No, Hillary is locked into the magic $250,000 threshold, which is roughly the top 3 to 4%. If she's really interested in the middle class (2nd through 4th quintiles), then the trigger number needs to be about $112,000.Originally Posted by playwrite
Kinser's right. She's GOP-Lite, just like Bill.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
Well, I've tried to cure your skin crawling with my posts. You might go over them again and see if she isn't really so bad. Get to know her and like her. As she said, everybody should like her.
Also remember that if you stay home, you cede the other races on the ballot too, and they are even more important. Every voter has more influence in those races. Not every candidate the Democrats offer will be unacceptable to you.
Allow for the possibility that my prophecies work, and take account of them, and those of S&H. And also my rational analysis. Remember that this is not an ordinary time. This is a 4T. Like in the 1930s and 40s, only one of the parties represents the people. The other has gone so far off the deep end that it can no longer win a national presidential election. I don't know for sure, but my prediction is that the GOP will never win the White House again. By the time the new moon before the election indicates a challenger party will win, not until 2024, independents and third parties may have more power. Until then, the cosmic indicator shows the Democrats winning 4 in a row. This indicator is very reliable. Winning in 2016 will not mean losing in 2020, even if Hillary doesn't run again.
Our party duopoly is one of the current systems most likely to be changed in our time of change, our fourth turning. The USA and its institutions will not emerge from this turning the same as it was when we entered it. Major changes will occur in the 2020s. The millennials will dominate the vote in Nov.2024. I just can't see them voting for a Republican, and I can't see that party ever changing or adapting to the times.
I predict again, and listen up! There will not be another great recession like 2008 in this decade, or even this century. Remember, I predicted the exact month of the crash, right here; years and decades before it happened. It's on my videos too, that I predicted it for 2008; you can verify it. 2008 was 1929 revisited. We were going off a sheer cliff. Events like that only happen once per saeculum at most.
Even more to the point, how do you fight without risking casualties? Drones allow force projection without putting human soldiers in harm's way. Doing nothing is not viable, since even this is considered too little. So drones it is!
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
No, Kinser is never right. His views should be discounted immediately by all.
Hillary is not just like Bill, and in any case Bill has changed with the times. The results of "New Democrat" (old Republican) policies are now clear to the Clintons and to everybody.
She will not write the tax policy; congress will.
I would not tell people they have to vote for Hillary. Vote your conscience. But I myself, would vote for Hillary if I lived in Virginia. No-one in VA should stay home. Your state may decide the election.
When it comes to the Hillary Clinton I seriously can't tell the difference. Furthermore the equivalency is not false. Both parties serve the same masters.
I would have to disagree with that. One need only listen to Clinton's rhetoric for five minutes to tell she drinks the "rich folks are the job creators" nonsense just like Jeb Bush does. The only difference is that Jeb Bush at least manages to sound almost sincere when he says it.
Whomever the president is can only propose a budget and tax legislation. All of that shit originates in the House, which you would know if you had studied the constitution all of five minutes. If the GOP retains the House Clinton can't do shit in regard to taxes. If the Dems take the House (unlikely due to gerrymandering) Trump won't be able to do shit about taxes. All of their proposals are just rhetoric. Everyone who isn't a GOP or Dem Bot knows that."Trickle down" specifically refers to tax policy. Trump'so tax proposal gives every top 0.1%er at least $1.5M at the expense of an additional $10T in deficits over the next 10 years - what do you think will get cut to pay for that?
Clinton's proposal provides a variety of middle class tax credits paid for BY INCREASING taxes on the top 10%.
Says the guy who thinks that the President writes tax law, or that their proposals will pass without a cooperative House of Representatives. Seriously Playdude you should remove your head from your rectum on this issue. There is no real difference between the Parties. As I've said before the only two candidates that offer a real alternative to the Established Policies are Rand Paul and Sanders.Either stop lying or educate yourself, otherwise you just come across as another of the GOP sheeple.
Advisors and Menu Items.
Yeah what's gonna be new about that? Every man who has been President has also brought his own ideas to the table as well.
By that argumentation JFK was not a successful President and most Boomers I know seem to worship at his alter.A successful president (that is one that can get re-elected)
Actually while that is the norm it doesn't always happen. The New Deal was not on the menu of options provided to FDR. He cobbled that together with his Brain Trust which was more Kitchen Cabinet than actual Cabinet. The Emancipation Proclamation was not on Lincoln's menu either yet he did that. 4T presidencies are substantially different than those in other turnings.will choose problems to work on from a menu of options provided by his constituency.
It gets chosen if the President wants to choose it. He has a great deal of power in setting his own agenda. Getting that agenda done is a different matter.If its not on the menu, it does not get chosen.
Even if a problem is on the menu, and his solution is also on the menu, Congress has to go along with it. Executive power only goes so far in this country. As much as Americans would probably prefer an elected dictatorship every four years, we have a constitutional system with checks and balances--that used to work well but is now showing its age.A problem that is not on the menu cannot be addressed.
Again this is usually the case. Again though in 4Ts things not on the menu can and sometimes are selected and implemented. It should be noted that in 1932 FDR ran to the right of Hoover, yet once in he swung hard left. Furthermore the Democrats at the time were the "conservative" party.Once a problem is selected, a remedy can be selected from a menu provided by the advisors. If an actual solution is not on the policy menu, it cannot be employed, no matter who the president is.
Yes, a cooperative congress is helpful. That said, if a Democrat is elected as President unless there is a subsequent wave of Democrats to the House the GOP will retain control of the lower house and can and will hold the budget hostage not to mention gum up the works in the legislative process. Or more accurately "Where have you been the last 6 years?".One the problem and potential remedies have been selected whether or not it is feasible to do anything depends on what the legislators believe.
Which would be bad time for a Democrat to be in office should it happen after the election and they win. Typically when recessions happen the President's party suffers.I am expecting a recession will begin in the next two years that will be accompanies by a >10000 point drop in the Dow. Such an event has about a 50% probability of being accompanied by a panic, initiating what will look like an economic collapse (like it did in 2008).
No he won't. The Overton Window has moved since 1932. He could also start a major war to end the crisis immediately, but more likely they will blow up an other bubble (but that won't work as I'll illustrate below).A president of either party will see economic collapse as a problem. However the options available will be different. The republican president will have the same options available to him as Hoover had.
We're not in recession now (I'd argue we're still in a Depression but I'm going to go ahead and use the silly definition most economists use). Yet the FED is still doing QEinfinity and has interest rates near 0%. It is probably possible for the FED to mark up accounts indefinately, but interest rates cannot go lower than 0%.Unlike Hoover, he will have a Fed that will be flooding the system with money so there will be no deflation and so the outcome will be a milder version of the Great Depression.
That same thing is in the Democratic Playbook too you know.He will have the option of going to war, which he will certainly do. But the war will be a Republican style war, that is limited and non-stimulatory (like the Iraq war). It's won't really boost the economy anymore than the Iraq war did. So we will still get a more serious recession than post-2008, but less serious than the Depression.
Since the House does the budget, and the House is gerrymandered, unless there is a Democratic wave and they take the House as well as the Senate, no a Democratic President can't.A Democratic president will have options that will work. In principle, she can just do what FDR did in the 1940's. That is, broad stimulus deliberately applied in a way to reduce economic inequality (a problem that exists only on the Democratic menu).
A new New Deal would have to be implemented first--which a GOP House won't do. Furthermore unless this Democratic President properly triangulates it to force the GOP House to say no, it will mean a landslide defeat for the Democrats in 2018 and probably 2020.She can do this, and win re-election seats for her party, eventually sending the GOP packing.
Well unless Hillary Clinton can get elected President (which itself is doubtful), and brings with her long coat tails to the House (even more doubtful) she won't be able to do anything other than what the Democrats allow her to do. Which isn't going to be much.Or she can fail to do this and fail to win re-election, and see her party destroyed from the rest of her days, and go down as the worst president in history.
That being said, as someone who sides with liberals more than conservatives it would seem prudent to me to make sure that the fall guy belongs to the GOP. If it is some wack job like Trump or Cruz that makes it even better.
Not really unless the Presidential candidate can take the house with them. Which Sanders might be able to do--his ideas are at least fresh for most Americans. Clinton would have problems being elected to the Senate in Arkansas which is why they moved to NY and hung out for six months.So there is a difference.
According to my calculations Hillary won't carry FL though she might carry IA and WI. CO will probably stay blue as will NV. NH is too small to really matter so the election will hinge on OH and PA.
James Buchanan only seemed to be nearly perfect because when the 4T of the ACW Saec was heating up he was at the Court of St. James. He seemed perfect only because he wasn't tainted. Hillary on the other hand has been in the Senate, Secretary of State and First Lady in the past 22 years. Furthermore as First Lady she was incredibly active politically (to the point that Bill's two terms are sometimes referred to as a co-presidency). Hillary has a lot of taint of the last turning all over her.
It is my contention that if Hillary is the Democratic Nominee there will not be a Democratic wave into the House (though they may retake the Senate--a lot of the Tea Party GOP crowd from 2010 are vulnerable). As such the House will likely remain in GOP hands if she is nominated, and even if she wins. If she does win, unless she pushes hard her first two years and success is nearly immediate (very unlikely given that her playbook is more of the same stuff that's been done for decades and got us into this mess to start with) the GOP will retake the House in the Unlikely event of a Democratic wave.
I've said it before, the Democrats need either Sanders or a Dark Horse.
He has denied the crimes of Josef Stalin. To be sure, Stalin's death count has been reduced some by recognizing some double-counting -- but that is double-counting of the same killings.
True. The Democratic Party is far more flexible than the Republican Party, the latter having doubled down on extremist ideology.Hillary is not just like Bill, and in any case Bill has changed with the times. The results of "New Democrat" (old Republican) policies are now clear to the Clintons and to everybody.
A reminder: Congress matters greatly. I hope that people are willing to vote on issues of policy instead of identity in Congressional elections hereon.She will not write the tax policy; congress will.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
The taint of Bill Clinton is his over-active ... The real taint is on the GOP, which can't even accept that George Worthless Bush was a disaster.
The faults with Buchanan were
(1) he was way past prime
(2) he had become irrelevant
(3) he tried to push compromises for which there was no constituency
(4) everybody tried to get around him and succeeded.
Bernie Sanders may be the optimum, but he is irrelevant if he loses in 2016.It is my contention that if Hillary is the Democratic Nominee there will not be a Democratic wave into the House (though they may retake the Senate--a lot of the Tea Party GOP crowd from 2010 are vulnerable). As such the House will likely remain in GOP hands if she is nominated, and even if she wins. If she does win, unless she pushes hard her first two years and success is nearly immediate (very unlikely given that her playbook is more of the same stuff that's been done for decades and got us into this mess to start with) the GOP will retake the House in the Unlikely event of a Democratic wave.
I've said it before, the Democrats need either Sanders or a Dark Horse.
Last edited by pbrower2a; 12-29-2015 at 04:46 PM.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
Considering that Eric is right about as frequently as a broken clock that should speak for itself.
Says the guy who is convinced that stars and planets effect the outcomes of human affairs.His views should be discounted immediately by all.
Well you're right there Eric. Bill sometimes was a Democrat in spite of himself. Hillary is still that Goldwater Girl from 1964.Hillary is not just like Bill, and in any case Bill has changed with the times.
Which is precisely why that same playbook from the 1990s is being recycled yet again. We already know the policies she advocates won't work.The results of "New Democrat" (old Republican) policies are now clear to the Clintons and to everybody.
Yep and with Hillary, you are almost garunteed a GOP run House...so any proposal coming from the left is doomed. Not that even if by some miracle it did pass She'd probably veto it.She will not write the tax policy; congress will.
If Hillary is the nominee for the Dems the following states WILL be Red: VA, and NC. That means that NH, OH, PA and FL will be the swing states. NV, CO and WI will probably be blue (unless someone picks Walker for VP--then WI might go red to rid themselves of that pest).I would not tell people they have to vote for Hillary. Vote your conscience. But I myself, would vote for Hillary if I lived in Virginia. No-one in VA should stay home. Your state may decide the election.
NH only has 4 Electors so they are an after thought. But if it is Sanders, NH will go Blue for sure. FL will probably go red if Hillary is running for the Dems and the GOP picks anyone other than Rubio and Jeb Bush (they are hated down here--Jeb is unemployed currently and if Rubio can't win the Prez or V Prez he won't win the Senate either).
After running these scenarios using 270 to Win if the GOP pick up only OH, PA and FL they will have 286 electoral votes.
In order for the Democrats to take the White House for a third time, they have to not run Hillary, and the GOP has to run Rubio or Jeb Bush as either Pres or VP. And Rubio would balance a ticket with Trump on it.
Buchannan had real chops, but they were all the wrong chops for the times. He was a compromiser when compromise was out of the question. He was just the worst possible fit for his time. Hillary is probably not that bad, but who knows.
I like Sanders, but he's not any more likely to get the House moved to the left than Hillary. I think we have a period of serious suck awaiting us, and I can't find a way to avoid it. If this is going to be a GOP dictated disaster, it may be better to have them in full charge so the blame falls where it should.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
PBR, the only people who care about where Slick Willy puts his willy are people who ain't getting any.
They can't, or at least the Establishment Republicans can't. Jeb Bush certainly can't. Trump, Paul and Cruz probably can if there is enough pressure from the right in the latter two and center for Trump.... The real taint is on the GOP, which can't even accept that George Worthless Bush was a disaster.
Just Like HillaryThe faults with Buchanan were
(1) he was way past prime
I would have hoped that 2008 would have proved that about her already.(2) he had become irrelevant
Well Boomers on either side aren't going to compromise so even if Clinton wanted compromises none would be available. Her problem is worse, she has no real constituency.(3) he tried to push compromises for which there was no constituency
Everyone whose tried to get around Hillary has succeeded. And everyone who has wanted to paint her with a mud brush has succeeded too. Furthermore they have 23 years experience of using her as their whipping girl.(4) everybody tried to get around him and succeeded.
Have you ever stopped to consider that if Mike is right, like I believe he is, and that there will be a major recession in late 2016 or early 2017 that you might not want a Democrat in the White House?Bernie Sanders may be the optimum, but he is irrelevant if he loses in 2016.
I think that's the point, eh?
Nobody ever got to a single truth without talking nonsense fourteen times first.
- Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment
What I'm hoping, now that Trump has basically declared war on Hillary and is treating Bill Clinton's scandals (during and after the Clinton Administration) as fair game is that Trump will savage Hillary Clinton's reputation enough to where Sanders starts to win primaries. Sanders can beat Trump. Biden could beat Trump. Hillary likely cannot beat Trump.
Bringing Bill Clinton's treatment of women (which Hillary enabled and supported) up now in the primary season will serve two purposes: It will educate Millennials who were not alive or too young to follow the Clinton Administration Scandals just what Bill Clinton did (and they may see what the Clintons did as far more serious than their elders have given the education and values they have imbibed about sexism) and it will remind older voters that if the Clintons DO win the election, they will re-enter the White House weakened by scandal which will be a never ending drumbeat throughout a Hillary Clinton Administration. (And it's not just sex scandals but influence buying through the Clinton Foundation that will be an issue too). What Bernie Sanders can do with all of this is to make the case that the Clinton Scandals fatally weakened Bill Clinton to the point that he had to go along with everything the Republicans wanted to avoid impeachment and conviction. Things like punitive immigration policies and punitive welfare reform. And deregulation of banking. And that a Clinton third term (yes, that's what it is, since Hillary and Bill both agreed that the first Clinton Administration was a co-presidency) would mean more of the same.
In this, Trump by moving now may be overcooking the Republican's goose. The party pros, I think wanted to wait on savaging Hillary until she had the nomination wrapped up. By weakening Hillary now to prove that Trump, a rank outsider can beat Hillary, Trump may be opening the door to a Sanders nomination that he will be hard put to defeat in the general election.
Especially since, when that blame falls, the 2020 Election down-ticket will determine who gets to redraw House Seat boundaries for the 2020s. Maybe a Trump Administration is just what the country needs to break things up to where a sharp turn to the Left becomes possible. Someone like Gavin Newsom or Tammy Duckworth or Elizabeth Warren (who would be our last Boomer President).
Let's be honest here. Senator Grumpy is not the Taste of the Week for non-Berniephiles. He's too crotchety to win in the general. His work was getting the platform moved dramatically to the left ... which he is doing even as we post-away. It's too bad that Martin O'Malley seems destined to be totally ignored. He might have been a viable vessel to deliver the message ... or not. It seems the Dems lack spine, and spine is needed now.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
I'm beginning to think it's Trump/Cruz/Rubio this time or worse next time. Not much positive energy there, but a strategy none the less.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
Actually I totally agree. The only person that the Democrats have running that I can stomach to vote for is Sanders, who I will vote for in the primary as I'm Registered as a Democrat (FL is a closed primary state). That being said, should Hillary be nominated I will be forced to vote for whomever the Republicans pick. I honsetly can't stand the woman, and I don't trust her. At least with Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Bush or any other Republican I know what I'm getting for sure.
Add to that, my strong doubts that unless someone with really really long coat tails can drag the House over to Democrat control, it may be best to let the GOP have control of the mess and take the blame for it when it goes down.
I don't see how it could get worse than those guys.
What will the suck consist of? Since it's not going to be another Depression or Great Recession, and since the IS will have been defeated, I wonder what it will be. It may be just growing impatience.
Sanders says he can move the House to the Left with his "revolution." It might just work. He is getting more people involved, and emphasizing voting at all levels. He understands more than Hillary or Obama the need for midterm and down-ballot voting, and that people need to be educated about the importance of this. That Sanders gets and says this, might make a difference.
The strategy of "nach Hitler, uns" doesn't work. If we allow things to suck worse, things will just get worse. Blame will not matter. Banana Republic policies will be instituted and approved by the Court. We'll just get more Reagan under Rubio, Cruz or Trump. Propaganda will continue to brainwash the people that their way works, even though it doesn't. No, it's always better to have the good guy in office, than to allow the bad guy in and hope the people blame him for their troubles. We are much worse off having allowed George W Bush in. He got blamed, finally, but all we got is a mess we are still dealing with. And two more reactionary judges.
And having someone to blame did not guarantee that we would get FDR. We didn't. Nor can we hope for one. All we can get in America today is a somewhat half-way decent president. To expect any more from a people who elected George W. Bush twice, or allowed it to happen, is folly.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 12-29-2015 at 06:34 PM.
Maybe correct, or maybe not; my crystal ball agrees with you. But Bill's scandals do not taint Hillary. The people are tired of made-up scandals.
Hillary did not enable and support Bill's treatment of women. She took him to the dog house and read him the riot act. There is nothing to the Foundation scandal. Bill Clinton was not weakened by scandal and therefore had to approve welfare reform, since that happened before the sex scandal. Maybe deregulation, meaning the Glass-Steagal repeal. The Clinton's have now learned that deregulation doesn't work, and they want more of it now; not less. People will look at the Clinton administration now and say, we want more of the same, yes!Bringing Bill Clinton's treatment of women (which Hillary enabled and supported) up now in the primary season will serve two purposes: It will educate Millennials who were not alive or too young to follow the Clinton Administration Scandals just what Bill Clinton did (and they may see what the Clintons did as far more serious than their elders have given the education and values they have imbibed about sexism) and it will remind older voters that if the Clintons DO win the election, they will re-enter the White House weakened by scandal which will be a never ending drumbeat throughout a Hillary Clinton Administration. (And it's not just sex scandals but influence buying through the Clinton Foundation that will be an issue too). What Bernie Sanders can do with all of this is to make the case that the Clinton Scandals fatally weakened Bill Clinton to the point that he had to go along with everything the Republicans wanted to avoid impeachment and conviction. Things like punitive immigration policies and punitive welfare reform. And deregulation of banking. And that a Clinton third term (yes, that's what it is, since Hillary and Bill both agreed that the first Clinton Administration was a co-presidency) would mean more of the same.
Possibly; I wouldn't rule it out.In this, Trump by moving now may be overcooking the Republican's goose. The party pros, I think wanted to wait on savaging Hillary until she had the nomination wrapped up. By weakening Hillary now to prove that Trump, a rank outsider can beat Hillary, Trump may be opening the door to a Sanders nomination that he will be hard put to defeat in the general election.
O'Malley was never a viable messenger. His rhetoric is hazy and unclear. His energy is weak. Meanwhile, Senator Grumpy is trying to dispell that image of him. Trump is even more crotchety, and Cruz is bleepin' Joseph McCarthy. Rubio might be an interesting contrast, however, to the old man. Would the people vote for the old man with new policies, or the new man with old policies?
To be sure, a lot of Bernie's solutions are pretty old too. But they are newer than the Republican solutions, which are about 200 years old. It's a case of relative newness in a backward society-- the USA.
It was good only for some crass jokes.
I know of nobody in the GOP leadership who recognizes Dubya for the failed President that he was. The demagogic right-wingers cannot win if the Establishment Republicans lose enthusiasm for the Republican nominee who is not theirs, let alone go Third Party. I have no idea of what that would do to Senate and Hose races.They can't... (even accept that George Worthless Bush was a disaster), or at least the Establishment Republicans can't. Jeb Bush certainly can't. Trump, Paul and Cruz probably can if there is enough pressure from the right in the latter two and center for Trump.
Seventy is the New Fifty these days; life expectancy is much longer today than it was in the middle of the nineteenth century. Also -- James Buchanan was an Artist/Adaptive, the sort of leader who needs a large number of colleagues of like age lest others simply get their agenda while acceding only the formality of symbolic power. Elderly Artist/Adaptive types as leaders succumb to the King Lear scenario in old age. They keep the kingship while the Crown princes, ministers, and parliamentarians gut the real power.Just Like Hillary(nearly 70 when elected)
Hillary Clinton will be about the same age as Sir Winston Churchill was when he saved Western Christian Civilization from its own worst tendencies. I'm not saying that she will be that strong a leader -- let alone that America will need a leader that strong!
Got a key cabinet post and handled it well by almost all accounts.I would have hoped that 2008 would have proved that (she was irrelevant) already.
What America gets between now and about 2025 will be to no small part what Boom suggestions X and Millennial adults will find useful and desirable without being polarizing and destructive.Well Boomers on either side aren't going to compromise so even if Clinton wanted compromises none would be available. Her problem is worse, she has no real constituency.
Much the same was said of Churchill -- not that it is appropriate to compare her to Churchill.Everyone whose tried to get around Hillary has succeeded. And everyone who has wanted to paint her with a mud brush has succeeded too. Furthermore they have 23 years experience of using her as their whipping girl.
By the way -- women have generally gotten better results as top political leaders. The most blatant exceptions have been tyrants' molls (Poppaea, Magda Goebbels, Chiang Ching, Madame Nhu, Evita Peron, Elena Ceausescu, Imelda Marcos) which we certainly won't get with Hillary Clinton. Testosterone can make people more reckless.
Have just about any of the Republican nominees as President and the major recession might become a full-blown meltdown with the magnitude of the start of the Great Depression.Have you ever stopped to consider that if Mike is right, like I believe he is, and that there will be a major recession in late 2016 or early 2017 that you might not want a Democrat in the White House?
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
AH - I get it now - your one of those video peddlers like Alex Jones. Have you tried to get on _Coast to Coast AM_? You'd fit right in between the guy who has the alien autopsy photos and the guy who did a video on the Chucacabra (sp?)
