Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Lesser Of Two Evils; Just a Scam
Topic Started: Aug 28 2004, 07:38 AM (303 Views)
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
The following bit of sarcasm holds a lot of truth. Sorry for length but just can't break it up.

THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS: BUSH OR KERRY?

Act Two of the Republicrat National Convention approaches. The quadrennial charade is almost upon us. As always, the judas goats whose job it is to keep patriots in the corral are dusting off the argument that has worked so well since the memory of man runneth not to the contrary.

This year’s adaptation goes like this: Yes, Bush does endorse abortion and gun confiscation, he has supervised the most spending and the biggest expansion of government in the history of the nation, he is colluding with foreigners to perpetrate the invasion from Mexico and the destruction of our independence, et cetera and so on, but – but – but, Bush is only three months pregnant. He is the "lesser of two evils."

Yes, Bush isn’t perfect, we admit that, but Kerry is six months pregnant, and the only way to stop him is to vote for Bush. Besides, you have nowhere else to go. The conspirators waiting to hit you in the head on your way into the abattoir have used some variant of this argument for decades.

I remember wondering as long ago as the Eisenhower Administration why it was that, whoever was elected, the policy was the same. The ship of state still kept the same heading. The only things that changed were the style and terminology. I remember asking people why that was. No one I knew at the time knew. Of course, I was working at NBC in New York then, so everyone I knew was as ignorant and stupid as I was.

Here is what I didn’t know. Among the tools employed by the Marxist traitors who are conspiring to submerge us in a totalitarian socialist world government, is dialectical materialism. The conspirators who use it are consummately realistic. They know they will face opposition and that the opposition will intensify the closer they come to their goal.

They know they can’t wish it away. So, in politics, they apply the dialectical process to control both parties. With control of both parties, they don’t care who wins. For instance, in Philip Dru: Administrator, Edward M. House, who wrote that he was working for "Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx, and later founded the Marxist Council on Foreign Relations, explained the technique.

House wrote that the "conspiracy" – the word is his – would seize control of both parties at the primary level, where it would nominate its own men. The candidates could then fight it out, which ensured that the most vicious, the most psychopathic of the parties and candidates would win.

Carroll Quigley said almost the same thing in Tragedy and Hope, the book its own publisher suppressed when patriots discovered and bought it. Bill Drop Your Pants Clinton paid homage to Quigley in his inaugural address, but the media scum did not bother doing a sidebar to tell the sheep who he was.

The experts tell us that if you keep getting the same result when you do the same thing, but you keep doing it expecting to get something different – if you don’t change your behavior to conform to what cause and effect teach – then you are probably insane. Are you insane?

We fell for the con in the Eisenhower Administration. We were not insane yet. We just didn’t know any better. We fell for it with Nixon, who left our men behind in the Nam and committed other crimes, with Ford, who made a career out of being a nonentity and with Reagan, who merged our schools with the "Evil Empire’s." But today?

Today, after George Bush I, of the C.F.R. and its foreign ministry, the Trilateral Commission, who in speech after speech has lauded what he calls "the new world order?" Today, after George II, who has done all the things we mentioned at the top of this piece and many more? No. After a while, however dumb he is, a man will realize – if he is sane – that a kick in the head is reality knocking at the door.

But despite all this maybe Bush really is the "lesser of two evils." If so, wouldn’t we sink slower with him on the bridge than with Lieutenant Kerry? Wouldn’t we at least get more time? I’m glad you asked. Which one of these candidates is really the "lesser of two evils?"

Notice that with every one of the Republicans we have mentioned in office, the conspiracy for world government has gotten away with things it would not dare attempt with the Democrats. The media scum the conspirators employ have created an utterly phony Republican reputation for patriotism and probity, with the result that when a Republican is elected, the patriots celebrate and go fishing.

The patriots know what the Democrats are, know that with a Democrat in the White House there are more Hollyweird pukes, bigger scandals, more interns on their knees inhaling cigars, more outright Communist traitors like Hanoi John Kerry (D.-Vietnam), so, when the Democrats are in office, patriots put away the fishing poles and oppose all these things.

They don’t know, because the Communist media don’t tell them, that while Kerry is a Communist traitor, Bush is a world government traitor, on the same treason team. The left Communist media – the Communist Broadcasting System, the Communist News Network, etc. – keep the people enthralled by demeaning Republicans and partying with Hollyweird pukes.

The right Communist media – Hannity, Limbaugh (talent on loan from the Republicon National Committee), etc. – talk up the Republicons and explain away their socialist peccadilloes. It is truly embarrassing to hear Limbaugh, who has been completely compromised by (prescription) drugs and money, twist himself into a pretzel to excuse the latest Republican Communist gaffe. It is like watching a man humiliate himself in public.

Again, the idea is to keep patriots pacified until the time is right to exterminate them, the time at which the velvet gloves will come off. Now ask yourself whether Gore could have gotten away with what George II has done. Could Gore have convinced the Congress – controlled by Republicans – to spend as much as Bush has?

Would a Republican Congress have allowed Gore to perpetrate the present invasion of our country via Mexico, an invasion that constitutes the population replacement the Communist UN says is genocide? Would a Republican Congress have allowed Gore to appoint even more known sodomites to top jobs than Clinton did?

We are told that when all is said and done, we must vote for Bush because of the judges, but regular readers will recall that Bush typically caved on the judges in a smelly deal with the Democrats. On and on it goes. Aside from superficial, cosmetic changes, we are worse off in many respects with Bush than we would have been with Gore, and certainly no better off.

Indeed, compare Bush to Clinton. Who spent more? Who gave us more war? Yes, Clinton is a traitor, but hasn’t Bush continued and expanded his treason? Hillaroid could not impose her Fascist "health" scheme. Bush did it for her. The big difference is that, as far as we know, Bush does not rape women in hotel rooms, or drop his pants and ask for sex.

So, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that Communist traitor Kerry is the "lesser of two evils." I am not – not – not suggesting you vote for him. I am reassuring you that if you elect to vote for someone other than Bush and Kerry, you don’t need to worry that you are "throwing away" your vote and that something bad will happen. Something bad will happen whatever you do.

In the old days, people got into the Republican Party to "change things." I have done so myself. Republican leaders put them to work walking precincts, making telephone calls and raising money. When they tried to change things, the Republican leaders stuck knives in their backs. Republican world government traitors have been doing this for 50 years.

In 1952, those traitors sabotaged Senator Robert Taft, and gave us Soviet front man Dwight Eisenhower. It was the Republican Party that defeated Barry Goldwater. Ronald Reagan stabbed conservative Republicans in the back when he chose George I as running mate. The Republican Party gives Dr. Ron Paul of Texas no support. Bush political commissar Karl Rove has been searching for a way to defeat Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo. How many times must you be hit in the head?

Again, the purpose of the scam is to keep you docile until it is too late to protest, until you no longer can do so. The "war on terror" and the "Patriot Acts" tell us that too late could come soon. The Republicans themselves began as a third party. A big vote now for a third party – deserting the Republicans – would send the message that the sheep have broken out of the corral, that the fifty-year-old scam is over.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bikemanb
Member Avatar
Liberal Conservative
Many grains of truth mixed in with the screed.
Bill, Rita and Chloe the Terror Cat

For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise.

Benjamin Franklin
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Colo_Crawdad
Member Avatar
Lowell
I'll have to admit that with all the overt name calling and inflammatory use of language, it was very difficult to finish reading the article. It was just a bit too offensive for my taste. Consequently, I find it hard to identify any "grains of truth" intermingled with the propaganda.
"WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US." --- Pogo
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
You missed the sarcasm of that? That is largely the point, Lowell. It is out of that offensive left-right, Rep-Dem factional friction that grains of truth emerge.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
couldn't have said it better myself :)

anyone ever read the Taylor Caldwell books?
((Captains and the Kings, Never Victorious, Never Defeated, Testimony of Two Men)
I was captivated by her some 30 years ago.

Also, this is a great book.
The Commanding Heights - The Battle for the World Economy
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/068...9505970-0075164

you can get this book in a video version that is very good.
Posted Image "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Colo_Crawdad
Member Avatar
Lowell
cmoehle
Aug 28 2004, 09:01 AM
You missed the sarcasm of that? That is largely the point, Lowell. It is out of that offensive left-right, Rep-Dem factional friction that grains of truth emerge.

Perhaps I did miss some sarcasm, but authors usually provide the use of quotation marks to so identify such sarcastic remarks. There was a paucity of such "hints" in that offensively worded screed. On rereading the article, I am still bothered and offended by much of the tone used. If it was meant to be a form of political satire, I think it was poorly done. That is the kindest thing I can say.
"WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US." --- Pogo
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
I don't disagree that it was offensive. The author did an interesting job juxtaposing the offensiveness of the Reps and the Dems. The better the satire the more difficult to discern. Perhaps the grains of truth I find reveal my overlooking additional sarcasm.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
olstuf
Bill
Chris, of course sarcasm in many respects, some truth is much of it but the sad thing in it is the end result, government as usual. The names change, the results are similar. Big money seems to rule whether it is your big money or mine, it still rules. My big fear is of the extreme radical religious faction that grows stonger each day. How long before we see a Taliban type government? As I have said before, I'm glad I'm old and probably will not see it in my lifetime but I'm afraid it is in our future.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Government as usual, growing ever bigger while we grow ever dependent, is likely true, and why I get angry with both sides Reps and Dems.

What we're seeing is big money ruling. Not the radical religious factions, who had their peak years ago--their anger is one of desparation now.

This all reminds me of something Jane posted a few days ago of Strieber's, which, thought the first two sentences are dated by a dozen years, I find reaches back to where I'm coming from: "The Democrats are the party of big government. The Republicans are the party of big business. Not much choice there, in my opinion, which is why I'm politically neutral. And, no, I'm neither a libertarian or a socialist. I have the misfortune to be a centrist--you remember that, it's what most of your parents and grandparents were. A centrist uses government and business to balance each other, and never loses sight of the goal of the American republic: a productive economic life in an atmosphere of freedom for the indivdual."
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sylley2000
Member Avatar
Sylvia, Grand Bend ON
What dark visions, so full of bleakness that it's hard to discern that there is hope!

Guess I'm the eternal optimist, because I know that despite hardship that life improves and that my grandchildren will go forward into waters as yet unchartered.

Sylvia
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
olstuf
Bill
Ordinarily an optomist but I see so much change in our future that restricts our civil liberties, our incentives to improve our life, and a life that appears to have no chance for retirement. Only the upper echelon of our society have any hope of enjoying the things our generation was able to do. I could go on how our area has changed along with much of rural America but it is depressing. Was it Mary, Queen of Scots, that when asked about the poor, said "Let them eat cake!" ? Todays leaders are out of touch just as she.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bikemanb
Member Avatar
Liberal Conservative
olstuf:

It was Marie Antoinette, Queen of France, who lost her head shortly thereafter, that said "Let them eat cake".

All our current crop of "national" leaders crack me up when they say they understand the average American. For starters the majority of the members of Congress Dem or Rep are lawyers, and many if not most (too lazy to Google it) are career politicans that have had minimal exposure to the real world.

Chris, has it nailed, both parties are the parties of the powerful; trying to convince us that they are the average citizens new best friend.
Bill, Rita and Chloe the Terror Cat

For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise.

Benjamin Franklin
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sylley2000
Member Avatar
Sylvia, Grand Bend ON
Not quite right, it was neither Marie Antoinette nor Mary Queen of Scots:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_m..._antoinette.htm

That link disputes that Marie Antoinette ever said, "Let them eat cake." According to it, that phrase was used long before her by Marie-Therese, the wife of Louis XIV. Louis XIV was the sun King if I'm not mistaken?

JackD would have more knowledge about the inaccuracy of the translation, but I have heard it falsely attributed to Marie Antoinette on many occasions.

Not that it amounts to a hill of beans to the subject of this thread! :D

Sylvia
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kate and Ed
Raleigh NC
I'm an independent voting for Bush. Why cant we get rid of the parties and start voting for the person and the issues. These conventions are passé too. Too much money and too many concerns. I could never understand how someone could vote a straight ticket. JMHO of course.

of Kate and Ed Posted Image

"Patriotism is easy to understand in America; it means looking out for yourself by looking out for your country."

Calvin Coolidge, 30th President of the US
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Kate, the problem as I see it is the conventions used to be about the parties picking a candidate, and that worked a whole lot better than the popularity contest the current primary system promotes.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply