World War Three

POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Monday, June 15, 2026 15:50
VIEWED: 11879
PAGE 1 of 1

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, August 12, 2006 1:05 PM

So I say again

1/2 the world. 3 continents. 25 nations, 45 if you include those that attack, but have not been attacked. 20 million combatants who has seen combat. 40 million somehow connected to combat. 10 million dead and counting.

Where does World War Three begin for you? Or where did it being? Where does it end? Is that end in sight? Will it come to Mainland American shores? WWI and WWII didn't.

The war between christians and muslims is on, and has been on since at least the 1990s. Are we on the right side?

And all the questions that follow such as what do we do about it?

DUKKATI

Saturday, August 12, 2006 1:52 PM

According to some people who have posted here there is no right or wrong. I guess asking them would get you a 5 minute download of reasons why you cant use right and wrong here because none of this really exists or it may exist only they way they think it should exist..................I do not have a clue most times what they are on about.

I could tell you HOW and WHERE and WHEN this whole thing started but I hate long posts. If you want I can tell you where to look.

(here is where someone will come in and say "You can't really believe any thing that's was written by people of the past because they don't understand whats happening today and besides they never really wrote any thing and what I'm writing to you now didn't really get written unless it was written by some one who doesn't have any point of view")
[AAaand ACTION]

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

I've been through the system.
It ain't bes workin no good.

ANTIMASON

Saturday, August 12, 2006 3:49 PM

my fear, is that ww3 officially begins with a staged terroror attack in America, which puts us under martial law, and draws us into the conflict to confront Iran in the middle east; once we appear to be outstretched, the peace buffer we provide for Taiwan and S. Korea will fail, allowing whatever nations to seize this oppertunity created to establish hegemonys. the war will last as long as it takes to bring opponants of the NWO under submission to western control

all indications to me seem to suggest that our governmnet as we speak is prepping us for such a scenario, just as it did with 9/11 and the Iraq war. they are predictive programming us; informing us of their agenda ahead of time, so it seems as if by natural progression that the circumstances arrive, and their intended actions are taken

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/110806_b_Second.htm

if this becomes ww3, it may drag on long enough to create dramatic enough famines and instability in regions to warrant(seemingly)martial law, and other draconian measures as a break-down of civil liberties. Israels enemies will eventually be defeated, but the agreement which is forged, insuring Israels safety, will be brokered by the antiChrist, who will keep his promise for 3 1/2 years, while the establishment and the public persecute political dissidents of said authority.

IMO

AURAPTOR

Saturday, August 12, 2006 5:52 PM

Quote:
Will it come to Mainland American shores? WWI and WWII didn't.

Actually,that's not all together true. In WW2, Japan did pull off some terrorist attacks which resulted in the deaths of some American citizens. True, there were no major battles fought on the lower 48, but there were battles in Alaska.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, August 13, 2006 4:49 PM

Dukkati

I don't think it will take that long. A place or conflict is sufficient. I'm leaning towards the soviet invasion of afgh. as the spark, and iran-iraq war as the precedent. I'd say the gulf war, maybe the post-war activities of al qaeda.

Antimason

Why a new terror attack, didn't we have one of those? My own believe lately is tending towards and inside-assist of 9-11, probably Richard Perle, possibly Dov Zakheim, but, I'm not sure that staged terror attack makes sense as a term. If Richard Perle *did* mastermind the 9-11 attacks, it changes almost nothing. It just means that Perle is a terrorist, and we have to get him, and any of his co-conspirators, at least to being him to trial to see if he's the guy, which is exactly the same as if it's osama bin laden.

Taiwan has already fallen. Most of the world is already arranged into multi-national blocs, EU, ASEAN, African Union, NAFTA, etc. which are bound more or less to the WTO, GATT, G8, all of which is the definition of NWO as laid out in the 60s and 70s by Shachtman Strauss and all. I don't think it's a conspiracy theory to say that NWO is a reality at the moment. Maybe it's not the perfect unity its ideologues intended, but it's there nonetheless.

I think "antiChrist" needs some clarification

Auraptor

Sure, but not in a major way. Regardless of which conspiracy theory you buy on who perpetrated 9-11, you have to admit that it happened in US so to the same extent as peal harbor, there was an attack, and some other attempts, against the united states, which are arguable part of the larger christ-mohammed war, WWIII. But what I meant is, it shouldn't have to wait until there are trenches in the cornfields of iowa for it to be WWIII.

JUBELLATE

Sunday, August 13, 2006 4:53 PM

WWIII starts when I get drafted and/or have shortages on stuff I use everyday because of war.

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. – H.L. Mencken

DESKTOPHIPPIE

Sunday, August 13, 2006 4:58 PM

Is it really sad that I thought this thread was going to be about all the tension here recently?

More animations available at http://desktophippie.googlepages.com

AURAPTOR

Sunday, August 13, 2006 7:26 PM

Quote:
Auraptor

Sure, but not in a major way. Regardless of which conspiracy theory you buy on who perpetrated 9-11, you have to admit that it happened in US so to the same extent as peal harbor, there was an attack, and some other attempts, against the united states, which are arguable part of the larger christ-mohammed war, WWIII. But what I meant is, it shouldn't have to wait until there are trenches in the cornfields of iowa for it to be WWIII.

I subscribe to no conspiracy theories. The list of Islamo-fascists attacks on the US, its citizens and its sovereignty, is longer than most would ever recognize. It never gets repeated on the network news shows, that's for sure!

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

DUKKATI

Sunday, August 13, 2006 7:44 PM

WWIII has been happening for at least ...umm... well since Israel was given back their nation. That really pissed them Muslims off.HAHA

My word I sure hope it doesn't come to fighting in trenches on our own soil...I hope that before it comes to that we haven't let the government take our weapons away.

I've been through the system.
It dont work.

Do it on their soil not ours.

ANTIMASON

Sunday, August 13, 2006 8:00 PM

Dreamtrove- i am of the belief that America is Mystery Babylon of Revelation- so in order for the final phases of the NWO, which would bec the mark of the beast, the persecution of believers, the man of lawlessness(the antichrist) etc...we would need something more cataclysmic then 9/11. if it is as the republicans always claim, and 9/11 is a distant memory to most Americans, then a reinforcement of the "War on Terror" would be neccessary for the final abridgement of civil rights. since most democrats support the official version of 9/11, and yet are against the Iraq conflict, the establishment may see fit to introduce an even more polarizing event to galvanize the America public once again

now whether its real or staged, thats debateable, but it would seem to me that in order to draw us officially into a conflict with Iran, we would need some more phony ties, like 9/11 and Iraqi wmds, to a terrorist attack; but maybe anything will do, i just seem to sense some predictive programming on behalf of our establishment, saying "its not a matter of if but when" and so on..

i realize the world is already broken down into economic blocks, roughly..but there is still some work to be done. for America to officially forfeit its sovereignty and adopt the fascist global police stature, the SPP nafta highway, the real ID act, and another round of Patriot act esque legislation would be neccessary..it seems there is still a ways to go before they have unbridled authority. i just assume such instances will be engineered, ya know

that is my only point. according to my interpretation of the prophecies, the antichrist will rise out of the Gog/Magog war, or ww3; this conflict, being orchestrated as the final throes of control, must destabilize the western economies and middle eastern nations, and alienate any opponants enough to warrant this system of the beast and the alleged security it provides. so i anticipate this future conflict to encompass many of the signs of the End that Jesus warns about in the Gospels of Matthew Mark and Luke.

Dreamtrove since you seem maybe better versed on the NWO than i(i research all i can RE: the occult secret societeis etc. but my focus is more the prophecy), i thought you might be interested in some of the biblical sources
http://www.the-tribulation-network.com/denemcgriff/in_search_of_babylo
n_intro.htm
http://www.mt.net/~watcher/stones.html
http://www.mt.net/~watcher/antimars.html

STDOUBT

Monday, August 14, 2006 9:04 AM

AURaptor,
Please don't use "Islamo-fascists" like it's a real
term. "Islamo-fascists" is part of the propaganda
campaign of the current US admin.

Islam has nothing to do with Fascism.
"Islamo-radical" I can buy. Think about it. Would
YOU rather be called a Christian-Fascist, or a
Christian-radical? Which is more accurate?

Personally, I think people who kill in the name of
religion should be lined up and shot.
(Please try and see the humor)

SIGNYM

Monday, August 14, 2006 4:49 PM

Dreamtrove- Wow. When did you go off the deep end?

I'm not blind to the conflict. I think more than anyone I'm fully aware of how much people around the world hate us, especially the Middle East. But the conflict is not just about religion. Might as well say that the conflict between the USA and the USSR was about the godlessness or that WWII was about fascism. But if you, Bush, and other fanatics keep pushing that button it WILL become a war about religion.

There is ONLY ONE REASON why we're fighting, and it's all about oil and has always been about oil. Take oil out of the equation and we'd be more than happy to leave the Middle East with it's religion and it's peasant economy, no matter how stupid and benighted we see it. Without oil the whole Middle East just becomes a big hot dusty sandbox, something to go around on the way to more interesting places, as vital to us as... oh, say... Rwanda.

Put oil IN the equation and all of the sudden there's a whole history of puppet governments and military bases and foreign interference. The Shah, the Saudi Royal family, the Taliban, Saddam, bases all over, American troops everyhwere...

SAY, YOU DON'T SUPPOSE THAT'S WHAT MIDDLE EASTERNERS MIGHT BE REACTING TO, DO YOU??? A sense of ongoing national, cultural and economic violation? NAH, couldn't be...

Unfortunately, religion is a convenient TOOL to rouse people. It's happening here... and DT you're being worked as well as anyone... so why shouldn't it happen there?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

CITIZEN

Monday, August 14, 2006 5:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
SAY, YOU DON'T SUPPOSE THAT'S WHAT MIDDLE EASTERNERS MIGHT BE REACTING TO, DO YOU??? A sense of ongoing national, cultural and economic violation? NAH, couldn't be...

No it's because they're evil Islamo-Fascists that hate freedom and puppies, you moron

.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SIGNYM

Monday, August 14, 2006 6:04 PM

When someone like DT gets sucked into a global war scenario, that's a bad sign.

People in the United States (Aurap, Hero, Kaneman, et al... are you listening?) are constantly bombarded with the message that "they started it". 9-11 is burned into their brains as if it were the beginning of history.

AU CONTRAIRE. We and the Brits have been mucking up the Middle East since 1920. We've set up dictators, pitted group against group, coddled religious fanaticism when it suited our purposes, built bases everywhere, invaded on a whim, wrapped the oil money in our banking tentacles and suppressed all secular national movements that even breathed a hint of socialism.

IT'S ALL ABOUT OIL. And when the people of those nations twitch with any sort of nascent resistance we scream and gibber and stomp on them in complete hysteria. Because we have to fight them "there" (no matter that we were "there" in the first place) so that we won't have to fight them "here".

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

HKCAVALIER

Monday, August 14, 2006 6:09 PM

Puppies! Even 'Slamo-fascists wouldn't stoop so low! Are you sure? Could you supply a link, please?

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.

CITIZEN

Monday, August 14, 2006 6:18 PM

Quote:
Or is it that us right wingers are the only ones who care about Iraq, Iraqi women, Iraqi children, and also about Iraqi dogs?
That old camel and goat molester, pedofile, wife beater, and animal abuser of Mohammed said it all. According to him, Allah said that dogs and pigs were dirty. Because those terrorists are clean! Fuck Allah, the dog hater. Piss a Muslim, adopt a dog. Make a dog happy, kill a terrorist, pay in kind since they are killing dogs in the name of Allah.

http://www.killcastro.com/blog/2005/08/another-reason-to-hate-them.htm
l
Mohammed the dog hater!!!

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

HERO

Monday, August 14, 2006 6:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
So I say again

1/2 the world. 3 continents. 25 nations, 45 if you include those that attack, but have not been attacked. 20 million combatants who has seen combat. 40 million somehow connected to combat. 10 million dead and counting.

Wow, its like the 19('50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and thats just the last few decades) up to and including the usual folk holding up 'the end is near' signs.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. On the other hand, if this is WW3, then you really should be voting Republican since the "Democrats Can't Defend America" (which is also Ned Lamont's theme song...sung to the tune of 'Oops I did it again').

H

HERO

Monday, August 14, 2006 6:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
AU CONTRAIRE. We and the Brits have been mucking up the Middle East since 1920. We've set up dictators, pitted group against group, coddled religious fanaticism when it suited our purposes, built bases everywhere, invaded on a whim, wrapped the oil money in our banking tentacles and suppressed all secular national movements that even breathed a hint of socialism.

So you are arguing that we created the dangerous fanatics determined to kill us all. Does this mean that we don't have a right to defend ourselves?

It seems your so caught up in the "we created" part you forget the "determined to kill us all" part. Personally I think that if they kill us, it doesn't matter if we caused it or not.

Lets survive first and then we'll feel bad later. I mean you are the guy urging the settlers not to circle the wagons and fight off the indians trying to massacre them (he's usually the first one killed, by the way). We'll figure out the history later...if anyone is left to write it down.

H

AURAPTOR

Monday, August 14, 2006 6:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:
AURaptor,
Please don't use "Islamo-fascists" like it's a real
term. "Islamo-fascists" is part of the propaganda
campaign of the current US admin.

Islam has nothing to do with Fascism.
"Islamo-radical" I can buy. Think about it. Would
YOU rather be called a Christian-Fascist, or a
Christian-radical? Which is more accurate?

Personally, I think people who kill in the name of
religion should be lined up and shot.
(Please try and see the humor)

fas*cism - A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Sorry, but I think the term 'Islamo-fascism' appllies quite nicely. Look at what the Taliban did to Afghanistan. That is the sort of Gov't that OBL and like minded religious zealots have in store for not just the mid-east, but eventually Europe , the U.S. and finally the whole planet.

It's not that these religious types are JUST 'radicals', far from it. They are intent in establishing Shiria Law as the bed rock by which all laws are made and carried out. Using the term 'radicals' doesn't establish the depth at which these false Muslims are willing to distort the faith.

p.s. - I would prefer to be called neither christian radical or christian fascist, for neither is remotely accurate.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

ANTIMASON

Monday, August 14, 2006 7:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
So I say again

1/2 the world. 3 continents. 25 nations, 45 if you include those that attack, but have not been attacked. 20 million combatants who has seen combat. 40 million somehow connected to combat. 10 million dead and counting.

Wow, its like the 19('50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and thats just the last few decades) up to and including the usual folk holding up 'the end is near' signs.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. On the other hand, if this is WW3, then you really should be voting Republican since the "Democrats Can't Defend America" (which is also Ned Lamont's theme song...sung to the tune of 'Oops I did it again').

H

the difference is that 50 years ago the world wasnt a deceptive, engineered war away from a global government.

this seems to be the biggest obstacle of reason for the America Christians in lock step with Bush; they dont, or arent studying to understand prophecy. how do you know what is to take place at the end of the age without considering what events proceed the coming of antiChrist?

to my best understanding, the tribulation begins after a WW3 conflict, which i believe Daniel says envolves Iran and Isreal, which escalates to encompass the prominant western nations and their "opponents."

this war must destabilizes the global political environment sufficiently enough to introduce (1)a treaty insuring Israels safety, (2)brokered by the Anti-Christ, whos lying signs and wonders give him the capitol to usher in a (3)one world government (4)one world religion, (5)and one world currency, or the (6)mark of the beast, where no man can buy or sell without recieiving the mark.

if you look into the NWO conspiracy, you find these same forces and motives at work PRESENTLY, in America! but because of the "War on Terror" propoganda, Americans are welcoming it

well during this upcoming "gog/magog" war, the apostasy of the church happens, the great falling away of believers, due to unexpected circumstances, and an incredible diception which takes place that decieves "even the elect, if it were possible"..at which point the mechanisms for control are already in place

so think about this: we know that right now there is an elitist agenda to create a "NWO". this agenda is unquestionably occultic in nature, which is obvious upon personal investigation.

understand that 9/11 was an orchestration, by the establishment, to initiate the circumstances required to undermine the final liberties and sovereignty of western nations. there motive is the government of antichrist..whether they know it personally or not

the bible says that Christians will be decieved during this same period, right?....well most Christians believe Bush and his "war on terror" propoganda. coincidence?

if America is mystery Babylon, the prostitute that sits on many waters, of which the people of the world hate, but that makes all the nations drink of the wrath of her fornications; it is the nation which rules with antichrist, over the peoples of the world...

think about it! that is America! and Bush christians are the "elect", who will be decieved into supporting the rise of the system of the Beast. i fear it is these same Christians who believe the rapture occurs before the tribulation, leaving them unprepared for the diception which is to occur that will leave them on earth during this time of persecution

let me give you the most obvious insight into the reality of politics in America: Both our candidates for president in '04 were members of the same organisations(skull and bones), an occult group dedicated to overthrowing the US government; its an admitted goal. Bush and Kerry, when both confronted about this revelation, said that "theres not much we can say, because its a secret". does Christianity permit secrecy? does that not raise red flags to you Christians our there?

if you want to save America, you should realize that neither the democrats

HERO

Monday, August 14, 2006 8:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
if you look into the NWO conspiracy, you find these same forces and motives at work PRESENTLY, in America! but because of the "War on Terror" propoganda, Americans are welcoming it

You see what you want to see. Matter of fact people been seeing this stuff for about the last couple centuries.

One thing is clear, you can't predict it nor can you stop it. Its completely out of your control. So just relax, let it happen, or relax and when it doesn't happen (this time) then you havn't wasted money on ten thousand rolls of toilet paper and a wood burning stove.

H

HKCAVALIER

Monday, August 14, 2006 8:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
So you are arguing that we created the dangerous fanatics determined to kill us all. Does this mean that we don't have a right to defend ourselves?H

"Determined to" does not mean "in a position to." The only political power a terrorist has it the power you grant him. Terrorist plots can be foiled without starting WWIII; just needs a little respect for the Intelligence Community on the part of the Executive Branch. Oh well.

Hero imagines the terrorists have us surrounded on the prairie. How thrilling. Guess if I watched more Gunsmoke in my youth, I'd know how to fight the GWOT. Oh well.

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.

SIGNYM

Monday, August 14, 2006 8:28 PM

Quote:
So you are arguing that we created the dangerous fanatics determined to kill us all. It seems your so caught up in the "we created" part you forget the "determined to kill us all" part. Personally I think that if they kill us, it doesn't matter if we caused it or not. Lets survive first and then we'll feel bad later. I mean you are the guy urging the settlers not to circle the wagons and fight off the indians trying to massacre them (he's usually the first one killed, by the way). We'll figure out the history later...if anyone is left to write it down.

Well, mebbe if we figure out what we did/are doing wrong then we can at least stop. What's that cowboy phrase? If you find yourself in a hole the first thing to do is stop digging?

Our job, as I see it, is to slowly step back from the precipice. Avoid occupying foreign territories as much as pssible while distenagling the mess we made- which will take decades to undo seeing as it took decades to create.

So, first things first: We have to stop occupying Iraq, even if it means splitting Iraq into three. We have to recognize Iran's legitimate national interests, including nuclear independence. We need to press Israel to not only w/draw to their borders but to allow the Palestinians free movement within their autonomous areas so that they can build an economic base. (If your economy had 70% unemployment, wouldn't YOU create an armed movement?)

We're going to take in on the chin in terms of oil prices. You know what? WE DESERVE IT. Who's old enough to remember the gasoline crisis of the 70's? Anyone? Raise your hand! (raises hand) I looked at those people buying SUVs and I kept thinking... cheap gas prices are not ging to last forever... We're going to have to the oil crunch sooner or later. May as well face it in our terms.

That's just a start.

The Romans knew and accepted that they had built an empire. Rebellious strikes from under the boot heel were an accepted part of the package. But the American people (not the leaders- the people)... are so convinced that we represent "freedom" that we were facing backwards while our leaders took over the world, until they were talking openly about the "unipolar moment" and NOBODY recognized what that meant: Empire.

Quote:
Does this mean that we don't have a right to defend ourselves?

Of course. We just need to recognize WHO WE ARE. And we ARE NOT the Middle East, South and Central America, Indonesia, or the Phillipines. We're not "liberty" or "freedom" or "democracy" or "Christianity". WE ARE JUST PEOPLE. We're just people who've slept-walked into imperialism.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

SIGNYM

Monday, August 14, 2006 8:45 PM

Quote:
President Bush called the U.N. resolution that took effect Monday a defeat for the Hezbollah militants. Saying Iran was supplying Hezbollah with weapons, Bush added: "We can only imagine how much more dangerous this conflict would be if Iran had the nuclear weapon it seeks."

And this Mf*cker is pushing for WWIII as hard as he can.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 3:34 PM

Auraptor,

OBL attacked WTC is a conspiracy theory.

1. 9.11 was a conspiracy, no lonegunman can pull this off, makes it a conspiracy, which is a crime.
2. He says he didn't, and we have no proof, ergo, it's a theory.
3. To which you subscribe.

36% of americans believe in at least some US involvement.
56% of believe saddam hussein was involved in the planning.
8% believe that there was no US or Iraqi involvement. That's a fringe theory.

Moving on...

dukkati

Quote:
WWIII has been happening for at least ...umm... well since Israel was given back their nation. That really pissed them Muslims off.HAHA
[quote/]

Can't be. 1919, near the end of WWI, Uk cature of palestine. (arguably WWI continues to 1921 because, inspite of the armistice, fighting continued until, yes, a republican was elected.)

Quote:

My word I sure hope it doesn't come to fighting in trenches on our own soil...I hope that before it comes to that we haven't let the government take our weapons away.

I've been through the system.
It dont work.

Do it on their soil not ours.

A post I can wholeheartedly agree with. Gun control would leave american forces alone to defend america. Nothing against our troops, but after Katrina, (&WTC?) I've lost faith in our govt's committment to defending us. We'd need to defend the US george washington style if we want to win.

I'm not sure who would invade america proper, but then, in a war, you never know. I know that there are muslim refugees here who might take arms against us, particularly if our govt. keeps its genocidal campaigns against muslims (count those millions internationally) but it might be someone else entirely, I can see china, or even the bolivarians, doing it in a total oppertunistic move if things got bad enough.

Picture this scenario: The US attacks Iran, and China defense it (she said she would) Pakistan and the former soviet central asians side with Iran-China. Massive US overseas effort, Bang, Ahmadinejaq Nukes Qatar, Iraq, our US bases. Suddenly we have no army. It would only last a brief time, but with US forces including national guard abroad (Oh come on, you don't REALLY believe bush would leave forces behind to defend? Why would he? After all, to be fair, this is a mistake that has been made at least 100 times in history) China might just decide to invade. In spite of all the market reforms, the chinese govt. is still communist, and they still believe that world domination of the communist partt is possible (and they're doing pretty well at it, look at how much of south america they've picked up in the last 10 years, ie. virtually all of it)

So sure, scary thought.

Antimason,

Do you really think republicans and democrats matter here? I don't think the GOP has much to do with this, nor the Dems, it's the bipartisan groups, neocons, trilaterals, etc. Dem party leadership *is* the republican party leadership. Dems as a whole are more blind to the situation than republicans, no offense dems, (Oh yeah? Try asking each to see how many would desert their party to vote for their values on third party ticket, elections have shown us about 20% of conservatives and 2% of liberals, ie. you guys really need to pry yourselves away from the dems, Clinton is Bush, Bush is Clinton. Ben is Glory - sorry I can't say it enough times)

I really this is going to be the Hillary Admin pretty soon here, and nothing is going to change. Some surface stuff for appearance, but the central core of ideas will be go zion, go wwiii, go mergers and monopolies, kill your civil rights, it's your birthday.

A terrorist attack is always real, even if the terorrists are americans. It's never 'staged' like the Reichstag fire, because the attackers were not the same as the attacked. I think everyone has ruled out the WTC, port authority, or at the very least the companies with, as potential conspirators. I make this point because I know a guy who is an idiot but he got caught staging a robbery of his own store. WTC is not Perle's property, or Cheney's, and so if they blew i

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 3:59 PM

Quote:
Dreamtrove- Wow. When did you go off the deep end?

Excuse me? I've been reading a lot, analyzing. It's everyone else, not me. I'm somewhat serious, the situation is very very different from how it's being portrayed in the MSM

Quote:
I'm not blind to the conflict. I think more than anyone I'm fully aware of how much people around the world hate us, especially the Middle East. But the conflict is not just about religion.

Who said it was? I'm sorry clarification. Chirstians represent a western influence, Muslims represent an eastern one, generally speaking, it's not a perfect match, but to say there was no US or Al Qaeda involvement in the conflict in Darfur, or Rwanda or Yugoslavia is just to not have been paying any attention. This is certainly all part of the same larger conflict, these are not isolated events by any means. Destroying Islam (which is too effective at growing arab populations) is one of the smaller agendas on the agenda, like spreading puppet democracy, creating friendly buffer states for israel, stealing oil, etc. all within the must larger world conquest/control agenda.

Quote:
Might as well say that the conflict between the USA and the USSR was about the godlessness or that WWII was about fascism. But if you, Bush, and other fanatics keep pushing that button it WILL become a war about religion.

Whoa! this is way out of line. NO NO NO NO NO I'm not saying this. But there is most certainly an anti-islam element of this conflict. Members of the Bush admin have said it many times. Cambone said "this isnt a war on terorrism so much as it is a crusade against islam" or something like that. So they intend to destroy islam, as a part of a broader agenda.

Quote:
There is ONLY ONE REASON why we're fighting, and it's all about oil and has always been about oil.

This is patently not so. Wars in lebanon, attack on Syria, have nothing to do with oil. Sure, oil is a part of the broader agenda, it's why the middle east instead of indochina. Now, that is. But it's just a little piece in a big puzzle. If this were about oil it would be over already.

Quote:
Take oil out of the equation and we'd be more than happy to leave the Middle East with it's religion and it's peasant economy, no matter how stupid and benighted we see it. Without oil the whole Middle East just becomes a big hot dusty sandbox, something to go around on the way to more interesting places, as vital to us as... oh, say... Rwanda.

Or Darfur, where there's plenty of oil, all over africa. We just don't send troops, we want black people to fight, but we do arm them.

Sygnym, the situation is far more sinister than you envision it. I think I was on this page back in 2003 when we invaded, but there's much more digging to to, and not just for oil. Oil funds the war, but the war exists for the purpose of the war, it is its own end, it's fear and power and permanent global domination, the end to independence anywhere.

Quote:
Put oil IN the equation and all of the sudden there's a whole history of puppet governments and military bases and foreign interference. The Shah, the Saudi Royal family, the Taliban, Saddam, bases all over, American troops everyhwere...
SAY, YOU DON'T SUPPOSE THAT'S WHAT MIDDLE EASTERNERS MIGHT BE REACTING TO, DO YOU??? A sense of ongoing national, cultural and economic violation? NAH, couldn't be...

Not arguing. But oil is a means to an end. Think about it. Why control the world's oil? where does it get you? Is there a purpose to doing it? What if you're already ungodly rich? would anyone do this to be richer? yes? no! they would do it for power. control the oil, hold the world hostage and push your extremist agenda. It's a complicated multilayered conflict, each level is probably more sinister than the last.

Quote:
Unfortunately, religion is a convenient TOOL to rouse people. It's happening here... and DT you're being worked as well as anyone... so why shouldn't it happen there?

No, I'm not, I see it for what it is, as if you re

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 4:02 PM

Signym

Not sucked in. Open your eyes. Big war is here. OBL didn't attack us on 9-11, PNAC did.

I'm not taking sides here. Just saying big war, wake up guys. 10 million and counting dead, and everyone voted for it, time to wake up before you continue to support it when it comes up and is called Hillary or Condi. (Yep, sorry, Condi jumped off of my good republican list into the sea of neocon evil. I think it was the campaigning for nuking Iran that did it.)

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 4:07 PM

Hero,

your still an arrogant prick, though I see now you're willing to admit that WWII didn't end conflict.

This conflict is of 25 middle-east nations who all border one another, not little random conflicts.

Quote:
you really should be voting Republican since the "Democrats Can't Defend America" (which is also Ned Lamont's theme song...sung to the tune of 'Oops I did it again').

Nice to have a shameless partisan plug. I think I'll probably vote for some fringe looney like Pat Buchanan unless we can get a decent GOP candidate in like Hagel.

Ned Lamont is too much of a neocon for me ;) just not as much as joementum. which is not a reference to joe's jewishness.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 4:12 PM

Signym,

You really need to read anti-mason's posts. He has another piece of the puzzle which is not oil. Not saying there's isn't a big oil part of the slippery puzzle. But this is so much bigger than oil. I'd love to one day wake up and hear that it was only about oil. Then it might end soon.

KANEMAN

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 4:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
So I say again

1/2 the world. 3 continents. 25 nations, 45 if you include those that attack, but have not been attacked. 20 million combatants who has seen combat. 40 million somehow connected to combat. 10 million dead and counting.

Where does World War Three begin for you? Or where did it being? Where does it end? Is that end in sight? Will it come to Mainland American shores? WWI and WWII didn't.

The war between christians and muslims is on, and has been on since at least the 1990s. Are we on the right side?

And all the questions that follow such as what do we do about it?

It is par for the course. There has always been multiple human conflicts going on simultaneously...always will. So if that is your criteria for naming something a World War, and I am not saying you are wrong, aren't we really still in World War I? And didn't World War 1 start, like..erm....eons ago?

SIGNYM

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 7:11 PM

Dreamtrove- Remember all those anti-"Hun" diatribes from WWI? That's what you're sounding like, and that kind of rhetoric creates hysteria. Altho you're anti-PNAC in theory, in practice you're lending a hand by adopting anti-Muslim PNAC rhetoric. I'm reacting specifically to the statement

Quote:
The war between christians and muslims is on, and has been on since at least the 1990s. Are we on the right side?

Since YOU defined the "sides" as xtian and muslim you don't leave much of an option to choose "other", do you?

Now, here's more hysteria-building

Quote:
Bang, Ahmadinejaq Nukes Qatar, Iraq, our US bases.

Iran has nukes?? Since when? If anyone were to nuke the USA, it would be Pakistan.

Quote:
Who said it was {a conflict about religion}?

Er, that would be... you?

Quote:
...The situation is far more sinister than you envision it. I think I was on this page back in 2003 when we invaded, but there's much more digging to to, and not just for oil. Oil funds the war, but the war exists for the purpose of the war, it is its own end, it's fear and power and permanent global domination, the end to independence anywhere.

Well, if you want my opinion, it's all about capitalism. Every war that we fought since WWII seems to be tied up with the protection and spread of corporations... either in some general way ("anti-communism") or in a specific way (indebting nations thru the World Bank and IMF so that their physical resources become the corporations'. Confessions of an Economi Hit Man)

Quote:
But oil is a means to an end. Think about it. Why control the world's oil? where does it get you? Is there a purpose to doing it? What if you're already ungodly rich? would anyone do this to be richer? yes? no! they would do it for power. control the oil, hold the world hostage and push your extremist agenda. It's a complicated multilayered conflict, each level is probably more sinister than the last.

Sure, but why frame it as muslim v xtian?

Quote:
I'm not taking sides here. Just saying big war, wake up guys. 10 million and counting dead,

Where? When? Millions of people die every month from totally preventable causes and has nothing to do with muslim or xtian. The biggest "war" that I see is the "war" of the rich on the poor.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 8:02 PM

So, taking a bigger view....

There are three main contenders for world power and numerous smaller players who are aiming at regional power. The three main contenders are

United States (allied with Britain)
China (possibly allied with Russia and Central/ South America)
Islam

Each has an economic base and a world view and they don't overlap much, so any contention is likely to be asymmetric. Quite honestly, Islam's economic base in oil. I have the strong impression this current jihadism is the reaction of a peasant/ feudal culture to new economic realities. If you listen to their rhetoric, it's all about destroying the infidel and re-creating the past. The only way that Islam will "win" is if modern economy/ technology is universally disrupted (ie loss of oil) because because their economy is lower to the ground.

The United States represents a whole 'nother paradigm- individualism, materialism, and high productivity. I think if we want to win the war if ideas with Islam we have to offer another world view. Unfortunately ours has been competely corrupted by greed and the best we've been able to offer is dog-eat-dog capitalism, and to fuck everyone over while talking about freedom.

I'll get to China later.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

ANTIMASON

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 8:27 PM

http://www.the-tribulation-network.com/denemcgriff/in_search_of_babylo
n_ch4.htm

"As we search for prophetic Babylon, we look for a country that has certain characteristics. Revelation 17, 18 and 19 deal with the characteristics of this nation, as does Daniel, Isaiah and other chapters. There are many hints here and there throughout scripture so we will look at some of the major themes. Revelation 17 describes “religious” Babylon as a harlot where the apostate Christian church aligns itself with a beast with ten horns which reigns over the kings of the earth. This harlot sits on seven mountains (not hills) standing for the seven continents. Revelation 18 deals with the judgment of a nation that has a vast commercial empire and all the nations trade with her by sea and the merchants become wealthy because she buys everything they produce (a great consumer nation). Chapter 19 describes a military power whose forces are amassed for the battle of Armageddon. References abound throughout the Bible and we will site them as we go.

But for now, let’s think about the identity of Babylon. Well, the first nation that comes to mind has got to be Iraq and that is kind of ruled out for now. Conventional wisdom would say Europe, but they aren’t really a unified nation but a collage of countries forming a loose trading union. They could hardly be described as a great consumer nation. They hardly have a worldwide presence, an offensive military and besides, they are so post-Christian, their churches are all but empty. That leaves Russia – hardly that powerful or Christian, and China and India are just beginning to emerge and are not Christian either.

So who could it be?"

without ruining it for you its AMERICA!!

my point: Babylon is a prostitute because of her trade and her compromises. should we be in defense of our actions? thats what this war is really about

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 8:46 PM

Kaneman

Quote:
It is par for the course.

I don't buy it. There's more connection in these campaigns, they're all post-cold war global conquest issues, and all involve the west and islamic radicals. It's not just a coincidence.

KANEMAN

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 8:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Kaneman

Quote:
It is par for the course.

I don't buy it. There's more connection in these campaigns, they're all post-cold war global conquest issues, and all involve the west and islamic radicals. It's not just a coincidence.

Post cold war global conquest issues? Every time two major powers have gone head to head in a stalemate. History has givin it a "post" blank name. Don't think the cold war is anymore significant. So, let's not throw it in our "argument" to give it greater weight. Religions have always fought..always will..Quite ironic that religion is cause of so much historical evil. They don't all involve the "West" and Islam..I won't even comment on that. They do all involve two sides that think they are correct and the other is wrong. This goes on all over the globe..All through out history..Now is no different than any other time....Relax

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 9:10 PM

Signym

Since we're basically on the same side here, maybe we should stop nuking each other.

Quote:
anti-Muslim

Who me>? Hardly.

Quote:
Since YOU defined the "sides" as xtian and muslim you don't leave much of an option to choose "other", do you?

I was unaware that this was a christian forum? Everyone knows I'm not a chrisitan, it's no secret. Besides, the crusades were a war between christians and muslims, and yet a lot of christians (majority?) opposed the idea.

Quote:
Iran has nukes?? Since when? If anyone were to nuke the USA, it would be Pakistan.

Okay, pakistan, which ever, I was just predicting how the situation could get out of hand. Iran has nukes on order. As soon as we let Iran out of the NPT, which we're moronically pushing them towards they can get 100 nukes by the end of the day, because Iran has buckets of cash, it's really a fairly wealth nation, and former soviet republics are very poor, have nukes, and are run by lunatics. Anyway, He would do it because it's the logical thing to do. He doesn't want to see his country obliterated like Iraq or Lebanon, so, bam, piece of cake, US forces in the gulf are a sitting duck. Why wouldn't he do that?

Quote:
Who said it was {a conflict about religion}?
Er, that would be... you?

It's a fact that the people on the one side are muslims and on the other side they are christians in almost every instance except for the one where on was jewish.

Quote:
Well, if you want my opinion, it's all about capitalism.

I couldn't disagree with this more.
Bush co are running on not pure, but very corrupted, post wwii trotsky socialism. The whole NWO came out of the SWP, which is a socialist extremist group, and the american communist party, which is as its name suggests.
The social dems came out of these groups, as did the neocons, who largely came from the social dems.
Corporatism is not capitalism, it is almost the exact opposite of free-market capitalism.
Definition of corporatism is the merger of corporation and state. That's not a very capitalistic idea, it's an almost soviet idea.

Quote:
Every war that we fought since WWII seems to be tied up with the protection and spread of corporations...

Not entirely disagreeing, but not ALL corporations. certain corporate-govt cabals.

Quote:
either in some general way ("anti-communism")

anti-leninist, because leninism is a power structure that neothugs can't take over. Because it's run by someone else.

Quote:
World Bank and IMF

are a giant money laundering system to steal cash, it's a loop system that gives you 2x your money, once when you cash the insurance, and once when you blackmail the petty dictator into destroying his country to pay you back. It's not really captialist, it's theft.

Quote:
Sure, but why frame it as muslim v xtian?

Not framing it. Just finding the single unifying factor. Osama Bin Laden isn't a Muslim? What about Zarqawi, Zawahiri, Al Sadr? Bush isn't a Christian? Or Blair? It's just a statement of fact, bunch of muslims on one side, arabs, euros and africas, bunch of chrisitans on the other side.
Not saying that's what it's all about, though, in part, it's about that, but that's who's fighting the war.

Quote:
Where? When? Millions of people die every month from totally preventable causes and has nothing to do with muslim or xtian. The biggest "war" that I see is the "war" of the rich on the poor.

The post opened being about the actual war in the middle east, east africa, se europe and central asia, a regional conflict which began at, or just before, our invasion of iraq, which was in 1991, not in 2003. (In 2002 for example, more explosives were dropped on Iraq than in the entire gulf war. More people were killed by US efforts in Iraq during the clinton years than both bush's combined, ergo, it's one big war) And a big regional war. If you dig up who's fighting in Darfur, who fought in yugoslavia, same people, same side, on both sides, so, in the sense that World wa

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 11:33 PM

Auraptor,

OBL attacked WTC is a conspiracy theory.

1. 9.11 was a conspiracy, no lonegunman can pull this off, makes it a conspiracy, which is a crime.
2. He says he didn't, and we have no proof, ergo, it's a theory.
3. To which you subscribe.

36% of americans believe in at least some US involvement.
56% of believe saddam hussein was involved in the planning.
8% believe that there was no US or Iraqi involvement. That's a fringe theory.

1.OBL did indeed orchestrate the WTC attack. That is a proven fact. And sorry, but it has been proven that , contrary to public misconception, 1 lone gunman COULD infact pull off 3 shots in the amount of time.

2. Doesn't matter what he says, he declared war on the US back in '98. And yes, we do have proof.

3. Opinion polls are irrelevent. Most folks in the US don't agree w/ the theory of Evolution, despite the literal mountains of evidence for its support. Sorry, but the opinions of those who are woefully uninformed simply don't matter. Since Iraq was never tied directly to the 9/11 attack, or any any operational involvement w/ any of the previous terror attacks against the US ( except for the attempt at Bush 41's life when he visited Kuwait, after leaving office )

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 3:08 AM

Auraptor

1. is nonsense. I've seen about 10 times as much proof to support the idea that someone here did it.

2. not disagreeing with you here.

3. except when it comes to rosepetal parades.

As I said before 36% of us, and when i was here b4 i was definitely not in that camp, but i have been deluged by conspiracy junk, 90% of which was utter trash, and the other 10% was a holy f^&k of revelation. It's just a lock solid case. If the official story weren't an arrogant moron it would have tempered itself long ago. Now they've totally lost credibility with the rest of us.

Which means, every amount of distrust you have towards bin laden's supporters, 1/3 of us have towards neocon supporters. If you don't support neocons, as you suggested you don't, and as I said, show me how. When do we stop obsessing about MEFTA and NWO, when do we allow iraqis to own their own oil, when do we back down and use diplomacy with iran, when do we force israel out of lebanon, why are these the totally obvious positions for any traditional conservative? To say absolutely nothing of the reems to be said on domestic policy. Spending anyone?

At the moment, the way it looks from here, OBL is an enemy of America, sure. he's the mosquito in our ear. But Bush/Clinton is the big MF godzilla about to eat our heads. Swat bin laden in your spare time, but don't pray to godzilla.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 10:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
3. Opinion polls are irrelevent. Most folks in the US don't agree w/ the theory of Evolution, despite the literal mountains of evidence for its support. Sorry, but the opinions of those who are woefully uninformed simply don't matter. Since Iraq was never tied directly to the 9/11 attack, or any any operational involvement w/ any of the previous terror attacks against the US ( except for the attempt at Bush 41's life when he visited Kuwait, after leaving office )

You heard it here first folks! Democracy is irrelevant! Anyone with the wrong opinions doesn't matter!

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

DUKKATI

Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

dukkati

Quote:
WWIII has been happening for at least ...umm... well since Israel was given back their nation. That really pissed them Muslims off.HAHA
[quote/]

Can't be. 1919, near the end of WWI, Uk cature of palestine. (arguably WWI continues to 1921 because, inspite of the armistice, fighting continued until, yes, a republican was elected.)

Quote:

My word I sure hope it doesn't come to fighting in trenches on our own soil...I hope that before it comes to that we haven't let the government take our weapons away.

I've been through the system.
It dont work.

Do it on their soil not ours.

A post I can wholeheartedly agree with. Gun control would leave american forces alone to defend america. Nothing against our troops, but after Katrina, (&WTC?) I've lost faith in our govt's committment to defending us. We'd need to defend the US george washington style if we want to win.

I'm not sure who would invade america proper, but then, in a war, you never know. I know that there are muslim refugees here who might take arms against us, particularly if our govt. keeps its genocidal campaigns against muslims (count those millions internationally) but it might be someone else entirely, I can see china, or even the bolivarians, doing it in a total oppertunistic move if things got bad enough.

Picture this scenario: The US attacks Iran, and China defense it (she said she would) Pakistan and the former soviet central asians side with Iran-China. Massive US overseas effort, Bang, Ahmadinejaq Nukes Qatar, Iraq, our US bases. Suddenly we have no army. It would only last a brief time, but with US forces including national guard abroad (Oh come on, you don't REALLY believe bush would leave forces behind to defend? Why would he? After all, to be fair, this is a mistake that has been made at least 100 times in history) China might just decide to invade. In spite of all the market reforms, the chinese govt. is still communist, and they still believe that world domination of the communist partt is possible (and they're doing pretty well at it, look at how much of south america they've picked up in the last 10 years, ie. virtually all of it)

So sure, scary thought.

============================================
{Just throwing this out for chum}
Not so much a theory but a plan already in the making.
I think the Chinese own a major port in California...usta be a military base... I think Clinton sold it to them and gave them a multiple warhead missle plan also?

I was just a kid when that happened so I don't know all the details.
===================================

Im gone again for a few days ...yall play nice...{Thats what my Captian always says}

I've been through the system.
It dont wurk.

USBROWNCOAT

Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
3. Opinion polls are irrelevent. Most folks in the US don't agree w/ the theory of Evolution, despite the literal mountains of evidence for its support. Sorry, but the opinions of those who are woefully uninformed simply don't matter. Since Iraq was never tied directly to the 9/11 attack, or any any operational involvement w/ any of the previous terror attacks against the US ( except for the attempt at Bush 41's life when he visited Kuwait, after leaving office )
You heard it here first folks! Democracy is irrelevant! Anyone with the wrong opinions doesn't matter!

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

The point Auraptor makes, that you cowardly brush off with sarcasm, is valid. Polls should not be trusted or used to make policy. The populace in general is preoccupied watching football or simply uninterested to have a say. He gives a perfect example in his post. And, in my opinion, one major problem with US politics is we permit the uninformed, uneducated, and the uninvolved to vote. I think people should be made to show some sort of knowledge in current events, and that they posses a basic proficiency in civics. I guess what I'm getting at is: If you can't name the current President, your Senator, your Congressman, that we are at war in Iraq, and name the three branches of government you cannot vote. That a volunteer of a political party picked a group of people up at church, told them who to vote for, took them to the polling station, gave them donuts and coffee, and gave them a ride home should not be all there is to having a vote count.

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:23 PM

Quote:
{Just throwing this out for chum}
Not so much a theory but a plan already in the making.
I think the Chinese own a major port in California...usta be a military base... I think Clinton sold it to them and gave them a multiple warhead missle plan also?

Again I agree. A kid in the Clinton years? You might be the junior member here.

The Buchanan piece I found was an interesting read

http://www.buchanan.org/pa-97-0313.html

CITIZEN

Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:34 PM

USBROWNCOAT:
Well you're poor and 'cowardly' attempt at a personal attack aside :

Since I know AURaptor better than you, and how he tends to think anyone with the 'wrong' (i.e. different to his) opinion is an idiot, I believe my post has more than a little truth in it.

As for the rest of your post I see you don't believe in representative Democracy either, you and AU should get on famously.

The word for the system you want is Oligarchy. Just out of curiosity, who decides who's smart enough to vote? What level of competence? Will there be a test to make sure they're "right thinkin'" folk?

The fact that voter opinion can be swayed by donuts and coffee is a fault with your education system and indeed your culture, and is not indicative of needing to keep the dumb down. You could start with actually funding public schools and not giving them over to be propaganda factories for the corporations.

"What's the atomic weight of Balonium?"
"Delicious?"

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

USBROWNCOAT

Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
USBROWNCOAT:
Well you're poor and 'cowardly' attempt at a personal attack aside :

Since I know AURaptor better than you, and how he tends to think anyone with the 'wrong' (i.e. different to his) opinion is an idiot, I believe my post has more than a little truth in it.

As for the rest of your post I see you don't believe in representative Democracy either, you and AU should get on famously.

The word for the system you want is Oligarchy. Just out of curiosity, who decides who's smart enough to vote? What level of competence? Will there be a test to make sure they're "right thinkin'" folk?

The fact that voter opinion can be swayed by donuts and coffee is a fault with your education system and indeed your culture, and is not indicative of needing to keep the dumb down. You could start with actually funding public schools and not giving them over to be propaganda factories for the corporations.

"What's the atomic weight of Balonium?"
"Delicious?"

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

If you notice beyond the cowardly shot. I posted a simple pre-vote questionnaire. If you pass you vote. Because you use words such as your culture and education system, I take it you are not a US citizen. Pity. However, in all nations that allow their citizens to vote you get that type of problem. Happens everywhere, England and Canada are two that I know of first hand. I have family who live there. They always complain about this when brought up. The only way to stop vote "whoring" is to use the above test. Period

And assuming you know the definition of oligarchy. Why would you use that term? You seem educated enough to know that it is a misrepresentation of what I described. Trying to make it sound negative? I prefer we call it a Democratic Edugarchy. Where the politically educated shall rule. Gosh I am evil.

CITIZEN

Friday, August 18, 2006 12:06 AM

Yes the only way to stop stupid people voting is too not have representative democratic government; I believe that was my point.

When you start banning people who don't measure up from voting you are no longer living in a representative democracy, and you are walking down that nice path toward Oligarchy.

"Stupid people are ruining democracy!"
We ban stupid people.
"People who don't have any stake in the nation don't have a reason to stay informed or make good decisions"
We only let Land owners vote.

Point is that not only is that system not representative democratic government but you're setting a precedent that you are prepared to prevent the wrong type or people voting.

In fact your arguments sound pretty similar to arguments why only people who have served in the military should be given the vote, or why only land owners should be given the vote.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

USBROWNCOAT

Friday, August 18, 2006 12:17 AM

Not at all. It would be civilians educated in civics and events that vote. They would come from all socio-eco-political segments of society. It would not mater if your dad was a general or you made sponges for a living. You had better be caught up on your civics when you show up to vote. Why do I have the feeling you assume it would be the poorer citizens that get disqualified to vote? There are probably more rich Americans who don't give a hoot about politics than poor ones. And you wouldn't lose your right to vote forever. Take a test next election cycle. It would just ensure that people who vote, in a given election, have a "slight" clue.

Representative democracy is for the states(That the state is represented before the government by population) NOT the people. Where would representation end Color, Sex, IQ, Religion, DOB,ETC....? Every time I here someone use it that way I cringe.

HKCAVALIER

Friday, August 18, 2006 12:21 AM

The simple problem with your voter test, USB, is that somebody has to come up with the test and the test has to become the law of the land which means the test itself cannot help but be exptremely politicized.

Government should not be given the power to decide who's smart enough to vote. You do see how that could and certainly would become corrupted mighty quick. The point of having laws is to limit government's power over people, not limit the people's participation in the democratic process.

As you have observed, they do that quite efficiently on their own initiative.

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.

CITIZEN

Friday, August 18, 2006 12:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
Why do I have the feeling you assume it would be the poorer citizens that get disqualified to vote?

Because you're not listening to a word I'm saying that's why.

If you ban people from voting you no longer have representative democratic government, it's as simple as that. No if's, no but's, no "but they're ruining it for the rest of us" it's no longer representative democracy. It's democracy for those that measure up.

You can't means test democracy, it makes the whole thing pointless.

Once you've done that why not take it a bit further? I mean if you're not taking personal responcibility for protecting democracy, why should you benefit from it? I can see the army recruitment posters now.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

USBROWNCOAT

Friday, August 18, 2006 1:05 AM

Very simple test read earlier post. Put it in any languages you want. Or a different test. We have them for driving, firearms, boating, employment, etc.. Whats wrong with one to vote? If it does not mater that the voter hasn't a clue and knows nothing, why not let a six year old vote? A three year old? Same principle.

USBROWNCOAT

Friday, August 18, 2006 1:17 AM

Lets be real here, you are not going to have millions disqualified. And it's not forever. And, as it stands, if our Government was a representation of our Country. It wouldn't be a bunch of white males with law degrees. Obviously that is the case. As it should be. The states pick their reps and prez. If they choose white males with law degrees so be it. But it should be done by citizens with some standard of proficiency.

DREAMTROVE

Friday, August 18, 2006 1:36 AM

I'm going to weigh in here with what is likely to be an unpopular and flame-generating post:

I think USB has a point.

The idea that a guy who slouches on his couch watch soaps all day who doesn't know what any of the policies of GWB actually are, and this guy has the same power of political influence as a professor of public policy, or a former ambassador, or me, bugs me. A very nice and well meaning conservative chick who runs the general store counter on weekends and holidays who pays no attention to politics at all, in '04 said she just voted and she voted for Bush. I said 'why?', not that there was much choice, certainly not Kerry, but badnarik or someone, anyway, and she said 'oh, I don't know, I wanted to vote, couldn't decide, and so thought, might as well bush.'

Might as well Bush. Is this what's making our leadership choices in this country? might as well bush. It could be a campaign slogan. Forget keeping america safe, or something like that, Might as well Bush.

Anyway, sure, the US isn't a representational democracy, that might be an okay form of govt., but it's certainly not ours. Certainly we had better leaders back in the days when fewer people voted.

But why have democracy at all? I mean if you're going to make a radical change you could never get away with disenfranchising idiots, so just build a new system. Conservatives have been saying for years that what makes the economy work is the meritocracy - essentially, communism or the welfare state is the democratic economy, one body one dollar, like one body one vote. Why not a meritocratic political system? If you show ability, up you go. If you suck, bam, out the door. And sure, maybe voters could decide if someone was doing a good job, we'd have to have something to prevent it from being corrupted.

Historically, it's hard to do worse than the results of democracy, or perhaps it's impossible, except maybe for communism. So maybe it's time to try something else.

Just throwing it out there.

USBROWNCOAT

Friday, August 18, 2006 1:43 AM

Might as well be Bush!!! LOL. I've heard worse; "Because my husband did", "He was on top", And the always entertaining "Why not". And 'trove I don't think there are that many idiots, but there are enough to swing an election and that just should not happen.

DREAMTROVE

Friday, August 18, 2006 2:26 AM

I guess when you think about it, democracy is really a popularity contest. Huh.

Think about this.

What if when we went to war we said, 'okay troops., who do you like to lead us into battle' and everyone said 'sgt. tits, because she's mad hawt' or the major said 'lt. racist, because he'll put the black guys on the front lines.'

Or what if in a corporate staff meeting, everyone said "hey, let's make Mr. Hepper president, because he bought us drinks, we like him, and he'll give us a raise," ... even if it bankrupts the company.

"joe should be the preach., no wait, make him pope!"

And yet, we do it. And without great results. The results are terrible.

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, August 18, 2006 2:32 AM

Although my first impulse is to channel Jayne (let's not be excluding people) in the interest of exercising my divergent side I'll ramble for a bit.

I have yet to meet someone who proposed limiting the franchise who didn't automatically assume they would be eligible to vote under the new system. So my first question is, would you accept a system where you yourself were ineligible?

As HKCavalier pointed out, who gets to make the rules? The first rule, in my mind, is that anyone involved with coming up with a new system should automatically be ineligible to vote for the rest of their life. That way they couldn't game the system to favor themselves.

Should we take historical precedents into account? Poll taxes and literacy tests and other measures have been used in the past to keep various groups from exercising the right to vote. For me, the design of any system needs to take that into consideration. Say, for example, the use of literacy tests. There have been long stretches of time in our history where people who failed those tests couldn't vote. So, in all fairness, those groups should be grandfathered in. Maybe look at how long literacy tests were used, a hundred years for example. So for the first hundred years of a new program those who fail literacy tests are still eligible.

Should we take conflict of interest into account? If you work for the government, maybe you shouldn't be allowed to vote for your own boss. So I could see a case made for any public workers being ineligible to vote. If you stretch that a bit more, that would exclude any member of the armed forces.

Should we take accuracy of information sources into account? I'm reminded of that recent study where viewers of Fox News were more likely to be misinformed about current events than viewers of other news channels. So should we automatically disqualify potential voters who watch Fox News on a regular basis? And what is a regular basis?

Should we penalize people on the basis of rhetoric? There are prominent pundits who make a lot of money (whether through radio shows or by writing books) by calling large proportions of Americans traitors. Maybe those who listen or buy their books shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Maybe go by viewpoints. If you don't believe in big government, but instead subscribe to the Grover Norquist school of thought, maybe you shouldn't be voting on those who would administrate that big government.

Or how about another conflict of interest angle. There are a lot of corporations that benefit greatly from government action. The pharmaceutical industry got a huge windfall from the Medicare bill. The credit card industry got a huge windfall from the bankruptcy bill. And so on and so forth. Maybe all the employees of companies that have seen an increase in their profits as a direct result of government action should be ineligible. Or maybe just those who are salaried.

In case you hadn't guess by now, this has mostly been tongue in cheek. Sure it would be nice if people who were uninformed didn't vote. But it wouldn't be America. Sure it would be nice if those who were misinformed didn't vote. But that wouldn't be America either. Sure it would be great for some people if the poor didn't vote. But that would be an America we have left behind. Sure it would be nice for some people if those of a darker hue didn't vote. But that would also be an America we have left behind. We have been moving forward as a country, at least in my opinion, by expanding the franchise. Not limiting it.

I see the problem as an opportunity for education, rather than punishment. We hold these truths to be self-evident and all that. If we start saying who can and cannot vote based on any rationale other than convicted criminal activity (which is another discussion) then we're moving more towards a "some are more equal than others." And that, to me, would not be America.

* edited to add: This reminds me of something else.

When I was younger, my friends and I had an expression we'd sometimes use whe

USBROWNCOAT

Friday, August 18, 2006 3:17 AM

Again, how could four simple questions written in a number of languages be used by one party or another to their benefit? It at least puts in place a minimal standard. If you want to vote find out the answers. In doing so the populace may learn a thing or two about the political atmosphere and system of their country. An informed populace is a lot better than what we now have. Have you ever watched a talk show where they send someone to interview "people on the street"? Who's the vice president? Name one article in the Bill of Rights? How ridiculous are the answers?

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, August 18, 2006 3:31 AM

Okay. Let's play around with that.

What are the questions?

MYOTHERCARISAFIREFLY

Friday, August 18, 2006 5:50 AM

Question #1 Who was the hero of canton?

WHAT???? You got it wrong??? too bad, you cant vote!

just a little side note of humor there since I agree with some of you, disagree with some of you, want to have a drink with some of you, think some of you are idiots, and think that even a few are missing from the nut house. And those are my observations from only being a member for a week. haha

HKCAVALIER

Friday, August 18, 2006 6:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
Again, how could four simple questions written in a number of languages be used by one party or another to their benefit? It at least puts in place a minimal standard. If you want to vote find out the answers. In doing so the populace may learn a thing or two about the political atmosphere and system of their country. An informed populace is a lot better than what we now have. Have you ever watched a talk show where they send someone to interview "people on the street"? Who's the vice president? Name one article in the Bill of Rights? How ridiculous are the answers?

Let's try this again. In theory, your four questions are very simple. But as soon as you talk about changing our current system of government to integrate these questions, you can't ignore our current system of government!

If you were king for a day and said, "All I'm here to do is institute this four question test to establish who gets to vote and who does not and then I promise to abdicate," you might be able to implement your test.

For a day.

'Cause, once you abdicated, folks would repeal the thing and we'd go back to doing things the way we do them.

So unless you are the "benevolent dictator" of the United States, you have to understand that any test we established to enfranchise people, would innevitably be used to disenfranchise. This kind of control over the electorate is a bad idea.

What about this crazy notion: improve education. But here's a guy who makes the point much more eloquently than I:

"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree."

"The most effectual means of preventing the perversion of power into tyranny are to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes."

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

"Convinced that the people are the only safe depositories of their own liberty, and that they are not safe unless enlightened to a certain degree, I have looked on our present state of liberty as a short-lived possession unless the mass of the people could be informed to a certain degree."

"No nation is permitted to live in ignorance with impunity."

"And say, finally, whether peace is best preserved by giving energy to the government or information to the people. This last is the most certain and the most legitimate engine of government. Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them. And it requires no very high degree of education to convince them of this. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty." --Thomas Jefferson

Pretty wise words. You gotta wonder what it would be like if somebody started a country founded on these principles.

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.

KANEMAN

Friday, August 18, 2006 6:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MyOtherCarIsAFirefly:
Question #1 Who was the hero of canton?

WHAT???? You got it wrong??? too bad, you cant vote!

just a little side note of humor there since I agree with some of you, disagree with some of you, want to have a drink with some of you, think some of you are idiots, and think that even a few are missing from the nut house. And those are my observations from only being a member for a week. haha

Join the revolution.

USBROWNCOAT

Friday, August 18, 2006 6:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Okay. Let's play around with that.

What are the questions?

Once again, read above post. That or something similar, just make them easy. I would love to know how many people voted in the last election that could not answer those questions. If you can not answer those questions you can't vote. And again put them in any language. How some posters feel one party could benefit from that idea I will never understand. The only entity that benefits is our country.

USBROWNCOAT

Friday, August 18, 2006 7:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
Again, how could four simple questions written in a number of languages be used by one party or another to their benefit? It at least puts in place a minimal standard. If you want to vote find out the answers. In doing so the populace may learn a thing or two about the political atmosphere and system of their country. An informed populace is a lot better than what we now have. Have you ever watched a talk show where they send someone to interview "people on the street"? Who's the vice president? Name one article in the Bill of Rights? How ridiculous are the answers?
Let's try this again. In theory, your four questions are very simple. But as soon as you talk about changing our current system of government to integrate these questions, you can't ignore our current system of government!

If you were king for a day and said, "All I'm here to do is institute this four question test to establish who gets to vote and who does not and then I promise to abdicate," you might be able to implement your test.

For a day.

'Cause, once you abdicated, folks would repeal the thing and we'd go back to doing things the way we do them.

So unless you are the "benevolent dictator" of the United States, you have to understand that any test we established to enfranchise people, would innevitably be used to disenfranchise. This kind of control over the electorate is a bad idea.

What about this crazy notion: improve education. But here's a guy who makes the point much more eloquently than I:

"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree."

"The most effectual means of preventing the perversion of power into tyranny are to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes."

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

"Convinced that the people are the only safe depositories of their own liberty, and that they are not safe unless enlightened to a certain degree, I have looked on our present state of liberty as a short-lived possession unless the mass of the people could be informed to a certain degree."

"No nation is permitted to live in ignorance with impunity."

"And say, finally, whether peace is best preserved by giving energy to the government or information to the people. This last is the most certain and the most legitimate engine of government. Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them. And it requires no very high degree of education to convince them of this. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty." --Thomas Jefferson

Pretty wise words. You gotta wonder what it would be like if somebody started a country founded on these principles.

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.

Very wise words indeed. Problem is, most humans on the planet would read it and chalk it up as legalese. Our political leaders no longer talk with the eloquence of a Churchill or Eisenhower. We no long

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, August 18, 2006 7:37 AM

Continuing on with the role-playing of how things would look if voting was not a right but instead a reward...

So, going back to your post, something like this?

1. President of the United States of America: __________

2. Senator for your state (name one): ______________ [extra vote for naming two?]

3. Representative for your district: ______________

4. Are we at war in Iraq? (circle one) YES NO

5. The three branches of the federal government: ________________, _________________ and _________________

And if you answer all these questions correctly, then you have earned the right to vote? For the moment, I'll assume that spelling isn't too important. Unless we want to make this a spelling test as well. And the cool thing is this could also serve as a subtle literacy test. Score!

As an aside, knowing these seven bits of information is sufficient, in your mind, to turn someone from an uninformed voter to an informed one. Correct? Just making sure that we're alleviating the problem you've diagnosed. If someone knew the answers to the question and didn't know anything else you'd still be satisfied? Or we could even split it up into varying degrees of difficulty and have a cascading set of questions. Maybe even have qualified personnel interview every prospective voter. Or you could earn a voter license and have to get it recertified sometime before every election. Going back to the more lengthy set, if you know some of the issues and some of the positions then you could vote for some of the candidates. Maybe you don't get to vote for the whole enchilada unless you get 90% on the test. Might have to iron that out a bit more.

Okay. Next set of questions. Who administers the test? Where is the test administered (does it happen at the polling location)? Who grades the test? How is the person notified if they have passed or failed? What about if they are taking this test in a language other than English? What do you do with absentee ballots?

Maybe it might be a good idea to have people take the test while they are voting. Then you have two different vote totals, those who are too ignorant to vote and those who know seven bits of information. And we could publicize that on the news. Try to shame people into figuring out what the answers are.

Basically, how do we implement this new system?

* edited to add: I think there is a big difference between how we perceive the franchise. I see the franchise as the right of every American. It looks to me like you see the franchise as something that shouldn't be the right of every American, only a smaller subset. My intuition is that you have a solution looking for a problem. I won't accept your assumptions concerning the ignorance of voters without seeing hard numbers that show X percentage of voters do not know who the President is, for example.

[HKCavalier, very nice collection of quotes. As you can see, I'm taking the low ground on this one ]

KANEMAN

Friday, August 18, 2006 8:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Continuing on with the role-playing of how things would look if voting was not a right but instead a reward...

So, going back to your post, something like this?

1. President of the United States of America: __________

2. Senator for your state (name one): ______________ [extra vote for naming two?]

3. Representative for your district: ______________

4. Are we at war in Iraq? (circle one) YES NO

5. The three branches of the federal government: ________________, _________________ and _________________

And if you answer all these questions correctly, then you have earned the right to vote? For the moment, I'll assume that spelling isn't too important. Unless we want to make this a spelling test as well. And the cool thing is this could serve as a subtle literacy test as well. Score!

As an aside, knowing these seven bits of information is sufficient, in your mind, to turn someone from an uninformed voter to an informed one. Correct? Just making sure that we're alleviating the problem you've diagnosed. If someone knew the answers to the question and didn't know anything else you'd still be satisfied? Or we could even split it up into varying degrees of difficulty and have a cascading set of questions. Maybe even have qualified personnel interview every prospective voter. Or you could earn a voter license and have to get it recertified sometime before every election. Going back to the more lengthy set, if you know some of the issues and some of the positions then you could vote for some of the candidates. Maybe you don't get to vote for the whole enchilada unless you get 90% on the test. Might have to iron that out a bit more.

Okay. Next set of questions. Who administers the test? Where is the test administered (does it happen at the polling location)? Who grades the test? How is the person notified if they have passed or failed? What about if they are taking this test in a language other than English? What do you do with absentee ballots?

Maybe it might be a good idea to have people take the test while they are voting. Then you have two different vote totals, those who are too ignorant to vote and those who know seven bits of information. And we could publicize that on the news. Try to shame people into figuring out what the answers are.

Basically, how do we implement this new system?

[HKCavalier, very nice collection of quotes. As you can see, I'm taking the low ground on this one ]

Hey, let me answer for Fuckface..Shut the fuck up dickcatcher you pompous ass. Even I can read this thread and tell that USjack off didn't think it through that much. Hey dickcatcher he was making a point about how invalid polls are. I happen to like his or this bitches idea. And if you fucking fool read the thread even your stupid ass would have seen that fuck face already said it would be administered in any language. And it wouldn't prove anything but maybe people mite learn something in the process. what a fucking shit ROCK you have become dickcatcher! And this is why I am a troll. you are an ass hole attacking fuckface with a pompous attitude ..fuck you asshole. read your post do you smell the douche bag in ya? Hey fuck face get used to this. Enjoy!!!!! Join the revolution you are always welcome. I say fuck'em fuck'em all.

Chris eatsshitisall

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, August 18, 2006 8:51 AM

kaneman,

Dealing with a position is one thing. I have no problem attacking a position, dissecting it, challenging it and even mocking it on occasion. And I expect no less from other posters on this forum. Dealing with individuals is another thing. I choose not to attack individuals (well, I try ). Which means that I will not respond to your attacks in kind.

I will, however, make the observation that you seem to expend a lot of energy negatively. Whatever gets you through the day, I guess.

"Men hate each other because they fear each other. They fear each other because they don't know each other. They don't know each other because they don't communicate with each other. They don't communicate with each other because they are separated from each other." - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

DREAMTROVE

Friday, August 18, 2006 12:36 PM

Understatement of the year

Quote:
USB: Our political leaders no longer talk with the eloquence of a Churchill or Eisenhower.

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, August 18, 2006 4:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Understatement of the year

Quote:
USB: Our political leaders no longer talk with the eloquence of a Churchill or Eisenhower.

Yeah. What's up with that? And it's not like they don't have the highest paid speech writers working on their material for them. Is it just that eloquence is not valued? Or is it a forgotten art form?

On a related note, I don't believe that some of our past great leaders would have a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected today. Lincoln? Too tall, lanky and just downright ugly.

The two most important criteria, in the television age, are to look presidential and be able to read a teleprompter effectively. Style over substance. The sound bite spoken in a well designed setting with compelling visual backdrops will get played on the nightly news. Each appearance is a tightly managed event. I've been very impressed with the designers of these visuals. It's not surprising that many of them were hired from Hollywood.

It's all about the entertainment, baby.

SIGNYM

Friday, August 18, 2006 5:11 PM

Soup... been away from this thread, got too much to do. But I just looked it over and ... you take the high road, and I'll take the low road... Kaneman, he prolly drinks a bottle of scotch and then starts typing away....

Sorry, just had to get that impression in.

And now back to our regularly scheduled discussion...

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

USBROWNCOAT

Friday, August 18, 2006 6:55 PM

I've often wondered why this is myself. I would say it's because of the sound bite. They no longer have the time to write a speak with substance. First, the average US citizen is not going to sit through a long "winded" speech. Secondly, the networks will not air it, they want a 10 second sound bite. They need time to discuss American Idol and wther or not Angelina Jolie was in fact kissing her brother at the Oscars. Got to have priorities!

CITIZEN

Friday, August 18, 2006 7:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
I've often wondered why this is myself. I would say it's because of the sound bite. They no longer have the time to write a speak with substance. First, the average US citizen is not going to sit through a long "winded" speech. Secondly, the networks will not air it, they want a 10 second sound bite. They need time to discuss American Idol and wther or not Angelina Jolie was in fact kissing her brother at the Oscars. Got to have priorities!

It's a consequence of Celebrity culture. Celebrity culture didn't exist for Churchill or Eisenhower, now it does. Politicians are celebrities now, which I imagine is why we get people who worship the ground they walk on.

Celebrities don't give speeches, they have their most plastic faces emblazoned on posters with a short quote ("Our enemies never stop thinking of ways to hurt us, and neither do we").

Corporatism destroys community, and then corporatism supplies us with artificial communities to fill the gap. Celebrities, Reality TV, proof that Big Brother is evil.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, August 18, 2006 7:31 PM

To extend this a bit. In my opinion, speeches are now written around "applause lines." Short one-liners that evoke an immediate positive reaction from the audience. The goal is to have a clip of the speaker saying something followed by visual and audible approval signals from the audience. The audience itself is not important as an audience but moreso as a prop as the primary target for the speech are the millions who will see the clips on television. It's marketing and, like most marketing, it is an appeal to the people. For the viewer at home the message is clear, "All those people agree with the speaker therefore what the speaker said must be true." It borrows a lot from the way television comedies use audience laughter (or even laugh tracks) to tell the viewer what is funny. Unfortunately for those trying to manage the public, we have not yet gotten to the point where political speeches have applause signs (although I could be wrong since I have yet to attend in person a speech by a President). So the "applause lines" themselves have to be pretty blatant. Which, in my opinion, automatically rules out eloquence.

In other words, the audience is already convinced. There is no need for the speaker to sway the crowd. It's not that we no longer have eloquent speech writers it's that we do not need them for the kind of things speech writers are hoping to accomplish.

CHRISISALL

Friday, August 18, 2006 7:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

I subscribe to no conspiracy theories. The list of Islamo-fascists attacks on the US, its citizens and its sovereignty, is longer than most would ever recognize. It never gets repeated on the network news shows, that's for sure!

Could that be...
do you think it might...
hey, is that a...

CONSPIRACY ???????

Whistling Dixie Chrisisall

USBROWNCOAT

Friday, August 18, 2006 7:58 PM

Soup, That explains that annoying pause the politicians give, waiting for the applause, at the end of every third sentence. It is so blatantly staged. Scary stuff. I can just see "PAUSE NOW!" written in the margins. The more I'm thinking about it, I realize that, they all do it. How refreshing would it be to have someone break from the pack?

DREAMTROVE

Friday, August 18, 2006 8:03 PM

Soup,

More people voting. This is what everyone was screaming for. Now we have 120 million knuckleheads selecting themselves as candidates, so such, a couple select academic achievers because that's who they are, but the average american is Homer Simpson.

Bush is a lot like Homer, and not surprisingly, Mr. Burns, his VP, is calling all the shots. DOH!

DREAMTROVE

Friday, August 18, 2006 8:06 PM

Now that's I've read the entertainment culture theory, that one works for me too. I think that it's a mixture of the two. Plus, the crossover, when entertainers tell dumb people who to vote for. Esp. dumb entertainers. Britney has nice boobies, and she likes Bush, so, Might as well Bush.

RUE

Friday, August 18, 2006 11:57 PM

SignyM

I just started scrolling down the thread - only got this far and have to get back to work. But this caught my eye:

Quote:
Avoid occupying foreign territories as much as possible while distenagling the mess we made- which will take decades to undo seeing as it took decades to create.

Vietnamn was messed with and messed over for decades - first the French then the US. After the US left, it took only about 15 yrs for some type of SOP to return. If other countries left the M.E. TOTALLY ALONE, do you think it'd really take that long for them to recover to some type of regional stability?

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, August 19, 2006 7:12 AM

USBrowncoat,

That's one of the reasons I have a hard time watching either of the two major parties national conventions during a Presidential election year. Although I guess we should be thankful that it's really something that hasn't caught on at the Senate or Representative level (unless it's someone who has aspirations for the Presidency). It doesn't make sense to expend the resources necessary to try to massage millions if you're running for a district that's already gerrymandered to the point of noncompetitivity.

And at the highest level, you really can't compete with the resources that the President has at his disposal. There is a special office, that really came into it's own in the early nineties IIRC, that manages all the President's appearances. Advance teams going out to arrange the stage (lighting, making sure the colors are right, figuring out the best time of day to stage the event, setting up the backdrops - which are another topic altogether, finding the right people to have on the stage with the President and keeping people out of the event that might not be 100% enthusiastic). All of this, of course, is being paid for by us taxpayers.

There are some good stories about these staged events. Here's a short one. There was a speech given in the midwest in a warehouse filled with boxes. The backdrop that was created had the slogan for the day ("Strengthening America's Economy") along with stacks of boxes saying, "Made in the USA." But the real boxes in the warehouse were from overseas. So the advance team went through with tape and taped over the country of origin ( http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/22/bush.boxes/ and, for a close-up on the backdrop, http://thereitis.org/displayarticle286.html ). You can tell where the backdrop starts because the boxes are a darker color than the real boxes.

dreamtrove,

I don't buy that more people voting is a problem. I do think that more people voting is a threat to the status quo. Take, for example, what happened in Connecticut recently. There was a local movement to challenge an incumbent Democratic Senator who many Connecticut Democrats felt was out of step with the views of their state. These were politically savvy, issue-educated voters who decided that it was time for a change. Enough of them made the decision that the incumbent lost the primary. It was a record turnout for an end of summer primary in an off-year election and thousands of people registered to vote for the first time.

So what was the reaction? You would have thought the world was coming to an end. The incumbent refused to listen to the voters of his own party and formed a new party. As of today, at least six Democratic Senators are backing him against the winner of the Democratic primary. The White House is refusing to support the Republican nominee. The Vice-President and other influential members of the Republican party and the pundits are saying this is a victory for al Qaeda.

There is a message here from the politicians of both parties in Washington, DC to local state parties. What you think doesn't mean shit. We know what is best for you.

Okay, that got long and went off course.

ANTIMASON

Sunday, August 20, 2006 1:18 AM

have you guys heard of the constitution party? its become very conspiratorially christian over the last few years, but i believe it is the perfect medium between the left and right extremes; and its platform is the constitution and its preservation, which is the only thing preventing the NWO agenda from becoming the status quo. you should check it out if you can...

KANEMAN

Sunday, August 20, 2006 1:29 AM

Soup, good stuff. I had never heard that one. What a joke. It is so unnecessary anyway, why go through the trouble? The average politician thinks we are a nation of fools.

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, August 20, 2006 1:59 AM

I agree with Kaneman (who's apparently only sometimes a troll), good analysis Soupcatcher

Antimason

I actually know the constitution party, talked to their people. I was on a forum which michael peroutka was on, I'm assuming you know him.

The problems with the constitution party are twofold:

1. They are a christian party. As such, they can't get elected in a nation that believes in separation of church and state, and in a nation of people where the number who believe in that policy even to the point of rejecting favoratism towards their own religion is very strong

2. They simply aren't organized to pull in the numbers. I believe last election they pulled in 17 ballot spots. If you're not getting at least 49, you're not getting anywhere. The total numbers for Peroutka '04 (he's a great guy btw, and would make a great president) were worse than Nader's. (under half a mil I believe.)

The only way this sort of thing is going to work is if everyone in the third party movement can work together.

Essentially, the serious players are Reform, Greens, Constitution, Libertarians and a new group called New Frontier, which is actually half of the former reform party USA. If all of these players got together into one political movement, and they could come up with one unified platform (the greens here would have to settle for an environmental platform and accept limited govt.)

BTW, a poll last election cycle asked do you support or oppose the concept of environmental protections, and it came down 99% for, 1% opposed, so there essentially is no popular resistance to the idea. What kills the greens is that they support a marxist labor platform, which is the kiss of death, and the greens themselves, who are as disorganized as anyone else (they're level of infighting is insane, but they actually do run canidates for lower office.)

Other parties like the SWP are both very far out there politically and have a miniscule base of support. Adding these guys would be like adding the Nazis, ie. it would lose more votes than it would gain you so why bother.

I would support a coalition which had constitution in it, but I can't support them as a party by themselves at the moment. They're basic nature is an oxy moron, as it is a christian party, (even peroutka admitted this, and he was a very level headed guy) and it is way too close to that church state line for the general populous. They also don't have the numbers by themselves to be taken seriously. But in alliance with some other factions, there could be a movement there.

JAYNEZTOWN

Monday, January 23, 2023 4:49 AM

Five Dimensions of the Cold War: What Putin is doing

https://news.yahoo.com/five-dimensions-cold-war-putin-121600858.html

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

The war between christians and muslims is on, and has been on since at least the 1990s. Are we on the right side?

The war between that camel jacker pedophile mahomet with his gang of bandits vs the rest of civilisation has begun ever since the crap called islamism exploded from the Middle East, that is not to say you need bomb or invade them all

perhaps the war can be won for example by dropping funny cartoons instead of bombs

JAYNEZTOWN

Wednesday, September 6, 2023 2:17 AM

Muslims some jihadi islamist radical some less radical, have been at War with the West, Africa and Far East since day one

as for those other Wars

Ukraine Surpasses Syria as Country With Most Cluster-Munition Casualties in the World
https://time.com/6310759/ukraine-syria-cluster-munition-casualties/

JAYNEZTOWN

Wednesday, July 24, 2024 10:32 PM

Biden approval hits new low in latest Gallup polling
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4790124-joe-biden-approval
-hits-new-low-gallup/

all war has an element of bad and innocents die

They say World War 1 had maybe 40 million military and civilian casualties, the Flu was maybe even worse than War.

mohammedans have been at war with the infidel almost on day one...the jihadi islamic ranted and shouted for a while then he was kicked out of a multi-cultural place for causing problems...it took the pedo terrorist mahomet a while longer to raise and a bandit army and comeback.

JAYNEZTOWN

Friday, March 14, 2025 5:18 PM

US intelligence warns Trump that Putin STILL wants to conquer Ukraine as Zelensky slams ‘scared’ & ‘manipulative’ Vlad

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/33767575/zelensky-saudi-arabia-ukraine-w
ar-talks-trump/

JAYNEZTOWN

Friday, June 13, 2025 3:23 PM

so the Israelis bombing Iranians

skies over Iran, Israel, North Saudi Arabia, Syria, South Turkey, Lebanon, south Turkmenistan, South Azerbaijan, West Pakistan and part of the Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf have been cleared of civilian aircraft

JAYNEZTOWN

Friday, June 13, 2025 3:42 PM

New wave of explosions in Baghdad, Iraq?

bombing, rubble, burning, devastation being revealed throughout Iran as the sun comes up.

so Iranians hit back with Drones, Cruise Missiles, Ballistic missiles?

British Eurofighter Typhoon jets on their way?

Trump Says U.S. Will Defend Israel if Iran Doesn't Just Sit There and Get Bombed
https://trendsinthenews.substack.com/p/trump-says-us-will-defend-israe
l
U.S. replenished Israel's Iron Dome last week, report says

Fake or AI?

Video reportedly shows Israeli assault on Natanz nuclear site. Very loud and powerful strikes.
https://x.com/IsraelRadar_com/status/1933391981675258053

GRAHAM: GAME ON! Israel Starts Strikes Against Iran, Trump Impotent, Netanyahu Owns Congress
https://trendsinthenews.substack.com/p/graham-game-on-israel-starts-st
rikes
Steve Witkoff addressed United Hatzalah’s annual gala in New York last night and called Iran an existential threat to the U.S.

JAYNEZTOWN

Thursday, June 19, 2025 1:50 AM

the Doomsday vid from Tulsi makes more sense now

JAYNEZTOWN

Thursday, June 19, 2025 6:14 AM

Chinese workers in Iraq filming Iran's missile attack on Israel earlier today.

https://x.com/Osint613/status/1935488881912058260

JAYNEZTOWN

Friday, June 20, 2025 6:39 PM

87 Japanese nationals, family members evacuated from Iran, Israel
https://japantoday.com/category/national/87-japanese-nationals-family-
members-evacuated-from-iran-israel

Over 160 Americans evacuated from Israel amid rising tensions with Iran, Florida officials say
https://www.wctv.tv/2025/06/19/over-160-americans-evacuated-israel-ami
d-rising-tensions-with-iran-florida-officials-say/
The state of Florida and nonprofit Grey Bull Rescue have both evacuated Americans from Israel

Canada facilitating commercial flights home for citizens fleeing Israel, Iran: Anita Anand
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/israel-iran-anita-anand

Iran strikes Israeli hospital; Trump to decide on U.S. role in conflict within 'two weeks'
https://japantoday.com/category/world/iran-strikes-israeli-hospital-tr
ump-to-decide-on-us-role-in-conflict-within-'two-weeks';

India prepares for unprecedented, largest-ever evacuation as Iran–Israel conflict escalates
https://www.telegraphindia.com/world/india-prepares-for-unprecedented-
largest-ever-evacuation-as-iran-israel-conflict-escalates-photogallery/cid/2108187

Iran Israel LIVE: Countries evacuate citizens as missile strikes enter second week
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/iran-israel-war-live-trump-35
417150

Israeli strikes damage Iran’s underground nuclear site, agency says, as Trump issues ominous warning
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/middle-east/israeli-strikes-damage-
iran-s-underground-nuclear-site-agency-says-as-trump-issues-ominous-warning/article_51fb6c04-a9b1-581c-bcd6-633dcf7ddb1c.html

Photos show efforts to evacuate foreigners from the Israel-Iran conflict
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/middle-east/photos-show-efforts-to-
evacuate-foreigners-from-the-israel-iran-conflict/article_171fa230-778a-5a0d-8034-2000401c08f3.html

Iranians seek temporary refuge in neighboring Turkey as conflict with Israel escalates
https://www.kmbc.com/article/iranian-refugees-turkey-israel-iran-confl
ict/65079778

Will the Iran war trigger a refugee crisis?
https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2025/06/18/will-the-i
ran-war-trigger-a-refugee-crisis

JAYNEZTOWN

Sunday, June 22, 2025 4:57 PM

Iran Urges Strike On US Fleet, Closure Of Strait Of Hormuz; Khamenei Warns Of Unprecedented Damage

https://www.news18.com/world/iran-calls-for-missile-strike-us-fleet-cl
osure-strait-of-hormuz-khamenei-reaction-greater-damager-america-9397788.html

Argentine chainsaw man denounces Persia but Japanese videogame samurai pokemon types say nothing

William Shakespeare, mums the word, silence, mummer, "be silent; do not reveal".

Japan vigilant amid Iran conflict, mum on support for US attacks
https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20250622/p2g/00m/0na/041000c

President Milei: 'Iran is an enemy of Argentina'
https://www.batimes.com.ar/news/argentina/president-milei-iran-is-an-e
nemy-of-argentina.phtml

JAYNEZTOWN

Sunday, June 22, 2025 9:49 PM

Dr Strangelove a 1964 political satire black comedy film co-written, produced, and directed by Stanley Kubrick

JAYNEZTOWN

Monday, August 4, 2025 5:59 PM

thousands of missiles ready and on 'Alert'

Subs, Missiles, Politics, Could Trigger WW3 – Russia postures shouts, USA postures shouts....little common sense...And Nobody Stops It

Russia says it has more nuclear subs positioned than the US

I've studied nuclear war for 35 years -- you should be worried. | Brian Toon

How a nuclear war starts: Second-by-second timeline | Annie Jacobsen and Lex Fridman

Nukes are way scarier than you think

JAYNEZTOWN

Saturday, October 11, 2025 1:58 AM

Was the MiG-23 the worst fighter of the Cold War?

Massive blast at military explosives plant in Tennessee leaves multiple people dead, several ‘unaccounted for’
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/10/10/us/hickman-county-explosion-tenness
ee

Putin: Russia is developing new nuclear weapons
https://www.newsweek.com/putin-russia-new-nuclear-weapons-10860622

JAYNEZTOWN

Sunday, October 19, 2025 1:36 PM

Pakistan Army Chief Warns India Of 'Decisive Respons' Amid Nuclear Tensions
https://www.outlookindia.com/international/pakistan-army-chief-warns-i
ndia-of-decisive-respons-amid-nuclear-tensions

Why the Pakistan-Saudi Arabia defence pact is unsettling India
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c147gkxyyrmo

JAYNEZTOWN

Saturday, March 14, 2026 12:20 AM

Who hates who in the Middle East: As a former Nato commander warns we are on the brink of World War III

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15611529/Middle-East-British-
Nato-commander-World-War-III-Trump.html

JAYNEZTOWN

Monday, June 15, 2026 3:50 PM

In a Post-Apocalypse World, How Would You Survive?