PDA

View Full Version : Shadow Goverment



Bartmanhomer
19 Jun 2017, 12:21
Hey everybody. I really hate to say it but I think Donald Trump is the least of our problems. I believe there's a bigger threat that America should worry about and Donald Trump doesn't even play a leading or minor role for that part. I believe that there's a political party who really hates all political parties including Democrats and Republicans. It's called the shadow government and it's real. I actually comment on a tarot reader Youtube video about it and she believes that the shadow government is real. So I think that America is even a bigger threat as it already is. So what's your thoughts about it?

anunitu
19 Jun 2017, 13:53
The name that the "Believers" use is the "Deep Government",mainly belief created by the Alt-right. I will not say it is BS,that is something you must determine for yourself.

Welcome to the beginning of the real "1984" and the term "Newspeak". Read the book,or watch the movie.

- - - Updated - - -

Please post the link to this video if you can.

- - - Updated - - -

And something about the Deep State. (https://rantt.com/the-deep-state-paranoid-conspiracy-2904816ebe9e)

thalassa
19 Jun 2017, 14:09
I think that such a belief gives way too much credit to the capabilities of human beings to take coordinated action in an agreed upon direction in complete and utter secrecy.

anunitu
19 Jun 2017, 15:51
I can not disagree with you on that Thal. I was trying to be polite.

ThePaganMafia
19 Jun 2017, 16:30
You are right in that Donald Trump is not the problem. He is a symptom of a the problem. That problem is not hidden conspiracy or a "shadow government". He is a symptom of Neo-liberalism, Neo-conservatism, and the declining Capitalist state. Also, mad white people that colored folks still exist. Also, don't read Orwell to get an understanding of what is going on. Read someone who actually has an analysis of how power and Capital function within a State. Chomsky, for his problems, has a very, very good analysis and critique on the power structures and media that exist in the US.

Beyond that anyone who provides a material analysis of the current situation paints a pretty good picture of why it has arisen.

anunitu
19 Jun 2017, 18:42
There are a lot of theory's that are making the rounds these days. The reptilians are hiding in plain sight as famous people. Some media artists are secretly part of the Illuminati,or they are replacement clones to aid in infiltrating our society by the "Other" There is also the idea by political factions,that because our society is not following their ideal social construct that it must be the fault of a secret anti(Left or right,take your pick) conspiracy to keep us from achieving our destiny of a society with no government at all,or a serious absolute "Angry father" complete lock down of a controlling police state.

I agree my description does seem extreme,but looking around at some world governments,not really far off the mark.

- - - Updated - - -

I remember in the way back,seems like just yesterday it was like this.


https://youtu.be/f5M_Ttstbgs

B. de Corbin
21 Jun 2017, 01:27
I think that such a belief gives way too much credit to the capabilities of human beings to take coordinated action in an agreed upon direction in complete and utter secrecy.

The secret has snuck out, thanks to Alex Jones and Dan Brown.

The Illuminati, Catholic Church, One World Order, those damned Jesuits, liberals, college instructors, SJWs, cucks, immigrants and refugees, space and interdimensional aliens, the man, commies, intellectuals, artists, Monsanto, the star chamber, an assortment of Manchurian candidates, Slenderman, shadow people, atheists, humanists, scientists, and the whole merry band of useful idiots.

In short, it's whoever you're not.

MaskedOne
21 Jun 2017, 05:24
Three can keep a secret when two are dead is the traditional answer. Unfortunately, regarding humanity, the traditional answer is hopelessly optimistic. Most of the time, three can keep a secret when all three are dead. Human beings absolutely suck at keeping their damn mouths shut. Government agencies can with great effort beat the odds on this for a limited span of time but even governments tend to lose secrets at a staggering rate due to espionage and press leaks. Massive, secret conspiracies make for amusing fiction but aren't terribly likely to work in real life.

Of course, Donald Trump is currently a sitting president, it is possible that we are living in bad fanfiction and conventional wisdom no longer applies...

Hawkfeathers
21 Jun 2017, 05:55
Three can usually keep a secret if it's the source of their billions.

Denarius
22 Jun 2017, 01:04
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJAn4cuqIdg&t=102s

It's not conspiracy, it's bureaucracy. Which is actually much worse. They don't work together because they are part of a secret club, they work together because they are part of a complex system. Deer eat the grass, wolves eat the deer, grass eat the wolves... they do this not because they are in cahoots, they are just doing what they do. Same with the Cathedral, the complexity and elegance are due to its organic nature. Just as has been said, conspiracies are all but impossible... but human nature being what it is social apparatuses are an inevitability.

We self-segregate, adjust our beliefs to match our peers, form complex peer groups... part of being a social animal. Tribalism, ideology, partisanship, memeplexes, all a part of spontaneous order born of social pressures and biological inclinations.

thalassa
23 Jun 2017, 04:51
The libertarian ideal devalues human life to how much currency one possesses, it devalues social structures to what currency be wrung out of those that it forces to labor for it, and it devalues natural systems to how much currency can be extracted from it at the expense of future generations. And that doesn't absolve the other side of the coin from its own issues...the extreme left has its own catastrophic ideological failures as well...

The economic system, as it sits now is unsustainable--its built on the idea of immediate reward vs. long-term survival, of infinite growth from finite resources, dependent on population growth in a ecosystem that has likely already exceeded carrying capacity or is darned close to it (and by carrying capacity, I'm not talking about food or water, but on all of the other resources we consume as a species and the waste we produce, which is a radical departure from all other species), and acquisitiveness-at-any-cost as a human ideal/value. The government, in some ways, reinforces this (the government is made of people, people are reflective of the society as a whole and the spectrum of its views and values (for better and worse), but also resists it. The problem is that its resistance is reactionary to problems that have become big enough that they are visible to the general public (and by then, often too late) rather than the people that study those systems in the first place. The other problem is that, once the problem has been dealt with, goldfish memory kicks in and people no longer think preventing the problem is important.

Bureaucracy, for all that people complain about it, is actually a good thing in the long run (its why, ordinarily, nations last longer than companies and religious institutions (actual structured institutions) last longer than nations (their bureaucracy tends to be even less dependent on the vagaries of public opinion and they tend to be more invested in the long term survival of their systems). The fact that it takes a long time to do something drastic (sort of like evolution) is generally beneficial--it protects the system as a whole and the benefits derived from it from the capriciousness of human foibles and from the extremes of human behaviors. People (as a group) tend to be reactionary to change because people (as individuals) lack the ability to build large scale consensus because people (as a group) are irrational and people are irrational because (as individuals) their opinions are based upon individualized experiences rather than a global view of entire processes.

anunitu
23 Jun 2017, 09:48
Took me a bit to digest that Thal,but it seems to me to be very insightful. Humans are,to be polite,very much concerned with their personal issues,and not very attuned to the larger social problems. Judgemental seems the order of the day,and even the term humane,to define caring about others,is in many ways just a buzz word. Many humans are not concerned with others welfare,except as it impacts theirs.

Denarius
23 Jun 2017, 10:56
The problem with the view that "the inability to effect real reform is good" is that, yeah, it prevents us from breaking things too much... but it also prevents us from fixing things too much. Over time issues build up in the system faster than our capability to deal with it within the Overton Window, and it directly precludes dealing with fundamental issues at all.

To use your evolution metaphor, the inability for the system to adapt to changing circumstances creates issues. This conflict is seen in nature with invasive species wreaking havoc in non-native environments and habitat loss leading to a creature's downfall.

http://i.imgur.com/AaFMHgE.jpg

Personally, I strongly believe that the system is corrupt and leading us down a very dark path. It needs to be uprooted, even going back to square one is not sufficient... we need to go to square zero, or else we'd just end up right back here.

Burn it down, salt the earth.

anunitu
23 Jun 2017, 11:53
One major problem I see is what is the economy,the concept of everything has a price. Because of the need to make money,we end up fighting when we do make a breakthrough as to who owns the concept. So progress is slowed to a crawl when we bind it into some litigation and it can not be used as a component in the beginning of yet another breakthrough. The economy,and the idea that we MUST own the intelligent ideas,and not use them to lift humanity out of the broken system we live within.

