|
|
Science Fiction » alt.startrek » Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG
| Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #126681] |
Mi, 07 September 2005 06:34 |
|
"Dan J.S." <me [at] hyperx.com> wrote in message news:11hrf5ie7lodm5e [at] news.supernews.com...
> Did SciFi channel broadcast a new BG episode this last Friday? Thanks!
No, they instead put out a documentary type 30 minute show in which the BSG writers
and producers admitted unabashedly that the BSG series was full of subliminal level propaganda,
intended to trick the Science Fiction TV viewer, against their will and/or without their consent,
to accept content in the series like the Homosexual agenda and Mass Murder of Arabs/Moslems
which is being pushed by the Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives who have a stranglehold on the BSG series.
This 30 minute show was called Battlestar/Propaganda, and it seems that it originally aired
at 5.30 AM in the early morning of 09/05/2005 Labor Day Monday -- certainly not prime time.
Having the BSG writers and producers like Ron D. Moore come on screen and admit all the wrongdoing
which has been debated here was rather startling.
Will it stop Saturday Night Live and others from parodying the BSG series' deceitful subtexts ?
It should not.
Politics
=================================================
=================================================
Again, the symbolism in the BSG Sodomy scenes in Bastille Day and Colonial Day has only predated
by the Oz HBO prison Sodomy rape scenes.
This Sodomy symbolism was the clear intent of the BSG Hollywood Homosexuals, who are
determined to sell Sodomy to you and your kids.
=================================================
The customer sees it as is the case with all subliminal visual stimuli, but
does not notice the product specifically as being specifically presented
as an advertisement. It is just present in the picture.
The full quote from the document transcribed:
================================================
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/cgi/getdoc?tid=rnw85d00&f mt=gif&ref=results&title=ACTIVITY%20REPORT.&bate s=503579378/9381
"August 26, 1981
CONFIDENTIAL
-------------------
To: Laurence M.Wassong [vice-president William Esty Company
in New York, publicity man of R.J. Reynolds,
concerning promotion activities
From: Warren Cowan [of Rogers and Cowan public relations firm]
Re: Activity Report
"We have been waiting for production to resume full-speed
ahead in Hollywood for more than a year, and, now, with
the writers, actors and directors all working and not threaten-
ing to strike, we are pleased to report that Hollywood is back
in the movie business.
With that in mind, we are making a concentrated effort to be
very selective about the kinds of productions in which we place
the products. Our goal is "pleasant situations,"and we have
evaluated many scripts which do not meet our criteria for products.
There are some films we have approached which we believe could
be very beneficial to our "subliminal" product campaign.
I. MOTION PICTURES
--------------------------
A) Sharkey's Machine -- Burt Reynolds stars in this Orion Pictures
contemporary action drama. As you can see by the attached stills from
the film (attachments 1-3), we arranged for Burt Reynolds to enjoy Camels
throughout the film. Sharkey's Machine will be distributed by
Warner Brothers on December 18."
[...numerous other movies' product placements...] "
[later in same Activity Report...]
"We are also continuing our contacts with top photographers and
providing them with product, so that when the proper situation
arises, our product can be included in photo sessions.
There are many other areas that we are exploring, as well. Due
to the necessity of confidentiality of this project, we are doing
this very quietly, on a one-on-one basis. "
=================================================
Here is some more information on the types of psychologists who work
at advertising companies like William Esty Agency, and their interest in
controlling the future behavior of your kids.
http://fates.cns.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/watson .htm
====================================================
[John B. Watson (1878 - 1958)]
After leaving Johns Hopkins University, Watson went into the advertising business
.. He wanted to use his scientific theories of behaviorism and the emotions
of fear, rage, and love to improve the effects of advertising on the "animal"
or what we know as consumers. Watson began his training at
J Walter Thompson Agency with Stanley B. Resor. He became an ambassador
and in 1924 he stepped up to become vice president of the company.
While he was there he also wrote and sold books about the control over
human emotions. Later he moved onto work for William Esty Agency
until he retired in 1945. In 1920 he published his most famous conditioning
experiment; the "Little Albert" study in which he produced, in a small child,
conditioned fear of a white rat by repeatedly presenting it paired with the
loud "clanging" of a metal bar. This conditioned fear was then shown to generalize
to other white furry objects, including a Santa mask and Watson's own white hair
(Watson & Rayner, 1920). In another well-known article (Watson, 1920),
he argued that thinking -- a mental activity that seems to involve no overt behavior
-- is nothing more than subvocal speaking. He later retracted this extreme view,
however (Watson & McDougall, 1929).
Although Watson's academic star burned brightly, it was destined to be short-lived.
Like his predecessor, Baldwin, he was forced to resign his chair at Hopkins
because of a sex scandal involving his assistant, Rayner. He continued to publish
books on psychology--Behaviorism (1924) and The Psychological Care of
Infant and Child (1928)--but by the 1930s his main career interest had shifted
to the advertising business, and he ended his scholarly pursuits.
=====================================================
Cigarette companies have by far the biggest advertising budgets and thus can afford to hire the best
psychologists to sell Cigarettes to you and your kids.
===============================================
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/articles/20785-6.asp
Although cigarette commercials have been banned from television for 30 years,
the tobacco industry remains the country's largest advertiser.
According to the American Lung Association, the tobacco industry spent
an estimated $5.7 billion on advertising in 1997, up 10.8% or $552 million
from 1996. In 1982, when cigarette sales peaked, the industry spent an
estimated $1.8 billion for advertising. Cigarette sales dropped from
632.5 billion in 1982 to 478.6 billion in 1997. Tobacco company ads
are everywhere
===============================================
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #127930 ] |
Mi, 07 September 2005 13:26 |
|
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:w5uTe.180685$E95.47880 [at] fed1read01...
> "Dan J.S." <me [at] hyperx.com> wrote in message
news:11hrf5ie7lodm5e [at] news.supernews.com...
> > Did SciFi channel broadcast a new BG episode this last Friday? Thanks!
>
> No, they instead put out a documentary type 30 minute show in which the
BSG writers
> and producers admitted unabashedly that the BSG series was full of
subliminal level propaganda,
> intended to trick the Science Fiction TV viewer, against their will and/or
without their consent,
> to accept content in the series like the Homosexual agenda and Mass Murder
of Arabs/Moslems
> which is being pushed by the Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives who
have a stranglehold on the BSG series.
>
> This 30 minute show was called Battlestar/Propaganda, and it seems that
it originally aired
> at 5.30 AM in the early morning of 09/05/2005 Labor Day Monday --
certainly not prime time.
> Having the BSG writers and producers like Ron D. Moore come on screen and
admit all the wrongdoing
> which has been debated here was rather startling.
> Will it stop Saturday Night Live and others from parodying the BSG series'
deceitful subtexts ?
> It should not.
>
> Politics
>
>
> =================================================
> =================================================
> Again, the symbolism in the BSG Sodomy scenes in Bastille Day and Colonial
Day has only predated
> by the Oz HBO prison Sodomy rape scenes.
> This Sodomy symbolism was the clear intent of the BSG Hollywood
Homosexuals, who are
> determined to sell Sodomy to you and your kids.
>
>
> =================================================
> The customer sees it as is the case with all subliminal visual stimuli,
but
> does not notice the product specifically as being specifically presented
> as an advertisement. It is just present in the picture.
> The full quote from the document transcribed:
>
> ================================================
>
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/cgi/getdoc?tid=rnw85d00&f mt=gif&ref=results&t
itle=ACTIVITY%20REPORT.&bates=503579378/9381
> "August 26, 1981
> CONFIDENTIAL
> -------------------
> To: Laurence M.Wassong [vice-president William Esty Company
> in New York, publicity man of R.J. Reynolds,
> concerning promotion activities
> From: Warren Cowan [of Rogers and Cowan public relations firm]
> Re: Activity Report
>
> "We have been waiting for production to resume full-speed
> ahead in Hollywood for more than a year, and, now, with
> the writers, actors and directors all working and not threaten-
> ing to strike, we are pleased to report that Hollywood is back
> in the movie business.
>
> With that in mind, we are making a concentrated effort to be
> very selective about the kinds of productions in which we place
> the products. Our goal is "pleasant situations,"and we have
> evaluated many scripts which do not meet our criteria for products.
> There are some films we have approached which we believe could
> be very beneficial to our "subliminal" product campaign.
>
> I. MOTION PICTURES
> --------------------------
>
> A) Sharkey's Machine -- Burt Reynolds stars in this Orion Pictures
> contemporary action drama. As you can see by the attached stills from
> the film (attachments 1-3), we arranged for Burt Reynolds to enjoy Camels
> throughout the film. Sharkey's Machine will be distributed by
> Warner Brothers on December 18."
> [...numerous other movies' product placements...] "
>
> [later in same Activity Report...]
>
> "We are also continuing our contacts with top photographers and
> providing them with product, so that when the proper situation
> arises, our product can be included in photo sessions.
>
> There are many other areas that we are exploring, as well. Due
> to the necessity of confidentiality of this project, we are doing
> this very quietly, on a one-on-one basis. "
> =================================================
>
>
> Here is some more information on the types of psychologists who work
> at advertising companies like William Esty Agency, and their interest in
> controlling the future behavior of your kids.
>
> http://fates.cns.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/watson .htm
> ====================================================
> [John B. Watson (1878 - 1958)]
> After leaving Johns Hopkins University, Watson went into the advertising
business
> . He wanted to use his scientific theories of behaviorism and the emotions
> of fear, rage, and love to improve the effects of advertising on the
"animal"
> or what we know as consumers. Watson began his training at
> J Walter Thompson Agency with Stanley B. Resor. He became an ambassador
> and in 1924 he stepped up to become vice president of the company.
> While he was there he also wrote and sold books about the control over
> human emotions. Later he moved onto work for William Esty Agency
> until he retired in 1945. In 1920 he published his most famous
conditioning
> experiment; the "Little Albert" study in which he produced, in a small
child,
> conditioned fear of a white rat by repeatedly presenting it paired with
the
> loud "clanging" of a metal bar. This conditioned fear was then shown to
generalize
> to other white furry objects, including a Santa mask and Watson's own
white hair
> (Watson & Rayner, 1920). In another well-known article (Watson, 1920),
> he argued that thinking -- a mental activity that seems to involve no
overt behavior
> -- is nothing more than subvocal speaking. He later retracted this
extreme view,
> however (Watson & McDougall, 1929).
> Although Watson's academic star burned brightly, it was destined to be
short-lived.
> Like his predecessor, Baldwin, he was forced to resign his chair at
Hopkins
> because of a sex scandal involving his assistant, Rayner. He continued to
publish
> books on psychology--Behaviorism (1924) and The Psychological Care of
> Infant and Child (1928)--but by the 1930s his main career interest had
shifted
> to the advertising business, and he ended his scholarly pursuits.
> =====================================================
>
>
> Cigarette companies have by far the biggest advertising budgets and thus
can afford to hire the best
> psychologists to sell Cigarettes to you and your kids.
>
> ===============================================
> http://www.emedicinehealth.com/articles/20785-6.asp
>
> Although cigarette commercials have been banned from television for 30
years,
> the tobacco industry remains the country's largest advertiser.
> According to the American Lung Association, the tobacco industry spent
> an estimated $5.7 billion on advertising in 1997, up 10.8% or $552 million
> from 1996. In 1982, when cigarette sales peaked, the industry spent an
> estimated $1.8 billion for advertising. Cigarette sales dropped from
> 632.5 billion in 1982 to 478.6 billion in 1997. Tobacco company ads
> are everywhere
> ===============================================
>
> Politics
I've haven't seen the new BSG but this subliminal sodomy claim makes me real
curious. I'm wondering how it's been woven in to the plot, perhaps the new
cylons have developed a peritonitis weapon, that enlarges the members of gay
galacticans? Or are all the colonial survivors homosexuals now? And why do
they want to kill Arabs, do new cylons wear teacloths on their heads?
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #127931 ] |
Mi, 07 September 2005 14:18 |
|
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, John Shocked wrote:
> "Dan J.S." <me [at] hyperx.com> wrote in message news:11hrf5ie7lodm5e [at] news.supernews.com...
> > Did SciFi channel broadcast a new BG episode this last Friday? Thanks!
>
> No, they instead put out a documentary type 30 minute show in which the BSG writers
> and producers admitted unabashedly that the BSG series was full of subliminal level propaganda,
I saw the 30 minute special--no one mentioned subliminal propaganda
on it, and you have no evidence that they did so (you even admit that you
didn't see it!). Once again, John takes careful aim and shoots himself in
the ass...
--
Jim Phillips, jay pee aitch eye el el eye pee at bee see pee ell dot net
"I would bring up Ann Coulter's comment about blowing up the New York
Times...there's a lot of hateful, violent rhetoric that spews from the
Right. The Left is snide and sarcastic, the Right is dangerous and
violent." -- Dan Savage
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #127932 ] |
Mi, 07 September 2005 14:41 |
|
"Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1050907081337.4617D-100000 [at] mail...
| On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, John Shocked wrote:
|
| > "Dan J.S." <me [at] hyperx.com> wrote in message
news:11hrf5ie7lodm5e [at] news.supernews.com...
| > > Did SciFi channel broadcast a new BG episode this last Friday? Thanks!
| >
| > No, they instead put out a documentary type 30 minute show in which the
BSG writers
| > and producers admitted unabashedly that the BSG series was full of
subliminal level propaganda,
|
| I saw the 30 minute special--no one mentioned subliminal propaganda
| on it, and you have no evidence that they did so (you even admit that you
| didn't see it!). Once again, John takes careful aim and shoots himself in
| the ass...
I imagine John Shocked to be a giant pair of humanoid buttocks with a
pair of eyes, hands, and a tiny sodomy-obsessed mind puttering away on a
computer keyboard. This condition would distinctly declare him an illegal
lab experiment with access to the Internet and a television tuned to the
SCI-FI Channel.
Poor semi-sentient buttocks thing, oh sad deformed John Shocked.
Perhaps someday he'll get an online credit card and be able to rent the
services of a blind gay male escort to penetrate his giant rectal orifice
until he finds the joy he decries in other human beings.
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #127935 ] |
Mi, 07 September 2005 16:21 |
|
"mick" <a [at] b,com> wrote in message news:431ece45$0$17493$ed2e19e4 [at] ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:w5uTe.180685$E95.47880 [at] fed1read01...
>> "Dan J.S." <me [at] hyperx.com> wrote in message
> news:11hrf5ie7lodm5e [at] news.supernews.com...
>> > Did SciFi channel broadcast a new BG episode this last Friday? Thanks!
>> No, they instead put out a documentary type 30 minute show in which the BSG writers
>> and producers admitted unabashedly that the BSG series was full of subliminal level propaganda,
>> intended to trick the Science Fiction TV viewer, against their will and/or without their consent,
>> to accept content in the series like the Homosexual agenda and Mass Murder of Arabs/Moslems
>> which is being pushed by the Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives who
>> have a stranglehold on the BSG series.
>>
>> This 30 minute show was called Battlestar/Propaganda, and it seems that it originally aired
>> at 5.30 AM in the early morning of 09/05/2005 Labor Day Monday -- certainly not prime time.
>> Having the BSG writers and producers like Ron D. Moore come on screen and admit all the wrongdoing
>> which has been debated here was rather startling.
>> Will it stop Saturday Night Live and others from parodying the BSG series' deceitful subtexts ?
>> It should not.
>>
>> Politics
>>
>>
>> =================================================
>> =================================================
>> Again, the symbolism in the BSG Sodomy scenes in Bastille Day and Colonial Day has only predated
>> by the Oz HBO prison Sodomy rape scenes.
>> This Sodomy symbolism was the clear intent of the BSG Hollywood
>> Homosexuals, who are determined to sell Sodomy to you and your kids.
>>
>>
>> =================================================
>> The customer sees it as is the case with all subliminal visual stimuli,
> but
>> does not notice the product specifically as being specifically presented
>> as an advertisement. It is just present in the picture.
>> The full quote from the document transcribed:
>>
>> ================================================
>>
> http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/cgi/getdoc?tid=rnw85d00&f mt=gif&ref=results&t
> itle=ACTIVITY%20REPORT.&bates=503579378/9381
>> "August 26, 1981
>> CONFIDENTIAL
>> -------------------
>> To: Laurence M.Wassong [vice-president William Esty Company
>> in New York, publicity man of R.J. Reynolds,
>> concerning promotion activities
>> From: Warren Cowan [of Rogers and Cowan public relations firm]
>> Re: Activity Report
>>
>> "We have been waiting for production to resume full-speed
>> ahead in Hollywood for more than a year, and, now, with
>> the writers, actors and directors all working and not threaten-
>> ing to strike, we are pleased to report that Hollywood is back
>> in the movie business.
>>
>> With that in mind, we are making a concentrated effort to be
>> very selective about the kinds of productions in which we place
>> the products. Our goal is "pleasant situations,"and we have
>> evaluated many scripts which do not meet our criteria for products.
>> There are some films we have approached which we believe could
>> be very beneficial to our "subliminal" product campaign.
>>
>> I. MOTION PICTURES
>> --------------------------
>>
>> A) Sharkey's Machine -- Burt Reynolds stars in this Orion Pictures
>> contemporary action drama. As you can see by the attached stills from
>> the film (attachments 1-3), we arranged for Burt Reynolds to enjoy Camels
>> throughout the film. Sharkey's Machine will be distributed by
>> Warner Brothers on December 18."
>> [...numerous other movies' product placements...] "
>>
>> [later in same Activity Report...]
>>
>> "We are also continuing our contacts with top photographers and
>> providing them with product, so that when the proper situation
>> arises, our product can be included in photo sessions.
>>
>> There are many other areas that we are exploring, as well. Due
>> to the necessity of confidentiality of this project, we are doing
>> this very quietly, on a one-on-one basis. "
>> =================================================
>>
>>
>> Here is some more information on the types of psychologists who work
>> at advertising companies like William Esty Agency, and their interest in
>> controlling the future behavior of your kids.
>>
>> http://fates.cns.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/watson .htm
>> ====================================================
>> [John B. Watson (1878 - 1958)]
>> After leaving Johns Hopkins University, Watson went into the advertising
> business
>> . He wanted to use his scientific theories of behaviorism and the emotions
>> of fear, rage, and love to improve the effects of advertising on the "animal"
>> or what we know as consumers. Watson began his training at
>> J Walter Thompson Agency with Stanley B. Resor. He became an ambassador
>> and in 1924 he stepped up to become vice president of the company.
>> While he was there he also wrote and sold books about the control over
>> human emotions. Later he moved onto work for William Esty Agency
>> until he retired in 1945. In 1920 he published his most famous conditioning
>> experiment; the "Little Albert" study in which he produced, in a small child,
>> conditioned fear of a white rat by repeatedly presenting it paired with the
>> loud "clanging" of a metal bar. This conditioned fear was then shown to generalize
>> to other white furry objects, including a Santa mask and Watson's own white hair
>> (Watson & Rayner, 1920). In another well-known article (Watson, 1920),
>> he argued that thinking -- a mental activity that seems to involve no overt behavior
>> -- is nothing more than subvocal speaking. He later retracted this extreme view,
>> however (Watson & McDougall, 1929).
>> Although Watson's academic star burned brightly, it was destined to be short-lived.
>> Like his predecessor, Baldwin, he was forced to resign his chair at Hopkins
>> because of a sex scandal involving his assistant, Rayner. He continued to publish
>> books on psychology--Behaviorism (1924) and The Psychological Care of
>> Infant and Child (1928)--but by the 1930s his main career interest had shifted
>> to the advertising business, and he ended his scholarly pursuits.
>> =====================================================
>>
>>
>> Cigarette companies have by far the biggest advertising budgets and thus
> can afford to hire the best
>> psychologists to sell Cigarettes to you and your kids.
>>
>> ===============================================
>> http://www.emedicinehealth.com/articles/20785-6.asp
>>
>> Although cigarette commercials have been banned from television for 30
>> years, the tobacco industry remains the country's largest advertiser.
>> According to the American Lung Association, the tobacco industry spent
>> an estimated $5.7 billion on advertising in 1997, up 10.8% or $552 million
>> from 1996. In 1982, when cigarette sales peaked, the industry spent an
>> estimated $1.8 billion for advertising. Cigarette sales dropped from
>> 632.5 billion in 1982 to 478.6 billion in 1997. Tobacco company ads
>> are everywhere
>> ===============================================
>>
>> Politics
>
>
> I've haven't seen the new BSG but this subliminal sodomy claim makes me real
> curious. I'm wondering how it's been woven in to the plot, perhaps the new
> cylons have developed a peritonitis weapon, that enlarges the members of gay
> galacticans? Or are all the colonial survivors homosexuals now? And why do
> they want to kill Arabs, do new cylons wear teacloths on their heads?
Maybe you can download Battlestar/Propaganda from somewhere.
It appeared that the BSG writers were exhausted at spending so much effort each week
to insert Sodomy symbolisms and nuclear bombs on the Middle East imagery,
to satisfy the Hollywood Homosexual chieftains who have a stranglehold on this BSG series.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #127936 ] |
Mi, 07 September 2005 16:35 |
|
"Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1050907081337.4617D-100000 [at] mail...
> On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, John Shocked wrote:
>> "Dan J.S." <me [at] hyperx.com> wrote in message news:11hrf5ie7lodm5e [at] news.supernews.com...
>> > Did SciFi channel broadcast a new BG episode this last Friday? Thanks!
>> No, they instead put out a documentary type 30 minute show in which the BSG writers
>> and producers admitted unabashedly that the BSG series was full of subliminal level propaganda,
> I saw the 30 minute special--no one mentioned subliminal propaganda
> on it, and you have no evidence that they did so (you even admit that you
> didn't see it!). Once again, John takes careful aim and shoots himself in the ass...
They certainly did discuss subliminal symbolisms in this special, referring to Apollo
as "conflicted" (about his homosexuality). They also talked a lot about war and propaganda,
stating in a text box on the screen:
"Propaganda: Information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause"
Narrator: "Is that the role of war propaganda ? To tap into those feelings that favor fighting the war
while suppressing those feelings that are troubled by it ?"
Unfortunately they chose not to provide closed captions transcripting on this special.
I wonder if they will provide a weeks-after-the-fact transcript, as they appear to be doing
on some of the episodes.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #127937 ] |
Mi, 07 September 2005 17:10 |
|
"George Johnson" <matrix29 [at] voyager.net> wrote in message news:11htnv4ed58277a [at] corp.supernews.com...
> "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1050907081337.4617D-100000 [at] mail...
> | On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, John Shocked wrote:
> | > "Dan J.S." <me [at] hyperx.com> wrote in message
> news:11hrf5ie7lodm5e [at] news.supernews.com...
> | > > Did SciFi channel broadcast a new BG episode this last Friday? Thanks!
> | > No, they instead put out a documentary type 30 minute show in which the
> BSG writers
> | > and producers admitted unabashedly that the BSG series was full of
> subliminal level propaganda,
> | I saw the 30 minute special--no one mentioned subliminal propaganda
> | on it, and you have no evidence that they did so (you even admit that you
> | didn't see it!). Once again, John takes careful aim and shoots himself in
> | the ass...
> I imagine John Shocked to be a giant pair of humanoid buttocks with a
> pair of eyes, hands, and a tiny sodomy-obsessed mind puttering away on a
> computer keyboard. This condition would distinctly declare him an illegal
> lab experiment with access to the Internet and a television tuned to the
> SCI-FI Channel.
> Poor semi-sentient buttocks thing, oh sad deformed John Shocked.
> Perhaps someday he'll get an online credit card and be able to rent the
> services of a blind gay male escort to penetrate his giant rectal orifice
> until he finds the joy he decries in other human beings.
=========================================================
> As I mentioned to Easily, princes can be assassinated...As for a Bush admin
> flunky giving anyone else crap for being "undemocratic", pardon me whilst I
> laugh my arse off, and remember voting machines that were more than likely
> pre-programmed (no paper trail, so evidence is out of the question -- check
> out blackboxvoting.com, or possibly .net or .org, I forget, for details) to
> give results favourable to the GOP (even if only just enough) in three
> elections in a row, as well as USA PATRIOT, Guantanamo Bay, and Abu Ghraib.
> Meanwhile, Egyptian politicians have also been assassinated before, so I
> don't count too heavily on anything changing substantially in that region
> before all the fundies of the world die out, which I'm expecting to happen
> just before new fundies arise...Actually, I just don't count too heavily on
> change, period. Not that it won't happen, but sometimes it's equivalent to
> re-arranged deck chairs on the Titanic.
Clearly Anwar Sadat sold out his people to make peace with Israel in Camp David Accords of 1978
and accept a regular payoff from the US. The kicker is that one of the most famous photographs from the
Middle East is Sadat shaking the hand of Menachem Begin (along with President Carter) at Camp David.
As I have mentioned here already several times, Menachem Begin is the guy who back in 1948 led the
state-sponsored terrorist gang Irgun, which machine gunned to death 100's of Palestinian men, women
and children, raping many of the younger women, and then stealing their land and property when the
Palestinians Refugees fled their land. Sadat sold out his people and he paid for it.
Demonstrations and instability within Egypt ensued and, a month after a major crackdown in which
1600 people from student and Moslem groups, he was assassinated by his own military with grenades and
machine gun fire in October 1981.
Essentially, Sadat was set up for death by the US which abused its military and economic power
to force him to make peace with the main terrorist nation in the Middle east, Israel.
Not surprisingly, no other Arab state made peace with Israel until after the 1991 Gulf War
US mass murder of Iraqis.
>> Conflating autocracy with tyranny is
>> somewhat simplistic - while Saudi suffers from restrictive civil rights
>> laws and Mubarak is harsh on dissidents, and torture of prisoners is
>> routine in both countries, both are largely bound by the rule of law
>> without arbitrary imprisonment and without systematic persecution of
>> sections of the population. This is the sort of realistic approach I'm
>> thinking of - Egypt and Saudi Arabia have to be dealt with, but they
>> can be dealt with through collaboration with the despots themselves,
>> however distasteful.
> That's the problem with despots, though. They're liable to be assassinated
> or overthrown at any time, and even odds replaced with nastier characters,
> who may or may not practise the rule of law as us "civilised" types do, or
> even at all. The stronger their (Mubarak & Fahd's) grip on power, the
> longer they may last -- but the more sudden and shocking will be their
> downfall.
Again, Sadat was assassinated because what he did in making peace with Israel
was anti-democratic, and did not represent the will of the people in his nation.
>> There was never any chance that Saddam, whose entire career was spent
>> propping up the power base of his deeply unpopular minority government
>> through any means necessary, would be amenable to progressive reform, nor
>> was the US in a position to work with him as the leader of a hostile nation.
> Er, except when it was in their interests, as in the '80s, when they played,
> as I said, power politics with both Iran and Iraq. Kallisti, the US
> *started* that war, by convincing Saddam to attack, and giving him weapons,
> then by later trading weapons to Iran for hostages, they ensured the war
> would go on and on, as it did. Of course, what really fixed their wagon but
> good was having Glaspie let Saddam think he had the go-ahead to attack
> Kuwait -- after Gulf War I, S.H. was strangely unwilling to treat with damn
> near anyone, as far as making changes in the way he governed, and so on. I
> wonder why? I suppose he was just being petty.
The fact is that Saddam Hussein was more westernized than his people. Iraqi women
loved him because he allowed them more freedom to work and be independent in his country
than any other Arab/Moslem country.
That was why it was important for the US to make totally false claims that Hussein's sons
were rapists, to challenge this fact. This is the way propaganda works.
The new Iraqi Constitution will be more tough on women than Saddam Hussein.
>> The pragmatic approach is
>> to treat each case individually and employ the appropriate solutions;
>> dialogue is making progress in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Libya, the Maldives
>> and elsewhere. It can make progress in Syria, which is in a situation
>> very similar to Saudi's with a moderate leader open to dialogue held
>> back by a deeply conservative political system, and it can make
>> progress in Iran, many of whose laws have been increasingly liberalised
>> (in some cases being more progressive than the attitudes of much of the
>> population - laws allowing couples to fraternise in public and full
>> equality for transsexuals, for example) and which, while it bans
>> demonstrations and often moves in on protestors and high-profile
>> dissidents, is largely faithful to its constitutional commitment to
>> freedom of speech. I find Iran to be a fascinating, contradictory
>> country, actually: an Islamic theocracy in which women in particular
>> are enjoying ever greater rights (the country's first female police
>> officers and military personnel were sworn in a couple of years ago),
>> which is largely tolerant of religious minorities, and which has a
>> bizarre governmental structure consisting of both a usually fairly
>> contested elected presidency and an unaccountable clerical leadership -
>> which has recently been criticised by the son of the first Ayatollah, a
>> hardline conservative who argues that clerics should stay out of
>> government except in exceptional circumstances. As long as the US can
>> cultivate improved relations and emphasise working with the Iranians to
>> liberalise the government rather than regime change to replace it with
>> a better one, diplomacy holds a lot of promise for dealing with the
>> Iranian situation (well, the political one - the nuclear one is a
>> thorny issue at the moment, with the Iranians firmly refusing to
>> compromise on their senseless uranium enrichment programme).
> Ah, you also forget their periodic support for terrorism (largely
> Palestinian), which may or may not be the case at the moment (and is
> subject to change without notice), not to mention Saudi Arabia's own
> support of same.
Israel is still occupying Arab land illegally and thus there is a continuing state of war
between Israel and its neighbors. Nothing that these people fighting for the retrieval of
their stolen land can be considered "terrorism".
>>>> - the US has adopted aggressive policies
>>>> towards certain nations in predominantly Muslim regions that oppose its
>>>> interests and sponsor terrorism (Saddam's Iraq, however, while being
>>>> predominantly Muslim by religion, was a secular state, as indeed is
>>>> Syria, and it was that government the US aimed to bring down),
>>>Saddam's Iraq did not at any time sponsor a terrorist act, group or
>>>individual which was against the US specifically, never mind having a
>>>connection to al-Qaida.
>> True, but Saddam's government was a sponsor of terrorism in the Middle
>> East region; as the US had an avowed aim of stabilising the Middle
>> East, it was a threat that needed to be dealt with, and the Palestinian
>> terror groups do appear to have become less active in the wake of the
>> invasion which removed one of their sources of revenue. Outside Iraq,
>> it does seem true that the region is becoming more stable, albeit
>> slowly and notwithstanding Syrian interference in Lebanon, although of
>> course there are confounding factors such as Arafat's death which
>> prevent this being clearly correlated with the attack on Iraq.
> Sponsors of terrorism are thick on the ground, however -- the US included,
> whenever it suits their foreign policy of the moment (assuming that their
> real foreign policy is always what it seems, but even then, meddling in the
> internal affairs of other countries has been ongoing with the US for
> decades). The neo-cons did not bring anything new to the table, in that
> regard; they only made further use of what was already there (keeping in
> mind that they were present in the Reagan/Bush admins -- Oliver North is
> one), and expanded on it.
This is nonsense. Everything the US has done in the Middle East dating back to President Truman
in 1947-1948 destabilized the Middle east unnecessarily.
Israel is living on stolen land, and is occupying Palestine. There will never be peace
while those facts continue. The only reason Israel has hung onto that land for 50 years
is because of US support, but I doubt that support is going to continue, after this
Iraq fiasco, in which the US public is finally realizing it is being conned and is learning
for the first time of some of the Israeli terrorist crimes.
>>>> but there is no more a campaign against Muslims than the invasions of
>>>> Panama and Nicaragua were part of a campaign against the Hispanic
>>>> world. It helps to maintain perspective; most of the world's Muslim
>>>> states, containing most of the world's Muslims and including the
>>>> largest Islamic nation, are pro- or at least not anti-US.
>>>The US is perfectly willing to get in bed with brutal tyrants, if they're
>>>supportive of US interests, and has been since at least the 1950s, this is
>>>true. Being "pro-US" means very little, except that those countries have
>>>little or no hope of seeing things change in any real way, until the
>>>alliance falls apart.
>> You wouldn't say China is a better place to live now than it was when
>> the US first granted it "most favoured nation" trading status in the
>> '60s? The Tibetans might be living on scraps at the edges of monolithic
>> Chinese cities built all over their plateau, but they're no longer
>> being slaughtered and have regained some of their religious freedoms.
>> Coupled with widespread access to the internet, a growing demand for
>> Western lifestyles following exposure to American trade has fuelled a
>> major movement towards liberalism, and in some ways the government has
>> responded - the one-child policy has been replaced by a more
>> weakly-enforced two-child policy, the leadership itself voted to
>> abandon communism in all but name at a party conference a few years
>> ago, the brutality towards (especially female) children in rural
>> schools appears to have ceased, the country is benefiting from
>> industrialisation and so on and so forth. Contrast this with the
>> complete inertia in isolated Burma next door, which has seen no
>> political progress in the past two decades, a worsening human rights
>> situation, and has only this week obtained its first independent
>> television channel - broadcast from Oslo (insanely, even the generals
>> have been forced to tune in to the independent radio station because
>> they can't rely on the government they're members of for reliable
>> information).
> Little more than cosmetic changes, in China, and they've never had much to
> do with anything I'd consider to be "socialism" since Mao actually took
> power. In fact, socialism itself was only make-up, for Chinese Communism.
> Power itself was what they were after, and that remains the case.
The issue is what right do foreign countries like the US have to tamper in the type of
government adopted by a foreign country ? There appear to be elections in China
and there does not appear to be significant opposition to the government there, even when
there is a huge media campaign waged by the US through local radio to organize uprisings like
Tianenmen in China and the recent uprisings in Ukraine.
>> It's certainly true that the US and other Western governments have a
>> history of making alliances for political convenience without making
>> sufficient (or often any) efforts to encourage liberalisation in those
>> countries - but it's my understanding that it's exactly that that the
>> neoconservative vision of a new world order aims to change by
>> encouraging the proactive use of American power to achieve laudable
>> ends. Accusations of hypocrisy seem somewhat petty and less than
>> constructive - is it better for the US to take out Saddam and liberate
>> Iraq while ignoring the plight of the Uzbeks, or for the US to at least
>> liberate one country when it has the opportunity to do so despite the
>> hypocrisy of its attitude towards Uzbekistan? As for pointing out that
>> Iraq was once an ally - it was once an ally of a different US
>> government. The current one inherited a situation where Iraq was
>> definitely not a US ally. In any case, breaking an alliance with a
>> tyrant if it helps free his people would seem a positive course of
>> action.
> I simply don't believe it's being done for the altruistic reasons they claim
> -- not in light of all the other things they've done. What's so special
> about Saddam that taking him out was important, while all the other tyrants
> *aren't*? After more than a decade of sanctions, he might have been willing
> to negotiate, if he'd had reason to believe the US was bargaining in good
> faith. Then again, it's doubtful that the Bush admin could be trusted, in
> that regard. They have repeatedly impressed me with their resemblance to
> packs of jackals, hyenas, and dingoes, over the past several years...
As I have already described, US media campaigned are much more powerful and scientific
than they appear and foreign countries are fearful to encourage democracy because of
this powerful US media component in the campaigns. The results of these elections can
easily be claimed to be the result of US tampering and doom the resulting government.
>>>> As for Iran, the US approach has been admirably restrained, following
>>>> the European lead (however reluctantly). The worst the US has proposed
>>>> is carrying out sanctions against Iran for the resumption of its
>>>> enrichment programme, which in any case is a blatantly idiotic and
>>>> thoroughly unnecessary move by the normally politically careful
>>>> Iranians - it's hard to figure out what they're playing at since
>>>> they've succeeded in nothing beyond convincing everyone outside as well
>>>> as within the US that they are committed to developing nuclear weaponry
>>>> they have no need of. However, recent events in Lebanon as well as
>>>> Syrian support for terrorism in Iraq and Israel strongly suggest that
>>>> as far as powers destablising the Middle East go, Iran is presently the
>>>> wrong target, albeit one which may be easier to reason with - although
>>>> Syria is led by a comparative moderate, the power still rests with the
>>>> hardliners constraining his ability to enact reforms (much to the
>>>> frustration of many Syrians).
>>>Saudi Arabia is another major source of destabilising forces in the M.E.,
>>>as the origin of Osama bin Laden makes clear...Islam has had to deal with
>>>an internal violent movement of fundamentalist fanatics since, oh, the
>>>seventh century CE,
>> CE?
> Common Era.
CE is equivalent to AD. BCE equivalent to BC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_era
>> and one of their strongholds is the House of Saud, the home of
>>>Wahhabi'ism, Islam's answer to the SBC (and the 14th. RCC). When does
>>>*that* regime change begin, do you think?
>> It seems to be underway - the current leader of the House of Saud isn't
>> a Wahhabist and I believe Saudi Arabia itself is wrestling with
>> problems trying to deal with that particular branch of fundamentalism -
>> there was an interesting article on the country in National Geographic
>> a year or two ago dealing with its internal changes and gradual
>> movement towards reform. Outside Saudi itself Wahhabism is barely known
>> these days; it's got a very slim toehold in Qatar, hardly a hotbed of
>> extremism, but that's about the extent of it.
> As I mentioned above, though, assassination is a political tool, to
> fundamentalists (among others) everywhere, so waiting to see how long he
> lasts would be advisable.
If Saudi Arabia goes any further in supporting the US against their own people,
the military protection preserving the lives of the Saudi monarchy will crumble and
they will be assassinated. Most likely, assassinated by members of that military.
>>>Note, I'm not saying there isn't a good case to be made for Middle Eastern
>>>intervention on a major scale -- only that the US has no business running
>>>the intervention.
>> On the other hand, who does? The majority of the European Union was
>> content to protect its short-term interests by sitting back and let
>> revenues from arm sales and oil for food programmes roll in. China and
>> Japan have no strong interest, current or historical, in the region,
>> and even if Russia were in a fit state to intervene anywhere I very
>> much doubt anyone would find the consequences of Putin-style
>> intervention favourable to US involvement. That pretty much covers the
>> major powers, and if we waited for global consensus no one would ever
>> intervene anywhere - look how long it took them to agree to intercede
>> in Rwanda, and that was a purely humanitarian issue that shouldn't have
>> caused controversy.
> I'm afraid I simply don't trust the US to resist the call of empire, I
> suppose -- they've not given any good reason, since 9/11, to believe that
> it isn't the real objective.
> And if you're reading, Easily, note that while I agree with you in some
> respects about the neo-cons, and their suborning of portions of the news
> media (in Canada, even, to some extent -- The National Post is their
> poodle), you are Out To Lunch when it comes to the whole "Hollywood
> Homosexuals" bs. We don't have a conspiracy of gays running things there. In
> DC, we have organisations like the HRC, the GLSEN, and so on. We're not
> ascendant in Tinseltown.
You have to be blinded by the glitter. Did not Canada just legalize Homosexual Marriage
nationwide ? Australia also enjoys Hollywood's attentions where movies are made there
rather than give jobs to blacks and Unions within the US, and yet they have refused
to support the Hollywood Homosexuals Sodomy agenda.
========================================================
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4632229.stm
Last Updated: Wednesday, 29 June, 2005, 09:26 GMT 10:26 UK
BBC News World Edition
Canadian MPs back gay marriages
There are some 34,000 same sex couples in Canada
Canada's parliament has approved a bill to legalise same-sex marriage, despite opposition from conservative MPs.
The bill was supported by 158 lawmakers in the 308-seat House of Commons, with 133 MPs voting against.
It is expected to win Senate approval and become law by July, making Canada the third country
after the Netherlands and Belgium to allow gay marriages.
Gay marriage is already legal in eight of 10 provinces and one of Canada's three territories.
'Proud day'
========================================================
========================================================
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3752697.stm
BBC News World Edition
Last Updated: Thursday, 27 May, 2004, 10:47 GMT 11:47 UK
Australia to prevent gay marriage
Mr Howard said he "strongly" believed in the measures
Prime Minister John Howard wants Australia's marriage law clarified to stop homosexual couples marrying.
He asked parliament to amend the law to specify that marriage must involve a man and a woman,
and also to stop gay couples adopting foreign children.
At present, homosexual partners cannot marry. But some have done so overseas and asked Australia's
courts to recognise their union.
The proposals were criticised by gay rights activists as "offensive".
Mr Howard said marriage should be defined as a
"voluntarily entered-into union of a man and a woman to exclusion of all others".
========================================================
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #127941 ] |
Mi, 07 September 2005 21:09 |
|
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dpDTe.189249$E95.109735 [at] fed1read01...
| "George Johnson" <matrix29 [at] voyager.net> wrote in message
news:11htnv4ed58277a [at] corp.supernews.com...
| > "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message
| > news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1050907081337.4617D-100000 [at] mail...
| > | On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, John Shocked wrote:
| > | > "Dan J.S." <me [at] hyperx.com> wrote in message
| > news:11hrf5ie7lodm5e [at] news.supernews.com...
| > | > > Did SciFi channel broadcast a new BG episode this last Friday?
Thanks!
| > | > No, they instead put out a documentary type 30 minute show in which
the
| > BSG writers
| > | > and producers admitted unabashedly that the BSG series was full of
| > subliminal level propaganda,
| > | I saw the 30 minute special--no one mentioned subliminal propaganda
| > | on it, and you have no evidence that they did so (you even admit that
you
| > | didn't see it!). Once again, John takes careful aim and shoots
himself in
| > | the ass...
| > I imagine John Shocked to be a giant pair of humanoid buttocks with a
| > pair of eyes, hands, and a tiny sodomy-obsessed mind puttering away on a
| > computer keyboard. This condition would distinctly declare him an
illegal
| > lab experiment with access to the Internet and a television tuned to the
| > SCI-FI Channel.
| > Poor semi-sentient buttocks thing, oh sad deformed John Shocked.
| > Perhaps someday he'll get an online credit card and be able to rent
the
| > services of a blind gay male escort to penetrate his giant rectal
orifice
| > until he finds the joy he decries in other human beings.
(I move a flat hand swiftly over my head)
"WHOOOSH"
Totally too much information for Shocked to handle.
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #127946 ] |
Do, 08 September 2005 00:15 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
> to accept content in the series like the Homosexual agenda and Mass Murder of Arabs/Moslems
> which is being pushed by the Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives who have a stranglehold on the BSG series.
I normally ignore Shocked's rants, but this one made me laugh. Neocons
pushing a homosexual agenda?
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #127949 ] |
Do, 08 September 2005 02:24 |
|
Chris Basken <-> wrote:
> John Shocked wrote:
>> to accept content in the series like the Homosexual agenda and Mass
>> Murder of Arabs/Moslems which is being pushed by the Hollywood
>> Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives who have a stranglehold on the BSG
>> series.
>
> I normally ignore Shocked's rants, but this one made me laugh.
> Neocons pushing a homosexual agenda?
Neocons are not social conservatives. They're generally liberal on social
matters, although such matters are not high on the agenda.
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #127951 ] |
Do, 08 September 2005 07:16 |
|
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message news:w5uTe.180685$E95.47880 [at] fed1read01...
Are ANY of the characters in BSG heterosexual?
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #127952 ] |
Do, 08 September 2005 07:21 |
|
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 22:16:18 -0700, "Spaz" <yea [at] right.com> wrote:
>"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message news:w5uTe.180685$E95.47880 [at] fed1read01...
>
>Are ANY of the characters in BSG heterosexual?
In the future no one will be heterosexual.
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #127953 ] |
Do, 08 September 2005 07:30 |
|
"David" <dimlan17 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message news:giivh1du8dggqggpe1g3jbt7oqdh34lipa [at] 4ax.com...
>
> In the future no one will be heterosexual.
That's true. Prophecy tells us that all human reproduction will be selective breeding under the
control of the chosen people. The people, especially males, will be devoid of all sexual desires.
No wonder Viagra is making such a profit right now, but it won't last for long. Glad I got my
investments in early. The tricky part is knowing when to "pull out," as is true in many situations!
hahahahahahaha!!!!
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #127954 ] |
Do, 08 September 2005 07:56 |
|
in article K_idnQ9VvPi_VILeRVn-gg [at] comcast.com, Spaz at yea [at] right.com wrote
on 9/7/05 10:16 PM:
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:w5uTe.180685$E95.47880 [at] fed1read01...
>
> Are ANY of the characters in BSG heterosexual?
>
>
some of the robots are AC
--
You Can't Stop the Signal
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #127957 ] |
Do, 08 September 2005 08:35 |
|
"George Johnson" <matrix29 [at] voyager.net> wrote in message news:11hueo961hoboa5 [at] corp.supernews.com...
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dpDTe.189249$E95.109735 [at] fed1read01...
> | "George Johnson" <matrix29 [at] voyager.net> wrote in message
> news:11htnv4ed58277a [at] corp.supernews.com...
> | > "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message
> | > news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1050907081337.4617D-100000 [at] mail...
> | > | On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, John Shocked wrote:
> | > | > "Dan J.S." <me [at] hyperx.com> wrote in message
> | > news:11hrf5ie7lodm5e [at] news.supernews.com...
> | > | > > Did SciFi channel broadcast a new BG episode this last Friday? Thanks!
> | > | > No, they instead put out a documentary type 30 minute show in which
> | > the BSG writers
> | > | > and producers admitted unabashedly that the BSG series was full of
> | > subliminal level propaganda,
> | > | I saw the 30 minute special--no one mentioned subliminal propaganda
> | > | on it, and you have no evidence that they did so (you even admit that
> | > | you didn't see it!). Once again, John takes careful aim and shoots
> | > | himself in the ass...
> | > I imagine John Shocked to be a giant pair of humanoid buttocks with a
> | > pair of eyes, hands, and a tiny sodomy-obsessed mind puttering away on a
> | > computer keyboard. This condition would distinctly declare him an illegal
> | > lab experiment with access to the Internet and a television tuned to the
> | > SCI-FI Channel.
> | > Poor semi-sentient buttocks thing, oh sad deformed John Shocked.
> | > Perhaps someday he'll get an online credit card and be able to rent
> | > the services of a blind gay male escort to penetrate his giant rectal
> | > orifice until he finds the joy he decries in other human beings.
> (I move a flat hand swiftly over my head)
> "WHOOOSH"
> Totally too much information for Shocked to handle.
Certainly too much truth. After all that deceit, for the BSG writers and production chiefs
to come clean and admit their subliminal subtext wrongdoing was startling.
Politics
=========================================================
>>Again, that seems arguable either way: Just as it was politically convenient _then_ for Iran to be the Monster,
>> so it was politically convenient more recently for Iraq to take the role.
> Given that this report was written _then_, and also given that Saddam's use of chemical weaponry was
> considerably greater than Iran's and that there are numerous other examples of Saddam using chemical
> weapons quite aside from those above (another report I found cited 49 instances up to 1984 - though
> this included attacks against Iranian as well as Iraqi targets), it seems a valid point that the
> report John mentioned can't be treated as authoritative. It isn't inconceivable that the woman
> talking about Halabja as an eyewitness could have had peshmerga sympathies that would lead her to
> implicate the Iraqis, which is probably why the CIA withholds judgment either way, but without
> evidence that claim isn't compelling. So, we're left with the possibility that either side could have
> done it, but with Iraq the more likely candidate given its record (strange, isn't it, that accidental
> chemical 'crossfire' seems to have been confined to areas held by people Saddam was oppressing?) From
> the report, the planes that dropped the weapons appeared to be deliberately circling over the village
> and launching a sustained chemical attack rather than joining the ongoing battle outside the
> village's borders - it would be rather strange for the Iranian air force to launch a chemical
> incursion into a civilian area behind the battle line rather than supporting the troops engaged in
> combat. It seems rather more plausible that the village was a target of opportunity by forces flying
> to join the battle from within Iraq - not least because, given that there was a battle, the source of
> the attack could conveniently be explained as either Iranian forces or accident (though the latter of
> course brings up the callous disregard of employing chemical weapons near a civilian area,
> notwithstanding that the Iraqis began the chemical attacks in the Iran/Iraq war in defiance of their
> international treaty obligations).
The US government, represented by President Reagan (1981-1989) and his band of Neo-Conservatives
supported all that Iraq did with chemical weapons and provided those weapons and opposed sanctions
against Iraq at the UN. Saddam Hussein was working in concert with the US in the usage of these
chemical weapons.
When the Iran-Contra Scandal broke, in which it became clear that the US was also arming Iran, it
became clear that the US Neo-Conservative policy on the Middle East was
Anti-Arab/Moslem genocide and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East.
============================================================ ======
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html
On July 12, 1982, the Security Council met on the issue of the war for the first time since 1980 and called for a withdrawal to the
pre-war boundaries. Iran considered this further proof of the bias of the United Nations, since the call for withdrawal came at the
first moment in the war when Iranian forces held any Iraqi territory.<141>
Iraq responded to Iranian victories on the ground by making use of its advantage in technology: it escalated the tanker war,
employed chemical weapons, and launched attacks on civilian targets. Iran retaliated by striking Gulf shipping starting in 1984 and
launching its own attacks on civilians, though on a lesser scale than Iraq. Iran charged that the Security Council's handling of
each of these issues reflected animus against Iran.
In 1984 the Security Council passed a resolution on the tanker war that was directed primarily against Iran's actions and made no
reference to Iraqi conduct except to call for all states to respect the right of free navigation.<142>
On chemical weapons, the Security Council passed no resolution. The United States condemned the use of chemical weapons, but
declined to support any Council action against Iraq.<143> The Council did issue a much less significant "statement" in 1985
condemning the use of chemical weapons, but without mentioning Iraq by name; then, in March 1986, for the first time a Council
statement explicitly denounced Iraq. This, however, was two years after Iraq's use of chemical warfare had been confirmed by a UN
team.<144>
==========================================================
The main tool by which U.S. policy makers sought to secure their position in Iran in 1985 and 1986 was secretly providing arms and
intelligence information. As a proclaimed neutral in the Iran-Iraq war, the United States was not supposed to supply weapons to
either side. Nevertheless, U.S. allies kept the combatants well-stocked.<74> Israel transferred vast quantities of U.S.-origin
weapons to Iran;<75> to what extent U.S. permission for these shipments was obtained (as required by U.S. law) is not known, but
surely the U.S. had enough leverage to prevent the transfers if it had wanted to.
============================================================ =======
Note how again, this Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) jeopardized access to the Middle East Oil that some
falsely claim dominates US policy in the Middle East.
============================================================ ======
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanker_War#The_Tanker_War_and_U .S._entanglement
The Tanker War and U.S. entanglement
The United States had been wary of the Tehran regime since the Iranian Revolution, not least because of the detention of its Tehran
embassy staff in the 1979-81 Iran hostage crisis. Starting in 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the U.S. made its
backing of Iraq more pronounced, supplying it with intelligence, economic aid, normalizing relations with the government (broken
during the 1967 Six-Day War), and allegedly also supplying weapons [1].
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php
Starting in 1981, both Iran and Iraq attacked oil tankers and merchant ships, including those of neutral nations, in an effort to
deprive the opponent of trade. After repeated Iraqi attacks on Iran's main exporting facility on Khark Island, Iran attacked a
Kuwaiti tanker near Bahrain on May 13, 1984, and a Saudi tanker in Saudi waters on May 16. Attacks on ships of noncombatant nations
in the Gulf sharply increased thereafter, and this phase of the war was dubbed the "Tanker War."
Lloyd's of London, a British insurance market, estimated that the Tanker War damaged 546 commercial vessels and killed about 430
civilian mariners.
The largest number of attacks were directed by Iran against Kuwaiti vessels, and on November 1, 1986, Kuwait formally petitioned
foreign powers to protect its shipping. The Soviet Union agreed to charter tankers starting in 1987, and the United States offered
to provide protection for tankers flying the U.S. flag on March 7, 1987 (Operation Earnest Will and Operation Prime Chance). Under
international law, an attack on such ships would be treated as an attack on the U.S., allowing the U.S. to retaliate militarily.
This support would protect ships headed to Iraqi ports, effectively guaranteeing Iraq's revenue stream for the duration of the war.
============================================================ =======
Following is just another intersection of the Truth with the Neo-Conservative Anti-Arabs/Moslem Hate
propaganda disseminated by the crooks in the Press.
Here is some truth about the Kurd gassing incident:
============================================================ ==========
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1148.htm
A War Crime Or An Act of War?
Who really gassed the Kurds?
By STEPHEN C. PELLETIERE
MECHANICSBURG, Pa. - It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State
of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous
weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."
The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence
most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year
Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple
Saddam Hussein.
But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any
certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.
I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war,
and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through
Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war
against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.
This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians.
Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian
border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.
And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a
classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was
Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas. ....................
------------------------------------------------
Stephen C. Pelletiere is author of "Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf."
============================================================ ==========
Again, I do not believe these Middle East wars are about Oil.
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=12256
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/helms
http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/11-18-98.html
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1550
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #127958 ] |
Do, 08 September 2005 08:37 |
|
"Matt Wiser" <MattWiser_99 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1126141168_18559 [at] spool6-east.superfeed.net...
> "George Johnson" <matrix29 [at] voyager.net> wrote:
> I've killfiled him, but he could see sodomy in just about anything. He's way, way, off his meds (not to mention his rocker).
> Interesting how he sees everyone else as a "paid PR Hack" or
> words to that effect (It's been a while since I've seen anything from him). Classic conspiracy
> theorist: If you don't agree with me, or you point out flaws in my argument (rant), then you're
> part of the conspiracy. Just killfile the crazy and be done with him.
============================================================ ======
Every time I see these weird allegations of psychiatric problems here an alarm bell
has gone off with me. That is, there is more to this than meets the eye.
Then, when the whole Tom Cruise Brooke Shields issue came to light it clicked.
Public relations firms are selling pharmaceuticals now in a variety of covert ways and
one of those ways is in Hollywood movies and through Hollywood celebrities.
And of course, through there public relations hacks who work here on the Usenet Newsgroups.
Usually these personal attacks are accompanied with the allegation that the
target should "take his meds", which this hack [remembered] this time out..
Dangerous pharmaceuticals like Paxil, which Brooke Shields was trying to sell
to the public, claiming wild claims about post-partum depression
(which somehow her baby survived).
Federal prosecutors, the Federal Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission
need to investigate whether there is any connection between crooked pharmaceutical
companies like GlaxoSmithKline and public relations firms and whether any
of them lead to Hollywood.
We already know that the reference to drugs in the movie A Beautiful Mind was fraudulent.
The truth is that the man played by Russell Crowe was not cured with the help of
pharmaceuticals, as alleged in that movie.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #127959 ] |
Do, 08 September 2005 08:47 |
|
|
So, what do you get if you win, John?
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #127960 ] |
Do, 08 September 2005 09:00 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
> The truth is that the man played by Russell Crowe was not cured with the
> help of pharmaceuticals, as alleged in that movie.
I watched the same film and what I got from it was that the drugs allowed
him to become a functional schizophrenic. The drug regime along with
training and coping strategies developed by himself allowed him to ignore
his hallucinations and concentrate on what is real.
Did you not notice at the end of the film he asked his class whether they
could see the new student? Cured? I think not. Now go and take your
meds.
--
Stephen Fairchild
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #127961 ] |
Do, 08 September 2005 09:05 |
|
John: what would happen next if everybody everywhere suddenly saw the
light - and realized that you are right? Do tell.
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #127962 ] |
Do, 08 September 2005 09:06 |
|
"Chris Basken" <-> wrote in message news:S5SdnXAjn733-4LeRVn-qg [at] giganews.com...
> John Shocked wrote:
>> to accept content in the series like the Homosexual agenda and Mass Murder of Arabs/Moslems
>> which is being pushed by the Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives who have a stranglehold on the BSG series.
> I normally ignore Shocked's rants, but this one made me laugh. Neocons pushing a homosexual agenda?
This guy reads every one of my messages.
And he is smarter for it.
Politics
===================================================
One of the reasons the Hollywood Homosexuals behind Battlestar Galactica
are pushing Sodomy symbolisms in BSG is because they would desperately
like to reverse some of the following results which they encountered in
all 11 states in the US on November 3 2004 (US election day) which had
Ballot Questions (plebiscital votes by voters in a state controlling their
own state's laws) on the Homosexual Marriage agenda. So if you are
watching your favorite science fiction show and then you notice something
in the script which does not make sense, it may be that it was time for
Word From BSG's Sponsor, the Hollywood Homosexuals who are using the
script as their advertisement vehicle.
Homosexuals have had control of Hollywood since around 1992, when Clinton
(and Jerry Brown) ran for President the first time. Even though they have
been pushing their agenda hard for all these years, they are yet to win a
single statewide vote. Clinton took homosexual money in 1992 and as soon
as he was inaugurated started to implement policies that he was bought and
paid to implement -- Gays In The Military, in 1993. This was an intense
unpopular policy initiative, shocked the public, and resulted in the
Democrats losing both Houses of Congress in 1994, and started a series of
investigations into Clinton's personal life, resulting finally in his
Impeachment in 1998. John Kerry (Democrat 2004 Presidential Candidate)
again took homosexual money in the 2004 election year. Democrats do not
have many sources of money, representing the poorer segments of society.
Since Kerry was from the state of Massachusetts, a state which earlier in
2004 legalized Homosexual Marriage through a corrupt bribed out Judges
judicial decision (not a vote by its legislature) the onus was on John
Kerry to separate himself from this suicidal issue in a very public
manner.
However, because Kerry took Hollywood Homosexual money in the 2004
year and before, he simply was not able to do that. Thus in a year when Kerry
was running for President against George W. Bush, who had a terrible
record, who had had the Economy collapse early in his first year (2001)
and it stayed that way till mid 2004, who also failed to prevent the 9-11
Attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, who lied to drag the US into
a war against Iraq, when his allegations that Iraq had Weapons Of Mass
Destruction were false and various other failures, Kerry still could not
win because of the Homosexual agenda ball and chain around his neck.
Kerry should have won this race 55%-45% if he was not carrying this
Homosexual agenda ball and chain. And the following votes are an in
indication of how strongly people felt against this homosexual agenda
Kerry was pushing.
Several of these 11 states were Swing States -- they were close in the
previous election and would decide the election in 2004. Many people went
to vote against the Homosexual Agenda, and voted against Kerry as an
afterthought.
Now, Hollywood Homosexuals are wealthy fatcats and, despite popular
misconceptions, are overwhelming Republican. They do not want Democrats
like John Kerry to win and then raise their taxes. Thus, there may well be
a scam going on here, to buy the Democrat candidate each year and ask him
to support something the US public despises -- this time it was Homosexual
Marriage. If this buying every 4 years of the Democrat candidate by
Hollywood Homosexual fatcats continues, it could be an extremely long time
before the Democrats ever come close to taking back any of the branches of
government again.
==================================================
No, Hollywood Homosexuals are Republicans and should be Republicans.
The Sodomy issue, along with similar ACLU issues like the
Legalization of Drugs, is one of those selfish issues
that generally come under the title "civil liberties". These
are 'leave me alone', 'let me do what I want to do', "do not raise my taxes",
"keep the government out of my life";
selfish issues that are not just conservative, but libertarian in nature. .
Heck, if not for the federal government, Unions would not exist. If not for
the federal government, Blacks and Women would not have Civil Rights. If
not for the federal government, there would be no 60's Great Society
programs for The Poor, or what is left of those programs since Clinton (a
big homosexual rights Gays In The Military supporter) rolled them back.
The federal government passed the Defense Of Marriage Act which was
anti-homosexual marriage rights.
The response of Hollywood Homosexuals ? Try to negate the federal
government laws in the Courts by playing up this crap that the
Federal Courts can negate the laws created by the will of the people
(Judicial Review, they call it).
The same US Supreme Court that ruled in Plessy vs Ferguson in 1896 in the
"Separate But Equal" decision that Blacks were second class citizens and that
segregation was ok.
It was only in the 1950's, when the US Supreme Court was dominated by
non-Judges (only one of the 9 judges then had a judicial background -- the
Chief Justice was Governor of California immediately before joining the US
Supreme Court in 1953), that Brown vs Board of Education (1954) reversed
the corrupt Plessy decision.
And I should mention that the 14th Amendment passed right after the US Civil
War which ended Slavery, banned any kind of racial segregation State Laws,
so the 1896 decision was unconstitutional, on its face.
=================================================
Some examples of Unconstitutional decisions by the US Supreme Court
which hurt the little guy:
1) The Poor (1930's FDR impasse broken in 1937 when President Roosevelt
threatened to pack the Supreme Court),
2) Blacks (1896 Plessy vs Ferguson, legalizing racial segregation
southern State laws, an incredible decision, totally repudiating the 14th Amendment),
3) Unions (1930's FDR impasse broken in 1937 when President Roosevelt
threatened to pack the Supreme Court),
4) Women (denied the right to vote under 14th Amendment in
Minor vs Happersett (1874)
5) The "Corporation" created out of thin air in the 14th Amendment:
Robber Barons at the turn of the century (ca 1900) and today's Enron
alike, loved this decision. This was a US Supreme Court decision which
abused the 14th Amendment, which they refused to use to protect the intended
black men and black women, and instead used to protect predatory
wealthy fatcats. In incredible series of decisions.
=================================================
The truth is that Homosexuals have nothing in common with the Left, which
comprises The Poor, Blacks, Unions and Women). They should and do want
opposite solutions in government policy.
=================================================
=======================================================
http://www.profam.org/press/thc_pr_040813.htm
In 2000, California voters approved a ballot question (Proposition 22),
defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. In liberal, laid-back
California, the vote in favor of upholding traditional marriage was 61% to
39%. Blacks and Hispanics approved the measure by higher percentages than
whites.
========================================================
========================================================
Here are the results from the 11 States in November 2004 who had the
Homosexual agenda on a ballot question 5 months ago:
========================================================
Arkansas Ballot wording: Marriage
consists only of the union of one man and one woman. Legal status for
unmarried persons which is identical or substantially similar to marital
status shall not be valid or recognized in Arkansas, except that the
legislature may recognize a common law marriage from another state between
a man and a woman. The legislature has the power to determine the capacity
of persons to marry, subject to this amendment, and the legal rights,
obligations, privileges, and immunities of marriage.Result: Passed 75% to
25%
Georgia The measure amends the state constitution to include the following
statement: (a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of
man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in
this state. (b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be
recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This
state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial
proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship
between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the
laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall
have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with
respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any
of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection
with such relationship.Result: Passed 77% to 23%.
Kentucky Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or
recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or
substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall
not be valid or recognized.Result: Passed: 75% to 25%.
Michigan The measure amends the state constitution to include the
following statement: To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for
our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man
and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a
marriage or similar union for any purpose.Result: Passed: 59% to 41%.
Mississippi The measure amends the state constitution to read: Marriage
may take place and may be valid under the laws of this state only between
a man and a woman. A marriage in another state or foreign jurisdiction
between persons of the same gender, regardless of when the marriage took
place, may not be recognized in this state and is void and unenforceable
under the laws of this state.Result: Passed: 86% to 14%.
Montana The measure amends the state constitution to read: Only a marriage
between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage
in this state.Result: Passed: 66% to 34%.
North Dakota The measure amends the state constitution to include the
following statement: Marriage consists only of the legal union between a
man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be
recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent
effect.Result: Passed 73% to 24%.
Ohio The measure amends the state constitution to include the following
statement: Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage
valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This
state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal
status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to
approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of
marriage.Result: Passed 62% to 38%.
Oklahoma The measure amends the state constitution to read: A Marriage
in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
Neither this Constitution nor any other provision of law shall be
construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be
conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. B. A marriage between persons
of the same gender performed in another state shall not be recognized as
valid and binding in this state as of the date of the marriage. C. Any
person knowingly issuing a marriage license in violation of this section
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.Result: Passed 76% to 24%.
Oregon The measure would amend the state constitution to read: It is the
policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage
between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a
marriage.Result: Passed 57% to 43%.
Utah The measure amends the state constitution to read, 1. Marriage
consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. 2. No other
domestic status or union, however denominated, between persons is valid or
recognized or may be authorized, sanctioned, or given the same or
substantially equivalent legal effect as a marriage. Results: Passed 66%
to 34%.
==================================================
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #127963 ] |
Do, 08 September 2005 09:11 |
|
|
So, what if you are right and everybody agrees? What then, John?
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #127964 ] |
Do, 08 September 2005 09:13 |
|
"Brian O" <broc7 [at] xxx.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Xns96CACF941B9CBbroc7wow [at] 216.196.97.142...
> Chris Basken <-> wrote:
>> John Shocked wrote:
>>> to accept content in the series like the Homosexual agenda and Mass
>>> Murder of Arabs/Moslems which is being pushed by the Hollywood
>>> Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives who have a stranglehold on the BSG series.
>> I normally ignore Shocked's rants, but this one made me laugh.
>> Neocons pushing a homosexual agenda?
> Neocons are not social conservatives. They're generally liberal on social
> matters, although such matters are not high on the agenda.
Again, there is nothing liberal or Left about Sodomy.
It is libertarian amoral behavior, presaged by the writings of libertarians like Ayn Rand,
a known adulterer.
============================================================ =====
"Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1050613070404.12524K-100000 [at] mail...
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, John Shocked wrote:
> > "Natalie Clifford Barney" <SalonHostess [at] 20RueJacob.fr> wrote in message news:42ACB96B.36D41DB8 [at] 20RueJacob.fr...
> > > John Shocked wrote:
> > > > "Pete wayneman" <auto420423 [at] autoaisx.xx> wrote in message news:MPG.1d16cfa8218e0d3e989694 [at] news.usenetserver.com...
> > > > > In article <_4Wqe.7035$7s.3153 [at] fed1read01>, jshocked [at] hotmail.com says.
> > > > > > [homophobic ramblings for which there are no proof - cut]
> > > > > Please stop posting your offtopic messages to the tv groups. They are
> > > > > not on topic, if you must talk about your fears a psychologist would be
> > > > > better, but at least confine it to one thread instead of harassing
> > > > > hundreds of people.
> > > > There is nothing homophobic in these statements.
> > > > If you believe that TV series such as Battlestar Galactica should be
> > > > allowed to sell Sodomy on TV to you and your kids, let us hear your
> > > > opposition to my arguments. Let us hear your truth.
> > > > Politics
> > > BSG doesn't sell sodomy.
> > It does. BSG has been subtle and subliminal in the first season, but there is
> > no question they have consistently presented symbolisms to sell Sodomy
> > to you and your kids.
> The only evidence you provide for sodomy *as you define it* in BSG
> is Apollo getting beaten up twice. You compare his treatment to similar
They were play fighting. Especially in the Colonial Day episode, it is all
carefully choreographed, and I recall part of that scenario where Apollo
and the guy he was play fighting with lock arms and the BSG directors
seem to freeze frame on that for a moment to create the appearance that
Apollo and this guy were walking down the street, arm in arm,
on a homosexual date.
> scenes in the HBO series "Oz", claiming that this demonstrates that Apollo
> is a homosexual. You run away from the point that other TV characters (such
> as Jim Rockford, James T. Kirk and Matt Dillon) have been in similar scenes
> in the past, which by your reasoning proves that those characters are also
> homosexuals.
> You also include the scene where the Boomer character is confronted
> by her Cylon "sisters" as evidence of sodomy, but it cannot be since your
> definition of sodomy only refers to anal sex between men.
> snip
The Hollywood Homosexuals wealthy fatcats in charge of series like BSG are guys
who want Sodomy to become 'just another life choice'.
Female homosexual behavior portrayed in Hollywood movies is merely a metaphor
for the Sodomy which these Hollywood Homosexual guys want to promote.
These HH fatcats clearly realize that male Sodomy is more repulsive to viewer
than the female equivalent, so they utilize women in this degrading way.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #127965 ] |
Do, 08 September 2005 09:15 |
|
"Chris Basken" <-> wrote in message news:rbadnQxLyLf2JoLeRVn-gA [at] giganews.com...
> Brian O wrote:
>> Chris Basken wrote:
>>>John Shocked wrote:
>>>>to accept content in the series like the Homosexual agenda and Mass
>>>>Murder of Arabs/Moslems which is being pushed by the Hollywood
>>>>Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives who have a stranglehold on the BSG series.
>>>I normally ignore Shocked's rants, but this one made me laugh. Neocons pushing a homosexual agenda?
>> Neocons are not social conservatives. They're generally liberal on social matters, although such matters are not high on the
>> agenda.
> Hm, that's not how I've seen the term used. Neocons arose to public consciousness in the 80s during Reagan, and were considered a
> throwback to the pre-60s traditional conservative mentality.
> I've never seen a pro-choice neocon, for example.
=====================================================
The political Right has changed dramatically, to the point that there is a new political
group or cult called Neo-Conservatives, who love Sodomy, and they are in control of our
Bush government right now. They are essentially similar to regular Conservatives, except
they have no religious compunctions about Sodomy and they want to Mass Murder as many
Arabs/Moslems as US tax money can buy.
The Hollywood Homosexuals I discuss are a very equivalent group to the group well known as
Neo-Conservatives or Neo-Cons. They generally are Conservatives, but they believe
vehemently in Sodomy, Israel and they stress Libertarian amoral values for people to engage
in any kind of immoral behavior they want, with no moral societal rules.
However, they like to take cover deceitfully in US society by claiming their issues, like
Sodomy, are on the Left. This is one of the biggest frauds being pulled on Chump City,
America. There is Nothing Left about Sodomy. Nothing. It is a right wing libertarian issue.
And Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservative are determined to sell Sodomy to you
and your kids in TV series like Battlestar Galactica.
And obviously genocide against Arabs/Moslems around the world is not on the Left either.
However, politicians on the Left, like Howard Dean and Al Sharpton are bought and paid for
by Neo-Conservatives and thus no longer represent Left moral values. They have put suicidal
homosexual issues ahead of the core true Left groups: The Poor, Blacks, Unions, Women.
Their goals are mainly to spread support for:
1) Homosexuality on your TV and in the Movies to you and your kids, and
2) Hate for Arabs/Moslems and support the war effort to con Americans to abuse its
military might to Massacre 100,000's of defenseless Arabs/Moslems and establish total
hegemony over the Middle East.
A major target for them through which they intend to sell Sodomy is Science Fiction and Fantasy TV.
Fantasy TV like Buffy or Angel which promote Wiccan/Pagan religions whose main purpose
is to promote the one libertarian religion which accepts and promote homosexuality.
Masses of 14 year old children are contacting Wiccan/Pagan organizations looking for information
about joining up, after watching shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Science Fiction series like Battlestar Galactica have character cast like Apollo who are clearly
homosexual and the whole series is a vehicle to sell Sodomy to the masses.
Since most people do not know what a Neo-Conservative is and there still exists some
debate about their views, I use "Hollywood Homosexuals" instead, because it directly
addresses what I am concerned about and is easier to understand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_%28United_State s%29
http://www.hppub.com/dadtseq/gaycon.htm
Neo-Conservatives are the main propellants in the US of the policy of extermination of
Arabs/Moslems in the Middle East. They are the ones who contributed huge amounts of money
to Bush and to the Conservative Think Tanks to develop the anti-Iraq coalition and many
people believe they have hijacked US Foreign Policy. And Neo-Conservatives support Sodomy
big time.
Read this:
=====================excerpt======================
http://www.fpif.org/papers/2004evangelical.html
Finally, the Christian right's access to power has been greatly aided by the ties it has
developed with neoconservatives influential within the present administration.
Neoconservative intellectuals, many of them Jewish, may seem unlikely allies for the
Christian right, but this partnership has developed across several issue areas. The most
important basis for this partnership is a common support for Israel or, to put it more
accurately, for the Likud Party's vision of Israel's interests. The Christian right's
support for Israel harks back to the movement's beginnings in the late 1970s, but it has
risen to a higher level in the last few years. The 2002 annual convention of the Christian
Coalition culminated in a rally for Israel, and Ralph Reed and Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein
recently founded a new group, Stand for Israel. Meanwhile, throughout Christian right
media, criticism of the Palestinians and support for hard-line Israeli policies has grown
more intense.
=================end of excerpt==================
Israel started the Middle East terrorism in 1947-1948 by sending State-sponsored terrorist
gangs led by Menachem Begin (future elected Prime Minister of Israel) into Palestinian
townships like Yassin to murder 100's of men, women and children, in order to cause the
Palestinians to flee their land and property and become the Palestinian Refugees. The
Israelis immediately passed laws in 1948 under leadership of terrorist first Prime Minister
David Ben-Gurion to steal the land and property of the Palestinian Refugees who fled to
neighboring countries like Jordan.
The world is being destabilized by this Anti-Arab/Moslem Hate and genocide and with US
troops having killed 100,000 Iraqi Civilians and going up each day, there is no way that
humpty dumpty can ever be put back together again.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html
Ultimately, the truth the world knows is that neither Iraq nor Saddam Hussein was ever an
enemy of the United States. Thus, all of these murders of men, women and children in Iraq
are completely unjustifiable.
And this determination to Mass Murder Arabs/Moslems is jeopardizing, Not aiding, US
access to Middle East Oil. Prices of gasoline have gone up sharply since this recent
Iraq Massacre began.
Apart from these goals, Neo-Conservatives despise the Left groups like The Poor, Blacks,
Unions, Women just as much as regular (paleo-) Conservatives. Heck, Hollywood Homosexual
Neo-Conservatives do not even film TV series like Battlestar Galactica in the US so as to
avoid having to employ people from their own Union and Black people, who are scarce in
places like Canada and Australia.
Many of these people are working on these Newsgroups and are obviously paid Hollywood
Homosexual Neo-Conservative public relations workers.
Thus, BSG selling Sodomy to your kids has a lot of support within Washington, DC, even
though the Bush administration claims to be super religious. Money Talks, and the Neo-
Conservatives have tons and tons of money to buy your Congressman, Senator and Judges.
The following political contributions either buys the votes of these politicians or buys
their silence so that they do not speak up as vociferously as they should against the
danger to the US posed by Neo-Conservatives.
=========================================
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/July_Aug_2004/0407027.html
2004 Top Ten Career Recipients of Pro-Israel PAC Funds
Compiled by Hugh Galford
House: Current Cycle
Hoyer, Steny (D-MD) $37,500
Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana (R-FL) 36,000
Berkley, Shelley (D-NV) 35,100
Lantos, Tom (D-CA) 31,600
Frost, Martin (D-TX) 31,300
Cantor, Eric (R-VA) 23,750
Crowley, Joseph (D-NY) 23,000
DeLay, Tom (R-TX) 23,000
Lowey, Nita (D-NY) 20,650
Pelosi, Nancy (D-CA) 20,650
House: Career
Berkley, Shelley (D-NV) $201,455
Frost, Martin (D-TX) 165,414
Engel, Eliot (D-NY) 137,918
Levin, Sander (D-MI) 113,727
Lowey, Nita (D-NY) 109,738
Lantos, Tom (D-CA) 107,250
Hoyer, Steny (D-MD) 92,275
Evans, Lane (D-IL) 87,379
Harman, Jane (D-CA) 86,271
DeLay, Tom (R-TX) 81,050
Senate: Current Cycle
Specter, Arlen (R-PA) $80,350
Boxer, Barbara (D-CA) 73,000
Murray, Patty (D-WA) 72,495
Daschle, Tom (D-SD) 70,500
Reid, Harry (D-NV) 64,999
Bayh, Evan (D-IN) 56,500
Bennett, Robert (R-UT) 55,750
Wyden, Ronald (D-OR) 55,000
Brownback, Samuel (R-KS) 50,850
Shelby, Richard (R-AL) 38,500
Senate: Career
Daschle, Tom (D-SD) $533,635
Specter, Arlen (R-PA) 461,973
Lautenberg, Frank (D-NJ) 433,806
Durbin, Richard (D-IL) 326,671
Reid, Harry (D-NV) 318,801
Wyden, Ronald (D-OR) 255,562
Lieberman, Joseph (D-CT) 227,758
Boxer, Barbara (D-CA) 223,794
Dodd, Christopher (D-CT) 221,178
Conrad, Kent (D-ND) 201,939
=================================
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #127968 ] |
Do, 08 September 2005 09:31 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
> Female homosexual behavior portrayed in Hollywood movies is merely a metaphor
> for the Sodomy which these Hollywood Homosexual guys want to promote.
So, Lesbians in film are nothing but a metaphor for Gay men? Really?
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #127969 ] |
Do, 08 September 2005 09:33 |
|
"ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message news:11hvp0ljm6h5r4e [at] news.supernews.com...
> So, what if you are right and everybody agrees? What then, John?
Then the truth wins. I doubt everyone is going to agree, since some have fringe goals, like
selling Sodomy to you and your kids.
However, as long as the weak minds out there know the truth, then they can operate
within this democracy as affirmatively as the parasites who want to keep them in the dark
and dance on their face.
Most of the serious problems besetting this country today and for decades are the result
of rampant ignorance on the part of the US electorate, not just on fringe issues,
but on the biggest issues of the day which are misreported every day on the news
by the fraudulent crooks in the News Media.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #127970 ] |
Do, 08 September 2005 09:41 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
> Female homosexual behavior portrayed in Hollywood movies is merely a metaphor
> for the Sodomy which these Hollywood Homosexual guys want to promote.
> These HH fatcats clearly realize that male Sodomy is more repulsive to viewer
> than the female equivalent, so they utilize women in this degrading way.
It seems that you are saying that Hollywood is using Lesbians to gain
acceptance for the Gay lifestyle... and that's bad, because... why?
It seems that you are implying that Lesbians are vastly more acceptable
than Gay men.
Yes? No? Comments?
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #127971 ] |
Do, 08 September 2005 14:38 |
|
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3%QTe.198485$E95.69272 [at] fed1read01...
| "Matt Wiser" <MattWiser_99 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1126141168_18559 [at] spool6-east.superfeed.net...
| > "George Johnson" <matrix29 [at] voyager.net> wrote:
| > I've killfiled him, but he could see sodomy in just about anything. He's
way, way, off his meds (not to mention his rocker).
| > Interesting how he sees everyone else as a "paid PR Hack" or
| > words to that effect (It's been a while since I've seen anything from
him). Classic conspiracy
| > theorist: If you don't agree with me, or you point out flaws in my
argument (rant), then you're
| > part of the conspiracy. Just killfile the crazy and be done with him.
|
|
| ============================================================ ======
| Every time I see these weird allegations of psychiatric problems here an
alarm bell
| has gone off with me. That is, there is more to this than meets the eye.
| Then, when the whole Tom Cruise Brooke Shields issue came to light it
clicked.
| Public relations firms are selling pharmaceuticals now in a variety of
covert ways and
| one of those ways is in Hollywood movies and through Hollywood
celebrities.
| And of course, through there public relations hacks who work here on the
Usenet Newsgroups.
| Usually these personal attacks are accompanied with the allegation that
the
| target should "take his meds", which this hack [remembered] this time
out..
|
| Dangerous pharmaceuticals like Paxil, which Brooke Shields was trying to
sell
| to the public, claiming wild claims about post-partum depression
| (which somehow her baby survived).
| Federal prosecutors, the Federal Drug Administration and the Federal Trade
Commission
| need to investigate whether there is any connection between crooked
pharmaceutical
| companies like GlaxoSmithKline and public relations firms and whether any
| of them lead to Hollywood.
| We already know that the reference to drugs in the movie A Beautiful Mind
was fraudulent.
| The truth is that the man played by Russell Crowe was not cured with the
help of
| pharmaceuticals, as alleged in that movie.
|
| Politics
So, John Shocked, is this an admission of your being a Scientologist?
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #127977 ] |
Do, 08 September 2005 17:39 |
|
"Spaz" <yea [at] right.com> wrote in message news:K_idnQ9VvPi_VILeRVn-gg [at] comcast.com...
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message news:w5uTe.180685$E95.47880 [at] fed1read01...
> Are ANY of the characters in BSG heterosexual?
Between the homosexuality and the bestiality (bestialsex with Cylons), it is hard to find
any heterosexuality in the BSG series at all.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propecia -- stunning drug prescription by Doc Kottel [message #127980 ] |
Do, 08 September 2005 18:03 |
|
George Johnson wrote:
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3%QTe.198485$E95.69272 [at] fed1read01...
> | "Matt Wiser" <MattWiser_99 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1126141168_18559 [at] spool6-east.superfeed.net...
> | > "George Johnson" <matrix29 [at] voyager.net> wrote:
> | > I've killfiled him, but he could see sodomy in just about anything. He's
> way, way, off his meds (not to mention his rocker).
> | > Interesting how he sees everyone else as a "paid PR Hack" or
> | > words to that effect (It's been a while since I've seen anything from
> him). Classic conspiracy
> | > theorist: If you don't agree with me, or you point out flaws in my
> argument (rant), then you're
> | > part of the conspiracy. Just killfile the crazy and be done with him.
> |
> |
> | ============================================================ ======
> | Every time I see these weird allegations of psychiatric problems here an
> alarm bell
> | has gone off with me. That is, there is more to this than meets the eye.
See these a lot, do you?
> | Then, when the whole Tom Cruise Brooke Shields issue came to light it
> clicked.
> | Public relations firms are selling pharmaceuticals now in a variety of
> covert ways and
> | one of those ways is in Hollywood movies and through Hollywood
> celebrities.
> | And of course, through there public relations hacks who work here on the
> Usenet Newsgroups.
I just found out that Usenet posters have ***SO*** much power, we
actually got "Star Trek" cancelled.
> | Usually these personal attacks are accompanied with the allegation that
> the
> | target should "take his meds", which this hack [remembered] this time
> out..
> |
> | Dangerous pharmaceuticals like Paxil, which Brooke Shields was trying to
> sell
> | to the public, claiming wild claims about post-partum depression
> | (which somehow her baby survived).
Ever take any form of biology class??? Post-partum depression strikes
the *mother*, not the child.
> | Federal prosecutors, the Federal Drug Administration and the Federal Trade
> Commission
> | need to investigate whether there is any connection between crooked
> pharmaceutical
> | companies like GlaxoSmithKline and public relations firms and whether any
I doubt it would require the entire Federal government to find out that
yes, large corporations hire PR firms to do their PR.
> | of them lead to Hollywood.
> | We already know that the reference to drugs in the movie A Beautiful Mind
> was fraudulent.
> | The truth is that the man played by Russell Crowe was not cured with the
> help of
> | pharmaceuticals, as alleged in that movie.
> |
My GHOD!!!!!!!!! A Hollywood movie or TV show actually got something
*wrong*???????????
Well, this is obviously a smoking gun, since nothing like that has ever
happened before...
*****
The Joker in the Eeeeeeevil Cabal Deck of Cards.
OZ: So... do you guys steal weapons from the Army a lot?
WILLOW: Well, we don't get cable, so we have to make our own fun.
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propecia -- stunning drug prescription by Doc [message #127981 ] |
Do, 08 September 2005 18:44 |
|
in article 1126195395.384602.109540 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, Bozo the
Evil Klown at Evilklowwn [at] aol.com wrote on 9/8/05 9:03 AM:
> George Johnson wrote:
>> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:3%QTe.198485$E95.69272 [at] fed1read01...
>> | "Matt Wiser" <MattWiser_99 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1126141168_18559 [at] spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>> | > "George Johnson" <matrix29 [at] voyager.net> wrote:
>> | > I've killfiled him, but he could see sodomy in just about anything. He's
>> way, way, off his meds (not to mention his rocker).
>> | > Interesting how he sees everyone else as a "paid PR Hack" or
>> | > words to that effect (It's been a while since I've seen anything from
>> him). Classic conspiracy
>> | > theorist: If you don't agree with me, or you point out flaws in my
>> argument (rant), then you're
>> | > part of the conspiracy. Just killfile the crazy and be done with him.
>> |
>> |
>> | ============================================================ ======
>> | Every time I see these weird allegations of psychiatric problems here an
>> alarm bell
>> | has gone off with me. That is, there is more to this than meets the eye.
>
>
> See these a lot, do you?
>
>> | Then, when the whole Tom Cruise Brooke Shields issue came to light it
>> clicked.
>> | Public relations firms are selling pharmaceuticals now in a variety of
>> covert ways and
>> | one of those ways is in Hollywood movies and through Hollywood
>> celebrities.
>> | And of course, through there public relations hacks who work here on the
>> Usenet Newsgroups.
>
>
> I just found out that Usenet posters have ***SO*** much power, we
> actually got "Star Trek" cancelled.
YAAAAAAAAAAAAY US!!
>
>> | Usually these personal attacks are accompanied with the allegation that
>> the
>> | target should "take his meds", which this hack [remembered] this time
>> out..
>> |
>> | Dangerous pharmaceuticals like Paxil, which Brooke Shields was trying to
>> sell
>> | to the public, claiming wild claims about post-partum depression
>> | (which somehow her baby survived).
>
>
> Ever take any form of biology class??? Post-partum depression strikes
> the *mother*, not the child.
>
>> | Federal prosecutors, the Federal Drug Administration and the Federal Trade
>> Commission
>> | need to investigate whether there is any connection between crooked
>> pharmaceutical
>> | companies like GlaxoSmithKline and public relations firms and whether any
>
>
> I doubt it would require the entire Federal government to find out that
> yes, large corporations hire PR firms to do their PR.
>
>> | of them lead to Hollywood.
>> | We already know that the reference to drugs in the movie A Beautiful Mind
>> was fraudulent.
>> | The truth is that the man played by Russell Crowe was not cured with the
>> help of
>> | pharmaceuticals, as alleged in that movie.
>> |
>
>
> My GHOD!!!!!!!!! A Hollywood movie or TV show actually got something
> *wrong*???????????
>
> Well, this is obviously a smoking gun, since nothing like that has ever
> happened before...
>
> *****
> The Joker in the Eeeeeeevil Cabal Deck of Cards.
>
> OZ: So... do you guys steal weapons from the Army a lot?
>
> WILLOW: Well, we don't get cable, so we have to make our own fun.
>
--
You Can't Stop the Signal
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #127982 ] |
Do, 08 September 2005 19:28 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
> "Spaz" <yea [at] right.com> wrote in message news:K_idnQ9VvPi_VILeRVn-gg [at] com=
cast.com...
>=20
>>"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message news:w5uTe.18068=
5$E95.47880 [at] fed1read01...
>>Are ANY of the characters in BSG heterosexual?
>=20
>=20
> Between the homosexuality and the bestiality (bestialsex with Cylons), =
it is hard to find
> any heterosexuality in the BSG series at all.
>=20
> Politics
>=20
>=20
And impossible to find any sodomy.
--=20
Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none=20
more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant=20
to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called=20
Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too =
inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only =
atheists and fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of=20
despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far=20
as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or=20
hereafter. =96Thomas Paine
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #127983 ] |
Do, 08 September 2005 19:37 |
|
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3%QTe.198485$E95.69272 [at] fed1read01...
> We already know that the reference to drugs in the movie A Beautiful Mind
> was fraudulent.
> The truth is that the man played by Russell Crowe was not cured with the
> help of
> pharmaceuticals, as alleged in that movie.
Watch the movie again - he blatantly refuses to take medication citing the
effects it has on his ability to do math.
The movie doesn't forward pharmaceuticals as a fix-all. As a matter of fact
they come out on the short end, if you ask me.
Tom P.
P.S. You do realize it's been scientifically proven that subliminal
messages do not affect people of normal mental state? In other words, you
talking out of your ass.
Haberstroh, Jack. Ice Cube Sex.
Notre Dame: CrossRoads Books, 1994. ISBN 0-940121-17-4 (pp. 7-10,
130).
Key, Wilson B. Subliminal Seduction.
New York: Signet, 1973.
Rogers, Stuart. "How a Publicity Blitz Created the Myth of Subliminal
Advertising."
Public Relations Quarterly. Winter 1993 (pp. 12-17).
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #127986 ] |
Do, 08 September 2005 20:55 |
|
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:w5uTe.180685$E95.47880 [at] fed1read01...
> "Dan J.S." <me [at] hyperx.com> wrote in message
news:11hrf5ie7lodm5e [at] news.supernews.com...
> > Did SciFi channel broadcast a new BG episode this last Friday? Thanks!
>
> No, they instead put out a documentary type 30 minute show in which the
BSG writers
> and producers admitted unabashedly that the BSG series was full of
subliminal level propaganda,
> intended to trick the Science Fiction TV viewer, against their will and/or
without their consent,
> to accept content in the series like the Homosexual agenda and Mass Murder
of Arabs/Moslems
> which is being pushed by the Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives who
have a stranglehold on the BSG series.
>
> This 30 minute show was called Battlestar/Propaganda, and it seems that
it originally aired
> at 5.30 AM in the early morning of 09/05/2005 Labor Day Monday --
certainly not prime time.
> Having the BSG writers and producers like Ron D. Moore come on screen and
admit all the wrongdoing
> which has been debated here was rather startling.
> Will it stop Saturday Night Live and others from parodying the BSG series'
deceitful subtexts ?
> It should not.
>
> Politics
>
>
> =================================================
> =================================================
> Again, the symbolism in the BSG Sodomy scenes in Bastille Day and Colonial
Day has only predated
> by the Oz HBO prison Sodomy rape scenes.
> This Sodomy symbolism was the clear intent of the BSG Hollywood
Homosexuals, who are
> determined to sell Sodomy to you and your kids.
>
>
> =================================================
> The customer sees it as is the case with all subliminal visual stimuli,
but
> does not notice the product specifically as being specifically presented
> as an advertisement. It is just present in the picture.
> The full quote from the document transcribed:
>
> ================================================
>
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/cgi/getdoc?tid=rnw85d00&f mt=gif&ref=results&t
itle=ACTIVITY%20REPORT.&bates=503579378/9381
> "August 26, 1981
> CONFIDENTIAL
> -------------------
> To: Laurence M.Wassong [vice-president William Esty Company
> in New York, publicity man of R.J. Reynolds,
> concerning promotion activities
> From: Warren Cowan [of Rogers and Cowan public relations firm]
> Re: Activity Report
>
> "We have been waiting for production to resume full-speed
> ahead in Hollywood for more than a year, and, now, with
> the writers, actors and directors all working and not threaten-
> ing to strike, we are pleased to report that Hollywood is back
> in the movie business.
>
> With that in mind, we are making a concentrated effort to be
> very selective about the kinds of productions in which we place
> the products. Our goal is "pleasant situations,"and we have
> evaluated many scripts which do not meet our criteria for products.
> There are some films we have approached which we believe could
> be very beneficial to our "subliminal" product campaign.
>
> I. MOTION PICTURES
> --------------------------
>
> A) Sharkey's Machine -- Burt Reynolds stars in this Orion Pictures
> contemporary action drama. As you can see by the attached stills from
> the film (attachments 1-3), we arranged for Burt Reynolds to enjoy Camels
> throughout the film. Sharkey's Machine will be distributed by
> Warner Brothers on December 18."
> [...numerous other movies' product placements...] "
>
> [later in same Activity Report...]
>
> "We are also continuing our contacts with top photographers and
> providing them with product, so that when the proper situation
> arises, our product can be included in photo sessions.
>
> There are many other areas that we are exploring, as well. Due
> to the necessity of confidentiality of this project, we are doing
> this very quietly, on a one-on-one basis. "
> =================================================
>
>
> Here is some more information on the types of psychologists who work
> at advertising companies like William Esty Agency, and their interest in
> controlling the future behavior of your kids.
>
> http://fates.cns.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/watson .htm
> ====================================================
> [John B. Watson (1878 - 1958)]
> After leaving Johns Hopkins University, Watson went into the advertising
business
> . He wanted to use his scientific theories of behaviorism and the emotions
> of fear, rage, and love to improve the effects of advertising on the
"animal"
> or what we know as consumers. Watson began his training at
> J Walter Thompson Agency with Stanley B. Resor. He became an ambassador
> and in 1924 he stepped up to become vice president of the company.
> While he was there he also wrote and sold books about the control over
> human emotions. Later he moved onto work for William Esty Agency
> until he retired in 1945. In 1920 he published his most famous
conditioning
> experiment; the "Little Albert" study in which he produced, in a small
child,
> conditioned fear of a white rat by repeatedly presenting it paired with
the
> loud "clanging" of a metal bar. This conditioned fear was then shown to
generalize
> to other white furry objects, including a Santa mask and Watson's own
white hair
> (Watson & Rayner, 1920). In another well-known article (Watson, 1920),
> he argued that thinking -- a mental activity that seems to involve no
overt behavior
> -- is nothing more than subvocal speaking. He later retracted this
extreme view,
> however (Watson & McDougall, 1929).
> Although Watson's academic star burned brightly, it was destined to be
short-lived.
> Like his predecessor, Baldwin, he was forced to resign his chair at
Hopkins
> because of a sex scandal involving his assistant, Rayner. He continued to
publish
> books on psychology--Behaviorism (1924) and The Psychological Care of
> Infant and Child (1928)--but by the 1930s his main career interest had
shifted
> to the advertising business, and he ended his scholarly pursuits.
> =====================================================
>
>
> Cigarette companies have by far the biggest advertising budgets and thus
can afford to hire the best
> psychologists to sell Cigarettes to you and your kids.
>
> ===============================================
> http://www.emedicinehealth.com/articles/20785-6.asp
>
> Although cigarette commercials have been banned from television for 30
years,
> the tobacco industry remains the country's largest advertiser.
> According to the American Lung Association, the tobacco industry spent
> an estimated $5.7 billion on advertising in 1997, up 10.8% or $552 million
> from 1996. In 1982, when cigarette sales peaked, the industry spent an
> estimated $1.8 billion for advertising. Cigarette sales dropped from
> 632.5 billion in 1982 to 478.6 billion in 1997. Tobacco company ads
> are everywhere
> ===============================================
>
> Politics
>
>
I've haven't seen the new BSG but this subliminal sodomy claim makes me real
curious. I'm wondering how it's been woven in to the plot, perhaps the new
cylons have developed a peritonitis weapon, that enlarges the members of gay
galacticans? Or are all the colonial survivors homosexuals now? And why do
they want to kill Arabs, do new cylons wear teacloths on their heads?
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #127989 ] |
Fr, 09 September 2005 01:35 |
|
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:w5uTe.180685$E95.47880 [at] fed1read01...
> "Dan J.S." <me [at] hyperx.com> wrote in message
> news:11hrf5ie7lodm5e [at] news.supernews.com...
>> Did SciFi channel broadcast a new BG episode this last Friday? Thanks!
>
> No, they instead put out a documentary type 30 minute show in which the
> BSG writers
> and producers admitted unabashedly that the BSG series was full of
> subliminal level propaganda,
> intended to trick the Science Fiction TV viewer, against their will and/or
> without their consent,
> to accept content in the series like the Homosexual agenda and Mass Murder
> of Arabs/Moslems
> which is being pushed by the Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives who
> have a stranglehold on the BSG series.
>
> This 30 minute show was called Battlestar/Propaganda, and it seems that
> it originally aired
> at 5.30 AM in the early morning of 09/05/2005 Labor Day Monday --
> certainly not prime time.
> Having the BSG writers and producers like Ron D. Moore come on screen and
> admit all the wrongdoing
> which has been debated here was rather startling.
> Will it stop Saturday Night Live and others from parodying the BSG series'
> deceitful subtexts ?
> It should not.
>
> Politics
>
>
> =================================================
> =================================================
> Again, the symbolism in the BSG Sodomy scenes in Bastille Day and Colonial
> Day has only predated
> by the Oz HBO prison Sodomy rape scenes.
> This Sodomy symbolism was the clear intent of the BSG Hollywood
> Homosexuals, who are
> determined to sell Sodomy to you and your kids.
>
>
> =================================================
> The customer sees it as is the case with all subliminal visual stimuli,
> but
> does not notice the product specifically as being specifically presented
> as an advertisement. It is just present in the picture.
> The full quote from the document transcribed:
>
> ================================================
> http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/cgi/getdoc?tid=rnw85d00&f mt=gif&ref=results&title=ACTIVITY%20REPORT.&bate s=503579378/9381
> "August 26, 1981
> CONFIDENTIAL
> -------------------
> To: Laurence M.Wassong [vice-president William Esty Company
> in New York, publicity man of R.J. Reynolds,
> concerning promotion activities
> From: Warren Cowan [of Rogers and Cowan public relations firm]
> Re: Activity Report
>
> "We have been waiting for production to resume full-speed
> ahead in Hollywood for more than a year, and, now, with
> the writers, actors and directors all working and not threaten-
> ing to strike, we are pleased to report that Hollywood is back
> in the movie business.
>
> With that in mind, we are making a concentrated effort to be
> very selective about the kinds of productions in which we place
> the products. Our goal is "pleasant situations,"and we have
> evaluated many scripts which do not meet our criteria for products.
> There are some films we have approached which we believe could
> be very beneficial to our "subliminal" product campaign.
>
> I. MOTION PICTURES
> --------------------------
>
> A) Sharkey's Machine -- Burt Reynolds stars in this Orion Pictures
> contemporary action drama. As you can see by the attached stills from
> the film (attachments 1-3), we arranged for Burt Reynolds to enjoy Camels
> throughout the film. Sharkey's Machine will be distributed by
> Warner Brothers on December 18."
> [...numerous other movies' product placements...] "
>
> [later in same Activity Report...]
>
> "We are also continuing our contacts with top photographers and
> providing them with product, so that when the proper situation
> arises, our product can be included in photo sessions.
>
> There are many other areas that we are exploring, as well. Due
> to the necessity of confidentiality of this project, we are doing
> this very quietly, on a one-on-one basis. "
> =================================================
>
>
> Here is some more information on the types of psychologists who work
> at advertising companies like William Esty Agency, and their interest in
> controlling the future behavior of your kids.
>
> http://fates.cns.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/watson .htm
> ====================================================
> [John B. Watson (1878 - 1958)]
> After leaving Johns Hopkins University, Watson went into the advertising
> business
> . He wanted to use his scientific theories of behaviorism and the emotions
> of fear, rage, and love to improve the effects of advertising on the
> "animal"
> or what we know as consumers. Watson began his training at
> J Walter Thompson Agency with Stanley B. Resor. He became an ambassador
> and in 1924 he stepped up to become vice president of the company.
> While he was there he also wrote and sold books about the control over
> human emotions. Later he moved onto work for William Esty Agency
> until he retired in 1945. In 1920 he published his most famous
> conditioning
> experiment; the "Little Albert" study in which he produced, in a small
> child,
> conditioned fear of a white rat by repeatedly presenting it paired with
> the
> loud "clanging" of a metal bar. This conditioned fear was then shown to
> generalize
> to other white furry objects, including a Santa mask and Watson's own
> white hair
> (Watson & Rayner, 1920). In another well-known article (Watson, 1920),
> he argued that thinking -- a mental activity that seems to involve no
> overt behavior
> -- is nothing more than subvocal speaking. He later retracted this extreme
> view,
> however (Watson & McDougall, 1929).
> Although Watson's academic star burned brightly, it was destined to be
> short-lived.
> Like his predecessor, Baldwin, he was forced to resign his chair at
> Hopkins
> because of a sex scandal involving his assistant, Rayner. He continued to
> publish
> books on psychology--Behaviorism (1924) and The Psychological Care of
> Infant and Child (1928)--but by the 1930s his main career interest had
> shifted
> to the advertising business, and he ended his scholarly pursuits.
> =====================================================
>
>
> Cigarette companies have by far the biggest advertising budgets and thus
> can afford to hire the best
> psychologists to sell Cigarettes to you and your kids.
>
> ===============================================
> http://www.emedicinehealth.com/articles/20785-6.asp
>
> Although cigarette commercials have been banned from television for 30
> years,
> the tobacco industry remains the country's largest advertiser.
> According to the American Lung Association, the tobacco industry spent
> an estimated $5.7 billion on advertising in 1997, up 10.8% or $552 million
> from 1996. In 1982, when cigarette sales peaked, the industry spent an
> estimated $1.8 billion for advertising. Cigarette sales dropped from
> 632.5 billion in 1982 to 478.6 billion in 1997. Tobacco company ads
> are everywhere
ĥOnly fools are influenced by advertising!!§§
===============================================
>
> Politics
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #128004 ] |
Fr, 09 September 2005 06:53 |
|
>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:cx_Te.315199$WN5.214529 [at] fe02.news.easynews.com...
>John Shocked wrote:
>> "Spaz" <yea [at] right.com> wrote in message news:K_idnQ9VvPi_VILeRVn-gg [at] comcast.com...
>>>"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message news:w5uTe.180685$E95.47880 [at] fed1read01...
>>>Are ANY of the characters in BSG heterosexual?
>> Between the homosexuality and the bestiality (bestialsex with Cylons), it is hard to find
>> any heterosexuality in the BSG series at all.
>> Politics
>And impossible to find any sodomy.
============================================================ ==========
"Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1050826085609.9794F-100000 [at] mail...
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, John Shocked wrote:
>> <electrictroy [at] gmail.com> wrote in message news:1124973495.732938.63300 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > John Shocked wrote:
>> >> If you support Sodomy on TV in Battlestar Galactica, then...
>> > I think you are imagining things. If I bend over to pick up a piece of
>> > paper, you would say I'm encouraging you to ram me in the butt.
>> > STUPID.
>> > You're delusional and seeing things that do NOT exist.
>> > troy
>> There is no question there is Sodomy on TV in BSG.
> Incorrect--there is no doubt that you are obsessed with sodomy
> and see it where it doesn't exist. There also is no doubt that the
> "evidence" you see of sodomy is only evidence of your obsession.
>> Sodomy symbolism today
> The sodomy symbolism boils down to Apollo getting beaten up. You
> have never explained why similar scenes involving other TV characters (such
> as Matt Dillon, Jim Rockford and James T. Kirk) are not also evidence of
> sodomy on those shows, which demonstrates that you have a fixation on BSG.
> We all wonder why.
There is no question there is Sodomy on TV in BSG.
Sodomy symbolism today, the whole disgusting act fleshed out on the screen in front of you and your kids tomorrow.
============================================================ ==========
I reprise some of the facts here:
1) This Battlestar Galactica series seems to have a continuing Homosexual
agenda and determination to sell Homosexuality to the masses, by hook or by
crook. Back in the 3rd episode (Bastille Day) the whole Zerak relationship was
the producers trying to put Apollo and Zerak in bed together.
The producers feinted with a heterosexual rape, then hit their true target
which was to show Apollo being dragged to the ground face down in an Oz- like
prison attack. Throughout this episode there is verbal imagery of Apollo
"choosing sides". That is, choosing the homosexual lifestyle.
Oz (1997-2003) was a prison based TV series shown on HBO (homosexual dominated
US premium station) which was which regularly showed prison homosexual rape
and sex.
Bastille Day is known in Europe to be a major celebratory day for European
homosexuals. Apparently, in the next episode, Zerak returns and you better
believe that the producers will be determined to reestablish and develop the
possible Homosexual relationship between Apollo and Zerak.
Why do you think that the statements "You Can Bet Your Ass (arse)" and "The Back Door
is Open" when such prominent parts of this weeks script (The Hand Of God),
both in reference to Apollo ?
So if you do not want to be sold Homosexuality by this series or if you have
kids you do not want to be sold Homosexuality by this series, watch out.
2) Again in the Colonial Day episode the Battlestar producers show us the side
of Apollo they showed us in episode 3 Bastille Day: Apollo being pulled down to
the ground face down, sunny side up in an Oz-like grappling with another man.
It should be clear now to everyone watching this series that there is a pattern
in showing these Oz-like scenes where it appears that Apollo is about to be
raped by another man. The producers of this series are desperate to show at the
very least the symbolism of Sodomy in the series. It is very important to them.
In addition, in the grappling with this other man is a freeze frame in which
Apollo and this same man are arm in arm, as if walking down the street or from
the altar, man and man.
3) In the BSG last episode of the season, Kobol's Last Gleaming Part II, the
Hollywood Homosexuals in control of BSG were able to crowbar yet another
Homosexual Rape symbolism scene into the show in the scene in which Boomer is
approached and surrounded by what appears to be around 5 semi-nude sister
Boomer-copies who appear to be just about to forcibly undress and rape her.
Her response is "oh no, this is not happening". Many Homosexuals just love to
be the first one to turn someone, maybe your son, perhaps in that Catholic
Church rectory, onto that special secret intimacy they promote, for the first
time. They are absolutely loving this scene. They respond to Boomer: "you're
confused and scared... but it's ok", as they forcibly take off her helmet and
start caressing her without her permission. It appears that she is in the
process of being homosexual gang raped.
You can just imagine this scene in some women's prison or even some sororities
on some campuses with a new inductee. Anyone seen Reform School Girls with
Wendy O. Williams " ? USA Network used to show it regularly.
Boomer says: "I am not a Cylon". Right there, the obvious implication was that
she was about to say "I am not a Homosexual". She then says her parents are a
man and a woman: "My parents were Katherine and Abraham Valerii."
The Boomer-copies then feed her the normal Homosexual promotional crap that we
have heard here, over and over again, that deep inside, everyone is a
homosexual: "You can't fight destiny, Sharon. It catches up with you... no
matter what you do. Don't worry about us. We'll see you again. We love you,
Sharon. And we always will."
If you listen to these Hollywood Homosexual fatcats behind BSG, everyone is
eventually going to engage in Homosexual Sex. So Why fight the feeling. Do it
now. Call of the wild, sort of thing.
As these lines were delivered over cable TV, you better believe that the
Hollywood Homosexual fatcats behind this series were jumping around slapping
high fives. I can just imagine a new Saturday Night Live Gays In Space episode
based on this content, except what SNL is doing does not appear to have been
approved by the Hollywood Homosexuals fatcats so they are being a little
careful about how close they mirror the show.
One of the problems with Hollywood Homosexual scenes like this being crowbar-ed
into the script is: Should we the viewers draw assumptions from this scene
about the direction of the overall story, or take it for what it is -- the
writers' penance to their Hollywood Homosexual masters for putting up the money
for the production. For example, some here have assumed that in this scene
Boomer is programmed, or re-programmed to assassinate William Adama, by this
contact with her Boomer-copy sisters. Some have even claimed that the taking
off of the helmet was significant in that it further exposed her brain to the
telepathic communications wavelengths being sent to her.
But how can we know for sure when this scene already serves a totally ulterior
motive of the writers and their Hollywood Homosexual fatcat masters.
============================================================ ==
>> in BSG is because they would desperately like to reverse some of the following results
>>which they encountered in all 11 states in the US on November 3 2004 (US election day) which
>>had Ballot Questions (plebiscital votes by voters in a state controlling their own state's laws)
>>on the Homosexual Marriage agenda. So if you are watching your favorite science fiction show and
>>then you notice something in the script which does not make sense, it may be that it was time for
>>Word From BSG's Sponsor, the Hollywood Homosexuals who are using the script as their
>>advertisement vehicle.
> Or it may be something that:
> 1 - Will be discussed / shown later
> 2 - An error in the script
> 3 - A piece of background scenery
>>Homosexuals have had control of Hollywood since around 1992, when Clinton (and Jerry Brown) ran
>>for President the first time.
> Ah, here we go, let's blame Clinton.
Clinton is one of the worst Presidents who ever had the job. But the thing I disliked about
him the most was that he embodied the con game going on against the Left:
he played like he was a friend of the Left (riding around on the golf course with his
one black friend Vernon Jordan, while no black people worked in his inner circle in the
White House), but meanwhile, he was the one President who has
cut back on the Great Society programs on which some black people relied,
and all the risks he took were to support the crazy policy of Gays In The Military.
Clearly, he was the ultimate Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservative nemesis
to the Left and his actions supporting the suicidal issue of the homosexual agenda
resulted in the Democrats losing both Houses of Congress in the 1994 midterm elections.
Democrats have not been close to retaking those houses since then either.
The main issue of substance that he ran for office on and which people voted to elect
him to accomplish was National Health Care. There was a very good chance this could have passed
but the revulsion that the US public had to Gays In The Military blew it out of the water.
One would have to conclude that allowing homosexuals to set up a disco in the US military
was more important to Clinton than National Health Care.
>> Even though they have been pushing their agenda hard for all these
>>years, they are yet to win a single statewide vote. Clinton took homosexual money in 1992 and as
>>soon as he was inaugurated started to implement policies that he was bought and paid to implement
>>-- Gays In The Military, in 1993.
> So, lemme guess, you're against gays in the military?
What a crazy policy. But the con game here is that homosexuals are generally wealthy people
and have no interest in going into the Military. They pushed this policy because it was suicidal
for the Democrat Party.
>> This was an intense unpopular policy initiative, shocked the
>>public, and resulted in the Democrats losing both Houses of Congress in 1994, and started a
>>series of investigations into Clinton's personal life,
> Which, of course, all pretty much failed to bust him on anything
> EXCEPT for the Monica Lewinski incident. Which, of course, wasted a
> massive amount of taxpayer money for no REAL gain, obviously.
> Of course, we get shit like Bush lying about Iraq's involvement with Al
> Qaida and/or WMDs, and that's alright, because, after all, he didn't
> let some chubby intern suck his knob.
Clinton already had moral strikes against him before he entered office, with major scandals
of adultery which he struggled through to win the Presidency in 1992.
For him to then betray those people who gave him a pass for his immorality,
first with Gays In The Military (1993) and then the Lewinski scandal, one would have
to conclude this was an aggressively immoral man.
>> resulting finally in his Impeachment in 1998.
> Which, once again, amounted to nothing but a waste of taxpayer bucks.
The neverending investigations of Clinton were tiresome, but he brought them on himself.
Maybe he should have had a divorce, if his home life was so repulsive to him.
>> John Kerry (Democrat 2004 Presidential Candidate) again took homosexual money
>> in the 2004 election year.
> And how many Republicans do you think turned down so-called homosexual money?
> Weren't you just ranting about homosexual conservatives just the other day?
More personal attacks.
I am sure Republicans received some Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservative money.
Bush mainly received the money to mass murder Arabs/Moslems.
And we know that from the time Bush entered office he had invading Iraq on his mind.
Bush was as determined to sell the country on mass murder in Iraq as Clinton was in 1993
to sell the Gays In The Military policy to the US public.
Obviously, the Clinton Gay In The Military was more politically suicidal than the
Bush mass murder in Iraq policy.
>> Democrats do not have many sources of money, representing the poorer segments of
>>society. Since Kerry was from the state of Massachusetts, a state which earlier in 2004 legalized
>>Homosexual Marriage through a corrupt bribed out Judges judicial decision (not a vote by its
>>legislature) the onus was on John Kerry to separate himself from this suicidal issue in a very
>>public manner.
> here we go, the whole homosexual partyline REALLY begins...
Who knows what that means.
>>However, because Kerry took Hollywood Homosexual money in the 2004 year and before, he simply was
>>not able to do that. Thus in a year when Kerry was running for President against George W. Bush,
>>who had a terrible record, who had had the Economy collapse early in his first year (2001) and it
>>stayed that way till mid 2004, who also failed to prevent the 9-11 Attacks on the World Trade
>>Center in 2001, who lied to drag the US into a war against Iraq, when his allegations that Iraq
>>had Weapons Of Mass Destruction were false and various other failures, Kerry still could not win
>>because of the Homosexual agenda ball and chain around his neck. Kerry should have won this race
>>55%-45% if he was not carrying this Homosexual agenda ball and chain. And the following votes are
>>an in indication of how strongly people felt against this homosexual agenda Kerry was pushing.
>>
>>Several of these 11 states were Swing States -- they were close in the previous election and
>>would decide the election in 2004. Many people went to vote against the Homosexual Agenda, and
>>voted against Kerry as an afterthought.
>>
>>Now, Hollywood Homosexuals are wealthy fatcats and, despite popular misconceptions, are
>>overwhelming Republican. They do not want Democrats like John Kerry to win and then raise their
>>taxes. Thus, there may well be a scam going on here, to buy the Democrat candidate each year and
>>ask him to support something the US public despises -- this time it was Homosexual Marriage. If
>>this buying every 4 years of the Democrat candidate by Hollywood Homosexual fatcats continues,
>>it could be an extremely long time before the Democrats ever come close to taking back any of the
>>branches of government again.
>>==================================================
>>No, Hollywood Homosexuals are Republicans and should be Republicans. The Sodomy issue, along with
>>similar ACLU issues like the Legalization of Drugs, is one of those selfish issues that
>>generally come under the title "civil liberties".
> Given the fact that sodomy done between 2 consenting adults is nobody's business but
> the 2 consenting adults, well, the ACLU should bitch about antisodomy laws.
Who says Sodomy, Drugs, Gambling or Prostitution (the ACLU American Civil Liberties Union
libertarian right wing stay out of my life issues) are nobody's business and do not hurt others ?
>> These are 'leave me alone', 'let me do what I want to do',
> They should let 'em do what they wanna do. Provided it's not actually hurting anyone else.
Who says Sodomy, Drugs, Gambling or Prostitution are nobody's business and do not hurt others ?
>> "do not raise my taxes",
> What the hell does this have to do with anything?
Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives never really wanted Democrats like Kerry or Clinton
to win. Wealthy fatcats like them lose money when that happens.
That is why they have pushed politically suicidal issues like Gays In The Media or forcing Kerry
to stick with the homosexual agenda when it was clearly what cost him the election.
>> "keep the government out of my life"; selfish issues
> I don't consider it "selfish" to want the govt. to stay the hell out of my private life.
> The government doesn't belong there. Hell, they're there to supposedly run the nation I live in,
> not tell me what I can and can't do in the privacy of my own home.
That is a libertarian political position, and, as long as you are honest enough to accept that
you are positioned at the right wing of the political spectrum, that is a perfectly acceptable statement to make.
>> that are not just conservative, but libertarian in nature. . Heck, if not for the federal government,
>>Unions would not exist.
> I seem to remember reading about how the govt. in West Virginia busted
> coal mining unions apart for years.... so the govt. hasn't exactly
> been Mr. Nice guy all the time.
West Virginia is one of the 50 US States. A small one. No idea what your point is here.
>> If not for the federal government, Blacks and Women would not have Civil Rights.
> If not for those people rising up and telling the flipping govt. that
> they want those rights, then they wouldn't have them, you mean.
But it was federal laws and constitutional amendments through the democratic process
which accomplished these goals.
The Sodomy agenda is being accomplished by paying off crooked judges to negate the
democratic process and the will of the people.
>> If not for the federal government, there would be no 60's Great Society programs for The
>>Poor, or what is left of those programs since Clinton (a big homosexual rights Gays In The
>>Military supporter) rolled them back.
> Once again, you blame Clinton. Ever notice that it's been mainly
> republicans that wanna roll back those types of programs? Or is the
> whole supposed support of gay rights just blinding you to everything else?
None of those Republicans ever actually did this though. They talked about it but not
even Reagan repealed any of those Great Society laws.
>> The federal government passed the Defense Of Marriage Act
>>which was anti-homosexual marriage rights.
> And in a lot of ways, was pretty damned unconstitutional. What does
> it really matter if two homos get married? They'll find out soon
> enough by themselves just how much of a BITCH married life can be.
> Hell, most of them just wanna be able to have the same basic rights as
> married couples (able to inherit their partner's estate, like a normal
> married couple would, medical insurance coverage/etc... )
There is nothing in the US Constitution which protects Sodomy, Drugs, Gambling or Prostitution.
There is no "Right To Privacy" in the US Constitution.
The 9th Amendment, which some claim supports this, was actually put into the US Constitution
along with the 10th Amendment to protect the right of the South to commit Slavery.
>>The response of Hollywood Homosexuals ? Try to negate the federal government laws in the Courts
>>by playing up this crap that the Federal Courts can negate the laws created by the will of the
>>people (Judicial Review, they call it).
> Can you honestly name any new laws created by the "will of the people?"
> While we're at it, since Medical Marijuana is largely favored by the
> population, then why isn't the federal govt. recognizing the "will of
> the people" there? Why are they busting people who are growing their
> own medicine?
All Statutes are passed with the will of the people either by Ballot Question or according
to Representative Government the people set up and elected members to serve within.
>> The same US Supreme Court that ruled in Plessy vs
>>Ferguson in 1896 in the "Separate But Equal" decision that Blacks were second class citizens and
>>that segregation was ok. It was only in the 1950's, when the US Supreme Court was dominated by
>>non-Judges (only one of the 9 judges then had a judicial background -- the Chief Justice was
>>Governor of California immediately before joining the US Supreme Court in 1953), that Brown vs
>>Board of Education (1954) reversed the corrupt Plessy decision. And I should mention that the
>>14th Amendment passed right after the US Civil War which ended Slavery, banned any kind of racial
>>segregation State Laws, so the 1896 decision was unconstitutional, on its face.
>>=================================================
>>Some examples of Unconstitutional decisions by the US Supreme Court which hurt the little guy:
>>1) The Poor (1930's FDR impasse broken in 1937 when President Roosevelt threatened to pack the
>> Supreme Court),
>>2) Blacks (1896 Plessy vs Ferguson, legalizing racial segregation southern State laws, an
>> incredible decision, totally repudiating the 14th Amendment),
>>3) Unions (1930's FDR impasse broken in 1937 when President Roosevelt threatened to pack the
>> Supreme Court),
>>4) Women (denied the right to vote under 14th Amendment in Minor vs Happersett (1874)
> All examples of things that are more than 70 years old. How about something more relevant?
These are the most important issues to the Left by far.
These US Supreme Court decisions opposed the rights of the Left groups to have a voice
at all in society. However, recent decisions by the US Supreme Court have cut back on
Civil Rights, which were passed by Statute in Congress in 1964 (with mostly Republican votes I should add).
The Civil Rights Act of 1991 reversed decisions the US Supreme Court delivered which cut back on
the statutory rights of those covered by the statute of 1964.
The Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives on the US Supreme Court worked hard to support
the right to commit Sodomy though, even though there is nothing in the US Constitution which protects Sodomy.
Whereas the 14th Amendment clearly protected black people from racial discrimination and segregation.
==================excerpt=================================== =
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/civil91.ht m
SEC.2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) FINDINGS.--Congress finds that--
(1) in a series of recent decisions addressing employment discrimination claims under Federal law, the Supreme Court
cut back dramatically on the scope and effectiveness of civil rights protections; and
(2) existing protections and remedies under Federal law are not adequate to deter unlawful discrimination or to compensate
victims of such discrimination.
(b) PURPOSES.--The purposes of this Act are to--
(1) respond to the Supreme Court's recent decisions by restoring the civil rights protections that were dramatically
limited by those decisions; and
(2) strengthen existing protections and remedies available under Federal civil rights laws to provide more
effective deterrence and adequate compensation for victims of discrimination.
========================================================
====================================================
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/
Tuesday, November 18, 2003 Posted: 11:00 AM EST (1600 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court Thursday struck down a Texas
state law banning private consensual sex between adults of the same sex in a
decision gay rights groups hailed as historic.
The 6-3 decision by the court reverses course from a ruling 17 years ago that
states could punish homosexuals for what such laws historically called deviant sex.
Legal analysts said the ruling enshrines for the first time a broad constitutional right
to sexual privacy, and its impact would reach beyond Texas and 12 other states
with similar sodomy laws applied against the gay and lesbian community, and
into mainstream America.
====================================================
>>5) The "Corporation" created out of thin air in the 14th Amendment: Robber Barons at the turn of
>> the century (ca 1900) and today's Enron alike, loved this decision. This was a US Supreme
>> Court decision which abused the 14th Amendment, which they refused to use to protect the
>> intended black men and black women, and instead used to protect predatory wealthy fatcats. In
>> incredible series of decisions.
>>=================================================
>>The truth is that Homosexuals have nothing in common with the Left, which comprises The Poor,
>>Blacks, Unions and Women). They should and do want opposite solutions in government policy.
> Except, perhaps, being a minority. Being oppressed for something they had no real choice in.
> <snip blowharding>
> -LMB
Sodomy is a choice. It is not something people are born with, though it is usually brought
on by early molestation in childhood.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #129148 ] |
Fr, 09 September 2005 17:45 |
|
"George Johnson" <matrix29 [at] voyager.net> wrote in message news:11i0c5ele030de4 [at] corp.supernews.com...
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3%QTe.198485$E95.69272 [at] fed1read01...
> | "Matt Wiser" <MattWiser_99 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1126141168_18559 [at] spool6-east.superfeed.net...
> | > "George Johnson" <matrix29 [at] voyager.net> wrote:
> | > I've killfiled him, but he could see sodomy in just about anything. He's
> way, way, off his meds (not to mention his rocker).
> | > Interesting how he sees everyone else as a "paid PR Hack" or
> | > words to that effect (It's been a while since I've seen anything from
> him). Classic conspiracy
> | > theorist: If you don't agree with me, or you point out flaws in my
> argument (rant), then you're
> | > part of the conspiracy. Just killfile the crazy and be done with him.
> | ============================================================ ======
> | Every time I see these weird allegations of psychiatric problems here an
> alarm bell
> | has gone off with me. That is, there is more to this than meets the eye.
> | Then, when the whole Tom Cruise Brooke Shields issue came to light it clicked.
> | Public relations firms are selling pharmaceuticals now in a variety of covert ways and
> | one of those ways is in Hollywood movies and through Hollywood celebrities.
> | And of course, through there public relations hacks who work here on the Usenet Newsgroups.
> | Usually these personal attacks are accompanied with the allegation that the
> | target should "take his meds", which this hack [remembered] this time out..
> | Dangerous pharmaceuticals like Paxil, which Brooke Shields was trying to sell
> | to the public, claiming wild claims about post-partum depression
> | (which somehow her baby survived).
> | Federal prosecutors, the Federal Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission
> | need to investigate whether there is any connection between crooked pharmaceutical
> | companies like GlaxoSmithKline and public relations firms and whether any
> | of them lead to Hollywood.
> | We already know that the reference to drugs in the movie A Beautiful Mind was fraudulent.
> | The truth is that the man played by Russell Crowe was not cured with the help of
> | pharmaceuticals, as alleged in that movie.
> | Politics
> So, John Shocked, is this an admission of your being a Scientologist?
No. However, your statement makes it clear that you are spouting the Drugs advertisement
strategy Hollywood Homosexuals public relations hacks use here, by trying to demonize those who
oppose inappropriate drug abuse as part of some "religion".
Everyone should note how this is the identical tactic which is used to attack those who oppose
the homosexual agenda. Somehow all of these people have no minds and no personal morality and
are being dictated to by some "religious book" or "doctrine".
These HH public relations hacks strategize that by attacking everyone who disagrees with them with
religion, then using their contacts in the crooks in the News Media to attack the Church, with one
scandal after another, they can gain an advantage.
The fact is, that many of those sex child abuse scandals were committed by Homosexuals who
absolutely did not belong in these churches at all, and who used their right wing libertarian amoral
capabilities to lie to church officials to enter and remain in church jobs..
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #129157 ] |
Fr, 09 September 2005 21:31 |
|
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C6iUe.212388$E95.76334 [at] fed1read01...
| "George Johnson" <matrix29 [at] voyager.net> wrote in message
news:11i0c5ele030de4 [at] corp.supernews.com...
| > "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:3%QTe.198485$E95.69272 [at] fed1read01...
| > | "Matt Wiser" <MattWiser_99 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:1126141168_18559 [at] spool6-east.superfeed.net...
| > | > "George Johnson" <matrix29 [at] voyager.net> wrote:
| > | > I've killfiled him, but he could see sodomy in just about anything.
He's
| > way, way, off his meds (not to mention his rocker).
| > | > Interesting how he sees everyone else as a "paid PR Hack" or
| > | > words to that effect (It's been a while since I've seen anything
from
| > him). Classic conspiracy
| > | > theorist: If you don't agree with me, or you point out flaws in my
| > argument (rant), then you're
| > | > part of the conspiracy. Just killfile the crazy and be done with
him.
| > | ============================================================ ======
| > | Every time I see these weird allegations of psychiatric problems here
an
| > alarm bell
| > | has gone off with me. That is, there is more to this than meets the
eye.
| > | Then, when the whole Tom Cruise Brooke Shields issue came to light it
clicked.
| > | Public relations firms are selling pharmaceuticals now in a variety of
covert ways and
| > | one of those ways is in Hollywood movies and through Hollywood
celebrities.
| > | And of course, through there public relations hacks who work here on
the Usenet Newsgroups.
| > | Usually these personal attacks are accompanied with the allegation
that the
| > | target should "take his meds", which this hack [remembered] this time
out..
| > | Dangerous pharmaceuticals like Paxil, which Brooke Shields was trying
to sell
| > | to the public, claiming wild claims about post-partum depression
| > | (which somehow her baby survived).
| > | Federal prosecutors, the Federal Drug Administration and the Federal
Trade Commission
| > | need to investigate whether there is any connection between crooked
pharmaceutical
| > | companies like GlaxoSmithKline and public relations firms and whether
any
| > | of them lead to Hollywood.
| > | We already know that the reference to drugs in the movie A Beautiful
Mind was fraudulent.
| > | The truth is that the man played by Russell Crowe was not cured with
the help of
| > | pharmaceuticals, as alleged in that movie.
| > | Politics
| > So, John Shocked, is this an admission of your being a Scientologist?
|
| No. However, your statement makes it clear that you are spouting the
Drugs advertisement
| strategy Hollywood Homosexuals public relations hacks use here, by trying
to demonize those who
| oppose inappropriate drug abuse as part of some "religion".
| Everyone should note how this is the identical tactic which is used to
attack those who oppose
| the homosexual agenda. Somehow all of these people have no minds and no
personal morality and
| are being dictated to by some "religious book" or "doctrine".
|
| These HH public relations hacks strategize that by attacking everyone who
disagrees with them with
| religion, then using their contacts in the crooks in the News Media to
attack the Church, with one
| scandal after another, they can gain an advantage.
| The fact is, that many of those sex child abuse scandals were committed by
Homosexuals who
| absolutely did not belong in these churches at all, and who used their
right wing libertarian amoral
| capabilities to lie to church officials to enter and remain in church
jobs..
|
| Politics
You're like a babbling-idiot-machine. Yes indeedy.
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #129162 ] |
Sa, 10 September 2005 03:50 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
>>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:cx_Te.315199$=
WN5.214529 [at] fe02.news.easynews.com...
>>John Shocked wrote:
>>
>>>"Spaz" <yea [at] right.com> wrote in message news:K_idnQ9VvPi_VILeRVn-gg [at] co=
mcast.com...
>>>
>>>>"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message news:w5uTe.180=
685$E95.47880 [at] fed1read01...
>>>>Are ANY of the characters in BSG heterosexual?
>>>
>>>Between the homosexuality and the bestiality (bestialsex with Cylons),=
it is hard to find
>>>any heterosexuality in the BSG series at all.
>>>Politics
>>
>>And impossible to find any sodomy.
>=20
>=20
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D
> "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message news:Pine.SOL.3.96.=
1050826085609.9794F-100000 [at] mail...
>=20
>>On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, John Shocked wrote:
>>
>>><electrictroy [at] gmail.com> wrote in message news:1124973495.732938.63300=
[at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>>John Shocked wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>If you support Sodomy on TV in Battlestar Galactica, then...
>>>>
>>>>I think you are imagining things. If I bend over to pick up a piece =
of
>>>>paper, you would say I'm encouraging you to ram me in the butt.
>>>>STUPID.
>>>>You're delusional and seeing things that do NOT exist.
>>>>troy
>>>
>>>There is no question there is Sodomy on TV in BSG.
There is no question there is absolutely no Sododmy on TV in BSG. Your=20
machine posts are completely delusional.
--=20
Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none=20
more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant=20
to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called=20
Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too =
inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only =
atheists and fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of=20
despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far=20
as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or=20
hereafter. =96Thomas Paine
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #129163 ] |
Sa, 10 September 2005 04:25 |
|
"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:FZqUe.187846$Lg2.57450 [at] fe12.news.easynews.com...
> There is no question there is absolutely no Sododmy on TV in BSG. Your
> machine posts are completely delusional.
That's fucking bullshit! If there was no sodomy on TV, I wouldn't even have a TV. Fucker!
|
|
|
| Re: Battlestar/Propaganda -- stunning subliminal admission by BSG [message #129164 ] |
Sa, 10 September 2005 04:36 |
|
Spaz wrote:
> "BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:FZqUe.187846$Lg2.57450 [at] fe12.news.easynews.com...
>=20
>=20
>>There is no question there is absolutely no Sododmy on TV in BSG. Your=
>>machine posts are completely delusional.
>=20
>=20
> That's fucking bullshit! If there was no sodomy on TV, I wouldn't even=
have a TV. Fucker!
>=20
>=20
Well pussy, I didn't say there was no sodomy on tv, not on tv in BSG.=20
can you read bitch?
--=20
Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none=20
more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant=20
to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called=20
Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too =
inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only =
atheists and fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of=20
despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far=20
as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or=20
hereafter. =96Thomas Paine
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Do Feb 9 06:22:36 CET 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,14334 Sekunden |
