Please sit by… we will be with you shortly… Comments and goodies are all turned off for the time being~ go have a cuppa or something and we’ll be finished before you know it!
Thank you for your patience! And thanks again to MightyConservative!!
brb, biab, ttfn, bbiam… and any other textage you can think of for be back soon!
 |
| Our very own MightyConservative is working behind the scenes at the moment. Please excuse any blips, trips, or craziness while he’s hooking us up! |
Good evening Blogmocracy Netizens, it’s Party time!
Tonight’s Drinking thread I dedicate to great Local NY Brew called Brooklyn Lager. This beer is made by Brooklyn Brewey. The comapny has many types of Beers like Brown Ale, Black Stout, east IndiPa ale Ale and Seasonal Oktoberfest. This brewery is located in Brooklyn NY. As someone who grew up in Queens, I appreciate this Brooklyn based beer it reminds me of home.
It’s great beer and that is what I am drinking tonight!
Here is a Video paying tribute to Brooklyn.
Here is a current Hip-Hop/Electro Song I really.
Here’s an 80’s Track for the Non Hip-Hop/Electro fans
Here’s a Beatles classic.
I’m going out for a bit, I will join everyone in a few hours!
Enjoy and drink up!
Blogmocracy in action!
|
|
|
| Telephone Town Hall Meetings ====================== Why they are a threat, and how to deal with them |
| The threat ————– If you have not yet experienced a “virtual” town meeting hosted by a local politician, just wait a few months. These carefully choreographed and tightly controlled electronic events are being embraced by politicians, mostly Democrats, as a way to avoid actually dealing with their constituents face-to-face at traditional, real-life town meetings, where they might be exposed to inconvenient questions and impertinent criticisms. Of course, you will never hear these same politicians admit that this is why they like these events so much. They always describe telephone town meetings in glowing, positive terms, claiming that they give them the “ability to reach out to more people”, allow them to “hear the concerns and questions of the voters on important issues.” The reality, not surprisingly, is just the opposite. These telephone town meetings are more typically an abomination that: 1. Allows the politician to screen out any critical or uncomfortable calls, and accept only easy or supportive questions. 2. Enables the politician to inflict his or her views and positions on vast numbers of voters, while giving the false appearance of listening to the questions and concerns of the electorate. 3. Provides the politician with non-verifiable claims for press releases. (”Representative Moonbat held one of his popular telephone town meetings last night, reaching over 35,000 voters in the 69th District. He answered questions from 25 callers, most of whom expressed concern over the lack of progress in health care reform, and supporting his efforts to help pass this critical legislation.”) 4. Allows the politician to stack the “meeting” with union members or other special interest groups. (These friendly callers can dial-in early and queue up the initial questions, before the politican robo-calls out to other voters in the district.) 5. Allows the politician to claim to be soliciting feedback, using biased, meaningless on-line polls with questions like “Which issue is most important to you? 1. Progressive health care legislation. 2. Effective cap and trade legislation. 3. Saving polar bears from global warming. (These polls can also be used to flag potentially unfriendly callers and allow the screeners to block them from getting through to the politician.) What Can You Do? When a politician in your area announces one of these telephone town halls, register to take part in it. (Or if you get cold-called to participate in one, accept the call and stay on the line.) IF YOU ARE UNCOMFORTABLE ASKING A QUESTION or trying to confront the politician, that’s okay. STAY ON THE LINE AND LISTEN TO HOW THE WHOLE THING PLAYS OUT. ANALYZE WHAT YOU ARE HEARING AND EVALUATE JUST HOW CONTROLLING AND DISHONEST YOUR “REPRESENTATIVE” IS. In most cases, you will probably be incredulous and horrified at just how creepy these events can be. Listen to the “moderator” and how she or he presents callers. Does the politician get any articulate, critical comments or questions? Or are they all softballs and expressions of support? How many supportive callers identify themselves (either explicitly or inferentially) as members of unions or other special interest groups? Does it sound like the calls are all stacked in the politician’s favor? Listen to any “poll” questions: are they honest, fact-finding questions to gauge the feelings of the callers, or are they phony, biased queries that don’t even give you the option of dissenting from the politician’s stands? BEWARE: If you intend to try to ask a question (see below), your answers to these polls can identify you as “unfriendly” and ensure that you will NOT get past the screeners. Best to avoid the poll questions altogether. At the end of the telephone town meeting, how do you feel? Are you disgusted by what you heard? Read the politician’s press releases in the following days regarding the telephone town meeting that you just listened to. Do the claims match your own experience? If you are concerned, write letters to the editor, and also consider writing to your local news media demanding that they investigate the fraud and false claims inherent in this latest assault on the voters. And talk to your detached, moderate friends who tend not to pay attention. They need to be made aware of these electronic forums and exposed to the dishonesty built into them. IF YOU ARE UP FOR ASKING A QUESTION, you need to play the system. If you make it past the screeners, and if the politician actually takes your question, ease into it. If possible, prepare ahead of time, and be very familiar with the politician’s record and past votes. Make sure that you start with a comment related to your screened question, and begin your comment in a friendly fashion, because if they sense that you are setting up for a critical comment, they can and will cut you off before you finish your statement. For example:
Of course, this is just an example and you should tailor your own comments to your personal concerns and to your own politician. At this point, you will probably be cut off, but there is a chance that the politician may actually come back with a retort, so be prepared. Nothing will undercut the credibility of your comment faster than being caught off guard and following up with nothing more than an Obamaesque “Uh…uh…Well, uh…” If you are articulate and convincing, you can use the telephone town hall forum to your advantage and let thousands of people on the phone hear a valid criticism of the politician, probably voicing concerns that they themselves had been feeling. Further reading Although these telephone town meetings have been around for several years, they have only started to become popular in the past couple of years, and many politicians embraced them during the August 2009 recess to avoid confrontational meetings with their constituents regarding health care. Therefore, not a lot of critical reporting has been done, with some notable exceptions listed below. Otherwise, you need to do your own research: 1. Politco’s Erika Lovely wrote a great article on this topic last month: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27404.html 2. Politco also provides a very interesting screenshot of a tele-townhall control panel (in this case, Broadnet Teleforum). It’s worth taking the time to bring up the PDF and carefully examining the displayed information and the controls: http://www.politico.com/static/PPM43_080219_teleconfscreen.html The Broadnet Teleforum web site is at: http://www.broadnetconnects.com/Teleforum.html This screenshot was provided as part of an earlier (Feb. 2008) Politico article on the subject, written by Josephine Hearn: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8586_Page2.html 3. Another business that is offering tele-townhall services is OrangePoint Communications (http://www.orangepoint.net/town_hall_teleconference.html). It’s unclear if they have their own software, or if they are just a Service Provider making use of somebody else’s product like Broadnet Teleforum. 4. It is enlightening to Google politicians’ press releases describing their use of these electronic forums: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=”telephone+town+hall”+”press+release” Notice the uniformity of the phrases about reaching out to thousands of voters, getting feedback, and how the on-line polls showed overwhelming support for the politician’s positions. These telephone townhalls have already, stealthily, worked their way into the political landscape. Most people don’t seem to be aware of them, or how they threaten the feedback traditionally provided by face-to-face meetings with politicians. If you are as concerned about these issues as I am, I urge you to educate yourself about them, pass on what you learn to your family and friends, and learn how to navigate through the system the next time one is offered in your community, so that your politician will be exposed to those opinions that he or she would prefer to ignore. |
Mao Tse-Tung was a ruthless murder, what more can possible said about this Chinese communist dictator? His Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution killed 70 million Chinese people. That makes him the single greatest mass murderer in human history.
Joseph Stalin managed to kill 30 million Russian and Adolph Hitler 15 million Germans, compared to Mao they were mere amateurs, yet for some godforsaken reason the American Progressive Movement has chosen to lavish Mao with adoration and praise.
Why would these disturbed and misguided Americans choose to praise Mao? The reason is frighteningly obvious once you examine what motivates the American Progressive Movement. Because unlike Hitler or Stalin, Mao was never defeated by American or American backed forces.
Individuals who subscribe to the ideological philosophy that the end justifies the means populate the American Progressive Movement. For them, anything that allows them to institute the political policies, which they believe, will create a more secure and equitable societies are acceptable.
Personal freedoms and liberties take a second place to society at large and are therefore expendable on the individual scale. For these people there are no sacrifices to excessive, no abrogation’s of the individuals rights so draconian that they cannot not be accepted.
For generations Americans have pondered the question, how could the German people have embraced Adolph Hitler. The answer is, that Adolph Hitler promised the German people that he would make them a great people. All they had to do was make a few sacrifices for the greater good of Germany.
Likewise, Stalin promised the Russian people that they would be a great world power, but they also had to make personal sacrifices. Stalin was famously quoted as saying, “a hundred deaths is a tragedy, a million is a mere statistic”.
Yet neither Hitler nor Stalin managed to seize as much control over as many people as Mao, or kill as many of their own citizens as Mao did in his quest to create a perfect modern communist Utopian society.
Like it or not, as un politically correct as it is to say, we must face reality, the American Progressive Movement idolizes Mao because he was in their view a winner. Nobody was able to stop him from instituting his changes to society.
Again, like it or not as un politically correct as it is to say, the truth no matter how unpleasant it is, is that those people who make up the hardcore supporters of the American Progressive Movement are the same people who supported Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung.
If we allow them to continue unfettered in their quest to create their perfect Utopian society, it will be future generation of some foreign nation asking their parents, pondering the question. How could the American people have allowed such evil people to rule over them?
(Cross Posted at The Wilderness of Mirrors )
As it says in this article at Family Security Matters, the “cat is out of the bag” and the news is disturbing at the very least. The word is out that the humongeous and hideous number of islamic immigrations into Great Britain over the past decade and a half was all planned by the government….it was executed on purpose IN ORDER TO MAKE BRITAIN MORE MULTICULTURAL! I kid you not.
Read this and if you are in Britain, weep. If you are in America, read this and get ready to fight this new plague upon our land.
The Uncovered Conspiracy to Transform Britain
So now the cat is well and truly out of the bag. For years, as the number of immigrants to Britain shot up apparently uncontrollably, the question was how exactly this had happened.
Was it through a fit of absent-mindedness or gross incompetence? Or was it not inadvertent at all, but deliberate?
The latter explanation seemed just too outrageous. After all, a deliberate policy of mass immigration would have amounted to nothing less than an attempt to change the very makeup of this country without telling the electorate.
There could not have been a more grave abuse of the entire democratic process. Now, however, we learn that this is exactly what did happen. The Labour government has been engaged upon a deliberate and secret policy of national cultural sabotage.
This astonishing revelation surfaced quite casually last weekend in a newspaper article by one Andrew Neather. He turns out to have been a speech writer for Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
And it was he who wrote a landmark speech in September 2000 by the then immigration minister, Barbara Roche, that called for a loosening of immigration controls. But the true scope and purpose of this new policy was actively concealed.
In its 1997 election manifesto, Labour promised “firm control over immigration” and in 2005 it promised a “crackdown on abuse.” In 2001, its manifesto merely said that the immigration rules needed to reflect changes to the economy to meet skills shortages.
But all this concealed a monumental shift of policy. For Neather wrote that until “at least February last year,” when a new points-based system was introduced to limit foreign workers in response to increasing uproar, the purpose of the policy Roche ushered in was to open up the UK to mass immigration.
This has been achieved. Some 2.3million migrants have been added to the population since 2001. Since 1997, the number of work permits has quadrupled to 120,000 a year.
Unless policies change, over the next 25 years some seven million more will be added to Britain’s population, a rate of growth three times as fast as took place in the ‘80s.
Such an increase is simply unsustainable. Britain is already one of the most overcrowded countries in Europe. But now look at the real reason why this policy was introduced, and in secret. The Government’s “driving political purpose,” wrote Neather, was “to make the UK truly multicultural.”
It was therefore a politically motivated attempt by ministers to transform the fundamental makeup and identity of this country. It was done to destroy the right of the British people to live in a society defined by a common history, religion, law, language and traditions.
It was done to destroy for ever what it means to be culturally British and to put another “multicultural” identity in its place. And it was done without telling or asking the British people whether they wanted their country and their culture to be transformed in this way.
Spitefully, one motivation by Labour ministers was “to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”
Even Neather found that particular element of gratuitous Left-wing bullying to be “a manoeuvre too far.”
Yet apart from this, Neather sees nothing wrong in the policy he has described. Indeed, the reason for his astonishing candor is he thinks it’s something to boast about. Mass immigration, he wrote, had provided the “foreign nannies, cleaners and gardeners” without whom London could hardly function.
What elitist arrogance! As if most people employ nannies, cleaners and gardeners. And what ignorance. The argument that Britain is better off with this level of immigration has been conclusively shown to be economically illiterate.
[...]
But the most shattering revelation was that this policy of mass immigration was not introduced to produce nannies or cleaners for the likes of Neather. It was to destroy Britain’s identity and transform it into a multicultural society where British attributes would have no greater status than any other country’s.
A measure of immigration is indeed good for a country. But this policy was not to enhance British culture and society by broadening the mix. It was to destroy its defining character altogether.
It also conveniently guaranteed an increasingly Labour-voting electorate since, as a recent survey by the Electoral Commission has revealed, some 90 percent of black people and three-quarters of Asians vote Labour.
In Neather’s hermetically sealed bubble, the benefits of mass immigration were so overwhelming he couldn’t understand why ministers had been so nervous about it.
They were, he wrote, reluctant to discuss what increased immigration would mean, above all to Labour’s core white working class vote. So they deliberately kept it secret.
They knew that if they told the truth about what they were doing, voters would rise up in protest. So they kept it out of their election manifestos.
It was indeed a conspiracy to deceive the electorate into voting for them. And yet it is these very people who have the gall to puff themselves up in self-righteous astonishment at the rise of the BNP.
No wonder Jack Straw was so shifty on last week’s Question Time when he was asked whether it was the Government’s failure to halt immigration which lay behind increasing support for the BNP.
Now we know it was no such failure of policy. It was deliberate. For the government of which Straw is such a long- standing member had secretly plotted to flood the country with immigrants to change its very character and identity.
This more than any other reason is why Nick Griffin has gained so much support. According to a YouGov poll taken after Question Time, no fewer than 22 per cent of British voters would “seriously consider” voting for the BNP.
That nearly one quarter of British people might vote for a neo-Nazi party with views inimical to democracy, human rights and common decency is truly appalling.
The core reason is that for years they have watched as their country’s landscape has been transformed out of all recognition – and that politicians from all mainstream parties have told them first that it isn’t happening and second, that they are racist bigots to object even if it is.
Now the political picture has been transformed overnight by the unguarded candor of Andrew Neather’s eye-opening superciliousness. For now we know that Labour politicians actually caused this to happen – and did so out of total contempt for their own core voters.
[...]
Condemned out of its own mouth, it is New Labour that is responsible for the rise of the BNP — by an act of unalloyed treachery to the entire nation.
(Cross Posted at Holger Awakens)
Young Afghan boys are taken from their families, made to dance in women’s costumes, and raped by prominent men in a widespread, centuries-old practice that is disapproved of by Muslim scholars but nonetheless tolerated in that war-torn society. By their later teens, many of these boys will end up as male homosexual prostitutes earning scarce money for their families:
Despite the dangers, they continue to dance, making $30 for the night — a night that usually ends in assault — because they say it is the only thing they know and their only way to make money. There are no opportunities in Afghanistan for people like them.
And once branded as men who danced as women, there is no turning back.
“We are not happy with this line of work,” Jamel said. “We say that it would be better if God could just kill us rather than living like this.”
Read the rest.
I have attacked and exposed Charles “Icarus” Johnson as a Neo-Stalinist progressive. I have pointed out his nasty hypocritical attitude and treachery of friends. Tonight I will do something different, I will thank him!
Charles, If you never had LGF, I never would met fabulous intelligent people. Many of these people have help change my opinions and perspective. They have taught me many facts and events I was not aware of. I owe all this to you Mr. Johnson. You had the greatest commentators in the Blogosphere and for that I will eternally be grateful.
Charles “Icarus” Johnson, I am also grateful that you help with the success of Blogmocracy. When we first started here as LGF2, it was a blog that just was dedicated to exposing you. As you began to ban people and they came here, it changed the tone of this Blog. These posters like Goddess of the Classroom, Iron Fist, Coldwarrior, Island Libertarian and others were some of my favorite people to read on LGF. Even others that at LGF I had issues with are now some of my closest Blog friends now! As they came over here, I stepped up my game and began to focus on the Progressive Movement. Your actions have validated the fact that Progressivism is an Evil Ideology based on Control. I became an improved and now respected blogger because of my new audience. many of whom helped change my mind on issues and made me realize the error of my past ways.
Charles, Thank you for helping to build Blogmocracy!
I dedicate this video for you!
We are going to make it!
FYI- This Video by the LOX was filmed in Miami and I saw the shooting. It was filmed Memorial Day Weekend 2001.
It’s Week 7 of the NFL, and there are some interesting match ups this week!
The crappy losers the Tampa Bay Buccaneers head over to London to face the New England Patriots. The NFL is trying to expand Football’s reach beyond America with UK and Mexico as their 2 overseas targets. This game should be a humiliating destruction of the hapless Bucs.
The highlight match up will be the 6-0 Vikings lead by Brett Farve against the 4-2 Steelers. This will be Farve and the Vikings first real test against a really good defense. Also can the Vikings Defense hold up against Big Ben Roethlisberger, that will be the question.
The Sunday Night game will be the Giants against the Arizona Cardinals. After being demolished by the saints last week, Big Blue will be out for revenge against the Cardinals.
Monday Night will be a NFC East showdown as the Cowboys play the Redskins. The Cowboys should win this one. If not, Mr. Jerry Jones will not be too pleased!
here is a good analysis fro Week 7.
Here are the Scores.
Enjoy the games and discuss!
You are currently browsing the archives for the Blogmocracy category.
website design was Built By David
