What is this X?

[Goobieman]

And this is the proof of a common X between them...

The point you're missing is that there is no proof of a 'common x'.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Say there are some peoples, companies, groups or something else named X.
This X killed peoples in 11 september to gather support for war against Iraq and Afghanestan and this X was successful using world mainstream medias and because this X had alot of money and time to doing this.
And now, this X tries a same scenario for Iran.
What is this X?

Thank you

This is a great question... I love it...

So, there are some 6+ billion people on the planet living in every country. We have complex societies, legal systems, etc. Now, among these 6+ billion people there are perhaps 10-15 000 people who are at the heads of their particular domain, whether it be academic, business, government, science, medical, legal, etc...

These are the 'delegates' of X. They congregate in round table groups like the CFR... and other NGO's along with other 'private interest groups'. Now, along side these 10-15000 individuals, there are probably close to another 150-200 000 individuals that work alongside these delegates and often working for the will of these delegates without any knowledge of that fact.

Everyone else, be they good or bad individually, are not really the issue. If a country is in opposition to X and X's agenda's then if they cannot be 'convinced' to work with X then X wages war with that country.

Anyway, these 10-15000 delegates of X will convene in various meetings around the world with the lower levels of X... perhaps 500-600 individuals... and these individuals pursue the agenda of about 10-20 families, their names I couldn't tell you, where they are located... but they represent the controlling arm of virtually every aspect of human life, and attempt to control any and all of their opposition.

That's the importance of that symbol of the pyramid with the all-seeing eye. Because X is such an unseen yet important element of human societies the world over, it's eyes in the aggregate see all. Yet, the monolithic arrangement of this hierarchy makes it necessary to be held up by the unwitting support of all those beneath.

Now, X's aims are in no uncertain terms total world domination. This will cost many lives because there are a good number of people that have freedom in their hearts and will not succumb willingly. The western world is that which has consented to X's control systems... where those countries that will fight this agenda are now what we call 'rogue' or 'terrorists' countries.

 

[yz89]

This is a great question... I love it...

So, there are some 6+ billion people on the planet living in every country. We have complex societies, legal systems, etc. Now, among these 6+ billion people there are perhaps 10-15 000 people who are at the heads of their particular domain, whether it be academic, business, government, science, medical, legal, etc...

These are the 'delegates' of X. They congregate in round table groups like the CFR... and other NGO's along with other 'private interest groups'. Now, along side these 10-15000 individuals, there are probably close to another 150-200 000 individuals that work alongside these delegates and often working for the will of these delegates without any knowledge of that fact.

Everyone else, be they good or bad individually, are not really the issue. If a country is in opposition to X and X's agenda's then if they cannot be 'convinced' to work with X then X wages war with that country.

Anyway, these 10-15000 delegates of X will convene in various meetings around the world with the lower levels of X... perhaps 500-600 individuals... and these individuals pursue the agenda of about 10-20 families, their names I couldn't tell you, where they are located... but they represent the controlling arm of virtually every aspect of human life, and attempt to control any and all of their opposition.

That's the importance of that symbol of the pyramid with the all-seeing eye. Because X is such an unseen yet important element of human societies the world over, it's eyes in the aggregate see all. Yet, the monolithic arrangement of this hierarchy makes it necessary to be held up by the unwitting support of all those beneath.

Now, X's aims are in no uncertain terms total world domination. This will cost many lives because there are a good number of people that have freedom in their hearts and will not succumb willingly. The western world is that which has consented to X's control systems... where those countries that will fight this agenda are now what we call 'rogue' or 'terrorists' countries.

I went to be disappointed in these forums from hearing an independent rational reply that you saved me, thank you very much.
But actually I'm interested in that 10-20 families. Why you couldn't tell me their names and locations? Could you please tell me in a private message?

Thank you.

 

[BmanMcfly]

I went to be disappointed in these forums from hearing an independent rational reply that you saved me, thank you very much.
But actually I'm interested in that 10-20 families. Why you couldn't tell me their names and locations? Could you please tell me in a private message?

I would, I honestly would if I knew for certain... but all I can do is from the outside piece together this agenda that X is doing, because X has to keep written records of their plans for dissemination through their order. I would point you to Rothkops superclass Amazon.com: Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making (9780374272104): David Rothkopf: Books

Just because of his seeming involvement in EVERYTHING, The Rockefeller dynasty is, if not the ultimate source of power on the planet, he's definately among those individuals top men.

I've heard many people's theories though; some believing that it's the queen, others the pope, but ultimately without being on the inside, it's a matter of trying to put together the hierarchy through their activities, and making a judgement call.... But, I have developped the opinioned belief that the actual 'world leader(s)' from behind the scenes remain so far behind the scenes that their names have likely never appeared in any history book ever...

Thank you.

No, thank you... The power structure is vastly different then what we're led to believe, and whatever the truth of the matter is, that human society is goign to have to wake up to this control system, in the hopes of freeing ourselves.... and if that won't / can't be done... well, society will look very much like something between the borg, 1984's society and the way of life in 'brave new world'...

It's also nice to not be called crazy at every chance...

 

[Demon of Light]

I do not see it quite in the way Bman does, but certainly the core it is probably true. The way I would like at is that you have several factions among the elites. You have most dominantly the imperialist faction and the globalist faction. Imperialists ultimately pursue the same basic goal of the globalists with the difference being that imperialists seek a world dominated by a specific nation while globalists want a world dominated by a single world government that is independent of nations.

Since their goals are only somewhat dissimilar they can often benefit from the same events. For instance PNAC was definitely an imperialist project that essentially was an offshoot of the more globalist CFR. An attack like 9-11 certainly favored the imperialist desire for a new Cold War-style global conflict to justify the invasion and subjugation of countries and regions, but it also served as a transformative event that could be used as a catalyst towards global government.

I think the current power dynamics has the globalist faction in the U.S. with more power than the imperialist faction. During the Cold War the imperialists probably had the upper hand as more globally-oriented men like Alger Hiss or John F. Kennedy were defamed or killed.

One area where the imperialists and globalists would still agree is in suppressing the rise of new global and regional powers like China, Iran, or the renewed rise of Russia because a new imperialist movement in any or all of these countries could imperil the globalist agenda.

Understand also that the imperialists emerge in other countries and thus have agendas oriented towards their nation. If you look at the history of the Turkish Deep State including up to today there is a constant pull between the American imperialists and the Russian imperialists. Consider the critical players in the Ergenekon trial. There you had an individual working on the behalf of Mehmet Eymur, previous head of counter-terrorism at Turkish intelligence who was essentially exiled to the U.S. after the Susurluk scandal and has since been working closely alongside the CIA, exposing a pro-Russian Eurasianist faction of the Turkish Deep State called Ergenekon.

Turkey is really one of the more fascinating case studies for the actions of the imperialist faction. It was part of Operation Gladio during the Cold War and has consistently come up alongside Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as being critical in U.S. involvement with jihadist forces from Bosnia and Kosovo to Chechnya and East Turkestan.

Given what Sibel Edmonds has said about State Department officials and others in government being bribed into allowing the infiltration of Turkish intelligence into U.S. agencies it suggests all paths to 9-11 passed through there. The Philippines is another interesting case in that regard as the Bojinka Plot that formed the early plans for 9-11 were first plotted out there, specifically third wave that was missing from the data when FBI received it from the CIA, and it is also where Terry Nichols spent time before the Oklahoma City Bombing. Before Terry Nichols went there he couldn't make a firecracker and when he came back he was blowing up federal buildings. There has been some evidence of ties between Philippine intelligence and Abu Sayyaf from whom Terry Nichols most likely would have gotten this experience.

Like I said it is quite possible these actions of the imperialists were being aided or manipulated by globalists who saw the event as providing a potential catalyst.

I would, I honestly would if I knew for certain... but all I can do is from the outside piece together this agenda that X is doing, because X has to keep written records of their plans for dissemination through their order. I would point you to Rothkops superclass Amazon.com: Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making (9780374272104): David Rothkopf: Books

It is interesting that you note the book because, from an article I read about it, it sounds as if the author is arguing for more global government to counter the Superclass, essentially meaning that he himself is probably an agent of globalists whether witting or unwitting.

 

[RightinNYC]

"X" is a variable. hth.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Zionists and 9/11

Loose Change is one of the proofs.

uggghhhh....

 

[usda select]

Say there are some peoples, companies, groups or something else named X.
This X killed peoples in 11 september to gather support for war against Iraq and Afghanestan and this X was successful using world mainstream medias and because this X had alot of money and time to doing this.
And now, this X tries a same scenario for Iran.
What is this X?

Thank you

There is no "X".

"X" is made up by people who likely have spent too little time in school learning how to reason and too much time in front of video games.

The administration has changed almost twice since 9/11 (Clinton had just gotten out of office) when it took place and so any sort of governmental involvement is totally unlikely. So that forces the propellants of the "X" to go above the highest office in the land and they do that constantly citing powerful families, powerful entities, and of course monied interests all in the jaundiced attempt to cast them as first, evil, and secondly as being in control of everything on Earth.

It always strikes me as odd that the oil barons are rarely indicted in these schemes; oil is the overwhelmingly most precious resource on the planet and it will continue to be so as the supply dwindles.

Anyway, the "X" you seek died on 9/11--all 19 of them. T

 

[Demon of Light]

The administration has changed almost twice since 9/11 (Clinton had just gotten out of office) when it took place and so any sort of governmental involvement is totally unlikely.

Most naive comment ever.

 

[BmanMcfly]

I do not see it quite in the way Bman does, but certainly the core it is probably true.

The main point is that the powers behind the scenes are more important then the 'power' that we see in newspapers and on tv.

The way I would like at is that you have several factions among the elites. You have most dominantly the imperialist faction and the globalist faction. Imperialists ultimately pursue the same basic goal of the globalists with the difference being that imperialists seek a world dominated by a specific nation while globalists want a world dominated by a single world government that is independent of nations.

I do agree that there are factions between the globalists, a big major concept is that of social darwinism... where they feel that it is survival of the fittest, and so even among the ranks of the globalists there's the occasional conflict, but these are handled politically, but they will work together for the common aims. Much like a mafia card game, they are playing against each other... every so often someone at the table gets shot, but if there's a raid on the game they will all fight for the card game to the death.

Since their goals are only somewhat dissimilar they can often benefit from the same events. For instance PNAC was definitely an imperialist project that essentially was an offshoot of the more globalist CFR. An attack like 9-11 certainly favored the imperialist desire for a new Cold War-style global conflict to justify the invasion and subjugation of countries and regions, but it also served as a transformative event that could be used as a catalyst towards global government.

I don't view it quite like that, where PNAC and CFR are definately globalist offshoot organizations, trilateral commission as well... they are all localized constructs that are locked into the higher globalist meetings and they focus on different specialties as groups within the various regions. But I do tend to agree.

I think the current power dynamics has the globalist faction in the U.S. with more power than the imperialist faction. During the Cold War the imperialists probably had the upper hand as more globally-oriented men like Alger Hiss or John F. Kennedy were defamed or killed.

Well, at this point is the slow conversion of the US from an open society to a closed society, Americans are very jealous of protecting their way of life, and the constitution, so this is being done in a process of death by a million cuts.

One area where the imperialists and globalists would still agree is in suppressing the rise of new global and regional powers like China, Iran, or the renewed rise of Russia because a new imperialist movement in any or all of these countries could imperil the globalist agenda.

I view the present situation as Russia, China and the US (anglo-american empire) are the 3 main contenders for the controlling arm of this 'new world order'. Since these three main globalist factions are essentially having their roles downsized, you can't have multiple controlling arms of a singular world system of controls. Inevitably, there will be a conflict between these three factions, if the globalists are going to get their way.

Understand also that the imperialists emerge in other countries and thus have agendas oriented towards their nation. If you look at the history of the Turkish Deep State including up to today there is a constant pull between the American imperialists and the Russian imperialists. Consider the critical players in the Ergenekon trial. There you had an individual working on the behalf of Mehmet Eymur, previous head of counter-terrorism at Turkish intelligence who was essentially exiled to the U.S. after the Susurluk scandal and has since been working closely alongside the CIA, exposing a pro-Russian Eurasianist faction of the Turkish Deep State called Ergenekon.

I would put this as that some of these nations are 'rogue' in the sense that while they might be 'friendly' with the globalist controlled nations, they are antagonistic to the globalist agenda, since it would mean an end to their nationalism and pride.

Turkey is really one of the more fascinating case studies for the actions of the imperialist faction. It was part of Operation Gladio during the Cold War and has consistently come up alongside Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as being critical in U.S. involvement with jihadist forces from Bosnia and Kosovo to Chechnya and East Turkestan.

Given what Sibel Edmonds has said about State Department officials and others in government being bribed into allowing the infiltration of Turkish intelligence into U.S. agencies it suggests all paths to 9-11 passed through there. The Philippines is another interesting case in that regard as the Bojinka Plot that formed the early plans for 9-11 were first plotted out there, specifically third wave that was missing from the data when FBI received it from the CIA, and it is also where Terry Nichols spent time before the Oklahoma City Bombing. Before Terry Nichols went there he couldn't make a firecracker and when he came back he was blowing up federal buildings. There has been some evidence of ties between Philippine intelligence and Abu Sayyaf from whom Terry Nichols most likely would have gotten this experience.

Like I said it is quite possible these actions of the imperialists were being aided or manipulated by globalists who saw the event as providing a potential catalyst.

Oh definately, IMHO 9-11 was probably in the planning stages for some 20-30 years in advance...

It is interesting that you note the book because, from an article I read about it, it sounds as if the author is arguing for more global government to counter the Superclass, essentially meaning that he himself is probably an agent of globalists whether witting or unwitting.

No, he's selling his readers out... the type of people that would be reading this... it's like this : He's a globablist agent, and he's selling the people that know what's going on into the agenda by saying that the REAL POWER can be fought by what he claims is more globalism, which is what the 'real power' he claims he's fighting wants.

He's been, if he's not currently, the head of the Kissinger group... the guy's a globalist...

 

[usda select]

Most naive comment ever.

Please elaborate

 

[Demon of Light]

I do agree that there are factions between the globalists, a big major concept is that of social darwinism... where they feel that it is survival of the fittest, and so even among the ranks of the globalists there's the occasional conflict, but these are handled politically, but they will work together for the common aims. Much like a mafia card game, they are playing against each other... every so often someone at the table gets shot, but if there's a raid on the game they will all fight for the card game to the death.

I like that analogy, but like I said I think it is not just globalists but imperialists and that imperialists are at fundamental odds with the globalists. There are also, I think, factions within these factions, especially the globalists. One example of such factions would be the crackdown on the Knights Templar. At the time the Vatican was the center of power in Europe and its goals were not dissimilar to that of globalists today. On the other hand the Knights Templar represented a more irreligious and financial globalism that growing in power and threatened Vatican authority.

Other examples would be the Illuminati crackdown. It is interesting when you look at Angels and Demons by Dan Brown how the Illuminati are stated explicitly to no longer exist and their supposed emergence is just a plot by a radical Catholic. The Da Vinci Code also attacked the church through its portrayal of Opus Dei and if you've read his most recent book you find him essentially praising the Freemasons and once more putting forward a radically different interpretation of Christianity.

There is also increasingly more media portraying imperialist plots of sorts. I think these represent an attempt at repressing other globalist factions and imperialists. To say there is only occasional conflict, I think, makes them into a much more monolithic and centralized organization than in reality.

For instance, George Soros seems clearly to be of the imperialist faction. In the EU you have what began as an American imperialist project that was ultimately taken over by globalists. People like Soros have made several efforts to obstruct or disrupt the EU because of this growing independence from the American imperialists. Soros was an instrumental figure in keeping the UK out of the euro and has recently been instrumental in bond vigilantes attacking Greece in an attempt to bring down the euro altogether.

Globalists are probably strongest in Europe and the efforts by American and Russian imperialists to upset or disrupt the current power there is suggestive of conflict between the elites.

I don't view it quite like that, where PNAC and CFR are definately globalist offshoot organizations, trilateral commission as well... they are all localized constructs that are locked into the higher globalist meetings and they focus on different specialties as groups within the various regions. But I do tend to agree.

I do not know about that. The manner in which PNAC came into power, manipulated power, and ultimately got expelled from power suggests to me they were not pursuing any globalist agenda. At least, not knowingly.

I view the present situation as Russia, China and the US (anglo-american empire) are the 3 main contenders for the controlling arm of this 'new world order'. Since these three main globalist factions are essentially having their roles downsized, you can't have multiple controlling arms of a singular world system of controls. Inevitably, there will be a conflict between these three factions, if the globalists are going to get their way.

That kind of makes me think of Metal Gear Solid 3 where they talk about the Philosophers who are split into three groups one in the Soviet Union, another in China, and the last in the U.S. I am not so certain about that kind of characterization, however. Russia seems more dominated by the imperialists right now rather than globalists and China seems to currently be out of the control of either such group. Rather they seem to be more influenced by a distinctly nationalist group that is not as interested in imperial expansion and certainly not interested in global government.

Also, having a single nation controlling this system goes against the ultimate globalist agenda. The desire is to not have any country or region dominating, but rather a global government that is superior to all nations.

I would put this as that some of these nations are 'rogue' in the sense that while they might be 'friendly' with the globalist controlled nations, they are antagonistic to the globalist agenda, since it would mean an end to their nationalism and pride.

Well, I mentioned it a bit earlier but I believe there is a sort of third general faction in the elites, which really isn't much of a faction, that is nationalistic. Really that could be considered a proto-imperialist group rather than a distinctly separate group.

Please elaborate

You apparently have a very romantic view of American "democracy" that informs your idealistic notions about the government. A transition from one elected official to another would not in any way upset the power dynamics in the U.S.

 

[BmanMcfly]

I like that analogy, but like I said I think it is not just globalists but imperialists and that imperialists are at fundamental odds with the globalists. There are also, I think, factions within these factions, especially the globalists. One example of such factions would be the crackdown on the Knights Templar. At the time the Vatican was the center of power in Europe and its goals were not dissimilar to that of globalists today. On the other hand the Knights Templar represented a more irreligious and financial globalism that growing in power and threatened Vatican authority.

I think I should leave it where we agree on, that there are clear divisions within the elites power structure.

Perhaps we could define the groups (I mean political groups) that make up the 'imperialist' (which I'm assuming you would define as those that would seek global domination central to the dominant nation) and the 'globalists' (which would have the power structure as superior to the individual nation states and blocks, as in the EU, being subordinate to this overarching structure... which is the importance of the all-seeing eye floating above the rest of the pyramid)

Other examples would be the Illuminati crackdown. It is interesting when you look at Angels and Demons by Dan Brown how the Illuminati are stated explicitly to no longer exist and their supposed emergence is just a plot by a radical Catholic. The Da Vinci Code also attacked the church through its portrayal of Opus Dei and if you've read his most recent book you find him essentially praising the Freemasons and once more putting forward a radically different interpretation of Christianity.

There is also increasingly more media portraying imperialist plots of sorts. I think these represent an attempt at repressing other globalist factions and imperialists. To say there is only occasional conflict, I think, makes them into a much more monolithic and centralized organization than in reality.

As for secret societies, these really are quite interlinked, and have changed names numerous times throughout history, but are essentially the same in their knowledge... while I do believe that ANY information concerning secret societies MUST be taken with a grain of salt, because it's very possible that much of the information concerning these secrets are disinformation.

That said, I've had it described that all these societies are based at the core on kabbalism. But the Knights Templar were the guardian priests of the original temple of solomon, which then shaped into calling themselves the 'illuminated' ones guarding the secrets of the destroyed temple, which was later renamed to the freemasons who are the 'masons' rebuilding the temple of solomon.... again, I don't have any real way to prove these things, but it did seem a coherent explanation at the time.

On angels and demons (and other similar litterature), I find it to be an exercise in both disinformation and pre-programming society to reject information (IE : "Oh you got that from that movie")... I could give a dozen examples just off the top of my head of similar things.

On the "destruction" of these secret societies... I'm certain that these societies go right back to the origins of civilization, and more then likely have served as ways of sacrificing a pawn to save the queen. Much like Madoff was convicted of his ponzi scheme which was claimed in the billions of dollars in order to save the grander scheme worth trillions and pushing the world towards a global currency.

For instance, George Soros seems clearly to be of the imperialist faction. In the EU you have what began as an American imperialist project that was ultimately taken over by globalists. People like Soros have made several efforts to obstruct or disrupt the EU because of this growing independence from the American imperialists. Soros was an instrumental figure in keeping the UK out of the euro and has recently been instrumental in bond vigilantes attacking Greece in an attempt to bring down the euro altogether.

Globalists are probably strongest in Europe and the efforts by American and Russian imperialists to upset or disrupt the current power there is suggestive of conflict between the elites.

I do agree with this, and this falls into the divide and rule paradigm, or the hygalian dialectic where the globalist core allows these two seemingly opposing groups to function and fight with each other for power, and then in a debate it will be Group A vs Group B with the intention of meeting in the middle ground which is what the core group really wanted in the first place.

I do not know about that. The manner in which PNAC came into power, manipulated power, and ultimately got expelled from power suggests to me they were not pursuing any globalist agenda. At least, not knowingly.

I don't actually view PNAC as much more then a temporary organization to synthesize what was to become the Bush administration (before they became his administration, btw) and to make sure that everybody was on the same page as to what the plan was for his term. While I do believe that globalist stooges made up a portion of the group, the rest consisted of YES men thinking that they could garner more power for themselves by just going along to get along.

That kind of makes me think of Metal Gear Solid 3 where they talk about the Philosophers who are split into three groups one in the Soviet Union, another in China, and the last in the U.S. I am not so certain about that kind of characterization, however. Russia seems more dominated by the imperialists right now rather than globalists and China seems to currently be out of the control of either such group. Rather they seem to be more influenced by a distinctly nationalist group that is not as interested in imperial expansion and certainly not interested in global government.

I would disagree with your view on China, only in that they have been funded since Mao, to implement the one child policies, the forced labour organ harvest camps, the intense social controls, the sweatshops (apple factories now have netting surrounding the factories to dissuade suicide attempts, to illustrate an example), China has won human rights awards, etc... China is likely THE model for the type of social controls that are aspired to... but then you add in the technological overlay that you find in europe (london specifically), and the mass drugging that you find in america. If anything, Russia is the odd man out... but America is still the chump at that poker table.

Also, having a single nation controlling this system goes against the ultimate globalist agenda. The desire is to not have any country or region dominating, but rather a global government that is superior to all nations.

I agree with this as well... which leads me to the thinking that the 3 major powers are inevitably headed towards a conflict (I mean after the rest of eurasia is mopped up and under globalist controls), which will see them all but destroyed, the elites go into hiding in their bunkers while the world goes to hell, and then they will emerge and blame each other and then a global treaty will be signed where all countries must give up their nationalism to a world body that will be the government superceding the laws of each individual nation.... the people having lived through this tribulation will BEG to be slaves to this system as the alternative will be the day to day fight for mere survival.

 

[usda select]

You apparently have a very romantic view of American "democracy" that informs your idealistic notions about the government. A transition from one elected official to another would not in any way upset the power dynamics in the U.S.

President Carter can't order troops in to battle. Neither can either Bush or Clinton. Only Obama can. You call my views romantic; your views are flat out wrong. Are you an American?

 

[Demon of Light]

That said, I've had it described that all these societies are based at the core on kabbalism. But the Knights Templar were the guardian priests of the original temple of solomon, which then shaped into calling themselves the 'illuminated' ones guarding the secrets of the destroyed temple, which was later renamed to the freemasons who are the 'masons' rebuilding the temple of solomon.... again, I don't have any real way to prove these things, but it did seem a coherent explanation at the time.

Well secret societies tend to incorporate a lot of myth into their histories. Still it seems quite likely to me that the Knights Templar were inducted into Christian Gnosticism or some other mystical branch of Christianity during the Crusades and brought this back with them from Europe and ended up influencing freemasonry.

On the "destruction" of these secret societies... I'm certain that these societies go right back to the origins of civilization, and more then likely have served as ways of sacrificing a pawn to save the queen. Much like Madoff was convicted of his ponzi scheme which was claimed in the billions of dollars in order to save the grander scheme worth trillions and pushing the world towards a global currency.

Well, these societies aren't really destroyed. They are simply disbanded. Like with the Knights Templar some just resurfaced under a different organization, merged into other orders, or went underground to emerge much later. I'm sure you've read about Rosslyn Chapel.

On the Illuminati it seems they infiltrated other organizations, particularly the freemasons, and so it likely means they just came to dominate or influence these structures when the Illuminati was "destroyed" over two centuries ago.

I would disagree with your view on China, only in that they have been funded since Mao, to implement the one child policies, the forced labour organ harvest camps, the intense social controls, the sweatshops (apple factories now have netting surrounding the factories to dissuade suicide attempts, to illustrate an example), China has won human rights awards, etc... China is likely THE model for the type of social controls that are aspired to... but then you add in the technological overlay that you find in europe (london specifically), and the mass drugging that you find in america. If anything, Russia is the odd man out... but America is still the chump at that poker table.

You see, I notice people saying that sort of thing about China like Alex Jones, but it only really convinces me that said elites are taking advantage of the current situation, not that China is working towards the same ends. In fact, China being the testing ground is more suggestive to me of their lack of involvement.

President Carter can't order troops in to battle. Neither can either Bush or Clinton. Only Obama can. You call my views romantic; your views are flat out wrong. Are you an American?

Fine. I didn't really want to explain this to you, but I just can't stand your ridiculous remarks anymore. For one, the heads of the military, intelligence, many bureaucracies, think tanks, and businesses often do not shift around with every new Administration. The Federal Reserve is one example of a powerful organization where leadership often spans administrations. Also even when power changes it is usually just a hand-off to someone who is already meshed into the establishment.

Where you have elected officials that are essentially "outside politics" they typically fill their selected positions with longtime establishment members, primarily because that is the only way the elected official can do anything effectively. Look back into the careers of Rumsfield, Cheney, Gates, and you will find they have been in government for a long time.

 

[usda select]

Fine. I didn't really want to explain this to you, but I just can't stand your ridiculous remarks anymore.

None more ridiculous than your belief that there is an ultra powerful yet ultra anonymous group of people running everything in the world. Is that your belief? If not, please tell us who this ultra powerful group is--actual names this time--and precisely what they do control.

For one, the heads of the military, intelligence, many bureaucracies, think tanks, and businesses often do not shift around with every new Administration.

Every 8 years minimum, their boss does. The boss is elected by the voters of the country. Happens every four years. Perhaps you've missed it up til now but in 2012 we'll have another election. You'd do well to pay attention and put away the silliness of secret societies.

The Federal Reserve is one example of a powerful organization where leadership often spans administrations. Also even when power changes it is usually just a hand-off to someone who is already meshed into the establishment.

As far as I know, the FED Chair is appointed by the Presdient as well.

Where you have elected officials that are essentially "outside politics" they typically fill their selected positions with longtime establishment members, primarily because that is the only way the elected official can do anything effectively. Look back into the careers of Rumsfield, Cheney, Gates, and you will find they have been in government for a long time.

[Cheney was elected Vice President by the voters. Rumsfeld and Gates were appointed by the person we elected. Nobody comes to power by sheer will; they are voted into office or appointed by elected officials.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[Demon of Light]

None more ridiculous than your belief that there is an ultra powerful yet ultra anonymous group of people running everything in the world. Is that your belief? If not, please tell us who this ultra powerful group is--actual names this time--and precisely what they do control.

Your demands are just absurd. For one, you are under the rather idyllic impression that our elected officials are the highest authority, which is just plain naive and wrong. At the same time you seem to think I have to know everything to have a different opinion from you, which is just ridiculous.

As far as what I believe I have already stated that and it is not consistent with your strawman attack on me.

Every 8 years minimum, their boss does. The boss is elected by the voters of the country. Happens every four years. Perhaps you've missed it up til now but in 2012 we'll have another election. You'd do well to pay attention and put away the silliness of secret societies.


As far as I know, the FED Chair is appointed by the Presdient as well.



[Cheney was elected Vice President by the voters. Rumsfeld and Gates were appointed by the person we elected. Nobody comes to power by sheer will; they are voted into office or appointed by elected officials.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

When someone is this deep in the illusion it is hard to imagine them ever getting out. Honestly, why do you people imagine so much power being held in elected office? Most legislators don't read the bills they propose or vote on and these bills are written by special interests or people who represent those interests. Do you really think the President seriously vets every possible person for the job? No, it simply doesn't happen.

Rather candidates are presented to the President and these candidates are almost always long-established members of government. Heads of intelligence agencies are usually people who have been in intelligence, heads of law enforcement agencies have prior involvement in these law enforcement agencies, and Department heads have often been high up in that department or a related one already. Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, and Cheney were not newbies to Washington.

Also the President only appoints the people at the very top who then appoint people who appoint people and so on.

Not to mention you apparently think our elections have real integrity rather than being orchestrated shams to keep the proles docile thinking they can change everything if they want. When you control the options available to someone it makes it all the easier to get what you want from them.

 

[usda select]

Your demands are just absurd. For one, you are under the rather idyllic impression that our elected officials are the highest authority, which is just plain naive and wrong. At the same time you seem to think I have to know everything to have a different opinion from you, which is just ridiculous.

As far as what I believe I have already stated that and it is not consistent with your strawman attack on me.

Not attacking you. Just trying to get you to say something definitive. So far it is a bunch of "they" and "someone". When asked who they are, you say you don't know who they are but know "they" or "someone" did something. Seriously, if anybody came to you with this sort of story, you'd refer them to a psychiatrist. Example:

"Demon, I know someone is trying to hurt me."

"Who is it?"

"I don't know"

"How do you know they are trying to hurt you"

"Because I know it."

-------------------
Okay...what is the highest authority if it isn't the elected officials? Maybe we can get some answers there.

When someone is this deep in the illusion it is hard to imagine them ever getting out. Honestly, why do you people imagine so much power being held in elected office? Most legislators don't read the bills they propose or vote on and these bills are written by special interests or people who represent those interests.

Self-inflicted wound to your own argument. The elected officials are...the ones who vote on bills...so they have the power.

And those elected officials are elected by voters. Or do you think also think that nobody counts the votes and they just decide who wins?

Do you really think the President seriously vets every possible person for the job? No, it simply doesn't happen.

I don't recall saying that the President did any such thing. What is your point?

Rather candidates are presented to the President and these candidates are almost always long-established members of government.

The President has the power to appoint whoever he wants and we have the power to vote him or her out of office. Sorry if you don't like the system but that is the system we have. I'd like to elect every cabinet member myself but your notion that there is some ubiquitous "they" pulling all the strings is, again, incorrect.

Heads of intelligence agencies are usually people who have been in intelligence, heads of law enforcement agencies have prior involvement in these law enforcement agencies, and Department heads have often been high up in that department or a related one already. Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, and Cheney were not newbies to Washington.

Also the President only appoints the people at the very top who then appoint people who appoint people and so on.

So we should get housewives to run Cabinet level posts and manage billions of dollars? Okay....gee; experience is usually a good thing when you apply for a job. I guess you think different?

Not to mention you apparently think our elections have real integrity rather than being orchestrated shams to keep the proles docile thinking they can change everything if they want. When you control the options available to someone it makes it all the easier to get what you want from them.

Well, if you don't like our elections...I guess you don't have to vote or don't have to take part or vote for a tree stump if you want. Or you can run for office yourself. Elections are decided by those who show up to vote. Nothing more and nothing less. I would love to see the Presidental elections changed in almost every possible way but if you get more votes than the other guy, you win on a state by state basis. Usually that means you win the office.

 

[BmanMcfly]

I couldn't help it...

President Carter can't order troops in to battle. Neither can either Bush or Clinton. Only Obama can. You call my views romantic; your views are flat out wrong. Are you an American?

Ok, The POWER of the presidency is NOT in the person sitting in the chair, it is THE OFFICE that person sits in that has the power. Each president is done for every 8 years at longest, so, the lobby groups only have to worry about greasing the wheels of a new person every few years...

So, look at the last election at a company like JP Morgan... I can't remember precise figures, but they had donated (roughly) 150k to McCain, and then hedged their bets but giving Obama about 4 times that amount. So, how does Obama repay them?? He gets the bailout passed where, Ron Paul said something like 'lets read the bill before we sign it' and someone like pelosi argued 'well, we gotta sign it so that we can read it'... and you wonder why so many people are getting a huge disconnect with politics??

So, anyway, the point is that JP Morgan helped write this bill that congress couldn't read because they supplied a large amount into getting Obama into the whitehouse. THAT is how presidents get bought off. Joe Schmoe isn't going to get a donation like that if the company donating that kind of money is going to get something back, and not just say 'thank you' and move on.... they have picked from Both McCain and Obama in their respective primaries, so even IF mccain pulled off a surprise victory with the multi-million dollar ad-campaign that Obama ran that they had the bases covered.

Now, you think you won with Obama... but it doesn't MATTER because JP Morgan got what they wanted... Like his slogans said "when I'm done you'll hope to still have a bit of change left."

Not attacking you. Just trying to get you to say something definitive. So far it is a bunch of "they" and "someone". When asked who they are, you say you don't know who they are but know "they" or "someone" did something. Seriously, if anybody came to you with this sort of story, you'd refer them to a psychiatrist. Example:

Who THEY are specifically, individually?? That I can't tell you... because I don't know. But I CAN tell you (for the sake of an example) that Baxter got CONVICTED of INTENTIONALLY mixing with their drug Factor8 given to hemopheliacs with the HIV virus and told that they couldn't sell the product in America, they TOOK THE DRUG that was tainted, and they were convicted of, they took that batch of factor 8 with HIV in the shot and sold it overseas to France and Japan namely. So, while I can't tell you the name of the individual that decided to kill hemophiliacs I can tell you that there is an individual (or more) working for baxter who NOT ONLY work for that company and have access to all the compounds, HE ALSO carries enough clout within the company to push the product through rollout. Think about that.

"Demon, I know someone is trying to hurt me."

"Who is it?"

"I don't know"

"How do you know they are trying to hurt you"

"Because I know it."

no no, the last line is : "Because it's ADMITTED to be going on and can be PROVEN!"

Okay...what is the highest authority if it isn't the elected officials? Maybe we can get some answers there.

The bilderberg group is a major one... I don't know if that is the pinnacle of power, but queen bea, Rockefeller, Kissinger, and all the big names are regular attendees according to their annals. They were the ones that had picked Obama over Hillary clinton to run for president the day that Obama's followers got kidnapped by his media people for a 'secret meeting'... the day after that Hillary conceded.

Self-inflicted wound to your own argument. The elected officials are...the ones who vote on bills...so they have the power.

They only have the power if they are able to come to an independant decision on what they vote for... if they are bought off they are no better then puppets.

And those elected officials are elected by voters. Or do you think also think that nobody counts the votes and they just decide who wins?

Every so often I believe that elections get rigged... before Bush exit-polls were an excellent indicator of who would win, since Bush there's been an increase in the number of irregularities... the voting machines especially.

The President has the power to appoint whoever he wants and we have the power to vote him or her out of office. Sorry if you don't like the system but that is the system we have. I'd like to elect every cabinet member myself but your notion that there is some ubiquitous "they" pulling all the strings is, again, incorrect.

read that top section again and then :

Since the president is bought and paid for long before he gets elected, all the people that will form his cabinet are presented to him, and he makes selections based on those appointed. Do you get that??

So we should get housewives to run Cabinet level posts and manage billions of dollars? Okay....gee; experience is usually a good thing when you apply for a job. I guess you think different?

Of course, but it's especially distinct when you have people put to roles for which they are unqualified, but take precedence... the fact is that in America now, it's not how hard you work, it's who you know.

Well, if you don't like our elections...I guess you don't have to vote or don't have to take part or vote for a tree stump if you want. Or you can run for office yourself. Elections are decided by those who show up to vote. Nothing more and nothing less. I would love to see the Presidental elections changed in almost every possible way but if you get more votes than the other guy, you win on a state by state basis. Usually that means you win the office.

Yes, if you do that, you get 'RON PAUL' level campaign advertisement... they might as well have said that Ron Paul eats babies.

 

[Demon of Light]

Not attacking you. Just trying to get you to say something definitive. So far it is a bunch of "they" and "someone". When asked who they are, you say you don't know who they are but know "they" or "someone" did something. Seriously, if anybody came to you with this sort of story, you'd refer them to a psychiatrist.

:roll: Actually, no, if someone said a person or group of persons did something illegal, but you don't know who they are most people would not assume that person is crazy. For instance, if someone broke the lock on your door and your TV is missing no one is going to assume you're crazy if you say "someone" stole it, but you don't know who.

Okay...what is the highest authority if it isn't the elected officials? Maybe we can get some answers there.

Why do you assume that I must know everything to have legitimate suspicions?

Self-inflicted wound to your own argument. The elected officials are...the ones who vote on bills...so they have the power.

Except the whole thing is rigged against legitimate representation. First, the people who get elected are almost always put in place by some entrenched interest. Second, the legislation is written by aides or others who are from entrenched interests. Third, money is passed around and ad campaigns are launched by these interests to keep pressure on for the desired result. Fourth, any legislation is so massive and full of legal jargon that it makes serious review by most, if not all, members of Congress impossible.

In other words, the system is manipulated from start to finish. To say they have the power just ignores the powerful influence of bureaucracy and business on our society.

And those elected officials are elected by voters. Or do you think also think that nobody counts the votes and they just decide who wins?

Do you understand how elections work? Like I said, when you control the options people have you insure they give you what you want. Honestly, that goes for appointment process as well.

So we should get housewives to run Cabinet level posts and manage billions of dollars? Okay....gee; experience is usually a good thing when you apply for a job. I guess you think different?

That might sound like a good argument, but it poses a different issue. Consider Henry Paulson coming out of Goldman Sachs and then how U.S. government policy typically favored Goldman Sachs. There is also the revolving door of government contractors and members of government. A high-ranking military official might leave and join a defense contractor that then gets a plushy contract for instance. Experience is one thing, but corruption is another.

 

[usda select]

:roll: Actually, no, if someone said a person or group of persons did something illegal, but you don't know who they are most people would not assume that person is crazy. For instance, if someone broke the lock on your door and your TV is missing no one is going to assume you're crazy if you say "someone" stole it, but you don't know who.

Approximately 4 of the world's 6 billion people saw the 2nd plane hit the building. Yet you say you still don't know what happened? Why is it you can't use a germane example?

Why do you assume that I must know everything to have legitimate suspicions?

I don't. If you knew everything; you would not have to have suspicions; you'd already know it. You should have some concrete evidence to cause suspicions.

Except the whole thing is rigged against legitimate representation. First, the people who get elected are almost always put in place by some entrenched interest. Second, the legislation is written by aides or others who are from entrenched interests. Third, money is passed around and ad campaigns are launched by these interests to keep pressure on for the desired result. Fourth, any legislation is so massive and full of legal jargon that it makes serious review by most, if not all, members of Congress impossible.

Hogwash on some of that.
The person who gets the most votes wins the election. There are no state-by-state primaries in the legislative brance; only state wide or district wide races. Its irritating that you need to have this explained to you. You can vote for whomever you want in any election; just write their name in.

As for the rest of it; those with the power to change the way things are done are elected every two years and are not selected for you by anyone. Nobody selected Carol Mosley Braun, Mitch McConnell, Sheila Jackson Lee, Maria Cantwell, Al Franken, Saxby Chambliss, Nancy Pelosi, or any other legislator. As you may have picked up between what seems to be daily naps in Civics class, the legislative body makes the laws and can pass measures that will, I admit this much, rectify some of the lunatic rules they have in place. But to contend that you have no voice is BS. You simply don't choose to exercise it and throw your hands up complaining that the system you refuse to amend doesnt' work for you.

In other words, the system is manipulated from start to finish. To say they have the power just ignores the powerful influence of bureaucracy and business on our society.

Crap...pure crap.

Do you understand how elections work? Like I said, when you control the options people have you insure they give you what you want. Honestly, that goes for appointment process as well.

MUCH more than you do.

That might sound like a good argument, but it poses a different issue. Consider Henry Paulson coming out of Goldman Sachs and then how U.S. government policy typically favored Goldman Sachs.

Political patronage is never going to go away; period...end of story.

There is also the revolving door of government contractors and members of government.

Gee, Congress could pass a law that would stop that. Every member of Congress ran state wide or district wide; not one was 'selected' for you.

A high-ranking military official might leave and join a defense contractor that then gets a plushy contract for instance. Experience is one thing, but corruption is another.

See above statement for a brilliant light of truth. You need to come out of the darkness.

 

[Demon of Light]

Approximately 4 of the world's 6 billion people saw the 2nd plane hit the building. Yet you say you still don't know what happened?

Where did I say that a plane didn't hit the World Trade Center? Aside from a very small minority putting forward some absurd "no planes" theory I can not think of anyone who questions that.

I don't. If you knew everything; you would not have to have suspicions; you'd already know it. You should have some concrete evidence to cause suspicions.

If I had concrete evidence of a conspiracy it would be more than suspicion now wouldn't it?

Hogwash on some of that.
The person who gets the most votes wins the election. There are no state-by-state primaries in the legislative brance; only state wide or district wide races. Its irritating that you need to have this explained to you. You can vote for whomever you want in any election; just write their name in.

When has a write-in candidate won anything save maybe a local election? Also, not every state allows just any name for a write-in candidate. I mean, you can write whatever the hell you want on a ballot that doesn't mean it's going to count for anything. Not to mention it is incredibly hard, nigh impossible, for anyone that isn't already a major power player to have any success outside the two parties.

Also, I do not need you to explain anything. I already know plenty about the election system.

Political patronage is never going to go away; period...end of story.

So are you acknowledging that the appointment process is corrupt from the beginning?

Gee, Congress could pass a law that would stop that.

That would be nice, of course, quite a few of them benefit from there not being such a law.

 

[usda select]

Where did I say that a plane didn't hit the World Trade Center? Aside from a very small minority putting forward some absurd "no planes" theory I can not think of anyone who questions that.

Okay so you admit (for lack of a more conciliatory term) that a plane hit both of the twin towers. Do you still have doubts about what brought them down?

If I had concrete evidence of a conspiracy it would be more than suspicion now wouldn't it?

Yes...but so far you don't have concrete evidence of anything, just suspicions. Which was my point to start with.

When has a write-in candidate won anything save maybe a local election? Also, not every state allows just any name for a write-in candidate. I mean, you can write whatever the hell you want on a ballot that doesn't mean it's going to count for anything. Not to mention it is incredibly hard, nigh impossible, for anyone that isn't already a major power player to have any success outside the two parties.

Oh...so you blame the electorate; not the elections or the system. Me too. We get precisely the government we want and precisely the government we deserve. I think that you feel that we should have 538 voices all singing in unison with precisely the agenda you want....in a republic or a representative democracy; others often win elections and others are often in power thwarting what you (and I) would like to see done. Does that mean it is corrupt? No. Does that mean it is dishonest? No. Just that is isn't what we endorse. See the last 8 years of Bush and the first 2 years of Obama; I'm as disgusted with one as I am with the other.

Also, I do not need you to explain anything. I already know plenty about the election system.

So far, you've shown that you know nothing other than your distrust of the electoral system....thinking your candidates are selected for you by some ultra powerful yet totally anonymous entity which you can't see, can't address, can't name, can't identify yet you're absolutely certain it is there; see boogeyman in closet example. I see no evidence that you understand how elections are run; only that you don't like the results.

So are you acknowledging that the appointment process is corrupt from the beginning?

Corrupt? If you want to use that word...okay. I'd term it something less than corrupt but the spoils system goes back to Andrew Jackson if I recall. Presidents don't make new friends so they rely heavily on their old ones. Which is why almost every President leaves office less popular than when they went into office. Which is why you see the little turnover in appointees when a particular party is in power.

Given that the country moved from being in the backseat at the start of the Industrial Revolution in the early 1900's to becoming the world's one indispensable nation at the turn of the century; the appointees have by and large done well with their duties. I, however, favor a plural elective where we would elect a greater number of cabinet officials but at some point, whomever you put into office is going to have to appoint people and wholesale distrust is simply not practical. See your movement for an example; 9 years and zero results.

That would be nice, of course, quite a few of them benefit from there not being such a law.

[/quote]

Then you vote and get the ones benefiting from the revolving door out of Congress. You organize and strategize to attempt to get a more public-friendly Congress. A small group of determined people is usually what gets things done.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Okay so you admit (for lack of a more conciliatory term) that a plane hit both of the twin towers. Do you still have doubts about what brought them down?

The issue is not specifically to say that given the circumstances that the structure COULDN"T have failed as it's explained, the problem is that given that particular explanation, I don't see how even 60% free-fall accelleration, given the extent with which the concrete was simply pulverized.

In other words, in all the 10-15 different angles that were captured, the collapse tells a different story then what the engineers are saying, that's IF either building would have had more then a localized collapse over sections of the buildings.

Yes...but so far you don't have concrete evidence of anything, just suspicions. Which was my point to start with.

Go to the PNAC site and read "rebuilding america's defenses... read at least pages 1-5 and 45-48. That's a paper thin line separating this group from openly publishing proof of conspiracy.

Oh...so you blame the electorate; not the elections or the system. Me too. We get precisely the government we want and precisely the government we deserve. I think that you feel that we should have 538 voices all singing in unison with precisely the agenda you want....in a republic or a representative democracy; others often win elections and others are often in power thwarting what you (and I) would like to see done. Does that mean it is corrupt? No. Does that mean it is dishonest? No. Just that is isn't what we endorse. See the last 8 years of Bush and the first 2 years of Obama; I'm as disgusted with one as I am with the other.

No, it's not about doing what I want, it's about keeping government accountable to the people. At this point, Obama only serves the lobbyiest he's hired for every important position. Then, because he's a very intelligent smooth talking individual that also reads a good teleprompter, he not only can get away with alot more then Bush, he smoothly lets you know why YOU WANT to get the **** end of the stick, and how it's a good deal when any intellectual observation of the material shows that they do almost precisely the opposite of what its claimed. Alot of the congressmen and senators are bought off to many of the same groups, so they just put up with this idea that they gotta pass bills to get the chance to read them, when, I don't know about you, but my parents said to never sign a thing without reading it, and if need be, have a lawyer read it...

So far, you've shown that you know nothing other than your distrust of the electoral system....thinking your candidates are selected for you by some ultra powerful yet totally anonymous entity which you can't see, can't address, can't name, can't identify yet you're absolutely certain it is there; see boogeyman in closet example. I see no evidence that you understand how elections are run; only that you don't like the results.

Ok, at the local elections, you'll have in some areas just one family that always gets voted into whatever roles...and most often new people coming in have good intentions, but are corruptible. Very few are uncorruptible. At the state levels, there are some good and some bad, many of them are corritible, without necessarily being corrupt. Now, at the federal level, out of the primaries of say 10 people red and blue primaries, there will be 6 controlled individuals, 3 that tows the line, and 1 that is good.

The media focuses on the main three just slightly more then the rest, among other subtle tricks to skew the vote... and then, because the stack the deck they can win almost every hand.

They, in this case is the bilderburg group, which is a group of about 150-200 individuals per year, that are the heads of industry, banking, media, royalty, billionairs or more, then there's some common names like Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, the queen of england, among other various politicians and moguls (To spite the fact that a sitting politician is forbidden by the logan act to these meetings), In the case of Obama, the day he dissappeared during his campaign, him and hillary clinton met up in Shantilly, Virginia for a secret meeting, where Hillary was told to step down and take a 'second place' prize. You won't believe that the details were released by a male stripper they hire to entertain the moguls.

Corrupt? If you want to use that word...okay. I'd term it something less than corrupt but the spoils system goes back to Andrew Jackson if I recall. Presidents don't make new friends so they rely heavily on their old ones. Which is why almost every President leaves office less popular than when they went into office. Which is why you see the little turnover in appointees when a particular party is in power.

Next comes the layer of 'controlled opposition'... because the true power of the presidency is the power behind the throne... err ... desk chari (I still bet it's comfy). So, because the powers behind the throne are not limited to these 8 year terms, they make sure that they are grooming potential candidates for YEARS before they are lined up on the ballot box. So, the party IN power, is opposed by the party OUT of power, and so the party OUT of power gets to become the good guys and speak for the little people (people like us) and gather support for 4 -8 years while the leader takes the country down the desired path. Then, when the tide changes, the people now out of power get to be the critics and 'the good guys' for the next term... and by keeping the people picking between coke and pepsi, the people will never get a truly independant person in office... this is true at least since Kennedy's assassination.

Given that the country moved from being in the backseat at the start of the Industrial Revolution in the early 1900's to becoming the world's one indispensable nation at the turn of the century; the appointees have by and large done well with their duties. I, however, favor a plural elective where we would elect a greater number of cabinet officials but at some point, whomever you put into office is going to have to appoint people and wholesale distrust is simply not practical. See your movement for an example; 9 years and zero results.

You simply don't quite grasp at the type of opposition facing a true investigation...

Then you vote and get the ones benefiting from the revolving door out of Congress. You organize and strategize to attempt to get a more public-friendly Congress. A small group of determined people is usually what gets things done.

It's better to start locally, take back and good mayors, sherrifs, governors, etc... but get the ones that are real people... from there it will become easier to effect change ... but that's the road less travelled for a reason. Not many people willing to DO what it takes...

 

[Demon of Light]

Okay so you admit (for lack of a more conciliatory term) that a plane hit both of the twin towers. Do you still have doubts about what brought them down?

The only one who needs to demonstrate some conciliatory behavior is you because I never once questioned whether a plane hit the towers.

Yes...but so far you don't have concrete evidence of anything, just suspicions. Which was my point to start with.

Suspicions can have a reasonable basis, however. For instance if someone took out an absurdly high life insurance policy on his or her spouse before the spouse was murdered it is reasonable to suspect that person of having his or her spouse killed.

Oh...so you blame the electorate; not the elections or the system. Me too.

How the hell did you interpret that out of what I said? The system is rigged against anyone that isn't already entrenched in the establishment. Media report based on the perceptions of their "chances" invariably connected to how entrenched they are in the establishment. Also the manufacture personality cult surrounding certain candidates also puts one above the other.

Since 2004, maybe earlier, people were pushing Obama as a possible future president and the media was gushing with propaganda preparing people for that. The same goes for every major candidate. Then look at say Ron Paul where there was clear and blatant suppression and vilification of his candidacy.

Corrupt? If you want to use that word...okay. I'd term it something less than corrupt but the spoils system goes back to Andrew Jackson if I recall. Presidents don't make new friends so they rely heavily on their old ones. Which is why almost every President leaves office less popular than when they went into office. Which is why you see the little turnover in appointees when a particular party is in power.

Are you arguing that corruption is a good thing or acceptable? Maybe if you are arguing corruption is inevitable I could be sympathetic towards that argument.

Then you vote and get the ones benefiting from the revolving door out of Congress. You organize and strategize to attempt to get a more public-friendly Congress. A small group of determined people is usually what gets things done.

It is not that simple. On some level the Tea Parties did start off as a grassroots movement, an essentially meaningless that likely would have never had an impact on history. Only after a faction of the establishment hijacked the movement did it explode.