Re: POLITICS robots to hunt us down

[Guest guest]

On 10/29/08, Parashis <artpages@...> wrote:

> This came in on the Info Packets newsletter. I usually click it away as

> soon as it's pesky little self shows up but the subject line said

>

> [10/29] Pentagon Seeks Robots To Hunt Down Uncooperative Humans

Wow. That links directly to a Department of Defense site describing

the project. That could almost count as weirder than the Pentagon

request to create a national database of all purchases made by every

American, which would require a cashless economy:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,70992,00.html

" A massive database that the government will use to monitor every

purchase made by every American citizen is a necessary tool in the war

on terror, the Pentagon said Wednesday. "

What I'm slowly starting to realize is that most sci-fi thrillers are

based on real military plans. I wonder how many people realize the

Bourne Trilogy with Matt Damon was based on the well-documented MK

Ultra mind control experiments done with the CIA, documented by the

Senate in the 1970s. I heard clips of Rumsfeld recently talking about

the use of unmanned helicopters, but claiming that microwave weapons

like in the Batman Begins movie were only in experimental stage.

On youtube, you can see clips of European Union officials calling for

world government in response to the current financial crisis.

Biden knows about a new 9/11 that will happen six months after Obama

is elected and has plans to do something we will think is wrong, but

says to trust him anyway. I wonder what they have planned. Maybe if

the military doesn't go along with it they can use their army of

robots.

This is just getting too weird.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> Biden knows about a new 9/11 that will happen six months after Obama

> is elected and has plans to do something we will think is wrong

Could you clarify? I know he's referred in a general sense to the

likelihood that the next president will be " tested " and so on

(particularly when he was campaigning against Obama for the Democratic

nomination) but I've never heard anything put quite this way.

-

[Guest guest]

On 10/29/08, Idol <paul.idol@...> wrote:

> Could you clarify? I know he's referred in a general sense to the

> likelihood that the next president will be " tested " and so on

> (particularly when he was campaigning against Obama for the Democratic

> nomination) but I've never heard anything put quite this way.

,

> Could you clarify? I know he's referred in a general sense to the

> likelihood that the next president will be " tested " and so on

> (particularly when he was campaigning against Obama for the Democratic

> nomination) but I've never heard anything put quite this way.

He sounds emphatic: " mark my words. " He's clearly talking about

Obama, not saying anything general about the next candidate.

" Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Obama

like they did Kennedy. We're about to elect a brillian

47-year-old president of the United States of America. Remember I

said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said.

Watch. We're going to have an international crisis, a generated

crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. And he's going to have to

face some tough, I don't know what the decision's going to be, but I

promise you it will occur... I guarantee you it's going to happen...

And he's going to need help. The kind of help he's going to need is,

not financially to help him, we're going to need your influence, your

influence in the community, to stand with him. Because it's not going

to be apparent, it's not going to be apparent that we're right. "

I think it's a little creepy, because as far as I understand, Biden

has access to lots of intelligence most others don't.

For the last phrase, it's possible he's just trying to cover their

buts, though it seems much wiser before the election to be drumming up

confidence rather than setting up for disappointment. I suppose on

the cynical, paranoid side of the spectrum, it's possible he has

specific changes to society in mind that will appear wrong and is

trying to develop a trust factor, kind of like the conservative

Republicans who wanted a balanced budget trusted in Reagan enough to

vote for large deficits.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

> > Could you clarify? I know he's referred in a general sense to the

> > likelihood that the next president will be " tested " and so on

> > (particularly when he was campaigning against Obama for the Democratic

> > nomination) but I've never heard anything put quite this way.

>

> ,

>

> > Could you clarify? I know he's referred in a general sense to the

> > likelihood that the next president will be " tested " and so on

> > (particularly when he was campaigning against Obama for the Democratic

> > nomination) but I've never heard anything put quite this way.

>

>

>

> He sounds emphatic: " mark my words. " He's clearly talking about

> Obama, not saying anything general about the next candidate.

>

> " Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Obama

> like they did Kennedy. We're about to elect a brillian

> 47-year-old president of the United States of America. Remember I

> said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said.

> Watch. We're going to have an international crisis, a generated

> crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. And he's going to have to

> face some tough, I don't know what the decision's going to be, but I

> promise you it will occur... I guarantee you it's going to happen...

> And he's going to need help. The kind of help he's going to need is,

> not financially to help him, we're going to need your influence, your

> influence in the community, to stand with him. Because it's not going

> to be apparent, it's not going to be apparent that we're right. "

>

> I think it's a little creepy, because as far as I understand, Biden

> has access to lots of intelligence most others don't.

>

> For the last phrase, it's possible he's just trying to cover their

> buts, though it seems much wiser before the election to be drumming up

> confidence rather than setting up for disappointment. I suppose on

> the cynical, paranoid side of the spectrum, it's possible he has

> specific changes to society in mind that will appear wrong and is

> trying to develop a trust factor, kind of like the conservative

> Republicans who wanted a balanced budget trusted in Reagan enough to

> vote for large deficits.

>

> Chris

>

Well Biden cleary stated Obama and not the next president in general,

and Biden has access to lots of intelligence that most others

don't...maybe he didn't mention McCain because he knew he wasn't going

to be the next president?

Also...why would a guy who is known to say ridiculous things and not

keep his mouth shut have access to such intelligence? Just bad judgment?

Finally, he stated in a later interview that he meant the next president

would be tested, not just Obama, and his reasons were along the lines

that America is slipping as the superpower in the world due to the

failing banks and falling dollar, and the analogy I thought of after

his explanation was like the alpha wolf in a wolf pack. Once the

alpha dog shows signs of weakness the other wolves might try to

overturn the alpha or at least test him to see if he's still fit to

lead. Of course...he could have just been covering his tracks...

-

[Guest guest]

,

> Well Biden cleary stated Obama and not the next president in general,

> and Biden has access to lots of intelligence that most others

> don't...maybe he didn't mention McCain because he knew he wasn't going

> to be the next president?

That is my impression.

> Also...why would a guy who is known to say ridiculous things and not

> keep his mouth shut have access to such intelligence? Just bad judgment?

If the Pentagon is planning an army of robots, why would they post it

on the internet? I think they stick their feet in the water before

plunging in to see what they can get away with, and have concluded

that our society has become so stupidified that they can say anything

out loud and people will ho hum along.

> Finally, he stated in a later interview that he meant the next president

> would be tested, not just Obama, and his reasons were along the lines

> that America is slipping as the superpower in the world due to the

> failing banks and falling dollar, and the analogy I thought of after

> his explanation was like the alpha wolf in a wolf pack. Once the

> alpha dog shows signs of weakness the other wolves might try to

> overturn the alpha or at least test him to see if he's still fit to

> lead. Of course...he could have just been covering his tracks...

The McCain campaign spinned it as the one example of straight talk,

where Biden is admitting that because Obama is so weak on foreign

policy, his incompetence and weakness will generate a crisis. I think

the media largely ignored the comment. Obama said it was a

" rhetorical flourish " and that it meant any candidate would

necessarily face hard times ahead, and so Biden probably took

directions and followed suit, but what Biden actually said sounded

much more specific.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On Oct 29, 2008, at 2:40 PM, Masterjohn wrote:

>

>

> Biden knows about a new 9/11 that will happen six months after Obama

> is elected and has plans to do something we will think is wrong, but

> says to trust him anyway. I wonder what they have planned. Maybe if

> the military doesn't go along with it they can use their army of

> robots.

>

> This is just getting too weird.

>

Sorry - but it is your post that is weird. Irresponsibly so. It goes

beyond the unconscionable fear tactics being employed by the

Republicans. Don't you ever think about what you write?

Biden obviously meant nothing like you're implying.

(bracing for pages of obfuscatory argumentation in support of your

'position')

>

>

> Chris

>

>

[Guest guest]

On 10/29/08, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> Biden obviously meant nothing like you're implying.

>

> (bracing for pages of obfuscatory argumentation in support of your

> 'position')

I'm reading into it. I posted the link to the original statement, so

people can interpreted it how they choose.

Chris

[Guest guest]

I heard the original statement. Your interpretation is crazy.

> On 10/29/08, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

>

> > Biden obviously meant nothing like you're implying.

> >

> > (bracing for pages of obfuscatory argumentation in support of your

> > 'position')

>

> I'm reading into it. I posted the link to the original statement, so

> people can interpreted it how they choose.

>

> Chris

>

>

[Guest guest]

On Oct 29, 2008, at 2:40 PM, Masterjohn wrote:

This is just getting too weird.

I'm beginning to have panic attacks about this. I feel cornered with no

way out. There seems no way to control all of this.

Parashis

artpages@...

artpagesonline.com

[Guest guest]

Gene,

You remind me of my husband. Regardless of the information, regardless of

the puzzle pieces that all exist - he prefers to look at them individually

as opposed to an " all together one big picture. " New world order agenda, as

my husband says, is fiction. He explains away each individual puzzle piece.

It's easy that way - you don't have to deal with the possibility of living

in a false kind of reality. If you take the time to plop all the pieces

together.........then you can see the big picture.

Do I want to believe that a group of powerful elitists are running this

country or trying to control the world? NO. It seems absurd. Crazy. I am

sometimes embarassed to talk or write about it. But for over a year I've

looked at this information. All the pieces of the puzzle put together are

making a very freakish and convincing picture. (I am a attorney licensed in

the state of Tennessee. I am a mother of three kids. I've never been prone

to believe conspiracy theories. I'm pretty balanced and normal. I've never

used drugs. Just letting you know all this as a disclaimer.......so you

don't write this email off by concluding I am a fringe weirdo.)

My husband, though skeptic, was very interested in the Council on Foreign

Relations. An entity entirely unrelated to our goverment, but described as

" the most powerful private organization to influence United States foreign

policy. " When he did more research, he discovered that the internal think

tank for this group is the Rockefeller Studies Program. My husband

doubted that there was a New World Order agenda but was kind of disturbed by

this excerpt from Rockefeller's Memoirs:

For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the

political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my

encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate

influence they claim we wield over American political and economic

institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working

against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family

and me as " internationalists " and of conspiring with others around the world

to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one

world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of

it.

— Rockefeller, " Memoirs " autobiography (2002, Random House publishers),

page 405

Recently I discovered an interesting website that contains an article

detailing the NWO agenda. If nothing else, read it and dismiss it......but

at least read it. Perhaps it will give a framework for fitting together all

newsstories & different global events....the seemingly seperate pieces

(which really all fit together).

Scroll down to see the article.

http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/

nanette l.

Re: POLITICS robots to hunt us down

I heard the original statement. Your interpretation is crazy.

> On 10/29/08, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

>

> > Biden obviously meant nothing like you're implying.

> >

> > (bracing for pages of obfuscatory argumentation in support of your

> > 'position')

>

> I'm reading into it. I posted the link to the original statement, so

> people can interpreted it how they choose.

>

> Chris

>

>

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

(I am a attorney licensed in

> the state of Tennessee. I am a mother of three kids. I've never been

prone

> to believe conspiracy theories. I'm pretty balanced and normal. I've

never

> used drugs. Just letting you know all this as a disclaimer.......so you

> don't write this email off by concluding I am a fringe weirdo.)

Yeh well I'm a business owner with an Ivy League education, a Masters of

Science in teaching, and had also never been prone to believing in

conspiracy theories (other than those that are commonly accepted such as the

Mafia) and am pretty balanced and " normal " as much as any WAPF-oriented

person can claim to be :-)

But of course, I'm just another " fringe weirdo " ' as I also look at the big

picture that forms from all those separate puzzle pieces.

My suggestion to other " fringe weirdos " ...have the courage to be ridiculed

as you educate others. Don't worry about those that dismiss you as some sort

of fringe weirdo and keep posting because there are lurkers who are reading,

listening and being inspired to investigate on their own.

Suze

[Guest guest]

On Oct 29, 2008, at 6:47 PM, Nanette J. Landen wrote:

> Gene,

>

> You remind me of my husband. Regardless of the information,

> regardless of

> the puzzle pieces that all exist - he prefers to look at them

> individually

> as opposed to an " all together one big picture. " New world order

> agenda, as

> my husband says, is fiction. He explains away each individual

> puzzle piece.

> It's easy that way - you don't have to deal with the possibility of

> living

> in a false kind of reality. If you take the time to plop all the

> pieces

> together.........then you can see the big picture.

I really don't care who I remind you of.

Sorry - but we are not even talking here about evidence that 9/11 is

an inside job. Now the moderator is suggesting that the next 9/11 is

another inside job, already planned, and hinted at by Joe Biden. And,

in your paranoid interpretation, anyone who doesn't 'see' this is

pathetically gullible.

Some degree of analytical thinking is a good thing - simply finding

little bits and pieces of material here and there and constructing a

grand paranoid view of an occult new world order is one thing, but

suggesting that anyone who has enough sense to see through this is not

seeing the big picture is pathological.

>

>

> Do I want to believe that a group of powerful elitists are running

> this

> country or trying to control the world? NO. It seems absurd.

> Crazy. I am

> sometimes embarassed to talk or write about it. But for over a year

> I've

> looked at this information. All the pieces of the puzzle put

> together are

> making a very freakish and convincing picture. (I am a attorney

> licensed in

> the state of Tennessee. I am a mother of three kids. I've never

> been prone

> to believe conspiracy theories. I'm pretty balanced and normal.

> I've never

> used drugs. Just letting you know all this as a disclaimer.......so

> you

> don't write this email off by concluding I am a fringe weirdo.)

Damn. Wish I had read this sooner.

Leaving aside 9/11, there IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, ON ANY

LEVEL, that Joe Biden is on the inside of another 9/11 inside job,

and was warning the country about it.

I'm not going to be dragged into yet another argument about 9/11. This

isn't even about that. IT's about what Joe Biden said.

>

>

> My husband, though skeptic, was very interested in the Council on

> Foreign

> Relations. An entity entirely unrelated to our goverment, but

> described as

> " the most powerful private organization to influence United States

> foreign

> policy. " When he did more research, he discovered that the internal

> think

> tank for this group is the Rockefeller Studies Program. My

> husband

> doubted that there was a New World Order agenda but was kind of

> disturbed by

> this excerpt from Rockefeller's Memoirs:

>

> For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the

> political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such

> as my

> encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the

> inordinate

> influence they claim we wield over American political and economic

> institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working

> against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my

> family

> and me as " internationalists " and of conspiring with others around

> the world

> to build a more integrated global political and economic structure —

> one

> world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am

> proud of

> it.

>

> — Rockefeller, " Memoirs " autobiography (2002, Random House

> publishers),

> page 405

>

> Recently I discovered an interesting website that contains an article

> detailing the NWO agenda. If nothing else, read it and dismiss

> it......but

> at least read it. Perhaps it will give a framework for fitting

> together all

> newsstories & different global events....the seemingly seperate pieces

> (which really all fit together).

>

> Scroll down to see the article.

>

> http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/

>

> nanette l.

>

> Re: POLITICS robots to hunt us down

>

>

>

> I heard the original statement. Your interpretation is crazy.

>

>> On 10/29/08, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

>>

>>> Biden obviously meant nothing like you're implying.

>>>

>>> (bracing for pages of obfuscatory argumentation in support of your

>>> 'position')

>>

>> I'm reading into it. I posted the link to the original statement, so

>> people can interpreted it how they choose.

>>

>> Chris

>>

>>

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

>

[Guest guest]

This is hilarious. The fact that you have an Ivy League education has

something to do with whether you are, or are not, a fringe weirdo?

W. Bush had an Ivy League education, for gods sake. I will not

devolve into a debate about who has more impressive academic

credentials, and is therefore credible. Shall we compare SAT scores?

This is ridiculous.

> (I am a attorney licensed in

> > the state of Tennessee. I am a mother of three kids. I've never been

> prone

> > to believe conspiracy theories. I'm pretty balanced and normal. I've

> never

> > used drugs. Just letting you know all this as a

> disclaimer.......so you

> > don't write this email off by concluding I am a fringe weirdo.)

>

> Yeh well I'm a business owner with an Ivy League education, a

> Masters of

> Science in teaching, and had also never been prone to believing in

> conspiracy theories (other than those that are commonly accepted

> such as the

> Mafia) and am pretty balanced and " normal " as much as any WAPF-

> oriented

> person can claim to be :-)

>

> But of course, I'm just another " fringe weirdo " ' as I also look at

> the big

> picture that forms from all those separate puzzle pieces.

>

> My suggestion to other " fringe weirdos " ...have the courage to be

> ridiculed

> as you educate others. Don't worry about those that dismiss you as

> some sort

> of fringe weirdo and keep posting because there are lurkers who are

> reading,

> listening and being inspired to investigate on their own.

>

> Suze

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On 10/29/08, Parashis <artpages@...> wrote:

> I'm beginning to have panic attacks about this. I feel cornered with no

> way out. There seems no way to control all of this.

I wouldn't worry about it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

> This is hilarious. The fact that you have an Ivy League education has

> something to do with whether you are, or are not, a fringe weirdo?

> W. Bush had an Ivy League education, for gods sake. I will not

> devolve into a debate about who has more impressive academic

> credentials, and is therefore credible. Shall we compare SAT scores?

> This is ridiculous.

Heh heh, that's exactly the response I expected from you. Sorry, but this

isn't about you.

It is my experience that some, perhaps most, academics who are trained to

have a knee jerk dismissive reaction to any hint of a conspiracy theory

(which described me up until earlier this year), are more open to looking

into these things when they hear it coming from someone with a similar

academic or professional background.

I automatically dismissed all this stuff myself until I spoke with an

elderly gentleman, now deeply involved in politics, who used to teach at

Dartmouth and U. of Chicago, who is very conservative, yet believes in the

globalist conspiracy theory and has had direct contact, IIRC, with some of

those involved on lower levels. He was the last person I would've imagine

believing in conspiracy theories of this nature. And he was a " normal "

intelligent former professor. I identified with him and that was the final

straw that got me over the mental block I'd had whenever I heard the word

" conspiracy " . It was a paradigmatic shift and a very difficult one to make.

Suze

[Guest guest]

On Oct 29, 2008, at 7:53 PM, Suze Fisher wrote:

> >

> > This is hilarious. The fact that you have an Ivy League education

> has

> > something to do with whether you are, or are not, a fringe weirdo?

> > W. Bush had an Ivy League education, for gods sake. I will

> not

> > devolve into a debate about who has more impressive academic

> > credentials, and is therefore credible. Shall we compare SAT scores?

> > This is ridiculous.

>

> Heh heh, that's exactly the response I expected from you. Sorry, but

> this

> isn't about you.

>

Whether 'it' is or isn't, I still read your comments the same way. I

don't care where you went to school. It's irrelevant.

>

>

> It is my experience that some, perhaps most, academics who are

> trained to

> have a knee jerk dismissive reaction to any hint of a conspiracy

> theory

> (which described me up until earlier this year), are more open to

> looking

> into these things when they hear it coming from someone with a similar

> academic or professional background.

>

so, then what I said was exactly correct.

btw, I think that it is a common experience for people who are on a

new 'kick', to get rather fanatical about it. I've had no illusions

about our government for as long as I can remember, so I don't need

grand conspiracy theories to distract me.

>

>

> I automatically dismissed all this stuff myself until I spoke with an

> elderly gentleman, now deeply involved in politics, who used to

> teach at

> Dartmouth and U. of Chicago, who is very conservative, yet believes

> in the

> globalist conspiracy theory and has had direct contact, IIRC, with

> some of

> those involved on lower levels. He was the last person I would've

> imagine

> believing in conspiracy theories of this nature. And he was a " normal "

> intelligent former professor. I identified with him and that was the

> final

> straw that got me over the mental block I'd had whenever I heard the

> word

> " conspiracy " . It was a paradigmatic shift and a very difficult one

> to make.

>

>

People make this shifts all of the time. Sometimes it's to the dark

side....the fact that you made it, the fact that you have an Ivy

League education, and the fact that you found a sexy mentor, are all

irrelevant.

> Suze

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Suze-

> I automatically dismissed all this stuff myself until I spoke with an

> elderly gentleman, now deeply involved in politics, who used to

> teach at

> Dartmouth and U. of Chicago, who is very conservative, yet believes

> in the

> globalist conspiracy theory and has had direct contact, IIRC, with

> some of

> those involved on lower levels. He was the last person I would've

> imagine

> believing in conspiracy theories of this nature. And he was a " normal "

> intelligent former professor. I identified with him and that was the

> final

> straw that got me over the mental block I'd had whenever I heard the

> word

> " conspiracy " . It was a paradigmatic shift and a very difficult one

> to make.

Actually, there's a ton of conspiracy theorizing on the conservative

end of the political spectrum.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> He sounds emphatic: " mark my words. " He's clearly talking about

> Obama, not saying anything general about the next candidate.

OK, so this particular statement comes from after Obama secured the

nomination, and, I presume, from after the convention and Biden's

nomination for VP.

> " Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Obama

> like they did Kennedy. We're about to elect a brillian

> 47-year-old president of the United States of America. Remember I

> said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said.

> Watch. We're going to have an international crisis, a generated

> crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. And he's going to have to

> face some tough, I don't know what the decision's going to be, but I

> promise you it will occur... I guarantee you it's going to happen...

> And he's going to need help. The kind of help he's going to need is,

> not financially to help him, we're going to need your influence, your

> influence in the community, to stand with him. Because it's not going

> to be apparent, it's not going to be apparent that we're right. "

>

> I think it's a little creepy, because as far as I understand, Biden

> has access to lots of intelligence most others don't.

>

> For the last phrase, it's possible he's just trying to cover their

> buts, though it seems much wiser before the election to be drumming up

> confidence rather than setting up for disappointment. I suppose on

> the cynical, paranoid side of the spectrum, it's possible he has

> specific changes to society in mind that will appear wrong and is

> trying to develop a trust factor, kind of like the conservative

> Republicans who wanted a balanced budget trusted in Reagan enough to

> vote for large deficits.

As to the wisdom issue, Biden's always had a problem keeping his mouth

shut. He seems to say pretty much whatever pops into his head.

Which, in some respects, is a valuable trait in a politician. That

said, I think you're reading quite a bit too much into this. It's

inevitable that the next administration will be " tested " in this

fashion. Many interests stand to gain if (a) the US collapses as a

world power; ( the US gets embroiled in more wars; © the US goes

really apes**t and nukes somebody; (d) some kind of other disaster

comes to pass; (e) some combination of the above happens. Why do you

think Al Queda intervened in the '04 election?

-

[Guest guest]

> People make this shifts all of the time. Sometimes it's to the dark

> side....the fact that you made it, the fact that you have an Ivy

> League education, and the fact that you found a sexy mentor, are all

> irrelevant.

Oooohhh...a *sexy* mentor! Now wouldn't that be a bonus...

Suze

[Guest guest]

>

> Actually, there's a ton of conspiracy theorizing on the conservative

> end of the political spectrum.

That could very well be. I'm not conservative and don't know much about

them. I was surprised however, that a former professor from Dartmouth and U.

Chicago believed in this. For all I know this might also be a common belief

among professors at prestigious universities as well, but it's not something

I was ever exposed to when in school myself.

In any event, after talking with this gentleman, I finally decided to stop

irrationally dismissing theories whose evidence I hadn't examined and to

start taking a look at the available information *before* judging a theory,

as logic would dictate.

Suze

[Guest guest]

,

> OK, so this particular statement comes from after Obama secured the

> nomination, and, I presume, from after the convention and Biden's

> nomination for VP.

I was under the impression it was made about a week ago.

> As to the wisdom issue, Biden's always had a problem keeping his mouth

> shut. He seems to say pretty much whatever pops into his head.

> Which, in some respects, is a valuable trait in a politician. That

> said, I think you're reading quite a bit too much into this. It's

> inevitable that the next administration will be " tested " in this

> fashion. Many interests stand to gain if (a) the US collapses as a

> world power; ( the US gets embroiled in more wars; © the US goes

> really apes**t and nukes somebody; (d) some kind of other disaster

> comes to pass; (e) some combination of the above happens.

Well yes, I offered an interpretation that reads much into it, and one

that reads little into it. When discussing the prospect of an army of

robots to battle against the uncooperative humans and the current push

for world government by EU members, I emphasized the one that reads

into it a lot.

I don't actually know what's in Biden's head. What I know is that

Biden is privy to a lot of military intelligence that we are not privy

to. Biden seemed awfully overconfident in his ability to predict the

future. He also seemed awfully overconfident that he and Obama would

institute changes whose rightness would not be apparent even to Obama

supporters. It is the combination of these two things that leads me

to want to read into this.

We are on the brink of abolishing capitalism and abolishing the United

States. We are currently undergoing nationalization of the financial

sector. We are currently seeing financial dicatatorship at the

treasury giving billions of dollars to nine banks that they maty well

use to buy up hundreds of little banks as those banks fail. We are

seeing calls for " new world governance " from the EU, while Biden says

that the current Democratic party is the Democratic Party of " a new

world order. " So, given all the imminent dramatic changes, and that

Biden is very, very confident about some " generated " " international

crisis " that will happen not at some point, but specifically within

six months, and that his selling point is not how confident we should

be in the changes they will institute, but the fact that we should

stand by them when it is absolutely NOT apparent that those changes

are the right thing to do, leads me to wonder what Biden is setting us

up for.

This was a fundraising event. He was not speaking to America. He was

telling Obama's supporters that he will betray them, and that they

will have to trust him.

Yes, I'm reading into it. Behind the lines. My interpretation might

be wrong. I am not as confident in the " generated " " international

crisis " six months from now as Biden is, but I am cautiously watching

what happens, holding my " reading into it " interpretation at bay,

ready to put it to use, depending on how things go and what they look

like once they happen.

> Why do you

> think Al Queda intervened in the '04 election?

What? I'm not sure what you mean.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> Well yes, I offered an interpretation that reads much into it, and one

> that reads little into it. When discussing the prospect of an army of

> robots to battle against the uncooperative humans and the current push

> for world government by EU members, I emphasized the one that reads

> into it a lot.

The prospect of such robots, though, is a long-term one. The prospect

of some kind of major terrorist or international crisis (beyond the

current fiscal crisis) striking less than six months into the next

president's term is, obviously, very near-term. So I'm not sure why

the former influences your reading of the latter.

> We are on the brink of abolishing capitalism and abolishing the United

> States.

The validity of " abolishing capitalism " depends on what you mean by

" capitalism " . I think it's ridiculous to describe a Sweden/UK-style

bailout involving government investment in the private sector meant to

recapitalize financial institutions as " abolishing capitalism " . Such

nationalization is temporary -- and is being done in a singularly half-

assed fashion anyway. Was the S & L bailout the end of capitalism?

That said, if you define capitalism sufficiently strictly, we haven't

been a capitalist country for decades, or even forever.

> We are currently undergoing nationalization of the financial

> sector. We are currently seeing financial dicatatorship at the

> treasury giving billions of dollars to nine banks that they maty well

> use to buy up hundreds of little banks as those banks fail.

I'd characterize this more as crony capitalism than anything else, and

it's quite questionable IMO to call it a financial dictatorship by the

Treasury department when things seem to be running primarily for the

benefit of powerful banks. I'd be much happier with a bailout more

along the lines of the UK's bailout, with strict lending requirements

and more rigorous taxpayer participation in the form of stock.

> We are

> seeing calls for " new world governance " from the EU,

What of it?

> while Biden says

> that the current Democratic party is the Democratic Party of " a new

> world order. " So, given all the imminent dramatic changes

Well, first, a lot of these calls are for a new *financial* regulatory

structure, and in that sense, we had a global financial " order "

starting right after WWII -- basically designed by the US... and then

largely abandoned and sabotaged by the US due to stresses caused by

our endless and unsustainable sinking of money into the military. You

and I disagree fairly profoundly on economics and the politics of the

economy, but regardless of whether you agree that modernized Glass-

Steagall-style regulations ought to be applied to the entire financial

system (and regardless of whether you agree that their partial

dismantlement and the creation of a much less regulated shadow banking

system led to the current crisis) it's hardly reasonable to describe

the creation of such a regime as the " abolition " of capitalism or the

creation of a world government.

Nor do I concur with your description of these changes (or any more

dramatic ones) as " imminent " .

> > Why do you

> > think Al Queda intervened in the '04 election?

>

> What? I'm not sure what you mean.

Do you remember the video Osama released shortly before the election?

Many theorize it was responsible for Bush's reelection. And whether

you believe that Bin Laden is a CIA tool or a sovereign enemy of the

US, he obviously stood to benefit from Bush's reelection.

-

[Guest guest]

On Oct 30, 2008, at 7:29 AM, Masterjohn wrote:

> ,

>

> > OK, so this particular statement comes from after Obama secured the

> > nomination, and, I presume, from after the convention and Biden's

> > nomination for VP.

>

> I was under the impression it was made about a week ago.

>

a week or two ago, correct.

>

>

> > As to the wisdom issue, Biden's always had a problem keeping his

> mouth

> > shut. He seems to say pretty much whatever pops into his head.

> > Which, in some respects, is a valuable trait in a politician. That

> > said, I think you're reading quite a bit too much into this. It's

> > inevitable that the next administration will be " tested " in this

> > fashion. Many interests stand to gain if (a) the US collapses as a

> > world power; ( the US gets embroiled in more wars; © the US goes

> > really apes**t and nukes somebody; (d) some kind of other disaster

> > comes to pass; (e) some combination of the above happens.

>

> Well yes, I offered an interpretation that reads much into it, and one

> that reads little into it. When discussing the prospect of an army of

> robots to battle against the uncooperative humans and the current push

> for world government by EU members, I emphasized the one that reads

> into it a lot.

>

> I don't actually know what's in Biden's head. What I know is that

> Biden is privy to a lot of military intelligence that we are not privy

> to. Biden seemed awfully overconfident in his ability to predict the

> future.

>

LOL. He wasn't 'predicting' the future. He was babbling, as he is

prone to do, about the fact that the next president will be tested.

His point was that Obama is ready for this challenge, not that some

cataclysmic event was going to occur.

> He also seemed awfully overconfident that he and Obama would

> institute changes whose rightness would not be apparent even to Obama

> supporters. It is the combination of these two things that leads me

> to want to read into this.

>

Obviously, you WANT to, however, this is absolutely a ludicrous

interpretation.

>

>

> We are on the brink of abolishing capitalism and abolishing the United

> States.

>

And on the brink of having the government round up all of us 'food

rebels' with robots. I hope that you have a small arsenal at home.

> We are currently undergoing nationalization of the financial

> sector. We are currently seeing financial dicatatorship at the

> treasury giving billions of dollars to nine banks that they maty well

> use to buy up hundreds of little banks as those banks fail. We are

> seeing calls for " new world governance " from the EU, while Biden says

> that the current Democratic party is the Democratic Party of " a new

> world order. " So, given all the imminent dramatic changes, and that

> Biden is very, very confident about some " generated " " international

> crisis " that will happen not at some point, but specifically within

> six months, and that his selling point is not how confident we should

> be in the changes they will institute, but the fact that we should

> stand by them when it is absolutely NOT apparent that those changes

> are the right thing to do, leads me to wonder what Biden is setting us

> up for.

>

Or, then again, maybe he wasn't 'leaking' information about another

inside job, and was just babbling.

>

>

> This was a fundraising event. He was not speaking to America. He was

> telling Obama's supporters that he will betray them, and that they

> will have to trust him.

>

He was NOT telling them that he would betray them. He was saying that

they wouldn't agree at first with what he did.

>

>

> Yes, I'm reading into it. Behind the lines. My interpretation might

> be wrong. I am not as confident in the " generated " " international

> crisis " six months from now as Biden is, but I am cautiously watching

> what happens, holding my " reading into it " interpretation at bay,

> ready to put it to use, depending on how things go and what they look

> like once they happen.

>

An absolutely crazy interpretation of what he said. Wacko beyond

wacko, beyond anything I've encountered yet anywhere. Keep up the good

work!

>

>

> > Why do you

> > think Al Queda intervened in the '04 election?

>

> What? I'm not sure what you mean.

>

> Chris

>

>

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>> This was a fundraising event. He was not speaking to America. He was

>> telling Obama's supporters that he will betray them, and that they

>> will have to trust him.

>>

>

> He was NOT telling them that he would betray them. He was saying that

> they wouldn't agree at first with what he did.

>>

>>

>> Yes, I'm reading into it. Behind the lines. My interpretation might

>> be wrong. I am not as confident in the " generated " " international

>> crisis " six months from now as Biden is, but I am cautiously watching

>> what happens, holding my " reading into it " interpretation at bay,

>> ready to put it to use, depending on how things go and what they look

>> like once they happen.

>>

> An absolutely crazy interpretation of what he said. Wacko beyond

> wacko, beyond anything I've encountered yet anywhere. Keep up the good

> work!

I agree with you that describing what Biden says as a warning that the

Obama administration would betray its financial supporters is

ridiculous, but I woudn't say that that interpreting what he said to

be a warning of a generated " test " crisis is wacko beyond wacko.

> And he's going to have to

> face some tough, I don't know what the decision's going to be, but I

> promise you it will occur... I guarantee you it's going to happen...

> And he's going to need help. The kind of help he's going to need is,

> not financially to help him, we're going to need your influence, your

> influence in the community, to stand with him. Because it's not going

> to be apparent, it's not going to be apparent that we're right. "

Biden's clearly saying he expects some kind of major test and that he

wants influential people to rally behind the Obama administration when

it happens, because the administration's actions might not be popular

at first.

What should note, though, is that Biden said " I don't know what

the decicion's going to be " . That's hardly suggestive of some kind of

detailed and premeditated roadmap for the abolition of capitalism and

democracy and the institution of a Gnu World Hors d'Oeuvre.

-

[Guest guest]

On Oct 30, 2008, at 8:31 AM, Idol wrote:

> Gene-

>

> >> This was a fundraising event. He was not speaking to America. He

> was

> >> telling Obama's supporters that he will betray them, and that they

> >> will have to trust him.

> >>

> >

> > He was NOT telling them that he would betray them. He was saying

> that

> > they wouldn't agree at first with what he did.

> >>

> >>

> >> Yes, I'm reading into it. Behind the lines. My interpretation might

> >> be wrong. I am not as confident in the " generated " " international

> >> crisis " six months from now as Biden is, but I am cautiously

> watching

> >> what happens, holding my " reading into it " interpretation at bay,

> >> ready to put it to use, depending on how things go and what they

> look

> >> like once they happen.

> >>

> > An absolutely crazy interpretation of what he said. Wacko beyond

> > wacko, beyond anything I've encountered yet anywhere. Keep up the

> good

> > work!

>

> I agree with you that describing what Biden says as a warning that the

> Obama administration would betray its financial supporters is

> ridiculous, but I woudn't say that that interpreting what he said to

> be a warning of a generated " test " crisis is wacko beyond wacko.

>

Ok. We'll agree then on 'somewhere between ridiculous and 'wack beyond

wacko'. Just plain 'wacko' would fit the bill, I think.

>

>

> > And he's going to have to

> > face some tough, I don't know what the decision's going to be, but I

> > promise you it will occur... I guarantee you it's going to happen...

> > And he's going to need help. The kind of help he's going to need is,

> > not financially to help him, we're going to need your influence,

> your

> > influence in the community, to stand with him. Because it's not

> going

> > to be apparent, it's not going to be apparent that we're right. "

>

> Biden's clearly saying he expects some kind of major test and that he

> wants influential people to rally behind the Obama administration when

> it happens, because the administration's actions might not be popular

> at first.

>

> What should note, though, is that Biden said " I don't know what

> the decicion's going to be " . That's hardly suggestive of some kind of

> detailed and premeditated roadmap for the abolition of capitalism and

> democracy and the institution of a Gnu World Hors d'Oeuvre.

>

> -

>

>