- This topic has 640 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 4 months ago by
afx114.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 4, 2011 at 9:02 AM #693181May 4, 2011 at 9:11 AM #692020
Shadowfax
Participant[quote=Hobie]Not sure how you define bungled, but probably the instances where she ‘bungled’ is just what people can personally relate and like.
People are getting tired of politicians that are too polished and smooth. Fast talking, slick are terms that can be applied equally to both parties.
Palin personality comes off more genuine and real. And this is why she continues to have audiences.
” they all suck” is a fine description as we all voted for one who ‘sucked’ less. Hence the winners percentage margins. If any candidate was truly exceptional, they would pull much larger percentage wins.[/quote]
I can make allowances for someone who is not “polished” or gets nervous in an interview because they are not groomed or used to the limelight, which would have been legitimate excuses for Palin to make in her thankfully short-lived run at the VP seat. Someone with a quick mind and grasp of facts and history and current issues could formulate answers with substance, albeit in a simple form or while showing some nervousness.
But Palin showed herself to be close to or approaching idiocy level. There was no humble, “I’m sorry, I was just nominated yesterday and have been focusing on issues in Alaska so give me a moment to think over your questions….” She just whipped out her talking points and tried to bulldozer over those failings, and pretend she actually could think up an answer…. She couldn’t form a coherent sentence half the time, which is convenient when you are hedging your responses and trying to hide what a moron you are. It made her look like the fool she is. If she was legitimately “folksy”, she could have pulled it off by being MORE sincere. Instead she tried to play a game she was completely unqualified for. And it was pretty obvious that her handlers tried to give her the immersive course in the issues–but they weren’t dealing with a very porous subject, most of it flowed through like a sieve.
So don’t try to make the argument that “intelligent” = “slick”. One of my favorite politicians (oxymoron?) is Tony Blair, not because of what he stood for necessarily, but because he could speak contemporaneously on just about any subject thrown at him–in stark contrast to stuttering, stammering Bush II. There are a lot of slimey politicians out there, but I’d rather support someone with intellect than a cute, folksy retard in expensive suits.
May 4, 2011 at 9:11 AM #692093Participant[quote=Hobie]Not sure how you define bungled, but probably the instances where she ‘bungled’ is just what people can personally relate and like.
People are getting tired of politicians that are too polished and smooth. Fast talking, slick are terms that can be applied equally to both parties.
Palin personality comes off more genuine and real. And this is why she continues to have audiences.
” they all suck” is a fine description as we all voted for one who ‘sucked’ less. Hence the winners percentage margins. If any candidate was truly exceptional, they would pull much larger percentage wins.[/quote]
I can make allowances for someone who is not “polished” or gets nervous in an interview because they are not groomed or used to the limelight, which would have been legitimate excuses for Palin to make in her thankfully short-lived run at the VP seat. Someone with a quick mind and grasp of facts and history and current issues could formulate answers with substance, albeit in a simple form or while showing some nervousness.
But Palin showed herself to be close to or approaching idiocy level. There was no humble, “I’m sorry, I was just nominated yesterday and have been focusing on issues in Alaska so give me a moment to think over your questions….” She just whipped out her talking points and tried to bulldozer over those failings, and pretend she actually could think up an answer…. She couldn’t form a coherent sentence half the time, which is convenient when you are hedging your responses and trying to hide what a moron you are. It made her look like the fool she is. If she was legitimately “folksy”, she could have pulled it off by being MORE sincere. Instead she tried to play a game she was completely unqualified for. And it was pretty obvious that her handlers tried to give her the immersive course in the issues–but they weren’t dealing with a very porous subject, most of it flowed through like a sieve.
So don’t try to make the argument that “intelligent” = “slick”. One of my favorite politicians (oxymoron?) is Tony Blair, not because of what he stood for necessarily, but because he could speak contemporaneously on just about any subject thrown at him–in stark contrast to stuttering, stammering Bush II. There are a lot of slimey politicians out there, but I’d rather support someone with intellect than a cute, folksy retard in expensive suits.
May 4, 2011 at 9:11 AM #692692Participant[quote=Hobie]Not sure how you define bungled, but probably the instances where she ‘bungled’ is just what people can personally relate and like.
People are getting tired of politicians that are too polished and smooth. Fast talking, slick are terms that can be applied equally to both parties.
Palin personality comes off more genuine and real. And this is why she continues to have audiences.
” they all suck” is a fine description as we all voted for one who ‘sucked’ less. Hence the winners percentage margins. If any candidate was truly exceptional, they would pull much larger percentage wins.[/quote]
I can make allowances for someone who is not “polished” or gets nervous in an interview because they are not groomed or used to the limelight, which would have been legitimate excuses for Palin to make in her thankfully short-lived run at the VP seat. Someone with a quick mind and grasp of facts and history and current issues could formulate answers with substance, albeit in a simple form or while showing some nervousness.
But Palin showed herself to be close to or approaching idiocy level. There was no humble, “I’m sorry, I was just nominated yesterday and have been focusing on issues in Alaska so give me a moment to think over your questions….” She just whipped out her talking points and tried to bulldozer over those failings, and pretend she actually could think up an answer…. She couldn’t form a coherent sentence half the time, which is convenient when you are hedging your responses and trying to hide what a moron you are. It made her look like the fool she is. If she was legitimately “folksy”, she could have pulled it off by being MORE sincere. Instead she tried to play a game she was completely unqualified for. And it was pretty obvious that her handlers tried to give her the immersive course in the issues–but they weren’t dealing with a very porous subject, most of it flowed through like a sieve.
So don’t try to make the argument that “intelligent” = “slick”. One of my favorite politicians (oxymoron?) is Tony Blair, not because of what he stood for necessarily, but because he could speak contemporaneously on just about any subject thrown at him–in stark contrast to stuttering, stammering Bush II. There are a lot of slimey politicians out there, but I’d rather support someone with intellect than a cute, folksy retard in expensive suits.
May 4, 2011 at 9:11 AM #692837Participant[quote=Hobie]Not sure how you define bungled, but probably the instances where she ‘bungled’ is just what people can personally relate and like.
People are getting tired of politicians that are too polished and smooth. Fast talking, slick are terms that can be applied equally to both parties.
Palin personality comes off more genuine and real. And this is why she continues to have audiences.
” they all suck” is a fine description as we all voted for one who ‘sucked’ less. Hence the winners percentage margins. If any candidate was truly exceptional, they would pull much larger percentage wins.[/quote]
I can make allowances for someone who is not “polished” or gets nervous in an interview because they are not groomed or used to the limelight, which would have been legitimate excuses for Palin to make in her thankfully short-lived run at the VP seat. Someone with a quick mind and grasp of facts and history and current issues could formulate answers with substance, albeit in a simple form or while showing some nervousness.
But Palin showed herself to be close to or approaching idiocy level. There was no humble, “I’m sorry, I was just nominated yesterday and have been focusing on issues in Alaska so give me a moment to think over your questions….” She just whipped out her talking points and tried to bulldozer over those failings, and pretend she actually could think up an answer…. She couldn’t form a coherent sentence half the time, which is convenient when you are hedging your responses and trying to hide what a moron you are. It made her look like the fool she is. If she was legitimately “folksy”, she could have pulled it off by being MORE sincere. Instead she tried to play a game she was completely unqualified for. And it was pretty obvious that her handlers tried to give her the immersive course in the issues–but they weren’t dealing with a very porous subject, most of it flowed through like a sieve.
So don’t try to make the argument that “intelligent” = “slick”. One of my favorite politicians (oxymoron?) is Tony Blair, not because of what he stood for necessarily, but because he could speak contemporaneously on just about any subject thrown at him–in stark contrast to stuttering, stammering Bush II. There are a lot of slimey politicians out there, but I’d rather support someone with intellect than a cute, folksy retard in expensive suits.
May 4, 2011 at 9:11 AM #693187Participant[quote=Hobie]Not sure how you define bungled, but probably the instances where she ‘bungled’ is just what people can personally relate and like.
People are getting tired of politicians that are too polished and smooth. Fast talking, slick are terms that can be applied equally to both parties.
Palin personality comes off more genuine and real. And this is why she continues to have audiences.
” they all suck” is a fine description as we all voted for one who ‘sucked’ less. Hence the winners percentage margins. If any candidate was truly exceptional, they would pull much larger percentage wins.[/quote]
I can make allowances for someone who is not “polished” or gets nervous in an interview because they are not groomed or used to the limelight, which would have been legitimate excuses for Palin to make in her thankfully short-lived run at the VP seat. Someone with a quick mind and grasp of facts and history and current issues could formulate answers with substance, albeit in a simple form or while showing some nervousness.
But Palin showed herself to be close to or approaching idiocy level. There was no humble, “I’m sorry, I was just nominated yesterday and have been focusing on issues in Alaska so give me a moment to think over your questions….” She just whipped out her talking points and tried to bulldozer over those failings, and pretend she actually could think up an answer…. She couldn’t form a coherent sentence half the time, which is convenient when you are hedging your responses and trying to hide what a moron you are. It made her look like the fool she is. If she was legitimately “folksy”, she could have pulled it off by being MORE sincere. Instead she tried to play a game she was completely unqualified for. And it was pretty obvious that her handlers tried to give her the immersive course in the issues–but they weren’t dealing with a very porous subject, most of it flowed through like a sieve.
So don’t try to make the argument that “intelligent” = “slick”. One of my favorite politicians (oxymoron?) is Tony Blair, not because of what he stood for necessarily, but because he could speak contemporaneously on just about any subject thrown at him–in stark contrast to stuttering, stammering Bush II. There are a lot of slimey politicians out there, but I’d rather support someone with intellect than a cute, folksy retard in expensive suits.
May 4, 2011 at 9:29 AM #692030Participant[quote=bearishgurl]This should dispel any rumors as to whether OBL is actually dead … or not.
(AP Photo/MBC via APTN) By MATT APUZZO and ADAM GOLDMAN 05/3/11 09:31 PM ET
WASHINGTON — Osama bin Laden was unarmed when Navy SEALs burst into his room and shot him to death, the White House said Tuesday, a change in the official account that raised questions about whether the U.S. ever planned to capture the terrorist leader alive.
The Obama administration was still debating whether to release gruesome images of bin Laden’s corpse, balancing efforts to demonstrate to the world that he was dead against the risk that the images could provoke further anti-U.S. sentiment. But CIA Director Leon Panetta said a photograph would be released.
“I don’t think there was any question that ultimately a photograph would be presented to the public,” Panetta said in an interview with “NBC Nightly News.” Asked again later by The Associated Press, he said, “I think it will.”
Asked about the final confrontation with bin Laden, Panetta said: “I don’t think he had a lot of time to say anything.” The CIA chief told PBS NewsHour, “It was a firefight going up that compound. … I think it – this was all split-second action on the part of the SEALs.”
Panetta said that bin Laden made “some threatening moves that were made that clearly represented a clear threat to our guys. And that’s the reason they fired.”
The SEALs were back in the U.S. at Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington for debriefing on the raid, lawmakers said after meeting with Panetta…
[/quote]
Thanks, BG. That answers my question about resisting capture…
Oh, and why are they giving the location of where the actors in that mission are now located for debriefing? Does this strike anyone else as stupid? Let’s just offer up the next terrorist attack location! Another revenge killing in the making.
May 4, 2011 at 9:29 AM #692103Participant[quote=bearishgurl]This should dispel any rumors as to whether OBL is actually dead … or not.
(AP Photo/MBC via APTN) By MATT APUZZO and ADAM GOLDMAN 05/3/11 09:31 PM ET
WASHINGTON — Osama bin Laden was unarmed when Navy SEALs burst into his room and shot him to death, the White House said Tuesday, a change in the official account that raised questions about whether the U.S. ever planned to capture the terrorist leader alive.
The Obama administration was still debating whether to release gruesome images of bin Laden’s corpse, balancing efforts to demonstrate to the world that he was dead against the risk that the images could provoke further anti-U.S. sentiment. But CIA Director Leon Panetta said a photograph would be released.
“I don’t think there was any question that ultimately a photograph would be presented to the public,” Panetta said in an interview with “NBC Nightly News.” Asked again later by The Associated Press, he said, “I think it will.”
Asked about the final confrontation with bin Laden, Panetta said: “I don’t think he had a lot of time to say anything.” The CIA chief told PBS NewsHour, “It was a firefight going up that compound. … I think it – this was all split-second action on the part of the SEALs.”
Panetta said that bin Laden made “some threatening moves that were made that clearly represented a clear threat to our guys. And that’s the reason they fired.”
The SEALs were back in the U.S. at Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington for debriefing on the raid, lawmakers said after meeting with Panetta…
[/quote]
Thanks, BG. That answers my question about resisting capture…
Oh, and why are they giving the location of where the actors in that mission are now located for debriefing? Does this strike anyone else as stupid? Let’s just offer up the next terrorist attack location! Another revenge killing in the making.
May 4, 2011 at 9:29 AM #692702Participant[quote=bearishgurl]This should dispel any rumors as to whether OBL is actually dead … or not.
(AP Photo/MBC via APTN) By MATT APUZZO and ADAM GOLDMAN 05/3/11 09:31 PM ET
WASHINGTON — Osama bin Laden was unarmed when Navy SEALs burst into his room and shot him to death, the White House said Tuesday, a change in the official account that raised questions about whether the U.S. ever planned to capture the terrorist leader alive.
The Obama administration was still debating whether to release gruesome images of bin Laden’s corpse, balancing efforts to demonstrate to the world that he was dead against the risk that the images could provoke further anti-U.S. sentiment. But CIA Director Leon Panetta said a photograph would be released.
“I don’t think there was any question that ultimately a photograph would be presented to the public,” Panetta said in an interview with “NBC Nightly News.” Asked again later by The Associated Press, he said, “I think it will.”
Asked about the final confrontation with bin Laden, Panetta said: “I don’t think he had a lot of time to say anything.” The CIA chief told PBS NewsHour, “It was a firefight going up that compound. … I think it – this was all split-second action on the part of the SEALs.”
Panetta said that bin Laden made “some threatening moves that were made that clearly represented a clear threat to our guys. And that’s the reason they fired.”
The SEALs were back in the U.S. at Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington for debriefing on the raid, lawmakers said after meeting with Panetta…
[/quote]
Thanks, BG. That answers my question about resisting capture…
Oh, and why are they giving the location of where the actors in that mission are now located for debriefing? Does this strike anyone else as stupid? Let’s just offer up the next terrorist attack location! Another revenge killing in the making.
May 4, 2011 at 9:29 AM #692847Participant[quote=bearishgurl]This should dispel any rumors as to whether OBL is actually dead … or not.
(AP Photo/MBC via APTN) By MATT APUZZO and ADAM GOLDMAN 05/3/11 09:31 PM ET
WASHINGTON — Osama bin Laden was unarmed when Navy SEALs burst into his room and shot him to death, the White House said Tuesday, a change in the official account that raised questions about whether the U.S. ever planned to capture the terrorist leader alive.
The Obama administration was still debating whether to release gruesome images of bin Laden’s corpse, balancing efforts to demonstrate to the world that he was dead against the risk that the images could provoke further anti-U.S. sentiment. But CIA Director Leon Panetta said a photograph would be released.
“I don’t think there was any question that ultimately a photograph would be presented to the public,” Panetta said in an interview with “NBC Nightly News.” Asked again later by The Associated Press, he said, “I think it will.”
Asked about the final confrontation with bin Laden, Panetta said: “I don’t think he had a lot of time to say anything.” The CIA chief told PBS NewsHour, “It was a firefight going up that compound. … I think it – this was all split-second action on the part of the SEALs.”
Panetta said that bin Laden made “some threatening moves that were made that clearly represented a clear threat to our guys. And that’s the reason they fired.”
The SEALs were back in the U.S. at Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington for debriefing on the raid, lawmakers said after meeting with Panetta…
[/quote]
Thanks, BG. That answers my question about resisting capture…
Oh, and why are they giving the location of where the actors in that mission are now located for debriefing? Does this strike anyone else as stupid? Let’s just offer up the next terrorist attack location! Another revenge killing in the making.
May 4, 2011 at 9:29 AM #693197Participant[quote=bearishgurl]This should dispel any rumors as to whether OBL is actually dead … or not.
(AP Photo/MBC via APTN) By MATT APUZZO and ADAM GOLDMAN 05/3/11 09:31 PM ET
WASHINGTON — Osama bin Laden was unarmed when Navy SEALs burst into his room and shot him to death, the White House said Tuesday, a change in the official account that raised questions about whether the U.S. ever planned to capture the terrorist leader alive.
