A holocaust can be the sacrificing of one or a billion and one and more–with the feigned, always the feigned, purpose of making a better life for those not sacrificed.
The letting of the blood of a lamb, the burning of a witch, burning humans corralled in locked barns in Africa, aerial bombing of Gaza after the borders are sealed, death by concentration camps around Europe, suicide bombers, the mass slaughter of Native Americans–north and south–the slaughter of aborigines in Australia, the skinning of Albinos and Pygmies, every soldier worldwide, trained to kill the youth of another nation, medical experiments on other breeds and species, reserving the good healthy foods and medicines and medical procedures for the privileged, while giving what’s leftover to the underprivileged, and the billions slaughtered every year, that the privileged duped you into thinking would preserve you in body, mind and spirit if you ate them.
Unclench THAT fist before God unclenches it for you. That’s some high priced preservative that you’re using to line the pockets of the wealthy, while they keep you addicted to the blood.
So, where did all this slaughter get the world? Are we healthier, wealthier, wiser? Are we a world without war? Did a Native Indian girl jumping to her death from the top of a waterfall lift an evil spell, or did your conscience need to make something positive out of something horrible, so you urged her to jump to make the sun shine again?
Superstitions stem mostly from women, who aren’t allowed an education, so they make up cause and effect as they go along. Fifty-fifty–the sun will shine. We’ll win some favors from the tribe for that one. They’ll think we have magical powers–better magical powers than no powers. She was a dog anyway.
War doesn’t stop war, so why do it? After all the wars, all the holocausts, the massacres, call it what it is–mass death–we’re still warring. So, war isn’t a deterrent to war. Death isn’t a deterrent to death. Only life can deter death. No war deters war.
Do we have cures that don’t cause another equally debilitating illness? You gotta be kidding me. All these decades of medical slaughter experiments and still no cure? Man…you’ve been going down the road most travelled, and every traveler will tell you, they’re weary. Weary means nothing new. Same ol’, same ol’. So why take that road again? Get off your fat tush or skinny bones and do something different–for God’s sake.
Conservatives don’t want the Federal government interfering with individual state economies, or any other areas, yet they’re the first ones to run to the Fed, when their states need money. So in essence, they want the Feds to be their personal banker, with no conditions on how they spend the money.
The Cleveland Clinic is evolving backwards to the seventies, to a diet that didn’t work then, and won’t work now. The Ketosis diet, basically the Atkins diet–high animals, low carbs and fat, put your body in a state of pre-death to lose weight. Well…yeah, most people do lose weight just before they die. So why focus on death to survive? Why, why, why? Because the slaughter industries fund the programs. Slaughter industries fund a whole lot of stuff that clinics and hospitals do. Why go around claiming to be the best, state of the art, progressive, new thinking, new age, when you’re still back in the dark ages?
You don’t have to slaughter a life to save a life. Yet, the burger joints of America have such a strong hold on, not only what we eat, but what the researchers are allowed to study, that the researchers would rather put you in a state of pre-death, so you can still eat the meat, that the burger joints dictate us to eat, all the while, dictating to the hospitals that are supposed to make you well, what diet to put you on to lose the weight they caused in the first place. Their solution? More meat. Eat more of what’s killing you, just remove the fat from it, and stop drinking liquids. Even they admit that it’s only short term. So then the people on pre-death diets, gain it all back and then some. How insane is that?
Why does Obama keep blaming the poor people in America for the collapsed economy? Bad home loans to people who couldn’t afford them. The banks didn’t loan out one million dollars a year for one million years–twice–to the poor people in the USA. [That’s the price of the bail out] If so, they’d all be rich.
The primary purpose of having a congress is to prevent a dictatorship of the executive. When the populace doesn’t trust congress, that’s a ‘tell’ that the populace is agitated.[Notice that I didn’t say, that’s a ‘tell’ that the natives are restless?]
Dylan Ratigan says that prejudiced people shouldn’t be allowed in political parties unless the political party first shames them, and the political party renounces hatred toward blacks and Jews. The party under scrutiny was the Tea Bag party. Ratigan kicked the guy he was interviewing off the stage because he refused to give a yes or no answer to whether he would do that.
Aside from the subject matter that got lost in the verbal scuffle, this was a perfect example of how not to have a conversation. Ratign justified his actions, because it was his show and the interviewee wasn’t being cooperative, in that he wasn’t answering the questions in the way Ratigan wanted them answered. Ratigan was acting like a prosecutorial attorney who owned the show, thus the context of the conversation. After he literally turned his back on the interviewee, he went on a tirade, saying, ‘this is what happens when you try to have a conversation’.
Again, subject matter aside, Ratigan was having anything but a conversation. He didn’t like the guy or his politics, so he went on the attack, claiming by his actions, his own superiority.
To affect change, having a conversation means no bullying. If you have to cry that it’s your show, and you ask the questions, and then demand that they be answered in the words you choose for the interviewee, you’ve lost your argument–simply because of your method.
Now, to the subject matter. If you ban people with prejudice from political parties, then what you’re saying is that people with prejudice should be banned from voting. What you demand from one political party must be demanded from all political parties for your argument to be valid. Yet, even if the argument is valid, in that the same rules apply to everyone, the rules are still prejudicial. I’ve never heard leaders of political parties ban people with prejudice. Where do you want these prejudiced people to go?–to the democratic party? You didn’t think through the argument. Raising the roof on prejudice means exposing it, not exploding the person who harbors it.
If people with prejudice were banned, you’d have to ban everyone. Your own prejudice against people with prejudice was difficult to watch. Don’t turn your back–engage. You let your anger get the best of you. I found it interesting that you focused on blacks and Jews. If blacks wanted to be in the Tea Bag party, they’d be there. Obviously, the Tea Bag platform doesn’t appeal to them. If your demand is simply going to be: publicly shame, and then you’ve done your job, and they go on with business as usual, then what’s the point? Most blacks still won’t like their platform.
Regarding the Jews. Lots of the Tea Baggers are Jews. Aside from that, Jews are the least discriminated against people on the planet. Oh, sure, they may not be liked by a lot of people for their own personal group platform, but Jews are overall, worldwide, the most successful people on the planet. You really don’t need to cry prejudice on their behalf. What you should be doing is picking up on their prejudices.
Jews are a protected class of people in all branches of government and business–all walks of life. No other group has that kind of clout. All things get filtered through the prism of Jews, before it gets to anybody else. Every other group is inferior to that class. All policy emanates from Jews. If you catch a break, it’s because your plight was making them look bad. That’s the only reason. I have not seen one person of influence stand up to that dictatorship–an underground, above ground network, where all it takes is a phone call to ruin your life for criticizing them, not for calling them a Jew, though that’s severe enough, you know, it’s tantamount to telling the enemy where you are, but for pointing out their flaws, for that you die. That’s their bottom line…..
Calm down, then break the argument down, or forget your approach altogether. You started taking about anger and rage in the USA. Yet, instead of getting heated up over the cause, you slammed the result–which got you nowhere. I understand your frustration. People answer your questions with talking points that have nothing to do with the questions asked. But, you have your own talking points. Somebody wrote your script. And somebody’s talking in your ear.
Chris Matthews is not a good role model for you. All we ever hear is his opinion. Why even have a guest, if he’s not going to let the person answer the question? It’s time to retire hardball. Everybody plays it–and all it amounts to–at the end of the day–all things being equal in a perfect world, without rushing to judgement–that it is what it is–been there done that–deja vu all over again–on so many different levels. When the other shoe drops, where the sun doesn’t shine, that’s the bottom line. If it walks like a duck, wears lipstick and if the shoe fits, then the moment of truth has arrived. The fat lady hasn’t sung yet, so it appears to be DOA–dead on arrival.
Lars Vilks aka cartoonist created nothing but trouble in his art. He’s an old Swedish Jew with a grudge against dogs and religions. One is said to be the best friend to all humans and the other, their saviors. He wanted to wipe those two bad thoughts off the face of the planet, instead he managed to get a few hundred people killed. Whoa. The power of an image. Why would anyone even want to save a guy like that? Nothing to do with him or his character or lack of integrity. It was all about Muslims–hating Muslims. Everybody in law enforcement hates Muslims, so why not jump on this bandwagon and save the cartoonist. Their reason was different than mine. I don’t support slaughter, period. They all do. And they all wanted the Muslims that were threatening to kill the cartoonist, again, not because it was Lars Vilks, but because it was the Muslims making the threat.
Or so they thought. The Jews sensationalized the threats against the cartoonist, because they were sure that the Arabs were behind them. After all the money and human hours spent to make this prejudiced man, who has the blood of humans and dogs on his hands, safe, only to discover that the two main instigators were American women, was another huge blow to Israeli pride.
The FBI can’t be very happy about this one. And both women are part Jew–double blow. I guess Lula DeSilva is going to have to rethink his blue-eyed stereotype talk. The Feds kept mentioning blond hair and blue eyes, like they were somehow evil colors. You won that one Lula, but for all the wrong reasons. Having blond hair and blue eyes is nothing to be ashamed of. People shouldn’t have to feel worried, because the color of their hair and eyes match someone else’s, who wants to raise holy hell against a cartoonist, who feels betrayed by dogs and religions, or because someone clumps all blue-eyed people with terrorism against the populace. Blue-eyed has become code for white people–or Jews, only if the shoe fits, or WASPS–or hillbillies (?) We’re all the same to some dark-eyed, dark skinned, dark haired people. They can criticize us, but we can’t criticize them. We’re those blond hair, stupid monster people, you know, the ones with straw for brains.
Rachael Maddow told us we all fit the terrorist profile–to take the focus off the Jews. There was only one being on the planet that didn’t fit the profile and that was a stuffed animal–according to Rachael. I wonder what that was code for? You may fit the profile RM, and you may even like that you fit the profile, but keep me out of your circle of terrorists. I don’t fit anybody’s profile of terror. I’m the Five Principles to Peace without prejudice, discrimination, enslavement, torture and slaughter–which means a better life for all. Or did you not believe the principled peace part? There are lots of peace-loving, peace-seeking people in the world, who do not fit your terrorist profile, but you don’t like that do you? You want everyone to fit the profile, so you can keep spying on everyone, because in the end, you just can’t help yourself. I say that any group that claims, not to be able to help themselves, who claims that they need an urgent intervention to keep them from blowing up themselves and the planet, need to get off the T.V. and voluntarily separate themselves from society, to keep them from harming that society.
Dogs are like people–different breeds, different temperaments, different skills, different sizes, colors, types of hair. My dog is best friend to me–not to everyone else. Why do people think that just because she’s a dog, she’s their best friend? It doesn’t work that way. She is what she is, because I am what I am, and vice versa. We have a bond and a mutual understanding, that has nothing to do with food, or the way either of us looks. Dogs are proud of who they are and what they are. Why can’t humans be that too? Why do they have to be like every other dog, in every other way?