Voice of the White House on Foley

Moderators: DrVolin, Elvis, Jeff

...

Postby robertdreed » Mon Oct 09, 2006 10:52 pm

There is no significant difference between Bill Clinton and George Bush. <br><br>But that's no reason to get all doomstruck and depressed on me. <br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/9/06 9:04 pm<br></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Other political parties

Postby robertdreed » Mon Oct 09, 2006 10:56 pm

Other political parties would have some validity and influence in the American political system, if the simple reform of ranked-choice voting were enacted. <br><br>Granted, that's a big "if". Maybe the biggest, in terms of proving or disproving an indictment of the status quo politics of this country. <p></p><i></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Other political parties

Postby chiggerbit » Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:27 pm

Of course there are big differences between Bill and Geroge. George is Narcissistic Personality Disordered. While Bill may have some elements of NPD, it's not nearly enough to qualify for that diagnosis. George is ruled by revenge, Bill by his wienie. Bill is married to Hillary, George to ..eh..what'shername...Laura. (SNAP OUT OF IT CHIGGER!!! Fantasizing about the reverse, Bill married to Laura and George to Hillary is ridiculous and a waste of time.) Wha??? Oh, yes. Bill reads many newspapers, George none. Bill earned his college degrees on his own, George's were bought, thanks to Dad. Bill is curious, George isn't (NO!!! THAT Curious George is about a different monkey, ok?). Bill can speak extemporaneously, George can't can't speak. Bill has good problem identification and problem solving skills, George has no skills, except to copy Pat Robertson's facial expressions and body language, (aack... monkey see, monkey do).<br><br>When all is said and done, I have to say that I would offer my left breast to have Bill back. Maybe I would even sacrifice the right one, too, but I think the sacrifice should be shared. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 10/9/06 11:22 pm<br></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

...

Postby robertdreed » Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:30 pm

"Okay, you might well argue that this (foleygate ) isnt actually a mere distraction, and in itself has nothing whatsoever to do with the march towards a "diabollically contrived juggernaut of fascism"<br><br>In which case Im sure you will have no problem whatsoever explaining exactly why Bush 43 has just effectively revoked Habeas Corpus ?"<br><br>I'm of the mind that there's no conscious manipulation connecting the two events. At least at the human level. <br><br>I have metaphysical and philosophical problems with grand theories claiming that everything fits into some plot by malevolent overseers. That presupposes a closed-system universe, and I believe in an open system. <br><br>It gets especially eye-rolling for me when such ideas posit that even when it appears that the malignant power elites are taking a loss, they're actually winning.<br><br>The Republicans and the power elites have plenty of spin doctors of their own. It 's baffling to me when even people ostensibly in the ranks of the opposition to their agenda insist on spinning every possible development in current events as yet another win for them on some level. <br><br>It seems that there are people who think that Foleygate was pre-planned- either as a distraction, or as a catalytic event to return an increased share of power in the Congress to the Democratic Party. I see no evidence of that, only a lot of people attempting to shoehorn every possible current event reported by the news media as evidence of an overarching plot to load the dice in some way or another, depending on the presuppositions of their particular paranoid version of how the world works, using the device of <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>post hoc, propter hoc</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->. <br><br>Ironically, I note that in the case of the people favoring the latter scenario- that Foleygate was consciously pre-plotted as a way to ensure increased Democratric Party success in the November 2006 elections- there's a dramatic split in political worldview. <br><br>One one side are Republicans peddling the line that the entire Foleygate scandal was inspired, timed for release, and pumped up by the monolithically anti-Republican liberal media in order to aid the Democrats in the 2006 elections, because they're anti-American defeatists and pro-Red hatemongers. <br><br>And on the other side are people who adhere to the even more elaborate theory that the entire scandal was inspired, timed for release, and pumped up by the cryptocracy that programs the corporate media, in order to aid the Democrats in the 2006 elections, because that will help lull the American people into complacency by making them think that something has changed. These folks apparently have some affection for the Maoist dogma that only the most maximal "heightening of contradictions" can possibly lead to meaningful change in a pre-revolutionary society; and that therefore, continued dominance by the Republicans and Bush would be more preferable, because it draws the eventual lines of combat more starkly and boldly. A common dogma of political extremists of all types, the idea that things need to get worse before they get better- and that whatever slows down the process of heightening the contradictions is actually making the situation worse.<br><br>The Republicans merely sound insincere and wholly unconvincing to me. <br><br>Many of you alienated radicals out there, on the other hand, actually seem to believe your own BS. I think you've had too much to think, and you're worrying too much. Let the Republicans do the worrying for a change. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/9/06 10:03 pm<br></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: ...

Postby chiggerbit » Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:47 pm

I don't know, Robert, I'm having second thoughts on this. It is beginning to seem logical that thirty-some years or so ago, the Conspiracy Masters had young Foley sexually abused in order to turn him into a GAY PEDOPHILE!!!, only waiting for the right year and month to reveal their dastardly plot. Of course, it required that Faithful Republican Parents (FRP) would be hypnotized in order to suggest that they offer up their male children on the alter of THE CONSPIRACY. And of course it is not at all suspicious that these mind controlled Republican pages would do their part by outing Foley at the precisely appointed time. Please, stop trying to intellectualize this Robert. Open your mind. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 10/9/06 11:14 pm<br></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

...

Postby robertdreed » Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:57 pm

Not as long as I have my ear drums in the way. I have my limits. <p></p><i></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: ...

Postby chiggerbit » Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:11 am

Dang, can't find that one Parry article that detailed how the Republicans took over the media. In the meantime, here are some of Parry's other media articles. Can't express how much I respect Parry. Enjoy. <br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/media.html">www.consortiumnews.com/ar...media.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 10/9/06 11:30 pm<br></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: ...

Postby robertdreed » Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:56 am

Parry wrote at least one book on the topic- <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Fooling America</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->. <br><br>On a related topic, I also recommend Dan Baum's expose of the Drug War, <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Smoke And Mirrors</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->. He has quite a lot on manipulation of the press in there. <p></p><i></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Latest Voice of the White House

Postby chiggerbit » Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:10 pm

Latest Voice. I'm not posting the link this time because it also posted some of foley's pics of boys--not because they're porn, just because I think it's unfortunate that these kids are having their pics plastered all over the net. Anyway, here is The Voice's latest:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>TBR News.org – October 8, 2006 <br><br>“Although Foley and his frantic defenders at Fox News and also by the convicted drug addict, Limbaugh, claim he “never had sex with minors,” a collection of his personal digital photos of himself with nude boys now circulating around both the media and those of Congress still in D.C., show very graphically to the contrary. <br><br>Pages who have been snitching but redacting their names will be horrified to learn that a new report from the DoJ names them in detail, possibly as a means of frightening others to keep their mouths shut about the activities of this proliferate pervert and his friends. <br><br>And also, it is the general theme here among the straight Democrats, that whoever started this filthy story on its merry way, picked just the right time. The Democrats, by the way, had nothing to do with exposing Foley (and others) There is no doubt at all that Dennis Hastert and at least ten senior Republican members of both the Senate and the House had full knowledge of Foley’s ten year reign of sexual terror among young pages but did absolutely nothing about it. <br><br>There is also no doubt, from the squeakings of terror from inside the White House that Bush himself was fully aware of the charges. Of course he now “stands behind Hastert” (not a judicious choice of words, George) whom he put in as a totally obedient Speaker and does not want to see resign. <br><br>Also, someone just told me that the Evangelical Christians still think Bush and his deviants are wonderful people. Wait until their own sons have their pants pulled down and then listen to the howls of vindictive rage. <br><br>The snail-trail of vice and corruption not only covers the floors of the Republican side of the House but also extends right into the White House and also the halls of Congress and the main office of the GOP where the head of the Party is soon going to have his own problems with his expressions of his sexual nature. <br><br>And Rupert Murdoch’s supermarket tabloid papers are claiming that Foley only buggered boys over 21! Sure, Rupert, and don’t forget to put your pants on before going outside! (Rupert has small memory problems these days. Old age is shipwreck.) <br><br>Since Foley was a strong supporter of the needs of Evangelical Christians, can we now say that a good watchword for him and his cronies would be: “Bugger a Page for Christ?” I have also heard it said by jocular Democrats on the Hill: “Don’t bend the page over, please!” <br><br>We can say in all honesty that President Clinton, at least, preferred women as sex partners. <br><br>Can we say that with honesty about all Presidents? <br><br>If the shoe, or in this case the condom, fits, wear it. <br><br>I am sending to you nice people about 150 disgusting digital pictures taken in hotel bedrooms and elsewhere over about a nine year period. Why not call these ‘Foley’s Follies?:’”<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Mizikant93 » Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:54 pm

---
Mizikant93
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 2:59 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Previous

Return to Paedophilia and Fascist Sexuality

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest