Barlow essay on Burning Man and Schwartzenegger

Patience · Post by **Patience** » Thu Jan 22, 2004 9:55 am

DF: What the fuck are you talking about? How does a constitutional amendment on gay marriage allow Arnold Schwarzenegger to become president?

Please check out the following at your leisure:

http://www.getofftherock.com
http://www.crackkills.com
http://www.imacrackhead.com

These may also help:

http://www.retardedlogic.com
http://www.droppedonyourheadatbirth.com
http://www.ohmygodyouaresuchadipshit.com

DE FACTO · Post by **DE FACTO** » Thu Jan 22, 2004 10:09 am

Patience wrote:DF: What the fuck are you talking about? How does a constitutional amendment on gay marraige allow Arnold Schwarzenegger to become president?

Please check out the following at your leisure:

http://www.getofftherock.com
http://www.crackkills.com
http://www.imacrackhead.com

These may also help:

http://www.retardedlogic.com
http://www.droppedonyourheadatbirth.com
http://www.ohmygodyouaresuchadipshit.com

oh hey Patience. great to see you too. speaking of Patience I do belive you need to have just a little bit more Patience in order to make use of your advise later.

so hey did you go back and reference what I wrote in november?
no need to answer your question right now. I have all the Patience in the world.

Oh.....this is too much fun.

Ta ta!

Patience · Post by **Patience** » Thu Jan 22, 2004 4:53 pm

DE FACTO wrote: so hey did you go back and reference what I wrote in november?

Yep. It made me very sad for you and your family.

DE FACTO · Post by **DE FACTO** » Thu Jan 22, 2004 5:46 pm

Patience wrote:
DE FACTO wrote: so hey did you go back and reference what I wrote in november?
Yep. It made me very sad for you and your family.

Dood....are you sure you are not black?

that was an awsome come back.

I am now feeling really kinda low.......

ha.

that was a good won.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Feb 23, 2004 9:13 pm

So Patience and Don Muerto,

What was this about no amendments for Arnie and Gay marrige?

looks like again I wont have to wait 8 years to prove my point.

not gloating, just looking for a serious intelligent debate from those that are not and choose not to stay naive and want to see if some kind of positive conclusion come of it.

That's all.

This world has some large pills to swallow.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 3:22 am

Well,

looks like 2 days past before anyone takes a shot at this thread or to my response. as usual no one is up to owning up to their missteps.

thing that gets me though, I know there are going to be a bunch of proposed amendments pushed through or at least attempted. I just cant figure out what is such the big deal about Arnold.

Anyone have any theories about this?

Patience · Post by **Patience** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 9:32 am

DVD Burner wrote:So Patience and Don Muerto,

What was this about no amendments for Arnie and Gay marrige?

Answer this question and I'll be happy to grant you the gold star for victory, D. Exactly where in Bush's proposed amendment banning gay marriage does it provide for foreign-born citizens to become president of the U.S.?

Right. Exactly. Nowhere. But that is the argument you made in the link you posted: http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... &start=255

That discussion had nothing to do with gay marriage. This thread has nothing to do with gay marriage. The two issues have nothing to do with one another. The only context in which it was brought into the discussion was your "analysis" of the "buzz-word" effect that Massachusetts' legislation might have. So your "argument," in summary, was:

1) People in Massachusetts are drawing up a bill to rewrite their constitution, due to the contraversy of the gay marriage issue.
2) This creates a buzz-word effect, which will somehow make people just generally want to re-write their constitutions.
3) The U.S. constitution can then be rewritten so that Arnold Schwartzenegger can be President.

Has #3 happened? No. So current events do not prove your ridiculous theory, and frankly, even if #3 did occur, it would not necessarily follow that #1 and #2 would be the cause. The only thing that has been proven is that even YOU don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

This world has some large pills to swallow.

Please swallow 5X the recommended dosage, at your leisure.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 10:24 am

to de facto's credit, Arnie was recently quoted as saying he thought people like himself ought to be able to run for pres. Of course, he demured when asked if he meant himself specifically. I don't recall DFs earlier train to be linking same sex marriage amendments with foriegn born president amendments, just that the two were gonna happen.

As far as the likelihood of these amendments passing, well, that is another story entirely and I do recall, althought the writing was a bit hard to follow, imagine that, that passage was predicted.

so, DF, sage, got an election '04 prediction?

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:18 am

as usual Stuart got it right again.

I said if anything the amendment to ban gay marrige was to be A DISTRACTION. and that it would "pave the way" for amendment/s to be in the works for Arnold to become President.

True #3 has not happened yet but niether did the other 2 before recent.

No gold star needed. Just want a solid debate.

Patience · Post by **Patience** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:58 am

stuart wrote:I don't recall DFs earlier train to be linking same sex marriage amendments with foriegn born president amendments, just that the two were gonna happen.

Stuart, click that link again, and read the whole page. When asked to explain what he meant by "an in placed stratigie to take place of presidential proportions" he explained that attempts to rewrite Massachusetts' constitution would lead to a buzz-word effect that would allow Them (whoever they are) to rewrite the U.S. Constitution so Arnold could be Prez.

So now both Arnold, gay marriage and constitutional amendments are in the news at the same time, and he's screaming I told you so. The thing is, the amendment he was foretelling the whole time has not come to pass. He was not predicting a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He was predicting a constitutional amendment allowing foreign-born citizens (or at least Arnold Schwarzenegger) to become President.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 12:14 pm

Patience,

You're complicating things. If you've read any of my postings on this topic on any of the threads, ( and yes I've made mention of the same thing in other threads such as Kelly's ) I've been very consistent on my position.

you really seem to be missing my point and seem to be the only one so far.

Patience · Post by **Patience** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:39 pm

DVD Burner wrote:Patience,

You're complicating things.

Oh. My bad. Let me simplify, then.

You are a buffoon. I've had bowel movements with more intelligence than you.

I've been very consistent on my position.

If you mean being consistenly unspecific and unintelligible, I agree.

you really seem to be missing my point and seem to be the only one so far.

Woe is me.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 3:50 pm

well, I read it again. I gotta say, the verbage is too damn confusing. Patience, if you are able to draw that linear of a train out of that stuff then I commend you. I aint sayin it aint so, I am just sayin I am confused. I see frenzied backpedaling at best.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 4:18 pm

no need for me to backpedal. If no one wants to understand what I've been posting then that's ok. That's their prerogative. I still say the upcoming push for amendments are a plot.
The ban on gay marriage most likely will not go through but the amendment to allow foreigners to become president will.this is what is intended.

The powers that be have functioned this way for centuries and as usual the peasants fall for the plot each time. It's the way the old boys think of everyone in general.

as I said before, it's all a distraction. need proof?
read what professors of Georgetown u. have researched for many many years.

Ya cant argue with Carroll Quigley

http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/quigley.html

Yes I know it's a lot to read and there's tons more but I'm not intersted in having anyone feel that I'm trying to give any history lessons.

I'm not. Just looking for debates.

Tancorix · Post by **Tancorix** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 4:40 pm

Remember, it takes 38 States to ratify an Amendment to the Constitution.
Remember the ERA and how while the intent was good, it got bogged down and eventually failed.

This will be one hell of a battle.

Patience · Post by **Patience** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 5:14 pm

So, DF, my interpretation of your argument was correct, yes?

The proposed ban on gay marriage is part of the evil plot by the "Skull and Bones" crowd to eventually land Arnold Schwarzenegger in the oval office. That's your thesis, right? Just to be completely clear.

And the only reason you can't argue with Carroll Quigley is that he's dead. Mostly he was considered a loon. His 1300+ page volume cited on your link there has N0 documentation, no evidence. It is absurd to write a tome that enormous, making claims that, ferinstance, the Council on Foreign Relations controls both the Democratic and Republican parties, is worse than academically irresponsible. It's deceptive.

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:39 pm

But, it's de facto

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 12:38 pm

So Patience, let me see if I understand you correctly.

Are you saying that the information listed in the Carroll Quigley link i posted is not accurate? That none of these organizations have anything to do with this current government. And that Skull and Bones does not exist.

Are you trying to say that you can prove that what is documented in the research is false?

If so, I can understand how you cannot make the connection between Arnold, gay weddings and amendments.

Hey, does anyone know how many amendments are before both houses of congress. I heard somewhere that it's 7.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 3:01 pm

DF

this is a straw man

the existence of Skull and Bones does not prove Mr. Q's assertions. Mr. Q's assertions, if accurate, do not prove your theory of a gay marriage amendment being linked to an arnie bid for POTUS. Even if both these things come to pass, you are making a logical fallacy by assuming causality. Doesn't mean it's not true, just that there has not been a decent argument made for it.[/quote]

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 3:05 pm

Well stuart, that's the best argument on this part of the topic yet.

I guess I'll just let it all be untill a later date.

Rob the Wop · Post by **Rob the Wop** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 3:08 pm

stuart wrote:DF

this is a straw man

the existence of Skull and Bones does not prove Mr. Q's assertions. Mr. Q's assertions, if accurate, do not prove your theory of a gay marriage amendment being linked to an arnie bid for POTUS. Even if both these things come to pass, you are making a logical fallacy by assuming causality. Doesn't mean it's not true, just that there has not been a decent argument made for it.

[/quote]

Now now stuart, let's not bring logic into this. Where would all the conspiracy theory types be if we threw logic into the mix?

diane o'thirst · Post by **diane o'thirst** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 4:35 pm

Conspiracy Theory has its own logic...then again, so does war and I don't pretend to understand either...but let's centre and focus:

It's Conspiracy THEORY, folks, not Conspiracy Fact. Theory! As in, may be true, possibly isn't. And as for the "commonly accepted" argument...well, Creationism is commonly accepted, too.

Rob the Wop · Post by **Rob the Wop** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 4:57 pm

diane o'thirst wrote:Conspiracy Theory has its own logic...then again, so does war and I don't pretend to understand either...but let's centre and focus:

It's Conspiracy THEORY, folks, not Conspiracy Fact. Theory! As in, may be true, possibly isn't. And as for the "commonly accepted" argument...well, Creationism is commonly accepted, too.

Yes, but an argument should still be sound if one is presented. Ex:
Elvis is an alien.
All aliens are controlled by the CIA.
Therefore Elvis is controlled by the CIA.

Whereas you lose credibility if your logic is off, regardless of the validity of your premises. Ex:
Elvis is an alien.
The CIA is controlled by the Illuminati.
Therefore Elvis is controlled by the Illuminati.

Stuart was pointing out the flaws in the argument, not attempting to debate the validity of the premises.
[/i]

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:38 am

hey,
without tom around, somebody has to step in.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Thu Jul 22, 2004 3:43 pm

Fall out from the Barlow essay--with rather flat journalism.
The most interesting thing about this article (I found) was the headline on the paper "Burning Mand and the Republican convention coincide. Where's a good progressive to go?" As if "Progressive" were the operative word. How about lovers of agitprop and street theatre.

Did anyone actually attend the debate? Was this an acurate portrayal?

http://www.sfweekly.com/issues/2004-07-21/dogbites.html

chickenfish · Post by **chickenfish** » Thu Jul 22, 2004 5:03 pm

The lizard men that live inside the earth are controlling arnold schwarznegger with evil mind rays. There ultimate plan is to turn the earth into an alien fast food joint serving fear burgers to the greys.
its true! I swear on my chickenfish.

cowboyangel · Post by **cowboyangel** » Thu Jul 22, 2004 7:25 pm

Arnold's a girly man when it comes to taxing the state's wealthiest individuals and corporations

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 4:32 am

DVD Burner wrote:Well stuart, that's the best argument on this part of the topic yet.

I guess I'll just let it all be untill a later date.

what is the phrase that comes to mind in this situation....

oh yeah, i remember...

COP OUT!

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 6:36 am

For anyone that's interested in reading:

· Gilmore Commission (Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Reponse Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Methods of Mass Destruction - Final Report 2003)
· Hart-Rudman (Commission on National Security in the 21st Century - Final Report 2001)

· Bremer Commission (National Commission on Terrorism - 2000)

· Gore Commission (Pan Am 103 - 1997)

· Church Committee (1976)

· Rockefeller Committee (1975)

· Warren Commission (1964)

· Roberts Commission (Attack Upon Pearl Harbor by Japanese Armed Forces - 1942)

cites!

http://www.c-span.org/journal/commission.asp

betrdanevr · Post by **betrdanevr** » Tue Aug 26, 2008 12:25 am

. . .

Barlow essay on Burning Man and Schwartzenegger

This thread rears its head again.

COSPIRACY THEORY