Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Home
Anime Index
Icefall's Recommended
Anime Store
Message Boards

Anime Download
Anime Fanart
Anime Fanfics
Anime Images
Anime Movie Clips
Anime mp3's
Anime Ratings
Anime Wallpaper

Anime Links
Free Email
Check My Email

Link to this site

August 28, 2014, 05:10:01 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
News: Just upgraded to the newest SMF. If you have any problems send me a PM - Ice.
 
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Politicking  (Read 3966 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Derillion
just a guy.
Administrator
Brutal Gladiator
*****
Posts: 3902



View Profile
« on: September 12, 2008, 11:41:54 AM »

So I wrote the below in response the number of email I receive every day either smearing McCain or Obama. I haven't sent it out yet, because I wanted to get some opinions on it before I do. So please give it a read and let me know what you think...


I feel the American people nowadays are being misled with smoke and mirrors, and smear campaigns to believe that when they are choosing from our 2 party system that they are truly making a choice.

I am not a Democrat, I am not a Republican.

I have no cute pictures or funny jabs at a particular political party to make my point, just logical arguments.

I am a Constitutionalist and Libertarian.
For those of you who don’t know what these are let me share.

Constitutionalist: A belief that government should be governed by the Constitutional principles. And nothing more.
Libertarian:  A believer in a political doctrine that emphasizes individual liberty.

In other words I am for following the constitution and not infringing on our personal liberties.

Over the past 10-20 years the differences between the Republican and Democrat parties has shrunk to an almost
imaginary line. Neither party has the courage or guts to really shake this country up and fix the problems we have.


To me the most important issues facing Americans today are:
Social Policies
Economy
Foreign Policy
Trouncing of our Civil Liberties


Our Social Policies in this country have gotten out of hand. Billions and Billions of dollars are spent every year on these unfair Social Policies.
I have never met an American who thinks Welfare, Social Security, No Child Left Behind, War on Drugs or any other Social Policy was a good idea…
And who pays the most for these Social Policies? Not the poor… they are reaping the benefits. Not the rich… the rich only get richer. It is us, the middle class, being robbed of our hard earned cash to support a system that does not work.
Traditionally Social Policies were taken care of by the church and other do-gooders, I propose a shift back to this.
We used to be a capitalist country, and now that term has a negative connotation. But as a capitalist country we were stronger than we ever were.
Socialism, historically, always fails… and always destroys the middle class until all you have are the very rich and the very poor. And as we move further and further in that direction we all feel in our wallets that this is true.
Neither the Republican nor the Democrat party talk about doing away with these institutions. They both talk about more social reforms.

Our economy is in shambles. Taxes are being increased, the value of the dollar is now less than a Canadian dollar.
Why? Because of the Federal Reserve System. Not many people know this, but the Federal Reserve isn’t federal at all.
It is a private company that prints and then sells the dollar to the government at interest. So for example if we ask the Federal Reserve to print $1 for us, we now owe the Federal Reserve $1.25 (not real numbers, just an example).
The Federal Reserve answers to no one. They don’t have to share their motives or reasonings with anyone, not even the Federal Government.
So in order to pay this debt the government instituted a Federal Income Tax. The 35% of your income that you pay in Income Tax goes towards paying the Interest to the Federal Reserve. So 35% of your money isn’t going towards making America better, it goes towards paying for the money that we earn.
From a constitutional standpoint the income tax is completely unconstitutional. People cite the 16th Amendment, but that was never fully ratified.
The Federal Reserve was only created in 1913, and has been slowly bleeding us dry ever since. Woodrow Wilson was the president in power who handed over the printing of our money to these International Bankers.
And after he did, he regretted it saying,
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

And not surprisingly neither the Democrats nor Republicans even mentioning getting rid of this slavery driven machine.

We need to move back to the traditional Republican view on foreign policy that has escaped the party.
Traditionally Republicans were commited to a strong National Defense. This is a view I can get behind.
We should not be policing the world, we should not be Nation Building.
More importantly We the American People should not be paying our hard earned money and committing our children to support this kind of behavior.
Presently neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are talking about changing our Foreign policies.
Sure, it may seem like it.
But Obama isn’t talking about bringing anyone home, he is talking about shifting our focus to another country.
And McCain is talking about committing 10 generations of our youth to our current cause.
Meanwhile this policy of interference is what is causing these problems in the first place.

