Words are more useful if they have accepted meanings. Some words used in politics, like Liberal, should be retired.
Once upon a time, in a far off land, the words Gentleman and Lady had meanings different from today. Gentlemen were males privy to the very person of the King; ladies were females privy to the very person of the Queen.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Jet in Columbus
Sound to me like a case for Perry Mason BliGG?
27 - Pablo
Baronius.
Yes we do think your that bad. Take a line and put three more lines at right angles connecting them, and you have a republican. Rigid, mind closed, prejudiced, imposing their will on others at every opportunity, little to no humor, drab, and in love with huge corporations. You really are that bad.
Your party has not had a true statesman in over 80 years, the rest imho are prostitutes pretending they serve the people, when in point of fact they only represent their corporate bretheren.
Now you have at the head of your party a warmonger
who has about as much class as Orin Hatch.
For what its
28 - Jet in Columbus
I agree with you Pablo, but for one man. A man who sacrificed his whole life's work in the service of a public that later hated him and never understood that the only way for him to keep the U.S. from flying apart was to pardon Richard Nixon so we could all move on, rather than endure years of congressional hearings and a probable constitutional crisis...
That man was Gerald R. Ford
When he left office, I ceased being a republicunt or republican't or what ever you want to call what was once a great party that sold its soul ot big oil, big business and Jerry Falwell.
29 - Pablo
Jet,
As Gerald Ford was on the Warren Commission, I must take exception to his so called integrity, I will however admit that the man was unassuming in a very charming way, though a tad un-coordinated. In either case I am glad that you had a change of heart. Don't get me wrong jet, I am no fan of most democrats either, but when it comes to republicans, with the exception of Ron Paul, and perhaps one or two others, I can't stand any of em. Particularly when their leader gwb talks about such things as liberty and freedom, when everything that he stands for is exactly the opposite, and he has done more in the last 7 years to destroy OUR freedom and liberty than any other president in our history.
Dave is so worried about socialism, which I too abhor, he however never takes the time to see that his party and most of his beliefs foster fascism, and totalitarianism. If he werent so full of himself there might be room for growth, however as I see it, its a remote possibility at best.
I particularly like how he denigrates any conspiracy other than the one that was promulagated by the main stream media and white house on how 19 arabs conspired to destroy america. He does not even have the honesty to at least admit that he too is a conspiracy theorist, and I have pointed that out to him numerous times without success. Then to top it off he denigrates and makes fun of those that have a different conspiracy than his, rather than debate the issues at hand, which he obviously fears, or he would not resort to such immature tactics.
30 - Jet in Columbus
Fair enough
31 - Baronius
I'll give you this much, Pablo. When you throw around words, you really mean them. Most people who call Clinton a communist or Bush a fascist are using the nastiest word they than think of. You really believe that your opponents are hell-bent on world domination.
32 - Dave Nalle
Yes, but he's delusional, Baronius. The world isn't the black and white cartoon he thinks it is.
As for a decent Republican leader, let's not forget Bob Dole.
Dave
33 - Pablo
Sure Dave,
Im the delusional one, hehehe
Oh yeah and Bob Dole, what a true statemsan, wow!
The only cartoon I see Dave is you prancing around to every political article on this site, condescending in the extreme, offering your very poor words of non-widsom to the masses.
34 - Baronius
Dave, I didn't say he was right. The article isn't about rightness, it's about word uses and meanings. Pablo, God bless him, doesn't just say that Cheney is a fascist. He truly believes that VP Richard Cheney promotes a corporatist, racist, militarist totalitarianism.
35 - Pablo
Baronius,
YES I DO
36 - Pablo
Baronius,
Here is a video link of Mr. Cheney being asked a question by Rockyfeller at a CFR meeting, and he freely admits how he tried to conceal his membership from his consitutents.
Cheney showing his true colors
So to respond to our post once more, YES I do believe that Dick Cheney is a facist, and has absolutely no regard for the constitution of the USA, and more particularly the Bill of Rights.
He should be impeached and imprisoned.
I have no quarrel with those that disagree with me, however when they openly disregard the very foundation of law that our country was founded upon, and do everything that they can to infringe on rights that people were born with; then I do have a quarrel.
37 - Dave Nalle
That would be a publicly posted video from the oh-so-secret meetings of the ruling conspiracy. Another brilliant contradiction from Pablo.
Dave
38 - Pablo
Nothing like someone who cant see the forest for the trees davey boy. Keep those comments comin bubba.
