...over Ron Paul and the North American Union.
I side with the conspiracy wackos, but that's OK. I'm used to having people roll their eyes at what I rant about.
But I'm willing to be educated if I'm wrong. I just need something more than dismissive generalities to convince me that I am.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Suppose you're in a room for a conference. You have power, position and a great deal of influence. Sitting in front of you in the audience are 100 people. 50 are deranged maniacs, career criminals, and con men. The other 50 are honest citizens, businessmen and women, salt of the earth types. You open the floor to statements and questions. Absolute bedlam ensues and you shake your head and walk away. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. You don't sound like you're wrong or crazy, David, you are sane and sound in your tenets. But you're in the same country with maniacs, con men and criminals, all trying to be heard at the same time. The powers that be can barely detect your voice, and to them, it sounds like the babble of all the crazies. Because you're not one of them, and you don't have their ear exclusively. All they ever hear is nutjobs and job seekers. If you need educating, it is beyond my ability to reckon. Stay your course. You may not win, but that is not always the objective. If you fight and you're wrong and you win, you're still wrong. If you are right and you lose, you are still right. Of course, round two is possible. The only thing approaching omnipotence in the human race is persistence and determination. Anyone dismissive of you is both a coward and a liar.
Thanks Sean--I wouldn't go that far with ThirdPower--I believe he is sincere and essentially a good man--much more "moderate" than I am, though.
What triggered me on this is the incessant Ron Paul put downs from "our side"--yet they nearly all admit how much they like most of his views. What these folks have to lose by pushing like hell for the guy in the primary to create buzz/media attention about his message outside the choir is beyond me. I also think the eye-rolling dismissal is uncalled for--particularly if one is not going to tender anything but generalized opinions based on...well, opinion, as opposed to point-by-point rebuttals with documentable examples that a relevant debate requires.
I could point to the continued betrayal of the base by the Big Tent republicans--as evidenced by the McClintock/Schwarzenegger results--and make a strong case that picking the Arnold candidate is the kooky, eye-rolling choice.
So my point is not to pick on ThirdPower and start a fight with him. I'd like to see this stay on topic--if he believes the North American Union is the stuff of dreams, to educate me by addressing each of the points I have raised and giving me a plausible alternative that comes from somewhere outside his opinion. Because if you're going to tell people an idea is an eye-roller, I don't think being able to substantiate why in detail is too much to ask.
David-
I wasn't trying to put down Paul, I agree w/ many of his stances (not the NAU one though :) ) but I consider him to extremist, for want of a better word, to be electable, especially against a powerhouse like Clinton. I was mostly critisizing some of his most vocal supporters who deserve little more than an eye roll like Sean stated. The part of the conversation I mentioned was only the end of it.
Point being, Thirdpower, the reason you gave for eye-rolling his supporters was because of their activism against the NAU--as someone who perceives that to be a threat, I need specifics if you want me to consider your point of view more valid and informed than mine. I sent you some more details. It's not my intent to beat this to death, but to make the point that some of us are passionate about our beliefs and will defend them passionately when we perceive they have been dismissed without due consideration.
I'm not kidding when I say I'm willing to be educated.
Here's the point that I'm trying to make. It doesn't matter if I believe it (I don't) or if it's happening "incrementally" or not. The minute someone starts talking about secret government meetings, UN conspiracies, etc. people in general shut you off. Might something like the NAU happen in the far future? Sure, anything could happen but going on about dissolving borders by 2010 isn't going to gather general support.
The Texas Corridor? I see it as an improvement to a logistic infrastructure that is over 50 years old and designed for a population 1/2 of what we have today. Not 1200' wide highways like Corsi talks about.
El Presidente Fox? Wouldn't want to see an NAU ever as then there would be more oversight on the Mexican Gov't. That they sure don't want.
But we ain't talkin' "people in general." 3P--we're talkin' gun owners. Good God, if we have to tread delicately around them and dare not speak plainly because they'll run away shrieking, we are indeed lost. Why the hell are gun owners so poorly informed that this is shocking to them ought to be the real story, buncha damned lazy apathetic welfare cases when it comes to defending RKBA anyway, for the most part.
I already commented on your site why 2010 is not a date that will happen, and as for the Texas corridor, the 1200 ft dimension is from the TxDOT environmental impact statement, not from any conspiracy theorists.
And just because that's your opinion of Fox's intent does not make it so. My opinion, borne out by no small amount of evidence, is the guy and his backers are kleptocrats of the first order. The other thing I see is that international organizations give plenty of cover for corruption on a larger scale--it's not like they have to answer to a constituency that will throw them out of office.
Hell, the constituencies that CAN throw people out of office are tripping all over themselves to renounce principle and go for the candidate who least rocks the boat. And throwing those who stand for something under the bus.
3P,I'm not so sure I'd roll my eyes at any of this.Here's a video posted on you-tube from OUR own news.(US)check it out!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T74VA3xU0EA
Check this out as well:http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070827/hayes
The Hayes piece actually supports ThirdPower's contentions, and does so with the type ofarguments I was looking for to counter mine, but unfortunately, resorts to disparaging Corsi, WorldNetDaily, Lou Dobbs and The New American (people scream "John Birch!" and thinks that settles things, even though most don't have a clue as to the organization's true values)rather than sticking exclusively to the facts. The Nation, for those not familiar, is "progressive" (that is,left wing) "intellectual" opinion. I find it more than curious their go-to guy for saying there's nothing to worry about is Prof.Robert Pastor, a leading proponent of integrating us more with Mexico and Canada! I cited him in my comments on Thirdpower's site when I referenced the CFR task force report--he's the guy who headed it.
Obviously, the people doing the deeds are saying there is nothing there. Funny then, why there is no congressional oversight and requests for information have been stalled.
Nonetheless, the Hayes piece offers the kind of counter to my points I was looking for, and that are needed in oreder to form an opinion either way after looking at all sides in detail.
Me, I think the trend toward globalizaton in government and loss of sovereignty is undeniable.
I worked for years as a discovery consultant in federal civil and criminal cases.
I learned a whole lot that most folks wouldn't believe. There is enough money siphoned off from taxes collected to literally fund construction of a "death star." Yet people are content to believe the pie charts that the government publishes about where the money goes.
Would I try to convince the public about the truth? I think not. I've already tried that, and met enough rolling eyes to last me a lifetime.
Most "unbelievers" have never even filed a FOIA request, nor have they witnessed the unmitigated obfuscation that many federal agencies undertake to keep their operation in the dark.
The exercise of trying to convince people about the truth, even with documentary evidence, is like trying to convince flat-worlders that the earth is round. It's a waste of time.
A whole lot of people are going to be caught with their pants down.
Post a Comment