Home / Words, Words, Words! I’m So Sick of Words!

Words, Words, Words! I’m So Sick of Words!

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

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.

Over the years, the terms came to have more egalitarian, but still recognizable, meanings. Gentleman came to mean a male of independent means and reasonably high social standing, and frequently but not always of higher educational status than the population at large. Mere shopkeepers and even affluent merchants were infrequently denominated “gentleman.”

Again, Lady had a parallel meaning. Gradually, the terms devolved into designations of the gender-appropriate toilet facilities, generally printed on signs on the door. Now, perhaps finally, the words have all but disappeared. The terms “Men” and “Women” frequently adorn the sacred doors, and remaining uses for even these words are disappearing with the advent of unisex facilities.

Notwithstanding their dilution, Gentleman and Lady retain some vestiges of their former glory. To call someone a Gentleman or a Lady occasionally expresses an anticipation, or at least a fleeting wish, that the person so called will behave in a socially acceptable fashion.

The meanings of other words have also changed over time and in many cases new words have evolved with roots in common with the old. Most likely, “Car,” of which there are now many, evolved out of “Carriage,” of which there are now few. “Montana” is derived from the Spanish word “Montaña,” meaning “mountain.” Sometime, translations from one language to another produce unintentionally appropriate results. In at least some internet translations, which tend to be rather literal, of Spanish language newspapers, “Fidel Castro” becomes “Fidel I Castrate,” because Castro is also the present tense, first person singular form of the verb “to castrate,” castrar. But I digress.

Many of these changes are inoffensive and even necessary. I mean, you know. Others can be offensive. The devolution which I find most offensive involves the word “liberal.” Frankly, my mind simply can no longer bend itself around this word. Thomas Jefferson considered himself a liberal but would, most likely, find little in common with those who appropriate the term today. Lock Mr. Jefferson (of Virginia) in a room with any one of the many so called liberals of today, and they would possibly come to blows, the event being at least forestalled because Mr. Jefferson was a “gentleman” in the eighteenth century sense of the word. Query, how many people who nowadays call themselves liberals believe that their views on life, the universe and everything reflect those of Mr. Jefferson. After all, he was a “liberal,” and so are they.

Sir Winston Churchill occasionally referred to himself as a liberal Conservative or a conservative Liberal. I do not think that he had in mind the twenty-first century usage of the word “liberal,” because I would hate to think that he was capable of being inarticulate and using meaningless phrases.

When and how did the word “liberal” come to mean socialist, communist, anti-religious, pro-abortion, pacifist, advocate of drug legalization, proponent of “multi-culturalism,” speaker, defender and demander of political correctness, advocate of affirmative action, sufferer of massive feelings of unrequited guilt, caster of blame for all the ills of the world on the United States, and such stuff. These notions have little if any legitimate root in “liberalism” as the term has historically been understood. Bertrand Russell, a true liberal in the old fashioned sense of the word, wrote in one of his superb pieces of satire about the “superior virtue of the oppressed.” Perhaps years later, some “liberals” took his words seriously; after all, he was a liberal, the satire is congruent with many of their professed views (and liberals rarely attempt humor, except perhaps inadvertently).

“Liberal” has come, wrightly (oops, my bad) or wrongly, to be considered a term of praise, while there has been a rush (oops, again) to deem “conservative” a term of opprobrium. This assault on the English language is unfortunate. It is a wicked form of “new speak.”

I elect to use the word “liberal” to connote an open but not empty mind, a tendency to encourage the expression of opposing views, to listen attentively to them, and to desire to become familiar with them regardless of whether they are agreeable. It suggests a rational rather than a dogmatic approach to reality. A “liberal” in this sense can also be conservative; a conservative can, by the same token, be a “liberal;” there is no contradiction in terms.

Although this is my preference, I try very hard not to use the word at all, because the meaning(s) it conveys is (are) not what I intend. Instead, it seems better to use the words “leftist,” which perhaps has less historical baggage and better conveys what is most often meant by “liberal.”

Powered by

About Dan Miller

  • Clavos

    A man after my own heart, Dan. I love words and language, and have made myself persona non grata on more than one occasion on these threads because of that passion.

    As a liberal (but not a leftist) myself, I very much enjoyed your article.

    Completely off topic: what kind of a sailboat did you have for your trip?

