|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Nov 14, 2009 0:24:18 GMT
Beth - I don't ever visit propaganda sites like Salon.com or moveon.org so I'm not familiar with terms invented there like neo-con. What is that suppose to mean?
The video may been constructed of cut and pasted video clips but they were the real Obama and they were his very own words. How could that possibly be misleading?
I'm am honest about admiring Dick Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld. However, I should be clear and say that my admiration is much much greater for Cheney who I consider to be perhaps our best ever VP. Rumsfeld, on the other hand, is someone who I consider to be one of the better Secretaries of Defense. Both of them were much better than any Democrat I can recall.
Your statements about looting the country get zero traction with me. What's that about? Rings no bells. Has no credibility.
I don't know anything about right wing religious fanatics and I certainly hope you don't associate my views with them. I'm an athiest. I surely don't consider them to be mainstream Republicans or to have much influence.
You mentioned Sarah Palin. She's not my favorite politician by a longshot. But do I like here a whole lot more than Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Obama, and the rest of the Democrats. Of course I do. It's a matter of choosing your poison. Sarah is a whole lot less lethal than those Democrats.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Nov 14, 2009 9:52:09 GMT
No may or may not about it. He is not a Muslim. That much is obvious. I don't get what it is you are implying. It seems entirely plausible to think he went there because he was a Christian and appreciated the preaching there.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Nov 14, 2009 9:59:57 GMT
Frankly das, I think people who try to spread this kind of propaganda to stir up fear and hate are beyond scary . . . probably dangerous. Possibly. I tend to see it all as a funny joke. I mean, it must be a joke!! No one could take even a poorly cobbled together mess like this as proof of anything. It's not even thought-provoking. I managed to watch nearly two minutes before falling asleep. I much prefer the conspiracy that JFK was a German from Berlin. After all, he admitted it.
|
|
|
Post by gabriel on Nov 14, 2009 11:03:53 GMT
Even if this video has been modified and going by the comments here I'm guessing it has been, what do you find so scary? So threatening? Obama is not a practising Muslim and even if he was, so what? This sounds like going after JFK because he was Catholic. Well, Obama is black. Deal with it. He's the Pres of the US. He's not gonna send the country to hell because he's black. He's not stupid, no matter what you think about him.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Nov 14, 2009 14:20:32 GMT
All this to-ing and fro-ing about whether Obama is, or is not a Muslim! Surely, this is NOT the issue. The REAL issue is...why should it matter if he is Muslim, or Christian, or a Jeddi knight for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Nov 14, 2009 23:26:35 GMT
Dear Das
As so often, I partly agree with you and partly disagree.
Part of the problem is that our basic political philosophies are rather different which means that even when we do agree it's usually for entirely different reasons.
I'm a libertarian, you're authoritarian; I believe in fairness, you support privilege; I believe in raising people up, you believe in keeping them down.
A classic example is that though we both hate Clinton it's almost certainly for completely different reasons.
To me, Clinton is a war criminal who should be put on trial and hung for what he did to the people of Yugoslavia.
His relentless assault upon civil liberties (such as the 'three strikes' law, the constant use of 'no knock' arrests - frequently leading to licensed government 'death squads' - the total failure on his part to condemn or effectively exert pressure on the IRA, to say nothing of the judicial murders at Ruby Ridge and Waco, make him a complete scumbag in my eyes. He is directly responsible for the murder of relatives of mine during the unjust and illegal war of aggression against the people of Serbia.
To you, he's a man who is a womaniser and financially corrupt (yes, I agree with you on that one and also agree that both character flaws make him unfit to hold high office) but your main objection to him, I think, is the mistaken idea that Clinton is some weird kind of socialist who tried to soak the rich.
The reality is quite different. Clinton filled his administration with Southern Bourbon plutocrats and his government had MORE millionaires in it than Reagan, Bush Senior or Bush Junior did. In fact, it had MORE millionaires in it than any government since the days of Nixon.
Nor is it true that taxes under Clinton were higher than under Bush; in fact, they were LOWER under Clinton. They were also lower in real terms than they had been under both Bush Senior and Reagan.
Now let's turn to Reagan. He actually had LESS millionaires in his government than most administrations.
On the other hand, it's difficult to find much else good to say about him.
He constantly cosied up to terrorists - it's a matter of historical FACT that he:
a) helped the IRA raise funds and obtain weapons to kill people in Britain and Northern Ireland;
b) traded arms to Iran for the US hostages in Tehran;
c) funded and armed the Nicaraguan Contras, lied about it and diverted public funds to try to cover up his terrorism;
d) sold weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein which he was able to use against Western forces as well as against the Iranians;
e) funded and armed the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan;
f) funded and armed Hamas by diverting money and resources through the Mossad because at that time the Israelis were encouraging it as a counterweight to the PLO;
g) funded and armed Cuban terrorists who carried out attacks within the US as well as in Cuba, many of them purely criminal acts given a fake political covering;
Economically, he DELIBERATELY CREATED what was (before Bush Junior) the biggest budget deficit in the history of the United States simply and solely to MANUFACTURE a 'crisis' to give him an excuse to cut funding to poor people.
It's also NOT true that taxes were LOWER under Reagan than under Clinton; actually, they were HIGHER.
Reagan cut income tax (not in a fair way either but simply to reward his corrupt cronies so that the better off benefited and the worse off got an even higher dose of suffering) but he increased indirect taxes which of course always hurt the poor more than the rich!
Reagan's political philosophy was simple and can be summed up in two basic principles.
1 Support terrorism
2 Rob the poor to give to the rich
I'm NOT a socialist; in fact, I hate and despise socialism.
I'm also not a capitalist; capitalism is just as indefensible as socialism.
What I DO support is distributism.
Under socialism, everything is levelled DOWN; under capitalism, fewer and fewer people control more and more of the wealth.
Under distributism, everything is levelled UP and more and more people share in the wealth WITHOUT taking away the wealth that the rich already possess.
As for Cheney and Rumsfeld, they devoted their entire lives to CONSCIOUSLY BETRAYING the people of the United States and the Free World.
They are conscious TRAITORS who - just like Reagan and Clinton - OUGHT to have been put on trial for treason and executed!
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Nov 15, 2009 1:38:40 GMT
Lin - Whoa! You have rather extreme views. I'm glad that my views are more moderate, middle of the road, and non-controversial :-) Just a couple rejoinders. You said, "I'm a libertarian, you're authoritarian; I believe in fairness, you support privilege; I believe in raising people up, you believe in keeping them down." I would not agree with that. I believe in a capitalistic society without much government interference because it provides equal opportunity for people based on ability, energy, and intellect. I want everyone to succeed and enjoy a much much higher standard of living as a result of their own efforts. I don't want the government redistributing their hard earned income. My dislike for Bill Clinton is not based his womanizing, his decisions in Yugoslavia, or his corrupt financial dealings (though I certainly wouldn't applaud him for any of that). My disgust with Clinton is based on his leadership style, political methodology, and power mongering. He was never a President with a compass. That is, he didn't have an agenda of his own, didn't have principles, and didn't prefer truth over lies. Clinton was the 'overnight polling' President. He ran overnight popularity polls on every issue. They he almost always adopted the position that was most popular. It was about gaining and maintaining power for Bill by managing public opinion. He had a permanent staff of spin doctors who he dispatched to the news media on a daily basis. Two who come to mind are Lanny Davis and that reptile James Carville (but there were many others). There is even a best selling book out now on this subject. Here is a link www.tinyurl.com/yztx8tn It is titled: Spin Cycle: Inside the Clinton Propaganda Machine. It explains in detail how the White House and biased news media combined to manipulate the news.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Nov 15, 2009 1:54:36 GMT
Beth - I don't ever visit propaganda sites like Salon.com or moveon.org so I'm not familiar with terms invented there like neo-con. What is that suppose to mean? The video may been constructed of cut and pasted video clips but they were the real Obama and they were his very own words. How could that possibly be misleading? I'm am honest about admiring Dick Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld. However, I should be clear and say that my admiration is much much greater for Cheney who I consider to be perhaps our best ever VP. Rumsfeld, on the other hand, is someone who I consider to be one of the better Secretaries of Defense. Both of them were much better than any Democrat I can recall. Your statements about looting the country get zero traction with me. What's that about? Rings no bells. Has no credibility. I don't know anything about right wing religious fanatics and I certainly hope you don't associate my views with them. I'm an athiest. I surely don't consider them to be mainstream Republicans or to have much influence. You mentioned Sarah Palin. She's not my favorite politician by a longshot. But do I like here a whole lot more than Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Obama, and the rest of the Democrats. Of course I do. It's a matter of choosing your poison. Sarah is a whole lot less lethal than those Democrats. I stand by my post above - absolutely. There's no point in repeating it because it's easily accessible. All this denial sounds like willful ignorance. I'm sure you know full well what I'm talking about, das. There are just a myriad of things you don't want to think about. Here's the neo-con site. Cheney and Rummy are part of the whole along with Wolfowitz and (gasp!) Jeb Bush. Wm. Kristol and Robert Kagan are considered the founders, but I'd be willing to bet good money they are merely the front men. Gary Schmitt (gag) is also mixed up in this cabal. Their goal is global dominance via an agenda of military expansionism - partly to create huge profits for industry favorites, paid for by the American tax-payers. Some of the members (Wolfowitz and Richard Perle at least - probably more) were disciples of the German-Jewish philosopher Leo Stauss - and, in fact, were not Republicans until it turned out they could wrangle their way into the corridors of power with conservative allies. Here's the link - I'm sure you know where to find it, but here it is for anyone else who might like to explore. Project for the New American Century aka Neo-cons R US. This is not conspiracy theory - they are not shy about the project and its aims. If you dig around, you can find various quotes about the PNAC. Read and learn.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Nov 15, 2009 2:02:51 GMT
Beth - in order to come up with such bizarre and ridiculous and just plain wrong conspiracy nonsense you have to be going to whacko far-left websites where 'reality' is a word that they simply don't comprehend.
Frankly, I can't believe that you're really buying into such utter and complete nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Nov 15, 2009 5:23:52 GMT
On this subject? Just that one website - says it all. Did you read there?
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinette on Nov 15, 2009 13:13:07 GMT
Beth - I don't ever visit propaganda sites like Salon.com or moveon.org so I'm not familiar with terms invented there like neo-con. What is that suppose to mean? The video may been constructed of cut and pasted video clips but they were the real Obama and they were his very own words. How could that possibly be misleading? I'm am honest about admiring Dick Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld. However, I should be clear and say that my admiration is much much greater for Cheney who I consider to be perhaps our best ever VP. Rumsfeld, on the other hand, is someone who I consider to be one of the better Secretaries of Defense. Both of them were much better than any Democrat I can recall. Your statements about looting the country get zero traction with me. What's that about? Rings no bells. Has no credibility. I don't know anything about right wing religious fanatics and I certainly hope you don't associate my views with them. I'm an athiest. I surely don't consider them to be mainstream Republicans or to have much influence. You mentioned Sarah Palin. She's not my favorite politician by a longshot. But do I like here a whole lot more than Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Obama, and the rest of the Democrats. Of course I do. It's a matter of choosing your poison. Sarah is a whole lot less lethal than those Democrats. I stand by my post above - absolutely. There's no point in repeating it because it's easily accessible. All this denial sounds like willful ignorance. I'm sure you know full well what I'm talking about, das. There are just a myriad of things you don't want to think about. Here's the neo-con site. Cheney and Rummy are part of the whole along with Wolfowitz and (gasp!) Jeb Bush. Wm. Kristol and Robert Kagan are considered the founders, but I'd be willing to bet good money they are merely the front men. Gary Schmitt (gag) is also mixed up in this cabal. Their goal is global dominance via an agenda of military expansionism - partly to create huge profits for industry favorites, paid for by the American tax-payers. Some of the members (Wolfowitz and Richard Perle at least - probably more) were disciples of the German-Jewish philosopher Leo Stauss - and, in fact, were not Republicans until it turned out they could wrangle their way into the corridors of power with conservative allies. Here's the link - I'm sure you know where to find it, but here it is for anyone else who might like to explore. Project for the New American Century aka Neo-cons R US. This is not conspiracy theory - they are not shy about the project and its aims. If you dig around, you can find various quotes about the PNAC. Read and learn. Dear beth, I'm glad that you know about PNAC! However, this group DOES have conspiracy in it as they fit THIS: con·spir·a·cy (kn-spîr-s) n. pl. con·spir·a·cies 1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act. 2. A group of conspirators. 3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action. 4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas. www.thefreedictionary.com/conspiracyAnyone with ANY heart, compassion, etc., can't deny that PNAC's goals are pure evil. They FIT this definition. I've noticed you have a very closed mind towards conspiracy at times. You emphasize the horrible conspiracy stuff that IS out there. I hate it with a passion and always will! I'm talking about the stuff there's NO proof for: things like space aliens really run our government leaders, etc. Also the stuff like the Jews caused ALL of the 9/11 tragedy! Again, no proof for it plus it's pushed by evil, lying racists. Please realize that the EXPOSURE of PNAC has come from those who believe in a New World Order system, etc. I'm not saying they're the ONLY 1's who have exposed it (that wouldn't be true), but I know of at least 2 who believe in New World Order who have exposed PNAC. I say thank God for that! PNAC needs to be exposed as much as possible. Please don't fall for the lie that ALL conspiracy stuff is crap! There's been at least a few real 1's through history. Note the definitions of conspiracy are a lot simpler than many in our society push. They do that to distract and confuse people.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Nov 16, 2009 0:54:24 GMT
She appears to be saying that the issue is genuine and not simply conspiracy theory imagination.
I think that a lot of conspiracy theories are themselves fostered by groups of this sort for several reasons: a tendency of people to assume others behave like themselves, an 'excuse' if they are caught out to distract attention away from themselves, misdirecting opposition to their agenda into opposition to forces able to control them until either those forces become too weak or they can control them.
So in the USA they use fear of central government that might be able to control them to weaken federal government while they can control individual states. In Europe they use similar tactics to induce fear of political union so that they prevent strong political control and keep it as primarily an economic union favourable to 'business' with little social protection. Worldwide, they preach the UN as an incipient world government (often implying that that is a bad thing in itself without further explanation as to why) so that they can maintain and develop their own control of world economics.
Economics has replaced politics as the true power. Marx saw that coming, perhaps saw rather more to economic power in the past than was actually there. It is something to do with levels of civilisation: once you get technological the power shifts from political to economic. Something similar brought the end of the ancient empires, I suspect it to be development of cavalry and improved sails replacing oars so that long-distance raiding and trading became possible.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Nov 16, 2009 1:58:57 GMT
Retarsed - You quote Karl Marx as if you think he had a brain. He did not.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Nov 16, 2009 2:17:04 GMT
You are God and I claim my $5
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Nov 21, 2009 0:38:02 GMT
Obama's approval rating has now fallen below 50% and the trend is steeply downward. How many more days until we can dump him?
|
|
|
Post by beth on Nov 21, 2009 3:48:42 GMT
Obama's approval rating has now fallen below 50% and the trend is steeply downward. How many more days until we can dump him? Who would "we" replace him with, das? Waiting anxiously for your reply.
|
|
|
Post by june on Nov 21, 2009 7:18:37 GMT
Obama's approval rating has now fallen below 50% and the trend is steeply downward. How many more days until we can dump him? Who would "we" replace him with, das? Waiting anxiously for your reply. sexy Sarah P! Come on America you owe the world a laugh ;D
|
|
|
Post by alanseago on Nov 21, 2009 7:43:43 GMT
Palin is too busy watching the Russians from her back yard.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Nov 21, 2009 17:28:50 GMT
I though so, das - you have no answer. You think the world would laugh at Palin? I think the world - except for a modest number of dim-wits in the U.S.- would be collectively horrified. Good way to turn the question around, though. At this point, Obama is the best for the job. Your alternatives would be Biden or Pelosi because they are next in line. Sometimes I don't believe you righties think these things through.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Nov 21, 2009 17:38:52 GMT
Sometimes people laugh when they OUGHT to be horrified; sometimes they're horrified when they ought to laugh.
People laughed at Reagan and even at Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky fiasco but the sad truth is that the humour covered up the fact that both men were disastrous Presidents and that both set out to destroy the country they supposedly governed.
As for Obama, he's only an amateur in comparison with Reagan, Clinton, Nixon, Eisenhower, Coolidge, Harding, and Wilson.
|
|