Barack Obama

[randolph]

Hey Tracey,
How do you feel about Cheney having the CIA work with Blackwater (Xe) to train assassination squads. The president of Blackwater, Mr. Prince, has stated, he would like to eliminate all Muslims from the face of the earth. Well I wonder what other people would his CIA trained assassination squads go after?

[jimnaseum]

If you are a member of the American middle class and you vote Republican you have your head up your ass.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by charlietwobeans

You are like a little slice of heaven in an otherwise hellish world.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Awwww shucks

No, no...he's right. You SHOULD take a bow, Tracy, especially given how long this Obama thread has carried on and for all that you've contributed to it. You always write incredibly intelligent posts and back them up with solid information or verifiable statistics or give web links so people can learn more for themselves, so long as they get off their butt and simply click on a computer mouse. So he's right, you ARE a slice of heaven around here.

On the other hand, don't get TOO turned on () or you'll have everyone fighting over you instead of politics! Let's focus on the problem at hand, people! We have a nation to save! First we take care of that and THEN we can throw Tracy on the bed and take turns ravishing her!

[transjen]

So the truth is starting to come out, As Tom Ridge is spilling the beans that Rumsfeld and Ashcroft wanted the terror alter levels raised just before the election in 04 not because of any threats or hard facts but wanted it raised to scare the American public in to voteing for our savior W, So all the treats on the banks in 04 was a big load of Bush lies , Looks like the Bush adminastration rats are starting to come clean
Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Hey Tracey,
How do you feel about Cheney having the CIA work with Blackwater (Xe) to train assassination squads. The president of Blackwater, Mr. Prince, has stated, he would like to eliminate all Muslims from the face of the earth. Well I wonder what other people would his CIA trained assassination squads go after?

I haven't heard of Blackwater before reading this. But I looked into it, and damn... they're like a mini military. I can see how they would make the fight in Iraq personal. 4 of their contractors were killed and hung from a bridge Fallujah, which I do remember. This was one of the events that demonstrated how out of control Fallujah had become and our military cleared it out.

There seems to be some evidence that they carry their christian-right attitudes too far. I don't approve of making the war against Al Qaeda or Iraq a holy war. There's plenty of non-religious reasons to go over there and kick some ass. I think we should leave mercenaries out of the war. I think it was done because the job in Iraq was so big that hiring Blackwater was seen as one way to help solve the enormous problem of security in Iraq. But these guys are contractors which gives the US less say into how their operation is run.

As for the assassination program, it's against Al Qaeda and I don't have a problem with it. I don't know why it was hidden from congress. It didn't need to be, and that was a mistake.

I bet BO is keeping an eye on Blackwater bigtime. They could be a threat to BO's own civilian security force that he wants to create.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

Let's focus on the problem at hand, people! We have a nation to save! First we take care of that and THEN we can throw Tracy on the bed and take turns ravishing her!

Ok, let's hurry up and save the nation!

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

So the truth is starting to come out, As Tom Ridge is spilling the beans that Rumsfeld and Ashcroft wanted the terror alter levels raised just before the election in 04 not because of any threats or hard facts but wanted it raised to scare the American public in to voteing for our savior W, So all the treats on the banks in 04 was a big load of Bush lies , Looks like the Bush adminastration rats are starting to come clean
Jerseygirl Jen

Nevermind the fact that Obama... I mean Osama aired a video right before the 2004 election spewing his crap and making threats.

[transjen]

And how long did the white house sit on that tape? And it still doesn't give W the excuuss to use fear to stay in power
Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

And how long did the white house sit on that tape? And it still doesn't give W the excuuss to use fear to stay in power
Jerseygirl Jen

You do know that the tape is specifically about the 2004 election right? Bush was not sitting on it. Unless you have some evidence, save your conspiracy theories.

[transjen]

That doesn't prove anything they could have had the tape since any time in 04, And all the tape does was nothing but to make sure Osama won his war agianst the USA by flush us in to the shitter by 4 more years of W. 9/11 was W ,s get out of jail free card he owes he's second term to fear and the fact no one rembered that he was in charge on 9/11 and blame should fall on his shoulders he was warned and he did nothing
Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

That doesn't prove anything they could have had the tape since any time in 04, And all the tape does was nothing but to make sure Osama won his war agianst the USA by flush us in to the shitter by 4 more years of W. 9/11 was W ,s get out of jail free card he owes he's second term to fear and the fact no one rembered that he was in charge on 9/11 and blame should fall on his shoulders he was warned and he did nothing
Jerseygirl Jen

More ramblings about conspiracy theories? Again, back it up with some evidence.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

No, no...he's right. You SHOULD take a bow, Tracy, especially given how long this Obama thread has carried on and for all that you've contributed to it. You always write incredibly intelligent posts and back them up with solid information or verifiable statistics or give web links so people can learn more for themselves, so long as they get off their butt and simply click on a computer mouse. So he's right, you ARE a slice of heaven around here.

On the other hand, don't get TOO turned on () or you'll have everyone fighting over you instead of politics! Let's focus on the problem at hand, people! We have a nation to save! First we take care of that and THEN we can throw Tracy on the bed and take turns ravishing her!

I like what Creative has to say, however, we could take a break once in a while. Perhaps Creative and I could take turns between your thighs while Transjen sits on your face, If that sounds good to you.

[randolph]

This Blackwater thing is very ominous. Prince had access to the highest levels of the CIA. For the CIA to hire death squads to do their dirty work is a very dangerous precedent. The following is a link to one article on this.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090831/scahill1

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by transjen

So the truth is starting to come out, As Tom Ridge is spilling the beans that Rumsfeld and Ashcroft wanted the terror alter levels raised just before the election in 04 not because of any threats or hard facts but wanted it raised to scare the American public in to voteing for our savior W, So all the treats on the banks in 04 was a big load of Bush lies , Looks like the Bush adminastration rats are starting to come clean
Jerseygirl Jen

Except that's NOT what Tom Ridge said at all. It's merely the spin that the Left is trying to put on a quote that has been excerpted from his upcoming book, which his PUBLISHER was trying to push. In fact, consider this -- Ridge HIMSELF has not gone on TV saying any such thing to confirm THAT was the intent at the time OR that he had been ORDERED to raise an alert level to affect the upcoming election. Likewise, Ridge HIMSELF has not come forward to even say the Left are accurately quoting his quote.

More laughable still, literally only an hour or so ago, I got a huge laugh while I was flipping around some news channels in the midst of having lunch. I caught Nora O'Donnell on MSNBC interviewing someone from US News & World Report who had gotten a hold of the quote. The problem was...as much as O'Donnell openly wore her Left-leaning politics on her sleeve, right there on the air, and as much as she kept trying to ram home the idea that "Bush and his people tricked us! They pressured Ridge! They raised the alert level to fix the election!"...even the US News & World Report person had to challenge her on air and say "Uh, no, that's NOT what the quote actually says if you really read it in context. Ridge never says there were open talks about doing such a thing, and he never says he was directly ordered or was even pressured to do such a thing. All he ACTUALLY SAYS is that AS a former Congressman and as a former Governor, he simply felt that politics regarding the nation's safety were in play 3 days out from the Bush-Kerry Presidential election."

The US News & World Report guy also noted -- in a moment of true fairness and in conjunction with a quote issued by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld -- that raising the alert level was actually NOT even uncommon back at that time. In truth, it had actually been done EVERY SINGLE TIME by the Pentagon whenever a new message was received from Bin Laden. So doing it yet again...even 3 days out from the election...was merely in line with established Pentagon procedures.

So, frankly this story can be summed up with a giant "Well, DUH!!!" It was 3 days out from a Presidential election and politics where in play? Wow! Nice going, MSNBC! That's really some earth-shattering, late-breaking news you got a hold of there! That ought to earn you a Pulitzer!

MSNBC.
In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny: "What a bunch of maroons."

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by transjen

And how long did the white house sit on that tape? And it still doesn't give W the excuuss to use fear to stay in power
Jerseygirl Jen

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

More ramblings about conspiracy theories? Again, back it up with some evidence.

LET'S HAVE A REALITY CHECK HERE!

Here's the problem with THIS particular conspiracy theory. Jen is postulating that Bush purposefully sat on the Bin Laden tape until right before the election and THEN released it, in order to affect the 2004 presidential election (which was him versus Kerry)...

...Yet the ENORMOUS HOLE in that theory is that the tape was released to the world media at the same time. And so THEY all reported on it TOO. So what? Are conspiracists now going to claim that BOTH the White House AND the entire world media -- including arab outlets such as Al Jazeera, which has always been sympathetic to Bin Laden -- worked in cahoots to ALL suppress the tape? I mean, come on. It's one thing to talk politics...it one thing to not like Bush...but let's not go completely nutty here.

Here's the bottom line truth and history completely bears this out...

The whole REASON that Bin Laden released a new tape only 3 days from the November 2004 election is because he was hoping to SCARE Americans into voting one way...he was actually trying to shift the electorate AGAINST Bush...by purposefully trying to bring up the spectre of what had happened EARLIER THAT SAME YEAR....back in March, 2004...with the Madrid, Spain, train bombings.

For those who have already forgotten their history, that was the incident where Islamic terrorists blew up four passenger trains in Spain and killed 191 people and wounded nearly 2,000 others.

The Madrid train bombings occurred 3 days (gee, notice a similarity?) before THEIR presidential election. Basically, with the bombings, the terrorists openly warned the Spanish people that IF they didn't vote a certain way -- that is, if they didn't vote to oust incumbent President Jose Maria Anzar, who actively supported Bush's anti-terrorist views and tactics-- there would be hell to pay and more people would be killed. More civilian sites would be targeted. The result? The Spanish DID shift their votes just enough...out of pure fear...to oust Anzar.

For months afterward...as we raced towards our own presidential election...there was constant tension and talk that Islamic terrorists would try the same trick here. Both Republicans AND Democrats openly worried that as we got closer to the election there would be SOME kind of attack on American soil, in an attempt to sway voters the same way they had successfully nudged the Spanish in a different direction.

In fact, if you'll jar a few memory cells and think back to the 2004 election, maybe you'll start to remember how THAT was even a big campaign issue that was being argued on TV. The question was constantly being posed that IF there was an attack on American soil, WOULD you let it sway your vote and WOULD you vote out of fear (the same way many felt Spain had done)?

So, when Bin Laden released a new tape only a few days out from the election, anyone and everyone with a brain realized he was trying to duplicate the success they had achieved in Spain. The problem was it ultimately BACKFIRED. As news media outlets drew the comparison to Spain, more and more Americans entrenched themselves...got really pissed off...and said two things:

1) If Bin Laden is trying to scare me into voting for Kerry, then that must mean KERRY is the actual pussy that Bin Laden feels he can push around once he's in office.

2) Well, if that's how you think, then FUCK YOU, BIN LADEN! If you're THAT scared of Bush and if you're trying to make me vote the other way, now I'm DEFINITELY voting for Bush just to FUCK YOU RIGHT UP THE ASS, YOU ISLAMIC PIECE OF SHIT!

And sure enough, on election day, Bush not only won the electoral college, but as much as democrats like to conveniently forget this little FACT -- Bush ALSO won the POPULAR vote as well, by well over 3 MILLION votes. And yes, one of the things he definitely trumped Kerry in...in all the exit polls...was the key question "Who do you think will keep you safer for the next four years?"

And love him or hate him, you have to give one thing to Bush.
He DID keep you safe for the next 4 years.

So now let's see how Barry O. does with things on HIS watch...

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

I like what Creative has to say, however, we could take a break once in a while. Perhaps Creative and I could take turns between your thighs while Transjen sits on your face, If that sounds good to you.

All together now...

Sit on my face, and tell me that you love me
I'll sit on your face and tell you I love you, too
I love to hear you ORALIZE
When I'm between your thighs
You blow me away

Sit on my face and let my lips embrace you
I'll sit on your face and THEN I'LL LOVE YOU TRULY
Life can be fine if we both sixty-nine
IF WE sit on our faces in all sorts of places and play
'Till we're blown away

[transjen]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

["

And love him or hate him, you have to give one thing to Bush.
He DID keep you safe for the next 4 years.

So now let's see how Barry O. does with things on HIS watch...

What a load of total BS w kept us safe BS he got lucky and nothing more the boarders are still wide open W did nothing , The mighty W my ass he got Fn lucky, GEORGE W BUSH was the biggest diaster ever to hit the USA he should have been impeached and he should stand trial for war crimes

[Jenae LaTorque]

[quote=randolph;102265] For the CIA to hire death squads to do their dirty work is a very dangerous precedent.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I am not sure precedent is the right word to use here.

Maybe tradition would be more aplicable.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

All together now...

Sit on my face, and tell me that you love me
I'll sit on your face and tell you I love you, too
I love to hear you ORALIZE
When I'm between your thighs
You blow me away

Sit on my face and let my lips embrace you
I'll sit on your face and THEN I'LL LOVE YOU TRULY
Life can be fine if we both sixty-nine
IF WE sit on our faces in all sorts of places and play
'Till we're blown away

Hey Hey Hey!
Looks like we have a way to get conservatives and liberals TOGETHER!
SUCH A GOOD WAY TO "FACE" THE ISSUES.

[randolph]

[QUOTE=Jenae LaTorque;102400]

Originally Posted by randolph

For the CIA to hire death squads to do their dirty work is a very dangerous precedent.

Originally Posted by randolph

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I am not sure precedent is the right word to use here.

Maybe tradition would be more aplicable.

Yes Jenae you have good points, ah er ahem, I mean a good point.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

What a load of total BS w kept us safe BS he got lucky and nothing more the boarders are still wide open W did nothing , The mighty W my ass he got Fn lucky, GEORGE W BUSH was the biggest diaster ever to hit the USA he should have been impeached and he should stand trial for war crimes

You are so naive. But that's ok. It's leaders like George Bush & Reagan and our military that gives you the luxury to be naive.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

You are so naive. But that's ok. It's leaders like George Bush & Reagan and our military that gives you the luxury to be naive.

You have a good point on the military but giveing credit to Reagan and W you are wrong, The idea that Reagan ended commieusm is one of the biggest myths from the GOP ever fact is Reagan just happend to be the presdent when Russia could no longer afford there army had they had a few more years then old man Bush would have gotten the credit for bringing them down, Now W really did a lot for the military like getting 4000+ of our soliders killed for his lies on his BS Iraq war, Which done nothing to keep us safe, I also find it funny that the war drum banger W when it was his time to fight for our country his daddy pulled strings to put him in to the AIR NATIONAL GUARD where he never would have to worry about going to Nam but chickin shit W still went AWOL but daddy pulled more strings to protect the little bastard no wonder he feels laws never apply to him


Jerseygirl Jen

[randolph]

The Financial Times reports that the U.S. government "is sitting on a paper profit of almost $11bn on its 34 percent shareholding in Citigroup (NYSE: C), its only direct stake in a large financial institution."

How'd that happen? The Treasury Department converted $25 billion worth of preferred stock into common equity at the end of July. Over the past four weeks, shares of Citi are up a mind-blowing 70%.

According to The Wall Street Journal, it was that conversion that led to the run-up: "Ironically, it is the exchange that made Citi a buy. In short, it solved the bank's chief weakness, a dearth of tangible common equity. Banks lacking TCE are risky stock investments because shareholders stand to be diluted by the capital raises needed to boost equity."

Well, perhaps the bailout was not all that stupid. Lets hope other Gov. investments turn out that well.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

You have a good point on the military but giveing credit to Reagan and W you are wrong, The idea that Reagan ended commieusm is one of the biggest myths from the GOP ever fact is Reagan just happend to be the presdent when Russia could no longer afford there army had they had a few more years then old man Bush would have gotten the credit for bringing them down,

Yeah, that's what I mean about being naive. Good example. Would you mind describing our military, that you give credit to for keeping us safe, after Carter's term vs. after Reagan's terms?

Originally Posted by transjen

Now W really did a lot for the military like getting 4000+ of our soliders killed for his lies on his BS Iraq war, Which done nothing to keep us safe,

You mean other than killing all those Al Qaeda ass holes and taking out Saddam and "Chemical-ali"? Yeah, that was probably a waste. At least the Iraqi war only cost less than 20% of what Obama spent in his first 2 months

Originally Posted by transjen

I also find it funny that the war drum banger W when it was his time to fight for our country his daddy pulled strings to put him in to the AIR NATIONAL GUARD where he never would have to worry about going to Nam but chickin shit W still went AWOL but daddy pulled more strings to protect the little bastard no wonder he feels laws never apply to him

If you were comparing him to McCain, you'd definitely have a point. But you're comparing him to BO LOL!

[transjen]

Lets see Obama was born in 61 or 62 making him way to young to fight or enlist for Nam and by the time he was 18 the draft was done away with Now W was of the draft age during Nam but he didn't get drafted because his daddy pulled string to keep him out of Nam by getting one of the coverted spots in the AIR NATIONAL GUARD and the slap in the face is W couldn't even do that as he went AWOL.
Agian you are giving Reagan way to much credit, When Carter was in the white house there was a bad taste about anything miltary with the youth at the time when Reagan started his second term the attitude started to change and a lot of young adults started to rethink about a career in the miltary and Reagan had little to do with that if anything at all.
Saddam was no real threat and W knew it but he lied and started this BS war and AL-QUEDA was not in Iraq till W started the war funny how you say how cheap W's war was but at cost do you count the over 4000 American soliders who died for nothing the real enemy was hiding in Afgan, Ban-ladin should have been the number one target but W wanted Saddam instead
Jerseygirl Jen

[charlietwobeans]

Originally Posted by randolph

I like what Creative has to say, however, we could take a break once in a while. Perhaps Creative and I could take turns between your thighs while Transjen sits on your face, If that sounds good to you.

I step away for a few days vacation and come back to find you two muscling in on my slice o' heaven! Find yer own pie!

:D

[charlietwobeans]

...the blame that mysteriously seems to miss Obama's shoulders every time we talk about the finacial collapse? Does everything that happened after 1/20/09 get put on Obama's shoulders by the media? By the man himself?

I think not.

Crises, foreign, economic, natural, take time to manifest themselves. They do not adhere to election cycles.

Whose fiscal policy are we running right now? Bush's! Is it a mess? Yes! Is Obama blameless? No!

Whose foreign policy were we running on 9/11/01? Clinton's! Was it a mess? Yes! Was Bush blameless? No!

Don't find convenient shoulders to place blame on just because you don't like the person.

Originally Posted by transjen

That doesn't prove anything they could have had the tape since any time in 04, And all the tape does was nothing but to make sure Osama won his war agianst the USA by flush us in to the shitter by 4 more years of W. 9/11 was W ,s get out of jail free card he owes he's second term to fear and the fact no one rembered that he was in charge on 9/11 and blame should fall on his shoulders he was warned and he did nothing
Jerseygirl Jen

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by charlietwobeans

Crises, foreign, economic, natural, take time to manifest themselves.
They do not adhere to election cycles.

Don't find convenient shoulders to place blame on just because you don't like the person.

Very well said. In truth there is more than enough blame to go around.
And on that note, I now give you the SCARIEST web site you'll ever see...

http://usdebtclock.org/

Of course, the part that should make you crap your pants is at the bottom, where it notes the UNFUNDED liabilities.
Try to take comfort in knowing that (as of now) each of us is on the hook for...oh...about $191,000 !!!

[TracyCoxx]

Since the government has run out of money last April, we're adding a $billion to the debt every week. And they're still talking about an extremely expensive HEALTH CARE plan? WTF?

[randolph]

545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them..

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red ..

If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees...

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

Government sucks!

[charlietwobeans]

I get confused as to which "political forums within sex forums" I sometimes post things to, so forgive me if this is a repeat.

Political Math does a wonderful job of explaining the deficit spending here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5yxFtTwDcc

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Since the government has run out of money last April, we're adding a $billion to the debt every week. And they're still talking about an extremely expensive HEALTH CARE plan? WTF?

[TracyCoxx]

Good posts Randolph & Charlie

Check out who five of BO's Czars are:

- Van Jones, green jobs "czar" - a communist

- John Holdren, science "czar" - proposed "compulsory sterilization" and forced abortions to control population

- Cass Sunstein, regulatory "czar" - proposed bans on hunting and eating meat and proposed that your dog to be allowed to have an attorney in court. And a fairness doctrine for the Internet, which he has since stepped away from

- Carol Browner, global warming "czar" - was part of Socialist International, a group for "global governance"

- Ezekiel Emmanuel, health care adviser - proponent of the Complete Lives System, which puts values on lives based mostly by age

In addition, one of the main authors of the stimulus package was the Apollo Alliance. And you are right Randolph, our congressmen can certainly say no - we will write this ourselves. But they didn't. They didn't even fucking read it! Oh, and by the way, one of the leaders of the Apollo Alliance is Jeff Jones. He was with Bill Ayers in the Weather Underground.

And the Diversity Chief proposed that radio stations pay 100% of their operating budget yearly. Obviously this is meant to sink them. This tax would then of course be transferred to NPR. If you can't pay the tax, you will lose your license and the license will be transferred to a minority group.

You BO supporters, tell me, why does Obama choose to surround himself with these kind of people? Why not the typical democrats we've all come to know? These guys are more like revolutionaries than far leftists.

Originally Posted by Hugo Chavez

Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right!

[randolph]

You BO supporters, tell me, why does Obama choose to surround himself with these kind of people? Why not the typical democrats we've all come to know? These guys are more like revolutionaries than far leftists.

Well why did Bush surround himself with the Neocons, Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, ect,ect? These guys would have been quite happy to turn the USA into totalitarian state.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

Very well said. In truth there is more than enough blame to go around.
And on that note, I now give you the SCARIEST web site you'll ever see...

http://usdebtclock.org/

Of course, the part that should make you crap your pants is at the bottom, where it notes the UNFUNDED liabilities.
Try to take comfort in knowing that (as of now) each of us is on the hook for...oh...about $191,000 !!!

It seems we have a fatal flaw in our "representative form of government. We have given our representatives "carte blanc" to load us down with massive liabilities without any approval from us. We are required to "bail out" incompetent banks, insurance companies, car companies and any other corporation the "government" deems in "need". Isn't it time we, the citizens of this country, say enough is enough?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

You BO supporters, tell me, why does Obama choose to surround himself with these kind of people? Why not the typical democrats we've all come to know? These guys are more like revolutionaries than far leftists.

Well why did Bush surround himself with the Neocons, Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, ect,ect? These guys would have been quite happy to turn the USA into totalitarian state.

These are people we've "come to know". Cheney started working with the government in '69, Wolfowitz has been with the government since '72, and Rumsfeld started back in '57. There's nothing new about these guys.

Obama's guys have not been part of this government. They come from radical revolutionary type backgrounds.

[randolph]

Van Jones Biography
Civil Rights Lawyer, Advocate, 1968-

"Dr. King didn't get famous giving a speech that said,"I have a complaint." It's time for us to start dreaming again and invite the country to dream with us. We don't have any "throw away" species, nations, or children. We must birth a global green economy strong enough to lift people out of poverty."

Born in rural Tennessee, Jones graduated in 1990 from the University of Tennessee and, in 1993, from Yale Law School. At the age of 27, Jones convinced the California State Bar Association to allow him to begin a program that would provide lawyer referral services for police abuse victims. Jones, a civil-rights lawyer, is founder and executive director of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, a nonprofit agency for justice, opportunities, and peace in urban America. Located in Oakland, California, the Center focuses on campaigning to reform California's abusive and costly youth prison system, creating opportunities in the "green" economy for poor communities and communities of color, supporting victims and survivors of police abuse and their families, and uplifting young people and addressing Bay Area violence with a mix of activism and street culture.

Jones has lead many campaigns including Books Not Bars, an advocacy program for parents/grandparents of incarcerated youth in the United States. It has been credited with a 30% drop in the total number of youth incarcerated in California. Additionally Jones sits on numerous governing boards, and following Hurricane Katrina co-founded the largest online activist community addressing Black issues.

Sounds like a good guy to me.

[randolph]

Holdren served as chairman of the board of directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) from February 2007 until February 2008 and as president of the AAAS from February 2006 to February 2007.[2] He was the founding chair of the advisory board for Innovations, a quarterly journal about entrepreneurial solutions to global challenges published by MIT Press, and has written and lectured extensively on the topic of climate change. He was confirmed as Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy on March 19, 2009 by a vote of 61 to 31[3] in the Senate.[4] [5] He testified to the nomination committee that he does not believe that government should have a role in determining optimal population size [6] and that he has never endorsed forced sterilization.[7][8][7][9]

Sounds like a good guy to me.

[randolph]

After the Clinton Administration, Browner became a founding member of the Albright Group, a "global strategy group" headed by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.[16] As a Principal in that firm, Browner assists businesses and other organizations with the challenges of operating internationally, including the challenges of complying with environmental regulations and climate change. Coca-Cola and Merck have been among the clients for such international assistance.[11] She also became a founding member and principal of Albright Capital Management, an investment advisory company.[2][16]

Browner was the chair of the Audubon Society; her term expired in 2008.[17] She also joined the board of the Alliance for Climate Protection, an organization founded by Gore in 2006.[16] In 2008 she joined the board of APX, Inc., which specializes in technology infrastructure for the environmental commodities markets[18], including those for carbon offsets and the CDM Gold Standard.[19] She is or was also on the boards of the Center for American Progress, the Alliance for Climate Protection, the League of Conservation Voters.[18] and the Commission for a Sustainable World Society.

Her previous year's income, in a 2009 report, was reported by the The Wall Street Journal to be between $1 million and $5 million from lobbying firm Downey McGrath Group, Inc., where her husband, Thomas Downey, is a principal. She also reported $450,000 in "member distribution" income, plus retirement and other benefits from The Albright Group.[20]

Doesn't sound like a "socialist" to me.

[TracyCoxx]

Van Jones - Communist

Source? Van Jones:
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/gyroba...wFullText=true

"Jones had planned to move to Washington, DC, and had already landed a job and an apartment there. But in jail, he said, "I met all these young radical people of color -- I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.'" Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. "I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary." In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. "I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist.""

In 1994, the young activists formed a socialist collective, Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM, which held study groups on the theories of Marx and Lenin.

Now why would anyone think this guy is a communist?

He may be a 'nice' guy. But there's no room for communists in the US government.

[TracyCoxx]

John Holdren, science "czar" - proposed "compulsory sterilization" and forced abortions to control population

I already talked about him. Here it is again. The references are still there so don't tell me he didn't advocate sterilization.

"The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being," Holdren wrote in "Human Ecology," a 1973 textbook he co-authored with environmental activists Paul and Anne Ehrlich.

Holdren heralded a "tightly reasoned essay" by law professor Christopher Stone, who said, "I am quite seriously proposing that we give legal rights to forests, oceans, rivers and other so-called 'natural objects' in the environment -- indeed, to the natural environment as a whole." Holdren, writing in 1977's "Ecoscience," which was also co-authored with Paul and Anne Ehrlich

In a future society, "It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society," Holdren and his co-authors wrote.

Another "coercive fertility control" program floated by Holdren involved "the development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired ... The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births."

"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems," Holdren wrote in "Ecoscience."

To help achieve their goals, Holdren and the Ehrlichs formulated a "world government scheme" they called the Planetary Regime, which would administer the world's resources and human growth. They also discussed the development of an "armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force" to which nations would surrender part of their sovereignty.

[TracyCoxx]

Carol Browner, global warming "czar" - was part of Socialist International, a group for "global governance"

Originally Posted by randolph

Doesn't sound like a "socialist" to me.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ocialist-ties/
"Until last week, Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama's pick as global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change."

[TracyCoxx]

Randolph, this information was very easy to find and very easy for you to confirm if you looked. Why are you going out of your way to find information about these people that doesn't happen to mention their communist and/or revolutionary ideas?

And seriously, why does Obama surround himself with communists, revolutionaries and world society types? Why do his supporters still claim "oh that may be what the people around him think, but Obama isn't that way". Wake up people!

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Randolph, this information was very easy to find and very easy for you to confirm if you looked. Why are you going out of your way to find information about these people that doesn't happen to mention their communist and/or revolutionary ideas?

And seriously, why does Obama surround himself with communists, revolutionaries and world society types? Why do his supporters still claim "oh that may be what the people around him think, but Obama isn't that way". Wake up people!

Its very easy to label people, but what does it mean? I chose excerpts from biographies from Wikipedia that focused on what people do, not what some conservatives accuse them of being. Obama is choosing people based on their performance working in our society. Labeling someone a "communist" is absurd, communism is dead. Like it or not, this country is socialist, that is what the citizens want. All democratic countries are basically socialistic.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Its very easy to label people, but what does it mean? I chose excerpts from biographies from Wikipedia that focused on what people do, not what some conservatives accuse them of being. Obama is choosing people based on their performance working in our society.

Which excerpt that I posted about these people was from what a conservative accused them of being? I quoted Van Jones own words. I quoted John Holdren's writings. And stated the fact that Carol Browner was a leader of a socialist group. These are facts, not accusations from some conservative.

Originally Posted by randolph

Labeling someone a "communist" is absurd, communism is dead. Like it or not, this country is socialist, that is what the citizens want. All democratic countries are basically socialistic.

Absurd or not, that is what Van Jones said. And I highly doubt the citizens want this country to be socialist.

Originally Posted by randolph

I grew up as a Republican and I still believe in fiscal conservatism(aka, Eisenhower).

I'm glad you're not one of those who want a socialist country. As a fiscal conservative, I'm sure you are aware that socialism with the quality of life Americans expect is simply unsustainable. This should now be abundantly clear due to BO's policies to all except people like Jen. I think you'll see in 2010 than Americans most definitely do not want socialism. They are projecting that democrats will lose more than 20 seats in the senate. BO was wise not to get into any details when he was campaigning. Just stick to hope and change. Don't tell them that his goal is nothing less than the end of America as we know it.

[tslust]

Originally Posted by randolph

I chose excerpts from biographies from Wikipedia

Ahh, the all-knowing Wiki.

Don't worry, I like to use it too, but it's not always a reliable source.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Which excerpt that I posted about these people was from what a conservative accused them of being? I quoted Van Jones own words. I quoted John Holdren's writings. And stated the fact that Carol Browner was a leader of a socialist group. These are facts, not accusations from some conservative.

Absurd or not, that is what Van Jones said. And I highly doubt the citizens want this country to be socialist.


I'm glad you're not one of those who want a socialist country. As a fiscal conservative, I'm sure you are aware that socialism with the quality of life Americans expect is simply unsustainable. This should now be abundantly clear due to BO's policies to all except people like Jen. I think you'll see in 2010 than Americans most definitely do not want socialism. They are projecting that democrats will lose more than 20 seats in the senate. BO was wise not to get into any details when he was campaigning. Just stick to hope and change. Don't tell them that his goal is nothing less than the end of America as we know it.

Again we are hung up on a label, "socialism". I view "socialism" as a means of equitably distributing the wealth being produced in a country. This can be done by taxes, laws and regulations. I don't believe in the government owning and controlling the means of production. England found out the hard way that it doesn't work. Conservatives seem to have an ego centered idea that the money they earn is entirely the result of their actions. They don't realize or accept that they are enabled to make money because they are in a society that cooperates and controls wealth making. Yes, we are now investing vast amounts of public funds in our private enterprise system. We are not socializing the country in the England sense. We are trying to save our "free enterprise system". Yes it is very scary indeed.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Again we are hung up on a label, "socialism".

Well that's what we humans do. We come up with a word to describe some concept or thing. That's how communication works.

Originally Posted by randolph

I view "socialism" as a means of equitably distributing the wealth being produced in a country. This can be done by taxes, laws and regulations.

That's not how America works. It leads to all kinds of problems that this country has avoided.

Originally Posted by randolph

Conservatives seem to have an ego centered idea that the money they earn is entirely the result of their actions. They don't realize or accept that they are enabled to make money because they are in a society that cooperates and controls wealth making.

It's not an ego centered idea. It's a system based on fairness. You put in the work and you will be rewarded. You don't work, you don't get rewarded. This is a system that encourages its people to become educated and to be a constructive member of society. With socialism, you put in the work and you get squat.

It is the ego of the poor who do not accept capitalism to think they deserve a piece of the pie despite the fact that they contribute little of value.

[randolph]

I like this quote by Nicolas Talib, who wrote "The Black Swan" an excellent review of how smart ass financial bankers have fucked up our system.

"Social Fairness. I spent 13 years fighting bankers bonuses (when nobody else did) and am currently crusading for clawbacks of past compensation as I have shown how regular taxpayers have been financing bonuses of millionaire bankers ("socialism for the losses, capitalism for the profits"). We are financing today those who got us here, with tax hikes on those who do the right thing, and larger tax break for those who blew us up. Companies who made mistakes and fragilized the system are being subsidized by the countercyclical ones who make it more robust."
I couldn't agree more.

[randolph]

A Silly Question: "Is Barack Obama a Progressive?"*

August 29, 2009 By Paul Street
Paul Street's ZSpace Page


Is Barack Obama a progressive? John Wilson says "yes," I say "no." But how much does the question really matter at the end of the day? Obama wasn't selected to head the United Way or the White Sox. He's chief executive of the American Empire. He is a politician above all - one who was selected to sit atop and, I think, to re-brand what the left-liberal political scientist Sheldon Wolin rightly calls "Democracy, Incorporated."



Every four years millions of American voters are induced to put their political hats on, to hope a bit, and then to go back to sleep. To hope that a savior or at least a more effective manager can be installed in the White House to raise wages, roll back war and militarism, provide universal and adequate health care, rebuild infrastructure, fix the environmental crisis, reduce inequality, and generally make life more livable.


The Obama presidency so far is a chilling object lesson in the reach, power, and bipartisan nature of that "unelected dictatorship." Obama is following what David Rothkopf, a former Clinton official, calls "the violin model: you hold power with the left hand and you play the music with the right." In other words, you gain and hold the presidency with populace-pleasing progressive-sounding rhetoric but you govern, you make policy, in service to existing dominant institutions.



So, you lecture Wall Street on the immorality of their bonuses. You visit Elkhart , Indiana to show solidarity with downtrodden working people. And then you give yet more of the public treasury and commons away to the Privileged Few, justifying the handouts as a noble expression of your "sensible," "realistic," and "pragmatic" commitment to rising above ideological divisions to "get things done" for the American people.



Funny how our "pragmatist"-in chief keep getting things done for the rich and powerful. The mind and soul go numb as yet one more populist-, progressive-, and peaceful- sounding campaign promise gets drowned in the icy waters of corporate and military rule. Its been a strange time for many of Obama's progressive fans, what with their "peace" president's blatant escalation of civilian-slaughtering war in South Asia, his indefinite continuation of the Iraq occupation, his increase of the Pentagon budget, his advance dismissal of a peace dividend, his advance approval for an Israel attack on Iran, his refusal to move in any serious way against Israel's occupation of Palestine, his apparent commitment to building a provocative missile shield in Eastern Europe, his embrace of NATO expansion, his ambivalent and tepid response to the right-wing coup in Honduras, his embrace of the War on Drugs in Columbia and Mexico and his continuation of numerous key aspects of George W. Bush's counter-terrorism program. "Obama," Jeremy Scahill notes, "is a brilliant supporter of empire who has figured out a way to trick people into believing they're supporting radical change." The president is "an Orwellian character" who "make[s] people think that war is peace."




"Obama," Noam Chomsky notes, "made sure to staff his economic team with advisors from [the financial] sector." This helps explain both Obama's willingness to expand the Bush policy of transferring trillions to financial parasites and Obama's unwillingness to displease the financial sector lobby with clearly indicated progressive measures like seriously restricting executive compensation, re-instituting the Glass Steagal Acts's separation of commercial and investment banking, closing regulatory exemptions on customized derivatives, banning the notorious credit default swap, and breaking up the "too-big- [and too-powerful]- to fail" banking firms.



As bailouts for oligarchs combined with growing destitution amongst the populace last March, William Greider noted that "People everywhere [have] learned a blunt lesson about power... They [have] watched Washington run to rescue the very financial interests that caused the catastrophe. They [have] learned that government has plenty of money to spend when the right people want it." But nothing or very little for the lower and working class majority, even with Democrats in power.

And then of course there's Obama's struggle to advance corporate healthcare reform for and by the nation's leading insurance and drug companies - an unpopular private-public mish-mash that is all too consistent with the hundreds of millions of dollars that Obama and other leading blue Cross Blue Shield Democrats like Max Baucus have received from the health sector and the finance and insurance industries in the last few years.



It's not for nothing that Obama's presidential campaign garnered a record-setting $39 million from the finance, insurance, and real estate industries (10 million better than McCain), $44 million from the legal and lobbyist sector (33 million better than McCain), $25 million from the communications and electronics industries (20 million better than McCain), and more than $19 million from the health sector (12 million better than McCain).



You don't need to be a Marxist to be concerned about Obama's service to economic royalty. Two Sundays ago, the liberal New York Times columnist Frank Rich, something of an Obama fan last year, wrote an editorial noting the absurdity of Republican claims that Obama is a socialist and worrying that "Obama might be just another corporatist, punking voters much as the Republicans do when they claim to be for the common guy."







The left-liberal senior black Congressman and single-payer advocate John Conyers recently described Obama's health care plan as "crap," adding that "nobody is more disappointed in Barack Obama than I am."



It's all very consistent with the campaign warnings of a liberal named John Edwards, who said it was a "complete fantasy" to think that meaningful progressive reform could be achieved by sitting down at a big negotiating table with big corporations and Republicans. Only an "epic fight" with corporate power could achieve such reform, Edwards said.




"Every stage of his political career," the liberal journalist Ryan Lizza noted about Obama last year, "has been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions." And in a carefully researched New Yorker portrait of Obama based on extensive interviews in May of 2007, Larissa MacFarquhar found that Obama was about as far from being a radical reformer as one could imagine. "In his view of history, in his respect for tradition, in his skepticism that the world can be changed any way but very, very slowly, Obama," MacFarquhar wrote, "is deeply conservative....It's not just that he thinks revolutions are unlikely: he values continuity and stability for their own sake, sometimes even more than he values change for the good. Take health care, for example," MacFarquhar noted, quoting Obama on how the United States ' for-profit health insurance companies were too deeply entrenched for us to evict them from their Mafia-like control of our health-care future.



MacFarquhar's portrait was consistent with how the left black political scientist Adolph Reed, Jr. described the 30-something Obama in early 1996, shortly after the future president won his first election to the Illinois legislature. Obama struck Reed as "a smooth Harvard lawyer with ...vacuous-to-repressive neoliberal politics" including a "fundamentally bootstrap line" that was "softened by...talk about meeting in kitchens, small-scale solutions to social problems, and the predictable elevation of process over program - the point where identity politics converges with old-fashioned middle class reform in favoring form over substance."






I am aware of the standard liberal defense that Obama is doing all he can for progressive values under the existing system of business and imperial power. Corporate Washington, the argument goes, leaves little room for progressive maneuver, Yes, that's true, but leaving aside the fact that the "deeply conservative" Obama often goes farther than required to appease corporate and military masters, there's an obvious response to this defense: "Hey, maybe it isn't about running for president." Maybe it isn't about climbing to the top of this authoritarian system and helping that system re-brand and re-legitimize itself as a "democracy" where "anything is possible." Maybe it's about re-building and expanding social movements and creating a more responsive political culture beneath and beyond these big, business-coordinated corporate-crafted mass-marketed narrow-spectrum and candidate-centered candidate-obsessed electoral extravaganzas the power elite and its dominant media stage for us every four years.



Adolph Reed got it right at the beginning. And as the brilliant black left Obama critic Glen Ford recently put it in regard to Obama's predictable conservative trajectory as president, "what begins badly usually ends badly."



With all due respect for John Conyers, we might also heed the words of the Tarnac Nine, who wrote the following in their 2007 pamphlet The Coming Insurrection: "To be disappointed one must have hoped for something. And we have never hoped for anything from business: we see it for what it is and what it has always been, a fool's game of varying degrees of comfort."



That's how I've felt about the false-pragmatist business liberal Barack Obama since he first leaped on to the national stage in the summer of 2004 and it's no small part of why I picked him as the next president in the fall of 2006.

[tslust]

(Just a joke.)

Originally Posted by randolph

A Silly Question: “Is Barack Obama a Progressive?”

No, he hasn't progressed verry far.

Sorry, I couldn't pass that up.