Presidential Candidates in Debate

[metroman]

There was an

article in this mornings online Times pointing out the similarities in both candidates...least of which is

membership in the Skull & Bones secret society...Ralph Nader also recently made public note of this fact. What are

the odds of 2 candidates running for Presidency to both have affiliation with the same secret society?

The

intellectual Noam Chomsky has pointed out in many of his critiques that we really are living in an essentially one

party state. The material difference between the two candidates is essentially zero.

The recent elections in

Afghanistan were obviously rigged as were the elections in this country in 2000 & if they ever have elections in

Iraq I'm sure the outcome will also be foreordained.

The Brotherhood elite are orchestrating events from

behind the scenes to implement their agenda.

My feeling is dont get out & vote!!!...dont participate in

this charade that is founded on deceit & lies. If enough people opt out & realize they dont have to participate in

this evil game maybe we can start taking our country & our world back.

[belgareth]

While I agree with everything

you've said about the system, I disagree with how to take our country back. The whole point is and has been to

disenfranchise the majority of people. Get us out of the system so we stop even pretending to participate. To refuse

to participate will only give them a free hand. Once we have gone that far, none of the alternatives are good.

[Elk Dreamer]

This Skull and Bone secret

organization is no small matter. I think that the candidates for office should come clean and disclose their

membership requirements past and present.

Bush and Kerry should answer how this secret membership influences

their individual decision making. We already know they have made vows of secrecy because they both have told newsmen

their membership and partisipation in this organization is a secret.

Membership in this Skull and Bones

secret organization indicates allegiances to other than the first office of the land,the Constitution and citizens

of the United States.
In addition it is based on a secret cult that was directly associated with the Third

Reich.

The fact that members of this society, including Bush's Grandfather have illegally dug bones of

American Indians from burial grounds in the night and removed them to their building on the Yale campus indicates

there is something very sinister or ridiculous going on in this organization.

ELK

[Pancho1188]

My feeling

is dont get out & vote!!!...dont participate in this charade that is founded on deceit & lies. If enough people opt

out & realize they dont have to participate in this evil game maybe we can start taking our country & our world

back.

If you don't vote, then the people 'participating in this evil game' will be the only ones

voting...and thus the 'evil game' will continue...I don't see how not voting is going to help...you'd think the

real solution would be to vote someone who isn't Republican or Democrat. If you could get just 34% of the

population to vote for one person whose name isn't Bush or Kerry (assuming that the votes between them are tied

like the 'dead heat' the media makes it look like, they would each have 33% in that hypothetical situation), that

person would win...well, assuming they got the electoral votes...I didn't forget that Al Gore lost when he had the

most votes...but you get what I'm trying to say. If everyone voted for someone else, that person would win.



That's not going to happen, of course, but it would certainly be the conspiracy theory solution to getting rid of

the evil hierarchy.

The beauty of the two-party system is that people are conditioned into thinking if they vote

for anyone else, their votes "don't count," meaning that one of the other two parties is going to win so they

should at least make it count by voting for one of them. It doesn't have to be like that, but alas...that's the

mental hold the two-party system has.

Countries like Israel (worst example ever), South Africa, and Northern

Ireland (I think) have proportional representation, so any party that received at least ~5% (varies) of the vote

gets representation in the government. That would destroy the two-party system, but it also makes it harder for

laws to be passed because no one agrees. That said, the majority party always finds a way to get the smaller

parties on their side. The "coalition", as it's called. The danger, however, is getting radical parties in the

government. Could you imagine the Green party, the Communist party, and a racist faction all getting seats in the

House?

This is all hypothetical and by no means going to happen, but I thought I'd provide other scenarios for

those of you who are sick of the current system.

Not voting isn't going to do anything. Voting may do

'nothing', but not voting would be even worse.

[metroman]

I know it sounds

counter-intuitive not to vote, but understand that by voting you're playing right into their hands. The last thing

the vote is, is an exercise in democracy. The only candidate I see who isn't a puppet on a string is Nader. But

Nader isn't going nowhere because he's not beholden to the brotherhood. Lets say hypothetically that 80% of the

population didn't participate in the vote...okay at that point even the brotherhood controlled mainstream media

would have to concede that so called representative democracy in this country has failed & has ceased to function.

Thats how we can take back our power by not playing their evil game.

The other countries that you mention

that allow some representation even amongst fringe parties are still controlled by the elite, because in order to

have any say those minority parties have to kow tow to the agenda of the illuminati.

If anyone doubts that

there is an illuminati conspiracy take a look at this country. The neocons draft a paper called PNAC (Project for

a New American Century), & state in that paper that in order for them to institute their agenda they'd need a new

Pearl Harbor...& voila! We get 9/11 that serves just that purpose...divine conicidence? I dont think so. The

official story as propounded by government & so called mainstream media is an absolute fairy tale.

[belgareth]

You manage to tell us that the

media will pick up the fact that nobody is voting and publicise it. Then you turn around and say we cannot trust

them.

The reason the government gets away with this stuff is because the people are so apathetic about

government and participation in the process.If the majority became involved the powers that be would have to take

notice. Not voting is giving those powers free rein, that's why the system works so hard to desinfranchise and

otherwise reduce public participation

[Pancho1188]

I know it

sounds counter-intuitive not to vote, but understand that by voting you're playing right into their hands. The last

thing the vote is, is an exercise in democracy. The only candidate I see who isn't a puppet on a string is Nader.

But Nader isn't going nowhere because he's not beholden to the brotherhood. Lets say hypothetically that 80% of

the population didn't participate in the vote...okay at that point even the brotherhood controlled mainstream media

would have to concede that so called representative democracy in this country has failed & has ceased to function.

Thats how we can take back our power by not playing their evil game.

Not voting would be giving up

our power. Face it, it's the only power we have. The 'evil game' isn't that they control everything, it's

that they delude people into believing that there are only two choices. I repeat myself by saying that it isn't

not voting that would change things but voting for someone else. You don't like who's in there, start a

revolution to get everyone in the United States to vote for one man that isn't a Republican or Democrat. That

would shake the nation.

I will cite American history when I say that parties have changed frequently. People

have short-term memories when they think that Democrats and Republicans are the only two parties. There were a

bunch of parties that have come and gone (Federalists, Anti-Federalists, two different factions of Republicans at

one point, Wig (sp?) party, etc.). Sure, it'll always be a two-party system, but keep them guessing! Vote someone

else in! The thing that keeps this from happening is the fear that if some people vote third-party instead of

Kerry, Bush will win...I'd say, "If Republicans voted..." but stereotypical Republicans vote straight Republican.

Still, if they didn't like it, they could all vote for someone else. People just want their vote to 'count', so

they vote one or the other.

I'm not trying to crush someone's wish for change, but the reason that things are

the way they are is because people don't vote. Everyone not voting wouldn't beat them at their game, it

would a. keep them in power and b. show how lazy and indifferent Americans are, thus proving their ability to stay

in power. Previous election turnouts have been around 48%. I don't see the fact that over half the population in

the United States changing anyone's views on our representative democracy. 48% vs. 25%...great, let's give the

25%, mostly the ones who 'control' things since those who weren't voting are either rebellious or don't care,

all of the power. If you think about it, if no one voted...wouldn't that be the same as a totalitarian

government/regime/dictatorship/(pick the word that would best suit it)? I mean, no one except the people in power

would vote...so the people in power would remain in power because they say so.

Okay, I'll play devil's

advocate for a moment and say that you're right. Nobody votes, and we've proven that our democracy doesn't work.

Whose fault would that be?!?!? I believe it's our responsibility to vote, not the

government's. Who failed in their duty? Bush may have made mistakes, but the government as a whole has

kept this nation the strongest world power for decades upon decades...they've held up their end of the bargain for

the most part despite many errors by a select few. Whose fault is it if nobody chooses our leaders next month?

The other countries that you mention that allow some representation even amongst fringe parties

are still controlled by the elite, because in order to have any say those minority parties have to kow tow to the

agenda of the illuminati.

True, but the difference is that those minority groups have power because the

majority has to 'buy' them by giving them what they want in exchange for their votes (e.g. "I'll vote 'yes' on

your bill if you vote 'yes' on mine). It still gives the largest groups the most power, but theoretically they

represent the majority of the nation's population.

[metroman]

Well even the mainstream

controlled media cant ignore something so overwhelmingly obviously huge as 80% of the population not turning out to

vote. They have to maintain the veneer of plausibility. I respect your opinions & I know not voting in protest

doesn't seem like it would solve any problems. But if the puppet on a string, illuminati controlled US Supreme

Court is going to overrule whatever decision the electorate comes to I really dont see any point in voting. Just my

opinion...

[Pancho1188]

Out of curiosity...what do you

conjecture would happen if nobody voted? My argument would be that the people can only blame themselves...how do

you see it? What would happen? What do you mean by "can't ignore"? This is what I would like to know. Again, I

would argue that this wouldn't solve anything. I don't see how it benefits us as the people in power would remain

in power. If it's so rigged, what do they care who voted for them or how they got into power as long as they are

there?


Maybe you see something I don't. If so, please explain. I would really like to hear a hypothetical

result of your scenario. I would like to know what you see happening as a result of nobody voting.

[koolking1]

even if only 10% of the

population voted the winners would feel they had a clear mandate to govern. Anything less they may feel the same

too. I don't find Bush and Kerry all that alike but that doesn't mean I can't disagree with both of them and,

since I do, but also knowing that they are the only viable candidates, I could be bought for a six-pack!!!

[a.k.a.]

I’m glad to

see Kerry brought up the issue of nuclear nonproliferation once again. This is the one issue IMO where Kerry’s

rhetoric matches his record and there’s a clear difference between him and Bush.

"One of the

great achievements of the Cold War was the creation of an antiproliferation international order, embodied in the

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, first agreed to in 1968, and renewed in 1995. It is a triumph of diplomacy and

political hope that, almost 60 years after the Trinity atomic bomb test, there are so few nuclear powers. But the

main reason non-nuclear states agreed to foreswear the development of these weapons was the commitment made by the

nuclear states, embodied in Clause VI of the treaty, to move toward the eventual elimination of nuclear

weapons.

The Bush administration's devotion to a new round of nuclear development breaks that commitment,

and inevitably weakens the antiproliferation order. That is the dread implication in Brazil's unexpected defiance

of the International Atomic Energy Agency. A new age of proliferation is just beginning, and George W. Bush is its

father.

Kerry is on record in this campaign as wanting to move in exactly the opposite direction. Across two

decades in the US Senate, especially as a main supporter of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program,

Kerry has shown that he understands the urgency of turning the worst legacy of the Cold War back on

itself.

In his challenges to President Bush's unilateralism, Kerry has demonstrated his commitment to

working with other nations as the only way to make the world safe from nuclear terrorism -- a commitment Bush mocks

as a "global test." Across the range of issues, from nuclear diplomacy to threat reduction to the trap of

earth-penetrating nuclear weapons, Kerry has shown his mastery of the political and military complexities, just as,

in response, Bush has put on display his cynical ignorance. In other matters, the president's ineptness and

two-facedness are disheartening, but here they represent a mortal

danger."

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi..._clear?mode=PF