39 - Baronius
...freely admits concealing his membership...but if he's admitting it...how can...but concealing means...
40 - Pablo
Baronius,
Perhaps you didnt actually watch the video, at the end of it, Mr. Cheney basically said that he had hidden his affiliation of this group from his constituents, as in CONCEALING.
I know your just a youngin Baronius, but if you were to take the time to actually study convervatism, particularly of the 50's and 60's you will find that many of your elder bretheren were VERY concerned about the CFR. For more information do a google search on the Belmont Brotherhood.
Unfortunately in my opinion those consevatives of the day were far too consumed with the so called threat of communism, and did not really research where this movement actually came from, in particular the financing of it. In short this movement was financed by Wall Street and the Rothschilds. You can do your own homework if interested.
The CFR was founded by JP Morgan and company who just bought out Bear Sterns (and is also one of the owners of the FED) for 2 bucks a share, it was founded specifically to create a world global feudalistic empire with NO bill of rights, in other words a one world totalitarian fasscist state. I wish I was making it up Baronius, but I am not.
Dave likes to do diversion tactics so that those that are close to the truth never find it, as he freely admits to having friends in that organization and his mom was cia. He can do all the diversion he wants but people are waking up and fast.
If you go to amazon.com there are numerous books on the CFR, pick any one of em, just make sure that the author is not associated with the group, and almost invariable they will say the same thing.
This group was founded by JP Morgan and Chatham House formally called the Royal Insitute of International Affairs, and for all intents and purposes is still answerable to its british mother.
41 - Baronius
Pablo, I saw the video. Cheney was having fun with the idea that such groups are distrusted. Let's be honest: a lot of people who've heard of CFR hate CFR.
You've got to understand that some people disagree with you. Not because we're evil; not because we're uninformed. I'm not one hyperlink away from being convinced. I just think that you're wildly wrong.
As for you, you might want to try enjoying blogcritics. It's a fun site. There's no need to be quite so, um, spirited. Flies and vinegar and all that.
42 - Pablo
Cute Baronius,
Lets all play fun filled politics. How quaint.
What I believe Cheney was referring to is many of his constituents, being consevative republicans do not like the CFR, the fact that he was not man enough to openly endorse an organization that he belongs to to his constituents speaks volumnes.
When I want fun, which is often, I dont go here for it, in case you haven't notice Baronius our country is being gutted from within, and I for one do not find it fun that we live in a surveillance society, as the bill of righs is being destroyed right in front of our eyes.
Whether or not you agree with me is besides the point, frankly I could care less. When I respond to your personally as in this post, I am not trying to convince YOU of anything Baronius, you being the conservative republican you are, your mind is as closed as your bretheren. I write on here because I want to, and others may come across some of this information with more of an open mind, and learn something. I hardly expect you to learn anything from me.
43 - Baronius
But if conservative Republicans know that the CFR is evil...but I'm a conservative Republican...so I don't understand...then why...
44 - Pablo
Baronius,
Quite frankly, you are an uninformed conservative republican.
45 - Jet in Columbus
Baronious it's like the man that comes up to you and says "Everything I'm saying is a lie".
but if it's a lie, he's telling the truth, but that can't be because he's lying but but but....
Be careful Chenney hasn't shot anyone in the face recently, so he's under his limit for the year!!!
46 - Jet in Columbus
There's such a thing as an Informed Liberal Republican???
47 - Dan Miller
Gee Whiz, if I knew what "liberal" and "conservative" actually meant, I might attempt to comment on the submissions of Jet and Baronius. Unfortunately, I don't and therefore can't. I don't know what a liberal Republican or a conservative Republican (or, for that matter Democrat) might be, regardless of whether informed or uninformed, words which I think I understand.
I would like to comment, but just can't find it in me.
Dan
48 - Pablo
Jet,
They are a rare breed.
49 - Clavos
Words, words, words...
50 - Dan Miller
Clavos,
"Words, words, words,
I'm so sick of words!
First from him,
Now from you!
Is that all you blighters can do?"
With all due apologies to George Bernard Shaw and to the author of My Fair Lady.
Dan
51 - Bennett
Hey Dan, I enjoyed this and the comments are quite amusing.
I believe that "bad", as you describe one of it's current usages, joined the modern lexicon upon the release of the movie and soundtrack to "Shaft".
Right On
52 - Dan Miller
Bennett,
I think someone else elaborated on "bad." Still, thanks for the kind words.
Dan
53 - Bennett
Ah yes, that would be bliffle... Should have known. Peas in a pod an' all.
Still, you inspired his comment.
;-]
54 - Baronius
Dan, I remember reading maybe the first quarter of Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions". He argued that there are two competing visions of human nature which lie behind the politics of post-Enlightemnent society. The thing is, I really didn't think that Sowell was right in his analysis, so I sort of gave up on the book. But there is an idea that he had that has some merit.
There are differing world views that motivate people's politics. There's no obvious connection between abortion and gun control, but but the vast majority of people are pro-both or anti-both. Even the exceptions are consistent: I'll bet that 80% of the people who support abortion but oppose gun control also would vote to close the IRS.
These patterns are no secret. The media seem to be about 15 years behind the times, but anyone else can see them. There are clusters of opinion that are pretty good indicators across a wide range of issues. We talk about political coalitions, and it's easy to see why teachers and teamsters can both be pro-union, but in disagreement on many other issues.
I think that the old labels are wrong, because they carry too much baggage. But there are ideological commonalities, so there should be unbiased terminology to describe them. One important distinction (I'm thinking of unions here, but it applies to a lot of things) is elitism vs. populism. There was a big shift in the 1980's, when Republicans became populist and Democrats became elitist. We see it today as the billionaires line up behind Clinton, but we don't even notice how that contradicts the stereotypes.
So Dan, that's my assignment for you. Not to simply get rid of the old words, but to develop a new, more accurate set.
55 - Baronius
Pablo, as for the label you gave me, you shouldn't assume that I'm uninformed just because I think you're wrong. I don't assume that you're uninformed. I think you're very informed - but I worry that you lack the necessary mental filters and filing system to organize your information.
I've noticed something about conspiracy theorists. Or, you don't like that term, because of the 19 hijackers, so let's say the non-mainstream conspiracy theorists. These people seem to be a cluster like I was describing to Dan. The thing is, I've only rarely heard one of them denounce a conspiracy. Maybe this comment belongs under Dave's recent Paul thread, but I just don't hear a lot of people who fear Skull and Bones, but trust the Trilateral Commission.
What conspiracy theory don't you believe in? That's not a rhetorical question. Do you believe that the moon landing was faked? What's your stand on Diebold voting machines? Did the CIA invent AIDS? Kennedy - should I even bring up Kennedy?
Again, don't be cute and say that you don't believe in the 9/11 Commission's conspiracy theory. Just please give me something to make me think that your filter is working.
56 - Clavos
"With all due apologies to George Bernard Shaw and to the author of My Fair Lady."
Alan Jay Lerner and Frederick Leowe, Dan.
A brilliant team...
57 - Jet in Columbus
Okay Baronius, I wrote an article proving beyond question that there was a moon landing, but I also wrote one disparaging Diebold...
but I won't take that last personally...
(:-)
58 - Pablo
Baronius,
I will say this for you Baronius. For a conservative republican, you come across as one of the nicer ones. This to me is quite notable, as in my experience the vast majority of people who claim to be conservative I find to be usually mean spirited, arrogant, frequently prejudiced, and quite frankly loust specimens of humanity. So it is a bit refreshing for me to engage someone who actually comes across civil and human.
Now, as to your questions. For the purposes of discussion, I will describe what I mean by conspiracy as it has numerous meanings. The broadest of which means to breathe together, as in more than one person planning on doing something. The more narrow definition of which I believe you are asking me is the definition of conspiracy which means more than one person plan on doing something illegal. I will address the latter definition.
Obviously (with the exception of people such as Dave) 9/11 was a conspiracy in the latter sense, i e numerous humans planned an event which killed over 3000 human beings on that day. Although Dave has a hard time with this concept, I think Baronius that you probably agree with me. 9/11 was a conspiracy. As such, humans naturally theorize lacking concrete evidence about whom was responsible. For those that say that it was obviously Bin Laden and company, or this ephemeral organization known as the database that carried it
out, I find that highly debatable. Usually someone of that ilk will say something dumb, like Bin Laden admitted it so therefore it is a fact. This does not make it a fact anymore than a nutcase who claims a murder that they did not commit. Furthermore, he is on record as also denying his involvment within days of the attack. Then according to press accounts and videos (most of which I question) he made claim to it.
For a person to use that as the proof is not only ridiculous, it is based on the word of a known liar, and accoring to those that do believe it a mass murderer. I am not inclined to believe liars, and find mass murderers highly dubious.
