Osama sends the president a message by citizen

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Osama sends the president a message

POSTED BY: CITIZEN
UPDATED: Friday, February 3, 2006 20:35
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2868
PAGE 2 of 2

Friday, January 27, 2006 4:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
perhaps if these are the standard which conduct is judged, those at Fox news better start running scared...

The most heinous crime is 'being on the other side'.

Now if the people at Fox worked for Al-Jazeera...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

Which is a good point, while I would disagree that
Al-Jazeera is on anyone's side... since Bush set the precedent, would the right wing media in the US now be a legitimate target ?

Mind you since the USAF levelled the Yugo car works in their Serbian campaign.... does that make
GM a target ?

food for thought

Don't think they give a shit

I'm with Signy and Rue

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 27, 2006 4:32 PM

CITIZEN

Well, Al-Jazeera is on the 'other side' because they aren't on the 'right side' if you see what I mean?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 27, 2006 6:40 PM

DREAMTROVE

Since OBL's name is written in arabic, Osama is no less correct than Usama. The latter is used by the CIA.

Quote:
Bush Sr ordered Saddam to invade Kuwait.

Um. No. I don't think so. I'm pretty sure this isn't what happened. I was not only paying attention, but I read this conspiracy theory already. Saddam was off on some bogus kick about he had a right to that oil because of some ancient empire, so he would go destroy a culture society and people to get it. Bush Sr. courageously swooped down and saved the say, a fact some people are still angry about. No, I don't want to agrue the point, just wanted to state a position that some folk are bound to take issue to.

Quote:

Bush Sr set the oil wells on fire under United Nations Corporation command, to blame Saddam and jack up oil prices, as confessed by US troops.

We did set fire to these and blame Saddam, but it wasn't planned, it was a result of our technology being more destructive and less accurate than it had been advertised by the manufacturers and the pentagon. It wasn't an elaborate ploy to raise oil prices, since Iraq at war was not really in a position to sell oil, as it would have to send tankers through hostil waters to do so, so that oil was already off the market.

Quote:
Bush Sr set the oil wells on fire under United Nations Corporation command, to blame Saddam and jack up oil prices, as confessed by US troops.

I read this one too, but I doubt it. Where did the Iranians get the gas from? Saddam has it. I think he was aiming for Iranian insurgents if it helps, but he also made other attacks on the Kurds. He's not the good guy.

Quote:
Yes, and vaccines are by far the most deadly method of genocide

Sure. But overall, I really don't think you're crediting incompetence and stupidity enough as destructive forms.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 27, 2006 6:59 PM

DREAMTROVE

Nuremberg was a bad precedent. I think there was an effort there to spread the blame, but it's hard to say. Many people may have actually not known, and others had little to no involvement. Sure, Nazis genocided jews and many other. But the US has done similar things, and never really been held accountable. If, after the civil war, the south had hanged everyone for the crimes of slavery, we wouldn't be on speaking terms. As it was, the punishments made a serious estrangement. As for the indians, well, you get the point. I think if someone has evidence that a corporate conspired to commit genocide, they should be tried, but not because they had a contract with the govt. in a state where the govt. did bad. In Nazi Germany it was illegal not to have a contract with the govt. as it was a socialist state. Increased govt. control had gotten to the point where the govt. was often majority shareholder, and could basically tell the company what to do.

A more serious trial would have looked outside Germany more. Swiss banks in particular stood to gain tremendously financially by the holocaust, and may have even ordered its execution. One of our gop ex-senators here, d'amato lead the inquiry on this matter, and it came to light that switzerland catapulted to richest from back/middle of the pack economically as a result of the holocaust, and when the trials were over and nazis were also dead or fled, the total swiss wealth may have increased tenfold.

I guess what I'm saying is that the main issue has to be not participation but intent. Soldiers follow orders to invade Iraq. It's possible that the point of such an operation was to embezzle oil, but that doesn't make the soldiars guilty of embezzlement.

I don't think Fox News is to blame. Even if you take their declaration of Bush victory, that's scarecely surprising, they're republicans. No one commented that the network anchors call florida for gore were democrats. But seriously, whether or not Bush stole the election, if he did, he was determined to anyway, the use of Fox News to that end was really more or less irrelevent. Bush was more aggressive in pressing his victory claim, so he won. Just like Kennedy was more agressive than Nixon in 1960. The truth is, no one will ever know, because no one knows yet who won in 1960. Some people said, well, should've gone Gore because of the popular vote, but the law doesn't say that, if someone wants to, they can make that law. My gut says in these situations there should be a revote or runoff.

But overall, I think Fox is a pretty fair and balanced news source, and not a tool of the administration. I think CNN may be more of a tool, but I don't think it will ever come to that. ABC is the most administration tool, CBS is a democrat tool I don't know about NBC. MSNBC is the most fair and balanced, and I believe they openly supported Bush for years. For them it was Cheney who they increasingly had problems with.

But anyway, yes, I agree this is not an ideal state, but I don't think Bush supporters will be subject to Nuremburg. I think that realistically, the GOP will attempt to cleanse itself after this administration leaves office, which means lots of people losing their jobs, and maybe a few going to jail. But I don't expect it to be a govt. sponsored operation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 27, 2006 7:10 PM

DREAMTROVE

Al-Jazeera is on the muslim side, on any issue that the muslims are united. They're usually reasonably fair, except on issues of Israel. I think they think Bin Laden is as legitamate a leader as Bush, which is their call to make. I don't think that call makes them on Bin Laden's side.

GM is already a target of the Bush admin. He wants it gone. I think the neocon goal in all fields of business is for their to be a one company monopoly in each field, where they control the one company. Bush's strangely friendly relationship to the Clinton creation of Daimler-Chrysler contrasts markedly with his blatantly hostile attitude towards "American" car makers. Obviously, while it is still true that "what's good for general motors is good for america" that it is also true "what's bad for america is good for bush" So, all in all, I don't see there's much to discuss on this impeachment issue, except:

1. Which and how many crimes to impeach him on.
2. Whether or not to try him criminally.
3. How to remove Cheney first so he doesn't become president.

I vote Cheney should be subpoenaed and then force to retire for health reasons or be arrested, and then Bush should be forced to nominate someone supported by the majority of the GOP elected federal officials to replace him, and then play nice or be impeached.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 27, 2006 7:35 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

I agree with you on many points...

except maybe Al-Jazeera.... even on stories they cover involving Israel I think they go out of their way to be unbiased in a way the Western, particularly US media has not.

They seem to have almost a template

What Happened

What the Israeli gov has said about it

What the P.A. has said

What other groups, Hamas, etc has said

What the International community has said...

no editorials, no attacks.....

for example :

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1D088C7E-367B-4333-B13E-DCE1FA5
43E86.htm

Don't think they give a shit

I'm with Signy and Rue

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 28, 2006 3:35 AM

DREAMTROVE

Al Jazeera is blatantly anti-semitic, not just anti-Zionist. They're formerly the BBC, so they're sophisticated about it, but it's still there. You can see them spin any story to the point where the evil jew is at fault, whether it's Wolfowitz or Perle or a western media figure. They seem more likely to do that than to spin anti-christian, which they also do. They've rarely been as hard historically on Cheney and Rummy and the secular aryan evil as they deserve. I know that to some extent, AL Jazeera is doing this because the audience eats it up, but to some extent they believe it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 28, 2006 4:36 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
I don't see there's much to discuss on this impeachment issue, except:

1. Which and how many crimes to impeach him on.
2. Whether or not to try him criminally.
3. How to remove Cheney first so he doesn't become president.

I vote Cheney should be subpoenaed and then force to retire for health reasons or be arrested, and then Bush should be forced to nominate someone supported by the majority of the GOP elected federal officials to replace him, and then play nice or be impeached.

This is the delusinoal stuff I make mention of, and then get grilled for name calling because I point out that it's delusional. Neither Bush or Cheney have committed any impeachable crimes so therefore no impeachment will come. The Dems are simply hate filled and wanting quid pro quo per the Clinton impeachment, and they don't give a damn how they go about getting it. Bush got up on the wrong side of the bed ? IMPEACH! Bush chose a man instead of a woman for the US Supreme Court? IMPEACH! It's so blatently obvious that the Dems are playing politics here, and some useful idiots are falling right into their gameplan.

So, put away your little day dreams and fantasies where all the big bad meannie Republicans are sent to jail and the rightful heirs of Gov't, the Democrats, are rushed back into power under a rainbow sky, as cute little bunnies and squirrels frolic on the green grasses of freedom and liberty!!

It ain't gonna happen. Not by a long shot. To continue such nonsensical talk only paints you into the idiot corner.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 28, 2006 4:47 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
This is the delusinoal stuff I make mention of, and then get grilled for name calling because I point out that it's delusional. Neither Bush or Cheney have committed any impeachable crimes so therefore no impeachment will come.

Wow, speaking of projection! Aside from the Plame Afair (which is still under investigation and may be a matter of treason) there is that little matter of NSA wiretapping w/o even a application for a retroactive surveillance order from FISA. I guess he never read the Fourth Ammendment. Also that Bush was either seriously stupid or lying when he stampeded everyone into invading Iraq on the basis of WMD. And then there is that minor matter of detaining US citizens ad infinitum w/o charges; habeus corpus seems to have slipped his mind. Of course, there is the Abramoff Affair, whom Bush claims not to have known despite Abramoff having raised more than $100,000 for his campaign.

Seems to me like the President is wiping his *ss with the Constitution. Of course, he did say that things would be so much easier if this were a dictatorship, and that the Constitution is just a g*damn piece of paper. Since his job IS to protect and defend the Consitution... well, his Overall Performance Rating would be....

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 28, 2006 8:32 AM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Al Jazeera is blatantly anti-semitic, not just anti-Zionist. They're formerly the BBC, so they're sophisticated about it, but it's still there. You can see them spin any story to the point where the evil jew is at fault, whether it's Wolfowitz or Perle or a western media figure. They seem more likely to do that than to spin anti-christian, which they also do. They've rarely been as hard historically on Cheney and Rummy and the secular aryan evil as they deserve. I know that to some extent, AL Jazeera is doing this because the audience eats it up, but to some extent they believe it.

Not really seeing that when I read it online myself...

Mind you I do see it the other way when I read the
US media.....

The only place I have seen anything remotely like what you are talking about is in there opinion section where some of the articles are marked " Not the opinion of Al Jazeera " abd are usually written by some local acedemic.

Do you have an example ?

Don't think they give a shit

I'm with Signy and Rue

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 28, 2006 10:41 AM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Neither Bush or Cheney have committed any impeachable crimes so therefore no impeachment will come.

This is just not so. Bush did many, many things. I listed some of them earlier. But in reality, any accusation is worth investigating.

I don't think Bush blew up the WTC to support his war, I'm not sure people under his command intentionally let it happen, but that's more iffy. But if you go to the nutball sites and read what they say, 90% of it is boulderdash, and the other 10% makes you wonder. Bush doesn't *need* to be criminially implicated to be impeached. He just needs to be unfit for command. If he's just incompetent, incapable of keeping commies and terrorists out of his govt., then out he goes.

What I do know for sure, if that he will kill the GOP. He's killing it right now. Hell, he's killing America, and I don't have any trouble with branding him and his traitors. I have no problem charging them for treason, in the WTC case, the WMD case, tha Valerie Plame case, because of the Patriot Act, the NSA wiretaps. I think, by itself, Katrina, is enough to impeach the president. I think any one of countless Abramoffs or DeLays are enough to sink an entire administration. The govt of the most powerful nation on Earth has to be a tight ship. This is anything but. At the moment, here's my feeling on the administration officials. Formers O'Neill, Whitman, Fleishman are blameless. Ashcroft and Powell should be examined for possible wrongdoing and treason. Condi more or less is blameless. Gonzalez, Rummy, McClellan should be investigated. Cheney should be charged, and probably Rove. Bush is monkey in an elephant suit. I'm not sure he's personally criminally guilty of anything, but he sure is unfit for command. Get a new chief in there. Pick anyone, any republican, from the US Senate. Today I don't care. Bill Frist or Jeff Sessions would be an improvement. I'd be kind of happy if it were someone with some real military experience. But anyone would do. Well, okay, preferaly none of the nine who opposed the torture ban. But that's where this president is. He is in with a group of 9% of the US senate who think torture is okay. If you were a political party, that wouldn't even qualify as a voting block. That's the lunatic fringe. Bush is the lunatic fringe.

Maybe I should make him a hat.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 28, 2006 10:42 AM

DREAMTROVE

Gin,

I haven't read it closely since they never responded to my letters, say a year or two, they may have stopped. They still seem to have a line of communications with OBL.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 28, 2006 11:00 AM

GINOBIFFARONI

I only started read them about a year ago...

But I would argue by being open to publish OBL's statements unedited, they are doing journalism

more so than the US media who seems to edit or opinionize everything.

With any media it is so hard to say who is telling the truth anymore, it all seems to be a propaganda machine....

Don't think they give a shit

I'm with Signy and Rue

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 28, 2006 11:17 AM

CITIZEN

Dreamtrove:
Nothing specific to add about Bush and impeachment, except *if* having extra marital sex is a reason for impeachment but illegal wars, concentration camps, wire taps et al aren't then I suggest moving to a free country and let Auraptor live in his/her perfect world

.

I suspect this isn't really the case though.

Although I'm never going to let you forget that someone called you a democrate

.

One last thing on Al Jazeera:

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I haven't read it closely since they never responded to my letters, say a year or two, they may have stopped. They still seem to have a line of communications with OBL.

Thing is, isn't this to be expected? I mean OBL needs to get that stuff out some how, so he's got the choice of giving it to a Western news station, or a Muslim one? Whoever gets it is going to make money from it, surely it makes absolute sense that OBL would favour Al Jazeera. Also as far as I can tell the line of communication between them is litterally recieving video tapes in the mail every now and again...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 28, 2006 3:07 PM

DREAMTROVE

I was just being devil's advocate on Al Jazeera here, so I have no point to make. I think sure, they're muslims, they have contact to OBL, that's money in the bank, go team. Ditto for the anti-semitism. Glad they've curbed that back, that's a fire which doesn't need fueling. Israel is a reality the ME should get used to, in the same way that white supremacists should get used to the fact that some Americans are black. Anyway, more or less conceding the rest.

Someone called me a democrat? Oh, Auraptor said all you democrats or somethign like that. But was there something personal there? I called him one earlier. But I think that was low and I should apologize. Not that democrats are low, just it's the lowest form of debate.

I think Bush is an enemy of the GOP. Actually I think it's Cheney et al, Bush is just a monkey in a stroller. But, his admin is really Cheney's, and Cheney is still working for Clinton, still realling in those paychecks from Clinton's pet Dick program, $15M to date, so you gotta figure. Clinton creates help Dick, that pays Dick's salary, and now see Dick run for VP, see Dick still earning cash from his pal Clinton's policies still in effect, so I guess, still on the payroll of Clinton technically. So, there's today's justification for my absurd position "The Bush Administration never happened."

But it's not really a denial issue. I have to take a moment to that. A lot on the left are saying "Republicans are evil." Not only is this A. Not true, B. absurd, but also, it's dangerously self-deceptive. Clinton was evil, killed a million people, freed dangerous criminals, embezzled fortuned, etc. Ties to the mafia, commies, etc. Bad. Bush is evil, sure, or working for evil. Hillary is evil. If you put all the blame on us, you might think that you're not infected with it, and won't be able to stop it.

But here's the concession. We f^&ked up. Bush and his pals got into office because they had an organization of 14 million voters who thought that he would fulfill and ancient prophecy and if they didn't vote for him they would condemn their immortal souls. Halfwits. Our halfwits. And we didn't stop them. And then we let Bush go on. I think that his people control the party machine now, and there should have been a 1968 democratic primary style recall where Bush was set against his former rivals and forced out of the ticket like Johnson. McCain, Forbes, and co could have struggled for the leadership role.

The historical fact that after that shuffle, Humphrey lost in a landslide taught the parties never to do that again. But that assumption is based on the misconception that Humphrey was in any way a viable candidate. He was like balless Johnson. They needed a fresh new image. Similarly, if Bush had been replaced in '04 by someone weak and tied to Bush, it would have been a disaster. But they coulda definitely stuck McCain in there and won.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 28, 2006 3:37 PM

CITIZEN

The Democrat thing was more or less implied in Auraptor’s post I think. He/she took what you were saying and said it was the normal Democrat fantasy, seemed to be a fairly clear implication to me, and I just thought it was hilarious that someone would say that about you ya know...

If anyone here *isn't* a democrat...

The rest, well from an outside perspective I haven't seen much change between Democrat and Republican to be perfectly honest. Both foreign policies seem pretty draconian, though I make no secret of the fact that I'm not a fan of the American Government, and I haven't been for years.

I don't think that makes me Anti-American, mainly because I don't think any American government has been particularly pro American for sometime, if that makes any sense.

Though I do think the Tory Conservative party over here are evil, but then I haven't got a much better opinion of Labour, mainly because they are the Tory's by any other name (New Labour in fact). I’m not just saying that because I don’t like them though, they’re trying to privatise stuff, they jack up taxes on the lower classes, leave them alone on the upper class, I could go on, all pretty much right-wing conservative stuff.

At the end of the day the both of them are about getting money and any semblance of power over one's own life and putting it in the hands of Rich arseholes that can never have enough. Frankly, and I realise this'll be a sticking point between us, but the conduit for that is capitalism, the free market system. But that's erm, a little off topic.

I generally try to keep the same view of politicians no matter which end of the political spectrum they're from. They're incompetent, thieves or just outright liars. You get the odd good one, but the system and their contemporaries are sure to warp them before they'll do any good. The only way to get any semblance of public service out of them is with the constant threat of losing their cushy well paid job, and that's where democracy comes in.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 28, 2006 6:19 PM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
The Democrat thing was more or less implied...

Lol.

Quote:
If anyone here *isn't* a democrat...

Hey, I resent that. I tend to think the Democrats are just wrong, but I recognize that there are reasons for this barrier. The two schools of thought tend to operate in isolation from one another, and so tend not to communicate that much. Last election cycle I worked for four candidates, each briefly as their candidacies folded in turn, Howard Dean, a traditional democrat, John Buchanan, a traditional republican, Ralph Nader, a left wing independent, and Michael Peroutka, a right wing independent. These guys were all over the map. Nader is dangerously closed to pro-govt, I wouldn't call him socialist, he has no plans to end corporations, just to enforce regulations, but not in my corner, definitely. Peroutka was closer to my corner except for his extreme christian views. Dean I found myself blatantly disagreeing with about 75% of the time. Buchanan I pretty much agreed with on everything. Given my own political slant, this was hardly surprising, but I guess this was my take on the "Anybody but Bush."

I guess the one thing that I gained out of the whole experience was this:

Four different political perspectives, people have different solutions. I think, for me, most, but not all the good solutions came from Buchanan and Peroutka, some came from Nader and Dean. But this is only one debate, the one we have a lot: Which solution is best for America. But there was a more subtle break than this. We cared about different things. People did. All of these candidates shares some things which attracted me to them, like anti war, basic rights. In retrospect I would have skipped Dean, but his people came to my door and made a convincing argument. I'm not in the "I'll never vote for a democrat" camp. I think anyone in that camp has essentially sacraficed their right to vote. I want the GOP to know that it has to win me back every time, and I want the democrats to know that they can get my vote if they really try. But I digress. The point about this, people think differently. They have different interests in mind. People want prosperity, of some sort, but what? Some people are interested in the total dollar amount, the greatest overall boost to the economy, others are interested in the greatest number of jobs created. Some people are interested in the US's ability to compete internationally, others in the US not having homeless and jobless. Some people want to keep the corporate ladder accessible, others want no one falling off the bottom ring. And that's just on the economics issue. There were many different perspectives on each issue, vastly so, and not in direct competition with one another.

Maybe I can make a clearer example of healthcare. The rightwing idea I kept running into was about choice, having the greatest competition, availability of services, different kinds, physicians, herbalists, different companies, different styles, and open choice of insurance, and open choice of care within their insurances, competitive prices for non-insured purchase of services. But it was all about choice. This was what the right cared about. I generally agreed with them, but here's the real kicker, which being a lefty, you probably already got there. The left didn't care about choice. The left cared about availability. Everyone to have access to some form of healthcare, even if it meant less choice, or no choice. The significant thing which struck me was, people are really after different things here, and things which don't *need* to be in direct competition. A system that provides for everyone and also has unlimited choice should be theoretically possible. But no one works that out because they don't talk to one another. It would be very tricky to work out. If you create an expensive public health program, then you are taxing to pay for it, which means you are charging everyone. I'm not rich. If I'm being forced to pay through taxes, I will not be able to buy an additional health service, so I will have in effect, lost choice. But I believe a solution that solves both problems, choice and availability, is conceivably possible without voiding the other. I don't have that solution, but I think it may exist. Anyway, that was a lot of words to say basically a simple thing. People care about different things.

Quote:
The rest, well from an outside perspective I haven't seen much change between Democrat and Republican to be perfectly honest. Both foreign policies seem pretty draconian, though I make no secret of the fact that I'm not a fan of the American Government, and I haven't been for years.

We've had 20 years of rising neocon influence, that's why. Back before reagan, and more before that, like say, kennedy vs. eisenhower, there was a drastic difference. That difference was very strong for a century. If you watch the senate debates, the difference is still that same strong break, but the party leaderships are the same. Their the Bush/Clinton Cabal. Bush Sr. was less a player of the game than reagan, which was less than Clinton, so, I'll put the limited influence in lower case, but here's the progression.

reagan/bush
reagan/bush
bush/quayle
Clinton/Gore
Clinton/Gore
Bush/Cheney
Bush/Cheney
------------
Nelson/Clinton?

There is a certain sameness, and more, recently.

I have to say, if I were to gain influence in the GOP, or people like me, you would see what I would describe as a rightward shift, a correction, but objectively I would call a retro shift. The republican party platform, even the one Bush ran on in 2000, which is pretty close, only Bush was lying, has been pretty much the same since the beginning. JQ Adams founded the National Republican Party, which would be disolved after a couple decades, spend 16 years as part of the whigs, and then reform as the Republican party. The Nat Reps got their ideas from JQ adams, his father, and Jefferson, primarily, but others from other founding fathers, madision, franklin, and others. This remained the republican position for some time, and reading up on the various presidents in wikipedia will give you a lot of info on where these guys stood. In the 20th C., all of the republican candidates for president up to Watergate. I think watergate may have been a neocon plot, and though people sometimes call it a democrat plot, which it was, because the neocons were democrats at the time, the goal was more neocon-oriented. Ford became really the first *infected* administration. I would say the level of infection was like this, CAPS representing level of neocon influence:
nixon Ford Carter REAgan Bush CLINTON BUSH

Quote:
I don't think that makes me Anti-American, mainly because I don't think any American government has been particularly pro American for sometime, if that makes any sense.

Of course, it makes perfect sense. I think that in some ways they have been, but less and less as time goes on. The neocons and their democratic allies, collectively, team evil, do not consider themselves Americans. They are "Globalists." And that's how they view their citizenship. While that's a valid life view, it doesn't lead one to do jack for America.

Quote:
Though I do think the Tory Conservative party over here are evil, but then I haven't got a much better opinion of Labour, mainly because they are the Tory's by any other name (New Labour in fact).

Thatcher, Major, evil? Huh. No, I don't think they're evil. Blair is evil. The last conservative in Britain that I would qualify as 'evil' would probably be Churchill. In my book, evil isn't tossed around lightly. You have to be guilty of genocide, essentially. Blatant suppression of free will also helps, as well as rampant corruption and theft of the people's money, wholesale destruction of the environment, extinction of species. These things are evil. If someone makes bad decisions that result in failed policies, they can be 'wrong,' without being evil. I don't think Michael Howard is evil.

Quote:

I’m not just saying that because I don’t like them though, they’re trying to privatise stuff, they jack up taxes on the lower classes, leave them alone on the upper class, I could go on, all pretty much right-wing conservative stuff.

And yet all this pro-equality society never seems to have a problem with the fact that no matter how much effort is made by conservatives to move towards equal taxation, it is never equal. The rich always pay much more, not just more in % but also much much more in $. I'm not rich, but if I were, I would be tempted to leave the US, rather than pay these taxes. Here's the tax snag, and this is very far from the most important issue for me, but since you bring it up: Say someone earns a large amount of cash. $200K. A family of four, my brothers, makes around this. It makes them upper-middle class, but not rich, as in yachts and caviar, golf courses and private schools. Upper-middle class. Now right off the bat, they pay several types of tax. alt. min. tax, 3.3%, state inc. tax, 9.1%, soc. sec. tax. 9.7%, medicare tax 3.1%, Then they pay 33% tax, that's 66K, in Fed inc. tax. 90% of this will go to defense. That's 30% of the total inc. or 60K. How many Iraqis does that kill?

But add it up, we're not done. That's 58.2%. Now they live in Ca, so no property tax, lucky break, but everything they buy, they will have to pay sales tax on. That's 8.6%. Let's not forget the mandatory retirement package to which they both pay in 4%, now we're at 72.8%, that's $145,600 in tax. Now there are deductions, and breaks here and there, but it's not going to stem that tide, it'll still be well over $100,000.

Now I don't like the idea of taxing the poor, I hate the idea of taxing corporations, because I think it kills the idea of creating jobs. This is a life killer, and what we really need to do is kill federal spending. I see a lot of big fat pigs sitting up in the lobbies of capital hill, and #1, the mil industrial complex, #2, the healthcare pharma govt. The public school system is also costing us a fortune. Okay, I'm going to cut the rant short here, but I just want to give you some food for thought. Everything the govt. provides costs the people money, a lot of money.

Think about this. If there were no govt, and no taxes, my brother would have to pay for everything, and life would be a little more expensive, and maybe his life would cost him $70K instead of $50K, but his and his wife's employers would each be able to hire 2 more people for each, so for $200K, they would get 6 employees, or at least 5, instead of 2. It's things like this that make Korea so much more competitive than the US or Britain. Now we can't get rid of all public services, but if we could privatize some things, and let them sustain themselves, and cut govt. say in half, they would at least be able to hire one or two more people. Just more food for thought.

Quote:
At the end of the day the both of them are about getting money and any semblance of power over one's own life and putting it in the hands of Rich arseholes that can never have enough. Frankly, and I realise this'll be a sticking point between us, but the conduit for that is capitalism, the free market system. But that's erm, a little off topic.

I don't this is how capitalism is *supposed* to work. Sure, a few megarich aren't a problem, and a few pigs are, but in large part, the revenues of corporations go to employ workers. The reason for this is evolution. A new worker adds productivity to the company. A fatter fat cat does not. If company A hires more workers, and produces more new products and services, or the same ones more efficiently, and company B siphons it's extra cash to it's CEO Fatima Katz, then company A will increase its competitive edge fairly rapidly. In a decade or two, Ms. Katz will have been sacked or have sucked Company B dry. The latter tends only to happen when the entire board is corrupt. In the longer term, it's a self correcting measure. But checking out the cashflows of major, hardworking corporations shows CEOs often raking in not all that much more than my brother and his wife, and paying a very very large amount out to hiring of workers.

Quote:
I generally try to keep the same view of politicians no matter which end of the political spectrum they're from. They're incompetent, thieves or just outright liars. You get the odd good one, but the system and their contemporaries are sure to warp them before they'll do any good. The only way to get any semblance of public service out of them is with the constant threat of losing their cushy well paid job, and that's where democracy comes in.

I have to bicker again. I think that in general, they are good decent compentent caring people, and you get the odd crook. So why do they win?

Just picture it this way. I was at a RenFaire once and there was a larp, a chess larp. One of the characters was a wizard, who had a spell, which made him able to cheat. He was unbeatable, because once during the game he could move one of your pieces and make you think you did it, (in game, of course.) It was instructive in that it showed me the power of cheating. Someone like DeLay is far more powerful than ten honest men, because he has the will to cheat, and that will is power. It's very hard to beat, and the only way we're really going to get rid of it is to make people more accountable. I think any kind of mechanism, recalls, impeachments, etc. are all good. Anything which will force a better quality of leader.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 6:52 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by ???:

Now if the people at Fox worked for Al-Jazeera...

Mind you since the USAF levelled the Yugo car works in their Serbian campaign.... does that make GM a target ?

BBC talking head David Frost now works for Al Jazeera.

GM and Ford just fired 1-million US employees. So yes, GM is under attack by the NWO, which has its talking head King George II enthroned in the White House. I just bought a new "Chevy" Cavalier - it's engine is made in Mexico, its tranny in Italy, and the rest made in Canada (Commonwealth of the British Empire under Queen Elizabeth). Canada is officially classified as USA on all manufacturer's origin labels, per WTO and NAFTA. So USA is now merged with UK, with Commie China buying $100-billion/month of USA, as the evil Anglo-Asian Alliance NWO grows stronger and more evil every day.
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/piratenewsrss/message/70

Quote:
"We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction."
-April Glaspie, US Ambassador to Iraq, videotaped meeting with Saddam Hussein on 7/25/90 - Iraq invade Kuwait one week later (New York Times, 9/23/90)

James Baker was secretary of state for Sir George Bush Sr Knight of the British Empire (CIA/MI6/Nazi/KGB/Interpol). Baker is currently general counsel for Carlyle Group which owns Universal Studios and Serenity. Baker is currently DEFENDING the Saudis and the Bin Ladens (Wahabi Jewish members of Carlyle Group) who are sued by victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. On 9/11/2001 Bush Sr was in Washington DC dining with Shafig Bin Laden, brother of USAma Bin Goldstein.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Al Jazeera is blatantly anti-semitic, not just anti-Zionist. They're formerly the BBC, so they're sophisticated about it, but it's still there. You can see them spin any story to the point where the evil jew is at fault, whether it's Wolfowitz or Perle or a western media figure. They seem more likely to do that than to spin anti-christian, which they also do. They've rarely been as hard historically on Cheney and Rummy and the secular aryan evil as they deserve.

Since Frost is there, it's still BBC (MI6).

Aryan is a person from Afghanistan, Iran and India. In other words - DARK skinned. The swastika is an ancient Jewish/Babylonia symbol adorning the walls of Yale's Skull & Bones, 100 years before Jew Adolf Hitler Shicklegruber Rothschild (MI6) was ordered to infiltrate the Jewish National SOCIALIST Workers Party.

It IS the evil "White Jews'" fault for our current mess, no spin required. The whole gang of them need to be arrested ASAP, given a fair trial, found guilty, and sentenced to death, after the obligatory torture at Gitmo. Not just the evil "Jews" in USA, but their "Jewish" masters in UK as well - Lord Rothschild (founders of Israel) and the entire "British" (German) royal family (proud seed of Satanic King Soloman).

It's IMPOSSIBLE for Al Jazeera to be "anti-Semitic", SINCE ALL ARABS ARE SEMITES, according to every dictionary. "White Jews" living in Europe and USA are NOT Semites. Doh! Newspeak has got your tongue.

Quote:
Semite.
1 A person regarded as descended from Shem.
2 a member of any of the peoples speaking a Semitic language, including the Hebrews, Arabs, Assyrians, Phoenicians, etc.
-Webster's New World Dictionary

Besides, Cheney and Sir Rummy Knight of the British Empire are both "White European Jews" (oxymorons). Cheney is from Sweden, just like President General Ike, The Butcher of Europe, who traded 50,000 US and Brit POWs to his ally Commie "Jewish" Russia, in exchange for Nazi warcriminals and mad scientists in Project Paperclip, which started OSS/CIA's MKULTRA Project Monarch slave program (Alliance mind kontrol of River Tam). Cheney and Ike enjoyed romping nekked at Jewish Bohemian Grove, to worship the Hebrew child sacrifice god Molech, as worshipped by infantcide in Jerusalem.

VIDEO DOWNLOADS:

Boners at Bohemian Grove - Music by Counter Coup and John Lee
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2005/09/6737.php

Snuff kiddie porn at Bohemian Grove - Alex Jones of Infowars.com interviews Senator John DeCamp author of The Franklin Coverup, music by Counter Coup and Bohemian Club
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2005/09/6737.php

Dark Secrets Inside Bohemian Grove - undercover video by Alex Jones, Mike Hansen and John Doe
www.infowars.com/bg1.html
www.piratenews.org/video-archive.html

Quote:
For then the king of Babylon's (IRAQ) army besieged Jerusalem:
Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will give this city into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall take it;
but they obeyed not thy voice, neither walked in thy law; they have done nothing of all that thou commandedst them to do: therefore thou hast caused all this evil to come upon them:
they have offered incense unto Baal, and poured out drink offerings unto other gods, to provoke me to anger.
For the children of Israel and the children of Judah have only done evil before me from their youth: for the children of Israel have only provoked me to anger with the work of their hands, saith the LORD.
For this city hath been to me as a provocation of mine anger and of my fury from the day that they built it even unto this day; that I should remove it from before my face,
Because of all the evil of the children of Israel and of the children of Judah, which they have done to provoke me to anger, they, their kings, their princes, their priests, and their prophets, and the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
And now therefore thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning this city, whereof ye say, It shall be delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence;
-Jeremiah 32, Christian Bible KJV

Queen Elizabeth played the "Queen of Babylon" (IRAQ) at Bohemian Grove in the 1980s. Now she REALLY IS the Queen of Babylon/Iraq. She is the incestuous 3rd kissin cousin of George Bush Jr. She installed a Knight of the British Empire as "president" to run her heroin plantations in Afghanistan. Heroin production is now up 10,000%, and opium farming has been legalized, with $1-billion/ton retail value....

