Hilldog's Supporters Are Revolting

[Michael]

Dmitri,

I can't explain it in detail, but I can see the effects of the social programming, the literal mind control mental programming that has been successful in this country. Somehow, a large number of Americans have been literally programmed like computers to respond to certain keywords or triggers, and they often respond with irrational negativity or irrational adulation for the slicksters like Clinton or Obama.

Remember when we were talking about Ron Paul and presenting facts about his platform and how people here reacted with out and out ignorant negativity, like they just didn't want to be bothered by something or someone who challenged their programmed thought processes, and they just endlessly repeated a couple of lame criticisms?

It's mind control. Watching the documentary about Ralph Nader is a good chance to see it in action because it's got lots of closeups of people reacting to his running for Pres. in 2000 and 2004 and blaming him for Gore losing. Totally irrational. Part of it seems to be conditioning for people to expect to be told what they need then spoon fed everything they think they have coming. Anything that upsets this expectation elicits some kind of pre-programmed response.

[Mike Strong]

..."We've got one that can SEE"... *













*it's not the "cool" icon, it's "The Rowdy Roddy Piper Glasssess That Allow One To See The Reptilians From THEY LIVE!" icon.

[Steve James]

Well, Ron Paul was a national candidate. He didn't lose because of ef. He lost because 90+% of the Republican Party reacted to him the way you describe. Most Americans have ridiculed the idea that the gov't (or GB2) was behind 9/11. Just because people disagree doesn't make them naive. If R. Paul got elected, he'd be part of the system. He, at least, would have to be successful at manipulating "it" in order to get elected. And, that means his ability to convince the "people."

[Dmitri]

Well, Ron Paul was a national candidate. He didn't lose because of ef. He lost because 90+% of the Republican Party reacted to him the way you describe. Most Americans have ridiculed the idea that the gov't (or GB2) was behind 9/11. Just because people disagree doesn't make them naive. If R. Paul got elected, he'd be part of the system. He, at least, would have to be successful at manipulating "it" in order to get elected. And, that means his ability to convince the "people."

I was NOT talking about EF Steve (and I don't believe Michael was either.) I'm talking about 90-something % of the population (not just the republicans) that is the sheeple.
I also wasn't calling them "naive"... "Unable and/or unwilling to think out of the box" is more like it.

[Steve James]

Dmitri, I was responding to this:

"Remember when we were talking about Ron Paul and presenting facts about his platform and how people here reacted with out and out ignorant negativity, like they just didn't want to be bothered by something or someone who challenged their programmed thought processes, and they just endlessly repeated a couple of lame criticisms?"

But, I'd also disagree with this:

"I also wasn't calling them "naive"... "Unable and/or unwilling to think out of the box" is more like it."

Which box? and who says there's a box anyway? And, where are you standing that you can see inside? Imo, these arguments just characterize people and rarely discuss any issue. So, the mantra becomes "Remember Ron Paul." It's better than the "Remember Hillary" nonsense (as if 50% of black people aren't female... but, I digress), better because at least -imo-- RP's supporters actually believe in him. Of course, I don't; but, then again, I can think that he's honest "but" wrong.

Anyway, why I brought out ef was only because Ron Paul was soundly, decisively rejected by Republicans. So, it wasn't the Democrats or the sheeple. And, if they were naive, ignorant sheeple, then I wouldn't see the logic of voting for their new candidate, or tha doing so woukd be a way to demonstrate resistance to the media controlled power structure. To me, those seem to be much more like delusions than not.

And, Dmitri, I think you can see that for yourself.

[steelincotton]

Steel,

A straight up question for ya:

Can you list a few substantial differences between Obama's and McCain's actual platform/positions? Not the false Dem/Pub stuff, but specific to what they've said or done.

TIA,

Michael, I'm not the gullable nutrider you might think I am. It's just that I prefer the most liberal of candidates that we can possibly get in Washington. I don't expect Obama, McCain, or even a Ron Paul type for that matter to do too darn much for us little peeps in the end, but I do expect a certain "fault line" of liberalism from someone who is supposedly running on the left. The problem is the "left" today has become the new "center," and the "right" today is the new "extreme towards fascism." Frankly, Obama is NOT liberal enough for my tastes, but let's face it, he's the closest thing I'm gonna get (if you are coming from my perspective) in this dog and pony show.

My main man is, and always has been, Dennis Kucinch - just look at him now, trying to impeach Bush and Cheney - I love that guy! That's the kind of guy we need in the oval office, but unfortantely nobody too extreme-left like Dennis would ever get elected these days because of the heard mentality (think "war on terror" here), and the sickness called PATRIOTISM (the flag wavers) that plagues us.

With that said, in answer to your question, here are some real differences which are so beyond the pale it's amazing to me you even have to ask: Now we could argue about every little detail but I'd rather not.

I assume you think there isn't much difference, but I sincerely and respectfully disagree. In fact, McCain and Obama are complete polar-opposites from what I can see. I think the only thing they agree on is the environment.

Off the top of me head, here's just a few disparities (there are many many more policy differences though)....

Read for yourself:
http://www.barackobama.com/index.php
http://www.johnmccain.com

Iraq Invasion:
Obama - get us out of Iraq asap - I quote:
“Here is the truth: fighting a war without end will not force the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. And fighting in a war without end will not make the American people safer. So when I am Commander-in-Chief, I will set a new goal on day one: I will end this war. Not because politics compels it. Not because our troops cannot bear the burden- as heavy as it is. But because it is the right thing to do for our national security, and it will ultimately make us safer.”
—Barack Obama, Clinton, Fayetteville, North Carolina, March 19, 2008

McCain - thinks we should stay indefinitely, OR until "he" decides we "won." - quite a contrast if you ask me.

Taxes:
Obama - Roll back Bush's tax cuts; $1000.00 income tax break for middle/lower working folks under $250.000 per year.
McCain - Keep Bush tax cuts for the top 5%, offers no real tax breaks to middle class earners.

Health Care:
Obama - available, affordable "regulated health care for everyone; expand Medicare http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/#lower

McCain - take away your employer health insurance, so that everybody can buy their own; Again, privitize - Ridiculous.

Social/civil:
Obama - Women's right to choose; gay rights/civil unions
McCain - pro-life; anti-gay, anti-anything unlike himself

Poverty:
Obama (lots of good stuff) - http://www.barackobama.com/issues/poverty/
McCain - nothing on record, could care less for working poor people - just look at his website if you dont believe me.

Social Security
Obama: securing and protecting SS - make earners over 97,5K pay into SS (currently they do not)
McCain: wants to privatize SS and put your money into the pockets of those thieving Wall Street criminals

Foreign Policy: (judgement)
Obama - restore allies and negotiations (peace talks - not war mongering) - Obama's not a "nation builder" neo-con like McBush is. That's starkly evident imho.

McCain - more preemptive and presumed attacks on other countries to gain access to their "economy," - no negotiating (his own words). Doesn't know the difference between a shiite, sunni, baathist, or kurd (by his own words).

Personal View:
Obama - young (47), modern, multi-cultured, extremely intelligent, a Constitutional Scholar, excellent orator (which every president should be), knows how to use a darn computer and has a much better technical understanding of the world today, charismatic, inspiring, and extremely motivating for a politican. I'd say a Born leader! In other words, he's the right man, at the right time, for the right job.

McCain - very old (71), TOO OLD imho to sit in the big seat, extremely ill-tempered (well known to be a hot-head), terrible orator, has NO understanding at all about technology and computers (he calls them Internet machines - lol), uninspiring - like watching paint dry. Besides, he's already been embroiled in scandal with the Keating Five while he has been a Senator, so I can only imagine what liberties he would take if he were POTUS.

Lastly, I just HATE McCain personally. He is the biggest phoney I have ever laid eyes upon in politics besides that other wingnut Mitt Romney - their phoney laughs and demeanors are disturbing to me, so those two frauds belong together.

Now what's this I hear about McCain telling jokes about raping women? Man, he puts his old foot in his mouth everytime it's opened doesn't he?

[steelincotton]

Anyway, why I brought out ef was only because Ron Paul was soundly, decisively rejected by Republicans. So, it wasn't the Democrats or the sheeple. And, if they were naive, ignorant sheeple, then I wouldn't see the logic of voting for their new candidate, or that doing so would be a way to demonstrate resistance to the media controlled power structure. To me, those seem to be much more like delusions than not.

I'm not trying to bash RP, but I'll never understand why he wouldn't leave that insane party and run as an Indy. Republicans today do NOT have the same values they use to espouse, nor do they even believe in the same principles from what I can tell. In fact, RP was so out of step with every single republican candidate running that I couldn't understand his love affair with such a ship-of-fools. With that said, he certainly was the best candidate running on the right side of the aisle.

[Michael]

Steve and Dmitri, I was using Ron Paul as an example of a kind of automatic, knee-jerk response to ideas that have not been given mainstream approval status. For example, IIRC, most people who criticized RP here on EF could not articulate anything specific about the topics at hand and simply repeated a couple of things against him that were either baseless or irrelevant, and made it obvious they just wanted him to go away. And when asked who they supported, the answer was "No one. I just don't like Ron Paul." Ron Paul himself is not the issue, but just an example of the irrational negativity that I believe is being programmed into society.

Another example: "Don't talk about politics or religion."

Why the hell not? Aren't these important topics? Should we just sit around like a filler episode of Oprah talking about which way to insert your toilet paper rolls, so they hang over or under? Repeatedly telling us not to discuss the truly important issues is programming us to avoid substantive discussion, to avoid developing the ability to discuss critically and rationally, and either avoid or focus on nonsense like Hollywood super stars or Ron Paul's alleged lack of charisma.

[Michael]

Steel,

I didn't mean to imply you are a gullible nutrider, although I can't see the differences between Dems and Pubs that you can, nor can I see the differences twixt Obama and McCain you can. Obama appears to be gung-ho to attack Iran and he's meeting with the AIPAC lobby who are also ready to attack Iran. Ready to attack Iran, but going to pull out of Iraq? No way. He will flip on Iraq just as he did on FISA and federal money for elections.

http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=67

In a speech last week before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Sen. Obama said, "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power. Everything." The speech confirmed Sen. Obama's earlier claim that the Iranian government is "a threat to all of us" and "we should take no option, including military action, off the table."

"Barack Obama's language implies that, instead of repudiating the neo-con doctrine of 'preemptive' invasion, he may be ready to endorse a US attack on Iran for the same reason the Bush White House is making such threats," said Candace Caveny, Michigan Green Party candidate for Congress (10th District).

"It also shows that Sen. Obama has swallowed the Bush-Cheney line about Iran's quest for nuclear weapons, when Iran has said over and over it seeks nuclear power solely for peaceful purposes. President Bush -- and Sen. Obama, apparently -- are ignoring the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear program, and have concocted a scenario in which Iran is about to manufacture nuclear bombs and drop them on Israel. The irony is that Israel -- not Iran -- possesses a nuclear arsenal," said Ms. Caveny.

And now Obama is revealing his plan to create a "national security force" larger in size than the US military, which would be at least 2 million people. We already know that with his vote in favor of the new FISA bill he has no respect for the 4th amendment, and now he endorses some kind of quasi-police force of tattle tales and spies, in a country that already leads the world in total and per capita imprisonment.

Obama's 'civilian national security force'

[Michael]

I'm not trying to bash RP, but I'll never understand why he wouldn't leave that insane party and run as an Indy. Republicans today do NOT have the same values they use to espouse, nor do they even believe in the same principles from what I can tell. In fact, RP was so out of step with every single republican candidate running that I couldn't understand his love affair with such a ship-of-fools. With that said, he certainly was the best candidate running on the right side of the aisle.

He ran for Pres. as the candidate for the Libertarian party in '88 and he knows the laws are completely against fairplay for third parties. They simply don't have a possibility of winning the presidency. He said he was trying to effect change within the Republican party and return it to its truly conservative roots, a la "Taft Republicanism".

[Mike Strong]

Agine, Michael bitch slaps The Truth upside the head.

[Michael]

"They Live" was a fun movie, but when I saw it, I had no idea what Carpenter was trying to say. Now that I know, I keep hoping to find it at one of the ubiquitous DVD stands so I can really enjoy it.

[Steve James]

Mike U., my point: don't blame the Democrats for Paul's lack of support in the Congress. He didn't lose the Republican nomination because of some global or national plan to keep him out. The majority of people, who could, did not want to vote for him.

Now, on ef, iirc, the majority of posts about Ron Paul were from RP supporters. I don't recall one person asking for donations for any other candidate, Dem, Rep or Ind. Ya'll kept saying he was the best, most honest, etc., candidate; he was raising money faster than any other candidate, and so on. Yet, he was consistently at the bottom of the polls. There had to be a reason, and the one his supporter's chose was "the ________ were against him" or "the media wouldn't give him a chance." As if there weren't 15 other candidates --with supporters-- who got few votes.

Anyway, on the real side, the reason ya'll got the responses you did concerning R. Paul was that you made a lot of people sick with all the claims about him. You don't respect anyone else's candidate; so don't expect people to respect yours. The more you try, the less you'll get. But, like I said before, though, at least people think that Paul's supporters actually believe in him. But, so what?

When there are lots of pro-McCain program threads, there'll be a lot of anti-McCain dissent. That's the way it goes. That's why I admire those guys with the balls to want to claim to be number one. Just like ma, if you don't want peole ragging on your teacher or style, don't pump them up to be the best. But, if you do, don't bother complaining that there must be something wrong with those who disagree or even scoff.

[Dmitri]

You don't respect anyone else's candidate; so don't expect people to respect yours.

That is not true at all Steve. I have the greatest deal of respect for people like Kucinich and Nader. It just so happens that good people among candidates are naturally a very tiny minority. The mob likes (and expects, to echo Michael's points about media programming) celebrities, not capable leaders and decent human beings who are not running because of their ego, but because they actually care about the country and are smart and determined enough to try and make a difference.

[Steve James]

Well, "you" see how generalizations Always fall flat. Even those about "the mob" because "I" am also one of them; so, therefore, "you" must be wrong. And, to some others, "you" are just one of "them," too.