Facing the End of Constitutional Democracy

[hillclimber1]

Riiight, because anyone who is opposed to your leftist president is a leftist?

Roberts wrote for the National Review and the Wall Street Journal, Roberts was on the staff of the conservative Ronald Reagan. He's not opposed to conservatives, he's opposed to you neoconservatives and it is obvious you have no argument to counter the things he wrote.

Well you decide how to label him then. But if not a liberal, why is he writing this hate (in case you missed this word) filled liberal junk?

 

[poncho]

Roberts is a conservative. Remember those? Or was that before your time?

Strange days we live in when truth is labeled hate eh Rufus?

 

[carpro]

Roberts is a conservative. Remember those? Or was that before your time?

Strange days we live in when truth is labeled hate eh Rufus?

Only a dedicated conspiracy theorist like yourself would call Roberts' fearmongering "truth".

Just a few excerpts of Roberts' fearmongering:

Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran.

Americans might expect a series of staged, or false flag, "terrorist" events in the near future.

the administration intends to rescue its unpopular position with false flag operations that can be used to expand the war to Iran.

The Bush administration desperately needs dramatic events to scare the American people and the Congress back in line with the militarist-police state that Bush and Cheney have fostered.

the GOP is "praying for a terrorist strike" to save the party from electoral wipeout in 2008.

The Bush administration has tried unsuccessfully to resurrect the terrorist fear factor by infiltrating some blowhard groups and encouraging them to talk about staging "terrorist" events.

it will have to conduct some false flag operations that will both frighten and anger the American people and make them accept Bush's declaration of "national emergency" and the return of the draft.

ETC.

That's leaving out all the hate filled ad hominem attacks and comparisons to Hitler.

The only possible explanation for such vitriol is hate or a mind dangerously out of balance. If it's not hate , one would be well advised to keep their children off the street when Roberts is around.

 

[poncho]

Only a dedicated conspiracy theorist like yourself would call Roberts' fearmongering "truth".

Just a few excerpts of Roberts' fearmongering:

Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran.

Americans might expect a series of staged, or false flag, "terrorist" events in the near future.

the administration intends to rescue its unpopular position with false flag operations that can be used to expand the war to Iran.

The Bush administration desperately needs dramatic events to scare the American people and the Congress back in line with the militarist-police state that Bush and Cheney have fostered.

the GOP is "praying for a terrorist strike" to save the party from electoral wipeout in 2008.

The Bush administration has tried unsuccessfully to resurrect the terrorist fear factor by infiltrating some blowhard groups and encouraging them to talk about staging "terrorist" events.

it will have to conduct some false flag operations that will both frighten and anger the American people and make them accept Bush's declaration of "national emergency" and the return of the draft.

ETC.

That's leaving out all the hate filled ad hominem attacks and comparisons to Hitler.

The only possible explanation for such vitriol is hate or a mind dangerously out of balance. If it's not hate , one would be well advised to keep their children off the street when Roberts is around.

First Carpro before I get to debunking your post may I ask if you can even reply without tossing out an insult (apparently Roberts isn't the only one who favors ad hominim attacks eh) first? I heard that people filled with hate often act that way is that right?

 

[carpro]

First Carpro before I get to debunking your post may I ask if you can even reply without tossing out an insult (apparently Roberts isn't the only one who favors ad hominim attacks eh) first?

You are "insulted" by being called a conspiracy theorist?

I thought you were proud of it.

 

[poncho]

You are "insulted" by being called a conspiracy theorist?

I thought you were proud of it.

I asked first, but I've grown sort of fond of it lately but proud? I wouldn't put it like that exactly. From one deidicated conspiracy theorist to another it's all in the evidence. Yours just lacks too much of it for me. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[carpro]

I asked first. I've grown sort of f fond of it lately but proud? I wouldn't put it like that exactly. From one deidicated conspiracy theorist to another it's all in the evidence. Yours just lacks too much of it for me. :smilewinkgrin:

Of course it does...for you.
As yours does...for me.

The fun part of being a conspiracy theorist is that when you are wrong, nobody says much, especially the original theorist, because most thinking people had discarded what you said in the first place.

But if they're right, shout it from the rooftops!

But it hardly ever happens.

Roberts' prognistications are grounded in his hate for Bush. It sounds like he is the one "praying for a terrorist attack", so that he can say "I told you so".

But, He's on safe ground. It's a foregone conclusion that we will suffer more terrorist attacks in the future. And sure as flowers blossom in the spring, he'll be on his toad stool shouting, "I told you so" , calling it a
"false flag operation" with no proof whatsoever, and blaming it all on Bush.

It would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.

 

[poncho]

Of course it does...for you.
As yours does...for me.

The fun part of being a conspiracy theorist is that when you are wrong, nobody says much, especially the original theorist, because most thinking people had discarded what you said in the first place.

But if they're right, shout it from the rooftops!

But it hardly ever happens.

Roberts' prognistications are grounded in his hate for Bush. It sounds like he is the one "praying for a terrorist attack", so that he can say "I told you so".

But, He's on safe ground. It's a foregone conclusion that we will suffer more terrorist attacks in the future. And sure as flowers blossom in the spring, he'll be on his toad stool shouting, "I told you so" , calling it a
"false flag operation" with no proof whatsoever, and blaming it all on Bush.

It would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.

What's laughable is that I know that you know that I know that you have never taken the time to check into any of his claims or any other "conspiracy theorist". So all yer doing is blowing lottsa smoke in an effort to make your position look stronger than it really is. In poker I think that's known as a bluf or bluff ...whatever.:laugh:

If you had you'd be attacking his charges instead of the man himself. Well no, if you had you'd be on Roberts side instead of the globalists.

 

[carpro]

What's laughable is that I know that you know that I know that you have never taken the time to check into any of his claims. So all yer doing is blowing lottsa smoke in an effort to make your position look stronger than it really is. In poker I think that's known as a bluf or bluff ...whatever.:laugh:

If you had you'd be attacking his charges instead of the man himself.

Spoken like a dedicated conspiracy theorist.

 

[poncho]

Spoken like a dedicated conspiracy theorist.

Top notch argument you got yerself there fella. :laugh:

Hey look over there... isn't that Osama Bin Laden getting out of a black helicopter with Elvis and getting into that ufo? Wait a minute is that Bill and Hillary at the controls?

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

There is nothing conservative about legalizing drugs that destroy lives, families, and societies.
There is nothing conservative about psycho dellusions that the government worked to kill 3000 people to get us into a war.
There is nothing conservative about thinking the government is out to get us every time it makes a move.

What the people who believe this stuff needs is some real psychological help and quite possibly some heavy medication.
as far as this nut case being par to of the reagan Admin so what? BIR says he was a conservative at one time and now he is so far left Hillary has to turn left to see him. His former position proves nothing

 

[poncho]

There is nothing conservative about legalizing drugs that destroy lives, families, and societies.

Drugs for guns. Iran Contra. Your government in action. If it weren't for illegal drugs half the government would be out of a job. Limited government is conservative. Or at least it was.

There is nothing conservative about psycho dellusions that the government worked to kill 3000 people to get us into a war.

There is nothing rational in denying governments use false flag terrorism to control populations. Rulers and governments have used it all through out history for that purpose. What makes ours immune, or more ethical?

There is nothing conservative about thinking the government is out to get us every time it makes a move.

This statement is kind of funny coming from someone who believes the "left" is out to get us everytime it makes a move. Who funded the lefties to begin with? Same ones who nursed socialism, communism, and immorality along...the capitalist "rightie" elites.

Lets call it the state then. What incentive is there for the state to stop crime and terrorism when it's biggest benefits comes from declaring war on such things? Every time there is an incident involving crime or terrorism what happens? The state demands more power, more funding and more control and gets it. One follows the other. Where's the incentive for the state to really stop crime and terrorism? There is nothing conservative about constantly expanding and increasing the government...is there? Not only that but the state has proven time an again that it is either incapable of protecting us from crime and terrorism or it just refuses to after it gets it's money power and control from the people it is suppose to be serving.

BTW, what we see in DC is not our government. Our government is one of by and for the people. What we got now is an animal of a whole different color. Of by and for the priviledged elite. What incentive is there for the elite to stop crime and terrorism when so much money power and control can be had (usurped) by "fighting it"?

What the people who believe this stuff needs is some real psychological help and quite possibly some heavy medication.

Thought you were against drugs that "destroy lives and societies". Make up your mind. You aren't one of those "conservatives" that believe in forced drugging are you? Only if it's good for society, right? Collectivism sneakin up on ya a little?

as far as this nut case being par to of the reagan Admin so what? BIR says he was a conservative at one time and now he is so far left Hillary has to turn left to see him. His former position proves nothing

Yer kinda fixated on the "left" aren't ya?

 

[JustChristian]

Roberts is a well known Bush hater, who doesn't hesitate to fear monger and lie to express his hate.

But this gut is not a radical leftist.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review.

It seems anti-Bush views are spreading because they are a correct interpretation of the facts.

 

[poncho]

But this gut is not a radical leftist.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review.

It seems anti-Bush views are spreading because they are a correct interpretation of the facts.

Bingo! :thumbs:

 

[carpro]

But this gut is not a radical leftist.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review.

So what.

He still hates Bush. His writings deliver that message in every sentence.

Are you trying to say that no one but a radical leftist is capable of hate?

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

BIR says he was a conservative at one time and now he is so far left Hillary has to turn left to see him. His former position proves nothing

Exactly why did you introduce BiR into a discussion that
1. He has not posted a comment.
2. The discussion has absolutely nothing to do with him.

Perhaps you could focus on the discussion at hand and avoid introducing extraneous topics/subjects when attempting to make your point.

This is no different than the way Rush and Sean perpetually bring up former President Bill Clinton when discussing topics that have absolutely nothing to do with him. That never lends any credence to the points they are trying to make, and it doesn't work for you either.

As for your comment that "Hillary has to turn left" to see me, please provide the proof that I am to the left of Hillary, utilizing my comments posted to the board. That is quite a statement, and I would like to see the basis for such a pronouncement. After all: until now, I wasn't even participating in this discussion.

Regards anyway,
BiR

 

[poncho]

So what.

He still hates Bush. His writings deliver that message in every sentence.

Are you trying to say that no one but a radical leftist is capable of hate?

Could be he just loves the United States and hates seeing the infrastructure for a dictatorship being set up under flase pretences in it. So What? You hate Roberts, your posts deliver that message in every sentence. Either that our your stance is so unsupported by facts that's all you can do is spew hatred towards folks like Roberts that do have the facts to support their allegatons.

 

[NiteShift]

Bush and our congress are funding known terrorist groups to "destabilize" Iran as I type. What do you call that, fighting terrorism? Spreading democracy?

I call it fighting fire with fire. But for sure, it is not nuking Iran, now is it?

Might as well just come out and say it, c'mon...Roberts is a mean ole anti semite jew hater.

Well to use your own words, "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, surprise surprise it probably is a duck!"

The infrastructure for a draft is already up and waitng for the next terrorist attack real or false flag. Then you could be drafted into either the military or DHS in the "citizen corps".

The infrastructure has been there since '73 when the draft was discontinued.
There is no draft though. And your boy claimed that it was imminent 3 years ago. Talk about false flags.

Guess you missed the heated exchange between the BB Bush apologists and the "morons" in this thread. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, surprise, surprise it probably is a duck!

Heated exchange now qualifies one to be a Brownshirt. That's a good one Poncho.

 

[poncho]

I call it fighting fire with fire. But for sure, it is not nuking Iran, now is it?

I call it hypocrisy. What gives us the right to destabilize and overthrow governments (and set up puppet regimes in their place) we don't like anyway? I expect a straight answer.

Well to use your own words, "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, surprise surprise it probably is a duck!"

Afraid to come right out and say it or what? Why hide behind my words?

The infrastructure has been there since '73 when the draft was discontinued.
There is no draft though. And your boy claimed that it was imminent 3 years ago. Talk about false flags.

How many times have we been attacked in the last three years, real or otherwise? Personally, I don't care what you last remaining half dozen government cheerleaders here believe. I know flase flags are documented all through history. I know it's documented our government has been using them covertly "overseas" for decades. What I don't know is why anyone would think people in our government wouldn't use them here on us. Especially when they've been so successful for them over the years.

Heated exchange now qualifies one to be a Brownshirt. That's a good one Poncho.

That's not what I meant and I got a sneaking suspicion that you knew that. So why would you write that? Running out of your own material to use or what?

 

[NiteShift]

I call it hypocrisy. What gives us the right to destabilize and overthrow governments (and set up puppet regimes in their place) we don't like anyway? I expect a straight answer.

Iran sponsors - Hezbollah in Lebanon, a group which Iran helped found in the 1980s; Palestinian terrorist groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad; gives support to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party in Turkey, and to other militant groups in the Persian Gulf and Africa. According to some reports, Iran is interfering in Iraq by providing funding, training, and arms to Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi army, and attempting to thwart any progress there. If we give the Iran theocracy problems of their own to worry about, that is only turnabout and fair play.

How many times have we been attacked in the last three years, real or otherwise? Personally, I don't care what you last remaining half dozen government cheerleaders here believe. I know flase flags are documented all through history. I know it's documented our government has been using them covertly "overseas" for decades. What I don't know is why anyone would think people in our government wouldn't use them here on us. Especially when they've been so successful for them over the years.

That’s like saying that the UK Wildcats won’t allow blacks to play on their team because Coach Rupp wouldn’t do so back in the 50’s and early 60’s. You can’t blame a current administration for the actions of others years ago. If you want to believe the government is after you, based on flabby evidence, then go right ahead. And using your own words again; I don’t care what Paul Craig Roberts cheerleaders want to believe. Even when everything he predicts turns out to be wrong.