BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory

Subject: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 02:19 PM

There are Mudcatters amongst us - almost invariably non-Americans - who choose to believe that US government is bought and paid for by amorphous and dark entities who pull America's strings at will to suit their own aims.

I frequently am irritated by this know-it-all, pity-you-poor-schmucks view but it has been impossible to dent their cherished beliefs. My own understanding of US election processes is nicely summed up by Mark Halperin in The Big Question.

Is there really still a Republican establishment? If so, who belongs to it?

Despite the Tea Party, the Twitterverse and the multi-media dilution of traditional Republican authority, the old-school GOP rules the roost. Members of Congress, governors, big-time fund-raisers, well-paid pundits, and activist shoguns in early-voting states such as Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina still have the loudest voices. Winning the Party's nomination without the backing of a majority of these groups is a a nearly insurmountable challenge.

How are the establishmentarians leaning?

Among fat-cat donors, Mitt Romney is doing far better than his rivals, but he's doing far worse with the rest of the establishment, which explains the shakiness of his front-runner status. Some elites are so set against the former Massachusetts governor that they are being drawn to Jon Huntsman without knowing much about him. Others are pining for the conservative Texas governor, Rick Perry, whose stance toward the race has rapidly shifted from no-go to thinking about it to better than even money.

What are the establishment holdouts waiting for?

Some are resigned to supporting Romney as the best available option for a viable general election challenge- especially those who fear the Michelle Bachmann surge. Others want to see if Huntsman is for real, if Tim Pawlenty can muster enough dynamism to be the Romney alternative or if Perry will be as tough and determined a national candidate as he has been a Texas battler. It could be early winter - or even the spring of 2012- before the establishment gets off the fence. They want to beat President Obama but still can't figure out how.

ver batim from:
Time Magazine
Briefing
July 4, 2011 issue

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: pdq
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 02:33 PM

Mark Halperin is the one who was suspended from his job yesterday for calling Obama a "dick".

BTW, this type of political talk is what has brought the country down to the mess it is in. It is all about strategy and personality. There is nothing of substance, as in issues.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 03:01 PM

pdq, you have missed my message.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: michaelr
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 03:21 PM

So what's your point, Ebbie? Are you informing us that you're perfectly happy to look no further than the mainstream party line?

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 03:33 PM

"There are Mudcatters amongst us - almost invariably non-Americans - who choose to believe that US government is bought and paid for by amorphous and dark entities who pull America's strings at will to suit their own aims.

I frequently am irritated by this know-it-all, pity-you-poor-schmucks view but it has been impossible to dent their cherished beliefs."

If you include me amongst those Mudcatters, Ebbie, I think you are misinterpreting my beliefs.

Number 1: I DON'T think it's happening just in the USA, but virtually everywhere...including my own country, Canada...and I DON'T think it all emanated originally from the USA, but from competitive business and governmental forces that are operating everywhere.

Number 2: I don't think these entities doing it are "dark and mysterious", I think they're plainly obvious, and their motivations are not mysterious either. They seek profit, extension of their ownership of things and resources, enlargement of material rewards and power. This was just as true during the Roman Empire or any other past empire as it is now, and those forces were equally obvious then as they are now.

Number 3: I don't think it's a conspiracy, I think it's an unenlightened way of life. Our lives basically revolve around money, since all worldly power and material control in modern society flows directly from the use of money. With enough money you are empowered to build things, control the actions of the many people you employ, raise and equip armies, fight wars, etc. This again was the basic fact in the Roman Empire. It wasn't run by a conspiracy, it was run by a greedy and aggressive way of life, based upon ruthless competition, empowered by material wealth, and devoted to conquest of land and exploitation of markets and physical resources.

The same is true today, but our world has grown much "smaller". We have correspondingly fewer resources per capita now than was once the case. And our money systems have been grossly inflated due to the accumulation of vast and frankly unpayable amounts of debt. We have mortgaged our societies into bankruptcy, amid shrinking real resources.

Accordingly, we stand at the edge of a precipice and an unprecedented global disaster which our way of life has created. A conspiracy didn't create it and is not driving it. What is driving it is a greedy, overly competitive, unrealistic way of life. It's a social philosophy that cannot sustain itself. It isn't happening just in the USA nor did the USA start it. It started long before the USA even existed. The USA plays a very bid role in it at present, specially in a military sense, and THAT is the only reason so much negative attention falls on the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: gnu
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 03:37 PM

Ebbie... "There are Mudcatters amongst us - almost invariably non-Americans - who choose to believe that US government is bought and paid for by amorphous and dark entities who pull America's strings at will to suit their own aims.

I frequently am irritated by this know-it-all, pity-you-poor-schmucks view but it has been impossible to dent their cherished beliefs."

I think Ebbie's point is rather clear. It's...

"There are Mudcatters amongst us - almost invariably non-Americans - who choose to believe that US government is bought and paid for by amorphous and dark entities who pull America's strings at will to suit their own aims.

I frequently am irritated by this know-it-all, pity-you-poor-schmucks view but it has been impossible to dent their cherished beliefs."

... in case you missed it the first time.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 07:53 PM

Gee, whiz !

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: Justa Picker
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 08:03 PM

I'm probably one of them - but that's okay. :-)

For alternative view points rather then just accepting what the White House and the main stream media put out, I'd recommend the following:

This video (and a warning, it's disturbing, and yet very compelling):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw

And also:
www.prisonplanet.com
and
www.infowars.com

*** I fully expect that the views expressed via the above links, would not sit well on a predominantly bleeding heart, left wing, liberal forum.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 08:14 PM

They won't sit well on most predominantly Republican forums either, I bet. ;-)

I always figure that the real story is somewhere between the most extreme paranoia displayed on both the Left and the Right...and it's probably more complicated too.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 08:25 PM

The old Repubs are now Dems...

The new Repubs are a mix of ideologues, Christian right and wackos...

That ain't no conspiracy theory... Just an observation...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 08:44 PM

Well, if you can get the general public at each other's throats through driving them into ever wider polarities, it helps keep them off your back. If you can make them think of each other only as the most extreme and ridiculous caricatures of "Right" and "Left", so much the better. They'll be too afraid of each other to even bother talking about anything in a reasonable way to one another...and they'll totally miss the fact that they all want justice, fairness, and truth from their government, and they have much more in common than they realize.

It's like a community of mice tearing each other up while the overstuffed cat sits comfy in his mansion and contemplates his dinner with a Cheshire grin.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 09:27 PM

Justa, Those videos,the parts I was able to stomach, are BullShit. BullShit produced by people with with no detectable sense of humour.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 09:37 PM

It is foolish to identify conservative values with conspiracies, and it is foolish to identify "bleeding heart" mindsets with liberal values. Any spectrum of human attitudes has lame birds at both ends, and any population of more than a couple of hundred people will have its share of dingbats.

THe apparency of conspiracy is not rooted in collusion but in collision, or at least confluence, of people with comparable goals largely seated in self-interest. The difference between the left and right, it seems to me, is the degree to which they take the commonweal into account.

A

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: Justa Picker
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 09:44 PM

So I guess the Bilderberg group are B.S. too then? Did anyone ever see the movie "The International" with Clive Owen? I believe that there are indeed powerful, shadow forces that do orchestrate world events and that profit from catastrophes, human suffering, poverty and misery.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 09:57 PM

I think that when you use a movie, especially a poorly written thriller as evidence you may be drinking your own cool aid.

Thriller movie scripts skip over the causes of things and ask you to "suspend disbelief" so that they can show you the true "truth" of Hollywood, memorable scenes.

The "conspiracy" in "The International" was just the wrapping for the action scenes.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 10:06 PM

Munitions makers and financiers profit from war. They always have. It is therefore in their interests to lobby politicians to pursue policies which result in wars, arms sales, and conflict. That's not a conspiracy, it's the result of monetary self-interest. It may involve a great variety of limited conspiracies by a great many different people, but it's not a single, over-arching, giant conspiracy...it's a way of making profits. Do empires engage in secret strategic planning to further their aims? Yes. They do it all the time, and they don't make it public knowledge. You can call those actions "conspiracies" if you want to...I call it politics and imperial strategy.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 10:43 PM

It's going to be a long night.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 11:04 PM

Whatsamatter Eb? Not enough venomous snakes in Alaska and you wanted to watch them attack? Well, ya' done 'er up good here Gal!

Wait.....or did you just have a brain fart and were fucked up for a bit? Either way, you're right on the "long night" part.....as well as a few or more days...............***sigh***...................Why'd go and do this Eb? I love ya' and I'd have been happy to bullshit with you.....................I doubt if I'll be back......took my Snake Boots in for new heels..............



Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: michaelr
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 12:18 AM

Please answer the question, Ebbie. After all, you started this.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 12:48 AM

"mainstream party line".   Any chance for something other than meaningless jargon?

Ebbie's point is clear--and dead on.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: michaelr
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 01:09 AM

I'm sure you know very well what I mean, Ron.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 01:39 AM

I pity the poor schmucks everywhere who troop out hopefully again and again to vote party line, Ebbie, not just the ones in the USA! ;-) In Canada too, eh? All our political parties sold out to various special interests a long time ago, and the promises they make the public at election time are a not-so-funny joke.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 11:12 AM

I've never understood why "bleeding heart", which I take to be a way of saying "compassionate", is used as an insult.

I'd assume that an instinct to feel compassion towards others is a pretty general characteristic for most human beings. That would include most people with whom I'd be at odds on a lot of issues.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: Wesley S
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 12:08 PM

Would someone please tell me where the mainstream party is? I'll bring chips and salsa. Ice too.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: gnu
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 12:42 PM

michaelr... you seem to be attempting to bait Ebbie and to be attempting to put words in her mouth by asking questions which she needn't answer.

Spaw... what are yer snake boots made of... Kevlar?

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 01:10 PM

Amazing how "mainstream party line" seems like such a convenient way to denigrate all views you don't agree with--without being burdened by any responsibility to say exactly what you disagree with or to take a stand yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: michaelr
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 01:21 PM

I've taken plenty of stands in my ten years here, thank you very much. And I'm not baiting anyone -- Ebbie started this thread saying how irritated she is at people who reserve the right to critical thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 01:42 PM

Kevin:

The implication of "bleeding heart" is not compassion but excessive sympathy with helplessness or victimization, a sort of weepy apathetic agreement about hopelessness.


A

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 01:46 PM

michaelr, I don't know your posting history at all. Ebbie did not single you out. Yet you act as if she did and you take the trouble to mischaracterize what she said. Interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: michaelr
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 02:06 PM

Look, I'm not really interested in a fight with a bunch of knights in white armor. Ebbie is perfectly capable of explaining if I misunderstood her.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 02:23 PM

The meaning of Mainstream- the mainstream- "a prevailing current or direction of activity or influence*
*Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.

(In politics, 'mainstream' means whatever the poster wants it to mean).

Ebbie- and all other posters- may wish to take advantage of parts of a statement added to all of a certain lawyer's electronic transmissions.

"The contents of this electronic mail transmission including any files transmitted with it is confidential, may be an attorney and client communication and if so is therefore PRIVILEGED, in any event intended to be CONFIDENTIAL and for the sole use of the designated recipient. It is also sent on a "Without Prejudice" basis and use, dissemination or copying of the content is strictly probibited unless written authorization, separately received, has been given. If this message has been misdirected, or you are not the intended recipient or if a resend is desire, please contact the sending office as soon as possible."

OK, that is not pertinent, but it came to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 03:19 PM

" Ebbie started this thread saying how irritated she is at people who reserve the right to critical thinking." michaelr

Whoo ee! Is that what I said?

(I will be back- just spending some time thinking.)

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 03:20 PM

I'm not sure if they're amorphous and dark, but since the Citizens United decision, they're often anonymous.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 03:26 PM

"Look, I'm not really interested in a fight with a bunch of knights in white armor. "

I don't care what you are interested in. You posted BullShit, I pointed it out. This is a public forum. Not a private conversation between you and Ebbie.

"Ebbie is perfectly capable of explaining if I misunderstood her. "

No you did not misunderstand her. You BullShitted about what she said.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: michaelr
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 03:35 PM

Back off, Jack.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 03:38 PM

michaelr, Ebbie did not single you out. Yet you act as if she did and you take the trouble to mischaracterize what she said.

Would you please calmly explain this?

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 03:44 PM

Ebbie, you said whatever subsequent posters want to say you said.

You are guilty - of whatever they say you are guilty of.


The hanging will be at 2.00 PM at the next GOP or Democratic Convention (to be selected by vote of mudcat 'contributors')

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: artbrooks
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 03:45 PM

I went back and looked. Ebbie said "I frequently am irritated by [those]...who choose to believe that US government is bought and paid for by amorphous and dark entities who pull America's strings at will to suit their own aims." I willingly admit my ignorance, but I don't see a single thing, expressed or implied, about 'critical thinking' in there.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: michaelr
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 03:47 PM

Yet you act as if she did and you take the trouble to mischaracterize what she said.

How can I explain that? It's your interpretation of what I said, which was my interpretation of what she said.

I know Ebbie didn't address her post to me, and I did not act as if she had. Neither did I "take trouble to mischaracterize what she said".

Why so belligerent, Jack?

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 03:55 PM

Amos - I imagine that people who throw round "bleeding heart" so readily tell themselves they are meaning "excessive" compassion. But it seems to go with a definition of "excessive" that equates to "measurable".

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 03:59 PM

I'm not belligerent, I'm just pointing out the crap.

>>>>Neither did I "take trouble to mischaracterize what she said".

>>>From: artbrooks - PM
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 03:45 PM

I went back and looked. Ebbie said "I frequently am irritated by [those]...who choose to believe that US government is bought and paid for by amorphous and dark entities who pull America's strings at will to suit their own aims." I willingly admit my ignorance, but I don't see a single thing, expressed or implied, about 'critical thinking' in there. <<<<

he didn't see it because it was not there.

You seem belligerent to me and to Gnu. Maybe you should "back off." But if you don't, I'm happy to point out the BullShit.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: gnu
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 04:00 PM

"Neither did I "take trouble to mischaracterize what she said"."

Yes you did by asking her if what she meant was something you dreamed up. Do you not understand that such a question is trolling? Give you head a shake and see if it rattles.

It's just a case of simple common sense and good manners. You do NOT put words in other peoples mouths... fer fuck snake???

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 04:01 PM

I always understood "Bleeding Heart" to mean excessively sympathetic.

So does Wiki

A bleeding heart is an informal label applied to someone regarded as excessively sympathetic, liberal in a political sense, or both. It is typically considered a derogatory remark. Etymologically, the term originated as a Christ reference, originally the bleeding heart under a cross, representing the sufferings of Jesus crucified.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: gnu
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 04:01 PM

Oops... ypto... "fer fuck sake."

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: michaelr
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 04:05 PM

I was only trying to get Ebbie to clarify her original post. pdq, the first to respond, appeard unsure of her meaning, as well.

As far as I can see, the tone of my request was quite polite. This may be a public forum, but I don't believe that absolves us from basic civility. If I did, I would have said, Fuck off, Jack.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 04:30 PM

Yet you say it anyway. LOL!

"So what's your point, Ebbie? Are you informing us that you're perfectly happy to look no further than the mainstream party line?"

So the above is polite and not belligerent in your eyes?

In that case allow me to rephrase it for you.

michaelr: Excuse me please Ebbie, But I do not understand your point. Would you please clarify it, I am especially curious about what appears to be a contention of yours that only the mainstream party line is a valid one.

Please note that I (jts) in no way condone this question and in fact I do not accept for a second the implied fallacy that there is just one mainstream party line.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: michaelr
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 04:58 PM

Oooh, the T-word comes out. Scary... it'll be torches and pitchforks next.

Do you not understand that such a question is trolling?

No, as a matter of fact I don't. Imagine that.

So the above is polite and not belligerent in your eyes?

Perhaps a bit provocative, in a friendly way, no more. What is it with you guys? Couldn't you have waited for Ebbie to weigh in before collectively jumping down my throat?

Jeez, one wolf whistle at the white woman and I've got the Klan on my ass... Give me a break.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 05:04 PM

...It is typically considered a derogatory remark. Etymologically, the term originated as a Christ reference...

Can't get much more derogatory than that, I suppose...

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 05:06 PM

All you have have to do is quote the poster directly--Ebbie or anybody else-- without paraphrasing in such a way that just happens to aid your argument.   We've all seen this maneuver before--and sometimes done with more finesse.

If you don't do so, your whining about the "Klan" or anything else does not help you.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics v. the Conspiracy Theory
From: gnu
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 05:24 PM

KLAN? KLAN????!!!!

I was gonna post.... Fuck you you trolling ignorant fuckin piece of shit asshole. If you were within arm's reach of me right now you wouldn't be. There it is in language you MIGHT understand... is THAT clear enough for you? Get some fucking manners.

But, then I thought, why bother? It won't change anything. Simple fact is, Ebbie said what she wanted to say and she said it clearly. The thread is, more or less, over.

gnightgnu