Cheny
 

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? :frown::no::censored:

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

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 (:turnon:) 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! :p

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
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

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.

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

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

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
:no: 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.

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
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

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

Break?
 

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. :drool::p;):respect:

Blackwater
 

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.:frown::censored:

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

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."

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...

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

What a load of total B:censored:S 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 F:censored:n 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

[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.

Wow!
 

Hey Hey Hey!
Looks like we have a way to get conservatives and liberals TOGETHER!
SUCH A GOOD WAY TO "FACE" THE ISSUES. :innocent: :inlove::turnon::drool::p;):lol::yes:

precedent
 

[QUOTE=Jenae LaTorque;102400]

Quote:

Originally Posted by randolph (Post 102265) For the CIA to hire death squads to do their dirty work is a very dangerous precedent.

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

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


:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

Citi
 

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. :yes:

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?

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 :lol:


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

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
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

Hey!!!!
 

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

Is that like....
 

...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.

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 !!! :turnoff:

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?

Why?
 

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! :censored::censored::censored:

Have I posted this here before?
 

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

Czar city
 

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.

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.

Van Jones
 

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. :yes:

John Holden
 

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. :yes:

Carol Browner
 

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. :no:

One more time
 

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.

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.

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

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."

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!

labels
 

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.

Ahh, the all-knowing:rolleyes::rolleyes: Wiki.:lol:

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

socialism?
 

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. :eek:

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

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

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.

socialism
 

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.

Obama Progressive?
 

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.

:frown::censored:

(Just a joke.)No, he hasn't progressed verry far.:lol::lol:

Sorry, I couldn't pass that up.

Isn't this interesting...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/bo...onfiction.html

Three conservative books in the top 10, and no liberal political books on the list.

And this from the Gallup poll
BO is going to find the 2nd half of his term very difficult :yes:

Obama
 

It appears Obama is actually a conservative. Tracy you should be pleased. :frown::censored:

Fixed it for you.

Selling
 

First of all it is a serious felony, at this site, to alter someone else's post. :lol:
Besides, look at what he is doing;
Selling out to the drug companies.
Selling out health care.
Expanding war in Afghanistan.
Playing footsie with the bankers.
He is looking more like a fucking conservative every day. :frown::censored:

Thanks Postman, I was getting really confused about what Randolph wrote. Must have been a mistake... or he was joking.

Awesome! :lol: One commie down... many more to go.

LOL As of this time, CNN still hasn't broken the news about Van Jones and there's already statements from other congressmen/women about it. CNN's probably thinking... if we don't say anything perhaps no one will know :yes:

You obviously do not know what conservatism is.

Went the same High School as Obama, albeit he grad in '79.
He had a disco fro and smoked the herb from what I understand.
He went by the name Barry.

Conservatism
 

Yes, I think I do know what "real" conservatism is, its Eisenhower conservatism. Its not the Limbaugh, Bush, Reagan, asshole conservatism. I usually vote Democratic because I can't stand whats happened to the Republican party. It's now dominated by mean spirited bigoted self centered lying assholes. The Limbaugh mentality is destroying this country with its distortions and polarization of the public. He encourages the morons in this country to be even more stupid. Eisenhower must be squirming in his grave if he is seeing what is going on. I cry for this country. It's no longer America the beautiful. :broken:

Sorry to break it to you bro, but both parties are like that.

I agree. This country is going down the crapper. You can erode only so much of the foundation of an instution before the whole thing comes crashing down.

Postman, I agree things are bad now. But then when things seem bad I try and get some perspective and remember how bad things were during the 60s. Civil rights movements, Kent State, the Cuban Missile crisis when the world was just minutes away from an all out nuclear war, JFK shot, MLK shot, Veitnam, etc.

Before that there was the Great Depression, and before that was the Civil War when we were literally killing each other. Before that, there was slavery, and taking N. America from the Indians.

So what is so bad about these times Postman that we say NOW our foundation is eroding? Randolph, in light of all these events throughout the history of the US, do you think it ever was America the Beautiful?

I'm trying to quantify what is it that made America great, and ask is that really being threatened now?

America?
 

Tracy, you ask when America was beautiful?
Well lets see;
In the 1930s the unions established the rights of workers to a living wage.
In the 1940s we beat the shit out of the Japs and Nazis.
In the 1950s a working guy could buy a nice house and a new car on a single modest wage and his wife could stay home and raise the kids.
In the 1960s we learned that social action could stop an evil war.
In the 1970s we learned we could get along on less oil.
In the 1980s we had to pay off the incompetence of the Reagan administration (savings and loan debacle, etc).
In the 1990s the President had blowjobs in the oval office and the tech bubble burst.
In the 2000s the neocons showed what evil is all about. The whole economy collapsed as greed and unethical practices ruled.
Today? Well fuck, I am getting old and I need a hard tranny. :turnon::inlove:

We all know where the party lines are, but for the moment I would like to put politics aside. I think we can all agree that America is deeply divided now (of course, not as divided as it was during the Civil War), and don't count that among America's great attributes. There was a time when the two sides weren't so far apart right? So think back over the history of America what made America great? It doesn't sound like you think the 80s 90s or 00s display America's beauty, so let's scratch those off your list. In fact, let's all scratch off everything from the 70s on, since that's likely where we are going to be biased and divided again.

I would add to the list:
* America's natural resources
* The way America was created (at least most of how it was created)
* The fact that America was built through exploration and invention and at least until recently in our history has kept its drive for exploration and invention
* The Constitution and the wisdom of the founding fathers

This is one I'd like to add to the list:
* That anyone with enough drive can achieve their dreams

This has always been the American dream, so I would LIKE to put it on the list. The potential has been there for much of the population, but not always true for all of America's law-abiding citizens. Past the point of law-abiding citizens I draw a definite line.

p.s. and yes, hard tranny's are among America's Beauties!

Our foundations have been eroding at an alarming rate since the beginning of the 1900's; I'm just saying that people are starting to take notice now and yet most simply don't give a fuck. Most of the American public are complacent, content or apathetic and even though they see the shit going on, they are unwilling to do anything to change it. People are too dependent on other people today and rather than harnessing our inherent spirit of self reliance and independence, most would rather follow someone else and have another person do what needs to be done if it means making their lives simpler.

This will explain what I am talking about(sort of)

The Eight Steps Of A Democracy

From Bondage to Spiritual Faith

Do we forget how young of a nation we are? Europe had shaped and reshaped itself so many times before we were even put on a map.

England ruled the young America, not with whips and chains, but with taxes. The people weren't allowed to build a strong nation because all the money they made was sent back to England. In the beginning, they were cool with that.

They were running from Europe so they would have the right to serve the God of their choosing and the manner in which they would serve that God. To them, at least in the beginning, the sacrifice was worth it. But that didn't last long because Spiritual Faith is life altering.

From Spiritual Faith to Great Courage

Now, you have spiritual people who fully believe God has their best interest at heart and that translates into the building of courage.

Not in just this case, but in every case. Once you let God into your life, you begin to feel like you can move mountains. When you trust and have faith, fear seems to melt away.

From Courage to Liberty

This may seem funny but the courage you get from God makes you want to fight. O.K. maybe I didn't say that right. The courage you get from God makes it impossible for you to allow someone to block your blessings. There, that's better.

Our founding fathers knew we could not prosper with England at the head of our lives. We had to be a nation that put God first, then country, then family.

So NO! We will not bow to your Queen, we will not allow you to rob our country of it's chance to be great, and no we will not allow you to dictate the lives of our children and grandchildren. We have God on our side and will fight for what we feel is right.

And that's what we did. We fought and won our independence, our freedom, and our Liberty.

From Liberty to Abundance

And once you put your faith in God and walk through the fire without fear, you receive your blessing. And can't we all agree, America has been blessed. We sprouted from a young nation into a world leader in record time.

Industry flourished, businesses developed, and the Economy became the envy and standard of the world. We fought amongst ourselves, defended our friends and allies, and built the strongest military force on the planet. We adjust and change our laws, while still adhering to the basic principles of our Constitution.

But all this comes with a price.

From Abundance to Complacency

Complacency- self-satisfaction, especially when accompanied by unawareness of actual dangers and deficiencies

I think this came around the time of the Great Depression. The New Deal. The belief started to creep in that we had the money to do anything. People were hurting and wanted immediate help, so they turned to the government and the government answered.

We're temporarily going to give out Social Security benefits, just to get people by until things get better. We're going to set up Medicaid and Medicare to help the underprivileged and elderly, who just can't afford healthcare. These are just temporary steps to get us through these hard times.

When did they end Social Security? They didn't. No politician is going to advocate taking services from the poor and the old. Plus, now government has a huge money supply from all the taxes they collect for Social Security. Great way to get money from you to borrow against for other Government projects.

As the government continued to grow, so did it's hold on the mind of the American people.

From Complacency to Apathy

Apathy- lack of interest or concern; indifference

Now, we believe we can not fail. We pushed the Nazi's back and crushed Russia, what could go wrong? The age of drugs spread through America and people stopped caring. It was better to protest than to put yourself into a position to run for office. It was better to make love than resist the up and coming war in our own backyard, the ever growing size of government.

Then, one morning we awoke and realized Government played a role in every aspect of our life. We pay taxes from the moment we get up in the morning to the moment we go to sleep at night. They can tell your teenage daughter it's O.K. to get an abortion without telling a parent. They can even take away your land and cite "eminent domain".

And we threw our hands up and said "F it". It's nothing we can do, the government runs everything. And we stopped listening, we stopped paying attention, and we stopped holding politicians accountable for their actions. We allowed ourselves to be scared of the Government instead of making the Government scared of us.

This is were it gets really scary.

From Apathy to Dependence

This is were we are right now. We were so indifferent and complacent, the first person to come along and promise us the pot at the end of the rainbow, we jumped. This once God loving nation is starting to worship the Government instead.

The same God that gave our forefather's the strength and courage to fight is being contested at every turn. God teaches us to rely on him and then on ourselves and the Government doesn't like that. The now enormous Government, needs to keep feeding itself and it needs your complacency to do it.

They need you to not care they are taking over private industry. They need you to look away while the let the printing press run. They need you to worry about Nancy Pelosi, while the Federal Reserve consolidates power. And there's only one way that could happen, if you are dependent upon them.

If you can't keep your house without the Government, then you don't care how they do it. If you can't eat without the Government, you don't care where your food comes from. If you can't see a doctor without the Government, you don't care how much it will cost future generations.

We have become the nation of ME, Myself, and I and then anyone else that's poor. They got us right were they want us, completely dependent on the Government to make the economy work, to solve our individual financial woes, and to just give us that tingly feeling.

Guess what the last step is?

From Dependence to back into Bondage

This is what I don't understand about America today. There was a time in our history where people were given jobs, houses, food, and healthcare. It was called SLAVERY!

Master controlled everything about the lives of their slaves. They picked the winners and losers, the house nigga and the field nigga. They assualted those that would protest against their actions. They told their slaves when they could and couldn't procreate. They picked which part of the pig the slaves got to eat.

Now, the government is starting to enlist the same tactics. They pick which people can get their homes refinanced or modified. They pick which companies are to big to fail and which one's aren't worth saving. They release terror list for Americans, AMERICANS, that would question the direction of their country. And with Obama's full support of Planned Parenthood and his plans for national healthcare, population control won't be far behind.

And we're letting it happen. We are putting our heads in the sand and all our faith in a Man. A man that came from Chicago politics. A man that has an entire cabinet full of tax cheats and people who at one time or another have been under investigation. A man that down plays Christianity abroad and refuses to pray in front of a nation audience.

We've passed the 200 year mark but we're still progressing straight back to Bondage. The Government never gives up power. All the power the current Government is stacking will now be the norm, how can it get any bigger? It will and they will want more money to make it happen.

But before they come after more money, they will come for our guns. Mark my words. The American people are different from those in the past. We will always believe in our right to protect ourselves.

When the social spending fails and the Government is knocked down a peg, the people at the top will tell us it's in our best interest to let them handle it. The question will be, will we go back to God and develop the Great Courage to bring our country back from the brink or will hold out our arms and allow the government to attach the chains?


We are the sinking ship and yet while the lifeboats are waiting to be used, we would rather go down listening to the violin and its serenade of false security.

I agree with the above, but lest we forget, there were people there who were willing to fight for their causes. We have been so conditioned to having tha' Gubmint in our everyday lives and to believe that fighting back is wrong, that nobody is going to lift a damn finger when shit gets tough.

The most important thing; our spirit of independence and self-reliance is what is being threatened now. That is what made America so beautiful.

That's what I'm talking about. The "elected officials" and bureaucrats have a cynical view of the public being along the lines of "You are too much of an idiot to make basic decisions so we will make them for you." This is why things like Medicare/Universal Healthcare, Social Security, govt' takeover of the private sector is such a stupid idea. The spirit of competition and invention are squashed and replaced with the "lowest bidder" mentality.


