Thread Rating:
  • 3 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Blue Pill.
Crapper was fucking useless as an lt.  in vietnam ( only got his rank cos family connectiones )...... he still a fucking ignorant useless piece of shit today that doesnt know his ass from a fucking hole in the ground .....
Better to reign in hell ....
  than serve in heaven .....



(08-24-2017, 02:49 PM)Daitengu Wrote: Crapper was fucking useless as an it.  in Vietnam ( only got his rank cos family connections )...... he still a fucking ignorant useless piece of shit today that doesn't know his ass from a fucking hole in the ground .....

I think that was on his resume... the one that Obama approved of.
tinywondering
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe. 
I think this guy may well be on the right tracks...

Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe. 
(08-30-2017, 02:48 PM)BIAD Wrote: I think this guy may well be on the right tracks...

I've shared several of Kevin's videos here on RN. I love what he exposes to the public.   minusculeclap 
Can't wait to listen to this latest video.  Thanks!   tinybiggrin
(08-30-2017, 02:48 PM)BIAD Wrote: I think this guy may well be on the right tracks...


Just finished watching it.  I can't stress enough (as I always say about Kevin's talks) how important it is that people listen to this man. It's time we unite together and take back our government. If we don't, it's only going to get worse.

PUT THEM UNDER THE JAIL!!!   tinyshouting
(08-30-2017, 02:48 PM)BIAD Wrote: I think this guy may well be on the right tracks...

Good video.
Very, Very Close to the Truth, Very.
Mr. G. was just Nodding his head as he listened.
Once A Rogue, Always A Rogue!
[Image: attachment.php?aid=936]
(08-31-2017, 02:12 AM)guohua Wrote: Good video.
Very, Very Close to the Truth, Very.
Mr. G. was just Nodding his head as he listened.

Can Mr. G shed some light on why there's a discrepancy in why two or more agencies
approach a situation in different ways?

What I mean is that since the accepted goal is to benefit the country they're purported to
represent, then even if a alternative dialectic is assumed on dealing with acquiring funds,
stifling invasions and all-around surveillance.

Then why is it that it 'seems' that many of these agencies are working against the diverse
officials in the United States.
Who do they really work for?
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe. 
(08-31-2017, 09:12 AM)BIAD Wrote:
(08-31-2017, 02:12 AM)guohua Wrote: Good video.
Very, Very Close to the Truth, Very.
Mr. G. was just Nodding his head as he listened.

Can Mr. G shed some light on why there's a discrepancy in why two or more agencies
approach a situation in different ways?

What I mean is that since the accepted goal is to benefit the country they're purported to
represent, then even if a alternative dialectic is assumed on dealing with acquiring funds,
stifling invasions and all-around surveillance.

Then why is it that it 'seems' that many of these agencies are working against the diverse
officials in the United States.
Who do they really work for?
Hi, BIAD.
Mr. G. here for You!

OK, let me try and explain with out getting arrested, yes I still hold a security clearance.
POTUS Bush Jr. admen. was going to have me "Read Off" my clearance but changed their minds, not many old bastards left who understood the Soviet's way of thinking.

This will be short and sweet because it's mostly a Smoke Screen you see and read in the MSM, yes we're taking about two Banana Republics here.
Yes, there is that appearance of the outcome being fractured.
BUT, there is a lot of intelligence being gather there, by the Ruse of Them Hating Us and Demeaning us, yes one of those agency's have two or more contacts inside that feed us intelligence about that nations status, Why? If a Coup by us is needed, we know who to trust and lean on and give support to, again, the current situation may not be the desired original outcome, but there is always the chance.
Kind of a Vague reply.

Also, the biggest thing to remember, is even the Elites in the Shadow Government disagree and plot against each other and if they have enough influence on the CIA or NSA and so on, they can Upset The Apple Cart you may want to say.
By attempting to Control the entire Operation and It's out come.
Their people can go in a completely different direction of the other agency and then you have Chaos and Disruption and Deaths, yes The Deaths of Friendly's and our own people.
You've seen that already and YES, Hillary could have made the Phone Call and Very Possibly saved those three.

