--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected], Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote:
> > >
> > > You'd think the country was constantly under siege by Islamic
> > > terrorists which it isn't and nowhere close. This nonsense is
> > > totally unwarranted but their think tanks told them that when
> > > the economic shit hits the fan there will be massive unrest in
> > > this country (that is if the massive overweight can still walk
> > > the few steps to the streets) so they are putting the tools in
> > > place to control us.
> >
> > The last thing I want to do is get involved in a
> > bunch of US politics and conspiracy theories, but
> > as long as you're doing it, I think you might want
> > to aim your conspiracy theory a little less far
> > into the future. Economic collapse, scholapse,
> > dude...there is an *election* coming up, and elec-
> > tion that the Republicons cannot possibly win. So
> > do you think it's possible that a few of them are
> > thinking, "Hmmmm...we can't win an election, so
> > why don't we have a terrorist attack instead?
> > Then we wouldn't have to *have* an election."
> >
> > That's the way we'd do a good conspiracy theory
> > 'way over here in Europe. :-)
> >
> > And just in case things turn out that way, I just
> > wanted to be on record as having said it first,
> > *from* 'way over here in Europe. :-) :-) :-)
>
> Ahhh, no, not really. If I had a nickel for every
> time I've heard this suggested--since well before
> the 2004 election up to today--I'd be a wealthy
> woman.
>
Yeah, but it would be an uneasy wealth. As when you go to buy a car
and unload 100,000 nickels.
