OT: does obama bring change? [Archive] - Page 15

1bad65

06-15-2009, 07:14 AM

"WASHINGTON -- Vice President Joe Biden said Sunday that "everyone guessed wrong" on the impact of the economic stimulus, but he defended the administration's spending designed to combat rising joblessness.

Just 10 days before taking office, Obama's top economic advisers released a report predicting unemployment would remain at 8 percent of below through this year if an economic stimulus plan won congressional approval.

Yet the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that unemployment in May rose to 9.4 percent.
Biden said the White House is keenly aware of the gap between the rhetoric used to sell fast passage of the legislation and the reality that has 14.5 million people unemployed.

"No one realized how bad the economy was. The projections, in fact, turned out to be worse. But we took the mainstream model as to what we thought -- and everyone else thought -- the unemployment rate would be," Biden said.

The White House has tapped Biden as its chief spokesman on that economic stimulus plan, sending him across the country to drum up support for a plan that has yet to make the impact it promised. On Thursday and Friday, Biden visited Pennsylvania, Kansas and Michigan to highlight projects the stimulus has funded.

"Everyone guessed wrong at the time the estimate was made about what the state of the economy was at the moment this was passed," Biden said."

Source:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/14/biden-says-guessed-wrong-unemployment-numbers/

Where do I start? You guys "guessed wrong"? :eek: He is actually saying with a straight face, with all the data at their disposal, they "guessed wrong"?! I guess people like 1bad65, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh "guessed correctly" when we predicted this would fail.

And you gotta love the excueses. :rolleyes: "No one realized how bad the economy was." For those of you who don't remember, that is the exact same excuse Bill Clinton used to break his campaign promise and raise taxes. Gee, who saw that coming?

And why is Obama punking out and sending Biden on this excuse making tour? It was Obama who came out and gave us these wrong guesses. It was he who said we must pass this plan before Congress could even read the thing.

BoulderDawg

06-15-2009, 08:53 AM

Well it's finally happened......Limby has gone totally off the deep the deep end.

Concerning the high cost of health care: Limby does not blame it on the alcoholics, drug addicts (like himself) or life long smokers (like himself) or people 200 pounds overweight (like himself)....Nope! According to Limby the reason health care cost are so high is because of all the people who are exercising and making an effort to stay physically fit are getting injured.:D

This silly comment is more or less in line with the rest of his reasoning.

What's really funny though for all of the money this guy has, people like myself (Who do try to stay in shape) are actually a lot richer. I can climb a flight of stairs without being out of breath at the top. Most importantly I can have a lot of fun in the bedroom without taking dozens of those little blue pills!:p

sanjuro_ronin

06-15-2009, 11:14 AM

Uh... Nazis are leftists. The guy was a neo-nazi. So... yeah...

Facists aren't "leftists".

1bad65

06-15-2009, 11:26 AM

Facists aren't "leftists".

In terms of Government control of industry (nationalization), they indeed are. Fascists are just alot more nationalistic than modern 'leftists' are.

Keep in mind the Nazis were "National Socialists".

David Jamieson

06-15-2009, 11:33 AM

In terms of Government control of industry (nationalization), they indeed are. Fascists are just alot more nationalistic than modern 'leftists' are.

Keep in mind the Nazis were "National Socialists".

No, it is not leftist. nor is it on the right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

it is and has been touted as "the 3rd way".

as a term it is perjorative these days.

as a concept for political structure it is no worse or better than any of the other models. It's just one more.

interestingly, the idea of "United States" is a fascist ideal.

People should try and understand the words they use as opposed to just tossing them out as insults.

for instance, 1bad, the ideas you seem to support fit into a fascist mold. lol

from the article i posted the link to:
Most academics describe fascism as extreme right, radical right, far right or ultra right; some calling it a mixture of authoritarian conservatism and right-wing nationalism. However, there exists a dissenting view that fascism represents radical centrism. Moreover, a number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may typically be associated with the left.

BoulderDawg

06-15-2009, 11:49 AM

Yes. yes I've heard it all before....The Nazi's were a much of raging liberal leftist communist facists!:D

So were everyone else who the general public preceives as a mass murderer or pure evil......:D

By the way, Gandhi, MLK, Mother Theresa, Dali Lama and everyone else who helps people are God fearing conservatives.:eek:

1bad65

06-15-2009, 01:02 PM

Good points David.

I do see how some people come up with that theory. The pride conservatives take in the US can be seen as nationalistic, while the liberals despise the US. Yet the liberals want big government, which is a huge part of a fascist government, while conservatives favor individual rights over government intrusion.

However, I do not belive in the 'standard' political spectrum, where Fascism/National Socialism is on the far right and Communism is on the far left. I put complete anarchy on one side (the right), and complete government control, ie Communism, Socialism, Facism, Dictatorships, etc on the opposite side (the left). I measure it ONLY by the individual freedoms human beings have. By my way, the US was founded very far right (but obviously not fully to the right), yet has drastically moved to the left over time. We have lost or given up so many of our Constitutional rights over the last ~220 years, and that is so sad.

1bad65

06-15-2009, 01:07 PM

People should try and understand the words they use as opposed to just tossing them out as insults.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

You Neo. ;)

1bad65

06-15-2009, 01:13 PM

But man, they should just fry this guy, if he is convicted.

"A teenager is being held on 19 counts of animal cruelty linked to a month-long killing spree of pet cats in the Miami area, police said.

Pet owners and police began discovering disfigured cats May 13. One pet owner, Donna Gleason, said her family cat, Tommy, was "partially skinned" and left dead in her yard.

Police said 34 cats have been found dead in the towns, but only 19 mutilated cats could be linked to a serial killer. Police confirmed that some of the cats were killed by dogs, said Maj. Julie Miller of Cutler Bay police.

Weinman, who works odd jobs but spends most of his time at home and unemployed, had been a person of interest for several weeks, Miller said. He was arrested Saturday.

He could face a maximum of 158 years in state prison if convicted on all counts, said Terry Shavez, spokeswoman for the state attorney's office."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/15/florida.cat.killer.arrest/index.html

What a piece of ****. Animal cruelty is that one trait serial killers almost always have. And this guy took that to a whole new level.

SharkyT

06-16-2009, 06:41 AM

BoulderDawg

06-16-2009, 08:13 AM

Sweet baby Jesus, Corky
Did you have any secondary education at all? Really, did you go to college?

I don't thing this guy did. Most of his debates is cut and pasted from the lastest neo blog. When you finally get him to express his own opinion it's like debating with a fifth grader.

My favorite is when he trys to school people on economics, especially supply and demand. I remember in one post he was trying to educate us on supply and demand. A couple of days later he was saying paraphasing "Well, if a company makes more product it can sell more and make more money......:D"

1bad65

06-16-2009, 09:13 AM

I don't thing this guy did. Most of his debates is cut and pasted from the lastest neo blog.

We can all see your stupid ass didn't do so hot in English.

Had to briefly take ya off ignore for that zinger. :D

1bad65

06-16-2009, 09:18 AM

"In a move that puts a cloud over transparency, White House officials are blocking access to the lists of the names of visitors to the White House.

The practice, carried over from the Bush administration, argues the public does not need to know who comes calling at the Executive Mansion, even for policy purposes.

"We are deeply disappointed," said Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington spokeswoman Anne Weismann, whose group is suing to get the records.

"The president, who has committed his administration to transparency and accountability, now takes the position of the Bush administration that the public is not entitled to know who visits the White House. These are not the actions of a pro-transparency administration," she said.

CREW requested the records through the Freedom of Information Act. The U.S. Secret Service denied the request, citing the presidential communications privilege.

CREW was requesting a list with logs of executives from coal companies. MSNBC was also denied a FOIA request asking for a list of every visitor to the White House since Inauguration Day, Jan. 20."

Source:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/16/white-house-blocks-access-visitor-list/

BoulderDawg

06-16-2009, 09:56 AM

We can all see your stupid ass didn't do so hot in English.

Had to briefly take ya off ignore for that zinger. :D

Fell into my trap!:D Since the grammar police appear to out today I was going to see how long it took!

By the way you missed the misspelling of "trys" and a few minor punctuation marks that I didn't really think you would see anyway!

David Jamieson

06-16-2009, 10:02 AM

complaining about grammar & spelling in a forum is like complaining about the smell of **** in a subway toilet. :rolleyes:

1bad65

06-16-2009, 10:22 AM

complaining about grammar & spelling in a forum is like complaining about the smell of **** in a subway toilet. :rolleyes:

I only did it because of who it was. ;)

BoulderDawg

06-16-2009, 11:38 AM

It never ends:

(CNN) -- The chairman of Tennessee's Democratic Party wants a Republican legislative aide fired for sending out a "reprehensible" e-mail depicting President Obama as two cartoonish white eyes peering from a black background.

Obama's image is in the last square of a collage containing portraits of the previous 43 U.S. presidents. Copies of the e-mail were posted on the Internet on Monday.

Sherri Goforth, an administrative assistant to state Sen. Diane Black, R-Gallatin, has admitted she sent the e-mail May 28 with the title "Historical Keepsake Photo." She said, without elaborating, that she mistakenly sent it "to the wrong list of people."

According to The Tennessean, a Nashville newspaper, a note on the e-mail said it was paid for by the Tennessee Republican Party, but GOP officials denied that they produced it. Black chairs the Senate Republican Caucus.

Black rebuked Goforth but didn't dismiss her.

Goforth told Christian Grantham of the Web site Nashville Is Talking that she had received a letter of reprimand from her superiors but will remain on the job.

Grantham said Goforth told him she felt "very bad about accidentally sending it to the wrong list" of people.

"I went on the wrong e-mail and I inadvertently hit the wrong button," Grantham quoted Goforth as saying. "I'm very sick about it, and it's one of those things I can't change or take back."

Forrester added: "Unfortunately, Sherri Goforth's e-mail joins the list of shameful episodes by Tennessee Republicans, from the infamous 'Birds of a Feather' direct-mail piece that featured black crows with the heads of Barack Obama and [African-American] Rep. Nathan Vaughn, to the "Barack the Magic Negro" song that former Tennessee GOP Party Chairman Chip Saltsman sent to RNC members during his failed campaign for RNC chair."

Par for the course....

Notice the only thing the staffer is sorry for is sending the list to the "wrong people"........also notice that she is not going to lose her job.

Mas Judt

06-16-2009, 01:01 PM

David Jamieson

06-16-2009, 01:25 PM

Actually Fascism and Nazism has their roots in the left, and were championed in leftest magazines in the US as a 'new way' after 'international communism' didn't sweep the world in WW1.

The American Progressive movement and the Totalitarian policies of Woodrow Wilson were often cited by Mussolini as his inspiration.

To not recognize National Socialism as a part of the left is to be intellectually dishonest. Or at least easily fooled by old Soviet propagandists.

bzzzt, wrong answer sir.

In the words of Benitto Mussolini himself who actually defined fascism:

Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death....

...The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, but above all for others -- those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after...

...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....

there's a lot more if you would care to google it. Mussolini is the undisputed source of modern fascism. He based his ideas on how ancient rome was run somewhat, but definitely stated quite clearly that fascism is the "complete opposite of socialism"

so , don't lump everything in together with a provincial idea of what is what.

that is all.
:p

Mas Judt

06-16-2009, 03:45 PM

You have a hard time with comprehension, don't you David.

Mussolini did INDEED cite Woodrow Wilson as an inspiration in the PROGRESSIVE magazine.

And Fascism/National Socialism was branded as the 'new way' in the Progressive publications.

His adjusting the brand to sell his philosophy does not change it's historic roots.

Mas Judt

06-16-2009, 03:49 PM

Mussolini's concept of 'heroic' actions is a whole other topic. Go read Jonah Goldberg's book 'Liberal Fascism' best summary I've read since my college papers. I know, you'll brand him 'right wing' or 'Jewish' or some other thing you think is 'the other' instead of looking at his scholarship.

Actually, DJ, you might look at his scholarship, you are brighter than some of the retards I've been debating with today, and you may have mistook my points or missed a nuance.

Hardwork108

06-16-2009, 09:53 PM

Actually Fascism and Nazism has their roots in the left, and were championed in leftest magazines in the US as a 'new way' after 'international communism' didn't sweep the world in WW1.

The American Progressive movement and the Totalitarian policies of Woodrow Wilson were often cited by Mussolini as his inspiration.

To not recognize National Socialism as a part of the left is to be intellectually dishonest. Or at least easily fooled by old Soviet propagandists.

I would go further and say that there is no Left or Right. Their so called existance is an illusion meant to, among other things, confuse the masses into thinking that they have a choice in chosing their destiny. "Oh yes the left is better" or the "Right is better" or "the Middle ground is better".

There is no left and no right! There is Fascism and there is Freedom. Freedom is just that freedom meaning that you are not frightened off to death by your government wether it is directly through uniformed soldiers or indirectly through "Terrorist Threats", "Pandemics and epidemics", "End of the world is coming because we drive cars" and so on, which lead to our freedoms being taken away in the name of something more "Important".

So we either have Freedom or we don't! By the way, I am not referring to freedom as a lawless or anarchic society!

There are two types of fascism the OVERT and the COVERT. The overt fascist government rules as an open dictatorship.

The covert fascist society tells its people that they live in a free society, a "Democracy", when actually their leaders are selected, NOT elected, while taxing the same people dry (for good causes of course); having them under unjustifiable surveillance (for their own good, of course), while encouraging their enslavement through the debt trap (in the name of consumerism...) and in general keeping them afraid of the next " terrorist" attack; epidemic; irreversible environmental disaster and so on.

Wars are organized and are justified in the name of "freedom" and other false titles. 100s of thousands are slaughtered, war crimes are committed and etc. Profits are made and the real power base of fascism - the people that we don't see get even more richer.

When it is perceived that the "sheep" may have had enough and may just react, the powers that be, select another "leader" through the mechanisms of "democracy" to hood wink them while the same agenda continues in a slightly different manner.

And people wonder why things never change; why wars and violence don't ever stop; why there are famines and other human disasters involving the darker races. Well don't wonder anymore as we live in a world whose main powers are run by covert fascists.

All of the human disasters that I just described would not have been surprising if the Second World War was won by the Overt fascists, the Nazis. the mess we see today has a fascist signature to it, WETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT!

That is why I find it ironic when I see people discussing presidents or prime ministers as if they have a say and as if it matters who is the leader at a given time. These people come into office for a few years and serve their masters and are then rewarded with lucrative jobs or careers after they step down. "The change" of leadership gives the masses (the sheep) an illusion of choice or "democracy". This happens all the time and that is because the system was designed that way!

If people want to discuss REAL politics then they should first evolve their minds and see beyond this cruel smoke screen!

1bad65

06-16-2009, 11:07 PM

His [Mussolini] adjusting the brand to sell his philosophy does not change it's historic roots.

Exactly correct.

It's nuts to say Fascism and Communism do not have alot of parallels. Nationalizing most industries is not just a coincidence. Nor is having one, single 'Cult of Personality'-type leader.

1bad65

06-16-2009, 11:14 PM

There is no left and no right! There is Fascism and there is Freedom. Freedom is just that freedom meaning that you are not frightened off to death by your government wether it is directly through uniformed soldiers or indirectly through "Terrorist Threats", "Pandemics and epidemics", "End of the world is coming because we drive cars" and so on, which lead to our freedoms being taken away in the name of something more "Important".

So we either have Freedom or we don't! By the way, I am not referring to freedom as a lawless or anarchic society!

This is exactly how I look at politics. Exactly. It's really this simple. And I truly believe with all my heart the Founding Fathers looked at it this way too.

Look at traditional LEFT-RIGHT political spectrum. You have the LEFT being socialism/communism type systems, while the RIGHT are fascist/nationalist types. This much is completely agreed on by those who believe in this system. But it is dead wrong! For example, where is total anarchy? :confused: Is it dead center? What about a direct democracy? Is it dead center too? Where does a monarchy fall?

You have to accept the COMPLETE FREEDOM-TOTAL CONTROL type spectrum, or you just continue to lose rights as you argue over meaningless left vs right policies. It's quite scary.

sanjuro_ronin

06-17-2009, 05:48 AM

Don't confuse freedom with liberty.

David Jamieson

06-17-2009, 06:42 AM

hahahaha. who among us is truly free?

who I ask? Is it you? Is it me?

None of us are free and it is ridiculous to assume so.

We are all subject to the rule of law. Period.

I don't think most people could actually handle true freedom.
They'd pee themselves at the very prospect of it.

a lot of bs word tossing that has no substance.

you can have things, you can possess property, you can wander where you will within the boundaries you are given. That is not freedom. That is allowance.

sanjuro_ronin

06-17-2009, 07:16 AM

Drake

06-17-2009, 08:30 AM

1bad65

06-17-2009, 08:49 AM

Look at it this way, we are free to do whatever we can afford, and within the limits we are allowed to, and when we are allowed to do it.
:D

Not true. If I purchase a bar in most American cities, I am not free to allow smoking in it. Thats not freedom at all.

And soon we are likely going to loose the freedom to choose what cars we drive (no matter what we can afford) and possibly what doctors we choose to see.

Edit: Actually you are right. I just missed the sarcasm. Doh! ;)

1bad65

06-17-2009, 08:53 AM

WTF is up with people here trying to be prolific?

There is a left and there is a right, whether you like it or not. It wasn't created and then filled up, but a definition applied to certain political behaviors noted by political scientists.

And of course we aren't TRULY free, because society could not exist, and we'd be right back to being nomadic berry-pickers and animal hunters, barely surviving. However, at least the US is working on it, and its citizens have many more rights than a lot of other so-called "liberal" countries.

The third paragraph is true, the second is not. It really is not Left vs Right, it's Freedom vs Oppression. Both the Left and the Right have policies that take away freedom. If you get the worst of both, you are basically slaves.

And I wouldn't say people are trying to be prolific. They are simply stating how they look at politics. Again, using the traditional Left vs Right spectrum, where does Anarchy fall? Where does a Monarchy fall? Where does a Representative Republic fall?

But use the system me and Mas believe, and you can see exactly where they fit.

BoulderDawg

06-17-2009, 09:04 AM

Not true. If I purchase a bar in most American cities, I am not free to allow smoking in it. Thats not freedom at all.

And soon we are likely going to loose the freedom to choose what cars we drive (no matter what we can afford) and possibly what doctors we choose to see.

So, total freedom without reguard to the rest of society is something to strive far? I guess we have to get rid of the USDA and other agencies that keep our food supply safe. Also, no more road rules.....Telling me I must drive 35 MPH is a violation of my freedom.

As far as cars goes......If you're an auto maket you can make any car that your desires. However it must meet safety and pollution regulations. If you consider this an attack on your freedom then so be it.

I'm at a loss about the doctor thing. As far as I know if you have the money and the doctor is willing to see you then there is no problem. The problem here is using tactics such as this to lobby against a national health care system......Which would happen if and when Obama grows a pair and figures out that no plan will be acceptable to the neo right and just gives them the upraised middle finger.

BoulderDawg

06-17-2009, 09:10 AM

I'm laughing at all this talk about this political philosophy (or that political philosophy) is liberal or conservative.

I don't know the neo people(seems they only care about being in power any way) but liberal ideals have nothing to do with politics. If a political philosophy embraces liberals ideas then thats fine but we don't really identify with any government or group.

Drake

06-17-2009, 12:50 PM

The third paragraph is true, the second is not. It really is not Left vs Right, it's Freedom vs Oppression. Both the Left and the Right have policies that take away freedom. If you get the worst of both, you are basically slaves.

And I wouldn't say people are trying to be prolific. They are simply stating how they look at politics. Again, using the traditional Left vs Right spectrum, where does Anarchy fall? Where does a Monarchy fall? Where does a Representative Republic fall?

But use the system me and Mas believe, and you can see exactly where they fit.

You can call it Guatemala and Progressive Retaliation if you want. Regardless of how you may feel about them, they are what they are, and by demonstrating traits and behaviors noted, they do fall under a certain category. Don't confuse analysis of political ideologies with personal opinions. There is a right and a left, and that is what they've been named. I call it a standard, devoid of any emotional garbage which skews analysis. There's other forms of political analysis out there as well, such as a more quadrant-based interpretation. Regardless, there must be a standard form of political identification.

BoulderDawg

06-17-2009, 03:05 PM

I love it! :D

Hey all of you neos out there: Guess what?

As of today some of your tax dollars are going to pay for benefits for gay couples!:eek:

Yep neos! Your hard earned god fearing money is now being given to two guys or two girls who are living in sin! Oh the humanity!:D:D:D

Yao Sing

06-17-2009, 03:38 PM

Look at it this way, we are free to do whatever we can afford, and within the limits we are allowed to, and when we are allowed to do it.
:D

And you can protest all you want as long as you do it within the approved protest zone. :eek:

1bad65

06-17-2009, 04:18 PM

There is a right and a left, and that is what they've been named. I call it a standard, devoid of any emotional garbage which skews analysis. There's other forms of political analysis out there as well, such as a more quadrant-based interpretation.

So, where does anarchy fall on the Left-Right spectrum? What about a direct democracy? And a monarchy?

I ask because you are always rational when we debate, and I'm curious how you answer those questions. And I'm not trying to belittle or hammer you.

Regardless, there must be a standard form of political identification.

Agreed, I just feel the standard Left-Right spectrum is completely flawed. And quite honestly, totally inaccurate. The one I accept as accurate has a place for EVERY ideology, the 'standard' one does not.

And no, I did not come up with this spectrum myself.

Hardwork108

06-17-2009, 07:02 PM

This is exactly how I look at politics. Exactly. It's really this simple. And I truly believe with all my heart the Founding Fathers looked at it this way too.

Look at traditional LEFT-RIGHT political spectrum. You have the LEFT being socialism/communism type systems, while the RIGHT are fascist/nationalist types. This much is completely agreed on by those who believe in this system. But it is dead wrong! For example, where is total anarchy? :confused: Is it dead center? What about a direct democracy? Is it dead center too? Where does a monarchy fall?

You have to accept the COMPLETE FREEDOM-TOTAL CONTROL type spectrum, or you just continue to lose rights as you argue over meaningless left vs right policies. It's quite scary.

And I totally agree with you here but IMHO to solve this problem we need to see the bigger picture and think outside the box, because the box has become a den of corruption and it has been like that for long time.

The idea and the use of so called Democracy as an illusion to fool the "Sheep" into thinking that they have a say regarding their destiny goes back a long time. The British being major proponents of this system for centuries. It is just easier for the elite to rule this way while it is also easier to deestablize other countries that are not ruled by an illusion of Democracy.

This system continues today in Britain and I don't think that anyone in their right mind would accuse this country of being truly democratic.

What I am saying is that IMHO voting for change will not function in a system that is bought, payed for and run by people you don't see and as far as I am concerned all the major players and candidates are on the game, meaning that, unfortunately, NOT voting may be more effective in the long run.

Let me give an example, it is well known that the US Federal Reserve is a private bank and is not owned by the US government. The Fed prints money for the US economy and LENDS it to the US government. The US government in turn taxes its citizens through income tax, sometimes using terror tactics that would make Hitler's Nazis proud, to pay the interest on these loans.

All this happens while the US government has the constitutional right to print its own money (or so I am told). So why borrow from a private bank when you can print your own for your own economy???

Furthermore, there are those who say that personal income tax is unconstitutional. I am not talking about corporation tax or real state tax even if considering who we are dealing with, it wouldn't be bad idea to review them too.

And one more thing, where can one find out the names of the main shareholders of the Federal Reserve? Surely that would not be too difficult to find out in democracy?? Who are these UNELECTED men that hold so much power over the daily lives of American citizens and who are "milking them dry", one way or the other? Are all of these men even Americans?

Now, when was the last time a politician from the "left", "right" or the "center" effectively challenged this system and the legality of the Federal Reserve to whom all "Free" American citizens owe bundles of money to? Remember that the decisions made by this bank touch the lives of all Americans as well as millions of others throughout the world.

Sorry for the long post but I just wanted to get my full point across.:)

Yao Sing

06-17-2009, 08:06 PM

All this happens while the US government has the constitutional right to print its own money (or so I am told).

U.S. Constitution Article I Section 8
The Congress shall have the power
5. To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures:

Now, when was the last time a politician from the "left", "right" or the "center" effectively challenged this system and the legality of the Federal Reserve to whom all "Free" American citizens owe bundles of money to? Remember that the decisions made by this bank touch the lives of all Americans as well as millions of others throughout the world.

Ron Paul, leading the fight to audit the fed (http://www.rense.com/general86/maj.htm).

Hardwork108

06-17-2009, 08:36 PM

U.S. Constitution Article I Section 8
The Congress shall have the power
5. To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures:

So what I was told is true. :)

Ron Paul, leading the fight to audit the fed (http://www.rense.com/general86/maj.htm).

Thank you for the link. I know of Ron Paul but had forgotten about his campaign against the Federal Reserve.

I don't know how his campaign is going currently but I just heard on the news that the US government was proposing to give even more powers to the Federal Reserve in order to prevent future economic crisis. I just caught part of the report so please feel free to correct me.:)

It is amazing that when the info about the Federal Reserve is out in the open there is so little reaction from other politicians, journalists and other public figures. It kind of proves my point that they are all in it, one way or the other and/or it has been made clear to them that this is one of the subject matters that is out of their domain,if they value their careers that is.

Wildwoo

06-17-2009, 08:40 PM

President Obama signed an executive order granting some benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees Wednesday, calling it "a historic step" but promising more action to come.

So you whiney internet fa g*gots can cheer right up!!:D

Hardwork108

06-17-2009, 09:54 PM

Talking of Obama... Here is an interesting article that I came across recently:

PART 1

I am writing this in the last days of 2008 as I watch with dismay as vast numbers of people across the world, including many who should know better, have been duped by the mind-game called Operation Obama.

Even people with some understanding of the conspiracy have said things like: 'Well, at least he's not Bush' and 'Well, at least it's great to see such a new spirit of hope'. No, he's not Bush - he's potentially far more dangerous; and what is the use of a spirit of 'hope' if it's based on a lie? In fact, what use is 'hope' at all?

Obama's wife, Michelle, who I wouldn't trust to tell me the date in a calendar factory, said that 'everything begins and ends with hope'. Utter nonsense. Hope is a meaningless emotion because its fruits are always in the future and, by definition, never in the NOW.

Hope is like riding a carousel horse; no matter how fast you go you never get closer to the one in front. The idea, however, is to persuade you to stay on the horse, despite the evitable disappointment, in the 'hope' that things will change. But they don't because the very system is designed to prevent it.

That's the way 'hope' is employed by the dastardly and devious - take the crap we are giving you now in the 'hope' that things will get better (but we know they won't). Barack Obama is a purveyor of 'hope' because his masters want the people to accept what they are given now in the hope that good times will come.

Just do what we demand, oops, sorry, Barack demands, and in return he'll inspire you to hope that it is all leading to the Promised Land. It isn't, but, by the time you realise that, it's too late.

What terrifies the manipulators is that people will abandon hope, as a future, sometime-never projection, and start to demand fairness, justice and freedom now. To avoid this nightmare they need to keep those desires as something to aspire to, not to actually have.

Thus, their man, Obama, sells 'hope' as a diversion technique, a holding position, to keep the masses from truly rebelling. We have no job, no food on the table and our home has been foreclosed, but at least we have 'hope'. Phew, thank goodness for that.

'I'm hungry, mum, can I have some hope, please?'

'I'm so sorry, darling, you can't have hope today, only tomorrow - hope is always tomorrow.'

'So will I eat tomorrow, mum?'

'We can hope so now, dear, but when we get to tomorrow, we can only hope it's the next day.'

On and on it goes. That's how 'hope' works. Or rather doesn't.

Obama's predominant mantra has been 'change'. Indeed, his massively-funded, record-breaking campaign was based on that one word - change. This is a technique used by Bill Clinton and many others and it is highly effective because, at any point, the system ensures that most people are not happy with the way life is. So, when you don't like the status quo, 'change' can be a potent message, even if, like Obama, you don't say what it means.

It has been vital to his success, and that of his controllers, that he has never specified what his 'hope', 'change', and that other mind-control trigger-word, 'believe', were referring to in terms of policy and the way society in general will be affected. Hope for what? Change what? Believe in what? To answer those questions with specifics would have been fatal to Obama's appeal.

I studied the military/government mind-control programmes and techniques in great detail for many years during the late-1990s and across 2000, and the Obama 'phenomenon' is the most blatant mass-mind control operation you could wish to see.

At its core the plan has been to make Obama the focus of everything you hope for, believe in and want to change. This is why it has been crucial for him not to specify and detail what is meant by his 'hope, 'change' and 'believe'.

However, I can tell you what those words mean in the context of the Obama mind-game. They mean whatever you decide they mean or want them to mean. The idea is for you to project all that you stand for onto him and so he becomes the symbol of you and how you see the world. Specifics would destroy that 'I am whatever you want me to be' scenario and so you don't get any detail, just 'hope', 'change', and 'believe'.

They don't want him to be seen only as 'the Messiah'; they also want him to be Abraham Lincoln, JFK, or Buddha - anyone you choose to project on him, for he is a blank page, blank screen and empty suit. Obama is a make-your-own, do-it-yourself leader, a projection of your own mind. (If you are still asleep, that is. If you are in any way awake, he's an open book.)

See the video How Obama Got Elected to see how easy it is to manipulate the masses. It's child's play. Click here ...

'I am whatever you want me to be, for I am just a projection of you. And I got a big smile, see.'

There is no more powerful way of manipulating people than to tell them what they want to hear and to keep shtum about anything they wouldn't like. Double-glazing salesmen are trained to pick up in general conversation what their target likes and dislikes and to respond accordingly in the way the product is sold. The technique is simply to tell the potential buyer what you have gleaned they want to be told.

Obama comes from the same stable, but on a massively bigger scale and with a whole network of advisors and controllers steeped in the art of manipulating minds, opinions and actions.

Obama's written-for-him speeches are not from the heart, but from the autocue. The 'heart' bit comes from extensive training and his Bill Clintonesque ability to 'mean it when he says it', a state of delivery that goes beyond mere acting. Tony Blair was trained in the same way.

But if you take a step back and look at these people dispassionately you can clearly see the techniques they consciously employ. Blair is the most blatant fraud in the way he delivers a line, stops in mid-sentence for emphasis and looks down for fake emotional effect. Obama is a little more slick, but, from where I have been looking this past year, not much. And how have people not seen those cold eyes just above the painted smile?

You can watch his mind working, turning between autocue screens to his left and right, then straight down the camera for his key messages. From-the-heart orators don't do that; they are too immersed in what they are feeling and saying to give even a passing thought to where they are looking or how the line is delivered.

I worked in television for more than a decade, often reading autocue while a director spoke in my ear telling me what cameras to look at. I have, since the early 1990s, spoken my truth on public stages across the world. I know, therefore, the difference between artificial autocue delivery and body language and talking from the heart without a script. Obama, I repeat, is coming from the autocue, not the heart.

Obama's speeches are a mass of mind-control techniques and Neuro-Linguistic-Programming, or NLP, and they are carefully constructed to implant beliefs and perceptions into the mind of the viewer. Click here for a description of his psycho-babble, headed An Examination of Obama's Use of Hidden Hypnosis Techniques in His Speeches.

Lokhopkuen

06-17-2009, 09:56 PM

Hardwork108

06-17-2009, 10:11 PM

obama Article PART 2

As I keep emphasising, the whole Obama circus is an exercise in mass mind control and it has been so successful because so many people live their lives in a permanent state of trance. All of which brings me to the parallels with Nazi Germany, fascist Italy and similar regimes throughout history.

Obama may not look like Hitler, nor sound like Hitler, but the themes are just the same. Germany was in a terrible state economically and militarily in the 1930s in the aftermath of the First World War and the reparations inflicted on the country by the Rothschild/Illuminati-controlled Versailles 'Peace' Conference in 1919.

From amid the chaos came the man that Germans saw then in much the same way that so many see Obama today. His name was Adolf Hitler and his oratory and rhetoric, again supported by a ritualistic presentation founded on mind-control techniques, made him appear to be the German 'messiah', the German Obama.

Hitler promised 'change', 'hope' and something to 'believe in' amidst the consequences of war and financial collapse. He spoke to vast rallies of adoring followers and a mass movement emerged in support of Hitler's vision of a new tomorrow.

As the writer Webster Tarpley points out, fascism in its true sense is not just a Police State imposed by a tiny hierarchy. It might end up like that, but first it is brought to power by a mass movement from within the people who have no understanding of what the 'change', hope' and 'believe' they are being offered really means. They just know that they want some because, as with Obama, they make it mean what they want it to mean. Only later do they see, to their horror, what they have signed up for.

Obama's America ...

... Hitler's Germany.

There may seem to be a world of difference, but the techniques are just the same.

Obama is far more dangerous than Bush because he can sell a line to those who are in the trance while Boy Bush could not do that on anything like the same scale. Bush was a transparent idiot with no communication skills who needed massive fraud at the polls to get him officially 'elected'. He could never be the figurehead to inspire a mass movement of the people to support some vacuous 'hope', 'change' and 'believe' when they don't even know what those words are supposed to mean.

But Obama clearly can, because he has.

One of 'his' (his controllers') prime targets are the young, just as they were with the Nazis and the Hitler Youth Movement. If you think this parallel is far-fetched then have a look at this video to see how extreme Obama worship has already become for some young people. Hitler Youth was just the same. Click here to watch ...

In line with this theme, the WorldNetDaily website reported:

'The official website of President-Elect Barack Obama, Change.gov, originally announced that Obama would "require" all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs; but after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama's proposed youth corps, the website's wording was softened.

Originally, under the tab "America Serves", Change.gov read, "President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.

"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year," the site announced.'

For the full story, click here ...

Obama said in a speech in July 2008 in Colorado Springs that he wanted to see a 'civilian national security force' that would be as powerful and well-funded as the Marines, Navy and Air Force. As Joseph Farah, founder of WorldNetDaily, wrote:

'If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal? I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military.

How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together? Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?'

Obama meant, amid the flowery words, that he's not in favour of either peace or freedom. He is a front-man demagogue for the same force that controlled Boy Bush, Clinton, Father Bush, Reagan, Carter, ad infinitum; but the difference is that he has been hyped to such hysterical proportions that he will be allowed to get away with far more than they were, at least until reality dawns on the mass ranks of his hypnotised supporters. And, clearly, that could take some time.

The cabal will be anxious to squeeze every minute from Obama's honeymoon period and we can expect to see events move quickly after his inauguration in January.

When I was a journalist 30 years ago, I came across a technique that some tabloid newspaper reporters would use to get someone to speak with them. They would work in pairs with the first one knocking on the door of some distressed family who didn't want to talk with the media. He would tell them he was from a newspaper he didn't really work for and treat them with aggression and contempt to make them even more upset.

He would then leave and his colleague would knock on the door, tell them the real newspaper he was from, and act like Mr. Nice Guy. He would say that he understood completely how upsetting the other man must have been, but 'if you will only speak to me exclusively I will make sure that the other man, nor anyone like him, won't bother you again'. They usually agreed and the scam was complete.

Much the same thing is happening with regard to Bush and Obama. The Neoconservative 'Republican' wing of the Illuminati controlled Bush for eight years and led the country into foreign wars and financial chaos (bad guy/problem); now the 'Democratic' wing, led by the infamous Zbigniew Brzezinski, has brought forth the 'saviour', Barack Obama, to lead us into the sunshine with 'hope' and 'change' (good guy/solution).

Hence even some more aware people say: 'At least he's not Bush'.

Apart from the unspecified 'hope, 'change' and 'believe', few have any idea what Obama's policies will be. Public perception comes from having an 'image' of him, or a self-projection, not the fine print because Obama doesn't do fine print until the votes are cast and even then he will hide it in his windbag words.

There is an 'image' that Obama is against war, but no he's not. He says he's against the invasion of Iraq, though we'll see what he does about that in office. How can a man calling for more troops, including European troops, to be sent to Afghanistan be against war? He has also said he is prepared to bomb Pakistan and use military force to stop Iran building nuclear weapons and he has appointed Hillary 'Let's bomb 'em' Clinton (Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations) as Secretary of State and re-appointed Bush's 'Let's bomb 'em' Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates (Bilderberg Group, Council on Foreign Relations). So that's the 'change we can believe in', then.

Obama isn't against war at all and, if his controllers have their way, he will engage the US in even more foreign conflicts with the troops sent to their deaths, and the deaths of their targets, on a wave of oratory from the dark suit with the black face who would never go where he's sending them.

He claims to be a 'uniter', which is exactly what Bush said about himself before he came to office, but unity in and of itself is not the issue. Nazi Germany had unity in the early years of the war, but was that a good thing? What matters is what the unity is designed to achieve and Obama's much-vaunted 'unity' is to 'inspire' a mass movement to support the Orwellian plans of the Illuminati.

His constant rhetoric about 'bringing people together' can be used to justify the 'coming together' of the United States, Canada and Mexico in the North American Union; it can be used to concede America's sovereignty to the 'coming together' of the 'world community' (world dictatorship); it can be used to unite the believers in their opposition and condemnation of non-believers, which is precisely what happened in Nazi Germany with the book-burning and violent suppression of those who challenged the Hitler regime.

The potential of Obama Mania is endless when it comes to selling fascism as 'hope, change', 'freedom' and a 'New America', or 'New World' [Order].

Bush and Cheney were transparent warmongers and would always have struggled to bring in the draft, the compulsory enlistment of people into the military against their will. But it would not be as difficult for Obama in the current climate. For goodness sake, he's already talking about compulsory community service for middle school, high school and college students and creating a peoples' army in America.

That's why I say Obama is far more dangerous to freedom than Bush. In the last eight years Bush could only get part of the way to fascism - Obama has the potential to finish the job, for all the reasons I have mentioned and more.

Hardwork108

06-17-2009, 10:14 PM

Obama article PART 3

You only have to look at the cabal behind Obama, and those he has already appointed to his administration team, to see what his 'change' is truly planned to be. His mentor, svengali and main controller is Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor, and the co-founder, with David Rockefeller, of the Illuminati's Trilateral Commission.

Brzezinski has admitted publicly that he began to fund and train what he would call today 'terrorists' in Afghanistan to oppose the Soviet-controlled government in the capital, Kabul, in the late 1970s. The idea, he said, was to entice the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan to protect the Kabul regime and thus give the rival superpower 'their Vietnam'. The plan worked at the cost of a million Afghan lives during the Soviet occupation from 1979 to 1989, a consequence that troubles Brzezinski not at all.

Brzezinski's 'freedom fighters' would become known as the 'Mujahideen' and later the Taliban and what is claimed to be 'Al-Qaeda'. This is the man behind 'anti-war', Barack Obama. It was common knowledge that President Carter would do nothing involving foreign policy without the okay from Brzezinski, the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission which chose Carter for president.

It is one of many great ironies of the Obama presidency that he is demanding massive troop reinforcements to be sent to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban terrorists who were initially armed, trained and organised by Brzezinski, the man behind Obama. As Morpheus says in The Matrix: 'Fate, it seems, is not without its sense of irony'.

But then, in Brzezinski's case, it is not 'fate', but cold calculation that has brought it all about. The Poland-born Brzezinski has a fierce hatred of Russia and that is still one of his key targets, together with China.

And if they are Brzezinski's targets, they are Obama's targets.

The Trilateral Commission and the wider Brzezinski network, including Illuminati fronts like the Ford Foundation, have now chosen Obama and the situation will be the same. Brzezinski will call the shots; Obama's job is simply to sell them to the people. This is rather alarming when you think that Brzezinski wants to trigger a war involving Russia and China. 'Obama's' policies come straight from Brzezinski's books. Here is one Brzezinski quote you might recognise and it was made before Obama ran for president:

'Needed social reassessment ... can be encouraged by deliberate civic education that stresses the notion of service to a higher cause than oneself. As some have occasionally urged, a major step in that direction would be the adoption of an obligatory period of national service for every young adult, perhaps involving a variety of congressionally approved domestic or foreign good works.'

Now where have I heard that before?

As an Illuminati operative, Brzezinski's aim is to create a world government, central bank, currency and army - a global dictatorship - underpinned by a microchipped population connected to a global computer/satellite system. He wrote a book in 1970, Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era, in which he described the global society that he and the Illuminati seek to impose:

'The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.'

He also said in the same book nearly 40 years ago:

'Today we are again witnessing the emergence of transnational elites ... [Whose] ties cut across national boundaries ... It is likely that before long the social elites of most of the more advanced countries will be highly internationalist or globalist in spirit and outlook ... The nation-state is gradually yielding its sovereignty ... Further progress will require greater American sacrifices. More intensive efforts to shape a new world monetary structure will have to be undertaken, with some consequent risk to the present relatively favorable American position.'

And what does his puppet, Obama, now say that Americans have to do to bring about 'change'? 'Make sacrifices'. As Mrs. Demagogue, Michelle, said:

'We need a different leadership because our souls are broken. We need to be inspired ... to make the sacrifices that are needed to push us to a different place.'

You can bet that this will include sacrificing more sovereignty and freedom on the road to the global dictatorship described by Brzezinski for decades.

Brzezinski's son, Mark, was an 'advisor' to the Obama campaign (doing what his father told him) and, in line with the American one-party-state, his other son, Ian, was foreign policy advisor to the McCain campaign (doing what his father told him). His daughter, the Obama-supporting Mika Brzezinski, reported the campaign for MSNBC television.

Obama has been the chosen one for a long time, a fact known only to a few in the deep inner circle, and his relationship with Brzezinski almost certainly goes back to the start of the 1980s when he attended the Ivy League, and big-time Illuminati, Columbia University where Brzezinski was head of the Institute for Communist Affairs. Obama simply will not talk in any detail about this period. He has been covertly funded and supported ever since by the Trilateral Commission and its network of foundations connecting into the Ford Foundation, for whom Obama's mother worked.

And a question: Does anyone really believe that someone, a 'man of the people', would simply appear from apparently nowhere to run the slickest and best-funded presidential campaign in American history? He was chosen long ago by those who wish to enslave the very people that Obama says he wants to 'set free'.

The sources of Obama funding read like a Wall Street Who's Who - Goldman Sachs, UBS, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, J.P. Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and so on. No wonder he went back on his pledge to accept the limitations of public funding for his campaign and instead took the no-limit option of 'private' funding.

And those people are going to support a candidate who does not represent their best interests?? Oh please.

Obama and his seasoned network of professional manipulators, sorry his 'campaign team', sold the lie that he had refused to take funding from 'lobbyists', those who are paid to ensure that politicians frame legislation, or block it, in the interests of their clients.

But like everything that surrounds Obama, past and present, it's a sleight of hand and mouth. They funnelled vast sums of money into the Obama accounts through law firms that represent lobbyists and lobby groups. It provided 'plausible denial' about funding from lobbyists while the money poured in from lobby interests via third parties.

Then there is the Jewish financier, George Soros, the multi-billionaire associate of Brzezinski and closely involved with the funding and marketing of Obama. Soros is a former board member of the Illuminati's Council on Foreign Relations and funds the European Council on Foreign Relations. In short, he is a major insider.

You can certainly see the Soros/Brzezinski techniques in the Obama 'revolution' in the United States. It was the complex and secretive network of Soros foundations and organisations, connected to the intelligence agencies of the US and Israel, that trained and funded students in the Ukraine, Georgia and elsewhere in the art of mass protest and overthrowing governments.

These manufactured protests were sold to the world as 'peoples' revolutions', but it just so happened that when they were over and the old regime was removed the new leaders were those waiting in the wings all along - the puppets of Soros, Brzezinski and their associated networks.

Obama is just more of the same, a big smile with strings attached, and controlled completely by the Illuminati networks that chose him, trained him, sold him and provided his record funding. It was they who kept his many skeletons under wraps, like the gay sex and crack cocaine allegations of Larry Sinclair, and they will continue to do so as long as he jumps to their bidding.

Obama is just another Banksters' moll prostituting himself for fame and power, and that's why he supported the grotesque bail-out of the banking system and why he will always put their interests before the people. His financial advisors are straight from the Wall Street 'A' list, including Paul Adolph Volker (Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg Group), the head of the Federal Reserve from 1979 to 1987 and Illuminati to his fingertips.

Obama has made him head of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board, which is dominated by insiders, including its staff director and chief economist, Austan Goolsbee, a close Obama associate from the University of Chicago. Goolsbee is an initiate of the infamous Illuminati Skull and Bones Society at Yale University, which also includes Boy and Father Bush. It was Goolsbee who told the Canadian government not to worry about Obama's attacks on the economic effects of 'free trade' agreements because his words were just to win votes in the election campaign.

Another Wall Street insider, the Zionist Timothy Geithner (Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations), was appointed by Obama to be his Treasury Secretary. Geithner was the President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, the most powerful in the private 'Federal' Reserve cartel that masquerades as America's 'central bank', and he is a former employee of both the Council on Foreign Relations and the appalling Kissinger Associates.

Hardwork108

06-17-2009, 10:21 PM

Obama article PART 4

"Obama's Treasury team locks into the inner circle around the Zionist Robert Rubin, the Director and Senior Counselor of Citigroup, co-chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, and economic advisor to Obama. Rubin, a member of the Illuminati Bilderberg Group, was the man behind Citigroup's strategy of expanding its risk in debt markets which forced it to be rescued by taxpayers' money.

The very people who caused the financial crisis are being appointed by Obama to decide how to respond to it (more taxpayers' money for them and their friends).

Rubin was Treasury Secretary to Bill Clinton and was followed in that post by Larry Summers (Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations) - another insider appointed to Obama's team of 'change'. Summers is a fanatical supporter of 'free trade' (freedom to exploit) and 'globalisation' (global dictatorship) and he wrote a memo in 1991, while chief economist to the World Bank, saying that the bank should dump toxic waste in poor countries because the costs of the ensuing ill-health and death would be lower. When the memo was made public, Brazil's then-Secretary of the Environment, Jose Lutzenburger, told Summers:

'Your reasoning is perfectly logical but totally insane ... Your thoughts [provide] a concrete example of the unbelievable alienation, reductionist thinking, social ruthlessness and the arrogant ignorance of many conventional 'economists' concerning the nature of the world we live in ... If the World Bank keeps you as vice president it will lose all credibility. To me it would confirm what I often said ...the best thing that could happen would be for the Bank to disappear.'

Lutzenburger was dismissed shortly after writing this letter while the horrific Summers was made US Treasury Secretary by Bill Clinton and now he has been appointed to head the National Economic Council by Mr. 'change', hope' and 'believe' Obama. It's all a fairy story.

Bloomberg.com reported that the Center for American Progress (CAP), housed just three blocks from the White House, has become a major source for policy initiatives for the Obama Democratic Party. Who funds the Center for American Progress? George Soros.

It is simply the Neocon Project for the New American Century and the American Enterprise Institute under another name. Those two organisations developed and dictated the Bush policy of war and suppression of freedom and the 'CAP' and others like it will do the same for Obama. The CAP will fit and Obama will wear it.

In fact, except in name and rhetoric, there is no difference in theme between the regimes of Bush and Obama. Bush policy was dictated through Illuminati 'think tanks' and so is Obama's.

Bush was surrounded by slavish pursuers of Israeli interests and so is Obama. Mr. 'Change' has pledged his unquestioning support for Israel to the point of 'pass the sick bag' and his vice-president, Joe Biden (Bilderberg Group, Council on Foreign Relations), is a vehement Zionist who makes a virtue of saying he will support Israel in all circumstances.

Obama has appointed the arch Zionist Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff and another super Zionist Jew, Dennis Ross, to be his Middle East Policy advisor. God help the Palestinians. Ross also served in the Bill Clinton and Father George Bush administrations. Oh, plenty of 'change' there, then.

Rahm Emanuel, a Chicago-born Congressman, is the son of Benjamin M. Emanuel, who was a member of the murderous Jewish terrorist organisation, Irgun, which helped to bomb and terrorise Israel into existence. The Open Secrets website reports that Emanuel was the top House recipient in 2008 for election contributions from 'hedge funds, private equity firms and the larger securities/investment industry'.

Emanuel was also appointed by Bill Clinton to the board of the mortgage giant Freddie Mac in 2000 and his tenure coincided with a stream of scandals and financial irregularities. It famously had to be bailed out by the taxpayer amid the sub-prime mortgage debacle.

Emanuel, like Obama himself, is an asset of the 'Illinois Combine', a cross-party network of politicians and business interests that conspires to manipulate Chicago politics for their own benefit. Even before taking over at the White House Emanuel faced calls for his resignation for alleged connections with the Rod Blagojevich scandal.

In December 2008 Blagojevich, the Illinois governor and associate of Obama, was arrested over a conspiracy involving massive corruption and moves to sell Obama's Senate seat in Chicago made vacant by his election to the presidency. It is yet another example of the staggering web on ongoing and infamous corruption in Chicago by the very networks that spawned Obama.

A close friend of Rahm Emanuel is another clone of the Illinois Combine, the Zionist, David Axelrod, who ran Obama's election campaign and will no doubt be highly influential in the Obama administration. Axelrod is a veteran of Chicago politics, one of the most corrupt political systems in the world and he worked for many Chicago mayors in the 1990s and on Obama's senate campaign in 2004.

Bill Clinton took his Arkansas cabal to Washington when he became president in 1993 and Obama is uploading his Chicago mob and handing them key positions of national power and influence. And these guys don't take prisoners.

All of this may be many things, none of them pleasant, but 'change' it isn't.

David Axelrod, Obama's 'narrator' and handler. Click here for a background article that needs some reading between the lines ...

Obama is a monumental fraud who talks a good story, but lives a very different one. He won his first political office as a state senator in Chicago in 1996, not through the power of his policies, but by coldly abusing the electoral process.

Instead of running against his opponents and letting the people decide, he had his cronies challenge hundreds of names on the nomination papers of his Democratic primary rivals until they were all forced off the ballot by technicalities. He then ran unopposed. One of them, Gha-is Askia, says that Obama's behaviour belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights:

'Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates? He talks about honour and democracy, but what honour is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?'

Why? Because he would probably have lost and Obama isn't interested in losing by playing fair. He wants to win by any means necessary. The only voter-right he's interested in is the right to vote for him. He has also used his hatchet-men like Axelrod to employ scandal to discredit opponents to ensure his election when the real scandal is the truth about Obama himself.

He is a classically corrupt main-chancer spawned from the Chicago political cesspit. His close connections, therefore, to seriously dodgy 'businessmen' and fraudsters like the now-jailed slum landlord Tony Rezko are exactly what you would expect.

Rezko, yet another snout in the trough of the Illinois Combine, has heavily funded Obama's political career and that of the now-arrested Rod Blagojevich, and in return they have supported massive sums being paid to Rezko by Chicago taxpayers to run 'public housing'.

These properties were then allowed to fall into such a state of danger and disrepair, including sewage running into kitchen sinks, that they were deemed unfit for habitation by the often black poor that Obama was supposed to be representing as a Senator. Some buildings were so bad they had to be demolished.

Rezko also secured appointments for his business associates to state boards and was eventually indicted for using these connections to demand kickbacks from businesses that wanted to do business with the state.

Rezko and Obama toured the $1.6 million mansion in Hyde Park, Chicago, which the Obamas bought at $300,000 below the asking price in 2005 while the Rezkos purchased the adjoining land at the full asking price. Some of this land was later bought by the Obamas. Rezko contributed a quarter of a million dollars to Obama's political career and served on Obama's Senate campaign finance committee, which raised more than $14 million."

Hardwork108

06-17-2009, 10:27 PM

And finally, Obama article, PART 5

"Then there is Obama's close association with the terrorists, William Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn. In the late sixties Ayers co-founded the terror organisation called the Weather Underground (also known as the Weathermen and similar derivatives) and launched a campaign of bombing public places like the Pentagon and the Capitol Building. Three members were killed making bombs in Greenwich Village.

In 1970 Ayers was said to have described their philosophy as: 'Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at ...' Mr. Ayers himself comes from the home of 'rich people'.

Bernardine Dohrn said this about the Charles Manson murders: 'Dig it! Manson killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they shoved a fork into a victim's stomach.''

William Ayers in 1968.

On the day of 9/11 he told the New York Times that he didn't regret the Weather Underground bombing campaign and believed they didn't do enough.

The case against Ayers and Dohrn was thrown out because of then illegal wire-taps and Ayers is now a professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, holding the titles of Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar.

Ayers recruited Obama to serve as chairman on the $100 million Chicago Annenberg Challenge and they worked together for seven years handing out grants to the 'educational' projects of people like ... William Ayers. They also worked together on another tax-exempt foundation, the Woods Fund in Chicago, which awarded grants to Obama's own Trinity United Church, home to his controversial pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

Obama's political career was effectively launched in 1995, just after he was made chairman of the Annenberg Challenge, at a meeting at the Chicago home of ... William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. They have been connected to his circle ever since if the truth be told.

The Chicago Annenberg Challenge, run by Obama and Ayers, didn't fund schools directly, but instead insisted that they affiliate with 'external partners' who were granted the money. These turned out to be far-left 'community organisers' so beloved of Bill Ayers and these groups included the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).

Obama also conducted 'leadership training' seminars with Acorn and its members began to become heavily involved in his political campaigns. It has also been behind efforts to 'register voters' (voters most likely to vote for Obama) and Nevada state officials raided Acorn's Las Vegas office after election authorities accused the group of submitting multiple voter registrations with fake and duplicate names.

Among the major funders of Acorn ... George Soros.

Obama even refuses to prove that he was born in the United States and thus qualifies to be President. He claims to have been born in Hawaii, but his grandmother, half-brother and half-sister in Kenya all insist he was born there.

'Mr. Clean' Obama has a deeply dirty background, but for now no scale of evidence will stop the swooning Obama zombies from believing the hype or burst their reality bubble. That is going to take hard experience and it could take some time and a lot of disappointment before they are released from the clutches of cognitive dissonance and have to admit to themselves they have been had.

It is the same for all the black people who voted for what they thought was the first black president when, in truth, he is a man in a black mask representing the interests of the white-faced Illuminati cabal, the very families and networks that ran the slave trade.

I don't want to be the bringer of bad news or the thwarter of dreams, but honesty demands it. The man is a trickster controlled by supertricksters. A sock puppet controlled by bigger sock puppets who serve an even greater and darker evil. To his masters, Obama is just a means to an end and if it suits them to assassinate him to trigger civil war and upheaval in the United States then that is what they will do.

Oh dear Oprah, how will you cope when reality dawns? But, then, will it ever??

'What? You mean you're not the Lord?'

I can understand the appeal of Obama because people want him to be what he claims to be, but isn't. They are sick of the conflict, the corruption, the struggle we call 'life' and they want it all to change. But Obama's change is illusory and represents only the continued transformation of society in the image envisaged by Orwell.

We will see some apparently good things announced, like the closing of Guantanamo, to give the impression that Obama means what he says. But keep your eye on the ball and you'll see how the agenda of the global tyranny is introduced under the guise of Obama's 'hope', 'change', 'believe', 'sacrifice' and 'coming together'.

It could take two years, maybe much more, before cognitive dissonance (lying to yourself) loses it current grip on the minds of the Obama faithful. Until then they will make endless excuses for him (lie to themselves) to keep the 'dream' alive.

But one day they will have to admit, by the power of the evidence before them, that they bought a dream and got a nightmare. What a pity they can't see the obvious now and save them themselves such painful disappointment." And end quote.

There may be some "wacky" accusations there but there is a lot of food for thought, specially in light of current world and domestic events.

Drake

06-17-2009, 10:30 PM

You are such a weirdo...

Hardwork108

06-17-2009, 11:10 PM

You are such a weirdo...

What, no worries? Or perhaps "we should look into this further"?

What was that about cognitive dissonance,?

Anyway, I do understand that you are in the US military and it is your duty to "protect" your government/president, but dare I say that your constant "debunking¨ attempts are rather transparent. ;)

BoulderDawg

06-18-2009, 12:12 AM

To start with, what up with posting an f'ing book in five parts....I'm not going to read that S anyway.

Interesting story about this GOP senator who admitted to an affair today.

As far as the sex goes, That's cool with me man! More power to him if he can get a lot of girls to sleep with him.

One thing I did find par for the course for the GOP: when this senator was running for the senate in 1998 that stated that President was immoral and should resign for what he did............Hmmmm. Didn't hear anything about a certain senator resigning from office today!

1bad65

06-18-2009, 07:08 AM

So you whiney internet fa g*gots can cheer right up!!:D

Actually, they are still whining:

(CNN) -- President Obama's decision to grant some benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees is seen by some as his attempt to extend an olive branch to the gay and lesbian community, but critics say it's "too little, too late."

"It seems to me at least to be a nice gesture, but a disappointment," said Richard Kim, a senior editor at The Nation magazine.

The memorandum Obama signed Wednesday is not expected to grant health and retirement benefits to same-sex partners, as that is prohibited under the Defense of Marriage Act.

The president has faced sharp criticism over the Justice Department's filing in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which opposes same-sex marriage. The act used the government's interest in opposing incestuous marriages to support its position against same-sex marriage.

Openly gay Rep. Barney Frank said the Obama administration made a "big mistake" and is calling on the president to clearly explain his views on the matter.

"The wording they used was inappropriate," the Massachusetts Democrat told the Boston Herald in an interview published in the paper's Wednesday edition.

Many gay activists have called on Frank and other gay members of Congress to speak out against the recent Department of Justice brief.

The rancor threatens to disrupt a big Democratic National Committee gay fundraiser in Washington next week.

Vice President Biden is the guest at next Thursday's DNC's LBGT Leadership Council 10th Annual Dinner in Washington. Critics are calling for Frank and other gay congressional leaders to boycott the dinner, for which tickets go for $1,000 to $30,000 a plate.

Activist David Mixner and blogger Andy Towle, two well-known gay rights advocates, announced that they were pulling out, citing disappointment with the Defense of Marriage Act brief. iReport.com: Share your thoughts on Obama and same-sex marriage

The president also rankled gay advocates before his inauguration when he named megachurch pastor the Rev. Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his swearing-in. Warren, in an interview with Belief.net, likened ****sexuality to bestiality and incest. He also supported California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in that state.

During the Warren controversy, Obama -- who frequently spoke in favor of gay and lesbian rights during the campaign but has said he opposes same-sex marriage -- declared himself "a fierce advocate for gay and lesbian Americans."

Given the support Obama received from the gay community during the campaign season, Kim said so far, the Obama administration has let gay and lesbian rights activists down.

Obama got 70 percent of the vote from those who identified themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual, according to CNN exit polls.

"I think there is an overwhelming feeling that he has not lived up to expectations on these matters," he said."

Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/17/obama.gay.critics/index.html

Looks like they aren't too thrilled with 'Change' either.

BoulderDawg

06-18-2009, 08:54 AM

Bad does not understand politics. Of course Gay groups are "whining".

When your an advocate for anybody (Gays, blacks, disabled, whoever) you lobby politicians for everything and hope you get at least some of what you asked for.....that's the way the game is played.

I would not take stock in any group that said "We are well satisfied with the politicians in Washington and the way they are fighting for our cause."

One of my favorite quotes was from Kennedy who when asked about what his admin was doing for women's rights replied "Well I'm sure we're not doing enough.":D....He knew how the game was played.

By the way I noticed how Bad just goes nuts when the N word is used here but he condones the word "f**got". Par for the course. However if the gays all of sudden started calling themselves "f**s" then, of course use of the "F" word would become taboo and highly insulting to neos!:D

BoulderDawg

06-18-2009, 09:17 AM

Quick word on the Iranian election:

I keep reading "The election was fixed" however that's it. I've never read anything who was involved or how it was fixed. I'm thinking the guy who lost would say that no matter if the election was 100% on the up and up.

In any case, I think the US has butted it's nose into Iranian politics a little too much in the past. It's time to just sit back and let the them sort their own mess out.

1bad65

06-18-2009, 09:36 AM

This is the liberal arrogance that disgusts me.

"In case you forgot, Barbara Boxer is a senator.

The feisty California lawmaker felt the need to remind an Army brigadier general of that fact Tuesday during a hearing before her Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, where the military officer testifying had the apparent gall to call Boxer "ma'am."

Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh, with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, was testifying on the Louisiana coastal restoration process in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. He began to answer one of Boxer's questions with "ma'am" when Boxer immediately cut him off.

"You know, do me a favor," a piqued Boxer said. "Could say 'senator' instead of 'ma'am?'"

"Yes, ma'am," Walsh interjected.

"It's just a thing, I worked so hard to get that title, so I'd appreciate it, yes, thank you," she said.

"Yes, senator," he responded.

However, Walsh surely meant no disrespect, as military protocol advises that officers may use "sir" or "ma'am" when addressing anybody higher than them on the chain of command.

According to one guide, the Navy and Coast Guard typically use "mister" or "miss" to address officers below the rank of commander, and "sir" or "ma'am," or a specific title, to address anyone at that rank or higher.

"You can never go wrong by using 'Sir' or 'Ma'am,' but it is a nice touch if you can properly address a senior officer," says the guide, Military Protocol: Uniformed Services.

Tuesday's hearing was hardly the first time a military officer used those terms during sworn testimony.

The same day at a Senate Armed Services subcommittee hearing, two Navy officials repeatedly referred to Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., with the title, "sir."

"Yes, sir," Navy Vice Adm. Bernard McCullough said when answering questions.

Wicker raised no objections."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/18/sen-boxer-chides-brigadier-general-calling-maam/

GeneChing

06-18-2009, 09:37 AM

Maybe the Prez should be in the new Karate Kid (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48261)too.
Obama kills fly during interview: Lightning speed like Mr. Myiage in Karate Kid (video) (http://www.examiner.com/x-7311-Cultural-Trends-Examiner~y2009m6d17-Obama-kills-fly-during-interview-Lightning-speed-like-Mr-Myiage-in-Karate-Kid-video)
June 17, 7:41 PM

Obama could be the next Mr. Myiage.
Chopsticks for Father's Day?

Barack Obama was recording a TV interview when a persistent fly kept bothering him. Just like Mr. Myiage in Karate Kid, Barack, the new martial arts master, smacked that fly out of the air.

If you have not see the move, it's quite amazing. Our President has true talent as well as great hand-eye coordination. My Myiage may have done it with chopsticks, but Barack did it and directed the crew where to pick up the interview.

He is a calm man, and I feel much more comfortable with his hand on the "go to war" button than I did when George W. was in that position. If you don't recall, it was George W. who almost choked to death while eating snacks and watching football.

May we all experience such calm in seemingly aggravating moments of our lives, and may our leaders soon come to recognize that it's time to stop killing other people and start supporting all beings on Earth.

1bad65

06-18-2009, 12:21 PM

Where are the liberals at who were pushing the 'Fairness Doctrine' now?

"Opponents of President Obama's proposed health care reform are blasting ABC News for refusing to air opposing ads during a prime time special next Wednesday, just as a new study finds ABC News coverage of the president's health care plan is favorable by a ratio of 3 to 1.

The prime time special -- called "Questions for the President: Prescription for America" -- will be a nationally televised event during which Obama will answer questions presented by audience members selected by ABC News. The network has refused to accept advocacy ads during the hourlong show.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele accused ABC News and anchor Charles Gibson of making Obama's case for "nationalized" health care "without any opportunity for opposing views to be aired.

In a fundraising e-mail aimed at raising nearly $100,000 to buy air time for a counterprogram, Steele said the RNC's request to add its views to the debate during the special was "flatly rejected" by ABC News.

"What are the Democrats and their media allies afraid of? The truth?" he asked in a fundraising letter to supporters. "That is outrageous! And we will not take it!"

Rick Scott, chairman of Conservatives for Patients Rights, is pushing ABC News to reconsider its ban on issue ads.

"It is unfortunate -- and unusual -- that ABC is refusing to accept paid advertising that would present an alternative viewpoint for the White House health care program," he said in a statement, noting estimates that potential legislation costs at least $1 trillion of taxpayer money.

"The American people deserve a healthy, robust debate on this issue and ABC's decision -- as of now -- to exclude even paid advertisements that present an alternative view does a disservice to the public.""

Source:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/18/critics-attack-abc-news-refusing-air-opposing-ads-obamas-health-care-special/

So, Rush should be FORCED to abide by it, but Obama gets a pass? :confused: Once again, notice the blatant hypocracy...

BoulderDawg

06-18-2009, 12:37 PM

To start with to putting Limby on the same level as Obama is simply laughable.

However let's look at this: Limby is paid big money and does a show three hours a day. Obama will be paid no money and this is a one time only event.

I have no problem in not acxcepting neo propaganda ads during the show. I would believe this if it was the other way around with a conservative president.

I say just give the neos an hour after the President's show to say whatever they have to say.

BTW

The "Fire David Letterman" campaign is well underway!:D Especially after a CNN poll that ask the question: "who do you side with? Letterman or Palin?" was won by Letterman 2 to 1! Undeterred the wave of protestors (all 15 of them) swarmed the taping of the Letterman show and promised to remain there until America's voice is heard!:p

BoulderDawg

06-18-2009, 12:39 PM

Where are the liberals at who were pushing the 'Fairness Doctrine' now?

Don't know.

I'll just repeat what this particular liberal (myself) has said on many occasions: "Life is not fair. Get use to it."

Lokhopkuen

06-18-2009, 04:01 PM

Maybe the Prez should be in the new Karate Kid (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48261)too.

PETA miffed at President Obama's fly "execution" (http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=106458&newsChannel=topNews)
Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:39pm EDT

POLITICO (Washington) - The president has been getting lots of kudos for a lightning-fast, Mr. Miyagi-worthy swipe he employed to slay a pesky house fly that was buzzing him in mid-interview during a taping with CNBC that aired Wednesday.

"He stopped the interview to track and kill the fly," said talk show host Conan O'Brien.

"That's some pretty impressive hand-eye coordination right there," Jimmy Fallon gushed. "Makes Obama look like a bad ass."

But now People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, calling it an "execution," wants the commander-in-chief to show a little more compassion to even "the least sympathetic animals."

"Believe it or not, we've actually been contacted by multiple media outlets wanting to know PETA's official response to the executive insect execution," a blog on the group's website explained. "In a nutshell, our position is this: He isn't the Buddha, he's a human being, and human beings have a long way to go before they think before they act."

The group has sent Obama a device that traps a fly so it can then be released outside.

"We believe that people, where they can be compassionate, should be, for all animals," PETA spokesman Bruce Freidrich explained.

The fly saga began Tuesday, and it was the subject of a news report on Italian TV and almost a dozen Youtube postings that have been viewed more than 750,000 times. Thousands of people also have added commentary, including one who wrote, "But can he duck a shoe?" in reference to a hugely popular video of former president George Bush ducking a shoe thrown at him by an Iraqi cameraman during a news conference in Baghdad.

"Get out of here," Obama said as the fly buzzed him during his interview. The pest persisted, and when it landed on his left forearm, Obama smacked it.

"Now, where were we?" the president said without missing a beat. Pleased with himself, he added, "That was pretty impressive, wasn't it? I got the sucker."

Several observers in the room gave congratulatory shout-outs. Obama pointed to the floor and instructed an obliging cameraman to get a close-up of the corpse.

"It's like he's got one of those fly Terminator targeting systems in his eyes," said an awed Jon Stewart.

Drake

06-18-2009, 04:15 PM

They wouldn't be PETA if they didn't complain about it.

Lokhopkuen

06-18-2009, 04:22 PM

Quote from Hardwork's articles:

"Bush was a transparent idiot with no communication skills who needed massive fraud at the polls to get him officially 'elected'. He could never be the figurehead to inspire a mass movement of the people to support some vacuous 'hope', 'change' and 'believe' when they don't even know what those words are supposed to mean."

I find it interesting and disturbing that the above is mainstream knowledge and yet the people in this country just sat back and watch it go down.:rolleyes: We can take example from the events in Tehran, at least those people stood up and said something about corrupt pu nk as sed politics and politicians. Now everyone is trying to blame Obama's administration for all of the evils of the previous group of thieving Texas criminals? I'm not for or against the current administration but this guy is in for a few months and so many people are up in arms while W. was in there 8 years scr ewing the pooch and no one said squat?

Something is wrong, really wrong.

Lokhopkuen

06-18-2009, 04:24 PM

They wouldn't be PETA if they didn't complain about it.

They should change their name to PETTY.

Drake

06-18-2009, 04:30 PM

If they felt so strongly about the fly.. someone should let them know there's a virtual insect holocaust going on with exterminators worldwide...

Baqualin

06-18-2009, 04:55 PM

PETA

PEOPLE WHO EAT TASTY ANIMALS:D
bq

Design Sifu

06-18-2009, 05:39 PM

Colbert and Stewart had better coverage.

Lokhopkuen

06-18-2009, 06:41 PM

Hey Design Sifu how come you have a animated gif?!?!??!

Jealous
:mad:

Lokhopkuen

06-18-2009, 06:43 PM

PETA

PEOPLE WHO EAT TASTY ANIMALS:D
bq

That's PWETA BQ:p

Hardwork108

06-18-2009, 07:40 PM

To start with, what up with posting an f'ing book in five parts....I'm not going to read that S anyway.

To start with, I did not post the articles to upset you, but if I did then I apologize.

Secondly I believe that the article makes important points about the man who is the current US president.

Thirdly, if you haven't read the material and have no intention of reading it, then why do refer to it as shít? :confused:

Fourthly, why do people always bury their heads in the sand when facing "uncomfortable" information (be it about the actual US president)?:confused:

Drake

06-18-2009, 08:31 PM

It's not uncomfortable. Nobody takes this stuff seriously. It's annoying at best. And now apparently I'm a representative of the gov't sent to stop this "truth" from getting out. C'mon.... seriously.

Hardwork108

06-18-2009, 09:05 PM

It's not uncomfortable. Nobody takes this stuff seriously.

Correction, nobody takes this stuff "seriously" because it is uncomfortable!

Many people do not want to leave their cushy world of black and white politics, so they bury their heads in the sand. Of course, people like you help them do it, for whatever reason.

It's annoying at best.

Truth, quite often is!

And now apparently I'm a representative of the gov't sent to stop this "truth" from getting out. C'mon.... seriously.

Well, for whatever reason you have been trying very hard to "debunk" various ideas that go against official government versions, so much so that another poster here, David Jamieson, noticed and commented on it and your US military background as well.

Drake

06-18-2009, 09:13 PM

Only you see it as truth. You are overly suspicious of an organization that, really, in the end, is only trying to help.

Hypnosis? Funny... I watch Obama and feel fairly neutral about him, sometimes liking him less.

Hardwork108

06-18-2009, 10:08 PM

Only you see it as truth. You are overly suspicious of an organization that, really, in the end, is only trying to help.

Look the whole organization and system is rigged. The so calle freedom that we all enjoy is only relative and it is being erroded on almost a daily basis. These are facts that everyone will sooner or later wake up to, so I say, better sooner than later!

Hypnosis? Funny... I watch Obama and feel fairly neutral about him, sometimes liking him less.

I am sure that there were those who watched Hitler's speeches (as charismatic as he was) and did not like him either. The fact is that Hitler managed to gain enough following to make the mess that he did.

Lokhopkuen

06-18-2009, 10:18 PM

It's not uncomfortable. Nobody takes this stuff seriously. It's annoying at best. And now apparently I'm a representative of the gov't sent to stop this "truth" from getting out. C'mon.... seriously.

Honesty will bring you trouble:rolleyes:

Lokhopkuen

06-18-2009, 10:22 PM

Look the whole organization and system is rigged. The so calle freedom that we all enjoy is only relative and it is being erroded on almost a daily basis. These are facts that everyone will sooner or later wake up to, so I say, better sooner than later!

I am sure that there were those who watched Hitler's speeches (as charismatic as he was) and did not like him either. The fact is that Hitler managed to gain enough following to make the mess that he did.

Wake up to what? We're already told what to do, shown how to act, there is no privacy, we are poked, prodded, profiled and processed from birth.

Owww! Something is gonna change?

Hardwork108

06-18-2009, 10:46 PM

Wake up to what? We're already told what to do, shown how to act, there is no privacy, we are poked, prodded, profiled and processed from birth.

Owww! Something is gonna change?

Furthermore, We are over-taxed; poisoned with chemical crap in our food and water; our leaders are selected for us by people we never see and our lives are not worth two cents for these people. Their priority is money, power and whatever secret ruling cult they may belong to and its agendas.

YET, we cannot give up because if we do things will get worse. The first step would be to realize what our reality is, if we ever going to have any hope of changing things.:)

Drake

06-18-2009, 11:41 PM

Furthermore, We are over-taxed; poisoned with chemical crap in our food and water; our leaders are selected for us by people we never see and our lives are not worth two cents for these people. Their priority is money, power and whatever secret ruling cult they may belong to and its agendas.

YET, we cannot give up because if we do things will get worse. The first step would be to realize what our reality is, if we ever going to have any hope of changing things.:)

If you don't like the supermarket, eat organic. It takes a little bit of work, such as food not being made in convenient little packages. That's stupid of you to say. YOU CHOOSE to eat Twinkies. Nobody is forcing them down your throat. I buy food from local farmers. Just because you like microwaveable snacky cakes isn't my problem. I see the farm where my food is grown. And I see people like you in McDonalds, tricked by the corporation, not the government.

Overtaxed? By who's standards? Last I checked, we have some of the lowest taxes in the world, which is remarkable considering what we expect from government services. Dams don't build themselves, and someone has to pay for the nifty highway system we have. Germans pay a remarkably higher tax than US citizens, and we are one of the few nations where the tax on gasoline isn't higher than the gasoline itself.

If there WAS a real conspiracy, you and your tin foil hat wearing cronies would've been taken out by now.

It's a false dilemma logical fallacy, and I'm not buying it.

Hardwork108

06-19-2009, 12:30 AM

If you don't like the supermarket, eat organic. It takes a little bit of work, such as food not being made in convenient little packages. That's stupid of you to say. YOU CHOOSE to eat Twinkies. Nobody is forcing them down your throat. I buy food from local farmers. Just because you like microwaveable snacky cakes isn't my problem. I see the farm where my food is grown. And I see people like you in McDonalds, tricked by the corporation, not the government.

You have made a lot of incorrect assumptions about me. I don't eat none of the crap you just mentioned!

We are being poisoned by substances such as Fluoride and Aspartame that are almost forced down our throats because they are everywhere. Sometimes even normal fruit and vegetables are contaminated by crap.

Overtaxed? By who's standards? Last I checked, we have some of the lowest taxes in the world, which is remarkable considering what we expect from government services. Dams don't build themselves, and someone has to pay for the nifty highway system we have. Germans pay a remarkably higher tax than US citizens, and we are one of the few nations where the tax on gasoline isn't higher than the gasoline itself.

Yet you are still paying an income tax that is constitutionally illegal!

You pay it so that the government can pay the private bankers who run the Federal Reserve, as interest on the loans that they give to the government. Those loans are monies printed for the US economy. Ask yourself why your government does not print its own money????? After all the US constitution empowers the US government to do just that!

If you are taxed less compared to other developed nation then I would hazard a guess that the system wants you to have enough spare cash and assets to qualify for loans for which you will be paying interest for the rest of your lives and most likey those payments will go to the same bankers who are taking your income tax payments ILLEGALLY while your "democratically" elected politicians sit back and watch.

Also, other developed countries such as the ones in Western Europe are in the same corrupt boat as you. In Britain there are people who are taxed directly and indirectly about 70% of their income. Others perhaps a little less. Yet they live in one of the richest countries on the planet, whose multinationals have a hand in almost every mining operation on the face of the planet; whose capital city is the financial centre of the world and so on.

BUT, there is never money for hospitals, government run schools or proper policing. So then you have the charities calling on people to relieve them of the cash that the taxman was kind enough to leave them. Of course, the government always has the cash to buy millions of cameras to monitor its own population. They also have the money to go into wars under false pretences. People put up with this crap because they have been brainwashed.

Living in rich country should mean less tax. Living in poor country that may be paying foreign debt interest (to our "friends" the international bankers)should mean relatively more tax.

Yet people in the rich industrialized countries are hood winked into believing that there is never enough money for the government, who is there to serve the people apparently, to do its job - except when there are wars to be fought and other nations to screwed out of their natural resources, but even so there is never enough money, EXCEPT FOR THE BANKERS WHO RUN OUR COUNTRIES THAT IS!

Here in Colombia the taxes are relatively high as it is trying to deal with social inequalities as well as the a civil war that has been going on for around 40 years and perhaps some international loan interests. What is the UK's, Germany's etc. excuse?

If there WAS a real conspiracy, you and your tin foil hat wearing cronies would've been taken out by now.
They only "take out" or discredit people who are a threat to them, ie. people with a platform.

On the ground level there thousands like me who they can't take out and wont because for every one of me there a hundred thousand brainwashed, insecure robots that are afraid to think outside the box and are unable to see the fact that they are being treated with contempt and screwed daily by the same people who they themselves are protecting with almost religous fervor.

It's a false dilemma logical fallacy, and I'm not buying it.

Of course not. That is not what the US military is paying you for, is it?

Lokhopkuen

06-19-2009, 03:07 AM

Baqualin

06-19-2009, 06:39 AM

That's PWETA BQ:p

The who's silent:D

1bad65

06-19-2009, 07:05 AM

I normally agree with alot of Drake's positions, but I disagree with him saying we are not overtaxed.

The average American family pays ~40% of its annual income in taxes. That's overtaxation, big time. The government NEVER cuts back (unless its a Democrat cutting defense spending). Look at the economy now; layoffs, plant closures, no merit raises. etc. Yet when is the last time government workers got laid off? They get their standard raises every year, regardless of the conditions of the private sector.

Keep in mind, the US Postal Service loses tons of money every year. It's outrageous. And they employ a ton of people. Yet somehow, FedEx and UPS employ alot less people and actually make a profit!

And you don't see FedEx and UPS employees going postal at their jobs.

1bad65

06-19-2009, 07:07 AM

To start with, I did not post the articles to upset you, but if I did then I apologize.

He's only whining because you actually sourced your allegations.

Drake

06-19-2009, 10:52 AM

Drake

06-19-2009, 10:58 AM

Evil gov't blah blah blah... Poison water...blah blah blah... Drake is a mole sent to undermine my influence... blah blah blah

Asking someone to prove a negative is not debating. It's childish and amateurish even by high school standards.

BoulderDawg

06-19-2009, 11:05 AM

What I find interesting is that Bad and other neos preach the magic solution to everything is to lower taxes. "If we lower taxes everyone will be rich and world peace will be achieved!":D

Truth is we've just had eight straight years of a president who lowered taxes as much as he could get away with.......look where it got us.

Think about it.

BoulderDawg

06-19-2009, 11:17 AM

National Health care plan.....It's now or never for Obama.

It looks like, hopefully Al Franken will be seated in congress within the next few months. This will give the democrats 60 votes in the senate.

They have a vast majority in the senate and the house. The public is behind the president and his policies...........so?......If not now when?"

It's time that Obama grew a pair, gave the neos the upraised middle finger and pass this health care plan.

Surely he has to realize there is no compromise that will be acceptable to the GOP. They will not vote for any plan.

1bad65

06-19-2009, 11:18 AM

1Bad... did you know that our pay is directly related to the wage gap between private and government sector work? We've had a HUGE gap between military pay and civilian pay for a number of years, so the recent raises have been an attempt to narrow that gap. If the private sector pay median shrinks and real estate prices go down, so does our raise and allowance for housing.

When you say "our pay" are you referring to military pay or all govenment employees?

And I'll say right now that military pay is too low. I'm not upset by that. It's all the endless beaurocrats who make ridiculous money that upsets me.

For example look at John E Potter's salary. He is the current Postmaster General. He made $186k in 2007. He got a raise the next year to $260k. That's a 39% raise!!! And on top of that he got a $135k "performance bonus! And how well did he "perform" in 2007? Well lets see, the USPS lost $5.142 billion in 2007.

That's government waste right there.

I can't speak for the postal service, but I can say this. UPS can close up shop whenever it wants. It can change their type of business, and do whatever it wants. The postal service cannot. It is considered an essential service, and even if UPS and other carriers go out of business, they cannot, much like comparing private security to a police department.

That's a cop-out. FedEx and UPS have to compete against a 'company' funded by the US. That's a huge disadvantage. And yet they make profit, while the USPS loses BILLIONS.

Let's see the numbers:
USPS employs 785,929 people. They lost $5.142 billion (2007 numbers)
FedEx employs 252,000 people. They lost $1.125 billion, but have an equity of 14.526 billion. (2008 numbers)
UPS employs 425,300 people. They made $3 billion. (2008 numbers)

I don't know why everyone believes their taxes went up, when they really haven't. If you want a real culprit, check out how some states tax, especially with licenses and vehicle registration (had a friend get burned in AZ over this). THAT'S criminal.

Completely agreed. But we all know Obama is gonna raise taxes. He has to, especially if we get socialized medicine. Hell, the budget deficit now is 4X what is was under Bush! :eek:

I will agree, however, that government services need some serious reconstruction in terms of operating structure. They've become inefficient and cumbersome, and need an overhaul.

Agreed again, but you and I know it will NEVER happen. Because they dont have to. They just raise taxes to pay for their bloated budgets. Private companies can't do that. Nor can they just print money, unlike the government.

And gov't employees have been laid off...

Where? And how many?

Sources:
http://hubpages.com/hub/johnpottersalaryandbonusabc
And wikipedia.com was used for the FedEx, USPS, and UPS figures.

Drake

06-19-2009, 11:27 AM

About all of them when congress can't agree on a budget. :D

Drake

06-19-2009, 11:28 AM

The ridiculous wage issue with the higher-ups is a problem that spans both republicans and democrats. I agree... that guy makes WAY too much.

1bad65

06-19-2009, 03:08 PM

About all of them when congress can't agree on a budget. :D

That's only half the story. Once a budget is passed they get their jobs back, as well as back pay.

And you and I both know that the last 2 or so years have seen hundreds of thousands of jobs lost. And how many of those were government jobs?

1bad65

06-19-2009, 03:12 PM

The ridiculous wage issue with the higher-ups is a problem that spans both republicans and democrats. I agree... that guy makes WAY too much.

But it's the Democrats, and especially Obama, all bent out of shape about what executives at PRIVATE companies make. And their new excuse is 'Well, they got bailout money, so we can interfere and regulate their pay.' Well, the Post Office gets a bailout EVERY YEAR, and I don't see those hypocrites attacking his salary.

And you know full well the Republicans do not attack what executives at private companies earn. This is one of those issues that is not a 'Well it's both parties at play' argument. It's the Democrats playing their 'class envy' card.

Hardwork108

06-19-2009, 09:18 PM

However it's cleaner, safer, more opportunity and more freedom than a whole lot of other places. :D

You have a point there, however I have been to countries where the food is safer (naturally produced) to eat and the water is safer to drink. Places that are less polluted; Less of the government and the system in general watching your every move because of "the terrorist threat", "to stop you damaging the environment", "so that you are PC" and etc.

Basically it is a dictatorship hiding behind a so called "Democracy" that through the establishment squeezes its citizens out of their hard earned money, their rights while also repressing them through fear and propaganda. And people argue about democrats said this or the Republicans said that, while these are doing all their talking for the same masters who have been pulling the strings for a long time. America is a great country but people (also in Europe) have to wake up.

Sometimes safety is a relative issue. Here in Colombia the situation is not as bad as First World propaganda suggests. You need to avoid certain types of people and certain areas. Then you are fine.

There is relatively not that much danger of one being attacked and kicked to death because some boys "just wanted to have just some fun". People are friendly. A lot of the time an eye contact will result in a smile and perhaps even a "good morning", and not a "what are you looking at"!

Unfortunately at the end of the day the same people who pull the strings behind the leaders in Washington, London, etc. pull the strings in most of the countries in the world as well, so sooner or later their crap spreads and comes down to us.

Already it is difficult to buy chewing gum that is not sweetened by that poison aspartame. I am just waiting for some government official to stand up and propose putting rat poison, sorry Fluoride in the water system to improve the health of our teeth.

Perhaps we will have to use those horrible white fluorecent light bulbs because apparently normal ones will cause irreversible damage to the weather and the environment, never mind the fact that many other scientists say that the current climate change is a c natural yclical process. It seems that excuses are created and latched on to to control every aspect of our lives and with current technology being what it is then I find what is happening very disturbing :mad:

We should also appreciate the fact that we may and may not moan about what is happening but the next generation will be born into this system and hence will not know any different. The people behind all this are aware of this fact!!!:mad:

Anyway, enough yapping...:)

Hardwork108

06-19-2009, 09:21 PM

Asking someone to prove a negative is not debating. It's childish and amateurish even by high school standards.

You are trying so hard to unfairly debunk EVERY point that I make that I am beginning to think that you are aiming to get to the rank of a General...;)

Drake

06-20-2009, 02:07 PM

Are you suggesting that you AREN'T using the "proving the negative" logical fallacy?

Hardwork108

06-20-2009, 02:37 PM

Are you suggesting that you AREN'T using the "proving the negative" logical fallacy?

:confused:

You are ignoring every logical comment and all he proof that is around you just of push your agenda of debunking. You seem to have this attitude that "if something is against the system then it must not be tolerated"!

Your agenda is very transparent. I have mentioned varifieble and disturbing facts here about the country you live in, yet you just continue with your propaganda games and believe me that I am not the only one here who sees through your act!

Drake

06-20-2009, 02:41 PM

That was a yes or no question. Answer it instead of using distractors.

Hardwork108

06-20-2009, 02:45 PM

That was a yes or no question. Answer it instead of using distractors.

Now, I am the one using the distractors???? LOL!

Let me get this right, you are suggesting that I am asking you for proof to prove me wrong? Or am I misunderstanding your questions?

Drake

06-20-2009, 03:36 PM

Now, I am the one using the distractors???? LOL!

Let me get this right, you are suggesting that I am asking you for proof to prove me wrong? Or am I misunderstanding your questions?

Here...let me help you. Go to google, and type "proving a negative fallacy".

Hardwork108

06-20-2009, 04:05 PM

Here...let me help you. Go to google, and type "proving a negative fallacy".

Just as I thought, so here let me show you where I am coming from. I don't ask you to prove me wrong on the key issues, because you can't. For example, The FACT that your money is printed (and then lent to your government resulting on you paying ILLEGAL income tax on it), by the Federal Reserve which is a PRIVATE BANK, whose major share holders are not known publicly, is already PROVEN. Which makes me asking you prove otherwise, pointless.

Furthermore, the above FACT makes your claim to be living in a Democracy a JOKE! Your president, wether he is on the "left" :rolleyes: or the "right" :rolleyes:answers to these banking interests and not to YOU!

Of course while the president is doing his puppet duties all of the other politicians on whatever side of the spectrum are silent on one of the greatest scams in human history.

Again, I am not asking you to prove me wrong for the simple fact that you CAN'T!

Drake

06-20-2009, 04:16 PM

BoulderDawg

06-20-2009, 05:00 PM

Hardwork108

06-20-2009, 05:00 PM

Do you actually understand how the Fed works? It's not like Citibank is printing money. And if you don't like the banking system, that's something best taken up with Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington and Co, because it was their creation. And if you don't print your own money, you might as well just let England have the colonies.

What is ironic about that statement is the fact that for all you the shareholders of the Federal Reserve are the same guys who own the Bank of England, meaning that your or your government do not print the US dollar. It is done by a private bank whose name happens to be the Federal Bank and not City Bank.

Have a look at this interesting documentary and you will see the bigger picture. Click on the link and then click on the first video called, "America from Freedom to Fascism, director's authorized version, you can click further and see it on full screen:

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=america+from+democracy+to+fascism&emb=0&aq=f#q=america+from+freedom+to+fascism+russon+the+ movie&emb=0

BTW, this documentary is made by world renowned Hollywood producer, Aron Russo. He sadly is not with us anymore.

Honestly... this is grade school polisci here...

Yes it would seem that you are describing your own understanding of your own political reality.

BoulderDawg

06-20-2009, 05:02 PM

BTW; You people do know that money is only paper, Right?

It's the stability and wealth of the issuing country that determines the value.

Yao Sing

06-20-2009, 05:03 PM

What??? How did "Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington and Co" have anything to do with the creation of the Federal Reserve?

Yao Sing

06-20-2009, 05:10 PM

Word on the Iranian protest:

I find it interesting that people in Iran(where probably 90%, maybe more, don't speak english) are holding up protest signs in perfect english with the color scheme just right to where, when they are photographed or video taped, the words on the signs are crystal clear to the camera.

Are they speaking to the west or to their own country?....or maybe someone in Iran is pulling the strings on this "revolution"...kinda like in 1953. Who knows?

I do find it interesting that the neo right is just going absolutely nuts over what's happening over there. Funny thing......especially because during the slaughter of thousands of protesting Chinese in 1989 the right in this country was strangely silent.

That's because fair democratic elections are only good if the US approves of the winner. And the protests we see here are minor but are being inflated to make us believe there's something fishy going on there. Of course the same people didn't say a word when junior Bush stole his election.

BTW; You people do know that money is only paper, Right?

I've got a quarter in my pocket that says you're wrong. :D

Drake

06-20-2009, 06:06 PM

What is ironic about that statement is the fact that for all you the shareholders of the Federal Reserve are the same guys who own the Bank of England, meaning that your or your government do not print the US dollar. It is done by a private bank whose name happens to be the Federal Bank and not City Bank.

Have a look at this interesting documentary and you will see the bigger picture. Click on the link and then click on the first video called, "America from Freedom to Fascism, director's authorized version, you can click further and see it on full screen:

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=america+from+democracy+to+fascism&emb=0&aq=f#q=america+from+freedom+to+fascism+russon+the+ movie&emb=0

BTW, this documentary is made by world renowned Hollywood producer, Aron Russo. He sadly is not with us anymore.

Yes it would seem that you are describing your own understanding of your own political reality.

At least I prefer reality over google video...

Drake

06-20-2009, 06:08 PM

What??? How did "Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington and Co" have anything to do with the creation of the Federal Reserve?

Creation of our own currency and a banking system. It came before the Fed.

Drake

06-20-2009, 06:10 PM

mawali

06-20-2009, 06:19 PM

Word on the Iranian protest:

I find it interesting that people in Iran(where probably 90%, maybe more, don't speak english) are holding up protest signs in perfect english with the color scheme just right to where, when they are photographed or video taped, the words on the signs are crystal clear to the camera.

Are they speaking to the west or to their own country?....or maybe someone in Iran is pulling the strings on this "revolution"...kinda like in 1953. Who knows?

I do find it interesting that the neo right is just going absolutely nuts over what's happening over there. Funny thing......especially because during the slaughter of thousands of protesting Chinese in 1989 the right in this country was strangely silent.

They know the revolution is being televised!
It is probably an Iranian plot with Musavi and Ahmadinejad playing good cop.bad copy to force the hand of the inquisitive US media.

Hardwork108

06-20-2009, 06:20 PM

Creation of our own currency and a banking system. It came before the Fed.

The US government does not print its own money, the privately owned bank, misleadingly (on purpose) named the Federal Reserve, DOES!

Try to see the significance of that statement.

Hardwork108

06-20-2009, 06:28 PM

At least I prefer reality over google video...

It is not a question of Google. It is not a Google video it is a Documentary. Surely you understand why documentaries are important in the enhancement of knowledge.

The more you try to instinctively debunk anything that goes against the official version, the more you look like you have an agenda.;)

Drake

06-20-2009, 06:29 PM

It is not a question of Google. It is not a Google video it is a Documentary. Surely you understand why documentaries are important in the enhancement of knowledge.

The more you try to instinctively debunk anything that goes against the official version, the more you look like you have an agenda.;)

I dunno... because you can lie and make up stories, and as long as you label it a documentary, it's fact?

Hardwork108

06-20-2009, 06:31 PM

Now I have to wonder if you've even SEEN a US Dollar. Currency is not printed from a single source...

Yes I know, it is franchised to the Iranians, Venezuelans, sometimes to the Colombians and of course the Martians as well......:rolleyes:

Drake

06-20-2009, 06:33 PM

The US government does not print its own money, the privately owned bank, misleadingly (on purpose) named the Federal Reserve, DOES!

Try to see the significance of that statement.

I just have trouble getting over all the fed banks throughout the nation printing money... with specific guidelines set in place to avoid any sort of foreign influence. Something about knowing how every bank printing currency is ran and the history behind it makes it hard to swallow a google video "documentary". Education is a beyotch when it comes to conspiracy theories. People ignorant of the truth will fall for anything if it sounds all suspect and anti-gov't.

And don't kid yourself... you really aren't an important person to anyone, so enough thinking I am trying to make "rank" by outing a conspiracy theorist on a kung fu forum. I make my rank by leading soldiers, not dealing with conspiracy nut jobs.

Yao Sing

06-20-2009, 06:43 PM

Creation of our own currency and a banking system. It came before the Fed.

None of those listed created a banking system and the monetary system they did create is not currently in use. You really do need to brush up on the facts here.

Yao Sing

06-20-2009, 06:45 PM

I'll get you started, the current system was created in 1913 long after the founders you named were dead and gone.

Drake

06-20-2009, 06:45 PM

None of those listed created a banking system and the monetary system they did create is not currently in use. You really do need to brush up on the facts here.

Uh... yes they did. And everything they did served as a foundation for what we have now. You think the federal reserve was just created out of thin air?

Drake

06-20-2009, 06:52 PM

"The system of banking [I] have... ever reprobated. I contemplate it as a blot left in all our Constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction, which is already hit by the gamblers in corruption, and is sweeping away in its progress the fortunes and morals of our citizens." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:18

"The banks... have the regulation of the safety-valves of our fortunes, and... condense and explode them at their will." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1819. ME 15:224

"The States should be urged to concede to the General Government, with a saving of chartered rights, the exclusive power of establishing banks of discount for paper." --Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME 13:431

And here's where Hamilton came into play...

In December of 1790 Alexander Hamilton presented a plan to Congress for the creation and incorporation of the National Bank of the United States. Its purpose was to provide the government with a resource for short term credit. Making funds available for business thereby helping to strengthen the National Economy. Congress passed this proposal, and the only thing standing in its way was a possible Presidential veto from George Washington. Washington being unsure of the Bill's constitutionality asked his cabinet members for advice. Thomas Jefferson and Edmund Jennings Randolph opposed the Bill citing the apparent lack of power granting Congress the authority to create Corporations. Hamilton's arguments were based on the premise of "implied" powers, a power need not be explicitly granted in order for Congress to exercise it, if the power was for the attainment or goal of a granted power.

And here's the explanation of how the Fed changed things...

Under the National Bank Act of 1864, the banking system was divided into three groups: central reserve city banks (the first was located in New York City; Chicago, Illinois, and St. Louis, Missouri, were added in 1887), reserve city banks (in 16 other large cities), and country banks. All national banks were required to hold cash reserves, but country banks could hold a percentage of these deposits in reserve city banks. When country banks required additional reserves to meet their customers’ cash demands, they would demand their reserves from reserve city banks, which would in turn demand funds from central reserve city banks. If a reserve bank did not have enough cash to meet the demand, the entire system would collapse, and the economy would not have enough cash available to meet the economy’s needs. No mechanism was in place to create additional cash, and a cash crisis would occur. Banking crises such as these occurred in 1873, 1884, 1893, and 1907. The panic of 1907 led to the formation in 1908 of a bipartisan congressional body, the National Monetary Commission, whose report set the stage for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and a decentralized, adaptable banking system and monetary authority that could avoid these crises by providing the currency necessary to meet the economy’s needs.

Hardwork108

06-20-2009, 08:00 PM

I just have trouble getting over all the fed banks throughout the nation printing money... with specific guidelines set in place to avoid any sort of foreign influence. Something about knowing how every bank printing currency is ran and the history behind it makes it hard to swallow a google video "documentary".
As I implied by naming the maker of the documentary, it was not just any documentary.

Education is a beyotch when it comes to conspiracy theories. People ignorant of the truth will fall for anything if it sounds all suspect and anti-gov't

So tell me who owns the Federal Reserve? Is it owned by the government? The people?

And don't kid yourself... you really aren't an important person to anyone,

As I stated in an earlier post, I don't have a platform and only those with platform who come out with the truth are discredited or worse. Meaning that I am not an important person in that regard but my message is, and people like you always come out of the wood work to silence or "debunk" any story that does not coincide with the official view of world events.

so enough thinking I am trying to make "rank" by outing a conspiracy theorist on a kung fu forum.

In that case stop acting as if you are. It is all in your tone and the way you brush aside sources for my comments and your attempts to outright discredit them, without even checking them out!

I make my rank by leading soldiers, not dealing with conspiracy nut jobs.

And as a soldier yourself you are told to follow, TRUST your leaders and not ask questions!

Hardwork108

06-20-2009, 08:07 PM

No mechanism was in place to create additional cash, and a cash crisis would occur. Banking crises such as these occurred in 1873, 1884, 1893, and 1907. The panic of 1907 led to the formation in 1908 of a bipartisan congressional body, the National Monetary Commission, whose report set the stage for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and a decentralized, adaptable banking system and monetary authority that could avoid these crises by providing the currency necessary to meet the economy’s needs.

Yes that was the cover story for taking over America. And of course, we can all see what a fine job the Federal Reserve did in regards to preventing world financial crisis.:rolleyes:

You really should watch that documentary. It is good to step out of your cushy political comfort zone once in a while, and if for nothing then perhaps to see another view regarding the history of the Federal Reserve.

Why not see the video that includes interviews with IRS agents, etc. then you can attempt to debunk the video for us. Or are you just afraid?

Drake

06-20-2009, 09:22 PM

I provide you with quotes and sources from historical figures and facts firmly based in the real world. You respond with a faux "documentary". This discussion is over. I have better ways to waste time.

Hardwork108

06-20-2009, 09:30 PM

I provide you with quotes and sources from historical figures and facts firmly based in the real world.

Yes the real world BEFORE the creation by private bankers of the Federal Reserve!

You respond with a faux "documentary".

The documentary deals with the founding of the Federal Reserve and its effect to this day, THE PRESENT!

This discussion is over.

Who are you kiddin'? You never saw this as a discussion!

I have better ways to waste time.

Of that I am sure!

BoulderDawg

06-24-2009, 12:04 PM

GOP Gov Sanford from South Carolina.....:D

This should give the media something to talk about for at least the next week!

As I said last week concerning that other Republican congressman, I have no problem with the dude's personal life. As far as I'm concerned my senator/congressman/ president can score as many times as they can get other people to sleep with them....All that's cool with me.

Now, since this story is brand new there is still a lot none of us knows about. Is Sanford a bible thumper? Is he one of these guys in church every sunday teaching sunday school? Did he stand up during the Clinton Admin and talk about what an evil and immoral man Bill Clinton was? If the answer to all of these questions is "Yes" then I have no sympathy for the man. He deserves what he gets.

In any case Sanford is gone.....I would be surprised if he last the week out before he resigns.......or, more drastically, takes the easy way out.

BoulderDawg

06-25-2009, 07:53 AM

Yep! Just as I thought about Sanford: He got elected by being of "high moral character" and preaching about family and all of that stuff. He also demanded Bill Clinton's resignation in the 90s......sigh.

Well, at least one good thing here: At least his wife wasn't dam fool enough to be humiliated and stand by her man...like so many in the past.

I will say this: There have been many left leaning politicians get in all sorts of trouble. However the difference being is that they did not build their careers by being holier than thou!:p

How refreshing if would be if a politician came out and just said, "We are here in Washington to do a job. Our private lives outside of Capital Hill has no bearing on that."

BoulderDawg

06-30-2009, 12:48 PM

Today the Minn Supreme court declared Al Franken the winner in the Minnesota senate race......it's about time.

Will the GOP Gov sign the papers or still try to drag this out? In any case I don't think there is much doubt what Coleman will do. He will appear to the US supreme court also he will never concede the race and congratulate Franken on his victory.

If the Gov does not sign the paper then, I guess, they could delay it another year or so......I would not put it past them. But if he does sign then no one cares what court Coleman carries it to.

Mas Judt

06-30-2009, 03:24 PM

Coleman congratulated Franken and stepped down.

True, it is fitting when a holier than thou sort is kicked in the nads, but just because Democrats don't run that why, why should they be exempt from the law? Why does the democratic party circle around and protect their criminals? You have woman-killers, tax cheats, embezzlers, thieves and outright traitors - it's not a political party, it's a police line up.

In the old days, reporters ignored personal stuff and focused on the issues (albeit in a superficial way.) Today we not only don't get the real stories, but we only get reporting on personal crap.

Michael Jackson and the NC Govenor cheating is bigger news that Cap and Trade (What a joke) and the failure to protect or border or the pull-out from Irag??

WTF?

1bad65

07-01-2009, 07:01 AM

1bad65

07-01-2009, 07:06 AM

And it's following the same trend since the 'Stimulus' bill passed into law, it's once again higher.

"Private employers cut 473,000 jobs in June, down from 485,000 in May, according to a report by ADP Employer Services published on Wednesday. Economists surveyed by Reuters had expected 393,000 private-sector job cuts in June.

Though June's loss was the smallest ADP had reported since October 2008, the surprisingly large number of cuts dealt a setback to those expecting the U.S. economy to recover soon.

"The data surprises me a little bit in that the consensus out there seems to be that business is improving and that the economy has hit bottom," said Mark Bonhard, investment advisor at Dawson Wealth Management in Cleveland, Ohio.

"This definitely is not good news."

Joel Prakken, chairman of Macroeconomic Advisers, whose firm jointly developed the ADP Employer Services report, told a teleconference of journalists growth is likely to be modest at about 2 to 2.5 percent in the second half of the year.

"Between now and then I would expect additional job losses that are pushing up toward another million or so, maybe 800,000, 850,000, with the unemployment rate continuing to move up unevenly," Prakken said.

"I would say (unemployment would be) pressing up between 9.75 and 10 percent in the second half of the year."

The ADP data comes ahead of Thursday's monthly nonfarm payrolls report from the government, which is much more comprehensive and includes both public and private sectors.

Economists expect the payrolls report, which will be issued a day early due to the Independence Day holiday on Friday, to show a loss of 363,000 jobs in June and a rise in the unemployment rate to 9.6 percent from May's 9.4 percent."

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090701/bs_nm/us_usa_economy

Remember, Obama said unemployment would not get higher than 8% if he got his 'stimulus' bill signed into law. He got his wish, and now unemployment is at 9.4%.

BoulderDawg

07-01-2009, 07:36 AM

Mas, don't even get me started on the media. Look at ABC, they basically gave Obama free airtime to peddle his agenda. And they forbid any of his detractors from placing ads during the broadcast! That's stuff Hitler and Stalin did, they had the press either collaborating with them, or ran by them as pure propoganda machines. It's really scary.

One question: What is wrong with equal time in the form of a rebuttal at the end of Obama's speech? Seems to work with the State of the Union speech.

The only people who see that as "scary" and comparing Obama to Hitler and Stalin is the neo right.

You guys are getting desparate.

Baqualin

07-01-2009, 09:40 AM

Michael Jackson and the NC Govenor cheating is bigger news that Cap and Trade (What a joke) and the failure to protect or border or the pull-out from Irag??

WTF?

PEOPLE BETTER WAKE UP....CAP & TRADE IS GOING TO KILL THIS COUNTRY

The funny thing is nobody is talking about it:confused:
BQ

1bad65

07-01-2009, 11:25 AM

PEOPLE BETTER WAKE UP....CAP & TRADE IS GOING TO KILL THIS COUNTRY

The funny thing is nobody is talking about it:confused:
BQ

It's bad. Basically you have to have the government's approval to sell your home.

Also, it's a big tax increase on EVERYONE. I thought Obama promised us that 95% of us were not getting our taxes raised?

Baqualin

07-01-2009, 11:31 AM

It's bad. Basically you have to have the government's approval to sell your home.

Also, it's a big tax increase on EVERYONE. I thought Obama promised us that 95% of us were not getting our taxes raised?

This bill is going to fuk the Canadians too....you guys better start taking a good look at this up there!!!!

Baqualin

07-01-2009, 11:44 AM

Why Barack Obama’s Climate Bill is Bad for Canada
MaCleans Canada

UPDATE: The full full text of H.R. 2454 as passed by the House is now available on the Thomas/GPO websites here.

The new President’s ambitions could have a devastating effect on our economy. When Barack Obama met with Stephen Harper in Ottawa on Feb. 19, his message on the oil sands sounded like it could have been written in Calgary. He talked about the need for government investment in new technologies to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and he wanted to work together to achieve it. “I love this country and think that we could not have a better friend and ally,” Obama said. “And so I’m going to do everything that I can to make sure that our relationship is strengthened.” He added: “We are very grateful for the relationship that we have with Canada, Canada being our largest energy supplier.” Tom Corcoran, a former Republican congressman from Illinois and head of a Washington lobbying outfit for the oil sands and other “unconventional” fuels, remembers the day: “It was encouraging and made us feel good.”

But it turns out that Obama has a knack for making people feel good when perhaps they ought to be watching their back. “Then the realities begin to take root when you look at what is taking place here in Washington,” says Corcoran. The reality is that Obama is leading an aggressive effort to remake American energy policy with potentially severe consequences for the oil sands, and by extension, the Canadian economy.

The oil sands currently export about half of their production of 1.2 million barrels per day to the U.S. Over the next 25 years, according to the Canadian Energy Research Institute in Calgary, that production will more than double, to four million barrels per day, with most of that oil going to the U.S. For Canada, that will mean 380,000 new jobs - and an additional $1.4 trillion in GDP, which will kick off $252 billion in tax revenues, more than half of which would go to Ottawa.

So Canada has a lot at stake in the process that Barack Obama set in motion by calling on Congress to pass climate change legislation this year. In the House of Representatives, where the American clean energy and security bill has been drafted, Democratic leaders such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi and California’s Henry Waxman, the chairman of the energy and commerce committee, have Alberta’s oil patch squarely in their sights.

Oil sands production emits up to 15 per cent more greenhouse gases than the production of conventional oil, not to mention the toll it takes on the landscape. These concerns have caused American policy toward the oil sands to undergo a complete U-turn under Obama and congressional Democrats. The Bush administration saw the oil sands as a strategic continental resource. George W. Bush dispatched his energy secretary to Fort McMurray, Alta., to see the operations for himself, and the 2005 energy bill even included a section to partner with Alberta to share information on developing oil from U.S. tar sands and shale. But the 1,000-plus-page climate change bill now wending its way through Congress is full of potential uncertainty for Alberta and Canada.

The legislation, written by Waxman and Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, calls for reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by a whopping 80 per cent by 2050. It also includes a cap and trade system, and a requirement that utilities get at least 15 per cent of their electricity from renewable fuels. “Alberta has an uphill battle,” says Liz Barratt-Brown, a senior attorney for the environmental group, National Resources Defense Council in Washington, who has been closely watching the oil sands issue. “These are large reductions. They change the way we use fuels. You can see the writing on the wall for tar sands.” Even more distressing for Canada, the bill includes provisions that would punish imports from countries whose carbon regulations are deemed by Washington to be less stringent than those of the U.S.-making it a potentially much more broadly protectionist act with implications for other sectors of the economy as well.

Those measures are meant to address the potential “competitive imbalance” created for some U.S. industries by the costs of compliance with the new cap and trade regime. In order to protect domestic industry and to mitigate so-called “carbon leakage” - factories moving to countries with less stringent rules -the legislation calls for a tariff to be imposed on imports of manufactured products from countries whose carbon reduction regulations are deemed not to be “at least as stringent” as those of America. Canada�s environment minister, Jim Prentice, has denounced the measure as “green protectionism.” He told Maclean�s that he is “confident that Canada at the end of the day will have environment legislation that is commensurate with that in U.S.” However, he warned, the legislation leaves open the possibility of abuse. “Once you have protectionist authorities in the legislation, there is always the possibility for mischief in the application in a way that is prejudicial to Canada.”

The provision would apply to goods, ranging from steel and pipes to pulp and paper, from a nation whose rules are not deemed “commensurate” with that of the United States. Obama may be a self-proclaimed multilateralist, but the provision holds the potential for a unilateral economic wallop - or at least allowing Washington a very heavy hand in the writing of climate rules of its trading partners. Worries Prentice, “Like beauty and fairness, the definition of ‘commensurate’ will apparently lie in the eye of the American beholder.”

For as much as Canadians love Obama, is it possible he doesn’t love us back? His climate change legislation comes at a time of severe protectionist sentiment in Congress and an erosion of trust in Canada in response to “Buy American” provisions in the US$787-billion stimulus bill. When he met with Harper, Obama vowed that his administration would adhere to commitments in international trade agreements. But American municipalities and states have demanded only American-made steel and manufactured goods in their procurement contracts. Canadian municipalities voted this month to retaliate by excluding U.S. suppliers from municipal contracts unless the Harper government can negotiate an amended trade agreement with Washington within four months.