I have read his posts and do not find him either right or left politically. I would not attempt to label him. I find amusing that labeling his political affiliations appears to be your sole purpose for rebuttal. I am not sure what you hope to accomplish by it.
If I had not read them how would I know that they were old threads? I am also aware of the full context in which the quote was taken. New readers will not be. Partial quotes in particular should be thoroughly referenced. Oh interesting, then I’m sure you can give use the context? ** I have read his posts and do not find him either right or left politically. I would not attempt to label him. I find amusing that labeling his political affiliations appears to be your sole purpose for rebuttal. I am not sure what you hope to accomplish by it. So I’m sure you can explain the policies he has put forward for combating the global elite? **
Already have in post 17. It appears to me that you have not been reading the entire thread. That's not for me to do. Rat speaks for himself. Speaking for myself. I plan on holding all policy makers accountable no matter what party affiliation.
Gardener So you are arguing that the context is paganism not Satanism but Rat particular mentions Lucifer in the context of the ‘global elites’ object of worship and he actually calls them the “satanic elite”. “Once people understand the esoteric symbolism behind Freemasonry and such secret societies as Skull & Bones and Bohemian Grove, they will understand that the agenda we are dealing with is in fact Luciferian in nature” Luciferian in nature Not pagan in nature He also makes it clear that he sees himself as been on the side of a good god and ‘the conspiracy’ as been on the side of evil. Are you then arguing that paganism is evil? **
Gardener Originally Posted by Balbus So I’m sure you can explain the policies he has put forward for combating the global elite? “That's not for me to do. Rat speaks for himself.” This seems strange, you seem unwilling or unable to say what his policies are? If you – as you claim – seem to think Rats ideas are worth hearing then why would you want to pass up the opportunity to explain them? But if you are unable to explain them, then you cannot – as you claim - understand his political viewpoint. **
Gardener “Speaking for myself. I plan on holding all policy makers accountable no matter what party affiliation.” Well frankly that means bugger all, it’s just a piece of rather clichéd rhetoric. It’s the kind of thing someone says when they want to sound noble but really haven’t a clue what to do. Think about it, if you are not just the type of person that just accepts such hollow words it actually raises more questions than it answers. In what way is gardener or people like him expecting to get into a position where they can hold people to account? By voting? By Revolution? How does it claim a popular mandate? Rat argues that all political party’s are under the control of ‘the conspiracy’ or would be if they rose to have any power. Same goes for any organisation and he has argued that nearly all revolutions in the past were orchestrated by ‘the conspiracy’. ** So then come’s the difficulty of just which ‘policy makers’ are been talked about? Rat has argued that the real policy makers are part of ‘the conspiracy’ and the people in the political party’s are just their pawns. ** It then raises the question of just how are the people to be brought to account? Conspiracies by their very nature don’t have hard evidence as pointed out time and again what Rat often refers to as ‘facts’ actually turn out to be nothing more than supposition, innuendo and opinion. So how would this process not fall into being a witch-hunt where accusations or forced confession is all that is needed for a conviction? Rat has argued that anyone supporting left wing views is unknowingly working for ‘the conspiracy’, but what happens if when told this they continue to support and promote left wing views (thereby becoming knowing workers of ‘the conspiracy’) would they be punished for that? If not, why not? **
I am not arguing anything. I was merely explaining the context in which the partial quote was initially made.
LOL But your explanation doesn’t make sense, you seem to be implying that Rat meant paganism when Rat clearly means Satanism. Are you saying that the quote is incorrect or that Rat doesn’t mention Lucifer? Or are you trying to get out of saying anything of any sense? I mean are you going to cover the other issues raised? ** **
I think we should get back to Rat's original post in this thread and stop trying bring up old arguments.
I’ve gave an opinion and we were in the process of discussing the issues raised by my reply. Are you saying you are unwilling or unable to tackle those issues?
It's hard for rat to argue with you when he makes a point, and you come back with your argument of "well rat is a right winger"....that has nothing to do with anything he says, and he's not even a right winger anyway. If you want to argue legitimately with Rat, just pretend for a second that what he says might just happen to be real. You can't argue with someone when you keep your mind closed and refuse to accept that their point of view COULD be true.
For being a 45 year old man, nearly old enough to be my father, Balbus comes off as being 30 years younger than his listed age claims. I really find it ironic that, despite his accusations that everything I say is based on supposition and innuendo, he continues to waste an enourmous amount of time and effort arguing down everything I state, while ignoring what I am actually stating. If the things I state are so ridiculous, wouldn't this stand alone in discrediting me? Why does Balbus feel the need to come in here and make claims as to who I am and what I believe, while dredging up archieved threads from two years ago to make points which are totally irrelevant and off topic to the topic of the thread? Why does Balbus feel the need to dictate to others what he believes my beliefs to be, when people are perfectly capable of reaching their own conclusions based on what they know? If people want to believe I am nuts or simply full of shit, that's absolutely fine with me. But why do we need Balbus to draw conclusions about me when others are perfectly capable of doing this themselves? What exactly is Balbus's motive here? Most other people would likely be banned for the behavior that Balbus exhibits, yet he is allowed to continue having moderator privileges, despite his childish and rather bizarre behavior. I mean, it is really quite disturbing how Balbus latches on the certain people's threads, starting arguments over minute details that don't even apply to the thread itself. It seems as if he is out to make me look bad, but really he's only making himself look bad. Does he not see what a fool he is making of himself? The only advice I can possibly offer to Balbus is GROW UP!
Angle “It's hard for rat to argue with you when he makes a point, and you come back with your argument of "well rat is a right winger"....that has nothing to do with anything he says, and he's not even a right winger anyway. If you want to argue legitimately with Rat, just pretend for a second that what he says might just happen to be real. You can't argue with someone when you keep your mind closed and refuse to accept that their point of view COULD be true” Oh come on man, you know we have been through this all before in several threads for example this one – The Rat "I am willing to debate you" thread. http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112948 In post 122 of that thread I said - “This being a politics forum my questions have been mainly over his political views, I wanted to know what politically he wanted people to do. So very early in our discussions I asked what political policies he believes need to be taken to tackle ‘the conspiracy’ he claims to be taking place. You might say that his political views are not important but think about it, are FOX NEWS’ political views unimportant? People often have an agenda but I’m deeply suspicious of those people that claim they are unbiased but seem to have biased opinions. You like many (like myself) worry about the propaganda of the press and how they try to hide political spin behind claims of unbiased opinion. The thing is that Rat seems to have politically biased opinions while claiming he hasn’t I don’t hide my political opinions, I think there are very few people on these forums that hide their political viewpoint and non as purposely and as strongly as Rat. Why? ** You want to change the world many people do and they have different agendas, remember Hitler wanted to change the world, the important question to me is what someone wants to change the world into. If you want to change the world for the better that’s admirable but don’t we need to talk about it? I mean do we have to just accept that your intentions are for a better world? How do we know? Hitler told the German people he was leading them to glory those that asked questions were called idiots or morons (then later disappeared into concentration camps). I think that it is better to question rather than to just accept. All I want to do is talk about it? That’s all I’m asking? The problem is that Rat seems reluctant to talk about what he is working for, and when I’ve tried he has branded me a idiot and a moron. He seems to have right wing views, for instance he is on record as saying he thinks the Republican party is too left wing. He seems to support right wing libertarian ideas, remember he was once a self declared libertarian but then retracted that when he found he could not defend libertarian ideas. But even after that while claiming to be neither of the left or right he has claimed that libertarianism has the only policies ‘the conspiracy’ fears and declared that of all political ideas he thinks that libertarianism is the best. I’ve asked him if he supports libertarian ideas and he says he is not of the right or left so I’ve asked him to explain what his views are and he refuses. Try it Angel, ask him what political ideas he has for the changed world you are working for? Think about it for a moment, Rat is one of the most vocal people on these forums and one of his major themes is the stupidity of following left wing ideas, not because he can show they are wrong, but because they are an invention of ‘the conspiracy’. Has he ever attacked right wing libertarian views? NO Right wing libertarianism would make the already rich and powerful, much more rich and powerful yet he claims he ‘the conspiracy’ is made up of the rich and powerful. So why doesn’t he attack a political ideas that want to increase the power of the rich while he constantly attacks the left that really does want to limit the power of the rich? ** Angel, ask yourself what are you fighting for, a better world or a worse one? Then ask what you think Rat is fighting for? Then ask yourself, why is it that - if it a better world he wants - that he seems so reluctant to talk about it? I mean I begun this thread to discuss his political views not the content of his conspiracy theories but what political policies he thought were needed to tackle the problems as he saw them. Why is it that 13 pages and 121 posts (and coming up to a year) later Rat still will not discuss them in any reasonable way?” (That was written in June 2006 and I’m still waiting for Rat to discuss them in any reasonable way) ** And in Post 126 i explained “Angel, you say people need to be educated and I agree with you. You say people should look out for the lies and I agree with you. But most people agree that one of the best ways to lean about others views and ideas is through open and honest debate, of viewpoints and theories. That is all I ask of Rat But Angel ask yourself, why is it that Rat doesn’t seem to want to be open or honest. It is clear he has political views he shows that very obviously by his attacks so often on the left. If he only wanted ‘change’ but didn’t care “what comes after “ then why does he seem to make it quiet plain he doesn’t think “what comes after” should include the left wing? Then ask yourself why is it that the only politics or policies he has praised are those of right wing libertarianism? He often makes the assertion that he is neither of the left or the right, that he has a third alternative but shouldn’t people be allowed to make up their own mind in a discussion of his views? If he has nothing to hide then just why is it that he seems so very reluctant to talk in an open and honest way about those political views and this third way?” ** It seems to me that he is still trying to con people into thinking he isn’t a right winger and there is some mythical third way, and he still doesn’t want an open and honest debate on them. Angle why is that? **
It's Angel not Angle, but perhaps you subconsciously mistyped. Why is his affiliation so important to your argument Balbus? It doesn't make any difference to me or probably anyone else on the board. But I won't attempt to speak for them.
I would speak up, but I figure it's better to allow Balbus to argue with himself. Frankly, I couldn't care less what he thinks, and arguing with him just feeds the fire. It's not even worth it. I'd only be stooping to his level and I am not going to argue over petty nonsense from two years ago. Some people are better off ignored versus giving them the attention they are looking for.
Well I will outline what I choose to do faced with the fact that an elite segment of the world seems determined to map out the course of world events. I will continue to demand oversight from my elected officials. I will question, and demand that they be knowledgeable on the issue they vote on, and if they are not, I will take the only course I have available currently. I will vote them out of office. I will not follow party lines. I will speak out and make others acquainted with their motives. By doing so they will eventually be thrown off course. They think they have the minds of the common man figured out. They think they can market to our basest motives. But with education and free exchange we can unveil the ulterior motives of those that seek the ultimate power and control of the world.
I think that is the only way the common man presently can present an impediment to the power cirlcle. They market to our basest interests by telling us it will lessen our taxes or reduce our costs but how many times does that actually manifest? Not often. We can only win if we continue to question and hold accountable. And if we do not choose up sides. They love being able to estimate affiliations. The only way we can keep them off balance is to refuse to do so.
The last election proved that. Many that were considered shoe in votes, didn't vote according to marketing rules. It upset the balance temporarily. Don't let them suck the common man in to the divisive politics of the past. Hold each an everyone accountable. It's time the common man demanded what's in it for me, and demanded that they show us the MONEY! Not just empty promises or Wall Street trends actual improvements to our life styles not just those of the rich and famous. It's time we stopped sending our children to fight their wars! Where are their children?
Can we continue to allow our lives to be governed by Wall Street. I don't think so. Perhaps your pension is invested, but our lives are invested in today in our children and the world's children. Many of my generation have no pensions. Our employers sloughed us off for foreign manufacturing. We've had to assume jobs that were substandard to what we had. We used our investments and retirement funds just to keep our heads above water. Before we lost our jobs, we lost our benefits...healthcare, retirement, SECURITY, because we were told companys couldn't compete overseas and retain this sort of overhead. Yet they post all time high profits. What has the common man accomplished by following the Wall Street mentality?
The powerful have us afraid of undefined terrorist threats and global warming. We are expected to sacrifice for these causes while off shore corporate interest earn the hugest profits in history. When do they sacrifice even a portion for the common good? That's what we should all be asking.