We end up discovering things in different ways to avoid being sued. Even then you can be sued for being kinda sorta a tiny shadow of another idea. So we hold back our progress with legal battles,and I think perhaps a fear of actually making progress.

We got to the moon,then just messed around and now we want to go to mars en mass because we have screwed this planet so bad.

Hawkfeathers
24 Jun 2017, 11:06
The issue of people not caring about others is a self-fulfilling prophecy kind of deal. If you're pretty sure no one will help you, you have to look out for yourself first, and so on....

anunitu
24 Jun 2017, 11:12
It is sad that the peace mongers get so little respect these days.

And reminds me of this song.

https://youtu.be/KCGlwx3L-Xk

ThePaganMafia
24 Jun 2017, 13:22
What the hell is so respectable about "peace mongers"? What is respectable about a belief that nothing should be opposed or fought for? What is so respectable about this centrist ideal that seeks to keep the status quo? The status quo is a justice system that serves as a modern day Jim Crow. The status quo is killing the environment. The status quo is war and military expansion. But, somehow if we all had some vague notion of "coming together in peace, love, and understanding" these problems would go away. I have no respect for the man who calls for "peace" when it comes to opposing injustice. Peace is just another word for consent.

anunitu
24 Jun 2017, 14:30
I think perhaps one does not fully understand the concept of peace. If we can only see a path that must be fought tooth and nail,then it explains why the US government fought so hard to control the native Americans,to isolate and demean them,in order to benefit the "superior" class. Why we have fought so many wars of aggression,or in the age of expansion and empire,countries came and forced backward countries to become our subjects.(As they said,for their own good) Understand those that seek peace have fought and died for that peace,but never attempted to become oppressors in the process. In Russia,those that promised a perfect society,deceived their people,and having taken power,would never give it up. It is not so much the ideal that failed,but the people who did not really care for the ideal ,but more for the drug of power,that has no escape for many.

Peace is a moral high ground,above the human weakness of spirit.

- - - Updated - - -

This may explain why aggression is not the best path.


Nebraska Democratic Official Caught On Tape Wishing Steve Scalise Dead
The party removed volunteer Phil Montag from his co-chair position after his expletive-filled comments surfaced.


Story here. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nebraska-democrat-wishing-steve-scalises-dead_us_594e90dee4b0da2c731bd189)

Full of spit and vinegar,but it really shamed the Democrats,and allowed the opposite party to use it against Democrats.

B. de Corbin
24 Jun 2017, 14:59
People for whom violence is their go-to solution will always find recipients worthy of their gift. The only people justified in the use of violence are those who strongly resist using it.

anunitu
24 Jun 2017, 15:06
Generally,anything achieved by force will end up also broken by another attempt to force compliance to an ideal even when many do not wish it.

ThePaganMafia
24 Jun 2017, 15:17
You have no moral high ground. You're concept of "peace", whatever that is, does not exist in reality. It has no historical basis and offers no way forward for oppressed groups.

And ya'll always have something to say about oppressed groups getting violent in the face of State violence. Steve Scalise is a racist, whose voting record can itself be considered an act of violence but it's his shooting that is such a tragedy. Cop shoots an unarmed man in the back but apparently it's the riot that follows that's the real tragedy. Ya'll just interested in the status quo. Your moral high ground is shit.

anunitu
24 Jun 2017, 15:21
It seems you are in something of a mood,and I will not further it by being trolled into becoming swept up in this anger.

Hawkfeathers
25 Jun 2017, 08:17
The problem that peaceful people encounter is non-peaceful people.

Tylluan Penry
25 Jun 2017, 14:11
Peace is just another word for consent.

I can see where you're coming from, but I think the quote you really want is 'All that is required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.'

There is nothing wrong with peace as a goal. Much better than chaos or war in most - but maybe not all - instances. I used to have an aunt who resolutely refused to stand up to my mother and would sit amidst all the chaos and raving just spouting about 'Blessed are the peacemakers...' rather than actually working towards peace. it was just an excuse to do nothing.