The so-called "Jews" still worship Babylon and it's Luciferian Talmud and Caballah, that order the genocide of all Christians for blasphemy. "Judeo-Christian" is now an oxymoron. By genociding Rabbi "Jesus" and his Torah Jews and Gentiles, the "Jewish" religion terminated its ties to the Torah, and embraced Babylon, Lucifer and greed. The Kol Nidre prayer still orders all "Jews" to lie, cheat and steal from Gentiles, and to defraud them in all contracts. Jewish Fed Reserve banksters love that prayer, like Sir Allen Greenspan Knight of the British Empire, who is a member of Bohemian Club. Jews still perform "mock" human sacrifice to worship Molech/Lucifer/Satan at Bohemian Grove, and the Jewish banksters require hereditary US presidents and other world dictators to do the same. And then you wonder why they love to slaughter innocent people in endless wars, both foreign and domestic. USA and the world are doomed, if we don't destroy this evil cult and its members, just like ancient Israel was destroyed for worshipping Molech.

Quote:
dreamtrove wrote:

Thatcher, Major, evil? Huh. No, I don't think they're evil. Blair is evil. The last conservative in Britain that I would qualify as 'evil' would probably be Churchill.

Maggie's son Mark Thatcher (MI6) is under arrest for inciting a coup d'etat (evil). John Major owns Carlyle Group, profiteering from wars they start (evil). Tony Blair likes his faggots and spotted dick (evil). Churchill was an evil JEW! Gotcha.

"There is truth, and there is untruth. Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4. If that is granted, all else follows."
-Winston Smith, 1984

Is Tony Blair (MI5/MI6) related to Eric Blair (MI5/MI6), aka George Orwell?

"You can't stop the signal!"
-Mr Universe, STM, Pirate TV

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO:
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/01/8310.php

Pirate News TV
Knoxville, Tennessee
Winner Best Music Video
"We Never Went to the Moon"
(no rocket exhaust as Apollo LEM "blasted off" from the "moon")
Los Angeles Music Awards 2005
http://piratenews.org/hollywood.html
http://ufoetry.com

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 3, 2006 8:35 PM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Aryan is a person from Afghanistan, Iran and India. In other words - DARK skinned.

This is just an incomplete definition. Aryans are the ancient caucasians, and everyone from celts to east indians are aryans, regardless of skin color. The Nazis chose the word Aryan carefully, so it would include all of their allies and exclude their enemies. Even so, it wasn't perfect. They tried to argue that Slavs weren't aryans because of their asian blood, but that's basically a fallacious argument. It really fell apart when they started to argue that Serbs, who are germanic, weren't aryans.

But the Nazis had a weird racial mixture to contend with, and they needed to go back 4500 years to find an ethnic group to unite them. Now the idea is complace in the looney racist fringe, but it didn't used to be. Caucasiab, White, Teuronic, Germanic, and European would have all been more likely terms for a white supremacist to pick if they weren't allied with Iran, Italy and Spain and yet opposing jews.

Quote:

Maggie's son Mark Thatcher (MI6) is under arrest for inciting a coup d'etat (evil). John Major owns Carlyle Group, profiteering from wars they start (evil). Tony Blair likes his faggots and spotted dick (evil). Churchill was an evil JEW! Gotcha.

1. Maggie Thatcher is not her son.
2. The Carlyle Group aren't the bad guys.
3. Spotted Dick is a pudding.
4. Tony Blair is not a conservative, he's Labor.
5. Churchill isn't jewish.

You should really drop this jew thing. First off, you have the jewish race as being extinct, and not connected to actual semites, which I think is more or less true. Once you accept this, jewishness becomes a culture, judaism, and not a race. Once you accept the judaisn is a culture and religion, then one is only jewish if one practices it. Judaism has as a cultural/religious value that the faith must be practiced openly, in contrast to say, paganism, which has many forms which are practiced in secret. This fact that got them killed in WWII, then there are no 'secret' jews. Hence, no genetic jewishness, no secret jewishness, therefore the only jews are the ones who can be readily identified, and self identified as jews. Since the world is full of prominant and powerful jews who do not disguise their jewsishness, including a few prominent people in US and world governmance and many influential media figures, there is no reason to assume that there would be any reason that anyone else would hide their jewishness.

Now we enter reality. Some people are evil without being jewish. Shaka Zulu was 100% african, and evil. Many Many people have been compelely white european and evil. Osama bin Laden is arab and evil. Strangely, evil, also, does not seem to be genetic. It's not connected to all other evil in conspiracy, just little islands of evil conspiracy. Don't believe me? The Nazis, after losing a popular election in '32, conspired to take over the government. Osama Bin Laden conspired with Al Qaeda to commit acts of terrorism agains the US, Spain and Russia. Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, jews, conspired with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, not jews, to send G.W. Bush, not a jew, to the whitehouse with the help of Condi Rice, so not a jew, and Alberto Gonzalez, another really not jew.

Judaism, a belief of choice of some people, neither good nor evil, irrelevent to any grand schemes in the world with the possible exception of zionism, which itself plays a minor role in world affairs, including are invasion of Iraq. If Perle was lebanese, we would be launching attacks from lebanon. It's not really important, not a key piece of the puzzle, not more than marginally relevent information.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE