Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Login with Facebook Sign In with Google Sign In with OpenID Sign In with Twitter

In this Discussion

Obama's Hypocrisy
  • GlassRaceGlassRace
    Posts: 62
    Reverend Wright @ the National Press Club


    Barack Obama's vilified reverend, Jeremiah Wright, spoke to a packed house at the National Press Club Monday morning, and he blew them away!  The Q & A session was the most honest, electrifying exchange in American politics I've ever seen.  The commercial media are trying to downplay this event, but the truth is it was stunning -- the perfect example of exactly the sort of leadership the United States and the world need.  Whatever you have to do to watch this entire clip, especially the Q & A section, it's worth it.



    Is it Me?

    The commercial media are trying to downplay this event . . .

    The media really circled the wagons against Reverend Wright Monday night -- after they had all afternoon to get their story straight.  Looks like my boy struck a nerve.  And looks like some of the people I used to enjoy watching, like Olbermann, just got made: what a bunch of sore-loser collusionists!  Everyone knows politicians aren't as free as civilians to say what they really think!  So how does that point equate to "throwing Obama under the bus?"  When it's the simple truth?  If the media think Wright's brand of jugular incorrectness is bad now . . . just wait until the real problems start happening -- when global disaster mandates radical political incorrectness for the survival of humanity!  And remember that it wasn't until [New Orleans Mayor] Ray Nagin had the audacity to be "incorrect," on the radio, that any other politician, much less our fraudulent media, even began to do anything to save American lives on American soil.  ("Why would the government murder their own people?"  I don't know; you tell me.)

    Seriously, though: is it me?  Is it me?  Is it me . . . or the media!

    Once upon a time, a race of persecuted people, their consciousness forever raised by the crimes committed against them, came to the undeniable conclusion, "never again," and I have to agree.  Never again.  Never again will I accidentally let my guard down with these half-assed pseudo-intellects, the media.  The media.  The whole media.  Nothing but the media.  Never again.  I should have learned a long time ago, but sometimes you just have to get knocked around a bit to remember how bad things really are.  I'm sick of seeing people in politics and the media use their willful ignorance as a barometer of truth, and defamation.  How can they not know how crazy that is?

    Be advised these people will throw you under the bus the moment you get close to touching the house of cards that pays them.  Just be aware of that reality in the event you decide someday to come out of hiding and say what you really think.

    Obama's Hypocrisy

    To me, Obama's response to Reverend Wright's appearance is the perfect example of political posturing.  So maybe he isn't the candidate I thought he was.  The hypocrisy of his most recent position on Reverend Wright is that he takes offense to the notion that he postures from time to time, as all politicians do, then immediately repostures himself in relation to the Reverend just to save his political ass, particularly after the defeats of Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. 

    Here's the AP's lead:

    WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. — Barack Obama angrily denounced his former pastor for "divisive and destructive" remarks on race, seeking to divorce himself from the incendiary speaker and a fury that threatens to engulf his front-running Democratic presidential campaign.

    Obama is trying to tamp down the uproar over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright at a tough time in his campaign. The Illinois senator is coming off a loss in Pennsylvania to rival Hillary Rodham Clinton and trying to win over white working-class voters in Indiana and North Carolina in next Tuesday's primaries.

    And this passage reveals the posturing perfectly:

    "If Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected," Wright said. "Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls."

    . . . Facing that reality, Obama sought to distance himself further from Wright.

    "I have been a member of Trinity United Church of Christ since 1992, and have known Reverend Wright for 20 years," Obama said. "The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago."

    The Illinois senator said of Wright's statements Monday: "All it was was a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in truth."

    I'm sorry, but that's not true.  "A bunch of rants that aren't grounded in truth" is the most distorted description of the press conference that could have been come up with.  And Obama came up with it.  (But, hey, at least his political posturing is true.)

    I thought Wright's appearance was excellent, and I have to wonder why Obama would imply that someone like me is slanted toward "hate" just because I recognized the truth in Wright's words:

    "I believe [Wright's comments] end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate," Obama said.

    So much for the theory of not being afraid to talk with our enemies?  How about the guts to speak some radical truth for once!  The fact that Obama distanced himself from Wright, after the fact, proves the reality of posturing once and for all --  whereas before it was open to interpretation.  If Obama had just let this event roll off his back, I would have given him the benefit of the doubt, particularly given the hideous alternatives of Clinton and McCain.  But, instead, my support of Obama as a viable candidate is under review -- but for reasons opposite from what the establishment, and Obama himself, are saying.  If anyone isn't "grounded in truth," it's people who take everything the politicians and media say and do at face value, people who "fail to imagine" that, as the Reverend so accurately said, in reference to historically documented American genocide against Africans,

    . . .our government is capable of doing anything.

    To "anything," add the murder of 3,000 Americans.

    Remember when Obama accepted the resignation of one of his best foreign policy advisers, Samantha Power, because she used the word "monster?"  I'm sure that decision had nothing to do with political posturing either.


    NOTE: This post doesn’t mean I support Ron Paul.  Rather, as DeNiro said in Once upon a time in America, “It’s just the way I see things.”  Peace.  -GR
  • DoctornoDoctorno
    Posts: 234
    I posted links on the Faux news site:

    It seems that there is no way to post there if You mention any other books that confirm what Rev. Wright said.

    I posted links to Donald Scott's interviews from BoR and in other posts just mentioned the titles and authors.

    Seems Fox don't want their slaves to read
  • DoctornoDoctorno
    Posts: 234
    I did find one way into Fox readers, by posting at the Digg site that carried the story
  • PurpleHazePurpleHaze
    Posts: 717
    The Problem with Rev. Wright ... There are Too Few Like Him

    Reverend Wright offers Obama an opportunity, it is a shame he has declared himself unwilling to take it. That is not Wright's problem. That is America's problem. It is America that is the embarrassment not Wright -- who merely points out what the country still has not deigned to admit, let alone correct.
  • DoctornoDoctorno
    Posts: 234
    Obama's strong words about Getting Tough with Iraq's political leadership smell of a CFR pill he was encouraged to swallow.  He will make a great stooge for the CFR and the Bush World Order. His wife already belongs to the CFR. I have no doubt that he is about to get an education of a lifetime from his mentor Zbig and others.


    We have 3rd. parties to vote for, or go home and watch the Mariners attempt to play baseball...
  • PurpleHazePurpleHaze
    Posts: 717

    Obama Capitulates – to the Israel lobby
    by Justin Raimondo
    June 6, 2008

    The clock is ticking, and time is running out for the War Party: they must get in their licks before the most pro-Israel president, ever, leaves office. As Butcher writes: "Among Israeli supporters of military action against Iran there is concern something must be done before Mr. Bush's end of office next January as Mr. Bush is perceived as closer to Israel than any potential successor."

    Don't look to Barack Obama for deliverance from this looming conflict. In his speech to AIPAC, he clearly signed on to the Lobby's latest project, departing from his prepared text to declare:

    "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power. Everything."

    "Everything" includes murdering tens of thousands of Iranians, mostly civilians – driving the price of oil up above $300 a barrel and destroying the US economy – and involving us in a war that will make the Iraq conflict look like a Sunday school picnic. And for what?

    The irony, of course, is that Iran is nowhere near obtaining nuclear weapons, as the President's own intelligence agencies recently informed him: but no matter. That's a small obstacle to those who disdain "the reality-based community," and see themselves as Making History while the rest of us watch, helpless and aghast. As Ha'aretz recently reported

    "Olmert will try to convince Bush to set aside the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear program in favor of data presented by Israel, and determine the administration's policy on Iran accordingly."

    The coming war with Iran has nothing to do with "weapons of mass destruction" – no more than the invasion of Iraq ever did. It's all about preserving Israeli hegemony in the Middle East by wiping any and all recalcitrant Arab-Muslim states off the map. First Iraq, then Iran – and Syria will have its turn soon enough, along with poor prostrate Lebanon, once the jewel of the eastern Mediterranean and now an economic and political basket case.

    It is almost certain we will be at war with Iran before a new President is inaugurated: now that Obama has capitulated to the Lobby, nothing but Divine Providence can stop it.

    God help us all.

    I have to say I was wrong – dead wrong – about Obama. In my eagerness to find a bright spot in a rapidly darkening world, I grasped on to his alluring rhetoric and his at-times trenchant critique of the Bush foreign policy, like a sinking man holding on to a life-jacket. But looking for hope in all the wrong places doesn't create opportunities for peace – it only prolongs our illusions. We must face the prospect of a much more terrible conflict than we have ever known, and look it squarely in the face, without flinching or looking for false messiahs. I know many of you are disappointed, and some of you are now exclaiming "I told you so!" All that we can do now is hope, and pray, that our country – and the Iranian people – will somehow survive the coming catastrophe.
  • DoctornoDoctorno
    Posts: 234
    No one condemns You.

    People everywhere are making choices on limited information.

    Because of limited schooling, they don't KNOW how to ask questions to begin with.

    If a politician is slick enough, He or She can get away with almost anything.
  • PurpleHazePurpleHaze
    Posts: 717
    I have to say I was wrong – dead wrong – about Obama. In my eagerness to find a bright spot in a rapidly darkening world, I grasped on to his alluring rhetoric and his at-times trenchant critique of the Bush foreign policy, like a sinking man holding on to a life-jacket. But looking for hope in all the wrong places doesn't create opportunities for peace – it only prolongs our illusions. We must face the prospect of a much more terrible conflict than we have ever known, and look it squarely in the face, without flinching or looking for false messiahs. I know many of you are disappointed, and some of you are now exclaiming "I told you so!" All that we can do now is hope, and pray, that our country – and the Iranian people – will somehow survive the coming catastrophe.

    author said:

    No one condemns You.

    People everywhere are making choices on limited information.

    Because of limited schooling, they don't KNOW how to ask questions to begin with.

    If a politician is slick enough, He or She can get away with almost anything.

    Those were Justin Raimondo's words, not mine. I was trying to relate his sentiment more toward GlassRace than myself. But, I agree with you.
  • PurpleHazePurpleHaze
    Posts: 717
    August 21, 2008
    How Obama Blew It

    By DAVE LINDORFF (excerpt)

    Well, it’s happened, and it’s no surprise.

    Barack Obama, the prospective Democratic presidential candidate, has managed to turn a 5-8 point lead over prospective Republican opponent John McCain into a 7-point deficit—a double-digit slide—in just two and a half months following a campaign that had voters really excited over his candidacy.

    How did he manage this feat (which is documented in the latest latest Reuters/Zogby poll)?

    Simple: he followed the tried-and-true strategy of Democratic centrist advisers who have increasingly dominated his campaign since the end of the primaries, and who have a proven track record of producing Democratic electoral disasters now for several decades.

    Like John Kerry and Al Gore before him, Obama, who ran his primary campaign as a liberal, staking out an anti-war position, has morphed over recent weeks into a Republican-lite candidate, calling for a hard line against Palestinian rights, threatening to attack Iran, calling for an expansion of the disastrous war in Afghanistan, and backing away from genuine health care reform and other important progressive goals here at home.

    One might think that after watching Democratic candidates lose the last two presidential elections by following exactly this kind of “strategy,” if it can be called that, Obama and his campaign managers would have decided to try something different, but it appears that the Democratic Party at the top is hopelessly in the grip of corporate interests that favor war, free-market nostrums and corporate welfare. (Okay, I know Gore really won the 2000 election, but he should have won it so convincingly—for example taking New Hampshire and his home state of Tennessee—that the election couldn’t have been stolen. And Kerry, similarly, should not have had his race determined by a close vote in economically distressed Ohio, which should have been his by a blowout.)

    Obama got where he is—the first African-American major party nominee and the first black candidate with a real shot at winning the White House—by appealing to the Democratic Party’s liberal base. Now Zogby reports that Obama’s support among liberals has plunged 12 percent. That’s liberals folks!

    I count myself among those on the left who have turned away from this fast-talking eel of a candidate.

    It’s not a matter of turning to McCain, who is if anything more dangerous than President Bush because of his fondness for war and his evident lack of any kind of principles, not to mention his personal greed.

    But how can I or any progressive vote for a presidential candidate who goes from opposing a war to saying he not only supports the idea of keeping troops in Iraq for another five years—the length of the entire WWII!—but who further says he won’t rule out attacking Iran, even if that country poses no imminent threat to the US, simply because it develops nuclear weapons—the same weapons that our putative friends, Pakistan and India, have? How can I vote for a candidate who wants to expand the military (by 65,000 troops) instead of shrinking this huge, bloodsucking parasite of an organization which is costing as much as the rest of the world spends on its armies?

    How can I or any progressive vote for a presidential candidate who cannot state categorically that he will defend the Constitution by reversing all of President Bush’s abuses of power and who will not promise to prosecute the president and members of his administration for any crimes committed while in office?

    There has clearly been a decision made in the Obama campaign to soft-pedal liberal positions and to make Obama appear “safe” and uncontroversial. The result has been his precipitous slide in the polls.

  • PurpleHazePurpleHaze
    Posts: 717


    Obama's Cheney

    Joe Biden on the ticket with Obama, as we said on Monday, is a big victory for the War Party, which will not, as a result, be shut out of power if the Democrats take the White House.

    Think peace is going to break out when the multi-culti messiah puts his feet up on the desk in the Oval Office? Well, I hate to disappoint all you loyal Democrats – and optimistic sorts – out there, but you had better think again ….

    Under a Democratic administration, we will see increased U.S. intervention in the Caucasus and Central Asia. We may be out of Iraq, but we could very well be knee-deep in Georgia (and Kazakhstan, god forbid).

    In Obama's America, like Bush's, the system will be fully in place, and Biden's ascension to the number two spot on the Democratic ticket assures the ruling elite that they will endure.

    The Hideous Horror of the Biden Selection
    Biden has been one of the leading congressional supporters of U.S. militarization of the Middle East and Eastern Europe, of strict economic sanctions against Cuba, and of Israeli occupation policies.

    Most significantly, however, Biden, who chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during the lead-up to the Iraq War during the latter half of 2002, was perhaps the single most important congressional backer of the Bush administration's decision to invade that oil-rich country.

    Obama's War Room
    On June 18, Obama convened the first meeting of his "Senior Working Group on National Security," a collection of advisers and possible future Cabinet members in a new administration--many of them former Clinton administration operators. Their record of war-making and imperial arrogance is enough to make your blood curdle.

    Could the evidence be any clearer that an Obama presidency will have a lot more in common with the outgoing Bush administration than differences?
  • U.S. Killed 60 Children, in Afghan Village, U.N. Finds


    August 26, 2008
    KABUL, Afghanistan — A United Nations human rights team has found “convincing evidence” that 90 civilians — among them 60 children — were killed in airstrikes on a village in western Afghanistan on Friday, according to the United Nations mission in Kabul.

    U.S. to look again at civilian deaths in Afghan raid
    Sep 08, 2008

    KABUL (Reuters) - The U.S. military said it planned to reopen an investigation into civilian deaths in a coalition air strike in western Afghanistan last month after new evidence emerged about casualties.

    The military had earlier disputed an Afghan government allegation that more than 90 people, many of them women and children, died in the Aug. 22 raid in western Herat's Shindand district, a figure backed by the United Nations

    But late on Sunday, the military issued a statement saying it was seeking a review of its original finding that five to seven civilians had died in the operation.

    "There is some evidence that suggests that the evidence that the United States military used in the conduct of its investigation may not have been complete," he said.

    The New York Times said Sunday cellphone videos and other images showed bodies of women and children laid out in the village mosque where the strike occurred.

    It said its reporter had seen cellphone images shot by a villager of at least 11 dead children, some apparently with blast and concussion injuries. Ten days after the airstrikes, villagers dug up the last victim from the rubble, a baby just a few months old, it said.

    An Afghan doctor who runs a clinic in a nearby village told the newspaper he counted 50 to 60 bodies of civilians, most of them women and children and some of them his own patients, laid out in the village mosque on the day of the strike.

    Raw Video: Afghans Civilians Killed by U.S.

    At Least 23 Killed as US Drones Attack School in North Waziristan
    Posted September 8, 2008

    This morning two US Predator Drones attacked a small village two miles north of Miramshah in Pakistan’s North Waziristan Agency, killing at least 23 and wounding 20 others. Ten of those killed were said by officials to be militants, although a previous official was quoted as saying “no foreign militant was killed” in the strike. At least four women and two children were reported among the dead and most of the wounded are also reported to be women and children.

    The strike comes just days after an earlier US drone strike on another village not far from Miramshah, but on the Afghan side of the mountainous border, killed at least five civilians. It also comes less than a week after US ground troops killed 20 civilians in an attack on a village in South Waziristan, an action which led to widespread condemnation from Pakistan’s government and military, as well as anti-US protests among the tribesmen in the area.

    Afghans will dig up graves to prove civilian deaths
    "We will welcome them if they visit our bombed village to investigate. But we should have a deal first, if the Americans are proved wrong, then they should leave Afghanistan in shame

    Off-target NATO bomb kills 2 Afghan civilians
    Tuesday, September 9, 2008 

    KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — A NATO bomb mistakenly hit a house 1 1/2 miles off target Tuesday, killing two civilians and wounding 10 even as Afghanistan's president was saying that terrorism cannot be defeated if innocents are killed in coalition operations.

    NATO said the bomb that went off target was aimed at a spot used by insurgents to fire rockets in eastern Khost province but the weapon malfunctioned and hit a civilian house.


    Obama: Bush plan for Afghanistan not enough
    Tuesday, September 9, 2008

    RIVERSIDE, Ohio (AP) — Barack Obama said President Bush isn't acting quickly or forcefully enough to get more U.S. forces into Afghanistan and out of Iraq.

    "His plan comes up short — it is not enough troops, not enough resources, with not enough urgency," Obama said. "The next president will inherit a status quo that is still unstable."

    The Democratic presidential nominee said Bush doesn't understand that Afghanistan and Pakistan are the central front in the war on terrorism, not Iraq. He said his Republican White House rival, John McCain, doesn't get that, either.

    Obama wants to shrink one war, but expand two others

    Blackwater Protected Barack Obama in Afghanistan
    Whispers confirms that Blackwater did handle the Democratic presidential candidate's security in Afghanistan and helped out in Iraq. What's more, Obama was overheard saying: "Blackwater is getting a bad rap."
  • It's the Issues, Stupid - The Obama Poll Drop
    by Michael Colby
    September 9, 2008

    Oh no, guess what? The liberals are nervous. Yep, the obedient lib-Dems are finally starting to realize that the little party they were having in the immediate aftermath of the Sarah Palin selection may have been a bit premature. Oops.

    Liberals never learn. Dems can’t seem to win. And the two phenomena are as connected as John McCain’s eyes have been connected to Palin’s ass.

    Drunk on their Obama Kool-aid, the lib-Dems have been putting together their fantasy cabinet selections, planning their election-night party plans, and trying to figure out whom to meet or whom to give money to in order to get some prized inaugural dance tickets. In their minds, this presidential race was over before they could even dismantle the faux-stage at their faux-convention.

    Cue screeching car sound – as in: The rubber hitting the road.

    Because the polling news hasn’t been good. While the lib-Dems have been blogging and pontificating themselves into a stupor over all the stupid stuff about Palin, the American people have been moving away from Obama and toward – say what? – the McCain/Palin ticket. And the movement has been significant enough for the likes of Kos, AmericaBlog and Talking Points Memo – three leading liberal blogs – to use words like “panic,” “worried” and “overestimated” while describing the current state of affairs.

    Worse, the lib-Dems are refusing to look in the mirror while trying to come up with a reason for the Obama/Biden slip in the polls and the near-derailment in its messaging. Instead, they keep hitting the whining button and doing what they hate most in their conservative counterparts: Blaming the media and getting slimier and slimier with their personal attacks. Anything, in fact, but face the fact that their candidates and their party have all but abandoned “the issues” at the very moment when voters are beginning to ponder them.

    If, as political scientists like to tell us, this is the time when voters start to pay attention, consider what they’re hearing from Obama and the Democratic Party:

    On the Iraq War, Obama was pushed into saying that the “surge worked beyond anyone’s wildest expectations” to the Fox News blowhard, Bill O’Reilly. Despite being an inaccurate – if not completely spineless – position, it effectively handed what was the number one issue directly over to Mr. Surge himself, John McCain.

    On energy issues, the Dems are in the middle of doing an about-face on offshore drilling. Instead of showing some spine and sanity in the face of the Republican’s new – and scary – hit chant of “drill baby, drill,” the Dems are flip-flopping like McCain on the issue and, according to The Hill, preparing to help pass new offshore drilling allowances.

    * On health care, the Obama campaign continues to muddy and muddle through a confusing and all-but-impossible to understand “solution” that will allow the insurance companies and “the market” to remain in control. If it sounds a lot like the Hilary plan of 1993, well, it is. And we all know how that ended up – 15 long years ago. Thanks Dems. Sorry, but any health care plan from the Dems that doesn’t include the words “universal” or “single-payer” is just a pale imitation of the Republicans’ plan. In other words, not much change there.

    And that’s what the lib-Dems don’t get: When you talk the talk of change, you’ve also got to walk the walk. Otherwise, you look like John Kerry or Al Gore. You know, two guys who took the voting public for fools by refusing to stand firm on their issues, changed issue-horses in mid-stream and, as a result, were both L.O.S.E.R.S.

    Earth to the lib-Dems: This is no time to silence yourselves when it comes to the issues. This is the time to stand firm, talk tough and demand that your beloved Obama/Biden ticket listen to you. You know, kind of like the Christian right threatened to stay home unless one of their own was put on the McCain ticket. And then down came Palin.

    Sadly – if not completely predictable – this election is starting to look like a rerun, complete with the liberal “shock, shock, shock!”

    Yes, indeed: It’s the issues, stupid.

  • Jim Fetzer
    Jim comments on the strange poll results showing Obama losing ground
    He makes several points extolling Obama and showing McCain's ineptitude

    Fetzer seriously lacks depth perception. While I agree that Obama sounds better than McCain on some domestic issues, (he scares me on surveillance and so-called "gun control," though) they are virtual clones when it comes to foreign policy. Obama has promised to deepen our "involvement" in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, while backpeddling on his commitment to get us out of Iraq. He's badmouthing Russia, supports bringing Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, (which is nuts) and seems to have the same views on Latin America and Israel that McCain has. He's surrounded himself with liars, warmongers, and political hacks of the worst sort.

    Of course, Fetzer was a Clinton fan, too. We have Clinton to thank for NAFTA and GATT, NATO expansion right up to Russia's border, continuing the Bush sanctions that killed at least a million Iraqis, bombing Yugoslavia based on a pack of lies, Mena and crack cocaine, a bigger fake "drug war," the great Telecom rip-off, tossing out the banking reforms made after the Great Depression, (intended to prevent the mess we're sliding into now) gutting AFDC, the WACO massacre, the first WTC attack, and Oklahoma City, followed by what was essentially the first phase of the "Patriot Act." I'm sure I'm forgetting a few things.

    Obama will surely disappoint those who see him as a knight in shining armor. Then again, what's the alternative? The worse of two evils. This is how they play the game.
  • Gotta love the "two party system." Stockpile some food and water, keep some cash on hand... War is always a good distraction from a domestic crisis...

    Barack Obama’s Biggest Contributors: Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan


    Goldman Sachs

    Citigroup Inc

    JPMorgan Chase & Co

    UBS AG

    Lehman Brothers

    Morgan Stanley


    Goldman Sachs

    Citigroup Inc

    JPMorgan Chase & Co

    UBS AG

    Lehman Brothers

    Morgan Stanley
  • I feel most people are blind to the faults of their favorite race horse.  I have seen a shift in Jim as I do notice He is showing interest in Jesse Ventura.

    I notice the same glassy eyed, grinning idiot, vacant stares in worshipers at Palin Rallies as I have seen at O'bama Rallies.

    I suppose it was no different at Hitler rallies. People saw something they wanted, not something that was actually going to be delivered.

    Leaders know this. FDR said the average emotional and intellectual age of most Americans is about 11 to 12.
    "Making a Big mistake if You think it was more than that".  The average age may be much lower today.

    Yes, I think it in order to find a source for a plastic bucket or two of hard red wheat stored with a chunk of dry ice. some way to grind it or sprout it.
  • But...but...Obama had a preacher who said stuff!!!

    And we are all supposed to be afraid of that preacherfying style of communication  ::)



  • author said:



    Obama, McCain both vote “Yes” on Senate bailout bill

    McCain (R-AZ), Yea 

    Obama (D-IL), Yea 

    Biden (D-DE), Yea

    September 27, 2008
    The Debate in a Nutshell
    Posted by James Ostrowski an September 27, 2008

    McBama favors the Billionaire Bailout.

    McBama won't say what programs have to be cut to pay for the Billionaire Bailout.

    McBama thinks "we should never hesitate to use military force."

    McBama wants to escalate the other unwinnable "land war in Asia" (Afghanistan).

    McBama is not sure about whether to start a third unwinnable land war in Asia, against nuclear power Pakistan.

    McBama would go to war against Iran for the sake of Israel if necessary. He is not sure if he wants to talk with the Iranians before bombing them.

    McBama thinks that Russia is the villain in Georgia.

    And the winner of the debate is: Ron Paul, who said recently that there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties.
  • image

    Dennis Kucinich on the Democrats’ Bailout Betrayal
    by Chris Hedges
    Oct 5, 2008

    The passing of the $850-billion bailout pulled the plug on the New Deal. The Great Society is now gasping for air, mortally wounded, coughing up blood. It will not recover. It was murdered by the Democratic Party.

    We are on our own. And don’t expect any help from Barack Obama and Joe Biden, who lobbied hard for the bill and voted for it. Ignore their rhetoric. Look coldly at the ballots they cast against us. We, as citizens, have only a handful of representatives left in Washington, most of whom were left sputtering in rage and frustration on the House floor. The sad irony is that some of them were Republican.

    This was the largest single act of class warfare in the modern history of this country,” Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, who led the fight in the House against the bailout, told me by phone from Cleveland. “It is a direct attack on the American people’s ability to be able to stabilize their homes and their neighborhoods. This single vote will define the careers of everyone. We are back to taxation without representation, to markets that are openly rigged.”

    “We buried the New Deal,” he said of the vote. “Instead of Democrats going back to classic New Deal economics where we prime the pump of the economy and start money circulating among the population through saving homes, creating jobs and building a new infrastructure, our leaders chose to accelerate the wealth of the nation upwards. They did so in a way that was destructive of free-market principles. They ripped away all the familiar moorings. We are in an uncharted sea where the traditional roles of the political parties are being switched. The Democrats have unfortunately become so enamored and beholden to Wall Street that we are not functioning to defend the economic interest of the broad base of the American people. It was up to the Republicans to protect not just a so-called free market but the American taxpayer and attempt to block this. This is an outrage. This was democracy’s Black Friday.”

    Obama arrived on the Senate floor Brutus-like to thrust a knife into the back of the working and middle class. He lobbied hard for the bill. He did so, according to some who met with him on Capitol Hill, because he feared that if he opposed the bailout and it triggered a market collapse it could cost him the election. Better to placate the thieves on Wall Street than stand up for the masses of enraged and swindled citizens.

    Obama’s betrayal is the betrayal of the Democratic Party. The Democrats gave us the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, which ripped down the firewalls that were put in place by the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act. The 1933 act, designed to prevent the kind of meltdown we are now experiencing, established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC). It set in place banking reforms to stop speculators from hijacking the financial system. With Glass-Steagall demolished, and the passage of NAFTA, the Democrats, led by Bill Clinton, tumbled gleefully into bed with corporations and Wall Street speculators. They achieved fundraising parity with the Republicans. They used institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as a welfare gravy train. The Democrats, including Obama, are as compromised as the Republicans.

    Obama’s voting record in the Senate is in line with the corrupt Democratic mainstream, including Biden, who works on behalf of corporations and especially the credit card industry. Obama knows where power lies in the United States. It is not with the citizens, who with ratios of 100 to 1 pleaded with their representatives in Washington not to loot the national treasury to bail out Wall Street investment firms. Power lies with the corporations. These corporations, not us, pick who runs for president. You cannot be a candidate without their blessing and money. These corporations, including the Commission on Presidential Debates, a private corporation, determine who gets to speak and what issues candidates can or cannot challenge, from universal, not-for-profit, single-payer health care to Wall Street bailouts to NAFTA. If you do not follow the corporate script you become as marginal and invisible as Ralph Nader or Bob Barr or Cynthia McKinney. [not to mention (?) Ron Paul - ph]

    Obama has always served his corporate masters. He opposed Rep. John Murtha’s call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq and supported continued funding for the war. He voted in July 2005 to reauthorize the Patriot Act. He did not support an amendment that was part of a bankruptcy bill that would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent. He opposed a bill that would have reformed the notorious Mining Law of 1872, which allows mineral companies to rape federal land for profit. He did not back the single-payer health care bill HR 676, sponsored by Kucinich and John Conyers. He advocates the death penalty and nuclear power. He backed the class-action “reform” bill—the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)—that was part of a large lobbying effort by financial firms, which make up Obama’s second-biggest single bloc of donors. CAFA would effectively shut down state courts as a venue to hear most class-action lawsuits. Workers, under CAFA, would no longer have redress in many of the courts where these cases have a chance of defying powerful corporations. CAFA moves these cases into corporate-friendly federal courts dominated by Republican judges. 

    Obama’s support for the bailout, however, is his most egregious betrayal. He had a brief, shining moment to prove he could lead, to capitalize on a popular revolt that cut across the political spectrum. He never attempted to address or mobilize the aspirations and passions of the vast majority of Americans. He was as craven, servile and cowardly as the party he represents. He returned to the campaign trail after Friday’s vote as a slick and polished sales representative for our corporate state, telling us to calm down and accept the inevitable. 

    “Some of the most powerful speeches against this were given by members of the Republican Party who are on the political right,” Kucinich said. “They did a superb job in poking holes in the underlying assumptions of the bailout. They say what they believe. Give me somebody who says what they believe and I can figure out how to get them to a new place. When people say one thing and do another it is very hard to be able to move a debate.”

    So let us honor, in our moment of defeat, the handful of elected officials who valiantly defied their party leaderships in the House to stage a remarkable revolt that at first succeeded. Kucinich is one. There were others—Brad Sherman, Marcy Kaptur, Peter DeFazio, Lloyd Doggett and Robert C. “Bobby” Scott. They are about all that is left of the old Democratic Party, the party that once looked out for the poor and the working class. Send them a note of thanks. They deserve it. And if you live in their districts make sure you get to the polls in November. They did not sell you out.

    “We had two take-it-or-leave-it propositions and the second one was worse than the first,” Kucinich said, referring to the plan that came loaded with pages of tax cuts. “Tax cuts are antithetical to a bailout. We never solved the problem. There were never any hearings on the bill. This premise, that we could prop up the stock market with a $700-billion investment and create some liquidity, was flawed. The problem is that banks do not want to loan to each other. It is not a liquidity problem. Banks are afraid they are going to collapse in short selling. There is a war going on between security firms and banks. Banks are under assault. They are not loaning. The dynamic is driven by the Accounting Standards Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Fed.”

    The root of the financial crisis, as critics of the bailout plan point out, is that millions of homeowners cannot pay their mortgages. The bailout, as the market decline on Friday following the vote illustrated, does not address the crisis. It solves nothing for the 10 million Americans who face foreclosure. It solves nothing for the growing numbers of unemployed and underemployed. It may well be the equivalent of tossing $850 billion of taxpayer money (including $150 billion in tax cuts) into a furnace and watching passively as our economy continues its plunge.

    “We face a perfect financial storm,” Kucinich warned. “The elements are the deficit spending for the war of 3 to 4 trillion dollars, the trillion and more tax cuts, the war itself and the lack of serious investment in the country. We are being hollowed out.  We are going to see more unemployment and more people losing their homes. With $700 billion we could have made a real investment in the country, in jobs, in infrastructure and in homes. Instead, we got robbed.”

    AIG execs went on $500K retreat within days of taxpayer bailout

    AIG executives spent $500,000 at an exclusive resort just days after the U.S. government agreed to spend $85 billion to protect the giant insurer from collapse, according to Rep. Henry Waxman, the California Democrat who chairs the House Oversight Committee.

    Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., described what investigators found during a hearing this morning on Capitol Hill:

    After the bailout of AIG last month, the United States government effectively bought an 80% share in the company. That should have caused a fundamental change, you would think, in how the company was spending funds on compensation, bonuses and benefits.

    But it doesn't look like that's what happened. The committee learned that shortly after the bailout went through, executives from AIG's major U.S. life insurance subsidiary, AIG American General, held a week-long conference at an exclusive resort in California.

    The resort is called the St. Regis Monarch Beach. ... It's very impressive. This is an exclusive resort. The rooms start, gentlemen, at $425 a night. Some are more than $1,200 a night.

    ... We contacted the resort where AIG held this week-long event, and we requested copies of AIG's bills. We learned that AIG spent nearly $500,000 in a single week at the -- at this hotel. Now, this was right after the bailout.

    ... Let me describe some of the -- the charges that -- that the shareholders who are now U.S. taxpayers had to pay. Check this out.

    AIG spent $200,000 for hotel rooms, and almost $150,000 for catered banquets. AIG spent -- listen to this one -- $23,000 at the hotel spa and another $1,400 at the salon. They were getting their manicures, their facials, their pedicures and their massages while the American people were -- were footing the bill.

    And they spent another $10,000 for -- I don't know what this is -- leisure dining.

    The Hill says another member of the panel explained that "leisure dining" means they drank at a bar.

    The St. Regis Monarch Beach Resort


  • DoctornoDoctorno
    Posts: 234
    If somehow we could elect an all new Congress, Impeach some of the Senate that voted for this evil, we might be able to then Impeach and remove who ever is elected. The unfolding future does not look very bright.

  • author said:

    If somehow we could elect an all new Congress, Impeach some of the Senate that voted for this evil, we might be able to then Impeach and remove who ever is elected. The unfolding future does not look very bright.

    The future's so bright that sometimes I wish I'd just get run over by a Hostess Twinkie truck so I won't have to be here to see it.
  • image

    Hitler Endorses Obama
    by Joe Mowrey
    October 20th, 2008

    Okay, that title is a cheap sensationalist tactic to get you to read this article. But before all you extreme left-wing progressives rush to your keyboards to condemn me for using a Nazi reference in the same sentence with the patron saint of changeyness, let me clarify for you that I am engaging in hyperbole and that I will employ that technique along with the use of irony and dark humor in this article. You can Google these terms if they are unfamiliar to you. I feel the need to make this clarification because it is apparent of late that no amount of irony is able to penetrate the fog of Obama mania which has settled over the consciousness of the so-called progressive liberal community.

    I awoke this morning to exciting news. Colin Powell has endorsed Barack Obama for President. Yippie! The blogosphere is all atwitter. Our guy has worked hard, taken solid positions on all the most important progressive issues and managed to convince the exalted Mr. Powell to throw his support our way. Celebrations are in order. We’re one step closer to the Oval Office thanks to this latest breaking development. Oh, and for those of you who may have forgotten who Colin Powell is (history is so boring, isn’t it?) let’s take a moment to highlight some of his stellar qualifications as a supporter of the Left.

    Powell is the guy who, as a bright young 31 year old Army Major, did his level best to keep information about the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam from becoming public. Specifically, he was charged with investigating a letter from a whistle-blowing soldier giving detailed accounts of many of the atrocities committed by U.S. military personnel in Vietnam under the auspices of the Phoenix Program. That program was a lovely little package of war crimes intended to “identify and neutralize (via infiltration, capture, or murder) the civilian infrastructure supporting the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam (the Viet Cong).” In other words, it was a U.S. and South Vietnamese death squad operation which rampaged through the country side slaughtering civilians and burning down entire villages. You know, capturing the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people. Powell summed up his investigation of the whistle-blower’s accusations by saying, “In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between American soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent.”

    Well that’s enough for me. If Powell endorsed the rousing success of the Phoenix Program, what more do we need to know? Queried about his participation in the attempted white wash of My Lai, some 40 years later Powell said, “I mean, I was in a unit that was responsible for My Lai. I got there after My Lai happened. So, in war, these sorts of horrible things happen every now and again…” Personally, I think he sounds really sorry. And he’s seems to be bashing Republicans these days, so I like him a lot.

    Fast forward to 2003. Then Secretary of State, Powell, made a triumphant speech to the United Nations outlining the urgent need for us to invade Iraq in a war of aggression in order to eliminate the massive amounts of weapons of mass destruction which Saddam Hussein was going to use to invade and destroy the United States. Thank Buddha that Powell was able to use his dignity and gravitas to convince the world of the imminent danger. Imagine where we might be today without his steadfast endorsement of that magnificent war crime. I don’t know about you, but I wasn’t into wearing a turban and having Saddam Hussein’s picture on the one dollar bill. I shudder to think of Brittany Spears in a burka. Of course, it’s a bit unfortunate that Powell’s speech to the U.N. was a pack of outright fabrications and lies. But I’ve forgiven him by now, especially since he’s decided to come out in favor our Our Guy Obama.

    And while we’re at it, let’s catalog of few of Barack Obama’s progressive qualifications to be next President of the United States of Imperialism. Well first, there’s his adamant condemnation of the war in Iraq. Why, he was against it from the very start. Of course, that hasn’t prevented him from voting continually to fund the Occupation. But hey, he has to get elected before he can implement all his wonderful changey policies, right? You know, like maintaining a presence of 50,000 to 80,000 troops in Iraq, along with a dozen or so permanent military bases and the world’s largest foreign embassy. Then there is his pledge to escalate the “good war” in Afghanistan. We’ve only killed about 10,000 or so innocent civilians there in the last few years. I won’t feel safe until we can push those numbers much higher. And Pakistan? Sending robot drones out to drop bombs on people is my kind of progressive war. Obama has assured us he’ll continue that policy and actually increase the number of illegal violations of that country’s sovereignty. Right on.

    But let’s not stop there. The list of Oboma’s support for progressive issues is a long one. For instance, he endorsed immunity for the Telecoms. It’s a good thing, too. We can’t have corporations facing legal action or law suits for spying on us. After all, they are only trying to protect us from terrorists. And Barack is a true friend to the Zionist regime in Israel. He’ll do everything in his power to prevent those nasty Iranians from destroying Israel and driving them into the sea. Israel’s apartheid colonization of the West Bank, in direct violation of international law and the Geneva Conventions is inconvenient for the Palestinians. But what the heck. They don’t have much of a Lobby in Washington. And you hardly ever have to read about their suffering, not even in the so-called Progressive media. Why, I don’t think I’ve ever heard anything at all about the suffering of the Palestinian people on Air America. So who needs to worry about them? We can still hear and read non-stop Obamadulation, no matter how bad things may be in Gaza. What’s wrong with that?

    The prospects for the progressive agenda in an Obama administration are bursting out all over. Obama will make sure we don’t have National Health Care. We have to keep our insurance companies in the loop so they can stay strong. And clean coal! Finally an intelligent advocate for that fantasy technology. I was worried that one of the most toxic forms of energy production in operation today might be hindered. Not under an Obama reign. Along with more Nuclear Power plants, which Obama favors, we should be able to stave off the threat of clean energy technologies for years to come. Well, okay, we can throw the environmentalists a few bones, but let’s not get carried away. We need to hold a few promises of a greener world in reserve to toss around during the midterm elections. And we’ve got 2012 to think about.

    Besides, it’s about the economy, stupid. Speaking of which, now that Obama has helped usher in the nearly one trillion dollar handout to the banking industry, we should see prosperity on the horizon any day now. Obama has told us he has great faith in Secretary of the Treasury Paulson and his plan to save the American consumer. Just look at what a fine job Paulson did as Chairman of Goldman Saks? They gave him over half a billion dollars in bonuses and compensation when he left to become our Treasury Secretary, just two years before Goldman Saks went belly up. He must have done some great work for them. Why else would he get paid so much?

    Well, I could go on and on. There are so many reasons for progressives to rally round Obama. Like his support for the death penalty and the Cuban embargo, just to mention two more. But I need to get busy planning tonight’s party in celebration of Colin Powell’s endorsement of our fine, pro-war, pro-corporate, pro-imperialist, pro-Zionist, pro-military-industrial-complex left wing hero. The future has never looked so bright for progressives. Being for Change has really lifted our spirits and bolstered attendance at our campaign rallies. I’m hoping that sometime in the next few days we’ll get Henry Kissinger to sign on with us. What a boon that would be. Like I always say, if your going to support a candidate who doesn’t represent any of the values you believe in, then you can’t have too many bloodthirsty war criminals endorsing him.

    Democracy Now!
    October 21, 2008
    Barack Obama Accepts Endorsement of Colin Powell Despite the Ex-General’s Role in Making the Case for Iraq War

  • Obama elected 44th president
  • DoctornoDoctorno
    Posts: 234
    What to do in case of an Obama or McCain presidency:
    Roll a big fat joint and share it with the one you love...smoke it all the way down as not to waste any.
    Gently take off her clothes, being ever so tender...caress her thighs and buttock. Roll Her over on her stomach, bend her over and then KISS HER ASS she returns that favor.....
  • author said:

    What to do in case of an Obama or McCain presidency:
    Roll a big fat joint and share it with the one you love...smoke it all the way down as not to waste any.
    Gently take off her clothes, being ever so tender...caress her thighs and buttock. Roll Her over on her stomach, bend her over and then KISS HER ASS GOODBYE she returns that favor.....

    DUDE!  8)

    Winston Smith: Look, I hate purity. Hate goodness. I don't want virtue to exist anywhere. I want everyone corrupt.
    Julia: Well, I ought to suit you, then. I'm corrupt to the core.

    (just cause I like the music)  ;)

    Obama flip-flops on pot

  • November 5, 2008
    Obama picks Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel for chief of staff



    How Rahm Emanuel Has Rigged a Pro-War Congress

    Emanuel's War Plan for Democrats
    The Book of Rahm
  • Obama: Iran’s Pursuit of Nukes Is Unacceptable
    November 7, 2008

    At his first press conference in his new status, US President-elect Barack Obama hit out at the Iranian government today, accusing them of “development of a nuclear weapon” and vowing “to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening.”

    The Bush Administration has long accused Iran of having nuclear ambitions, in spite of a National Intelligence Estimate last year which concluded Iran halted any such endeavors in 2003 and an IAEA which has continued to certify that none of the nuclear material for Iran’s civilian nuclear reactor has been diverted to any other use. Israel has likewise continued to insist that they are “convinced” Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb, and has left open the possibility of launching an attack.

    Obama’s comments may have been directed at those of Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak during a visit with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday, intended to reassure a wary Israel that the US hostility toward Iran will not undergo any dramatic changes.

    During the presidential primaries, Obama presented a more conciliatory view towards Iran, cautioning against any talk of attacking Iran and calling for direct talks with the Iranian government. Obama’s latest comments come at a time when Iranian officials seem open to reconciliation.

    President-elect Obama declined to say what form this international effort against Iran would take, saying “we have only one president at a time.” His only comment was that he would move deliberately on how to respond.

    Obama--fresh face for war on Iran
    Barack Obama's top advisers are setting the stage for a military action against Iran over its nuclear program, new reports have revealed.

    While millions of Americans voted for the Democratic candidate believing he would end the war in Iraq and address their pressing economic needs, powerful sections of the American elite swung behind him as a better vehicle to prosecute US economic and strategic interests in the Middle East and Central Asia-including the use of military force against Iran.
  • Iran slams Obama's tough language on nuclear arms
    Nov 08, 2008

    Iran criticized President-elect Barack Obama for the first time Saturday, saying the world needs more than cosmetic changes in American foreign policy.

    The criticism from Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani followed Obama's comment Friday that it is "unacceptable" for Iran to develop nuclear weapons and there should be a concerted international effort to prevent it.

    "Obama can understand that strategic changes in (American) policy are required, not just cosmetic changes," Larijani told state television.

    "This is a step in the wrong direction," he added. "If Americans want to change their situation in the region, they need to send good signals."

    Iran has denied allegations that its nuclear program is aimed at producing weapons.

    Iranians initially welcomed Obama's victory as a triumph over the unpopular policies of President Bush.

    Hard-line Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad congratulated Obama on his win — the first time an Iranian leader has offered such wishes to a U.S. president-elect since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

    Ahmadinejad's message said "nations of the world" expect changes from Obama — mostly that he will change U.S. foreign policy. He claimed U.S. policy was "based on warmongering, occupation, bullying, deception and humiliation, as well as discrimination and unfair relations" and has led to "hatred of all nations and majority of governments toward the U.S. leaders."

    During the campaign, Obama said he was willing to talk directly to Iran about its nuclear program, something the Bush administration has refused to do. He was harshly criticized for that by his rival, U.S. Senator John McCain, and others.

    Asked about Iran at his first news conference since his election on Tuesday, Obama reiterated earlier statements saying he will move deliberately on how to respond to Iran and would not do it in a knee-jerk fashion.

    "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable. And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening," Obama told reporters.

    Iranian state radio said Obama's position was a replay of Bush's hard-line stance toward Tehran. It said this will dampen Iranian expectations for changes in U.S. foreign policy with the new administration.

    The radio warned Obama "will betray the vote of the American people if he fails to bring back rationalism to the White House."


    "Rahm Emanuel - Top reputed black-mailer, extortionist, and arm-twister for the Clinton White House.  About 1991, moved from the Chicago-area, to Arkansas to help conduct Clinton's presidential campaign.  Raised funds reportedly by knowing secret workings of major covert operations of the American CIA.  Such as: HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL and HOUSEHOLD BANK, headquartered in Chicago, successor to CIA's proprietary dope and assassination funding operation, NUGAN HAND BANK.
    General counsel of Nugan Hand as well as Household was former Director of Central Intelligence William Colby (murdered because he knew too much about Rahm Emanuel, the Mossad, and Clinton)."

    "Rahm Emanuel has ostensibly functioned as The Mossad's Deputy Chief for North America. In the past, some of Israeli intelligence's top officials for U.S./Canada, were headquartered in Chicago, operating in part through Bank Leumi."

    "RAHM EMANUEL as former senior Clinton White House advisor was reportedly implicated in various illicit dealings with the Red Chinese penetrating U.S. industrial, financial, and military secrets. A dual citizen, Israel/US, he left the U.S. about 1990 to serve in the Israel Defense Forces, the IDF After leaving the Clinton White House, where he served off and on for some six years, Rahm made a sizeable fortune apparently from the secret Red Chinese dealings to get at U.S. secrets, while Rahm Emanuel was a top official of the investment house, Wasserstein, Perella & Co. Rahm is ostensibly an accomplished participant in "political opposition research", a code name for compiling and using blackmail data."

    "With his dual political loyalty as well, Rahm both supported Clinton publicly while he apparently manipulated him privately using reputed The Mossad controlled sexmate, Monica Lewinsky."