Deep state. MSM. Trump ...
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Friday, March 14, 2025 17:04
VIEWED: 33741
PAGE 29 of 33
Quote:
Anyone who doesn't buy that there is are much more powerful people pulling the strings of the world behind the curtains has little to no imagination. That is a disability.
I'm sure there are people who only believe the Deep State is true because somebody like Hannity told them it's true. This is also a disability.
Okaaaaay! So then which is it? Is there is or is there isn't a Deep State?
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To me it's more like the "Sith" they lie and manipulate to gain advantage, dominate and eventually rule with an iron fist.
It's obvious that rich people want to remain, well, you know, rich. They like their position of privilege. So they plot and plan, connive and confuse. Simple really. Money is power and power is absolute.....or is it?
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Anyone who doesn't buy that there is are much more powerful people pulling the strings of the world behind the curtains has little to no imagination. That is a disability.
I'm sure there are people who only believe the Deep State is true because somebody like Hannity told them it's true. This is also a disability.
The mistake, the offense, is when people use The Deep State to explain something they can't otherwise explain and don't want to be bothered with the details. It's the same kind of lie a 5 year old tells. "Um, uh, The Jimmy Next Door did it." If you're stuck on thinking that most people (especially here) DON'T already know that rich and powerful people will try and bend things to their will, and often against the will and desires of other rich and powerful people, then you are a capital D Dunce.
People might as well say "Jedi" or "Airbenders."
I like that better. From now on, I'm calling them Airbenders.
The Shamalanian Variety.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It is, until it isn't. French Revolution, anyone?
It's obvious that rich people want to remain, well, you know, rich. They like their position of privilege. So they plot and plan, connive and confuse. Simple really. Money is power and power is absolute.....or is it? - SGG
Until the invention of the vote, power turnovers were usually bloody events that took many lives. The idea behind the vote was to create a method of peaceful change. (and the idea behind the 2nd Amendment, at least for some FF, was as a backup in case the vote failed.)
And, honestly, the rich and powerful (and their "bought and paid for" media) wouldn't be putting in so much unrelenting effort to bamboolze "the people" if it didn't make any difference!
So now we get to see whether people STAY bamboozled, or whether they identify their real enemy (and, no, it's not black v white, or women v men, or straight v LGBTQ, or Christians v hedonists, or gun owners v non gun owners) and exert their peaceful alternative. They tried Occupy, they tried TEA Party, will they finally get their shit together?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
French Revolution, anyone?
Exactly my point............
Quote:
power is absolute.....or is it?
The vote, yes, I agree, it was invented to produce turnover of power without violence, to avoid what took place in France. The peaceful transition of power. But no, I don't agree that the 2d Amendment was installed as a fail safe should re: peaceful transition of power.
It was, as the revolution continued, in response to the rule of the king, a tryant, who compelled the newly liberated people of the United States to defend themselves against his tyrannical rule. It was a type of insurance against the people being "bamboozled," as you so aptly put it.
Quote:
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.[1][2][3][4] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals,[5][6] while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[7] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right, per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.
Fanatical people see it as an absolute. It is not. Nor is it written anywhere in that most important document, that one man can take that right away. And yet, I always hear people say that any president who dares utter the words "gun control" is hell bent on taking away people's guns - an NRA
deep-rooted lie - and they see "black helicopters" approaching in the horizon.
The rich want what they want....Power. They wish to manipulate and control, and are not afraid to "rig" the system to suit their desires, wants and presumed needs. We, the people, lest we forget, have the power to take control if we stop bitching and moaning at each other. Until that happens, we will forever be at their mercy. You're right, this is US vs. Them - not black and white, etc. We must first agree upon that reality, instead of nitpicking and finding blame where "they" point. Until that day, we must use the vote to put into place those who will look to advance the country as a whole, and not those few privileged so-called elites.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:It is, until it isn't. French Revolution, anyone?
It's obvious that rich people want to remain, well, you know, rich. They like their position of privilege. So they plot and plan, connive and confuse. Simple really. Money is power and power is absolute.....or is it? - SGG
Until the invention of the vote, power turnovers were usually bloody events that took many lives. The idea behind the vote was to create a method of peaceful change. (and the idea behind the 2nd Amendment, at least for some FF, was as a backup in case the vote failed.)
And, honestly, the rich and powerful (and their "bought and paid for" media) wouldn't be putting in so much unrelenting effort to bamboolze "the people" if it didn't make any difference!
So now we get to see whether people STAY bamboozled, or whether they identify their real enemy (and, no, it's not black v white, or women v men, or straight v LGBTQ, or Christians v hedonists, or gun owners v non gun owners) and exert their peaceful alternative. They tried Occupy, they tried TEA Party, will they finally get their shit together?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow, SHINY, I'm kinda shocked my own self. We ... actually ... agree on something??
Quote:In response to the POTENTIAL rise of a tyrant is how I would put it. Some of the FF were desperately worried about the rise of another king in the USA. I'll see if I can find some of those FF quotes which point in that direction.
The vote, yes, I agree, it was invented to produce turnover of power without violence, to avoid what took place in France. The peaceful transition of power. But no, I don't agree that the 2d Amendment was installed as a fail safe should re: peaceful transition of power.
It was, as the revolution continued, in response to the rule of the king, a tyrant, who compelled the newly liberated people of the United States to defend themselves against his tyrannical rule. It was a type of insurance against the people being "bamboozled," as you so aptly put it.- SHINY
As an aside: One of the things that the Constitution and its Amendments make clear is that it represents a COMPROMISE, cobbled together (at times) by using wording that might mean different things to different factions. For example, I was always puzzled by the "pursuit of happiness" phrase, it seems particularly meaningless, until I learned that the original wording was "ownership of property" and that Jefferson, in particular, fought against that "property" phrase. Hence, the substitution.
Quote:I agree. even "freedom of speech" isn't unlimited: You can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, you can't defame others.
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.[1][2][3][4] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals,[5][6] while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[7] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right, per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.
Fanatical people see it as an absolute. It is not. Nor is it written anywhere in that most important document, that one man can take that right away. And yet, I always hear people say that any president who dares utter the words "gun control" is hell bent on taking away people's guns - an NRA deep-rooted lie - and they see "black helicopters" approaching in the horizon. - SHINY
The 2nd Amendment, looks to me like another one of those compromises, between those FF who were worried about future kingship/tyranny in the United States, and those FF who were more worried about (yet another) revolt. It's no wonder people have been arguing about the level of state control over gun ownership ever since: It was deliberately vague.
Quote:Amen, bother!
The rich want what they want....Power. They wish to manipulate and control, and are not afraid to "rig" the system to suit their desires, wants and presumed needs. We, the people, lest we forget, have the power to take control if we stop bitching and moaning at each other. Until that happens, we will forever be at their mercy. You're right, this is US vs. Them - not black and white, etc. We must first agree upon that reality, instead of nitpicking and finding blame where "they" point. Until that day, we must use the vote to put into place those who will look to advance the country as a whole, and not those few privileged so-called elites.- SGG
Now, to add one more thing: The elites not only control our political system, they also control the security state, the media, and the banks. That gives them quite a few extremely effective levers on society, not only here but worldwide.
As controllers of the banks, the wealthy can inflate or implode the economy at will by manipul
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Trump's lackey and likely candidate for Deep State collusion..............
Tick, tick BOOM!
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
FEC probing Nunes for possible campaign violations
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fec-probing-nunes-for-possible
-campaign-violations/ar-BBKxmeH?ocid=spartanntp
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To sum up, the Deep State = TPTB. This has been going on for centuries and is nothing new. Spain, The Dutch, Italy (Roman Empire), Brtish Empire, etc. have been playing this game for thousands of years, only the players have changed.
Manipulation and control. But really, for me the concept of the Deep State is far too vague and nebulus, a bit too shadowy to be considered a viable source of power and control. There are far too many variables and far too many "factions" throwing their hats in the ring. This is why the world is so messy.
But fear not, I am aware of their little games: changing the rules to rig the system for their benefit being chief among them. Yes, I've graduated from the school of hard knocks, in spades. I am aware, but I keep my head up.
There's so much more I want to say, but I think we've beaten this "horse" to death. Bottom line, "and this too shall pass."
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Wow, SHINY, I'm kinda shocked my own self. We ... actually ... agree on something??Quote:In response to the POTENTIAL rise of a tyrant is how I would put it. Some of the FF were desperately worried about the rise of another king in the USA. I'll see if I can find some of those FF quotes which point in that direction.
The vote, yes, I agree, it was invented to produce turnover of power without violence, to avoid what took place in France. The peaceful transition of power. But no, I don't agree that the 2d Amendment was installed as a fail safe should re: peaceful transition of power.
It was, as the revolution continued, in response to the rule of the king, a tyrant, who compelled the newly liberated people of the United States to defend themselves against his tyrannical rule. It was a type of insurance against the people being "bamboozled," as you so aptly put it.- SHINY
As an aside: One of the things that the Constitution and its Amendments make clear is that it represents a COMPROMISE, cobbled together (at times) by using wording that might mean different things to different factions. For example, I was always puzzled by the "pursuit of happiness" phrase, it seems particularly meaningless, until I learned that the original wording was "ownership of property" and that Jefferson, in particular, fought against that "property" phrase. Hence, the substitution.Quote:I agree. even "freedom of speech" isn't unlimited: You can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, you can't defame others.
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.[1][2][3][4] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals,[5][6] while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[7] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right, per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.
Fanatical people see it as an absolute. It is not. Nor is it written anywhere in that most important document, that one man can take that right away. And yet, I always hear people say that any president who dares utter the words "gun control" is hell bent on taking away people's guns - an NRA deep-rooted lie - and they see "black helicopters" approaching in the horizon. - SHINY
The 2nd Amendment, looks to me like another one of those compromises, between those FF who were worried about future kingship/tyranny in the United States, and those FF who were more worried about (yet another) revolt. It's no wonder people have been arguing about the level of state control over gun ownership ever since: It was deliberately vague.Quote:
The rich want what they want....Power. TheNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not entirely true.
To sum up, the Deep State = TPTB. This has been going on for centuries and is nothing new. Spain, The Dutch, Italy (Roman Empire), Brtish Empire, etc. have been playing this game for thousands of years, only the players have changed. - SHINY
The development of ...
The oil tanker, shipping container, and mega-cargo ships have made globe-spanning mass-production and distribution possible, for the first time in history.
Nuclear weapons have made worldwide destruction possible, for the first time in history.
Electronic banking has made money (debt) creation virtually unlimited.
Automation has reduced the value of human labor.
Internet has not only made it possible to glue people's eyes to screen nearly 24/7 and feed them endless advert/propaganda, but also to surveill people to a point formerly possibly only in dystopian scifi.
*****
Also, being aware of the factions which make up the elite (and their control of government thru the persistence of unelected and elected officials) allows you to pick your poison.
So, I choose the nationalist/ isolationist faction of the deep state over the globalist/interventionist one. At least the nationalist faction localizes laws and judicial rulings to the United Stated court system -over which we have SOME control - instead of to some faraway private hearing room in Singapore where "they" get to decide what happens to our regulations according to some "free trade" agreement, where the USA Constitution is entirely meaningless and in which we have no hope of representation ever.
Not all "deep state" factions are equally poisonous. I would be working extra-hard to remove the tentacles of globalist control from the USA government, and that includes the banks'.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What sig calls deep state and rails against is known to the rest of us as the establishment. Sigs solution is to tear it down. Putin's solution is also to tear it down.
It's easy to find fault with a semi-functional world. The way forward is the rule of law. Look back and you'll see we are moving in that direction. Sigs a fool who rails against the democratic institution responsible for bringing the rule of law to the world.
Her Putin and Trump are like the death cry you hear from a dying idea. Everyone for themselves form of tribalism. And the free reign of criminal enterprises.
T 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
What sig calls deep state and rails against is known to the rest of us as the establishment. Sigs solution is to tear it down. Putin's solution is also to tear it down.
It's easy to find fault with a semi-functional world. The way forward is the rule of law. Look back and you'll see we are moving in that direction. Sigs a fool...
I always knew you were a deep-state, anti-democracy suckup, THUGR. You would have been backing King George and the East India Crown Corp in 1775. It's a good thing you and your kind got your asses whupped back then.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME