BS: Unity

Subject: BS: Unity
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 03:34 AM

They went to Unity New Hampshire to convince the American voting public that they were on the same side.
"The words slipped from their tongues so quick and easy, that they seemed hardly worth the saying at all"

But the body language said something different.
When he kissed her cheek the silent scream could be heard all over the world......but not in Unity!

When he laid his hand on her shoulder the inner shudder was clearly visible...but not in Unity!

Their bodies were hard and cold,antimagnetic....in Unity!

Their eyes never met...in Unity!

The voters are as divided as the candidates......in Unity!

The Party has no soul, no principles, no guts.
Little Hawk is so right, it's about expediency, power, greed.
Kick the bastards out and start again, you are still a young country, still have optimism and warmth in your hearts, these bloodsuckers will drain you dry....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 08:31 AM

Sorry, Ake, but it's a tad late... The system is very much in place and the only way out is for someone to literally sneak into power who has a good heart and an open mind...

Yeah, those of us who support Obama hope that he is that person but there is no guarentee... The only thing that is guarenteed is that John McCain ain't that someone...

Oh, daddy won't ya take me back to Mulenburg County
Down by the Green River where Paradise lay
Well, I'm soory my son but your too late in askin'
Mr. Peabody's coal train has hauled it away (John Prine)

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 10:09 AM

Ake, in my opinion, you've got it wrong- or at least, are misunderstanding the implications of it

It reminded me last night of what my mother would say when I and my brothers had a fight. We were not a demonstrative family but when my mother would say, Now, tell him you're sorry.

And we would. Even though we knew the other person was wrong and we *hated* each other. We did it in the name of 'expediency' and in the cause of family, and because we had no choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 12:24 PM

The way I saw it they were doing a good job of making up, and they both were giving it their full intent. Ake saw shudders and screams--I saw none. Maybe those were projections of inner revulsion.

These guys knpw full well they have a much larger and more important task than leveling each other. And they both know the other is in many ways a lot like them.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: katlaughing
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 04:34 PM

It took great maturity, poise, and vision to did what they did, yesterday. They understand the importance of them united and I thought they did a grand job of it. I loved that Hillary looked so refreshed and ready for more and she was very eloquent. I know it may be a calculated PR thing, the heat, or just what is comfortable, but I also love to see a man with his sleeves rolled up, ready for whatever may come...maybe even do the dishes!**bg**

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 04:57 PM

I didn't see it, so I can't comment...other than to say that they did the politically smart and expedient thing which they would have to do under these circumstances. They work in a huge power structure called "the Democratic Party" and so they must play the party game accordingly, and they do.

Bobert is right that the only way things can really change is for a genuinely goodhearted and idealistic person to "sneak" into office past all the machinations of the Democratic and Republican parties and their corporate backers.

What are the chances against that occurring? Well, the chances against it are tremendous, but that doesn't mean it's completely impossible.

Is Obama that person? Danged if I know. If I was down there right now, I'd vote for him, but I'd do it with the strong awareness that it might not turn out anything like I had hoped it would once he's in power.

We shall see.

*****

Now the people I remember who really openly stood up for effective change in America's disastrous foreign policy during the primaries were mostly Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. They never had a chance. You will not see the Democratic Party or the Republican Party give people like that a real chance at the presidency. No sir.

Like Bobert said, someone will have to sneak in past corporate security to really change things. And if he succeeds, then he'll have to watch his back very carefully and have the best bodyguards in the world for the next 4 years.

It's not the president who really runs the USA, it's the great financial/military/media oligarchy that puts him in office, and that oligarchy is a many-headed dragon. Sometimes the different heads will even bite each other when they quarrel over the spoils. This dragon would make even Medusa look like a hometown girl.

****

Hillary and Obama? Oh, they're doing the smart thing to do. We won't know until November how well it will pay off for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Charley Noble
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 05:24 PM

Ake-

I usually shudder myself when politicians are doing what they need to do in public but I think your interpretation of body language is seen through (what is the opposite of rose-colored glasses?) puce-colored glasses!

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 07:59 PM

Puce with a "k", I think...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 08:03 PM

How about plaid-coloured glasses? That would produce a very textured effect.

I gather that neither one of them did the "two fingers in a V sign" behind the other's head at any point during the happy proceedings?

;-D

You know, if they could just get Chongo on board now to back Obama's ticket, that would wrap it up. But they'd have to offer him a LOT.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Emma B
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 08:07 PM

this should do it :)

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 08:13 PM

They both suck...Oh goodie, one farce supporting another farce, in a campaign against another farce!! whoopie, aren't we lucky???!!??

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 08:22 PM

What I am waiting for is fir them to be caught sneakin' outta a motel room together...

Yeah, that might cinch the deal...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 08:41 PM

Kee-rist, Bobert! Yeah, that's all we need. My God...the media would be falling all over themselves in a state of total ecstatic frenzy... ;-)

And what would Bill say? For that matter, what would Michelle say?

Ouch.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Charley Noble
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 08:50 PM

Amos-

"Puce" is a real color. The most interesting description I've come across is this one:

"Puce literally means 'flea'. It is speculated that it refers to the colour of a squashed flea or the colour of a flea full of blood. Another theory is that the colour name comes from the flea's droppings of digested blood, which spread out in deep red stain when water contacts them. Brownish-purple to dark brown."

"Puke" is an entirely different concept.

Cheerily,
Charley noble

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 08:51 PM

Bill would say, "Ahhhh, shit happens" and then go over to his girl freinds house for the night...

Michelle??? Yeah, there's the "ouch" in the deal... You seen her arms, LH??? You seen Barak's arms??? She would put a whup on Barak that make him wish he's just taken the corprate route after Hravard Law... Sho nuff would... If it were a prize fight, I'd bet on Michelle... TKO in Round 2 without the film of Barak and Hillary at the No-Tell-Motel... With the film??? 'Bout 15 seconds and Barak and the canvas would be room mates...

Well, that's they way I see it...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 09:22 PM

Yeah. ;-) That's how I see it too. You've got Bill's reaction down just perfectly.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Hear! Hear!
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 09:38 PM

The late, great George Carlin decisively came out as recently as March, and said he DID NOT support Obama or anyone else this year--like every other election year since he stopped participating in the electoral process after the 1972 election, when the Dems changed their party rules to keep out the likes of McGovern.

In his honor, I humbly offer these gems from him:

“The next time they give you all that civic bullshit about voting, keep in mind that Hitler was elected in a full, free democratic election”

“If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten” (that one ended up being prophetic for 2000 & the Supreme Court theft of the election)

Here is one that describes, for me, the reality of this year's election choices:

“Just cause you got the monkey off your back doesn't mean the circus has left town.”

And finally, just because it describes how so many of us feel about corporate selected candidates this year, one of my all time fave quotes by Carlin:

“The very existence of flame-throwers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done.”

And as George loved to point out about all conventional politics: we're screwed.

From a 1999 Mother Jones interview:

"Honesty has no place in politics. It would throw everything off."

"I'm on the left because I think there's a little more attention to human needs than to property rights. But I don't think much of political activism. It's so shortsighted. Most people are interested in their own personal comfort. I've said that about environmentalists -- I think they care about bike paths and places to park their Volvos, not the planet as an abstraction."

"I'd like for people to feel better and have better lives, but I don't think that's in the cards through political action. I think bloodshed is still the way you get dramatic change. That'll never happen because they've got all the guns now. At least they've got the nice guns, the big ones, the ones with night vision."

And then there is his more recent piece on politicians and voting you can see at You Tube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u6lCBnRoHQ

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 09:49 PM

I dunno. I think you lot are seriously misestimating the gentleman's character, and slandering a decent man. The notion of him running off and having an affair is not impossible but highly improbable. The notion of him having one with HIllary is sheerly delusional.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 09:58 PM

Why would they want to go off and screw each other??...when they can screw ALL OF US????!!!!???....AND THEY WILL!!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 10:05 PM

Finally, after reading the latest posts, it seems that people are agreeing with my earlier position, when I first started posting(on the Hillary thread) that all these 'candidates' suck square eggs, and DON'T represent ANY of us...we 'have' to conform to their agendas, no matter how ridiculous. As I wrote before, 'We are living in perilous times, for this country.....'

P.S. So, when I wasn't 'crazy'..I just was sane ahead of the pack...Welcome aboard!!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Cecil
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 10:58 PM

GfS:...Do your music! Most of everything you say here is right on the target..but music is your genius. I see you posted lyrics, which are cool too, but your compositions are the most wonderful, unique stuff to go through my ears, and into my heart in years!!...Don't frustrate yourself here. Most everything here is uneducated opinions, or half thought out venting, your music is sheer genius, and a gift from God!!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 11:50 PM

"Finally, after reading the latest posts, it seems that people are agreeing with my earlier position, when I first started posting(on the Hillary thread) that all these 'candidates' suck square eggs, and DON'T represent ANY of us...we 'have' to conform to their agendas, no matter how ridiculous."

Perhaps "people" are agreeing with you, Oh Sainted One, but not many of them. Count them.

Ake
Bobert
katlaughing
Amos
Little Hawk
The Sane One (right)
Charley Noble
GUEST,Hear! Hear! - (And you just know the value of his/her opinions.)
GUEST,Cecil (Why do I have this nagging feeling that The Sane One has an alter ego?)

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Cecil
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 12:05 AM

Because naggy people, feel that way

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 12:11 AM

ha, I say.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 06:15 AM

My point in starting this thread was to encourage a discussion on the state of the Democratic Party.

It seemed obvious to me and others who viewed the "Unity" video that Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama loathe one another.

The Party seems merely a vehicle to propel either of the candidates to personal power. Both were prepared to use colour, religion, or sexism, as a lever to damage their opponent or to gain support for themselves.
The needs of the American electorate come pretty far down the list as far as I can see.

This election has about as much to do with democracy as the last election in Iraq, It is simply about power, the Party appears to have no core principles to distinguish it from the Republicans.

The object of the exercise is "power for powers sake"

If the Democratic Party had a "soul", perhaps Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama might have found some common ground and would not hate one another quite so much....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 06:24 AM

Ebbie....Never mind the quantity....Look at the quality!!

As opposed to the "clubbies" in their boxes...:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Cecil
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 06:39 AM

I agree with Akenaton. Furthermore, when people want to compliment each other, on here, some crank wants to accuse that person of being the same one, who is being complimented. I've seen this to myself and others. Funny, that should appear on a thread called 'Unity'! Twice 'Ebbie' has done this to me, as one other, who later saw that I wasn't. Not that I really care that much, but it seems to me, that some people cannot have others, on here, to take a nod of acknowlegement, from their fellow peers, without their knickers getting in a twist! Speaks volumes about what kind of person that is!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Hear! Hear!
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 08:59 AM

The unity farce was like watching the king push an open enemy and disloyal subject before the court, to make them repent by public humiliation.

And indeed, these people represent the Democratic Party aristocracy.

Barak Obama is the nominee, because he was hand picked by the Democratic Leadership Council faction of that aristocracy (Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry), to steal power from the other faction of that aristocracy, the Clintons.

No one ever gets nominated in the Democratic or Republican party without the aristocracy selecting them, without their (the aristocracy's) corporate masters approving them, and instructions being given to the loyal subjects (partisan political activists of either party) to get them "elected".

This year is no different. Or as I read on another thread--just because the horse in a horse race is a different color, doesn't mean they aren't a horse.

Obama is a horse of a different color, running in the American political aristocracy's horse race.

He is no different than any other corrupt corporate puppet candidate that has been put forward in recent decades by the Democrats.

The media aristocracy is now declaring (this includes Olberman, the prince of the Democratic media aristocracy) that Obama is sticking it to the progressive left, and leaving them in the political wilderness AGAIN, just like all the other Democratic aristocrat candidates going back to Carter, have done.

This is the formula. Pander to the left to secure the nomination, then pander to the right for the general election.

Why do they continue with this losing electoral strategy?

Because the Republicans have been winning the presidency by running conservatives, not moderates, for the last 40 years. And because the so-called left puts up with it election after election after election.

Obama is certainly following this pattern, even though he is the first candidate in nearly half a century who doesn't have to do that. He has more money than god, and an electorate that is ready to rebel against the current ruling party.

So if there were ever a prayer that this election year/candidate might be different, or that the Democratic party had even a sliver of it's integrity as the "party of the people" things COULD change.

And it is true. This year could have been different. Obama could have been a candidate for authentic change. But this year won't be different, and Obama will not change a thing. Why? Because he is becoming rich and powerful beyond his wildest dreams, by stealing money and dreams from the people who want to see a black president.

Why do I say this?

Because the candidate has said himself in every speech he has made since clinching the nomination, that he sees the progressive causes of the liberal left as "wrong".

Unity?

You bet.

The unity of criminals and thieves.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 09:39 AM

It is to laugh. Enjoy yourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Hear! Hear!
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 09:52 AM

And anyone who thinks we will rid ourselves of the horror of Dumbya & his right wing evangelical zealotry by electing Obama, think again.

Obama has been wooing conservative evangelical voters with a zeal not seen by anyone outside the Republican party.

From the NYT:

"Young conservative evangelicals seem more open to Obama's 'Christian' message of caring for the poor, fighting genocide, health care for all and climate change," David Brody, senior national correspondent of the Christian Broadcasting Network, noted on Tuesday on the Web site after the radio program. "They also like the fact that he is reaching out to try and find common ground with conservative faith voters."

From Politico:

"The conservative Evangelical biographer of George W. Bush and Tom DeLay has moved on to a new subject: Barack Obama. And his new book, due out this summer, may lend credibility to Senator Obama's bid to win Evangelical Christian voters away from the Republican Party.

The forthcoming volume from Stephen Mansfield, whose sympathetic "The Faith of George W. Bush" spent 15 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list in 2004, is titled "The Faith of Barack Obama." Its tone ranges from gently critical to gushing, and the author defends Obama-and even his controversial former minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright-from conservative critics, and portrays him as a compelling figure for Christian voters.

"Young Evangelicals are saying, 'Look, I'm pro-life but I'm looking at a guy who's first of all black-and they love that; two, who's a Christian; and three who believes faith should bear on public policy," Mansfield, who described himself as a conservative Republican, said in a telephone interview. "They disagree with him on abortion, but they agree with him on poverty, on the war."

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 10:31 AM

The problem is the ruling aristocracy, as Guest Hear! Hear! has described it. You have wheels within wheels governing that ruling aristocracy...and of course they do a lot of infighting amongst themselves for the spoils of power, so it's not what could be characterized as a "conspiracy", rather it is simply a manner of behaviour that arises out of common forms of self-interest on the part of the aristocrats.

And who are the aristocrats? Well, they're the richest and most powerful people at the top of corporate industry, the insurance industry, banking, media and communications, the military...

Those people get to know each other as they grow up, they tend to go to the same educational institutions and join the same clubs and associations. They pass on those connections from one generation to the next, and that is a process so natural that why would most of them even question it?

They have common interests, and those interests serve to maintain and strengthen the position of the ruling classes.

It's not a conspiracy, it's merely what happens when people with common interests engage in an overall social power structure. It may end up seeming like a conspiracy to the people outside the gates of the mansion, but it isn't a conspiracy in my opinion, it's just the natural result of people in a certain position having common interests and objectives.

As I've said, they do a lot of infighting amongst themselves. They have power struggles within their own ranks. We have just witnessed the apparent conclusion of a lengthy power struggle within the Democratic Party between the Clinton Machine...which was powerful enough that they felt unbeatable...and a coalition of other people in the Democratic Leadership Council who decided to back Obama instead of Clinton.

Now would any of these worthies have thought of backing Dennis Kucinich? Ha! Not a chance, because Kucinich intended to make real and radical changes in American foreign and domestic policy and he made no bones about it. People like Dennis Kucinich (or Ron Paul) are anathema to the ruling power structure, and they will never get its backing.

If they are backing Obama, and they are, then it indicates one of two things:

1. He is already their chosen tool, and in cahoots with them, which means that things are not going to change much at all if he's elected.

or

2. He is not their tool yet, but they figure they can control him.

I was pretty sure when this whole process started a year ago that the Democratic Party Machine was absolutely set on having Hillary Clinton run, and win the election....and that Obama and Edwards were just there to make it look good...as if there really was a horse race happening and not a coronation. Just for show. I was surprised when the party insiders decided to back Obama instead.

There could be a number of reasons for that, but it's clear that the Clinton people overplayed their hand early, and perhaps a number of their envious peers were just waiting for a chance to bring them down a peg or two. Or...perhaps they think Obama is more likely to win the election than Hillary.

Or...perhaps the overall plan at an even higher level (above the Duopoly) is to have the Republicans win the election by running a Democrat who can't win. ;-) (That's what Riginslinger seems to think is happening.) (I have no opinion about that.)

Whatever it is, I view it all as another grand stage play that is being presented on the mass media in the usual soap-opera-like manner by the Great Oz to befuddle the masses, and make them think they have a representative democracy that actually works instead of an untouchable oligarchy represented by two subservient political parties.

One thing, though...if Obama is elected it will at least put to bed one old ghost that badly needs to be put to bed in the USA. It will prove to the American public that you CAN have a president of the USA who is not a 100% White man...and the world will not end because of that, and life will still go on.

That would be something to see. People might finally get it through their heads that skin color in humans is no more significant than the color of fur on rabbits.

It's not any reason in itself to vote for Obama...but it would still be a very memorable milestone, nonetheless.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: wysiwyg
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 11:12 AM

If they have any sense they'll keep up the dance-- great ratings.

For whatever reason, Obama and Hillary are great theater. People missed her when she went quiet.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Hear! Hear!
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 11:33 AM

They miss being able to engage in misogynist attacks against a powerful woman.

The color of the man is the carrot the oligarchy is dangling before the public, to hypnotize them again. The public is so angry with the status quo this election year, they had to do something.

This time around, the black man proved to be easier to control and manipulate than the white woman. Hence, the nomination of the black man.

But one thing you can be sure of: nothing changes on Inauguration Day. We are still as screwed as we are today, because the oligarchy doesn't care who wins: they are both beholden to the oligarchs, so it is a win/win for them.

The oligarchs are very shrewd. They picked a little known politician with no political baggage (also known as a record), with a butt load of charisma and celebrity appeal, to beat a woman many people perceive as their nagging mother-in-law, lecturing them to do the right thing.

Which one does everyone LIKE best?

Hands down, the charismatic celebrity, with the Black Camelot narrative, of course!

We want to buy that one!

And they do.

Jack and Jill Dumbass Public are even sending their money to the guy without being asked!

But the question is, will the 100 million (that number is correct, folks) eligible voters who continue to sit out the game and refuse to vote, jump back in to play the Celebrity President Sweepstakes?

Don't forget, it is going to be sweeps month in the run up to the general election.

And that's all, folks!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 11:59 AM

"They miss being able to engage in misogynist attacks against a powerful woman."

Hey, look, they're not completely bereft in that respect...they still have Michelle Obama (a clearly powerful woman) to launch misogynist attacks against. ;-) Did you know that she "hates America", for instance?

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 12:23 PM

Readthe first half dozen posts or so, which gave indication whatsoever of what this is all about... Gave up.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: wysiwyg
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 12:38 PM

I don't care what it's "about," it's a Mudcat thread. They tend to wiggle. :~)

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 12:40 PM

This is really asinine drivel, like listening to nameless howler monkeys in the night.

It is just possible that the Unity shtick was voluntary, and that the two candidates intended to present a unified face to make a point.

GHH has a sweeping conviction about underhanded party mechanics and secret power committees that completely ignores the reality of Obama's unprecedented popularity, especially among younger voters. Akneton is convinced that he sees hatred and revulsion in two politicians acting nice to each other, for political purposes.   

I grant you the world is sometimes devious. But really, folks....it isn't that devious!!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 01:21 PM

Well Ebbie, I hope you're reading!

The Clinton machine chose Obama at the early on, because he was far more to the left than she, and would make her look more like a centrist, plus he was black, which they thought the electorate would elect a white woman before a black,..but it backfired on them....
the source of this info has the inside stuff on it. Told me months ago!
Still, we have no real candidate, who represents us!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 01:29 PM

"My secret inside sources have the REAL story... highly reliable information... evil incarnate is loose on the land/....it's the inside scoop...." yadda yadda yadda yadda.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 01:30 PM

That sounds like an interesting possibility of just what might have happened to me, GfS.

The primaries are a dog and pony show. They are intended to flummox the public and keep them hyped up and interested...but...the process can sometimes go a bit awry for the controllers and force them to make a change of plan partway through. I think that's what probably happened for the Democrats this time. I really think they originally had every intention of running Hillary for president, but it didn't work out because Obama turned out to be unusually charismatic...and then there was the problem of the Black voting bloc going almost entirely for Obama, that being a bloc which had always supported the Clintons in the past. The Clintons did not foresee that happening. They had grown to used to a sense of entitlement there, and it hurt them badly.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Micca
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 01:32 PM

I got this today, I pass it on without comment

"We, in Ireland , can't figure out why people are even bothering to hold an election in the United States .
On one side, you have a woman who is a lawyer, married to a lawyer, running against a lawyer who is married to a woman who is a lawyer.
On the other side, you have a war hero married to a good looking woman who owns a beer distributorship.
What are you lads thinking over there?'"

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 02:17 PM

The source I had, (personal close ties)was a businessman and owner and CEO of a well known company, who was invited to the White House during the Clinton administration, on the encouragement to move the industry to China. he has always been 'in the know' about such matters. The information that I gave you, was not an 'opinion' Furthermore, the Clinton's would have liked to put Billy Boy as head of the U.N. concurrently while she was president. So, Amos, you can opine as much as you want, but it will never erease the facts...yes, FACTS..remember those??

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 02:23 PM

Very interesting, GfS. But they are "facts" you will not be able to prove to Amos or anyone else here, unless maybe you could maybe invite them one at a time to meet this businessman you know and talk the whole thing over at some length.

Bill as head of the U.N. and Hillary as president would have been a hilarious situation to witness. I'm almost sorry not to see it happen. Well, almost, yeah.


Micca, almost all North American politicians of any great note seem to be lawyers...or war heroes.....or both. Scary, isn't it? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 02:47 PM

Well, GtS, I have developed a begrudging respect for your talents, bvut not for your rhetorical polemic when it comes to politics. You have been exposed to a small number of inside facts. When it comes to Clinton, anything is possible--he was an effective president in many ways but also one of the wheelingest of dealers, I am sure.

As for "no candidate who represents us" it depends on what you mean by "us". Obama is as good a shot as I've seen in the last decade at representing large numbers of folks who want intelligence and reasoned discourse to underlie political decisions. I am watching his move toward the center with interest, but so far not with apprehension. Of course, in a sea of corruption such as we have bred in Washington for the last two hundred years, anything is possible. Keep your fingers crossed.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 02:54 PM

Little Hawk, you are probably correct, but still, when the primaries were in full swing, we watched with all the anxiety, and speculation, to see how this was going to play out. It is also why, as things unfolded, why it was the Clinton machine that brought out all the dirt on Obama. They were merely bringing out more reasons on why they thought the electorate would 'surely' swing back over to Hillary. Obama was a shill, who because people wanted a 'change'(choke), came out ahead. It was funny, how in Hillary's speech, toward the end she adopted the change message, and in her speech, she said,'...yes, and I think the American people want to turn the page, on past Washington politics as usual, and....' What she failed to realize, was, and is, Hillary, you are the page!
What a lot of the American people don't realize, is that the Clinton/Bush cabal is the same thing, working in conjunction with each other, while America is asleep at the wheel, Deciding who they like because of the 'emotional entertainment value' of these eloquent farce ridden speeches they spew out. And the same goes for O-blabbo. I look at the zeal of their supporters, and think...'jeez, these people would believe a flock of pigs flying overhead'!! All of the lot, are controlled, bought and paid for..what don't you understand about that. The real candidates are shut out of the pre-dominance in the news, as Paul, Burton, Kucinich, Keyes, and more. Though the candidates I mentioned are vastly different, depending on your personal view, at least they had a bit more integrity, as to their personal beliefs, and integrity, will get you nowhere in politics!
Also, in reference to our friend in Ireland: What do you get when you cross a corrupt politician, with a dishonest lawyer?                                       
                               V
                               V
                               V
                               V
                               V


                            Chelsea

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 03:05 PM

Well, I sympathize, but your raving dissatisfaction is (IMO) a natural consequence of participating in a very large number of people trying to run a notionally democratic system. The leading edges of the curve are going to get lost in the rumbling tepid sentiments of the large middle.

Anyway, the rave is pleasant enough reading as long as we don't take it too seriously.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 03:07 PM

Hey Amos!!..Look up!...there goes that flock of pigs again!!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 03:09 PM

I pretty much agree with all that, GfS, and I've seen it that way for some time. Yes, "the Clinton/Bush cabal is the same thing, working in conjunction with each other". The Democrats and Republicans are like two football teams who show up every couple of years at a political Superbowl, and the public is supposed to pick which one to root for. "Good cop - Bad cop" Take your pick. The trouble is, no matter which one gets picked you end up with the same goddamn Big League running the whole football schedule! This is the part people don't get, because they're so mesmerized by the game and by team loyalty.

I'm not clear on exactly what Obama is yet, though, personally speaking. If he gets elected, then we'll find out. He's a very good speaker, I think, but what would he do when in power? Hmm. That remains to be seen. I will be very surprised if the USA pulls out of Iraq, no matter who gets elected.

The tremendous zeal of a candidate's supporters is always attributable to the fervency of their hopes. They figure that somehow this candidate is going to make those hopes be realized once he's in office. It's kind of sad, really, to see the hunger in people for something better, knowing how likely it is that they will be betrayed by those whom they cast their votes for.

Yeah, Hillary and Bill didn't realize that the hunger for "Change" out there would count them out as part of "the old establishment". It must have come as quite a shock by the time it began to sink in.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 03:12 PM

Was that right?..'notionally' or 'nationally'..if it was 'notionally', well you're pretty entertaining as well!..good play on words..hats off to you!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 03:46 PM

Notionally was intentional.

LH, I think you and GfS should meet in meatspace. You have a lot to share.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 03:47 PM

Oh yeah?/...Whatcha' got in mind???

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 05:55 PM

Seems that the prevailing conspiracy theory here is that Obama was handpicked by the aristocracy??? Hmmmmmm????

No, Obama was the furtherest thing from the aristocracy's poster boy as it's next commander-in-thief... He wasn't even on their radar...

What really happened is that he did what Jimmy Carter did a long time ago... He excited people and he out organized the aristocracy's shoe-in choice, Hillary Clinton...

Now ya'll can go about gettin' this all sanitized and revised to fit yer individual and collective cynical ideas of how things work but this ol' hillbilly ain't doin' this particual conspiracy theory this time around...

I like Obama... Even if happened to choose Hillary to be his VP I'd still like Obama... And, I ain't even a democrat and the last one I voted for fot pres. was Jimmy Carter...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 06:02 PM

He was picked to make Hillary look to be a centrist, because he was so far to the left...read my prior text a little better....he was NOT picked to win....

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 06:42 PM

Yeah, yeah, yeah...Most of the time he voted 'present' he even voted against the one bill he wrote....(even Edwards called him on it during the debates)now go back to sleep

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 06:43 PM

Mutual terrification and admiration.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 07:14 PM

Mutual don't know what you mean...

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 07:32 PM

Sigh...you can impress each other with your sweeping generalizations about how corrupt everything is, and then admire each others' handiwork at fearmongering.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 07:43 PM

Nothing happened in Unity today

(Saskatchewan)

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 08:26 PM

She's back and one in the same, doncha think, Amos?

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 08:44 PM

Amos, oh, ok...I thought you sere talking about us. Sorry, misunderstanding.....and 'Q' a lot happened here today, you just couldn't find any oil(smirking)

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 12:15 AM

What I am mainly interested in meeting GfS for is to hear his original music. Politics is not an interest that occupies a huge amount of my life outside of the daily chitchatting on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 12:57 AM

Me neither. I just stop by the computer a few times a day., and drop in. Even Jesus said, "Beware of the leaven of the pharisees, and of Caesar," pharisees being religion and, Caesar being politics! I'd much rather focus on spiritual things(not religious). And, as I've repeatedly said, 'I don't like ANY of the so-called candidates. Besides, the pen is mightier than the sword!....and me?..well I've called it for years. 'My ball-point sword'

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 02:26 AM

Well Amos , if we are fearmongers, I feel we have much to be frightened about.
One of the most frightening things on this thread is the reluctance of "Democrats" here to explain the role of the Party in American politics.....Why such obscene amounts of money are required to promote the candidates...why the cult of celebrity plays such a big part....Why does personality count for more than policy, to the extent that a cadidate can run his or her whole election campaign without stating clearly what they intend to do to give America a fairer social system, or what their intended foreign policy will be.

Looking from here, the Democratic Party seems to encompass all shades of political opinion, from centrist to extreme right wing, depending on the geography.

If this is correct, what is the reason for having a Democratic Party at all?

Why do you not just vote in some less virulent Republicans?

Or is the two Party system simply a con as many seem to think....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 04:17 AM

HEAR HEAR!!!! Cheers to Akenaton!! Hey, Ake, If you click on my name and pull up my posts, well..they SHOULD MAKE YOUR DAY! Nice to hear another sane person...they didn't 'get' you yet!!....Warmest Regards!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 07:46 AM

Well, ake, over the last 8 years just about every piece of progressive legislation that was introduced in Conmgress was shot down by the Repub majority... It's not like there aren't folks who are trying to make some needed changes it's just there are more folks "standing in the doorway and blocking the halls"...

Take Dennis Kucinich's Department of Peace, for instance... He inmtroduces his bill every year and it gets shot down... Yeah, okay, many Dems don't get on board but if the Repubs weren't in such numbers that they could shoot it down the Dems might take it more seriously...

(And this from an active Green Party supporter going back a long, long time...)

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 11:31 AM

Hi GUEST...Thanks for the cheers, but I don't think we're makin' much progress with these earthlings!
Time we were getting back to our own Galaxy :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 12:36 PM

Bobert, there are times when I think that the Republicans are even worse than the Democrats...but they both serve the same masters. They are the "Good Cop" and "Bad Cop" of the oligarchy, and the public is the hapless prisoner who must choose which one of them to trust while being in their power. They are the "mommy" and "daddy" figures. They are the "Yankees" and the "Mets" in the great political World Series.

They are set up to keep people mesmerized and deluded by presenting them with a choice that is not a real choice at all...so the $ySStem continues to rule and to serve the huge financial/industrial/military interests that run the USA and that launch foreign wars of aggression on completely spurious justifications.

When a few honest politicans like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich appear out of the ranks of those 2 corrupt parties and try to present something actually truthful about what is going on their statements are greeted with nervous laughter (in the case of Ron Paul) or they are shut out of the media debate process (in the case of Dennis Kucinich). If it were not for the Internet, most people would never hear what they had to say at all. The mainstream media cannot censor the Internet...so far.

It's a 2-headed Oligarchy. A 2-headed dragon. One head pretends to be a big tough-talkin' guy, a gun-totin', Bible-totin' John Wayne type father figure who will bravely defend America against all threats, foreign and domestic. That's the Republicans. The other head pretends to be a kindly, wise, mature, idealistic, responsible mother figure who will bravely protect the poor, the underprivileged, the minorities and who will bring social justice and environmental protection to the homeland in the noble traditions of such as John Kennedy and FDR. That's the Democrats.

They both lie through their teeth.

People who instinctively look to "Daddy" whenever the going gets tough will usually vote Republican. People who are more inclined to look to "Mommy" when the going gets tough will usually vote Democrat. (and that has very little to do with gender, by the way, it has to do with whatever form of social and family mythology you grew up sympathizing the most with in your youth) (in my case I generally found Mommy to have far better and wiser judgement than Daddy, so I just naturally can't frikkin' stand the Republicans!)

But I know this. Neither one of them is what they pretend to be. They do not serve the public. They serve the Oligarchy. Their differences in outer style are simply fodder for the media propaganda that gets people to keep trooping out dutifully and voting for them, like the wretched animals in Animal Farm giving their loyalty to that disgusting group of pigs that were dominating them.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 12:47 PM

I'd have to agree with ya', LH...

But I feel "change" in the air... It's been a long time comin'... So long that alot of folks weren't 'round last time... Last time got way outta hand but as you know there are alot of us who were and can explain what the Who meant when thay sang "We won't get fooled again."

No, it the Dems that are all that worked up to change stuff but they just might get swept up in a movement by default... I mean, ya gotta have a "perfect storm" almost to bust up the corporate ballgame and as it turns out the Bush administration and its policies amount up to that perfect storm...

So I am excited... No, not because the Dems may take control of ther governemnt but because there are so many fronts that needs creative attention...

That's the way I see it...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 01:04 PM

AKe:


I just fail to see why the Democrats should have to explain the mass neuroses of the media-driven culture; one which was largely generated by the obsessive quests for profits. Do you think Democrats designed it that way? I find the notion absurd.

There's a lot about party mechanisms we don't know about, for sure, and Iw ould love to have total transparency. But every piece of that nightmare--on both sides--is ggenerated by individual decision making. Those decisions can be based on good information, or on bad information, and motivated by principle, or by greed, or by irrational hate or fear. The complex composite of the system as a whole is no more the product of one of the parties than it is of the man in the moon. It's a species-wide psychosis that civilization is in the long so process of trying to find a way out of. And, I might add, doing a parlously poor job of it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 01:12 PM

Yeah... (smile)

But just think, Amos. I could be worse! Man, it could be a whole lot worse.

While on the one hand we have made quite a mess of things, on the other hand we also have accomplished much in the development of human civilization.

I have to remind myself of that every time I find myself going too negative. I hear a beautiful piece of music, I see a magnificently built sailboat moving silently across the water, and I think..."Wow. Amazing creatures we humans are..."

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 03:33 PM

I meant to say "It could be worse", not "I could be worse". Not that I couldn't be worse...but it was a typo, okay? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 07:23 PM

Little Hawk, I can't begin to tell you how deeply I disagree with your whole post that begins: "Bobert, there are times when I think that the Republicans are even worse than the Democrats...but they both serve the same masters. They are the "Good Cop" and "Bad Cop" of the oligarchy, and the public is the hapless prisoner who must choose which one of them to trust while being in their power. They are the "mommy" and "daddy" figures. They are the "Yankees" and the "Mets" in the great political World Series."

You are wrong, sirrah. There are many good people serving in both of those parties. Besides which, neither side is that well organized. If you are well and truly convinced that there is an over-weening authority manipulating the world, as in the Rothschilds and the Bohemian Grove, you may continue to believe the claptrap you are promulgating but otherwise, I think such a belief is silly.

Incidentally, there was no great conspiracy in locking out either Kucinich and or Ron Paul. If you will bother to look it up, you will see that there are rules that govern who is eligible to take part in offical political debates and neither Kucinich nor Paul met those standards.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 07:30 PM

YEah, I agree with Ebbie, but, ya know, don't sweat it. You could be worse.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 07:59 PM

Well, it certainly has been convient to play the conspiracy theories in trying to explain Obama... Problem is, like I've said, they just don't make sense at any level...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 09:34 PM

Amos & Ebbie, You, to whom I've had the pleasure of posting to both of you, and never seem to 'enjoy' other facets of our lives, and experiences, I believe are truly serious in your sincerity, to which you believe. I read Little Hawk's post, and actually was quite impressed with lots of it. I also know, that there are those who think it is all off-base. I do believe what he was pointing out had nothing to do with a 'Grand Conspiracy', think of it more like how a CEO of a major corporation, sees things( about the financial returns, overhead, Expansion, Investments to grow, power, and influence to achieve your goals. To excess, there's greed, and pride, and a lot of general self serving circuits going on, in their heads. They are not so inclined to give the sincerity to hope, nurturing a family, caring about their fellow humans, and the environment, and future generations, love and life, as maybe one of you, or even all of us. To some of those, it is the bottom line, the deal, the acquisition of power, and on and on and so forth..and by the time you think that what I've just said, is a possibility, or plausible there are ones out there, that have been at this quite a while....wouldn't you say?? Some, have actually been at this long enough, to have the means, to sway public opinion, trends, AND EVEN PUBLIC POLICY and the support of 'true believers'..who are, in deed, truly sincere, from where THEY come from........BUT THAT'S NOT WHERE THE OTHER GROUP COMES FROM!! These are the same people who will not stop at 'willing' public support, to 'unwilling public support, to achieve their goals.....Can you believe that?? Can you at least, conceive that 'could be plausible'?
So, the next place to ask, or wonder, is who, or what, can verify the truth, right? Ok, without any personal agenda, for personal gain...just to know, about this, and a lot of stuff(not even related), is to relax about it all, and just clear all your filters, in regards to re-enforcing any thing, and with all sincerity, ask God, the giver of live,,,from whom you came out from, to reveal it to you. Also note, 'intelligence is the ability to process information'....keep your filters clean, and you'll be able to gather what you need, by being able to process more information.(Note: Speed is a by-product of accuracy!) It's just like playing a musical instrument, learn accuracy...speed will follow.
   Next,..Did you watch that video I posted for you??
Hope you liked it. There's other things I like better, but it was somewhat akin to the one you posted me.
Last, but in the 'of course' land, when one is in a state of being a little more spiritual tight, you'll probably, more easily spot when some one, is selling you a 'bad bill of goods'...Hey!..God bless your efforts in yakkin' with him!!

P.s. Ebbie, though I was primarily posting to Amos,..help yourself to the input!!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 11:22 PM

Ebbie, I think your disagreement with me rests on a couple of misunderstandings of what I am saying.

When I speak of "the Democrats" or "the Republicans" as a party, and in the context I was speaking in the post you were referring to, I am not speaking of all the millions of ordinary citizens who are members of those parties. I am not speaking of citizens who went to caucus meetings, etc. I am speaking of quite a small group of highly influential power brokers who are at the very top of those two parties...the "kingmakers", as it were, who make important policy decisions at the highest level of the party structure.

You say, "There are many good people serving in both of those parties." ABSOLUTELY! And I would never say otherwise. There are many good people serving in virtually any large hierarchical power structure. I was not referring to those many people, I was referring to a few very powerful people at the top of the pyramid. You will find that they are usually people with a lot of money...usually "old" money...and they've been playing the partisan game for their entire adult lives, and they all know each other (right across those party lines).

Furthermore, I am NOT, repeat, NOT saying that it is a great conspiracy! I have said again and again on different threads that it is not a conspiracy...it is simply the natural way that a system which is based on certain monetary forces plays itself out. The entrenched power structures in a society always play themselves out in such a way as naturally suits them and benefits them, simply because that's how it works.

Now, if you have an economy which has built itself around a constant high level of arms production, for instance, as the USA has ever since WWII then you have a built-in imperative to use those arms in frequent wars or supply them to wars and that in itself helps to set in motion policies in the world which lead to more wars. This was as true for the Roman Empire or many past empires as it is for the present American Empire.

It's not a conspiracy, it's simply the nature of the beast. Now, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul were directly confronting that warmaking structure in society and saying, "We should stop doing this."

In so doing they were confronting tremendous established ways of doing things in the USA, ways that are supported by vast industrial and financial concerns. For those people to laugh nervously at Ron Paul and dismiss Kucinich as a "weirdo" is not a conspiracy...it's just good business taking care of itself.

You don't NEED a conspiracy when people's self-interest and greed (and the force of established habits) takes care of the matter all by itself.

So, I am not criticizing you or any other ordinary American citizen who happens to be a Republican or a Democrat on the basis of their party affiliation or the work they do for their party. I am criticizing the fundamental values that underly the present whole USA society (and Canada's as well) at a much deeper level, and I'm saying that those two parties you have in the USA are willy nilly serving outmoded, harmful, and entrenched interests because that's where the money is and the money controls the agenda.

You don't need a "conspiracy" to have that happen. All you need is a system where the money controls the agenda, and that's what you've got. That in itself is enough to royally screw both the USA and the world in general, because money is an artificial notion and if you base a whole society on pursuing and serving an artificial thing that someone made up in his mind you will find out in time that that society has lost touch with reality.

That's what happened to the Easter Islanders...and that is what is happening to our present societies right now....but on a much, much larger playing field, of course.

*********

The tricks that were used to keep Kucinich out of some of those TV debates, by the way, were not legitimate in the least...but it's a long argument, and I don't have much motivation to pursue it at the moment. It wouldn't change anything anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 12:07 AM

Little Hawk..That was very eloquent, in a way that articulates, that we both understand, though be it through much sadness, and disappointment. All the compromises, even the little tiny ones, slowly erode the moral fabric of the soul, and family, on to society. We have fallen so far!
I find that focusing on the command(not suggestion), that..'we do unto others, as we would have done unto ourselves'...and...'what you do unto the least of them, you do unto me'....IS the posture, that one must live within, to be free, in all, spiritual, mental, emotional, and physical ways.......besides that,...it's way more fun!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 08:53 AM

Yeah, Kucinich got shafted by Big Media, LH.... No doubt about that and I would agree that the way he was treated was somewhat conspirital... Same has happened to Ralph Nader for the last 20 years... Ron Paul??? The same...

But what has happened in 2 Dem election cycles is the fix ain't workin' for them anymore... Last time it was Howard Dean... Remember "The Scream"... It was "manufactured" by his opponents... I've heard George Bush sound exactly like Howard Dean and it's a non issue... But Dean got beat up by Big Media, Big DNC and Big Repub because he represented, ahhhhh, problem solving over business-as-usual... So he was axed... The conspirators didn't have to get together and paln it because they all knew that a Dean administration would not be favorable to their power and control... So Dean was a axed...

But what Dean accomplished was puttting together a road map on how to beat the $y$tem with his use of the internet and in indoing so so positioned himself to, even in loss of the nomination, to pick off the DNC... This was the real wake-up call to the $y$tem as if found that it no longer had this *complete control" of information and not having comnplete control is somehting that Obama saw and rather than campaign as a busioness-as-usual candidate he took advantage of what Howard Dean's campaign had taught us in '04...

"The times are a'changin'" and that is why Obama has been able to weave his way thru the military/industrialist minefield and captured the nomination... And it's all about understanding how information can be presented without haing to depend on the corporatists allowing you to have access to thei Big Media...

Sure, the corporatists could have tried to "Kucinich" Obama but Obama had allready taken advantage of the internet, raised way too much cash form small donors and had out-organized the rest of the pack so Big Media was stuck and, for that matter, still stuck...

And I, for one, am loving it!!!

Like I said... Well, no I didn't say but Bob Dylan said back in the 60's "The times are a'changin'...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 01:59 PM

Bobert - Yeah, the Internet is making quite a difference, no doubt about it. We have a much freer flow of information than we would without it. This is good.

GfS - Dead right. Each moment of a person's life can be dedicated to living out those ideals...or not...and therein rests one's share of happiness or sorrow in this life. I have to keep reminding myself of that when I get negative, as I sometimes do.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 03:58 PM

As soon As I mentioned God, and spiritual things....my access has been denied!!wow!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 05:18 PM

In the absence of any information on the ethos of the Democratic party...except for Bobert who doesn't count as he's a pesky Green...I've been rootin' around on my own.
Found a couple of nice articles by John Pilger which explain quite a bit about "Democratic" thinking.
"In 1941, the editor Edward Dowling wrote: "The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy, and second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it." What has changed? The terror of the rich is greater than ever, and the poor have passed on their delusion to those who believe that when George W Bush finally steps down next January, his numerous threats to the rest of humanity will diminish."
John also delves back into Democrat history, describing the tradition of war-making and expansionism that Obama has left little doubt he will honour. He lists pronouncments from Obama. Supporting an "undivided Jerusalem" as the Israeli capital...Telling Cuban exiles that he will continue the illegal blockade...Making threatening statements to Leftist South American regimes, describing them as a "vacuum to be filled"

John concludes with the following indictment.
"It is time the wishful-thinkers grew up politically and debated the world of great power as it is, not as they hope it will be. Like all serious presidential candidates, past and present, Obama is a hawk and an expansionist. He comes from an unbroken Democratic tradition, as the war-making of presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton demonstrates. Obama's difference may be that he feels an even greater need to show how tough he is. However much the colour of his skin draws out both racists and supporters, it is otherwise irrelevant to the great power game. The "truly exciting and historic moment in US history" will only occur when the game itself is challenged."

Full articles HERE AND HERE

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 05:29 PM

"The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy, and second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it."

Ha! That is hilarious...and it's also absolutely correct. It was then, and it is now.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 06:26 PM

AKe:

He said a lot more than he is being given due credit for by your biased columnist.

"
The stakes could not be higher. It is time for us to recognize that the future security and prosperity of the United States is fundamentally tied to the future of the Americas. If we don't turn away from the policies of the past, then we won't be able to shape the future. The Bush Administration has offered no clear vision for this future, and neither has John McCain.

So we face a clear choice in this election. We can continue as a bystander, or we can lead the hemisphere into the 21st century. And when I am President of the United States, we will choose to lead.

It's time for a new alliance of the Americas. After eight years of the failed policies of the past, we need new leadership for the future. After decades pressing for top-down reform, we need an agenda that advances democracy, security, and opportunity from the bottom up. So my policy towards the Americas will be guided by the simple principle that what's good for the people of the Americas is good for the United States. That means measuring success not just through agreements among governments, but also through the hopes of the child in the favelas of Rio, the security for the policeman in Mexico City, and the answered cries of political prisoners heard from jails in Havana."

The rest of his actual speech can be found here. I think if you will read it, you will find that your reference author has filtered it through a pretty sour filter, straining out an altered version and leaving behind what was best about it, for reasons which only he can explain to you.

But unless you take the trouble to understand the source materials, do me a favor and don't just flog these piss-poor altered versions of sour interpretation around. Stick to what is actually being communicated, assuming you can understand it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 03:29 AM

Amos..I have read the speech in its entirity.

John Pilger describes Obama's rhetoric as "vacuous" and I tend to agree with him.

Of course, if you haven't yet discovered the beauty of "politicspeak" it must be easy to come to the wrong conclusion...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 07:57 AM

BtW Amos, John Pilger is not "my biased columnist." He is without doubt the finest investigative journalist around.

If you had taken the time to read both articles, you would have discovered that since the early sixties he has studied American politics,interviewing most of the important political figures from then till now.

John Pilger's comparison of Obama and Robert Kennedy (a man he knew well) is most illuminating.

Perhaps if the US had some commentators of the stature of John Pilger, the American public would not be so politically ignorant, or so politically powerless...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 08:22 AM

That partly explains why I like Obama, ake... I was working in Robert Kennedy's campaign when he was assasinated...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,triangle
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 02:17 PM

"the finest investigative journalist around"?

You should read more

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 03:43 PM

That's interesting Bobert, must have been quite an experience.
Have you read the Obama Kennedy article? If so what did you think?

If you don't want to comment on the thread, I would be interested to hear your opinion by PM.


Guest...I think most people who think about politics would place John Pilger in the top half dozen IJ's, whether they agree with him or not.

Maybe you would like to post a few names for comparison?

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 04:11 PM

Well, maker up your mind, man. IS it vacuous, or is it militant and expansionist?? I see neither quality in his speeches.

I personally feel you and your esteemed referent are reading the speeches of some imaginary substuitute. I see neither of those qualities in his political rhetoric. And rhetoric it what it is; but it is an order of magnitude better rhetoric than we've seen in a long time. It has a breath of fresh air in it, which perhaps your jaded sensibilities don't detect.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 04:27 PM

Well I do agree Amos, as you don't seem to get much political "fresh air" in the USA, your palate must be very sensitive indeed.