    There must be something in the water in New Haven, because the year I turned fifteen, my father (Yale ’37) loaded my mother, me (oldest child), my brother (8 yo), and my sister (only two at the time), and set off for pre-Castro Cuba from Miami. A year and a number of other islands later we landed again in Florida, but continued to live on the boat another two years.

    By the time Dad sold his last boat many years later, I’d already bought my first, an Allied Princess ketch.

  • Dan Miller

    Thanks, Clavos. I appreciate your kind comments on my first Blogcritics article.

    I hope the gods won’t be excessively offended by a short response to the off topic bit.

    Namaste was a solid fiberglass Charlie Morgan Heritage West Indies 46, who began life many years ago as a ketch but had become a sloop when we bought her in run down condition in St. Croix in 1995. We sailed her back to Annapolis, and did a lot of work. Then, in 1996 we sailed with the Caribbean 1500 group from Norfolk, Va to the BVI in November. We managed to sail around in the Caribbean for about six years, eventually reaching Panama, where we swallowed the hook and have lived happily ever since in Chiriqui Province in a very rural area up in the highlands. We have a small farm, nine horses, five dogs, three cats, and a bunch of chickens. Life is very good.

    I always thought the Allied Princess ketch was a very handsome and sturdy boat, and often lusted after one.


  • Dan,

    A very nice article, even though I am no liberal – I am a syndicalist socialist – and damned proud of it.

    If you notice, in all my comments, I rarely ever use words like “liberal” or “conservative” and have a taste for using words appropriately, as you do. It’s not anything in the water of New Haven, (although I visited there often enough as a child) that gives one this taste. What does it is a catholic and liberal amount of reading good writers who know the language. That necessitates putting the graphic novels aside, turning off the television set and picking up serious literature.

    A few thoughts for you.

    1. The word liberal should be used today in its non-political senses only, i.e. “a liberal allowance” to indicate generosity, or “a liberal amount of salt/sugar/pepper, etc., to indicate a lot of the spice intended. Not all of these senses are so praiseworthy either. “She was rather liberal with whom she had intimate relations” does not say the nicest thing about a woman. It certainly does not make her sound “lady-like”.

    Of course, my mother, of blessèd memory, used another term to describe this quality. “The dog was democratic as to where he left his leavings.” I’ll leave you to guess which political party she was a lifelong member of.

    2. Liberal means two different things on the different sides of the Pond. In Italy or Israel, “liberal” means someone who believes strongly in free enterprise, democratic procedure and due process of law. Both nations used to have socialist parties which had either state socialist (Italy) or syndicalist socialist (Israel leanings and neither of these parties cared much about democracy, free enterprise or due process of law. In Israel, the Labor Party and its further left “companion” “Meretz”, still stink of Stalinism.

    In addition, if I remember correctly, the Liberal Party of Australia is distinctly a right wing bunch.

    3. The American political “chicken” has only one wing, the right wing. The left wing was excised in two stages: the first stage was the “Red Scare” after WWI and the second stage was “The McCarthy Era” after WWII. American “liberals” have a mish-mosh of ideas, but the lot of them would not recognize socialism if it smacked them in their politically correct faces. To put it a little differently, they are at the left edge of the right (and only) wing of the chicken, somewhere near its smelly armpit – or perhaps nearer the cloaca. The only other true leftists on this list are Les Slater and Stan Denham, the sharp witted Aussie who goes under the name Silver Surfer.

    Anyway, Dan, I enjoyed this article immensely, and look forward to further pieces from your electronic pen.

    Blessings from Samaria,

  • Dan Miller


    Many thanks for your kind words and for your thoughts, which I will keep in mind.

    One of my very favorite writers is Bertrand Russell. He was rational, expressive, witty and economical with words. Agree or disagree with him, he always said it well. I often agreed with what he wrote, and often disagreed. But he was always lucid and sometimes even humorous — intentionally rather than unintentionally (Unpopular Essays, for example). In his last years, some characterized him as “a very intelligent old silly,” and they may have been right (as in “correct,” rather than politically, although they probably were that as well, come to think of it).

    As to the U.S. Chicken, I think we have some points of disagreement which might be fun to explore in later posts. Perhaps some explication of the terms “left” and “right” might be useful.

    Best wishes,


  • Good article, Dan, even if I disagree with some of your conclusions. I had been mulling over a similar opinion piece myself, so now you’ve saved me the trouble! 😉

    Mine, though, would also have tackled those who are nowadays called – and call themselves – conservatives, when by the classical definition of the term they quite clearly are not.

    Perhaps I should still write that bit, as a companion piece to yours?

