November 15, 2019, 07:36:51 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: New Membership Currently Closed.
 
   Boards Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
Author Topic: Modern political history  (Read 19744 times)
Truth Seeker
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 56


« Reply #15 on: March 19, 2010, 09:54:15 PM »

Actually, You strike me as a honest man. You bring up good points and the things that I observe, in no way reflect a point of view suggesting that you or anyone you worked with, would ever knowingly do anything against God and country! I have never had a beef with the men in women in service to our country, I tend to honor them. However I have several complaints against those fat cats in suits that put those trusting people in harms way, for agendas that the working soldier knows nothing about.

I'm sure you are familer with the M.O. "You'll know only what you need to know", and a"good soldier follows orders without question". Indoctrination and brain washing are tools used for good and neferious purposes. Perhaps the concept of the manchurcian canadate is only fictional?
Logged
Mork
Newbie
*
Posts: 31


WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 20, 2010, 02:04:59 AM »

Quote
"You'll know only what you need to know"

More accurately, "You'll know what we want you to know." Having been on the other side of information, I've seen purposely leaked information information that was deliberately erroneous. Other times, I've seen conclusions drawn by "outsiders" and accepted as fact be completely wrong but, not corrected since it served a purpose. After seeing this in action many times, it's hard to believe statements from senior officials as being true. It goes to follow that if the truth sounds too far fetched, ignoring it or poking fun at it can be far more effective than covering it up. Add to the mix the selective statement of facts - only those that support your view - in discussions and one can lead the masses around like sheep.
Logged
Chuck-Star
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 318


« Reply #17 on: March 20, 2010, 05:55:07 PM »

... and don't forget, neutralize dissent.  Control of dissent is evidently more effective than suppressing dissent.

Along those lines, if the Tea Party was a genuine grass roots movement (gaining momentum and Internet presence), why in the world would they invite Sarah Palin to be the key note speaker at their convention?  Looks like the Tea Party is either a manufactured protest organization, or has been effectively co-opted.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2010, 05:57:50 PM by Chuck-Star » Logged
Mork
Newbie
*
Posts: 31


WWW
« Reply #18 on: March 20, 2010, 06:12:15 PM »

Quote
... and don't forget, neutralize dissent.

Ahhh, yes! Very important!

Quote
... why in the world would they invite Sarah Palin to be the key note speaker at their convention?

Because they couldn't get the Kool-Aid man to bust into the room and belch, "OH YEA!" I think their selection of her was more to draw media attention to the movement than it was that they really cared about her rhetoric.
Logged
Chuck-Star
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 318


« Reply #19 on: March 21, 2010, 03:24:16 PM »

That definitely got them major media attention, but it disgusted prospective members (like me).  But, maybe real reform is not what they're after (any more).  They were either lame to begin with or have been neutralized.
Logged
Truth Seeker
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 56


« Reply #20 on: March 21, 2010, 10:36:27 PM »

I was kinda hopping for a Thomas Paine/Ron Paul/ Thomas jefferson combo pac to show up. This person could be male/female, black /white/yellow/brown or red as far as I'm concerned. Both of the major parties need serious house cleaning. The Tea Party has shown promise. Unfortunately, I see a similar sitution as Ross Perot's independent bid. One that started out strong and ended up in loony land. Intergerty and politics seldom go hand in hand, at least in my lifetime. Real change might be nice, wouldn't it?
Logged
Truth Seeker
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 56


« Reply #21 on: April 27, 2010, 06:04:05 PM »

I am feeling a little more than pessimistic of our present political situation. The double speak that comes from our present administration and congress seems to me as one of the most deceptive and convoluted presentations in our nations history. It certainly could be argued that simular conditions have pervailed in the past, and that our present day situation isn't so unique. In my opinion the polarization in America today is on par with pre Civil War times. The main difference between then and now is the sophistication of the various media to equally present information and dis-information, making it virtually impossible to decern which "side" or agenda actually serves our country, individual freedom, and the persuit of happiness. I guess those ideals are of little concern to the world powers ruling today.
Logged
Mork
Newbie
*
Posts: 31


WWW
« Reply #22 on: April 27, 2010, 06:56:20 PM »

TS, I agree. I look at much of the rhetoric being what people want to hear. It doesn't matter if true or not, just that they want to hear it. For example, "excessive profits of drug companies" being cited when profits by them are less than phone companies, food manufacturers and entertainment (movies). What good are drugs if we can't call for a prescription or afford to buy food? Are we to expect profit regulation in the future? I realise that I'm being excessively simplistic but, the rhetoric is exactly the same - excessively simplistic. On the flip side, Sarah Palin is doing exactly what Obama is doing - telling supporters exactly what they want to hear... but, not the truth. Sure, both have truth in what they say but, it's done with their color of paint. I agree that the B.S. level is essentially unchanged but, the delivery mechnaism is continously changing to ever fool the masses.

Consider this - I used to work for the Federal Government - I knew of a person, a secretary, that was fired for accepting a gift of around $70 in value. Rules stated that none could be accepted for more than $50 per year from a government contractor. The rationale was to eliminate the possibility of influencing selection and preferences given to Government contrators. Members of congress are exempt. So, tell me how a secretary will influence the selection of a contractor for a 50 billion dollar contract whereas the congressman/woman is free of influence?

Yes, the lies are still there as 150 years ago except at a much higher level.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC

Clear Mind Theme, by burNMind with modifications by: WebDude
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.157 seconds with 18 queries.