"It's over, we won."

[conamer]

And you know what the really tragic part of it is? At each and every step, those who understand the strategy and tactics, those who see what is going on - as it is happening, who raise their voices to let others know - are met with scorn and ridicule.

"Logical" arguments easily refute those pointing out what's going on -
.
"A little corn doesn't a prison make. Good grief...it's just corn!" "Where's your evidence of this supposed plot?"
.
.
"One piece of fence does not a prison make." "What is so bad about a little free food?" "You capitalists are all alike - only worried about your profits."
.
.
"Two pieces of fence does not a prison make." "Why do you oppose healthy food?" "Do you not want people to eat healthy?"
.
.
"Three pieces of fence does not a prison make." "Children are going to school hungry; is that what you want?"
.
.
"Four pieces of fence does not a prison make. They don't even meet; where's the gate... hmmm? No gate? Just as we thought." "Where is your compassion for the millions who are going hungry?"
.
.
"Having a door doesn't a prison make. The door isn't even locked. We can come and go as we please." "Are you really that callous about humans starving?"
.
.
"There's nothing nefarious about the lock on the gate." "Would you have raiders entering the gate to come and take what little remaining food we have when food is already in such short supply?" "Why do you hate the helpless?"
.
.
"I trust the government, why don't you?" "What have you done to feed the poor, the starving all these years?" "You just take and take and take, don't you; never sharing your wealth with anyone. There you stand, on the opposite of this fence - gloating over our misfortune. If you weren't so greedy and would share with us, we wouldn't be in such dire need. This is all your fault."
.
.
"You're greedy, uncaring, and just plain evil." "There ought to be a law against the likes of you."

QTF.

 

[conamer]

That is the sum of your take-away from that post?

< sigh > Here's a thought: maybe your confusion has to do with the phrase "while it may hurt..." You see, the use of the word "may" connotes in our language something we call a "conditional" - which would be the opposite of a definite, or certainty. We might draw an analogy from the use of the word "intentional" later in that same sentence with its antonym, "involuntary."

Look, I apologize for that, but I thought I was pretty clear making the distinction between the secular greetings in question and their intentional use by individuals with a bone to pick with the religious one. Twice did I assert my belief that Christians shouldn't be offended with that; I opened with it, and I closed with it - ironically in the only portion of my post you thought worthy of addressing.

And what did you pass over, considering totally inconsequential compared to the need to chide me - and that for something I didn't even really say? It starts in the 5th paragraph above. And for what it's worth - that's the only thing that's really important this season.

Well, despite our frequent philosophical disagreements, I mean this when I say that I wish you and yours a very Merry Christmas. Sincerely, EW

Because being conservative is more offensive than any reasoned statement. It's not what you said but who said it.

 

[A2SG]

Read the laws past in your country - even if it 1900 pages long. Watch C-SPAN while the media is distracting people with silly race, economic or political claptrap (like now.) Then, you can see in real time how that distraction is used to pass laws unbeknownst to the layperson.

Such as? What laws are you referring to? And how, exactly, does the media create these "silly race, economic or political claptrap" controversies to cover up the actions of lawmakers....are they in cahoots? What does the media get out of their part in the collusion?

Then, once you have done the reading (about 4,000 pages since 2002,) you won't need conspiracy theorist input; you will see it in the actual laws.

All laws are part of the public record, so nothing is being hidden. But I'm still wondering what laws are these manufactured controversies being created as cover for? What's the goal, exactly?

Why do you think entities are doing things that are clearly unlawful, but never get charged (or get a pat on the back side?) Because it is legal.

Sounds like general run of the mill corruption to me, it doesn't smack of some vast, cunning machiavellian plot. Unless you can demonstrate how it is that.

Read your laws in detail, or you will be a participant in what the "crazies" say is coming by ignorance.

Again, what specific laws are you referring to?

#You don't have a flag, but I assume you are in the States by your location. So, I am referring to US bills passed.#

Your assumption is correct.

And which specific bills passed are you referring to? And why is the media playing along?

-- A2SG, let's not forget, the "media" is not a single entity, but a bunch of different ones, all in competition with each other....so assuming they work in concert in the way you describe is highly unlikely.....

 

[CryOfALion]

Such as? What laws are you referring to? And how, exactly, does the media create these "silly race, economic or political claptrap" controversies to cover up the actions of lawmakers....are they in cahoots? What does the media get out of their part in the collusion?

Read them ALL. That is why I said read all 4000+ pages since 2002.

And, you realize two businessmenown about 98% of the "news" media - just two.

Churchill said never let a good crisis go to waste.

All it takes is a buzz to production, and what the boss wants shown will get shown - nothing more.

All laws are part of the public record, so nothing is being hidden. But I'm still wondering what laws are these manufactured controversies being created as cover for? What's the goal, exactly?

All laws are public record, but many people don't even know where to start because the description, passing and details of the bill is not advertised publicly.

I will give you a hint: one of the laws amended and renewed, while everyone was watching Sony and North Korea was a cyber protection act that reads similar to net neutrality.

It isn't a matter of controversy being manufactured; that is a given. And, it isn't "conspiracy." Controversy is manufactured every day by average people - noteworthy of news.

It is about the control and diversion of attention to certain emotional, social, political and racial events in order to distract.

Sounds like general run of the mill corruption to me, it doesn't smack of some vast, cunning machiavellian plot. Unless you can demonstrate how it is that.

Well that is unfortunate; it sounds like you accept it, and have no desire to dampen such corruption. It used to be illegal, but with amendments and laws comes new leverages for criminality. This is why you need to read your laws. That is where you will see.

All of them beginning in 2002; it is on the Senate archives.

Again, what specific laws are you referring to?

All of them since 2002.

Your assumption is correct.

And which specific bills passed are you referring to? And why is the media playing along?

-- A2SG, let's not forget, the "media" is not a single entity, but a bunch of different ones, all in competition with each other....so assuming they work in concert in the way you describe is highly unlikely.....

ALL laws since 2002.

The Media plays a long because Rupert Murdoch and/Ted Turner writes their checks.

The media is like Pepsi and Coke: sure they are two different brands, but they came from two brothers who broke away and founded their own brand - essentially monopolizing the soda industry under the guise of "competition, and diversity in product." Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch own "the media." Murdoch owns Fox, NY Post, and Wall Street Journal. Turner owns...everything else (CNN, TBS, TNT, etc.)

Don't assume anything until you READ EVERY BILL PASSED SINCE 2002. That is a mere start. You need to know the laws in your own country.

One day very soon, what you think is right, and agreeable will not matter, because the law says something differently. People always say, "well, I don't have anything to hide" in retort to the topic at hand, but you do not decide what is right. The law does.

You need to read your laws passed in your country since 2002 - all 4000+ pages - if 6th really do want to figure out why crazies are saying the things they say. Otherwise, if it is too much, or beneath you don't bother.

 

[Ringo84]

The only story here is the gigantic sense of entitlement that some American Christians have over the celebration of their religious holiday.
Ringo

 

[A2SG]

Read them ALL. That is why I said read all 4000+ pages since 2002.

Only since 2002? This vast, machiavellian conspiracy only goes back 12 years?

But could you perhaps narrow it down just a little, give me a single specific example of a law that the media, in collusion with lawmakers, has created false controversies to cover up? Just one?

And, you realize two businessmenown about 98% of the "news" media - just two.

Really? I heard there were 6 corporations who own 90% of the media:

Churchill said never let a good crisis go to waste.

When?

I've heard it attributed to him, more often to Rahm Emanuel, but I can't find a single cite for Churchill actually having said or wrote it.

All it takes is a buzz to production, and what the boss wants shown will get shown - nothing more.

Um, I've worked in the media, and my wife is a managing editor for a chain of newspapers.

It isn't that simple.

Very few publishers oversee the day-to-day news production, let alone decide personally what gets printed and what doesn't.

All laws are public record, but many people don't even know where to start because the description, passing and details of the bill is not advertised publicly.

We live in the Era of Google. All it takes is a few keystrokes. You don't have to go to the hall of records or even the library anymore (and I've done that myself, many a time.)

I will give you a hint: one of the laws amended and renewed, while everyone was watching Sony and North Korea was a cyber protection act that reads similar to net neutrality.

Oh please, don't hint. Cite. Be specific! Where and when was this law passed and by whom? What does it say, specifically?

It isn't a matter of controversy being manufactured; that is a given. And, it isn't "conspiracy."

Well, that was the accusation. Remember the anecdote about the college student who trapped wild pigs?

Controversy is manufactured every day by average people - noteworthy of news.

So they're all in on it????

Man, this is one vast conspiracy already!

It is about the control and diversion of attention to certain emotional, social, political and racial events in order to distract.

To what end? What's the goal, and who benefits from it?

Well that is unfortunate; it sounds like you accept it, and have no desire to dampen such corruption.

Well now, I wouldn't say that. But corruption isn't the same thing as a vast, machiavellian conspiracy as has been alluded to in this thread. Corruption is usually far more short-sighted. Personal greed rather than machiavellian plotting.

It used to be illegal, but with amendments and laws comes new leverages for criminality. This is why you need to read your laws. That is where you will see.

Such as? Good god man, this isn't a time for being vague! Specifics, please!

All of them beginning in 2002; it is on the Senate archives.

All of them since 2002.

ALL laws since 2002.

What happened in 2002 to incite this vast collusion?

The Media plays a long because Rupert Murdoch and/Ted Turner writes their checks.

Uh, that's not how it works, my friend.

But, just so you know, Ted Turner no longer owns CNN. It was sold to Time Warner, and Turner hasn't been there since he resigned from the Board of Directors in 2006.

And Murdoch does not own all of the media.

The media is like Pepsi and Coke: sure they are two different brands, but they came from two brothers who broke away and founded their own brand - essentially monopolizing the soda industry under the guise of "competition, and diversity in product." Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch own "the media." Murdoch owns Fox, NY Post, and Wall Street Journal. Turner owns...everything else (CNN, TBS, TNT, etc.)

Nope. See above. You've left out a ton of media outlets.

Don't assume anything until you READ EVERY BILL PASSED SINCE 2002. That is a mere start. You need to know the laws in your own country.

I'm assuming you've done that, since you keep saying how all these laws are linked together...somehow. Care to explain exactly how?

And please, don't spare the specifics!

One day very soon, what you think is right, and agreeable will not matter, because the law says something differently. People always say, "well, I don't have anything to hide" in retort to the topic at hand, but you do not decide what is right. The law does.

Without specifics, it's hard to see statements like that as hyperbole at best, paranoia at worst.

Now, provide the specifics that back up what you're saying, and we can judge how accurate your accusations truly are.

You need to read your laws passed in your country since 2002 - all 4000+ pages - if 6th really do want to figure out why crazies are saying the things they say. Otherwise, if it is too much, or beneath you don't bother.

Your accusations are too vague. BE SPECIFIC!

-- A2SG, as a rule, I know people are too disorganized and too filled with private, personal agendas to carry out such vast, cunning machiavellian conspiracies....but if you have specific information to prove your case, by all means, don't keep it to yourself!

 

[CryOfALion]

Believe and do what you want. I was just answering questions you had. It isn't any skin off of my teeth if you find it ridiculous, or as I said before, if it is beneath you.

 

[A2SG]

Believe and do what you want. I was just answering questions you had. It isn't any skin off of my teeth if you find it ridiculous, or as I said before, if it is beneath you.

You're not answering questions at all, you're offering vague accusations with no specific evidence, just claiming it's contained within every single law passed in the past twelve years!

Until you start offering specifics, something that can be documented and proven, it's impossible to judge your comments as anything more than paranoia.

-- A2SG, so provide it already, and we can see if you're on to something real.....

 

[CryOfALion]

You're not answering questions at all, you're offering vague accusations with no specific evidence, just claiming it's contained within every single law passed in the past twelve years!

Until you start offering specifics, something that can be documented and proven, it's impossible to judge your comments as anything more than paranoia.

-- A2SG, so provide it already, and we can see if you're on to something real.....

I dont give out information for free, especially to a potentially incredulous lot. And, especially when it is readily available in archives, libraries, magazines, and the general internet. I have spent a long time, and dodged a lot of bullets to know what I know - but most of it it is either declassified or available now. So, excuse my vagueness, but spoon-feeding is not my philosophy. That is what you want. Otherwise, you would have straight away gone to the congress archives since 2002 and at least skimmed the laws. As I said, if you don't like it, or you are above the vagueness then no problem. It's over, we won

The tone of incredulity is when I stop, because it will never end well intellectually if the party(ies) think I am a nut, now will it?

So, I am doing both of us a favor, and dropping it. It was my own fault for trying to say anything on the forum. I know how it turns out when discussing Christ with other Christians, let alone government conspiracies and corruption.

Good luck finding what you are looking for.

 

[A2SG]

I dont give out information for free, especially to a potentially incredulous lot.

No information for free, only vague, unsupported accusations impossible to prove? Such a deal!

And, especially when it is readily available in archives, libraries, magazines, and the general internet.

Even Google expects you to ask for something first.

I have spent a long time, and dodged a lot of bullets to know what I know - but most of it it is either declassified or available now. So, excuse my vagueness, but spoon-feeding is not my philosophy. That is what you want. Otherwise, you would have straight away gone to the congress archives since 2002 and at least skimmed the laws. As I said, if you don't like it, or you are above the vagueness then no problem. It's over, we won

You do know how that sounds, right?

Man, you're sounding less like a Bond villain than a Batman villain. And not even the Riddler, he at least gave clues!

The tone of incredulity is when I stop, because it will never end well intellectually if the party(ies) think I am a nut, now will it?

Well, let me put it this way. You offered one specific piece of information, that two individuals control 98% of the media.

That was incorrect.

The usual response to a lack of credibility is incredulity, wouldn't you say?

So, I am doing both of us a favor, and dropping it. It was my own fault for trying to say anything on the forum. I know how it turns out when discussing Christ with other Christians, let alone government conspiracies and corruption.

Good luck finding what you are looking for.

I was looking for specifics from you regarding your accusations.

I already pretty much knew what I was going to get when I asked.

-- A2SG, but thanks for the favor!

 

[CryOfALion]

No information for free, only vague, unsupported accusations impossible to prove? Such a deal!



Even Google expects you to ask for something first.



You do know how that sounds, right?

Man, you're sounding less like a Bond villain than a Batman villain. And not even the Riddler, he at least gave clues!



Well, let me put it this way. You offered one specific piece of information, that two individuals control 98% of the media.

That was incorrect.

The usual response to a lack of credibility is incredulity, wouldn't you say?



I was looking for specifics from you regarding your accusations.

I already pretty much knew what I was going to get when I asked.

-- A2SG, but thanks for the favor!

This is why I am glad I didn't go any further with you.

And, don't insult me, then thank me when I didn't do anything for you - except vagueness. I know you are incredulous, but at least don't be entirely disingenuous. That is an insult to both of our intellect. Unless, of course that was your point.

I hope you find what you are looking for... from someone else or your own self - whomever you believe more. Seriously.

 

[A2SG]

This is why I am glad I didn't go any further with you.

And, don't insult me, then thank me when I didn't do anything for you - except vagueness.

I didn't insult you. I did say you were incorrect about the only specific information you provided because you were. Sorry if that was taken as an insult, it wasn't intended that way.

As to thanking you, well, you did say you were doing me a favor. I usually thank those who do me a favor.

I strive to not be insulting, but I'm not above sarcasm, I admit.

I know you are incredulous, but at least don't be entirely disingenuous. That is an insult to both of our intellect. Unless, of course that was your point.

How was I disingenuous? I stated my incredulity up front, when mention was first made about this vast, machiavellian conspiracy some alluded to. So far, nothing has been said to dispel my incredulity, not by you or anyone who proposed such fancy.

I hope you find what you are looking for... from someone else or your own self - whomever you believe more. Seriously.

I believe facts and specifics. I remain doubtful of vague accusations without any supporting evidence whatsoever. Especially when compounded by incorrect information.

As to any vast conspiracy theory, I subscribe to Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

-- A2SG, or base corruption, and/or self interest.....

 

[CryOfALion]

Just got this in an email today:

A thought to remember, Marx said, "Remove one freedom per generation and soon you will have no freedom and no one would have noticed."
There was a chemistry professor in a large college that had some exchange students in the class.

One day while the class was in the lab, the professor noticed one young man, an exchange student, who kept rubbing his back and stretching as if his back hurt. The professor asked the young man what was the matter.

The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist regime. In the midst of his story, he looked at the professor and asked a strange question.

He asked: "Do you know how to catch wild pigs?"

The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said that it was no joke. "You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free food.

"When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence.

"They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side .
"The pigs, which are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat that free corn again. You then slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.
“Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity."

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening in America . The government keeps pushing us toward Communism/Socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tax exemptions, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare entitlements, medicine, drugs, etc., while we continually lose our freedoms, just a little at a time.

One should always remember two truths: There is no such thing as a free lunch, and you can never hire someone to provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.

Oh wow...

I actually agree with you/this Mach.

And you know what the really tragic part of it is? At each and every step, those who understand the strategy and tactics, those who see what is going on - as it is happening, who raise their voices to let others know - are met with scorn and ridicule.

"Logical" arguments easily refute those pointing out what's going on...

Exactly.

+1

 

[DaisyDay]

That is the sum of your take-away from that post?

No, that is the question I had from your post.

< sigh > Here's a thought: maybe your confusion has to do with the phrase "while it may hurt..." You see, the use of the word "may" connotes in our language something we call a "conditional" - which would be the opposite of a definite, or certainty. We might draw an analogy from the use of the word "intentional" later in that same sentence with its antonym, "involuntary."

No confusion on my part; I guess I should have asked "might" instead of "would" - why might you be hurt by that? It is so innocuous.

Look, I apologize for that, but I thought I was pretty clear making the distinction between the secular greetings in question and their intentional use by individuals with a bone to pick with the religious one. Twice did I assert my belief that Christians shouldn't be offended with that; I opened with it, and I closed with it - ironically in the only portion of my post you thought worthy of addressing.

I don't think it is secularists - or people of a different faith - who are picking the bone here and getting their noses out of joint by the "wrong" greeting.

And what did you pass over, considering totally inconsequential compared to the need to chide me - and that for something I didn't even really say? It starts in the 5th paragraph above. And for what it's worth - that's the only thing that's really important this season.

I didn't chide you - the question was actually sincere: why would or might anyone be "hurt" by the "wrong" greeting? You seemed to think that someone might.

Well, despite our frequent philosophical disagreements, I mean this when I say that I wish you and yours a very Merry Christmas. Sincerely, EW

Merry Christmas to you and yours as well!

Because being conservative is more offensive than any reasoned statement. It's not what you said but who said it.

That's weird...and wrong.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Indeed, there have only been some minor skirmishes this year. The anti-Christmas crowd has likely only gone into hiding to regroup for future battles. Time will tell. Congrats to O'Reilly for his efforts

As an authority in all things "War on Christmas," mach, would you classify this incident as "Friendly Fire"?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-at-a-menorah-lighting-ceremony-for-hanukkah/

 

[gnomon]

I was watching an interview with O'Reilly in which he declared victory in the War on Christmas, which made me think... wait, I haven't seen any posts about it this year.

Do people think it was "won", it's a non-issue, or what?

Bill O'Reilly is nothing more than a prime time entertainer. His "War on Christmas" shtick is nothing more than entertainment to garner views.

The fact that Christmas, as it actually is, a once banned practice by Christians against people celebrating an arbritrary date picked for Christ's birth by the "official Church" is lost upon many. The traditions surrounding Christmas are long standing traditions predating Christianity that the common folk carried over into their Christian traditions. The Church, in some instances, actually attempted to ban Christmas traditions. Such as the tree, gift giving, etc.

It's not that hard to understand given that early societies were agrarian societies that celebrated feast days among family that they survived with another harvest. The later spiritual traditions we regard as Christian were pasted over existing traditions by the people who adopted Christianity and were often opposed by "the Church" in order to impose a superficial form of piety among the people and obedience to the Church.

Yet the people were not to be denied. In America these harvest celebrations took hold and became our national holidays. They are ultimately secular in tradition transcending any one religious interpretation upon the season.

O'Reilly's attempts, as well as others, to pigeon hole Christmas as solely a religious tradition fails in the face of history and the practice of us common folk in our traditions.

I say Merry Christmas only because the word Christmas has become the popular usage in this long standing time of holiday observation. From Saturnalia to the Winter Solstice observances that culture has transplanted the term Christmas onto let us just say "Merry Christmas" and enjoy the time with our family that we survive another winter with a proper harvest. Though the original meaning is lost in that we shop at supermarkets for our food and our not, in our modern means, harvesting our own food and realizing the truth of surviving the winter but hey.....Merry Christmas.

And let us note that those of us who do not enjoy such modern means of food gathering and transport that there are many in the world who must survive the harvest seasons that lack our modern means. We are fortunate in the way we live now in our modern times and a humbling recognition of that fact this Christmas should put a damper on those who are vehemently declaring among the airwaves this misnomer of a "War on Christmas" because not everyone is hitting their knees in praise of a savior not born on that day.