The American

The Europeans did it to the invading Mongols, the Athenians sent civilians infected with bubonic plauge to infiltrate the Spartans, the Goths under Tortila cut the Roman aquaducts, but that's not exactly biological wafare.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well said Lucy

No one can claim omniscience, I know this. However it seems to me that you've not seen the fight here, there is a fight, we have independent media, that is telling of the perspective we so see fit. (WAKE THE FUCK UP AMERICA)
"just to summarise all their shows," Pacifica radio is its name, they run their shows BBC is one of them so is Democracy Now with Amy Goodman.
http://www.democracynow.org/
http://www.pacifica.org/

I know it, Wonderer knows it, you know, and many of these people here know it. Americans are consumed by their media, the propaganda machinery is something that even Hitler would envy.

But many are on the struggle to "take our nation back" I see this as just another political ploy, these here two parties have brought this nation to its present state, Americans have no choice, really when it comes down to it. The lack of knowledge, and the "Hey Dood Where's my Car" mentality of this country never really lets an independent speak or even be posted on the valot. I have a bumper sticker that reads "Anybody But Bush" on my car! lol, hell knowing that the next pundit comes from the same Ivy League School, with the same secret society ties, as the next. Either way we loose. Only they lessen the grip.


About the Indians:
Lucy every nation has come in conquest. The people of the may flower came scaping religious prosecution, the rest came to conquer, the Conquistadores, came for a different reason. The whole thing was to spread thier gods upon these here people. That is the Conquistadores slaughter the Mayan only because they did not pay homeage to their god. Thus they saw them as savages. The very first settlers put up fences, conflicts began, thus wars..The Indians did not fence in what they saw as their land, they roamed free, the settlers saw it as "traspacing" prety pathetic. But it is erroneous to me to have this society take responcibility for the actions of another, that was over two hundred years ago, hell if we are going to look at things that way, we would never stop. The beggining of civilization was conquest, oligarchies fought one another all through out history.

"thus a gang of thugs attacking another"

Well wait a minute; if done intentionally it could be interpreted as such. There has been a weird phenomenon going on on British Airways, people are dying on their flights, http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,61977,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_8 Could the possibility of "infected air be at play?" They don't know yet.
But sending someone with some infected desease, that has no known cure and is terminally. I would consider it "stealth biological war fare" if the culprit first infected the people, then sent them to their target. What a sick mind. (Damn if I dont contemplate suitside) It is the only option left when one realizes they are not free. However the illusion of freedom keeps me going, and If there comes another civil war in this country at least I know which side I'll be on!.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

but I don't think it will come to that.

Godless.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I know Democracy Now and WBAI, they speak for the Left and do a good job of bringing an alternative view to light. They can be too left for me on occasion, but that's just my personal opinion, at least they are passionate about their principles and actively work towards social change. I only brought up the Indians because of your "they came to live in peace" statement concerning the early settlers. But the past is only good for reference, in the meantime there are other transgressions taking place and a growing distracted nation that seems more and more determined to remain oblivious. Not all but enough.

Quote:sending someone with some infected desease, that has no known cure and is terminally. I would consider it "stealth biological war fare" if the culprit first infected the people, then sent them to their target

LOL. Careful Godless Osama might be reading this and get a few ideas.

Suicide? No it is the illusion of freedom that keeps people distracted. An awake public stays informed and pays attention, they also have a way of thinking outside the box and steering away from bi-partisan politics. They engage in grass-roots efforts and take an active interest in government attempting to dictate its direction, instead of waiting to hear what direction it is taking and leaving it alone. They also look at their personal habits and see if they are a part of the problem. I agree with Xev when she says that we have to look at our society, its culture and ensure our personal freedom and power within it, as opposed to getting swept away by it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Na!! Terrorist seek to do the most effect, infecting a few people only gets a few people infected before CDC finds out and starts to erradicate the problem..And that just reminds me, this country is the most policed country in the world, we have more agencies with three letter accronims than any I know off!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Heard of this guy Michael Moore? I watched "Bowling for Columbine" the other day, it was a very disturbing documentary, he has also written two books which are on my buyers list, 1 Dood were's my counrtry. 2 Stupid White Men.. He is hated by mainstream America, therefore never on in-bed media, or Corporate Media just wondering if you've had heard of him? here is his web site: http://www.michaelmoore.com/

Godless.

 

Thank for the reminder Bells, I gotta get over to WalMart for beer (CHingTao, of course), skeet shells, and clay pigeons.

Does anyone know how to say "PULL" in Chinese?

Or how about "Please, Sir, can you spare some change?"

 

Or Michael Moore might just be a fat, egomaniacal, pathetic asshat who hasn't done anything worthwhile since TV Nation, who thinks he represents liberal America, and makes ridiculous leaps of logic in an attempt to paint a picture that isn't really representative of anything other than his overtly slanted point of view.

Poor Wes Clark. The Daily Show nailed it.

 

I'll take all the fat hairy anti-Limbaughgers we can get, with extra cheese, please. He's made a lot of Americans think twice, and when they become even more aware than Mike-Me More, all the better, huzzah!

HUZZAH! I like the sound o that, arrrrh. (sorry, I recently watched Pirates of the Caribbean)

 

Nah. They ended up conquering, but not really why they came. Spanish were the first to conquer of course, because they had to conquer before they could both exploit and convert natives to Christianity. French and Dutch came to establish trade. English came to colonize, because they were running out of land for their growing population, because of religious problems, and looking to make quick riches. Most of the early settlements established extensive trade with tribes, who fought for trading rights with the settlers to get the guns to gain an edge over competitive rivals. As more and more settlers came over and began spreading the frontier into traditional hunting grounds, that's when it got ugly.

 

Moore is a stupid, self-hating chubby with serious ethical issues:
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Bells:

Austrailians who believe this shit are funnier.

You mean the one where Moore cut out fifteen minutes of a twenty minute interview?

It has nothing to do with the fact that his documentary was fraudulent, or the fact that fellow 'liberals' despise him for being unethical, it's because he hits upon the 'truth'.

Right.
Nothing is so absurd that some whiny America basher will believe it.

 

Well thanks Xev, the link you gave shed some light to what I had heard Friday morning on Democracy Now. He made an idiot of himself, when callers were calling asking questions.
I must admit, I didn't find the film too entertaining, I thought it was a freaking movie. LOL, however I didn't buy the damn thing I rented it. I particurlarly didn't like his Heston interview, tried to make the man look like a fool, that has no compassion.
In the Democracy Now interview, I found out he supported bush, and is an admited Republican, so why the change of ideology?. His answer of little value, pretty much he didn't like some of the administrations actions such as the Patriotiot Acts, well I don't like them either, however this is what seems that he claimed started to investigate. Well he didn't investigate far enough!!. Friday we hear he is endorcing a Dem's Kerry candidate, of which on the same day, by another investigative reporter, I hear the term Skull&Bones secret society of Yale, that same day it was revealed that Kerry is a member to the Skull&Bones same as Bush. So in essense, I believe the pundit of Moore now to also be a member of this secret society, however this is purely "speculation" but my reasons are this: The Skull&Bones, are a bunch of pappa boys who basically promise to help eachother's careers, so they can be in charge of either "industries, mass media, or politics all of them holding these same ideals" and always kept secret well they too have been exposed. http://www.secretsofthetomb.com/ The skull and bones society don't care who wins in any election year, as long as it is one of them!!.
This is why I don't support either party!.

Godless.

 

What a pitiful Democracy it is that offers only 2-3 political options to its citizenry?
If choice is the definition of freedom then how free are Americans?
Why does Italy and every European nation have at least 10 political parties expressing multiple points of view and in the States there have been 2 forever?
Is this a real Democracy or a plutocracy pretending to be one?

 

Well we do have others as well W. the thing is they never make it to the polls, they are never advertised, they are never enough who follow, do to finance or fail misarebly starting one like Perot's attempt to create a liberal independent party, some remnants are still out there, howeve they don't have supporters such as Texaco,Halliburton,IBM,MicroSoft,ShellOil,Labor Unions, independent have won small office like governor, or city council, but it is mainly do to MONEY!!. If a multibillionaire say BillGates, wanted to start a Liberal party or offer billions to say The communist party of America they would have money to expose themselves and their ideas. http://www.cpusa.org/

Godless.

 

"What a pitiful Democracy it is that offers only 2-3 political options to its citizenry?
If choice is the definition of freedom then how free are Americans?
Why does Italy and every European nation have at least 10 political parties expressing multiple points of view and in the States there have been 2 forever?
Is this a real Democracy or a plutocracy pretending to be one?"

Basically, the reason you dont have multiple parties is that America is a young country. Ohter countries (like almost any European country) have had governments that have developed usually from Kings, etc. This means that there has been a long period of time to introduce new parties.
America however, does not have this history and so a governmental systemn was just inserted immediatley. Probably in 50-100 years America might have multiple parties- but rememeber that Europeans were stil under Royalty after 250 years- so think yourselves lucky etc.

Also, Micheal Moore may be biased and extremley fat and liberal (or whatever) but there is NOONE putting forward a strong Republican standpoint in the way he does. (At least ive never heard of 'em) If there was, maybe that woudl help a bit. or maybe im talkin' rubbish...

 

Actually we do have more than 3 political parties in the USA but the media tends to focus only on the 2 majors. We also have a lot of independents who list no party affiliations. The rise of political parties was repulsive to our first President who was fiercely independent.

 

None of the founders envisioned political parties. Disagreements between the direction of the republic became obvious at the Constitutional Convention, and began to widen to a point of no return when Hamilton submitted his Report on Public Credit to the Congress.

 

If candidates with the largest cash bag and spiffiest advertising campaign are the most likely to catch a voters attention then we are all in trouble. Its like buying a product because you liked the commercial. Look at how the media concerned themselves with Deans enthusiasm during his speech in Iowa? Like so what? Media needs reform in the States also. Campaigns have become no more than a personality contest. Why is it not possible to control campaign spending by allocating a certain amount of money for each to run with? Then the candidates would have to rely on less flashy methods of getting their message across. I would like to see more community debates where candidates have to answer questions directly from the people like in town meetings etc. One should demand these people express their positions and plans in depth, right now we just get rhetoric and sound bite answers. Its a plutocracy for sure, because lobbyists go directly to those in the seat of power to make sure their interests are met. This link is Bill Moyer's Keynote Address on media reform. I found it very inspiring and he made some interesting points that need to be addressed by media and those of us that consume it. I hope some of you take the time to really read it through:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1112-10.htm

Spyke: Could you elaborate on Hamilton's Report On Public Credit submitted to Congress?

 

Lucy -

I'll give you the shortest version I can and have it make sense. In 1790, Congress asked Hamilton, as Sect. of Treasury, to submit a report on the nation's finances. His report basically had 2 proposals, a national bank, & funding and assumption.

First of all, the report noted that the federal government owed $52 million. He believed it was important that it be paid in full, or it would lack the credit to borrow from investors or other nations. This would be done through excise taxes, including the controversial 25% excise tax on whiskey. He wanted a national bank, as Britain had, to hold government deposits and issue bank notes, and he believed it should be controlled by the wealthy. Jefferson mistrusted having a national bank (Madison wasn't against it, but didn't like the idea of the wealthy controlling it). Jefferson was also a strict Constitutionalist and argued that there was no provision for it in the Constitution.
Hamilton successfully countered that although the Constitution did not openly state it, it implied it in Art. 1, sect. 8, when it gave Congress the power to levy taxes. He argued the federal government needed a national bank from which to levy taxes and store revenue. The '"necessary and proper" for Congress to carry out it's duties' argument. This argument swayed Washington, who was consdiring vetoing the bank bill. A charter for a bank was issued, to be renewed every 20 years by Congress.

He also reported that the states owed $25 million from the war, and the report called for the federal government to assume those debts. This angered states like Virginia (Madison and Jefferson's state), which had already paid off its war debt, and would have to assume with the other states the burden of extra taxes to pay those debts off. He also believed that with the federal government assuming these debts, it would give it more control over the states, something that was not lost on Madison. Madison had the votes to defeat this bill, but some behind the scenes meetings took place, mainly over dinners, and the Virginians agreed to it in exchange for the new capital being built closer to Virginia, instead of being placed in one of the other locations. The location where Washington is had been at the bottom of the list, partly because it was partially swampland.

The fight over the report caused a permanent rupture among those who former supporters of the Constitution, and caused Madison, who had co-written the Federalist Papers with Hamilton, to split from Hamilton and the federalists and become one of Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans.

That's enough. There was another report that Hamilton submitted later that year, the Report on Manufactures, on how the nation should develop its manufacturing (textile mills) to free itself from foreign imports. But to do so would require government invention, something obviously few other of the ex-revolutionaries were willing to do. This was defeated in Congress.

Here's a copy of the first report.

http://shs.westport.k12.ct.us/jwb/AP/TLdocs/HamCredit.htm

 

It's a plutocracy pretending to be one, we went over that. Men of bronze... remember? This answer should hardly be a revelation to you, since we've already spent time discussing "how to treat the plebes".