In the uK at the moment, peace mongers are seen as being rather to the left of centre.

And that aunt I mentioned earlier? Didn't end well for her. Which was sad, but entirely foreseeable. :(

thalassa
30 Jun 2017, 19:16
Meeting violence with violence only makes the offender feel justified in their violence to begin with.

B. de Corbin
01 Jul 2017, 05:36
Meeting violence with violence only makes the offender feel justified in their violence to begin with.

Or, it may be an agent provocateur
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur)

Hawkfeathers
01 Jul 2017, 09:48
Meeting violence with violence only makes the offender feel justified in their violence to begin with.

So does meeting it with what amounts to surrender, only then, the victim is dead or conquered/assimilated.

B. de Corbin
01 Jul 2017, 17:53
So does meeting it with what amounts to surrender, only then, the victim is dead or conquered/assimilated.

Believe it or not, the dichotomy of violent response/surrender is false. There are other options.

Especially in a democracy - despite all the other flaws of a democracy...

thalassa
01 Jul 2017, 17:59
So does meeting it with what amounts to surrender, only then, the victim is dead or conquered/assimilated.

Not using violence isn't surrender.

But its not about them anyhow, even in a pragmatic sense. Its about everyone else...

(the "it" in this case being change)

ThePaganMafia
01 Jul 2017, 23:21
There is a tendency of the white liberal to call for a pacifist solution. But, so often the liberal sees the violence of the oppressed and say, "This is not the answer. We must have peace for change." But, this statement always comes from a position of privilege. And from this position always a lack of analysis why this violence happens along with the false statement that violence doesn't hold power. You look at the riot of the oppressed and whine that this is not the way. But, by doing this the white liberal immediately finds himself on the side of the oppressor. And by holding this position the white liberal betrays his true desire, the desire of status quo over the liberation of the oppressed. When it comes to fighting back you will always find the centrist liberal arm and arm with the fascist crying the bullshit cry of "unity". Even when a vast majority of these movements remain peaceful the liberal will always fall on the side of the reactionary the moment the news media reports a violent act by an oppressed person. This being the case how could you view the liberal as any other way than a fascist with a mask?

Tylluan Penry
02 Jul 2017, 02:21
I think sometimes it depends on the problem. When people are oppressing minorities with violence, then for someone to call for peace is shorthand for 'Stop the violence, this is wrong.' It doesn't necessarily mean 'Stop showing the violence because it makes me feel uncomfortable; let me continue living in my bubble.' (mind you, sometimes that is exactly what they mean.)

I would agree that many people do like to present themselves as enlightened and liberal (and I'm not entirely sure this means the same thing in the US as in the UK but I may be wrong) when in fact they are anything but. That for me is the real problem. And as I quoted in an earlier post, 'All that is required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.'

Quite WHY they do nothing is another matter, but it happens a lot. And it happens across the classes too. Partly I suspect this is because those who rule us are using divide and conquer tactics. Instead of singling out the culprits and dealing with them, an awful lot of people stay back in the shadows waiting to see who is going to win.

The problem with riots of course is not that they happen in the first place, (and frankly I'm surprised they don't happen more) it's that they often lose their direction, either because criminal elements join in, or because they have been infiltrated by agents provocateurs.

People need to develop their critical thinking much better. They need to organise and not allow the divide and conquer methods to work on them.

Hawkfeathers
02 Jul 2017, 11:40
Privilege, yes. I had this conversation with my aunt the other day. She thinks everyone should "live in the now" and visualize themselves happy all the time, and everything will be fine. Obviously this comes from a person who's never had the wolf at the door or even has a clue. This is the guy in Titanic who dressed up in top hat and tails and ordered a brandy as the ship was sinking.

Sure, we should enjoy the present, not waste our lives in anxiety and worry. But, without me typing all day, I think everybody here knows about responsibility and that we really don't just make life go the way we want all the time with no outside factors affecting our course.

thalassa
02 Jul 2017, 13:12
The problem with resorting to violence is that its not pragmatic (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/11/05/peaceful-protest-is-much-more-effective-than-violence-in-toppling-dictators/?utm_term=.b04b389ae0fa). Its not the violence itself that is the problem--there are times where violence may be acceptable, the problem is that the situations in which violence works (actually achieves its goals) are fairly constrained. Violent movements can produce change, but they need a certain critical mass before that violence is effective... Violence for violence's sake as mob anger or mob justice on the other hand, is generally put down.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJSehRlU34w

ThePaganMafia
02 Jul 2017, 18:41
The truth is we have to understand that violence is a tactic. Trotsky has a piece called "Why Marxists oppose individual terrorism."

It is correct I don't support the shooting of Steve Scalise as the right move. It is incorrect that I view this a tragedy. I am not a moralist. These things are nuanced

Prickly Pear
03 Jul 2017, 09:43
I fall in with Thalassa on this. She has expressed it all more eloquently than I ever could. I do think there are times when violence is effective and the best choice. I just think that those times are limited. Do I think that it would be wonderful if we could just all get along? Of course I do. But I see human nature; I see reality. I just think most of the time violence is not strategically sound for accomplishing more than momentary mob satisfaction.

Torture is a good way to get people to tell you what you want to hear, whether it is true or not. In the end it breaks not only the the tortured, but the torturer.

The guy that rammed the crowd of Muslims in the UK? He did not advance life for himself, his family, or other non-Muslim Britons. He was just an angry man who reduced himself to a mass murderer.

The man that shot Steve Scalise convinced himself that he was a martyr. In truth, he was just a man who had a history of violence, and wrapped himself in ideals as an excuse to escalate it. It happens on all sides.

I also think we need to look at the sources of our information very, very carefully. It is important to know the difference between necessary action, and action that is masked as righteousness but is actually intended to benefit an oppressor. It happens more often than it doesn't.

Denarius
03 Jul 2017, 11:47
New Jersey Homeland Security declares Antifa a terrorist organization. (https://www.njhomelandsecurity.gov/analysis/anarchist-extremists-antifa?rq=antifa)

Rightly so, too: http://www.attacksontrumpsupporters.com/

Extremism and terrorism must be opposed, if you think that far-left extremists will be satisfied with just punching Nazis then you'd be dead wrong. They'll go after the right wing in general (http://conservativetribune.com/anti-trump-punks-show-true-colors/), the centrists, and then they'll go after the left-wing moderates. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw4l2MFHA1g)

If you hate the government, and think that there is no peaceful way to change it, then just leave. Vote with your feet. Certainly don't take it out on civilians, even if they are saying controversial things. Especially in a country that ostensibly has freedom of speech. The only time I'd say violence is justified is if the state is actively keeping you from leaving, and then only against the politicians and their muscle doing so.

Bartmanhomer
04 Jul 2017, 13:48
OK my turn. I think the shadow government with make their next move very soon. The only reason they say quiet because America is on their defensed and Donald Trump haven't screw it up yet.

anunitu
04 Jul 2017, 16:16
References on what you base your statements/claims please

Bartmanhomer
04 Jul 2017, 17:20
References on what you base your statements/claims please

Does intuition count?

anunitu
04 Jul 2017, 17:51
I don't really think so,if you wish to become a prophet,you need to have it come to pass more than a small number of times. I might predict aliens will pop out of a worm hole and consume the human race,but it makes a better SYFY movie idea,than an actual occurrence. BTW,the whole shadow government/deep State thing is a very recent thing.

See here. (https://www.lawfareblog.com/deep-state-myth-and-real-executive-branch-bureaucracy)

You might go for the Bilderberg's,or the New world Order,or the reptilians or the Illuminati. Maybe you could follow the Anti-Christ thing,or the hollow earth idea,or even the chemtrails theory (http://io9.gizmodo.com/is-that-reflective-cloud-about-to-poison-you-and-change-1638680856).

Lots of "theories" in our world,but very little facts to back them up.

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps a group ruled by Fu Manchu

This guy.
http://beardoholic.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Fu-mancu-character.gif

Or Professor James Moriarty,of Sherlock Holmes fame?

Do a search on the term,"The Yellow peril"

History is peppered with these ideas,the "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion)" hoax from many years back.

thalassa
05 Jul 2017, 12:19
Does intuition count?

No.

/10 char

Bartmanhomer
17 Jul 2017, 15:28
No.

/10 char

Why not? :(

MaskedOne
17 Jul 2017, 19:35
Why not? :(

Intuition isn't evidence. It's a (questionably accurate) tool of interpretation. When people ask for evidence, they want something independently verifiable.

To put it differently, I trust my intuition more than I trust yours. If you want to sway my intuition then provide me with facts not feelings. Otherwise, your intuition can say whatever it wants but I'm gonna listen to mine.

Bartmanhomer
23 Jul 2017, 19:52
Intuition isn't evidence. It's a (questionably accurate) tool of interpretation. When people ask for evidence, they want something independently verifiable.

To put it differently, I trust my intuition more than I trust yours. If you want to sway my intuition then provide me with facts not feelings. Otherwise, your intuition can say whatever it wants but I'm gonna listen to mine.

Isn't that double standard? :confused:

Denarius
23 Jul 2017, 23:15
Isn't that double standard? :confused:

You can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your friend's nose.

MaskedOne
24 Jul 2017, 05:40
Isn't that double standard? :confused:

It's reality. Not all intuition is created equal. I have no compelling reason to trust yours (of for that matter most other people's) until I see actual evidence.

Bartmanhomer
24 Jul 2017, 12:10
It's reality. Not all intuition is created equal. I have no compelling reason to trust yours (of for that matter most other people's) until I see actual evidence.

That's definately an unfair system. :(

anunitu
24 Jul 2017, 12:15
Welcome to the unfair world. The world has always been "Unfair",unless you learn to navigate the ups and downs of existence we all face as mortal animals.

Oshii
24 Jul 2017, 12:37
That's definately an unfair system. :(

Let me ask you a question. Do you want to read someone's opinion, when talking about a topic such as this, or would you want to read information based on facts and actual events? Which of the two, do you think, will be more informed and reliable? Intuition is not fact and never will be. Facts are facts. Just think about this for a little bit. Besides, trying to pass intuition as fact is just plain lazy. Do your research.

MaskedOne
24 Jul 2017, 13:30
That's definately an unfair system. :(

Fortunately, I really don't care. Neither does the rest of creation. If you want to persuade people, use evidence and reason based on it.

Bartmanhomer
24 Jul 2017, 15:37
Let me ask you a question. Do you want to read someone's opinion, when talking about a topic such as this, or would you want to read information based on facts and actual events? Which of the two, do you think, will be more informed and reliable? Intuition is not fact and never will be. Facts are facts. Just think about this for a little bit. Besides, trying to pass intuition as fact is just plain lazy. Do your research.

I'm both rational and intuitive. I suppose facts and logic are the key.

callmeclemens
26 Jul 2017, 18:19
You can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your friend's nose.

+10,000 rep?

Tylluan Penry
27 Jul 2017, 01:18
That's definately an unfair system. :(

Not really. Otherwise someone could claim the moon is made of cheese and insist that everyone else agrees...
So yes, find facts to back an argument, and facts from a reliable source too, not just 'the moon is made of cheese' brigade. Not everything you read on the internet or in books is going to be true. But if you are going to argue something it helps to have decent, reliable facts to back it up.

That said, there is nothing wrong with adding 'But my gut feeling/intuition tells me...'
People only get mad if you try and pass off intuition - yours or anyone else's - as fact.

B. de Corbin
27 Jul 2017, 06:07
I'm both rational and intuitive. I suppose facts and logic are the key.

Bartmanhomer, I wouldn't fret about this. The sad reality of human thinking (which I, as a lover of logic, and amateur philosopher, have been forced to discover) is this: The difference between a fact-based opinion and a non-fact based opinion only matters to a person (or people) when they have an opinion different from yours, and they wish to prove you wrong by asking for "facts." If the person happens to have the same opinion, facts are irrelevent. And the one who disagrees with you often has no facts to disprove you...

The vast majority of your fellow humans use their brain in an attempt to create a percieved reality they prefer. There are very, very few people who actually cultivate the mental discipline to attempt to percieve reality as it really is, and of those few, none of them are successful all the time. If anybody ever were completely successful, he/she would have no freinds, and be despised by pretty much everybody (ask Plato about this :cool:).

So look for facts, apply logic... or not. It doesn't really matter, unless you want to argue with people, or actually understand things as they really are.

That second option is currently out of fashion.

thalassa
27 Jul 2017, 08:24
Lets face it, some things shouldn't be based entirely in fact (and arguable cannot be). For example, what is more important, bees or people? Whales or bees? Trees or whales?


OR...Money or lives? Love or money? Lives or love?


OR...Your life, of the life of a stranger? Two strangers? 100 strangers? 100 children? 100 prisoners?

Bartmanhomer
27 Jul 2017, 12:11
Ok I think we're all getting a bit off topic about intuition and solid evidence. Ok let put up where we left off: I believe that the shadow government exist.

Tylluan Penry
27 Jul 2017, 13:33
Ok I think we're all getting a bit off topic about intuition and solid evidence. Ok let put up where we left off: I believe that the shadow government exist.

Why? And what is a shadow government exactly?

Bartmanhomer
27 Jul 2017, 14:17
Why? And what is a shadow government exactly?

A conspiracy of a secret government.

anunitu
27 Jul 2017, 14:30
You might search out the source of your "Shadow Government" idea

See here. (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-congressman-sees-shadow-government-conspiracy-involving-obama)

Quote from the site.

Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) has a habit of saying some pretty silly things. After the Obama administration decided to treat contraception access as preventive health care, the Pennsylvania Republican said the move was comparable to 9/11 and the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Last weekend, Kelly spoke at a local GOP Lincoln Day Dinner in his home state, where the congressman found a new way to complain about the former Democratic president.

“President Obama himself said he was going to stay in Washington until his daughter graduated. I think we ought to pitch in to let him go someplace else, because he is only there for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to run a shadow government that is going to totally upset the new agenda. It just doesn’t make sense.

“And people sit back and they say to me, ‘My gosh, why can’t you guys get this done?’ I say, ‘We’ve got a new CEO, we’ve got some new heads in the different departments, but the same people are there, and they don’t believe that the new owners or the new managers should be running the ship.’”

So apparently offering conspiracy theories about former presidents running “shadow governments” is okay if it’s done behind closed doors and in the company of like-minded people.

Kuznec
01 Sep 2017, 14:12
Naturally, such a government exists, it is not discussed even here, the main thing is who enters it.

Tylluan Penry
04 Sep 2017, 05:48
Naturally, such a government exists, it is not discussed even here, the main thing is who enters it.

On which planet? ;)

anunitu
04 Sep 2017, 06:26
I admit,I control this "Shadow Government",and right now all of you need to send me your tithe:cool: If you do not,I will have harsh words for my cabinet of minions,and then the poop really hits the fan

Signed the true and somewhat very cool,the great and magnificent OZ.(You and your little dog too)

B. de Corbin
04 Sep 2017, 07:03
I admit,I control this "Shadow Government",and right now all of you need to send me your tithe:cool: If you do not,I will have harsh words for my cabinet of minions,and then the poop really hits the fan

Signed the true and somewhat very cool,the great and magnificent OZ.(You and your little dog too)

Kin I haz job?

Summpin' small, like running a mid-size country?

anunitu
04 Sep 2017, 07:15
Ya gots it minion..

monsno_leedra
04 Sep 2017, 09:02
So will Otisburg still be down near Costa Del Lex and Anunitu Springs along with the rest of the new power cities when the shadow government reveals itself?

MaskedOne
04 Sep 2017, 11:23
I apparently need to discuss Earth's inadequate pizza production with this Shadow Government. It's good to know which souls are best snacked upon when production lags.