How did the neocons "lose" with Obama?

Now that Richardson is gone, the only appointment I have a huge problem with is Panetta as CIA Director. I can deal with the others, and Obama has been pretty moderate in his selections, which I'm glad to see, but my main gripe is still with Congress, which unfortunately Obama can't fix.

 

I was disappointed to hear about Richardson. I had felt he was an honest man. Just proves how much is covered up during presidential elections.

 

Just proves if the voters aren't provided full discloser, and someone isn't doing oversight, everything can be bought.

 

The right/left label is there only to further divide people and to make them occupied fighting each other so they don't see through the illusion of democracy.

We have to unite, this is what Obama is probably going to do! Watch him closely:

http://www.sprword.com/videos/menbehindbarack/

 

In my experience people who claim that such things as this are usually of the far right or left, for example like Rat being of the far right.

So let’s talk politics rather than conspiracy theory.

You clearly are against Obama, fine but why politically are you against him?

In other words I’m wondering what politically do you want, what policies would you like to be implemented?

**

 

I don't want "policies implemented."

Obama is a New World Order stooge, just like Bush, bought and paid for by the same corporate elites.

 

But you have argued for limited government, for donated charity to take over from state provision and for people to just like you know leave the cities.

These are all policy suggestions.

I know you can’t defend them, since they don’t stand up well to even a small amount of scrutiny, but they are things you’ve suggested as possible courses of action (which is what policies are).

*

So what do you think people should do?

Oh yes I remember, do nothing, except talk endlessly about conspiracy theory and fall for everything published on prison planet.

Thing is all the ideas you push would increase the power and influence of wealth so doesn’t that make you a ‘stooge’ of the corporate elite?

 

It would be nice that instead of scrounging around in conspiracy theories, if the American people actually decided to get involved in the political process, and maybe even try to open their eyes to the rest of the world. I'm tired of getting into a debate with someone and their rebuttal is posting a link to some you tube video featuring a shmuck talking about Bildeburg and the evils of One World Government (glossing over the fact that this is NOT an instrinsically negative idea).

 

I don't want "limited government" or any kind of government for that matter. However, this is not about what I want. What I want means NOTHING. I am simply trying to inform people about the matrix they're living in. Government in and of itself is part of that matrix. To me, it's not simply about politics (which is simply a distraction for the masses) and it is THOUSANDS of years old. This system was corrupt from the beginning. It didn't happen overnight or even in the past 100 years. I don't buy into any of these cliched political ideologies, right or left. I am not calling for any kind of government or policies to be implemented because I realize that I have no say in this corrupt system. I am talking about people freeing their minds and not being slaves. It is totally outside of your conditioned reality and you will never understand this. Apparently you can only see things in terms of bogus labels and political terminology. I am way beyond that shit.

 

The problem is that you keep pushing the same old right wing shit, rather than being beyond it you wallow in it.

 

I think the point is that ideas are only ideas until they become constructive. That's why a lot of people are dismissed as being too idealistic because they ascribe to their ideas and will to see the world centered around them by some part.

The freedom of thought is all well and good, but it doesn't really do anything for immediate poverty let's say, or for the people that are starving and dying in this world. You can't have democracy in Afghanistan if they want food and education.

You are both talking about concepts and ideas with the same intent, but on different pages.

 

Aris

You clearly don’t understand.

Me and Rat are on different pages and have different views and ideas.

But while I’m honest about my views Rat is not.

My views are mainly left wing and so I’m happy to be identified as left wing.

Rat lies, he claims to be unbiased, of being neither of the left or right, yet he mainly pushes right wing ideas.

Rat loudly claims he is against the wealthy elite yet most of the things he has pushed on the forums would help the wealthy elite gain more power.

Now Rat is entitled to his views, I think them wrong and Rat has consistently been unable to defend them from criticism but he is entitled to them.

It is Rats attempted con game and dishonesty that I find more repugnant.

 

If you want to call me a right-winger, Balbus, then go right ahead. It does not matter to me what you call me. Just don't expect me to pin that label on myself.

I have made it clear how I feel about socialism, and that it is a tool of the elite to consolidate wealth and thus power under the guise of "helping the poor," many of which were put into poverty through government manipulation of the money supply in the first place.

On the other hand you have what you call the "right wing libertarians," who, like the socialists, believe in the money system, but feel that a truly "free market" economy is the root to all salvation. I say that the money system is in and of itself a big con game, where those who control this system have the power tr control everyone that is forced to use it just to survive.

So how does this make me a right-wing libertarian, when I reject the basis of the libertarian belief system based around economics?

While libertarians are correct in many of their views pertaining to government and freedom, they are ultimately a false opposition front, just like the socialists but at the other end of the spectrum.

 

Rat

I call you a right winger because you have mostly being pushing right wing ideas or those that would help wealth ever since I first knew you.

I know you don’t like socialism, but I also know you haven’t actually come up with any rational or reasonable reason for being against it, only the innuendo, supposition and rumour of conspiracy theory.

I also know that you used to praise right wing libertarianism very loudly until you found you couldn’t defend any other the ideas and so began claiming you were not a right wing libertarian (while pushing many of its ideas) .

And I do know that since that fact has became a little too well known that you have began talking of this rather social Darwinist plans for a non-monetary, non-urban system where everyone would fight everyone else for the resources to survive.

However I have noticed you still seem to be pushing many aspects of the right wing libertarian agenda.

**

 

I wonder if this non-monetary, non-urban alternative you talk about is just another ruse to carry on pushing right wing views or do you truly believe in it.

Well if you do truly believe it then you must have given it some thought and be able to answer some questions about it.

Now, as far as I know you’ve only really only talked about your ‘back to nature’ utopia once and only very briefly and then refused to discuss it.

But since it is supposed to be your new philosophy and you’ve had a year to think about it maybe you can tell me more.

How?

Where is the land for these people to come from?

Is there to be a redistribution of the land?

Who redistributes it?

Or is all land private and public to become ‘open’ land, open to the person strong enough to hold it? If so how is that not a social Darwinist philosophy?

**

Are you recommending a return to subsistence farming and do you realise how hard and fragile that can be? What about those that don’t want to be farmers?

If people used wood for there heating and cooking the whole of the US would be treeless in only a few years, and the environmental impact would be horrendous.

As to barter what are they going to barter?

**

So how are these tribes to be organised, who decides in disputes, over such things as land and resources etc? Who chooses the people who decide? Is might going to be right or will there be some type of choice if so in what way?


I know that was some time ago and the thoughts were new but you’ve had over a year to ponder these questions so I’m sure you can now.

If not, I’ll take it that this ‘back to nature’ stuff is really just another con to try and convince people you’re not really a right winger pushing right wing views that would favour wealth.

Over to you Rat….

 

LOL!!

Man, Balbus, you are a trip. You just keep going and going and going... like a mentally ill Energizer bunny.

As I have told you 50 million times before, socialism was funded into existence by "capitalist" bankers, for an aim far different than its advocates are duped into believing. Yes, many of its aims sound honorable to the average, uninformed person on the surface. After all, how could anyone not want to help the poor, end child labor, or stand up for the rights of the worker? These all sound like great, wonderful things! I mean, who doesn't want to help their fellow man?

Well, the globalists have been known to champion things that appear wholesome at face value, but in reality are far different once you peel away all the utopian rhetoric created to get people behind their agenda and thinking that it's a good thing and a solution to all the world's problems. In reality, socialism has nothing to do with helping the poor or anyone for that matter, except the super rich. Socialism actually creates poverty while consolidating wealth (which equates to power) in the hands of the very same ruling elite that socialism supposedly rails against (according to its proponents).

So the version of socialism given for the masses to believe in is simply a rose-colored, sugar-coated, utopian cover story that's sold to the people to justify more government control over their lives. The fact is that most of the problems in society have been caused by government, and they use the problems they create to justify more "solutions" (read control) and even more socialistic policies aimed at combating the problem. The West has been moving in a socialist (not capitalist) direction for the past 50 years, and the bigger government becomes, the more freedoms people lose and the poorer they become. I mean, just open your eyes and look around.

Now I realize this form of socialism I described above -- which is really corporatism, or corporate fascism -- is not the utopian vision of socialism you have in mind. But this was never intended to be and is impossible to attain. It's simply the version sold to the people to get them behind the government controlling every aspect of their lives, all under the guise of eliminating poverty and making everyone "equal." (Equal as slaves, maybe.)

THIS IS SOCIALISM'S UTOPIAN RUSE!

Some of socialism's earliest and biggest advocates were not the downtrodden masses, but the super wealthy elite. I suggest you look into the history of the British Fabian Society (which later created the British Labour Party) and some of the people that were involved with it. These people made clear what their aims were in their own writings... people like Bertrand Russell, George Bernard Shaw, Sidney Webb, HG Wells, etc. -- all Fabian socialists and elitist eugenicists.

The following is a quote from Fabian George Bernard Shaw:

Socialism means equality of income or nothing... under socialism you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you like it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live you would have to live well.​

Now you can say this is "supposition and innuendo" all you want. It's no skin off my back because everything I just said is documented in the works of people such as the late Dr. Antony Sutton; a British-born economist and professor and research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. He has written numerous books on the capitalist-socialist/communist connection. If you actually care about the truth, I recommend you start with his book titled Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. You can even read the entire book for free online here:

http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/

Wikipedia: Antony C. Sutton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_C._Sutton



Also, I never proposed those solutions you referred to in relation to the public as a whole. Those are MY solutions, and possible solutions an individual can make for themselves to get off the grid. I never suggested what you claim I did be imposed on anyone. If people want to remain ignorant and dependent on the system, why should I try and change them? Let them remain in the cities breathing toxic air and eating toxic food. After all, I am sure the government will be more than happy to take care of them once they get sick.

 

Blah, blah, blah…socialism is a tool of the elite….blah, blah, blah….government bad… blah, blah, blah…socialism is bad… blah, blah, blah…socialism is evil… blah, blah, blah…it’s a conspiracy… blah, blah, blah…

I ask questions and wish for debate and all I get is a rant based on the bogy stories of conspiracy.

We have been through the socialism question a number of times and you have no real arguments against it just some cock and bull story about every socialist thinking being in the pay of a generational conspiracy headed by Lucifer worshipers.

It was amusing but not exactly logical, rational or reasonable; its fairy tails for people that don’t like to think for themselves, very much like religion it is based on faith not reality.

**

I think this confirms my suspicions about Rats claims that he is not really just a right wing libertarian.

It seems he is trying yet another con.

There have been stages

He was openly a right wing libertarian

But it was obvious that he was pushing right wing views

So he began claiming he wasn’t of the right or left

But he kept pushing right wing libertarian views and people began to notice

So he is now trying to claim that he isn’t really a libertarian, he believes in some wishy washy kind of back to nature kick.

It’s a con, he’ll say that but then carry on pushing the right wing libertarian views as the ‘best alternative’, for the moment.

I’ve met real back to nature or alternative lifestyle types they have ideas they have plans, ask them questions and they can answer them, and since that is their goal they are enthusiastic about it.

Now look at Rat’s response, remember this ‘back to nature’ idea is meant to be his goal, yet can anyone sense any real enthusiasm for it, he does seem to have an enthusiasm for pushing right wing libertarian ideas and conspiracy theory, but not the back to nature thing at all.

He doesn’t seem to know a thing about it or to have given it any thought and he definitely doesn’t want to talk about it.

He only ever seems to get it out and dust it down when he’s assues of just being right wing libertarian.

OK rat one last chance….lets have a new thread on this back to nature view of yours