kat, its called beating your head against a brick wall. There is no point in attempting to engage a brick wall, because well, its a wall.

Best save your energy for something more useful

Right, no arguments whatsoever. Tell me, was the 2000 election debacle delusional, and the 2004 election voting machine lawsuits and election board delusional? The WMD's and reasons for going to war certainly were delusional. However, the Halliburton corruption and fraud were not, unfortunately. The Alberto Gonzales story wasn't a delusion, nor was Rove's refusal to submit to the House Judicial Committee on supeona. Of course, he and others of the right-wing would like the public to believe that the third source website hosted in Tennesse and bounced back to Blackwell in the White House during the 2004 election was delusional, along with thousands of missing White House email correspondence of Bush/Cheney and Rove, but that is slowly percolating up toward the altars of the MSM. Is Don Siegleman an illusion - oh must be since you've most likely never heard of it. Is one of the foremost experts on cyber security on fraud who also happens to be a republican delusional when he talks about the man-in-the-middle technology used by Connell and Rove in the 2004 election, and the vote tabulators in Ohio programed by the Rapp Family, prominent Republican supporters and donors?

Do you care to make any real and specific points about my material, content, sources, or arguments presented here?

Here's some parting quotes from neo-conservative hero Paul Weyrich, who was most definitely NOT an illusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Weyrich

"I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."[26]

"We are different from previous generations of conservatives…We are no longer working to preserve the status quo. We are radicals, working to overturn the present power structure of this country." -Soloma, John. Ominous Politics: The New Conservative Labyrinth, 1984, Hill and Wang, New York.

"The real enemy is the secular humanist mindset which seeks to destroy everything that is good in this society." - The Rights and Wrongs of the Religious Right, Freedom Writer, Institute for First Amendment Studies, October 1995.

"I believe that we probably have lost the culture war. That doesn't mean the war is not going to continue, and that it isn't going to be fought on other fronts. But in terms of society in general, we have lost. This is why, even when we win in politics, our victories fail to translate into the kind of policies we believe are important. Therefore, what seems to me a legitimate strategy for us to follow is to look at ways to separate ourselves from the institutions that have been captured by the ideology of Political Correctness, or by other enemies of our traditional culture. What I mean by separation is, for example, what the homeschoolers have done. Faced with public school systems that no longer educate but instead 'condition' students with the attitudes demanded by Political Correctness, they have seceded. They have separated themselves from public schools and have created new institutions, new schools, in their homes. I think that we have to look at a whole series of possibilities for bypassing the institutions that are controlled by the enemy. If we expend our energies on fighting on the "turf" they already control, we will probably not accomplish what we hope, and we may spend ourselves to the point of exhaustion." -- Paul Weyrich Letter to Conservatives by Paul M. Weyrich, February 1999

kat, its called beating your head against a brick wall. There is no point in attempting to engage a brick wall, because well, its a wall.

Best save your energy for something more useful

Thanks SBK. Luckily, I have plenty of energy. I post these sources also as a matter of public record, so that others may also follow up, question or use them if they please. It is also important to expose empty arguments whenever possible.

There has been a lid on very real discontent and outrage over the last 8 years concerning the first Bush election and the 2004 election concerning Ohio, with credible reports and evidence pointing to two stolen elections, and the facist takeover and subversion of the Department of Justice by Cheney and Karl Rove. I sincerely believe the Country was literally taken over by facist criminals who engineered it to make it look like democracy, and I am not a conspiracy nut.

OK, I'll admit it. I have to admit that anyone who could write and believe this nonsense about stolen elections and fascist takeovers and be so sure that she is thinking rationally, could list dubious articles and sources all day long and not convince me of didley squat.

How many fascist dictators meekly give back everything they have "stolen" after losing a democratic election that they allowed to take place in the first place?

It's called early voting, multiple and ongoing lawsuits (http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/election2004/cases.html) most notably in Ohio and two different supoenas from the House Judicial Committee. Also, fradulent practices attempted in Michigan and Wisconsin around foreclosure disenfranchisments and erroneous absentee ballots mailed from the respective Board of Elections were challenged early.

