Posts 46, 47, 48, and 49.

Mrnoodle attempts to write Bush off as just an idiot rather than a power-mongering schemer, and you retort twice that Bush is just a "figure-head". What does figurehead mean to you? I took it to mean that you think someone else is really running the show. So I'm trying to figure out who you think is behind the figureheads.

Posts 46, 47, 48, and 49
 

mrnoodle posts “If you're going to set up a dictatorship, you need to strike while the iron is hot.” to which I reply “He did strike while the iron was hot” meaning there have been changes made in our system as a result of the 9/11 tragedy, but I clarify this by posting: "He" doesn't want to "rule" anything” meaning I do not believe he wishes to completely overhaul our system by establishing a personal dictatorship (obviously, but I did feel it needed to be clarified, as the subject of “dictatorship” was in play).

mrnoodle theorizes that “everyone would have lapped it up like sweet milk” and I point out that, in fact, “we did lap it up” meaning there has been, in my opinion, a surprising lack of general attention paid to the systemic changes that have been made, IE Patriot Act, etc. (although I don't attribute these to the establishment of a dictatorship).

mrnoodle posts "If he wanted to Rule The World, he would've moved much faster” to which I reply "He" doesn't want to "rule" anything, these guys are figure-heads" - again responding specifically to the concept of Bush establishing a dictatorship (something which both mrnoodle and myself do not believe is the case).

mrnoodle posts “Bush fails on all counts as a dictator” to which I respond “these guys are figure-heads” meaning to clarify that I do not believe Bush aspires to a dictatorship.



We have three branches of government which employ a system of checks and balances in order to prevent too much power being accumulated in one person or group of allied persons. Each of these branches is subject to the general morality and political climate of the times, as well as the influence of any person or persons which have an interest in seeing changes in policy which will benefit their interests, financial and otherwise. There is also an inherent non-individuality within the political "game" itself, such as influence of entrenched party dogma, or expected payback for political favors. All of these are factors which prevent the President from establishing a "dictatorship" of personal ideas. It is common refer to the President of the United States as a figurehead, although the exact meaning of this term varies. In this case, it means simply "not a dictator" . . .

I am sorry you didn't understand what I meant, but now that I have clarified the topic of dicsussion, I don't feel further obligated to resopnd to what you thought I meant. Careful skepticism is a useful position, but always remember this: a mocking, skeptical tone, in and of itself, is powerless unless you take care to avoid the same errors in critical thinking which you attempt to point out in the person you are "de-bunking" . . .

you can keep these:
 

Specifically: All brand-new ideas, written by you and attributed to me.

I guess I didn't make my point clear. It should've been more like:

If Bush wants to rule the world, he's got 2 years left to do it in. One of those will be lame-duck. That means unless he establishes his dictatorship in about 6 months, all the conspiracy theories and shadow-government stuff no longer apply -- either because they failed miserably or because they weren't true to begin with.

Or the scheme is even grander than anyone thought, and we're setting the country up for the real Hitler figure, who will be inserted into office a couple of elections down the road.

Sorry I misunderstood your initially sparse words, Flint. I'll give you excellent odds mrnoodle didn't think you were agreeing with him either.

Edit: I rest my case. See above. He's clarifying his position, when his was the one you (Flint) and I both understood.

No problem, Clodfobble. We're all groping in the dark, here (attempting to communicate in pure text).

Groping in the dark is better than sitting cursing it. At least were trying to make sense of what's happening and by groping might accidentally grasp.:cool:

Dude, you grasped my wang.

*fap* :thumb:

@mrnoodle: I still don't undestand your fixation of the individual dictator being installed permanently in office. By definition, a "shadow-government" wouldn't do that. Bush leaving office, on schedule, doesn't prove the "conspiracy theories and shadow-government stuff" but it far from disproves them. A series of, well, figure-heads (for lack of a better term) is exactly what you would expect, if that were the case. Right ???

I see what you're saying. Theyd make it look like things are running smoothly like theyre supposed to, but would really be running the show.

It's impossible to disprove the existence of a shadow government, but no one has really made a good case for one, either. I myself tend to believe that an almighty hidden superpower consortium of warlords and economy-manipulators would be able to stop people from discovering all their nefarious schemes via 3 clicks in Google. But hey, that's just me.

But you make it sound so easy:I'm sure it would be almost "impossible to disprove the existence of a shadow government" . . . that's why I question your reasoning: "unless he establishes his dictatorship in about 6 months, all the conspiracy theories and shadow-government stuff no longer apply" . . . please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you claiming to have disproved "the existence of a shadow government" ??? Is it "impossible" or not ???

One of the hazards of groping, is occasionally grasping something useless. No problem, just throw it away and keep groping for something intelligent.:cool:

okay then,