Unfortunately, they are being outsourced to Brazil and Thailand. Do your part to help out! Ride American!(tranny's that is!)

America
 

Hey!
Great posts! I agree with most of whats been said. I would like to add a word which sums up my view of America.
Patriotism
I remember how my grandfather loved the flag and put it out on Memorial day and forth of July. It also felt good to salute the flag.
We used to have respect for the country and the president even when we didn't agree with everything he did.
Maybe we need a tranny for president, any suggestions?;)

Very good post. It would be one thing if these words were written today, but more amazing is that you are summing up what Tytler predicted over 200 years ago about democracy. American history has been the experiment confirming the prediction. What we have here now is a validated theory.

Knowing the pitfalls of democracy, it sounds like it may be time to restart a country like America was with controls built into the constitution against welfare, overspending, over taxing and big government.

As an atheist however, these steps all make sense without having to put so much importance on god. i.e: freedom, self reliance, small government works... that's why we should get back to that.

Yeah, I found the god stuff pretty irrevelant although I do understand where he was coming from.

So Tracy, as an intelligent person, how do you feel about the "tea party" rally in front of the capital? :frown:

The original Tea Party was to protest taxation without representation. There is so much political activity from the right and even from independents and some democrat voters (who didn't really know or care what "Hope and Change" meant) because like King George, this government is completely out of touch with American citizens.

There was the $1 trillion stimulus that wasn't even written, much less even read by our representatives. It was written by the Apollo Alliance.

Did you vote for the Apollo Alliance last November? I sure didn't, and I don't know of anyone who has. There will be an unprecedented tax from this bill. That would be a clear case of taxation without representation.

Also, there's the healthcare crap they want to pass. Congress was all set to pass this bill last summer. A bill that would be irreversible, that would fundamentally change many aspects of our lives, and most of them hadn't even read it! Thankfully many people in town hall meetings started demanding answers to their questions and got the politicians to start listening. That's what representatives should do is listen. Not come to us and tell us what we need. The fact is, the vast majority of Americans don't want nationalized health care, so Obama and the assholes in congress should do their job and drop it.

I'm hoping we can keep them from passing the bill until 2010 when the American citizens enact a health care program on congress and clean it out with an enema.

So, the main message of the Tea Party is that the government is out of control, and to remind them that America has government for the people, by the people. And I completely support their cause.

Appolo Alliance
 

Our Mission

"The Apollo Alliance is a coalition of labor, business, environmental, and community leaders working to catalyze a clean energy revolution that will put millions of Americans to work in a new generation of high-quality, green-collar jobs. Inspired by the Apollo space program, we promote investments in energy efficiency, clean power, mass transit, next-generation vehicles, and emerging technology, as well as in education and training. Working together, we will reduce carbon emissions and oil imports, spur domestic job growth, and position America to thrive in the 21st century economy."
What's wrong with that?

The stimulus package was approved by Congress regardless of who "wrote" it. Therefore "we" approved it.
Your comments on the "Tea Party" are reasonable. We are all concerned with the massive spending.
What appalls me are the idiotic signs waved around by the mob. Signs calling Obama Hitler and Pelosi a Nazi are absurd. Further absurdity is calling him a socialist! Obama's stimulus package is designed to save capitalism, pure and simple. Capitalists are in full control of the stimulus funds. It seems to be working and the government is starting to get some of it back. :yes:

Is the Apollo Alliance trying to say that the Apollo space program "promoted investments in energy efficiency, clean power, mass transit, next-generation vehicles, and emerging technology, as well as in education and training." That's really amazing that a space program that was intended to put a man on the moon instead did all these other things.

Well, as usual, when you look into these groups and people surrounding Obama, you come up with criminals (like what ACORN is riddled with), communists and progressives.

Jeff Jones - Co-creator of the Weather Underground with Bill Ayers. He was arrested in 1981 for his terrorist acts. Where do you go from there? Adviser to environmental groups, to labor organizations and to the New York state government where he sits on a commission for Governor Paterson of course.

He was also adviser to the Workforce Development Institute in New York, which is advising state and local governments and universities on how to write their grants to get stimulus funds from the stimulus bill that he and his friends at Apollo wrote. What does he do now? He's the head of the Apollo Alliance in NY, and he's also an adviser for the national Apollo Alliance as well.

There are several others, but it's a long boring list of commies and progressivists.

Well that's assuming the people we put in office do their jobs and read it. But they didn't. They weren't given time to, and many of them readily admitted they weren't going to read it because it was too long and they trusted Pelosi and BO to get it right.

Yeah, and stuff like this too:
He surrounds himself with not only socialists, but communists. He's had communist mentors when growing up. He lived in communist Indonesia. He forms a relationship with the radical-communist Bill Ayers. Many of his advisors are communists. He has or plans to put car companies, banks and even the health care system under government control. He's working out ways to take over the airwaves with something called "Localism", and there's a bill in the senate that would give BO the power to shut down the internet if he ever feels the itch to do so. Are you saying it's absurd to call him socialist because he's actually a communist?

Capitalists like Jeff Jones and ACORN? LOL :lol: You made a funny. I noted a while back that the economy seemed to be recovering before the stimulus money had begun being spent - making the $trillion an unnecessary burden on tax payers while funding a bunch of radical left-wing types like ACORN.

"Capitalists like Jeff Jones and ACORN? LOL You made a funny. I noted a while back that the economy seemed to be recovering before the stimulus money had begun being spent - making the $trillion an unnecessary burden on tax payers while funding a bunch of radical left-wing types like ACORN."

OK, Acorn may be a piece of shit, but its not where the big money is going. It is going to bail the big financial institutions that run this capitalist country. That is not socialism by any stretch of the imagination. Also a lot of the money is in the form of an investment which hopefully will become a good capitalist investment. The highly discounted mortgage bonds are likely to recover value in the future.
You seem to be determined to label Obama a communist or at least a socialist based on some tenuous associations in the past. Many young people go through a "radical" period. What counts is what he is doing now and there is no question in my mind he is supporting capitalism and would like to see a humane health care system available to all citizens.:yes:

The definition of capitalism:

Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm, ˈkap-tə-, British also kə-ˈpi-tə-\
Function: noun
Date: 1877
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.


I fail to see how giving the gov't control over a private enterprise is in any way capitalistic. It is more like this:

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Pay close attention to the first part of the definition...

“It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it.”-Thomas Sowell

From the LA Examiner, Brian Ashamakus

Is anyone else tired of the "Obama is a socialist" rhetoric coming from the far right. I sure am and I would like to take this opportunity to define socialism and then to demonstrate why Obama is not a subscriber to this economic theory.

Socialism does not describe a single economic system, however there are certain principles that are common to all forms of socialism. 1. The abolition of private property and the implementation of some form of collective ownership. In other words, the people, or their representatives (a government, party, union, guild, etc.) control land, property, and capital as a group instead of it being controlled privately by individuals and companies as in capitalism. 2. The elimination of social and economic classes. Under socialism there is no rich and poor and equality in wealth and power. 3. Production according to ability and distribution according to need. Thus in a socialist society, all produce goods and provide services according to their talents and skills and receive whatever goods and services they need from other producers. Historically, this distribution method has been accomplished through a government bureaucracy, but state control is not a necessary quality of socialism. In other words socialists seek to eliminate the capitalist (supply and demand) form of distribution.

In order to defend my thesis that Obama is not a socialist, I will look at three of his policies as president that have most often resulted in the misuse of that label--the bailout of the auto companies, the economic stimulus, and his current health care proposal. First, the auto bailout. A socialist, as mentioned above, opposes private ownership and would want automobile manufacture to be controlled collectively and for automobiles to be distributed according to need. The auto bailout's goal, however, was to help the private companies, known as the Big 3, to survive as private institutions that sell their cars according to what customers will pay for them. Thus, its goal was to preserve an aspect of capitalism (the American share of the automobile market), not establish socialism.

The economic stimulus, officially called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, had a similar intent. The recovery's website lists several goals of the act. Some of them include reviving the renewable energy industry, investing in infrastructure, and granting tax credits to working families. These are not the goals of a socialist. Remember that a socialist seeks to eliminate private property and companies, not revive them. A socialist would also do the infrastructure investment differently. Under socialism, the government would enlist employees directly to rebuild infrastructure, not hire private contractors who will in turn hire employees as is the case in this act. Finally, the tax credits are meant to encourage spending by individuals to reinvigorate the economy. The basic premise is that the recipients of these tax credits will use the money to make purchases. This will help companies, who will use their extra earnings to hire more employees, who will be able to spend themselves, thus restarting the economy and saving capitalism. This is known as Keynesian economics, not socialism. The cash for clunkers program also works this way, encouraging spending by subsidizing the purchase with government spending. No socialist would ever try to save capitalism, which they see as the creator of the class system that they despise.

President Obama's health care plan is possibly the policy that most often results in Obama being accused of being a socialist. However, it is also the policy that best demonstrates that he is not. Obama's health care plan has many stipulations, but the primary one is the creation of a public option for health care through which insurance is purchased as a group for a lower premium. This would, however, only be an option. Persons would not be required to drop their existing insurance, nor would private insurance companies be eliminated. The plan also includes several reforms that are meant to reduce health care costs, including subsidies for employers, record-keeping improvements, and regulations of prescription drug companies. These reforms are made without nationalizing any private entities. It even seeks to help small business, by assisting them in paying for their employee health benefits. It doesn't even distribute health care according to need, as persons are still required to pay for the public option. It is therefore quite clear that this bill is not a "socialist" bill, nor is President Obama a socialist.

President Obama is a capitalist. His policies are directed at rescuing companies, revitalizing the capitalist economy, helping small businesses, and creating competition, all things actual socialists would cringe at. So please stop saying that Obama is a socialist, please stop posting it on your blogs, or yelling it at town meetings, or wearing T-shirts of it, or writing it on picket signs. Concentrate instead on legitimate criticisms of his policies and your opposition will be much more effective and better received. :yes:

Interesting comparison of Glenn Becks logo. :eek:;):lol:

What does Glenn Beck have to do with any of this? :confused:

From Washington Monthly.

QUOTE OF THE DAY.... "The good news is, nearly four-dozen advertisers have now pulled their sponsorship of Glenn Beck's deranged Fox News program. The bad news is, Beck's ratings have gone up, in part because he's acting like an even bigger lunatic than usual, and clowns doing funny dances tend to draw a crowd.

Yesterday was especially astounding. He argued on the air, for example, that President Obama intends to create a "civilian national security force," which will be similar to Hitler's SS and Saddam Hussein. Apparently, this has something to do with AmeriCorps, which Beck initially said has a $500 billion budget. (He corrected himself later in the show, though his guest didn't blink when he originally made the claim.)

Towards the end of the show, after scrawling on a variety of boards and pieces of paper, Beck summarized his key observation. On a chalkboard, Beck had written the words, "Obama," "Left Internationalist," "Graft," "ACORN Style Organizations," "Revolution," and "Hidden Agenda." If you circle some of the first letters of these important words, Beck says, it spells "OLIGARH." Beck told his viewers there's only one letter missing. If you're thinking that letter is "c," you're not medicated enough to understand Beck's show.

The missing letter is "y," because the word he hoped to spell is "OLIGARHY." No, that word doesn't exist in the English language, but that's probably because the dictionary was written by some communist community organizer who wants to keep Glenn Beck and his viewers down. "

He is a total nut case that the far right loves. Naturally he is on Fox news.

Okaaaay.... I still fail to see why you brought up Glenn Beck and his obvious inability to spell the word "oligarchy".

Lets see what John Stossel has to say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9GMKK_fWKg&

Listening to a liar
 

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...I1OTdmNTc5YTM=


Listening to a Liar
Ignore the lofty rhetoric: Obamacare is about the government accumulating power.

By Thomas Sowell

The most important thing about what anyone says is not the words themselves but the credibility of the person saying them.

The words of convicted swindler Bernie Madoff were apparently quite convincing to many people who were regarded as knowledgeable and sophisticated. If you go by words, you can be led into anything.

No doubt millions of people will be listening to the words of Pres. Barack Obama Wednesday night when he makes a televised address to a joint session of Congress on his medical-care plans. But, if they think that the words he says are what matters, they can be led into something much worse than being swindled out of their money.

One plain fact should outweigh all the words of Barack Obama and all the impressive trappings of the setting in which he says them: He tried to rush Congress into passing a massive government takeover of the nation's health care before the August recess - for a program that would not take effect until 2013.

Whatever President Obama is, he is not stupid. If the urgency to pass the legislation were to deal with a problem immediately, then why postpone for years the date when the legislation would go into effect - specifically, until the year after the next presidential election?

If this is such an desperately needed program, why wait for years to put it into effect? And if the public is going to benefit from this, why not let them experience those benefits before the next presidential election?

If it is not urgent that the legislation go into effect immediately, then why don't we have time to go through the normal process of holding Congressional hearings on the pros and cons, accompanied by public discussions of its innumerable provisions? What sense does it make to "hurry up and wait" on something that is literally a matter of life and death?

If we do not believe that the president is stupid, then what do we believe? The only reasonable alternative seems to be that he wanted to get this massive government takeover of medical care passed into law before the public understood what was in it.

Moreover, he wanted to get re-elected in 2012 before the public experienced what its actual consequences would be.

Unfortunately, this way of doing things is all too typical of the way this administration has acted on a wide range of issues.

Consider the "stimulus" legislation. Here the administration was successful in rushing a massive spending bill through Congress in just two days - after which it sat on the president's desk for three days while he was away on vacation. But, like the medical care legislation, the "stimulus" legislation takes effect slowly.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will be September 2010 before even three-quarters of the money will be spent. Some economists expect that it will not all be spent by the end of 2010.

What was the rush to pass it, then? It was not to get that money out into the economy as fast as possible. It was to get that money - and the power that goes with it - into the hands of the government. Power is what politics is all about.

The worst thing that could happen - from the standpoint of those seeking more government power over the economy - would be for the economy to begin recovering on its own while months were being spent debating the need for a "stimulus" bill. As the president's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said, you can't let a crisis "go to waste" when "it's an opportunity to do things you could not do before."

There are lots of people in the Obama administration who want to do things that have not been done before - and to do them before the public realizes what is happening.

The proliferation of White House "czars" in charge of everything from financial issues to media issues is more of the same circumvention of the public and of the Constitution. Czars don't have to be confirmed by the Senate, the way cabinet members must be, even though czars may wield more power, so you may never know what these people are like, until it is too late.

What Barack Obama says Wednesday night is not nearly as important as what he has been doing - and how he has been doing it.

Glenn Beck and other far right wing pundits are trying to cast Obama as a socialist or even worse a communist. They are inflaming their followers into mindless protests that could escalate into violence. Everybody is insecure in this economic environment. To play on fears and worries is demagoguery.
There is plenty of room to discuss and debate Obama's proposals in a civilized manner.

Sometimes the truth hurts. It seems that only when left wingers protest, it is "patriotic dissent". Anything else is considered "militant extremism". :lol::lol::lol:

How is that any different than global warming, "gun control" and numerous other crap that liberals spew?

The government should not be in the business of helping out businesses.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx
No, a purely capitalist system would allow a failing company or financial institution to fail. That's what bankruptcy is for. A socialist system would make them part of the government.

By accepting bailout money, the "Man" can assume de facto control by saying"We wanna make sure that this money is spent right, so we'll determine how things are spent and/or run."

The quote,"death by a thousand cuts" is relevant here. Once again, a push by the gov't to gain control of private sector enterprises. Just because they don't try to take control by more forceful means does not mean that they are not trying to take over. Rather than trying to control everything in a Soviet-esque manner, they know that they can achieve the same goals in a more subtle manner. People don't respond kindly to outright attacks, so they've changed tactics and found that you can get people to vote for this shit in times of uncertainty under the guise of "financial stability/security","hope and change" or what ever catchphrase they are using.


There is a world outside of Berkeley you know.

I am, yet it seems that if I don't believe in a particular political solution or I'm not fellating Obama like everyone else, I am automatically labeled as a back-asswards, racist/misogynist/bigoted redneck who has a heart of stone and clings bitterly to guns and religion.

Acorn
 

I don't know if the democrats here have been following Obama's favorite community organizer group, ACORN lately, since left-wing news isn't covering it, but it's been hilarious.

Last friday, video was released showing a couple of reporters claiming to be a pimp and his ho. They went to ACORN asking how to set up a prostitution ring involving more than a dozen underage girls from El Salvador. The lady there gave them advice, gained from her community organizing experience, on how to set up a prostitution ring and evade the IRS.

ACORN fired the woman and said this was an isolated incident. BTW, that is the extent of the story if you search CNN's archives.

Then the next day the reporters released another video from another state showing the same thing. ACORN fired that person too and threatened legal action against these two reporters. For what? Do they really think they can defend this? The census bureau broke of ties with ACORN.

Monday another video came out, showing the same thing in yet another state. The senate voted 83-7 to revoke federal funds from ACORN. Which is HUGE since ACORN was scheduled to receive over $8 billion in federal funds (Why they were going to receive these funds after being charged in 14 states with voter fraud is beyond me, but I digress...).

The videos continue... today, video from yet another state shows an ACORN worker who says she ran a prostitution ring herself... oh and by the way... she also admitted to KILLING her husband too. OMG.

The head of ACORN issued a statement praising all the good things ACORN has done, like getting the Community Reinvestment Act passed LOL. Yeah, thanks for that. Thanks for getting the CRA passed so the government is required by law to give loans to unqualified applicants which led to the collapse of Freddie Mac & Fannie May and the financial meltdown last fall.

Heads on pikes!!!

sorry to be off subject
 

theres two things i know for sure about america as a veteran. One, its run by lobbysts. not the house or senate or president or the people. LOBBYSTS!!!! do you really want the people with the money decided what meds to give you when your sick. Not this guy. I want the best meds for the right reasons not the wrong political unfunded/overfunded reasons. until we kick lobbysts out of washington, or atleast stop letting them make campiagn controbutions, favors will be owed to rich componies and poor americans will just be sol.
the second thing i know is no matter what side you are the other is always wrong. its been this way since the begginging. so why did, for the second time since the 1860s become divided into sides. the north vs the south. the reps and the dems. FUCK THAT. im american, not liberal, not conservative not republican not demecrate. american. and my american values come before any party affiliation.
until these two problems are solved, america will continue in its downward spiral. no matter who's in office. blame it on reagan, bush, clinton, bush or obama. wich i feel sorry for the last guy, cause we pin all our hopes from the last three decades of fucking over america on this poor inexperienced over talkative young man.
well thats my piece. i had to get it in there. sorry for the intrusion on obama talk.

No problem, welcome to the thread. And nice cock BTW

As an American, do you have an opinion on whether our government should be large and well funded, or small and lean?

Racists?
 

There have been several accusations that we conservatives are racists.

That's right... In the face of growing opposition, scandals and commie-czars Obama and his lackeys are running out of explanations and excuses. So they are using their last resort: The race card.

Forget that this country has been staunchly against Communism & Socialism for over 60 years and BO is now surrounding himself with them. Forget BO's ties with domestic terrorists who have declared war on America. Forget the fact that he's trying to ram nationalized healthcare down our throats when 85% of the people say NO. Forget that he's funding organizations like ACORN that are crookeder than a barrel of snakes. Forget that he's turning our nations heroes into criminals in the war on Terror. Forget that he's outspent the past several presidents in 2 months....

All that is just conservatives trying to hide our racist hate of Obama. That's right, you got us. We actually agree with all those policies and it's just that black president we can't stand. Well half black. Yeah, it's just half of him that we can't stand. :rolleyes:

Well here we go agian, Preeching doom and gloom and only the GOP loves and cares about the USA and our only hope to surive is to have the GOP in total control.
After all look at the great job they did from 01 to 06, Is that the what you are claiming we need back in power? If so no thanks, That bunch made GOP stand for Give Out Poverty
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

Laughable! She's not preaching doom and gloom Jen. Just click on the link.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...nst_obama.html

What's up with this? Obama canceled the missile defense shield that the US promised Poland? So now US commitments mean nothing? And it's one thing to go back on this... It's quite another to make the announcement on the 70th anniversary of the Russian invasion of Poland! Take that Poland!

For all you Obama haters, check out the second video on real clear politics.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...xtremists.html

Yes cause as we know, Poland is the real enemy. Poland and the Czech Republic are the only countries that have the balls to tell the EU and Russia to GFY and we just hung em out to dry.

I guess that means I'm "racist" because I don't like Zeros policies. Extremism my ass. It's seems like it's only extremism when conservatives disagree. :frown::frown::frown:

From Foreignpolicy,com

The Obama administration's decision announced today to cancel the deeply flawed antimissile systems in Eastern Europe is sound policy based on the best intelligence and technical assessments. U.S. President Barack Obama replaces a system that did not work against a threat that did not exist with weapons that can defend against the real Iranian missile capability. Better still, he NATO-izes the system to strengthen the alliance, not divide it.

So-- not everybody thinks Obama is stupid. Pragmatism rules! :yes: