Welcome to Obamaville by piratenews

Obamavilles have been around for a while, but it's an ongoing story, like the war, so it's okay to repost.

Sure, people can blame can blame Bush and rightfully so, but then again, people could have blamed Coolidge for the depression and even Harding and Wilson, Particularly Wilson, 1913, but they didn't, they named their homeless clusters "Hoovervilles."

You inherit a problem, you inherit a problem. It's not like Obama was "unaware" that he was inheriting a problem. Why do you think McCain through the election? Hell, why do you think Coolidge dropped out in '28?

But Obama also inherited 1.5 trillion in cash to spend. A housing program right off the bat would have been a good idea, if he didn't want "Obamavilles." Instead, he bailed out the real estate industry which was creating the problem, which helped make the problem worse.

Ack, Ron Paul has already said all of this better than I can.

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

Sunday, December 13, 2009 2:26 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

McCain "through" the election? I assume you mean "threw"? Still... ????? Sadly, you seem to get more and more like PN (without the bigotry) with your conspiracy theories as time goes on...

I hate to see it, as I've respected you and sometimes you make a lot of sense.

Hey, guys, why weren't there a lot of "Bushvilles" running around??? The amount of homelessness he caused would fill a major city!

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

Sunday, December 13, 2009 4:40 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Sure, people can blame can blame Bush and rightfully so, but then again, people could have blamed Coolidge for the depression and even Harding and Wilson, Particularly Wilson, 1913, but they didn't, they named their homeless clusters "Hoovervilles."

You inherit a problem, you inherit a problem.

As I remember it, they happened on Hoover's watch, after some pretty good times between 1918 and 1929. SO it ain't exactly like he " inherited " them. Seems like he was Prez fer quite a while before and after The Crash, and didn't do anything effective to help solve it.

SO mebbe they oughtta be called " Bushville"s...

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

Sunday, December 13, 2009 4:55 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
SO mebbe they oughtta be called " Bushville"s...

Sounds about right.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Sunday, December 13, 2009 4:58 PM

Nik,

1. Sorry, I'm stressed out. I never claimed not to be like PN. I disagree with John on issues like jews, *who* the enemy really is, and general tactics, but I think it's safe to say that I fall into the conspiratorial anarachist side, probably lightly further to the right than most on social issues, but PN, Frem, Byte, Kwicko, we may not be on the same page, but we're definitely I would say, willing to listen to what others say, and probably share a similar end goal. Methods and views may differ.

2. McCain threw the election. I'm sorry, what election were you watching? I would too if I were him. What would be the point of winning, even if it were possible. McCain fawned over Obama on a level that even the Obama camp couldn't manage. "He wants to spread the wealth around" <-- this is the most flattering image of socialism I've ever heard. I don't think I've heard an actual socialist do it better.

An honest appraisal of socialism, true to its name, from "social engineering" would be to say "centralize power." Now that could be looked at very negatively, you could portray FDR as a dictator for doing just this, or, you could look at it positively and say that this was necessary to save the people from chaos, famine, plague and poverty. But whatever your feeling about socialism, objectively it's centralization of power for the purpose of social engineering and never claimed to be anything else.

McCain is a personal close friend of John Kerry, another patsy who threw an election. It probably would have been impossible for a republican to win after G. W. Bush, but McCain didn't even try. Why should he? Inherit a disaster, let the economy collapse on his watch, lose two wars, and discredit his own party forever? Much better for the GOP to lose and blame the Dems for everything that falls apart, even if this is a result of Bush policy (myself, I blame both parties, but I suspect it *will* fall apart on Obama's watch, and that the GOP was banking on it.)

To be brutally honest about it, two words: Sarah Palin.

Enough said. Actually, I like Sarah, but I don't think that she was the solid choice of a man who wanted to win an election. If he had selected Ron Paul he might have had a chance. Romney or Huckabee would have at least looked like a decent try. But that, the debates, it was, well, it was what a man in his 70s might want: To be the Barry Goldwater, go down as "the guy who if he had one, we might not have gotten into a full scale land war in asia."

I think that's how he saw it.

But maybe the patsy doesn't know he was the patsy. Kerry, I have on personal accounts, was very upset when he lost in '04, but then made no effort to challenge the election, in spite of overwhelming evidence on his side. When Libertarian Michael Badnarik challenged the 2004 election on Kerry's behalf, Kerry intervened only to shut down the investigation.

You don't *really* think that Bush was re-elected honestly in 2004, do you? Obama was elected on the level, sure. The approval ratings of the GOP were in the tank. But McCain's not a total moron, he could have made a decent shot at winning, but for what: A hostile congress, a Bush mess, and probably the chance to go down in history as the worst president of all time, if this financial collapse ends in another great depression *and* the war turns into another Vietnam. Also, he would be taking a pay-cut.

As for conspiracy theories: I don't really theorize, I just deal with the pieces I have, facts, which don't connect into a grand scheme. There's no ultimate picture, that would be the theory. Are there conspiracies? Sure. If there weren't, "conspiracy" wouldn't be a crime in virtually every country in the world. After all, we don't have laws against mind-control lasers. Why? Because there are no fricking mind control lasers.

Oh, and for the record, even John doesn't believe all the stuff he posts. I won't post why he posts what he posts, since that wouldn't be fair, but I figured out around day 10 that he didn't, so I can say that.

Whether or not Moloch is an owl is a subject of theological discussion, and perfectly legit, and in no means a discussion of conspiracy theory. I think that the end result of that was off the record, Moloch is not an owl, but people who believe in moloch might use an owl as an altar, because it's a pagan rite, which I'll concede. That by itself doesn't lead anywhere.

Re: messianic judaism in Superman, it was in the wikipedia entry, not to mention any other credible source you can find, it's not even speculation, it's as well known as the one about the matrix, which, btw, no one mentioned a single point of disagreement with when I posted it.

And no, this has nothing to do with conspiracy theories, anti-semitism or anything of that nature: It's just this: There are religious nutjobs in every religion.

I'm sorry, Nik, a lot of the stuff you post ranges from the naive to the far fetched, but I never attack you because I think you think through your positions, and have something to say. Politically, I'm sure we disagree on a large number of points, but arguing them would be pointless. I suspect at the moment our key disagreement would be over our involvement in afghanistan. I think we're there for a couple of reasons:

1. The drug trade
2. Foster terrorist cells to destablize Pakistan (read China) and Iran (read Iran) (the Pakistan-China thing was discussed at exhaustive length on many past threads)
3. To create a puppet state that will act as a military based and a central asian building block for MEFTA or a spin off organization. TPTB only like a spin off central asian block if it is dominated by India.
4. It's a perennial unwinnable war which bankers can lend money for at essentially infinite interest, and feeds that money to the military industrial complex and energy industries which the financial sector also controls, so, they get their money back, *plus* we have to pay interest on that money forever.

I don't think there's a mission of any noble cause.

There are probably other issues we'd agree on.

Sorry for the rant. Personal attacks are usually where I check out. Not offended, just losing interest.

There are essentially two types of information out there:

a) People trying to discover the truth
b) People trying to convince you of their opinion

PN falls into the first, even if he's wrong. I'm interested in anyone on the first group, even if they're wrong 90% of the time. (as I said, sure, he misses the target often, but he fires a lot)

The second group I have no time for.

Just attacking "conspiracsts," I'm sorry, just will land you in the same boat as Sean Hannity, and the rest of the MSM. The only reason to do it is if you're afraid of the truth.

I never said I know what the truth is, I'm only digging, trying to find out. I've spent much of tonight digging to find the underlying facts behind the holodomor and related events.

The most absurd lie I heard recently was "We're in Afghanistan because Osama Bin Laden has promised to follow us home if we leave."

Oh, what nonsense, he's said no such thing, because he's dead, and Zawahiri has not only not said so, he's denounced terrorism, and much of what was "Al Qaeda" now works for us, it's just garbage, it's not even conspiracy theory.

Oh, and Nik, for the record, democracy is a sham. How many president's were elected by a popular majority? Even if you count them (Obama makes the third democrat in history) a selection between two people on the identical platform is hardly a rule of the people. It's a hobson's choice olgigarchic aristocracy.

Oh, and lastly, there is no democratic party, legally speaking, as I said. There is only the Democratic Republican Party, but that just makes things too complicated. Suffice it to say, the Illusion of the Republican Party, a group of people, wanted someone else, Obama, secret muslim, black, whatever group they wanted to blame, be responsible for a disaster that Clinton-Bush started, and sadly, so far, Obama is doing little to disappoint them. He may be their guy. I'm still not sure on that last point [/rant]

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

Sunday, December 13, 2009 5:17 PM

Quote:
NOB:
As I remember it, they happened on Hoover's watch, after some pretty good times between 1918 and 1929. SO it ain't exactly like he " inherited " them. Seems like he was Prez fer quite a while before and after The Crash, and didn't do anything effective to help solve it.

SO mebbe they oughtta be called " Bushville"s...

The oughtta... at least in part, but they won't be. that's life. People revolt when times are bad, against whoever happens to be holding the reins at the time.

Coolidge had a fast and loose credit economy which caused the crash, and the depression, and that's pretty safe to say. Hoover had a hostile congress, and the Hoover Plan, which even FDR's guys admit... wait, I have a quote here from the head of the legendary 100 days plan, not sure I have this exact: "The wasn't a single item on the 100 days agenda that we didn't lift right from Hoover's reform agenda, not that we would ever admit it to the press."

But the problem was

a) Hoover had trouble passing stuff. He wasn't strong, influential and congress opposed him. Also, people were iffy on socialism, and the situation wasn't desperate enough yet to accept radical reform

b) Hoover and FDR were both socialists. The plan sucked, either side of the aisle. The war didn't help at all. Time. The passage of time, healed the depression. Everything the two presidents did hurt that recovery rather than help it. IMHO

So, yeah, hoover did little to avoid disaster, effectively, and I see obama much the same way. There has been no restructuring of the national debt, federal reserve, tax system that is crushing america, and no reform of the fast and loose lending fiscal policy that caused the disaster in the first place. In fact, everything that as done that would have been illegal since for almost a century that was done by the major banks that caused the financial collapse of 2008 is still completely legal today.

Currently, the Obama administration is devoting over 100% of US tax revenue to a war in central asia with no state objective, and no possibility of success under any measure, rather than dealing with enumerable growing problems in this country.

Yes, sure, neither did Bush. Absolutely.

But even the healthcare reform is problematic, and probably just corporate welfare to another dying industry. rather than bailing out failed dying industries and financial firms, perhaps we should invest in the creation of new industries. Industries like alternative energies, alternative medicines, information technology, things that the US either invented or was at the forefront of, but is about to, hell, is in the process of losing to overseas competitors who 20 years ago we would have called "third world countries" and used as chess pieces in cold war strategies, nothing more, but now are rapidly becoming our replacements.

Seriously, the rate at which these changes are happening, how long before the US has to consider its main competiors not as India or China, but Brazil, or, how about this one: Nigeria. Nigeria's GDP growth rate over the last 10 years is 1000% in USD. At that rate, and ours, it's 25 years before Nigeria overtakes the US as an economic power.

Oh, notice I left out Japan and Korea, we're unlikely to be in that league. Europe I'm not sure, I don't suspect the EU is too stable. Ditto Russia

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

Monday, December 14, 2009 7:59 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Sigh…DT, I wasn’t the first to say it. Someone else said “…until you got all PNish” or something to that effect. So I’m not alone, and if you notice, I wrote “you seem to get more and more like PN (without the bigotry)”. Note the use of the word “SEEM”. And I also said you sometimes make a lot of sense.

As for personal attacks, I didn’t think it was one, it was a statement of how I FEEL. Just as “a lot of the stuff you post ranges from the naive to the far fetched, but I never attack you because I think you think through your positions”. I’m sure you don’t think what you respond as attacks, but sometimes they come across as just that, and what you wrote is no better or worse than what I wrote.

“Just attacking "conspiracsts," I'm sorry, just will land you in the same boat as Sean Hannity, and the rest of the MSM. The only reason to do it is if you're afraid of the truth”. That’s a pretty good inferred attack, I say as the person to whom it was directed, too. I’ve never been afraid of the truth; that doesn’t mean I agree with anyone else’s version of what they believe as truth all the time.

In my OPINION, no, Bush didn’t “win” either election. I know about the tactics used to quell voters on the left perfectly well, from some friends in Illinois and Florida. I think Kerry didn’t challenge it because he saw how useless it was to do so, having seen the Gore debacle. It would be obvious to anyone, seems to me.

I don’t believe any presidential candidate every willingly threw an election. They got there because of their drive for power; nobody gives that up easily. McCain had to know it was his last hurrah, so I disagree with your assessment. I think he was forced to take Palin because his original choice was impossible and he knew he had to have the party bosses behind him to afford to run at all. I think THEY were dumb enough to think putting a woman up would appeal to people, just as electing an African-American as head of the party. Both stupid, short-sighted moves that did them no good, but are pretty clear to me as attempts to appeal to voters and make themselves look like the “big tent” they claim to be. Just how I see it.

I disagree that you theorize; at least the way you post things, you speak in absolutes: McCain threw the election being an example. You don’t say “in my opinion”, “how I see it”, “what I surmise” or any qualifier; you state things as fact. Sometimes I disagree with your facts, and/or the assumptions you make from them.

If it hasn’t been clear from what I’ve posted in the past, I agree with all but #2 of your opinions on Afghanistan. We disagree on that one. If you look at it closely, that IS a conspiracy theory, the US being the conspirators and yours being the theorizing. I’m not saying it might not be true, it’s just not how I interpret things.

As to Superman and things like that, I skip over many of the other things you post histories of to show they came from religion, etc., thinking “so what? They are what they are seen as by people, so what validity is there in where they came from?” However something gets started, how it is ACCEPTED is what’s worth talking about to me, because that’s what’s real—to me, anyway. The long posts are hard to get through, so I skip parts of them and try to find the pertinent points.

I’ve stated quite plainly that I don’t believe we’re a democracy and that both parties are a sham. Sorry you didn’t pick up on that. Defining the “Democratic Republican Party” is a waste, whatever the legal definition, common usage allows for communication; again, the origins are irrelevant, to me.

That’s quite a long rant directed toward me, which is interesting. I made a statement of how I feel—someone else made that statement first about something specific. They didn’t get a long rant in response. Why?

Could I respectfully request that you cease telling us you know the why of PN’s posts? This is the second time, and tho’ it may be quite valid to you, to me (and possibly others), it comes across as “I know something you don’t know” and merely piques our curiosity, only to leave it unfulfilled. I’m sure you mean no harm, but please either tell us what you KNOW for certain, or let it be.

Skpped through the second post, wasn't interested in the long history, so am not addressing anything but what you directed at me. No offense intended.

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

Monday, December 14, 2009 9:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Sigh…DT, I wasn’t the first to say it. Someone else said “…until you got all PNish” or something to that effect.

That was me, in discussing Supes in Wulfie's "Look at me" thread.

Don't know why DT felt like transplanting it here and putting it on you.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

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

Monday, December 14, 2009 9:25 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

She (or he? I get confused here) didn't. She/he was replying to my

Quote:
Sadly, you seem to get more and more like PN (without the bigotry) with your conspiracy theories as time goes on... I hate to see it, as I've respected you and sometimes you make a lot of sense.

up above, but I remembered your previous remark and wondered why she/he'd addressed mine, but not yours.

I sometimes get the feeling DT has a teeeny chip on his/her shoulder when it comes to me. We disagree often, and there FEEL like subtle put-downs in some of the responses to me. Could be my imagination, I just noticed it several times, here especially as my one comment brought on such a looong response, directed at me, with a few of what I felt were put-dons, and encompassed things that seemed to be "educating" me on things I already knew or had already agreed with, like the parties being a sham, etc. Just struck me strange is all.

Thanx, Story, I couldn't remember who said it and I'm glad you clarified it for me.

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

Monday, December 14, 2009 10:23 AM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
McCain "through" the election? I assume you mean "threw"? Still... ????? Sadly, you seem to get more and more like PN (without the bigotry) with your conspiracy theories as time goes on... I hate to see it, as I've respected you and sometimes you make a lot of sense.

I don't really think DT's post warranted a comparison to PN... Unless you think nominating Sarah Palin for VP was a good strategy? Now, I don't think McCain threw the election myself, but I suspect DT is just trying to figure out where exactly Palin fits into the whole Republican/Conservative/whatever-they're-called-now Party mess.

Yes, it's a conspiracy theory, but he has a LONG way to go to be anything like PN. Plus, playing logical predict/outsmart the politician is a fun game. We should make a conspiracy theory game thread where we just try to out-do each other... One of us is bound to be right!

I'm also reasonably sure the reason why DT reacted the way he did was the "hate to see it" and "I respectED you" comments. Heck, I reacted the same way when I saw that 'cause DT is a friend of mine, and I had to take a time-out before I posted something vitriolic myself. You imply that you have lost ALL respect for DT (and maybe you have, considering your post? But a McCain conspiracy theory seems like a small thing to completely lose respect over), and then you say you "hate to see it." It sounded like a bit of an attitude, a bit insulting, and that's probably not how you meant to come across.

Maybe there's a chip on his shoulder about you, maybe not? Maybe he noticed or wildly misinterpreted the comments more because of said chip, depending on the intention of your post, which I won't assume one way or the other. But he's never said anything to me about being particularly bothered by you. If there were anything that spurred what insults or tone he leveled at you in his post, I would guess it's because of the probably unintentional elements of your post I noted above that were lacking in Storymark's post.

Funny enough, I wasn't bothered too much by the use of conspiracy theorists as an insult, though any other day I might have been. I dunno, we are kind of an odd crowd, aren't we? I guess I'm proud of that.

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

Monday, December 14, 2009 12:27 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Wow, that's a lot of visceral feeling out of one comment! No, it was meant exactly as it was phrased, sometimes DT goes pretty far out in left (or right) field, and I always hate to see that, because I know he (thank you, I thought it was "he") explores and researches things pretty thoroughly. So I always hate to see it when he says things flatly like "McCain threw the election" as if it were accepted fact.

As to "I've respected you", at times I DO, other times I don't. Maybe it's not true of all of us, but there are times I respect virtually everyone here for things they write (with a few glaring exceptions), other times I don't respect someone's thinking because it seems patently absurd TO ME.

Again, I said "SEEM" to "GET MORE" like...that's not equating him with PN, but saying he seems to show aspects of the kind of thinking I read in PN. He himself SAID "I never claimed not to be like PN", so why should my remark upset anyone? I don't get it.

I still believe several of the things that came back at me were considerably more attacking than saying he seemed to get more like PN and that it saddened me. I happen to think

Quote:
Just attacking "conspiracsts," I'm sorry, just will land you in the same boat as Sean Hannity, and the rest of the MSM. The only reason to do it is if you're afraid of the truth

is quite equivalent to saying he seemed to get more like PN. Lumping me with Hannity and saying I’m afraid of the truth is pretty direct, isn’t it??? Again: I didn’t say he WAS always equivalent to PN, I said I FELT that he seemed to get more like PN, and that was in response to the flat statement that McCain threw the election, which is pretty far out, in my opinion, and is somewhat similar to the claims PN makes about conspiracies…something to the effect of “Jew McCain throws election so Muslim Obama can destroy America”.

“….it's because of the probably unintentional elements of your post I noted above that were lacking in Storymark's post.” If I had said “saying flatly that McCain threw the election is getting rather PNish”, similar to what Story said, that would make the whole thing different?

I also wasn’t attacking conspiracists; I said DT’s conspiracy theories were getting… That’s not attacking all conspiracy theorists, just some of the theories propounded by DT. And saying McCain and Kerry threw elections IS a conspiracy theory—one man can’t throw an election very easily, and saying maybe the patsy didn’t know he was a patsy indicates there was a conspiracy to MAKE him throw the election. DT classed himself with the “conspiratorial anarchist” side…that’s semantics, to ME.

The things listed about Afghanistan are THEORIES, they can’t be 100% proven, nor is the concept that “much of what was "Al Qaeda" now works for us”. I recognize he believes these things completely, I believe three of them myself, but I don’t think some of those things can be proven, and I do believe DT sees conspiracies, groups of people working for different aims than those publicly stated, where others do not. Some things, like the Gore and Kerry elections, I also theorize were conspiracies…does that mean I’m attacking myself?

My ONLY comment was regarding the flat statement that McCain threw the election, and that one comment made you want to post something vitriolic in return? That’s weird, to me, it really is. I just simply don’t get it. I’m confused. To me, the whole thing is a tempest in a teapot; I said what I felt in response to his saying McCain (and Kerry) threw their elections. It wasn’t intended as an attack or condemnation of DT, and all this upset in response seems out of proportion.

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

Monday, December 14, 2009 12:38 PM

BYTEMITE

It probably is out of proportion, which is why I made myself calm down significantly before posting.

It looks like DT did take some offense at the conspiracy theory jab, so I can't speak to that because I didn't mind it this time. And certainly saying you're "afraid of the truth," you're right, that's about the equal of anything you might have said to DT.

I'm just saying, I can see where DT might have been set off, and for me, it wasn't "conspiracy theorist" or the PN comparison, it was the stated lack of respect and the "I feel sorry for you/pity you" comment in a reasoned debate. Neither of which were in Storymark's post.

Maybe saying someone is getting to be like PN, for you and Storymark, is a statement of lack of respect, but some of us, while not necessarily having a positive reaction to PN, we don't have AS negative a reaction either, so we interpret this differently. But something that basically seems to say 'I pity you?' That hurts no matter who's the recipient.

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

Monday, December 14, 2009 12:43 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Oh, heavens, it wasn't "I feel sorry for you"!!! It was "I feel sad", totally different, just a let down, not at ALL like he's pathetic like PN!!! I feel sad FOR ME, for the reason I stated in my last post.

Shees...written communication can go SO bad so easily...

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

Monday, December 14, 2009 12:49 PM

BYTEMITE

Ain't that the truth. :)

I figured it was something being misinterpreted somewhere, which is why I took the time to calm down.

Glad we talked this out.

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

Monday, December 14, 2009 1:11 PM

Quote:
Just attacking "conspiracsts," I'm sorry, just will land you in the same boat as Sean Hannity, and the rest of the MSM. The only reason to do it is if you're afraid of the truth.

So, just believe anything a conspiracist has to say? I realize you're in defensive mode - but this type of statement is something that either flies in the face or the point you are trying to make - or indicates you are suffering some delusions of grandeur.

Do conspiracies exist? Absolutely. But the truth to bullshit ratio with conspiracy theories is vastly heavier over toward the bullshit side.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

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

Monday, December 14, 2009 3:09 PM

JKIDDO

Quote:
Hey, guys, why weren't there a lot of7 "Bushvilles" running around??? The amount of homelessness he caused would fill a major city!

It's called New Orleans. Which should be named Katrinaville. Or maybe Hecuvajobbrownieville.

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

Monday, December 14, 2009 3:26 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Let's relax, everybody - You've all made some good points.

DT has a valid point - Obama wanted the job, he got the job, and it's HIS problem now. He didn't cause it (certainly not ALL of it, anyway), but he knew for sure what he was walking into, and he's had some opportunities to do some things, and he really hasn't done them. So he's gotta eat some of that shit sandwich.

Sorry, but I *like* Obama, and I have to admit, he's been a bit of a disappointment. Seems the only campaign promise he's interested in keeping is his massive ramping up of the war against Afghanistan. :(

I'm curious, though, because this is the worst recession in a generation, yet I don't really recall anyone ever blaming the '81-'83 recession on Reagan. For some odd reason, THAT one was all Carter's fault, at least in the collective memory. Strange, huh? :)

I still don't buy that McCain "threw" the election on purpose, though. I grant you he blew it, big time, with stupid crap like "the fundamentals of our economy are strong", and picking an idiot and a complete neophyte for his running mate.

I actually think the Republicans put up the best candidate they had left after eight years of Bush. Sadly, that "honor" now seems to fall to his running mate. ;)

Are there conspiracies? Sure? But not EVERYTHING is a conspiracy.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

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

Monday, December 14, 2009 7:41 PM

Mike,

Thanks. I'll get back to this in a sec. First, a few short points:

Byte,

I never thought that Palin was a brilliant campaign move. A brilliant campaign move would have been Ron Paul: Right wing southern christian libertarian who had around 5 million democrats ready to vote for him. That would be an auto-win for McCain. McCain didn't want the job, and who could blame him.

But this wasn't an analysis, I posted that McCain would win the primary and then throw the elected years ago, on this board. Virtually nothing in electoral politics surprises me, but then, I work in electoral politics. When I talked about Sarah Palin I was feeling out the idea. I'm considering campaigning for Palin for 2012. Anyone who thinks this is a statement on issues or about Obama or Palin probably hasn't worked in politics. If diplomacy is chess, Politics is poker. Right now, it seems like the good strategic play.

Nik,

I said I was overworked, and I don't care for being battered over the head. Story made a snark, you posted a rant, rants waste time. I was annoyed. Nothing personal.

Story,

I didn't take offense at your snark, it was fair, and a snark. I was annoyed at your very large image reducing everything to 4 point type. If you read my posts, you would see that I mentioned it several times, including finding a smaller version of the image, and the Mike snarked me for it.

Superman,

Superman is religious propoganda from religious nutjobs. That was the only point I was making. It's like saying that the Call of Duty series is a recruitment tactic for the military. Except it's not theory, it's well established, they didn't attempt to hide it.

Ditto for the Matrix. I don't see why we're talking about this as if it's something controversial. We all had the almost identical conversation about the Matrix a year ago or two.

PN,

No offense intended. I don't care for the nature in which my comments are compared to yours as if this is a issue of relative merit. I was simply stating that Superman as messianic judaism was nowhere near what one might call "conspiracy theory" that it is established fact. A fact I was only mentioning out of my own petty nature, because I wanted to make fun of Wulf.

Wulf,

No offense. It was a snark. You do thump the drum a bit much. More about Wulf and less about the greatness of american, guns, the white race, or whatever, would always be appreciate. Tell us something about Wulf.

Oh, and I never watch video clips. I don't have the time.

Mike,

back to the point.

I agree, Obama is likable. I'm forced to agree with Hero that likability and leadership are not really synonymous. JFK was a pretty terrible president, but likeable. Ford was inoffensive and colorless. I liked Reagan and Carter as people, I'm not sure there's much correlation though.

The Obama administration and the Obama family are two entirely different entities.

Maybe McCain himself didn't personally throw the election, but the GOP did. Still, the Straight Talk Express would have been essential to a McCain victory. Instead, he rode the Bullsh*t Bus.

I like Sarah. I don't have much political opinion on her, I think she's flexible. whether or not she's a viable candidate remains to be seen. None of this has anything to do with any of the rest of it.

I badly need to reread strunk and white, but not as badly as niki [/snark]

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

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 2:55 AM

Quote:
...and then Mike snarked me for it.

Well, that was a given... :)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

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

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 3:39 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

Unless you think nominating Sarah Palin for VP was a good strategy? Now, I don't think McCain threw the election myself

Palin was Obama's secret weapon.

Vets HATED McCain for abandoning 50,000 POWs, and for being a VIP traitor in Nam.
http://www.usvetdsp.com/manchuan.htm

GOP would never pick Manchurian McCain unless losing was a done deal. Even Rush Limbaugh said he'd vote for Billary.

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

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 4:00 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

In my OPINION, no, Bush didn’t “win” either election. I know about the tactics used to quell voters on the left perfectly well, from some friends in Illinois and Florida. I think Kerry didn’t challenge it because he saw how useless it was to do so, having seen the Gore debacle.

Kerry was Bush's cousin, both in Nazi Skull & Bones. Billionaire Kerry was paid a $35-million bribe in "unspent campaign contributions" to throw the election, and refused to pay for the recount in Ohio.

Gore didn't lose in court, he quit after the case was remanded back to Florida courts. Gore was also Bush's cousin. Gore never won an election where he had an opponent, same as Obama before 2008.

I literally fight parking tickets harder than Kerry and Gore fought for the White House. If they refuse to fight an election, how can you trust them to fight for the nation?

McCain would never have won the GOP nomination if Ron Paul hadn't been cheated, infiltrated and threatened with assassination if he didn't quit. Dr Paul won at least 2 GOP primaries, and $20-million disappeared from his campaign funds, after his neocon gay manager died from AIDS.

Obama's an illegal alien, so he's not president of anything. An Israeli soldier is Obama's chief of staff. USA is literally a headless corpse, staggering around spewing Blood & Gore.

The Kosher Banking Order is making its move for world domination, paying itself $25-trillion so far by Obama's Pedophile Bankster Bailout Act.

US borders are wide open and already infiltrated by 50-million illegal aliens, bankrupting govt welfare, stealing jobs and filling prisons with killers and rapists to justify a police state.

The Protocols were right, Goy are stoopid.

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

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 4:40 AM

Quote:

Obama's an illegal alien, so he's not president of anything. An Israeli soldier is Obama's chief of staff.

See, it's stuff like this that discredits an argument. Why state as fact speculation, when that could be inaccurate, and then the rest of an otherwise sound argument could fall apart?

1. Obama is clearly an American despite his ability to produce an original birth certificate. I can't produce an original birth certificate, can you?

I know this from logical deduction: His mother was not a moron, so she would have realized that there were tremendous advantages to having her child on US soil, esp. at the time, vs., say Kenyan, assuming she ever went to Kenya.

The "Birther" movement was created to block McCain from becoming president. But it's all over now. Once someone is sworn in, they are president.

2. Rahm worked in munitions, he probably didn't do any actual fighting, but he was in his father's "independent militia" read "terrorist organization." These guys were radical extremists, and not the Israeli army.

3. 50-million seems high. Maybe 50 million crossed the border, but that would be 1/2 of Mexico, you'd probably get away with "50 million crossings" but some would be the same people repeatedly. Also, it's deceptive: but almost all of them went back to Mexico afterwords.

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

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 7:31 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Sigh...other things aside, how exactly were you "battered over the head" by me? I made a simple statement of my observations and how I felt about them, regarding only your statement that McCain threw the election and that was something like what PN might say; that's battering you over the head?? This sure seems to have gotten out of hand, to me!

Quote:
Story made a snark, you posted a rant, rants waste time

Oh, c'mon, be fair... I guess we’ll have to ask Story whether it was a snark or an honest expression of feelings, but again; I didn’t rant, I made a statement similar to Story’s, nothing more, and YOU responded with a rant; even you called it a "rant", “Sorry for the rant” and ending the whole post with [/rant]. What I did was RESPOND to the remarks you had directed at me, one at a time. You took my two sentences and expounded on your opinion of me, what I write (interpreted as what I think and who it compares me to), Palin, Superman, Afghanistan and more. You contradict yourself when you say “Personal attacks are usually where I check out. Not offended, just losing interest” then following it with a long post directed at me and containing a couple of questionable attacks on my veracity and personality.

I qualified with “seems”, whereas you stated outright “a lot of the stuff you post ranges from the naive to the far fetched”. That’s a flat statement about ME and could easily be considered an attack, I know it’s how you see it, and have heard similar from you before, so I recognize it’s your opinion. But the remark about fearing the truth DID come across as a put-down, and offended me.

Whether you mean it or not, some of what you post reads TO ME as if you're convinced you know the answers to everything, and you state your conclusions as flat facts. I disagree with your conclusions when I think they’re unwarranted. The remark that “I posted that McCain would win the primary and then throw the elected years ago” is not proof of your foresight, many of us could have predicted that ANY Republican candidate would have a real tough time winning after Bush’s “reign” (as did numerous pundits),and there were myriad reasons why he lost, in my opinion none of them being that he threw the election. I agree with Mike, I think they put up what they considered their best possibility, and McCain knuckled under in accepting what I believe was their choice (and I don't think he liked it). At the time it lost me some of my respect for McCain, but I didn't for a minute believe any of what he did was an effort to throw and election, merely bad decisions and letting the party make his decisions for him.

On the other hand, I agree about likeability and leadership (tho’ I would add “competence”) where JFK was concerned…I, too, thought he wasn’t the King Arthur figure everyone remembers him as.

Quote:
So, just believe anything a conspiracist has to say? I realize you're in defensive mode - but this type of statement is something that either flies in the face or the point you are trying to make - or indicates you are suffering some delusions of grandeur.

Story makes a valid point, and one I didn’t pick up on, and again; I was neither “attacking” conspiracists in general or attacking all your theories, only that one. Some of them, like most of the ones about Afghanistan, I agree with; but they’re still theories about conspiracies, we cannot PROVE them beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Again, you contradict yourself by telling Wulf “Why state as fact speculation, when that could be inaccurate?” That’s what you do often; I recognize you research your facts, but you also make assumptions from those facts in virtually everything you write, and accept nothing else, or so it has seemed to me. “I know this from logical deduction”…I think that’s how you see much of what you write, but I think it’s fair for anyone to consider your logical deductions as sometimes being the wrong deduction. None of us is perfect. I don’t think you have delusions of grandeur, but I do think from what I’ve seen that you may have the opinion that your conclusions are infallible.

I, too, think you somehow got in defensive mode and were writing out of that. As such, I can dismiss it. But even Byte admitted

Quote:
And certainly saying you're "afraid of the truth," you're right, that's about the equal of anything you might have said to DT.

Yet no apologies from you, no statement that you misunderstood, not even recognition of the fact that your remarks might well be taken as “battering” me over the head, nothing even to explain what you said was NOT meant as attack.

That speaks to me…thinking back, it seems to me as if you rarely apologize or admit being wrong, which I’m sure is an overstatement and I could be wrong, but it never occurred to me until now and this brought it to the forefront of my mind. Even after all my explanation, which you call a rant, you still state I was battering you over the head. I find that strange. And, admittedly, unfair in my opinion. I repeat; what I wrote wasn’t a rant, it was a reply, as is this, tho’ this is more personal because what you have written about me have been personal conclusions put forth as if they were facts, including now what I need to read more badly than you. I have my doubts about that being a “snark”, but I’m allowed to assume.

This is not a rant, it's an explanation and a reply, by the way. I write long, admittedly, but I like to cover the points I wish to make as clearly as I can, and you beat me by a ton and a bunch in length of posts. Length of post does not determine "rant", and I see nothing I have written as ranting at you, more as being in response to your remarks to and about me.

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

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 9:15 AM

Niki

You wrote a book.

Statistically, half of the readership is still reading any news article at the 500 word point, and 10% at the 2,000 word point. Your 1000 word post here would probably reach 25% of the audience, but that audience is not me right now because I'm working 16 hours a day until christmas and don't have time. Nothing personal. If you want to make a point, and make it successfully, do it succinctly.

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

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 10:26 AM

If you want sound bytes, watch television - if you wanna discuss something, be prepared to freakin DISCUSS it.

Seriously, that annoys the crap outta me, it's like asking folk to explain how to dismantle an A5 transmission in twenty words, good bloody LUCK doin it with that, eh ?

Here, I'll give ya an example of exactly what you're askin here.

How to replace fuel injectors.
1. Open hood
2. Do thing.
3. Close hood.

Yeah, REAL useful, innit ?

If you ain't willing to DISCUSS a matter, than don't - Niki actually bothers to EXPLAIN her thoughts and reasoning, something I find both informative and valuable, cause understanding an issue, a belief, or a problem, is simply neither possible nor effective without understanding the people and WHY there is an issue, belief or problem - and you make the mistakes of *assuming* peoples thoughts, feelings and motives, all you'll do is create a disaster.

Of course, if you like, I can put it as short as you'd like it, and you know what it'd come to ?

"Don't be such an ass."

So, which one is more useful in a discussion, then ?

-F

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

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 12:29 PM

Quote:

See, it's stuff like this that discredits an argument. Why state as fact speculation, when that could be inaccurate, and then the rest of an otherwise sound argument could fall apart?

See, DT - All snark aside, THIS is why I don't buy the "they made Sarah quit" line of BS. It totally discredits anything else you might have to say on the subject, UNLESS you can provide incontrovertible evidence to back that claim. Otherwise, it's pure speculation and opinion, and nothing to base a sound argument on.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I *am* saying I'd need to see more evidence than just your word or some nebullous pointing to "TPTB". Masons? Illuminati? Nazi-Gay-British-Queens-of-England? Moloch? Malachi? Malarkey? Rothschilds? Trilateral Commission? Council on Foreign Relations?

It's like just blurting out "They killed Kennedy!" Sure, it SOUNDS about right, but it gets you nowhere to say it, and does no one any good, and actually does YOUR position a world of bad by making you look fringier than you really are.

That's all I'm sayin'.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

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

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 2:08 PM

And yes, DT, if I didn't say it earlier, they ARE "Obamavilles" and not "Bushvilles", whether we who supported Obama like it or not. He may not have CREATED the problem, but it's his now, and if he doesn't like these shantytowns and tent cities being named after him, he better damned well man up and fix the freaking problem so they no longer exist. :) (And by that, I *don't* mean bulldoze them and jail the residents!)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

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

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 5:13 PM

Frem,

Don't be a dick

I made a point about not having time to read a book on why someone is wrong on a point. It's not that there's more information in the post. I read Niki's long infotribes about Afghans and found it interesting.. But when it comes to a long rant about why I'm wrong, nah, that doesn't take five pages. Sorry. I give up after 200 words.

Given the hours I work, NO I don't have the time. I have the time to stop and listen to someone who is saying something.

Ironically, it was Niki who was terse here. PN OTOH, just wrote a book on a neighboring thread.

Mike,

TPTB are used as a universal "unknown" they, but acknowledging that there are manipulators, colluding. I think that there are probably several groups that collude.

Re: Sarah? I think it's a lock that TPTB pushed her out of office. I don't even think it's in question. And it's not *that* which I have a problem with. I have a problem with *her* for allowing herself to be pushed. Where's the fight?

I'm dealing with reality here, as I understand it, and I'm trying my best to filter out all the garbage and get to the truth.

Here's the real situation:

Lou Dobbs is a jackass, and a plant, and the only thing he'll do is run as a splitter to help his friends the Clintons, which means he'll split the GOP vote in '12 to help Obama if Obama is a clintonista pawn, which he is more and more each day. I'm half expecting him to drop Biden in favor of Hillary for VP.

Sarah is probably the viable opposition to Obama in '12.

Consider this: If we are in the mess I expect us to be in, following the current trends, I see this for 2012:

1. National Debt, Official $20 trillion, unofficial, double that, long term liabilities, mutliply that by 5.

2. Depression, worse than the Great Depression.

3. Massive Keynesian govt. industrial complex being built up as "public works" to make way for a new american MIC to breed a "war machine" support, so that most americans will again work in the "War Industry."

4. A war that makes vietnam seem small. I can't say it will *officially* include Iran, but Iran will be involved, as will Russia, China, and India. The *official* arena, Afgh, Pak, southern former-Soviet Reps. Unofficially, western china, NW india, E. Iran, and S. Russia.

5. A secondary war that will get less press, with Israel and US-Iraq against Syria, Lebanon, and various countries in east africa on various sides mostly breaking down on predictable religious boundaries.

Now

Consider that as the situation. You have to deal with a real election, and the question of a second Obama term.

History has shown us that 2nd terms just suck. The reason? No re-election hanging over your head, so no more Mr. Nice Guy.

My current thoughts? Gather Libertarians, storm the GOP, take over the Sarah Palin campaign and try to actually win.

Why? Not because i have fuzzy feelings towards either Palin or the GOP, but because I think it is the *only* possible strategy that has any chance greater than *zero* of actually working.

Sorry, I could be wrong, but this is the situation as I see it right now.

Okay, given that perspective, take a stance for the moment of "If DT is right" and bear in mind that I'm pretty pessimistic, then consider what TPTB reaction would be:

First, let's name some possible PTB:

CFR
G20
Globalists in general
Neocons, in various think tanks
Clintonistas
Foreign intrests, like Beijing, or the Saudis, etc.

I think that TPTB are not a unified conspiracy. I think they are the collective result of people in power that are trying to manipulate on a global level, and sometimes are aligned in the same direction albeit for different reasons.

Okay, if so, why use TPTB? Because I don't know. It's a good placeholder. I don't know who wanted Sarah out, but I do know why:

Because President Sarah is the only real threat to an Obama 2nd term.

Another good way to help that is loose cannon Dobbs, himself a Clintonista. (see Ted Turner, etc.)

So, I think it's a set up. More than that? IDK. But it's not the normal course of things and I have a hunch. Nothing smells right.

Sarah as Gov. of Alaska would have been an ace position. AK is so MFing rich that if we had the above economic conditions, a Gov of AK would smell like a rose, and it would be easy. All she would have to say is "while the rest of you were trying to find a can of catfood in Obamaville, we were dining out every night, because we had our own policies, and govt, etc."

Whoever the they are, even if they're just the Dems, they thought the above out.

But all of that said, I'm not going to blindly support Palin just to get Obama out, if Obama can change, great, and if Palin runs as a neocon stooge, then fuck'er. But if *We* want to try to fuck up the agenda, this is what I see as the best chance to do so, even if the only positive result is chaos, because chaos sure beats the NWO.

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

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 6:32 PM

Ha, askin me not to be a dick is like askin Mikey not to snark - do you ask fish not to swim, too ?

Anyhows, if you are not willing or able to stop and listen, you are not willing to discuss, are you now ?

Frankly, I am detecting a whiff of chewbacca defense off that, cause it reminds me of the way some "conservative" commentators cut the mike on someone who tries to point out their bloody sound-bite "opinion" is more complicated than that - it's a sideways way of mentally pushing folks to either agree or stop arguing, which when used on folk like me, is quite likely to get you bloody ignored.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChewbaccaDefense

If you have "better things to do" then go do them - imma busy little bee too you know, often as not posting from a damn wireless (and apparently waterproof!) laptop in between rounds in the middle of site threes park, so whinging to me about it buys ya nothin.

You got time to talk, make time to listen, or don't expect anyone to reciprocate.

-F

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

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 7:58 PM

Frem,

Ya got me pegged wrong. I'm stressed, not feeling well, pressed for time. I feel bad enough already. Still working 16 hours/day, no access to medical treatment, thanks to my HMO infinite loop. Interesting debates I make time for, not diatribe personal attacks. That ain't debating. "FU" and "Hurray for our side," I've no time for. Partisanwise? Don't give a damn. It's fucking demanding.

You post interesting things, I listen. Niki too. Ignoring attacks is prolly a favor. Keeps me objective. IMHO I've been pretty fair. We debated Superman. People disagree, we listen, that's debate. "FU" is not.

"Truth takes 1000 words?" Nonsense. The Tao te Ching's shorter than FFF rants. Truth is pithy. Long rants say "You're wrong, moron." Ain't great wisdom or intellectual debate. It's faulty towers: "you started it... you invaded poland!" I know the dif.

"You're deflecting" is a manipulative lure. Again, well traveled ground. You know me better than this. I have no vested interest. If I'm wrong, I want to know. If someone Limbaughs me down, I ignore them. Sure, I'm guilty of ranting. Not proud of that.

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

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 7:58 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Jeeezus! DT: Could you at least do me the decency of reading the first two following paragraphs, if nothing else? The rest are pertinent, but they relate to other matters around the same issues. I believe you would find them valuable, but you are certainly free to ignore them:

There ARE reasons for discussions other than debates on issues; there’s communication and relationships, where it’s sometimes important to clarify and discuss a potential misunderstanding. It’s part of being human and respecting one another. Given the length of the rant you made TO ME in response to my short comment, which post I read and replied to, your blithe dismissal of my attempt to clarify and explain is telling. I’m learning a lot about you via recent discussions, this one and it’s origin in particular. And yes, it is SPECIFICALLY “deflecting”, and Frem said it clearly:

Quote:
it reminds me of the way some "conservative" commentators cut the mike on someone who tries to point out their bloody sound-bite "opinion" is more complicated than that - it's a sideways way of mentally pushing folks to either agree or stop arguing

I would have replaced “agree or stop arguing” with “agree or stop disagreeing”, but otherwise, yes, that’s the impression I got as well.

This has been telling. Without even wanting to read my clarification of a possible misunderstanding between us, you are quite happy to call it “a long rant about why I'm wrong”, "diatribe personal attacks”, “"FU" and "Hurray for our side,"” “attacks”, “Long rants say "You're wrong, moron", and ”Limbaughing” you down! You obviously didn’t read, as it was a RESPONSE to your long post directed at me, point by point. It was in no way a rant. Ergo, it’s okay for you to cast aspersions on me, but not for me to disagree or explain or try to clear up any misunderstanding. Instead it's okay for you to go directly to claiming even more vociferously and in even nastier terms that my post was all kinds of things which it was not.

Your “I don't know who wanted Sarah out, but I do know why” is a prime example of what I referred to as making flat statements as if they’re facts, rather than as “hunches,” deductions/theories which you personally hold. So is “I think it's a lock that TPTB pushed her out of office”—the “fight” as you call it is you propounding flat statements without backup. Ditto calling Dobbs a plant and a Clintonista. No possibility he’s just an idiot so focused on illegal aliens that he took it too far? No, you flatly say he’s a patsy and the Clintons are behind him. “Hunch”…not fact. And you sure have it in for what you consider “Clintonistas”, you claim them as conspirators in many things without backup.

Mike said it best:

Quote:
THIS is why I don't buy the "they made Sarah quit" line of BS. It totally discredits anything else you might have to say on the subject, UNLESS you can provide incontrovertible evidence to back that claim. Otherwise, it's pure speculation and opinion, and nothing to base a sound argument on”….” I'd need to see more evidence than just your word or some nebulous pointing to "TPTB"”….”Sure, it SOUNDS about right, but it gets you nowhere to say it, and does no one any good, and actually does YOUR position a world of bad by making you look fringier than you really are.”

While I'm deeply concerned about your health situation and understand time constraints, if you can take the time to write a very lengthy post specifically to someone, it only seems fair to be willing to take the time to read the responses, rather than dismiss them as what you ASSUME they are.

I go by my signature: "TOGETHER" was are stronger than the sum of our parts. I believe "together" means respectful exchanges in an effort to better understand...not just the issues, but one another.

Is that “terse” enough for you to actually have READ?? You don’t need to read the rest, it’s not directed at you.

Frem: bless you for

Quote:
understanding an issue, a belief, or a problem, is simply neither possible nor effective without understanding the people and WHY there is an issue, belief or problem - and you make the mistakes of *assuming* peoples thoughts, feelings and motives, all you'll do is create a disaster.

It’s exactly what I try to do and heartened me. I know I ramble, but that’s part of the reason why.

Mike, thank you also. I’ve thought perhaps I’m the only one who questions DT’s flat statements and sometimes saw them as “reaching” theories. I’m glad to know I’m not alone.

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

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 8:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Re: Sarah? I think it's a lock that TPTB pushed her out of office. I don't even think it's in question.

How much you really, really believe it is moot. It doesn't matter how sure you are - without proof, you are still passing off your speculation as fact.

Which then makes anything else you have to say questionable, at best.

Wasn't that the whole point of your comment to PN???

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

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

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 8:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Superman is religious propoganda from religious nutjobs. That was the only point I was making.

And my point - which I maintain still, is that your labeling anyone who uses religious/mythological devices in storytelling is automatically a "nutjob" paints you as a reactionary nutjob yourself, and like the point above, puts anything else you have to say in question, because of your amazingly obvious bias.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

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

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 8:49 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I just pass over DT's statements of 'fact' which seem unrealistic, the same way I pass over PN's.

He does that a fair bit, but since I have not been able to engage in productive discussion (despite many posts of facts and evidence on my part), and since the topics are generally arcane and not current, I let them go.

Anyway, 'maverick' McCain definitely wanted to be president. That was why he was sucking up to Bush (read Cheney) and Rove ...

... and why they were quietly bankrolling him via the party machinery. (It was the only way they could support him, as the Bush name was toxic to a large segment of the the public. But there was a LOT of VERY quiet financial support from TPTB who benefitted from the Bush regime.)

I couldn't find a photo of the wet one Bush planted on McCain's head shortly after this photo, but he might as well have been patting a housebroken dog.

It was one reason why I didn't even consider McCain. He was bought and paid for. Cheney, Rove et all would have been running the McCain show from the background, just like they ran Bush. Only they would have had the green light to be even MORE destructive and ruthless than ever. Because they would have proof that no matter WHAT they did, the USers would crawl back on their bellies, whining for more.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

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

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 9:01 AM

Quote:

Mike, thank you also. I’ve thought perhaps I’m the only one who questions DT’s flat statements and sometimes saw them as “reaching” theories. I’m glad to know I’m not alone.

Oh, I tend to question it whenever ANYONE jumps off the deep end in their conclusions. It grinds my gears when religious folks say, "I can't explain this, ergo - A MIRACLE!", just as it grinds my gears when addlepated idiots say, "I can't explain this, ergo - ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE!" The fact that we don't know all the hows and whys of a situation at this moment does not equate to it necessarily being explained by the most far-out explanation we can conceive.

Is it POSSIBLE that Palin was "forced out"? Sure. Someone could've pointed out to her that she could leave now, or face new ethics charges, or new evidence of infidelity - you HAVE seen those pictures of her appearing in public without her wedding ring, right? - or what have you. That doesn't mean that any of that stuff just automatically goes away when she does, though. If it's there, and if she was "forced out" for those kinds of reasons (and I'm not saying she was, just that there IS speculation about such things, and she refuses to address those issues, and as she's pointed out, those are all fair game, or would be if they were talking about Obama...), then it's going to still be there in 2012. So if she was "forced out" by "the powers that be", she may be out for good.

It hasn't hurt her bank account any, though.

For the record, I'm of the opinion that Palin quit because she wanted to cash in on her popularity and celebrity while she could. After all, nobody is ever going to hand you a winning lottery ticket and ask you to NOT cash it in right now, are they? She quit because the money was better. She is, after all, a Republican, and there's never been a cause so noble that a Republican wouldn't sell it out for a quick profit.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

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

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 9:01 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Wow, another person who questions DT sometimes; you have no idea how good that makes me feel. NOT that I disrespect DT, but his "conclusions" sometimes strike me as reaching pretty far, but I've never questioned them, just thought he knows more than I do and I have my own opinions which differ.

Quote:
Cheney, Rove et all would have been running the McCain show from the background, just like they ran Bush. Only they would have had the green light to be even MORE outrageous than they were with Bush. Because they would have proof that no matter WHAT they did, the USers would crawl back on their bellies, whining for more.

My belief exactly; I never imagined McCain as wanting to throw the election; it WAS his last hurrah, and the only way he had a chance was with the party behind him, so he sold out.

I do wonder whether they could have gotten away with as much, much less more, tho'. I think the tide at turned against the abuses of the Dumbya administration, and it would have been HARDER, not easier, to take it further. We'll never know, thankfully!

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

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 9:06 AM

Ok, lemme just Strunk and White it for ya, then.

"If you're gonna argue with people, you need to understand people."

-F

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

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 9:19 AM

Also, that "more than the sum of our parts" ties right in with what I believe as well, hence my comments about making allies instead of enemies, or preferring allies over ammo.

I mean, really, would you rather have eighteen bullets, or eighteen allies, in a crisis situation ?

And they don't even have to be fervent or especially skilled ones - like I said, the halfhearted and backhanded support of a million is still far more effective than the rabid support of a hundred.

I may have various disagreements with RAWA, but they are correct in that getting ENOUGH people to care even a little bit can have a pretty damned solid effect over time, one must remember that some of the issues I've gone after since I was not much more than a kid were considered outright impossible to address because the public refused to even acknowledge their EXISTENCE, much less the scope of the problem.

And yet... here we are, the Catholic Church and WWASPS are chewing bitter ashes, and imma wrappin my claws around the throat of our public school systems while holding up a bright and shining alternative in the other hand.

We ARE, together, more than the sum of our parts.

-F

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

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 4:49 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Frem.

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

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 5:00 PM

Oh, and if I haven't said this before...

DT, get some rest. You seem overworked, and stressed, and it's not a good look on you. You take it easy, and we'll hold down the fort around here 'til you get back.

Deal?

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

Thursday, December 17, 2009 10:38 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I agree 100%, Mike, but I need to make one remark. It's interesting to me how DT bowed out right after this conversation, and never managed to bother to respond to this thread further or admit ANY responsibility for overblowing my remark. He referred to it in pretty nasty terms.

Nonetheless, he had no problem spending the time he says he hasn't got to start and write a very, VERY long thread about information technology, complete with pictures and links. For someone with little time, who's apparently feeling ill (tho' no mention ws made of that until this disagreement), it's striking. It's almost like some of those who disappear when opposition gets too strong. That, too, is telling to me.

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

Friday, December 18, 2009 2:51 PM