From FailBlog.org:
Dear Abby,
I have a man I can't trust. He cheats so much I'm not even sure the baby I'm carrying is his. ...
PunditKitchen.com has a photo of Pres. Bush on the phone. The caption has him asking, "Is there any quick way for me to revoke all those powers I gave my office?"
In case you missed Craig Ferguson's show last Friday, Ferguson chatted with "President Bush", who was bubble-wrapping items in the oval office. He asked Bush if he had voted, and for whom. Bush said yes, and that he had voted for Obama. Paraphrased: "If I voted for that other guy, we'd have four more years of Cheney's mess. "
Then Bush told Ferguson to tell Obama that he'd be packed up and out of the Oval Office by Monday. Ferguson pointed out that he didn't have to be out until January 20th, "You're still President until then. Check the Constitution." Bush said he couldn't, he didn't have a copy, "Cheney burned them all."
I cracked up.
My opinion is that Cheney wanted to be President all along, but knew he'd never win an election, so G.W. was chosen as an electable, gullible, and easily controlled front man.
I've never felt great animosity toward G.W. Bush. He was simply stupid, and can be forgiven because he didn't do things out of bad intent, and had no understanding of the consequences of his actions. I think Cheney was downright flatout evil. He knew damn well what he was doing, and his intent was not honorable. Evil in every sense. VICE-President. The title fit.
I also think Cheney had something to do with the selection of Palin (although it was Henry Kissinger who convinced McCain to choose her). It would not be a good idea for Cheney to try for Vice-President again, because he's too tied to the failures of the past eight years. Palin would be malleable, "trust me, Little Lady...". McCain would not be so easily controlled, but nobody would expect him to last further than the first four years anyway, and he wasn't likely to change much of anything Cheney had set up, unlike many of the others who had entered the primaries. This ticket was Cheney's dream, if only it could win.
The pundits are all blathering about the "split" in the Republican party. I think there's another split they've missed. I think The Powers of the Republican party didn't really want to win this election. It helps to explain some of the stupidities of the Republican campaign.
The next President is inheriting a royal mess. There are things that will have to be done that will be very unpopular. Many of those actions will look very socialistic, which will strongly alienate the Republican voting base, who will not understand the absolute necessity for those actions. Many problems will require more than four years to show improvement.
So if the next President and Congress does a good job, and gets things turned around and headed onto the right track, it probably won't pay off during the first term, and it could be at the cost of popularity. So why not let the Democrats take that heat, instead of the Republicans? 2012 is the right time to waltz in and reap the benefits.
Conspiracy theories. Oh, my. But I can easily believe them, or some version thereof.
By the way, how and when did intelligence, education, and understanding become a character fault?
I wonder what would happen if we gave an election, and nobody came.
There's a underground movie floating around out there, "Zeitgeist". The "Addendum" clip linked from that site is over two hours long and I haven't watched it yet, but I will. The original is in three parts. The first deals with religion (which will immediately alienate most viewers - an attempt to separate the susceptible from the skeptics, perhaps? - but is worth the time anyway, I think), the second is about 9/11, and the third is about the financial interests that influence, perhaps even rule, the world. Perhaps the new addendum is a fourth part? I don't know yet.
It reminds me a lot of Rosicrucians. I met and was friendly with a group of Rosicrucians when I lived in St. Louis. They gave me pamphlets and books and urged me to join. It smacked of elitism to me - they seemed so smug in their "secret knowledge", their select status. Sorta like Saved Christians. Or Freemasons. I just don't feel I need for that. Anyway, back to the topic ....
As with all films of that type, it's a bit sensationalist, throws in everything including half a dozen styles of kitchen sink, and ignores the possibility of simpler explanations and motives. But among all the dross and leaps of speculation, there's a solid core of fact and explanation. It's up to the viewer to sort it out, and when you do, you're left with a handful of very scary ideas.
One of the chief criticisms of the theories presented, particularly those of the third part on financial interests, is that this conspiracy theory has been around in one form or another for hundreds of years, and has been repeatedly discredited and disproved, and therefore ought to be given up as a myth that's dragged out every so often by disgruntled people for their own purposes. Like when the Nazis used it, for example.
Um, misapplication doesn't make it untrue. The conspiracy may not be as organized and/or hierarchical as the movie implies, but I do believe that the motives certainly exist, in cells and individuals.
Like Cheney. A movement and conspiracy of his own.
In reference to nothing, just in case you aren't aware, the wealth of the top 1% in the US has tripled in the last 35 years, while the bottom 50% haven't advanced at all. Where did the top 1% get it? From the bottom 50%. The rich have their own version of redistributing the wealth. They object to it only when it works in the biblical way - see 2 Corinthians 8:9-15 :
For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich. …
For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened, but that as a matter of fairness your abundance at the present time should supply their need, so that their abundance may supply your need, that there may be fairness. As it is written, “Whoever gathered much had nothing left over, and whoever gathered little had no lack.” [here quoting from the Hebrew scriptures, Exodus 16:18]
Where is the line drawn between Christian action and socialism? I suspect it's "when it inconveniences me".
.
1 comment:
I like conspiracy theories and I liked this one.
Post a Comment