What is this X?

[Patria Antiqua]

so how exactly was Israel involved in September 11?

Dude, they're Jews...

You know how they're always doing that Jew stuff to take over the world.

 

[usda select]

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.

Would it be okay if I called you the fourth chipmunk?

 

[BmanMcfly]

Would it be okay if I called you the fourth chipmunk?

Call me whatever you want... but sooner or later you'll be calling us 'those people I should have heard out'... but if you want to remain willingly blind, I can't help that...

How about this analogy ... you own 5 horses, and you have them all race in the same race out of 10 horses... almost certainly. Even if the horse realizes that his position is irrellevant so long as the 'team' takes the prize, it doesn't matter because as long as the owner is making the money they won't get turned to glue.

 

[usda select]

Call me whatever you want... but sooner or later you'll be calling us 'those people I should have heard out'... but if you want to remain willingly blind, I can't help that...

How about this analogy ... you own 5 horses, and you have them all race in the same race out of 10 horses... almost certainly. Even if the horse realizes that his position is irrellevant so long as the 'team' takes the prize, it doesn't matter because as long as the owner is making the money they won't get turned to glue.

So John McCain was going to be turned into glue if he didn't "go along"? Ahh...I see. It's a wonder why your movement didn't go anywhere in 9 years given THAT sort of logic.

 

[BmanMcfly]

So John McCain was going to be turned into glue if he didn't "go along"? Ahh...I see. It's a wonder why your movement didn't go anywhere in 9 years given THAT sort of logic.

No no no... not at all what I was saying... you used the wrong part of the analogy...

Just, rest assured, we would have had the SAME results if McCain had been elected, the ONLY difference would be the 'republicanoid / neo-con pro-glass parking lot rhetoric' instead of this 'fake love commie neo-lib' rhetoric.

 

[usda select]

No no no... not at all what I was saying... you used the wrong part of the analogy...

Just, rest assured, we would have had the SAME results if McCain had been elected, the ONLY difference would be the 'republicanoid / neo-con pro-glass parking lot rhetoric' instead of this 'fake love commie neo-lib' rhetoric.

Total nonsense.

Healthcare....no.
Withdraw from Iraq...no.
Endless other things...no.

How old are you? You seem incredibly ignorant of US Politics.

 

[Demon of Light]

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?

I haven't backtracked from anything. You misunderstood or just deliberately misrepresented what I said and then when I explained what I said you accused me of backtracking.

Bman did a good job of explaining it. This is not a matter of one person being groomed for the position, that wouldn't even be sensible. All the different factions get their preferred candidate groomed and ready then they compete for control. Shifts in power ultimately do not translate into much change because the other factions are still quite influential.

 

[usda select]

I haven't backtracked from anything. You misunderstood or just deliberately misrepresented what I said and then when I explained what I said you accused me of backtracking.

Bman did a good job of explaining it. This is not a matter of one person being groomed for the position, that wouldn't even be sensible. All the different factions get their preferred candidate groomed and ready then they compete for control. Shifts in power ultimately do not translate into much change because the other factions are still quite influential.

Okay fine...WHAT OTHER FACTIONS. Maybe you'll say something definite.

 

[Demon of Light]

Okay fine...WHAT OTHER FACTIONS. Maybe you'll say something definite.

They don't have specific names if that's what you're asking. One way I can think to describe it is by pointing to who supported who during the primaries. Obama got support from Moveon.org, George Soros, and various members of establishment outside Washington. Hillary received more support from within Washington. Looking back to 2007 Obama was much more in tune with those voices than those backing Hillary. However, now as he has had to reconcile with the faction that back Hillary his foreign policy has become more hard.

You look at Ronald Reagan and a lot of the things he was saying before being elected and then look at what happened once he got in office you see a disconnect. It is not as simple as a politician lying to people, but more broadly is actually an example of a politician courting the support of the establishment.

McCain more represents that Cold War conservative faction without any real neocon candidate. Mitt Romney was the closest to a neocon candidate. It looks to me like the neocons were essentially a flash-in-the-pan.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Total nonsense.

Healthcare....no.
Withdraw from Iraq...no.
Endless other things...no.

How old are you? You seem incredibly ignorant of US Politics.

The same policies from the different perspective... Dems are anti-war on the surface but just as eager to say 'war is necessary'... whereas Repubs are pro-war on the surface. Repubs are pro-gun on the surface but allow violations of the second amendment, where dems are anti-gun and act on it.

And between the two parties you lose it all, and presidents don't withdraw on the activities of the previous president, tehy just roll with it...

Then I also want to point out how your response has nothing to do with what you were responding too... are you even reading posts that you disagree with ?>

 

[usda select]

They don't have specific names if that's what you're asking.

"They" don't have names now. A lot of psychiatrists tell children to name the monsters hiding in their closet to make them less scary. You should give names to "them" or "they" so you won't be so afraid of the "nameless", "faceless" them.

One way I can think to describe it is by pointing to who supported who during the primaries. Obama got support from Moveon.org, George Soros, and various members of establishment outside Washington. Hillary received more support from within Washington. Looking back to 2007 Obama was much more in tune with those voices than those backing Hillary. However, now as he has had to reconcile with the faction that back Hillary his foreign policy has become more hard.

Funny. Senate Leader (the Senate is in Washington by the way) Harry Reid didn't support Hillary. George Louis (one of the leaders of the black Congressional caucus also in Washington) didn't support Hillary. Claire McCaskill, an influential female member of the Senate--supported Obama. Its all in the book "Game Change".

You look at Ronald Reagan and a lot of the things he was saying before being elected and then look at what happened once he got in office you see a disconnect. It is not as simple as a politician lying to people, but more broadly is actually an example of a politician courting the support of the establishment.

What is...oh I don't know...about 10 billion times more likely is that when you're not seeing the amounts of money you have to spend and don't have to bear the burden of having your name on the public record as having signed a bill that had things you disagree within it due to our Executive not having a line item veto, you don't have the freedom to simply make proposals as you have when you're campaigning. To use a dumbed down metaphor; you don't drive a Winnebago the same way you drive a Corvette. I guess I'd better draw with the black crayon for you...THE GOVERNMENT IS THE WINNEBAGO.

McCain more represents that Cold War conservative faction without any real neocon candidate. Mitt Romney was the closest to a neocon candidate. It looks to me like the neocons were essentially a flash-in-the-pan.

Well, you mentioned actual names and their supposed affiliations...you're making progress.

 

[usda select]

The same policies from the different perspective...

Total garbage.

Dems are anti-war on the surface but just as eager to say 'war is necessary'... whereas Repubs are pro-war on the surface. Repubs are pro-gun on the surface but allow violations of the second amendment, where dems are anti-gun and act on it.

Again, a cartoonish characterization of political parties. No literate adult in the world would ever argue that war is not necessary. No literate adult in the world is "pro war" in all cases.

And between the two parties you lose it all, and presidents don't withdraw on the activities of the previous president, tehy just roll with it...

Really? You may remember that Bush invaded 2 countries. Clinton did not. Please explain how Bush was just "rolling with it".

Really? You may remember that Bush wanted to privatize Social Security. Please explain how Obama is "rolling with it".

Really? You may remember that Bush wanted to basically grant amnesty to the illegal aliens in the US. Please explain how, if Obama is "rolling with it", why hasn't that passed yet?

Then I also want to point out how your response has nothing to do with what you were responding too... are you even reading posts that you disagree with ?>

Okay lets look at what you wrote:

we would have had the SAME results if McCain had been elected, the ONLY difference would be the 'republicanoid / neo-con pro-glass parking lot rhetoric' instead of this 'fake love commie neo-lib' rhetoric.

Nobody knows what you are talking about in the underlined part. I'm "pro glass" myself. Here is what I said when you were having a more sober moment: Again...your quote:

we would have had the SAME results if McCain had been elected

My response to which you have not responded by the way:

Total nonsense.
Healthcare....no.
Withdraw from Iraq...no.
Endless other things...no.
How old are you? You seem incredibly ignorant of US Politics.

Two concrete things that would have NOT happened under McCain. Not that I agree or disagree but no way McCain draws down from Iraq or passes a healthcare bill. Zero chance. You simply have no understanding of US Politics and seem to be monumentally ignorant of current events and/or recent history.

 

[Demon of Light]

"They" don't have names now. A lot of psychiatrists tell children to name the monsters hiding in their closet to make them less scary. You should give names to "them" or "they" so you won't be so afraid of the "nameless", "faceless" them.

It is not that they do not have names, only that there is no specific name for the various factions. Identifying people within factions is something I am perfectly capable of doing

Funny. Senate Leader (the Senate is in Washington by the way) Harry Reid didn't support Hillary. George Louis (one of the leaders of the black Congressional caucus also in Washington) didn't support Hillary. Claire McCaskill, an influential female member of the Senate--supported Obama. Its all in the book "Game Change".

As I recall Harry Reid did not endorse anyone in the primaries, at least not when the result could go either way. Claire McCaskill only got into the Senate two years before the election. Also who is George Louis?

What is...oh I don't know...about 10 billion times more likely is that when you're not seeing the amounts of money you have to spend and don't have to bear the burden of having your name on the public record as having signed a bill that had things you disagree within it due to our Executive not having a line item veto, you don't have the freedom to simply make proposals as you have when you're campaigning. To use a dumbed down metaphor; you don't drive a Winnebago the same way you drive a Corvette. I guess I'd better draw with the black crayon for you...THE GOVERNMENT IS THE WINNEBAGO.

It is not as simple as that. For one, it would not influence foreign policy nearly as much and that is most specifically what I was referring to and it would also have no impact on transparency within the executive branch, which is also something he has reneged on.

 

[usda select]

It is not that they do not have names, only that there is no specific name for the various factions. Identifying people within factions is something I am perfectly capable of doing

Please do, list all of them who "select" or "limit" our selections for the 2012 primaries.

As I recall Harry Reid did not endorse anyone in the primaries, at least not when the result could go either way. Claire McCaskill only got into the Senate two years before the election. Also who is George Louis?

I'm sorry it is John Lewis, not George Louis.

The book "game change" reveals that Reid encouraged Obama to run. Look it up. McCaskill one of what was four women in the Senate didn't support the "establishment" Clinton. Your theory is crap.

It is not as simple as that. For one, it would not influence foreign policy nearly as much and that is most specifically what I was referring to and it would also have no impact on transparency within the executive branch, which is also something he has reneged on.

Money effects everything the government tries to do. Don't be silly.

 

[Demon of Light]

Please do, list all of them who "select" or "limit" our selections for the 2012 primaries.

Did I say could identify all of them? No.

I'm sorry it is John Lewis, not George Louis.

Well, looking at that he actually endorsed Hillary early on and only switched after Obama was the clear frontrunner including after Obama won his home state.

The book "game change" reveals that Reid encouraged Obama to run. Look it up.

Encouraging him to run is quite different from supporting him alone.

McCaskill one of what was four women in the Senate didn't support the "establishment" Clinton. Your theory is crap.

As I noted she was a recent arrival. Calling her a member of the Washington establishment would hardly have been appropriate. The fact she is a woman is hardly relevant.

Money effects everything the government tries to do. Don't be silly.

I won't dispute the influence of wealth, but you seem to be claiming the shift in Obama's policies is a result of funding requirements and lacking a line-item veto. That only works in areas that the legislature is involved in and that is not the only area where he has diverged.

 

[usda select]

Did I say could identify all of them? No.

Okay, just who my choices will be if I decide to vote Republican in 2012 will suffice. Let me know whose out since my choices are pre-determined.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Again, a cartoonish characterization of political parties. No literate adult in the world would ever argue that war is not necessary. No literate adult in the world is "pro war" in all cases.

You're totally missing the point, either out of stupidity or intention... I'm not sure, but let's take a look at the peacenik Obama... He's so far, removed about 100k troops from Iraq, moved most of those to afghanistan, and then replaced the Iraq occupation troops with private contractors / mercenaries... this was enough for a nobel peace price.

Really? You may remember that Bush invaded 2 countries. Clinton did not. Please explain how Bush was just "rolling with it".

Clinton still bombed some countries...

Really? You may remember that Bush wanted to privatize Social Security. Please explain how Obama is "rolling with it".

Yes, now with Obama when 'austerity' measures are installed (though with the Greek crisis the name will be changed), then you'll see what the combination of privatization and socialization of social security does to those who are on the verge of receiving it.

Really? You may remember that Bush wanted to basically grant amnesty to the illegal aliens in the US. Please explain how, if Obama is "rolling with it", why hasn't that passed yet?

Obama is 'rolling with it' by simply not enforcing it, which is defacto amnesty... and no bill has passed because the public would not accept such measures.

Nobody knows what you are talking about in the underlined part. I'm "pro glass" myself. Here is what I said when you were having a more sober moment: Again...your quote:

Wow, you didn't even read the line... the next words following 'pro glass' was 'parking lot'... as in the way that nuking a desert will turn the sand into glass... and since it would flatten the terrain at the same time it would be like a parking lot.

I'm surprised that you've never heard the term.

My response to which you have not responded by the way:



Two concrete things that would have NOT happened under McCain. Not that I agree or disagree but no way McCain draws down from Iraq or passes a healthcare bill. Zero chance. You simply have no understanding of US Politics and seem to be monumentally ignorant of current events and/or recent history.

You list three things and call it two... that's funny... anyway.
- Healthcare : maybe you're right on this one, since the standard republican / neo-con stance SHOULD be to not create huge government programs... That said, the republicans often increase the size of government, but have the cover story to justify these things.
- Withdraw from Iraq : No, McCain was the one that mentioned Iraq as the '100 year war'... but Obama is NOT going to pull out troops from Iraq... ok, military troops, but there's just as many mercenaries as there were soldiers... in this Obama's LIED.
- 'endless other things' : here's the deal, McCain was bought and paid for by the same interests, so IF HE DID win, he would have carried on with Bush's status quo, maybe changing the selling points of the similar policies... McCain would have kept the troops and added the mercenaries to 'look tough'... on the economy, he would have said "I don't like it, but we gotta bailout the too big to fails". Not sure what the position would have been for any 'healthcare reform'... anyway///

so, while the left or right rhetoric would be different regardless of who had won the election the new president, with the finesse of an olympic class relay team pass the baton to the new boss who carries on the same track. Ever had two routes you could take to get somewhere?? Did it matter at the end if you took the left turn or the right turn if the destination is the same??

Have you noticed how so many bills that come in have "bipartisan support"??

I'm nearing 30, and have been studying various elements of corruption for many years... both corporate and political... and out of hundreds of books that I've read in my youth (almost never fiction, though I do like the distraction now and then.), and even then I hadn't completely grasped the complexity of the situation... by the time 9-11 happened, my initial reaction was that this was a backlash against what would be considered american imperialist practises around the world, OR that the government had done it to itself in some way in order to further an agenda, and that if there was a target within the day that it happened, BEFORE any investigation could be done THEN that individual was going to be the scapegoat.

If I remember correctly, it was that evening or the next that I first saw bin ladens name... then I remember Bush "diplomacy" where the afghan people said "show us your evidence and we will bring you bin laden"... Bush preferred sending an army to search for a single man... The reality of the situation was more complex and involves natural resources and OPIUM.

Okay, just who my choices will be if I decide to vote Republican in 2012 will suffice. Let me know whose out since my choices are pre-determined.

No, YOUR choices aren't predetermined...

Which do you like better coke or pepsi??

Had you considered that maybe 'water' is an option?? The point is, by framing the question where the 'default answer' because YOUR preference BECAUSE you supply both CHOICES.

Coke -> Target <- Pepsi - in other words, they might as well be a single company, they represent a 'duopoly', or the monopoly on beverages virtually world wide. This link WOULD be illegal, IF the third company was not involved in hiring 2 individuals each representing either company to their boardroom.

Once again : THEY RULE

 

[Demon of Light]

Okay, just who my choices will be if I decide to vote Republican in 2012 will suffice. Let me know whose out since my choices are pre-determined.

As I recall I already mentioned a name.

 

[usda select]

As I recall I already mentioned a name.

Just out of curiosity...what part of the establishment presented Christine O'Donnell to Delawareans?

 

[BmanMcfly]

Just out of curiosity...what part of the establishment presented Christine O'Donnell to Delawareans?

All that I know about her is that she's been attacked by the left AND the right... so, if there's a stamp of 'the real deal'... this type of bipartisan attacks IS that stamp of approval. I don't NEED to know her platform to know that on that basis alone that she's better then the establishment candidates.

 

[usda select]

All that I know about her is that she's been attacked by the left AND the right... so, if there's a stamp of 'the real deal'... this type of bipartisan attacks IS that stamp of approval. I don't NEED to know her platform to know that on that basis alone that she's better then the establishment candidates.

She studied witchcraft and there "was blood involved". Nice choice.

 

[BmanMcfly]

She studied witchcraft and there "was blood involved". Nice choice.

Yes, BUT X has it's own occultic practices as well... google or youtube search 'bohemian grove' and you'll see what I'm talking about, to give a hint it involves things like 'dancing naked in the woods', 'male prostitutes in an all male 'club'', mock human sacrifices at the foot of a 20 foot of the idol of an owl they call 'Moloch' (which if you search that term will come up with the idol of a bull... I don't know)... and that's just ONE (1) region where people in power positions practice occultic rituals. I could name maybe 2-3 more places, but I doubt that's even a portion of an all inclusive list.

So, are you saying we should burn her on a stake?? Look, I don't know this woman, for all I know, it was a highschool faze she went through... I remember all sorts of goth kids from my high school that are actually normal people these days... some of them are still goth, but whatever.

No matter though, her being involved in witchcraft will in all likelihood hurt her chances regardless. But, the fact that she's undergone bipartisan attacks, that alone is evidence that she stands for something legitimate that won't agree with the 'establishment' philosophy. I'd rather see an 'honest witch' then those incessant liars that control most of our political affairs.

 

[Demon of Light]

Just out of curiosity...what part of the establishment presented Christine O'Donnell to Delawareans?

I can't say for certain anything about her right now, because I don't really know enough.

 

[yz89]

Hi again

After an almost long time, if you believe, I found the answer accidentally between someone DVDs!

eaceThat's it: The Arrivals

 

[X Factor]

To answer the OP, I am X.