The Presidential Reality Show is in full-swing! 

The dirty little secret that no one seems to be talking about is simply this:  out of the current crop of Presidential Reality Show Contestants....no matter who wins, YOU LOSE.

Try this for a minimum of 10 days:  shift your focus from the meaningless, daily reportings off who’s ahead and who’s behind.....and see it for what it is:  A GAME. 

I used to perform magic as a hobby several years ago and still enjoy it.  One thing I’ve learned is that you can do some pretty bold moves right under people’s noses if you can get them to look at a pretty assistant or a flash of flame for just a second.

Same thing here.  While most of America is focused on “who’s going to win” and “who said what during the debate”........the magician is doing some pretty sneaky stuff while you’re distracted with the Presidential Reality Show.

Check out a book called “The End of America:  Letter of Warning To A Young Patriot” by Naomi Wolf.  In fact, here’s a Youtube video that you might find enlightening.

Tony

TonyRush - 16 April 2008 02:55 PM

The Presidential Reality Show is in full-swing! 

The dirty little secret that no one seems to be talking about is simply this:  out of the current crop of Presidential Reality Show Contestants....no matter who wins, YOU LOSE.

Try this for a minimum of 10 days:  shift your focus from the meaningless, daily reportings off who’s ahead and who’s behind.....and see it for what it is:  A GAME. 

I used to perform magic as a hobby several years ago and still enjoy it.  One thing I’ve learned is that you can do some pretty bold moves right under people’s noses if you can get them to look at a pretty assistant or a flash of flame for just a second.

Same thing here.  While most of America is focused on “who’s going to win” and “who said what during the debate”........the magician is doing some pretty sneaky stuff while you’re distracted with the Presidential Reality Show.

Check out a book called “The End of America:  Letter of Warning To A Young Patriot” by Naomi Wolf.  In fact, here’s a Youtube video that you might find enlightening.

Tony

Wow, that gal is just plain wacky. She does have a vivid imagination and left unchallenged, her story is scary. Unfortunately, she tries to compare apples with oranges. I didn’t find it frightening, but rather a twisted tale of her imagination. She will no doubt sell a lot of books though, but her arguments make no sense at all.

Are there really people who will just read her books or watch her video without checking her facts? That video was enough to make me NOT waste my time or money on her book.

TonyRush - 16 April 2008 02:55 PM

The Presidential Reality Show is in full-swing! 

The dirty little secret that no one seems to be talking about is simply this:  out of the current crop of Presidential Reality Show Contestants....no matter who wins, YOU LOSE.

Try this for a minimum of 10 days:  shift your focus from the meaningless, daily reportings off who’s ahead and who’s behind.....and see it for what it is:  A GAME. 

I used to perform magic as a hobby several years ago and still enjoy it.  One thing I’ve learned is that you can do some pretty bold moves right under people’s noses if you can get them to look at a pretty assistant or a flash of flame for just a second.

Same thing here.  While most of America is focused on “who’s going to win” and “who said what during the debate”........the magician is doing some pretty sneaky stuff while you’re distracted with the Presidential Reality Show.

Check out a book called “The End of America:  Letter of Warning To A Young Patriot” by Naomi Wolf.  In fact, here’s a Youtube video that you might find enlightening.

Tony

Tony,

I’m no big fan of the current administration, but that video by her is not anywhere near hard evidence.

She clearly takes liberties with her examples of isolated incidents that have happened and mold them into her idea of the 10 things thats are happening now to mark the end of America.

Also, it’s fairly clear at the end when she wraps it up with a “commercial” for the organization she’s involved with.

Look at the organizations associated with American Freedom Agenda, there several organizations in that list who are clearly not unbiased in their opinions of this adminstration.

Patrick

Perhaps it was a poor idea that you could grasp the scope of her findings in history by showing you a Youtube video.  But regardless of one’s perception of her or the video, it’s not arguable that she’s talking about FACTS.  Whether one agrees with how they fit into present-day America is a matter of personal perception.

For instance, it’s not arguable that Congress HAS passed a law that gives the American president to establish a new justice system in America.  It’s not arguable that the Executive Branch has the power to seize you on the street or from your home, blindfold you, take you to a cell, delay your trial by weeks or months and give you no due process.  Be clear on this.  This is not the author’s speculation; this law exists.

It’s not arguable that our government has bypassed the Constitution’s prohibition of “illegal searches” by now making it legal for law enforcement to come into your home without a warrant.  Or indeed without your knowledge.  It’s called a “sneak and peek”.  Look it up.

It’s not arguable that the U.S. has been using a private army for police action in America and abroad.  The largest one (called Blackwater, based in northeast North Carolina) has been hired by the U.S. to deploy more than 100,000 private “soldiers” in Iraq.  Blackwater also earned about $240,000 per DAY by sending soldiers to New Orleans during Katrina. 

Despite the fact that there have been allegations of shootings, assaults and even murder, they have ZERO accountability to the U.S. public.  Blackwater’s lawyers argue that their soldiers cannot be held accountable to the Pentagon’s standards for military conduct because their soldiers are civilians.  But they can’t be sued in a civil court, either, because they’re acting as part of the U.S. military.

None of this is arguable.  It is a fact.  And there are a lot more of those FACTS that no one (particularly those who are in love with Bush) want to talk about. 

In my opinion, these are the real issues.  Not what Obama said in some flowery speech written by a professional writer.  What you hear in a candidate’s speech....what you hear as an answer in a debate....all of it is the show business.  Until someone is willing to address the real issues......well, I stand by my original comment:  it’s a GAME.  It’s a JOKE.  And no matter who wins the election, we LOSE.

Tony Rush

TonyRush - 20 April 2008 10:17 AM

Perhaps it was a poor idea that you could grasp the scope of her findings in history by showing you a Youtube video.  But regardless of one’s perception of her or the video, it’s not arguable that she’s talking about FACTS.  Whether one agrees with how they fit into present-day America is a matter of personal perception.

For instance, it’s not arguable that Congress HAS passed a law that gives the American president to establish a new justice system in America.  It’s not arguable that the Executive Branch has the power to seize you on the street or from your home, blindfold you, take you to a cell, delay your trial by weeks or months and give you no due process.  Be clear on this.  This is not the author’s speculation; this law exists.

It’s not arguable that our government has bypassed the Constitution’s prohibition of “illegal searches” by now making it legal for law enforcement to come into your home without a warrant.  Or indeed without your knowledge.  It’s called a “sneak and peek”.  Look it up.

It’s not arguable that the U.S. has been using a private army for police action in America and abroad.  The largest one (called Blackwater, based in northeast North Carolina) has been hired by the U.S. to deploy more than 100,000 private “soldiers” in Iraq.  Blackwater also earned about $240,000 per DAY by sending soldiers to New Orleans during Katrina. 

Despite the fact that there have been allegations of shootings, assaults and even murder, they have ZERO accountability to the U.S. public.  Blackwater’s lawyers argue that their soldiers cannot be held accountable to the Pentagon’s standards for military conduct because their soldiers are civilians.  But they can’t be sued in a civil court, either, because they’re acting as part of the U.S. military.

None of this is arguable.  It is a fact.  And there are a lot more of those FACTS that no one (particularly those who are in love with Bush) want to talk about. 

In my opinion, these are the real issues.  Not what Obama said in some flowery speech written by a professional writer.  What you hear in a candidate’s speech....what you hear as an answer in a debate....all of it is the show business.  Until someone is willing to address the real issues......well, I stand by my original comment:  it’s a GAME.  It’s a JOKE.  And no matter who wins the election, we LOSE.

Tony Rush

Tony, it is clear that you have done what you accused so many of us of doing at church. You have drank this Kool-Aid. Not sure where you are getting your “facts”.

I’m not real sure what you are wanting in our elections, but our founding fathers were pretty smart people, not to mention God led, and they have put plenty of safeguards in our Constitution to keep these things that she is fear mongering from happening. We are not the perfect government, but certainly the best one going. The only way we LOSE is if we don’t participate and VOTE, not just in Presidential elections, but in ALL of the elections.

On the contrary, Deon, I arrived at my perspective through careful observation and actually paying attention to the “news under the news”.  But, you bring up a good point:  I suspect most people on this forum arrive at their political opinions the same way they arrive at their theological beliefs:  they just believe whatever they see on TV.

My best advice for you is to go do the research for yourself.  See if any of the facts in my previous post are incorrect.  Take your time.  Arrive at your own decision.  Don’t make the knee-jerk reaction of disagreeing with me just because it doesn’t fit the political world-view you’ve already adopted.

I’m not real sure what you are wanting in our elections, but our founding fathers were pretty smart people, not to mention God led, and they have put plenty of safeguards in our Constitution to keep these things that she is fear mongering from happening.

LOL—they’re ALREADY happening, Deon.  What part of that do you not understand? 

We are not the perfect government, but certainly the best one going.

Wow...that sure sets the expectations fairly low, doesn’t it?  You might as well put it this way:  America has the worst government model in existence except all the rest.  It would be as accurate as how you describe it.

The only way we LOSE is if we don’t participate and VOTE, not just in Presidential elections, but in ALL of the elections.

ROFL—oh, my, you really DO have a problem with your logic here.  Let me offer you a metaphor.

A man goes to a restaurant and have two choices for lunch:  rotten chicken or rotten fish. 

You are basically saying that—as long as he shows up and actually picks one—then he’s going to be okay.
MY point should be obvious:  no matter which one you pick, you’re going to get sick.

The parallel should be self-explanatory.  At least to anyone who’s not stuck in their preconceived notions about how wonderful our election process is.

Tony

TonyRush - 21 April 2008 10:44 AM

On the contrary, Deon, I arrived at my perspective through careful observation and actually paying attention to the “news under the news”.  But, you bring up a good point:  I suspect most people on this forum arrive at their political opinions the same way they arrive at their theological beliefs:  they just believe whatever they see on TV.

My best advice for you is to go do the research for yourself.  See if any of the facts in my previous post are incorrect.  Take your time.  Arrive at your own decision.  Don’t make the knee-jerk reaction of disagreeing with me just because it doesn’t fit the political world-view you’ve already adopted.

I’m not real sure what you are wanting in our elections, but our founding fathers were pretty smart people, not to mention God led, and they have put plenty of safeguards in our Constitution to keep these things that she is fear mongering from happening.

LOL—they’re ALREADY happening, Deon.  What part of that do you not understand? 

We are not the perfect government, but certainly the best one going.

Wow...that sure sets the expectations fairly low, doesn’t it?  You might as well put it this way:  America has the worst government model in existence except all the rest.  It would be as accurate as how you describe it.

The only way we LOSE is if we don’t participate and VOTE, not just in Presidential elections, but in ALL of the elections.

ROFL—oh, my, you really DO have a problem with your logic here.  Let me offer you a metaphor.

A man goes to a restaurant and have two choices for lunch:  rotten chicken or rotten fish. 

You are basically saying that—as long as he shows up and actually picks one—then he’s going to be okay.
MY point should be obvious:  no matter which one you pick, you’re going to get sick.

The parallel should be self-explanatory.  At least to anyone who’s not stuck in their preconceived notions about how wonderful our election process is.

Tony

Tony, what aggravates me most with your posts lately is that you assume that everyone on here are mind-numb robots who just go in and vote any which way. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Most of the “news under the news” is very skewed and has lots of spin on it.
Just like the video you suggested, it has a little truth in it, but twisted to make her story the way she wants it.

You missed my point altogether. People get involved and have information from getting involved in politics at all levels, not just the national level. When people are aware of who their local government officials are and follow the information on up the ladder, they are much more informed than just listening to the news or the “news under the news”.

I find it very interesting when people can only find the negative to emphasize about our government. The problem with your analogy is that only gives two negative plights to choice from, and that’s not where we are. It’s sort of like asking the question Do you beat your wife once or twice a week? The answer is neither, I don’t beat my wife, but the question assumes I do. Same with your analogy, the choices are wrong, it’s not just bad fish or bad chicken, our choices are much better than that.

As much as I almost never agree with Deon on politics he has some good points:

1.  It may already be happening; however, as I tried to say before, none of what she talked about is at a level as not to be isolated incidents.

2.  Laws are not concrete things, every law is arguable, and that’s why we have an Executive, Legislative and Judicial branch.  Any law can be argued whether or not it has sufficient legality.  Parts of the Patriot act have been overturned.

3.  You do have a tendency to think you’re the only informed opinion on this board.  I read news from probably as many sources as you do and I have a good grasp on what’s going on.

4.  As far as your views on the Election process, perhaps you could show me a better process that would work for us.

Deon Unthank - 21 April 2008 11:15 AM

Tony, what aggravates me most with your posts lately is that you assume that everyone on here are mind-numb robots who just go in and vote any which way. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Deon, I would suggest you go back and view the context that caused me to post in the Politics section in the first place:  it was in the thread about “Obama hitting it right on the head” in which it was implied that because he had a feel-good speech, that he was a good candidate.

Obviously that’s absurd.  But, many many Americans apparently believe what they hear in campaign speeches.  And so my comments were derivative of THAT conversation.

The problem with your analogy is that only gives two negative plights to choice from, and that’s not where we are.

Really?  Because that’s all I see from my perspective.  Which is why I’m seriously considering not “showing up for lunch” at all. 

It’s sort of like asking the question Do you beat your wife once or twice a week? The answer is neither, I don’t beat my wife, but the question assumes I do. Same with your analogy, the choices are wrong, it’s not just bad fish or bad chicken, our choices are much better than that.

Again, if that’s your opinion, I applaud your right to think so.  I just don’t see anyone in this race that doesn’t fit my analogy about rotten chicken or rotten fish.

Of course, that’s my opinion.  And that’s what this discussion forum is for.  You don’t have to agree. 

Tony

TonyRush - 21 April 2008 12:44 PM

Obviously that’s absurd.  But, many many Americans apparently believe what they hear in campaign speeches.  And so my comments were derivative of THAT conversation.



Tony

It’s just that psychological factors play a bigger role in winning elections than actual issues. Ronald Reagan was the master of that...he made us feel good about going from a creditor to a debtor nation. He made us feel that selling arms to a terrorist nation in order to get hostages released was somehow patriotic.

Obama is pretty good at that, too, and although I wish campaigns were more issue focused, I am glad Obama can play the feel good game because it is what wins elections, and I do want him to win since at the end of the day I want him to win.

Big Fred - 22 April 2008 07:51 AM

TonyRush - 21 April 2008 12:44 PM

Obviously that’s absurd.  But, many many Americans apparently believe what they hear in campaign speeches.  And so my comments were derivative of THAT conversation.



Tony

It’s just that psychological factors play a bigger role in winning elections than actual issues. Ronald Reagan was the master of that...he made us feel good about going from a creditor to a debtor nation. He made us feel that selling arms to a terrorist nation in order to get hostages released was somehow patriotic.

Obama is pretty good at that, too, and although I wish campaigns were more issue focused, I am glad Obama can play the feel good game because it is what wins elections, and I do want him to win since at the end of the day I want him to win.

You things are bad now, wait until Obama gets in.

You won’t like what you are wanting, I guarantee.

Obama will never match how good Reagan was as president, not on Obama’s best day.

I agree that we have a poor choice of candidates to choose from.  I will get a little further out in left field than Tony. 

I believe since the assassination of JFK, the office of president has been like the Queen of England - mostly ceremonial.  The President doesn’t decide major issues.  He is a puppet at best.  Some are more liked than others, but all are party puppets. 

The people are no longer in charge.  The CIA, organized crime, and a few foreign banks control all major moves made by the US.

PatrickH - 22 April 2008 04:15 PM

Big Fred - 22 April 2008 07:51 AM

TonyRush - 21 April 2008 12:44 PM

Obviously that’s absurd.  But, many many Americans apparently believe what they hear in campaign speeches.  And so my comments were derivative of THAT conversation.



Tony

It’s just that psychological factors play a bigger role in winning elections than actual issues. Ronald Reagan was the master of that...he made us feel good about going from a creditor to a debtor nation. He made us feel that selling arms to a terrorist nation in order to get hostages released was somehow patriotic.

Obama is pretty good at that, too, and although I wish campaigns were more issue focused, I am glad Obama can play the feel good game because it is what wins elections, and I do want him to win since at the end of the day I want him to win.

You things are bad now, wait until Obama gets in.

You won’t like what you are wanting, I guarantee.

Obama will never match how good Reagan was as president, not on Obama’s best day.

Regan was not a good president. He had one good thing going for him. He built the military back into a world force. Other than that, he has to rank in the bottom third of all the presidents.

No. We do not have a world class candidate.

John R - 29 April 2008 09:39 AM

Regan was not a good president. He had one good thing going for him. He built the military back into a world force. Other than that, he has to rank in the bottom third of all the presidents.

John, every inch of this Republican body disagrees with that statement. 

Deon Unthank - 29 April 2008 09:50 AM

John R - 29 April 2008 09:39 AM

Regan was not a good president. He had one good thing going for him. He built the military back into a world force. Other than that, he has to rank in the bottom third of all the presidents.

John, every inch of this Republican body disagrees with that statement. 

Plus:
Military strength

Negative:
National debt
Opposition to all organized labor
Trickle up economy with all the hype that did little or nothing for the middle class

John R - 29 April 2008 12:14 PM

Deon Unthank - 29 April 2008 09:50 AM

John R - 29 April 2008 09:39 AM

Regan was not a good president. He had one good thing going for him. He built the military back into a world force. Other than that, he has to rank in the bottom third of all the presidents.

John, every inch of this Republican body disagrees with that statement. 

Plus:
Military strength

Negative:
National debt
Opposition to all organized labor
Trickle up economy with all the hype that did little or nothing for the middle class

Well, now it’s not quite that simple.

When our Liberal friends get in office, the first thing they do is cut the military.
They then proceed in their normal duties over spending and spend the military money that was in the budget. So, when the Conservative gets back in office and builds the military again, the money for the military has been spent, so he must add to to the budget again, which produces what????? Debt! Now add to that the liberal congress who just loves to spend money and wah-lah you have national debt.

As to his opposition to organized labor, well, I’m not sure I disagree with him.
Organized labor outlived it’s usefulness many years ago.

As to the trickle down economics, I think we see it from two different perspectives, because I see that it did help the middle class.
Don’t forget that Reagan was stuck with democrat congresses for both his terms. That meant lots of spending and lots of pork.