Page all of 5 12345>
Topic Options
#39139 - 06/07/10 04:01 AM Obama's Mis-Step
cadfael Offline
Banned
stranger


Registered: 04/28/10
Posts: 15
Loc: Tn.
Oh the world Loves this guy, so I see thru newscast and independent reporting. Hell Jack van Impe has almost called him the anti- christ. I just donot know how to digest him yet, 2 years into his presidency, and it is almost like fantasy. If you go to american talk shows, they are giving him the sly. He is an out right failure, but know one picks up on this. He has failed in everything. How do you test a man's character...during crises...the gulf will be the biggest ecological disaster in history.
Top
#39144 - 06/07/10 05:04 AM Re: Obama's miss step [Re: cadfael]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Oh My Fucking Evil God is English your native language????

You need to seriously use spell check and re-read your post before you approve them. Your writing is beyond ridiculous.

The world does not love him that much anymore. He has become demanding, and doesn't give in. His speech when he received the noble peace prize showed this.

Israel is not happy (BFD) because he didn't take their side after they killed some people during the blockage event earlier in the week. They even killed an American citizen, shot him a few times too. In the face, back of the head, and some body shots.

There were so many people still asking to see his birth certificate that Hawaii had to pass a law to stop it because it was out of control. Plus all the bullshit from the tea party idiots.

He got the healthcare bills passed and made into law.
He pushed for wall street reform and that passed.
He pushed for a woman to be on the supreme court and that happened.

He is pushing for BP to pay for all the devastation that is happening in the gulf. He is also pushing for an investigation into the whole mess. He has been down south more than twice since it happened. I believe that is already more times in a shorter period than it took Bush to visit Louisiana after Katrina.

So what exactly do you think he failed in?

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#39164 - 06/07/10 05:19 PM Re: Obama's miss step [Re: Morgan]
Lucifer Rising Offline
member


Registered: 04/10/10
Posts: 147
Loc: Indianapolis, IN
Even though this thread was started by a person apparently with only half a brain, I must say there are things I can say he has failed in. He and his party have failed to be aggressive in these reforms. He gives in too much to the Republicans and sometimes special interest groups. The administration has let a bunch of watered down bills pass through that may be potentially worse than what was originally intended. As president, it is his responsibility to get people behind him and to push through the reform he feels is best, and I don't think he's succeeded in that, at least not fully.

I think he is doing far better than our last president, and is doing better than I believe the opposition would have done. I just think he could do better.
_________________________
Even if you're the ultimate evil lord of the underworld, you should always be yourself. Mickey Mouse

Top
#39184 - 06/08/10 09:55 AM Re: Obama's miss step [Re: Lucifer Rising]
TV is God Moderator Offline
Moderator
member


Registered: 08/11/08
Posts: 273
Loc: The Cornhole
As far as I've heard (which I intentionally avoid politics as much as possible.) he's not pushed for any kind of censorship. If this is incorrect please let me know.

I think politics is a complete joke and not worth the effort fighting for your side in the debates they feel worth debating.
But censorship is something very real and very important and as far as my opinion goes the only issue of any importance in American politics. (Yeah I know, isreal, oil, jobs, healthcare, global warming, blah blah blah)

Hillary was for censorship of everything. I'm not sure about McCain but that Christian nation shit gets me real worried about censorship. So as far as I'm concerned Obama's doing great.

Top
#39189 - 06/08/10 02:05 PM Re: Obama's miss step [Re: Lucifer Rising]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Lucifer Rising

I think he is doing far better than our last president, and is doing better than I believe the opposition would have done. I just think he could do better.


OK, I'll bite, doing far better at what?
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#39195 - 06/08/10 04:35 PM Re: Obama's miss step [Re: Fnord]
Lucifer Rising Offline
member


Registered: 04/10/10
Posts: 147
Loc: Indianapolis, IN

 Originally Posted By: Fnord
OK, I'll bite, doing far better at what?

To compete with Bush you don't have to do much, unless you're one to consider fucking things up as a success.

Obama has done well to keep a good public image. You'll never hear Obama say something like the following.

 Quote:
"Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter."
George W. Bush, in parting words to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy at his final G-8 Summit, punching the air and grinning widely as the two leaders looked on in shock.
Rusutsu, Japan, July 10, 2008

Just by not saying shit like this, Obama is doing better than our last president in both public and foreign relations. He's gone to the gulf I believe 3 times already since the oil spill. The same could not have been said about Bush when Katrina hit. I'm unsure if he had even gone once within the same time period, though I do think he made it down once. The reforms Obama's been able to push through were so watered down that none resemble any sort of change that the people expected or wanted. Yet he's kept the masses mostly appeased, with the exceptions of those that think he is the Antichrist. The only people that seem to have liked Bush, well they're the ones that are saying Obama is the Antichrist now.

I'd give Obama about a "C+", maybe even a "B-" almost entirely due to the consequences of his mostly positive public image. He'd do better if he were able to get something passed that looked anything like what he proposed originally. I suppose he's doing something, but I'm unsure if the watered down legislation will do more harm than good so it is rather hard to judge these fully yet. I'm not a huge fan so far though.

I would give Bush a "D-". The only thing keeping him from an "F" is that despite my disagreement with the legislation he was passing, he was actually able to get them passed almost as is, with very little change in comparison to what Obama has tried to pass.

I suppose to answer your question more concisely, the only thing I can really point to and say Obama has done better than Bush, at the time being, is public image. Considering I can't think of a good thing to say about Bush, except that he got done what he wanted done, Obama doesn't have to do much else for me to say he's doing better than Bush.
_________________________
Even if you're the ultimate evil lord of the underworld, you should always be yourself. Mickey Mouse

Top
#39199 - 06/08/10 05:13 PM Re: Obama's miss step [Re: Lucifer Rising]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Lucifer Rising

To compete with Bush you don't have to do much, unless you're one to consider fucking things up as a success.

Specifically?

 Originally Posted By: Lucifer Rising
I would give Bush a "D-". The only thing keeping him from an "F" is that despite my disagreement with the legislation he was passing, he was actually able to get them passed almost as is, with very little change in comparison to what Obama has tried to pass.


I'm not trying to pick on you really but on the one hand you say Bush was the world's best at fucking things up and on the other you say you applaud him for doing it wholesale versus being prevented from making it worse?

 Originally Posted By: Lucifer Rising
I suppose to answer your question more concisely, the only thing I can really point to and say Obama has done better than Bush, at the time being, is public image. Considering I can't think of a good thing to say about Bush, except that he got done what he wanted done, Obama doesn't have to do much else for me to say he's doing better than Bush.


I don't much like Bush. I like Bush better than I like Obama in general though, and I have very specific reasons for this. I'm prodding at you a bit to see if you have specific reasons for your hyperbolic take on the political zeitgeist or if you're simply repeating what you've heard elsewhere.

Specifically, Obama's cringe worthy spending bills, his general kowtowing countenance (except to those who elected him), his insistence on putting off important decisions and his general lack of respect for We The People (yes, people voted him in AFTER he said that) puts him on the rung just under Jimmy Carter in my book. Of course, Bush went nuts in increasing the size of the federal government as well which makes him suspect to me.

Also, as for Bush-Katrina... the US government is not designed to be a first responder. That is what state governments and city governments are supposed to be prepared to do. FEMA was designed to come in after the fact of a catastrophe and to provide backup for local authorities. When we were rocked in Texas by hurricane Ike we were definitely hurting but there was no mass wailing for government assistance because recognizing that we live in hurricane central would (or should) necessitate us to prepare ourselves for a storm event. Personally I had no electricity for three weeks and I was fine.

Anyway, if you want to debate the specifics of how and/or why Bush's legislative accomplishments are preferable to Obama's (to date) we can go down that road but you have to be more specific.


Edited by Fnord (06/08/10 05:19 PM)
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#39202 - 06/08/10 09:51 PM Re: Obama's miss step [Re: Fnord]
Lucifer Rising Offline
member


Registered: 04/10/10
Posts: 147
Loc: Indianapolis, IN
Don't worry, I'm not taking it personal, though I find it hard to believe anyone could actually prefer Bush whose thought about it. Tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for corporations, limiting freedom under guise of terrorist legislation, doing anything possible to help bring profit to whichever lobbyist paid him the most.

The American government might not be designed as a first responder, but its suppose to respond quickly. Bush was too slow in action as I see it.

I happen to know Obama said that and at the time I had accepted it. It's the realistic consequence of something I thought should have been done. I actually worked for an environmental lobbying group for a while who agreed with the bill as it was initially presented. It was then sent to congress and it was transformed to the point where it would do nothing to help the environment and still cause prices to sky rocket. That is when we started fighting against it.

I give Bush the credit I think he deserves, which is why I speak of his ability to pass legislation. It's definitely something I think a president should have the capability to do. I would have rather he'd be inept in that area, since he was in all others, but he wasn't, that's just how it is.

I really would rather not get into a whole debate about this or that politician. Why should I have to defend some person. I don't even like Obama that much myself, but I think he was the lesser of the evils the American people had to choose from.

I have a general dislike to all politicians, with a bit of respect. They mostly do the things I promote. Watching out for yourself, kowtowing, saying what you must to stay in power. It is all completely understandable. However, as one of the governed, that shit effects me. What I desire from a politician is almost never going to be what I can get from one, so they get a somewhat respectful middle finger from me.


I really don't feel like trying to defend any of them as a good politician because I doubt there are any to my standard of good. Actually, I'm fairly certain of that.


Edited by Lucifer Rising (06/08/10 09:54 PM)
Edit Reason: added thought
_________________________
Even if you're the ultimate evil lord of the underworld, you should always be yourself. Mickey Mouse

Top
#39204 - 06/09/10 07:05 AM Re: Obama's miss step [Re: cadfael]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3115
It is easy to get the people angry when making a few mistakes. Almost anyone assumes a leader has god-like abilities and every problem a group of people within society brings forth considered as "priority".
Let me point out Obama and Bush and former Presidents of the U.S or even any other person who has a leading function on global scale is BUT human which implies they can make mistakes based on information they receive at hand. Furthermore, do they have to deal with multiple issues at the time who are considered "priority". Even with a good timing and schedule some points will have to wait.

Cases such as the explosion on "deep water horizont" are things which will and have twisted the whole schedule. It is in my opinion quite hypocrite to shoot Obama for this unexpected case of affairs considering the amount of time given to make a statement and get informed. It is true he made a few lesser statements, but as far as I know the information given by BP is incomplete and twisted to make it look less worse. And I am quite certain most people will deal with it even worse if placed in this position.

I refrain from making any comment on Obama's or any other world leaders capabilities until the end of their terms. Only at the end I shall see his actions and decisions during the term have made a change, stagnated or collapsed the/a nation.

Critizing is easy, I wander how well those critics will do when placed in such position.


Edited by Dimitri (06/09/10 07:10 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#39208 - 06/09/10 11:23 AM Re: Obama's miss step [Re: Lucifer Rising]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Lucifer Rising
Don't worry, I'm not taking it personal, though I find it hard to believe anyone could actually prefer Bush whose thought about it.

I was going to let it go, but decided you need to quantify some things or perhaps not say them.

 Originally Posted By: Lucifer Rising
Tax cuts for the rich,

You might want to read the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 available on the .gov website. If you do so, you will see that the income tax burden of the top 40% of earners actually went up 4%. 99% of all income taxes are paid by that same top 40%.

 Originally Posted By: Lucifer Rising
tax cuts for corporations,

Good, that gives them more spending money which encourages them to hire more workers. Increasing the tax burden on corporations leaves them with less capital and therefore discourages the hiring of workers. It's a simple equation.


 Originally Posted By: Lucifer Rising
limiting freedom under guise of terrorist legislation,

Specifically, what freedoms have you lost?

 Originally Posted By: Lucifer Rising
doing anything possible to help bring profit to whichever lobbyist paid him the most.

That's politics. They all do that.

 Originally Posted By: Lucifer Rising
The American government might not be designed as a first responder, but its suppose to respond quickly. Bush was too slow in action as I see it.


So 46 days into the current gulf crisis with no federal response other than Obama looking for whose ass to kick is expedient enough for you? Just because he went there a month ago doesn't mean he's authorized anything helpful other than sending Eric Holder out to figure out who's responsible.

Don't forget, it wasn't too long ago that Obama was all set to move forward with a new domestic drilling plan and has, of late, regressed to referring to it all as a bad idea.

In my opinion, all politicians (top level) are suspect because their first priority is their own career (it takes a certain type of narcissist to pursue a political career), their second priority is their standing with their peers and their last priority is to ensure the welfare of their constituents.

My goal is not to defend Bush but to take apart some of the hyperbolic accusations leveled at him because I don't believe a whole lot of it is rooted in truth.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#39210 - 06/09/10 03:42 PM Re: Obama's miss step [Re: Fnord]
Lucifer Rising Offline
member


Registered: 04/10/10
Posts: 147
Loc: Indianapolis, IN
I honestly do not pay that much attention to it to go into specifics. Thus why I'd rather not discuss it. However, my main argument is that Obama has done better in appearances. In politics, appearance is everything or damn near it. Bush's image left upon the vast majority of the world population is that of a goofball with a 2nd grade reading level. Kind of made the rest of the world question our sanity. Now we have our first black president and his image is that of an intelligent, well spoken man who's also a ninja.

As far as rights taken away, I've had a few friends have trouble because of terrorist regulation that Bush supported. Back in high school, about a year after 9/11, my friend, who was actually an Atheist, was accused of being a radical Muslim that made threats toward the school. Without question he was taken from school, his possessions searched, and they found a razor blade in his backpack at the bottom of some pocket. He was expelled from school and in the paperwork it says he was being expelled for terrorism. When the police took him, he was not read his rights; he didn't have any. I'm sorry, but that's a ridiculous way to treat a 16 year old high school student or any citizen. All this just because some little christian fuck didn't like him and thought he looked Arab.

America is a democratic republic, things like truth don't matter in American politics. It's all a popularity contest. What matters is what people think. The world community seems to like our decision of Obama; they gave him a Nobel Prize practically just for not being Bush. I see this as a good thing, which is why I prefer Obama to Bush. Obama has a better image, and gives America a better image to most of the rest of the world. It's far from perfect, but its far better than being mocked by the entire world because our president appears to be an inbred redneck. He's given a new impression of America to the rest of the world and allows for better foreign relations. This is what I think benefits America more right now than any laws that could be passed, or any internal focus.

Yes, homeland affairs are important and I don't like when they pass something I think causes more harm than benefit, but I think that states can usually take care of themselves for the most part and that national laws usually are usually nothing more than a nuisance to people's everyday lives in America. So for the time being I am satisfied, though I do hope somebody will come along that can keep a good image and actually be able to govern.
_________________________
Even if you're the ultimate evil lord of the underworld, you should always be yourself. Mickey Mouse

Top
#39211 - 06/09/10 04:31 PM Re: Obama's miss step [Re: Lucifer Rising]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Lucifer Rising
I honestly do not pay that much attention to it to go into specifics.

Not much need to go on then.

 Originally Posted By: Lucifer Rising
However, my main argument is that Obama has done better in appearances. In politics, appearance is everything or damn near it.

For me, results are far more important than appearances. These people pass laws that directly affect our lives so I don't give a shit whether people from other countries like them or not.

Quickly, then we'll discontinue the conversation:
I think America would greatly benefit from internal focus. Pull in the World Police Force (AKA the US Military), stop sending money to foreign countries and use it to fix our own problems, shore up the borders.

 Quote:

I think that states can usually take care of themselves for the most part and that national laws usually are usually nothing more than a nuisance to people's everyday lives in America...

I'll agree with you there. I can't fathom why you'd say it when you support a guy whose sole purpose is to increase the size and influence of the federal government, but I agree with that statement wholeheartedly.

EDIT:
Obama has bloopers too, just sayin'.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#39215 - 06/09/10 05:49 PM Re: Obama's miss step [Re: Fnord]
Lucifer Rising Offline
member


Registered: 04/10/10
Posts: 147
Loc: Indianapolis, IN
If you want to discuss certain things like what we think should be done, that is constructive to me. Otherwise you're just attacking or defending people or legislation because of decisions made that really had nothing to do with you or your political ideology.

I defend my choice of voting for Obama based on his image and what I estimated to be the possible consequences of his election. I haven't gotten everything I wanted, nor did I expect to, but as I said, I view image as something of great importance and I still think Obama has definitely done better in this than other candidates could have.

Just to note, I do think it makes sense that the federal government have control, at least in part, of a few things. I would be for a socialized health care. I think the federal government should be able to regulate business and the economy. In most other areas I think less federal government intervention is best, but I think it makes more sense for certain things to be done at national levels.
_________________________
Even if you're the ultimate evil lord of the underworld, you should always be yourself. Mickey Mouse

Top
#39223 - 06/10/10 10:57 AM Re: Obama's miss step [Re: Lucifer Rising]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 860
Loc: Nashville
On a personal level, I like Obama. He’s extremely bright and articulate, and he certainly presents a better image of America to the world than Bush did. That said, it bothers me that Obama doesn’t seem to have any sense of urgency regarding the federal deficit. I understand that we’re coming out of a horrible recession and that the economy is still quite fragile, and in such times the government may need to help jump-start the economy through deficit spending. However, I think it is important that Obama let the American people know that he takes the deficit seriously and is committed to taking strong measures to reduce it.

Of course, the problem Obama faces – the problem every recent president has faced – is that actually doing what is needed to reduce the deficit – making drastic cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and raising taxes – is political suicide. Everyone says they’re for reducing the deficit, but no one wants to make the sacrifices necessary for it to happen. We want all the goodies but we don’t want to pay for them, so we just keep borrowing and putting ourselves deeper in debt. Bush, a so-called conservative, spent like a drunken sailor, and Obama shows no signs of reversing the trend.

Americans talk a good game when it comes to morality, but if they really cared about the next generation they wouldn’t leave them buried under a mountain of debt. It’s not enough to care about the unborn. The born could use a little help too.
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#39228 - 06/10/10 12:57 PM Just Another Hood Ornament [Re: cadfael]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
Presidents have been figureheads ever since learning the lesson of JFK. The forces which determine USA decision-making are much more impersonal and systemic. Not "conspiratorial", just routine.

As for the national debt/deficit, it's actually an international stabilizing factor. As long as the controlling interests in other countries hold so much American debt, and depend upon American consumption habits for their exports, they're stuck refinancing it. Otherwise if we collapse, they collapse. [You just saw a mini-version of this in the recent "recession" gig.]

In 1987 at the National Defense University, I was asked to forecast the probability of a Warsaw Pact invasion of NATO, which was the big propaganda scare-story used by the Reagan Administration. I said "zero", because the USSR was critically economically dependent upon East Germany, which was critically dependent upon West Germany; hence Moscow could not kill the gold-egg-laying goose without triggering its own collapse. And that's basically what happened a short time later, except that it was a riot in Poland that spread to East Germany which kicked it off.

So relax, ladies and gentlement ... I guess we had you fooled for a moment, but it's all part of the show.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#39230 - 06/10/10 03:39 PM Re: Just Another Hood Ornament [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Presidents have been figureheads ever since learning the lesson of JFK.


I think that's true.

I've wanted to ask you for quite some time, based on your background and experience, do you see your former employers (in a wide sense) fingerprints on that particular assassination?

I've been studying the assassination for a long time and what I'm most intrigued by is the information that's not really hidden but not obvious either. I started a little archiving project last year after going to Dealey Plaza where I'm collecting all photos and films taken that day that I can find. There are 13 separate films even though only one is widely known and two others are semi widely known (Muchmore & Nix). It didn't take long to convince myself that there were more shooters than one as the evidence is made clear by counting bullets, obfuscation of wounds and the little cut on James Tague's face.

Anyway, I'm convinced of HOW, but remain unconvinced about WHO. Me and millions of others I guess. Maybe the Texas oil men got together with the mafia to set Oswald up to take the fall because Kennedy and Castro shared the same mistress who was actually the wife of an angry CIA agent \:D
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#39231 - 06/10/10 06:08 PM JFK [Re: Fnord]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Fnord
I've wanted to ask you for quite some time, based on your background and experience, do you see your former employers (in a wide sense) fingerprints on that particular assassination?

One of my good friends was USAF Colonel Fletcher Prouty, who was Oliver Stone's advisor for JFK and was played by Donald Sutherland in the film.

Fletch and I corresponded at length concerning the history and doctrine of U.S. Special Forces and PSYOP, since he and his boss, USAF Major General Edward Lansdale were principally involved with their post-WW2 development. On one occasion the subject of JFK came up, and Fletch wrote to me:

 Originally Posted By: L.F. Prouty to M.A.A. 7/2/95
... Because of the Saigon Military Mission, the CIA was in operational control of all paramilitary activity in Vietnam from 1954 to the Marine landing at Da Nang in 1955. By that time Lansdale had retired (Oct 1953 - of course this was a nominal retirement because he was actually a CIA man). During much of this time, and until his death, he was a reasonably close neighbor here in Alexandria. Lansdale's autobiography and his biography are both intentionally inaccurate, to say the least.

When I first saw the "tramps" photos, I recognized Lansdale immediately in the background of the first photo. He is the only person walking in the opposite direction For the photo, look in Garrison’s book, On the Trail of the Assassins for a set of photos that follow page 190. On the lower half of the next-to-last page of photos, you’ll see two police, the “tramps”, and one stranger. That stranger is Lansdale. To confirm this to my own satisfaction, I have sent letters to people who knew him. One response in particular, from a high ranking official of that day, is so detailed and so affirmative it is almost unbelievable - but it is signed and it is accurate.

O.K., so why is Ed there in that picture? Recall that he had been running MONGOOSE. He had hundreds of trained and skilled men whom he could use to flesh out the cover story that the true decision-makers had to have to protect the real hit team and to create the three decades of cover story that have embarrassed American citizens since that date. Ed was one of the best cover story men in the profession. For him it would be a clean job, i.e. just following orders and “no shootin’ nobody”.

The web of the cover story was Ed’s. The scope and reality of the cover story is the work of a much larger and more comprehensive team. Without such a cover story the murder and the resultant coup d’etat could not have been achieved so effectively. Anyhow that's my concept of Lansdale’s effectiveness and how he employed his skills to do just what the Kennedy clan preached: “Don’t get mad; get even.” So JFK would not give him that ambassadorship that he would have killed for. What else could he do? ...

General Lansdale, by the way, was the "General Y" of the film. He is one of the legends of the U.S. spook community, and there have been numerous books about him, usually emphatically denying he had anything to do with the JFK snuff. But Fletch's word is good enough for me. Here, by the way, Fletch was referring to the U.S. ambassadorship to South Vietnam, for which Lansdale was earmarked until the Bay of Pigs fiasco soured JFK on anyone anointed by Langley. Lansdale was also chums with the Diem family, including the "Dragon Lady" Madame Nhu. Diem, however, was snuffed right after JFK, and Lansdale never got the Saigon ambassadorship. Judging by his successful gig in the Philippines, I think we blew it, but don't start me.

 Originally Posted By: Fnord
Anyway, I'm convinced of HOW, but remain unconvinced about WHO. Me and millions of others I guess. Maybe the Texas oil men got together with the mafia to set Oswald up to take the fall because Kennedy and Castro shared the same mistress who was actually the wife of an angry CIA agent.

Well, I think the Onion nailed it:

 Originally Posted By: The Onion
DALLAS, Tex - President Kennedy was assassinated Friday by operatives of the CIA, the Giancana crime syndicate, Fidel Castro, Vice President Johnson, the Freemasons, and the Teamsters as he rode through downtown Dallas in a motorcade.

According to eyewitnesses, Kennedy's limousine had just entered Dealey Plaza when the President was struck 129 times in the head, chest abdomen, arms, legs, back, feet, and face by gunfire. The shooting began at 12:30 PM and continued until 12:43 PM CST.

In all, 43 suspects have been taken into the custody of the Dallas Police.

Preliminary reports indicate that hitmen from the Giancana crime syndicate fired from a nearby grassy knoll, CIA agents fired from an office building slightly off the parade route, Cuban nations fired from an overpass overlooking Dealey Plaza, an elite hit squad working for Teamsters president Jimmy Hoffa fired from perches atop an oak tree, a "lone nut" fired from the Texas school book depository, a shadow government sharpshooting team fired from behind a wooden fence, a consortium of jealous husbands fired from an estimated 13 sites on the sidewalk along the route, a hitman working for Johnson fired from a sewer grate over which the limousine passed, and Texas governor John Connally lunged at the President from within the limousine itself, slitting the President's throat with a combat knife.

The mortally wounded President was sped to nearby Parkland Hospital, where doctors with ties to Johnson's inner circle performed a staged autopsy. They pronounced him dead at 2:18 PM CST.

The body was then chemically treated by J. Edgar Hoover and put in a decoy casket for transport to Roswell, New Mexico. There space aliens using medical technology beyond the knowledge of man sealed Kennedy;s 129 wounds. Kennedy's corpse was then reanimated and rushed to Germany for an emergency meeting with the frozen brain of Adolf Hitler.

After the meeting Kennedy aides announced plans for the two leaders' sperm cells to be atomically sustained, planted in the womb of aspiring actress Judith Campbell, and grown into a super-race of 21st century conquerors.

According to investigators, the assassination appears to have been carefully planned and carried out in strict accordance with both the Skull & Bones Blood Rite and the Masonic "Killing of the King" rituals.

Officers found several hundred weapons within a four-block radius of the shooting site, including telescopic-sighted Weatherby Magnum rifles, Italian bolt-action 6.5mm carbines, Thompson submachine guns, Russian Kalishnikov assault rifles, and one ray gun.

The assembled killers were taken into police custody at Dallas City Hall. As they were being transferred to the county prison, however, all 43 were shot and killed by Jack Ruby, 52, a Dallas area nightclub owner.

_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#39233 - 06/10/10 07:21 PM Re: U.S. Federal Deficit [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 860
Loc: Nashville
Dr. Aquino, I find it hard to believe that the federal government can continue to borrow at present levels without negative repercussions sometime down the road. Even now, taxpayers are paying over $300 billion per year in interest on the loan. The deficit is $13 trillion and growing by over a billion dollars per day. Doesn’t that bother you even a little?
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#39236 - 06/10/10 08:39 PM Re: U.S. Federal Deficit [Re: William Wright]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: William Wright
Dr. Aquino, I find it hard to believe that the federal government can continue to borrow at present levels without negative repercussions sometime down the road. Even now, taxpayers are paying over $300 billion per year in interest on the loan. The deficit is $13 trillion and growing by over a billion dollars per day. Doesn’t that bother you even a little?

Sure, here, have a good superscare.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#39237 - 06/10/10 10:38 PM Re: U.S. Federal Deficit [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



I am not 100% sure what is happening in America at the moment with Obama and the U.S economy. I am sure Dr. A is right here and that things will sort themselves out and that the world needs the U.S.

One thing I am fairly sure of: Obama is not as stupid as Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is at the moment.

Rudd is trying to force an additional tax onto the mining industry here and has run into a formidible brick wall.

Rudd doesn't seem to realise that the mining industry in Australia is huge and that every big boy in town has a piece of that sweet action.

Consequently Rudd is now getting slaughtered in the media and his approval rating is dropping significantly. If the Liberal opposition had their game together than they would win government, but so many hate opposition leader Abbott.

Australia has a federal election coming up in the next few months and Rudd is going to have to back down or compromise and lose face big time. Sheesh, he started so well and now he looks like a dead duck, not just a lame duck.

He is another crazed fool like Whitlam I think. Started well, but took on the big boys and stuffed it. Oh well.

We need a Gonzo candidate - someone who can rename Sydney "Fat City" and drive out all the incompetent swine.

Sorry, end of rant.

Top
#39240 - 06/11/10 02:10 AM Re: U.S. Federal Deficit [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Nyte Offline
member


Registered: 10/19/09
Posts: 380
Loc: Ohio
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: William Wright
Dr. Aquino, I find it hard to believe that the federal government can continue to borrow at present levels without negative repercussions sometime down the road. Even now, taxpayers are paying over $300 billion per year in interest on the loan. The deficit is $13 trillion and growing by over a billion dollars per day. Doesn’t that bother you even a little?

Sure, here, have a good superscare.


Thank you for posting that. I told one of my closest friends that I was concerned about where things were going in our economy because of how much food alone has risen in the last 5 years. My thoughts were based on the food prices alone when talking with her.

In watching the clip I came to realize that many of my own thoughts were right in line with what they were talking about. I've been watching and talking about these exact same issues (not all but a lot of them) with friends and family the last couple of years. That single video alone confirmed many of my own beliefs as to where we're headed and what really is happening.

Our economy won't ever be the same, and for what? The government to control everything and anything for the American people? To fight some great boogeyman that we should have gotten a LONG time and billions of dollars ago? BTW, didn't we provide these same people with weapons and money? Why are we still there and truthfully, I don't think I've ever read a "straight" answer as to why we're in Afghanistan. We need to get the hell out of Afghanistan and Iraq and stop selling our own oil to other countries so we can sell and use it right here in the frickin' US. Oh, that's right, the big oil companies claim that they make better money on it going overseas. Hmmm, wonder how much debt they could pay off with their diverted profits they claim are for "clean fuel research"?

When they bailed out the banks, my other half and I BOTH agreed they should have let the "chips fall where they may". Along with the car companies.

I completely agree that we need to quit spending at Walmart. The problem is, there aren't any Mom and Pop stores around that provide clothing that's made in the USA near us. The food at our Walmart is over priced and I generally shop at other local stores for food. I watch for "grown in the USA" on my labels because I DON'T want to eat a damn cantaloupe from Guatemala or any other country. I also have a garden for that very same reason.

I can believe that our government is borrowing and borrowing without even considering the end results. They don't see the teens that can't get jobs because adults that need to feed families are taking them up 2 jobs at a time. They don't see that we aren't producing products for our own country anymore. Even goods like foods are being imported and why? Because it's easier/cheaper to import than it is to get Americans to work. The "entitlement" (as we call it around here) mind set was established long before my birth and continues to grow in each generation. Something I've had to instill in both of my children (and our "extra" children, step children and friends of my oldest) is that NO ONE OWES YOU ANYTHING! If they want something, they need to earn it and earn it with hard work, even around here. My son (19) and his best friend (20 and is currently away at AT for the Army) that lives with us have to work, and still help out around here. It's part of being a family and contributing. They know that what is asked of them to do around here is expected to be done in a timely manner and does benefit everyone, including themselves. I still hear from time to time "Why should I have to do that when so and so doesn't." and the response they get is, "It's what needs to be done and if you lived on your own you'd have to do it anyway. So get it done." They're talking to one person that works 12 to 14 hours a day and another that will be working at least that, if not more, within the next 2 weeks. The youngest helps out with chores and is expected to get good grades. Poor grades are not an option for him being that he reads at a 7th - 8th grade level and is going into the 4th grade. He also knows that he can freely ask for help and that with work, he can get through just about anything. Although, I will say, after seeing how he was being taught math, I've been making sure he knows how to add, subtract, multiply and divide the RIGHT way.

The fact that we Americans are so dependent on other nations is not only our government's fault but our own. Too many expect others to fix things for them, when they could get off of their own butts and fix sooooo many more things for themselves. We need to start farming in the US again, and it may become a NEED sooner than most people think. Garage/yard sales will become a huge benefit for most to clean out their closets from year to year and get rid of lots of the "extras" they horde. Goodwill, Salvation Army and Volunteers of America will grow with their shops turning up all over the US. It will become a NEED, not a want and people will have to rethink their buying/spending leisure more and more. I can only hope to see more Mom and Pop stores turn back up in my life time with goods that are made and grown right here in the USA, though I feel very doubtful about that.

I'm curious though, has anyone thought through what does happen if our government cuts their spending as well? If they end the Department of Education and Department of Energy, where does everyone think those people that had those jobs will go? They will end up in the unemployment lines and still cost the US money. We might save 1/2 the cost of those two departments, when it's all said and done.

I think the biggest change would come if "our" government officials, starting from the bottom up had to go on medicaid and medicare, instead of their great insurance that they get for holding an government position. We'd save quite a bit there alone and they'd get a great view of how the SYSTEM really works.

To boot, I really dislike the idea of an IRS "branch" overseeing who does have medical benefits and who doesn't. That to me is ridiculous on SOOOOO many levels, it's not funny. If they're going to go after people who don't have benefits then they had damn well better go after big companies that offer "discount" medical plans that are disguised as health plans and are charging exorbitant amounts for them. I've never seen anything more ludicrous than the discount medical plan my soon to be EX-company offered as a medical plan and tried to charge me $75 a week for. I could walk in to a doctor's office for a regular visit and get a better discount for paying for the visit then and there, and save the damn $75. It is mind blowing that people are actually paying for this defunct "medical plan". That company is definitely big enough to afford real medical insurance and no reason they should be allowed to get away with offering such garbage under the guise of a medical plan.

And now the government will add jobs for the IRS that aren't really NEEDED either. We wonder why the public in general buys things they really don't "need"? Oh, wait, those same people in office were once a part of the public too? There goes that same damn circle, over and over again.

I truly think the web that our government has woven is pretty nasty and when the holes open up, quite a few government officials will be caught dangling more than they care to. The sad part is, I don't feel there's a good way out of any of it, no matter what direction they decide to go, at this point and the US won't recover any time soon, if at all. Businesses may see some financial incline, but the once-middle-class will be gone and private finances will not get better, only worse.

My time will soon be split between 2 jobs, one full time at night and a part time gig during the day. It's going to be rough going for a while (while the season advances for the day time gig) but I'm done living from pay check to pay check and still not making ends meet anywhere in the middle, when just 5 years ago we were well set with just my other half's income alone. Things were good, VERY good but the cost of just living is chipping away like a huge ax and there doesn't seem to be an end in sight. I'll be working hard on my art and crafts on my nights off for a bit more of my own piece of the pie. Although that pie seems to be filled with some pretty sour grapes. Never have I had to work 2 jobs to keep things afloat (even when I had nothing, literally) and yet here I am, getting ready to do exactly that. And the insanity of this government will keep marching on.


****I didn't mean to make this such a long rant, it just touched on far to many topics that kept me going. Something about government spending MORE just irritates the piss out of me......or maybe I'm just more tired than I thought.
_________________________
If only just for today.....

Top
#39245 - 06/11/10 11:10 AM Re: JFK [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
Thanks for the post Dr. Aquino!

I've read Garrison's book and have several Prouty interviews in my archive. It was his discussion of group 113 from San Antonio, who should have been there but weren't, that really sparked my interest in just what the CIA was up to in Dallas that day.

I've been meaning to do some more reading on Lansdale and your letter's made me all the more curious.

It's fascinating to me, this whole case. The more you read about it the more it just opens up more questions. Sometimes I wish I just wasn't attracted to this sort of thing. Every time I see a loose end I feel compelled to pull at it. It's not just this case either... I have dozens that are the same way for me. Oh well, it keeps me from being like the herd I suppose.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#39248 - 06/11/10 01:12 PM Re: U.S. Federal Deficit [Re: Nyte]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Nyte
I truly think the web that our government has woven is pretty nasty and when the holes open up, quite a few government officials will be caught dangling more than they care to. The sad part is, I don't feel there's a good way out of any of it, no matter what direction they decide to go, at this point and the US won't recover any time soon, if at all. Businesses may see some financial incline, but the once-middle-class will be gone and private finances will not get better, only worse.

Corporate business is doing fine; it swung the bailout, exports all possible jobs to 3rd-world sweatshops, has a steady supply of docile/frightened illegals to use at minimum cost here, tax-exempts its money in the Bahamas, sells to captive markets once it's underbid-out the small competitors, and always has the mushrooming military and arms industries to enforce its overseas interests and pay fat contracts. If the domestic masses get too restless, angry, or demanding, just stage another foreign attack to refocus them into accept-anything patriotism.

 Originally Posted By: Hermann Göring
Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

This isn't "conspiracy theory"; it's just business as usual. That's the point "X" was making in the JFK clip:

 Originally Posted By: "X"
That's the real question, isn't it: Why? The "how" is just scenery for the suckers. Oswald, Cuba, Ruby, Mafia - It keeps people guessing like a parlor game, but it prevents them from asking the most important question: Why? Why was Kennedy killed? Who benefitted? Who has the power to cover it up?

War is good for business, which is why Obama has kept right on with W's hyperexpensive little wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, despite the fact that unemployed, foreclosed, and bankrupt Americans could certainly use the cash. This too has been going on a long time.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#39256 - 06/12/10 12:50 AM Re: U.S. Federal Deficit [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
School Bully Offline
member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 142
Loc: Melbourne
This is all true, but without ruling anything out we should not make the mistake of attributing to conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by sheer incompetence - especially given the Jewish Christian lies of WMD that lead to the invasion of Iraq in the first place. Whenever a nation does something thoroughly stupid it is always from the most noble of intentions, never the basest. It was all about that most noble of great American ideals: Freedom.

In a military sense a practical observation on the risks of stupidity was made by the German General Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord in Truppenführung , 1933:

I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the industrious, and the stupid. Each officer possesses at least two of these qualities. Those who are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments. Use can be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command; he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and industrious is a menace and must be removed immediately!

Where the stupid are arrogant and the intelligent are filled with doubt, the stupid have the best of it in this world. They can sit at their ease and gape as the story is told. If they know nothing of victory, they are at least spared the knowledge of defeat. As Orwell famously wrote: "Ignorance is Strength".

_________________________
.


Top
#39258 - 06/12/10 01:45 AM Re: U.S. Federal Deficit [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Nyte Offline
member


Registered: 10/19/09
Posts: 380
Loc: Ohio
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: Nyte
I truly think the web that our government has woven is pretty nasty and when the holes open up, quite a few government officials will be caught dangling more than they care to. The sad part is, I don't feel there's a good way out of any of it, no matter what direction they decide to go, at this point and the US won't recover any time soon, if at all. Businesses may see some financial incline, but the once-middle-class will be gone and private finances will not get better, only worse.

Corporate business is doing fine; it swung the bailout, exports all possible jobs to 3rd-world sweatshops, has a steady supply of docile/frightened illegals to use at minimum cost here, tax-exempts its money in the Bahamas, sells to captive markets once it's underbid-out the small competitors, and always has the mushrooming military and arms industries to enforce its overseas interests and pay fat contracts. If the domestic masses get too restless, angry, or demanding, just stage another foreign attack to refocus them into accept-anything patriotism.

 Originally Posted By: Hermann Göring
Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

This isn't "conspiracy theory"; it's just business as usual. That's the point "X" was making in the JFK clip:

 Originally Posted By: "X"
That's the real question, isn't it: Why? The "how" is just scenery for the suckers. Oswald, Cuba, Ruby, Mafia - It keeps people guessing like a parlor game, but it prevents them from asking the most important question: Why? Why was Kennedy killed? Who benefitted? Who has the power to cover it up?

War is good for business, which is why Obama has kept right on with W's hyperexpensive little wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, despite the fact that unemployed, foreclosed, and bankrupt Americans could certainly use the cash. This too has been going on a long time.



I've agreed more than once that without our government keeping the boogeyman concept alive, they would have to face the real problems in America alone. I remember exactly where I was on 9/11 and what I was doing that morning. I also remember watching the very first of the attacks on Iraq and my new boss being in complete awe during the broadcasting of it. He whispered, "Our military power is incredible." I shook my head knowing deep down inside that we weren't attacking what we really should have been but I knew the American people wanted some form of vengeance and justice for 9/11. Most of the people I knew had bought into the speeches right down the line. This was going to pacify some of that, whether right or wrong wouldn't matter. So long as they can disguise their justifications for what they are really doing, the American public will fall in step, hook, line, and sinker.

As for corporations doing better, I've had the pleasure of my other half being a truck driver and seeing how it all plays out. Truck loads were down until about Feb. of this year. His boss was worried he was going to have to give up a truck or two to keep the guys he had working. Now though, they have more loads, and larger loads then they've had in over a year. The OTR drivers are now in city trucks because of how much they are running locally. Hell, I think they've got more loads then even 2 years ago. The corporations are gaining ground again, but by the time my 9 year old turns 18, I am afraid there won't be a middle class at all and that's one thing that truly does separate us from many countries.

As for the illegals, something really does need to be done about them. They come here to work, and ship their money back home without ever paying one penny in taxes. What's even more fun are the immigrants that come here on work visas and turn around at the end of the seasons with their earnings to not claim taxes on them as well. It's sickening because their employers know this and still continue to hire them, each season. They get free housing while they are here and use our medical through their work visas. We can't provide medical to citizens that are born here and yet because someone comes over to work for a 5 or 6 month season they get medical help? Hell, they get a fantastic ride if they go to college here. I'd love to be able to get housing, food, medical and schooling all on tax payers' money without having to work a day in my life but because I was born here, I'm exempt from that great program. I loved reading the "emergency medical plan for immigrants" in a friend's booklet (she had to get help after her husband packed up and left without any warning) from the local assistant program. Our state actually designates medical to immigrants that have just come here. How sweet of them.

Ya know, I feel there are a few ways to fix some, if not all of these problems, but the American public along with corporate America probably wouldn't like it, especially the oil companies. All though, at some point people are going to start looking at where our current and recent past governments have been taking them, and hopefully will pull their heads out of their asses in time to finally tell our "leaders" to stop all together. I probably won't be alive to see it though.
_________________________
If only just for today.....

Top
#39261 - 06/12/10 02:35 AM Re: U.S. Federal Deficit [Re: School Bully]
Nyte Offline
member


Registered: 10/19/09
Posts: 380
Loc: Ohio
 Originally Posted By: School Bully
This is all true, but without ruling anything out we should not make the mistake of attributing to conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by sheer incompetence - especially given the Jewish Christian lies of WMD that lead to the invasion of Iraq in the first place. Whenever a nation does something thoroughly stupid it is always from the most noble of intentions, never the basest. It was all about that most noble of great American ideals: Freedom.

In a military sense a practical observation on the risks of stupidity was made by the German General Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord in Truppenführung , 1933:

I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the industrious, and the stupid. Each officer possesses at least two of these qualities. Those who are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments. Use can be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command; he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and industrious is a menace and must be removed immediately!

Where the stupid are arrogant and the intelligent are filled with doubt, the stupid have the best of it in this world. They can sit at their ease and gape as the story is told. If they know nothing of victory, they are at least spared the knowledge of defeat. As Orwell famously wrote: "Ignorance is Strength".



I don't believe for a second that freedom had a damn thing to do with our war in Iraq. In talking to people that haven't been paying attention all along, that's what the ideal of this war in Iraq has become, not what it started out to be and wasn't even close to being presented as. The sheeple now believe it's about freedom, when, in fact it's about control in a part of the world, we shouldn't be in, at least not in our current faculty. It WAS about trying to finish a father's "quest" and it was presented as taking care of a country that "had" WMD. Even that lie floated to the top of the shit pond, as will so many others. The sad part is, there were sooooo many lies presented, we'll probably never know the complete truth, though the boogeyman is still out there and we're now going to try to control another part of the world we haven't belonged in from the start. Controling the oil, big business, money, and people, making anyone that will believe think that it's all about freedom, now.

I wouldn't call ignorance strength by any shot. You might be able to fool ignorant people for a while, but eventually they are going to start questioning you. Especially when they don't get to your point B in the timely manner you said they should have. Yes, they want to be spoon fed what they feel they need to hear at any given time, but those that have caught on to the game will eventually get louder and louder. We're starting to see a little bit of that and with technology today, it doesn't take long for them to be heard any more. Maybe my other half is right, I am the ever optimistic soul but I've watched the changes in people around me, and they have in fact gone from faithful sheeple to questioning life and what is happening around/to them. They're trying to figure out how to make things work for them, instead of waiting for "anything" to happen for them. They see more clearly what IS happening and aren't buying into what is being spoon fed anymore. It's only a matter of time before we'll get to see who will stay willfully ignorant, or those that will learn and decide what to do with that knowledge. Hopefully, something more than twittering about when someone shit will become more important (like these types of discussions). Time will tell.
_________________________
If only just for today.....

Top
#39265 - 06/12/10 04:08 AM Re: JFK [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



I don't know if you have seen the below site Dr. Aquino, but I find it to be quite a good one.

I assume its info is genuine. It also features Ike's farewell address.

http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com

It still seems like a lot of money is being poured through this particular part of the empire system.

Man, your Goering quote was spot on the money. I am so surprised by these Nazi leaders. They just stated it in plain language! Most leaders just grin at the clueless audience and talk about these sorts of things in smoky backrooms.

Top
#39278 - 06/12/10 01:50 PM Re: JFK [Re: ]
Nyte Offline
member


Registered: 10/19/09
Posts: 380
Loc: Ohio
 Originally Posted By: MatthewJ1
I don't know if you have seen the below site Dr. Aquino, but I find it to be quite a good one.

I assume its info is genuine. It also features Ike's farewell address.

http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com

It still seems like a lot of money is being poured through this particular part of the empire system.

Man, your Goering quote was spot on the money. I am so surprised by these Nazi leaders. They just stated it in plain language! Most leaders just grin at the clueless audience and talk about these sorts of things in smoky backrooms.



That was a VERY interesting link. Very eye opening indeed. I'm curious as to how many corporations are repeatedly contracted. I noticed Oshkosh, Corp. came up SEVERAL times under the Army contracts. It makes me wonder how many government officials are connected to these companies and how much they're making from them. What plays out behind "public eye" is definitely a lot bigger than most sheeple can fathom. I'm also wondering how many corporations that have secured these huge contracts are connected, like the big "sister" corporations in general retail. I wonder if the general public would really look at this info, instead of the great bottom line numbers, and would make the same connections? That many of these companies are actually one in the same (sister corporations, the probability is extremely high) and that they hold several contracts for the same service/product several times through out just this list. The sheeple really don't have a CLUE.
_________________________
If only just for today.....

Top
#39393 - 06/18/10 03:03 PM Re: JFK [Re: Nyte]
Knievel74 Offline
member


Registered: 05/18/10
Posts: 147
Loc: NY
I'm not an Obama supporter or detractor. My only opinion is, how can ANYBODY get this country back on track after only being in the White House for just over 17 months after an incompetent schmuck like Bush spent 8 YEARS flushing it down the toilet?

Because of Bush this country is morally, spiritually and financially bankrupt.

Because of Bush, Obama is trying to put out a forest fire with a spray bottle.
_________________________
"Man was meant to live, not just to exist". - Evel Knievel

Top
#39395 - 06/18/10 03:28 PM Re: JFK [Re: Knievel74]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Knievel74
I'm not an Obama supporter or detractor. My only opinion is, how can ANYBODY get this country back on track after only being in the White House for just over 17 months after an incompetent schmuck like Bush spent 8 YEARS flushing it down the toilet?

Because of Bush this country is morally, spiritually and financially bankrupt.

Because of Bush, Obama is trying to put out a forest fire with a spray bottle.


I suppose actually backing up exactly HOW Bush single handedly ruined this country is going to prove too much for this thread. You're the second one in this thread to bring the unsupported hyperbole despite my asking for specific examples on page one.

Maybe you have something to teach. Honestly, I'd love to hear it. Please supply specific examples of exactly and precisely how Bush was such a horrible president based upon his specific acts.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#39397 - 06/18/10 07:35 PM Re: JFK [Re: Fnord]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 860
Loc: Nashville
What bothers me most about Bush was his decision to invade Iraq. I understand that Saddam Hussein had kicked out U.N. weapons inspectors numerous times and that action of some sort needed to be taken against him. I just wish Bush had used that rationale instead of his half-baked argument that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Finding no WMD’s made Bush look inept at best, deceptive at worst and strained U.S. credibility with the rest of the world.
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#39413 - 06/19/10 09:20 AM Re: JFK [Re: William Wright]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
OK, two cents in no particular order:

WMDs were the excuse to invade Iraq not the reason.

America has practiced a Pax Americana doctrine since about the end of the US Civil War.

Every POTUS since Kennedy has learned to play ball.

Obama was not elected by the people but rather installed in office. It is worth noting that since being elected he has done nothing that he said he would. His goal has been pretty much the same as the rest of these asshats - consolidated Federal power, crony capitalism, and multi-generational warfare. In other words, he has continued to use Prison Planet doctrine to advance the Reptilian Agenda.
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#39418 - 06/19/10 10:55 AM Re: JFK [Re: Fist]
mmatraus Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/14/09
Posts: 13
Loc: Tennessee
Basically a continuation of the two party dictatorship we have not enjoyed for many many years as a people. I love the "installed" concept as compared to my "elected by four men" concept. It is ironic how the "same ole same ole" concept can be used in so many forms come each new election although it leads to same ole screwing of the American people all in the same form and fashion although I feel it is worse then it ever was.
Top
#39419 - 06/19/10 11:14 AM Re: JFK [Re: Fist]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Fist

Every POTUS since Kennedy has learned to play ball.


Or has agreed to play ball before ever getting on the ballot and becoming a 'choice'.

I share your point of view on this, excellent post.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#39423 - 06/19/10 11:16 PM Re: Sham Election? [Re: Fist]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 860
Loc: Nashville
Fist, please explain your statement that Obama was not elected but installed. He didn’t become president because 53% of Americans who voted in the 2008 presidential election voted for him? What about the 365 electoral votes? How exactly was he installed?
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#39447 - 06/21/10 04:43 AM Re: Sham Election? [Re: William Wright]
mmatraus Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/14/09
Posts: 13
Loc: Tennessee
Obana was not the choice of the majority of the people to be on the ballot for being elected as president Hillary Clinton was. He has shown no prove of citizenship and should not have legally been put on the ballot to be elected as president so therefore he should not be president at all.
He was put of the ballot against the will of the people by a few so called super delegates and if that is not being "installed" I don't know what is. It is the way dictators are "installed" in other countries. It should not happen in America so called the land of the free.

Top
#39450 - 06/21/10 08:04 AM Re: Sham Election? [Re: mmatraus]
felixgarnet Offline
active member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 688
Loc: UK
Does every candidate for the US Presidency have to show prove of citizenship prior to standing or before they are sworn in? To whom do they have to show this? What evidence is there that this was not done?
_________________________
"Here's to Artifice!" - Anton Szandor LaVey.

Top
#39453 - 06/21/10 09:34 AM Re: Sham Election? [Re: felixgarnet]
mmatraus Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/14/09
Posts: 13
Loc: Tennessee
As to who they show it to I am not sure but the law does state that you must be a citiczen of the United States to become it"s president. If not any person wanting to be president from any country for any reason could come here and be president. Does that make any sense to you and could anyone from the U.S. go to any other country and become their president. I think not.
Top
#39460 - 06/21/10 01:59 PM Re: Sham Election? [Re: mmatraus]
felixgarnet Offline
active member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 688
Loc: UK
Well it makes some sense to me. Surely, though anyone (in theory) could go to America from another country, become a citizen and run for President? Would they not have a Consititutional right to do so? Or are you saying only people born in the United States are acceptable?
In the UK, anyone with UK citizenship (which includes many born in the US) can become a Member of Parliament and may be elected as prime Minister.
_________________________
"Here's to Artifice!" - Anton Szandor LaVey.

Top
#39461 - 06/21/10 02:22 PM Re: Sham Election? [Re: felixgarnet]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
No, Felix. The Presidency is reserved for naturally born citizens of the US, that is, born on US soil. This is extended to include the children of personnel serving overseas in support of the United States, such as diplomats or US servicemen/women stationed outside or the United States. It's even been considered by NASA that at some point, a child will be born in space (really it's a necessity at some point because we just don't know if the biology will work in space yet, and it could well come into play on loooooong missions in the future) and it's been decided that a child born on a US flag carrying space craft OR on a US colonized area will be considered a naturally born US citizen, thus making them eligible for election to the Presidency.

A case where a foreign born but naturalized citizen in politics is not eligible can be seen in the case of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California. Born in Austria, be became a US citizen through naturalization and was elected to be Governor of the State of Califorina. There is no requirement for a Governor, Representative of the House of Representatives or a Senator to be born in the US, so one can be elected and serve. However, even though they are in the political system and serving the US, they cannot become President.

*** EDIT: Also in the case of a person on a spacecraft owned and operated by the US, they would retain citizenship of their respective countries with all the rights and privileges of that sovereign nation.


Edited by Jake999 (06/21/10 02:28 PM)
Edit Reason: EDIT added
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#39462 - 06/21/10 03:44 PM Re: Sham Election? [Re: Jake999]
felixgarnet Offline
active member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 688
Loc: UK
Thanks, Jake! Very informative and a political issue I had never heard of until today. Neither did I know of people doubting Obama's right to serve as President. Wasn't he born in Hawaii or did I imagine that from the TV or Google or something? \:\)
_________________________
"Here's to Artifice!" - Anton Szandor LaVey.

Top
#39463 - 06/21/10 04:01 PM Re: Sham Election? [Re: felixgarnet]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Yeah... it's pretty much a red herring issue, but people still want to play games with it. Guess it beats actually getting out and doing something.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#39551 - 06/25/10 06:12 AM Re: JFK [Re: Fnord]
Knievel74 Offline
member


Registered: 05/18/10
Posts: 147
Loc: NY
 Originally Posted By: Fnord
 Originally Posted By: Knievel74
I'm not an Obama supporter or detractor. My only opinion is, how can ANYBODY get this country back on track after only being in the White House for just over 17 months after an incompetent schmuck like Bush spent 8 YEARS flushing it down the toilet?

Because of Bush this country is morally, spiritually and financially bankrupt.

Because of Bush, Obama is trying to put out a forest fire with a spray bottle.


I suppose actually backing up exactly HOW Bush single handedly ruined this country is going to prove too much for this thread. You're the second one in this thread to bring the unsupported hyperbole despite my asking for specific examples on page one.

Maybe you have something to teach. Honestly, I'd love to hear it. Please supply specific examples of exactly and precisely how Bush was such a horrible president based upon his specific acts.


Ok. Here are some facts:

1) Bush's failure to capture Osama bin Laden.

2) The Patriot Act - Bush signed it into law on Oct. 26th 2001. Which gives law enforcement agencies - and other agencies - the right to search telephone, email, medical and financial records (among others) to find "suspected" terrorists. It violates our civil liberties.

3) The invasion of Afghanistan - At the beginning of the invasion, Bush had no proof that Afghanistan had any involvement or any knowlege of the Sept. 11th attacks. But the country was invaded anyway. TO THIS DAY, there is still NO PROOF that Afghanistan had any involvement or knowlege of the attacks on Sept. 11th.

4) The invasion of Iraq - Bush stated that Iraq had WMD's but had no proof. Both Hans Blix and Mohammed Elbaradei requested to continue their investigation of Iraq's suspected WMD's because they were unsuccessful in finding any but were pulled out of the country four days before the invasion. And TO THIS DAY, there has never been ANY PROOF that Iraq had or has WMD's.

5) Bush's decision to NOT invade Saudi Arabia - 15 of the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11th were from Saudi Arabia. The Bush family have some very close personal and business relationships with the leaders of Saudi Arabia. This is well known.

6) Bush's support of the C.I.A.'s "Waterboarding".

7) The "Bush Doctrine" - I'll just state one: Preventive War. Which means that the U.S can invade a country whose leader MIGHT be a threat to the U.S.. Even if there isn't any substatial proof or if the threat is not immediate.

8) FEMA - Bush hired the leaders of FEMA. We all know how they handled the New Orleans disaster.

9) Here is a quote from Bush in his 2003 State Of The Union Address: “Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity"...Really? This is why Bush had such a shitty foreign policy. Because democracy is "God's gift".

10) The invasion of Afghanistan didn't destroy the Taliban. It made them stronger, more fierce and hate the U.S. even more. I'll give one example: Faisal Shahzad. He's the terrorist who planted a car bomb in the middle of Times Square, NYC on May 1st to kill americans. He was trained by the Pakistani Taliban.

Bush has spent untold amounts of U.S. money in his "War on terror" that's left thousands of americans and foreign people dead. And the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are alive and well.

Now, is that hyperbole?
_________________________
"Man was meant to live, not just to exist". - Evel Knievel

Top
#39558 - 06/26/10 01:13 AM Re: JFK [Re: Knievel74]
Nyte Offline
member


Registered: 10/19/09
Posts: 380
Loc: Ohio
 Originally Posted By: Knievel74
Ok. Here are some facts:

1) Bush's failure to capture Osama bin Laden.

3) The invasion of Afghanistan - At the beginning of the invasion, Bush had no proof that Afghanistan had any involvement or any knowlege of the Sept. 11th attacks. But the country was invaded anyway. TO THIS DAY, there is still NO PROOF that Afghanistan had any involvement or knowlege of the attacks on Sept. 11th.


First and foremost, Clinton failed to capture bin Laden as well, long before Bush.

Secondly, if you go back and check, the "invasion" of Afghanistan occurred well before Bush was in office, even though the "official invasion" was claimed by Bush. It was called "Clinton's silent war" a year prior to 9/11 and pertained to the Taliban and oil pileline routes that had been bombed by bin Laden. When you look closely at many information sources, it's clear that our forces were being put in place long before 9/11 and plans were laid for attack as far back as '91(at least from what I can find that seems credible anyway).

This is just one of dozens of articles that can be found all over the net about the US in Afghanistan well before 9/11 and before Bush was in office.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/afgh-n20.shtml

Bush has done enough all on his own, let's at least keep the records straight, as best as possible with the barage of indormation that is slowly surfacing (some we may not know for YEARS, if at all).
_________________________
If only just for today.....

Top
#39594 - 06/27/10 02:29 PM Re: JFK [Re: Nyte]
Knievel74 Offline
member


Registered: 05/18/10
Posts: 147
Loc: NY
 Originally Posted By: Nyte
 Originally Posted By: Knievel74
Ok. Here are some facts:

1) Bush's failure to capture Osama bin Laden.

3) The invasion of Afghanistan - At the beginning of the invasion, Bush had no proof that Afghanistan had any involvement or any knowlege of the Sept. 11th attacks. But the country was invaded anyway. TO THIS DAY, there is still NO PROOF that Afghanistan had any involvement or knowlege of the attacks on Sept. 11th.


First and foremost, Clinton failed to capture bin Laden as well, long before Bush.

Secondly, if you go back and check, the "invasion" of Afghanistan occurred well before Bush was in office, even though the "official invasion" was claimed by Bush. It was called "Clinton's silent war" a year prior to 9/11 and pertained to the Taliban and oil pileline routes that had been bombed by bin Laden. When you look closely at many information sources, it's clear that our forces were being put in place long before 9/11 and plans were laid for attack as far back as '91(at least from what I can find that seems credible anyway).

This is just one of dozens of articles that can be found all over the net about the US in Afghanistan well before 9/11 and before Bush was in office.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/afgh-n20.shtml

Bush has done enough all on his own, let's at least keep the records straight, as best as possible with the barage of indormation that is slowly surfacing (some we may not know for YEARS, if at all).


I was asked to prove why Bush was a bad president. I proved my point. Bringing Cinton into this makes absolutely no sense.

We all know that Clinton tried to get bin Laden.

We all know that the U.S. was involved with Afghanistan way before Clinton's administration.

Bush was the first president to officially go after bin Laden with full U.S. force. He failed.

Bush was the first president to officially invade Afghanistan with full U.S. power to destroy the Taliban. He failed.

My point was, to this day, there is no proof that Afghanistan was ever involved with 9/11. Bush used that as an excuse to officially invade that country. And because of that, thousands of innocent civilians were killed. Along with U.S. and allied soldiers.

And because of Bush's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, we'll have to pour TONS of U.S. money into keeping our troops there. Permanently. We can never fully pull out of those countries. Just like all the other countries we've invaded throughout our histroy. To this day, we still have bases in Japan and Germany, just to name two.

Bush invaded two countries with no strategy. No timeline. We just went in headfirst.

And again, my response is about Bush and Bush only. My point of view on why Bush was a bad president was challenged and I've proven it.
_________________________
"Man was meant to live, not just to exist". - Evel Knievel

Top
#39599 - 06/27/10 05:12 PM Meep, meep! [Re: cadfael]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
Hey, people kill other people all the time, and the U.S. is no exception. But then what else would you do with all your tax money?

This has been going on since the first ape-man brained another with a bone, and whichever Wile E. Coyote is in the White House will never give up.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#39608 - 06/27/10 10:41 PM Re: Meep, meep! [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Cost of war.com. I like the look of that site.

Dr. and other members: what is the purpose of C.I.A?

On the one hand, they were and are supposed to be an intelligence service providing the President with intelligence and accurate estimates, but, on the other, they have been regarded as a covert action arm of the government?

I personally see them as both.

There have been So many stories which have come out regarding their conduct in so many countries, all the way from Guatemala in the 1950's to Iraq recently.

Some state that C.I.A has lost a great deal of authority and prestige after the Iraq WMD issue, but I am not so sure.

Does C.I.A continue to play a significant role in world affairs?

Top
#39610 - 06/27/10 11:18 PM The CIA [Re: ]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: MatthewJ1
What is the purpose of C.I.A?

This.

Both the US and foreign governments like to kick the CIA [and the other Intelligence Community agencies] around for public relations & propaganda purposes, and by their nature & secrecy they usually just have to stay silent and take it.

There is a great deal of resistance in the IC to anything unethical or unprofessional, but there is also constant political pressure to do sneaky stuff, so it is a constant tug-of-war situation. The Agencies are made up of people, moreover, and people are imperfect even when their intentions are virtuous.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#39689 - 06/29/10 03:53 PM Political Machine [Re: Knievel74]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Knievel74

Ok. Here are some facts:

With your spin on them... let's play fair.

Now I'll add my spin.


 Originally Posted By: Knievel74

1) Bush's failure to capture Osama bin Laden.

This is true. However, many of Bin Laden's command were captured and neutralized and, even more importantly, were rendered incapable of perpetrating another attack on American soil. The end result was achieved.

 Originally Posted By: Knievel74

2) The Patriot Act - Bush signed it into law on Oct. 26th 2001. Which gives law enforcement agencies - and other agencies - the right to search telephone, email, medical and financial records (among others) to find "suspected" terrorists. It violates our civil liberties.

Agreed, I don't like big government and anything that gives big government more power is a detriment.

 Originally Posted By: Knievel74
3) The invasion of Afghanistan - At the beginning of the invasion, Bush had no proof that Afghanistan had any involvement or any knowlege of the Sept. 11th attacks. But the country was invaded anyway. TO THIS DAY, there is still NO PROOF that Afghanistan had any involvement or knowlege of the attacks on Sept. 11th.

Al Queda & the Taliban were the target. Since the Taliban had overtaken Kabul, it was the logical starting point in taking them out. Remember that the US was assisted in this effort by the Afghan people (Afghan Northern Alliance) and by the UK who also thought it was the best logical step forward.


 Originally Posted By: Knievel74

4) The invasion of Iraq - Bush stated that Iraq had WMD's but had no proof. Both Hans Blix and Mohammed Elbaradei requested to continue their investigation of Iraq's suspected WMD's because they were unsuccessful in finding any but were pulled out of the country four days before the invasion. And TO THIS DAY, there has never been ANY PROOF that Iraq had or has WMD's.


Bush and the entirety of the US government decided to go back into Iraq. Hillary Clinton, for example, supported the war. John Kerry despite his temperament and backpedaling later on, supported the war in Iraq as well.

It's important to remember that the US agreed to ceasefire in Iraq in 1991 contingent upon Iraq agreeing to NOT engage in certain activities. Stockpiling of any and all weapons was specifically prohibited by UN resolution 687:

 Originally Posted By: UN Resolution 687

24. Decides that, in accordance with resolution 661 (1990) and subsequent related resolutions and until a further decision is taken by the Security Council, all States shall continue to prevent the sale or supply, or the promotion or facilitation of such sale or supply, to Iraq by their nationals, or from their territories or using their flag vessels or aircraft, of:

(a) Arms and related material of all types, specifically including the sale or transfer through other means of all forms of conventional military equipment, including for paramilitary forces, and spare parts and components and their means of production, for such equipment; ... all available here


UN resolutions represent enforceable agreements. Bush and nearly the whole of Congress (see above videos) agreed that Iraq presented a significant threat to US interests and VOTED to go to war based on evidence including, but not limited to the suspicion of WMD's.

In retrospect, I can't say that going into war was a good or bad idea because I didn't see the evidence that Bush, Clinton, Kerry et al. saw to convince them that Iraq was a threat. The idea that Bush did it alone IS hyperbole because this country doesn't operate that way.



 Originally Posted By: Knievel74

5) Bush's decision to NOT invade Saudi Arabia - 15 of the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11th were from Saudi Arabia. The Bush family have some very close personal and business relationships with the leaders of Saudi Arabia. This is well known.

The Bush family was/is in the oil business. Of course they have personal relationships with others in their business. Al Queda was headquartered, in large part, in Kabul. Why would invading Saudi Arabia be germane to stopping Al Queda?


 Originally Posted By: Knievel74

6) Bush's support of the C.I.A.'s "Waterboarding".

If it stops another attack on US soil I'm for it too. The opposition supports sawing people's heads off on national TV.

 Originally Posted By: Knievel74

7) The "Bush Doctrine" - I'll just state one: Preventive War. Which means that the U.S can invade a country whose leader MIGHT be a threat to the U.S.. Even if there isn't any substatial proof or if the threat is not immediate.

"Preventative War" is a catch phrase applied to the idea that, under the Bush Doctrine, the US would have the right to protect itself against countries that harbor terrorists and/or support terrorism. It was and is vague and was born of a time when the US at large was in fear of being attacked. It's not a green light to attack other countries but to question them about their intentions in an official capacity. Not much different than other countries do.

 Originally Posted By: Knievel74

8) FEMA - Bush hired the leaders of FEMA. We all know how they handled the New Orleans disaster.

FEMA was not designed to be a first responder. FEMA was designed to render aid AFTER the first responders had assessed the situation. The first responders after Katrina SHOULD have been first, the city of New Orleans and second the state of Louisiana, and THIRD the federal government. FEMA cannot be blamed for the inadequacies of the first two responders. Compare hurricane Ike to hurricane Katrina. We here in Texas did much better without FEMA assistance for a week because as a state Texas is prepared for a disaster and ready to deploy when needed. Your anger is misplaced.

By the by, this BP disaster is surely going to surpass what happened in New Orleans by the time it's finished. Let's see how the new guard handles it.

My personal view is that ALL big government is inept and shouldn't be relied on for anything whether it's under a Bush or under an Obama doesn't matter a bit.


 Originally Posted By: Knievel74

9) Here is a quote from Bush in his 2003 State Of The Union Address: “Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity"...Really? This is why Bush had such a shitty foreign policy. Because democracy is "God's gift".

So? US leaders and leaders from all over the world say dumb stuff all the time.

 Originally Posted By: Knievel74

10) The invasion of Afghanistan didn't destroy the Taliban. It made them stronger, more fierce and hate the U.S. even more. I'll give one example: Faisal Shahzad. He's the terrorist who planted a car bomb in the middle of Times Square, NYC on May 1st to kill americans. He was trained by the Pakistani Taliban.

True, bad management and lack of focus.


 Originally Posted By: Knievel74

Bush has spent untold amounts of U.S. money in his "War on terror" that's left thousands of americans and foreign people dead. And the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are alive and well.


And it all continues under the current administration. The reason for this is that it's part of a much larger picture.


 Originally Posted By: Knievel74

Now, is that hyperbole?

Some of it, some of it not.

The reason I challenged your comments at all was for the simple reason that I'm personally tired of people saying "Bush did it" for every wrong that exists in this country.

I think the whole of the government is chock full of self serving bastards who don't care about We The People in any greater capacity than to elicit a vote from us so they can continue their own careers. To my mind, they are all lined up to take from the working person. Taxation of the 'rich' is a hilarious concept. The rich have tax attorneys and the poor have nothing so the middle class always pays.

Anyway, you didn't prove that Bush single-handedly ruined the country but I didn't expect that you could prove it to anyone but perhaps yourself. As Dr. Aquino points out, this stuff is largely politics as usual.


Edited by Fnord (06/29/10 04:07 PM)
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#39709 - 06/30/10 07:12 PM Re: Political Machine [Re: Knievel74]
Nyte Offline
member


Registered: 10/19/09
Posts: 380
Loc: Ohio
 Originally Posted By: Knievel74
 Originally Posted By: Nyte
 Originally Posted By: Knievel74
Ok. Here are some facts:

1) Bush's failure to capture Osama bin Laden.

3) The invasion of Afghanistan - At the beginning of the invasion, Bush had no proof that Afghanistan had any involvement or any knowlege of the Sept. 11th attacks. But the country was invaded anyway. TO THIS DAY, there is still NO PROOF that Afghanistan had any involvement or knowlege of the attacks on Sept. 11th.


First and foremost, Clinton failed to capture bin Laden as well, long before Bush.

Secondly, if you go back and check, the "invasion" of Afghanistan occurred well before Bush was in office, even though the "official invasion" was claimed by Bush. It was called "Clinton's silent war" a year prior to 9/11 and pertained to the Taliban and oil pileline routes that had been bombed by bin Laden. When you look closely at many information sources, it's clear that our forces were being put in place long before 9/11 and plans were laid for attack as far back as '91(at least from what I can find that seems credible anyway).

This is just one of dozens of articles that can be found all over the net about the US in Afghanistan well before 9/11 and before Bush was in office.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/afgh-n20.shtml

Bush has done enough all on his own, let's at least keep the records straight, as best as possible with the barage of indormation that is slowly surfacing (some we may not know for YEARS, if at all).


I was asked to prove why Bush was a bad president. I proved my point. Bringing Cinton into this makes absolutely no sense.

We all know that Clinton tried to get bin Laden.

We all know that the U.S. was involved with Afghanistan way before Clinton's administration.

Bush was the first president to officially go after bin Laden with full U.S. force. He failed.


NO, Clinton OFFICIALLY went after bin Laden FIRST. He demanded that bin Laden be turned over to the US for his bombings of the oil pipelines. AND he failed as well. And Bush didn't use "full" US force in Afghanastan. If he had, it would have looked like Iraq. You want to blame Bush for something that was started well before him, when in fact he simply was trying to follow through. Events and information after 9/11 proved for a “better” reason to continue in Afghanistan.

 Originally Posted By: Knievel74
Bush was the first president to officially invade Afghanistan with full U.S. power to destroy the Taliban. He failed[quote=Knievel74]

NO, again. He just picked up where Clinton left off and staked a claim in an on-going military action that had started LONG before him. He just made the “OFFICIAL” announcement.

[quote=Knievel74]My point was, to this day, there is no proof that Afghanistan was ever involved with 9/11. Bush used that as an excuse to officially invade that country. And because of that, thousands of innocent civilians were killed. Along with U.S. and allied soldiers.


Hmm, how easily you have dismissed that the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and bin Laden all found safe haven in Afghanistan. ALL 3 were and are considered responsible for 9/11 and several other attempted attacks.

 Originally Posted By: Knievel74
And because of Bush's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, we'll have to pour TONS of U.S. money into keeping our troops there. Permanently. We can never fully pull out of those countries. Just like all the other countries we've invaded throughout our histroy. To this day, we still have bases in Japan and Germany, just to name two.

Bush invaded two countries with no strategy. No timeline. We just went in headfirst.

And again, my response is about Bush and Bush only. My point of view on why Bush was a bad president was challenged and I've proven it.


Your neglect in the history of who and why is the down fall of your point. I don't like Bush any more than you do, but I also won't place blame where it does not belong. There were/are reasons he took up the task of trying to complete the military action in Afghanistan but the blame does not fall squarely on his shoulders. Nor does the failure in completing those actions.

I agree that we don't belong there, but then again, I feel there are a lot of places we don't belong. The US needs their boogeymen to keep the public where they want them and that's why we are where we are, all over this globe. It’s also why the populace doesn’t see the “rest of the story” even when it’s being spoon fed to them. It’s easier to see the first thing that’s big and bold (“That big ‘ole bad man, we have to go after him!") and forget about the little things (“In the rest of the news, a new tax to pay for blah, blah, blah….).
_________________________
If only just for today.....

Top
#39710 - 06/30/10 07:54 PM Re: Just Another Hood Ornament [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
NeoZombie Offline
pledge


Registered: 06/21/10
Posts: 60
Loc: Minnesota, USA
Anyone who quotes Jack van Imbecile does not have all of their marbles rolling. The wording is atrocious. Thank Satan he has been banned.

I personally think it was genius get that man in office. His network is like nothing seen before. American policy is already written. It does not matter what person is in that seat of power, what matter is that the seat has been created so well.

Really like what M.A.A. had to say because it was spot on. No one want any dirty bomb going off anywhere. Let a alone full on nuclear war. The more I think about it the more I come to know NWO is part of Xeper becoming.

Many may not agree with that but I could care less.
_________________________
http://www.faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/
*Xepera*

Top
#39730 - 07/01/10 09:01 AM Re: Political Machine [Re: Nyte]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Nyte

The US needs their boogeymen to keep the public where they want them and that's why we are where we are, all over this globe. It’s also why the populace doesn’t see the “rest of the story” even when it’s being spoon fed to them. It’s easier to see the first thing that’s big and bold (“That big ‘ole bad man, we have to go after him!") and forget about the little things (“In the rest of the news, a new tax to pay for blah, blah, blah….).


And ironically, the dragonslayer (Bush) has come to be known as the dragon (That big ‘ole bad man) to those who can't see this very point.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#39746 - 07/01/10 04:09 PM Re: Political Machine [Re: Fnord]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
Just a general reply:

All politicians suck.

The Bush Administration made a lot of mistakes. (Notice how I added "administration" anyone who thinks it was all W's doing is ignorant)

The Obama Administration has made mistakes and will undoubtedly continue to make more.

The only respect I have for the Bush Administration comes from their overwhelming display of testicular fortitude. They did not give a damn if the people of this country agreed with the decisions they made; they did whatever they wanted to regardless.

If Obama really wants to make all these changes he says he does then he should take a page from Bush Administration's play book. He needs to stop being such a pussy and trying to find common ground among all the people of this country and the economic, political and religious divisions that separate them because it is not going to happen. Period.

Another observation, which to me is very funny and very telling, is that all the things that were said about Bush have been reversed and directed at Obama and are coming from the opposite camp. Bush was a Nazi who was going to bring about the end of the world (so they said). Obama is a Socialist who is going to bring about the end of the world (so they say).

Admittedly the Bush Administration undertook actions that could be construed as being fascist (some of those same actions have been undertaken by Obama i.e the renewing of The PATRIOT Act). Conversely the Obama Administration has undertaken actions that can be construed as being Socialist. The point is that the President doesn't really have as much power as people seem to like to think they do. Bush never would have been able to make himself all time quarterback for Team America and Obama will never be able to make us refer to each other 'Comrade' and replace the stars and stripes with a hammer and sickle.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#39750 - 07/01/10 05:38 PM Re: Political Machine [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
AND there has NEVER been a "good ol' days" in American politics. EVERY President has received his fair share (and more) of demonization while serving in the White House. Even George Washington's tenure was not "squeaky clean." and he had the afterglow of the Revolution on his side.

I've been around for Truman, Isenhower, Kenedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush (GHW), Clinton, Bush (GW), and now Obama, and I can tell you that each one of them has been smeared, attached to scandals, set upon by adversaries and blamed for everything from world economies to mold on cheese. These Presidents, unfortunately, were also the victims of televised media coverage that became all pervasive and easily accessible in one's own home. The rapid availability or questionable information or scurrilous charges swept the nation, whereas previous presidents had a "breathing space" to mount a defense under strictly print journalism.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#39766 - 07/01/10 11:40 PM Re: Political Machine [Re: Fnord]
Nyte Offline
member


Registered: 10/19/09
Posts: 380
Loc: Ohio
 Originally Posted By: Fnord
 Originally Posted By: Nyte

The US needs their boogeymen to keep the public where they want them and that's why we are where we are, all over this globe. It’s also why the populace doesn’t see the “rest of the story” even when it’s being spoon fed to them. It’s easier to see the first thing that’s big and bold (“That big ‘ole bad man, we have to go after him!") and forget about the little things (“In the rest of the news, a new tax to pay for blah, blah, blah….).


And ironically, the dragonslayer (Bush) has come to be known as the dragon (That big ‘ole bad man) to those who can't see this very point.


It's easy to pass blame and not see the "whole" picture, or ignore parts that aren't wanted. There are a whole line of events that has led to where this country is today and Bush helped it along, but didn't do it alone. It's almost comical when you look at what Bush did do and what was happening before he ever took office. The steps were all ready in place, he just had to climb them (when the right events occurred) and he, as well as his administration, did. The orator that we currently have in office talks well but his actions won't make him much different than any other president. His words spill freely and he's pissing on a huge forest fire that's heading in all kinds of directions. It'll be interesting to see how well his words keep him in position, and how much piss he has left come the end of his first 4 years.
_________________________
If only just for today.....

Top
#40872 - 07/26/10 07:37 PM Re: Political Machine [Re: Nyte]
Knievel74 Offline
member


Registered: 05/18/10
Posts: 147
Loc: NY
Not to beat a dead horse:

In regards to the replies to my post about Bush: I don't mean to take so long to respond but I hate talking about politics and needed to step away to keep from getting hot, lol This is why I avoid talking about politics and religion \:\)

Anyway, I stand corrected in my post that Bush was the first president to "officially" go after bin Laden. Yes, it was Clinton.

When I say "Bush" I mean not only him but his administration. A president as we all know, is really just a figurehead.

But I do stand behind this statement: Bush and his admin. were the worst or almost the worst this country has ever seen in a very long time. I'm actually not a Bush hater, it's just the opinion I've formed after living through and reading about everythng he's done in the last four years of his presidency. I will say, however, that he wasn't a bad president during his FIRST four years.

I'm not an Obama supporter either, as I've stated in my original post. But it's a fact that when Clinton left office the U.S. had a surplus of money (and yes, I know he was involved in the whole Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac thing). When Bush and his admin. left we were nearly bankrupt. If this is a fallacy, please correct it.

As far as FEMA. It took them an entire week to respond. As a matter of fact, a Canadian rescue team were one of the first organizations to resond to the disaster before FEMA reacted.

Because of our involvement in the middle east since the Bush admin., NYC has had two failed terrorist attacks in the past year. It's been announced in the AP that the Taliban is even stronger than the U.S. thought since 9/11.

To close my argument, I'm not saying Bush is the devil. I'm just saying that he was one of a long line of knuckleads that were the "leaders" of this country.
_________________________
"Man was meant to live, not just to exist". - Evel Knievel

Top
#40880 - 07/27/10 12:35 AM Hail to the Chief! [Re: Knievel74]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Knievel74
I'm not saying Bush is the devil. I'm just saying that he was one of a long line of knuckleads that were the "leaders" of this country.

If you were able to follow the various Prezes around from day to day, I think you'd find that they were sincerely trying to do their best at the job. Not to mention that hindsight is always 20/20.

Look at it this way: There is no consensus as to where the planet is/should be going, or the USA either. As Jimmy Durante observed, "Everybody wants ta get inta da act." Or, to quote Truman upon Eisenhower's election:

 Originally Posted By: President Harry S. Truman
He'll sit here, and he'll say, "Do this! Do that!" And nothing will happen. Poor Ike - It won't be a bit like the Army. He'll find it very frustrating.

That said, I do have my current-incarnation likes and dislikes:

Truman: Like. Savvy, simple, direct, and principled. Unafraid to make tough decisions and take his historical lumps for them.

Ike: Like. Consensus builder, humanitarian.

JFK: Like. Visionary, patron saint of the Green Berets, connoisseur pussyhound.

LBJ: Like. Domestic champion who unfortunately got suckerpunched by the Vietnam War. Spoke his mind like Truman. Al Capone in the White House, how cool is that?

Nixon: Dislike. Tried hard to be & do the Presidency, but basically in over his head.

Ford: Like. Ike-clone.

Carter: Like. A gentle soul & humanitarian. Unfortunately, like Dick, also in over his head in the Washington demolition derby. Also got taken for a ride by nasty leaders of nasty other countries.

Ronnie: Dislike. Acted as President (literally); at least he did a good job of that. So maybe now we should elect Martin Sheen?

Bush Sr. Like. Brilliant man, knew when to do something and when to not. Was so meticulous about his job that he forgot to be a politician too.

Clinton: Dislike. Stooge for NAFTA and pussyhound without Jack's taste.

Bush Jr.: Dislike. Stooge for Cheney. Senseless, disastrous wars. In WAY over his head.

Obama: Dislike. Desperately trying to please everyone all the time. A nice guy, but I think hagridden by a personal demon of needing to be a success as the first Black Prez. [Caveat that he inherited the job at probably the worst possible moment/mess since Abe Lincoln got it dumped in his lap.]

Missed opportunities: Bobby, Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Wes Clark, and Arnold.

Who should be the next Prez: Me, as I will fix everything. Bring all the military immediately home from Iraq & Afghan & other FUBAR places. Redirect all that money to domestic problems. Medicare for all US citizens, with some of that extra cash going to strengthen the facilities & professionals to handle them. No more hiring of anyone illegally in this country, and no birth-citizenship for children of illegals. Kill NAFTA and its clones so that people aren't starved out of their own countries. Work with those countries to make them financially viable for their expatriates to return to. Wait to see who comes out on top in Iraq & Afghan & etc. and make mutually-profitable oil deals with the victors. Everyone's religion worldwide is his/her own business, as also sex life. Pass the Equal Rights for Women Amendment. Pass around free copies of Morgan's book all over the planet [yes, Wanda, you would get a royalty]. Israel back to its 67 borders, and all of the mideast (including it) a nuke-free zone. Get serious with global warming. No more whale killing anywhere, on pain of the USN kicking your ass. No more animal misery generally; the whole world vegetarian. No more potholes or potbellies. Take all the confiscated nukes and place/use them to get the Earth back on its perfect axis, eliminating all the lousy weather patterns and bad seasons. Arm the cops with laughing-gas guns instead of bullets; the Joker has the right idea here. That should take care of my first 4 years; anything I've missed I'll tidy up during the next 4.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#40881 - 07/27/10 01:01 AM Re: Hail to the Chief! [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



To The El-Presidente,

What about the bloody cost of beer? Will this be reduced?

P.S. I don't have much faith in politics right now. I voted for the guy down the road who runs the local charcoal chicken and chips shop. He wan't on the ballot paper, but that was unimportant - sometimes you just can't compromise.

Top
#41377 - 08/03/10 02:50 PM Re: Aquino's Presidential Preferences [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 860
Loc: Nashville
Dr. Aquino, I noticed a pattern. From JFK on, you liked all the short-term presidents (JFK, LBJ, Ford, Carter and Bush Sr.) but disliked those who got reelected (Nixon; Reagan; Clinton; Bush Jr.; and Obama, who will get reelected unless some nut job takes him out first).

Coinkydink, or do you think there’s something to it? If the long-termers have been so consistently ill-equipped to lead as you suggest, why do we keep reelecting them?
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#41383 - 08/03/10 03:33 PM Re: Aquino's Presidential Preferences [Re: William Wright]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: William Wright
and Obama, who will get reelected unless some nut job takes him out first).


Gentleman's Bet:
Just like in Trading Places, I'll bet you a dollar you're wrong.

Obama's approval rating is in the toilet and his own rats are jumping ship. The congressional approval rating under Obama is currently at its lowest point since they started doing these ratings (I know it's not scientific but it's a decent barometer on public opinion). The ex mayor of Houston, who is a raging liberal and currently running for Texas governor, won't even be seen in public with Obama when he tours Texas because he doesn't want a public appearance to sully his chances at the seat.

It's actually restoring my opinion of politicians (to a degree) to see his own kind (Liberal Dems) calling bullshit on him.

If you win this bet it'll be because a vastly different Obama hit the campaign trail than the Obama of the past.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#41391 - 08/03/10 07:19 PM Re: Aquino's Presidential Preferences [Re: William Wright]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: William Wright
Dr. Aquino, I noticed a pattern. From JFK on, you liked all the short-term presidents (JFK, LBJ, Ford, Carter and Bush Sr.) but disliked those who got reelected (Nixon; Reagan; Clinton; Bush Jr.; and Obama, who will get reelected unless some nut job takes him out first).

Coinkydink, or do you think there’s something to it? If the long-termers have been so consistently ill-equipped to lead as you suggest, why do we keep reelecting them?

Nonboatrocker & gameplayers tend to get reelected; that's well-established in USA politics. Plus if you seem to be a stable, known quantity, like Ike, people will tend to trust you for another 4 instead of an unknown quantity.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41441 - 08/04/10 02:49 PM Re: Aquino's Presidential Preferences [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 860
Loc: Nashville
Fnord, I’ll take that bet. If Obama has shown himself to be adept at anything, it’s campaigning. For him to come out of nowhere with his paper-thin resume and knock Hillary off her throne was nothing short of amazing. As for the ex-mayor of Houston not wanting to be seen with Obama in Texas…well, it’s Texas, one of the reddest states in the country. For the ex-mayor to have any chance of winning, he’ll have to somehow convince voters there that he’s not as liberal as you say he is. I guarantee you that after the election, he’ll be kissing Obama’s ass like all the other good Democrats.

Dr. Aquino, I would hardly call Bush Jr. a nonboatrocker. The guy made a gutsy move by invading Iraq. It just happened to be a disastrously bad gutsy move.
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#41444 - 08/04/10 03:31 PM Re: Aquino's Presidential Preferences [Re: William Wright]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: William Wright
Dr. Aquino, I would hardly call Bush Jr. a nonboatrocker. The guy made a gutsy move by invading Iraq. It just happened to be a disastrously bad gutsy move.

W was a Cheney gameplayer who got nonelected & nonreelected because both Gore and Kerry fell on their swords in the semifinals.

Right now my forecast is for Obama to be reelected because he's a pretty face and a good orator, which is all that is needed these days. Also I don't see any Republican on the horizon with any presence, personality, or charisma. Of course Obama came out of nowhere, so between now and 2012 perhaps the Rs can pull a rabbit out of their hat too.

Basically the Democrats have more popular appeal because they're in favor of the welfare state, all the more so since the recession has screwed so many people.

The Republicans are more selfish, but more of them actually vote. Also they tend to get the religious knuckledragger vote.

Staging another 9/11 won't do anyone any good because both parties are already heavily pro-war.

Is this a great country or what?
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41462 - 08/05/10 09:19 AM Re: Aquino's Presidential Preferences [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 860
Loc: Nashville
I suspect that W's invasion of Iraq had more to do with him wanting to avenge his father by taking out Saddam Hussein than anything Cheney said. However, you make a good point about Gore and Kerry. One has to wonder what the world would be like today if Gore had become president. A kinder, gentler place?
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#41474 - 08/05/10 01:49 PM Re: Aquino's Presidential Preferences [Re: William Wright]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: William Wright
I suspect that W's invasion of Iraq had more to do with him wanting to avenge his father by taking out Saddam Hussein than anything Cheney said.

Bush Sr. didn't need any "avenging". He kicked Iraq's ass out of Kuwait, then left it in place as a regional, secular, and effective counterweight to Iran (which his son brilliantly wrecked, changing Iraq into a political & religious satellite of Iran, the more so once American forces leave).

W invaded Iraq because Israel considered it a priority target for its active support of the Palestinians and credible, within-range military threat. Israel now wants the USA to do the same thing to Iran, but so far we have not obeyed [because we're all entangled in Afghanistan & Pakistan, which are not of Israeli concern]. It is not in Israel's interests to get itself into a war with any nation which can do it serious damage, of course.

International Relations (my primary doctoral field) requires "tracing currents back" as much as identifying purely-present-day positions, scenarios, policies, or bombast. Thus one cannot look at the Mideast, any more than Vietnam or WW2, as just a "snapshot-start" where it pleases "your side". People worldwide rarely commence expensive, dangerous things just for the hell of it like Xerxes in 300.

 Quote:
However, you make a good point about Gore and Kerry. One has to wonder what the world would be like today if Gore had become president. A kinder, gentler place?

I think Gore would have been much like Carter or Ford, and not invaded any other countries.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41484 - 08/05/10 03:46 PM Re: Aquino's Presidential Preferences [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
All the more reason for the US to tell Israel to fuck off and fight its own battles. The more we support Israel, the more the rest of the Middle East is going to hate us. If they want to blow each other up, fuck it, let em. Then we can move in after they are all gone and build a giant parking lot with gas stations everywhere.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#41595 - 08/08/10 02:21 AM Re: Aquino's Presidential Preferences [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
ceruleansteel Offline
active member


Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 784
Loc: Behind you
That would be great, except that we have been letting Israel suckle our teat since WWII and for some reason we have continued to allow this non-country to have rights, privileges, and a voice that it shouldn't have. We gave them land that was taken from others, we gave them food, clothing and weapons, trained their military, and continue to play the thug on their behalf. I have to wonder how much it is costing us in direct and indirect funds to support Israel.

As far as Jr. and Sr. go, I don't think it was so much that he was trying to "finish what daddy started". I think it was more that Jr. was worried that he wouldn't be seen as the bigshot that he imagined his daddy was (personally, I think dad was mediocre at best and Jr. never even climbed that high in my personal opinion) and the one memorable event that he could revive was Desert Storm. That was Sr.'s baby (I wont go so far as to say his legacy, though that might be accurate as well), and pretty much the only thing that Jr. could use to attempt to show that he had bigger balls than his dad.

I said this 8 years ago, in the very first post I ever made here, and I will say it again: I think we should just turn the whole fuckin' wasteland into a sheet of glass and move on.

Top
Page all of 5 12345>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.083 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 80 queries. Zlib compression disabled.