At any rate, those are my words, that are then supported by my source material. Care to respond to the source material and content?

I've got too much of the Gentleman/Tornado's source material and content to wade through first!

Meanwhile, I've been trying to determine what part of the US (Northern and Mid-Western States) that I would like to assert my control over, once they "become part of Canada, or fall under Canadian influence". Maybe the Dakotas. I could summer in North Dakota and winter in South Dakota. That may be do-able.

But before I can start (fully) planning for my future estate, the USA as it currently exists must come to an end. Hmmmm, by 2010 ? I think we'll need a little (a lot) more things, and sequences of events, to happen between now and then. Conditions for an all out civil war just don't seem right.

So, what are the signs (if any) of an imminent collapse of the US empire ? Situations that should be recognizeable now, even in their infancy, that could lead to dramatic events within 2 years ?

Sub-prime mortgage meltdown ? Nah.

Global Financial Crisis (brought about in large part by the preceding) ? Nah.

Overt and hostile foreign influences ? Nah.

Large demographics of poor, disadvantaged, ethnically-aligned lower classes that could be manipulated by prospective power seekers into seeking new homelands based on ethnicity, religion and geography (ala Kosovo, East Timor, Sri Lanka, "Kurdistan", Albania and certain other regions of the world) ? Maybe.

Look back on history, and see how many "empires" and mighty nations disintegrated more from internal strife than from outside influences. Often enough, I'm sure you'll find that a combination of the two have led to the collapse, with one leading to the other.

Internal strife encouraging external influences to act, like vultures hovering over a wounded animal (as I suspect will happen in Iraq once the Western forces leave, and Iran starts exerting more covert and overt influence).

Or external forces creating conditions that lead to internal strife, with the vultures swooping down on the hapless victim to begin gorging even as it is still twitching.

The geographical location of the US would make it difficult for external forces to exert a lot of influence, especially as it is unlikely that Canada and Mexico would be supplying arms and aid to any civil unrest that may occur.

So what would we (they) have ? Many of the "ethnically-aligned" groups are far too dispersed to be able to effectively initiate any kind of large scale action, and aren't in nay kind of cohesive group (yet) that could, or would, take instructions from a central controlling group.

Add to that, that many of those groups don't exactly have a history of getting along with each other either. To try and get (for example) the African-Americans, Latinos, Asians, Irish, Cubans and Scientologists to work together to bring down "the man" ?

Not likely. They'd be too busy fighting each other over how to split up the potential "winnings", and over who would be "the boss".

It would take some serious (and very expensive) political work on many levels in order to get any kind of agreements between these groups, and that doesn't include any actual action (at which point most of those "agreements" would probably be ignored any ways).

I don't see any of that happening in the next two years, or even the next 10 years. I suspect it will happen eventually, as history has shown us, no matter how large, how powerful, how benevolent or how violent an empire has been, they have all come to an end eventually.

(I apologize for the off-topic post in this "Was Dan Rather Fired, or Did He Quit ?" thread.)

I've got too much of the Gentleman/Tornado's source material and content to wade through first!

You should learn to pay attention better, and separate fact from the blinders in your head. That's like saying "all Asians or black people look alike". Just because two different people have arguments and theories very different from your own doesn't mean they are saying the same things. Completely different people, arguments, and sources.

[/color]Large demographics of poor, disadvantaged, ethnically-aligned lower classes that could be manipulated by prospective power seekers into seeking new homelands based on ethnicity, religion and geography (ala Kosovo, East Timor, Sri Lanka, "Kurdistan", Albania and certain other regions of the world) ? Maybe.

Oh, you mean like what is happening in the UK and parts of Europe with former refugees and disaffected Muslim youth?

