PDA

View Full Version : So.. who is the next boogie man that we need to chase?




mstrmac1
05-02-2011, 10:29 PM
So.. who is the next boogie man that we need to chase?

Because we all know this aint over! So, who is it?

torchbearer
05-02-2011, 10:31 PM
I feel like we've just shed the boogie man. how about we keep it this way for awhile. no more terrorist hiding behind every tree. let's just be.

Vessol
05-02-2011, 10:31 PM
http://merovee.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/emmanuel-goldstein-1984.jpg

mstrmac1
05-02-2011, 10:35 PM
k... for a little while. Im just saying its coming. And we will need more taxes, sacrifice, plus personal liberties will be on the back burner. I hear what your saying... but Its coming...

James Madison
05-02-2011, 10:36 PM
With 2012 coming up, I'm starting to wonder if TPTB are working toward a project bluebeam-type scenario.

What do you guys think?

rnestam
05-02-2011, 10:37 PM
I think "he" will be domestic....a couple homegrowns who used facebook should get the patriot act 2.0 in full effect....it could get scary on the internet if the boogieman becomes the "pests" from within.

tpreitzel
05-02-2011, 10:40 PM
The decision will ultimately determine if a shift to domestic rabblerousers has finally occurred. In the US, though, rabblerousers tend to have fatal accidents.... ;)

mstrmac1
05-02-2011, 10:40 PM
Im curious to see who it is... It may take only days!

Bman
05-02-2011, 10:40 PM
One emoticon to sum this thread up as to the next boogie man.
:collins:

mstrmac1
05-02-2011, 10:41 PM
Btw, it makes me sick that Im right but we all know it....

heavenlyboy34
05-02-2011, 10:46 PM
I'm guessing Syria (http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts129.html). Plenty of brown people there to kill-and muslims too!

devil21
05-02-2011, 10:55 PM
With 2012 coming up, I'm starting to wonder if TPTB are working toward a project bluebeam-type scenario.

What do you guys think?

Ive been seeing signs of it quite often lately.

Ekrub
05-02-2011, 11:09 PM
I think we all know TPTB's next boogeyman.

I'll give you a hint, this forum is named after him.

Vessol
05-02-2011, 11:14 PM
I think we all know TPTB's next boogeyman.

I'll give you a hint, this forum is named after him.

Rent Is Too Damn High Guy?

DamianTV
05-02-2011, 11:15 PM
So.. who is the next boogie man that we need to chase?

Because we all know this aint over! So, who is it?

We may have to wait for the next False Flag and who ever they decide to point the finger at. For the time being, probably Khaddaffi, or Quaddaphi or Gahdaffi, or how ever it is spelled...

And as for Bin Laden, Terrorists are Hydras. Cut off one head and another springs up to take its place. That includes Banks. The real terrorists. The ones that hijacked our countrys Money System and held our Liberties for hostage.

DamianTV
05-02-2011, 11:17 PM
Rent Is Too Damn High Guy?

Something to do with a Forest? Trees are Terrorizers now? :p

Mini-Me
05-02-2011, 11:51 PM
I'm not sure who's next, but sooner or later I get the feeling that Ekrub may turn out correct. They wouldn't claim Ron Paul is a traditional terrorist but an "economic terrorist" wreaking havoc by attacking the Fed. Of course, his crazy gun-toting supporters? Traditional terrorists for sure! Sheriff Mack? Stewart Rhodes and the Oath Keepers? Definitely terrorists!

heavenlyboy34
05-03-2011, 12:22 AM
I'm not sure who's next, but sooner or later I get the feeling that Ekrub may turn out correct. They wouldn't claim Ron Paul is a traditional terrorist but an "economic terrorist" wreaking havoc by attacking the Fed. Of course, his crazy gun-toting supporters? Traditional terrorists for sure! Sheriff Mack? Stewart Rhodes and the Oath Keepers? Definitely terrorists!

A little hard to believe. It would be more practical for TPTB to create negative publicity for RP and make him (and all of us opposed to the regime by association) out to be loons. JMHO.

Anti Federalist
05-03-2011, 12:28 AM
http://merovee.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/emmanuel-goldstein-1984.jpg

I have to admit I'm a little shocked that the regime trotted out bin Laden's body right now.

I was convinced that he would be a Goldstein character for generations, with our grandchildren participating in the Two Minutes Hate against him.

Mini-Me
05-03-2011, 12:31 AM
A little hard to believe. It would be more practical for TPTB to create negative publicity for RP and make him (and all of us opposed to the regime by association) out to be loons. JMHO.

Yes, but they've tried that tactic already, so if they get desperate... ;)
The scenario I gave regarding RP was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but the stage has been set for people like the Oath Keepers to become targets in the long run.

NewRightLibertarian
05-03-2011, 12:36 AM
I'm not sure who's next, but sooner or later I get the feeling that Ekrub may turn out correct. They wouldn't claim Ron Paul is a traditional terrorist but an "economic terrorist" wreaking havoc by attacking the Fed. Of course, his crazy gun-toting supporters? Traditional terrorists for sure! Sheriff Mack? Stewart Rhodes and the Oath Keepers? Definitely terrorists!

They're crazy militia people associated with 'hate groups' according to the government. They will blame Ron and Rand if the government goes under for not allowing the Fed to spend enough or the debt ceiling to be raised enough times or some such shit.

anaconda
05-03-2011, 12:46 AM
So.. who is the next boogie man that we need to chase?

Because we all know this aint over! So, who is it?

I would love to hear some reporter ask this question in a press conference!

Anti Federalist
05-03-2011, 12:49 AM
They're crazy militia people associated with 'hate groups' according to the government. They will blame Ron and Rand if the government goes under for not allowing the Fed to spend enough or the debt ceiling to be raised enough times or some such shit.

Your reply is less tongue in cheek than you think.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?289831-quot-People-threatening-not-to-pass-the-debt-ceiling-are-our-version-of-Al-Qaeda-terrorists-quot

iamse7en
05-03-2011, 12:54 AM
The next boogie man will be discovered in Osama's hard drive. Quite convenient. The bogeyman never dies.

TheNcredibleEgg
05-03-2011, 01:29 AM
So.. who is the next boogie man that we need to chase?

Because we all know this aint over! So, who is it?

I vote for Goldman Sachs.

Let's see if Obama can kill the #2 threat to the country.

tpreitzel
05-03-2011, 03:28 AM
I've been around awhile so I can personally review the decades where many of you can't. Although the power of the central government has always been misused especially since the Civil War, the blatant militancy apparently started after the Vietnam War. The anti-war movement must have been quite shallow to turn the hippies of my generation into blatant war hawks. Thankfully, I always followed my own conscience and never participated in the excesses of my generation. Maybe, the hippies felt used, abused, and insecure about America's loss in Vietnam. Surely, TV propaganda played a role in the backlash against the anti-war movement as well. During the Vietnam War, resistance to the draft was common among my generation and the military-industrial establishment viewed with skepticism. After the US' loss in Vietnam in 1975, the psyche of my generation was either fried through propaganda, drugs, or some combination. My brother-in-law turned from a hippie into the staunchest flag waiver imaginable following Vietnam. He was wounded and nearly paralyzed by his service in that war. Although a great guy, he went from one extreme to another. When I see my brother-in-law again, I'll have to ask him about his perception of the reasons for his personal transformation. The easy riders of my generation must still be lost on some lonesome road of escapism. The fire in the minds of my generation for questioning authority apparently died. The main difference between my generation and younger generations is enforced conscription. Unless evading the draft, the hippies of my generation went to war. My generation also didn't have access to video games while today war simulators abound. Have these game simulators kindled the warmonger in younger generations? * We seem to have largely lost the anti-war movement in younger generations.
An apparent axiom of war: A hippie prior to combat, a warmonger afterward. Maybe, it's time to restrain the war machine so peace can again reign. Spare the obviously tortured minds of youth spent on making war.

* A comprehensive poll on the political views of those youth playing war simulators versus those youth who do not is needed .... Eureka, the answer probably lies here, i.e. violence in general.

I can now personally understand for the first time how violence in our culture is affecting political expression as war. I can much more fully understand the horrific brutality of the Roman empire. Empires require a violent culture. I also know the path to peace: Elect politicians who've been minimally exposed to violence in their youth which includes ALL forms of media:
1. Cut violent games
2. Cut violent TV
3. Cut violent music
4. Cut violent relationships

Mini-Me
05-03-2011, 12:46 PM
I've been around awhile so I can personally review the decades where many of you can't. Although the power of the central government has always been misused especially since the Civil War, the blatant militancy apparently started after the Vietnam War. The anti-war movement must have been quite shallow to turn the hippies of my generation into blatant war hawks. Thankfully, I always followed my own conscience and never participated in the excesses of my generation. Maybe, the hippies felt used, abused, and insecure about America's loss in Vietnam. Surely, TV propaganda played a role in the backlash against the anti-war movement as well. During the Vietnam War, resistance to the draft was common among my generation and the military-industrial establishment viewed with skepticism. After the US' loss in Vietnam in 1975, the psyche of my generation was either fried through propaganda, drugs, or some combination. My brother-in-law turned from a hippie into the staunchest flag waiver imaginable following Vietnam. He was wounded and nearly paralyzed by his service in that war. Although a great guy, he went from one extreme to another. When I see my brother-in-law again, I'll have to ask him about his perception of the reasons for his personal transformation. The easy riders of my generation must still be lost on some lonesome road of escapism. The fire in the minds of my generation for questioning authority apparently died. The main difference between my generation and younger generations is enforced conscription. Unless evading the draft, the hippies of my generation went to war. My generation also didn't have access to video games while today war simulators abound. Have these game simulators kindled the warmonger in younger generations? * We seem to have largely lost the anti-war movement in younger generations.
An apparent axiom of war: A hippie prior to combat, a warmonger afterward. Maybe, it's time to restrain the war machine so peace can again reign. Spare the obviously tortured minds of youth spent on making war.

* A comprehensive poll on the political views of those youth playing war simulators versus those youth who do not is needed .... Eureka, the answer probably lies here, i.e. violence in general.

I can now personally understand for the first time how violence in our culture is affecting political expression as war. I can much more fully understand the horrific brutality of the Roman empire. Empires require a violent culture. I also know the path to peace: Elect politicians who've been minimally exposed to violence in their youth which includes ALL forms of media:
1. Cut violent games
2. Cut violent TV
3. Cut violent music
4. Cut violent relationships

Be careful about being too quick to blame violent video games (or violent media in general). The establishment does that all the time as an excuse to attack the First Amendment, and it all started with Clinton and Lieberman. Lots of [scientifically flawed and questionably funded] studies have shown short-term links between people playing violent games and being more apathetic to their surroundings or aggressive in the short-term. However, no significant long-term causal links have been found that I know of (only insinuated by tyrants with an agenda and "save the children" campaigns), and pretty much all the studies I've seen have used an unsuitable control set. Generally speaking, they completely fail to isolate the variable of violence, instead a more likely reason for short-term tunnel-vision and impatience is the intensity/pace/competitiveness combination of the violent game compared to the nonviolent one. When your mind is racing and you're intensely focused on something fast-paced, you're going to have less patience, less concern for the outside world, and a bit more of a temper. The same difference would apply to playing high school football vs. playing checkers with Grandma, and it wears off with the adrenaline.

Generally speaking, the studies with proper controls show different results. Interestingly, an Australian study has found that the only people affected negatively by violent games are people already predisposed to violence (Interestingly, an Australian study has found that the only people affected negatively by violent games are people already predisposed to violence.). There is in fact another study that says just the opposite, that violent or intense video games help kids manage stress and aggression (http://www.science20.com/news/violent_video_games_help_kids_manage_stress). I have found this true anecdotally: I play more violent video games than pretty much anyone I know, and it's really cathartic. Aside from reading these boards, I have less anger than probably anyone else I know, and I am also the most opposed to war and violence. The angry, aggressive, "law and order" one in my family is the only one that DOESN'T play violent games. ;) Go figure.

Moreover, video games have been blamed for "increasing crime," but there's one problem: Violent crimes have dramatically decreased since the early 1990's. Therefore, the increase in military aggression over the past few decades is at odds with crime statistics, and I think it suggests factors specific to militancy and warmongering rather than general factors affecting violence.

I think these are the big ones:
It was only after Vietnam that the government started its heavy pro-military propaganda and "soldier worship" became common (as a response to the "babykiller" stuff). This is HUGE. On top of the constant talk about the "greatest generation" (WWII), kids in my generation GREW UP being told how awesome and brave and great and wonderful soldiers and the military are. We have been taught by family, media, etc. to revere military men as role models above all others and thank them every day for our freedom, and this was bound to have consequences. Growing up, I remember actually looking forward to wars, so the USA and eventually my generation could demonstrate our bravery and greatness. Messed up, huh? That's how we were brought up though, so it should be no surprise that not everyone grew out of it. We have become a military-obsessed culture. This IMO is the crux of the problem, but it's incredibly difficult to speak out against it to promote a healthier, more skeptical view of the military, because the propaganda is so ingrained that people react explosively to military criticism.
Rather than being a cause, I think war-specific games (Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, Battlezone, Band of Brothers, etc.) are actually expressions of the above problem: Instead of necessarily going into the military, a lot of kids just safely "live out" their preexisting military fantasies through these games.
Politically speaking, the news media and both party leaderships have become almost entirely consumed by warmongers, and anyone who opposes war is weak, unpatriotic, un-American, an America-hater, blah blah. When the news media almost nobody in politics really opposes war, that removes a source of visible resistance that would otherwise help temper public opinions.
A lot of us were raised by the hippies turned warmongers that you refer to. ;)
The propaganda following 9/11 changed a lot of things for a lot of people.
As you mention, not having a draft has insulated most of us from the consequences of war. The draft is obviously evil, but its existence used to fuel opposition to war (and the draft itself).
Due to the US's overwhelming military superiority, many of our soldiers are also relatively insulated from the consequences of war compared to previous generations. The danger is not video game violence that approaches the feel of real life. The danger is real life violence that approaches the feel of video games. (Anecdote: As games get more realistic, the characters within are feeling more real, and I've noticed that I've become a lot more careful about "doing right" by them. I've started to become more emotionally connected with in-game consequences. In contrast, I think when real war feels less real and soldiers are mowing down real people from a zoomed out grayscale video screen on a helicopter, they start to lose touch with the real-life consequences. Going in the one direction is thought-provoking and perhaps even beneficial for empathy, whereas going in the other direction is hazardous.)
Our choice of politicians is a reflection of an increasingly superficial culture. People aren't attracted to ordinary people with real quirks and a real conscience; we're attracted to "professional-looking," charming narcissists with an immaculate presentation...and that's who we get.

Batman
05-03-2011, 12:53 PM
Right Wing terrorists. Shock and awe bombardment of Little Rock.

Anti Federalist
05-03-2011, 01:23 PM
Awesome post, as usual.

One thing would change that whole solider sniffing dynamic overnight.

A draft.


Be careful about being too quick to blame violent video games (or violent media in general). The establishment does that all the time as an excuse to attack the First Amendment, and it all started with Clinton and Lieberman. Lots of [scientifically flawed and questionably funded] studies have shown short-term links between people playing violent games and being more apathetic to their surroundings or aggressive in the short-term. However, no significant long-term causal links have been found that I know of (only insinuated by tyrants with an agenda and "save the children" campaigns), and pretty much all the studies I've seen have used an unsuitable control set. Generally speaking, they completely fail to isolate the variable of violence, instead a more likely reason for short-term tunnel-vision and impatience is the intensity/pace/competitiveness combination of the violent game compared to the nonviolent one. When your mind is racing in the moment, you're going to have less patience, less concern for the outside world, and a bit more of a temper. The same difference would apply to playing high school football vs. playing checkers with Grandma, and it wears off with the adrenaline.

Generally speaking, the studies with proper controls show different results. Interestingly, an Australian study has found that the only people affected negatively by violent games are people already predisposed to violence (Interestingly, an Australian study has found that the only people affected negatively by violent games are people already predisposed to violence.). There is in fact another study that says just the opposite, that violent or intense video games help kids manage stress and aggression (http://www.science20.com/news/violent_video_games_help_kids_manage_stress). I have found this true anecdotally: I play more violent video games than pretty much anyone I know, and it's really cathartic. Aside from reading these boards, I have less anger than probably anyone else I know, and I am also the most opposed to war and violence. The angry, aggressive, "law and order" one in my family is the only one that DOESN'T play violent games. ;) Go figure.

Moreover, video games have been blamed for "increasing crime," but there's one problem: Violent crimes have dramatically decreased since the early 1990's. Therefore, the increase in military aggression over the past few decades is at odds with crime statistics, and I think it suggests factors specific to militancy and warmongering rather than general factors affecting violence.

I think these are the big ones:
It was only after Vietnam that the government started its heavy pro-military propaganda and "soldier worship" became common (as a response to the "babykiller" stuff). This is HUGE. On top of the constant talk about the "greatest generation" (WWII), kids in my generation GREW UP being told how awesome and brave and great and wonderful soldiers and the military are. We have been taught by family, media, etc. to revere military men as role models above all others and thank them every day for our freedom, and this was bound to have consequences. Growing up, I remember actually looking forward to wars, so the USA and eventually my generation could demonstrate our bravery and greatness. Messed up, huh? That's how we were brought up though, so it should be no surprise that not everyone grew out of it. We have become a military-obsessed culture. This IMO is the crux of the problem, but it's incredibly difficult to speak out against it to promote a healthier, more skeptical view of the military, because the propaganda is so ingrained that people react explosively to military criticism.
Rather than being a cause, I think war-specific games (Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, Battlezone, Band of Brothers, etc.) are actually expressions of the above problem: Instead of necessarily going into the military, a lot of kids just safely "live out" their preexisting military fantasies through these games.
Politically speaking, the news media and both party leaderships have become almost entirely consumed by warmongers, and anyone who opposes war is weak, unpatriotic, un-American, an America-hater, blah blah. When the news media almost nobody in politics really opposes war, that removes a source of visible resistance that would otherwise help temper public opinions.
A lot of us were raised by the hippies turned warmongers that you refer to. ;)
The propaganda following 9/11 changed a lot of things for a lot of people.
As you mention, not having a draft has insulated most of us from the consequences of war. The draft is obviously evil, but its existence used to fuel opposition to war (and the draft itself).

2young2vote
05-03-2011, 01:30 PM
I'm pretty sure the new boogeyman is going to be big corporations like oil companies and the pharmaceutical industry. Its pretty bad right now but I think it will get much worse. The next boogeyman doesn't necessarily have to be military related.

showpan
05-03-2011, 02:55 PM
Can we please declare a "war on neoconservatives"

Vessol
05-03-2011, 03:01 PM
Can we please declare a "war on neoconservatives"

http://files.coloribus.com/files/adsarchive/part_732/7329755/file/gun-control-awareness-backwards-gun-small-13099.jpg

tpreitzel
05-03-2011, 04:14 PM
Mini-Me

Your comment on violence deserves a much more detailed response which I'll hopefully address with enough time. Although your reservations about using violence as a cause for our increasing militancy is understood, I think that you're glossing over the negative effects of violence on our culture. One must ask why certain people are allegedly predisposed to violence in the first place. It's quite difficult to separate the cause and effect of violence. Violence is like an insidious cancer which slowly and largely unconsciously consumes the host. Kids today are literally surrounded by increasing violence from birth so any poll or even controlled study will likely have GREAT difficulty being impartial. Thanks for your response. God help us as a nation and culture.

South Park Fan
05-03-2011, 04:55 PM
It is possible that Gaddafi will be made into the next bogeyman, but that would soon dissipate if he is captured/killed in the near future. I think Assad may be a more likely scapegoat, since Syria provides a "back door to war" with Iran. Don't be surprised if Hezbollah or other Syrian militants are accused of bombing a train in the U.S. between now and Election Day.

libertybrewcity
05-03-2011, 05:11 PM
anyone with a turbin on their head.

pcosmar
05-03-2011, 05:17 PM
So.. who is the next boogie man that we need to chase?


anyone with a turbin on their head.

Nope.
It will be us.

Anti Federalist
05-03-2011, 05:24 PM
So.. who is the next boogie man that we need to chase?



Nope.
It will be us.

I don't doubt that for a second.

Carson
05-03-2011, 05:25 PM
I remember reading this sentence in a story a while back.

"There are now only 5 nations on the world left without a Rothschild controlled central bank: Iran; North Korea; Sudan; Cuba; and Libya."

I'm not sure if it is true. The list was seven before. It had Afghanistan and Iraq on it then.

2young2vote
05-03-2011, 05:27 PM
So.. who is the next boogie man that we need to chase?



Nope.
It will be us.

I don't think so. They've been going after Americans for a long time now and will use incrementalism, just like they always do. They will not simply turn their heads towards the people. Unless you are talking about conservative groups and militias, then you could be right. I think police brutality is secondary to whatever they will focus on next.

Vessol
05-03-2011, 06:32 PM
I don't doubt that for a second.

A good number of posters here seem to doubt that for some reason. Contrary to the evidence such as the MIAC reports and continued reports that have been leaked. Obviously the government is good and is looking out for us.

Anti Federalist
05-03-2011, 06:39 PM
A good number of posters here seem to doubt that for some reason. Contrary to the evidence such as the MIAC reports and continued reports that have been leaked. Obviously the government is good and is looking out for us.

It's called "whistling past the graveyard".


Verb

to whistle past the graveyard

1.(idiomatic, US) To attempt to stay cheerful in a dire situation; to proceed with a task, ignoring an upcoming hazard, hoping for a good outcome.
2.(idiomatic, US) To enter a situation with little or no understanding of the possible consequences.

In light of how close we are to things going very, very badly sideways, I can't say I blame them.

It is frustrating though.

The lack of alarm has direct repercussions on all the rest of us.

acptulsa
05-03-2011, 06:53 PM
You mean besides Julian Assange? Probably Donald Trump. Or, at least, I hope so. Little bread and a circus like that...


Btw, it makes me sick that Im right but we all know it....

Great posts as usual, Mr. Pretzel and Mini-Me. But you don't look back far enough. My grandfather went 'over there' and came back bragging they had 'made the world safe for democracy' and convinced war is hell. My father served with a generation who really did make the world safe for liberty, or at least over half of it, and became convinced war could do good. On them is this empire built.

You're right, mstrmac1. We all know it. Makes me sick, too.

Now, how do we stop it by making it obvious to any idiot? Set up office pools asking the very OP question? Khaddafi gets 5:4 odds, and Trump is a thousand to one...

tpreitzel
05-03-2011, 07:49 PM
You mean besides Julian Assange? Probably Donald Trump. Or, at least, I hope so. Little bread and a circus like that...



Great posts as usual, Mr. Pretzel and Mini-Me. But you don't look back far enough. My grandfather went 'over there' and came back bragging they had 'made the world safe for democracy' and convinced war is hell. My father served with a generation who really did make the world safe for liberty, or at least over half of it, and became convinced war could do good. On them is this empire built.



acptulsa,

IIUC, then the people's standard for victory is whatever our government sets for us. In other words, your grandfather's measure of victory was also the standard of the state. Apparently, few of us including your grandfather, are able to objectively assess the origin for our standards of victory so we simply adopt the standard promoted by the state. I'm assuming that your father served in WW2 and naturally never considered the possibility that they were fighting for a covert agenda not directly stated by the state, e.g. the adoption of global government (UN). So, we, the people, unquestioningly adopt the state's promoted standard for victory and the state's promoted standard always consists of war because "war could do good", i.e. fulfill the standard promoted by the state (victory). However, while we, the people, adopt the state's promoted standard for victory, a covert standard is concomitantly adopted as well although that covert standard would NEVER be adopted consciously or willingly by the people. In other words, the use of violence works on many levels whether stated or not. Therein lies the danger, violence begets violence (it works), but we, the people, don't understand all the ramifications as we don't direct the use of violence, we just participate as willing pawns based on the standard promoted the state. Thus, we, the people, should be very careful about adopting any standard promoted in our personal or political lives which includes violence.

acptulsa
05-03-2011, 08:08 PM
True. But the standard for victory has been incrementalized, or more precisely, the expectation that this standard is desirable has been overblown. After the trench warfare of WWI, it really was hard to set a standard for victory that seemed worth what it took to win. War was undesirable. But the cause was so much more obviously just and the enemy faced sufficiently more despicable during The Big One that it seems to have lowered the bar. What I don't understand is why Vietnam didn't raise that bar again. It should have.

This was the attitude after The War to End All Wars:


'Nowadays we have diplomats work on wars for years before arranging them. That's so when it's over, nobody will know what they were fighting for. We lost thousands and spent billions, and you could hand a sheet of paper to one million different people and tell 'em to write down what the last war was for, and the only answer that will be alike will be, "Damned if I know."'--Will Rogers

They learned how to sell them better since.

tpreitzel
05-03-2011, 08:21 PM
In other words, advances in technology has made war more palatable to the masses?

heavenlyboy34
05-03-2011, 08:25 PM
In other words, advances in technology has made war more palatable to the masses?

That, and a progressive dumbing down through (mis)education certainly helps. JMHO

tpreitzel
05-03-2011, 08:43 PM
This was the attitude after The War to End All Wars:



They learned how to sell them better since.

The quotation from Will Rogers is a great one. We, the people, simply don't have ACCESS to the information required to go to war. Our government hides behind of veil of national security so we, the people, are left with the state's promoted standard or searching for one. Then, our government accuses us of being conspiracy theorists when any theorizing about government's intentions results from the government's failure to communicate fully and honestly with the people. The result is carnage everywhere and the crippled and traumatized of war left scratching their heads with missing fingers along with their increasing loss of liberty.