I gave facts on actions taken. Krimel layed forth only smears, with no content of thought based on anything pragmatic. I even gave Krimel the benefit of the doubt and said "we'll see" and it is "possible", but I've showed the record of Obama and layed forth the shape of the forces at work in D.C. such as Fed. Reserve, Military Industrial Complex, CIA tactics, etc... Krimel can only say calm down and so forth. I am calm. Calm enough to sit and examine the evidence. Clinton set the stage with the repel of the Glass-Steagull Act, and Bush followed forth with his agenda and Obama is picking up and joining where they have left off. This history is deeper, but as Obama voted for the bailout and it won't be last time I assure you if history holds any continual weight just to name something else. So unless Krimel can add something of intellectual value instead of his debased rant with no pragmatic facts... You would think a science based approach that Krimel advocates would be more skeptical about politics and would have done some intrinsic reflection on his own party instead of blaming ONLY the Republicans, but science lacking reference to value might be why science can be the most dupped sphere of practice. I mean when they built the A-Bomb the scientist said it was just science, and they cleaned their hands from what the politicians did, so like the unconsciousness zombies that forget a reality that consists of emotions and real dangers that have marched on this earth since time immemorial. I'm sure you may something else to add to this Krimel, I don't know everything and don't pretend to. So unless you can put more effort into some intellectual discussion that help affirm your perspective, but... it would be difficult, unless, we even know what it is your contention is with Obama and what hopes and trust you put in him. If you can't simply even do this, then I have nothing to come back to you with in open discussion, for you haven't put anything on the table to discuss and contend that deals with Obama in facts and pragmatic intentions. So your post was dust blowing in the wind with no foundation layed to cultivate an atomosphere of peaceful conduct and discussion so the hope of even knowing what's in your mind with any intellectually grasp was not given by you other than an attack on me, so unlike the model you have chosen named Obama. Again I give the benefit of the doubt and say we'll see, but it looks like Krimel is just defending an ideology of his own with blind faith without any critical analysis other than the same divide and conquer, 'It's the democratic party so it must be good.' We'll see... I hope your right, we'll see...
woods P.S. Thanks Platt. Your post pointed out the "blind faith" and lacking of anything to really discuss with Krimel because he didn't say anything that has a basis in intellectual pursuits to continue a critical anaylsis of politics and the continued wondering of SOM without the newer philosophy yet to emerge in wider society that Thoreau called for and Pirsig picked up on. I really won't have time to post for some time... there have been some really good posts in these last couple months. Thanks again Platt. ________________________________ From: Platt Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2008 1:55:25 PM Subject: Re: [MD] On the road to serfdom Hi All, Krimel engages in the usual leftist smear tactics in an attempt to intimidate anyone who dares consider the conservative values, in this case personally attacking Woods as being a fear monger, out of his depth, lacking discernment, not having a grip, not knowing how to get a grip, and befuddled.The smarmy arrogance of self-righteous lefties such as Krimel is a wonder to behold. By comparison, Pirsig's Rigel, the symbol of all those who go around posing as a moralists, is a piker. Was Krimel provoked into personally attacking Woods because Woods had previously attacked him? No. But now, Woods is perfectly justified in responding in kind. Platt > Krimel: > Despotism? Again the fear mongering conservative dictionary seems not to > have been written on Planet Earth. > > woods: > It's called Obama's track record that I've posted here many > times recently. He's voted for Bush on restricting freedoms. > Patriot Act, Wiretapping (oh, like that's not happening on non-terrorist > like Bush promised, but it has been as the news has reported), he > wants to expand the military even more, calls for a civilian national > security force more well-funded than the military, calls to invade > Pakistan, Syria is on the list currently as we've seen so Obama will > have that, the World Banking System being discussed at the World > Summits, next one coming up soon (possibly one world currency > called for by Italian Prime Minister and French president), on and on, > if you really think Obama's going to go in and just do as he pleases, > yeah right... > > [Krimel] > You recent forays into investigative politics have been mildly > entertaining > but sadly you seem way out of your depth. You grab this and that off the > internet with not real discernment as to what is good information and > what > is dark fantasy. No one thinks anyone can go to Washington and do > exactly > what they please. But the president can change and reshape the agenda. > The > president can articulate a new vision for the country. A president with > a > sizable majority in congress can take us off the path of self indulgent > head > in the sand, tax breaks for Wall Street raiders and traders that we have > had > for the past 30 years. > > [woods] > If he can, without getting hurt, and nobody wants anybody > to get hurt in this forum, but Obama's out of his league if he thinks > he's going to change Washington. He would need the backing of > the people more than the people are willing to give at the moment. It > would take tremendous, daily support, but I'm sure the media won't > let us in on what's really happening in Washington. > > [Krimel] > If you think that no one can change Washington you are just wrong. > Without > taking an extended trip down memory lane, Roosevelt and Reagan both did > it > in alternating cycles of liberalism and conservatism that seem to last > about > 40 years. So thank God it is time for the pendulum to bring in a breath > of > fresh air. > > [woods > I've posted enough on this subject and built a case against this > two-party system and corrupt D.C. with the Banking system (Fed. > Reserve, etc...), so I rest my case, it's in the archive, Krimel this > is bigger than your little democratic party and Obama and it would > take some really ground shaking events by anybody that goes > into the white house and Obama's not it... so as Platt said > we'll see.... > > [Krimel] > Do you seriously think I am the least bit inclined to search through the > archives for your posts that I filed away as unreadable in the first > place? > You have been working yourself into a frenzy about issues you don't have > a > grip on and don't even seem to know how to go about getting a grip on. > Go > vote for some craziod third party nutcase. Vote for McCain. Do whatever > you > want to do but for Christ sake calm down. The world is not coming to an > end > here. It is just shifting shape. Again. But I suspect you will be as > befuddled by the new shape as by the old. > > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
