tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38477122.post737466698589594380..comments2023-04-11T08:21:41.774-05:00Comments on Echoes in Eternity: Calling All Pro-Life ObamitesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38477122.post-979321919920475522009-03-24T13:40:00.000-05:002009-03-24T13:40:00.000-05:00"One could make an argument for, say, the Iraq War..."One could make an argument for, say, the Iraq War, that it was driven by an interest in saving the lives of innocents being massacred there. That's obviously not the entire picture (if it were, we'd be in Sudan right now), but it was definitely one reason."<BR/><BR/>Surely you don't still believe this. Well, maybe you do. <BR/><BR/>"Very true. While it is definitely wearing off with plenty of people, there are still tons (especially the media) who will still not ask any hard questions because they worship him. If Bush had been this incompetent, he would have been tarred and feathered by the elite." <BR/><BR/>Uh oh, we're using that "elite" word again. I'm interpreting your use of the word to mean that the media are the elite. Am I right? <BR/><BR/>You want to know who the real elites are? The central banks and the European and American oligarchs that effectively own the global banking and governmental systems and influence world politics through their power structures - the IMF, the World Bank, the Federal Reserve and the banks that own it, the Club of Rome, the CFR, the United Nations, etc. They have their representatives in the media, but the media are only useful to the extent that they echo their prescribed propaganda.<BR/><BR/>But yeah, the new is wearing off and people are some people are seeing him for who he is. They're not all willing to vouch for him anymore - the anti-war people, for instance. I could have told them they were being duped, but they wouldn't have listened. <BR/><BR/>Whether Bush or Obama, you have basically the same foreign policy with different rhetoric. The approach is a bit more cautionary and less heavy-handed, but its essentially the same. And for the life of me, I really don't know why conservatives aren't decrying the fact that war costs money and we really can't afford to chase Goldstein right now. <BR/><BR/>I think Bush was every bit as bad, but he got to the point where he couldn't sell himself anymore; he lost a lot of dignity and became quite pitiable. He relied almost solely on fear; he had that down home folksiness that some people fell for, but I didn't - at least not for long. He just ended up looking dumb all the time. <BR/><BR/>But just as you had the die-hard Bush supporters to whom the president could do no harm, you're going to see a much more severe case of this with Obama. His base will never give up on him - never.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38477122.post-33853180906407346132009-03-24T13:03:00.000-05:002009-03-24T13:03:00.000-05:00"The cult of personality behind this man is incred..."The cult of personality behind this man is incredible, much more powerful than I initially thought."<BR/><BR/>Very true. While it is definitely wearing off with plenty of people, there are still tons (especially the media) who will still not ask any hard questions because they worship him. If Bush had been this incompetent, he would have been tarred and feathered by the elite.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38477122.post-59339926237187399942009-03-24T13:01:00.000-05:002009-03-24T13:01:00.000-05:00"It's really no different than the driving ideolog..."It's really no different than the driving ideology behind wars of choice and the inevitable collateral damage."<BR/><BR/>Well, it depends on the reason for the "choice." One could make an argument for, say, the Iraq War, that it was driven by an interest in saving the lives of innocents being massacred there. That's obviously not the entire picture (if it were, we'd be in Sudan right now), but it was definitely one reason. If Saddam was a tyrant and threat ONLY to those outside of his country but a benevolent leader to his own people, it's improbable that we would have invaded. <BR/><BR/>But yes, if one chooses a war with no regard for the loss of innocent life involved, then that ideology is definitely similar to the abortion/eugenics/population control movement.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38477122.post-27286402968209099332009-03-24T10:37:00.000-05:002009-03-24T10:37:00.000-05:00The cult of personality behind this man is incredi...The cult of personality behind this man is incredible, much more powerful than I initially thought. I thought President Clinton was charismatic, and he is, but the power behind our current president is nothing short of a cultural phenomenon. Its like these people are in a hypnotic trance, and on some level I think they are. You can tell him the things he does and they simply cannot or will not believe it, because they see you as an enemy for questioning their messiah. You can say, "Hey, did you know that Obama is enforcing the negative eugenics policy by not only promoting infanticide in our country but in Africa as well?" They're programming won't allow them to process that. He is their "hope" and their "change". <BR/><BR/>And even most of the pro-life folks cannot even understand that at the root of it, the abortion issue is part of the broader implementation of negative eugenics for population control. It demonstrates a value system that does not prize individual human life, only the lives of some. Its really no different than the driving ideology behind wars of choice and the inevitable collateral damage. <BR/><BR/>I heard a Christian friend of mine joke the other day about Arabs in the Middle East by saying, "Nuke 'em all!" And although he is a believer, he had absolutely no clue as to the depravity of such humor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com