I am not going to go into all of the details of 9/11 in this post, there are numerous well researched websites that do. As to those that cliam that the government could never knowingly sacrifice its own citizens for a political objective, one only has to look at the war in Iraq, which has needlessly sacrificed over 4000 americans in an illegal war.
I believe Baronius through extensive investigation, (not paranoia) that there are very influential and powerful people in the world, some of whom live in the USA that are not satisified with the wealth that they have obtained, and want something of even more value to them. It is called political power. Some of these people in my opinion have conspired together to create a world that is feudalistic in nature, and does not want a middle class anymore. They want owners and serfs quite simply. They have no compunction whatsoever in using whatever tactics that they decide to achieve this end, including mass murder, torture, genocide and the like.
I did not invent the conspiracy of the CFR Baronius, it has been around for decades. You can look at its history yourself, starting with Milner's Kindergarten, and Cecil Rhodes (the richest man in England at the time). You can study JP Morgan and company as I have, and see that they were instrumental in founding this organization.
You can also study another phenomenon known as eugenics. The ugly racist idea has been promoted more than any others that I can think of including Adolf Hitler by none other than the Rockefeller family. This is not conspiracy theory Baronius, it is FACT, and should you take the time to study it, you will find that it is an established FACT that the Rockefellers were the leading proponents of eugenics for decades.
I do believe JFK was assassinated by elements within our own government in 1963. The reasons are varied in my opinion. He being the first President to issue greenbacks issued from the Department of the Treasury that were not Federal Reserve notes through an executive order 6 months before he was killed. Speaking of the FED, there are numerous books about it, one of note is called The Creature From Jekyll Island. This organization, which is privately owned (of whome JP Morgan Chase has a substantial interest), and semi-publicly controlled, has the ability to print value out of nothing, and then loan it out at interest. It does not take a rocket scientist to see that anyone who can make something out of nothing, with a scale of trillions will come out on the winning end.
The FED and The CFR are for all intents and purposes the same, and do not have YOUR Baronius interests at heart, and never have, and never will.
By the way in terms of the Kennedy assassination, there was a house select committee in the 70's that studied it, they issued a report which claimed in all likelyhood, his assasination was a conspiracy. Were you aware of that Baronius?? This was certainly a far cry from the Warren Commission 's coverup, imho similar to the 9/11 commission. Speaking of which Lee Hamilton and former New Jersey governor Kean the heads of that commission are both lifetime members of the CFR, as were numerous others on that panel. I would also recommend if your inerested in looking at the
Blackstone Group who was recently bought out by the Rothschilds.
Speaking of the redshields (Rothschilds), it is not a conspiracy theory but a fact that this family for the past 300 years has been the most influential and richest family on the face of the earth. They even set the gold market on a daily basis for over 200 years. I do not care if someone is black, white, Jewish, or Muslim frankly, I do not have a racist bone in my body. I look for truth. This family to this day is involved with the conspiracy to which I am referring, including its underlings such as Kuhn Loeb and company, Jacob Schiff in the past, who incidentally Schiff's grandson was recently married to Gore's daughter. Which brings me to Global Warming.
There are numerous scientific journals today that are saying that some of the planets are heating up, this hardly is cause by c02, yet you will hardly ever hear it mentioned in the main stream press. The Club of Rome issued a book in the 70's basically calling for a one world government and laying out the case for using global warming as a main reason to push as a reason to get people concerned on a global scale. The main person involved in my opinion is Maurice Strong. You may or may not have heard of him. He is one of the most powerful people at the UN to this day, and a personal friend of the Rothschilds.
In my opinion Baronius the powers that be, the ones that I have been referring to do not believe in the sovereignty of the individual, nor the Declaration of Independence, which clearly states that OUR rights we are born with and do not come from government. They believe they are elite, and above reproach, and plan on reducing the world's populaton by about 80%. Some would argue this is a good thing, however I do not believe that ANY of their ilk or offspring will be reduced, but yours and mine.
Paranoia is the unfounded belief that someone is out to get you. I do not believe that any of my assertions are unfounded, nor do I believe that these powers are singling ME out, if I did I would not write about them.
As I often attack conservatives, on their beliefs, I have just as much if not more bitterness towards the Democrats particularly the liberals. As in my opinion they were co-opted a long time ago, particularly with some of their publications. The Nation Magazine, Utne Reader are two prime examples. You will NEVEr see these magazines either question or attack the CFR politically, or challenge the official 9/11 story. The owner of the Nation magazine is not only a lifetime member of the CFR, but her husband and father were CIA agents. Now you being a conservative this may not surprise you. But the Nation magazine who claims to be in the interest of liberals, I do find it surprising. Socialism is totalitarianism of the left, and fascism of the right.
I am not interested in the moon landing Baronius, nor do I believe that there are illegal conspiriacies everywhere. I do believe however that the mainstream press, liberal NBC (general electric), ABC, CNBC, FOX, Time Warner, and various others are 100% controlled by the cabal that I have referred to. Mr. Goebbels former propoganda minister for the third reich would be proud.
Speaking of which one of my main sources of information is a man nameed Dave Emory, who is an anti-fascist researcher and has made hundreds of his hour long talks available freely on the internet. He is well versed, extremely articulate, and footnotes in detail all of his talks. If you google his name you will find his page.
Contrary to what Dave denigrates, I am also a huge fan of Alex Jones, and have listened to his show for over 7 years. His show today is one of the most widely listened to in the entire country, take a look at his alexa ranking. He has had such diverse guests on such as Pat Buchanan, Jessie Ventura, Ann Coulter, Dr Paul, Lou Dobson, and hundreds of other interesting people. He unlike me comes from a conservative background and is only 35, and very well researched. Sure he rants and raves, and carries on hysterically sometimes, but his research is factual and documented. His movie Terrorstorm documents government sponsored terrorism, which someone like Dave would falsely characterize as something entirely different, as in the pot calling the kettle black.
If you wonder why I frequently talk down to Dave Baronius, it is only what he has coming from me. He has done everything but to engage me on the issues, he derided, he condescends, he bullys, everything but acutally show respect for another viewpoint, and I treat him the same, and will continue to until the man shows some respect, which franky I do not think he is capable of.
Skull and Bones is an outgrowth of an organization known as the Thule Society. It was an underground fascist movement in Germany, and it was started by Mr. Russell who made his fortune pushing drugs. There is an excellent 600 page book entitled The Fleshing of Skull and Bones, if you are interested in looking at this organization, again it is well documented and researched.
I hope this clarifies just a bit Baronius where I am coming from, and I will in the future be glad to debate and discuss the issues of the day with you without rancor, even though we may have opposite viewopoints on various issues of the day sir.
59 - Mark Edward Manning
"I think the word 'conservative' has had a shorter journey in politics. It's gone through as much of a change in meaning in the last hundred or so years, though."
That's true. In fact, Liberal existed before Conservative because a political liberal believed in free speech and enterprise. They just disagreed over the details. A conservative would have been thought of as a reactionary, and a liberal as we think of them today would have been a Trotskyite, Marxist or Stalinist.
Conservative, as a word describing a political p.o.v., came about as a result of the New Left in the '50s and '60s, someone who resisted the rapid social change that New Leftists wanted to bring about.
The only problem I have with the word Conservative is that it doesn't acknowledge the liberal strain inherent in our ancestry: upholding free speech and free enterprise.
Personally, I am a conservative, though I think semantics are important here. I tend to be "liberal" on the environment because conservation and conservatism spring from the same root -- conserve. Conserve the tried-and-true ways of law and order, social policy and economics that the Left complains about, but also preserve the environment under those who would wreck it in the name of "free enterprise."
60 - Mark Edward Manning
Oops, I meant to write, "preserve the environment against those who would wreck it." My mistake.
61 - Baronius
Pablo, please don't think of me as polite. (I'm sure you won't after these comments.) I've just seen some good posting boards go bad, and I'm hoping it won't happen here.
Jet made a comment about the moon landing and Diebold. He's someone who I know can be analytical on some subjects, although he does see the religious right behind every corner. I know that Baritone sees red when Reagan is mentioned, and as for me, I get feverish on the subject of evolution. We're generally all worth reading, though, even though we don't agree.
And you don't have to explain to me what Dave is like. I've been here a while. He's often his own worst enemy.
The thing is, no matter how wrong Jet is about Diebold, I know he's not going to fall into every trap. It's guys like you I worry about. You hit every conspiracy point on every issue.
Do you ever listen to "Coast To Coast AM"? It's a hilarious show. They sometimes have sane people on, but for the most part, all the guests believe all the same things: New World Order, alien encounters, time travel, telepathy, et cetera. There was a guest last night who was talking about string theory, and sure enough he believed in aliens. He just mentioned it in passing, as if it's assumed. And on that show, it is.
Anyway, a guy called in recently and said that there are three people he considers to be American heroes: the host, that night's guest, and ... Ron Paul. (I think the guest was talking about Atlantis.) Do you realize how badly that caller undermined himself?
Let's say that Bilderberg is evil. I'd put the probablility at 1%. They share a lot of membership with CFR, so maybe CFR is 1% likely to be evil as well. If one is evil, odds of the other one being evil is maybe 30%. Kennedy, Diebold, Area 51, bigfoot, let's say 1% as well. When someone presents them all as true, their credibility is in the neighborhood of .0000001%, even factoring in that the same covert agency may have been behind a couple of them.
Actually, I'd put the Diebold conspiracy at 2%, but only because some reasonable people have questioned the security of voting machines. By siding with the least likely scenario on every occasion, you lose your right to march in The Reasonable Parade. Maybe that's why we're all smitten with Irene: she seems like she'd be a nice next door neighbor. You, on the other hand, haven't given me proof that you'd reject a borderline crazy theory.
62 - Clavos
Well (and politely) put, Baronius.
63 - Pablo
Baronius,
Thats the best you can do dude? Quite the contrary Baronius, I find you and other like you that can't see the forest for the trees amazing to say the least.
I would give you a minute degree of respect regarding your knowledge or opinion on the organizations that I briefly mentioned, if you were researched at all on these subjects. As Clavos has pointed out I like to make assumptions about some of the other commenters on this forum.
I am assuming, until you inform me otherwise that you have NEVER read an entire book on either the CFR, the Bilderberg Group, or Skull and Bones.
Its funny people such as yourself who love to laugh and carry on as though these groups are not only nefarious but for all intents and purposes run the world.
You will not find millionaires at Bilderberg, what you will find are the most powerful, influential, people on the planet. Now a person such as myself Baronius being the skeptic that I am, would instantly wonder if these 150 or so some odd people meeting once a year at a until recently secret location were playing tiddleywinks.
It is OBVIOUS to any informed person that the elite of the elite do not go to meet each other once a year to admire each other. They go there to Plan (legal) or to Conspire (illegal) for all of their mutual benefit. Thats not even debatable Baronius. Now it does not take a PHD to figure that out.
You can poo poo all you want about 1% or 2%, and act as though someone who calls a pine tree a pine tree is delusional. Hardly Baronius.
When you can come back with a cogent response, i.e informed as in actually reading books on the subjects to which we are talking about, I will respond to you more in depth.
As to being the world's most powerful groups, and entertwined, I would be interested in hearing from you regarding any groups, (not military, nor governmental) that are more powerful domestically and internationally than the ones that I referenced. That includes microgates, the Rand Corporation, the Hoover Institute or the Federalist Society, which are all adjuncts of the above groups.
I say quite frankly that they run the world. People such as Clinton or his republican presidential friend, are employees. They are cultivated as it were, in Clinton's case by the Rhodes Scholarship. The fact that all of these organizations are entertwined is not debatable, it is public knowledge. Just look at their respective membership lists and compare. You will find Rocky and his sidekick Dr Strangelove Kissinger hangin around.
So from my perspective Baronius people such as yourself that cannot see the forest for the trees, are in a state of denial. Almost as if mass hypnosis has taken place. I will attempt, if you will, in disussing these matters to refrain from showing too much contempt for the other's viewpoint, in the interest of debate.
Have you ever read "The Creature from Jekyll Island"? Do you know who Nelson Aldrich was? How about Colonol House? Do you know what Bretton Woods was? How about the Union Banking Corporation? I suspect quite frankly Baronius that as you are busy googling now, who these people are or were, that you dont know the forest for the trees about them.
Those that fail to study history are bound to repeat it. I think the main difference between you and me on these issues Baronius is that you still believe what they taught you in school. Never stopping to question that perhaps you had been god forbid indoctrinated. I realized this some 40 years ago. I don't believe in the easter bunny, nor what they like to pass off as truth on the evening news. I do think the following people many of whom you probably admire are in this cabal:
Wolfywitz, Kyrstal, Armytage, Pointedexter, Oly North, Kruthammer, insHANNITY, and his puppy dog combs, chainy, and numerous others on the right. On the left representing the same interests are: Reed, Peelosi, thomas freeedman, Kristoff, Gary (monkey business( Heart, and Hillaryous Clinton.
You can live in your left right world all you want Baronius, but left right went extinct long ago. The powers that be want you to live in a left right world, divide and conquer its that simple.
The best form of oppression is to enslave those that think that they are still free. The reason for that is simple, you get more productivity and payout. Thats the old model however. The new model is called mass population reduction, starting with you and yours, not the elites.
You are probably one of those many many people who actually think that the military is there to protect you Baronius, its not. Or that the government of ANY country particularly our own is benevolent in any sense of the word. I am talking about nations, not state government. I suspect that you are. I find it delusional and highly naive. So you can find me paranoid all you want. I am not. I have read the books, studied the journals, on the subjects above. You see its my primary field of interest Baronius. Who runs the world, and has been for decades. So go run along and do a bit of homework before you just come back on and say you don't believe something with absolutely no knowledge of the subjects to which we are discussing.
If a nation's government is not controlled by the people with the consent of the governed, its very nature is despotic.
64 - troll
so...after all these years of study you've identified who runs the world
other than bitch what do you propose to do about it - ?
(btw - do you work in a meth lab - ?)
65 - Pablo
Baronius,
On the subject of Diebold ,ES&S, and Sequoia Voting Systems I am quite well versed. I am a member Blackboxvoting.org and a huge fan of Bev Harris. Again as in my previous post, the forest for the trees. Anyone who would think that something as precious as a vote in a so-called democratic society, could not be validated as being accurate and fair, was not corrupt by its very nature is naive and foolish.
The FACT Baronius is that many of these machines cannot be validated to the voter, as in when someone goes into the supermarket buys a pound of bananas and knows that the machine works.
So who is it really that is living in denial? Or delusional? How long would you continue to buy bananas from the grocer by the pound if you did not know that the machine was accurate?
Dave always talks about since there has been no known cases involving these machines to be fixed or unreliable, that thats a case for them being fair. Now thats denial in its trues sense of the word. Then he will go on and on about how elections are always open to fraud, and even more so with paper ballots. Again absurd on its face. The new machines can be hacked en masse from great differences as Bev Harris has demonstrated on numerous occasions. One time in particular was on nationwide TV with Howard Dean. Google it if you have the inclination Baronius.
She also had a movie made shown on HBO on the subject of voting fraud.
So you go boy. You keep believing in the easter bunny, and the voting machines, and that the world's elite are not planning/conspiring to do nefarious deeds. And I will keep digging, and looking and searching for the underlying truths politically and metaphysically.
66 - Pablo
I usually do not respond to trolls. As you mentioned meth, I hate the shit, cant stand people who use it, sell it, or make it. It is the most repugnant substance that I know of. I have an engaging mind Troll and I type fast.
As to what I propose to do about it. I propose telling you about it, as my name is Paul and I like Paul Revere. What do you propose to do about it Troll, lurk in the dark?
67 - Pablo
Baronius:
Regarding Coast to Coast with George Noory. It is the second highest listened to show in the country. Not bad. I do not for the most part dabble in ufo world, if I saw one perhaps I would be more inclined to look into it. I find the stuff here on earth to be solid and not so ephemereal. I did however listen to Alex Jones on Mr. Noory's show the other night. For the most part however I rarely listen to him.
One more comment on this which you wrote:
Let's say that Bilderberg is evil. I'd put the probablility at 1%. They share a lot of membership with CFR, so maybe CFR is 1% likely to be evil as well. If one is evil, odds of the other one being evil is maybe 30%. Kennedy, Diebold, Area 51, bigfoot, let's say 1% as well. When someone presents them all as true, their credibility is in the neighborhood of .0000001%, even factoring in that the same covert agency may have been behind a couple of them."
I have a statistical question for you Baronius. As hopefully you are aware that the Bin Laden family was doing intimate business with the Bush's for decades. Let's talk about odds shall we?
The Bin Laden family has somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 people in it, Osama being one of them. What are the chances Baronius, statistically speaking of the person named responsible for the biggest attack on our soil in our history, of someone in his family of being in business with the sitting president?
Take 6 billion, divide it by 150, what do you get?
My math (correct me if I am wrong) is forty million to one. And I am the one that's delusional? LOL
68 - Bennett
Not to be too cheeky, but I have a video titled "British Gals Gone Wild" and I can assure you, the British ARE coming.
At least in this flick.
69 - troll
I advocate for a vast multi-denominational graffiti conspiracy
'don't shit in the path': coming to a sidewalk near you
70 - Jet in Columbus
Okay Pablo, you’ve made a few statements that I’d like to take issue with.
Please note that diabetes is still trying to claim my eyesight, so to read comments on this forum, I have to copy and paste them into my word for windows and then blow them up to 40point size to read them, so take that as an excuse for my lag time in responding.