Firstly a definition of Civil Liberty.
Civil Liberty: freedoms that protect the individual from the government. Civil liberties set limits for government so that it cannot abuse its power and interfere with the lives of the citizens.
We should never sacrifice our civil liberties for the sake of security… because all we lose is our freedom.
Here are some liberties that have been taken from us by the Federal Government:
Right to Own Property (With Property Tax  the Government can put a lien on your property at any time, so you never truly own your land)
Right to Bear Arms (It may appear that we do, but why can’t Airlines allow their pilots to carry firearms? Because the Government won’t let them. Ron Paul once said "If terrorists knew that every pilot had a gun in the cockpit, they wouldn't have done it" and he is 100% right)


And the rest of our liberties were effectively crippled by the The Patriot Act:
Freedom of Speech
Due Process
Fair Trial
Privacy

All gone. If the government doesn’t like what you’re saying, they can shut you up instantly by seizing you from wherever and shipping you off without notifying anyone at all.
And scarily enough neither the Republicans nor Democrats want to relinquish any of this power the Federal Government accumulated with The Patriot Act.

As I said earlier the Republicrats aren’t offering any kind of real change. Just the status quo, with tiny insignificant twists.

The choice of voting for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.
Don’t vote for an Obamination or for a McCan’t (okay so I added in two jabs).
Make your vote truly count and vote for someone who truly stands for what you believe in.


So who will I be voting for?
Ron Paul
Even though he withdrew from the race I will still be writing him in.
He ran this year as a Republican, but previously belonged to the Libertarian Party.
He was swept under the rug by the media and by the Republican Party because they were afraid that his views might be contagious (and they are) and undermine the power they are trying to accumulate.
He was the only candidate who made any sense.

All of the views that I’ve talked about, Ron Paul addresses and has legitimate solutions for.

Watch this hour long video to really get a sense of what Ron Paul believes in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg


We have the best constitution of any country. If the constitution was followed the way our Forefathers intended, our country could go back to the things that made it great.

Join the Ron Paul Revolution!
Join the Campaign for Liberty!
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/
Logged


it also says you were adopted.
so that's funny too.
Lady Macbeth
MODel Citizen
The ModHand
Brutal Gladiator
*****
Posts: 6421



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: September 13, 2008, 03:46:55 AM »

I think it's a great response. You back up your views with coherant arguments and make a solid case for your voting preferences. Your tone is somewhat aggrieved but not insulting. I doubt anyone who receives this would be angry about it (and if they are, maybe you should consider blocking their e-mails...:p ).

Are you sending this to everyone who sends you political tripe?
Logged
marka
freakY minioN gaL
Brutal Gladiator
*****
Posts: 1462



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: September 15, 2008, 09:53:37 AM »

Not sure what kind of commentary you want, Derillion. I think this is a well-written piece overall, but I take issue with certain content. For instance:

Constitutional principles are subject to interpretation. They aren't "Dick sees Jane" modes of thought.

That shrinking demarcation between parties is not absolute, and some of it is media distortion. The Republicans have shown they will do whatever necessary to take control of this country by whatever means. Democrats have wimped out, especially in the past eight years. That does not make them the same. Bush declared himself a centrist in 2000; it was bullshit but helped the GOP. This is no defense of a two-party system. I don't believe that is what was intended for this country. The Electoral College reinforces this problem, IMO. I don't think we will ever begin to approach a true, viable multiparty system unless we switch to the popular vote method of determining the victor.  

Some social programs are necessary. Without Social Security, there would be many more problems at hand. I agree many programs are badly thought out and implemented; plus we've just had a president in the White House who doesn't understand the meaning of "veto." That doesn't make the use of programs, as a practical method, wrong. I know people who have needed the help of welfare for short periods of time, who got themselves off of it themselves. But that assistance was vital. It does nothing for society to have people living in dire straits with no help and guidance. (There was a reason FDR was a great president.) Saying churches used to help them and should again is no guarantee they will; such an approach assumes churches in even the worst neighborhoods would have the means to deal with the full weight of some mighty big problems. (And assumes those churches are full of church-goers--not necessarily the case.) Moreover, if one's government doesn't care enough to help its people, it sends a piss-poor message and raises the question of why should the individual care. Something like Welfare is a tiny part of the budget; now, if you look at CORPORATE welfare, you get a different story ... and corporate welfare is not a social program.  

Whether capitalism has a negative connotation or not (and I'm not sure that it does), this country sure isn't socialist. In other words, it's not socialism that's ripping up the middle class.

The value of the dollar is now less not primarily because of the Fed. When you get an unnecessary war like Iraq and pour billions into it, when you allow banks to hand out mortgages like candy to anyone, when you have a president who never vetoes any program that comes across his desk ... you get problems. Which is not to say the Federal Reserve situation is comfortable. But IMO blaming the current situation on it is sort of simplistic. :p

The US is a global superpower and can't ignore the rest of the world. I think we've made many mistakes re foreign policy, particularly re Israel and the Middle East. We made them in Southeast Asia too. We did strange things with half good intentions in the 20th century, particularly the latter half. We took on ourselves the leftover problems and sins of European colonialism. It was stupid, and in a nutshell, some people found it lucrative and the US has been sold down the river by opportunists ever since.

The right to bear arms is fine unless you live in a neighborhood like mine when somebody else's free-for-all right would force ME to do something I DON'T want to do. Which is bear arms. I want my liberty too--a life without needing a gun. So it cuts both ways. And again, is not simple to solve across the spectrum of possibilities in this country. Not every place in the US is the same.

A vote for Ron Paul is a wasted vote in a practical way. There IS a difference between McCain and Obama. Of course, as it's more likely McCain voters would go over to Ron Paul, YES! VOTE FOR RON PAUL. So Obama, who is highly distinct from McCain and offers some hope for America, can win. And by the way, the country he wants to shift focus to is Afghanistan, not just "another country."

In short, Libertarianism would be fine if human nature were not a factor in our daily lives. Good idea, but idealistic and impractical in my book. At its base, it assumes society is composed of individuals who are willing to be responsible citizens and who are capable of self-reliance. In the real world, that just ain't the case.

All that said, I can sympathize with why you feel as you do. My best friend in the girl department is a raving Libertarian. We have interesting arguments. We come from pretty different backgrounds, which feed our differing perspectives. We've often remarked there are many Americas in the United States of America, as ****genized as it may seem on the surface. Smiley
« Last Edit: September 15, 2008, 09:57:24 AM by marka » Logged
Derillion
just a guy.
Administrator
Brutal Gladiator
*****
Posts: 3902



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: September 15, 2008, 11:41:37 AM »

Thanks ladies! Exactly the kind of feedback I wanted Smiley

Marka, you are definitely right about the popular vote... without it we are not a true democracy... but I don't think that will ever happen.

See I agree that there should maybe be social programs. But I feel they should be run on the state level. Not on the federal level. The Federal Government's job imo is strictly to defend our country from foreign and domestic threats, and nothing more. All of the other issues should be  handled on the state level.

The original concept for the US was just this. The federal government would be very small and just handle defense and other small things. And Social policies and laws would mostly come from the state level. This way it allows the people to decide what goes on in their particular state and provide diversity between states. Right now the laws between states are almost exactly the same leaving no differences.

For example if smoking pot is your thing, maybe Colorado would allow it, and pot smokers would then know that Colorado would be a good place for them to live. And Texans love their guns so they could have looser gun control laws.
If NY wanted to implement a welfare system then they would have the right to, and residents of that state would know that they would be subject to taxation to support it.

When the federal Government gets involved in these kinds of decisions it bloats. It uses up more money then it should and is completely unmanagable.

I was overstating when I said we were Socialist... I was more projecting into the future that if we don't reign in the federal spending on these social policies they are going to cause issues.

As for the Fed Reserve (which isn't federal, they are a company that makes our money and determines interest rates), I feel that this was was directly influenced by them. They love these kinds of things because it is them, the international bankers, that profit from wars. GWB didn't need approval from congress to start his little party in the desert. But he did need approval of the Federal Reserve. Without their approval they don't print the money or allow the debt to be created to fund it. Plus without approval from them other countries won't lend us money because they would never get paid.

I don't explain it as well as it is presented in other places. If you're interested please check out this video and the rest in the series. (maybe 30-40 min total)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dmPchuXIXQ

As for the right to bear arms, like I said it would be handled at the state level. So if not bearing arms was one of your beliefs, you would simply move to a state where it wasn't legal (under the perfect system that is).

And as for the difference between McCain and Obama... I stand by my belief that there is no difference. The differences are superficial. As for moving troops into Afghanistan being better than Iraq, I ask "Why?" Seems like more unnecessary war and killing, with no direct benefit.

