1
   

Information Control or how to get to Orwellian governance II

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Dec, 2007 03:15 pm
A hot mist rises in ican's noggin.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Dec, 2007 01:06 pm
blatham wrote:
A hot mist rises in ican's noggin.

That mist has cooled.

Carl Rove is long gone from government and will be short come into the Soros gang's "Newspeak" if/when he writes Newsweek articles.

My guess is Carl Rove will merely be Newsweek's token member of Truespeak, so they are more credible if/when they claim they are balanced!
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Dec, 2007 01:15 pm
ican711nm wrote:
blatham wrote:
A hot mist rises in ican's noggin.

That mist has cooled.

Carl Rove is long gone from government and will be short come into the Soros gang's "Newspeak" if/when he writes Newsweek articles.

My guess is Carl Rove will merely be Newsweek's token member of Truespeak, so they are more credible if/when they claim they are balanced!


He has already written several. I suggest perusing Google for more information of it.

And, his name is Karl Rove. You've made that same error twice now.

It is purely impossible that you actually believe the things you write.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Dec, 2007 02:45 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
blatham wrote:
A hot mist rises in ican's noggin.

That mist has cooled.

Carl Rove is long gone from government and will be short come into the Soros gang's "Newspeak" if/when he writes Newsweek articles.

My guess is Carl Rove will merely be Newsweek's token member of Truespeak, so they are more credible if/when they claim they are balanced!


He has already written several. I suggest perusing Google for more information of it.

And, his name is Karl Rove. You've made that same error twice now.

It is purely impossible that you actually believe the things you write.

Cycloptichorn

You're right! I never believed that "mist" that rose in my noggin was hot. It was never hot, only warm. In fact it wasn't a "mist". It was merely a soap bubble. But I did think Carl was spelled with a C instead of a K!


George Orwell in NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR wrote:
http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/

PART III, Chapter III, pages 274-283.
http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chap20.html

Dictator said: 'If you are a man, Individualist, you are the last man. Your kind is extinct; we are the inheritors. Do you understand that you are a lone? You are outside history, you are non-existent.' His manner changed and he said more harshly: 'And you consider yourself morally superior to us, with our lies and our cruelty?'

'Yes, I consider myself superior.'
inserted by ican

George Orwell in NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR, Part III, Chapter II, wrote:

Dictator said, 'Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party. That is the fact that you have got to relearn, Individualist. It needs an act of self-destruction, an effort of the will. You must humble yourself before you can become sane.'
inserted by ican

George Orwell in NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR, Part III, Chapter IV, wrote:

Dictator thinks, Anything could be true. The so-called laws of Nature were nonsense. The law of gravity was nonsense. Dictator said, 'I could float off this floor like a soap bubble' ... Collectivist thinks, 'If he THINKS he floats off the floor, and if I simultaneously THINK I see him do it, then the thing happens.' Suddenly, like a lump of submerged wreckage breaking the surface of water, the thought burst into his mind: 'It doesn't really happen. We imagine it. It is hallucination.' He pushed the thought under instantly. The fallacy was obvious. It presupposed that somewhere or other, outside oneself, there was a 'real' world where 'real' things happened. But how could there be such a world? What knowledge have we of anything, save through our own minds? All happenings are in the mind. Whatever happens in all minds, truly happens.

He had no difficulty in disposing of the fallacy, and he was in no danger of succumbing to it. He realized, nevertheless, that it ought never to have occurred to him. The mind should develop a blind spot whenever a dangerous thought presented itself. The process should be automatic, instinctive. CRIMESTOP, they called it in Newspeak.
inserted by ican
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2008 09:32 pm
As Scaife's name has come up here on various occasions, I thought it appropriate to note the tragic recent domestic troubles in that family...

Quote:
Over many years, in the five households the couple shared, the wife hired scores of servants to help take care of her rich husband. Then, in 2005, she hired someone to tail him. Margaret Ritchie Rhea Battle Scaife (whose friends call her Ritchie) suspected Richard Mellon Scaife (whose friends call him Dick) of committing adultery, so she enlisted the services of an investigator. It was a private act that would have very public consequences. Richard Mellon Scaife is the best-known living member of Pittsburgh's storied Mellon clan, whose eponymous bank made the family a 19th-century fortune, which grew steadily with diversified investments, including major coal, steel, and real-estate interests, and Gulf Oil Corporation. Scaife, who owns several newspapers, is a major backer of conservative causes; his political donations fueled the rise of the New Right and its moral crusade against Bill Clinton, making Scaife the central figure in Hillary Clinton's "vast right-wing conspiracy." In the 1990s, his gift of $1.8 million to The American Spectator funded investigations into Whitewater and Bill Clinton's personal life, including David Brock's notorious "Troopergate" exposé, which led to Paula Jones's sexual-harassment suit against the president.


In December of 2005, the private detective proved Ritchie's fears to have been well founded: he took pictures showing the reclusive 75-year-old billionaire with a woman named Tammy Vasco, a tall, blonde 43-year-old whose criminal history includes two arrests for prostitution. The pair was photographed at Doug's Motel, a roadside establishment near Pittsburgh, where rooms rent for $49 a night, or $31 for three hours.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/02/scaife200802?currentPage=1

So Scaife, protector of the pure and the good, leaves his wife at home to go boink a prostitute in a $49 per nite motel.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2008 11:57 am
blatham wrote:

...
So Scaife, protector of the pure and the good, leaves his wife at home to go boink a prostitute in a $49 per nite motel.


Scaife outs a rotter named Clinton.

Vanity Fair outs a rotter named Scaife.

Will somebody out a rotter named Vanity Fair?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2008 04:36 am
Here's a tidbit I didn't know...
Quote:
Encounter, a magazine that Irving Kristol co-founded in 1952, was secretly underwritten by the Central Intelligence Agency.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/books/review/Noah-t.html?ref=books
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2008 01:31 pm
blatham wrote:
Here's a tidbit I didn't know...
Quote:
Encounter, a magazine that Irving Kristol co-founded in 1952, was secretly underwritten by the Central Intelligence Agency.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/books/review/Noah-t.html?ref=books

Blatham, this is just another nytimes article for dupes.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Feb, 2008 10:01 am
Here's a classic... (Josh Marshall describes it as "an interdepartmental transfer")

Quote:
Ex-Bush aide Rove to join Fox News Channel

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Karl Rove, the strategist behind President George W. Bush's ascendancy to the White House, will join Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel as a contributor starting with Super Tuesday, the network said.

Rove was chief strategist for Bush's 2000 presidential campaign and joined him in the White House in several capacities, including deputy chief of staff. He left the White House in August.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0459727120080204?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Feb, 2008 03:54 pm
blatham wrote:
Here's a classic... (Josh Marshall describes it as "an interdepartmental transfer")

Quote:
Ex-Bush aide Rove to join Fox News Channel

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Karl Rove, the strategist behind President George W. Bush's ascendancy to the White House, will join Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel as a contributor starting with Super Tuesday, the network said.

Rove was chief strategist for Bush's 2000 presidential campaign and joined him in the White House in several capacities, including deputy chief of staff. He left the White House in August.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0459727120080204?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews

FOX should fair and balance this by hiring you.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Feb, 2008 02:45 pm
How is this for Orwellian?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/177496.php

Quote:
02.07.08 -- 1:24PM // link | recommend (25)
Mark This Day

Attorney General Michael Mukasey is back on the Hill today, testifying to the House Judiciary Committee. Paul Kiel is covering it at TPMmuckraker.

So far, he's dropped two big bombshells. DOJ will not be investigating:

(1) whether the waterboarding, now admitted to by the White House, was a crime; or

(2) whether the Administration's warrantless wiretapping was illegal.

His rationale? Both programs had been signed off on in advance as legal by the Justice Department.


Cynics may argue that those aren't bombshells at all, that the Bush Administration would never investigate itself in these matters. Perhaps so. But this is a case where cynicism is itself dangerous.

We have now the Attorney General of the United States telling Congress that it's not against the law for the President to violate the law if his own Department of Justice says it's not.

It is as brazen a defense of the unitary executive as anything put forward by the Administration in the last seven years, and it comes from an attorney general who was supposed to be not just a more professional, but a more moderate, version of Alberto Gonzales (Thanks to Democrats like Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer for caving on the Mukasey nomination.).

President Bush has now laid down his most aggressive challenge to the very constitutional authority of Congress. It is a naked assertion of executive power. The founders would have called it tyrannical. His cards are now all on the table. This is no bluff.

--David Kurtz


Get that?

The official DoJ position is that the President can violate the law all he wants, as long as he has ordered his subordinates to decree that it's not against the law - regardless of what the law actually says. And that you can't investigate whether or not the DoJ opinions violate the law or not.

Orwellian to say the least, this is crazy!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Feb, 2008 05:25 pm
Critical election coming up, is it not?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Feb, 2008 08:32 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
The official DoJ position is that the President can violate the law all he wants, as long as he has ordered his subordinates to decree that it's not against the law - regardless of what the law actually says. And that you can't investigate whether or not the DoJ opinions violate the law or not.

Orwellian to say the least, this is crazy!

Cycloptichorn

I wish you orwellian accusers would identify the specific laws that are allegedly being violated by the administration, and stop merely relying on one or another truespeak's opinion that the laws are being violated.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Feb, 2008 08:34 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
The official DoJ position is that the President can violate the law all he wants, as long as he has ordered his subordinates to decree that it's not against the law - regardless of what the law actually says. And that you can't investigate whether or not the DoJ opinions violate the law or not.

Orwellian to say the least, this is crazy!

Cycloptichorn

I wish you orwellian accusers would identify the specific laws that are allegedly being violated by the administration, and stop merely relying on one or another truespeak's opinion that the laws are being violated.


Bush is breaking FISA; he has violated laws prohibiting torture in America; he is violating the 4th amendment, and abusing the separation of powers by attempting to circumvent the legislature in setting up permanent military bases and agreements in Iraq.

But, you knew all this.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Feb, 2008 09:09 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

...

Bush is breaking FISA; he has violated laws prohibiting torture in America; he is violating the 4th amendment, and abusing the separation of powers by attempting to circumvent the legislature in setting up permanent military bases and agreements in Iraq.

But, you knew all this.

Cycloptichorn

No, I only knew that you think all this unproved and baseless stuff is true. But you did not answer my question. Again:
Quote:
I wish you orwellian accusers would identify the specific laws that are allegedly being violated by the administration, and stop merely relying on one or another truespeak's opinion that the laws are being violated.

What specifically in FISA has the administration violated or is the administration violating?

As for the fourth amendment, surely you understand that applies only to USA citizens and USA residents. It does not apply to those who have declared and are waging war against the USA.
Quote:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

By the way, what "searches and seizures" are we performing or have we performed on our enemies that are unreasonable?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Feb, 2008 09:21 pm
Quote:

What specifically in FISA has the administration violated or is the administration violating?


The part which requires a judge to certify whether or not a person who is being wiretapped is an American citizen. Haven't you been paying attention, Ican?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Feb, 2008 09:57 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

What specifically in FISA has the administration violated or is the administration violating?


The part which requires a judge to certify whether or not a person who is being wiretapped is an American citizen. Haven't you been paying attention, Ican?

Cycloptichorn

What part is that? Name it and post it here. And don't forgrt the contextual information that limits its meaning to those Americans for whom indictments are anticipated.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Feb, 2008 10:25 pm
Quote:
(a)
(1)
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed atthere is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and


http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36_20_I.html

Quote:
(2) An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney General's certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. The Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence under the provisions of section 1808 (a) of this title.


Quote:
Mr. Bush quelled the revolt over the program's legality by allowing it to continue without Justice Department approval, also directing department officials to take the necessary steps to bring it into compliance with the law, according to Congressional testimony by the former deputy attorney general, James B. Comey.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/washington/16nsa.html


It looks to me like any eavesdropping without a warrant and without AG approval and the AG procedure in place would violate the law.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Feb, 2008 03:34 pm
parados wrote:
Quote:
(a)
(1)
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed atthere is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and

...
Quote:
(2) An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney General's certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. The Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence under the provisions of section 1808 (a) of this title.


...

It looks to me like any eavesdropping without a warrant and without AG approval and the AG procedure in place would violate the law.


It looks to me that a warrant is not required when there is AG approval and the AG procedure is followed, since the word warrant is not mentioned in your excerpts.

Quote:
Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifiesis solely directed at
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2008 10:35 am
Bill Kristol, editor at large of Pravda On The Potomac. We'll just note, for the sake of thoroughness, that Bill's dad Irving Kristol started up Commentary (the original neoconservative publication) with funding from the CIA.

There's an internal link to a 2003 cspan interview with Kristol on Iraq and the war. But for those interested, the tomdispatch article here is typically extremely good...
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174894
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 06:03:13