The Obama administration was still debating whether to release gruesome images of bin Laden’s corpse, balancing efforts to demonstrate to the world that he was dead against the risk that the images could provoke further anti-U.S. sentiment. But CIA Director Leon Panetta said a photograph would be released.
“I don’t think there was any question that ultimately a photograph would be presented to the public,” Panetta said in an interview with “NBC Nightly News.” Asked again later by The Associated Press, he said, “I think it will.”
Asked about the final confrontation with bin Laden, Panetta said: “I don’t think he had a lot of time to say anything.” The CIA chief told PBS NewsHour, “It was a firefight going up that compound. … I think it – this was all split-second action on the part of the SEALs.”
Panetta said that bin Laden made “some threatening moves that were made that clearly represented a clear threat to our guys. And that’s the reason they fired.”
The SEALs were back in the U.S. at Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington for debriefing on the raid, lawmakers said after meeting with Panetta…
[/quote]
Thanks, BG. That answers my question about resisting capture…
Oh, and why are they giving the location of where the actors in that mission are now located for debriefing? Does this strike anyone else as stupid? Let’s just offer up the next terrorist attack location! Another revenge killing in the making.
May 4, 2011 at 9:30 AM #692035Arraya
Participant[quote=captcha]Is TPTB an atheist’s substitute for God? The untouchable, invisible force that tweaks things here and there to push the mankind in desirable direction?[/quote]
Please, staged “feel good” events was a forte of the Bush administration. The failing of Saddam’s statue was completely staged. The Pat Tillman story was completely made up. The Jessica lynch drama came out to be completely made up.
[quote=captcha]
So, did Osama die and 2002 and was secretly replaced by a lookalike who fooled everyone including 5 wives that the original Osama had coitus with? Are the wives and the couriers part of TPTB or manipulated souls unable to recognize the fraud?
[/quote]I’ve heard stories of wives? Though, really have not seen any validation? The story very well could be true ,but with the big picture is irrelevant to me.
The first century satirist, Decimus Juvenalis, grief-stricken by the destruction of the Roman Republic at the hands of a succession of emperors and tyrants, wrote: “The people that once bestowed commands, consulships, legions, and all else, now meddle no more and long eagerly for just two things — bread and circuses.” At that time, the autocratic rulers of the empire were highly visible. Even celebrities. They played the hollow Roman Senate like a pipe organ and created elaborate events, moments of pageantry in the otherwise terrifyingly bleak lives of the citizenry, and of course, the people were thoroughly distracted while their economy, their government, and their land crumbled around them.
Today, our autocratic rulers in the form of a corporate oligarchy keep rather hidden from the prying eyes of the commoners, but they wield the same power as the emperors of old, with the same obvious results. America is ripping apart at the seams. Our currency has been destroyed. Our treasury is indebted beyond the point of any return. The cost of our daily survival is quickly rising beyond any average person’s means to pay. And, our political system is a never ending parade of googly-eyed muppets singing and dancing to the tune of the false left/right paradigm. Yet, where has our attention been lately…?
Apparently our impending doom is not as entertaining as the Osama Bin Laden Show, which has been written and choreographed like a bad Tom Clancy novel, or a contrived episode of ‘24’ (Jack Bauer finally shoots Bin Laden square in the head with his hawk-like vision and badass marksmanship while Osama in typical TV land fashion uses a woman as a human shield. Sorry to spoil the ending for you if you haven’t seen the final episode yet). Or how about the battle of “wits” (I say this knowing full well the irony) between Barack Obama and Donald Trump, two soulless rock-em’ sock-em’ robots in a fake duel for fake polls, fake votes, and a fake presidency. Let’s not forget about the “Royal Wedding”, the eagerly awaited international event that featured a throng of throwbacks from the Dark Ages prancing around in Nutcracker outfits and partying to the tune of millions in British taxpayer dollars.
Do any of these things really matter? Not in the slightest. How long must we endure this hokey carnival ride before we finally start focusing on legitimately important issues? That’s really up to us…
The “war on terror” myth is much more comforting than the reality. But, it has been immensely profitable and spawned a new thriving industry, public and private.
May 4, 2011 at 9:30 AM #692108Participant[quote=captcha]Is TPTB an atheist’s substitute for God? The untouchable, invisible force that tweaks things here and there to push the mankind in desirable direction?[/quote]
Please, staged “feel good” events was a forte of the Bush administration. The failing of Saddam’s statue was completely staged. The Pat Tillman story was completely made up. The Jessica lynch drama came out to be completely made up.
[quote=captcha]
So, did Osama die and 2002 and was secretly replaced by a lookalike who fooled everyone including 5 wives that the original Osama had coitus with? Are the wives and the couriers part of TPTB or manipulated souls unable to recognize the fraud?
[/quote]I’ve heard stories of wives? Though, really have not seen any validation? The story very well could be true ,but with the big picture is irrelevant to me.
The first century satirist, Decimus Juvenalis, grief-stricken by the destruction of the Roman Republic at the hands of a succession of emperors and tyrants, wrote: “The people that once bestowed commands, consulships, legions, and all else, now meddle no more and long eagerly for just two things — bread and circuses.” At that time, the autocratic rulers of the empire were highly visible. Even celebrities. They played the hollow Roman Senate like a pipe organ and created elaborate events, moments of pageantry in the otherwise terrifyingly bleak lives of the citizenry, and of course, the people were thoroughly distracted while their economy, their government, and their land crumbled around them.
Today, our autocratic rulers in the form of a corporate oligarchy keep rather hidden from the prying eyes of the commoners, but they wield the same power as the emperors of old, with the same obvious results. America is ripping apart at the seams. Our currency has been destroyed. Our treasury is indebted beyond the point of any return. The cost of our daily survival is quickly rising beyond any average person’s means to pay. And, our political system is a never ending parade of googly-eyed muppets singing and dancing to the tune of the false left/right paradigm. Yet, where has our attention been lately…?
Apparently our impending doom is not as entertaining as the Osama Bin Laden Show, which has been written and choreographed like a bad Tom Clancy novel, or a contrived episode of ‘24’ (Jack Bauer finally shoots Bin Laden square in the head with his hawk-like vision and badass marksmanship while Osama in typical TV land fashion uses a woman as a human shield. Sorry to spoil the ending for you if you haven’t seen the final episode yet). Or how about the battle of “wits” (I say this knowing full well the irony) between Barack Obama and Donald Trump, two soulless rock-em’ sock-em’ robots in a fake duel for fake polls, fake votes, and a fake presidency. Let’s not forget about the “Royal Wedding”, the eagerly awaited international event that featured a throng of throwbacks from the Dark Ages prancing around in Nutcracker outfits and partying to the tune of millions in British taxpayer dollars.
Do any of these things really matter? Not in the slightest. How long must we endure this hokey carnival ride before we finally start focusing on legitimately important issues? That’s really up to us…
The “war on terror” myth is much more comforting than the reality. But, it has been immensely profitable and spawned a new thriving industry, public and private.
May 4, 2011 at 9:30 AM #692707Participant[quote=captcha]Is TPTB an atheist’s substitute for God? The untouchable, invisible force that tweaks things here and there to push the mankind in desirable direction?[/quote]
Please, staged “feel good” events was a forte of the Bush administration. The failing of Saddam’s statue was completely staged. The Pat Tillman story was completely made up. The Jessica lynch drama came out to be completely made up.
[quote=captcha]
So, did Osama die and 2002 and was secretly replaced by a lookalike who fooled everyone including 5 wives that the original Osama had coitus with? Are the wives and the couriers part of TPTB or manipulated souls unable to recognize the fraud?
[/quote]I’ve heard stories of wives? Though, really have not seen any validation? The story very well could be true ,but with the big picture is irrelevant to me.
The first century satirist, Decimus Juvenalis, grief-stricken by the destruction of the Roman Republic at the hands of a succession of emperors and tyrants, wrote: “The people that once bestowed commands, consulships, legions, and all else, now meddle no more and long eagerly for just two things — bread and circuses.” At that time, the autocratic rulers of the empire were highly visible. Even celebrities. They played the hollow Roman Senate like a pipe organ and created elaborate events, moments of pageantry in the otherwise terrifyingly bleak lives of the citizenry, and of course, the people were thoroughly distracted while their economy, their government, and their land crumbled around them.
Today, our autocratic rulers in the form of a corporate oligarchy keep rather hidden from the prying eyes of the commoners, but they wield the same power as the emperors of old, with the same obvious results. America is ripping apart at the seams. Our currency has been destroyed. Our treasury is indebted beyond the point of any return. The cost of our daily survival is quickly rising beyond any average person’s means to pay. And, our political system is a never ending parade of googly-eyed muppets singing and dancing to the tune of the false left/right paradigm. Yet, where has our attention been lately…?
Apparently our impending doom is not as entertaining as the Osama Bin Laden Show, which has been written and choreographed like a bad Tom Clancy novel, or a contrived episode of ‘24’ (Jack Bauer finally shoots Bin Laden square in the head with his hawk-like vision and badass marksmanship while Osama in typical TV land fashion uses a woman as a human shield. Sorry to spoil the ending for you if you haven’t seen the final episode yet). Or how about the battle of “wits” (I say this knowing full well the irony) between Barack Obama and Donald Trump, two soulless rock-em’ sock-em’ robots in a fake duel for fake polls, fake votes, and a fake presidency. Let’s not forget about the “Royal Wedding”, the eagerly awaited international event that featured a throng of throwbacks from the Dark Ages prancing around in Nutcracker outfits and partying to the tune of millions in British taxpayer dollars.
Do any of these things really matter? Not in the slightest. How long must we endure this hokey carnival ride before we finally start focusing on legitimately important issues? That’s really up to us…
The “war on terror” myth is much more comforting than the reality. But, it has been immensely profitable and spawned a new thriving industry, public and private.
May 4, 2011 at 9:30 AM #692852Participant[quote=captcha]Is TPTB an atheist’s substitute for God? The untouchable, invisible force that tweaks things here and there to push the mankind in desirable direction?[/quote]
Please, staged “feel good” events was a forte of the Bush administration. The failing of Saddam’s statue was completely staged. The Pat Tillman story was completely made up. The Jessica lynch drama came out to be completely made up.
[quote=captcha]
So, did Osama die and 2002 and was secretly replaced by a lookalike who fooled everyone including 5 wives that the original Osama had coitus with? Are the wives and the couriers part of TPTB or manipulated souls unable to recognize the fraud?
[/quote]I’ve heard stories of wives? Though, really have not seen any validation? The story very well could be true ,but with the big picture is irrelevant to me.
The first century satirist, Decimus Juvenalis, grief-stricken by the destruction of the Roman Republic at the hands of a succession of emperors and tyrants, wrote: “The people that once bestowed commands, consulships, legions, and all else, now meddle no more and long eagerly for just two things — bread and circuses.” At that time, the autocratic rulers of the empire were highly visible. Even celebrities. They played the hollow Roman Senate like a pipe organ and created elaborate events, moments of pageantry in the otherwise terrifyingly bleak lives of the citizenry, and of course, the people were thoroughly distracted while their economy, their government, and their land crumbled around them.
Today, our autocratic rulers in the form of a corporate oligarchy keep rather hidden from the prying eyes of the commoners, but they wield the same power as the emperors of old, with the same obvious results. America is ripping apart at the seams. Our currency has been destroyed. Our treasury is indebted beyond the point of any return. The cost of our daily survival is quickly rising beyond any average person’s means to pay. And, our political system is a never ending parade of googly-eyed muppets singing and dancing to the tune of the false left/right paradigm. Yet, where has our attention been lately…?
Apparently our impending doom is not as entertaining as the Osama Bin Laden Show, which has been written and choreographed like a bad Tom Clancy novel, or a contrived episode of ‘24’ (Jack Bauer finally shoots Bin Laden square in the head with his hawk-like vision and badass marksmanship while Osama in typical TV land fashion uses a woman as a human shield. Sorry to spoil the ending for you if you haven’t seen the final episode yet). Or how about the battle of “wits” (I say this knowing full well the irony) between Barack Obama and Donald Trump, two soulless rock-em’ sock-em’ robots in a fake duel for fake polls, fake votes, and a fake presidency. Let’s not forget about the “Royal Wedding”, the eagerly awaited international event that featured a throng of throwbacks from the Dark Ages prancing around in Nutcracker outfits and partying to the tune of millions in British taxpayer dollars.
Do any of these things really matter? Not in the slightest. How long must we endure this hokey carnival ride before we finally start focusing on legitimately important issues? That’s really up to us…
The “war on terror” myth is much more comforting than the reality. But, it has been immensely profitable and spawned a new thriving industry, public and private.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.