And yes Libertarianism is an idealistic view... but I believe in it and that it could succeed with the correct people at its head.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2008, 11:44:31 AM by Derillion » Logged


it also says you were adopted.
so that's funny too.
marka
freakY minioN gaL
Brutal Gladiator
*****
Posts: 1462



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: September 15, 2008, 02:10:17 PM »

The state level argument is a good one; and actually, right now states do have varying degrees of difference in terms of laws, procedures, and so forth. (Some laws are quite different from state to state.) That is simply part of the Constitutional setup in this country. The problem with leaving everything to the states is you can end up with a "shifting burden" situation; we can move between states freely. The burden of poverty in one state could end up ignored; demographic shifting to another state could tank the resources for its social programs. To some extent, this kind of thing already exists; but it would get worse without a federal umbrella. Or so it seems to me.

Food for thought, though. Smiley

On the other hand, I don't really get your perceptions of McCain and Obama. For instance, if you think McCain and Obama are the same, consider the fact that one of McCain's chief advisors is Randy Scheunemann; another top advisor is Robert Kagan. They help to head the neocon think tank Project for a New American Century. The PNAC has officially been around since 1997, but the forces behind it have been around much longer, and were pushing for an Iraq invasion in the early 90s. (Fortunately the senior Bush was against that.) Some of the main men connected? Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld ... many of the original architects of our current war in Iraq. The agenda of this group? Basically nation building ... in our image. In a word, global military domination starting with the Middle East. If things had not gone wrong in Iraq, we'd probably have manufactured a situation with Syria or Iran or somebody else in the Middle East. Many of these guys are oil-connected. They have had a major influence on the course of events in the 2000s.

The PNAC is for things like a ultra-major defense spending; they're also for things like control of the Internet and development of new forms of nuclear weapons. And there was and is that despicable thing The Patriot Act, which you mention. (The PNAC makes no bones about this shit ... they're pretty direct in their aims and will profess them ... yet few in the national media have really spoken about these people. It's scary, really.)

To my mind, if only McCain's links to PNAC distinguished him from Obama, that would be enough to set him worlds apart from Obama.

Re why Afghanistan. Well, you said you were for national defense. Remember Bin Laden? The Taliban? All that? It does fall into the category of national defense. Myself, I don't know what to think about that at this point. Except that everything in Afghanistan has really gotten screwed up since we invaded Iraq. Ugh.

In any case, this is a fun discussion, even if the reality of the problems under discussion is entirely frustrating. I'll check out that vid on the Fed. Thanks.
 
Wonder what other folks here think ... Smiley
Logged
Jeff B
.:ORBLITERATED:.
Brutal Gladiator
*****
Posts: 3196


ffffffffuuuuuu


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: September 15, 2008, 02:43:24 PM »

i've flirted with the ideas of libertarianism, and this quote sums up my feelings nicely:

Quote
"Here is my final point. About drugs, about alcohol, about pornography and smoking and everything else. What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body – as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?" - Bill Hicks


but on the whole, libertarianism is too right-leaning for me, and while definitely NOT a democrat i'm a pretty staunch liberal.

as far as politics goes, my opinion on the matter at hand tends to piss people off, so i apologize in advance, Der.  here it goes: voting for a 3rd party is a waste.  its a sad, sad thing but its the truth.  our political system is broken, or maybe it was never meant to work the way we are led to believe it is.  either way, like it or not, we are in a strictly two party system and any talk of a 3rd party actually getting noticed and winning is a pipe dream and cosmic impossibility.

this is why i say its sad.  i'm all about idealism, wanting to make your opinion heard by voting for who you most closely align with.  it just doesn't work like that.  politics is a game, a game that unfortunately the GOP is EXTREMELY good at winning.  they will sell our liberties and capitalize on the collective sheep-ness of 90% of the population, play to their heartstrings and win almost every time.  it is a proven formula and it works, no doubt.

Quote
"I'll show you politics in America right here, 'I believe the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'Well, I believe the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding up both puppets! 'Go back to bed, America, your government is in control. Here's Love Connection, watch this and get fat and stupid. By the way, keep drinking beer you fuckin' morons.'" - Bill Hicks


but still, its a game.  mccain and obama know this, and i get the feeling from obama that he isn't a fan of politics like this.  in my opinion the difference between obama and mccain is that obama seems to honestly believe in the change that he is championing, while everything mccain says smacks of playing to his base, just to get votes.  mccain is not as religious or as right-winged as he'd like us to think, which really pisses me off.  i liked mccain back in the early 2000's when he was the only republican worth admiring, but when he starting selling out and being a bush crony my opinion of him went down the drain.  obama on the other hand, has seemed very reluctant to resort to dirty politics, and only does it because he HAS to when his opponent is mccain.

so just to recap: obama truly believes what he's saying and has to compromise because he knows he has to PLAY THE GAME, whereas mccain doesn't believe ANYTHING he is saying because its all bullshit to win the election, figure everything else out later.  i know they both want to win, but when it comes down to it mccain is just a sellout.  i can't respect someone who will compromise their core values and beliefs for political gain..silly i know (every politician has to do it to some degree) and another reason why our system is broken.

back to 3rd parties:  based on the aforementioned game to be won, voting for a 3rd party is a waste.  knowing how broken the system is, i couldn't vote for a 3rd party.  it sounds pretty stupid of me to say things are broken and it sounds like i'm unwilling to work towards fixing them, but that isn't true.  i just know that as idealistic as we want to be it LITERALLY will not matter, any time soon.  the media will always always ALWAYS edge out the longshot candidate and it will be a 2 party system until very drastic changes are taken.

all that being said, i believe in obama and what he stands for.  he isn't your average politician even if he has to do things that average politicians do.  this isn't the case like in 2004 where kerry was simply the lesser of two evils...this is completely different.  he has the momentum and balls to make a positive change, a change that for the absolute life of me i cannot see mccain or palin making.  and by positive, i'm not expecting obama to change the world...but some positive progress in the opposite direction to the one we've been going in the past 8 years would be a very welcome sigh of relief.
Logged

------------------------------


Derillion
just a guy.
Administrator
Brutal Gladiator
*****
Posts: 3902



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: September 16, 2008, 07:47:33 AM »

I definitely agree with both of you. There is a difference between the 2 in theory. But I feel that they don't have the power to do anything that the true government(the international bankers) doesn't want. This quote was perfect Jeff, and I definitely subscribe to this belief.
Quote
"I'll show you politics in America right here, 'I believe the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'Well, I believe the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding up both puppets! 'Go back to bed, America, your government is in control. Here's Love Connection, watch this and get fat and stupid. By the way, keep drinking beer you fuckin' morons.'" - Bill Hicks


You are definietly right about the PNAC... they link to other groups also who are backed by the Rockfellers, Morgans, the other International Bankers, and now the head of every major media company. The groups name is the Council on Foreign Relations (or the CFR). All of the major candidates belong to this group. The Cheneys and Bushes all sit on the board for it, but the clintons, obama, mccain, and all the other mojor candidates are members. Don't you find it ironic that the PNAC founder is backing Obama?

5 minute video on the CFR.... extremely interesting stuff:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPlvdSQ6cAM

And as for the Taliban, Bin Laden, and the rest of the "terrorists." Believe it or not Bin Laden was never officially charged with 911 by the fbi due to not enough evidence.
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

But if it was terrorists that did do 911 it was strictly because of our underhandedness in the middle east. We feed guns to everyone and see who kills each other. It has been our MO for years. Then we place someone in power in that country that we think we can control. They get out of control and we have to go back in and get them. Saddam Hussein was our guy. We put him in power. Along with many many other dictators. So I feel more violence isn't the answer to the middle east. It is peace, diplomacy, free trade, and openly staying out of their business with them that will stop a lot of these issues. It's not because they "Hate Freedom" or any other childish reason like that. It is the way our government treats them. If you listen to them, those are the reasons they state.


And I understand completely, Jeff, when you say it is a waste to vote for a third party. But to me it is against my beliefs to vote for someone when I feel like the same puppet master is pulling both their strings. They offer no real change, just the status quo with a smile.

Watch Obama squirm when asked about the CFR:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbV8duHcXX0

And I believe Obamas championing of change is all a facade. He wants us to believe things are going to get better under his control. And I'm sure they will. The real government wants things to get just a little better so we can feel better as Americans. But the amount Obama makes better is all calculated. Things will get better enough that the majority of people will just sit back and breathe a sigh of relief and have another Beer. But for the 30 steps forward the Government took forward, they will take only 2 steps back. They will repeat this process in the next President or 2 until all of our freedoms are taken away so gradually that we barely notice.

Right now the CFR is openly going for a one world government. By 2010 they want to have the NAU(North American Union) partially in place. Which is a union of Mexico, US, and Canada much like the European Union. They also want a unified currency called the Amero. Now right now people say this is a crazy idea that will never happen. But all we need is a depression that lasts a little while and then as a people we would accept the new currency with open arms.

North American Union here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4axRYJymHI

watch about the amero here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hiPrsc9g98

With the European Union, and then the NAU... all we need to do is get the middle east in a position to have a union and then the world is in a perfect position to join the unions into a One World Union. Which I believe is the real reason we are nation bulding and fully involved in the middle east.

