Now I remember why I was an independent all those years.

[Guest Jules]

So, I’m guessing you’re equally critical of the “defense” budget as it relates to that little pre-emptive war we waged against Iraq, the one whose motto was – Shock and Awe - which, when translated means, we’re going to drop a whole lot of shit in areas densely populated by innocent civilians with the hope that they will become so terrorized, that they’ll turn against their leader –

I forgot you knew every little detail and reason for this action.

[Gobias Industries]

- The House, dominated by Democrats, still may not have enough votes to pass Obama's plan. It's sounds to be very much in debate.

 

I think this is partially due to the fact that some Democrats won't vote for the bill if it doesn't include a public option. But then there are Democrats who won't vote for it if it does...so it's a bit of a puzzler there.

[Atticus]

due do

 

[ih8music]

 

- Jimmy Carter with this quote:

 

"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American," Carter told "NBC Nightly News." "I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that shares the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African-Americans."

 

That is SO irresponsible of ANYBODY to bring out the race card, especially a former President. If we disgree with Obama we're racist? Ridiculous.

I didn't hear Carter's comment that way. He wasn't talking about everyone who disagrees with the President, he was talking about the small, but very vocal, crowd of people showing up at events with signs comparing Obama to Stalin, Hitler, an African lion, etc. People who show up with guns and talk about wanting "their" country back. People who claim that now that Obama is in office, it's open season on white people - ACORN thugs are going to beat up your kids at school and kill your grandmother. National TV hosts who openly say (and never retract) that Obama has a deep-seeded hatred of white people. It's hard to argue that race isn't involved in some form with these people.

 

Now would many of these folks have disagreed passionately if Hillary Clinton were in office and was pushing the same agenda? Likely - but I doubt we'd see a lot of the extreme rhetoric, and certainly nothing overtly racist like what we've seen.

[Gobias Industries]

 

har har

[Beltmann]

- Polls claim that 80+ percent of Americans are OK with their health care plan.

That stat does not, as you said, "clearly" show Obama's proposals are unwanted. Two arguments:

 

1. Most people aren't catastrophically ill, and therefore most people are happy to report satisfaction with their insurance. But if they become catastrophically ill, they may find themselves far less enamored with their current plan. It's easy to be "OK" with your plan while it's working, and not worry about later when you might be hit with denial of coverage, rescission, or a lifetime benefit cap. In other words, 80% might be currently happy, but that doesn't mean they always will be. Such polls might prove that insurance companies do a decent job taking care of the healthy majority, but they don't prove that they do a good job taking care of the sick minority. Why should the majority care about what's happening to the minority? Because eventually we all join the sick minority, and it could happen sooner than we expect.

 

2. It is flawed logic to assume that someone currently happy with their plan is also disinterested in helping others receive improved care. For example, I have terrific insurance and have no complaints. I am among the 80% happy with their insurance. And yet, I still support the president's efforts--partially because I care about my fellow Americans, and partially because I have zero faith that my quality insurance will always be there for me and my family, especially when we most need it.

 

Similar arguments can be made about all of your other points, too. Is it "very clear" that Obama's proposal is "not wanted, not worthy, or needs to be changed dramatically"? I'd say there's nothing on your list that makes that perfectly clear.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Beltmann, it is quite clear you are always twice as right as everyone else without double-posting.

 

Well said!

 

Edited to add: I am continually amazed at how good a poll question can appear and completely ignore so many points. Additionally, I believe that question is only asked to people that currently HAVE healthcare coverage, correct?

[Good Old Neon]

That stat does not, as you said, "clearly" show Obama's proposals are unwanted. Two arguments:

 

1. Most people aren't catastrophically ill, and therefore most people are happy to report satisfaction with their insurance. But if they become catastrophically ill, they may find themselves far less enamored with their current plan. It's easy to be "OK" with your plan while it's working, and not worry about later when you might be hit with denial of coverage, rescission, or a lifetime benefit cap. In other words, 80% might be currently happy, but that doesn't mean they always will be. Such polls might prove that insurance companies do a decent job taking care of the healthy majority, but they don't prove that they do a good job taking care of the sick minority. Why should the majority care about what's happening to the minority? Because eventually we all join the sick minority, and it could happen sooner than we expect.

 

2. It is flawed logic to assume that someone currently happy with their plan is also disinterested in helping others receive improved care. For example, I have terrific insurance and have no complaints. I am among the 80% happy with their insurance. And yet, I still support the president's efforts--partially because I care about my fellow Americans, and partially because I have zero faith that my quality insurance will always be there for me and my family, especially when we most need it.

 

Similar arguments can be made about all of your other points, too. Is it "very clear" that Obama's proposal is "not wanted, not worthy, or needs to be changed dramatically"? I'd say there's nothing on your list that makes that perfectly clear.

 

Well said – I’m happy with my car about 99% of the time, but on those occasions in which it has caused me trouble, I’ve tended towards wanting to put a bullet in its engine block.

[Beltmann]

Beltmann, it is quite clear you are always twice as right as everyone else without double-posting.

Ha, I tried to correct a typo and the interface went haywire for a second... fixed now, though!

[watch me fall]

I'm pretty happy with my insurance (HMO) as well, or at least I will be until January when my premiums increase $50/month and my co-pay increases as well while my covered services (including vision) will decrease or become non-existent. Looks like I'm going back to good ole BC/BS standard (which doesn't even pay for wellness visits, but my premiums will decrease almost $90/month in comparison to HMO) and will just chance it that I don't make too many trips to the doctor during 2010.

 

Sorry, just venting. Back to the bickering.

[Atticus]

That stat does not, as you said, "clearly" show Obama's proposals are unwanted. Two arguments:

 

1. Most people aren't catastrophically ill, and therefore most people are happy to report satisfaction with their insurance. But if they become catastrophically ill, they may find themselves far less enamored with their current plan. It's easy to be "OK" with your plan while it's working, and not worry about later when you might be hit with denial of coverage, rescission, or a lifetime benefit cap. In other words, 80% might be currently happy, but that doesn't mean they always will be. Such polls might prove that insurance companies do a decent job taking care of the healthy majority, but they don't prove that they do a good job taking care of the sick minority. Why should the majority care about what's happening to the minority? Because eventually we all join the sick minority, and it could happen sooner than we expect.

 

2. It is flawed logic to assume that someone currently happy with their plan is also disinterested in helping others receive improved care. For example, I have terrific insurance and have no complaints. I am among the 80% happy with their insurance. And yet, I still support the president's efforts--partially because I care about my fellow Americans, and partially because I have zero faith that my quality insurance will always be there for me and my family, especially when we most need it.

 

Similar arguments can be made about all of your other points, too. Is it "very clear" that Obama's proposal is "not wanted, not worthy, or needs to be changed dramatically"? I'd say there's nothing on your list that makes that perfectly clear.

 

your persistent insistence on making sense really does very little to flame up these threads you know...

[Guest Speed Racer]

I'm pretty happy with my insurance

 

I have the best medical plan ever. My small business used to have the BCBS plan where our prescriptions were served to us in a gold chaliss by some woman in a negligee, but we downgraded this year to just the gold chaliss plan. My employer pays our (tiny) deductible, we have max out of pocket $1,500 ($4,000 for families), we have about six procedures that are covered 100% no co-pay, and everything that isn't 100% is 80/20.

 

But our BCBS representative pays a $2,500 deductible with max out of pocket of $6,000 for his family, and only his check-up gets full coverage every year, with everything else 60/40 plus co-pay.

 

That's not right - that's not right at all - and that's just one of the reasons why I think the system needs to be reformed.

[Good Old Neon]

In which Greenwald makes some excellent points regarding charges that the right has taken a turn for the crazier, when, in fact, the opposite may be true, they’ve been a bit nutty all along.

 

Is the Right's attack on Obama's legitimacy new or unprecedented?

 

Several people objected in comments, emails and other places to my argument yesterday that what Rep. Joe Wilson did -- though dumb and juvenile -- was hardly some grave threat to the Republic or even a substantial deviation from standard right-wing political behavior. Some argued that Obama's race has caused the Right's hostility towards him to be both unique and unprecedentedly intense. That some people react with particular animus towards the first black President is obvious. But there is nothing new about the character of the American Right or their concerted efforts to destroy the legitimacy of Obama's presidency.

 

To see that, just look at what that movement's leading figures said and did during the Clinton years. In 1994, Jesse Helms, then-Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, claimed that "just about every military man" believes Clinton is unqualified to be Commander-in-Chief and then warned/threatened him not to venture onto military bases in the South: "Mr. Clinton better watch out if he comes down here. He better have a bodyguard." The Wall St. Journal called for a Special Prosecutor to investigate the possible "murder" of Vince Foster. Clinton was relentlessly accused by leading right-wing voices of being a murderer, a serial rapist, and a drug trafficker. Tens of millions of dollars and barrels of media ink were expended investigating "Whitewater," a "scandal" which, to this day, virtually nobody can even define. When Clinton tried to kill Osama bin Laden, they accused him of "wagging the dog" -- trying to distract the country from the truly important matters at hand (his sex scandal). And, of course, the GOP ultimately impeached him over that sex scandal -- in the process issuing a lengthy legal brief with footnotes detailing his sex acts (cigars and sex talk), publicly speculating about (and demanding examinations of) the unique "distinguishing" spots on his penis, and using leading right-wing organs to disseminate innuendo that he had an abandoned, out-of-wedlock child. More intense and constant attacks on a President's "legitimacy" are difficult to imagine.

 

This is why I have very mixed feelings about the protests of conservatives such as David Frum or Andrew Sullivan that the conservative movement has been supposedly "hijacked" by extremists and crazies. On the one hand, this is true. But when was it different? Rush Limbaugh didn't just magically appear in the last twelve months. He -- along with people like James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Bill Kristol and Jesse Helms -- have been leaders of that party for decades. Republicans spent the 1990s wallowing in Ken Starr's sex report, "Angry White Male" militias, black U.N. helicopters, Vince Foster's murder, Clinton's Mena drug runway, Monica's semen-stained dress, Hillary's lesbianism, "wag the dog" theories, and all sorts of efforts to personally humiliate Clinton and destroy the legitimacy of his presidency using the most paranoid, reality-detached, and scurrilous attacks. And the crazed conspiracy-mongers in that movement became even more prominent during the Bush years. Frum himself -- now parading around as the Serious Adult conservative -- wrote, along with uber-extremist Richard Perle, one of the most deranged and reality-detached books of the last two decades, and before that, celebrated George W. Bush, his former boss, as "The Right Man."

 

It's also why I am extremely unpersuaded by the prevailing media narrative that the Right is suddenly enthralled to its rambunctions and extremist elements and is treating Obama in some sort of unique or unprecedented way. Other than the fact that Obama's race intensifies the hatred in some precincts, nothing that the Right is doing now is new. This is who they are and what they do -- and that's been true for many years, for decades. Even the allegedly "unprecedented" behavior at Obama's speech isn't really unprecedented; although nobody yelled "you lie," Republicans routinely booed and heckled Clinton when he spoke to Congress because they didn't think he was legitimately the President (only for Ted Koppel to claim that it was something "no one at this table has ever heard before" when Democrats, in 2005, booed Bush's Social Security privatization proposal during a speech to Congress).

 

This is why so many people were so skeptical of the heartfelt belief among many Obama supporters that he was going to usher in some sort of new, harmonious "post-partisan" age. The long-standing and well-established nature of the American Right would never permit such a transformation. After 1990s House Majority Leader Dick "Barney Fag" Armey told Joan Walsh on Hardball earlier this year that "I am so damn glad that you could never be my wife," I wrote:

These are the people who have largely been in power for the last two decades and the country is in the shape one would expect it to be in as a result. That's why all of this chatter about post-partisan transcendence and trans-partisan harmony and the like is so inane.

Why would anyone think that "common ground," on any consistent basis, can be found with people like this, or that it would be beneficial to eliminate real differences in order to accommodate their views?

 

Nothing that the GOP is doing to Obama should be the slightest bit surprising because this is the true face of the American Right -- and that's been true for a very long time now. It didn't just become true in the last few months or in the last two years. Recent months is just the time period when the media began noticing and acknowledging what they are: a pack of crazed, primitive radicals who don't really believe in the country's core founding values and don't merely disagree with, but contest the legitimacy of, any elected political officials who aren't part of their movement. Before the last year or so, the media pretended that this was a serious, adult, substantive political movement, but it wasn't any truer then than it is now. All one has to do is review their behavior during the Clinton presidency -- to say nothing of the Bush years -- to see that none of this is remotely new. Nothing they're doing to Obama is a break from their past behavior; it's just a natural and totally predictable continuation of it.

 

UPDATE: Bob Somerby today addresses much the same issue with the same conclusion, concluding: "Your discourse has been this way for decades." His argument as to why is well worth reading.

 

UPDATE II: In comments, CarolynC makes the most persuasive case possible for the opposite conclusion: that the level of rage is much worse now. I don't agree with her ultimate conclusion (for the reasons I stated), but some of her individual claims are undeniably true.

 

UPDATE III: Law Professor Darren Hutchinson places all of this in the context of the apparently genuine belief/hope of many Obama supporters -- alive as recently as a few months ago -- that, unlike Hillary Clinton, Obama would be a unifying figure who would cause the country to transcend its divisions and leave behind its bitter ideological disagreements (the Post-Partisan Age). I would hope that even the Truest Believer of that promise could now recognize that -- even if such an outcome were desirable -- no such thing was ever going to happen.

 

link - http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/09/12/conservatives/index.html

[Good Old Neon]

From Andrew Sullivan:

 

Limbaugh will enjoy the scorn. But he's a disgusting opportunist and racist. And his acceptability - indeed total dominance - on the right is one reason decent people will steer clear of the GOP for the foreseeable future. There is no nuance or doubt here. This is a man who wants a race war. Until the GOP throws him out, they deserve oblivion. He's a racist through and through, and if no one on the right stands up to this, they are complicit:

 

Link with the audio that prompted Andrew's post - http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/a-vile-racebaiter.html

[futureage1]

They won't be going back to the Democrats either. Independent is the fast growing party in America. It's funny that the attention is focused on radio talk show hosts as what's wrong with America. There is not one person I know who cares what he says or what Keith Olberman says. They are both sellouts. The real problem wouldn't be Wall St. owns our Govt. now would it? But then pointing that out might affect these guys ability to go on cable news. I don't like Limbaugh or Beck or anyone of them but Obama's problem is he's corrupt and sold out his base. The danger lies in running back to the mainstream Republican party, which are controlled by the same interests. Sure these people are misguided but so are the people defending Obama carrying out Bushes policies.

 

It's even more hilarious that the Neo Cons thinks he's bad. I would think they would like him since he carries out their agenda. Behind closed doors I'm sure they do. But as Rome burns let's worry about a fat ass blowhard down in Florida. Putting up straw men is getting very old and I would think fairly obvious by this point but not according to this thread. And in my opinion Jimmy Carter set race relations back 30 years. But I guess that gives Obama some cover to keep carrying out the wars and bailing out the banks. But neither side gives you the whole story. Bush created the deficits and Obama has expanded them into oblivion. Just like you can't worship Reagan if you oppose deficit spending and you can't like Clinton if you are a populist.

[Good Old Neon]

They won't be going back to the Democrats either. Independent is the fast growing party in America. It's funny that the attention is focused on radio talk show hosts as what's wrong with America. There is not one person I know who cares what he says or what Keith Olberman says. They are both sellouts. The real problem wouldn't be Wall St. owns our Govt. now would it? But then pointing that out might affect these guys ability to go on cable news. I don't like Limbaugh or Beck or anyone of them but Obama's problem is he's corrupt and sold out his base. The danger lies in running back to the mainstream Republican party, which are controlled by the same interests. Sure these people are misguided but so are the people defending Obama carrying out Bushes policies.

 

It's even more hilarious that the Neo Cons thinks he's bad. I would think they would like him since he carries out their agenda. Behind closed doors I'm sure they do. But as Rome burns let's worry about a fat ass blowhard down in Florida. Putting up straw men is getting very old and I would think fairly obvious by this point but not according to this thread. And in my opinion Jimmy Carter set race relations back 30 years. But I guess that gives Obama some cover to keep carrying out the wars and bailing out the banks. But neither side gives you the whole story. Bush created the deficits and Obama has expanded them into oblivion. Just like you can't worship Reagan if you oppose deficit spending and you can't like Clinton if you are a populist.

 

Thank you for saving me from myself – without your help and guidance, I’d probably still be wallowing in my own piss-soaked ignorance.

[bleedorange]

From Andrew Sullivan:

 

Limbaugh will enjoy the scorn. But he's a disgusting opportunist and racist. And his acceptability - indeed total dominance - on the right is one reason decent people will steer clear of the GOP for the foreseeable future. There is no nuance or doubt here. This is a man who wants a race war. Until the GOP throws him out, they deserve oblivion. He's a racist through and through, and if no one on the right stands up to this, they are complicit:

 

Link with the audio that prompted Andrew's post - http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/a-vile-racebaiter.html

 

I know everyone is supposed to hate Limbaugh. The times I listen to him, I agree with what he says sometimes and I disagree sometimes. Same with most people I read or listen to. But Sullivan either has an axe to grind here or is just barking up the wrong tree armed with hyperbole.

 

I went back and read the transcript of this soundbite and the discussion that follows it. Limbaugh's main point is that everything now (criticism, violence, protests, etc.) is deemed to be steered by race or racism. And that the election of Obama has done more to foster this kind of environment than eliminate it, which was probably the hope after his election.

 

Some people say that the election of an African-American president has only intensified the racist feelings of a lot of Americans. Other people say that racism is brought up only to marginalize any legitimate criticism of the president. What's the truth? Probably both. Sullivan misses the point here. But it's a lot easier to call someone a racist.

[futureage1]

Thank you for saving me from myself – without your help and guidance, I’d probably still be wallowing in my own piss-soaked ignorance.

 

Sure thing. It's best not to spend your days reading about the antics of Rush Limbaugh. Who is without an audience?

[Good Old Neon]

Sure thing. It's best not to spend your days reading about the antics of Rush Limbaugh. Who is without an audience?

 

Here’s the thing, my motherboard can process more than one subject at a time - quite a few actually, some of them trivial, others, requiring a bit more firepower. I would imagine this is true of most folks on this board. Don’t assume I (we) haven’t already thought about, digested and drawn my (our) own conclusions regarding the subjects you choose to post about. At the rate at which you’re going, you’re going to burn out before long, I know this, because I was once like you (yes, believe it or not, I’ve mellowed since my twenties).

 

Just because a subject is not intimately tied to the N.W.O, the pillaging of the Treasury, the H1N1 virus as it relates to an imminent takeover, etc etc etc does not mean it is not worth discussing - as humans, that’s what we do, we discuss, communicate, share our thoughts, etc.

[bjorn_skurj]

The thing I find interesting (and delusional) about the tea party people is that they think there once was an American Eden where perfect democracy flourished and money didn't influence things. Grow the fuck up. The fix has ALWAYS been in, from the time the first dudes set foot in Virginia. Jesus, why do you all fucking think they came here in the first place? TO MAKE MONEY. What was the American Revolution really about? MONEY. This place was built by slaves on land stolen from the Indians. Maybe someday, we will be able to have a system where the moneyed interests don't call all the shots. I think there's a word for that ... wait ... it's coming to me ... ah! SOCIALISM. That's it.

[Good Old Neon]

I know everyone is supposed to hate Limbaugh. The times I listen to him, I agree with what he says sometimes and I disagree sometimes. Same with most people I read or listen to. But Sullivan either has an axe to grind here or is just barking up the wrong tree armed with hyperbole.

 

I went back and read the transcript of this soundbite and the discussion that follows it. Limbaugh's main point is that everything now (criticism, violence, protests, etc.) is deemed to be steered by race or racism. And that the election of Obama has done more to foster this kind of environment than eliminate it, which was probably the hope after his election.

 

Some people say that the election of an African-American president has only intensified the racist feelings of a lot of Americans. Other people say that racism is brought up only to marginalize any legitimate criticism of the president. What's the truth? Probably both. Sullivan misses the point here. But it's a lot easier to call someone a racist.

 

Are you familiar with the full story? Limbaugh’s rant was sparked by a story regarding a fight on a school bus, which, Limbaugh and his ilk turned into a racial incident, an example of what happens to white people in “Obama’s America.” If you don’t find that repulsive, and equally as insane, well, I can’t help you. What the fuck a fight on a school bus has to do with Obama and his vision for America, well, I’ll never know, you’ll have to ask a crazed asshole like Limbaugh for the answer to that one.

 

What do you think Limbaugh's respone would have been if Bush were still in office? McCain? Do you think he would have used a fight on a school bus to illustrate what happens in Bush or McCain's America?

 

Edit: As a conservative, rather than criticize Sullivan, you ought be thankful for the fact that he is one amongst a very small group of sane conservatives who are trying to save the movement from the influence of useless shitbags like Limbaugh.

[bjorn_skurj]

During the opening days of the Obama administration, I slept with a black girl. If that's what happens to white people in Obama's America, then I am all for it.

[futureage1]

Here’s the thing, my motherboard can process more than one subject at a time - quite a few actually, some of them trivial, others, requiring a bit more firepower. I would imagine this is true of most folks on this board. Don’t assume I (we) haven’t already thought about, digested and drawn my (our) own conclusions regarding the subjects you choose to post about. At the rate at which you’re going, you’re going to burn out before long, I know this, because I was once like you (yes, believe it or not, I’ve mellowed since my twenties).

 

Just because a subject is not intimately tied to the N.W.O, the pillaging of the Treasury, the H1N1 virus as it relates to an imminent takeover, etc etc etc does not mean it is not worth discussing - as humans, that’s what we do, we discuss, communicate, share our thoughts, etc.

 

Give it up. You are the one who brings it up and the only time I have engaged in the subject is when Panther started putting up Alex Jones material. I started a thread about the patriot act and everyone started posting about the banks. I posted long before then and have never brought it up. And good for you that you read Bill Cooper's book 20 years ago. The book is fake. You started with the wrong material. I don't care what you call it Oligarchy, Anglo American Establishment, the ruling class. It most definitely exists and is bankrupting your country. How many leaders do you need say it before you know they are not making it up?

 

If you think engaging in race debates designed to keep people divided is a good way of working through problems then that's misguided to say the least. You don't need to try and correct me it's you who are light on facts. You are not superior to anyone you are defending the same policies and 18 pages of drivel and yeah I'm going to point it out and it has nothing to do with NWO, which it seems you can't handle not bringing up because you know that you might be wrong about it,but it's easier pretending your country is fucked up because of some rednecks down south. Get a clue already. It's time. It seems when you have no serious response it's back to quoting cliches that only further proves you have no idea what you are talking about. I merely pointed out that this debate is pointless. At 18 pages it's overkill. I can handle people not agreeing with me. Try it sometime. It works.

[Panther]

They won't be going back to the Democrats either. Independent is the fast growing party in America. It's funny that the attention is focused on radio talk show hosts as what's wrong with America. There is not one person I know who cares what he says or what Keith Olberman says. They are both sellouts. The real problem wouldn't be Wall St. owns our Govt. now would it? But then pointing that out might affect these guys ability to go on cable news. I don't like Limbaugh or Beck or anyone of them but Obama's problem is he's corrupt and sold out his base. The danger lies in running back to the mainstream Republican party, which are controlled by the same interests. Sure these people are misguided but so are the people defending Obama carrying out Bushes policies.

 

It's even more hilarious that the Neo Cons thinks he's bad. I would think they would like him since he carries out their agenda. Behind closed doors I'm sure they do. But as Rome burns let's worry about a fat ass blowhard down in Florida. Putting up straw men is getting very old and I would think fairly obvious by this point but not according to this thread. And in my opinion Jimmy Carter set race relations back 30 years. But I guess that gives Obama some cover to keep carrying out the wars and bailing out the banks. But neither side gives you the whole story. Bush created the deficits and Obama has expanded them into oblivion. Just like you can't worship Reagan if you oppose deficit spending and you can't like Clinton if you are a populist.

 

 

Intresting... I gather you belilve the Two party system is what is truly in need of reform as your country has become a single idealogy state with two publicly competing parties whose only role is to divide the masses and keep the political system twirling .. the real contorllers and their intrest surely prevent any real change.

 

 

p.s no such thing as the new world order

[Good Old Neon]

Give it up. You are the one who brings it up and the only time I have engaged in the subject is when Panther started putting up Alex Jones material. I started a thread about the patriot act and everyone started posting about the banks. I posted long before then and have never brought it up. And good for you that you read Bill Cooper's book 20 years ago. The book is fake. You started with the wrong material. I don't care what you call it Oligarchy, Anglo American Establishment, the ruling class. It most definitely exists and is bankrupting your country. How many leaders do you need say it before you know they are not making it up?

 

If you think engaging in race debates designed to keep people divided is a good way of working through problems then that's misguided to say the least. You don't need to try and correct me it's you who are light on facts. You are not superior to anyone you are defending the same policies and 18 pages of drivel and yeah I'm going to point it out and it has nothing to do with NWO, which it seems you can't handle not bringing up because you know that you might be wrong about it,but it's easier pretending your country is fucked up because of some rednecks down south. Get a clue already. It's time. It seems when you have no serious response it's back to quoting cliches that only further proves you have no idea what you are talking about. I merely pointed out that this debate is pointless. At 18 pages it's overkill. I can handle people not agreeing with me. Try it sometime. It works.

 

Since your reply is disproportionaly more aggressive than my own, in which I was trying to be half way fair, I’m just going to take the gloves off and tell it like it is - you’re a total fucking moron - really, it‘s true. The same moron who, shortly after the swine flu outbreak, started ranting about quarantines and government crack downs, the impending switch to the Amero, and a dozen or so other things, all of which, as was pointed out to you, were works of fiction. The same moron who derided someone for pointing out that, no, swine flu cannot actually be contracted by eating pork - yes, that moron.

 

Is there a moneyed class that manipulates policy, both financial and social, for its own benefit, absolutely, as has been the case from the beginning - hell, that sort of behavior can be found in primates, among other mammals. There’s nothing new about your “news” - and just as there has always been greed and selfishness, so to with crackpot conspiracy theorists such as yourself.

 

Tell me, where is the Amero at today, the same Amero you predicted would be rolled out within the six months or so, about six months ago? As for cliches, that's rich, as I read the same shit, with the same tired predictions twenty or more years ago, and he we are, twenty years later, and dipshits such as yourself are still repeating the same old tired bullshit - 50 years from now, our grandchildren will be listening to the same tired bullshit.