But the vacuous tripe eminating from Mr Obama is yesterday's fish as far a we in the UK are concerned.

WE were informed of the new political dawn by Mr Blair over a decade ago. Unfortunately for us it was another false dawn smeared by war-mongering and sleaze.

As john says "The "truly exciting and historic moment in US/UK history" will only occur when the game itself is challenged"

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 05:09 PM

Just because the legislation you refer to, Bobert, is considered "progressive" by progressives, doesn't make it good legislation my friend. We don't need ANOTHER damn federal agency. We've got too many of them as it is.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 05:51 PM

Yes we do, Doug... We desperately need a Department of Peace... We can't afford all these wars... Plus, they are stupid...

But I still think the world of ya', Dougie, even if you are a knothead...Now come on over here and get a big hug, big guy...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 06:11 PM

Ake:

I see--once burned, twice shy, eh? I knew you rbitterness had to stem from something other than Obama himself. So you've learned that all betrayal in politics is carried on the back of rhetoric; and therefore, obviosuly, all rhetoric, especially good rhetoric, is treachery in disguise.

A very hard lesson to learn, and one I refuse to internalize. I know better than to by any rhetoric literally, but the sincerity of it remains to be seen.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 06:48 PM

My burning came long before Blair Bush or Obama arrived on the scene Amos. I am now immune from their lies.
But they are still the same puppets who spoke of freedom and democracy and killed millions in another war far away.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 06:54 PM

Ake....Obviously there are still those who are counting the flock of pigs flying up above. They just don't get it!!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 07:37 PM

I wish you both the greatest success with your carefully nourished cynicism. I just hope that success stays private. I do not have jade or cynicism as an option. I find it too hopeless, too bitter, to be a possible course of action.





A

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 08:05 PM

Necessity is the mother of invention!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 08:23 PM

ake,

Yeah, I read both of John Pilger's pieces and he reminds me of Lyndon LaRouche... He makes some sense and then blows the crap outta his credibility by repeating screwed up stuff...

First of all, if RFK was that much in support (privately) of the Vietnam War then it's strange that the only person who seems to know this is John Pilger...

But a little closer to home... Pilger's statement that Obama has threatened to bomb Pakistan couldn't have been better written by John McCain's PR team... This isn't what Obama said...

When I catch someone lieing I find it hard to believe the rest of the stuff they say and I think that John Pilger has, at the very least, stretched the truth beyond recognition in the 2 examples I have given...

Now, to wit:

Do I know that Obama is the stelth candidate who will be the 2nd coming or FDR??? I don't know??? Probably not but my gut feeling is that he can help the country at this point in time by restoring some level of civility... The US has become a very uncivilized nation and we ain't gonna change anyhting if we can't "get along" a tad better... Obama will do that better than McCain since McCain hasn't done anything but use the same ol' dirty tricks on Obama and Obama has, for the most part, held himself to a higher standard...

Now back to Pilger... I'm sure he's a regular guy and all but hie asserions that the US is in the middle of half a dozen secret wars is a tad hard to buy...

So, bottom line... There are tons of cynicism out there and Pilger is, IMO, playin' to the cynics... Hey, I'm a cynic so I can understand what he's up to but I am also a pragmatist on looking at the best-case-scenerio for the next administartion and it ain't gonna be pretty... The US has been all but buried by Bush and his corrupt cronies and Bush and Co. may have done so much famage that it may take a couple decades to fix their messes...

As for the last gasp for liberalism??? Yeah, okay... Maybe, maybe not... Depends on definitions... If liberal means endless wars and nation building then count me out... That might have beeen liberal at one point in time but it ain't liberal now... If liberal mean talkin' with yer adversaries then, yeah, that form of liberalism might be around for a long, long time as war is no longer a luxary this planet can afford to wage...

Yeah, guess it boils down to credibility and definations with Pilger and I'll confess to having never heard of the guy but from reading the two op-eds that you posted I think the guy needs to quit catering to the cynics...

That's the way I read him...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 08:30 PM

Amos...In reality you are the pessimist and I the optimist.
Do you really think any good can come from persevering with the status quo?
Do you think humanity can even survive another century as we gouge and bite one another like rats in a cage?

I see a future for our species, but first we must dismantle the monsterous machine we have spent the last three hundred years constructing. A machine which enslaves 99% of our people.

As I've said many times, it won't be quick and it won't be easy,but we must make a start by trying to understand how the machine works, what it does to us and how best to undertake the demolition.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 08:32 PM

You backed up nothing...just with other opinions...what's that??

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 08:34 PM

Ake and I were posting at the same time...whe question was directed at Bobert. Like is said before, Ake...THEY JUST DON'T GET IT!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 08:38 PM

Thanks for your opinion B.....Too tired to discuss further
Good night and sleep well Bobert, Amos, Guest.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Crazyhorse
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 08:51 PM

Ake, for someone who doesn't believe in democracy, you seem very interested in the parties involved in it. Is this a case of "know your enemy"? As for enslaving people, well you and your comrades would know all about that. We, on the decent left, fought you in the UK and you lost, glad you're still an optimist though.

By the way, Pilger is an ass, see here

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 09:56 PM

I got around to reading your two articles by Pilger, Akenaton. I agree substantially with what he says. The stuff about Robert Kennedy is interesting, and I think it is probably correct (despite the fact that I adored Bobby Kennedy then, and still like him a great deal to this day).

I think his description of what has been going on in the Democratic Party (the supposed champion of American "liberalism") since the end of WWII is spot on. It is a warmaking party and always has been, just as much as the Republicans are, but it pretends not to be...whereas the Republicans don't make any such pretense at all. They are proud of their militaristic credentials. A public disillusionment with war will periodically get the Democrats (or even the Republicans) elected, but it won't stop the further wars that both those parties (at the highest level, I mean) are intent on waging once they take power.

This is not something that most supporters of the Democratic Party realize, unfortunately. They think they are voting for the "peace" ticket when they vote Democrat. Thus they end up being betrayed again and again by the very people whom they put their faith in and gave their votes to.

And the Republicans are handed a clear advantage in credibility, sadly...because they don't pretend to be what they are not. They are outright bloodyminded warmongers, and they're proud of it...living out their John Wayne fantasies of rescuing the world and wiping out "the bad guys". There will always be a new "bad guy" to wipe out. He will be someone who has land and resources that the great corporate Oligarchy desires for itself.

There HAS to always be a new bad guy. Otherwise what would be the justification for maintaining the world's highest levels of military spending and fielding new high tech weapons to keep the military industry making record profits?

The present "bad guy" has been labelled "Terrorism". LOL! This is perfect, because you cannot kill a tactic. Thus it provides an endless war...and an endless war is exactly what this $ySStem wants and must have to maintain itself. It also provides a war which can be fought anywhere, since a tactic is not limited to any given location or within any set of borders. This provides carte blanche to attack anybody in the future...if they have something the Oligarchs want.

What could be better for the grand purposes of Orwell's New Amerika?

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 10:53 PM

Do you really think any good can come from persevering with the status quo?

Nope. So I am supporting the one viable candidate who believes in the urgent necessity of changing things.


Do you think humanity can even survive another century as we gouge and bite one another like rats in a cage?

Nope. Which is why, aside from the occasional scrap in these threads, I don't waste my time with much scrapping and biting. I'm more interested in rational progression.

I see a future for our species, but first we must dismantle the monsterous machine we have spent the last three hundred years constructing. A machine which enslaves 99% of our people.

Every large machine has to be changed by degrees. Unless you want to go the anarchist route and blow things up, which in fact produces dramatically retrograde results.



As I've said many times, it won't be quick and it won't be easy,but we must make a start by trying to understand how the machine works, what it does to us and how best to undertake the demolition.

Because this particular machine is built out of agreements and processes based on those agreements, it has the strange virtue of being sort of fungible, in that it's parts can be shifted in small ways that eventually transform the whole. It isn't like a tower that needs to be demolished, but more like an awkward teenager with a bad diet and immature attitudes.

The jade and cynicism I was speaking of is that the best shot and producing a concrete change at the top part, Obama's candidacy, is being treated as apathetically and sourly as though it were Tinkerbell's call to believe in fairies. It isn't. It's a real, possible path to begin making differences that need to be made in specific concrete ways informed by (as far as I know) an independent thinker with a good head on his shoulders and a high respect for important principles. That's what I'm backing as the best shot for this quarter. I'm not stupid enough to think it won't have some elements of the old politics in it, because you get covered with shit even when wading out of a shithole, don't you? The underlying direction of change is what is more important.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 11:29 PM

You too Ake. See ya tomorra.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 11:46 PM

Pilger is an admirer of Chomsky's, a view with which I sympathize. But he is not an admirer of accuracy or good research apparently, judging fro the list of errors in journalistic integrity attributed to him in the discussion at Crazyhorse's link. I think, Ake, you may be misplacing your faith in even calling him a journalist.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 01:27 AM

He is probably subjectively influenced in his interpretation of things he reads and investigates by his own likes and dislikes much as the people on this forum are, Amos... ;-)

I bet, like most of us, he is absolutely convinced that he's telling it like it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 02:28 AM

Akenaton, Go mbeannai dia duit

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Emma B
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 07:33 AM

Amos, please check the long list of prestigious journalistic awards that John Pilger has received.

Noam Chomsky described him as 'the renegade who is the source of the word "pilgerize" invented by journalists furious about his incisive and courageous reporting, and knowing that the only response they are capable of is ridicule.'

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 08:39 AM

I'm with Amos...

The man my be a great writer and thinker but he seriously siecategorized Obama's statement on bombing Pakistan... Might of fact, Pilget used the same generalized wording as the McCain camp used to attack Obama... That, to me, shows either laziness on his part or dishonesty...

Saying that as president if there was actionable intellegence that there was a cell about to attack the US or its troops in Pakistan and Pakistan refused to act on it that he would order a sergical strike against that cell is a far cry from "bombing Pakistan"...

Oh sure, it can be argued that even one pin pointed guided bomb into a house were the cell members are is "bombing Pakistan" but in most folks minds that would be a far cry from "bombing Pakistan"... It is sloppy journalism...

I'd also like to know why RFK chose Pilger as the only person in the world to tell that he privately supported the Vietnam War as late as '68??? This doesn't jive with what Bobby Kennedy was writing and saying at the time and truthfully the first time I have heard that... And I was working in the campaign...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 12:59 PM

I am well impressed by about 98% of what Pilger says in those articles, Bobert. That's good enough for me.

The Democratic Party was in "danger" in '68 of being taken over by a genuinely antiwar coalition led by a genuinely antiwar candidate...simply because of the enormous opposition to the war that had been building in America.

The $ySStem cannot allow either of its major parties to adopt a genuinely antiwar position...and it won't allow them to...though it will certainly allow the Democratic party to pretend to be antiwar...until it has been elected.

You saw a great demonstration of this following the last Congressional elections. Remember? The Democrats campaigned as if they were going to end Bush's Iraq War...but they did nothing of the kind once they got the chance to. They continued to support Bush's war by continuing its funding.

Thus all you people who voted for them were betrayed, as usual.

Now I think that Pilger is probably quite right that Bobby Kennedy...although looking and sounding like the great liberal dream in '68...would have continued supporting the Vietnam War policy once in office. That's how the game works. The Republicans make a big show of being pro-war (which they are). The Democrats make a big show of being anti-war (which, as a ruling party power structure, they are NOT). The public votes in the Democrats, expecting the war to end. It doesn't end, in fact it often gets even worse!

And that's how it works. Ha! Ha! Fooled again.

The sad thing is, Bobert, no matter which one of those two corrupt parties you vote in you get a war policy. And that war policy ends only when a war becomes an absolutely unwinnable disaster that is totally beyond redemption (like Vietnam)....or when the $ySStem decides it's time to move the theatre of war to a new and better location for some reason.

So I think Pilger is probably quite right in what he says about Bobby Kennedy, though as I say, I still like Bobby Kennedy a whole lot. I bet he would have continued fighting that war pretty much the way Nixon did, and you know what? The "liberals" in America would have then been far more inclined to forgive Bobby for so doing, simply because they liked and trusted Kennedy, and he wasn't a Republican! So it "must be okay"!

This is analogous to the way the conservatives can easily forgive Nixon or any other Republican president for opening friendly relations with Communist China or negotiating a big arms limitation treaty with Russia. ;-) They'd NEVER allow a Democrat to do it, but if a Republican does it, then it "must be okay"!

That's how the political game is played by the great Oligarchy in Amerika. They use people's liberal or conservative habits of thinking to manipulate them at the ballot box, and the grand imperial agenda goes ahead regardless. Either the Democrats or the Republicans can be used in that fashion, and they are used in that fashion over and over again.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 01:14 PM

Ya know, I think this old screed of yours,LH, about the high mysterious powers which control the parties, is kind of faded and worn and threadbare. For one thing it does not lead to any means of redress or handling the broad situation, which tells me the analysis is faulty. I would say more about all that, but I am in a hurry at the moment. There are several large men in black suits and sunglasses knocking on my office door.


A

AN interesting discussion with Noam Chomsky to tide you over.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 01:36 PM

LOL! Well, it's been nice knowing you, Amos...

There are business and financial interests that control the parties. Nothing mysterious about it at all. They are the same kind of large interests that controlled British expansionism in places like southern Africa back when Cecil Rhodes was the big mover and shaker. It has to do with land, vital resources, commerce, industry, and military dominance. Very simple.

There is an aggressively expansionist policy. The parties serve it. The policy must be sold to the people by telling them whatever they want to hear at any given time, and the parties do that. When the public is thoroughly fed up with one party, the other one takes over, and the policy rolls on.

Now here's the key: The vast number of ordinary people IN the 2 parties are quite innocent, of course, of what's going on, and they do not realize they are being taken to the cleaners...every time.

If they did realize it then those 2 parties would collapse, and there might well be some form of revolution.

I don't see that happening, because the media will not blow the whistle, and people's impression of what's going on is secured by the media.

There are a handful of whistleblowers: Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Pilger, Chomsky (to some extent)...that handful is not enough to stop the machine from carrying out its agenda, and its agenda is continual imperial expansion through lending money at exorbitant interest rates to poor countries (thus enslaving them), through moving our jobs to wherever the labor is dirt cheap, through laundering vast amounts of money, through moving drugs, and through provoking wars and by maintaining a high level of fear and paranoia in the public at all times....about terrorism, about crime, about drugs, etc.

The more fearful the public is, the more willing they are to give up their civil rights to "Big Brother" and to support foreign wars.

And that can only help the Empire to grow stronger.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 01:50 PM

Little Hawk, I tend so agree with you. I think you are not as naive, as with Akenaton. None of the O-blabbo supporters can seem to recite or list not one thing, in his record, that backs him up. The O-Blabbo supporters are doing so out of pure emotions...and as anyone who has been married a long time can tell you 'Who in the world can logically argue with someone who is emotional???' There is absolutely no way to get them to calm down, and let a long term logic to even be considered, as such with the case with O-Blabbo, even in the case that he has absolutely NO record of ANYTHING accomplished!! And being as the American men have been feminized so much, they have all this enthusiasm, being swept up by the celebrity, and momentum, that O-Blabbo has, without much logic, to even look into his accomplishments. And yet they'll come back at you with all this 'flap', without even considering what you have to say, or the truth. McLame is no better. This whole thing is a farce promoted with the full support of corporate media, and presented as if these are the only viable options..when in actuality, they are not! They are only the two options PRESENTED BY CORPORATE MEDIA, as representing the two options, and of course, instead of exercising their brains, they stare transfixed in front of their T.V. sets, in a stupor, thinking 'Uhh-huhhhh' ..and in fact not thinking at all...just taking in 'information' with a passive mind..being programmed!!! I truly believe, that these people are sincere in their motives...but sincerely wrong. The object of this is to deceive, because people make decisions out of what they think is the right thing to do..(if not, they'd be evil), and its clear to see, that the O-Blabbo supporters, see him as a remedy to the position we find ourselves in now...through yet ANOTHER deception!!!...THEY JUST DON'T GET IT!...Its like they have been conditioned so long, with lies, that they don't see the truth when it comes along...even when it is so obvious!! ...ok, I'm done, for now...bye

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: TIA
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 03:16 PM

"And being as the American men have been feminized so much, they have all this enthusiasm, being swept up by the celebrity, and momentum, that O-Blabbo has, without much logic, to even look into his accomplishments."

I am married to a woman scientist who would kick your sorry ass around the block for saying that "feminine" means illogical and celebrity-awed. I'd do it myself, but I am way too feminized.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 04:00 PM

GoS:

You're shooting from the hip while squinting into the sun at a moving target, kid.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 04:19 PM

Thanks, Tia. GuestFS's screed coming from such a standpoint is almost totally discreditable, his "logic" being out of touch, uninformed, and not to say, old fashioned.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 04:34 PM

guest..Thank you my friend.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 05:24 PM

Talking of "old fashioned" seems to me that many here still labour under the illusion that the Capitalist system can somehow evolve into a user friendly method of running our society.
This is wishful thinking in the extreme and wishful thinking explains the popularity of Mr Obama in some sections of the populace who ought to have learned better.

Folk like Amos , Ebbie, Sue (and others who obviously don't feel up to lending their support to Mr O in this thread), are no spring chickens; one would think that a lifetime's exposure to Capitalism in the raw, although not resulting in ninety degree burns(Amos),would at least have roasted their arses a little.

John Pilger mentions one piece of rhetoric by Obama which I did hear on TV, "an undivided Jerusalem as the Israeli capital."
No person who wants to see peace in the Middle East would ever make such a statement. It was simply a nod towards the Zionist lobby which contains most of the movers and shakers of corporate America.

Ok Bobert he may be the "least worst choice" on paper, but if he continues as he has begun you won't be able to get a cigarette paper between him and McCain come election time.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 05:37 PM

I think you mistook me....femininity is great....on a woman!...on a man, it leaves them unmanly men, who are more emotional, than, a whole man needs to be....even for his woman. Maybe you've gotten your man to be a weak man, which you can control..in which case, disrespecting him, is just around the corner..next step is having your needs not met...by your man!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 05:39 PM

Amos.....those who are great shots..can do that, accurately....sorry about your aim

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: TIA
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 05:42 PM

Your last post actually confirms that I mistook nothing. You are one bigoted, categorizing, name-calling piece of work. If your views on the proper roles, attributes and relationships for men and women are as informed as your politics, keep posting, and you will turn me into a rabid Obama supporter.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 05:44 PM

Ebbie, yeah, I'm old fashion..a man who loves his wife, without being her monkey-boy...and because of that she knows and feels love...and in fact is...you are, on the other hand...THE NEW WOMAN..you grew balls and loved your husband like a wife!!!..yeah, you get him to do what you want, ..too bad you can't look into his mind

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 05:46 PM

I am a licensed MFFC, with a recovery rate of 92%. If you want to convince someone with your idiotic rants, stick to the crowd at starbucks

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: TIA
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 05:47 PM

See, there's the name-calling.
Now I've got one - Neanderthal!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 05:53 PM

In science one needs to label something as to its characteristics. No name calling involved. If you'd like an in depth dialogue on the subject, let's go...but I'm not going to argue with some ridiculous venting, from someone on the benefits of the feminist political movement, in as so far as to mental stability ...you lose..so do our children

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 05:55 PM

Hey, Gfs?

I actually don't mind being "feminized" in the least. ;-) I've always figured that women, in general, had a better handle on reality than men...in general. I think a society that gave greater weight to the feminine side of the equation than American society does would be a far wiser society.

Other than that... (grin)...I pretty much agree with you.

Of the two political parties, the one that routinely engages in the most crude and stupidly masculine stereotypical thinking is the Republicans, because they are the ones who play out that half of the equation (the authoritative father figure: John Wayne/Rambo/Davy Crockett/Schwarzenneger/Eastwood/etc)...and it gets them a lot of votes from people who are scared of being seen as "effeminate" by other people.

The Democratic Party, on the other hand, acts in an outward way that seems far more warm to the feminine side of the equation (Big Mommy), but that's quite misleading, because in fact the Democratic Party at the highest level is run by the same ruthless corporate Old Boys' club that runs the Republicans. The outward style of the Democrats is crafted to appeal to all the consitutuencies that the Republicans don't appeal to. In that fashion the public is eternally split and divided against one another like the partners in a bad marriage...and that consumes most of their energy, energy which could much better be used to challenge the real controllers at the top and change the $ySStem.

The public, a house eternally divided against itself in this way, is thus rendered confused, frustrated, and impotent, and the controllers continue to run the game through those 2 parties which are the right and left hand of the robot that serves the Oligarchy. Either hand will do...and approximately half of the people will support either hand at any given time. When the country appears to be under threat, most of the people will support either hand.

Now if you are in either of those parties (at the higher levels, I mean) you STILL want like hell to win the election and beat the other party. Why? Because it's a game, just like a football game or any other game. To the winners go both the spoils and the glory.

So they will both try like hell to win, and they will both try to make the other one look bad. This helps to continue dividing the public, and the controllers cash in on the ticket sales and continue running the game, the arena, and the league. This is the biggest game of them all, and it works just the same way all the other games do.

1. Abitrarily set up 2 opposing teams.
2. Dispense lots of propaganda to get people excited about those 2 teams.
3. Get people to fund the game massively and attend it in great numbers.
4. Get the fans to cheer for their side and jeer at the other.
5. Have some fouls, disputed goals, and stuff like that to add to the excitement and fury.
6. Pick a few well known "heroes" and "villains" for people to obsess about.
7. Give both teams lots of incentive to want to win so that they knock the hell out of each other on the playing field and engage in dirty tricks.
8. Stretch the suspense out over a period of a whole year (the season).
9. End it all with a big, giant championship game (election night).
10. Declare a winner, and everyone goes nuts and parties! (except the fans of the losing team...they go off and get drunk and maudlin, and say, "Just wait till next year.")
11. Have the losing team publicly congratulate the winning team (while secretly grinding their teeth and planning revenge)...this is a particularly farcical exercise in phony posturing, and it is usually referred to as "binding up the wounds"...

Wait for it. It's all gonna happen once again in November 2008.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 06:01 PM

Don't know if Amos is reading...but on the news..just now..O-blabbo reversing his decision about the war....gosh, you think?? He is only making his statements on, as the broadcaster said, ..'for political expediency..' by the time this is over...nothing will be done...like the democratic congress who promised to end the war immediately (as they keeps voting to fund it)..why don't some of you just wake up??
   
P.S. I'm sure my other comments are going to raise the ire of women who are self-absorbed controlling shrews, who don't want it revealed..but..well so what...I'm not wrong...just not buying into their garbage of 'marital bliss, my way!'

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: TIA
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 06:01 PM

So, now the logical manly one sees fit to bring my kids into it?
You're not worth another keystro

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 06:07 PM

Little Hawk, Like some of your stuff...but you forgot a big one!!...Convince the public that this game is so important that their lives will be made better by going to the game, and that the players will personally affect their home, and well being! Get emotionally involved, and send lots of your money!!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 06:09 PM

Tia...you sound like you equate logic with masculinity...like yours?

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 06:18 PM

"Convince the public that this game is so important that their lives will be made better by going to the game, and that the players will personally affect their home, and well being! Get emotionally involved, and send lots of your money!!"

Oh, yeah. LOL! Dead right. Well, like I said, this is the biggest game of all, right?

I hope you realize, GfS, that by engaging in combat with females here (as a perceived group) you are treading where Mudcat angels fear to go and risking complete excommunication and personal annihilation? As well as being drawn and quartered and having your head and privy parts stuck on a pike to strike fear into the hearts of all who pass?

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 06:36 PM

Oh ok..i didn't know..but I'm not surprised ..so in lieu of that, here, all, watch this... http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=two+brains+extended&search_type=

and the guy is educated too...both funny, entertaining, and correct, as to mental health. you'll have to cut and paste it.

L.H..There is a difference as to a man being more domesticated, that of being feminized

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Emma B
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 06:50 PM

LH it was only the head stuck on a pike; we sensitive women folks have to be spared from really grisley exhibitionism :)

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,lansing
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 06:53 PM

I just watched the video posted by gfs, great stuff. emmab, if thats all you got, fix your 'puter, so you can watch it, and listen...my wife and i howled. she even admitted it as to being right on!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Emma B
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 07:11 PM

LOL loved it

Here in the UK the 'garden shed' is the physical manifestation of the 'empty box' :)

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 07:12 PM

Your accusation is complete horsepucky.

"ASHINGTON (AFP) Ñ Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama insisted Thursday he had not changed his plan for immediate troop withdrawals from Iraq, despite earlier saying he might refine his policies.
Obama spoke to reporters for a second time Thursday in North Dakota, four hours after his remarks sparked reports, ahead of a planned visit to Iraq, that he was softening his plan to get all combat troops home within 16 months.
"I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one to two brigades per month," Obama said.
"This is the same position that I had four months ago, it's the same position that I had eight months ago. It's the same position that I had 12 months ago."
"My first day in office, I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war.

"Responsibly, deliberately, but decisively."

In an earlier meeting with reporters, Obama said he may "refine" his policies after consultations with generals on a trip to Iraq this month, details of which have not been announced for security reasons.

Obama, who based his primary campaign on vehement opposition to the Iraq war, said he would conduct a "thorough assessment" of his policies after the trip, his first to Iraq for two years.

The Illinois senator has faced fierce pressure from Republican foe John McCain over Iraq, who has said Obama should change his plans to take account of apparent security gains wrought by the recent US troop-surge strategy.

"When I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I am sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies," Obama was quoted as saying earlier by Fox News and the New York Times.
"I've always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed.""

---

Say, you hooters, what part of "responsibly, deliberately, but decisively" didn't you understand?

The man says he will work out the implementation when he knows enough to do so effectively. What would you have him do? Fire a shotgun in the dark?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 07:16 PM

softening??...redefine???? horsepucky????

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 07:31 PM

EmmaB, Glad you loved it....I just can't get my 'Blue Clicky' to work right...thank you for doing that. As for my point, all I was pointing out is there is a difference between how men and women assimulate and think, and the difference between the emotional, and the logical(finding a solution). I really hope a lot of you either hit EmmaB's 'Blue Clicky' or cut and paste the address I posted(same thing).
Men and women are two parts of a whole, and the difference is for the two parts to C0-0PERATE, NOT COMPETE!! from which, some jerks tend to exploit, for political reasons. Shame on them!!..They should be ignored, as idiots!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 07:38 PM

Amos...Was just litenig to the radio...He said He ....'would pull out one or two brigades at a time...', then said it was no difference from his position he had four months ago...'etc. That is pure horsepucky! There is quite a difference between 'withdrawing immediately...than... 'one or two brigades at a time'. ..You still don't see it..and that's a shame..I sorta' like you...save the brickheaded stubborness

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 08:21 PM

Ummm, looks as if this thread has gone downhill in many regards since I last had a chance to get off my feet...

Yo, LH... You need to hole up fir a weekend with Shane and Chongo and find some new material... Yer stuff, while good, is gettin' stale and you need the break outta yer "Repent, the World is Doomed" rut... But you know that this ol' hillbilly loves ya'...

Yo, GtS... "O'Blabbo" will get half the folks reading yer posts top pass on the rst of it... Those remaining will pass on it it you start SCREAMING at folks... That leaves you with about 1/4th of the folks who will actually read yer posts...

Yo, Amos... You need bail money???

Yo, ake... Greg Palist is a journalist... John Pilget is an op-ed'r... Wuth an axe to grind...

That's bout it...

This ol' hillbilly done worked too hard today and may not be back here tonight... I'm beat... Think I'll just drenk me a few Iron Cuty bers and call it quits...

Plus, I gotta perform tomorrow night at a 4th of July Festival...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 09:20 PM

Thanks for the empathy, Bobert. ;-) Personally, I find my political views refreshing and timely. One of the reasons I can have such views with equanimity is that I feel my real job in life is changing myself, not changing the entire social destiny of the USA and the western world. There has always been much oppression and political corruption in the world. There probably always will be. In the meantime I still have to deal with what my life is really about...my own development as a living, breathing, thinking, and learning soul...and my human connections...my friends and my loved ones.

*********

The "two brains" video is hilarious, GfS! And pretty darned well spot on...although the worst case of sitting with the remote and flipping TV channels that I ever saw is my mother, but it isn't that she's not thinking while she does it. She IS thinking about what she watches when she watches TV...so I guess she's not doing it quite the way most men do it.

*********

Amos, I am worried about you. You have started using the term "horse puckey" far too often, and we all know what that means...!

It means you are mutating cell by cell into a rabid Reaganite DougR-style conservative. You may only be in the early stages, Amos, so I advise you to get help NOW! While there is still time. I shudder to think what may happen if you don't.

In a few months you will be endorsing McCain if this insidious process goes on without immediate medical intervention. Call up Doktor Liebenscheiss, man! Don't delay!

Emma - Okay. (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,lansing
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 10:24 PM

gfs, i know you seem controversial, but you sure bring a thread alive!!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 11:46 PM

I enjoyed the video, although I question osme of his examples, i.e. the male's affinity for fishing. I know women who enjoy the activity far more than men do. My parents, for isntance. My father thought fishing was a huge waste of time, my mother loved to fish. He liked to eat the fish. My mother didn't.

I have to say further that although I agreed with a good many of the speaker's points (I agree with GfS that men and women are two essential parts of the whole), I don't agree to the degree that he goes. The way he presents men is, imo, to make them seem pathetic.

But then, I am a woman. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: TIA
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 12:18 AM

"Tia...you sound like you equate logic with masculinity...like yours?"

Dude, you are the one who had to dis my kids to puff yourself up

you are the one who had to tout your MFFC (whatever the hell that is) to puff your self up

Trust me - I am not intimidated by your alphabet soup

An you should be intimidated by my kids

And no, you are the one who equated lack of logic with femininity

I have no fears about my masculinity

I don't give a shit whether people think I am a man or a woman

You seem reeeaaallll worried though

I am sorry for you

And my kids are smarter than you...trust me

Okay I know you don't, but you dont' have to

Time will judge

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 12:38 AM

There must be individual exceptions to all of these common social habits and roles that are associated in people's minds with either the male or the female gender. Goodness knows, all the people I've ever met who liked fishing were men...but there must be some women who like it too. Virtually all the scale model kit builders I ever met (hundreds) were males...but I have met 2 females in that field.

And you could say that about anything. The video was intended to be humorous, and it succeeded quite well in that sense.

Anyway, everyone's got both the male and the female fully formed already in their soul, as far as I'm concerned. It's up to them how they go about expressing it during one Earthly lifetime...how much they bring out the one or the other, and how much they suppress or remain unconscious of that which they think of as "the other".

I'm a man now. I was not always a man. Either way is good...in fact, either way is very good, both rich in possibility and expression.

Those of you who don't believe in such stuff (but only in your present mortal bodies) won't get that. Well, that's fine with me. We all walk the road we think is real as long as we are here, and everyone's road is completely unique to themselves. That's free will, and I am a strong believer in free will.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 12:42 AM

Tia, I don't even see how you could stretch anything I said, that was demeaning, or threatening, or insulting to you or any one. whatever button that you may be feeling, may be do to perception...which is exactly what I, in part, was talking about. Ok? ..warmest regards

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 01:03 AM

Well said.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 01:16 AM

Well-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l??????????????

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 11:32 AM

Don't hold your breath waiting. It's impossible to make peace with someone else if they would rather stay angry at you.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 11:57 AM

Awwwwww, now I don't think that TIA is all that angry, LH... Maybe ain't near the computer seein' as it is a holiday... I ain't got lotta time myself fir playin' on this thing 'cause I gotta mow grass, shower, load up my gear and play an hour set at a festivel int town this evenin'...

She'll be around...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 03:51 PM

...Or with generally angry people...wasn't holding my breath, either. Its really of no import. People want to see, do, and hear what they want...then re-act according to what they perceive. When one is both angry, and self-absorbed, simultaneously, they tend to get defensive, and take things personally. Being as those two things at once, makes one weak,and staying angry is a reason not to opening up, to look at ones own part in an unforgiveness, and to higher stuff. Its the weak that accuse others of their own motives.(Because its all they see).Unforgiveness, itself comes from a feeling that one has not been punished enough for a wrong you think was done to you...as long as you hold on to it, and don't let go of it...(because the person who did you wrong hasn't been punished enough to your suiting, you stay angry, and bitter. So, actually unforgiveness punishes no one, except yourself, still waiting for that old 'X' to get his!!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 08:39 PM

Exactly, GfS, but that ain't TIA... I've known TIA fir a long time here and there ain't no sanity problem...

Speakin' of anger, I hope you took my critique of your SCREAMING on a non-persoanl basis... I used to SCREAM here until it was brought to my attention CAPS means SCREAMING and then I quit it... Now I do other obnoxious stuff... lol...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest of Sanity
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 09:19 PM

I was not directing that at Tia, as being singled out for anything, just stating stuff of understanding...things to watch out for when we catch ourselves...happens to anybody, and probably everybody.
(Thanks for the hint on caps....was merely using them to emphasize a point....but thank you..I'll keep that in mind OK??(Is that the same as 'OKAY!!)...grinning

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 11:21 AM

I think it fitting, that on a thread called 'Unity' that perhaps men and women can stop bickering about their 'rights' and come together, past the silly notions of what was 'sold' to them as being equal. The family unit is the first fabric of a social structure, and healthy family bonds make for a better, stronger nation as well. Don't buy into this destructive nonsense about differences, that the parties, (mostly Democratic, in this case, but both) used to prey on the weakness, and exploit, for their own agendas. Though the Democratic Party is usually the mouthpiece for this, it was a ploy used by the ultra rich, international bankers, to broaden the tax base, incorporating the women, (who used to traditionally stay at home, and raised children). They Have done as much as they can to 'de-feminize' womans roles and how women feel about their role, as primary nurturer of the children, and turn them into 'equal laborers'. So says David Rockefeller, who promoted that political movement, in the late '60s, and early '70s. Now when I hear Hillary, and other candidates, or whomever, use the phrase 'It for the children...' I know that here comes the BS, and I want to puke!
   The feminist 'movement', is just that...a political movement, It should never be taken seriously as a contributer to mental heath, or stability, or beneficial to children....and that is NOT up for debate!!

Oh, the MFCC, mentioned earlier....stands for Marriage and Family Certified Counselor.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 11:27 AM

Clarification: When I mentioned 'equal' in my prior post, when a husband loves his wife, the question of equal doesn't weigh in. People who are 'equal' don't try to 'be' equal. People who 'try' to be equal, usually aren't in their minds..but not through the eyes of who sees you as being loved.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 11:29 AM

akenaton: kudos on your original post!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 12:00 PM

Thanks Don,but I felt we might have got more from the "paid up" Democrats.

Guest ..You make some great points, are witty and humourous....Don't go back to Sanity, stay in this nut-house and keep the therapy going.

Couldn't agree more about the role of women in our society.
The most important job on Earth is the nurturing of children. Women have indeed been brainwashed into thinking that material possesions like new house, car, holiday abroad are more important than a MOTHERS role.
The encouragement women to add their labour to the Capitalist's pot is producing a generation incapable of love...either of their fellows or of themselves...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 12:16 PM

There is no greater role on the planet, for a woman than to bond, nurture and teach her children,and loving her husband!! Any other notion is based in selfishness, and is an abdication of the highest, equal place of importance in our nations!!!!! Any excuses that keep anyone from that incredibly important role, is instantly suspect of being bullshit, and should be laughed at!..Now we find ourselves stuck with a 'progressive' dilemma that leaves us with very few options to get out of(financially)...but that was the original idea. Feel duped??
   The power of a loving family is one thing they fear, and had to break down. Men will die for and kill, to protect their families, (as women too, if nessessary). They will fight and die for the freedom, to raise their families in freedom...and our corrupt politicians and their agendas have eroded those freedoms to a fraction of its former self...usually for some near sighted bribe, from those whose agendas, are more far reaching than these nearsighted clowns can see. Welcome to the destructive greased slide!!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,lansing
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 12:46 PM

gfs, you're right. i agree with akenaton, and mentioned before...i think you're brilliant!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 01:10 PM

Brilliance has nothing to do with it. It is common sense..and obviously true....funny(sad), how we've been indoctrinated away from common sense, and truth!!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 12:03 AM

GfS, I agree with you 100% on this. There should never, of course, have been any impediment in the way of naturally gifted and strongly motivated women who definitely wanted to do various things such as write novels, act, play music, do business, or whatever they wanted....(and there used to be many such impediments in the way of women)....BUT...(and it's a big "but")...the $ySStem has cynically used the artifice of pretending to "free" women to more deeply enslave everybody and they have done it by a direct assault on the structure of the family.

The family is the bedrock of every traditional society and every stable and healthy society. A society that pretty well forces both young parents to leave the home and work five days a week at outside jobs is a society that systematically breaks downs and destroys family life. Children need their mother close to them...at home... in the early years right through the teen years, they do not need a surrogate parent in the form of a frikkin' TV set (which turns them into programmed, hypnotized little consumers and future addicts of various sorts, if not into criminals or people with serious societal problems of various kinds).

You are quite right that they have lured people through appealing to their selfishness and their desire for immediate material gains of some sort.

"The power of a loving family is one thing they fear, and had to break down."

Dead right. I have seen an assault on the family by the marketing system during my own lifetime that has been absolutely profound, and that has generated terrible fallout in society already...and it's getting worse.

If the family unit can be broken, then whatever moral cohesiveness society has gets destroyed.

And I am NOT talking about persecuting gays...or preventing any women from realizing their own dreams or doing any kind of work they really want to do. No sir. But I am talking about encouraging all people to have faith in what they have had faith in for the last 50,000 or more years...their own home and their family unit. That first, and that above all else. That above any enticement or bribery or government or slick lifestyle carrot that the commercial system can dangle in front of them to get them in its power. Therein (in the traditional family connections) lies the greatest strength people have and ever can hope to have. It is the saving grace of young children...they all need a mother's guidance (and a father's too), and they must have it if they are not to get lost in the commercially dominated maze that is all around them.

I had a mother who stayed home. I always had that secure base in the home. I think it's one of the reasons that I have grown up as radically against the present $ySStem as I am. I did not get brought up by the values commonly presented on television. Matter of fact, we HAD no TV in the house till I was 17 years old. I read books instead, a lot of books, and I listened to a great variety of music my parents bought (from folk to classical to Calypso to world music, to pop, etc.). I also was not exposed to commercial radio, because we listened to CBC from Canada. CBC had no commercials. Period. It was a publicly financed radio show with news reporting, many kinds of music, children's shows, and all kinds of talk shows and entertainment and information shows. The CBC's daily content, compared to that of the commercial radio stations, was like comparing the content of a pretty good city library to the magazine rack at the local crummy smoke shop.

If you feed most people a diet of cultural garbage every day of their lives, they soon grow up thinking that garbage is perfectly normal "food", and from that point on the $ySStem has them in the palm of its greasy hand for the rest of their lives. And they don't even notice.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 12:26 AM

The question is just so simple...$20.00 an hour, and the child is in daycare(or babysitter) is it worth more, than the loving bonding for that same amount of time..a mother has with her infant...yes or no???

When I balance a schedule, to facilitate what I need to do, what is my child missing, while I'm gone???? How important is it???

How much money is my bonding and presence worth...and is there some of that for sale by someone else's that's as good as mine, that I could pay for??

Maybe after I get that promotion, eh??

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 09:20 AM

Well, when I was growing up in the 50's in a middle class neighborhood, moms didn't work... They didn't have to... Dads made enough money back then for that to be the norm...

Then came about the Reagan Revolution (whatever that was) and since 1982 wages have stagnated... Yup, it's a strange coincident, isn't it, that economists now look at 1982 as the beginning of the end of growth of wages of the average American working family... But that decline has continued since 1982 and it's no wonder that families have suffered...

Oh sure, it can be argued that some average families could make it on Dads salary but the standard of living would be very low and the sacrifices great... And that choice were made then the average family would no longer be average but probably close to living in poverty...

A more ***just*** distribution of wealth is what we need for starters if we are going to preach family values...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: TIA
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 10:18 AM

Bobert had it dead on. Big holiday weekend, grass to mow, all afternoon gig to play period music with the kids -- in the rain :(

As for whether people are angry, self-absorbed, weak, illogical, or let's see, what other pejoratives have been trotted out so innocuously? Oh yes, defensive, bitter....

Well, there are folks who can be quite insulting without meaning to, or realizing it, and trying to explain it just makes one seem small. So I figure if no offense was committed, there's no need to forgive anything.

I got way better things to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 10:24 AM

The first real estate crunch, and slowdown was in the mid sixties, not in the eighties, as you stated..(mostly to pin it on Reagan). There were spikes in the gas prices, around '72 -73. By the late seventies there was another recession,(including the gas shortages) that lasted about 2/12 to 3 years, till about 83-84. During the eighties, interest rates on home mortgages were in the low teens, and credit card rates were as high as 22-24%. Mid to late eighties home prices began to climb, again, but interest rates were still high. In the nineties, they began to settle down..and easy to get. Then the price of homes shot up..It was either high principle/low rates..or low principle/high rates. It was during the 80' that the word 'creative financing' came into usage..remember that?

So your misstated facts (just to blame it on a conservative), blows your other premise out of the water. (There were other issues to blame on Reagan)...and sure, 're-distribute' the wealth??..Any time you want, pal, reach into your pocket and start handing it out! I'm sure there is at least one needy family, or vet you see that you can contribute something on a regular basis to...don't you think?? Or do volunteer work...great thing!....But to tell others to do it as a policy of law, and change our system to do it???

There is an old blues tune, that is really cool...love this lyric:
    Your father ain't my father
    You mother ain't my mother
    Get your hand out of my pocket
    And quit callin' me 'brother'

Being as this is primarily a folk and blue blog, I thought that would be appropiate ..don't you think?? I myself do volunteer fund raising, and free counseling, so I'm not suggesting you do anything that I don't....Do you do anything like that??....or are you just good at telling everybody else, that THEY should???????

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 10:26 AM

...And be careful when you back out of the driveway, too!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 10:26 AM

Yes, it's all determined by the distribution of wealth.

I recall that when Buffy Sainte-Marie had a child she pretty much retired from the professional music business and all its demands for about 10 years so she could stay home and give proper attention to bringing up her child. I missed her at the time, being a big fan of hers, but I appreciate her maturity and her sense of responsibility for setting her priorities that way.

What can be more important than giving your own children the best and most loving start in life that you can possibly give them? For thousands and thousands of years there was normally one parent who stayed home and took care of the children and the household. It's the natural way of life for human beings. When economic conditions make that very difficult or impossible then there's going to be a lot of social damage, and the effects are liable to be cumulative as that damage causes yet more damage farther on down the line.

Speaking of the $ySStem giving people false messages of "liberation" in order to further enslave them, anyone remember this?

Virginia Slims cigarettes were marketed as a "woman's cigarette" around a slick advertising slogan - "You've come a long way, baby!" And they showed scenes of women back in the 1890s or something like that having to hide in the closet to smoke a cigarette....but, hey, girls! Now you can light one up anywhere and puff gloriously and enjoy your "freedom" as a liberated woman in a "free society".

Talk about the height of marketing hypocrisy!...as they sold a very harmful and addictive drug and tried to make it look like liberation of the female gender. Among teenagers now there are more girls smoking than boys according to current statistics, and they are smoking more heavily than the boys on average when they do.

Slavery can be marketed under the guise of freedom.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 10:33 AM

I guess you are talkin' to me??? Wea in't talking blips but trends here... If we chartm wages of working families the decline began in 1982 ans has been in decline ever since... These are adjusted figures, mind you, after inflation... And the decline isn't just thru Repub administartions but the Clinton one, as well...

As for volunteer work, I have been a community activist since my teens and have logged in more vulnteer hours than I could even keep up with... And I continue to volunteer and will as long as I am able...

Think globally, act locally...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 11:07 AM

Bobert, you are right on that one...matter of fact, the rate of inflation has been out pacing the rate of income, for years(decades) You can see that by the price of gold, and what it will buy, as compared to cash made by man hours of working. This is due to being off the gold standard, and other un-constitutional tidbits inflicted on us by politicians, working for you!!(Your tax dollars at work). As so far as the volunteer work..hey!...keep it up...there are few of us enough around, who are moved with compassion toward our fellow human beings. Anytime I hear someone suggesting that wealth re-distribution, more than it is(actually we could roll it back a bit), usually means they want some one else to do it, and means raising taxes to do it..which leaves less money, to give of our own...right??
Little Hawk, I remember Buffy Ste.Marie Haven't heard from her in quite a while. right now the is another top artist, who takes time off from her tours, to raise her kids..and that is Lisa Kelly, who with her group has been no.1, on the music world charts(Billboard Magazine) for 129 consecutive weeks! In case you haven't seen or heard of her, or the group. I'll post a link. I know to many in here, it may not be your cup of tea, but she(they) are hot!, as in perfection, and production(though I'm sure management will screw that up too)

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfO6JpR5Ip8
   
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wzMfSiOkMQ
Lisa is in the first link, the other I put just for shits and grins(same group)

TIA backing out of the driveway post, was for you!
Love you all!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 12:09 PM

Good post, GtS.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 12:13 PM

Awww, man, that "I Am the Voice" number just cuts through me like a shiv. Really.

Beautiful, beautiful.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 09:16 PM

Glad you liked it..I like it..a lot..got more.....

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 09:49 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zo5n0HwaRmQ

Amos...here's another for ya'..same woman, same group

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 10:21 PM

Aw jaysus; it's heart-wrenching. A big voice and pure.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 11:40 PM

Here Amos, a love song...a wife to her husband, or a mother to her child, or both and NO politics    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ym8pZhOPDI

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 01:39 AM

I just watched "I Am the Voice". Wonderful!!!

I'll check out the other links tomorrow.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 07:48 AM

My. She is really something.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 09:25 AM

Sorry guest, although the singer has a beautiful voice, I find all the Celtic Woman stuff to heavily produced for my taste.

I grew up with Gaelic music and song, and the best, most exciting versions are the unaccompanied ones.
Have you ever hear "Sean Nos" the old style .It will take your breath away and they never need props or gimmicks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfO6JpR5Ip8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZhRrTg5Ywg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ojy1W6r8L0

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 09:33 AM

This one is capella(because gaelic music was not what I was even referring Amos to, and there are no props either in this one) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5T6gyCPDvM

and for Amos get a load of this multi meaning love song..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh-q8RNLr3Q

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 09:36 AM

Here's a nice one guest http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja3MHSLRERs

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 11:02 AM

The object of my posts was not to compare different styles of Gaelic music, but rather, Amos mentioned Buffy Ste. Marie, and how she halted her career, to raise her child. I was showing Amos another bright singer who has decided to stay home with her children instead of going out on the tours, for the same reason. When Amos, seemed to like it, I sent him some more. That's all. As so far as 'gimmicks' and it not being 'pure' Gaelic music, well the blues has its roots in African music as well, and no one seems to be knocking it,for not being 'pure African music'. The music I posted is very well done, and performed. With their popularity, though, well, I don't think they should run for president, like other 'popular' people we know. (besides, they're more talented!!)

Note to Amos: I think they are phenomenal!! In the song 'The Voice', (depending on your screen resolution) toward the end of the song, you see tears streaming down the side of her face, putting her whole heart into it!! Anyway...Happy listening!!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 11:14 AM

THey are phenomenal, GfS-- the gal is laying it all out on the line for her audinece; and musically, it's stunning.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 12:35 PM

..All for you

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 12:44 PM

Amos,..If you can, and have a big screen, high definition, T.V., hooked up to a good sound system, this concert is an unbelievable treat!! Now without everyone posting, stuff on how they don't like this group, or sending in their 'de-merits' about them, the DVD is 'Celtic Woman: A New Journey'. I personally guarantee that you will watch this concert over and over again!. I know people here, who have evening get-togethers, just to watch it as a group, and socialize. There is another DVD, which was their first one, and is simply titled 'Celtic Woman' (with a blue cover). Enjoy
P.S. For all those who don't like it, (as I posted earlier, 'it might not be everyones cup of tea') just reserve the comments....besides, you can always watch Britney Spears, or Madonna.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Emma B
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 01:16 PM

Thanks for the links akenaton - pure honey after saccahrine

Sorry Gfs - I appreciate some of your views but not your tatse in music.

Irish song as I like it

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 01:30 PM

I love Dolores Keane, and always have, Emma, but I find nothing saccharine about the Celtic Woman series; I think they are as heartfelt, if more gussied up for stage, as Dolores' singing.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Emma B
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 01:43 PM

A 'Voice' that never had the need to be gussied up, one of the first folk singers I ever heard singing one of my favourite songs.

My Lagan Love

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 02:18 PM

As a musician, I find something about All of them I like!!
By the way, as a woman, don't you like to get all 'gussied up'...just once in a while??..........not even a little???

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Emma B
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 02:32 PM

hmmm Gfs my understanding of the expression is that it means 'make more dressed up or decorated, but in a showy or gimmicky way' so no thanks!

Actually, that's exactly what I feel they are doing to the songs too but there was a discussion on the music threads some time back with varying views expressed here

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 02:34 PM

Buffy Sainte-Marie can be pretty stunning too. See if you can find a video of her on the Net doing the song "Starwalker". I last saw her about three years ago in North Ontario, and she still does an absolutely wonderful live show, full of love and power and beauty.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 02:45 PM

Little hawk..Haven't heard from Buffy in some time..glad to hear she's out and about singing again.
Emma, the link is to another post...I guess thats all the proof I need...gosh, I guess I don't like what I like, for the reasons I used to like it, anymore...get serious!
Stunning, I believe that was being talked about, was their vocal quality, and they are..you can all put your claws away......even though the fiddler sure is cute!!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Emma B
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 02:53 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,lansing
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 03:15 PM

i guess she has nothing to say...i watched all the videos on the links, hey, come on, the ones gfs posted are wonderful, i agree with amos on that one, who, for once agrees with gfs! besides, its a show, and far more uplifting than the show this year called the 'election'. its interesting to note, that so far, the only ones who don't like the celtic woman videos, are other women, the men sure like it, except now some guy will post in, saying just the opposite, and politically correct. as far as gimmicks on at least three of them, i saw only a girl singing with a piano player, whats the gimmick there?? great tune, great voice, great lyrics! if you don't like them, don't go to their concerts, or buy their cd's and dvd's. but, thanks to gfs, i'm getting of the computer right now, and going to the music store and getting everything i can find of theirs, right now...by!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 03:58 PM

Little Hawk, I found Starwalker on youtube, with Buffy Ste Marie. Thank you..but before i can say for sure if I liked it, I noticed that the North American Native women on the pictures depicting them, had plucked eyebrows, make-up, lipstick, styled, shampooed, and conditioned hair, and no hair under their armpits.....does that mean they're 'gimmicky'??? I mean I just can't abide that!!!...but wait a minute!!..they used microphones, and I heard it on my speakers!!..electronic 'gimmickry'!! how dare you recommend this to me?! Not only that, their Native American 'costumes' were fitted!! You absolute sleaze, you! Microphones, sound processing equipment, reverb, amplifiers, dressed up women..electric instruments??!!??..How dare you??? You are definitely no purist!! How can I take anything you say or like seriously????
   But seriously, Thank you so very much...if you need the link, holler at me, ok!!
   Ok, ladies did you get a hint?

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 04:23 PM

LOL!

Well, I had the good luck to see Buffy perform once at Harbourfront in Toronto in the early 80s (in a lineup that later included the as yet almost unknown Jim Carrey)...and I noticed that her armpits were not shaven! Maybe she's legit after all?

Well....one always has to watch like a hawk for all these little signs of "selling out", doesn't one? (grin)

What should really worry you, though, is this: I'm backing a cigar-smoking, gun-toting, chimpanzee for president. He drinks heavily too, and he's (at least secretly) in favor of inter-species romance.

Scary stuff, man, but I like his platform. It would be a refreshing change.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 04:37 PM

Who's that??..running here is the U.S.?? ..and Buffy was wearing a long sleeve blouse, (must have been hiding her 'femininity'), the rest of the pictures showed the women very attractively 'coiffed'. If you get a chance, check out the other links I posted...Even Amos liked them!!(?) Perhaps there's hope for him. Actually, one of the appeals that even women have told me, about that group, is that they were very 'feminine', as opposed to 'feminist', and therefore more fitting to let their daughters watch them. The feminist thing is old hat, for losers, never worked for them, or anybody..but I'm sure there are some die hards out there, who are incapable of learning from experience..oh, btw, 'not learning from experience' is a symptom of one who is psychotic,(not an opinion, folks, but true symptom)
God Bless Little Hawk..and in fact everybody///

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Bee
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 04:45 PM

Not really, Guest from Sanity(?).

You've backtracked just a little on earlier remarks that I would call viciously anti-woman. I'm actually pretty relaxed about, even find endearing, exuberant bellowing masculinity, except when it chooses to manifest itself through accusations of ball-busting to the nearest woman who dares to express a dissenting opinion.

Then, despite your apparent affection for the little woman who stays home with the kids (and more power to her, on her own terms, not anyone else's, and as a BTW, once the nursin's finished, why it's easy as pie for a father to stay home with the kidlets and bond to his li'l heart's content, exceptin' for that littl problem we still have about pay for men not necessarily bein' equal to pay for women overall) you then begin glorifying the talent and manipulated beauty of some female celebrities of the folk world.

Gittin' gussied up is something we all do, once in a while, for fun or for profit, and that certainly includes men, unless you think a man chooses a cowboy hat, or a fedora, or a bowler, just to keep the sun outta his eyes. Great Big Belt Buckles, Bolo ties, fancy shirts and cowboy boots aren't often worn for practicality, buddy, they are just a tiny smidgen to the right side of eyeliner and high-heeled pumps.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 06:12 PM

"viciously anti-woman"????????????????????/..Jeez that's a new one, if that was the case, why then did I post a woman group??? You are not making any sense..but, if this will help you out..Why do cowboys wear such big belt buckles??.............Tombstones for dead dicks....happy now?

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 06:38 PM

You obviously either haven't read all my prior posts, or didn't comprehend them. Actually I've held up women with much esteem, but either men or women, when they get nasty toward the opposite sex, is rather childish, and unbecoming. When they try to emulate the opposite sex, I find it equally unbecoming. The two sexes should try co-operating with each other, rather than competing..that works. The whole 'feminist movement' was, and is a farce, and started by, not women, but the international bankers to expand the tax base.(read earlier posts). during the period, between the '60's and the 80's there were big pushes for men to learn about the needs of women, as to understand them, and to not 'hurt' them, sometimes inadvertently)...was there any thing given to women to learn about men??...Nope! The 'feminist movement' has done far more to hurt women and families, by women who took it seriously than men ever did. Women have ruthlessly been exploited by the political parties, while they say they are 'helping' them! As far as equal pay for equal work, no problem,and as an employer, never had I a problem with that. That being said, the best work a woman can do, WHO HAS INFANTS AND SMALL CHILDREN, is with them, and I admire women who can do that, and men who arrange their work to accommodate that family structure. So, calm down....and the links I posted, (which the women seemed to object more to than the men) were lifting up these highly professional women for their work, and admiring them for not forsaking their children to do that!!! I think your flying off the handle, is like TIA's, and you may be embarrassing yourself, so think it through..what I've said, is in total admiration!!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Bee
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 08:04 PM

"When they try to emulate the opposite sex, I find it equally unbecoming. The two sexes should try co-operating with each other, rather than competing..that works. The whole 'feminist movement' was, and is a farce, and started by, not women, but the international bankers to expand the tax base.(read earlier posts). during the period, between the '60's and the 80's there were big pushes for men to learn about the needs of women, as to understand them, and to not 'hurt' them, sometimes inadvertently)...was there any thing given to women to learn about men??...Nope! The 'feminist movement' has done far more to hurt women and families, by women who took it seriously than men ever did. " - GfI

I may have expressed my annoyance a little too harshly, but now, seeing you post nonsense like this, it's hard to feel contrite. Of course both governments and corporations are eager to take advantage of wage-earners whoever they are, but to imply that the womens' liberation movement couldn't possibly have been conceptualised, organised, and carried out by women for women is beyond insulting and verging on complete contempt. Obviously you weren't there, and rather than learn something about the actual history of women's long struggle for rights, you've decided to opt for a conspiracy theory instead.

What do you think women had always done, previously, besides 'learn about men', seeing as understanding men was every Western woman's best hope of not being impoverished?

I've personally been through the whole litany of "you can't have this job because you are a woman, you can't come in this establishment because you are a woman, you can't have birth control without your husband's consent, you can't be an artist because you are a woman, you get paid less because you're a woman, you get fired first because you're a woman, you can't get a loan because you're a woman", and all the other BS we used to deal with as a matter-of-fact. What has come of feminism has improved my prospects, my income, my quality of life, and my relationships with the men in my life, including first and foremost my husband, who would not take kindly to being labelled 'feminized'.

If you admire and care for women as you say you do, then why do you denigrate and treat with contempt the very uprising which allows us the freedom and scope we now have? Would you speak the same way of, say, the early labour movement, the struggle for unions? Was the Civil Rights struggle manufactured by the banks and corporations? If women are getting angry whan you say something, do you think they might have a good reason, or are you all right with putting it down to 'women flying off the handle'?

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 08:27 PM

Hear, hear, Bee!

There are men out there - not that I'm naming names - who never have grasped the concept of feminism. Feminism, in its pure form, does not mean the denigration of the male of the species. It, instead, holds high the banner espousing the female of the species as being of as great value as the male.

And don't give me the tired 'some of my best friends' routine. Women know when they are being demeaned, even if men don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 09:25 PM

I just re-read my post, to see if your comments made sense, in the context, that I wrote mine. When I said the 'feminist movement' was started by international bankers to expand the tax base, I was speaking of this present one, and I was quoting an exact quote from David Rockerfeller, who himself, had a hand in it. As so far as the rest of it, I think I was very clear, to include men and women who emulate the other sex, and said several times that I held women in high esteem, and ended it with the word admiration..re-read it again. Furthermore, When it comes to the musical group that we were originally talking about, Maev, one of the singers is and attorney, Orlagh, the harpist, has 6 years of theology school, Chloe, was only 15 when she did their first concert with them, Lisa Kelly was accomplished in musical theater, Mairead has three different degrees in music plus working for her doctorate, and is credited with some of the arrangements. What is there that you women object to??

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 10:11 PM

..Never mind, I withdraw my closing question on the previous post!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: TIA
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 10:21 PM

GfS asks: "What is there that you women object to??"

I can't speak for "you women", but I bet a lot of it is on the following list….

Let's start with the phrase "you women". Remember the trouble Ross Perot got into for calling blacks "you people"?

Same thing. In this usage, women is a pejorative.

"And being as the American men have been feminized so much, they have all this enthusiasm, being swept up by the celebrity, and momentum, that O-Blabbo has, without much logic, to even look into his accomplishments."

This equates "feminized" with star-struck and illogical.

"I think you mistook me....femininity is great....on a woman!...on a man, it leaves them unmanly men, who are more emotional, than, a whole man needs to be....even for his woman. Maybe you've gotten your man to be a weak man, which you can control..in which case, disrespecting him, is just around the corner..next step is having your needs not met...by your man!"

Not sure who you're talking about but this implies that some (unspecified) women feminize their men so they can control them.

"Ebbie, yeah, I'm old fashion..a man who loves his wife, without being her monkey-boy...and because of that she knows and feels love...and in fact is...you are, on the other hand...THE NEW WOMAN..you grew balls and loved your husband like a wife!!!..yeah, you get him to do what you want, ..too bad you can't look into his mind"

No explanation necessary.

"I'm sure my other comments are going to raise the ire of women who are self-absorbed controlling shrews, who don't want it revealed..but..well so what...I'm not wrong...just not buying into their garbage of 'marital bliss, my way!'"

Ditto.

"The feminist 'movement', is just that...a political movement, It should never be taken seriously as a contributer to mental heath, or stability, or beneficial to children....and that is NOT up for debate!!"

Ditto ditto.

"There is no greater role on the planet, for a woman than to bond, nurture and teach her children,and loving her husband!! Any other notion is based in selfishness, and is an abdication of the highest, equal place of importance in our nations!!!!!"

Spoken by a man. What if some women (or any particular woman) does not see it this way? Oh right – that's "selfish".

You speak of your admiration for women, but it has a strong whiff of condescension. Maybe even domination - your admiration seems to extend to women who are fulfilling roles that you deem acceptable. The others are ball-toting, ranting, antifamily shrews.

But that's just a wild guess. I'll let others speak for themselves.

And trust me, I am not angry, defensive, nor embarrassed. You asked – I answered.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: TIA
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 10:22 PM

Oops. I am sorry. Cross-posted. You withdrew. I also withdraw all of the above.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 11:42 PM

There's actually no real cause for disagreement here, in my opinion. It's easy to misconstrue someone else's statements as an attack on "women in general" or "men in general" or anything else like that when they are often not so intended. The phrase "you women", for instance in the context GfS used, could be interpreted as being directed toward the whole female gender (which I doubt it was)...or it could be interpreted as directed toward two or three specific individuals who are arguing back and forth with GfS on this thread.

How one interprets anything like that will be based on an initial assumption...a reaction...but the initial assumption may be incorrect. The reaction may then be inappropriate.

And it may then draw back in return another inappropriate reaction.

I have seen nothing to indicate that GfS is denigrating women. To the contrary he is helping to point out how women have been manipulated by a lot of clever marketing and social restructuring schemes over the past century that have been foisted on humanity by a ruling class of people (most of them very, very rich men) who don't give a hoot about women's rights, never did, and never will. What they do give a hoot about is:

1. Dividing and conquering the public.
2. Stirring people up against one another over many divisive issues and thus keeping them disunited, confused, and powerless.
3. Getting a whole lot richer in the process.
4. Maintaining and enlarging their power.

He is quite right that men and women should not compete against each other, and should not be conned into seeing one another as adversaries. We are not adversaries. We are natural partners in love, respect, and understanding and we were born to share a common purpose.

When men and women become afraid of one another a lot of fear and loneliness and anger arises in society, and that fear can lead to crime, broken relationships, and great sorrow. I do not blame either men or women for that having occurred. I blame power and profit-seeking forces in society which have divided men and women against one another for the most ignoble of purposes: profiting on other people's suffering. They have divided races and religions against each other for much the same reasons.

We have been subtly (and not so subtly) encouraged to attack and denigrate one another for generations now by those oligarchic ruling forces at the very top of the power pyramid. (picture a pyramid dominated by a great EYE...an eye that watches...then imagine who stands behind that EYE. It's on your dollar bill.) We have been taught to be paranoid and to look constantly for offense from others, and to lash out in defensive anger. This is not wise. It's the politics of fear and division. We should not let ourselves be misdirected in that fashion, because we were all born to love and help one another, not to fight competitive emotional battles of attrition in a futile "war of the sexes"...or a racial war...or a war between religion and atheism...or a war between competing religions.

All of these wars are unnecessary and futile...but they serve those few who benefit from the fighting. And they are a great distraction too, aren't they? It's very useful for the Great Oz to keep the common citizens endlessly squabbling amongst themselves, and that is the intention. They become their own jailors. What could be more convenient from the point of view of he who builds the jails?

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 12:49 AM

Very well said. I'm impressed!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 02:06 AM

Akenaton ; I watched the videos you posted, and one of them (Mo ghile Mear was also performed by 'Celtic Woman' so I posted the link, in case you wanted to see it. Bare with it till the end,it picks up radically. Amos: If you're out there, here's another! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6b9xzS_rDo

Plus, here is a version of 'Scarborough Faire' that is remarkable...check the power in her voice after the break...Hayley was only 17 years old when she sang this..all the rest grit your teeth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_45W-Lq7ftw

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 02:07 AM

Sorry, forgot to post my name on the previous post

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 02:51 AM

Guest is correct about the feminist movement tho'

The role of mother and guardian of children has been utterly devalued.
I see it all happening in my small community!

Women were promised a "better purpose in life," "be your own woman"
Have a "career"...These are things which advantage The System, not women.

I see young women abandoning very small children into one of the many "wean farms" which are springing up. Some say these places are well run but they lack the magic ingrediant ....a mothers love.

for every "new woman" who has a glittering career or dominates the boardroom there are a million underpayed skivvies.

By the way this post is from someone who loves and admires women...they have just made a bad career move...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,lansing
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 10:43 AM

i try not to get hooked on blogs, other than just reading them. once in a while, i throw in a thought, or two, but this one has gotten so fired up, that i just had to. Ake,is so correct, as with gfs, and little hawk, and while blasting the womans movement, i see honest concern about the whole of our society, in their posts. imho, the over compensation regarding the ridiculousness of women's issues have left us, with a bunch of weak namby-pamby jerks, who are afraid to step up, and call a spade a spade. tia on the other hand seems predisposed to hostility, and takes a perfectly sane coherent statement and makes it something ridiculous, and embarrasses himself, and all who support his/her nonsense! so to him/her, i'd suggest, put your stupifying anger away, and instead of picking a small phrase, out of context and blowing it up, to support your hostile disposition, then attempting to make everyone's world as small as yours, try considering another point of view, that happens to be clearer, and far more sane! little hawk's last post shows that he understood exactly what gfs's post was about, and the two of them, are dead on target, and say it intelligently.

also watched the two dvd's with my wife and family. wholesome, talented, uplifting and a fantastic show beyond belief. a definite 'yes' vote for women!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Bee
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 12:01 PM

Little Hawk, how you could read the list of offensive out-takes from GFS' posts, starkly pointed out by TIA, and not see anything wrong with them is beyond me.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 12:19 PM

Well, being the resdient authority on womenz I'd jus' like to point out that they caan't help themselves 'casue they is all wired wrong... Yup, you ever look at a wiring diagram of a womenz??? It looks like a cross between spagetti and a road map of Wes Ginny... See, that's what makes 'um nutz...

Now a man got simple wirin'... Heck you could draw a wiring diagram of a man on the back of a Wendy's napkin... Aho nuff can... I've done it myself...

But nevermind wiring an' all that, I loves all womenz... I don't care if they is nutz... I don't care if they got tatoos, er hairy legs, 'er they big 'er small, black, white, green 'er yellow... I loves um all... Okay, some I loves more than others... Like Ebbie and TIA amd Janie and Kat and dianavan and SRS and you all know who you are... Ummmmmm, Fantz is alot harder to get that heart pumpin' love up for but, okay, I reckon seein' as she is a womenz than I loves her, too even if she is extra nutz...

As fir men having a feminine side, well yeah, that ain't all bad... At least the pictures get hung staright on the walls even if the toidy seat don't always end up where it's 'spose to be...

What else??? Hmmmmmm??? Well, that 'bout sums up this little situation...

Bobert (Resident womenz authority in residence...)

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,lansing
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 12:27 PM

because bee, he's obviously an intelligent person, who isn't thinking emotionally, but with his whole brain. you should try it, it works! and as far as i see it, gfs, and what he has brought in here, is far more pro human, including all humans, including women, than those axe to grind, idiots!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 01:03 PM

Interpretation is in the mind of the beholder. Two people can read the exact same thing and draw radically different conclusions. I'm pretty sure that I get what GfS is talking about here...and I see no attack on women in what he says. I see a passionate defence of human beings in general, men and women both.

He did say some satirical things about the Buffy Sainte-Marie video...and it seems to me that that was a joke. He was being satirical. If you took it seriously, though, then you would get the opposite message from the message he was really sending.


Bobert - LOL! Geezus...lookit thet crazy danged hillbilly puttin' himself on the firing line agin' and yakkin' on about his bein' thuh resident expert on the womenfolk in these here parts. Crazier than a yaller dog! That was the best laugh I had so far today.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Bee
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 04:05 PM

All righty then. By these lights I am, like Ebbie and other women here, according to GfS, a 'new woman' who 'grew balls and loved my husband like a wife', a 'self-absorbed controlling shrew', my gratitude to feminism is risible, as 'it shouldn't be taken seriously.... - and that is NOT up for debate'. lansing opines I am 'thinking emotionally', not with my ' whole brain' (and I should try it). I also have an ax to grind and am an idiot.

Apparently addressing anything I actually said is not an option. Mission accomplished, b'ys, no further point in expressing my opinions or representing for reality here.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 04:31 PM

Why does it have to be about you personally, Bee? No one would be in any position to make such judgements about you unless they had known you for some while in 3-D life, seems to me. Then maybe...or maybe not.

One can't just sum up a person's character on the basis of a few remarks they made in the heat of a discussion on the Internet. And that goes for any of us here. What I mean is...that goes both ways.

Seems to me that people here are just reacting and over-reacting to what someone else said (some part of it)...and then accusing the other person of doing the same thing to them...and it's going back and forth like a pingpong ball. And GOSH, where have I seen that before? Oh, on about 500 other contentious Mudcat threads somewhat like this one.

I'm a Libran. I've heard that Librans like to create harmony, end conflict, and bring opposing sides together. It seems to be true in my case. I can usually plainly see the good intentions and high ideals of people on both sides in an argument, and I can see the common ground they both share.

I bet there isn't one of us in this discussion who does not in his or her heart honor and respect women.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 04:38 PM

YEah, but Bee, those are awful tiny lights, aimed only at the interior of Lansing's medulla trapezoidalia, not the light of general agreement or even insight.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Emma B
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 04:44 PM

Careful Amos your anima is showing :)

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 05:21 PM

I figure every soul is both male and female. Just a theory, but it sounds right to me. The trouble is, when you incarnate into a human frame then you must manifest the one outwardly and not the other. The other remains implicit and unseen. Then all the people around you start telling you how to "act"...according to your outward role as a boy or a girl...and for most people they never question those roles that are placed upon them. They are usually afraid of the implicit "other" that is hidden within them. That leads to problems in relating to the opposite sex.

Have you had any recall of living another life as a female, Amos? I have. It was interesting, because it seemed so totally natural...just as easy as changing one set of clothing for another. I could see right away what is appealing about being in either gender.

I figure that either gender offers equally good possibilities...but, of course, that depends to quite an extent on the nature of the society one finds oneself living in at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: TIA
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 01:04 AM

I'm not angry, not embarrased, and not afraid to step up to the plate. And if I am stupifying (sic), that makes me proud. Thank you.











stupefying: astounding, amazing, startling, surprising
(see visualthesaurus.com)





Clearly there is a divide across which some (even very intelligent) people cannot see. But I forgive all - even if there is nothing to forgive. And hope you forgive me (with the same caveat, of course).

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 01:39 AM

That sounds like an excellent plan from which all of us can proceed to the next thing, whatever that may be.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Emma B
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 11:38 AM

'Some researchers say that men can have 'women's brains' and that women can think more like men.'

Get a brain sex profile
and find out if you think like a man or a woman -

a series of visual challenges and questions used by psychologists in the BBC One television series Secrets of the Sexes'

yup I have done it :)

   Graphs showing indication of the predominance of male/female brain types amongst viewers that took part in the online test during a week of films exploring differences in male and female brain types.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 12:23 PM

Frankly I think it all started with the 16th Amendment. Who konws where it will end.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 01:07 PM

I suppose the tribulations of various identities can add up as a psychological bent to act in one or another role, including "masculine" or "feminine" roles. But that is just a bunch of psychosomatic overlay; there is nothing inherent in a being to act like a body in any respect, especially that of gender, except habit.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 01:24 PM

Habit and cultural norms would have to be a very large part of it. I think there are certain patterns of thought and attitude and approach to life that are more typical of females on average or more typical of males on average, but one can always find some individual exceptions to that too.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 02:39 AM

So, what is it Tia? In the second paragraph, you say you are married to a woman scientist.....So, does that mean all your anger is based on a lie?..or are you in fact a woman, trying to be a man, (but your pms-ing on here?..So when you post on your posts, quoting me, about 'women trying to grow balls'...etc, etc..what is it?? I think you diverted every thing YOUR way, and deceived everyone one on here('cept me), and brought out all the hostility, when I, on the other hand, was holding up real women's concerns about nurturing her children and things to admire, and the value of a mother's love toward her children, as Akenaton, pointed out so clearly. You posted so much out of context, yet failed to answer the simple questions I posted, about children, and was it worth more to make an extra buck, or the holy love, a woman has for her children. You suckered all the real women into buying into your pose, when there was so much being given to actually re-enforce their femininity. Do you also pose as a woman on instant messenger to get your jollies, too??? Or, are you just a liar? I believe you owe someone on here, maybe several people on here, an apology, and if you stopped the nonsense, maybe you'd learn something, from honest exchanges of ideas and input!!!!!



Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: TIA
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 03:16 PM

"And being as the American men have been feminized so much, they have all this enthusiasm, being swept up by the celebrity, and momentum, that O-Blabbo has, without much logic, to even look into his accomplishments."

I am married to a woman scientist who would kick your sorry ass around the block for saying that "feminine" means illogical and celebrity-awed. I'd do it myself, but I am way too feminized.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,lansing
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 03:17 AM

gfs!!! dude, you're hot. right smack dab on the money. tia, you've been dusted! akenaton you are to be commended for sorting through, and seeing, and admitting, to all of us, that there is nothing more valuable as a woman, than the nurturing of her children, instead of pursuing selfishness. little hawk, you're cool too dude. you saw through it, too.and thank you gfs, for all the great music you posted!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 06:25 AM

If you look at the Aunt Sally thread you will read that the expression describes someone who is the object of attack, both easy and unwarranted.

I believe that Tia (whoever he or she is) correctly stated that 'I can't speak for "you women"' but pointed out, quite accurately, the usually derogatory sense in which expressions like 'you people' have been used to sterotype black people and other groups.

As Little Hawk has said 'One can't just sum up a person's character on the basis of a few remarks they made in the heat of a discussion on the Internet' and yet Gfs accuses Tia as posing as a woman to get 'jollies' whereas I see an honest man (and not some feminized freak of a fertile flawed imagination) defending the equality of fellow human beings with the same dreams and aspirations for self fulfilment

GUEST,lansing
The women who have to work in order to feed and clothe their family are not 'pursuing selfishness' they are, as Little Hawk has described, equal 'victims' of a post industrial society.

Although it is women who give birth to children the nurturing and rearing is a joint responsibility and I know of instances where, because of disability, greater earning capacity etc husbands have elected to remain at home and fulfil this role.

I haven't noticed any suggestion that men are 'pursuing selfishness' by being gainfully employed outside the home or that there is nothing 'more valuable' that they can do except the nurturing of HIS children.

I have respect for Little Hawk, he appends his 'name' to his posts and does not need to hide his opinions behind the 'Guest' persona.

Nevertheless I feel that his sentiments of true equality and mutual regard have been hijacked in this discussion and out of self respect I no longer wish to contribute to this so called 'discussion' which echoes the worst attitudes of 'The Woman's Room'

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 08:52 AM

La..la..la..la..loyla...

Yeah, it is a mixed up world, ain't it... Who cares??? I mean, let's get real here, if we want the womenz to stay home and nurture the youngins then we're gonna have to figure out how to pay the menz 'nuff so that is possible.... Heck, it was possible in most middle class families when I was growin' up in the 50's but now families can'r nake ends meet with two incomes...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 09:05 AM

Well, this thread certainly has wandered far afield from the original discussion, hasn't it?

Little did Hillary and Obama suspect what they were setting in motion. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 10:43 AM

It's all Hillary's fault, LH... You know how the womenz love to mess with stuff... lol...

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 12:00 PM

GfS,

I owe nobody an apology. I have never been deceptive, nor claimed to be anything other than exactly what I am. If you are confused, it is your own fault.

Please also note that as a registered member, I am not afraid to reveal exactly who and where I am, and some people here know this information. But, I am enjoying your confusion (even obsession?), so you won't get it here.

I provided full quotes with nothing out of context, and if anyone cares to see any of your posts in their entirety they are right here on this page.

So, call me a liar if you will. Just make sure your Charley McCarthy doll jumps right in after you to congratulate you. Either one would be fine actually. Me deceptive? Sheeesh.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 12:14 PM

See what I mean, GfS???

(Good 'un, TIA...)

But now I'm confused... When I woke up this mornin' I thought I was man???... lol...

(No, make that lol-lolya...)

Nevermind...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: TIA
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 12:15 PM

Sorry, forgot to log in above.

I am back only to thank EmmaB for the link to the BBC brain profiler.
It was fascinating! There are some really obscure, unexpected mind-body connections that really seemed to work.

Cool stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 12:38 PM

Chongo has some pals with a boxing gym in Chicago. We should get into booking bouts there to settle all these festering grievances on the forum, and charge a small admission fee for each match. The proceeds could be used to provide help to young inner city chimps, gorillas, baboons, and other unfortunates who are in need of education and other forms of social assistance.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 01:05 PM

Now there is an idea??? Let's see...

Sharon "Philly Girl" A verses Bearded "Tne Beast" Bruce

T "The Puzzler" IA verses Guest "Madman" from Sanity

Bob "The Hillbilly Hitman" bert verses Doug "The Repuiblican" R

Ron "Tongue Twsiter" Davies verses The Tererible T

Yeah that could be fun...

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 01:07 PM

Chiongo has enough to worry about with his movie coming out in the fall; "Space Chimps" is going to be hard for his campaign gorillas to spin any which way but south...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 04:02 PM

Nice diversion. Still didn't answer my questions, and managed to keep the hostility going! None of the naggers, seem to want to address the questions, but in all honesty, there is no slam against women on my posts, just appreciations and the lifting up, of them. Its the nagging, clinging to the self absorbtion, that robs children, and husbands, and families that I have been objecting to. And by the way, when I said 'you women' I was referring to only the ones I was talking to, on here. If you weren't so blinded by your predisposed hostility, you would have caught that. but , ok, you want to stay selfish, and nasty about it, go ahead; see if it makes your life or anyone around you better off for it! In any event, (and if you could think clear enough to see it), see if you can take the input I've given you, for working lyrics, or music to..after all, I was under the impression that this was a blog for musicians!!... People are tired of needless, counter productive anger. If you can look at the posts, there is plenty of material, to write and compose from. If you want to champion some worn out tired 'cause' well, chances are it will go nowhere...we've all heard enough. Try 'unity' between our race, not division, and pandering to the destructive forces in our society, of which some here have subscribed to, because they are not creative enough, to give back to life, only take from it, for their personal gain of attention. If you think I posted what I posted, just to 'win' an argument, on here, try thinking larger. Lot of great material i've given away, both in lyrics(other thread, and music posts, to not have to regurgitate the past old themes.

still didn't answer my questions those!! Have Akenaton explain it to you...she's obviously not so blocked!!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 01:43 PM

All quiet on the western front!..Does that mean we finally got it??

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,lansing
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 08:46 PM

a-a-a-a-men!!!!