My humble thoughts as one guy with opinions about life, love, religion, society, politics, parenting... yada, yada, yada.

  • RSS
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin

Thumbnail Recent Post

Recent Comments

Posted by Lawrence "LAW" Watford - - 1 comments

I recently had a discussion with a buddy of mine (a Tea Party conservative) who really wanted me to tune in to a particular episode of Glenn Beck's show; the subject - GEORGE SOROS! Now being a consumer of both liberal and conservative media, I'm fully aware of the caricature of Soros that is painted by the far-right. He is, essentially their #2 boogeyman - right underneath Saul Alinksky. So, of course my friend asked me to lay aside my "bias" (which on some level seems to imply that Glenn Beck is a fair and balanced arbiter) for one day to watch this episode.

Now my friend is a good guy and we have some of the most excited debates about politics and social issues. Nevertheless, I declined his request, citing the futility of an expose of a liberal "Dr. Claw" who sits in his castle, petting his fluffy black cat and pulling the strings behind the scenes of government, without the willingness to acknowledge that there is and "equal and opposite" far-right counter balance. He defied me to show "...there's someone with just as many shadow organizations and behind the scenes election manipulations at Soros on the Conservative side - in ONE individual". Below is my reply, which talks about the nature of the ghosts in the machine, which is America.

LOL... In the end, what does it matter if it's ONE individual or a group, shadow or front?.... what does it matter if the result is the same? What does it matter that Soros funds think progress by himself, if T Boone Pickens and a few others fund swift boat veterans for truth? What does it matter if he floated Media matters, if the president of Diebold (the company that designed the voting machines used in the 2004 presidential election) promised to deliver Bush the election in ohio?

I don't have the time or resources to do what beck is paid 10+ million dollars to do on a daily basis (and frankly, neither do most of his viewers, which is why that whole "don't believe me, research for yourself" line sounds great but... really?)... But even if I did, all we'd be doing is trading boogeymen... You'd defend your boogeymen (or claim they don't exist) and normally I'd do the same... And both or our boogeymen are laughing at us...

I choose not to defend Soros and there's little that Beck could show me (provided he's being the honest altruistic American he professes) that would shock me... I'd probably be inclined to believe most of it, but I'm an American skeptic... I believe that the country's being run by giving us the illusion of control and removes that sense of control 1 party at a time...

We felt as if Government engaged in a war of choice that was being planned before Pres. Bush took office... We felt the loss of control when the Vice-Presidents former company made 3 Billion the first year of that war (a company that he still owned a reported 400K+ shares of at the time) - We made the administration and the PNAC our boogeymen BUT the right defended it, giving it enough legitimacy to stave off a revolution.

Now, you feel as if Government is intentionally trying to weaken itself by turning America from the quasi-socialist country we currently are to Mother Russia's wet dream.. and is trying to institute control of the populace by creating a national healthcare system - which they're doing so with the intention of controlling the populace by having control over their health.... And I'm assuming Soros is at the heart of this - BUT we defend it and (barely) just enough to stave off revolution...

I feel better suited focusing on key figures who are the puppets doing the will of Soros or PNAC and hold them accountable...

My point is that if we can take a step back; step away from our ardent, passionate and dogmatic view of how how the world should, could or would be.... If we can do that and open our minds to the possibility that a force as powerful as the United States of America is too awesome to be wielded by popular sentiment and good-natured folks.... Well, maybe -just maybe we'll begin to realize that we're at each other's throats like pawns in a game of chess with one player... I touched on it a little in a post entitle,
BLUE VS. RED PILL: THE MATRIX OF PARTISAN POLITICS.






One Response so far.

  1. Nicholas says:

    So Law, does the fact that it's "too powerful to be wielded by popular sentiment" indicate that you're willing to discuss placing senatorial positions back in the hands of state legislators and away from a popular (short-sighted and personally-motivated self interest) vote?

    Just curious.

    And we can discuss and debate the original designs of the House and Senate if you want, but you're an educated guy who knows the underlying arguments in the debate already.

Leave a Reply