You are also forcing me to bend a cardinal rule that I’ve tried not to break-ergo never use 20 paragraghs when two will do. A disease you seem to be stricken with.
A. The hair stands up on the back of my neck when someone lumps people into the same category without getting to know them. Your self-righteous use of phrases like “You and people like you” to me is a sign of blatant bigotry and a lack of intellect.
B. In my article about Diebold, the suspicion is not their technology, which is unquestionably flawed (a given) The suspicion is bourne out of that Corporations chief on many documented occasions vowing publicly, loudly, and quite strongly to hand Bush the elections of 2000 and 2004.
C. The World Trade Center. Fact it’d take a crew of at least (and I’m being generous here) of 25 or more to bring down both buildings. Fact-it’d take time to engineer the unforeseen problems on site. In the weeks it’d take to execute the plan, SOMEONE in that building would notice holes punched in the walls or floors to weaken the steel infrastructure and for explosives. We’re talking thousands of people keeping their mouths shut. Fact, the WTC became a security fortress after the first attempt on it in the 90s and with that many cameras it’d be impossible to do it.
D. You’ve mentioned on several occasions that the planets are heating up. On that point you’re wrong and you’re twisting facts that Duane could explain better than I. The temperature readings were revised upward as new technologies in infrared sensors improved over the years, and for no other reason.
E. The phony moon landing is bunk. In my other article, currently on who has the right to revise science etc, I debote the entire middle section to the FACT that each mission planted a reflector on the surface of the moon. There is a public telescope that to this day reflects a laser off of them in order to monitor the distance from Earth to the moon. Anyone is welcome there to watch them do it.
Probably the most aggravating trait you display is the inability to admit when you’re wrong. My philosophy has always been that “I’m wrong… let me learn where I went astray” is the most intelligent thing anyone can say…
Please forgive any typos, it's a bit difficult for my these days...
Jet
71 - Baronius
Troll - meth lab! I haven't laughed that hard in a while.
Pablo - Perhaps the reason that you haven't met a lot of "civil and human" people on my side of the aisle is that you pee in their corn flakes, then act surprised that they're offended. Just a hunch. You've got to realize that blogcritics is Fight Club: "after the fight is over, nothing is resolved".
As for the bin Laden / Bush connection, it should be pretty obvious. As you love to point out, there are a handful of families that have been around for a while. The bin Ladens get along about as badly as any family, but the odds are very good that something happening in the Middle East will involve a bin Laden, a Saud, or a Hashemite. That's the thing you don't seem to get: just because people share a last name doesn't mean they work toward the same goals. Even I don't work toward exactly the same goals I used to. You're seeing a grand sweep of history where there might not be one.
Maybe it's not a forest, just some trees.
72 - Pablo
Jet,
Let's get a few things straight.
B. Regarding Diebold, I am very aware of the statement that the CEO made about handing the election to GWB in 2000. I was not so much referring to the technology of voting machine companies but that they were obviously made to be hacked.
C. I do not recall putting forth the theory that the wtc buildings came down as a result of a controlled demolition, and I challenge you to show me ONE post that I have written where I claim that. The fact that I believe it was an inside job has absolutely nothing to with how the buildings came down.
D. Here are numerous URLs for your perousal from scientific sites regarding the planets heating up.
Planets Warming 1
Planets Warming 2
Planets Warming 3
E. I have NEVER commented on the Moon Landing one way or another.
I would find it aggravating if you cannot admit that you are wrong, but it would not surprise me, as you previous post was imho much more prejudicial than any comment that I have made about anyone on this particular post.
73 - Pablo
Jet,
I freely admit to being bigoted against republicans.
74 - Pablo
Pablo glances down at the cornflake bowl that PNAC offers him, and every so slowly and furtively empties his bladder in it.
75 - Pablo
Baronius you said:
"The bin Ladens get along about as badly as any family, but the odds are very good that something happening in the Middle East will involve a bin Laden, a Saud, or a Hashemite."
So now Baronius is an expert on the bin Laden family. I hadnt realized I was talking to the CIA, forgive my ineptidude.
There are none so blind as he who does not see. You keep believing in your 40 million to one lottery ticket and Ill believe in reality. I dont buy lottery tickets, and my advice to you is for you not to either. But hey its a free country, if you want to believe in the tooth fairy who am I to rock your boat?
By the way if thats the best you can do responding to my lengthy comment, I again urge you to do some studying about the various issues that I mentioned earlier, as I am not impressed.