  • bliffle

    Word evolution seems to be common in all languages. Very often words evolve to mean quite the opposite of what they started out to mean. I think it may be a sort of defense mechanism. For example, the word “bad” has been evolved within a very few years to mean the opposite of what it used to mean. Young people, I suppose, got tired of being called “bad” by their elders, so they started using it among themselves to mean something like ‘cool’. If old folks think it’s bad it must be good!

    Etymology is full of such examples.

    Which means that Wittgenstein was right when he said that context defines the meaning of a word.

    So all this calls into question much of what we think we have learned from old writings. The meanings of words may have changed. We can trace some of those changes through historical continuity.

    In particular, people who claim that the Bible is the literal word of god are on very shaky ground. What we know of the Bible is largely from old Greek texts, and we may not really know what the words mean. We know a lot about modern Greek but maybe not much about archaic Greek.

  • Dan Miller

    Dr. Deadful,

    Thanks for the kind words.

    In my initial draft, I had included some stuff about “Conservatives,” but deleted it because I decided that “Liberals” was all I could handle at one time.

    I don’t think the evolution (devolution?) of “Conservative” has been quite as remarkable, and hope that this thought will incite you to riot, or at least to write an article about it.


  • Baronius

    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.

    “Liberal” started out to mean erudite and (here’s another word that’s changed) republican. It implied the belief that all men could be educated, which would make them capable of making decisions for the betterment of society. Then “liberalism” came to mean advancing the cause of the poor. That was the jumping point for its contemporary meaning.

    “Conservative” typically means resistant to change. It came to mean opposition to progressivism. From there it developed into its modern meaning.

    I’m always bothered by these reports of psychologists claiming to understand the conservative mindset, with regard to optimism or rigidity or whatever. When they say “conservative”, do they include internet gaamblers who want to overthrow the IRS?

    That’s the problem. Conservatives and liberals can be reactionary or radical, depending on the status quo.

  • Bliffle,

    Maybe the Christian book is from Greek texts, and the Christians never had the scribal traditions we do. But most of the Tana”kh is written in Hebrew, and old as it is, I still understand it. I do have trouble with the Aramaic, sometimes….

    Nevertheless, because of our scribal tradition, I’m reasonably sure that what I read now in the Torah is what was received at Sinai.

  • bliffle

    Really, Ruvy?

    Why do you think that the words you read now have the same meaning as the word used hundreds and thousands of years ago?

    Can you testify that (the equivalent of) “bad” has not turned into “good”?

    Or is it just a feeling. One that you find consistent with your beliefs and desires?

  • Clavos

    “Can you testify that (the equivalent of) “bad” has not turned into “good”?”

    Only in certain circles. To educated people bad still means not good.

  • STM

    Interestingly, in Australia, the Liberal Party is the equivalent of the Conservative Party in Britain or the Republican party in the US.

    That is because true liberalism is actually a fairly broad church that encompasses everything from “wet” liberals with quite left views on social-justice issues, to conservatives and libertarians who would be regarded in this country as fairly to the right (although they’d be in the centre of politics in the US).

    I think sometimes Americans equate liberalism with the Left, simply because they have never really had a genuine party of the Left representing the workers like the Labor/Labour parties in Australia, Britain, NZ or Canada (which are now also really parties of the centre with a focus on social justice).

    Therefore liberalism here means something quite different to what it has come to mean in the US.

    I am insulted when some Americans call me a liberal, both because of its namy-pamby connotation and because of its association in Australia with the right – the last thing I am in both respects.

    I’ve been a Labor voter all my life, and I’ve stood on picket lines and been on strike for better wages and conditions on numerous occasions. I would consider myself in tune with the quite conservative, right views of old Labor.

    So liberal I ain’t, in either sense of the word as it used here or in the US.

    We are indeed one people separated by the barrier of a common language.

  • bliffle

    All of this confusion over the meanings of ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ illustrates one thing: the foolishness of trying to summarize a person in one word.

    And foolish it is. For underneath such summarization is a very vicious desire to force a person into a category so that he can be persecuted. Every dictator and persecutor searches for some little trace of evidence of some ‘evil’ category that he can force on an enemy so that his entire person can be condemned and persecuted.

    It may be fairly hypothesized that the very search for making the final true and irrevocable meanings of the words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ is the beginning of intolerance and persecution.

  • Clavos, I don’t think it is accurate to imply that the people who use the word “bad” to mean “good” are uneducated. It would however possibly be accurate to describe many of the people this trend annoys as old…

  • As to the way the word “liberal” has changed in meaning, my perception is that the main driving force in its evolution has been the way it is used by those who have been trying to roll back many of the cultural, political and social changes that started to emerge in the late 50s and throughout the 60s.

    Of course, one of the things they really want to attack is the greater sense of diversity, possibility and tolerance that has been a notable feature of the last 50 years but they recognise that to attack tolerance would sound offensive, so they use the word liberal instead.

  • Dan Miller

    Christopher Rose,

    That may be part of it, but it seems to me that the beast has two feet, left and right. “Liberals” themselves have claimed the word, with all of its good connotations from the past, as their own. Members of the Congress and others seem to vie for position as the most “liberal,” even though Senator Obama now tries to assure us that he is not really a “liberal.” Possibly he does so because, as you suggest, “conservatives,” delight in throwing the label at their foes.

    Dan Miller

  • Conservative is also misused to mean “whatever I disapprove of.” Thus you see the Nazis characterized as conservative, although it was a socialist movement. Crazy religious mullahs who exhort their followers to murder innocents are also labeled conservative.

    At any rate, your post was interesting and provocative.

  • from my greatest hits album/cd…

    Anyone who is white, heterosexual, married (or engaged to be), attends church at least once a week, and a registered Republican voter.
    The opposite-terms “abnormal”, “repugnant”, “evil”, and of course “offensive” are usually used nearby as a companion in the same paragraph or comment with this word. Blacks and Hispanics can sometimes be included in this category, but only if they completely adhere to strict guidelines, and stay in the background as much as possible.

    This “hijacked” term has been twisted to mean “those who adhere only to “God’s law”, in an attempt to misguide the uneducated into believing there’s a difference between “god’s law” and “civil” laws. For instance, several states and/or municipalities have “Consenting Adult” laws, which state that any two adults of legal consent age, regardless of sex, may engage in sexual activities in the privacy of their own home. To the Religious/Political Right, this is not one of God’s laws, and therefore if you recognize the concept of “Consenting Adult” you are not a “law-abiding” citizen. The same goes for a lawful legal abortion, etc. etc. ad nauseam.

    Only those who strictly worship the Flag, the Bible, and any denomination of the Baptist Church as a holy trinity. Anyone who does not do so is branded “unpatriotic”. Example: the “Patriot Act” has nothing to do with being patriotic, in the literal sense of the word.

    This term is used frequently to stress the “sex” in homosexual, because the only difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual is who they sleep with at night. The idea behind using the word “homosexual” is to emphasize the myth that gays are nothing more than sexual beings, to the exclusion of all else, as if this is the only thing they think about night and day. This increases the “icky” factor, causing normal god-fearing people to shield their children and themselves from such beasts. Usually in the same sentence or article you’ll find such terms as “predator”, “recruits or recruiter”, “pedophile” or “degenerate” to bolster the claim that gays are only dangerous sexual beings. The term “gay” is to be avoided at all cost.

    Special Rights:
    This a term describes a set of basic human essentials that the Religious/Political Right reserves only and wholly for itself. By using the term “special” it convinces regular folks that gays want rights that “normal God fearing” Christians don’t or can’t have, and that they covet exclusively for themselves! In actuality the “special” rights that the “Religious/Political Right” would have you believe that gays want are the following:

    1. The ability to visit a lover/partner of 10 years in an intensive care ward as a “next of kin”, without being barred from the hospital and/or by the opposing family.

    2. The unopposed ability of one partner/lover to inherit the property they’ve shared and nurtured for a lifetime from the other.

    3. The ability to have both lover/partners listed as “parents” or “guardians” of the biological or adopted children they’ve lovingly raised and nurtured together.

    4. The right to jointly own property, and to jointly file income as a couple

    This term should be obvious, but isn’t. The word “evil” was hijacked by the Religious/Political Right, and they love to use this term to describe anything that they don’t agree with. For example, the “Evil Empire” to describe the Soviet Union (not the one associated with Darth Vader). An associated adjective would be “evildoers”. In some ways, by their own definition, The U.S. is doing “evil” by haphazardly tapping innocent citizens phones because they “might” be terrorists, and/or holding foreign prisoners captive without legal representation, and in some cases psychologically or physically torturing them for the purpose of getting information from them.

    This used to be a proud term, meaning all-inclusive, all-encompassing and all-accepting. It used to be that you’d brag proudly of attending a Liberal College or studying Liberal Arts. However when used by the Religious/Political Right it means, (forgive me for being blunt here) “Fag lover”, “God-hater”, “Baby Killer” and “Against the Flag”.

    A pedophile is a homosexual that is attracted to, and tends to kidnap, eat, and/or molest innocent little children of either sex (go figure) and is unsavable. A heterosexual with the same tendencies is a “misguided soul” who needs some loving prayer and religious help, in order to redeem himself in the eyes of the lord.

    This term has taken on a meaning of it’s own, and usually when used by the Religious/Political Right is opposite of its intended “worldly” definition. A new religion as been defined as Secular Humanism, a very slippery term which can mean anything they conveniently want to oppose.

    Offensive: see “Evil”.

    Beware I’m about to use most of the Liberal Thesaurus on this next two terms!

    God-fearing: This term is probably the most self-serving, judgmental, hypocritical, morally ambiguous, intellectually bankrupt, long-winded and Biblically challenged phrase of them all. They use this term to make ordinary people “fear” god, and in so doing to fear them. To fear God, is to fear your reverend/priest/minister, through whom God speaks to you.

    God is actually someone you unconditionally love, and who loves and accepts everyone; in other words a liberal. (Hmmmm I wasn’t struck by lightning while typing that sentence!) God speaks through you, and to you, and not through self-appointed, self-anointed men who pick and choose which Bible verses are important and which aren’t, in order to argue in favor of slavery, prohibition, or the suppression and segregation of one population over another.

  • Jet: good to see you back, and nice comment.

    From the cogency of what you write I surmise that your vision has improved somewhat or that you’ve got yourself some voice recognition software.

    Hope you’re hanging on in there.

    Best wishes,

  • Internet explorer will magnify 300%, it’s that little box in the lower right hand corner. on my 28 inch widescreen that’s enough to read anything.

    I couldn’t stay away that long.

    Eye appointment is next week, I still can’t drive…

    The experpt is from one of my articles…

  • Why do you think that the words you read (in Hebrew) now have the same meaning as the word used hundreds and thousands of years ago?

    Can you testify that (the equivalent of) “bad” has not turned into “good”?

    Please, Bliffle, don’t embarrass yourself. The Hebrew language, the one found in the Torah and Tana”kh, had a vocabulary of a few thousand words. Hebrew stopped being a spoken language of normal discourse about 1,900 years ago. However, as a liturgical language, and language of religious study, it continued in use, adding words from Aramaic, Persian, Greek, Syriac, Latin and Arabic over the centuries.

    Hebrew was brought back from the cryogenic freezer by a European scholar who researched the meanings and the roots, and was famous for not letting his kid, Itamar, talk any language other than Hebrew. The reason I know with such certainty how the language evolved and grew, and little it has really changed over 4,000 years or more is the work of this scholar, and the Hebrew Academy he founded.

    That, plus the fact that I studied philology and linguistics, and know how the Hebrew scribal tradition works and how effective it has been….

  • It seems there are a few more from the Republican’ts word and phrase book…

    “Racially balanced”
    …as in “The Republican Party is very racially balanced.” This phrase is used during hurriedly arranged photo ops after someone of prominence has made the insinuation to the mainstream media that the Religious/Political right is composed of mostly rich white men. Someone is bound to utter this phrase just as you notice that all of the women, blacks and hispanics in the group have suddenly been pushed up into the front row smiling proudly, not realizing that behind them the next solid three rows are the white guys grinning for the camera because they know that they’re really the ones in charge.

    “Judeo-Christian Values”
    Note Judeo always comes first. This phrase is used often and loudly when the right-wing Christian section is emphasizing that they have generously included Jews in their outrage about abortion, gay rights, or tax breaks for major corporations. Usually the next day the more extreme fundamentalists of the group give a sermon to their followers stressing that while they love their Jewish brothers (well, maybe just enough to get the election swung in their favor), they must still realize that in order for Jews to get into their heaven, they still must first accept Jesus Christ as their savior. Sort of how they feel about their private golf clubs.

    “Pro-business liberal”
    This one threw me the first time I saw it in print, because by rights, according to all good conservatives, there is no such thing as a “pro-business liberal”. Apparently this phrase is employed to throw blame at liberal democrats with their liberal businesses joining the liberal wing of the Republican Party and ruining everything. In other words, just throw the word “liberal” on anything to make it sound bad or to assign or distract blame.

    “God, America, and the flag”
    …is the new holy trinity, replacing “Baseball, mom, and apple pie”. You must worship all three equally or be branded a traitorous liberal unchristian deviant.

    “Budget Surplus”
    … is a phrase never used in mixed company (i.e. Republicans with Democrats). The budget surplus is what the Republican Congress proudly claimed as theirs, not President Clinton’s, from the steps of the Capitol Building. In the late 90s the budget surplus was the direct result of their “Contract with America”… well that is until GW spent it all at Halliburton. Now the political right wing would rather we didn’t mention it, and if we do, they claim it didn’t really exist anyway and was just on paper–shhhhhhh!

    “Your facts are erroneous”
    … is a phrase used most often when they know Democrats are speaking the truth, but they haven’t found time to “Google or Yahoo” something opposing from a right-wing slanted website to refute it yet.

    “Knee-jerk reaction”
    … translates to “They’ve intelligently reacted to something important before we did, causing us embarrassment, so we’ll dismiss it as nothing in order to distract the public.” The press is currently having a knee-jerk reaction to rising gas prices at the pump, but don’t worry… soon it’ll be “old news”. (see below) Currently President Bush is stressing that we should leave prices as they are (no matter how high they go) and instead use conservation and alternate fuels. Thus we preserve “big oil’s” profit line; which should cause another “knee jerk” reaction from the voting public.

    “Some of my best friends are gay”
    They live about three miles from me. My sister’s hairdresser’s maid introduced me to a plumber who lives next door to them, but I can’t remember his name. He says they’re nice people.

    “This is all just old news!”
    …translates to “The public knows this is a problem we haven’t even come close to solving yet, even though we’ve had plenty of time to look into it, so we’ll just declare it unimportant!” Example, “New Orleans is old news”

    “Impeding free speech”
    translates to “Not permitting right-wing political or religious propaganda to be prominently displayed in public buildings”.
    See also:

    “Violating the spirit of the First Amendment”
    … which translates to using the “free speech amendment” to allow such things as homosexual pornography, cuss words on the Sopranos, publishing books criticizing George Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, or or or even The Los Angeles Times recently suggesting that Dick Cheney resign!, or the press’ reporting of several state legislatures (so far Vermont, California, and Illinois) that have recently, or are planing to, call for the House of Representitives to prepare to look into Bush’s impeachment.

    “God created dinosaur bones, but not real dinosaurs!”
    … Sorry, I just had to include this one after I nearly fell out of my chair laughing when I read it in print. A religious nut actually asserted that God created the bones, and then put them into the ground where we could find them, to test our faith because the actual animals never really existed!.

    “I am praying for you!”
    … Personally I’m disgusted every time George Bush utters this phrase. He prayed for the space shuttle astronauts safe return, he prayed for the miners in West Virginia, and he prayed constantly for the victims of the World Trade Center to be rescued along with the lives of the victims of the Pentagon. All he was doing was kissing the asses of the Political/Religious Right, and gave false and useless comfort to the victims’ families who believed that his important presidential prayers would somehow be paid more attention to by God… which they weren’t

    “I do not believe in basing American Policy on poll numbers”.
    … Unless they agree with what George is saying at the moment.

    “We are on the side of the political right!”.
    … Apparently they don’t seem to realize that that means which side of the isle they sit on, and not that they’re correct all the time.

  • Baronius

    Jet, that’s a funny parody of how left-wingers perceive right-wingers, but it’s a little heavy-handed. No one really thinks that Republicans are that bad.

  • It’s all in your perception and whether you’ve been on the wrong side of a bible beating.

  • bliffle

    Ruvy, your assertions are argumentative and not definitive. In particular, Arguments from Authority are notoriously weak.

  • Sound to me like a case for Perry Mason BliGG?

  • Pablo


    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

  • 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.

  • Pablo


    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.

  • Fair enough

  • 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.

  • 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.


  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Pablo


    YES I DO

  • Pablo


    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.

  • That would be a publicly posted video from the oh-so-secret meetings of the ruling conspiracy. Another brilliant contradiction from Pablo.


  • Pablo

    Nothing like someone who cant see the forest for the trees davey boy. Keep those comments comin bubba.

  • Baronius

    …freely admits concealing his membership…but if he’s admitting it…how can…but concealing means…

  • Pablo


    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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Baronius

    But if conservative Republicans know that the CFR is evil…but I’m a conservative Republican…so I don’t understand…then why…

  • Pablo


    Quite frankly, you are an uninformed conservative republican.

