11/26/2010

INTERMISSION IS HELL

Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 11:36 am

And you thought the play was hot!

And you thought the play was HOT and of the fires of Hell?

Remember that fellow "Bill" being rolled into just outside the fires near the River Styx?

Been a while, you mean back a while with the talons of an albatross about the Devil’s neck and she telling "Bill" to keep heading towards the fire and to get busy or something?

Yeh, that’s it - with the albatross not just some "stuffed and gilded bling" about her neck but an active albatross about something.

Diabolical, but not quite "simply diabolical.

Are we talking a "play" within a "play"?

Seems so.

Good to hear from you.

You too.

So about treaties and entanglements about treaties?

Yes,  very bad record with treaties with Indians,  how much did Clinton have to do with such?

No idea.  Would be quite awful if Clintons also are "bad" for treaties and betrayals of allies.

Yeh, imagine if such became a family trait and also a problem in a couple hundred years.

Yeh, maybe with relations with Muslim countries and them the Clintons to betrayals of "alliances" and "agreements" near as bad as once with Indians.

Horrible, just to think about such - beyond "Hellish".

So in a hundred and fifty years what would be fighting over?  Coal for trains and boats?

Does old Mesopotamia have rich coal veins?

Don’t know but hear some think it "as hot as Hell there" at times, and not quite "tropical".

What would an alliance mean in a hundred and fifty years?  Would Clintons be of reversing a former President’s marching with an ally in defense of such and towards a spreading of more rights and freedoms and to a foundation in democracy with a small "d"?  Would Clinton’s be weak and passive and more leading to "no action" than listening to the ‘moral’ voices calling to action, and action within treaties?

Are they to be such professional politicians our founders may have feared, and such to more history of ignoring treaties?

Seems possible and reasonable to think such and to as "professional politicians" "pass the buck" when ever possible "reputations".

So maybe a war over coal supplies from old Mesopotamia and with Clintons of turning their backs on a "attacking one in alliance through treaties is an attack upon us" standards thought necessary for more fair and global trade and evolution of civil relations more global and "flat"?

Could be,  seems the play inside the play might be resuming.

So it might.

Would "2008" be so "off" as to have a start with those of the party of Clintons actually to public and "prepared remarks" such counter to Jefferson and his "hostility" against all forms of tyranny over the mind of men and so with a inaugural marching away from a ‘moral’ to "we won’t make human rights a priority"?

That Clinton Governor from New York must have smarted quite a bit not only for not winning the presidency but also for all those FEDERALIST PAPERS written so directed as against much of his thinking and ideology.

Quite something, in a hundred and fifty years it may not be all that different, right?