feather wrote:
I'll say this much...
People who work in gov in certain job positions are NOT normal. They don't think like you and I do, which is why they get the job.
America has a larger population and a severely fucked up culture, so you can expect some weird shit to crop up often.
It doesn't necessarily always infer some kind of mind control going on, they were born into a radically fucked up environment to begin with and bear in mind that the human mind strives to be a part of the group. Group belonging is part and parcel of the human condition, we were wired this way a long time ago, you can see it in any group, be it chavs (deliberate chuckle), politicians, religion, gangsters, corporate whores, the list just goes on and on, they're just not wired up the same way, quite literally in the sense that the pathways between neurons just aint there.

EDIT: Just to add, some of the most 'balanced' people I have known were travellers and familiar with many countries and cultures, they got a liberal practical education if you will. IMHO this is important. Its something that has been the reserve of only the rich for a very long time, it is only recently that lower classes such as myself have travelled abroad often- worth thinking about.

Can I just say for clarity.

I don't accept that we have a right to kick up fuck about the media manipulating the news and being laissez-faire with facts if we then proceed to fabricate our own fact-free or fact-lite versions.

Call me picky.

Space Bandit wrote:
She could have been offered a job in media for example, perhaps much more pay.
Or she could have just flipped at all the bickering going on over the debt ceiling.
Ofc we dunno what she actually said in the house, only the elevator. It might have been something completely different than she said in the elevator. She could have been lined up for a fall.

angelchemuel wrote:
Ok Jane, sorry about that. Strange how the sound is "so clear" without microphone off the podium.

Whatever the motivation...it has got us all discussing the 'crazy conspiracy nut'. No?

I sincerely think that whoever dubbed the original broadcast never expected anyone to notice though. Why not just include the footage when she actually said what she said in the story?

andyh wrote:
Aye. Let's see what she gets up to next.
If it was supposed to deliver some sort of message, it failed pretty miserably as it was just a fairly incoherent rant.
Was she ranting about how the 'founding fathers' warned against FR banking which goes against the constitution?

I reckon the bloke with the white hair just told her he'd been to the canteen and had the last Dairylea.

Shit like that pisses me off, too.

Space Bandit wrote:
Sounded like typically confused murikah babble to me.
Just mention of freemasons and how you cannot serve two masters but no explanation of how she came to that conclusion.
Freemasons accept anyone with any abrahamic (?) religious belief AFAIK, not necessarily christian so she could be referring to belief in seperate or multiple God's although from what I'm aware freemasons believed that all abrahamic faith is basically the same God.

It would be interesting to see if freemasons would perhaps object to buddhists perhaps?

That was a very impressive video whatever occurred. It reminded me of this:



I think I've solved the mystery, though.

The Senator - let's just assume for the sake of argument that it's a Senator - is having an affair with the stenographer. He approaches her, she's friendly, and he breaks it to her that he's decided to stay with his wife, and he's not going to see her any more, which he nods to confirm. So she goes to the mic calmly and says:

"I'd just like everyone to know that Senator X is shit in bed and he's got a small cock, and he can't get it up half the time.

Oh, and by the way, the constitution was written by freemasons, anyway, so you're all a bunch of deluded cunts."

wake_up_bomb wrote: Ladies and gentlemen it is my great honour to present this years Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Journalism to .................................

wake_up_bomb wrote:
A bit like a US version of House of Cards then

OK, here's the radio interview by her husband...


OK, having listened to the husbands radio interview twice now...yes, I know I'm sad....I don't buy him at all.
You know when you speak to someone on the phone and it amplifies the emotion that person is feling while all the while they are saying "I'm fine, honest", but you can tell by the tone of their voice that they just aren't 'fine'....that's what I hear in his tone.

I noticed a distinct difference in the tone of his voice when he speaks about 'Diane's' past (croaky and nervous) and when he talks about this incident (calm and confident).

Meh.....I need to take a break


Jane

They just have to believe (or claim to) in a God, with no requirement to divulge which particular God that is.

Gilly wrote:
This would infer only abrahamic faith then? How would buddhists fit in there?

I dunno - I'll ask. I don't even know why they need to have a faith at all. Neither do they. (The ones I've met). My husband doesn't actually believe in any god.

andyh wrote:
We all know Buddhists only want to achieve the state of Nirvana, they are not monotheistic.
The stenographer seems obviously to believe in one God.

Gilly wrote: Is the reference not "The Great Architect"? Fairly non-specific.

So I suppose you could just be appreciative of the work of Isambard Kingdom Brunel (best overblown name evah!), or Frank Lloyd Wright and still get away with not lying.

Jane @ post#52

As a confirmed atheist that interview was a really tough listen.
I can't help but consistently come back to the conclusion that God skived/rested on the day the Communication Skills course was running.

i don't get why this is receiving attention personally. Where is the import?

knobmeup wrote: It happened in the den of the beast.
It criticised the beast, (albeit a few hundred years late mind you)
Fox saw fit to fake the audio track.
God did it.

Barack Obama is made of antifreeze or summit.