The imbecile, Cicerone Imposter, whose brain was severly affected during his stay in the California Concentration camps, wrote:
Re: Foxfyre (Post 3657817)
Foxie wrote: Quote:
...or those who are so consistently meanspirited and obnoxiously annoying with personally directed insults, ad hominem, non sequiturs, and self-righteous judgments that they turn people off.
Fits you like a "glove" Foxie.
*************************************************
What a moron!!!! Foxfyre is anything but what he describes!
-2 Reply report Sun 24 May, 2009 01:45 am Re: Debra Law (Post 3658089)
Debra L A W wrote that Obama isn't Obrien, Limbaugh/Hannity/Bush/Cheney are Obrien and Ican is Winston.
When I taught English Literature, I would have flunked Debra L AW. I am sure that Debra L A W never read "1984" or if she did she only read the comic book version.
Let's look at the facts:
l. O"Brien is in charge of the country of Oceania
. Limbaugh/Hannity/Bush/ Cheney are not.
2. Ican cannot possible be Winston. Winston was never able to write his opinions on a venue such as this which is visible to all.
3. Again, Debra L A W apparently does not know that Oceania is Socialistic.
I am certain that even Debra L A W, who consistently tortures logic would say that Limbaugh/Hannity/Bush or Cheney are SOCIALISTS>
But, let us quote directly from "1984"
quote P. 303
NEWSPEAK was the official language of Oceania,a nd had been devised to meet the IDEOLOGICAL NEEDS of INSOC, or ENGLISH SOCIALISM.
4. Debra L A W got the slogans wrong-----
The slogans in "1984" had nothing to do with Torture, Change or Greed. They were much much closer to the idiocies of Barack Hussein Obama.
One at a time--
WAR IS PEACE-
Not only is Obama leaving troops in Iraq for years, he is sending many more troops to AFGHANISTAN.
Because he is a flim-flam artist and can talk on all three sides of an issue at the same time, some do not realize that he will eventually have more troops at risk in Iraq and Afghanistan that the previous administration did.
second
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
Obama has taken freedom away from financial institutions, automobile manufacturers, Americans competing with illegal Aliens for jobs, and most American entreprenuers. Obama thinks that Americans are in favor of slavery.
third
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Obama campaigned on transparency. His policies are not at all transparent.
He refuses to give evidence that Los Angeles was threatened by AlQueda.
He refuses to tell the American People EXACTLY what will be done with
scores of dangerous inmates from Gitmo.
He refuses to tell the American people why he is going back on his pledge to compel industries which will fall under the disasterous " cap and trade' proposals to pay for emissions.
*************************************************
Debra L A W had better read "1984" again! She certainly did not understand it the first time she read it--If she ever did.
@parados,
Orwell was anti-Catholic conservatism resulting in commentary dissing G. K. Chesterton who wrote almost a parallel book to "1984," "The Napoleon of Notting Hill," both about revolutions which had gone wrong, only in the Chesterton novel, a King of the people instead of by heredity takes power like Big Brother. It's the same result with the death of democracy and the people becoming conditioned to a single tyrannical leader. In "1984" it was a totalitarian nationalism and many have analyzed its political bent but Orwell left it open to interpretation. There was the anti-sex league but the proles were allowed pornographic literature and films produced by the government. Relentless propaganda and party policemen were how the despotic leader controlled the population. Conservatives who insist on interpreting it as an attack on socialism by a writer who has seen the light is on some kind of self-imposed delusional trip -- Orwell hated the blurbs solicited by his pubisher when the books was published and probably would have lost his lunch over that one.
@Lightwizard,
Orwell's disillusion was with the Bolsheviks--that they had abandoned socialist principles (as in Lenin's New Economic Plan, which was based upon the idea that the dictatorship of the proletariat could not take place in a pre-industrial state, and that therefore, Russia would have to be industrialized before the socialist state could be created), and that they had become totalitarian under Stalin. There is no reason to assume that Orwell had lost his confidence in socialism, simply that he had lost his confidence in those who raised a socialist banner, for the purpose of seizing power for themselves.
@Setanta,
Setanta provides no evidence. His post gives no real answer to the questions raised. Setanta wrote that "There was no reason to assume that Orwell had lost his confidence in Socialism, simply that he had lost his confidence in those who raised a socialist banner, for the purpose of seizing power for themselves.
Here, unwittingly( since he has no wit left) Setanta descibes
l. A major reason why Communism fell/
2. A major reason why China is becoming quasi-capitalistic
3. A major reason why Barack Hussein Obama has not lost his confidence in Socialism.
@Setanta,
He never showed his disillusion with democratic socialist principals to the end of his life and wrote a the book on how any radical can take power by piling deception on deception on deception and propagandizing all of it as the truth. 2 plus 2 equals 5. "Animal Farm" was absolutely anti-Stalinist.
@wandeljw,
wandel, IMO, that's the best way to fight terrorists. Big war machines are useless against the Taliban and al Qaida who hide amongst innocent folks.
It's more like police work than military operations most of the time until they find a whole group.
@wandeljw,
Josh Meyer, The Chicago Tribune, May 24, 2009 wrote:...
Veteran FBI agents used their expertise in non-coercive interrogations to thwart attacks, win convictions of Al Qaeda operatives and gain knowledge of how the terror network operates. But soon after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, FBI agents withdrew from interrogating important Al Qaeda suspects after the bureau opposed the brutal tactics being used by the CIA and military.
Bush administration officials defend the tactics and reject claims that the FBI's methods would have worked better. "With many thousands of lives potentially in the balance, we did not think it made good sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time," former Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech Thursday.
Obviously, what the FBI did prior to 9/11 to curb terrorist attacks in the USA
did not work. It is also obvious that what the CIA and military did after 9/11 to curb terrorist attacks in the USA
did work.
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
wandel, IMO, that's the best way to fight terrorists. Big war machines are useless against the Taliban and al Qaida who hide amongst innocent folks.
It's more like police work than military operations most of the time until they find a whole group.
Then why send more military to Afghanistan?
More from our new President's world of good intentions not being throught through all the way and producing unintended negative consequences:
Quote:British banks revolt against Obama tax plan
British banks and stockbrokers may refuse to take on American clients if new international tax proposals outlined by President Obama are passed.
By Louise Armitstead
L24 May 2009
The decision, which would make it hard for Americans in London to open bank accounts and trade shares, is being discussed by executives at Britain's banks and brokers who say it could become too expensive to service American clients. The proposals, which were unveiled as part of the president's first budget, are designed to clamp-down on American tax evaders abroad. However bank bosses say they are being asked to take on the task of collecting American taxes at a cost and legal liability that are inexpedient.
Essex county council local election 2009Andy Thompson of Association of Private Client Investment Managers and Stockbrokers (APCIMS) said: "The cost and administration of the US tax regime is causing UK investment firms to consider disinvesting in US shares on behalf of their clients. This is not right and emphasises that the administration of a tax regime on a global scale without any flexibility damages the very economy it is trying to protect."
One executive at a top UK bank who didn't want to be named for fear of angering the IRS said: "It's just about manageable under the current system - and that's because we're big. The danger to us is suddenly being hauled over the coals by the IRS for a client that hasn't paid proper taxes. The audit costs will soar. We'll have to pay it but I know plenty of smaller players won't."
The British Bankers Association (BBA) and APCIMS had a meeting with European counterparts 10 days ago to discuss the crisis. A delegation is set to meet the US Treasury's Internal Revenue Service on 16th June to demand they drop the reforms. . . . .
TELEGRAPH.UK
To add to that post, the evidence is growing that the US populace is not concerned about global warming and that there is no consensus--
NOTE:
A Post article on May 19 falsely reported that there is a "consensus" among scientists and a growing portion of the American public that human carbon emissions are causing a dangerous, long-term increase in worldwide temperatures. The facts, overwhelmingly, show no such consensus.
The Post's David A. Fahrenthold reported that Republican "warming skeptics" are becoming ever bolder on Capitol Hill even as "most" or a "consensus" of "scientists around the globe have rejected their main arguments - that the climate isn't clearly warming, that humans aren't responsible for it, or that the whole thing doesn't amount to a problem." He continued: "Public opinion has also shifted" in favor of warming's existence and importance.
The latter claim is risible. Earlier this month, Gallup poll editor Frank Newport told U.S. News & World Report's Paul Bedard that on global warming, "Any measure that we look at shows Al Gore's losing at the moment. The public is just not that concerned." The highest number of respondents ever, he said - 41 percent - thinks warming claims are exaggerated. That 41 percent swamped the 28 percent who think the threat is "underestimated." Of eight major "environmental issues" (including water pollution and loss of rain forests), the public ranked warming last. The Pew Research Center in January reported climate change ranking dead last among 20 major public concerns.
Respected scientists are far from united on the issue. Reports in August from the International Geology Congress - and from other conferences or major scientific organizations in Canada, Japan, Australia and elsewhere - indicate majorities disagreeing with climate-change dogma. Republicans on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works have compiled a list of more than 700 well-credentialed scientists, including many who once believed in warming, who argue against the warming theory.
More than 31,000 scientists have signed a Global Warming Petition expressing doubts. The founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, has written that warming is "the greatest scam in history." As far back as two years ago, The Post's own Juliet Eilperin reported that consensus on warming was shrinking, not growing. And for good reason. Earth temperatures actually have dropped since 1998. The National Snow and Ice Data Center in April showed more Arctic sea ice than in any April since 2003. Even many prominent warming supporters acknowledge that their own models now forecast cooling for the next 30 years.
Whichever group of scientists is correct, the simple fact is that the idea of consensus is a myth.
*******************************************************************
Parados wont comment on this since it destroys his main thesis--that we are all going to die in a few years because of "global warming".
Parados avoids any evidence that he can't handle.
@okie,
Okie- Don't you know? Cicerone Imposter is completely illogical. If you have time and want to laugh, check out his two and three line idiocies. The poor man is absurd
He has you and me on ignore. That is because, with his limited skills, he couldn't possibly handle the posts we write giving hard evidence.
Remember, he is part of a group of chimpanzees who do not view these threads as a place for debate and discussion but rather a site where the chimps can groom each other.
Ican--a good point about the CIA. You may be interested to read the following column from CNN- A left wing source reporting in 2002. WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Shortly after 9/11, al Qaeda began planning to use shoe bombers to hijack a commercial airplane and fly it into the tallest building in Los Angeles, California, President Bush said Thursday.
The details were the first from the administration about the West Coast airliner plot, which was thwarted in 2002 and initially disclosed by the White House last year.
The plot was set in motion by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the September 11, 2001, attacks, a month after the airplanes crashed into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Bush said. It involved terrorists from al Qaeda's Southeast Asia wing, Jemaah Islamiyah. (Watch Bush's disclosure on the timing and location -- 1:45)
"Rather than use Arab hijackers, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed sought out young men from Southeast Asia whom he believed would not arouse as much suspicion," Bush said.
Mohammed was captured in Pakistan in 2003.
Bush said the plotters planned to use shoe bombs to breach the cockpit door and hijack the plane.
At a later briefing, Bush's homeland security adviser, Fran Townsend, said the leader of the four-man cell that was planning the attack had been arrested in 2003.
She did not identify him, but said he was trained personally by Mohammed "in the shoe bomb technique."
"You'll all recall that there was the arrest of the shoe bomber Richard Reid in December of 2001, and he was instructing the cell leader on the use of the same technique," Townsend said, but later added it was not clear if Reid was directly involved in the Los Angeles plot.
Reid pleaded guilty in 2002 to trying to blow up a trans-Atlantic airplane with explosives he had hidden in his shoes. Intelligence indicated Reid reported to Mohammed.
U.S. authorities don't have details on the West Coast plot, such as whether a specific flight was targeted or a day scheduled, Townsend said.
She added that the hijacking was intended to be part of the 9/11 attacks, but Osama bin Laden instructed the terrorists to focus solely on the East Coast that day.
"It's our understanding now that it was too difficult to get enough operatives for both the East and West Coast plots at the same time," she said.
Al Qaeda's Southeast Asia leader, known as Hambali, had recruited Jemaah Islamiyah operatives for the plot, Bush said. Hambali was arrested in 2003 in Thailand, five months after Mohammed was arrested in Pakistan.
The would-be hijackers met with al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and then began preparing for the attack, which was derailed in early 2002, Bush said.
The purported plot was one of 10 on a list first released by the White House in October. (Full story)
The intended target of the attack was a building then known as the Library Tower. It was renamed the U.S. Bank Tower in 2003 and, at 1,018 feet, is the tallest building west of the Mississippi River. It is among the 25 tallest buildings in the world.
Bush credited international cooperation in the war on terrorism with saving American lives.
"The West Coast plot shows we face a relentless and determined enemy that requires unprecedented cooperation from other nations," he said. "By working together, we stopped a catastrophic attack."
Two members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sens. Jay Rockefeller, D-West Virginia, and Dianne Feinstein, D-California, questioned the timing and the details of Bush's revelation.
"It may be that they're tired of talking about the Brooklyn Bridge, and they're trying to find a different edifice of some sort," Rockefeller said.
Added Feinstein, "All I'm saying is that's not a new revelation and I've never seen anything that indicated whether the second wave was bona fide or not."
Emphasizing that there is no imminent threat to his city, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said during a Thursday news conference that he had already heard about the 2002 threat, but Thursday was the first time he'd learned the details. (Watch the mayor discuss the threat of terror -- 4:36)
"The city of Los Angeles has implemented significant security measures since that time," the mayor said, explaining that security personnel at high-rise buildings throughout the city have received training in terrorism detection, evacuations and diminishing the impact of an explosion.
@Lightwizard,
Light Wizard says that "Animal Farm" was Anti-Stalinist. Of course, but he did not deplore the idea of Communism but rather the fact that the "pigs"(Lenin and Stalin) took over the revolution for "safekeeping" until the masses could take control---Which would have been never.
People who have not read "1984' intensely should go back to read it before making fools of themselves.
@Setanta,
Setanta is confused.
Note:
source-_Wikipedia--
Orwell's words in this and other writings at the time leave no doubt that in 1940 he regarded "English Socialism" as highly desirable and was actively trying to bring about its victory. Yet in the nightmare world he envisioned eight years later, the same term - contracted to "Ingsoc" - is the monstrous ideology of a totally oppressive regime, far from the relative moderate revolution which Orwell foresaw in 1940. When the vision of "The Lion and the Unicorn" is compared with that of "Nineteen Eighty-Four" it is evident that Orwell saw the regime presided over by Big Brother not only as a betrayal and perversion of socialist ideals in general, but also as a perversion of Orwell’s own specifically and dearly cherished vision and hope of "English Socialism". Oceania itself is a corrupted version of Orwell's vision, in which he believed the British Empire should become a "federation of Socialist states (...) like a looser and freer version of the Union of Soviet Republics".
*****************************************************************
Orwell's Socialism was based on a Utopia which never came to fruition. Setanta is probably still suffering under the delusion that Communism still lives and that Socialism is viable. Communism is dead and Socialism is dying.
or, I should say, the ideal form of Socialism is dying. The Socialism professed by Barack Hussein Obama is not dead. It is not the Socialism that Orwell desired because it is based on one main premise--the accsession of more power by a Saul Alinsky wannabe--BHO.
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:
George Soros is seeking to emulate “Big Brother” in 1984.
GEORGE SOROS in his 1995 book, page 145, [I]Soros on Soros[/I], wrote: I do not accept the rules imposed by others. If I did, I would not be alive today. I am a law-abiding citizen, but I recognize that there are regimes that need to be opposed rather than accepted. And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don't apply. One needs to adjust one's behavior to the changing circumstances.
Wait. So because Soros believes that " there are regimes that need to be opposed rather than accepted", he's
like Big Brother? Aren't the ones who will accept a regime's laws and authority, no matter whether it is morally right or not, the ones who are living in 1984?
Soros has opposed and acted against many authoritarian regimes. He did not just say, well, Lukashenka or Kuchma or Shevardnadze is the President, he sets out the laws and rules, and since those are the laws and rules, we need to just accept them and not violate them. He recognizes that sometimes, to resist a totalitarian regime, you need to go beyond the rules and laws it has set in place, and dare to defy authority. That doesn't put him on Big Brother's side, it puts him on the opposite side.
Far away from authoritarian regimes, in countries that are largely democratic, he challenges us again to think outside the box, and focus on making up our own mind about what kind of society we would like to live in. What about the current Constitution in the US, for example, on which you quote him? It's there, it was necessary, it's useful. But if you had the possibility to evaluate each of its laws on its merits and imagine new ones, what would you come up with? They are laws, not holy writs of self-evident truths that should be adhered to into infinity because, well, just because - as any authority, it can be questioned and it is always good to question it.
You may not agree with this - you may prefer to think of the Constitution as an untouchable set of rules underpinning the country's system of authority that should be obeyed through all our lives - but if so, again you can't say
Soros is the one on Big Brother's side. He's the one always questioning authority, and probing whether things are quite right the way they are now. The kind of thing that would have gotten one swiftly eliminated in
1984.
@nimh,
Oh ... ya know ... big brother, anarchist, law-breaker ... those evildoers, infiltrating the Land of the Free by immigrating here from evildoervania -- they're all the same. No wonder people are afraid of us here in the Home of the Brave. They better!