  • 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!!!

  • There’s such a thing as an Informed Liberal Republican???

  • 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.


  • Pablo


    They are a rare breed.

  • Clavos

    Words, words, words…

  • Dan Miller


    “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.


  • 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

  • Dan Miller


    I think someone else elaborated on “bad.” Still, thanks for the kind words.


  • Bennett

    Ah yes, that would be bliffle… Should have known. Peas in a pod an’ all.

    Still, you inspired his comment.


  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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…

  • 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…

  • Pablo


    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.

  • “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.”

  • Oops, I meant to write, “preserve the environment against those who would wreck it.” My mistake.

  • 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.

  • Clavos

    Well (and politely) put, Baronius.

  • Pablo


    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.

  • 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 – ?)

  • Pablo


    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.

  • 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?

  • Pablo


    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

  • 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.

  • troll

    I advocate for a vast multi-denominational graffiti conspiracy

    ‘don’t shit in the path’: coming to a sidewalk near you

  • 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…


  • 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.

  • Pablo


    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.

  • Pablo


    I freely admit to being bigoted against republicans.

  • Pablo

    Pablo glances down at the cornflake bowl that PNAC offers him, and every so slowly and furtively empties his bladder in it.

  • 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.

  • Clavos

    Bingo, Pablo!

    Finally found something on which we agree – planets warming and the reason therefor.

    BTW, couldn’t get links 2 & 3 to work, but #1 was enough for me….

  • Pablo, since your and Clavos’ credentials are apparently the only valid ones on this website, I’m left to assert that as in the Bible and the world wide web, anyone can find any number of references to prove any point pro and con of any issue.

    There for I’m orced to quote Simon and Garfunkle once again…

    …a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest…”


  • 1. Garfunkel.

    2. It is of course quite possible that both solar activity AND human pollution could be factors in the Earth’s warming.

  • Clavos

    “It is of course quite possible that both solar activity AND human pollution could be factors in the Earth’s warming.”

    Nah. :>)

  • Clavos

    On second thought, maybe in California…

  • In my particular part of California, it’s a combination of vehicle exhausts, cow farts, pesticides, the utterances of the local politicians and a more or less permanent inversion layer over the Valley.

  • Pablo


    The linnks work for me. Well I think it was the law of probability that we would finally come across an issue on which we both basically agree.


    Nice response, educated too.

  • Dear God no….. not that!

  • To bend, but not to break,
    To yield, but not capitualte…

  • Baronius

    “So now Baronius is an expert on the bin Laden family.”

    Thanks, Pablo, but no I’m not. I just read. I’ve found that the quantity of reading is important, but so is quality and variety. It’s good to read things outside your comfort zone.

  • Pablo


    Now that is truly funny! Perhaps you could tell me what in fact you have read outside of YOUR comfort zone regarding 9/11 the CFR, Skull and Bones or the Bilderbergs, I am all ears Baronius. LOL

  • Baronius

    Aw, Pablo, I don’t go for much readin’ or book learnin’, but sometimes I whittles the future…

  • Pablo


    I can tell.

  • Baronius, I believe the answer to your earlier question about which conspiracies Pablo believed in is – no, there are no conspiracies he does not believe in.

    And Pablo did you really say:

    Regarding Coast to Coast with George Noory. It is the second highest listened to show in the country.

    Did fairies give you that data? According to Talkers Magazine the top 10 rated radio shows (in order) are:

    Rush Limbaugh
    Sean Hannity
    Michael Savage
    Laura Schlessinger
    Glenn Beck
    Laura Ingraham
    Mark Levin
    Neal Boortz
    Dave Ramsey
    Mike Gallagher

    Further perusal shows that Coast to Coast and Alex Jones don’t even break the top 30.

    Maybe the folks who rate radio shows based on how many listeners they have are all part of a great conspiracy to keep us from knowing about all of their secret listeners. Or maybe only a small kook fringe listens to Alex Jones and George Noory – hell most of America is asleep when Noory is on.


  • To Dave, Baronius, clavos, Ruvy etc. I will be here, but in the backround reading as much as I can. Both eyes hemorraged again and I spent all day at universidy eye clinic. I have so muchy bllod iside the spheres of my eyes that itts nearly impossible to see.

    The say that It should clear up with some drops they gave me, but to read this screan I have to blow the font up so big that I can only see three or four words from side to sied on the screan, and replying is even a harder task (especially if I lose the home keys on the keyboard)

    PLEASE NOT i’M IN THE BACKROUND reading and I’m very much a fan of all of you, but I won’t be able to respond directly to you directed at me.

    your friend

  • Pablo


    As usual you can only spit out invectives. Suprise suprise, keep em comin bubba.

  • howard stern blew the away before going to serius, god I miss him

    I’m gong to teach you all how to respond in as few words a possible, amybe we cn dispose with the thousand sord essasys and get trstraight to the point heere

    Gads, throyuw your eyes out of focus, and then try to find the curser on your screen.


  • pablo, judgemental remarks and highhanded attitued make for louse converstationns, especially with somene of Dave’s intellect, I know from experience.

    Try experessing what you AGREE with instead of always trying to put down ghis point of view (not that I agree with it). You’ll find that a little respect and thoughtufllnesss goes a long w3ay a long way further than “I’m right and you’re wrong”.

    I’m glad I can’t see my typos :_

  • Clavos

    “As usual you can only spit out invectives.”


    He gave you actual, definitive data to refute your audience claim for Coast to Coast.

    With an authoritative citation.

  • Jet, have you thought about getting some voice recognition software?

    It can certainly help you with your typing, and some programs can even read back to you what appears on the screen.

    The problem is, of course, that you have to read to it for a while so that it can build your voice files…

    Just a thought. 🙂

  • Thanks Doc, but unfortunately I was in the process of moving everything into my new home office and the speakers hand made the trip yet, nor my head phones. Then there’s the little matter of to find the items needed on a menu, I have to try to read the fine print on the screen to activate the larger print (sigh) I’ve managed to activate Window’s magnifyer program, but the pop up box it occupies blocks a lot of the menues, no matter where I position it (sigh)(groan) which causes a lot of cussing.

  • Of even GREATER issue with BC is the lag time between hitting publish. Since I cant see the progress meter on the bottom of the screeen, I can’t tell if I actually it publish or not.

    I’ve been taking it on faith, so I dont publish every comment three or four times-whick I really wish others would doo.

    at times it can be up to a minute or more!!

  • Baronius

    Pablo – I listened to Coast to Coast AM last night. According to the guest, the Americas were explored and colonized by the Africans, Viking giants, Egyptians, Jews, Polynesians, Japanese, Hindus, Romans, and maybe spacemen. The Smithsonian conspired to hide all the evidence of Viking giants in California.

    The guest made a reference to fringe archaeologists like himself. I’ll give him credit for that: he recognized that he’s on the fringe. I’m sure the guy has read more archaeology than I have. But he showed no discrimination. It reminds me of the line from Spinal Tap, “I believe virtually everything I read, and I think that is what makes me more of a selective human than someone who doesn’t believe anything.”

    I wanted to take one more stab at this, Pablo, maybe just because the boards have been slow the past couple of days. Please give me something off the beaten path that you disagree with, or at least some mainstream theory that you believe. What speculation have you read and disbelieved? It’s fun to have you on the boards, but you’d be more credible if you could demonstrate any thinking that corresponds with the norm. (And this is Blogcritics, where the “norm” covers a lot of ground.)

  • Clavos


    All this time, and I had no idea you were a masochist!!

  • Baronius

    I suppose so. I spent quite a while trying to talk peaceably with a bird who used to post here. Anyway, Clavos, I’ve noticed that the angriest commenters eventually unload on you. You’re no more fitting a target than any of us; you just always seem to be on security duty when Kirk decides to beam down to the planet. So what do I care? I’m not wearing the red uniform.

  • Re: paragraph 1 Comment 98… What; no drag queens?

  • Not even a heathen?

  • Baronius

    Jet – They were Viking giants in men’s wear. Giant Viking drag queens would be just crazy.

  • Somehow I can’t picture Clavos in red… but then again I can’t immatine Baronius in leather masocist drag either…..

    …thank god

  • Giant Viking Drag Queens would be a great name for a band. (©)

  • Clavos

    Did I ever tell you guys about Kajsa, my third cousin on my father’s (Viking) side?

    (S)he headlines a great show in a little club in SoBe…:>)

  • I KNEW I shouldn’t have start that… but nooooooooo

  • Clavos, I think my next-door-neighbor’s cousin’s hairdresser knows his brother’s wife… from what I understand, they’re very close

  • Clavos

    I’m almost afraid to ask…close to what??