Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Yeah, you're right The Constitution doesn't mean much to any red-blooded American anymore.........what with Cowboy Clive doing his thing out there
in the boonies of Hillbilly Nevada or some such.

---

Well, so far YOU don't seem to interested in defending it against clear violations.

Quote:

---

But we're talking about Obama aren't we.

---

SGG, I've been squawking about the spying since NIXON started using the FBI to infiltrate protest organizations!

Were you not here when I brought up - over and over- the revelation by AT&T technician Mark Klein that BUSH had started splicing into the AT&T lines at their San Francisco exchange? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

For my pains, I was treated like some sort of woo-woo leftwing conspiracy nutjob who was making to much of nothing!

This isn't about OBAMA, and that you keep reacting as if I'm targeting OBAMA specifically (Because he's half-black? Because he's a Democrat?) is frustrating beyond belief. Try removing the individual from the argument. I'd be making the same criticisms whether Obama was purple or green or Republican or Peace&Freedom. Violating the Constitution is violating the Constitution, no matter who's doing it.

Quote:

---

So, you think that Snowden is a hero? One question: If he's such a hero, then why did he run?

---

You're kidding, right?

Quote:

---

Why did he blow the whistle? What was his motive? Actually, I could investigate that

---

He blew the whistle - LIKE SO MANY OTHERS- because he was participating in an activity that was frankly unconstitutional. He lost a LOT because of it. But, yeah- go ahead and "investigate" it. While you're at it, why don't you investigate what he revealed as well?

Did you hear about the 50 or so DIA analysts who blew the whistle on the fact that their reports on our anti-ISIL strategy were being re-written into happy-talk for political purposes? No, of course not.

There are a lot of whistleblowers out there, blowing whistles. Maybe you should listen to them.

Quote:

---

He stole a shitload of documents, that much I know. Claims Americans, innocent Americans were spied on...........Hmmmmmm, where did I hear that before?

---

Lots of places. Possibly even here, from me, about GWB. The fact that you heard about other instances of surveillance instigated by other Presidents doesn't make Obama's violations any less true, or any less important. Stop trying to make exceptions for Obama. It's beneath you, or it should be. Apply the same rigorous standards that you would apply to Bush or any other President. Insert "BUSH" everywhere you hear about a criticism of Obama, and if you find certain actions would be heinous under Bush, then they should be equally heinous under Obama. Isn't that so?

Quote:

---

Again, I digress. This is about Obama and his secrets which, of course, no other president before him has had.

---

Yeah, thanks for mis-stating what I said.

I'm an equal-opportunity accuser. Do you want me to start linking the many, many criticisms of BUSH that I made here? Why would you distort my viewpoints that way? Because what I've said has been very clear, and not at all muted.

By the way, you will see, if you bother to look, that I gave OBAMA a VERY wide margin when he was first elected. Despite his lack of record, I voted for him on the basis that I already knew what Hillary was about (neocon) and that if Obama only managed to keep 15% of his many promises, he wouldn't be doing too badly.

I defended him against the rightwing "birther" nutjobs who were claiming that he was a Kenyan Muslim socialist. As if! I didn't start to have SUBSTANTIVE criticisms until about three years into his first term, when he had proven himself to be both a corporate shill and a serial Constitutional transgressor.

Quote:

---

Then Congress should impeach him, shouldn't they?

---

Yes, they should. Bush too.

YOU HAVE TO WONDER, or at least you might want to wonder, what the POINT of all of this surveillance is. What was it meant to accomplish? Did it actually catch any terrorists, prevent any terrorist acts?

ER... no.

Quote:

---

They have control of both houses don't they? Oh, what evil lurks in the heart of the "colorful" president born in Kenya.

---

Oh my fucking god. Why do you keep turning this into some sort of reaction to rightwing nutjobs?

Quote:

---

By the way, have you ever heard of the Patriot Act? Just asking!

---

yes, I've heard of the Patriot Act. It's unconstitutional. Just in case you've forgotten what we're talking about, here is the part in the Constitution about search and seizure. It's pretty plain what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote it, it's very short, and worth a thoughtful read on your part:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Quote:

---

Gee, how clever of Obama to do that way back in 2001.

---

And I have faulted BUSH, over and over, and over and over about torture, about the Patriot Act, about using 9-11 and cooked intelligence to lead us into pointless wars that destabilized the entire mideast, about mass surveillance.

Just because Obama does the same thing, does that make it better?


Whenever somebody criticizes OBAMA, liberals (such as yourself?) reply with "But BUSH...!" We've had two miscreants in the WH in a row. One Democrat, one Republican. Neither one of them has represented the interests of the American people. Both have violated the Constitution. The fact that Obama is half-black is irrelevant to his misdeeds, or at least it should be, if you're trying to judge equally.

And just wait till the rest of the shit comes out. Both Presidents- very, very dirty.


--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

You're assuming that you're dealing with ethical people.

---

Quote:

---

I doubt there is anything that could be revealed that would make me relax my position.

---

Quote:

---

Yu want too noh how Iy noh?

---

Quote:

---

Because if they had a GOOD REASON for their strategy, they could have explained it to me already.

---

Quote:

---

But I agree that there is probably stuff we won't know until later (if ever) that will make me think that both Bush and Obama were even bigger dicks than I thought.

---

Quote:

---

For a guy who believes in being logical, you kind of turn it off when evaluating your "betters".

---

Quote:

---

A pretty good example of people diving into the social structure and not thinking individually.

---

Quote:

---

You're assuming that you're dealing with ethical people.- SIGNY

No. I can imajin all sorts uv situationz that woud overide the plain facts. Wun uv the mistakes most peepl make wen jujing the actionz uv otherz iz to assume there wuz a good choice. Very often there are only bad wunz or only 1.- JO

---

Quote:

---

I doubt there is anything that could be revealed that would make me relax my position.- SIGNY

Alienz or Godz/Devilz actually running the world.
Info about the future.
Real jeniusez or supercomputerz taking ALL available info and showing alternativ actionz and outkumz over a long time line. - JO

---

Quote:

---

Because if they had a GOOD REASON for their strategy, they could have explained it to me already.- SIGNY
Unless the truth iz so terribl that anybody who noz it wish they didnt. - JO

---

Quote:

---

For a guy who believes in being logical, you kind of turn it off when evaluating your "betters".- SIGNY
Funny. I usually get pegged az an arrogant megalomaniac. -JO

---

Quote:

---

A pretty good example of people diving into the social structure and not thinking individually.- SIGNY
Me? The Nooalf guy? The guy who gets ridiculed by Townhall and Daily Kos, Sientists and Priests, Skeptics and Bleevrz? -JO

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM: There is no truth so terrible that it's worth NOT facing. The unfaced terrible truth is far worse and more consequential than the one that's being responded to. - SIGNY

You mean unless it deals with the UNITED STATES invading other sovereign countries or bombing innocent civilians, THEN it's ok to hide the truth?

---

Quote:

---

I agree with JO - there are most likely thousands of things we do not know about that influence all of these major political decisions and actions

---

Quote:

---

and they are in constant motion and subject to change from near countless additional influences, second by second. Think of the largest mathematical formula even written and add in random acts of chaos and simple happenstance. The complexity is beyond measure - only guessable.
I understand it's in our nature to want to define and manage these events, to make sense and thereby have some calming impression of control over them, but in truth it only looks like a plan when you look backwards afterwards.

---

Quote:

---

Brothers and sisters, for eight years we have labored under oppression. I mean, what has Obama ever done for us?
Well he did save us from the greatest recession since the Great depression…
What?
Yes Reg. The country was in a right mess after Bush when he came in and prevented the total collapse of WALL STREET.

---

Quote:

---

That’s right he did do that Reg. He bailed out the Car Industry so that GM and Chrysler are now PROFITING.

---

Quote:

---

And created ten million more PART TIME LOW WAGE jobs.
Alright I grant you he did NOT save the country from the Bush Depression, just WALL STREET, but apart from saving the country financially, what has Obama ever done for us?
Saved the BANKS from total collapse…
What?
Reduced the deficit by 2/3rds from 98% under Bush to 2.9%..

---

Quote:

---

Oh and he restored America’s reputation in the world..

---

Quote:

---

That’s right.

---

Quote:

---

Ok. But apart from saving the MORTGAGE INDUSTRY from total collapse, and reducing the deficit by two thirds, what else has he ever done for us?
Health Care.
Oo yes Reg, remember when we couldn’t afford to go to the Doctors.
WELL, WE STILL CAN'T.
Well ok I grant you affordable Health Care for everyone is a good thing but, apart from

---

Quote:

---

restoring DISrespect for America, and bringing in UNaffordable Health Care, what else has Obama ever done for us?

---

Quote:

---

He ended the disastrous war in Iraq.

---

Quote:

---

Oo yes.
Alright that is a GOOD THING I grant you..

---

Quote:

---

And killed Bin Laden.

---

Quote:

---

That’s right.
And got rid of Gaddafi.

---

Quote:

---

And Mubarak.
Alright, alright. Apart from ending the disastrous Bush War in Iraq AND STARTING THREE MORE, killing Bin Laden and PROMOTING SOMEONE WORSE and supporting the Arab spring AND PLUNGING THE REST OF THE MIDEAST INTO JIHADISM AND SECULAR WAR , what has Obama ever done for us?

---

Quote:

---

Climate change?

---

Quote:

---

Gay marriage?

---

Quote:

---

Stem cell research.

---

Quote:

---

Oo yes remember when Bush wouldn’t allow that.
And he did get rid of the Bush torture policies.

---

Quote:

---

Cuba? STILL EMBARGOED!

---

Quote:

---

Record stock market highs.

---

Quote:

---

School nutrition.

---

Quote:

---

The Iranian nuclear deal.

---

Quote:

---

Oh alright but apart from getting rid of the Bush torture policies, FAILING TO CLOSE GITMO, saving WALL STREET from the Great Depression, bailing out the Car Industry PROFITS, pulling us PARTIALLY out of the disastrous war in Iraq AND STARTING THREE MORE AND STILL KEEPING A FORCE IN AFGHANISTAN, killing Bin Laden AND PROMOTING SOMEONE WORSE, gay marriage THE LEAST HE COULD DO, climate change NOTHING SO FAR, Cuba STILL EMBARGOED, stem cell research, school nutrition and UNAffordable Health Care, what has Obama ever done for us?

---

Quote:

---

He prevented Sarah Palin becoming Vice President.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:
Your thinking haz sum problemz.

1. Hiz title iznt prezident.

2. It iznt the United States.

3. He'z too gay.

4. No. He iznt anywhere near az kool az Obama. Not even the same league.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

---

Quote:

---

See, as you requested, I’m trying to have a *discussion* here SIGNYM. We already 1000 times over know what you think about the US - that is in stone and is not questioned.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Small minded man you... he's way cooler than Obama.

---

Quote:

---

And what's with the gay slur. Are you homophobic?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:and that the only reason to adopt a phonetic language is to condition people to NOT ACCEPT things that don't make sense

---

Quote:

---

here you are: advocating accepting things that don't make sense, because "authorities may have their reasons that they're not telling us".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:

NU U! Obamaz finger nail clippingz got more kool than all your prime ministerz in history combined!

[

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:
But you seem so Canadian.

---

Quote:

---

Now you hav problemz with your new post.

1. The Fonz wuznt a rocker, he wuz a greaser.

2. He wuznt ajing az in over the hill.

3. Most importantly - by definition, anything The Fonz did wuz kool.

He wuz the gold standard uv Kool in hiz time, but now, 40 or 60 yirz later (depending on wether you go by wen the show aired or the time period in the show), he haz been exeeded. On the Kool scale, with The Fonz at 100, Obama woud be approximately 525, altho the math gets a little speculativ beyond about 150 sins the scale wuz never intended to go beyond 100.

4. Why do you think renting a room ubuv sumwunz garaj iznt kool? Do you believ money haz sumthing to do with koolness?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

You're assuming that you're dealing with ethical people.- SIGNY

No. I can imajin all sorts uv situationz that woud overide the plain facts. Wun uv the mistakes most peepl make wen jujing the actionz uv otherz iz to assume there wuz a good choice. Very often there are only bad wunz or only 1.- JO

---

Let me give you a couple of less-critical possible interpretations for Bush's (Cheney's, really) actions.

BEFORE 9-11, there was an energy commission that Cheney chaired. It was wildly secretive and therefore wildly unpopular with those who were excluded (which was everyone from the public interest).

What was revealed ... 15 years after the fact ... was that the energy commission exempted all fracking operations from all Federal regulations. Fracking, in fact, is the USA's grasp at energy independence. Independence from who? Well, Saudi Arabia, really! And the KSA, you may recall, is the main instigator of sectarian Sunni (convert or die)/ takfiri (denouncer)/ wahhabi (religiously-based political authority of the House of el Saud) strife in the Mideast, as well as the main instigator of the 9-11 attacks. Cheney at one point made some elliptical comment that fracking was a good "transition" energy strategy. Well, that must mean a transition from Saudi oil to something else. Don't you think the Saudi's would feel threatened by that?

It's possible that in an administration packed with Zionist neocons (literally. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith etc. Some of those neocons helped write a policy paper for Netanyahu of Israel, and Zionist neocons have deep ties to Saudi Arabia, as did the BUSH family) Cheney was playing a deeper game: energy independence from Saudi Arabia. Perhaps, in some ways, Cheney was the only patriot in the entire Bush administration. Or maybe he was just looking to make a lot of money for his oil interests.

Obama's deal with Iran also sticks out like a sore thumb. It clearly cuts across the Saudi interests, and may have been the final trigger for the oil price war that the Saudis are currently waging against everyone. When two nations have had a many-decades-long relationships, as the USA and KSA have had, based on energy, world reserve currency (USD), and geopolitics (anticommunism), and have made many dirty compromises in each others' interest, unwinding that relationship is not a simple task, especially when one is trying to avoid significant retaliation from a powerful entity. It's like a really, really bad divorce, with children involved.

I think part of the problem is that the US government doesn't have ONE interest group in it, it has several, fighting each other. The interests of the American people aren't in that blender, being whirled around with other interests.

If one is considering ONLY the interests of the American people, the choices are much clearer. You only have to consider things like: What is the fallout on the American dollar if the Saudis retaliate against our currency? How can we establish energy independence? How can we protect our banks? How do we unwind the derivatives market which could implode with a USD devaluation?

The only reason why the policies "don't make sense" is because they don't make sense TO US. I'm sure those who're involved- the IMF, the ECB, the Fed, the CIA, the Pentagon, the Zionists - are vigorously representing THEIR interests in the maelstrom.

Quote:

---

I doubt there is anything that could be revealed that would make me relax my position.- SIGNY

Alienz or Godz/Devilz actually running the world.
Info about the future.
Real jeniusez or supercomputerz taking ALL available info and showing alternativ actionz and outkumz over a long time line. - JO

---

HAHAHA! OK, yeah, those.

Quote:

---

Because if they had a GOOD REASON for their strategy, they could have explained it to me already.- SIGNY
Unless the truth iz so terribl that anybody who noz it wish they didnt. - JO

---

There is no truth so terrible that it's worth NOT facing. The unfaced terrible truth is far worse and more consequential than the one that's being responded to.

Quote:

---

For a guy who believes in being logical, you kind of turn it off when evaluating your "betters".- SIGNY
Funny. I usually get pegged az an arrogant megalomaniac. -JO

---

Except in this instance.

Quote:

---

A pretty good example of people diving into the social structure and not thinking individually.- SIGNY
Me? The Nooalf guy? The guy who gets ridiculed by Townhall and Daily Kos, Sientists and Priests, Skeptics and Bleevrz? -JO

---

Yep! Even you!



--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Oh dear, pehaps coolness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Yeah, you're right The Constitution doesn't mean much to any red-blooded American anymore.........what with Cowboy Clive doing his thing out there
in the boonies of Hillbilly Nevada or some such.

---

Well, so far YOU don't seem to interested in defending it against clear violations.

I'm not as well versed in Constitutional Law as you are. Clear violations, Congress has committees and sub-committees for that, don't they? There must be something they can do to combat such 'clear violations'?

Quote:

---

But we're talking about Obama aren't we.

---

SGG, I've been squawking about the spying since NIXON started using the FBI to infiltrate protest organizations!

I did not know that!

Were you not here when I brought up - over and over- the revelation by AT&T technician Mark Klein that BUSH had started splicing into the AT&T lines at their San Francisco exchange? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

No, not here. But I wouldn't put it past Bush & Company.

For my pains, I was treated like some sort of woo-woo leftwing conspiracy nutjob who was making to much of nothing!

Not by me.

This isn't about OBAMA, and that you keep reacting as if I'm targeting OBAMA specifically (Because he's half-black? Because he's a Democrat?) is frustrating beyond belief. Try removing the individual from the argument. I'd be making the same criticisms whether Obama was purple or green or Republican or Peace&Freedom. Violating the Constitution is violating the Constitution, no matter who's doing it.

Okay, you make your statements, I make mine. Yes, violators should be punished. No matter what! That you know of, has that happened to any president? Nixon comes to my mind. Anyone else?

Quote:

---

So, you think that Snowden is a hero? One question: If he's such a hero, then why did he run?

---

You're kidding, right?

No, that's why I asked the question. Did he not violate his oath?

Quote:

---

Why did he blow the whistle? What was his motive? Actually, I could investigate that

---

He blew the whistle - LIKE SO MANY OTHERS- because he was participating in an activity that was frankly unconstitutional. He lost a LOT because of it. But, yeah- go ahead and "investigate" it. While you're at it, why don't you investigate what he revealed as well?

You tell me. I am not defending what he did, if he's a whistleblower then he's a hero. It takes guts to do that, yet he's in Russia or China.

Did you hear about the 50 or so DIA analysts who blew the whistle on the fact that their reports on our anti-ISIL strategy were being re-written into happy-talk for political purposes? No, of course not.

Nope, never heard of them.

There are a lot of whistleblowers out there, blowing whistles. Maybe you should listen to them.

I'm having a little trouble living my life. I'm not as all-knowing as you are.

Quote:

---

He stole a shitload of documents, that much I know. Claims Americans, innocent Americans were spied on...........Hmmmmmm, where did I hear that before?

---

Lots of places. Possibly even here, from me, about GWB. The fact that you heard about other instances of surveillance instigated by other Presidents doesn't make Obama's violations any less true, or any less important. Stop trying to make exceptions for Obama. It's beneath you, or it should be. Apply the same rigorous standards that you would apply to Bush or any other President. Insert "BUSH" everywhere you hear about a criticism of Obama, and if you find certain actions would be heinous under Bush, then they should be equally heinous under Obama. Isn't that so?

Yes.

Quote:

---

Again, I digress. This is about Obama and his secrets which, of course, no other president before him has had.

---

Yeah, thanks for mis-stating what I said.

I'm an equal-opportunity accuser. Do you want me to start linking the many, many criticisms of BUSH that I made here? Why would you distort my viewpoints that way? Because what I've said has been very clear, and not at all muted.

Yep, won't happen again.

By the way, you will see, if you bother to look, that I gave OBAMA a VERY wide margin when he was first elected. Despite his lack of record, I voted for him on the basis that I already knew what Hillary was about (neocon) and that if Obama only managed to keep 15% of his many promises, he wouldn't be doing too badly.

Not necessary to bring up your past deeds. I will take your word for it.

I defended him against the rightwing "birther" nutjobs who were claiming that he was a Kenyan Muslim socialist. As if! I didn't start to have SUBSTANTIVE criticisms until about three years into his first term, when he had proven himself to be both a corporate shill and a serial Constitutional transgressor.

Corporate shill!? Because?

Quote:

---

Then Congress should impeach him, shouldn't they?

---

Yes, they should. Bush too.

YOU HAVE TO WONDER, or at least you might want to wonder, what the POINT of all of this surveillance is. What was it meant to accomplish? Did it actually catch any terrorists, prevent any terrorist acts?

ER... no.

You do know that the FBI have thwarted a number of home made terrorists. Some have slipped through the cracks too, but I do wonder why would they spy on me. Anyway, I should hire a lawyer to defend my right to privacy, then the shit will really hit the fan.

Quote:

---

They have control of both houses don't they? Oh, what evil lurks in the heart of the "colorful" president born in Kenya.

---

Oh my fucking god. Why do you keep turning this into some sort of reaction to rightwing nutjobs?

It's a hobby of mine.

Quote:

---

By the way, have you ever heard of the Patriot Act? Just asking!

---

yes, I've heard of the Patriot Act. It's unconstitutional. Just in case you've forgotten what we're talking about, here is the part in the Constitution about search and seizure. It's pretty plain what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote it, it's very short, and worth a thoughtful read on your part:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Know it! That's why I brought it up.

Quote:

---

Gee, how clever of Obama to do that way back in 2001.

---

And I have faulted BUSH, over and over, and over and over about torture, about the Patriot Act, about using 9-11 and cooked intelligence to lead us into pointless wars that destabilized the entire mideast, about mass surveillance.

Just because Obama does the same thing, does that make it better?

Just being obnoxious.

Whenever somebody criticizes OBAMA, liberals (such as yourself?) reply with "But BUSH...!" We've had two miscreants in the WH in a row. One Democrat, one Republican. Neither one of them has represented the interests of the American people. Both have violated the Constitution. The fact that Obama is half-black is irrelevant to his misdeeds, or at least it should be, if you're trying to judge equally.

So I'm a liberal now.............thought I was a Pisces!

And just wait till the rest of the shit comes out. Both Presidents- very, very dirty.

I'm sure. Makes me wonder what this country is all about. I mean, presidents come and go and do what they think is right for the country.
Nixon spied on the Dems, Reagan had the Iran-Contra thing, Bush had the Iraq Debacle, Clinton had just about everything in the book, Obama is
a Constitutional law breaker. Trump will have his real estate deals and 3 wives, and God knows what else. Makes you think, don't it? Which president
can anyone honestly say doesn't have a scandal in his closet?

Of course, only you can have the answer.


SGG

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

---

Quote:

---

I'm sure. Makes me wonder what this country is all about. I mean, presidents come and go and do what they think is right for the country.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

I'm sure. Makes me wonder what this country is all about. I mean, presidents come and go and do what they think is right for the country.

---

Really???


After all you've seen and all you've been through, do you really think that they're doing what's "right for the country"?

Do you really think "the country" even rates a minute's thought, other than "How can I get 'the country' to go along with the plan"?



--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Oh dear.

Was this the moment when you realized that there was no such thing as Santa Claus? That Presidents are NOT our national daddies (or mommies), lying awake at night worrying about how to keep the national family safe and happy?

Oops.

Sorry to say, they are much more venal, and much more purchasable than you have imagined.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Oh dear.

Was this the moment when you realized that there was no such thing as Santa Claus? That Presidents are NOT our national daddies (or mommies), lying awake at night worrying about how to keep the national family safe and happy?

Oops.

Sorry to say, they are much more venal, and much more purchasable than you have imagined.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Tell me, O exalted one, what makes you so wise.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Okay, sharing wisdom.....................Take One:

"It was just a realization that I had that I was trying to express: I was assuming that Obama (specifically) had come to the Presidency naive but with good intentions, and was a somewhat hapless piece in the game of geopolitics and international economics, struggling to achieve at least SOME part of his original intentions."

SGG: Yes, now we are getting somewhere. I agree with your assessment that Obama (and some others, I'll add) entered into the Presidency naïve beyond measure, but with good intentions, and, as you so eloquently stated, a "hapless piece in the game of geopolitics and international economics, struggling to achieve at least SOME part of his original intentions."

I always wondered about the phrase "America's best interests" and have come to the conclusion that all presidents must say these words (it's in their contract)

---

Quote:

---

but to that they are bound, not by any sense of patriotic duty, but more so by TPTB. Unwitting and naïve participants going in, and then, resigned to the fact that those powers that be mean business. There is the illusion of America as this powerful nation of a bunch of Do-gooders sacrificing life and limb for freedom, justice etc.

Those best interests are not always in "our" best interests. The 99% of us who struggle to make ends meet serve those who remain in the shadows pulling the strings. Laws are made to benefit those in power, but us poor slobs have little to combat those shadowy figures. You can't fight what you can't, or won't, see.

---

Quote:

---

"It hadn't occurred to me until just a little while ago that he might actually be an active player with personal goals of his own: The deliberate dismemberment of US sovereignty"

SGG: I'm going to answer this seriously, although I do not agree with the above statement. I will take a look at the TPP and TTIP (perhaps that may have a bearing on the course of things globally, but, more immediately, on your statement). First of all, I don't believe that he has "dismembered" US Sovereignty, deliberate or otherwise. I suspect that your mentioning the TPP and the TTIP has something to do with your statement. Until I know more, I'll reserve my comment. Although I don't see it as deliberate, that would intone that Obama has the mind of a madman seeking world domination, or some such......to be continued....

Still though, if he has an eye of making money for himself (I thought that was the idea, you know, the American Dream and all). I don't see him deliberately weakening the country - wouldn't that be counter-productive.

---

Quote:

---

It's like burning down your house to then sell it, it doesn't follow. If he were looking to get rich off the land, wouldn't it behoove him to make the country as strong as possible to then capitalize (Capitalism usually works that way; unless, of course, he's looking to make Germany, France or England look good to then make money overseas. Nah, that makes no sense).in order to sell the books and make $500,000 per speech from Wall Street.

---

Quote:

---

Question: What could Obama possibly gain by making America weaker? Is his
only motivation to live more comfortably? Or is it that he secretly hates the country? (As an aside, both he and his family will receive preferential treatment from the office of the presidency, if only for appearance sake).

---

Quote:

---

I suggest that there's more to it than meets the eye, but I wouldn't begin to speculate (since I am not privy to such deeply held secrets). Of course, the truth will never really come out; but if it did I suspect we wouldn't live to tell the tale.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:
I think hiz plan iz to take it eazy after hiz term iz over.

But, if prezident uv the US wuz just a stepping stone to greater pozition, he haz my support.

---

Quote:

---

... On February 11, the Guardian ran an article by George Soros which had run a day earlier here entitled "Putin is a bigger threat to Europe's existence than Isis."

After a quick check of my vital signs, I confirmed that I was indeed awake and the article was real and in the Guardian not The Onion. Before I look at the tissue of untruths which make up the substance of Soros' article, a few general words about psychopaths are in order.

I have met a few psychopaths in my life - a pernicious but small-time example is a real-estate "salesman" in Spain who cost my family a great deal of time and money. The real problem with psychopaths - big-time and small-time - is not primarily that they do bad things, but that we - non-psychopaths - are ill-prepared to deal with the fundamental difference between us and them.

We - people with operational consciences - think (wrongly) that everyone is like us. We are shackled to the assumption that just because we would not do unspeakably evil things - or would be unable to live with ourselves if we did - all other people work the same way.

They do not.

When a psychopath lies, or steals, or manipulates - or does whatever he thinks is required to get what he wants - he has no greater emotional connection with his actions than you or I have with yesterday's lunch.

We, the non-psychopaths, tell little lies and do little wrongs. But we have a limit beyond which we will not go. For the psychopath, scale makes no difference. Stealing a family's savings, or crashing an economy, or destroying a country is of no more consequence to the psychopath than deciding not to return ten bucks to a cashier who had made a mistake.

And no matter what evil the psychopath meticulously plotted and practiced against you, to him, what happens is your fault. Always.

Which brings me back to George Soros.

In the Guardian's article, then, Soros claims "the US and the EU are making a grievous error in thinking that President Vladimir Putin's Russia is a potential ally in the fight against Islamic State."

The assumptions here are based on pure falsehood. My colleague, the diligent and forthright journalist and writer Gearóid Ó Colmáin, laid an axe as sharp as any to the root of the notion that the so-called War on Terror (taken to include Islamic State) serves anything other than the interests of what Ó Colmáin rightly calls a "tiny and particularly tyrannical ruling elite".

In an interview with RT, Ó Colmáin said, "There is no War on Terror. There is a war which is being waged using terrorist proxy groups and they are being used against nation states who are resisting US and Israeli hegemony. And they are also being used as a means of disciplining the work forces in Europe. In a period of mass unemployment and austerity, you now have terrorist attacks being committed by terrorists funded, armed and trained by Western intelligence agencies. There is no such thing as ISIS. ISIS is a creation of the United States."


Soros and his ilk created and benefit from what Soros calls "Islamic State," yet his argument not only disregards that fact, it kicks blame in the direction of the one major power - Russia - which has taken steps to deal with this US creation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I'd make people more rational.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, I think what this all boils down to is: Could the President be a sociopath or psychopath?

I think that people like Bill Gates and George Soros are. Quite frankly I think that Hillary is too. But what do people think of TPTB generally? Do we assume that they're often sociopaths and psychopaths? Or do we just assume that they're people just like us albeit with greater power and authority and money?

Quote:

---

... On February 11, the Guardian ran an article by George Soros which had run a day earlier here entitled "Putin is a bigger threat to Europe's existence than Isis."

After a quick check of my vital signs, I confirmed that I was indeed awake and the article was real and in the Guardian not The Onion. Before I look at the tissue of untruths which make up the substance of Soros' article, a few general words about psychopaths are in order.

I have met a few psychopaths in my life - a pernicious but small-time example is a real-estate "salesman" in Spain who cost my family a great deal of time and money. The real problem with psychopaths - big-time and small-time - is not primarily that they do bad things, but that we - non-psychopaths - are ill-prepared to deal with the fundamental difference between us and them.

We - people with operational consciences - think (wrongly) that everyone is like us. We are shackled to the assumption that just because we would not do unspeakably evil things - or would be unable to live with ourselves if we did - all other people work the same way.

They do not.

When a psychopath lies, or steals, or manipulates - or does whatever he thinks is required to get what he wants - he has no greater emotional connection with his actions than you or I have with yesterday's lunch.

We, the non-psychopaths, tell little lies and do little wrongs. But we have a limit beyond which we will not go. For the psychopath, scale makes no difference. Stealing a family's savings, or crashing an economy, or destroying a country is of no more consequence to the psychopath than deciding not to return ten bucks to a cashier who had made a mistake.

And no matter what evil the psychopath meticulously plotted and practiced against you, to him, what happens is your fault. Always.

Which brings me back to George Soros.

In the Guardian's article, then, Soros claims "the US and the EU are making a grievous error in thinking that President Vladimir Putin's Russia is a potential ally in the fight against Islamic State."

The assumptions here are based on pure falsehood. My colleague, the diligent and forthright journalist and writer Gearóid Ó Colmáin, laid an axe as sharp as any to the root of the notion that the so-called War on Terror (taken to include Islamic State) serves anything other than the interests of what Ó Colmáin rightly calls a "tiny and particularly tyrannical ruling elite".

In an interview with RT, Ó Colmáin said, "There is no War on Terror. There is a war which is being waged using terrorist proxy groups and they are being used against nation states who are resisting US and Israeli hegemony. And they are also being used as a means of disciplining the work forces in Europe. In a period of mass unemployment and austerity, you now have terrorist attacks being committed by terrorists funded, armed and trained by Western intelligence agencies. There is no such thing as ISIS. ISIS is a creation of the United States."


Soros and his ilk created and benefit from what Soros calls "Islamic State," yet his argument not only disregards that fact, it kicks blame in the direction of the one major power - Russia - which has taken steps to deal with this US creation.

---

More at http://www.sott.net/article/312167-George-Soros-A-psychopaths-psychopa
th

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

---