I really can't go into to much, I'd be getting us in trouble, it wouldn't be a Conspiracy Nut Posting, but Myself and I just can't make thing up and change the facts.
So, I would very possibly be arrested and the site closed down.
Sorry.
Once A Rogue, Always A Rogue!
[Image: attachment.php?aid=936]
(08-31-2017, 02:09 PM)guohua Wrote:
(08-31-2017, 09:12 AM)BIAD Wrote:
(08-31-2017, 02:12 AM)guohua Wrote: Good video.
Very, Very Close to the Truth, Very.
Mr. G. was just Nodding his head as he listened.

Can Mr. G shed some light on why there's a discrepancy in why two or more agencies
approach a situation in different ways?

What I mean is that since the accepted goal is to benefit the country they're purported to
represent, then even if a alternative dialectic is assumed on dealing with acquiring funds,
stifling invasions and all-around surveillance.

Then why is it that it 'seems' that many of these agencies are working against the diverse
officials in the United States.
Who do they really work for?
Hi, BIAD.
Mr. G. here for You!

OK, let me try and explain with out getting arrested, yes I still hold a security clearance.
POTUS Bush Jr. admen. was going to have me "Read Off" my clearance but changed their minds, not many old bastards left who understood the Soviet's way of thinking.

This will be short and sweet because it's mostly a Smoke Screen you see and read in the MSM, yes we're taking about two Banana Republics here.
Yes, there is that appearance of the outcome being fractured.
BUT, there is a lot of intelligence being gather there, by the Ruse of Them Hating Us and Demeaning us, yes one of those agency's have two or more contacts inside that feed us intelligence about that nations status, Why? If a Coup by us is needed, we know who to trust and lean on and give support to, again, the current situation may not be the desired original outcome, but there is always the chance.
Kind of a Vague reply.

Also, the biggest thing to remember, is even the Elites in the Shadow Government disagree and plot against each other and if they have enough influence on the CIA or NSA and so on, they can Upset The Apple Cart you may want to say.
By attempting to Control the entire Operation and It's out come.
Their people can go in a completely different direction of the other agency and then you have Chaos and Disruption and Deaths, yes The Deaths of Friendly's and our own people.
You've seen that already and YES, Hillary could have made the Phone Call and Very Possibly saved those three.

I really can't go into to much, I'd be getting us in trouble, it wouldn't be a Conspiracy Nut Posting, but Myself and I just can't make thing up and change the facts.
So, I would very possibly be arrested and the site closed down.
Sorry.

If ya ever need ..... can arrange extraction an set up asylum for ya here in civilized world ..... but ya gotta buy ya own booze .....
Better to reign in hell ....
  than serve in heaven .....



(08-31-2017, 09:12 AM)BIAD Wrote: Can Mr. G shed some light on why there's a discrepancy in why two or more agencies
approach a situation in different ways?

What I mean is that since the accepted goal is to benefit the country they're purported to
represent, then even if a alternative dialectic is assumed on dealing with acquiring funds,
stifling invasions and all-around surveillance.

Then why is it that it 'seems' that many of these agencies are working against the diverse
officials in the United States.
Who do they really work for?


I may or may not still be subject to some NDA's, but none that I'm aware of that would prevent me from offering general observations - and I no longer have any security clearances to be read out of, so here goes -

Speaking purely as a conspiracy nut, who may not be of sound mind, the US intelligence apparatus is not a homogeneous bloc, all working together and pulling in the same direction like a yoke of oxen. instead it (as well as the Russian intel apparatus and some others around the world) is more like a many-headed hydra. It tries to cover all directions at once, but each head may not know what the other knows or is doing, and they occasionally snap at one another when trying to get a bite on the same morsel.

It actually reminds me more of a pack of coyotes snapping at one another over the same loop of gut from a downed elk pretty often.

It can be a sight to behold they way their hackles rise when required to "cooperate" on the same matter. How much more so when they are dealing with entirely alien agencies and persons?

.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.

Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’


(08-31-2017, 09:24 PM)Ninurta Wrote: I may or may not still be subject to some NDA's, but none that I'm aware of that would prevent me from offering general observations - and I no longer have any security clearances to be read out of, so here goes -

Speaking purely as a conspiracy nut, who may not be of sound mind, the US intelligence apparatus is not a homogeneous bloc, all working together and pulling in the same direction like a yoke of oxen. instead it (as well as the Russian intel apparatus and some others around the world) is more like a many-headed hydra. It tries to cover all directions at once, but each head may not know what the other knows or is doing, and they occasionally snap at one another when trying to get a bite on the same morsel.

