans. It just doesn't seem logical.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2005 4:26 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

DT, your list is truly impressive. And I even agree with it. How did THAT happen?

But if you want to talk about conspiracy theories, I got a doozy for y'all. Looking at the Cheney admin, I've got to say it's been a truly impressive power grab. I'm not going to go into lengthy detail about manipulated elections and how loyal public servants (like McCain, Murtha, and Cleland) have been pilloried in the press. But I would say that what's happened to the USA could almost be compared to a soft coup.

All this is to say that there is one fatal flaw to Cheney/PNAC grabbing ulitmate power, and that is the military and the CIA are at this point pretty fed up with the Administration. Half the of senior CIA staff and a large number of generals have retired or been forced out. And... oh crap, I have to finish this later, too.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2005 7:10 PM

I get why McCain is playing best buddy to Bush, it's like a "Who's you daddy?" to the commander in chimp, in hopes that if Cheney can be forced to resign by the Powell conspiracy, McCain can be crowned Wormtongue, but it still makes me a little nervous. I prefered the no Bu||$#!+ version of McCain.

Yeah, there's a coup-like character to this, but I think that this one is a Chicken Coup. It might even be Chicken Coup for the Soulless.

Well, I guess they got sig :(

There's just one problem with the PNAC hawk in the chicken coup: socialism doesn't work because there's no competition, and without competition and dissent, a workable plan cannot be formulated because it doesn't ever get checked for weaknesses. The result is an untested plan, and whether you're a commie military superpower invading afghanistan, or a neocon superpower invading afghanistan and Iraq, you need a workable plan.

Anyway, yeah, I think, I hope, the old GOP, will kick out the hawk from the chicken coup, and maybe some of the other young players Norm Coleman et al can be reformed into decent conservatives.

There's another problem. These chicken coup guys are incompetent. It's like in the land of the chimps a half brained man is king.

I saw cindy sheehan the other night. She came here to speak. I disagreed with some of what she said, but not all of it. I think she's really pretty sharp. She's not a partisan democrat. I was a little surprised by that. She slammed my senator, Hillary Rotten Clinton. She even slammed DiFi. ANd of course she slammed Bush. But she's definitely the peace/left, So it gave me hope. Hope that there is a left which will rise up and take back the democratic party from the same neocon whore-hawks that we on the right have to take back the GOP from.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 2, 2005 6:40 AM

FREMDFIRMA

I can't stand either party, but you know what ?

The guy that I would most wanna install at 1600 W Penn is a Republican, for all that I totally despise what the party has become...

Ron Paul epitomizes what it SHOULD be.

Sound money, conservative spending, no frills, hands-off, common freakin sense.

Put THAT guy on that ballot, if you wanna redeem the party.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 2, 2005 11:43 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

They're not whore-hawks, they're just whores. I'm sorry, that's an insult to whores. I'm just as fed up the Democratic party as you are with the GOP. There are very few people with an eye on reality or on the good of the nation. While we may disagree on many things, I find a surprising amount of overlap.

--------------

And now, come join me in my conspiracy corner...

(heh heh heh)

How far is the procorporate/ neocon reach?

Well... they appear to have had near complete control over the Congress for the past several years. Congress cut taxes, absolved corporations from honoring their pension plans but made personal bankruptcy more difficult, passed the Patriot Act, passed Medicare drug coverage which will not save consumers money but will send billions of Federal dollars towards the pharmas, restricted the ability of individuals to sue corporations, gutted environmental laws, awarded billions of dollars of no-bid contracts to Halliburton and other Pentagon contractors, and- of course- authorized the invasion of Iraq. That's quite a record.

The there is the Executive Branch. Thanks to the admin's strategy of appointing know-nothing toadies to high-ranking positions, experienced staff in all agencies- from the FDA to the CIA- have left in droves.

The admin squashes disagreement in all venues: Protestors have all the freedom in the world- as long as they stay in far away enclosures. The admin savages government dissenters and threatens their jobs, limits so-called "town-hall" meetings to supporters, holds citizens for years without charges, and approves humiliating and degrading treatment. Local police, and (of course) the Justice Department are happy with the new rules.

But what happens if you can't spin the news enough to scare the folks at home or fudge the next election? Do you quietly take your marbles and go home? Remember- they seem willing to do anything....and I mean ANYTHING... to stay in power.
-------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 2, 2005 1:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
they seem willing to do anything....and I mean ANYTHING... to stay in power.

Luckily, we have the Constitution, Hero and LynchAJ to protect us.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 2, 2005 1:50 PM

I like Ron Paul (R-TX)

They are hawks, there is a global social revolution element to these guys, it's just not clesr on the surface because of all the corruption.

I figure there are three political perspectives in office right now:
1. People who think govt. social programs are the fix for what's best for america (these people are democrats)
2. People who think strong private industry is the fix for what's best for america (these people are republicans)
3. People who really don't give a damn what's best for america as long as they get their cut. (these people can be democrats or republicans.)

Anyway, haven't completely given up on the GOP yet, but the leadership is really ticking me off every day in every way. I have problems with Frist, but I'm appalled by delay, I don't think Cheney's any kind of republican at all, and Bush might not be human. Most of the administration people I could tollerate have quit or been fired, Powell, O'Neill, Fleischer etc. and (no I never liked Ashcroft, I almost prefer gonzalez, if it weren't for the torture thing) I have nothing against Condi.

But still, if I picked people from the republican party with a dartboard and a blindfold, I'm sure I could do better than this lot.

Okay, on to neocons, theocons and commies.

They're not pro-corporate. If they were GM and Ford wouldn't be folding.

They're monopolists. The like a sort of state capitalism that the nazis had where a handful of corporations run by the same people who are running the govt. subsist almost entirely on exclusive govt. contracts in the new "our kitty is the public till" convention.

Congress is weak, sure. But you have to understand that after the invention of the ball bomb, things have changed. If you don't vote the way they ask you, the ball bomb goes boom, and, well, it makes a man less of a man.

Anyway,

The next election is already fixed. The Bush plan is crash the GOP and elect Hillary, who will then select the same row of cretins for advisors. DiFi might also run for the nomination. Both are pretty closely tied to Bush, and both just love our war in Iraq. So, Hillary/DiFi will run against one another and then run as one ticket for the white house against probably some sap.

You got my perpetually falling popularity plan right?

So, they're evil and they made Clinton, Gore and the democrats look bad, and now they've made the republicans look terrible, and soon they will be a democrat again and make the democrats look abominable, and then they will be a republican again, etc.

The only solution is to beat them in the primaries. And they will have ringer candidates in there.

If I was evil and wanted to be a democrat, I'd run a hawk and a dove, both owned by me. I would then belittle any serious opposition by cloning it. If someone runs a black urban consciousness candidate who wants to focus on domestic issues, I invent one of my own who clones his positions and splits his votes. It's all about the 15%. Primary candidates have to get 15% in the district to get any votes counted, so you have to keep your other contenders below that level.

The solution is don't play that game. Organize so you know exactly who all your voters are. It's going to take a lot of organizing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 2, 2005 4:05 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

wow. You're even more pissed than I am. But- what's a "ball bomb"? And are you seriously saying that both the Democratic party and the Republican party are controlled by the same people? And if that's the case- who would that be?

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 2, 2005 5:32 PM

I made up the ball bomb, it was just my way of saying party leadership has them by the balls.

Yes and no to they're controlled by the same people. Yes the same group of people, but there is a real power struggle going on for the reins.

Here's my conspiracy theory.

View it this way, there's a club, I call it team evil. It's a group of people who form an dissolve organizations like PNAC and the tri-lateral commission and then they dissolve, but the same names keep coming up. You can tell who is on team evil because they won't stray from the agenda and won't divorce themselves from the rest of the team to side with any outside group, outside meaning old school democrats and republicans.

Now picture you are on team evil.

The first rule of team evil is "team evil must stay in charge."
The second rule of team evil is "you do not talk about team evil"
Okay, you saw that one coming. But I'm serious, that is the second rule of team evil.
The third rule of team evil is "you can't cross team leadership."
The fourth rule of team evil is "anything goes, all's fair in love of money and greed for power, whoever get's to the top however they get there, it's there mountain until it isn't"
The fifth rule of team evil is "you can sign in any time you like but you can't never leave."

Now here's how it plays out.

Clinton/Gore are on team evil. Clinton was on the trilateral commission and he's in with halliburton, plus he attacked Iraq, which leads back to PNAC told him to, yadada. So I know he's on the team.

Gore vs. Bush is an evil-off. It's our first real evil-off. in '96 the GOP was still in sane hands, bob dole wasn't on the team, and neither were newt and lott and co. I don't have much on Gore per se, but his VP was Lieberman, who is a Gold member of the Team.

Gore fights with Bush for top, but either way, it's evil in power. So Gore concedes the fight. If gore hadn't conceded, Strom Thurmond would have become president, and Jesse Helms, VP. Neither one is a member of team evil.

So, Bush in power, and Cheney, who is ultra high ranking in the uber order that exists within team evil.

Wait, I need to add something here. Team evil is internally feudal. If someone is your lord, and you are their vassal, you obey them, even if you outrank them in your real world official position.

So anyway, Cheney is way up there like Co-Chair or something. I don't think we'll ever see the Grand High Wizard of team evil. George W. Bush is a lowly peon. He's skull and Bones, but he was in the carlyle group as a lackey at some point, so clearly he's down there. Top dogs get more power than that.

So, '04, it's Bush vs. Kerry is an evil off. Edwards isn't on the team, but Kerry is. So Kerry tried to win, because if he wins, then he rules team evil. But when the election is contested, it threatens the team evil status, because of the contested election clause in the constitution which can give the presidency to a senior senator, as I alluded to earlier. This would mean a loss of power for evil. So Kerry shuts it down. More important that team evil stay in control than that Kerry take the reins.

Now we move on to '08 Contenders. Hillary has husband Bill in the team, plus she was in whitewater, hired monica, had vince foster killed, I don't want to argue about that last, anyway she's on the team. If you doubt this reasoning, look at her support for the war. If you are on the team, you can't cross the leadership, or the agenda. Will democrats and republicans on team evil rant at one another viciously? Sure. If they didn't they wouldn't be convincing politicians.

So, in addition we have the old stand-bys. People we know are on the team.

GOP Jeb can run, condi, possibly some of the senators, frist, maybe kay bailey,

An aside about Condi. She's part of the Bush Sr. team, and like Bush Sr., she's not sure if she's on the team or not yet, she's playing team evil, if they start to go down she may try to leave the team, which usually means bad things will happen to you, but she really doesn't have a family to worry about.

On the dem side we have hillary of course and difi, and then we've got joementum and the benator, plus the old cardboard kerry.

These candidates will all be in to push out more sensible longstanding candidates like forbes or mccain on the right, and gephart and biden on the left.

Many of the old guard I just mentioned want the job of CIC so badly that they're willing to play with joining team evil. But in the end, who is team evil going to pick, someone popular who is flirting with them, or someone they know they already own? Team evil likes it safe, they're probably going to go with the in the bag set.

Finally it comes down to election night, and the team contestants have their seats. If lady luck has smiled on Evil, they hold all the cards, both tickets, and they're ready to cash in those chips either way, and the king of the hill battle for leadership of team evil's real world arm begins.

If they own one side, they may revert to third partyism. This is when we find a third party candidate on our opponents side to split the vote. Let's say team evil has a Democrat but not a Republican, they'll make sure that lots of money and rescources find their way to Pat Buchanan, or with luck they can find someone new. Buchanan isn't a moron or a team player, so it's not liable to work well, and they'll know this. They might have one of their own failed primary contenders, someone without a vested career interest and run them on the right. A Rush Limbaugh or someone. This will chip enough off the GOP vote to throw key states for the sweeping new blue-clad minion.

Obviously if they have a Republican and not a Democrat, they do the same in reverse. If they control neither candidate, then they will go begging, and try to buy one of the candidates. This happened with Bush Sr. in 88, after they supported Dole against him and lost.

This whole team evil thing has been going on since 1980, though the team has been around a little longer, before that they didn't have the power to play in presidential elections.

The team evil ultimate goal is to control the world through a series of large multinational organizations. Some will be global corporate monopolies, others with be supernational unions like the EU, and still others are multinational agencies like the G8 and WTO.

They like to invent this sort of institution, but when it already exists they try to hijack it. This what John Bolton, team evil member, is trying to do at the UN.

These people are true globalists. They don't give a damn about the US and the American people outside of how they can use us. At the moment we are their gun, and their wallet. China is their sweatshop, and the cayman islands is their accountant. They'd like to make the middle east their bank account, and eastern europe their hired thug. In the end, everyone gets to play.

To beat them, you'd have to beat them in the primary first, and then in the general eleciton with a candidate you are sure that they could neither buy nor assassinate.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 3, 2005 7:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I agree with you about the team evil thing. One of the questions on "the left" has been- "Is it a conspiracy or a club?" Well, you don't get a situation where 500 people (0.00001%) own 50% of the world's assests w/o some sort of conspiracy. So yeah, it's a conspiracy- at least at the inner circle. I do have some quibbles about who you think belongs in the inner circle. I think some of your contenders (like Bill Clinton) are outer-circle, post-fact acquisitions who are corrupted by nearness to the inner circle. I think Bill was like everyone who held "the one Ring of power" in LOTR- they think they're going to use the power for good, they think they can maintain their moral compass in that situation, but everyone loses their way to a greater or lesser extent.

But I see at least three factions in the Brave New World Order. Some businesses (few and growing fewer) are national in scope- based in, employ in, and sell to, a nationally-defined market. GM and Ford WERE such businesses. Possibly these were associated with the Republican Party?

Some businesses are truly international, in the sense that they do not depend on government teats/ contracts to sustain them... Nike, for example. They NEED unrestricted world trade. Wars and tarrifs wreak all kinds of havoc with their business plans and they would really much rather have world peace and "free trade". I think Clinton was more in this camp.

Others- like Halliburton- are so tightly tied to government contracts of one sort or another that they are more likely to foment divisions based nationality, and really only thrive in conflict situations when governments spill out their coffers in the name of national security. Clearly this is the Cheney group. So, I guess my tinking is not that there is one "team evil" but at least three.

What say you?

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 3, 2005 8:05 AM