• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is this X?

The only one who needs to demonstrate some conciliatory behavior is you because I never once questioned whether a plane hit the towers.
Do you still have doubts about what brought them down?

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.
Okay...lets go with the murder red herring yet again...why is it you can't stay topical? Anyway, if the spouse had been the target of a shooting once before, wouldn't it make sense to take out a high policy because there is a greater likelihood that the spouse's income will be suddenly cut off sometime in the future? So wouldn't that quell the suspicions of the absurd amount of insurance?


How the hell did you interpret that out of what I said?
"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."
Unless you're now saying that they don't bother to count votes, you're de facto saying that the reason write-in candidates are not getting elected is that there isn't enough of the electorate writing in the names of candidates. In any event, your crazy notion that somehow the candidates are "selected" for you is blown out of the water.
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.

Total nonsense.

Have you ever read "Game Change"? The odds on favorite to win the Democratic Nominee was Hilary Clinton. She had Super Delegates lined up--these are people severely entrenched in the Party that pledged to vote for her. She ran a disastrous campaign strategy that was totally slated toward the General Election. Obama won Iowa and established himself as a viable candidate. He had won precisely one state-wide election before that. He had one, I believe, on house race in Illinois before that. To say he was firmly entrenched is simply not true. He entrenched himself as time went on. You'll also note that well after the head of steam built for Mr. Obama, Hillary Clinton won victories in the large states of Texas and Ohio where sophisticated voters and large urban populations were apparently less impressed with the black candidate.

On the GOP side, Mike Huckabee--WHO?--had a sizable delegate count at the Convention. Mitt Romney--WHO?--was considered a front-runner for most of the contest. In the end, John McCain did win but at one point, his candidacy was a couple of days from folding due to being out of money.

Nobody was more "establishment" to use your phrase than Hillary Clinton; 8 years as First lady, 8 years as US Senator--nearly 20 years being in the forefront of Democratic Politics and nobody was more "establishment" than John McCain whose candidacy suffered almost to the point of extinction.

Yet the overall winner was a decidedly non-establishment Obama.

To further illustrate how silly your notion of "pre-selection" is; please tell us who has been pre-selected for the 2012 GOP Presidential race? The Iowa Caucus is 17 months away and I can't even tell you who is going to be on the ballot yet. Much less who is going to be win the race.

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.
See above to fully digest just how wrong you are about Obama. You simply do not know history or are too wrapped up in your cynicism to remember much.

As for Ron Paul, he has crazy ideas and is treated as crazy by the Public. Which is why he never won state-wide races in Texas. Nobody suppressed Ron Paul. He was on the debates and people simply didn't buy his foolish policies.

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.
No...you amended what I said in your response. I simply pointed out that the political patronage hasn't seemed to hurt the republic very much since we went from being a back-seat nation in 1910 to being the only indispensable country at the turn of the century a decade ago. I would not use the term "corrupt" to describe why President X didn't interview 529,000 lawyers for the job of Attorney General. I wouldn't use the term "corrupt" to describe the fact that 529 lawyers were not interviewed. I wouldn't use the term "corrupt" to describe the fact that 52.9 people were not interviewed for AG. I wouldn't use the term "corrupt" to describe why, likely, 5.29 lawyers were not interviewed. People develop reputations noticed by or have a relationship with the President who appoints them. If you want to call that "corrupt", feel free to do so. But I don't think you'll get very far arguing that there should be this massive monster.com search of resumes; the new President would never get around to governing.

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.

I don't really know enough about the Tea Party movement to comment. I do know that a small group of people is all that has ever changed the world in any measurable way. Ninety years ago; women got the right to vote. Do you think the "establishment" gave two sh**ts about their rights? In the 1960's, there wasn't any sort of massive underground movement that had the endorsement of the "establishment", small groups of people who were focused on what they wanted began to sway public opinion. The media coverage--also part of the establishment--put their camera on the events and wow, things got done because it swayed the rest of the country.

To attempt to stay topical; look at the fledgling "truth movement" and you guys making fun of Mark Bingham's final words and thoughts, cashing in on these conspiracy theories that would have to go through fifty or so revisions to elevate to the realm of them being merely laughable, and the almost seismic shift from one theory to the other. If you're wondering why you do not get a camera turned on you; it's because you've been a wretched excuse for a movement.
 
Do you still have doubts about what brought them down?

I would not phrase it that way. Rather I do not think controlled demolition has been disproved, which is based off what the investigations into this have concluded. Essentially they acknowledge they cannot actually disprove the theory and only dismiss it because they felt it was hard to imagine anyone being able to do it without getting caught.

Okay...lets go with the murder red herring yet again...why is it you can't stay topical?

How many times do I have to explain that it is an example? I am making a comparison to another situation where you are less likely to be impassioned in order to illustrate my point. The point being that suspicions can be based on evidence and reason even without concrete proof of the crime. In other words, while there may not be concrete proof implicating one spouse in the murder of the other evidence can provide for reasonable suspicions.

Unless you're now saying that they don't bother to count votes, you're de facto saying that the reason write-in candidates are not getting elected is that there isn't enough of the electorate writing in the names of candidates.

For one, I noted that not all write-ins are valid, even if the write-in is eligible for office. In some areas a person has to register as a write-in candidate. For another, people tend to only look at the names on the ballot. Someone running as a write-in is going to get far less publicity from the media than someone who is actually on the ballot.

In any event, your crazy notion that somehow the candidates are "selected" for you is blown out of the water.

I never said people are "selected" for office in the sense you want to make it out. Actually, I never used the word selected at all except to refer to Presidential appointments. Rather, that is something you inserted. However, in a sense there is some element of selection. For instance during the Republican nomination procedure they generally talked about McCain, Giuliani, and Romney as the favored candidates. Then they suggested Thompson might come onto the scene and be a new Reagan of sorts. Well before he had any serious number people discussed Huckabee as a potential dark horse candidate. All the media essentially labeled Ron Paul a "fat chance" candidate. Even when he was rising above favored candidates in polls his numbers would be left out, the most blatant action was on Fox News during the Nevada caucuses.

It is particularly interesting how when debates were re-aired Ron Paul's responses would often be removed. This is what really convinced me of the corrupt nature of the entire mainstream media and how it was not the bitterly-divided industry some believe it to be. When you go further down ladder you find the corruption becoming ever more apparent. State and local media are not as good at concealing their corruption.

Honestly, when you look back on history anyone seriously attesting to anything but a history of corruption in the media is feeding you some idyllic bull**** about America.

Have you ever read "Game Change"? The odds on favorite to win the Democratic Nominee was Hilary Clinton. She had Super Delegates lined up--these are people severely entrenched in the Party that pledged to vote for her. She ran a disastrous campaign strategy that was totally slated toward the General Election. Obama won Iowa and established himself as a viable candidate. He had won precisely one state-wide election before that. He had one, I believe, on house race in Illinois before that. To say he was firmly entrenched is simply not true. He entrenched himself as time went on. You'll also note that well after the head of steam built for Mr. Obama, Hillary Clinton won victories in the large states of Texas and Ohio where sophisticated voters and large urban populations were apparently less impressed with the black candidate.

They put on a nice show don't they? If it was obviously rigged people would never believe in the process. Like I said, it is about limiting your options. Obama was being groomed for office well before he ran in 2008. Even back in 2004 he was being cultivated. For a no-name Illinois state senator running for national office with essentially no chance of failure he was a keynote speaker at the 2004 Convention. For a long time Obama was being groomed for power and as such I find nothing particularly shocking about his run in 2008 or his victory. The astroturf MoveOn.org organization strongly supported him after all.

On the GOP side, Mike Huckabee--WHO?--had a sizable delegate count at the Convention. Mitt Romney--WHO?--was considered a front-runner for most of the contest. In the end, John McCain did win but at one point, his candidacy was a couple of days from folding due to being out of money.

Mitt Romney may have been a nobody to the average voter, but he was hardly a nobody amongst the establishment. Just look at who his father was and you'll see. In fact, you are really just proving my point. If being a nobody to voters was all that mattered Romney would not have had a chance, but he was not a nobody in the establishment. Never mind that he basically bought his way into "favored candidate" status.

Nobody was more "establishment" to use your phrase than Hillary Clinton; 8 years as First lady, 8 years as US Senator--nearly 20 years being in the forefront of Democratic Politics and nobody was more "establishment" than John McCain whose candidacy suffered almost to the point of extinction.

Longevity in office does not equal into being "more establishment" in any way. McCain is a long-time Senator and not much else.

To further illustrate how silly your notion of "pre-selection" is; please tell us who has been pre-selected for the 2012 GOP Presidential race? The Iowa Caucus is 17 months away and I can't even tell you who is going to be on the ballot yet. Much less who is going to be win the race.

I think you are mistaking the nature of the beast. Who is the mass media talking about and what is their background? I could more easily tell you who is going to be prevented from getting the nomination if that person runs. For instance, some have talked about John Bolton running and I can tell you right now he will likely get no favors from the establishment. Not because he is some sort of anti-establishment renegade, but simply because he has served his one real purpose.

As for Ron Paul, he has crazy ideas and is treated as crazy by the Public. Which is why he never won state-wide races in Texas. Nobody suppressed Ron Paul. He was on the debates and people simply didn't buy his foolish policies.

That is funny, because he got double digits in Iowa. In fact, should he run again in 2012 he is likely to start off with double digit support nationally making it much harder for the media to suppress him.

No...you amended what I said in your response. I simply pointed out that the political patronage hasn't seemed to hurt the republic very much since we went from being a back-seat nation in 1910 to being the only indispensable country at the turn of the century a decade ago.

I didn't amend anything. As far as not seeming to "hurt the republic" that really depends on what you think that means. For one you have to assume it wasn't damaged from the start.

If you want to call that "corrupt", feel free to do so. But I don't think you'll get very far arguing that there should be this massive monster.com search of resumes; the new President would never get around to governing.

That really is not what I am saying.

I don't really know enough about the Tea Party movement to comment. I do know that a small group of people is all that has ever changed the world in any measurable way.

If by "small group of people" you mean the small powerful group of elites that dominates any given country then that would be pretty accurate. Of course, there are instances where real resistance to the power structure achieves results before being inevitably crushed.

Ninety years ago; women got the right to vote. Do you think the "establishment" gave two sh**ts about their rights? In the 1960's, there wasn't any sort of massive underground movement that had the endorsement of the "establishment", small groups of people who were focused on what they wanted began to sway public opinion. The media coverage--also part of the establishment--put their camera on the events and wow, things got done because it swayed the rest of the country.

You seem to assume the establishment is a monolithic organization when it isn't. There are factions within the establishment and factions within factions. Some factions strongly supported the Civil Rights Movement and others didn't.

To attempt to stay topical; look at the fledgling "truth movement" and you guys making fun of Mark Bingham's final words and thoughts, cashing in on these conspiracy theories that would have to go through fifty or so revisions to elevate to the realm of them being merely laughable, and the almost seismic shift from one theory to the other. If you're wondering why you do not get a camera turned on you; it's because you've been a wretched excuse for a movement.

Do not associate me with any movement, please. My views are my own and no one else's. I am not someone who simply follows a crowd.
 
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:confused:?

Thank you

Here is your X....







 
This imagined "x" is nothing more than a bunch of propaganda hatched in Europe decades ago, fine tuned in the Arab world today, and eaten up by the stupid, the hateful and the psychotic throughout the world.
 
This imagined "x" is nothing more than a bunch of propaganda hatched in Europe decades ago, fine tuned in the Arab world today, and eaten up by the stupid, the hateful and the psychotic throughout the world.

While creative seems to be putting forward an "X" as Israel, it seems the OP is legitimately asking what this all-controlling group would be without prejudice towards any specific answer.
 
While creative seems to be putting forward an "X" as Israel, it seems the OP is legitimately asking what this all-controlling group would be without prejudice towards any specific answer.

If there is an X group pulling strings behind the puppet Presidents then it is likely Israel is a part of this group along with entities within a few other "democratic" countries...
 
Last edited:
This imagined "x" is nothing more than a bunch of propaganda hatched in Europe decades ago, fine tuned in the Arab world today, and eaten up by the stupid, the hateful and the psychotic throughout the world.

And that same power behind the thrones is still active today, and it's more a centuries old concept.

If there is an X group pulling strings behind the puppet Presidents then it is likely Israel is a part of this group along with entities within a few other "democratic" countries...

I gotta disagree with you on this one... now, there are undoubtedly israelis involved with X, it's foolish to attribute it simply to 'jews'... it's like the idea discussed in the bible, that they 'call themselves' jews, but arent...

anyway, if I were to maintain the religious overtones, if there really is a 'devil' then X is it. Though, I must state that figuring out who 'X" is in terms of the person at the tip of the pyramid, with knowledge we have would be at best a guess.
 
I would not phrase it that way. Rather I do not think controlled demolition has been disproved, which is based off what the investigations into this have concluded. Essentially they acknowledge they cannot actually disprove the theory and only dismiss it because they felt it was hard to imagine anyone being able to do it without getting caught.
Interesting. They couldn't disprove that just this once, some extra-terrestrial organism fired a weapon from space at the same time the collapses started either. Will you give that equal weight since it can't be disproven?


How many times do I have to explain that it is an example? I am making a comparison to another situation where you are less likely to be impassioned in order to illustrate my point. The point being that suspicions can be based on evidence and reason even without concrete proof of the crime. In other words, while there may not be concrete proof implicating one spouse in the murder of the other evidence can provide for reasonable suspicions.
Have you REALLY examined your own "evidence"? Is it concrete?

For one, I noted that not all write-ins are valid, even if the write-in is eligible for office. In some areas a person has to register as a write-in candidate. For another, people tend to only look at the names on the ballot. Someone running as a write-in is going to get far less publicity from the media than someone who is actually on the ballot.


I never said people are "selected" for office in the sense you want to make it out. Actually, I never used the word selected at all except to refer to Presidential appointments. Rather, that is something you inserted. However, in a sense there is some element of selection. For instance during the Republican nomination procedure they generally talked about McCain, Giuliani, and Romney as the favored candidates. Then they suggested Thompson might come onto the scene and be a new Reagan of sorts. Well before he had any serious number people discussed Huckabee as a potential dark horse candidate. All the media essentially labeled Ron Paul a "fat chance" candidate. Even when he was rising above favored candidates in polls his numbers would be left out, the most blatant action was on Fox News during the Nevada caucuses.

It is particularly interesting how when debates were re-aired Ron Paul's responses would often be removed. This is what really convinced me of the corrupt nature of the entire mainstream media and how it was not the bitterly-divided industry some believe it to be. When you go further down ladder you find the corruption becoming ever more apparent. State and local media are not as good at concealing their corruption.
So the guy who came in fifth place in Iowa Caucuses deserved attention? I'll agree that the media picks their darling candidates and gives them a platform. But you're silly belief that the media preferred John McCain over Mitt Romney or even Rudy Giuliani is laughable. The only thing more bizarre is your implication that somehow the GOP preferred McCain over Romney. The voters preferred him; nobody else did.

They put on a nice show don't they? If it was obviously rigged people would never believe in the process. Like I said, it is about limiting your options. Obama was being groomed for office well before he ran in 2008. Even back in 2004 he was being cultivated. For a no-name Illinois state senator running for national office with essentially no chance of failure he was a keynote speaker at the 2004 Convention. For a long time Obama was being groomed for power and as such I find nothing particularly shocking about his run in 2008 or his victory. The astroturf MoveOn.org organization strongly supported him after all.
I guess Hillary missed a memo or two during the planning?


Mitt Romney may have been a nobody to the average voter, but he was hardly a nobody amongst the establishment. Just look at who his father was and you'll see. In fact, you are really just proving my point. If being a nobody to voters was all that mattered Romney would not have had a chance, but he was not a nobody in the establishment. Never mind that he basically bought his way into "favored candidate" status.
Somehow now the "establishment" didn't foist him on the public as their nominee.

Longevity in office does not equal into being "more establishment" in any way. McCain is a long-time Senator and not much else.
Is everybody in your mind a cartoon character?

I think you are mistaking the nature of the beast. Who is the mass media talking about and what is their background? I could more easily tell you who is going to be prevented from getting the nomination if that person runs. For instance, some have talked about John Bolton running and I can tell you right now he will likely get no favors from the establishment. Not because he is some sort of anti-establishment renegade, but simply because he has served his one real purpose.
Gee, you can't tell us who is selected but you know someone will be selected...just as you "know" someone will be shut out of the process all together.

That is funny, because he got double digits in Iowa. In fact, should he run again in 2012 he is likely to start off with double digit support nationally making it much harder for the media to suppress him.
And if he gets more votes than anybody else, he'll win. Which is why he won't win.

I didn't amend anything. As far as not seeming to "hurt the republic" that really depends on what you think that means. For one you have to assume it wasn't damaged from the start.
Oh brother...


If by "small group of people" you mean the small powerful group of elites that dominates any given country then that would be pretty accurate. Of course, there are instances where real resistance to the power structure achieves results before being inevitably crushed.

You seem to assume the establishment is a monolithic organization when it isn't. There are factions within the establishment and factions within factions.
WTF? Huh? What you wrote is flat out crazy.

Do not associate me with any movement, please. My views are my own and no one else's. I am not someone who simply follows a crowd.

You're one of a kind alright.
 
Loose change is long debunked nonsense.

Loose Change is the Run DMC of the truth movement. If it had ended there; it would be thought of a quaint, esoteric, and worthy of some sort of admiration for being unique if nothing else. Now the crap factor is off the charts.
 
Interesting. They couldn't disprove that just this once, some extra-terrestrial organism fired a weapon from space at the same time the collapses started either. Will you give that equal weight since it can't be disproven?

Considering the use of thermite is a perfectly plausible explanation and the other requires one to first accept that there are extra-terrestrial organisms advanced enough to use such a weapon and have some interest in destroying the towers giving one alternative explanation more weight than the other is hardly irrational.

To put it simply, someone using thermite to demolish the towers is a much more likely possibility than aliens doing it.

I also did not say I gave it "equal weight" only that it cannot be ruled out. That does not mean I give the official explanation greater weight. Rather, I simply see no basis for giving either explanation any particular weight. That the tower fell is indisputable, but obviously why it fell is an unresolved issue.

Have you REALLY examined your own "evidence"? Is it concrete?

Did I just not say evidence need not be concrete proof in order to provide for reasonable suspicion?

So the guy who came in fifth place in Iowa Caucuses deserved attention?

It is not like he was far behind. There was a difference of a few thousand votes and, more importantly, he beat out Giuliani who had been one of the "favored" candidates.

I'll agree that the media picks their darling candidates and gives them a platform. But you're silly belief that the media preferred John McCain over Mitt Romney or even Rudy Giuliani is laughable. The only thing more bizarre is your implication that somehow the GOP preferred McCain over Romney. The voters preferred him; nobody else did.

I did not say the media preferred one over the other. Rather, I said the media frequently lifted the profiles of certain candidates and sought to downplay others, namely Ron Paul. Media talked about Rudy Giuliani more than Ron Paul even when Paul was well ahead of him in every poll concerning the critical first battleground state, as well as threatening two other "favored" candidates there, and right on him in the next.

I guess Hillary missed a memo or two during the planning?

Limiting your options = selecting the winner.

Somehow now the "establishment" didn't foist him on the public as their nominee.

What on earth are you talking about?

Is everybody in your mind a cartoon character?

What the hell are you talking about?

Gee, you can't tell us who is selected but you know someone will be selected...just as you "know" someone will be shut out of the process all together.

I never said one person is anointed for the job from the start. All I ever talked about was limiting options.

And if he gets more votes than anybody else, he'll win. Which is why he won't win.

Who told you that? Was it your darling brainwashing media who tell you anyone who doesn't favor the establishment's views inevitably loses?

Oh brother...

Are you honestly suggesting that somehow our process was purer and better at one time then it is now?

WTF? Huh? What you wrote is flat out crazy.

How so?
 
Considering the use of thermite is a perfectly plausible explanation and the other requires one to first accept that there are extra-terrestrial organisms advanced enough to use such a weapon and have some interest in destroying the towers giving one alternative explanation more weight than the other is hardly irrational.

To put it simply, someone using thermite to demolish the towers is a much more likely possibility than aliens doing it.
Not the point. They didn't investigate whether or not there was any extra terrestrial activity so therefore they didn't disprove it; just like the bizarre thermite nonsense that keeps getting foisted onto the world.


It is not like he was far behind. There was a difference of a few thousand votes and, more importantly, he beat out Giuliani who had been one of the "favored" candidates.
Guliani didn't campaign in Iowa much. He bet it all on Florida and lost. His selection wasn't enough.

I did not say the media preferred one over the other. Rather, I said the media frequently lifted the profiles of certain candidates and sought to downplay others,
Discredit yourself much? Oh brother--SAME DARN THING!:roll:

Don't really feel like commenting on the cartoonish nature of the rest of your post.

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

So, in conclusion; according to you there is an all-powerful establishment who is all at once everwhere yet nameless, faceless, and totally in control of this county's government.

The Establishment is strong enough to hand-pick who it wants to be the President but those in the establishment--the Clintons for example--are not kept abreast of whether or not they are picked. Else, they wouldn't have finished the campaign in debt.

When asked why this all-powerful establishment would allow the civil rights movement to go forward, we find out that the establishment has factions and factions within factions--all also nameless and faceless. Yet somehow the overall unit remains totally in control of all things Government.

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

The "truth movement" hasn't gotten anywhere in 8 years. Is there any wonder why?
 
Not the point. They didn't investigate whether or not there was any extra terrestrial activity so therefore they didn't disprove it; just like the bizarre thermite nonsense that keeps getting foisted onto the world.

NIST never said it was nonsense. In fact, they said rather clearly that they could not rule it out. Their decision that it wasn't likely is based solely on an argument with no basis in their area of expertise.

Guliani didn't campaign in Iowa much. He bet it all on Florida and lost. His selection wasn't enough.

Doesn't really address my point.

Don't really feel like commenting on the cartoonish nature of the rest of your post.

What the hell do you mean by "cartoonish" here?

So, in conclusion; according to you there is an all-powerful establishment who is all at once everwhere yet nameless, faceless, and totally in control of this county's government.

The Establishment is strong enough to hand-pick who it wants to be the President but those in the establishment--the Clintons for example--are not kept abreast of whether or not they are picked. Else, they wouldn't have finished the campaign in debt.

When asked why this all-powerful establishment would allow the civil rights movement to go forward, we find out that the establishment has factions and factions within factions--all also nameless and faceless. Yet somehow the overall unit remains totally in control of all things Government.

How often do I have to tell you that I am not saying one person is chosen from the beginning? Just because there are factions in the establishment does not mean they have no points of general agreement. Also the establishment is just a term for the existing structures of power and those who dominate them. The political parties, the corporations, the think tanks, and other institutions constitute elements of these structures.
 
What do you think "cartoonish" means?

I really don't know what you mean by it. When I said McCain was a Senator and not much else you asked if everyone was a cartoon character in my mind. So, I really have no idea what you are talking about, especially since most of my post that you didn't address was me asking you to clarify what you were saying. How is that "cartoonish"?
 
I really don't know what you mean by it. When I said McCain was a Senator and not much else you asked if everyone was a cartoon character in my mind. So, I really have no idea what you are talking about, especially since most of my post that you didn't address was me asking you to clarify what you were saying. How is that "cartoonish"?

The Party (who you say is part of the establishment) nominates John McCain for President. Yet he doesn't win. Somehow his place as being in the establishment didn't do him any good yet, in your Nickelodeon view of the world, he simply accepts his defeat for some mysterious greater good. Hillary Clinton who was First Lady, 8 year Senator from New York, now the Secretary of State also just accepts that the establishment to which she belongs didn't prefer her over Obama and, by the way, goes into debt several millions of dollars. But she just takes it.

Your contention is that "they put on a good show" as if it were all scripted and the losers were just playing parts. When asked for any sort of foretelling based on your silly contention, you back off and say you can't predict the future that you insist is scripted. When challenged to explain why the "establishment" does things that are clearly not in it's interest; it is explained as the establishment being multi-cultural, multi-faceted, multi-layered, multi-lateral, and--even though we haven't gotten there yet--I'm sure it will eventually get to the point to where the lowest street bum is part of the establishment and accepts his sleeping with worms willingly.

Walt Disney should hire you.
 
The Party (who you say is part of the establishment) nominates John McCain for President. Yet he doesn't win. Somehow his place as being in the establishment didn't do him any good yet, in your Nickelodeon view of the world, he simply accepts his defeat for some mysterious greater good.

If the establishment in general didn't make people respect the result it would be chaos. Back in the 19th Century any time there was a change in power it would be accompanied by a blanket purge of all public officials connected with the previous government. Obviously that is not an effective way to hand over power.

Hillary Clinton who was First Lady, 8 year Senator from New York, now the Secretary of State also just accepts that the establishment to which she belongs didn't prefer her over Obama and, by the way, goes into debt several millions of dollars. But she just takes it.

She got to be Secretary of State and that's honestly a little more influential than being President.

Your contention is that "they put on a good show" as if it were all scripted and the losers were just playing parts.

No, if you read I said once again it is about limiting options. Giving people the illusion of real choice and real influence. I am not saying there is not legitimate competition, it just isn't a competition where the people choose the contenders. Things have become a little more refined since the 19th Century when our elections were blatantly corrupt and just a contest to see who could rig the vote better, but the basic spirit hasn't changed. The media then were just tools of the establishment as well, though it was a lot more obvious.
 
If the establishment in general didn't make people respect the result it would be chaos. Back in the 19th Century any time there was a change in power it would be accompanied by a blanket purge of all public officials connected with the previous government. Obviously that is not an effective way to hand over power.
Silly argument as always. Sure, John McCain just "went along" for the show.

She got to be Secretary of State and that's honestly a little more influential than being President.
Have you heard of the Constitution? Have you read it? Brush up on whom appoints who and get back to me on which one is more "influential". Geez

No, if you read I said once again it is about limiting options. Giving people the illusion of real choice and real influence. I am not saying there is not legitimate competition, it just isn't a competition where the people choose the contenders.
So nobody in Iowa or New Hampshire votes in Presidential Primaries or Caucuses? If your guy--Ron Paul--were to get move votes than anybody else, he would win those delegates to the convention; would he not?

Things have become a little more refined since the 19th Century when our elections were blatantly corrupt and just a contest to see who could rig the vote better, but the basic spirit hasn't changed. The media then were just tools of the establishment as well, though it was a lot more obvious.

Rest easy.
 
Silly argument as always. Sure, John McCain just "went along" for the show.
Have you ever entered a competition KNOWING that you would most likely lose, but did it anyway for the thrill of the game??

Have you heard of the Constitution? Have you read it? Brush up on whom appoints who and get back to me on which one is more "influential". Geez

On paper yes, that's how the appearance is kept. The reality is certainly quite different. If you really thought about it does the president really care about the people who AT BEST contributed a vote and a 50$ donation, but maybe not even? Or maybe, that the president might be more considerate of the people that donated several hundred thousand dollars, and have their own influence within the various companies and other private interests.


So nobody in Iowa or New Hampshire votes in Presidential Primaries or Caucuses? If your guy--Ron Paul--were to get move votes than anybody else, he would win those delegates to the convention; would he not?

Q1 - Of course they do, probably in comparable numbers to any other state.
Q2 - yes, except where there's been some vote rigging going on.... and Ron Paul went through alot of documented chicanery throughout the primaries... there was NO WAY 'X' would let Ron Paul become president.... because HE"S REAL, he's got a track record, and whether or not you agree with his policies YOU DO have to agree that you agree that HE BELIEVES in what he does. You can't 'buy off' a character like that.

I think the main problem is that where some are looking at the forest, you're walking up and saying 'it's just a tree, and another tree, and another tree.' Let's put it this way, DO YOU THINK that hitler just got into power one day and started the holocaust the next?? NO, it was a process... everything was justified as 'reasonable', until the jews were in the camps.

But to clarify, Hitler was NOT 'x'... though he was funded into power by 'X'. I know you won't believe, but X's plan at the time was to have germany destroy europe so that it could be rebuilt, once that was done then 'X' wanted europe united under a single banner (the EU), with a single currency (the euro)... I could show you the documents from the internet from 1956.

Here's a better way to consider X... WE are meant to believe that the president IS X, at least for our own country, where X really has no country... it exists in some form in every country... but instead, the presidency is more of an 'entry level' position into X.

I know this is from 1990's, but the connections remain in tact I can all but guarantee it... just some of the directors names would change...

THEY RULE
Simply pick any company and see just how much influence that company really has through it's directors.
 
Silly argument as always. Sure, John McCain just "went along" for the show.

Do you realize your retort had absolutely nothing to do with anything I said? I never said anywhere that McCain was set up to lose or that Obama was chosen before the election even started. Rather I said that the establishment wants to limit the options people have.

Have you heard of the Constitution? Have you read it? Brush up on whom appoints who and get back to me on which one is more "influential".

It does not provide a means to remove them, however. Also, you should understand that Obama cannot do much of anything without the cooperation of the establishment. Were Obama more of a power-player he might have been able to snub those in the establishment who supported Hillary, but he isn't.

So nobody in Iowa or New Hampshire votes in Presidential Primaries or Caucuses?

You should understand it took a lot of action by a large group of people to even get the media to acknowledge Ron Paul. He literally had to out-raise every other contender to get any attention from the media. Not even the media can ignore record-breaking fund-raising figures and still convince people they're legitimately interested in giving the people all the news that matters.

By convincing people a vote for x candidate is a wasted vote it encourages them to vote for the "favored" candidates. Not to mention covering almost entirely just those "favored" candidates causes most people to think of them as the candidates they have to choose from.

If your guy--Ron Paul--were to get move votes than anybody else, he would win those delegates to the convention; would he not?

Well, that isn't actually the case. If he won enough delegates he could, but ultimately the caucus system allows for the possibility of someone who did not get the most votes winning the most delegates.

Rest easy.

What does that mean?
 
Demon of Light;105897989 What does that mean?[/QUOTE said:
You backtrack from everything you say and that must be very exhausting. Somehow the "establishment" decides everything until....I give you a real life example then it decides nothing. Somehow McCain; the party nominee--you DO recall saying that the parties are part of the establishment do you not?--didn't know that Obama had been "groomed" (you DO recall saying that too) before 2004 to become President and that didn't surprise you (although Hillary was quite surprised and didn't want the SOS job really--read the book if you're in doubt about that).

You need some rest or to contemplate sticking to one story line about the establishment which is all powerful but divided into factions at the same time; you do remember saying that don't you?
 
Please tell us you're not serious.

When I was younger I qualified for the national level of my sport... I knew going in that I wouldn't be very likely to win first place, but I was all too happy to do it for the thrill of the competition.

This isn't even a great analogy, a better analogy would be like a boxing match... both people are fighting each other, but it doesn't matter who wins because Don King owns both fighters and is going to win regardless. The losing fighter doesn't care about losing because he's still getting paid for the performance.

Though, even IF John McCain really did want to win, it wouldn't have been until late in the game that he would determine if he was going to have a shot or not.
 
You backtrack from everything you say and that must be very exhausting. Somehow the "establishment" decides everything until....I give you a real life example then it decides nothing. Somehow McCain; the party nominee--you DO recall saying that the parties are part of the establishment do you not?--didn't know that Obama had been "groomed" (you DO recall saying that too) before 2004 to become President and that didn't surprise you (although Hillary was quite surprised and didn't want the SOS job really--read the book if you're in doubt about that).

You need some rest or to contemplate sticking to one story line about the establishment which is all powerful but divided into factions at the same time; you do remember saying that don't you?

YES... and hes completely right about it...

So, first off, the establishment factions on the Left had provided 4-5 democratic candidates, and on the right there was 4-5 republican candidates. The establishment had 'groomed' 6-7 of 10 of these individuals for their roles in power. These are the ones that are going to get all the favourable mentions in the media, etc...

So then public support determines which of these candidates will provide for better accomplishment of the establishments 4-8 year objectives... so it was determined at a secret meeting of the wealthy elites that Clinton would step down for Obama's nomination and she would be rewarded by being put in a key position in Obama's administration. (this was the day that Obama claimed to be going to Chicago and kidnapped his media following.... It took 3 days before they found out that they had met together in secret). You're right, Hillary was pissed off about this... she wants power, and she is also direct descendant of old english blue bloods, so she feels that she DESERVED to be president...

In this way McCain received much less funding from the big corporations and was forced to run a lame duck campaign against the messiah level worship of the 'hope and change' artist...

This is a pretty coherent story line, especially considering it's been pieced together from the outside looking in. That you can't grasp the intricacies of this reality is the proof itself of the effectiveness of this program.
 
Back
Top Bottom