|
Post by shewolfe on Apr 29, 2008 20:17:50 GMT -5
You know, I flicked on the Canadian news on TV yesterday, and was dozing off when I heard, "We feel that the government could do more"
Anyways, that struck me as psyops, brainwashing of the masses, using television and every media venue available, to essentially manufacture consent. Any one else notice this?
|
|
|
Post by Shadout Mapes on Apr 29, 2008 20:52:51 GMT -5
Oh ho ho... I'd say yes, I'd say it's go'n on alright. I remember that one presidential news conference when master found a reversal on a reporter asking his question that reversed to "We're subverting our government." What a wrenching kick in the gut that was to hear coming out of a reporter, but you could tell by all the softball questions they asked that they actually were doing just that. >< Tomasina ChicaWolverina!
|
|
|
Post by shewolfe on Apr 29, 2008 21:17:45 GMT -5
And I remember the very last time I ever listened to CNN.....they said "We will tell you what you need to watch"....that really floored me.
|
|
|
Post by timmington on May 2, 2008 9:07:12 GMT -5
And I remember the very last time I ever listened to CNN.....they said "We will tell you what you need to watch"....that really floored me. The globalist/elite powers the run the show behind the scenes seem to be accelerating and intensifying the doublespeak and psych-ops recently. I've been amazed at the flip-flopping of the right/left movements the last month or two with so-called "conservative" media people encouraging people like Rush Limbaugh tells his people to go out and vote for Hillary Clinton and Fox news/ Bill O'Reilly hosting an interview with Hillary but shutting Ron Paul out of the debates months. Has you guys noticed that it is not global warming anymore but "climate change."
|
|
|
Post by davidlee on May 2, 2008 11:55:56 GMT -5
Hi Timmington.....
I'm trying to catch up here...were you Pierre on the other board or new here? We've changed so much lately I'm having a hard time remembering. At least the wolves remain the same and of course Tomasina! Anyway, good to know ya either way. You will find out that only a day time poster who has been banned from ever speaking about politics again on forums. hehe
|
|
|
Post by timmington on May 5, 2008 16:36:43 GMT -5
Hi Timmington..... I'm trying to catch up here...were you Pierre on the other board or new here? We've changed so much lately I'm having a hard time remembering. At least the wolves remain the same and of course Tomasina! Anyway, good to know ya either way. You will find out that only a day time poster who has been banned from ever speaking about politics again on forums. hehe I'm new. Been following DJO and RS 10 years this july. And you?
|
|
|
Post by davidlee on May 6, 2008 12:56:01 GMT -5
No not new, been around since the beginning but didn't take an active stance during the feud. RS is an enigma to me but I like to keep an open mind on just about everything. I don't do politics because I'm a "Reagan Revolution" conservative and tend to piss everyone off when I get going. So I promised I would refrain from the political debate. Hehe
Welcome to the Rabbit Hole!
DLee
|
|
|
Post by Roland of Gilead on May 6, 2008 19:11:59 GMT -5
Actually, the government can do a LOT more, especially in the US. There are things in "the commons" that simply should never be privatized. Now, jto pick on David Lee, all in the greatest of affection, of course, is that Reagan once said, "I've always believed the nine scariest words in the English Language are, 'I'm from the Government and I'm here to help'."
This has been the conservative credo, that government can do nothing right, and should only be there in a punative fuction. They more they can privatize, the better, as far as they're concerned, so when they get themselves elected, they have to set out to prove government can't work. Hence, the wave of deregulation, mega-mergers, and unregulated global corporatism. The ultimate goal of their evil is articulated by Ron Paul, who is a useful stooge.
The fact is that there are many services we all depend on that the government can perform without profit more effectively. Take, for example, the Postal Serivce.
|
|
|
Post by Shadout Mapes on May 7, 2008 0:08:21 GMT -5
After Obama becomes the president I can't wait, I'll rube it into them like they tried to do to us with "Obama's president now--get over it!" I'm love'n it! I'm hoping they'll start finishing carrying out all the death penalty convictions that have been unfulfilled, but only in the cases where it's obvious they actually do have the correct perp. They'd bring back more humane and dependable methods like a nice clean, modern, clinical twentyfirst century hydraulic guillotine. it could look sort of like an n-MRI machine and everything with LEDs and stuff too? >< Tomasina ChicaWolverina!
|
|
|
Post by davidlee on May 7, 2008 9:40:05 GMT -5
Actually, the government can do a LOT more, especially in the US. There are things in "the commons" that simply should never be privatized. Now, jto pick on David Lee, all in the greatest of affection, of course, is that Reagan once said, "I've always believed the nine scariest words in the English Language are, 'I'm from the Government and I'm here to help'." This has been the conservative credo, that government can do nothing right, and should only be there in a punative fuction. They more they can privatize, the better, as far as they're concerned, so when they get themselves elected, they have to set out to prove government can't work. Hence, the wave of deregulation, mega-mergers, and unregulated global corporatism. The ultimate goal of their evil is articulated by Ron Paul, who is a useful stooge. The fact is that there are many services we all depend on that the government can perform without profit more effectively. Take, for example, the Postal Serivce. Hey Rick, here's what I believe.... Take away my right to fail, and you take away my right to succeed. Less government interference does not always mean elimination of certain entitlements. What I would like to see is the elimination of government spending run amok! A realist would have to agree that there is way too much waste of tax dollars on nonsensical "pork" entitlement programs going on on both sides of the aisle. Wouldn't you agree? So instead of taxing us to death they should quit spending like my wife on a trip to Neiman Marcus!!! Do you realize that if we simply "froze" spending for one year for anything other than the essentials, we could eliminate the deficit almost immediately? But we can't do that because too many people have been entitled and would scream foul! Do you realize that we could eliminate the oil problem simply by drilling our own resources? But we can't do that because the environmentalists would scream foul! It goes on and on but the bottom line is that as a country we Americans don't seem to be able to get out of our own way! Sorry, but I can't fathom how bringing MORE socialist ideals into the equation is going to make things rosy! I mean "Change" is okay but what kind of change? It seems to me that it's a little late for social experimentation at this point. A great example you use is the postal service. It seems to me that the only items going through the (non-profit) USPS mail these days are bills, magazines, the 10 or 11 people that still write letters and a billion pounds of point of sale material. Hehe UPS and FedEx have done a great job of satisfying the worlds immediate gratification needs. In other words the important stuff no longer flows through the mail system. Just like most people no longer have a home phone. Not to mention the advent of email and text messaging. Sorry Timmington but I don't do government conspiracy. As a matter of fact I'm on the other end of the spectrum on this issue. I don't see global elitism...I simply see elected officials with the best intentions getting sucked into a bloated system of greed and self-fulfillment! It's not the NWO, its the beltway! They can check out anytime they want but they can never leave! So, it's not about eliminating government, it's about accountability. Why in the world should our elected officials not be held to the same standards as the people they are elected to serve? An open checkbook is not the answer.....IMHO!! Told you not to bring me into this......LOL!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Roland of Gilead on May 7, 2008 11:46:22 GMT -5
Well...I know a lot of people no longer have a land line, but I wouldn't say "most." My cell phone is still for convenience, I don't use it for conversations as a rule. I think most still feel this way, although the technology is really improving.
I don't think drilling would do much to stave off the inevitable as far as our need to get off oil. But, I also no longer feel there's some magical "Tesla" related technology out there that's going to allow us all to run our vehicles with energy we download from the "ether." Don't you wish it were true. There really doesn't seem to be as much a shortage of oil as there is a shortage of gasoline due to the oil companies' refusal to invest their profits in new refinery construction. Instead, they use it for mergers so as to eliminate competition, and they use it on Wall Street to buy back stock. So, that's an area where government can help. Drilling in ANWAR would not produce oil for 7 years, and from everything I've heard, there just isn't enough there to make it worth while.
You don't have a right to fail OR succeed if the government will not level the playing field by enforcing FAIR, but not free trade, and vigorously enforcing anti-trust.
In addition, we need to really look at the way oil is traded. I'm not sure if there's anything we can do there, but very few people understand that the oil companies do not set prices. Something like 40% of the cost of gas is driven by speculators on the commodities futures market. Any of us with some pocket cash who wants to gamble can get in on the action, when you can buy a $50,000 90-day future for $5,000 hoping to get rich on the margin something's wrong.
The only presidential candidate to bring that up was Hillary, but after last night, she's pretty much eliminated. I also like her idea of breaking up the cartel that sets production quotas, but that may not be something we can control in any case.
But, oil is not simply a case of free-market supply and demand. It's speculation, and I do think that can be controlled.
|
|
|
Post by shewolfe on May 7, 2008 16:27:40 GMT -5
We are definitely living in interesting times. I think, that things from here-on-in are about to get even rockier. The noose of government is around all of our necks, and the slip-knot is getting tighter, and tighter every day. We HAD to gate our communities, because if we aren't protected from ourselves, all hell breaks loose. Look at human history. We have always been fighting, little wars and big wars, and now our countries are run by big business and "war presidents". Will Obama be any different? He is already chosen. We will see him as the next president. People wanted change, they screamed for change, and jumped on the Ron Paul bandwagon to bring about radical change. What went wrong? What happened to Ron Paul?
It seems to me the evolution of humankind is on a fast track downhill....where production causes reduction (of natural resources) just look at the cost of food now! We are in the land of plenty, and now it costs five dollars for a loaf of bread. I heard that before long, the plan is that one single loaf of bread will cost a minimum of 10 dollars.
Starvation is going to get worse, and worse, as we can see the food riots in parts of the world right now. If we couldn't eat, over here in the land of plenty and a land of self righteous entitlement, would we riot in the streets too? And what would the police and military do then? We would be sprayed by swat teams with rubber bullets and pepper stray, along with a whole host of crowd control methods they have now-a-days. No, we in the land of plenty are so spoiled that they wouldn't even allow us to have a vocal temper tantrum. That would cause a "disturbance" of this peaceful land we now inhabit.
Lord help us all.
|
|
|
Post by Roland of Gilead on May 8, 2008 4:11:32 GMT -5
Well, thank GOD Ron Paul never had a chance!
Sadly, I really started warming up to Hillary at the end, but now she's pretty much knocked out of the race. She's still fighting, though. Obama may pick her as a running mate, but somehow, I don't think those two could work together. Plus, I can't see Hillary in a submissive role!
Ron Paul? Better to bring Richard Nixon back from the dead and put him in the Whitehouse!
|
|
|
Post by Shadout Mapes on May 8, 2008 10:33:14 GMT -5
Amen that Ricardo! If he did have her & Bill as vice it would be DANGEROUS for him... I'm just saying, and it's going to be tense with him alone, so he must chose wisely, very wisely... >< Tomasina ChicaWolverina!
|
|
|
Post by davidlee on May 8, 2008 10:52:43 GMT -5
I have to agree with both of you. This may very well be an election that is won or lost by the choice of the Vice President! Isn't that interesting!
|
|
|
Post by Roland of Gilead on May 17, 2008 5:45:49 GMT -5
I have to agree with both of you. This may very well be an election that is won or lost by the choice of the Vice President! Isn't that interesting! Funny thing is, both McCain AND Obama may have to chose a running mate they don't really get along with all that well. I now believe Obama will pick Hillary so as to attract all her supporters, and McCain will choose Mitt Romney, who he seems to despise, but may feel he needs to keep the far right with him.
|
|
|
Post by Roland of Gilead on May 17, 2008 16:18:45 GMT -5
I keep forgetting to mention that while the National press keeps focusing on Florida's Governor Charlie Crist as a possible VP pick for McCain, they seem totally unaware that Crist is probably a closeted gay man. Floridians accept this, but on a national level, I wonder how this would play with the Religious Right that's still pretty important in the Republican Party. Crist has been married once, very briefly, and is childless. He has a "girlfriend," probably a long-time friend and "beard" who accompanies him for public functions. Crist was a long-time friend of Mark Foley, the Republican Congressman who had to resign after soliciting male pages on line. The two have long been known to hang out together in Coconut Grove gay men's establishments. I'm sure David Lee will acknowledge this probability.
|
|
|
Post by davidlee on May 19, 2008 10:06:47 GMT -5
I keep forgetting to mention that while the National press keeps focusing on Florida's Governor Charlie Crist as a possible VP pick for McCain, they seem totally unaware that Crist is probably a closeted gay man. Floridians accept this, but on a national level, I wonder how this would play with the Religious Right that's still pretty important in the Republican Party. Crist has been married once, very briefly, and is childless. He has a "girlfriend," probably a long-time friend and "beard" who accompanies him for public functions. Crist was a long-time friend of Mark Foley, the Republican Congressman who had to resign after soliciting male pages on line. The two have long been known to hang out together in Coconut Grove gay men's establishments. I'm sure David Lee will acknowledge this probability. You are absolutely correct Rick! And I don't think Crist is getting much push behind closed doors (no pun intended). Even if he is not a running mate he will still be up front for McCain in Florida. A position in Washington is a possibility. I'm starting to hear rumors behind the scenes that the top two are going to be Romney and believe it or not....Joe Lieberman! McCain wants the party to move just to the right of center and he is close to Lieberman in thought and personality. Romney will bring back the disgruntled supporters that thought he jumped out of the race too soon and may be more of a uniter for the party. Whether they get along great is really of no significance. Finally, I wouldn't get my hopes up for a Obama/Hillary ticket. That's just to much to make people swallow. NYC Mayor might just squeak in..... Should be interesting to say the least....IMO!!
|
|
|
Post by Roland of Gilead on May 20, 2008 12:26:54 GMT -5
Now, here's another thing to consider. Will Bob Barr, running as a Libertarian siphon enough votes off McCain to throw the election to Obama in the event of a very close election? The comparison is being made to Nader in 2000, but Barr is far less known than Nader. _________________ Can Bob Barr Become a 'Ralph Nader'?
Monday, May 19, 2008 10:45 AM
By: Newsmax Staff Article Font Size
Former Congressman Bob Barr is expected to win the Libertarian Party’s nomination for president at the party’s convention beginning on Thursday, and he could prove to be John McCain’s “Ralph Nader” in November.
Nader siphoned votes from Democrat Al Gore in the 2000 election and is generally blamed by Democrats for handing Florida — and perhaps other states as well — to George Bush, securing the Republican’s win.
Now some Republicans fear Barr could do the same for McCain and cost the GOP one or more swing states.
A recent Zogby poll showed likely Democratic nominee Barack Obama with 45 percent of the vote, McCain with 42 percent — and Barr with 3 percent. Nader, who is running again this year, drew only 1 percent, with the rest undecided.
The fear is that Barr could attract not only libertarian voters, but conservatives who are dissatisfied with McCain as the GOP nominee.
The American Spectator opined in April that “conservatives see the choice of McCain or the Democrats as analogous to picking between being punched in the stomach or kneed in the groin.”
And Newsweek columnist George Will wrote that a run by Barr could be to McCain “what Ralph Nader was to Al Gore — ruinous.”
Barr, who represented a Georgia district in the House from 1995 to 2003 before leaving the GOP, told the Washington Times that a number of Republicans have been trying to persuade him not to run for president.
Most of them “also said they understand why I’d run and why John McCain is not conservative and will not seriously tackle the growth in government power and spending,” Barr said.
“Some said they would vote for me if I ran, but for the sake of the Republican Party, they would prefer I didn’t.”
Barr told the Philadelphia Inquirer: “The notion that Republicans see a third-party candidate as spoiling their chances simply illustrates the arrogance of the two-party system.”
Barr has been associated with the American Conservative Union, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the National Rifle Association. Since losing his House seat in 2002, he has renounced the war on drugs and criticized the Patriot Act.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told the Times on May 11: “Bob Barr will make it marginally easier for Barack Obama to become president. That outcome threatens every libertarian value Barr professes to champion.”
|
|
Chernobyl
Junior Member
Meltdown in progress...
Posts: 54
|
Post by Chernobyl on May 23, 2008 1:08:23 GMT -5
Wow, I wish I would have seen this conversation as it had been developing.
Just the same, it isn't too late to say "that woman" is still in the ruining and promising *dire consequences* for the democrats if they don't nominate her. I wouldn't be too surprised at this point to see her to continue her run as an independent. She'll proclaim that elements of the party has abandoned itself to justify her ongoing pursuit of the White House.
The fat lady isn't singing yet. Neither is the Hillary.
|
|