PDA

View Full Version : Wake Up, America



Hermes Thoth
02-02-2007, 09:56 PM
Please wake up, before the Noachides (knights, of columbus, malta, etc.) take over.





http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/uspresidentasmasons.htm
I have always seen list's of famous Masons. To just look at the name means very little. When you date and place those names in the proper time line and placement of power you begin to see the deception and vastness of this power elite. What will shock you even more is to learn who the powers are behind the Freemasons. Notice the death's of non Masonic presidents or those who lost favor, and the shuffling of the vice presidents to get them in the position of takeover before the presidents were killed or removed. Note also the number of presidential running mates who lost the race for presidency were Masons also. A win win situation regardless of the outcome of the election. The Mason's have controlled this country from the beginning. Another interesting fact to consider is that of the 37 Presidents of the United States before Jimmy Carter, at least 18 or 21 (depending on which source you believe) were close relatives. That comes to somewhere between 48.6 percent and 56.7 percent-far to much to be coincidence, as any conspiritologist (or mathematician) would tell you. Of the 224 ancestors in the family tree of 21 Presidents, we find 13 Roosevelt's, 16 Coolidge's, and 14 Tyler's. Another source manages to relate 60 percent of the Presidents and link most of them to the super-rich Astor family. This data does not include genealogies of the five most recent President. Psychologist G. William Domhoff claims that a large part of America's Ruling elite, just like that of Europe, are related by marriage. (Everything is Under Control. Conspiracies, Cults, and Cover-Ups by Robert Anton Wilson pg 39-40)

uscitizen
02-03-2007, 07:43 AM
I am awake and not too very delusional ;)

Hermes Thoth
02-03-2007, 08:59 AM
I am awake and not too very delusional ;)

It's more delusional to believe that the events of history just occur randomly.

uscitizen
02-03-2007, 07:54 PM
No many/most of the events in history occur because of the fallout from mans decisions and actions.

Of course there are natural disasters and such that are exempt from this rule.

Hermes Thoth
02-19-2007, 07:55 AM
No many/most of the events in history occur because of the fallout from mans decisions and actions.

Of course there are natural disasters and such that are exempt from this rule.


Right, and the type of fallout resulting from these actions is predictable to a certain degree. They use this knowledge when shaping world events and crafting the power hierarchy.

uscitizen
02-19-2007, 08:31 AM
We never seem to learn from our past mistakes as a society, and are thus destined to repeat past mistakes.
a person can be smart, people are stupid.

Hermes Thoth
02-19-2007, 08:33 AM
We never seem to learn from our past mistakes as a society, and are thus destined to repeat past mistakes.
a person can be smart, people are stupid.

So therefore you propose a totalitarian new world order for the ages? To put an end to human stupidity?

uscitizen
02-19-2007, 08:36 AM
So therefore you propose a totalitarian new world order for the ages? To put an end to human stupidity?

Naaah, ending humans would be the only way to end this problem.
It is a feature of humans.

Hermes Thoth
02-19-2007, 08:43 AM
Naaah, ending humans would be the only way to end this problem.
It is a feature of humans.

What is the problem?

uscitizen
02-19-2007, 08:52 AM
What is the problem?
The basic human emotion of greed.

Hermes Thoth
02-19-2007, 08:56 AM
The basic human emotion of greed.

We used to have a solution to that, it was called morality. Now that's just for nice guys. Enlightened people embrace satan and the authority of men, and a society based on lies.

uscitizen
02-19-2007, 09:01 AM
We used to have a solution to that, it was called morality. Now that's just for nice guys. Enlightened people embrace satan and the authority of men, and a society based on lies.

Umm Morality can be anything. Satan has his morals, so does God (if you believe in all that).

Hermes Thoth
02-19-2007, 09:06 AM
Umm Morality can be anything. Satan has his morals, so does God (if you believe in all that).

There are different morals, yes. I choose morality that doesn't condone totalitarianism of any form.

Let's take your morality, whatever it is based upon. Is slave labor moral in your system?

uscitizen
02-19-2007, 09:09 AM
There are different morals, yes. I choose morality that doesn't condone totalitarianism of any form.

Let's take your morality, whatever it is based upon. Is slave labor moral in your system?

Nope, slave labor is not in there.
So no Christians yearn for a totally Christian world ? Hmm how about Revelations ?

uscitizen
02-19-2007, 09:10 AM
asshat, I have perhaps 15 years more to endure this screwed up world. So why should I get my panties in a wad ?

Hermes Thoth
02-19-2007, 09:20 AM
asshat, I have perhaps 15 years more to endure this screwed up world. So why should I get my panties in a wad ?
You're panties are in a wad anyway. About stupid he said, she said crap about R versus D.

uscitizen
02-19-2007, 09:30 AM
R vs D ?
I assure you my panties are not in a wad, unlike some I see no sense in getting upset over disagreements on a political discussion board.

Damocles
02-19-2007, 09:31 AM
We used to have a solution to that, it was called morality. Now that's just for nice guys. Enlightened people embrace satan and the authority of men, and a society based on lies.
We never had a solution to that, at least according to your theory. For Centuries these people have been "controlling" the world, therefore your solution never applied. The "used to" is a myth. If your belief is true, and some I believe is, then there has never been a morality balm that has effected this group at all. Before they were in the open people knew who they were and where they met, they have progressed their ideas and have been in existence regardless of how many people attempt to "out" them.

So, in short. Your morality balm has never in any fact of time and place existed in such a way as to actually be a solution to this problem.

Hermes Thoth
02-19-2007, 01:39 PM
We never had a solution to that, at least according to your theory. For Centuries these people have been "controlling" the world, therefore your solution never applied. The "used to" is a myth. If your belief is true, and some I believe is, then there has never been a morality balm that has effected this group at all. Before they were in the open people knew who they were and where they met, they have progressed their ideas and have been in existence regardless of how many people attempt to "out" them.

So, in short. Your morality balm has never in any fact of time and place existed in such a way as to actually be a solution to this problem.

So if you can't beat em, join em? Is that buddhism?

FUCK THE POLICE
03-14-2007, 10:13 PM
The basic human emotion of greed.

I'm not so afraid of the greedy in modern society as I am of those intent on doing good (AKA terrorists) :P .

Damocles
03-14-2007, 11:03 PM
So if you can't beat em, join em? Is that buddhism?
This has to be your most inane statement ever. I simply point out a fact to you and you assume I say to "join them"? That is preposterous on its face, a pretend "smart" comment when you are at a loss for words.

So far you give bumpersticker responses and wishes to "return" to what never was. You need something new, people have been saying for how many centuries how we need to return to the past morality system? It simply doesn't work.

One of the first signs of insanity is to continue doing the same thing over and over, yet you expect different results from the action....

uscitizen
03-15-2007, 07:13 AM
I'm not so afraid of the greedy in modern society as I am of those intent on doing good (AKA terrorists) :P .

HUH ?

Damocles
03-15-2007, 08:18 AM
HUH ?
Almost every terrorists believes himself to be doing "God's Work". This would mean those people intent on "doing good" might be a bit off target.

From the idiot blowing up abortion clinics, to the idiot burning down ski resort restaurants or booby-trapping trees and everybody in between, like the Muslim intent on reaching Heaven and his 72 wenches, or whatever they've been promised...

They are all "doing good" in their minds.

uscitizen
03-15-2007, 08:55 AM
Almost every terrorists believes himself to be doing "God's Work". This would mean those people intent on "doing good" might be a bit off target.

From the idiot blowing up abortion clinics, to the idiot burning down ski resort restaurants or booby-trapping trees and everybody in between, like the Muslim intent on reaching Heaven and his 72 wenches, or whatever they've been promised...

They are all "doing good" in their minds.

Ohh ok , yes I agree with that.
yep one guys sin is another ones goal.

OrnotBitwise
03-15-2007, 01:20 PM
Ohh ok , yes I agree with that.
yep one guys sin is another ones goal.Sure. The problem is fanaticism: the belief that one has access to Ultimate Truth.

uscitizen
03-15-2007, 03:01 PM
Sure. The problem is fanaticism: the belief that one has access to Ultimate Truth.

Yes Extremists of all flavors are wrong.

Hermes Thoth
03-15-2007, 03:40 PM
This has to be your most inane statement ever. I simply point out a fact to you and you assume I say to "join them"? That is preposterous on its face, a pretend "smart" comment when you are at a loss for words.

So far you give bumpersticker responses and wishes to "return" to what never was. You need something new, people have been saying for how many centuries how we need to return to the past morality system? It simply doesn't work.

One of the first signs of insanity is to continue doing the same thing over and over, yet you expect different results from the action....

No, i busted you wide open. You're attempting to use a fact (they haven't been stopped) into a conclusion that doesn't follow (they can't be stopped). It's defeatism, wrapped in condescension with a character aspersion bow on the top.

Im not advocating a return to something that never was. We were free. Im advocating that the new world order goons be stopped dead in their tracks.

Why can't you take the right side on this issue? You're full of suggestions for personal escape, so you know something isn't right. Why can't you advocate saving humanity as a whole from this totalitarianism?
Why do you follow satan?

Hermes Thoth
03-15-2007, 04:09 PM
Yes Extremists of all flavors are wrong.


;)

Good one, usc. You're probably the best at putting a snarky ending on a thread!
:clink:

It's not brilliance, it's more like a parlor entertainment, like a sword swallowing dwarf, or something.

uscitizen
03-15-2007, 06:40 PM
;)

Good one, usc. You're probably the best at putting a snarky ending on a thread!
:clink:

It's not brilliance, it's more like a parlor entertainment, like a sword swallowing dwarf, or something.

Just an observation from life.

Damocles
03-15-2007, 11:04 PM
No, i busted you wide open. You're attempting to use a fact (they haven't been stopped) into a conclusion that doesn't follow (they can't be stopped). It's defeatism, wrapped in condescension with a character aspersion bow on the top.

Im not advocating a return to something that never was. We were free. Im advocating that the new world order goons be stopped dead in their tracks.

Why can't you take the right side on this issue? You're full of suggestions for personal escape, so you know something isn't right. Why can't you advocate saving humanity as a whole from this totalitarianism?
Why do you follow satan?
No, I use the fact that the results have never even gotten your side closer to what you want, and that in fact they have progressed their ideation right along with your action to "stop" them. Yet you continue the exact same path and expect a different result.

You blew nothing open except your own desire to make other suddenly follow your own lead. This is the path to the exact same thing they do...

Anyway, wasting your time on the "age old" response that has effected nothing of what you want is what I was pointing to. Yet you continue on this same exact path that others have trod. Have you ever thought of taking the path less traveled by? Maybe trying something different to get a different result?

Hermes Thoth
03-16-2007, 10:31 AM
No, I use the fact that the results have never even gotten your side closer to what you want, and that in fact they have progressed their ideation right along with your action to "stop" them. Yet you continue the exact same path and expect a different result.

You blew nothing open except your own desire to make other suddenly follow your own lead. This is the path to the exact same thing they do...

Anyway, wasting your time on the "age old" response that has effected nothing of what you want is what I was pointing to. Yet you continue on this same exact path that others have trod. Have you ever thought of taking the path less traveled by? Maybe trying something different to get a different result?


You mean like 'freedom through slavery'? how Ingsoc of you.

Damocles
03-16-2007, 11:05 AM
You mean like 'freedom through slavery'? how Ingsoc of you.
I never stated that either. I said, "Change your tactic, this one isn't working!"

You say, "I can't because that would be (fill in bumpersticker crap here that doesn't fit what I said)!"

I say, "Look, people who believe as you do have been doing the same thing for centuries now and it hasn't worked even one iota. In order to get a different result you need to change your tactics."

You say, "That means you want to enhance slavery!"

I say, "No, it means that I think your tactics are negating any reality that you have to offer by turning off people who might agree."

You say, "(Insert bumpersticker here) is what you mean!"

And so forth.

You are obstinate and deliberately missing the point of the post because you want to deny that any change in yourself might be necessary. The rest of the world must believe and act as you do and no compromise or change of tactic can be necessary.

Keep it up! It has worked so well for you in the past.

uscitizen
03-16-2007, 11:27 AM
there will probably be a con upsurge against china now. They passed a law ending preferiential tax rates for foregn companies. All 25% now.

They also passed some kind of property rights law.
They are moving in the right direction.

Hermes Thoth
03-16-2007, 03:34 PM
I never stated that either. I said, "Change your tactic, this one isn't working!"

You say, "I can't because that would be (fill in bumpersticker crap here that doesn't fit what I said)!"

I say, "Look, people who believe as you do have been doing the same thing for centuries now and it hasn't worked even one iota. In order to get a different result you need to change your tactics."

You say, "That means you want to enhance slavery!"

I say, "No, it means that I think your tactics are negating any reality that you have to offer by turning off people who might agree."

You say, "(Insert bumpersticker here) is what you mean!"

And so forth.

You are obstinate and deliberately missing the point of the post because you want to deny that any change in yourself might be necessary. The rest of the world must believe and act as you do and no compromise or change of tactic can be necessary.

Keep it up! It has worked so well for you in the past.


I fully reject your assessment of me and my tactics. You're a new world order suckup who hates discussion of the truth. Refraining from truthful discussion and analysis is your agenda, not mine. I will be here calling the globalist fascists to the carpet until they come cap my ass. There's no better way to go down.

Cancel7
03-16-2007, 03:42 PM
Shit, Damo are you "capping" people's asses for stuff they post here?

You know, you might have said so before I got into that discussion with you on the abortion thread.

Hermes Thoth
03-16-2007, 03:45 PM
Shit, Damo are you "capping" people's asses for stuff they post here?

You know, you might have said so before I got into that discussion with you on the abortion thread.

You're as entertaining as a labia infection.

Cancel7
03-16-2007, 03:48 PM
You're as entertaining as a labia infection.

I'm sorry to hear of your troubles!

Hermes Thoth
03-16-2007, 03:55 PM
I'm sorry to hear of your troubles!

Your similarity to a labia infection is your problem, not mine. Please stop being a troll in this otherwise good thread.

Cancel7
03-16-2007, 03:56 PM
Your similarity to a labia infection is your problem, not mine. Please stop being a troll in this otherwise good thread.

Oh relax and get a sense of humor AHZ.

Paranoids, especially, need one. :)

Hermes Thoth
03-16-2007, 04:01 PM
Oh relax and get a sense of humor AHZ.

Paranoids, especially, need one. :)

Oh, ok.

:)

Damocles
03-16-2007, 07:37 PM
Shit, Damo are you "capping" people's asses for stuff they post here?

You know, you might have said so before I got into that discussion with you on the abortion thread.
LOL. I always hate it when I am caught "capping asses"...

uscitizen
03-16-2007, 10:02 PM
"capping asses" sounds like a gay thing ;)

Hermes Thoth
03-17-2007, 05:31 AM
But anyway, what do you suggest, damo? Should I "go along to get along"? Is that the wisdom you offer?

Damocles
03-17-2007, 03:00 PM
But anyway, what do you suggest, damo? Should I "go along to get along"? Is that the wisdom you offer?
No, but you should work to not sound insane at the time you are attempting to "spread the truth".

If every other word is "nazi" or "fascist" then you include groups that are clearly not part of the game, you just make yourself look foolish. If any part of what you say is incorrect because of your excitement, the person who wishes not to believe will work that as you simply lying about it all.

How you present a case is as important as the case you present. Ask any lawyer. How the jury, in this case those you work to convince, hears you and responds to you will tell far more of success or failure than the fact that, oh let's say 80% (an example) of what you say is absolutely true...

If your words make you appear crazy, people will think of you as crazy and listen less and mock more.

Give information rather than emotive opinion.

"These nazis are polluting your water!" The pollution part might be 100% true, but as soon as you start in with "nazi" you have taken about 70% of possible people who might have listened to you right out of the equation.

If you seem to be running around in a panic, people will think you are paranoid. Emotive argument makes you seem that way. It sets your groups up for far more failure than success. I understand that being part of the "few who realize the truth" makes you feel good, and I think that it the likely intrinsic goal of most of the people running around like Chicken Little, it doesn't actually give people much chances to take you seriously.

So, what I tell you is to work to present yourself as less emotive and "Panic-stricken" by using less emotive terminology. Present facts without the "See these 'satanists' are 'blah, blah, blah...' (That's what people hear right after the word 'satanists'). Even if they are in fact Satanists, it doesn't help you to convince people when all they do is laugh at whatever follows and hear only "blah, blah, blah"...

Dixie - In Memoriam
03-17-2007, 03:34 PM
LOL. I always hate it when I am caught "capping asses"...

LOL... this reminds me of the comment an old friend of mine made on a message board he administered several years ago. Someone popped off something about his "half-assed board" and he replied... "It's difficult to run a half-assed board with complete asses running around!" ;)

Dixie - In Memoriam
03-17-2007, 03:47 PM
No, but you should work to not sound insane at the time you are attempting to "spread the truth".

LOL... I love this one too! Thanks for the chuckles Damo!

The problem is, there is no known cure for insanity. AssHat is destined to always sound insane, because he is! He can't help that, it's beyond his control, as he has demonstrated here. He first started trying to convince people he was 'conservative', then 'moderate', then 'independent'... but the more it was challenged, the more he took it over the edge. Now he just sounds like a stark-raving lunatic liberal. Which is my guess as to what he has been all along. All the classic indications are there, over-exaggerating everything to try and make a point, forming arguments against things he has no alternative solution to, insisting on promoting these crazy conspiracy theories, hatred for the Jews, all the way down to his stupid screen name, which seems to be the norm for pinheads. Although, his fits him very well!

I shouldn't bash on poor AssHat though, he can't help his mental condition, I should be a more compassionate conservative and try to understand his affliction can't be remedied.

**slaps himself** Bad Neocon, Dixie, you should be ashamed!

Hermes Thoth
03-17-2007, 03:50 PM
No, but you should work to not sound insane at the time you are attempting to "spread the truth".

If every other word is "nazi" or "fascist" then you include groups that are clearly not part of the game, you just make yourself look foolish. If any part of what you say is incorrect because of your excitement, the person who wishes not to believe will work that as you simply lying about it all.

How you present a case is as important as the case you present. Ask any lawyer. How the jury, in this case those you work to convince, hears you and responds to you will tell far more of success or failure than the fact that, oh let's say 80% (an example) of what you say is absolutely true...

If your words make you appear crazy, people will think of you as crazy and listen less and mock more.

Give information rather than emotive opinion.

"These nazis are polluting your water!" The pollution part might be 100% true, but as soon as you start in with "nazi" you have taken about 70% of possible people who might have listened to you right out of the equation.

If you seem to be running around in a panic, people will think you are paranoid. Emotive argument makes you seem that way. It sets your groups up for far more failure than success. I understand that being part of the "few who realize the truth" makes you feel good, and I think that it the likely intrinsic goal of most of the people running around like Chicken Little, it doesn't actually give people much chances to take you seriously.

So, what I tell you is to work to present yourself as less emotive and "Panic-stricken" by using less emotive terminology. Present facts without the "See these 'satanists' are 'blah, blah, blah...' (That's what people hear right after the word 'satanists'). Even if they are in fact Satanists, it doesn't help you to convince people when all they do is laugh at whatever follows and hear only "blah, blah, blah"...


But they actually are Nazis, Fascists and satanists. You just hate the truth. Your pseudo intellectual analysis is highly flawed.

Damocles
03-17-2007, 04:25 PM
But they actually are Nazis, Fascists and satanists. You just hate the truth. Your pseudo intellectual analysis is highly flawed.
Once again. Even if they are, using such terminology makes you seem emotive and paranoid. As I said, you can keep right on doing it, and it has been shown to work SO WELL in the past by being totally ineffective. Or you can actually realize it and learn from the past, change some of the presentation, actually reach some of the audience...

Either way I am happy. You are entertaining as Chicken Little, and would be informative if you chose the second path.

Dixie - In Memoriam
03-17-2007, 04:40 PM
For AssHat's Education....

Nazis---Nazism or Naziism, officially called National Socialism, refers primarily to the totalitarian ideology of the National Socialist German Workers Party under Adolf Hitler. It also refers to the policies adopted by the government of Germany 1933 to 1945, a period in German history known as Nazi Germany or the "Third Reich".

On January 5, 1919, the party was founded as the German Workers' Party (DAP) by Anton Drexler. Hitler joined the party in September 1919, and became propaganda boss, renaming the party April 1, 1920, and becoming party leader July 29, 1921.

Nazism was not a precise, theoretically grounded ideology, or a monolithic movement, but rather a (mainly German) combination of various ideologies and groups, which were sometimes incoherent or mutually opposed. It consisted of a loose collection of ideas and positions: anti-parliamentarism, ethnic nationalism, racism, nationalist collectivism, eugenics, anti-Semitism, anti-communism, anti-capitalism and others. As Nazism became dominant in Germany, especially after 1933, in practise Nazism was defined as whatever was decreed by the Nazi Party and in particular by the Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler.

Fascists-- Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology and mass movement that seeks to place the nation, defined in exclusive biological, cultural, and historical terms, above all other loyalties, and to create a mobilized national community. Many different characteristics are attributed to fascism by different scholars, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, totalitarianism, collectivism, anti-liberalism, regulation of the economy for the benefit of the state, anti-communism, and anti-Marxian socialism. There are numerous debates between scholars regarding the nature of fascism, and the kinds of political movements and governments that may be called fascist. Most scholars see it as on the political right or allied with right-wing movements. However, some scholars say it is an "extremism of the center." Fascist movements have regarded themselves as representing a "third way" between left and right, between Marxian socialism and capitalism.

There is debate at both popular and academic levels regarding which historical and contemporary movements and governments may be called fascist. For example, the extent to which German Nazism may be considered a form of fascism is disputed.

Fascism has been defunct in the Western world as a major political ideology since the defeat of the Axis powers in World War II. There is considerable stigma attached to the name and to the concept, and it is not uncommon for politicians and activists both of the left and of the right to label their opponents pejoratively as "fascists". A small number of openly fascist political groups, however, continue to exist, such as the Italian Fiamma Tricolore.

Satanists--Satanism is a word which has been used over the years to describe a number of different belief systems in a number of contexts. People claiming to be Satanists—or outsiders claiming to describe Satanism—ascribe a wide variety of beliefs to Satanism. These range from the literal worship of a malevolent spiritual being (Theistic Satanism); to a kind of subversive ritual performance stressing the mockery of Christian symbols (most notably the Black Mass); to the claimed rediscovery of an ancient but misunderstood religion (e.g. Setianism, which conflates Satan with the Egyptian god Set); to the exaltation of hedonistic recreation, and the celebration of selfishness and pleasure.

============================

Any objective and reasonably SANE person, understands that Republican Conservatives are not Nazis, Fascists, or Satanists. This is emotive over-reactionary rhetoric spewed by someone devoid of reason and the inability to construct an honest argument. When you decide to come back and join reality, perhaps we can have a reasonable dialogue, as it stands, talking to you or reading what you have to say, is pointless.

Hermes Thoth
03-17-2007, 04:41 PM
Once again. Even if they are, using such terminology makes you seem emotive and paranoid. As I said, you can keep right on doing it, and it has been shown to work SO WELL in the past by being totally ineffective. Or you can actually realize it and learn from the past, change some of the presentation, actually reach some of the audience...

Either way I am happy. You are entertaining as Chicken Little, and would be informative if you chose the second path.

I disagree. Calling something by an accurate and descriptive term is not emotional, it's effective usage of language.

Damocles
03-17-2007, 06:27 PM
I disagree. Calling something by an accurate and descriptive term is not emotional, it's effective usage of language.
The reaction people have to words and their impact is vital. If you wish to convince people, even if they really are "nazis", which they aren't. They are not "nationalist", the people you are trying to "out" are quite the opposite.

Using such words as that makes you seem emotive, even in accuracy. If indeed you are accurate, but as I stated you are not.

It is clear that they are not "nationalist" and therefore could not be nazis. As for Fascist, that one is debatable at least, but in its usage it brings forward an emotive response in those reading or hearing it, it makes you sound emotive and even, in some cases, hysterical. (Hence the "Chicken Little" moniker.)

Now, if you want people to listen you give them only facts without such words that provoke emotive response. Let them reach that conclusion.

If you wish people to actually listen rather than to seem, in your own head, more knowledgeable and the "only one" who can see the "light", then you will need to change your tactic. Hence my assertion that changes to the tactics of the past seem to be in order when considering the actual results of the same.

If your goal is to make yourself feel superior because only you have the right of things, then by all means continue with what you have been doing. The results are clear on that one as well. People who believe as you do can run around with the idea that they are "wiser" so long as they make sure others won't listen to them.

Hermes Thoth
03-17-2007, 07:27 PM
The reaction people have to words and their impact is vital. If you wish to convince people, even if they really are "nazis", which they aren't. They are not "nationalist", the people you are trying to "out" are quite the opposite.

Using such words as that makes you seem emotive, even in accuracy. If indeed you are accurate, but as I stated you are not.

It is clear that they are not "nationalist" and therefore could not be nazis. As for Fascist, that one is debatable at least, but in its usage it brings forward an emotive response in those reading or hearing it, it makes you sound emotive and even, in some cases, hysterical. (Hence the "Chicken Little" moniker.)

Now, if you want people to listen you give them only facts without such words that provoke emotive response. Let them reach that conclusion.

If you wish people to actually listen rather than to seem, in your own head, more knowledgeable and the "only one" who can see the "light", then you will need to change your tactic. Hence my assertion that changes to the tactics of the past seem to be in order when considering the actual results of the same.

If your goal is to make yourself feel superior because only you have the right of things, then by all means continue with what you have been doing. The results are clear on that one as well. People who believe as you do can run around with the idea that they are "wiser" so long as they make sure others won't listen to them.

They are like the nazis in their belief in fascism and elitism, but you're right, they're internationalists, not nationalists. They're internationalist fascists, with historical ties to the actual nazi movement. I stand corrected. They are fascist. That is accurate. They believe in a global government which is a union of corporate and state power. Internationalist Fascists. If accurate desciption seems "emotive" to you, it's only because the reality of the situation is actually alarming.

Damocles
03-17-2007, 09:52 PM
They are like the nazis in their belief in fascism and elitism, but you're right, they're internationalists, not nationalists. They're internationalist fascists, with historical ties to the actual nazi movement. I stand corrected. They are fascist. That is accurate. They believe in a global government which is a union of corporate and state power. Internationalist Fascists. If accurate desciption seems "emotive" to you, it's only because the reality of the situation is actually alarming.
Whether it is alarming or not, terminology can ruin the attempt to get across any information. If you seem even a little crazy, then they will not listen and hence you guys have had no success for centuries of "outing" the "fascists".

Dixie - In Memoriam
03-18-2007, 12:34 AM
Damo, you are trying to reason with a lunatic. There is no way to get AssHat to see what you are saying, he is too far gone. You'll notice, he is a one-man crusade here, no one else is buying into a word he's saying, not even the other nutbags who frequent this site. I put him in the same category as Brent, when he was trolling as "josef" on the other board, just a bunch of over-the-top hot air and emotive rhetoric based on some whacked out loony view of the world.

Isn't it amazing how he is accusing others of being Fascist while trying to authoritatively ram his beliefs and thoughts down our throats as empirical fact?

Hermes Thoth
03-18-2007, 06:17 AM
Damo, you are trying to reason with a lunatic. There is no way to get AssHat to see what you are saying, he is too far gone. You'll notice, he is a one-man crusade here, no one else is buying into a word he's saying, not even the other nutbags who frequent this site. I put him in the same category as Brent, when he was trolling as "josef" on the other board, just a bunch of over-the-top hot air and emotive rhetoric based on some whacked out loony view of the world.

Isn't it amazing how he is accusing others of being Fascist while trying to authoritatively ram his beliefs and thoughts down our throats as empirical fact?

They are internationalist fascists. Damo was desperately splitting hairs about calling them Nazis, because nazis were nationalistic. He is right. THe new nazis are internatinalist, but they are similar to old nazis in their feeling of world entitlement, amorality, and fascist tendency. Nationalism itself isn't always bad, contrary to the dogmatic villification of the word carried out by the new internationalist nazis.


Yes. I'm authoritatively ramming my beliefs by telling the truth about these scumbags.

Hermes Thoth
03-18-2007, 06:18 AM
Whether it is alarming or not, terminology can ruin the attempt to get across any information. If you seem even a little crazy, then they will not listen and hence you guys have had no success for centuries of "outing" the "fascists".

No it can't. I will continue to use the right term.

Dixie - In Memoriam
03-18-2007, 09:31 AM
They are internationalist fascists.

Hey idiot... there is no such thing! I posted what a "Fascist" is, you can read it above. It has nothing to do with what you are charging or claiming falsely. In fact, it is a complete contradiction of terms to say 'international' fascist, they are inherently 'nationalist' which is the OPPOSITE of 'internationalist'.

Damocles
03-18-2007, 10:07 AM
No it can't. I will continue to use the right term.
As I said, it will be entertaining regardless. Keep up the work. The "internazis" (Like the term? I just made it up!) will certainly continue in theirs.

Hermes Thoth
03-18-2007, 10:55 AM
As I said, it will be entertaining regardless. Keep up the work. The "internazis" (Like the term? I just made it up!) will certainly continue in theirs.


I just happy you can finally admit their existence.

Hermes Thoth
03-18-2007, 11:07 AM
They are internationalist fascists.

Hey idiot... there is no such thing! I posted what a "Fascist" is, you can read it above. It has nothing to do with what you are charging or claiming falsely. In fact, it is a complete contradiction of terms to say 'international' fascist, they are inherently 'nationalist' which is the OPPOSITE of 'internationalist'.

Nationalism is often a part of fascism, but it can sometimes take on an internationalist flavor, as we see with the present crop of internationalist fascists, who are telling us whatever is good for the corporate bottom line is automatically good for all people of the world.

They are internationalist fascists, and even if you say that's the wrong term, that doesn't negate their existence or their agenda.

Damocles
03-18-2007, 11:13 AM
I just happy you can finally admit their existence.
I haven't admitted anything. I have given advice on how you could actually get people to listen to you. You choose not to follow advice on presentation. :dunno:

No skin off my nose.

Dixie - In Memoriam
03-18-2007, 11:26 AM
Nationalism is often a part of fascism, but it can sometimes take on an internationalist flavor, as we see with the present crop of internationalist fascists, who are telling us whatever is good for the corporate bottom line is automatically good for all people of the world.

They are internationalist fascists, and even if you say that's the wrong term, that doesn't negate their existence or their agenda.

Again for the hard headed... Fascists are NATIONALISTS! They can't be the opposite of what they are and still be Fascists! That makes no sense! Of course, what else is new here? "International Fascism" is an oxymoron, you moron! It's like saying "Commie Capitalists" or "Humanitarian Terrorists!"

Hermes Thoth
03-18-2007, 11:27 AM
I haven't admitted anything. I have given advice on how you could actually get people to listen to you. You choose not to follow advice on presentation. :dunno:

No skin off my nose.

You came up with a new term for them. that admits their existence, unless you name things that don't exist. Isn't there a term for that?:pke:

extranomiatic confabulation?

Damocles
03-18-2007, 11:53 AM
You came up with a new term for them. that admits their existence, unless you name things that don't exist. Isn't there a term for that?:pke:

extranomiatic confabulation?
I was hoping you'd pick it up and it would spread, just for my own entertainment. Sarcasm is hard to determine while on the interwebs...

I think that there is a group that works to create a more united world. I think they are relatively harmless as there is no way that it will be created for centuries at the very least. They have progressed their ideas rather well considering all the paranoia that goes along with those that are against them. I think it actually ends up helping them because people just end up laughing and calling those who oppose them "lunatics" or "tin-foil hat" people.

I think if you want to stop them you should work at it a different direction as the current one has not worked.

All of those things I think.

I do not think that these people are "fascists", I think that they methodically and carefully work towards democratizing the world so as to unite it. There are those that work towards a more direct approach but it always seems to end up with a war that is unsupported...

Therefore if you want the rest of the nation to become more nationalistic and to support the continued borders, etc. I think you should use a different tactic. It will, in the end, be far better and more successful than what hasn't worked for you for time immemorial.

Attempting to convince people that "they" are out to get them only provokes mockery, and promotes their side of things as they seem so much more reasonable than you.

Hermes Thoth
03-18-2007, 12:01 PM
I was hoping you'd pick it up and it would spread, just for my own entertainment. Sarcasm is hard to determine while on the interwebs...

I think that there is a group that works to create a more united world. I think they are relatively harmless as there is no way that it will be created for centuries at the very least. They have progressed their ideas rather well considering all the paranoia that goes along with those that are against them. I think it actually ends up helping them because people just end up laughing and calling those who oppose them "lunatics" or "tin-foil hat" people.

I think if you want to stop them you should work at it a different direction as the current one has not worked.

All of those things I think.

I do not think that these people are "fascists", I think that they methodically and carefully work towards democratizing the world so as to unite it. There are those that work towards a more direct approach but it always seems to end up with a war that is unsupported...

Therefore if you want the rest of the nation to become more nationalistic and to support the continued borders, etc. I think you should use a different tactic. It will, in the end, be far better and more successful than what hasn't worked for you for time immemorial.

Attempting to convince people that "they" are out to get them only provokes mockery, and promotes their side of things as they seem so much more reasonable than you.



They are fascists. they believe in the unification of state and corporate power, and the reduction of the standards of living and opportunities all around the world after they consolidate their power in "the final merger".

What is the inherent value of a "united world" if we accept all forms of slavery and horrors in the new common world morality? There's no plan to "reduce slavery in china at a later date". That's a lie.

I have no doubt they're using democracy to assist them in achieving their goals. What is unique about the west is the empowerment of the individual and the constitutional protection of individuals. Democracy is no guarantee of freedom, as people can be convinced that tyranny is best.

I would actually prefer a dictatorship of freedom to a democratic fascism.

Dixie - In Memoriam
03-18-2007, 07:28 PM
I have no doubt they're using democracy to assist them in achieving their goals.

LMAO... Do you even know how utterly foolish you sound? Democracy is a system of government where the PEOPLE decide what to do! How the fuck are they going to implement this Grande Plan by allowing people to freely vote and have a political voice in government? I don't get it! Hell, I guess we would all just be better off with an iron-fisted dictator like Hitler to keep us protected from those mean old Democratizers! Huh?

uscitizen
03-19-2007, 06:10 AM
I would actually prefer a dictatorship of freedom to a democratic fascism.

Aren't those sort of oxygen morons ?
Or was that Oxycotin's ?

Hermes Thoth
03-19-2007, 05:35 PM
I have no doubt they're using democracy to assist them in achieving their goals.

LMAO... Do you even know how utterly foolish you sound? Democracy is a system of government where the PEOPLE decide what to do! How the fuck are they going to implement this Grande Plan by allowing people to freely vote and have a political voice in government? I don't get it! Hell, I guess we would all just be better off with an iron-fisted dictator like Hitler to keep us protected from those mean old Democratizers! Huh?



Democracy doesn't guarantee freedom. People can be convinced to vote away their freedom, or the majority can agree to enslave a minority. Majority rule makes neither of those outcomes moral.

Plus, our democracy doesn't equate to real control for the people. Wer're to choose between two candidates, both of whom are bought and paid for by the same military industrial complex, who do exactly as they please once in office.

Damocles
03-19-2007, 05:38 PM
Democracy doesn't guarantee freedom. People can be convinced to vote away their freedom, or the majority can agree to enslave a minority. Majority rule makes neither of those outcomes moral.

Plus, our democracy doesn't equate to real control for the people. Wer're to choose between two candidates, both of whom are bought and paid for by the same military industrial complex, who do exactly as they please once in office.
Which was the reason the founders protected us with a constitutional republic rather than pure democracy. A pure democracy is simply the tyranny of the majority.

In all cases of government some freedoms are given to the state. In a constitutional republic they are enumerated and limited.

Hermes Thoth
03-19-2007, 06:01 PM
Which was the reason the founders protected us with a constitutional republic rather than pure democracy. A pure democracy is simply the tyranny of the majority.

In all cases of government some freedoms are given to the state. In a constitutional republic they are enumerated and limited.


But like you said, they're spreading democracy, not constitutional republicanism with a focus on limited government authority and explicitly enumerated and irrevocable protections on individual freedoms.

Damocles
03-19-2007, 06:04 PM
But like you said, they're spreading democracy, not constitutional republicanism with a focus on limited government authority and explicitly enumerated and irrevocable protections on individual freedoms.
I said they were trying, and that each time they tried again they made fools of themselves, like in Viet Nam.

Hermes Thoth
03-20-2007, 04:17 AM
I said they were trying, and that each time they tried again they made fools of themselves, like in Viet Nam.


They're not trying to do something "good". They're only interested in perpetuating their own power.

Damocles
03-20-2007, 06:33 AM
They're not trying to do something "good". They're only interested in perpetuating their own power.
Whatever. In every case "they" have tried "they"'ve gotten the same result.

Which is thousands of times more successful than their opposition, but still can't exactly be called success. At least "they" seem reasonable, while their opposition seems comical.

uscitizen
03-20-2007, 07:27 AM
Which was the reason the founders protected us with a constitutional republic rather than pure democracy. A pure democracy is simply the tyranny of the majority.

In all cases of government some freedoms are given to the state. In a constitutional republic they are enumerated and limited.

quite right Damo, however our current form of government has gone the other way and is now largely controlled by the powerful minority. for the main reason Asshat described above. We only get the candidates to vote on theat the controlling minority want us to vote for.
Well on a federal level anyway.

Damocles
03-20-2007, 08:00 AM
quite right Damo, however our current form of government has gone the other way and is now largely controlled by the powerful minority. for the main reason Asshat described above. We only get the candidates to vote on theat the controlling minority want us to vote for.
Well on a federal level anyway.
And I have given how to make that "controlling minority" powerless, but all I have gotten is excuses of why people won't vote their stocks. So...

We have the following positions expressed in this particular thread:

1. That "they" are taking over the world.
2. That the only way to fight "them" is to seem emotive and crazy, any other option is somehow "joining" them.
3. That seeming rational when speaking of such things would promote the opposition to "them" far more than seeming crazy and emotive.
4. That it is necessary to be emotive because otherwise you are "they"...

So forth...

If you want the "tyranny of the minority" to cease you must end coin operated government by taking power back as shareholders in companies. When shares are owned by over half the population, if people wanted it, it would be done.

uscitizen
03-20-2007, 08:09 AM
voting their stocks to control the big guys is a pipe dream Damo, it will not work overall. Who controls most of the stocks ? Many stocks are not even voting shares. You are aware of that are you not ?

Damocles
03-20-2007, 08:20 AM
voting their stocks to control the big guys is a pipe dream Damo, it will not work overall. Who controls most of the stocks ? Many stocks are not even voting shares. You are aware of that are you not ?
And I have explained how it would and could work, in other threads. And yes, I do know that many are not voting shares. However, in almost every case where they are, most throw their votes in the trash misunderstanding their rights and responsibilities as owners as they look for short-term gain.

I will state it again, If you want to take back control of the government the only way you will get it done is if you vote your stocks. Otherwise you have already given power over to the coin-operated government.

uscitizen
03-20-2007, 08:33 AM
Much of the stock is in 401K's, and I am not sure how that works but I have never gotten anything to vote on shares in my 401K. How does that work anyway ?

Damocles
03-20-2007, 08:37 AM
Much of the stock is in 401K's, and I am not sure how that works but I have never gotten anything to vote on shares in my 401K. How does that work anyway ?
They'll usually send you a vote in the mail if you own the stock directly.

However, some 401K managers will vote for you if you do not select to vote your own stock. You'll get one notification of votes coming up in your reports, and if you want to vote your stock you must "opt-in".

uscitizen
03-20-2007, 08:52 AM
Hmm, never got one of those.....
I do get them on stocks I have owned outside of my 401K though.

And do usually vote my shares.

Damocles
03-20-2007, 09:18 AM
Hmm, never got one of those.....
I do get them on stocks I have owned outside of my 401K though.

And do usually vote my shares.
You choice to vote or not vote usually was made long ago with a 401K.

Hermes Thoth
03-20-2007, 04:37 PM
And I have explained how it would and could work, in other threads. And yes, I do know that many are not voting shares. However, in almost every case where they are, most throw their votes in the trash misunderstanding their rights and responsibilities as owners as they look for short-term gain.

I will state it again, If you want to take back control of the government the only way you will get it done is if you vote your stocks. Otherwise you have already given power over to the coin-operated government.

Maybe corporations shouldn't be allowed to dictate public policy. You can't beat them playing by their rules. They make the money. they will trash the economy before they will allow outer party members to buy them out.

Damocles
03-20-2007, 10:00 PM
Maybe corporations shouldn't be allowed to dictate public policy. You can't beat them playing by their rules. They make the money. they will trash the economy before they will allow outer party members to buy them out.
Which is my point. Either you change the Constitution or the SCOTUS, or you change the corporation. The easiest one to change is the corporations and we have the power to do it, nearly overnight.

Hermes Thoth
03-21-2007, 04:22 PM
Which is my point. Either you change the Constitution or the SCOTUS, or you change the corporation. The easiest one to change is the corporations and we have the power to do it, nearly overnight.

It's not in the constitution that corporations must run everything. NO constitutional change is necessary to change trade policy with china, or to return control of money creation to the congress.

Your "buy them out" plan is fantastically ridiculous, yet somehow STILL lacking in vision.

uscitizen
03-21-2007, 08:41 PM
I find is amazing that corporations have gained "individual" status advantages in many ways but manage to avoid most all of the "individual" burdens.

Hermes Thoth
03-22-2007, 05:27 AM
I find is amazing that corporations have gained "individual" status advantages in many ways but manage to avoid most all of the "individual" burdens.

We should just shut up and feel lucky they keep us inside the global resource distribution network. Where would we be without them? (Fun to think about, eh?)

uscitizen
03-22-2007, 05:55 AM
Better of without some of them, perhaps many.

Damocles
03-22-2007, 08:58 AM
It's not in the constitution that corporations must run everything. NO constitutional change is necessary to change trade policy with china, or to return control of money creation to the congress.

Your "buy them out" plan is fantastically ridiculous, yet somehow STILL lacking in vision.
Free Speech is in the constitution and the SCOTUS ruled that political ads and funds are "speech". Thus, you either change the Constitution, the SCOTUS or the source. The easiest to change is the source. Are you being deliberately obtuse here, or do you literally not understand the current atmosphere of politics, or that such funding was determined to be protected?

Damocles
03-22-2007, 08:59 AM
It's not in the constitution that corporations must run everything. NO constitutional change is necessary to change trade policy with china, or to return control of money creation to the congress.

Your "buy them out" plan is fantastically ridiculous, yet somehow STILL lacking in vision.
And you don't "buy them out" you simply vote the stock you own, as is your right as a shareholder. Over 50% of the nation owns stocks. Almost overnight we can change the face of politics at the source. Yet you lack the understanding to even go back and read the threads that I speak of, and therefore misrepresent and misconstrue.

uscitizen
03-22-2007, 10:10 AM
Just get SCOTUS to change its mind has been done lots of times in the past.

Damocles
03-22-2007, 12:02 PM
Just get SCOTUS to change its mind has been done lots of times in the past.
It takes decades to do what could be done in less than two years. In order for them to "chnage their mind" they change the face of the court. Either you start to magically vote for people who are not paid for by the coin-dispensing Corporations and they put in people who are more logical in decisions... or you stop it at the source.

You guys keep wanting to lower the river, it is so much easier to build a bridge.

uscitizen
03-22-2007, 12:47 PM
Building on an unsound foundation is not a good idea. The foundation needs correcting.

Damocles
03-22-2007, 12:52 PM
Building on an unsound foundation is not a good idea. The foundation needs correcting.
Hence you find the root cause and solve the problem there. Ross Perot might have been a nut, but he had one thing correct. Follow the money.

uscitizen
03-22-2007, 01:34 PM
I would have liked to see Ross as president.

Follow the money back to the source and cut it off in a way it will stay cut off beyond the next government administration or CEO.

Hermes Thoth
03-22-2007, 03:39 PM
Free Speech is in the constitution and the SCOTUS ruled that political ads and funds are "speech". Thus, you either change the Constitution, the SCOTUS or the source. The easiest to change is the source. Are you being deliberately obtuse here, or do you literally not understand the current atmosphere of politics, or that such funding was determined to be protected?
I'm not against ads, Im against certain trade policies, which are detrimental to america's future, and which are ineherently immoral. Trade policy change doesn't require a consitutional change. Trade policy is handled by the governement technically. DId you know that, or are you being obtuse. It's a right wing lie that whatever is good for coroporations should rightfully be the law of the land.

Hermes Thoth
03-22-2007, 03:45 PM
And you don't "buy them out" you simply vote the stock you own, as is your right as a shareholder. Over 50% of the nation owns stocks. Almost overnight we can change the face of politics at the source. Yet you lack the understanding to even go back and read the threads that I speak of, and therefore misrepresent and misconstrue.


How do you acquire stock to vote with? You BUY it. You are advocating buying them out.

The nature of your solution indicates your acceptance of the premise that there should be no legal oversight over corporations. I reject that premise.

Instead of passing child pornography laws, let's just buy into the porn producing corporations and vote that they not use children. Want to clean up the environment? Buy your way into a corporation and use your new corporate influence to change their policy.

In your model of the world, where corporate shares are the only form of franchisement, anyone who is not a shareholder effectively has no say.

Your plan sucks.

uscitizen
03-22-2007, 09:16 PM
Good point lets just buy up all the illegal drugs as well to put the drug dealers out of business ? :D

Damocles
03-22-2007, 10:37 PM
I'm not against ads, Im against certain trade policies, which are detrimental to america's future, and which are ineherently immoral. Trade policy change doesn't require a consitutional change. Trade policy is handled by the governement technically. DId you know that, or are you being obtuse. It's a right wing lie that whatever is good for coroporations should rightfully be the law of the land.
Man, you are being deliberately obtuse! Those who pay for the ads buy the attention of those in charge.

If you actually paid attention and voted against those who waste your share's dollars on those ads you could quickly change the nature of such.

But heck, you want to pretend that those ads get them nothing but 30 seconds on TV so you can say stupid crap like this?!

Come one, AHZ, I know you can do better than this!

Damocles
03-22-2007, 10:38 PM
How do you acquire stock to vote with? You BUY it. You are advocating buying them out.

The nature of your solution indicates your acceptance of the premise that there should be no legal oversight over corporations. I reject that premise.

Instead of passing child pornography laws, let's just buy into the porn producing corporations and vote that they not use children. Want to clean up the environment? Buy your way into a corporation and use your new corporate influence to change their policy.

In your model of the world, where corporate shares are the only form of franchisement, anyone who is not a shareholder effectively has no say.

Your plan sucks.
I guess I'll repeat it again, (I wish I could say it slowly... But what I'll do is just ask you to read, then repeat...)



AHEM:

More 50% of this nation already owns that stock.


Now I'll ask you: What part of that sentence means that it needs to be bought? It already HAS been.

Then I'll tell you: Most of those that can never vote their stock because they do not realize how important it is.

Now... Follow the shampoo bottle.


Rinse and repeat...

So, don't attempt to call something that people already own a "buyout"....

Again, repeat that last sentence.

uscitizen
03-23-2007, 07:22 AM
Much of that 50% is in 401K's that no owners vote.
And the republicans want to put even more in that type of thing with their SS plan.

Damocles
03-23-2007, 07:59 AM
Much of that 50% is in 401K's that no owners vote.
And the republicans want to put even more in that type of thing with their SS plan.
Much, but not enough to make the difference if people simply began to get it.

*sigh*

It's all good. It is an actual solution. For some reason when you bring them up people have about a million excuses for why it won't work. And as long as they are making excuses, then they are right.

I don't know who said it first, but whoever it was they were right.


If you think you will fail, you are right.

uscitizen
03-23-2007, 08:25 AM
I have seen people have to delay their retirement because of stock market dips...One delayed an died before retirement....

Damocles
03-23-2007, 08:35 AM
I have seen people have to delay their retirement because of stock market dips...One delayed an died before retirement....
I don't ever wish to retire. Seriously.

uscitizen
03-23-2007, 08:58 AM
I do , not to play shuffle board all days and that kind of stuff, have plenty of stuff outside of making money to keep me busy.

Hermes Thoth
03-23-2007, 10:19 AM
I guess I'll repeat it again, (I wish I could say it slowly... But what I'll do is just ask you to read, then repeat...)



Rinse and repeat...

So, don't attempt to call something that people already own a "buyout"....

Again, repeat that last sentence.

Nevertheless, your "solution" relies on stock ownership as a precondition of effectiveness. Stock has to be bought, through the process of buying, either in the past or in the future. This discussion isn't about which verb conjugation is appropriate. That's a redherring.



Because 50% of people own some stock doesn't mean they could "automatically win" any corporate vote-off to determine policy.

Plus, I seriously doubt any real opposition to policy would even make it to the voting stage.

Like you neocons like to say, "It is not the burden of corporations to improve society, they're there to make money." And that's as it should be. The problem is when businesses also control government and corrupt all policy in their favor. Citizens deserve their legal protecttions. That means the border WILL keep labor prices from bottoming out. That has always been one of the benefits of border and immigration policy enforcement.

Now you new world order dweebs want to come along and say that no westerner even deserves the basic protections implicit in the national sovereignty for which previous generations died.

I wonder if all the people who died in our previous wars would have bothered to fight if they had been told they were fighting not for their own people, but to preserve the power of a military industrial complex which seeks to consolidate all markets and regions into a unified mass, regardless of the actual effects on their descendants.

Damocles
03-23-2007, 10:35 AM
Nevertheless, your "solution" relies on stock ownership as a precondition of effectiveness. Stock has to be bought, through the process of buying, either in the past or in the future. This discussion isn't about which verb conjugation is appropriate. That's a redherring.



Because 50% of people own some stock doesn't mean they could "automatically win" any corporate vote-off to determine policy.

Plus, I seriously doubt any real opposition to policy would even make it to the voting stage.

Like you neocons like to say, "It is not the burden of corporations to improve society, they're there to make money." And that's as it should be. The problem is when businesses also control government and corrupt all policy in their favor. Citizens deserve their legal protecttions. That means the border WILL keep labor prices from bottoming out. That has always been one of the benefits of border and immigration policy enforcement.

Now you new world order dweebs want to come along and say that no westerner even deserves the basic protections implicit in the national sovereignty for which previous generations died.

I wonder if all the people who died in our previous wars would have bothered to fight if they had been told they were fighting not for their own people, but to preserve the power of a military industrial complex which seeks to consolidate all markets and regions into a unified mass, regardless of the actual effects on their descendants.
It relies on a circumstance that already exists.

Instead of working to "inform" people that 5 people are taking over the world, working to get people to actively take away their power would be more successful. Attacking at the root cause will always be more successful than the Chicken Little approach.

Hermes Thoth
03-23-2007, 03:37 PM
It relies on a circumstance that already exists.

Instead of working to "inform" people that 5 people are taking over the world, working to get people to actively take away their power would be more successful. Attacking at the root cause will always be more successful than the Chicken Little approach.

You're not attacking a root cause. You're proposing an unworkable plan, a plan that has as it's own premise the very premise that is the problem: the premise that corporate boardrooms are the only place where impactful decision can be made, and that there is no authority higher than corporate authority.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not opposed to people voting their shares, i just doubt it will have much effect regarding the issues I'm concerned about. It's a good idea, just not sufficient.

Why not have a multi pronged front on this issue:Let's encourage share voting, spread information, expose lies, etc. Why can't you join this battle fullheartedly?

Damocles
03-23-2007, 07:14 PM
You're not attacking a root cause. You're proposing an unworkable plan, a plan that has as it's own premise the very premise that is the problem: the premise that corporate boardrooms are the only place where impactful decision can be made, and that there is no authority higher than corporate authority.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not opposed to people voting their shares, i just doubt it will have much effect regarding the issues I'm concerned about. It's a good idea, just not sufficient.

Why not have a multi pronged front on this issue:Let's encourage share voting, spread information, expose lies, etc. Why can't you join this battle fullheartedly?
I haven't "joined" any battle. I am making it clear that the "spreading of information" is much better served by a different tactic than the Chicken Little approach. If you want people to listen, then you must speak as if you do. If all you do is attempt to belittle people and sound like you are in panic then people won't just turn away, they'll point and laugh first.

Hermes Thoth
03-23-2007, 07:21 PM
I haven't "joined" any battle.


That's my point. You haven't, and freedom is under assault.



I am making it clear that the "spreading of information" is much better served by a different tactic than the Chicken Little approach.


All i've seen you do is propagate the absurd notion that internationalist fascism can only be fought in the boardrooms of the fascists themselves.



If you want people to listen, then you must speak as if you do. If all you do is attempt to belittle people and sound like you are in panic then people won't just turn away, they'll point and laugh first.

I feel my communication skills are fine and my tactics are superb, but thanks for you input. I will ignore it, however. I fucked your shit up quite nicely. I sha'n't change.

Damocles
03-23-2007, 07:41 PM
That's my point. You haven't, and freedom is under assault.

All i've seen you do is propagate the absurd notion that internationalist fascism can only be fought in the boardrooms of the fascists themselves.


I feel my communication skills are fine and my tactics are superb, but thanks for you input. I will ignore it, however. I fucked your shit up quite nicely. I sha'n't change.
A vote of shareholders is not the boardroom. You have now proven again that you are being deliberately obtuse.

However it can remove from the boardroom those you wish to remove. Your significant misunderstanding is only astounding in its insistence even in the face of reality. If you want to change the factors that create their power, you must find the causality and take it from them.

And the only poo poo you have had sexual intercourse with was removed from your own toilet.

Hermes Thoth
03-23-2007, 07:43 PM
A vote of shareholders is not the boardroom. You have now proven again that you are being deliberately obtuse.

However it can remove from the boardroom those you wish to remove. Your significant misunderstanding is only astounding in its insistence even in the face of reality. If you want to change the factors that create their power, you must find the causality and take it from them.


You win. You're the most nit-picky. Was that the contest?:clink:

uscitizen
03-23-2007, 08:14 PM
Freedom is apparently a lost cause, it is just a myth compared to the freedom we used to have.
I am getting somewhat old, it will do for the rest of my life, but you youngsters ought to be pretty concerned.

FUCK THE POLICE
03-24-2007, 12:26 AM
HUH ?

It wasn't very well presented wasn't it? Oh well. Damo explained it.

Hermes Thoth
03-24-2007, 06:37 AM
Damocles will be affectionately known from this point forward as "The Man".


The Man
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man


"The Man" is a moniker phrase used to describe higher authority. This "Man" does not usually refer to a specific individual as such, but instead to the government, leaders of large corporations, and other authority figures in general, such as the police. The Man is colloquially defined as the figurative person who controls our world. The Man is also often used as a symbol of racial oppression.

The phrase "the Man is keeping me down" is commonly used to describe perceived oppression, but in modern times it is most often used facetiously in an ironically resigned fashion. The phrase "stick it to the Man" encourages resistance to authority, and essentially means "fight back" or "resist"; however, this is also used facetiously sometimes.

AnyOldIron
03-26-2007, 05:20 AM
the premise that corporate boardrooms are the only place where impactful decision can be made, and that there is no authority higher than corporate authority.

This has been an actual US political doctrine for many years.

The theory behind it is that, by defering to consumer power, you create an atmosphere of negative liberty that is impervious to the totalitarian eventuality of positive liberty. Essentially, if you remove politics from the equation, market forces deliver to the individual what they truely want, working on the assumption that humans always work rationally for their own interests.

As AHZ points out, absoluteness in negative liberty does result in a consolidation of power amongst those controlling comsumer culture. This is an issue I have been attempting to articulate for a few years now. With the maximum soveriegnty invested in consumerism (in the belief that this provides the greatest negative liberty), you remove any direct control over the direction of society by its members through the elimination of political control and the democratic levers that control it. The notion is, that we then exercise control by what we purchase.

A major downfall in this is that it gives those with the greatest purchasing power a disproportionate percentage of control, resulting in an oligarchy, and even creates the paradox that this 'investment' in negative liberty restricts the negative liberty of many.

We should be very suspicious of industry, even though it wears the coat of providing 'liberty'. It is a wolf in a sheep's skin.

AnyOldIron
03-26-2007, 05:25 AM
Freedom is apparently a lost cause, it is just a myth compared to the freedom we used to have.

The first question anyone must ask when discussing freedom, is what do we mean by freedom....

AnyOldIron
03-26-2007, 05:40 AM
When those of a Libertarian persuasion refer to freedom, they generally mean negative liberty, the freedom to do as one pleases without coercion, provided it doesn't interfere with the liberty of others.

This brings up obvious paradoxes.

The other definition of freedom is positive liberty, the freedom and opportunity to reach one's full potential or to act in one's best interests, and this is often adopted by the Left.

The paradox thrown up by this definition is that it can be said to a form of totalitarianism, in as much as what is in the best interest needs to be defined and thus acted upon, to the point of coercion if needed.

When Bushites, and others of his ilk talk of liberty, they are really combining the two. They state they believe in negative liberty, but agree with the notion that this should be exported, forcibly if needed. This forces them into a hypocritical position, in as much as they aspouse negative liberty, yet believe it is in the 'best interest' to coerce people into adopting it, and thus exercise positive liberty.

People in the US government bandy the term 'freedom' about like it is confetti, but freedom is infinitely more complex than that.....

uscitizen
03-26-2007, 06:05 AM
Freedom is apparently a lost cause, it is just a myth compared to the freedom we used to have.

The first question anyone must ask when discussing freedom, is what do we mean by freedom....

Freedom to me is the ability to do as one chooses without harming others by our actions. I realize that is a limited freedom, but it is I feel the type of freedom we should have.
But then there is the fact that virtually everything we do has some impact on others....
Guess I had betteer leave this discussion to my more edumicated friends.

uscitizen
03-26-2007, 06:07 AM
"People in the US government bandy the term 'freedom' about like it is confetti, but freedom is infinitely more complex than that....."

I very clearly realize that, but cannot clearly discuss it without the proper learned reference points.

AnyOldIron
03-26-2007, 06:45 AM
Freedom to me is the ability to do as one chooses without harming others by our actions.

This is what is described as 'negative liberty' and is the predominant idea of freedom in the western world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty

US, you shouldn't put yourself down about such things. I have had many informed discussions with you and by saying leave it to the edumacated, you sell yourself short.

uscitizen
03-26-2007, 07:05 AM
Freedom to me is the ability to do as one chooses without harming others by our actions.

This is what is described as 'negative liberty' and is the predominant idea of freedom in the western world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty

US, you shouldn't put yourself down about such things. I have had many informed discussions with you and by saying leave it to the edumacated, you sell yourself short.

Thanks for the vote of confidence Anyold, I appreciate it. However I realize although I am intelligent, I am largely uneducated in the skills of communications by written words, and therefore have difficulty expressing myself in a well understood fashion.

It can be handy to understand ones limitations.

AnyOldIron
03-26-2007, 08:16 AM
Thanks for the vote of confidence Anyold, I appreciate it. However I realize although I am intelligent, I am largely uneducated in the skills of communications by written words, and therefore have difficulty expressing myself in a well understood fashion.

Then post laconically...lol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconic)

Don't be put off by terminology, if you need definitions or further explanations of notions, just U2U me... :)

Hermes Thoth
03-26-2007, 04:25 PM
The positive v negative freedom is an interesting frame up, but I've got something simpler.

Immoral things are things that go undone REGARDLESS OF HOW PROFITABLE THEY ARE. Duh.

AnyOldIron
03-27-2007, 04:34 AM
Immoral things are things that go undone REGARDLESS OF HOW PROFITABLE THEY ARE. Duh.

What things that go undone? The things that go undone are uncountable in number. If they are done does that then make them moral?

uscitizen
03-27-2007, 06:48 AM
Undone things ? well that covers most everything in the universe for me, I have only done a minute amount of things comparatively speaking.

Hermes Thoth
03-27-2007, 08:38 AM
ok. Correction for the mush heads.

Immoral things are things that SHOULD go undone, REGARDLESS OF HOW PROFITABLE THEY ARE.

So these neocon asscrackers yammering about the profitability of slave labor need to shut their satanic pie holes. Do they have no souls?

uscitizen
03-27-2007, 08:50 AM
Do they have no souls?

Do any of us ?
One thing is certain many of them are Amoral when it comes to profit.

Hermes Thoth
03-27-2007, 09:07 AM
Do they have no souls?

Do any of us ?
One thing is certain many of them are Amoral when it comes to profit.


Yes. some of us do.

Why is being against slavery equated with socialism in the modern context?

These people have completely perverted the discourse regarding economics, freedom and morality, in the modern era.

They take their economic arguments out of context, pretending they're moral arguments. Yes. capitalism is a good way to distribute resources efficiently, but there are other concerns in the world: Security, self-reliance, the future, morality, etc.

uscitizen
03-27-2007, 09:21 AM
Yep the current argument that if it is good for corporations it is good for the USA is bull crap.