DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say "well-played" by all sides!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I could start a million such theories, post them on the internet, some would gain momentum and go viral, and pretty soon fiction becomes accepted "fact".

    [/QUOTE]

    Even simpler, just put them on FOX News . . .Wink

    [/QUOTE]

    AH, there you go again Pro....

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from billge. Show billge's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    Right though you may be.  I doubt many of those fox news types see the inside of a church often, certainly not mine.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from CatfishHunter. Show CatfishHunter's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    You don't believe that the 1% of the population that controls 90% of the wealth, who have handed this legacy down over generations to their heirs, have any undue influence over our political process, fraternal organizations, the value of paper money, the governments of the world, the military, the media or even religions... this seems like a conspiracy theory to you?

    If you need to be convinced of this, than I'm certainly not the one to show you.



    Well, you've morphed the FEMA Human Roundup Theory into something different here, but I'll respond nonetheless.

    I'm pretty sure the  "1% control of 90%" part has probably been true throughout recorded history.  That by itself does not show me anything except a reflection of the essence of man.  I believe something Warren Buffet often says:  Greed is an eternal desire of man.

    Do the 1% pass this on to their heirs for eternity?   Not really.  It's hard to imagine someone more drunk with power than Caesar in his day.  Where is his power today?  Who passed on this power and influence to self-made men like Ray Kroc, Sam Walton, Andrew Carnegie, et al?   When did this start for you?

    Power and influence are not eternal.  Neither are institutions.  Where is the Roman Empire Today?  The British Empire?  etc. etc. etc.

    This isn't a Dan Brown novel.  It's real life.

    Some people tend to believe in apocalyptic events occurring in their lifetime.  I'm not sure why.   Maybe it gives their own lives a sense of greater importance. 

    Ever notice how many prophecies are projected to come true in the lifetime of the author?  Not a coincidence really.  It's hard to cash in when you're dead.

    In closing, and for the 175th time, there was no "magic bullet".

    Happy New Year

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from billge. Show billge's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    Cool Cat

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You don't believe that the 1% of the population that controls 90% of the wealth, who have handed this legacy down over generations to their heirs, have any undue influence over our political process, fraternal organizations, the value of paper money, the governments of the world, the military, the media or even religions... this seems like a conspiracy theory to you?

    If you need to be convinced of this, than I'm certainly not the one to show you.

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, you've morphed the FEMA Human Roundup Theory into something different here, but I'll respond nonetheless.

    I'm pretty sure the  "1% control of 90%" part has probably been true throughout recorded history.  That by itself does not show me anything except a reflection of the essence of man.  I believe something Warren Buffet often says:  Greed is an eternal desire of man.

    Do the 1% pass this on to their heirs for eternity?   Not really.  It's hard to imagine someone more drunk with power than Caesar in his day.  Where is his power today?  Who passed on this power and influence to self-made men like Ray Kroc, Sam Walton, Andrew Carnegie, et al?   When did this start for you?

    Power and influence are not eternal.  Neither are institutions.  Where is the Roman Empire Today?  The British Empire?  etc. etc. etc.

    This isn't a Dan Brown novel.  It's real life.

    Some people tend to believe in apocalyptic events occurring in their lifetime.  I'm not sure why.   Maybe it gives their own lives a sense of greater importance. 

    Ever notice how many prophecies are projected to come through in the lifetime of the author?  Not a coincidence really.  It's hard to cash in when you're dead.

    In closing, and for the 175th time, there was no "magic bullet".

    Happy New Year

     

    [/QUOTE]

    the 90% have maintained power and control throughout history. they do so today. It's in their best interest to maintain this. They did so in feudal times by the stick and yolk. They do so today by control of money, which in essence is control of power and government. They have more influence than you and I to insure certain laws get passed that protect their interests. 

    Power, influence and institutions are eternal...they just morph based on the time and circumstances. The British empire is alive and well. proof of this is the federal reserve bank which is a charter bank of the Bank of England. What does this say? That england in essence controls our money, thus our government and policies. 

    Greed is eternal. The question is what measures are those that control the power and wealth willing to take to protect it? 

    If you side with Wozz and Babe, then you believe some of the things they point out, the FEMA camps, DhS buying hoarding ammo, the patriot act and their great extensions, NSA, the federal reserve control, etc are all designed to protect this power structure and the power elite. If you don't side with them, these things are set up to protect us from terrorists, do what's in the best interest of the common man. 

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccsjl. Show ccsjl's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You don't believe that the 1% of the population that controls 90% of the wealth, who have handed this legacy down over generations to their heirs, have any undue influence over our political process, fraternal organizations, the value of paper money, the governments of the world, the military, the media or even religions... this seems like a conspiracy theory to you?

    If you need to be convinced of this, than I'm certainly not the one to show you.

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, you've morphed the FEMA Human Roundup Theory into something different here, but I'll respond nonetheless.

    I'm pretty sure the  "1% control of 90%" part has probably been true throughout recorded history.  That by itself does not show me anything except a reflection of the essence of man.  I believe something Warren Buffet often says:  Greed is an eternal desire of man.

    Do the 1% pass this on to their heirs for eternity?   Not really.  It's hard to imagine someone more drunk with power than Caesar in his day.  Where is his power today?  Who passed on this power and influence to self-made men like Ray Kroc, Sam Walton, Andrew Carnegie, et al?   When did this start for you?

    Power and influence are not eternal.  Neither are institutions.  Where is the Roman Empire Today?  The British Empire?  etc. etc. etc.

    This isn't a Dan Brown novel.  It's real life.

    Some people tend to believe in apocalyptic events occurring in their lifetime.  I'm not sure why.   Maybe it gives their own lives a sense of greater importance. 

    Ever notice how many prophecies are projected to come through in the lifetime of the author?  Not a coincidence really.  It's hard to cash in when you're dead.

    In closing, and for the 175th time, there was no "magic bullet".

    Happy New Year

     

    [/QUOTE]

    the 90% have maintained power and control throughout history. they do so today. It's in their best interest to maintain this. They did so in feudal times by the stick and yolk. They do so today by control of money, which in essence is control of power and government. They have more influence than you and I to insure certain laws get passed that protect their interests. 

    Power, influence and institutions are eternal...they just morph based on the time and circumstances. The British empire is alive and well. proof of this is the federal reserve bank which is a charter bank of the Bank of England. What does this say? That england in essence controls our money, thus our government and policies. 

    Greed is eternal. The question is what measures are those that control the power and wealth willing to take to protect it? 

    If you side with Wozz and Babe, then you believe some of the things they point out, the FEMA camps, DhS buying hoarding ammo, the patriot act and their great extensions, NSA, the federal reserve control, etc are all designed to protect this power structure and the power elite. If you don't side with them, these things are set up to protect us from terrorists, do what's in the best interest of the common man. 

    [/QUOTE]

    The problem with these wacko types is all the things they claim are happening only happen when Democratic Presidents are in the White House...these wackos are never heard of during Republican Presidential terms.....My favorite claim was during Clintons term - the wacko right wing was claiming Clinton was going to suspend the election after his second term so he would never have to leave the White House.....

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to ccsjl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You don't believe that the 1% of the population that controls 90% of the wealth, who have handed this legacy down over generations to their heirs, have any undue influence over our political process, fraternal organizations, the value of paper money, the governments of the world, the military, the media or even religions... this seems like a conspiracy theory to you?

    If you need to be convinced of this, than I'm certainly not the one to show you.

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, you've morphed the FEMA Human Roundup Theory into something different here, but I'll respond nonetheless.

    I'm pretty sure the  "1% control of 90%" part has probably been true throughout recorded history.  That by itself does not show me anything except a reflection of the essence of man.  I believe something Warren Buffet often says:  Greed is an eternal desire of man.

    Do the 1% pass this on to their heirs for eternity?   Not really.  It's hard to imagine someone more drunk with power than Caesar in his day.  Where is his power today?  Who passed on this power and influence to self-made men like Ray Kroc, Sam Walton, Andrew Carnegie, et al?   When did this start for you?

    Power and influence are not eternal.  Neither are institutions.  Where is the Roman Empire Today?  The British Empire?  etc. etc. etc.

    This isn't a Dan Brown novel.  It's real life.

    Some people tend to believe in apocalyptic events occurring in their lifetime.  I'm not sure why.   Maybe it gives their own lives a sense of greater importance. 

    Ever notice how many prophecies are projected to come through in the lifetime of the author?  Not a coincidence really.  It's hard to cash in when you're dead.

    In closing, and for the 175th time, there was no "magic bullet".

    Happy New Year

     

    [/QUOTE]

    the 90% have maintained power and control throughout history. they do so today. It's in their best interest to maintain this. They did so in feudal times by the stick and yolk. They do so today by control of money, which in essence is control of power and government. They have more influence than you and I to insure certain laws get passed that protect their interests. 

    Power, influence and institutions are eternal...they just morph based on the time and circumstances. The British empire is alive and well. proof of this is the federal reserve bank which is a charter bank of the Bank of England. What does this say? That england in essence controls our money, thus our government and policies. 

    Greed is eternal. The question is what measures are those that control the power and wealth willing to take to protect it? 

    If you side with Wozz and Babe, then you believe some of the things they point out, the FEMA camps, DhS buying hoarding ammo, the patriot act and their great extensions, NSA, the federal reserve control, etc are all designed to protect this power structure and the power elite. If you don't side with them, these things are set up to protect us from terrorists, do what's in the best interest of the common man. 

    [/QUOTE]

    The problem with these wacko types is all the things they claim are happening only happen when Democratic Presidents are in the White House...these wackos are never heard of during Republican Presidential terms.....My favorite claim was during Clintons term - the wacko right wing was claiming Clinton was going to suspend the election after his second term so he would never have to leave the White House.....

    [/QUOTE]

    How about Clinton swearing in that Wacko DeBlasssio as mayor of NY ?  Maybe DeBlasssio can kiss Rex's toes.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from billge. Show billge's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    Well, you should be an expert on wackos

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from HillbillyJoe. Show HillbillyJoe's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You don't believe that the 1% of the population that controls 90% of the wealth, who have handed this legacy down over generations to their heirs, have any undue influence over our political process, fraternal organizations, the value of paper money, the governments of the world, the military, the media or even religions... this seems like a conspiracy theory to you?

    If you need to be convinced of this, than I'm certainly not the one to show you.

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, you've morphed the FEMA Human Roundup Theory into something different here, but I'll respond nonetheless.

    I'm pretty sure the  "1% control of 90%" part has probably been true throughout recorded history.  That by itself does not show me anything except a reflection of the essence of man.  I believe something Warren Buffet often says:  Greed is an eternal desire of man.

    Do the 1% pass this on to their heirs for eternity?   Not really.  It's hard to imagine someone more drunk with power than Caesar in his day.  Where is his power today?  Who passed on this power and influence to self-made men like Ray Kroc, Sam Walton, Andrew Carnegie, et al?   When did this start for you?

    Power and influence are not eternal.  Neither are institutions.  Where is the Roman Empire Today?  The British Empire?  etc. etc. etc.

    This isn't a Dan Brown novel.  It's real life.

    Some people tend to believe in apocalyptic events occurring in their lifetime.  I'm not sure why.   Maybe it gives their own lives a sense of greater importance. 

    Ever notice how many prophecies are projected to come through in the lifetime of the author?  Not a coincidence really.  It's hard to cash in when you're dead.

    In closing, and for the 175th time, there was no "magic bullet".

    Happy New Year

     

    [/QUOTE]

    the 90% have maintained power and control throughout history. they do so today. It's in their best interest to maintain this. They did so in feudal times by the stick and yolk. They do so today by control of money, which in essence is control of power and government. They have more influence than you and I to insure certain laws get passed that protect their interests. 

    Power, influence and institutions are eternal...they just morph based on the time and circumstances. The British empire is alive and well. proof of this is the federal reserve bank which is a charter bank of the Bank of England. What does this say? That england in essence controls our money, thus our government and policies. 

    Greed is eternal. The question is what measures are those that control the power and wealth willing to take to protect it? 

    If you side with Wozz and Babe, then you believe some of the things they point out, the FEMA camps, DhS buying hoarding ammo, the patriot act and their great extensions, NSA, the federal reserve control, etc are all designed to protect this power structure and the power elite. If you don't side with them, these things are set up to protect us from terrorists, do what's in the best interest of the common man. 

    [/QUOTE]The 1 percent the tribe, evil to the core.


     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from melswitts. Show melswitts's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say


    the FEMA camps, DhS buying hoarding ammo, the patriot act and their great extensions, NSA, the federal reserve control, etc are all designed to protect this power structure and the power elite.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccsjl. Show ccsjl's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    These guys also are married to mermaids they personally saved from from beaching due to the Navys sonar experiments.....

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from melswitts. Show melswitts's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say


    Semetic devil worshipers? You clowns are facists, just like the NAZI's...

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    What? The economy is well known to have been a disaster under Brezhnev. That is why he was replaced with Andropov, someone who was considered a reformer.



    More nonsense. CLEARLY that economy was robust through most of Brezhnev's tenure. From 1964 until the mid 70s it was quite strong. Near the end of his time it did falter, but only then.

    You can pick and choose your estimates but they all show that same trend which defies your spin. And though the Khanin estimates show the CIA numbers as a bit high, other examinations such as those of Michael Boretsky show they were actually low. And even in the Khanin estimates, the same trend appears.

    It clearly shows a downward trend intensifying during Reagan's jacking up of the arms race. When perestroika was placed there was some economic improvement, but the cat was out of the bag regarding freedom and the people's yearning for that by then.

    The Russian estimates are worthless as their methodology could not accurately measure an economy's growth.


    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/78/Graph_of_Soviet_National_Income_Growth.png

     

    So, you are proven wrong, again.

    [/QUOTE]

    Are you reading your own chart? I know nothing about Khanin but i know Brezhnev was in charge from 1964-1982 which according to your chart shows a steady decline in growth. Assuming your chart is right, when the Soviet economy was supposedly dying because of Reagan it was actually improving. Thanks Babe, you have proven our debt did not destroy Russia's economy or bring them to their knees.

    I guess it is easier calling someone wrong than it is to prove it. Like I said if you want to debate Iran-Contra or Lebanon let's go. 

    [/QUOTE]

    amazing simply amazing

     

    1 .First ask Gorby why Russia tanked, Second  do you know what a bubble is? None of theses GDP numbers mean anything. one also has to look at the mix of gov vs private speading, hmm such as it was in The Ussr, Did you see the USA growth before the 2008 meltdown?

    2. Iran Contra - given  Obama  revising laws all by his lonesome, Obama has done far worse. that said, theaTB effort was to stop commies from taking over a Central American country by thugs.But if you love commie dictators like Sean Penn , of course you would hate it

    3. Lebanon  240 marines down a sad day. RR in charge. but this was a tactical screw up by the  military brass. They put our soldiers in harms way. They should have known how to be in proper defensive position. and they went to war college for what?But then again Letting 4 people die in Benghazi on 9/11 was criminal by the potus and sec state

    [/QUOTE]

    When have I mentioned Obama once in any of my posts ever.  I think you have an Obama fixation. You might want to see someone about that. It is not healthy.

    Secondly, that is not my chart, it is Babe's. He clearly did not look at it before posting it. From 1964-1982 there is a steady decline in that chart. Which means the economy did not improve under Brehznev, it got worse but according to this chart it improved during the Reagan years before communism collapsed. Babe is claiming the economy of the Soviet Union was good under Brehznev and it collapsed because of Reagan. If Babe's chart is accurate than it disproves his theory.

    Third, how am I supposed to ask Gorbachev anything by the way? First of all,he is a politician and he has continually tried to re write history since being deposed. Do you believe Clinton's memoirs? I suspect you don't. I have never read them but I assume they are self serving and attempt to re write his legacy. Therefore, why would I believe Gorbachev's memoirs. Gorbachev was not popular leaving office. Less popular in his own country than GW Bush was when he left office. I have seen interviews with him on tv where he attempts to take credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union, as if he was actually trying to do it. He was trying to save the Soviet Union, not end it. He deserves credit for not crushing the eastern european revolutions like his predecessors had. He deserves credit for trying to stop the massive corruption and the most blatant human rights abuses of his government. He deserves credit for thawing the cold war and the nuclear reduction treaties. Yet, there are reasons why he was despised by most Russians in comparison to Yeltsin. Boris Yeltsin was trying to end communism forever in Russia while Gorbachev was trying to save it and make it more humane.  Making communism more humane is a lofty goal in comparison to his predecessors but it's still nowhere near as lofty as supporting freedom.  Time heals wounds and since I haven't studied Russian history since the late 90's I have no idea if his popularity is on an upswing. Even Nixon got love in his old age so I assume Gorbachev's place in history will be fine but let's not lie about it. He was a communist through and through and he believed in all it's tenets. He thought the Soviet Union's problem was it's repression (foreign and domestic) and it's corruption. He couldn't fathom the problem itself was communism. So once glasnost and perestroika started he could not contain it and once the people supported Yeltsin over the communists it was over for good.

    I'm sorry, that unlike Reagan I did not believe in the domino theory. If a nation has freedom, it will resist communism, not embrace it. Even in places like Chile where Pinochet's coup was originally popular. When he decided to become dictator for life people started to look fondly back towards Allende and his socialists.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    What? The economy is well known to have been a disaster under Brezhnev. That is why he was replaced with Andropov, someone who was considered a reformer.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    More nonsense. CLEARLY that economy was robust through most of Brezhnev's tenure. From 1964 until the mid 70s it was quite strong. Near the end of his time it did falter, but only then.

     

    You can pick and choose your estimates but they all show that same trend which defies your spin. And though the Khanin estimates show the CIA numbers as a bit high, other examinations such as those of Michael Boretsky show they were actually low. And even in the Khanin estimates, the same trend appears.

    It clearly shows a downward trend intensifying during Reagan's jacking up of the arms race. When perestroika was placed there was some economic improvement, but the cat was out of the bag regarding freedom and the people's yearning for that by then.

    The Russian estimates are worthless as their methodology could not accurately measure an economy's growth.


    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/78/Graph_of_Soviet_National_Income_Growth.png

     

    So, you are proven wrong, again.

    [/QUOTE]

    Are you reading your own chart? I know nothing about Khanin but i know Brezhnev was in charge from 1964-1982 which according to your chart shows a steady decline in growth. Assuming your chart is right, when the Soviet economy was supposedly dying because of Reagan it was actually improving. Thanks Babe, you have proven our debt did not destroy Russia's economy or bring them to their knees.

    I guess it is easier calling someone wrong than it is to prove it. Like I said if you want to debate Iran-Contra or Lebanon let's go. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Is english a second language for you? What don't you understand about "shows a downward trend intensifying during Reagan's jacking up of the arms race"?

    You claimed that (see above) "The economy is well known to have been a disaster under Brezhnev."

    I just proved that statement wrong.

    It had started to stagnate when Reagan got in and his increased spending on the arms race did not allow the Soviets to cut back to aid the economy. The chart shows a decade of robust Soviet economy under Brezhnev and a tapering off in the next 5 years after that, then a further severe reduction when Reagan started spending - exactly as I portrayed it.

    Their economy didn't improve again until the perestroika reforms injected some capitalism into it, and that freedom allowed the whole house of cards to fall because the only thing that had held it together was repression anyway.

    You're about as honest as pro, Rusty and UD6. I mean, the damned facts are right before your eyes and your trying to lie and squirm out of them.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I haven't taken a class in Soviet History since the 90's so I decide to look up the year of Gorbachev's economic reforms on Wikipedia. i do no trust Wikipedia as far as I can throw it but on there it states the economic reforms started in 1987. The exact year your chart ends. So the improvement from 1985 -1987 on your chart has nothing to do with the injection of capitalism as you claim it does. I suspect the whole purpose of the  chart is comparing the Russian economy before the disastrous market reforms took place. Once the reforms occurred the economy is known to have tanked. Which is probably the main reason Gorbachev was despised by everyone.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to ccsjl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You don't believe that the 1% of the population that controls 90% of the wealth, who have handed this legacy down over generations to their heirs, have any undue influence over our political process, fraternal organizations, the value of paper money, the governments of the world, the military, the media or even religions... this seems like a conspiracy theory to you?

    If you need to be convinced of this, than I'm certainly not the one to show you.

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, you've morphed the FEMA Human Roundup Theory into something different here, but I'll respond nonetheless.

    I'm pretty sure the  "1% control of 90%" part has probably been true throughout recorded history.  That by itself does not show me anything except a reflection of the essence of man.  I believe something Warren Buffet often says:  Greed is an eternal desire of man.

    Do the 1% pass this on to their heirs for eternity?   Not really.  It's hard to imagine someone more drunk with power than Caesar in his day.  Where is his power today?  Who passed on this power and influence to self-made men like Ray Kroc, Sam Walton, Andrew Carnegie, et al?   When did this start for you?

    Power and influence are not eternal.  Neither are institutions.  Where is the Roman Empire Today?  The British Empire?  etc. etc. etc.

    This isn't a Dan Brown novel.  It's real life.

    Some people tend to believe in apocalyptic events occurring in their lifetime.  I'm not sure why.   Maybe it gives their own lives a sense of greater importance. 

    Ever notice how many prophecies are projected to come through in the lifetime of the author?  Not a coincidence really.  It's hard to cash in when you're dead.

    In closing, and for the 175th time, there was no "magic bullet".

    Happy New Year

     

    [/QUOTE]

    the 90% have maintained power and control throughout history. they do so today. It's in their best interest to maintain this. They did so in feudal times by the stick and yolk. They do so today by control of money, which in essence is control of power and government. They have more influence than you and I to insure certain laws get passed that protect their interests. 

    Power, influence and institutions are eternal...they just morph based on the time and circumstances. The British empire is alive and well. proof of this is the federal reserve bank which is a charter bank of the Bank of England. What does this say? That england in essence controls our money, thus our government and policies. 

    Greed is eternal. The question is what measures are those that control the power and wealth willing to take to protect it? 

    If you side with Wozz and Babe, then you believe some of the things they point out, the FEMA camps, DhS buying hoarding ammo, the patriot act and their great extensions, NSA, the federal reserve control, etc are all designed to protect this power structure and the power elite. If you don't side with them, these things are set up to protect us from terrorists, do what's in the best interest of the common man. 

    [/QUOTE]

    The problem with these wacko types is all the things they claim are happening only happen when Democratic Presidents are in the White House...these wackos are never heard of during Republican Presidential terms.....My favorite claim was during Clintons term - the wacko right wing was claiming Clinton was going to suspend the election after his second term so he would never have to leave the White House.....

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't think so. The folks I talk with who you call wackos give equal time to democrats and republicans. They see things independent of party, they ask critical questions and don't believe everything they are spoon fed. Not because they see a conspiracy around every corner, but because the distrust they have is built on decades and centuries of lies and deception by those in power who control the worlds wealth. 

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to melswitts' comment:
    [QUOTE]


    the FEMA camps, DhS buying hoarding ammo, the patriot act and their great extensions, NSA, the federal reserve control, etc are all designed to protect this power structure and the power elite.

    [/QUOTE]

    Cmon melwitt. Time to think for yourself. Or maybe its more comfortable for you with your head in the sand or other places where you may keep it. 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bradysgirlforreal. Show Bradysgirlforreal's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    We all know that Both sides, Dems and Repubs have dishonest soulless people in political positions within our political stucture. Throughout the Centuries money and power has enticed and taken over mans better judgement or maybe quite possibly the type of people that run for office are just plain psychopaths? On the other hand their is no reason that in the 21st Century any homo-sapien cannot pick up a book of substance albeit a science/philosophy book and deduce that their is no "God" out their looking down on mankind? I understand that some individuals seem to need a belief in a personal God for security reasons, yet when rational logic conflicts with fantasy you would think that, unlike in times of old when the masses were not allowed to or could not read due to illiteracy, 21st century homo-sapiens would come to the conclusion that dualistic thouht is a divisive trick of the "EGO"? It seems pretty obvious that "religion" is divisive and a means for thought to create seperation and irritation or conflict? When in actuality the "ONE" disguises "ITSELF" as the many and dances "ITS" dance as supposed multiplicity. In conclusion ALL life forms are the "Ground of Being" or Pure Bliss Consciousness! The dream continues and we are "ITS" dream along with ALL form and matter in a space/time hologram of illusion.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to billge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Well, you should be an expert on wackos

    [/QUOTE]


    Bilge!

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to ccsjl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    These guys also are married to mermaids they personally saved from from beaching due to the Navys sonar experiments.....

    [/QUOTE]


    +2

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccsjl. Show ccsjl's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    And dont forget that Liberal Democrat presidents are also labled as the Anti-Christ by these same people...

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to ccsjl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    And dont forget that Liberal Democrat presidents are also labled as the Anti-Christ by these same people...

    [/QUOTE]


    label OBAMA for me......LIAR, is my label ,followed by despicable,et.al

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    Obama is not a Muslim, or the Anti Christ or even liberal for that matter. The 1%'s have made more money % wise under Obama than they did under Bush. He is just plain and simply your cookie cutter Dem/Rep politician.

    He is no more qualified to be President of this country than GWB was. We are now going on almost 2 decades of poor leadership whether it be the President or congress. 

    The blame lies with the voters plain and simple.

     

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccsjl. Show ccsjl's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to HeygangLH's comment:

    What does this thread have to do with patriots football?

    Please go to the editorial page-Thanks from everybody.

    I was in a heated battle w a few of you last week regarding how pats fans are using the "injury excuse"before the pats even lose their first game of the playoffs...again.

    I wanted to get into that but the politics got in the way.



    Actually leon in honor of you we turned it to a Jets forum.....you know with 8-8 and home for New Years, theres no football to discuss, so we have to go elsewhere...

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Obama is not a Muslim, or the Anti Christ or even liberal for that matter. The 1%'s have made more money % wise under Obama than they did under Bush. He is just plain and simply your cookie cutter Dem/Rep politician.

    He is no more qualified to be President of this country than GWB was. We are now going on almost 2 decades of poor leadership whether it be the President or congress. 

    The blame lies with the voters plain and simple.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I agree with this 90%.  The only slight modification I might make is that the "blame" also lies with a faulty system that doesn't produce great candidates for voters to choose from, that doesn't generate enough competition for open seats and offices, and that creates little incentive for elected officials to place their constituents' interests over the interests of motivated individuals or groups who are willing to pay for access and favour. The voters are, ultimately, responsible for the system that exists too, although they may not be able to change it just by voting.  What we need is more activism from the people (voters or not) to force change to happen. As it is, we have a system that provides us with too few candidates to choose from, too few of whom are really any good, and that allows our representatives and officials to ignore our interests once they are elected and instead serve the interests of those with the motivation and money to secure their attention. 

     

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share