Scare Tactics Do Work. Just Wait and SEE!!!!

Do scare tactics work? Well, they were used to put us in Iraq. Yellowcake in Africa? Cover your house with plastic and duct tape? Who was it that said that?

A few months back, wasn't it you who said we would see the NAU and the "Amero" by the end of that weekend?

 

I have probably read the same report. I printed it off the APFN net page
Jack McLamb, a former Sheriff or lawman had a attending audience where he was a speaker and credited a Professor of History, I will not name him because he spent time in prison for talking too much about how our government uses scare tatics and he also talked about how these people would be used to have the people demand help by our honorable government,Huh! to carry out this very plan. This professor has a good reputation and knows what he is talking about. He, of course has no job now.

 

And it will turn out to be another "French Revolution," They learn from History, but we dont!! We should all learn ablut how the French Revolution has been played out timt and time again.

 

Time for your chill pill! :laugh: No trash talk. That's why I asked 'WASN'T IT YOU', as I was not sure. No one is trying to put incriminating words in your mouth. You do just fine all by yourself!

 

Like I said, Paul...it was not my intention to rile you up. Maybe you get too easily riled. Ain't good for the old ticker, ya know.

 

Maybe you could say you were mistaken, for asking such a loaded question ? Aren't you one of the "let's play nice, now that we have a democrat in the W.H." posters ?

I gotta admit, it is a great way to derail a thread. Asking a loaded question, then making fun of the questionee.

 

The question was sincere. I seem to recall a thread where Paul predicted the NAU by the end of the weekend, but didn't want to go searching.

No, it has nothing to do with who is in the White House. I have been trying to effect a one-man campaign to raise the level of discourse in the politics forum since my return. I have also previously addressed the everlasting burr in your saddle over some of my comments vis-a-vis some radio talk show hosts, so I won't say more on that. If you can't get over it, so be it.

Moot point, as the question was a sincere one.

 

BTW, I found the original post, where Paul claimed to be a prophet. CLICK HERE.

My memory was faulty in one respect. Paul did say "a Monday" not "Monday". Hence, my question.

 

It's too bad about your reputation. It's hard to change that. Especially when you ask those kind of questions. And I really have no burr, I am simply observing the FACT that name calling was fine with you, until Obama got in. The timing is suspect. That's all. I find your new conscience dubious. Maybe enough time will go by where I am convinced, but a month into a new administration ain't near enough.

 

Not trying to convince you of anything, nor do I really care what you think about me. My reputation is just fine, thanks. And again, I don't recall ever playing the childish name game with Mr. Bush. I have criticized him, and spoken my peace. But to the best of my recollection, I never did such with him either. If I am mistaken, I am sure someone will repost my comments. :laugh:

Bear in mind, I have already told you that some names I used for some media talking heads could have been more maturely phrased. Yet, there is one level for those who regularly use such tactics on the air, and another when it comes to respecting the office of our leaders. Indeed, even Mitch's love of my quote re: "Darth" Cheney was done in jest, as the nickname was stuck to him by others over his demeanor. I was not implying the former Veep was Darth Vader. I do think his conduct over no-bid contracts to which he could benefit was ill-advised and possibly criminal. Again, that is not personal, just political. In other words, I disagree with Richard Nixon's assertion that "When the President does it, it's legal".

 

I don't respect Obama, because he has no respect for me. I see no law saying I have to. Not even on the BB.


Like you, I have the freedom of speech, and when I can punctuate a point by calling him "the zero", or "President Training Wheels", I'm going to do it. It doesn't bother me that you called Cheney "Darth Vader". It doesn't bother me that you used ANY name-calling. What bothers me is that you now demand we stop. I'm simply not willing to do it. Focusing on the name-calling is a tactic of those who don't want to deal with the subject matter, or the point of the post.


And I agree with you about Nixon. Hopefully you will come around on Obama, and be critical of his illegal acts. Like say, the bombing of Pakistan. Or his rewarding of tax cheats. Or his illegal wiretapping of Americans. Or rendition.

 

Sorry to hear it Curtis. Debate can be vigorous, forceful, and insightful without childish name calling. That is a pointless tactic. I never said it wasn't allowed or against the law. It does throw the dialog in the gutter and negates any constructive discussion. I hope you reconsider and join me in trying to elevate the level of discussion here.

Stick around. I am sure you will see points where I disagree with President Obama. He's only been in office a short time...I am willing to give the man a chance.

 

One more thought to M.P., and I don't wish to sound like I'm beating up on you, but perhaps, if you really want everything to be nicey-nice, you could also hold posters like JustChristian and Dragonfly to the same standards, you know, confront THEM on the name calling & nastiness, not just the conservatives.


Just a thought.

 

My comments are for all, but your point is well taken. But I am not talking about nicey-nice, Kumbaya time. I am talking about respectful disagreement rather than personal name calling and insults; debate can be furious, but it is time to talk issues and policies, not personalities. Even if you think either Obama or Bush or whoever, is the worst president in history, let's discuss why that is, why you feel that way, why someone else disagrees, and hash it out. Yes, it can, and will, get heated. Even out of control at times. But that should be the exception.

For example, we all know that Mitch is very vocal about Global Climate Change is not being caused by human activity. Others feel it definitely is. Some, like me, think that regardless of the cause, we should make sure we don't contribute to abusing the good place God has given us to live on...the only home we have. I don't trash my house, and we all share this one house. There is a matter of good stewardship. So let's talk about why we believe like we do, bring supporting evidence from credible experts on all sides, and have at it. This goes for any issue.

And it extends to other members here as well. Ken was roundly ridiculed by some in his thread about retiring from the Politics forum. That was unnecessary. Let's show some grace. I doubt (or at least hope) that some of the nastiness is due to the veil of Internet anonymity; that we would not treat one another with such disdain if we were to meet in person. There are some who may be questionable, but I think we all have more in common than any political issues separating us. I can honestly say that I would invite in and break bread with anyone here. There are several who I think go over the line with great regularity that it has become an Internet persona for them. Yes, I imagine there are some who are just fruitcakes on both sides, but again, this is the Internet, and all comers can post fairly easily.

So, I guess to summarize...Shake hands and come out fighting, but make it a clean fight, not a forum version of the WWE. It may not happen, but I am an optimist.

 

I also tried this but none of the Republicans went along. I took a poll and none of them voted to give up their personal insults. They then had the gall to demand why I wasn't "acting nice" when they insulted me. I think it's a lost cause.

 

Of all the people to complain about how they are treated, you crack me up. Physician, heal thyself.