It actually reminds me more of a pack of coyotes snapping at one another over the same loop of gut from a downed elk pretty often.

It can be a sight to behold they way their hackles rise when required to "cooperate" on the same matter. How much more so when they are dealing with entirely alien agencies and persons?

Cheers Ninurta, it's just that if any of the reports that come to light occasionally are true, then who were
the agency actually trying to benefit? Is it spying on US citizens or is that just collateral damage of something
unsaid?

What I'm aiming at is are these agencies serving their country and just sometimes, a slain person or explosion
is mere fallout of the greater-good...? or is it more about improving their own private collective because of
a 'bigger' agenda?!
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe. 
@"BIAD" 
Quote: or is it more about improving their own private collective because of a 'bigger' agenda?!

The old *We Hit the Nail on the Head.* works real well here.
Ninurta was also correct, being as I have Not Been Read off My TKG/TS I can't go into a lot.
Every five years they send me the paper work and sometime a College Puck to interview me.
I keep telling them, My old 3rd, 4th and 5th grade teachers are Dead By Now or have Oldtimer's Disease.
All the neighbors that knew me are Dead and Most of My Friends Are Dead!
They can check my credit report and watch my house and listen to my phone call and read my email *I Know They Do* and after about 30 days I told my security clearance is renewed.
Sorry if my answer's are a little Vague.
Once A Rogue, Always A Rogue!
[Image: attachment.php?aid=936]
(08-31-2017, 09:49 PM)BIAD Wrote: Cheers Ninurta, it's just that if any of the reports that come to light occasionally are true, then who were
the agency actually trying to benefit? Is it spying on US citizens or is that just collateral damage of something
unsaid?

What I'm aiming at is are these agencies serving their country and just sometimes, a slain person or explosion
is mere fallout of the greater-good...? or is it more about improving their own private collective because of
a 'bigger' agenda?!

Well, this is my best guess, but only a guess -

Some, those of the better sort, or lower ranks, or brand new fodder, actually believe they are working for me, my wife, the neighbor, the grocer (and the bag-boy at the grocery store), the guy who changes my tires and fixes my brakes, etc - in short, they believe they are working for "The People", and act accordingly.

The further one rises in the ranks, the more that changes. They seem to go through a period where they are working for their own agency (against all comers, some times), and on past that for "the gummint" (but AGAINST "The People", seemingly they've forgotten who owns "the gummint" in theory, so they tend to separate the two into two distinct, and opposed, entities), and beyond that, it gets... murky.

Add into that mix the "many headed hydra" I mentioned above, and soon you will come to the conclusion that even THEY don't really know "who they're working for".

Now, when you mention "their own private collective", and you're not wrong there, it becomes a matter of identifying just what that collective encompasses, in each individual case. Some do appear to be being directed by "a bigger agenda", as you aptly observe, but there isn't just one agenda, and some times (most times), those agendas are at cross-purposes.

This is, in part, why I found it hilarious when news agencies were reporting that "17 separate US intelligence agencies" ALL came to the conclusion that Russia had hacked the US elections. First, I do not even know of 17 separate US intelligence agencies, and second, I would find it amazing, and not just a little suspicious, if any TWO of them came to agreement on anything at all, including what to have for lunch.

That sparked my interest, enough to get hold of the intelligence report and read it, which is when I found out it said no such thing, nor did it include "17 separate US intelligence agencies". THAT led me in another direction... if these agencies were not saying what was being claimed they said, then WHO was the actual source?

I submit that when you find that out, you will be a lot closer to determining "who they are working for", at least in the popular imagination.

I believe, personally, that none of the intelligence agencies - however many there may be - are the problem. I believe that the problem stems from the so-called "Deep State" and their "information dissemination organs". You see, no matter the source of an item of "information", or even the content of that item, whatever the masses can be made to BELIEVE is what rules their emotions... and THAT is governed by how and when the story, official or not, TRUE or not, is fed to said masses. "Getting it out there" bypasses intelligence agencies altogether - they are irrelevant to the mechanism.

To find the Puppet Masters, and their bigger agenda, don't wasted time looking at a few infighting intelligence agencies - that is just a smoke screen, a means of distracting attention from the real shakers and movers, and their real and verified (enough for me, anyhow) assaults on the populace.

James Clapper is a dick. Worse, he is a has-been dick. He's just a dick in search of Viagra to "replace" a potency he never had in the first place. He is a mouth-piece for the Movers and Shakers, someone they can use as a convenient "source" to get their misinformation out into the public via their controlled "news" agencies.

Clapper is no more than a tool, a crowbar to be brandished by Those Who Move Behind the Scenes when they need a new bit of "data", designed and created to support the narrative they want to create, "released" to John Q. Public (whenever they can't get any actual intel people to play ball). His ONLY value to them is that he was, once upon a time, DCI. They simply use that to tie him to "intelligence agencies" to promote the narrative that somehow, these "intelligence agencies" have concluded whatever Clapper is told to say that they've concluded. Who would know better than a DCI?

And so it goes. Ignore the little man behind the curtain.


.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.

Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’


@"Ninurta" 
Quote:James Clapper is a dick. Worse, he is a has-been dick. He's just a dick in search of Viagra to "replace" a potency he never had in the first place. He is a mouth-piece for the Movers and Shakers, someone they can use as a convenient "source" to get their misinformation out into the public via their controlled "news" agencies.


Clapper is no more than a tool, a crowbar to be brandished by Those Who Move Behind the Scenes when they need a new bit of "data", designed and created to support the narrative they want to create, "released" to John Q. Public (whenever they can't get any actual intel people to play ball). His ONLY value to them is that he was, once upon a time, DCI. They simply use that to tie him to "intelligence agencies" to promote the narrative that somehow, these "intelligence agencies" have concluded whatever Clapper is told to say that they've concluded. Who would know better than a DCI?
YOU, Know Clapper?
that is an excellent statement on Clapper.  minusculeclap

*OH, Shit,,, runs to corner of window leaning against fortified wall with Mossberg 12 gauge.*
Once A Rogue, Always A Rogue!
[Image: attachment.php?aid=936]
(09-01-2017, 01:24 AM)guohua Wrote: @"Ninurta" 

YOU, Know Clapper?
that is an excellent statement on Clapper.  minusculeclap

*OH, Shit,,, runs to corner of window leaning against fortified wall with Mossberg 12 gauge.*

Nah. I might have known a guy who knew a guy who, way back when... or maybe it's just my observation on what I see in public view.

Excellent choice on the Mossberg! I used to have a Mossberg M590A1 that I loved dearly. I called it my "reloadable claymore". Always kept #4 buck in it, and it saved my neck at least once, but utterly destroyed a door in the process.

My general impression is that the folks you see talking in public, via widely disseminated channels, are just repeating what they are told to say, and that includes Clapper. Where the rubber meets the road is the place to find the folks who AREN'T talking in public, but are instead the people who have their hands up Clapper's ass making his mouth move.

.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.

Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’


Thank you both Mr. G & Ninurta for your respective views on this complicated subject.
I appreciate the delicate nature of the topic and the willingness of putting biased opinions
to one side for a more fair and 'open' answer.
That's why it seems universally-agreed that Clapper is a prick.
minusculethumbsup

I don't have an informed view on who is pulling the strings, providing the dubious infromation
and for what reason, but as my wife has commented many times 'I always want to know the
far-end of a fart' -or the core reason for anything!

And it's that -that has always intrigued me.
Can an organisation that is constructed for a particular reason, morph into a entirely different
set-up because of the complicated maze of global sea-changes it dabbles in?

A name is just a name and it only serves as a temporary salve to a public who eats blame
like chocolate. To perceive global control in the form of a James Bond movie is far easier than
looking into the abyss of what maintains a society that wallows in such an infantile perception.

The confused machinations of individual factions that Ninurta commented on, is something my
personal make-up struggles with because of the sheer selfishness to gain, occasionally seems to
outweigh the original goal of national/international security and the accountability gets lost in
the lofty discussions of general governing.

If one believes that many of the agencies (not the silly seventeen that the MSM proclaimed)...
conduct themselves without concerns for that original goal and brings collateral problems to the
country they're alleged to serve and those problems are judged as to be acceptable by that
agency alone, then is it possible to 'switch off' that agency by the system most of us deems
in control?

Without belabouring Kennedy's 'break the CIA into a thousand pieces' quote, can such an act
take place this late in the game...? Or have the guard dogs become more powerful than their
masters up to the point that they know it?

The 'little' things like 'would an official security arm of a Government blow-up an entire
building to eliminate one person or gang-rape a child to force it's parent to disclose certain
information' is disturbing. But again, these acts go on in order to preserve a way of life that
the comfortably-sitting public have the luxury of not dwelling on in their old age.

My concern is the 'why'... is the reason today, still to maintain that which the agencies
were created for or by expansion and obligation of financial businesses and long-term
agreements in wealthy activities, now work with a diluted and stained 'overcoat' of chivalry
to protect, that the public occasionally frown at?

It's something I find fascinating.

(A bit long-winded and I apologise!)
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe. 
(09-01-2017, 09:25 AM)BIAD Wrote: Thank you both Mr. G & Ninurta for your respective views on this complicated subject.
I appreciate the delicate nature of the topic and the willingness of putting biased opinions
to one side for a more fair and 'open' answer.
That's why it seems universally-agreed that Clapper is a prick.
minusculethumbsup

That does seem to be the consensus - there are al least 3 votes in this very thread to indicate such.

Quote:And it's that -that has always intrigued me.
Can an organisation that is constructed for a particular reason, morph into a entirely different
set-up because of the complicated maze of global sea-changes it dabbles in?

The short answer is "yes". It doesn't get much shorter than that. It's the old "boiling frog" syndrome. A little change here, unchallenged, and a little change there, unchallenged, if repeated often enough can cause anything to morph out of the form it originally had an into one somewhat more... menacing.

Quote:The confused machinations of individual factions that Ninurta commented on, is something my
personal make-up struggles with because of the sheer selfishness to gain, occasionally seems to
outweigh the original goal of national/international security and the accountability gets lost in
the lofty discussions of general governing.

It is just that convoluted, and as bureaucracy moves forward, it only gets more and more complicated. The solution lies in the beginning, which always happens before anyone realizes there is a problem. As time goes on, and more and more redundant "agencies" and "bureaus" are created, it takes too long for John Q. Public to figure out that that many chefs are not only unnecessary in the kitchen, but they also crowd it beyond usefulness. They get in each other's way, argue and gripe, sometimes one chef stabs another either through malice or incompetence, but in any event dinner is never served.

That was my gripe with the inception of "Homeland Security" in the US. It was unnecessary, redundant, we already HAD enough agencies (and maybe too many) to provide what it was allegedly created for. It was (and is) useless and too expensive for what it delivers. Of course, some of the other agencies also looked askance at the formation of DHS - they were wondering "what are those guys for? The US already has us!" and suspicion led to another round of infighting that could have been avoided by the simple expedient of not creating a useless-eater agency to begin with, simply not growing government another notch beyond it's boundaries.

Quote:If one believes that many of the agencies (not the silly seventeen that the MSM proclaimed)...
conduct themselves without concerns for that original goal and brings collateral problems to the
country they're alleged to serve and those problems are judged as to be acceptable by that
agency alone, then is it possible to 'switch off' that agency by the system most of us deems
in control?

Probably not without bloodshed. There are times that even the controlling system cannot re-cage the monsters it created, and one thing leading to another results in the feeding hand getting bitten.

Quote:Without belabouring Kennedy's 'break the CIA into a thousand pieces' quote, can such an act
take place this late in the game...? Or have the guard dogs become more powerful than their
masters up to the point that they know it?

Perhaps more powerful, perhaps not. It depends on who one thinks the "Masters" are, and how one defines power. Who is more powerful? The man who can buy and sell gun-hands to keep another group in check, or the man who doesn't give a shit if he DOES get shot, and is willing to do what it takes? You see, I believe "power" lies in control, and anything or anyone that another cannot control, that other has no real "power" over.

Quote:The 'little' things like 'would an official security arm of a Government blow-up an entire
building to eliminate one person or gang-rape a child to force it's parent to disclose certain
information' is disturbing. But again, these acts go on in order to preserve a way of life that
the comfortably-sitting public have the luxury of not dwelling on in their old age.

Touchy subject, because those "official security arms" are, each and every one, made up of individuals, with all of the foibles, unruliness, and unpredictability that the constituent individuals bring with them. Those individuals, some of them pretty psychopathic, can them hide their unspeakable deeds under the umbrella of a nebulous agency, and no one is then really accountable for their misdeeds. The public blames "the agency", and of course as an arm of government, it can do no harm. Few, if any, ever go after the actual responsible individual(s). That is also the reason that other "collectives", such as communism, are so dangerous. As the individuals and their misdeeds subsume themselves and get lost within the collective, the collective is forced to assume the blame, and of course that collective includes you and I, and WE are not going to accept that blame, so the responsible parties get to skate free to do even worse deeds under the guise of "us".


.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.

Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’


Thank you Ninurta, your explanation goes a long way to support my own view that when many
use expressions like 'deep state' and 'shadow government' the reality is that we're talking about
more of bundle of agreed actions for a variety of reasons -more than just a unified and systematic
agenda from a central control point.

Like an old-style sailing ship, it's travelling in a culturally-accepted direction, but the ropes, canvas
and crew are assigned separate tasks that at times, may not seem conducive to the overall mission.
Would that be a decent analogy?

The methods -I know, will sometimes seem outlandish and at times need funding by dubious methods,
but what I'm really trying to show is that there's no cackling maniac in an expensive chair conducting
the whole spider's web!

It removes the intrigue and dark motives from the perception of what these agencies are about, but
even if some of the methods are morally-questionable, I'm wondering if the desired overall goal is in
reality, begrudgingly accepted by the public these groups were allegedly created to serve.

Even if my questions and the rational answers given can be seen as 'socially-understandable' I doubt
it will effect the verve in any conspiracy website!!
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe. 
(09-02-2017, 09:19 AM)BIAD Wrote: Thank you Ninurta, your explanation goes a long way to support my own view that when many
use expressions like 'deep state' and 'shadow government' the reality is that we're talking about
more of bundle of agreed actions for a variety of reasons -more than just a unified and systematic
agenda from a central control point.

Like an old-style sailing ship, it's travelling in a culturally-accepted direction, but the ropes, canvas
and crew are assigned separate tasks that at times, may not seem conducive to the overall mission.
Would that be a decent analogy?

I would say that is an excellent analogy! Oh, there are those around who THINK they are pulling the strings and directing the action from a centrally-located, cushy, leather clad office chair (this "Soros" character comes to mind), but they're wrong. They may direct a small part of it, but the behemoth has grown so ungainly and out of control that what they are really doing is more akin to herding cats. They are likely influencing this faction or that, but are surely not directing much of anything at all in the overall picture.

In other words, and attempting to use your analogy, there are those hauling at the ropes and believing that they are hoisting the mainsail, but it only takes a few cannon balls to snatch the wind right out of that sail, and the OTHER guys who think they are directing are just aiming the cannons.

Quote:The methods -I know, will sometimes seem outlandish and at times need funding by dubious methods,
but what I'm really trying to show is that there's no cackling maniac in an expensive chair conducting
the whole spider's web!

Precisely. The cackiling maniac THINKS he's running the whole web, but there are other spiders in other parts of the web thinking the same thing, and then there are the ground-hunting spiders who use no web at all, and care nary a bit about who's running the web.

Quote:It removes the intrigue and dark motives from the perception of what these agencies are about, but
even if some of the methods are morally-questionable, I'm wondering if the desired overall goal is in
reality, begrudgingly accepted by the public these groups were allegedly created to serve.

Yes and no. There really is is no one "overall goal", there are just a plethora of competing goals who would sincerely LIKE to be THE overall goal. Everyone thinks their own overall goal is going to be the winning one, but the world just keeps turning, doing it's own thing, and not caring at all who comes out on top.


.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.

Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’


What most people think,,,,,,,,,or Believe.
[Image: 3e88a511f5cc7375d3a982ec11b5bff3.gif]
Once A Rogue, Always A Rogue!
[Image: attachment.php?aid=936]


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)