Actually, I kind of like your internal/external hypothesis, but I don't think it's coming from the non-white ethnic groups of your premise. We already have a radical, religous extremist group and they are called the religous right and white supremacists.

http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=sfN7i3tOguI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14988.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle5026432.ece

I've got too much of the Gentleman/Tornado's source material and content to wade through first!

You should learn to pay attention better, and separate fact from the blinders in your head. That's like saying "all Asians or black people look alike". Just because two different people have arguments and theories very different from your own doesn't mean they are saying the same things. Completely different people, arguments, and sources.

Just keep on telling yourself that.

I read what he had to say for months, and there is very little difference in your approach, your ideas or your opinions - same arguments, same sources, same rhetoric and, believe it or not, neither one of you think that you are a conspiracy theorist. Are you sure that "kat" is not one of his old nicks?

Keep telling yourself that UG, if it makes you feel better.

It's called early voting, multiple and ongoing lawsuits (http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/election2004/cases.html) most notably in Ohio and two different supoenas from the House Judicial Committee. Also, fradulent practices attempted in Michigan and Wisconsin around foreclosure disenfranchisments and erroneous absentee ballots mailed from the respective Board of Elections were challenged early.

At any rate, those are my words, that are then supported by my source material. Care to respond to the source material and content?

Just a couple of questions, Kat.

1. Do you intend unleashing all your venom against the Obama Administration?

2. Are you going to give the Democratic Party a free ride like the media?

A simple "yes" or "no" to each question will satisfy my very limited curiousity.

All of her websites say that they are clean!

It's called early voting, multiple and ongoing lawsuits (http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/election2004/cases.html) most notably in Ohio and two different supoenas from the House Judicial Committee. Also, fradulent practices attempted in Michigan and Wisconsin around foreclosure disenfranchisments and erroneous absentee ballots mailed from the respective Board of Elections were challenged early.

At any rate, those are my words, that are then supported by my source material. Care to respond to the source material and content?

Just a couple of questions, Kat.

1. Do you intend unleashing all your venom against the Obama Administration?

2. Are you going to give the Democratic Party a free ride like the media?

A simple "yes" or "no" to each question will satisfy my very limited curiousity.

1. Since when is asking pertinent questions - all of which are part of public record and substantiated as demonstrated above - unleashing venom? I came here to voice questions and opinion on this thread and was dimissed as crazy without any serious discusion or reflection of my arguments or sources. Who is unleashing venom upon whom?

Why would I not be critical of the Obama Administration when deserved? A number of respected progressive websites have already been critical of some of his choices for his administration and speakers for the inauguration.

2. Much less a free ride than the current administration has received on the dire issues raised above.

Do you plan on ever addressing the actual issues and content raised in my posts and source material?

Because I won't be wasting my time here with your scarecrow arguments much longer.

All of her websites say that they are clean!

Funny, none of the sources I used here even talk about Obama directly, except for the articles on the foiled assaination attempts on his life by white supremacist extremists.

Funny how you continue to comment and deride details of which you know nothing about or have even tried, even when spoonfed.

Keep telling yourself that UG, if it makes you feel better.

They both hate American policy and conservatives and believe in all the fashionable conspiracy theories.

They both list millions of wacky sources that do not prove anything. They also list legitimate sources for items that have little to do with the point that they are supposed to be making and then expect you to take it seriously.

Why don't you point out how they are so different from one another?

Keep telling yourself that UG, if it makes you feel better.

They both hate American policy and conservatives and believe in all the fashionable conspiracy theories.

They both list millions of wacky sources that do not prove anything. They also list legitimate sources for items that have little to do with the point that they are supposed to be making and then expect you to take it seriously.

Why don't you point out how they are so different from one another?

I don't hate American policy but rather respect the Rule of Law and government, hence the seriousness of the multiple lawsuits and indisputable flouting of Ameriecan policy and constitutional law by the current administration, further proven indisputable by the fact that you haven't disputed one real point.

You haven't made one concrete or specific counterpoint to any of the issues and questions I raised, nor my sources, which included a Republican cyber security and fraud expert.

