is this what we are up against here in the USA?


-------------------------------

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3664960863576873594

I have "DSL Lite," so I'd be all evening downloading a 1 hour and 55 minute video. Can you synopsize it for slowpokes like me?

quote:

Originally posted by Robert A Cook:
I have "DSL Lite," so I'd be all evening downloading a 1 hour and 55 minute video. Can you synopsize it for slowpokes like me?

It should just fire right up for you, Robert. No waiting.

But the length of it:

It does fire right up, Squeezer, but it plays faster than it loads. So it starts and stops, starts and stops, every few seconds at first, but with the intervals getting shorter and shorter until it's going, "Oop... urk... ah... wha... orf..."

It's pretty unwatchable without letting it preload.

Damn, Robert. You're slow.

I have the middle tier DSL and I could actually skip ahead with only maybe a 1 second pause to buffer.

I didn't watch it though. My attention span isn't that long. LOL

Robert I also have slow DSL and time of day plays a part and traffic on the net.

To eliminate the problem, pause the presentation, eventually you will see the progress of the download extending past the control, let it proceed before playing. Watch the greyed area as the control approaches, if it starts to jerk again you didn't let load enough. Pause again, fix a cup of coffee or tea, have a smoke, then play.

I found the presentation very interesting, especially as I reflect on how the local smoking ban was passed. The subcommittee in charge was created because the previous committee would never pass it onto the council. The committee was call "The Children's Health Committee" and never met again after the ban was passed. The committee seemed obvious of the real world. I supplied the entire council with documentation to rebut every argument presented. I supplied statistics about the economic impact of other bans. I totally frustrated the medical presenters to a point where they had no answers to my questions. It was obvious they were only going thru the required motions.

Neither the mayor who signed the ordinance or any of the members of the committee were reelected this week. Two of the principals had accepted appointments elsewhere in the administration shortly after the vote, they too are out along with the mayor.

Is there any evidence of a similiar charity or group in this country? I know there are are laws against political activities in this country, but we do have a lot of think tanks.

Bruce: "...To eliminate the problem, pause the presentation, eventually you will see the progress of the download extending past the control, let it proceed before playing...."

Thanks, Bruce. Yeah, that's what I do with YouTube videos and the like, but I've seldom had the patience to preload anything longer than ten or fifteen minutes. Truth be told, like Squeezer, my attention span just isn't up to it. LOL!

Since the title of the video begins with "No EU," am I correct in assuming it has to do with concerns about the "New World Order" and the coming North American Union, Asian Union, and eventual One World Government?

If so, you bet I'm concerned. So is Lou Dobbs. And yes, I believe Global Corporate Hegemony is behind the ham-fisted efforts to homogenize society on a planetary scale. The anti-tobacco movement is clearly part of that program.

If that's what your video is about, Jemeyes, I'm already caught up. By all means, be afraid... be very afraid.

I don't know if its a nonprofit charity thats infiltrating all aspects of government Like what the chap said is going on over in the UK region its Evil and we all know something is happening here in the US Winston feels it and its fitting his Evil series very well

Jemeyes: "...Winston feels it and its fitting his Evil series very well."

Yes, it does, doesn't it?

"Nonprofits" (designated 501(c)(3)s here in the US) are fronts for all sorts of Machiavellian corporate tinkering and social control, as anybody who has looked into the American Cancer Society or the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation already knows.

what can we do to stop it if that is indeed what happening here as well a secret non profit organization infiltrating all aspects of our government,, This is scary stuff and it worries me

now I find these things disturbing


President Bush issued Executive Order 13224
http://www.guidestar.org/DisplayArticle.do?articleId=1101


then there is this

H.R. 1955

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbna...d=f:h1955rfs.txt.pdf

Homeland Security is far from secure it seems. They have now coined a new term, "Homegrown Terrorism". I don't think they like this new "information age" at all!

comcast sensoring web content
the comcast internet/cable tv provider is already under investigation for for blocking some internet access.. I read something in the news this past week

and now this

Evidence of Comcast Internet Filtering

http://news.digitaltrends.com/news/story/14567/more_evi...t_internet_filtering

What can we do to stop it? This is going to sound trivial and indirect, but I'd have to write a book to fully explain myself.

• Put your TV and radio out by the curb, and cancel your newspaper subscription.
  
• Drive the most fuel-efficient transportation you can find--a motorcycle, if possible; better yet, ride a bike.
  
• Get your family and friends to agree not to buy Christmas gifts, and make it a "togetherness" holiday instead.
  
• Get out of debt; pay off your credit card in full every month; turn the tables on them and borrow THEIR money for free.
  
• Throw away your incandescent bulbs and put in compact fluorescents; get your energy consumption as close to zero as possible.
  
• Avoid seeing your doctor unless it's absolutely necessary; avoid prescription drugs; learn first aid and treat yourself at home.
  
• Buy the lowest-tax smokes you can find, on Native American land if possible; deprive your state government of its taxes; avoid all taxes whenever possible.
  
• Never vote for a mainstream candidate... ever; vote only for dark horses, preferably for third parties.
  
• Stay away from big chains and shop in Mom & Pop places, even if it costs more.

That'll do for starters. Incidentally, it's exactly how I live. I know it sounds hippy-dippy, but what it does is deprive the Machine of its life blood: your money.

The accelerating abandonment of Mainstream Media already has Global Corporate Hegemony deeply concerned. If everyone did those things, it would bring them to their knees.

Vote with your money, because your vote at the polls is virtually worthless.

quote:

Originally posted by Robert A Cook:
What can we do to stop it? This is going to sound trivial and indirect, but I'd have to write a book to fully explain myself.

• Put your TV and radio out by the curb, and cancel your newspaper subscription.
  
• Drive the most fuel-efficient transportation you can find--a motorcycle, if possible; better yet, ride a bike.
  
• Get your family and friends to agree not to buy Christmas gifts, and make it a "togetherness" holiday instead.
  
• Get out of debt; pay off your credit card in full every month; turn the tables on them and borrow THEIR money for free.
  
• Throw away your incandescent bulbs and put in compact fluorescents; get your energy consumption as close to zero as possible.
  
• Avoid seeing your doctor unless it's absolutely necessary; avoid prescription drugs; learn first aid and treat yourself at home.
  
• Buy the lowest-tax smokes you can find, on Native American land if possible; deprive your state government of its taxes; avoid all taxes whenever possible.
  
• Never vote for a mainstream candidate... ever; vote only for dark horses, preferably for third parties.
  
• Stay away from big chains and shop in Mom & Pop places, even if it costs more.

Robert - Thanks for this list! I don't think it's hippy dippy, as you put it, at all.

What you're saying reminds me of another story - and it is a bit relevant....back when NY state imposed its smoking ban, a number of bars in and around the upstate area, decided to send a message of protest to the state for imposing the ban. Bar owners unplugged the lottery machines inside the bars for a week (I think it was a week. It might have been a weekend). The state did in fact, loose a lot of money as a result. So I guess you can add this to your list - that is, don't buy lottery tix.

I know this would be difficult for me - I love playing the lottery (call it my cheep entertainment). But if giving up my few weekly scratch tickets would mean sending a message to my state's government, that I've had enough with their wasteful spending and making laws that restrict my freedom - I'd happily do it....and I think I will.

Oh yeah - and I REALLY like the idea of patronizing the small M&P merchants - in fact, I buy my smokes at 2 small independently owned news type shops - as opposed to the Store 24's or 7-11's. What's nice is the small places know me and don't bother to card me every time I come in to buy...not that it really matters but I like the fact that they remember me. Unfortunately, where I live - there are no Indian Reservations near by.
Thanks again,

varla_pussycat: "...if giving up my few weekly scratch tickets would mean sending a message to my state's government, that I've had enough with their wasteful spending and making laws that restrict my freedom - I'd happily do it....and I think I will."

Far be it for me to suggest anyone give up something they find pleasant, Ms. VP, but I'm sure you've heard it's statistically more likely that any given ticket buyer will be killed by lightning than win a lottery.

But, I finished my last post with "Vote with your money, because your vote at the polls is virtually worthless," and I actually had such odds in mind when I wrote that, because you stand a better chance of winning a lottery, being killed by lightning, or being crushed by a meteor than you do of casting a deciding vote in an election (unless it's a very, very tiny local election).

People who work to "Get Out The Vote" love to cite those EXTREMELY rare instances when a few votes made a difference in the outcome of an election, but there are far more lottery winners than elections in which that was the case.

I meant it. Your vote is toilet paper. Used toilet paper, at that.

That's why you might as well vote for dark horses and third-party candidates. Some will tell you that's "throwing away your vote," but the message a non-conformist vote sends is much more valuable than the vote itself.

I subscribe to eight of nine of your prescriptions, RAC. Perhaps, this would explain why we are both such miserable people LOL. (VPC, now that's really brave, girl.) RAC, I differ with the following:

quote:

your vote at the polls is virtually worthless

Your vote is worth the fractional portion of the number of people voting which never seems like much when we're talking ten's or hundred's of thousands or millions. If this is unacceptable then how few voters in the field must there be: 200, 20, seven, three, or only one?

My vote was one out of about 19,000 (who showed up) in Tuesday's city elections where I live. I can just imagine an employer saying "well since a penny isn't worth very much, I've gone ahead and taken 19,000 of them (or $190) out of your pay this week..."

richlady248: "I subscribe to eight of nine of your prescriptions, RAC. Perhaps, this would explain why we are both such miserable people LOL."

I'm not miserable. I'm pretty happy, in fact. Sometimes where I keep the thermostat set makes my ladyfriend miserable, but her reactions to it make me happy: in the summer, she tends to shed her clothing; in the winter, to snuggle a lot.

I added an extra paragraph at the end of my last post, probably while you were writing yours. It explains where I'm coming from a lot better. You'll notice I didn't say "don't vote." I said vote for dark horses, and ignore those who say you're throwing your vote away, because a vote for a dark horse is far, far more valuable than saying, "I voted for the lesser of two evils, but I voted for a winner."

quote:

I voted for a winner

I agree, when you're money's on it, vote for the horse that can win.

The horse that can win--especially on the federal level--is decided by campaign contributions that assure all frontrunners will be sold-out whores.

If voting for the winner is important, then everybody should vote for Hillary Clinton in the next election, because she is going to be the next President of the United States.

I hate that. It scares me to death. But you can see the mainstream media carefully channeling public opinion in that direction. Actually, Ron Paul is the only Republican who would stand even a snowball's chance in hell of beating her in the general election, but he'll never make it through the primaries. "Good people" are "working hard" to make that so.

Aside from Dr. Paul (who was the lone candidate that voted against the quagmire in Iraq--Hillary went with the flow), the Democrats could run a one-eyed polecat against any Republican frontrunner and win. Even the Religious Right is abandoning the Republican Party. A huge percentage (about half, I think) of those polled have already said they plan to vote Independent this time. The Republican vote is split. You might not like that, but there it is.

The Mainstream Media are not reporting this, but the most recent Gallup poll shows that George W. Bush has set a new record: his "Strongly Disapprove" rating has now surpassed Nixon's. He is the most unpopular president in Gallup's entire history.

If voting for a winner is what matters, might as well vote for Hillary. This thing has been carefully engineered. It is nothing more than Great American Theater: a distraction for the masses.

quote:

Even the Religious Right is abandoning the Republican Party.... You might not like that, but there it is.

No, I don't like it. I am dismayed by the behavior of this group. During the mid-90's I knew for a fact they looked the other way as far as the Republican allegiance to tobacco money. Then as soon as they gained more anti-abortion power, they joined everybody else espousing antismoking sentiments, in their case also arguing the habit to be un-Christian.

But... Fred Thompson comes on the scene this year, and despite his alleged ties to big tobacco, they start to seriously consider him (all gaa gaa eyed too) just because he's opposed to abortion.

No doubt the person who has the best chance of winning in 2008 is Hillary Clinton. Going down without at least trying to support a candidate who has the best shot at beating her is the equivalent of going down without fighting.

The split factions of the former conservative revolution can throw all the self-righteous hissy fits they want. In the end they'll have to realize that practical political coalescing -- which is what liberals and democrats already know how to do, and do very well -- is our only option.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: richlady248,

richlady248: "Going down without at least trying to fight it by supporting a candidate who has the best shot to beat her is the equivalent of going down without fighting."

That candidate would be Ron Paul. Paradoxically, most Republican voters don't seem to see it. The real movers and shakers in the party, however, do see it I think, and are aghast, because Dr. Paul is not a sell-out. He would not be their whore.

Dr. Paul does not conform to what the Republican Party has espoused since the "Reagan Revolution." He represents a return to classical conservatism and ideas like "Mind your own business," and "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." The NeoCon minority hates him... just hates him, but he could win.

Here's why: you can't win an election without swing voters, and there's not a single other Republican on the field who could draw them. The Republican Party is basically split into thirds: classical, fiscally conservative, socially libertarian conservatives; religious fundamentalists who are the opposite (socially conservative, fiscally liberal--they'll spend any amount of the taxpayers' money on social control); and NeoCons who might best be described as tax-and-spend chickenhawks who support the Military-Industrial Complex. Dr. Paul only appeals to the first third of his own party, but he has an ENORMOUS amount of appeal for the American electorate as a whole.

He's the only Republican who could beat Hillary, but because he does not represent two thirds of his own "Big Tent," and would not pander to special interests, he'll never be allowed to compete.

So... get used to the sound of the words "President Clinton" all over again. Most voters don't really like her, but they like the NeoCons even less, and the Republicans are in the midst of their worst crisis since Watergate. Actually it's probably worse than Watergate, because not even Nixon sunk to the abysmal performance rating Bush now possesses. Unless a Republican candidate that truly represents a break from the pack gets the nomination, most will put clothespins on their noses and vote for Hillary as the lesser of two evils. When you consider that her closest rival in the Democratic primaries is named Barack Hussein Obama, it's pretty clear what we're being set up for, and who is going to get the Democratic nomination.

richlady248: "The split factions of the former conservative revolution coalition can throw all the self-righteous hissy fits they want. In the end they'll have to realize that practical political coalescing -- which is what liberals and democrats already know how to accomplish very well -- is our only option.

I agree with that, except for the part about liberals and Democrats being good at political coalescing. Actually they are dreadful at it, which is why the Republican "Big Tent" remained as successful as it did for so long.

But, the Republican "Big Tent" was doomed to eventual ruin from the start. Reagan's pandering to the Religious Right planted the seed of inevitable disaster. For a very long time the Religious Right and the "Goldwater Conservatives" ignored each other and played nice, but the tax-and-spend NeoCons have blown that coalition to smithereens.

Don't expect the party to recover, ever--at least not in its present form. For the Republican Party to regain the appeal it once enjoyed, it is going to have to re-coalesce along different lines.

That is not going to happen before November, 2008.