What happens when you oppose Bu$hCo too vigorously

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

I see. So I guess you're one of the guys with a bandana over his face, firebombing McDonald's and Starbucks? And calling it "real change"?

As is typical of your ilk, you make lots of lame insults based on...your own delusions.


(BTW, while looking for Ruppert's book on Amazon, I found it grouped with the genre including authors who seriously believe that the world is secretly controlled by an underground race of reptilian shape shifters. In the non-fiction section.)

So, does that automatically mean that Amazon correctly categorized Ruppert's book? No. As much as you try to disparage it with these idiotic comparisons, there is nothing in Ruppert's work that remotely resembles your crazy assertions.


This is my problem with what you are saying. From what I can tell between your insults is that you are angry and disgusted with the GOP side of the American government, (though not apparently the Dems who are also sell-outs owned by corporations)

I have voiced my dissatisfaction with both sides here in the past. For instance, I am convinced that there are "Dems" that must have been complicit with Bu$hCo in the 9-11 murders, or had prior knowledge and did nothing to stop them. (One example: former mayor of San Fran, Willie Brown, being warned prior not to fly on 9-11) Moreover, (and FYI) it is not only Ruppert's work that I base that position on, but there are many others who have done their own independent research/investigating that have drawn much of the same conclusions that Ruppert has - including survivors and victim's families of 9-11.


...and that your solution (and Mike Ruppert's) is to riot in the streets and throw ourselves against "the gears of the machine."

It may come down to armed revolt to change the fascist gov't we have now. Obviously, US elections are rigged so that's no solution. Believe me, there are literally millions of people who view it the same.

~ Questions: Have you actually read "Crossing the Rubicon", or are you basing your ridiculous rants on some Bill O'Reilly-ish synopsis of it? Or, maybe you peeked at the covers? :rolleyes:


And then....what? What is your ultimate goal, if you could have "real change?"

For starters, let's impeach and/or prosecute under the laws of the Constitution the criminals in the Bush Admin. for what they've already done, up to and including Cheney and Bush themselves. There can be no dispute as to the record we now have since they were (illegally) installed in Jan. 2001.

~ Question: Do you have a problem with the Constitution? If not, tell me how Chimpy and his minions are not legally beholden to it for the crimes they have committed.

Rather than go down the long list of particulars, let's say I'd be in favor of the opposite or inverse of just about everything the Repigs (and many Dems) have wrought since about...oh I dunno...1865.


Everything that could remotely be called philosophy coming from you is rehashed communist propaganda about class warfare and revolution. What is the result of that? Worse tyranny than what you are concerned about.

I once heard a very sharp Social Psych/Sociology/Pol. Sci. prof (who BTW leaned Libertarian) say that the definition of "politics" is "Who gets what". Well, isn't that what it's all about in Murka - the place that holds itself up as the "greatest" capitalist society on Earth? And what is the root word of capitalism? "Capital", meaning money. So, Murka = capitalism = "moneyism". It has ALWAYS been about class warfare in this country.

When a right-winger steamrolls over everything in his/her path for the sake of profit, it's OK because, "Hey, this is Murka, dammit!"?? But let a left-winger talk about...say...equitable wealth distribution and he/she is labeled "Communist". What you don't seem to grasp is that there are several shades in between the extremes. However, the GOP has fixed things to such an extreme in their favor, that nearly-extreme policies and actions are really the only recourse to right their wrongs.

What's the alternative? One is that by soft-pedalling "reforms" as some Dems advocate, you probably would wait decades before meaningful, positive results are seen, if ever. Meanwhile, the fat cats continue to get fatter, while the People continue to suffer.


Ignoring the consequences of class warfare, riots, and revolutions is hypocritical and disgusting.

Thank you for using my superlatives! I enjoy the flattery!

Merely bending over and taking it up the ass like a good little sheep has its consequences too. We're seeing those results daily with every action the Neo Cons/Repigs take.

The problem with the system we have devolved to now is that voting is no longer effective, because the GOP has seen to that since at least 2000. The facts & figures speak for themselves. Therefore, you tell me how else we are to throw the bums out. (?) The GOP-controlled Congress won't do its Constitutional duty re the crimes and malfeasances of the Bush regime. The Supreme Court can't because of its right-wing majority. So what's left, barring assassination or an act of nature? The US military, or the People - and BTW, it is our Constitutional right to take matters into our own hands when the gov't has become corrupt beyond all other reasonable remedies.

That, my dear, is not tyrannical, anarchic, or Communist. It is patriotic.


Every time I ask you and yours what the answer to this problem is, I hear.....crickets.

If you're hearing crickets, maybe you should spray some insecticide around your house. Hey! I hear Tom "The Bug Man" Delay is looking for a job! *hint*

This is my problem with what you are saying. From what I can tell between your insults is that you are angry and disgusted with the GOP side of the American government, (though not apparently the Dems who are also sell-outs owned by corporations) and that your solution (and Mike Ruppert's) is to riot in the streets and throw ourselves against "the gears of the machine." And then....what? What is your ultimate goal, if you could have "real change?" Everything that could remotely be called philosophy coming from you is rehashed communist propaganda about class warfare and revolution. What is the result of that? Worse tyranny than what you are concerned about. Ignoring the consequences of class warfare, riots, and revolutions is hypocritical and disgusting. Or maybe you just want anarchy. You tell me.


Are you advocating that only those who have an alternative, are allowed to critique the current political/economic mess?

Finally, where did Wurm suggest that anarchy was the appropriate response to the current malaise?

Are you advocating that only those who have an alternative, are allowed to critique the current political/economic mess?

Finally, where did Wurm suggest that anarchy was the appropriate response to the current malaise?
I think I am the only person who actually read the letter that started this thread, the letter that Wurm posted.

Ruppert makes it clear that he wants riots and rebellion. That is anarchy. He "would cry tears of joy" if their were student riots on college campuses. His last ray of hope for justice was the L.A. "rebellion" otherwise known as "riots" and anarchy in the streets.

Are you advocating that I shouldn't ask what his alternative is, when this is what is posted? It's a fair question. Does he want anarchy, or a revolution or what? He's the one that posted it. I am assuming he expected a response. And he has finally elaborated, as you can see. He thinks an armed insurrection is the appropriate response to the current "malaise." Since you are one of his buddies, I guess he won't flame you for using "malaise" to describe the horrors of America.:rolleyes:

At last! Something like a real answer!!

As is typical of your ilk, you make lots of lame insults based on...your own delusions.
Okay, my ilk? Whatever. Look that is quite a circle you made calling it a "lame insult" to ask if you are a street rioter against the capitalist machine, when at the end of you speak of armed revolt against...capitalism. And then you call me delusional?




So, does that automatically mean that Amazon correctly categorized Ruppert's book? No. As much as you try to disparage it with these idiotic comparisons, there is nothing in Ruppert's work that remotely resembles your crazy assertions.

No. It means you are a big baby who over reacts to every statement made. (And there is an article on Ruppert's website that seriously asserts that Bush could possibly be the literal AntiChrist of the Bible (as in 666). So that's not crazy or anything).




I have voiced my dissatisfaction with both sides here in the past. For instance, I am convinced that there are "Dems" that must have been complicit with Bu$hCo in the 9-11 murders, or had prior knowledge and did nothing to stop them. (One example: former mayor of San Fran, Willie Brown, being warned prior not to fly on 9-11) Moreover, (and FYI) it is not only Ruppert's work that I base that position on, but there are many others who have done their own independent research/investigating that have drawn much of the same conclusions that Ruppert has - including survivors and victim's families of 9-11.
I have voiced my dissatisfaction with both sides here in the present.




It may come down to armed revolt to change the fascist gov't we have now. Obviously, US elections are rigged so that's no solution. Believe me, there are literally millions of people who view it the same.

It may, or it will? You are telling me that there is an "army" of millions of people who are going to revolt against the US govt, with you alongside. Gettin' some help from Chavez, who would love to give you a hand? Gosh, why would the feds spy on anyone like that?

Obviously elections are rigged? How is Bush going to win 2008?

~ Questions: Have you actually read "Crossing the Rubicon", or are you basing your ridiculous rants on some Bill O'Reilly-ish synopsis of it? Or, maybe you peeked at the covers? :rolleyes:

I haven't ranted about the actual book. I am basing my comments on the Light Of A Burning Bridge letter YOU posted to start this thread. And I did check out his website. Some intriguing stuff - I was looking at Amazon to read some reviews. I'm not gonna buy it, but I'm checking my library.

For starters, let's impeach and/or prosecute under the laws of the Constitution the criminals in the Bush Admin. for what they've already done, up to and including Cheney and Bush themselves. There can be no dispute as to the record we now have since they were (illegally) installed in Jan. 2001.

Go for it!

~ Question: Do you have a problem with the Constitution? If not, tell me how Chimpy and his minions are not legally beholden to it for the crimes they have committed.

Rather than go down the long list of particulars, let's say I'd be in favor of the opposite or inverse of just about everything the Repigs (and many Dems) have wrought since about...oh I dunno...1865.




I once heard a very sharp Social Psych/Sociology/Pol. Sci. prof (who BTW leaned Libertarian) say that the definition of "politics" is "Who gets what". Well, isn't that what it's all about in Murka - the place that holds itself up as the "greatest" capitalist society on Earth? And what is the root word of capitalism? "Capital", meaning money. So, Murka = capitalism = "moneyism". It has ALWAYS been about class warfare in this country.

When a right-winger steamrolls over everything in his/her path for the sake of profit, it's OK because, "Hey, this is Murka, dammit!"?? But let a left-winger talk about...say...equitable wealth distribution and he/she is labeled "Communist". What you don't seem to grasp is that there are several shades in between the extremes. However, the GOP has fixed things to such an extreme in their favor, that nearly-extreme policies and actions are really the only recourse to right their wrongs.
Idon't seem to grasp shades between the extremes?? Anyone who disagrees with you is a murdering fascist.

You talk about a lot more than equitable wealth distribution. And the only way to make everyone equal is to make everyone poor. Except for - surprise! - the ruling elite. Check out all your "equitable wealth distribution" regimes.



What's the alternative? One is that by soft-pedalling "reforms" as some Dems advocate, you probably would wait decades before meaningful, positive results are seen, if ever. Meanwhile, the fat cats continue to get fatter, while the People continue to suffer.
I think they would rather suffer the way things are now, than watch the government overturned by a bunch of angry liberals and then all starve to death in the process.


Thank you for using my superlatives! I enjoy the flattery!

Merely bending over and taking it up the ass like a good little sheep has its consequences too. We're seeing those results daily with every action the Neo Cons/Repigs take.

The problem with the system we have devolved to now is that voting is no longer effective, because the GOP has seen to that since at least 2000. The facts & figures speak for themselves. Therefore, you tell me how else we are to throw the bums out. (?) The GOP-controlled Congress won't do its Constitutional duty re the crimes and malfeasances of the Bush regime. The Supreme Court can't because of its right-wing majority. So what's left, barring assassination or an act of nature? The US military, or the People - and BTW, it is our Constitutional right to take matters into our own hands when the gov't has become corrupt beyond all other reasonable remedies.

That, my dear, is not tyrannical, anarchic, or Communist. It is patriotic.
But I'm delusional to ask you if you believe that rioting in the streets is the answer?

How, my darling, could you possibly be considered patriotic when you hate this country, everything it has ever done, and everything it "stands for" and at least half the people in it?

What sort of government will you set up to replace ours? How are you going to keep the People from suffering? Or is it a sacrifice all for our own good, until a glorious paradise can be set up for the future. Are you going to have to chop my conservative head off? Put me in the gulag? Where are you going to get some oil? How are you going to pay for it?

Are you advocating that I shouldn't ask what his alternative is, when this is what is posted? It's a fair question.

Hold up : it's you who made the point that unless one can suggest an alternative, then one ought not to critique.
Not me.



Does he want anarchy, or a revolution or what? He's the one that posted it. I am assuming he expected a response. And he has finally elaborated, as you can see. He thinks an armed insurrection is the appropriate response to the current "malaise." Since you are one of his buddies, I guess he won't flame you for using "malaise" to describe the horrors of America.:rolleyes:

[QUOTE=nns1400]

Wurm made the point that US politicians broke the US Constitution.
On this basis, if the Constitution has been disgarded - then why should the law be observed ?
Is it not anarchy when the law is disgarded ?

Hold up : it's you who made the point that unless one can suggest an alternative, then one ought not to critique.
Not me.

Didn't say that. You're obfuscating again.


[QUOTE=nns1400]

Wurm made the point that US politicians broke the US Constitution.
On this basis, if the Constitution has been disgarded - then why should the law be observed ?
Is it not anarchy when the law is disgarded ?
This is a good point. Ignoring the rule of law is anarchy. But, "why then should the law be observed?" So no one should observe any laws? What purpose does this serve? If you are seeking the betterment of society.

This is a good point. Ignoring the rule of law is anarchy. But, "why then should the law be observed?" So no one should observe any laws? What purpose does this serve? If you are seeking the betterment of society.


nns: give it up - logic and reason hold no credibility with this bunch.

Your best option is to run round in circles, shaking your hands above your head screaming "the sky is falling in, the sky is falling in!!!!"...

This is a good point. Ignoring the rule of law is anarchy. But, "why then should the law be observed?" So no one should observe any laws? What purpose does this serve? If you are seeking the betterment of society.

People should observe the law.
Particularly those people who are part of the Executive which drafts and enacts laws such as George Bush.

If I can paraphrase Wurm's point - if the office holder in that Executive wilfully breaks the law - then why should other people be expected to abide by the law?

This is a good point. Ignoring the rule of law is anarchy. But, "why then should the law be observed?" So no one should observe any laws? What purpose does this serve? If you are seeking the betterment of society.That's not exactly a libertarian position.Libertarians (from the Right and Left) would argue that the Rule of Law is despotic.It's dictatorship by the Majority.
Libertarians pop up in the most unlikely places.Hayek was often described as a libertarian,although he described himself as a classic liberal in the Adam Smith tradition.

That's not exactly a libertarian position.Libertarians (from the Right and Left) would argue that the Rule of Law is despotic.It's dictatorship by the Majority.
Libertarians pop up in the most unlikely places.Hayek was often described as a libertarian,although he described himself as a classic liberal in the Adam Smith tradition.

I asked Wurm if he wanted anarchy, in light of his posts. As usual, you and Lim stick your noses in and totally change the subject.

I asked Wurm if he wanted anarchy, in light of his posts. As usual, you and Lim stick your noses in and totally change the subject.

Your post above is message 310.

You posted a reply to me at message 306.

I replied with message 308.
So don't accuse me of changing any subject.
OK ?

And before you continue to accuse members of changing the subject - you changed the subject constantly when people take issue with you.




Now, if you don't like receiving replies - I'd suggest that you refrain from posting here.

Your post above is message 310.

You posted a reply to me at message 306.

I replied with message 308.
So don't accuse me of changing any subject.
OK ?

And before you continue to accuse members of changing the subject - you changed the subject constantly when people take issue with you.




Now, if you don't like receiving replies - I'd suggest that you refrain from posting here.
Fine

I asked Wurm if he wanted anarchy, in light of his posts. As usual, you and Lim stick your noses in and totally change the subject.Libertarians are anarchists.

People should observe the law.
Particularly those people who are part of the Executive which drafts and enacts laws such as George Bush.

If I can paraphrase Wurm's point - if the office holder in that Executive wilfully breaks the law - then why should other people be expected to abide by the law?
If your friend jumps off a bridge.....are you going to do it too?

Two wrongs don't make a right...I learned that in I think...3rd grade. :rolleyes:

If your friend jumps off a bridge.....are you going to do it too?

Two wrongs don't make a right...I learned that in I think...3rd grade. :rolleyes:
The people ask the congress to pass certain laws
the congress passes said laws
The executive ignores said laws.
You must believe the executive is above the law or rather, a republican executive
Thats what really defies logic :confused: A democratic president has an affair. Ooh, thats a national emergency according to repub's :eek: then a republican president and his cronies cherry-pick dubious intel to justify a voluntary war resulting in 2,600+ dead American soldiers :mad: Please to list these two infractions in order of degree of malfeasance :confused: Clinton was impeached for having sex w/ a young woman yet Bush can start a war w/ no recognizable plan for success resulting in 1000's of American soldiers deaths. That must be "conservative" logic :rolleyes: :mad:

Look that is quite a circle you made calling it a "lame insult" to ask if you are a street rioter against the capitalist machine, when at the end of you speak of armed revolt against...capitalism. And then you call me delusional?


Yes, I did call you that. Let me put it in simpler terms: I think you and many like you have "Turrrurism On The Brain". Perhaps you see a ragheaded evul Ay-Rab whenever Homeland S'cur'ty turns the yellow lights on and tells you to buy duct tape & plastic sheeting, or when you hear Der Lyin' King utter his stock in trade.

You tossed out your assumptive slur before I mentioned revolt. I mentioned revolt in my last post as one alternative, with voting being the default first choice, in response to your insinuation. Either this was beyond your comprehension level, or your comprehension is "selective".

BTW - you conveniently sidestepped my question, "...you tell me how else we are to throw the bums out. (?)" (given the context I supplied)

I don't hear crickets around here, I hear a babbling demagogue called "nns1400".


No. It means you are a big baby who over reacts to every statement made. (And there is an article on Ruppert's website that seriously asserts that Bush could possibly be the literal AntiChrist of the Bible (as in 666). So that's not crazy or anything).


You are the one that keeps repeating the moronic comparisons, with obvious intent. If you'd said it once, maybe it could be taken as a joke, but you just did it again here. Not only on this thread, but you've tried to disparage Ruppert's book on at least one other thread in the same way. My statement is therefore not an "over-reaction" to your transparent attempts to belittle those that don't agree with you and to obscure the facts.


I have voiced my dissatisfaction with both sides here in the present.


I didn't say you didn't. It was you who ignorantly accused me of blind partisanship.


It may, or it will? You are telling me that there is an "army" of millions of people who are going to revolt against the US govt, with you alongside. Gettin' some help from Chavez, who would love to give you a hand? Gosh, why would the feds spy on anyone like that?

I don't know that as a certainty any more than the next person. I said, "may". I also didn't say an "army" of anything - that is your fabrication. I said there are millions who think the elections were fraudulent.


Obviously elections are rigged? How is Bush going to win 2008?

Surely you're not that stupid, but are again resorting to typical Right-Wing Sheep disingenuousness. Been hanging out at wolfux' place lately?

Watch the elections this Nov. to see if I'm not proven correct. The Repigs will in no way allow even one side of Congress to be lost to the Dems; if that happened they know their house of cards would be destroyed from investigations, criminal charges, and impeachments.

Meanwhile, how many of the thousands of documents, eyewitness statements, Congressional findings, independent citizens' and press investigations, etc. would you like me to pile on you about the GOP election frauds? But then, it seems there is no evidence that would suffice to ever penetrate your skull.


I haven't ranted about the actual book. I am basing my comments on the Light Of A Burning Bridge letter YOU posted to start this thread. And I did check out his website. Some intriguing stuff - I was looking at Amazon to read some reviews. I'm not gonna buy it, but I'm checking my library.

The letter I posted is on a different subject than his book. So you would be better served next time not to wax poetic until you know better what you're talking about. After you've read the over 600 pages of "CTR", then perhaps I'll debate what critiques you may have.


Go for it!

That is a cheap cop-out. Are you saying that you are not in favor of bringing the Bu$hCo's to justice for their obvious and blatant crimes?


You talk about a lot more than equitable wealth distribution. And the only way to make everyone equal is to make everyone poor. Except for - surprise! - the ruling elite. Check out all your "equitable wealth distribution" regimes.


Again, you failed to answer my direct questions or deal with the points I raised except one, instead relying on innuendo, wrong assumptions, and stereotypes.


I think they would rather suffer the way things are now, than watch the government overturned by a bunch of angry liberals and then all starve to death in the process.

Yes, we're all aware of the mass starvation that ensued after the New Deal was enacted. :confused: :rolleyes:


How, my darling, could you possibly be considered patriotic when you hate this country, everything it has ever done, and everything it "stands for" and at least half the people in it?

I hate traitors and thugs, theives and murderers - such as those that populate the Bush Admin. and some in the Congress. Those are specific people and their policies, not the country, everything it's done, what it stands for, or half of the people in it.

Considering what they've done, what person with integrity or any claim to a moral compass wouldn't be sickened and infuriated by them and their deeds?

I know who: those that don't know or refuse to see what they've done.


What sort of government will you set up to replace ours? How are you going to keep the People from suffering? Or is it a sacrifice all for our own good, until a glorious paradise can be set up for the future. Are you going to have to chop my conservative head off? Put me in the gulag? Where are you going to get some oil? How are you going to pay for it?


So, you're saying that the only way for the West to run its economies and/or obtain its energy supply is by:

1) attacking and murdering its citizens,
2) "pre-emptive" imperialist war,
3) torture,
4) indefinite incarceration w/o representation,
5) spying on its citizens,
6) rigging elections,
7) retrenchment of social needs,
8) destroying the environment,
9) amassing crushing debt,...

ad nauseum?


But since you like to compare Bushism to Communism, Stalin and Mao were worse only for the sheer numbers that they destroyed. Bushism has a few more million to catch up.

The people ask the congress to pass certain laws
the congress passes said laws
The executive ignores said laws.
You must believe the executive is above the law or rather, a republican executive


No..that isn't what I believe. I also don't believe that because HE broke any laws that it gives the rest of the citizenship the right to do so. If indeed he did break any laws then we have a court system in place to deal with such matters. THAT is how it should be dealt with....not some retarded teen age anarchy fantasy.


Thats what really defies logic :confused: A democratic president has an affair. Ooh, thats a national emergency according to repub's :eek: then a republican president and his cronies cherry-pick dubious intel to justify a voluntary war resulting in 2,600+ dead American soldiers :mad: Please to list these two infractions in order of degree of malfeasance :confused: Clinton was impeached for having sex w/ a young woman yet Bush can start a war w/ no recognizable plan for success resulting in 1000's of American soldiers deaths. That must be "conservative" logic :rolleyes: :mad:
You are casting a lot of aspersions without really knowing what you are talking about. I couldn't care less about Clintons BJ...more power to him. The two aren't related and have nothing to do with each other no matter how hard you try to relate them.

Look up the word logic before you try to use any next time.

If your friend jumps off a bridge.....are you going to do it too?

Two wrongs don't make a right...I learned that in I think...3rd grade. :rolleyes:

Two wrongs, don't make a right.
I agree.

However, it beholds the Office of the President and his Executive to adhere to the laws that are enacted.
If the custodians of the Executive, ride a coach and horses through the law, without censure, you (or anyone else) cannot condemn others for choosing to ignore the same law too.

Or maybe you feel that Bush is entitled to circumvent the law?

Two wrongs, don't make a right.
I agree.

However, it beholds the Office of the President and his Executive to adhere to the laws that are enacted.
If the custodians of the Executive, ride a coach and horses through the law, without censure, you (or anyone else) cannot condemn others for choosing to ignore the same law too.

Or maybe you feel that Bush is entitled to circumvent the law?
No I don't think that....however it isn't my call. We have a system of checks and balances on the Executive branch in this country. If that process finds him guilty then fine....but I don't advocate a violent anarchist uprise.

That's too stupid to even bother discussing.

Limerick...would you agree that any "law" that George Bush has broken...then so has Tony Blair?

No I don't think that....however it isn't my call. We have a system of checks and balances on the Executive branch in this country. If that process finds him guilty then fine....but I don't advocate a violent anarchist uprise.

That's too stupid to even bother discussing.

Limerick...would you agree that any "law" that George Bush has broken...then so has Tony Blair?

For sure Blair did break the law - and a move to impeach Blair was taken in the House of Commons two years ago.
(Impeachment process in Britain is carried out differently compared to the USA : as outlined in Parliamentary proceedure - see Erskine May).
We'll leave Blairs actions over Iraq until someone comes in here and tries to defend, the indefensible.

Do I think George Bush broke the law?
Isn't the invasion of another sovereign country, illegal? Who signed the Executive Order to invade Iraq in the USA ?