Your only line of argument is to fling insults and ad hominem attacks, and then create a "guilt-by-association" reference between myself and another poster with a completely different argument and perspective; I guess you really are a right-wing conservative. I am not debating 911 conspiracy theories here, but real documented cases of vother fraud, unconstitutional jailings and arrests, and the corruption and flagrant contempt for the Department of Justice and House Judicial Committee.

Your character attacks and groundless "guilt-by-association" are right out of Faux News and the right-wing conservative handbook, and are a clear example of exactly what is contributing to the demise of the United States. I am done trying to have a substantive discussion here. Enjoy your bargirls and beer.

edit typo

Oh, you mean like what is happening in the UK and parts of Europe with former refugees and disaffected Muslim youth?

Actually, I kind of like your internal/external hypothesis, but I don't think it's coming from the non-white ethnic groups of your premise. We already have a radical, religous extremist group and they are called the religous right and white supremacists.

Yes, they are there. I overlooked mentioning the "religious right" which are a large demographic in their own right. The white supremacists though, are more of a fringe group that doesn't enjoy mainstream support from the rest of their ethnic/religious groups.

How ever, should various events occur and the situation deteriorates, and blame can be placed on any of the other large groups, then one might quite rightly assume that white supremacists would grown in popularity and power.

Personally I think that would be like throwing a lit match onto a pile of gunpowder (if events were tense, but hadn't reached a critical mass yet). If the tipping point had already been reached, then it would be like turning a gasoline nozzle onto an already raging fire.

By themselves though (as they currently are in numbers and popularity), the "white supremacists" are no where close to the size (and potential disruptive) power of the other previously mentioned groups.

But.......it wouldn't take much to change that. Deep down we are still a tribal species, and for the most part would be very quick to revert to a "us against them" mentality if we felt our safety and future were threatened.

Extremists and Fanatics can be found in almost every kind of group. Ethnic, Religious, Geopolitical, Orientation. Be they Animal Rights activists, Environmental protesters, jilted brides of kayo, the folks that routinely protest at pretty much every G-8, APEC or other global gathering of international power-brokers, they all seem to have similar members.

Some who ardently believe in the cause at hand. Some who are looking for an excuse to party or cause trouble. Some who are perhaps misfits and willing to do almost anything to ingratiate themselves amongst their peers. Some who are wolves among the sheep, guiding them to various ends to help achieve their own oft hidden agendas. Many are just "hangers-on", associated by friendship or relationship to someone from a previous category.

I appreciate the genuine discussion Kerry. In the reinvention of the Republican Party after the Civil Rights Era, the former racist/segragationist dixiecrat democrats became a core element of the "modern" GOP in the newer version of Nixon's "Southern Strategy", to gain the votes of people opposed to desegregation. In the 1980s this strategy was tweaked to include the religous right and creation of Falwell's Moral Majority, which helped to elect Ronald Regan under the influence of young RNC leader Karl Rove, guru Paul Weyrich, and other right-wing religous crusaders. I have already supplied links. Sarah Palin was merely a coded reference to these sensibilities that became repugnantly apparent during the McCain Campaign, on which Karl Rove, Connell and other RNC operatives provided support.

You may surmise that it will be the non-white ethnic groups that cause the splits, but so far I have shown that it is the white supermacists and religous extremeists that have caused the largest splits by actually committing significant acts of domestic terrorism, or have been apprehended before doing so (factions of the Aryan Nation,*religous extremists, Abortion clinic bombers*, assaination plotters against Obama, et al), *not to mention the mammoth rifts caused by the current and outgoing administration.

*edit added

Your only line of argument is to fling insults and ad hominem attacks, and then create a "guilt-by-association" reference between myself and another poster with a completely different argument and perspective; I guess you really are a right-wing conservative. I am not debating 911 conspiracy theories here, but real documented cases of vother fraud, unconstitutional jailings and arrests, and the corruption and flagrant contempt for the Department of Justice and House Judicial Committee.

Your character attacks and groundless "guilt-by-association" are right out of Faux News and the right-wing conservative handbook, and are a clear example of exactly what is contributing to the demise of the United States. I am done trying to have a substantive discussion here. Enjoy your bargirls and beer.

I am not a right-wing conservative. I voted for Obama, however, it is not too hard to see that there are just as many liberal nuts as conservative ones. I'm not against liberals or conservatives, I am against nuts - people who can talk a good line of sheet, but are full of it as well.

I show up your silly allegations about Bush being AWOL and I become a "one trick pony" and then you claim that I have not addresed any of your nonsense at all. I use Wikipedia as a source and you belittle it and then use it yourself later.

You fling a bunch of mud against the wall with no real point to it and complain that I am not addressing your "issues and content", but there is very little real content to address - just lists of websites and lots of mud.

You complain because I compare you to another poster who you have everything in common with politically - in fact you are practically a clone - and refuse to point out where I am supposedly wrong.

Fox News really is fair and balaced compared to you!

I'm tired of this nothing discussion with you, and I'm sure others are as well. I listed a number of issues and questions that are a matter of public record numerous times on this thread with multiple and diverse sources *that inclued MSM, a respected republican cyber expert, the Army Times, and others*, and you harped on Dan Rather. Furthermore, you then try to argue that Bush was not AWOL, when your own sources say as much. In actual fact, EVERY story says as much or at least cannot say anything, because large tracts of his service were no-shows or "unaccounted" for, even among former supervisors that would be supportive. So, that is a non-issue and a non-point.

You haven't addressed one other question or source content in this thread, except for the Swift Boat Veterans which were linked to the 2004 election and Dan Rather scandal, and was already addressed. I am done with your brainless ad hominems and empty arguments and posturing. Let me know when you are ready to actually have a discussion about content and issues, not your opinon about my personality.

Have a good life.

*added

Furthermore, you then try to argue that Bush was not AWOL, when your own sources say as much.

Why don't you point that out?

It seems that other people are not overly excited about either side of this discussion.

You just keep on making those pointless cut and paste lists and slinging that mud. I'm sure that everyone who believes in wacky conspiracy theories is really impressed.

It seems that other people are not overly excited about either side of this discussion.

I can confirm that, also because the two of you will probably never reach consensus.

Peace.

LaoPo

There has been a lid on very real discontent and outrage over the last 8 years concerning the first Bush election and the 2004 election concerning Ohio, with credible reports and evidence pointing to two stolen elections, and the facist takeover and subversion of the Department of Justice by Cheney and Karl Rove. I sincerely believe the Country was literally taken over by facist criminals who engineered it to make it look like democracy, and I am not a conspiracy nut.

OK, I'll admit it. I have to admit that anyone who could write and believe this nonsense about stolen elections and fascist takeovers and be so sure that she is thinking rationally, could list dubious articles and sources all day long and not convince me of didley squat.

How many fascist dictators meekly give back everything they have "stolen" after losing a democratic election that they allowed to take place in the first place?

You are right LaoPao. I should have stopped with this statement above. I have read most of kat's theories before many times when The Gent/Tornado used to post and if she literally means it when she says, "I sincerely believe the Country was literally taken over by facist criminals who engineered it to make it look like democracy, and I am not a conspiracy nut.", then there is really nothing more to talk about. If nothing else, it is pretty obvious that she is a conspiracy nut.

Keep telling yourself that UG, if it makes you feel better.

They both hate American policy and conservatives and believe in all the fashionable conspiracy theories.

They both list millions of wacky sources that do not prove anything. They also list legitimate sources for items that have little to do with the point that they are supposed to be making and then expect you to take it seriously.

Why don't you point out how they are so different from one another?

Um, cause Kat is a woman, so instead of accusing her of being a banned member, please try to debate instead of using insults or attempting to stir up trouble for another member.

Guess I'll move this one into the out of the box section too.

I am not accusing her of being a banned member, at all. I am pointing out that they have very similar politics, beliefs and posting styles and that most people never had any doubt that Gent/Tornado was a conspiracy nut, so what makes kat any different?

I am pretty sure that many people on TV have met kat and the Gent and know that they are different people, so causing her a problem with admin was not my intention. I just wanted to point out their many similarities when it comes to politics.

By the way, when it comes to insults, kat gives as good as she gets.

There has been a lid on very real discontent and outrage over the last 8 years concerning the first Bush election and the 2004 election concerning Ohio, with credible reports and evidence pointing to two stolen elections, and the facist takeover and subversion of the Department of Justice by Cheney and Karl Rove. I sincerely believe the Country was literally taken over by facist criminals who engineered it to make it look like democracy, and I am not a conspiracy nut.

OK, I'll admit it. I have to admit that anyone who could write and believe this nonsense about stolen elections and fascist takeovers and be so sure that she is thinking rationally, could list dubious articles and sources all day long and not convince me of didley squat.

How many fascist dictators meekly give back everything they have "stolen" after losing a democratic election that they allowed to take place in the first place?

You are right LaoPao. I should have stopped with this statement above. I have read most of kat's theories before many times when The Gent/Tornado used to post and if she literally means it when she says, "I sincerely believe the Country was literally taken over by facist criminals who engineered it to make it look like democracy, and I am not a conspiracy nut.", then there is really nothing more to talk about. If nothing else, it is pretty obvious that she is a conspiracy nut.

I am sorry to read you're using wordings, not worth your usual debating style and personality, although sharp sometimes.

Sadly I cannot take part into this discussion, simply because I am not American and don't know enough of the in and outs of the truth or not but that American politics (as well as from many other countries....look at Thailand) is shady is something we all know. It's all about power and greed, money comes later.

I wish I knew more.

Question Note to SBK:

Why move this topic to ""Out of the Box" section ? I think it was a rather interesting thread, Bedlam worthy, wasn't it ? We can't have it ''trashed'' down because of a heated up discussion between two members...can we ? ..nobody will pay attention anymore in Out of the Box.......

LaoPo

I think it is fairly pathetic when someone can't differentiate between unfounded "conspiracy theories" and a matter of public record. It is amazing that someone actually thinks that the charges of corruption and abuse of power with all that has happened over the last 8 years - recoreded in the mainstream press and supoenas by Congress - are fringe theories. I would fall on the floor laughing if the exponential effects on the Country and the world were not so serious.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/washingt...d-gonzales.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...rges-in-US.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/13...mail/index.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1202408_pf.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/politics...ign/06ohio.html (Glitch found in Ohio Counting)

http://www.iefd.org/articles/did_bush_steal_election.php

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...F8&v=glance

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mike_Connell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_S...g_controversies

http://markets.on.nytimes.com/research/sto...nell&st=cse

(Bush Insider who Planned to Tell All Killed in Plane Crash: Non-Profit Demands Full Federal Investigation)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/21/...in3859830.shtml (Did Ex-Alabama Gov. Siegelman get a Raw Deal?)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/opinion/10mon4.html (The Strange Case of an Imprisoned Alabama Governor)

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...1627427,00.html (Rove named in Alabama Controversy)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thom-hartman...la_b_99338.html (Interview with former Governor Don Sieglman)

http://donsiegelman.org/

Oh come on, charges of corruption and abuse of power are quite different from stolen elections and fascist takeovers of the Government. Finally starting to see how silly all that nonsense looks I guess!

Question Note to SBK:

Why move this topic to ""Out of the Box" section ? I think it was a rather interesting thread, Bedlam worthy, wasn't it ? We can't have it ''trashed'' down because of a heated up discussion between two members...can we ? ..nobody will pay attention anymore in Out of the Box.......

LaoPo

Well, I was under the impression that the Out of the Box section was for more serious discussions and that the regular Bedlam forum was for the crazies

Plus it's been a quiet week?