Quote
The problem with leaving everything to the states is you can end up with a "shifting burden" situation; we can move between states freely. The burden of poverty in one state could end up ignored; demographic shifting to another state could tank the resources for its social programs. To some extent, this kind of thing already exists; but it would get worse without a federal umbrella. Or so it seems to me.


And that is why it would have to be set up correctly for things like this not to happen.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2008, 09:16:57 AM by Derillion » Logged


it also says you were adopted.
so that's funny too.
marka
freakY minioN gaL
Brutal Gladiator
*****
Posts: 1462



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: September 16, 2008, 03:20:47 PM »

Better audio on this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEnuhSScLgc&feature=related

The whole philosophy of the NAU runs diametrically counter to everything the PNAC is about. Like oil and water. Unite Mexico, Canada, and the US, with the US losing sovereignty? If the PNAC has ties to it, it's probably to subvert the organization. (But, of course, you never know. Especially if big money is involved, and it sounds like it would be.)  

Council on Foreign Relations ... :eek. That's a different matter. It certainly isn't a neocon bastion, and I don't see anyone listed on the board who is directly linked to the PNAC. The CFR was founded in 1921, is supposedly nonpartisan and "takes no institutional positions on matters of policy." Now what people say and what they do can be two different things. But this does ostensibly differ from a think tank who outright declares US global sovereignty as their goal and managed to infest a presidential cabinet and start implementing their philosophy.

However, from what I've read about the CFR since you posted this ... getting basic info ... holy zod. Well, doesn't that also explain a lot. Sad On one hand, the idea of some very powerful people in banking, corporations, politics, and media (Christ, Tom Brokaw is on their board!) holding "informative discussions" seems practical. But of course, you know there's got to be more to it.

There's tons of over-reactive bullshit about the CFR online; but the organization does raise some serious questions. Interestingly, Pres John Kennedy supposedly was not even a member, although many other presidents have been ... Eisenhower before him ... from Nixon right through to now. *writes in notebook, "another reason to think the Kennedy assassination was a conspiracy"* ... only half-joking there.

Certain aspects about the CFR are very disturbing. For instance, they supposedly had an influence on Jimmy Carter's decision to allow the Shah of Iran to come to the US for medical treatment, which precipitated the 1970s hostage crisis. Other aspects, disturbing but I don't know. Such as contributing major ideas to the post-WWI shape of Europe. Yeah, right. JP Morgan ... the Rockefellers ..  Hmmmm.

Richard Haass, its president, is disturbing ... among other things, he was special assistant to the senior Bush and ... this is scary ... the NSC senior director for Near East and South Asian Affairs. Then again, he was special envoy to Northern Ireland, and an advisor to Colin Powell during Desert Storm. And I can't see him as being influenced by the PNAC, though, as he's for things like the Kyoto Protocol and feels that the old notion of state sovereignty must be altered in a global environment (which is true, but also a coin with two distinct sides). On one hand, somebody like him has a terrific lot of experience that, were I president, I'd definitely want to mine. Find out about. The problem is what might come with that.

One thing about the CFR is that it is a truly strange salad of folks across a vast spectrum of political philosophy and experience, from Madeleine Albright (a board member), to Pres Clinton (a member) to David Rubenstein (who divulged that Dubya was let go as a board member because all he did was tell dirty jokes, contributing nothing) to Michael Moskow (8th pres of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago) to Robert Kagan--only a member but still, he IS cofounder of the PNAC--to (bonk) Angelina Jolie.

Here is a roster someone compiled in 2006 ... http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/CFRMembers.html#M ... Obama doesn't show up on it, but it's old; McCain does.

The one thing I'd say for CFR, it unites people of truly opposing views in an open forum; but its corporate relations are frightful, and there are things about it that remain closed to public scrutiny. So far, in checking the backgrounds of a few of its board members, you find one fairly consistent feature: their "depth" ... these seem people with broad connections, with their fingers into all sorts of places. For instance, checking into Peter Ackerman, you find he's the founding chair of the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict. Sounds good (to me). Then you find he's a managing director of Rockport Capital Incorporated. Hmmm. Not so good. Then he's also on the board of trustee of Freedom House ... a toss-up (Eleanor Roosevelt was a founder of that).

I don't know if Obama became a CFR member or not since 2006; gotta look around. But the CFR's journal, Foreign Relations, did run an article by him (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401-p0/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html). McCain is a member. Ron Paul claims he isn't a member, but he evidently had no problem letting the CFR interview him  (http://www.cfr.org/publication/17082/).

You wonder, is Ron Paul not a member because they don't want him?  

It could be a situation where if you're running for president and have some experience, you figure you can reach some prominent people and get info/connections via the CFR ... it could be that membership signals you'll "play ball" (not so good). I don't know. I don't like it AT ALL, tho.  

This whole subject makes my mind reel. Thank you for mentioning it.

Man, where the FUCK is the media on shit like this ... probably at their "master's" house, in a CFR meeting. :angry
Logged
Jeff B
.:ORBLITERATED:.
Brutal Gladiator
*****
Posts: 3196


ffffffffuuuuuu


View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 16, 2008, 05:17:03 PM »

thats why i think it is so funny and goddamn maddening that the republicans talk about the 'biased news media' and the 'liberal bias' and all of that malarkey.  its not a bias of left or right, its a bias of we only hear what they see fit to let us know.

the worst part is that while i see the writing so CLEARLY on the wall, the majority of people either don't care or actually buy the liberal bias.  too stupid to realize that their republican overlords have figured out how to manipulate them via the news media, and trick them into thinking its the enemy doing it instead!

more bill hicks quotes because i feel like it

Quote

"Go back to bed, America! Your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed, America. Your government is in control again. Here. Here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up. Go back to bed, America. Here is American Gladiators. Here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom. Here you go, America! You are free to do what we tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!"


Quote
I was in Nashville, Tennesee last year. After the show I went to a Waffle House. I'm not proud of it, I was hungry. And I'm alone, I'm eating and I'm reading a book, right? Waitress walks over to me: "  Hey, whatchoo readin' for?"

Isn't that the weirdest fucking question you've ever heard? Not what am I readING, but what am I reading *for*? Well, godammit, ya stumped me! Why do I read? Well... hmmm... I dunno... I guess I read for a lot of reasons, and the main one is so I don't end up being a fucking waffle waitress.
Logged

------------------------------


marka
freakY minioN gaL
Brutal Gladiator
*****
Posts: 1462



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: September 16, 2008, 08:20:15 PM »

:lol Those quotes are great ... altho also scary.

I was ranting about the CFR to a friend of mine with some experience in the news media, and he mentioned the Bilderberg Group. I'd never heard of them at all. (At least I'd heard of the CFR, just didn't realize what they were about ... that they were an independent group.)

Here's a link about THOSE guys ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4290944.stm

I want my spaceship to a desert planet RIGHT now, please.
Logged
Derillion
just a guy.
Administrator
Brutal Gladiator
*****
Posts: 3902



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: September 19, 2008, 05:35:51 AM »

Thanks for that interview marka... hadn't seen that one before...


Here is an editorial I found interesting:
Quote
     Why Obama Is Wrong

by William S.
Lind




A few weeks ago I wrote a column explaining why Senator John McCain is wrong on Iraq. In contrast, Senator Barack Obama is largely right on Iraq. Whether he would follow through on his plan for withdrawing U.S. troops is another question. The Democratic foreign policy establishment is no less Wilsonian than its Republican counterpart, and once it has used anti-war voters to gain power it will want to show them the door as soon as it dares.


But if Obama is right on Iraq, he is wrong on Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran. His prescriptions for each are so close to the policies of the Bush administration that if McCain is McBush, Obama appears to be O’Bush. It seems many voters’ desire to climb up out of the Bush league altogether is doomed to frustration.


On Afghanistan, Obama wants to send in more troops and win the war. But more troops doing what U.S. troops now do – fighting the Pashtun and calling in airstrikes on anything that moves – guarantee we will lose the war. As was the case in Iraq, the first necessary step is to change what our troops are doing. From what I have seen, Obama has said nothing on that score, probably because his position on Afghanistan is mere posturing intended to show he will be "tough on terrorism.
"

Obama’s position on Pakistan is even more dangerous. In August of 2007, Obama called for direct U.S. military action in Pakistan, with or without Pakistani approval. Speaking to the Woodrow Wilson Center, he said, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will." President Bush took Senator Obama’s recommendation this past July, authorizing such actions.


This is an example of the classic strategic error of sacrificing a more important goal to one of lesser importance. Not even outright defeat in Afghanistan would do America’s interests as much damage as would the disintegration of the Pakistani state and the transformation of Pakistan into another stateless region. The state of Pakistan is already dangerously fragile, and actions such as cross-border raids by American troops will diminish its legitimacy further. No government that cannot defend its sovereignty will last. Ironically, if Pakistan collapses, so does our position in Afghanistan, because our main logistics line will be cut. In effect, Obama wants to hand al-Qaeda and the Taliban a double victory.


In June of this year, Obama spoke to the annual AIPAC conference.
What he said there about Iran put him once again firmly in the Bush camp:

As President, I will use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon….


There should be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action to defend our security and our ally Israel. Do not be confused.


Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation. If we must use military force, we are more likely to succeed and have more support at home and abroad if we have exhausted our diplomatic options. That is the change we need in our policy.


In other words, the change we need in our policy is to offer a bit more diplomatic kabuki before we attack Iran.


As I have said repeatedly and will keep on saying, an attack on Iran could cost us the whole army we have in Iraq. It could set the region on fire, from Afghanistan to the Nile. It could create an oil crisis with severe economic consequences at a time when the world economy is tottering. It is, in short, madness. But it is also what Obama promised AIPAC.


Here we see the central reality of American politics shining through the smoke and mirrors. America has a one-party system. That party is the Establishment Party, and its internal disagreements are minor. Both McCain and Obama are Establishment Party candidates. They agree America must be a world-controlling empire. Both men are Wilsonians, believing we must re-make other countries and cultures in our own image. Neither man conceives any real limits, political, financial, military or moral, on American power. McCain and Obama vie only in determining which can drink more deeply from the poisoned well of hubris, around which, unremarked, lie the bones of every previous world power.


Such is the "choice" the American people get in November.

September 18, 2008

William Lind, expressing his own personal opinion, is Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation.


Copyright © 2008 William S.
Lind
Logged


it also says you were adopted.
so that's funny too.
marka
freakY minioN gaL
Brutal Gladiator
*****
Posts: 1462



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: September 23, 2008, 09:56:50 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by Jeff B
thats why i think it is so funny and goddamn maddening that the republicans talk about the 'biased news media' and the 'liberal bias' and all of that malarkey.  its not a bias of left or right, its a bias of we only hear what they see fit to let us know.

the worst part is that while i see the writing so CLEARLY on the wall, the majority of people either don't care or actually buy the liberal bias.  too stupid to realize that their republican overlords have figured out how to manipulate them via the news media, and trick them into thinking its the enemy doing it instead!


Thought you might find this interesting ... evidently the "liberal biased media" didn't find this interesting enough to make a big news story of it: http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/alaska-women-reject-palin-rally-is-huge/

Somebody I know with ties to Denali (Alaska) emailed me the info. I guess if you're familiar with Alaska, this is a pretty big gathering.

Hope everybody's going to watch the debate on Friday night (Sept 26) ... although considering this thread, I wish Ron Paul were debating too. Smiley (Altho he isn't a formal candidate ...)

-----

Der, I've been reading about Ron Paul at various sites. It seems he has a complicated history with the Republican Party. His Liberty Caucus is sort of hmmmm. Also, he did vote to authorize force in Afghanistan (which you seem to be against). He's an interesting guy, but, after much thought, despite the CFR, there's no way I'm not voting for Obama. The reality is, it's gonna be McCain or Obama, and I still think there are big differences between them. I sure would love to ask Obama about the CFR, tho. That whole thing still really pisses me off. I also would love one direct, clear rationalization from him on why it is that Israel remains so paramount an ally. Myself, I know few Americans who believe we as a nation have gained anything but problems from that alliance or the billions we've pumped into it.
Logged
Jeff B
.:ORBLITERATED:.
Brutal Gladiator
*****
Posts: 3196


ffffffffuuuuuu


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 23, 2008, 10:46:16 AM »

looks good marka...i'll read it when i'm at home later

here are a couple other good articles:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5842629&page=1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/15/AR2008091502406.html?referrer=digg

man, we really don't need mccain making economic decisions in these troubled times.
Logged

------------------------------


marka
freakY minioN gaL
Brutal Gladiator
*****
Posts: 1462



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: September 23, 2008, 01:35:24 PM »

It seems as if many folks who used to like McCain and respect him as a maverick are unhappy with his recent behavior and say it's uncharacteristic of him.

Kind of makes you wonder ...

*cues eerie music*
Logged
Jeff B
.:ORBLITERATED:.
Brutal Gladiator
*****
Posts: 3196


ffffffffuuuuuu


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: September 23, 2008, 02:54:33 PM »

awesome article marka, that eddie burke sounds like a Home Depot (way worse than a tool!)

and i'm not trying to start a different debate, but its quite funny to me that God's Own Party would need to resort to such dirty tactics to win Cheesy  hmmmmmm
Logged

------------------------------


Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to: