|
|
A thread to discuss user/citizen outrage over current political, business and other scandals affecting the nation and the world.
|
Posts:
6,266
Registered:
8/24/06
|
|
(22 of 22)
Feb 24, 2008 6:24 PM
|
Well we CAN get along, but there are those who do not want us to get along. There are influences in society that sow discord and mistrust amongst citizens. That's not good.
Too often, such influences are poor public policy and laws.
|
|
|
Posts:
492
Registered:
10/21/07
|
|
(21 of 22)
Feb 24, 2008 6:06 PM
|
Bush is a fool, he is paying money to people who plan to attack America.
Isn't supporting our enemies, an act of treason?
--
?Can't we all... just... get along??
Rodney King, philosopher
|
|
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
2/22/08
|
|
(20 of 22)
Re: Bush Paying Insurgents not to Fight!
Feb 22, 2008 3:05 PM
|
Below is an article by Reagan's former Treasury Sectretary of Treasury detailing the falseness of the surge and the bribing the Bushites are doing, wasting our budget to give republicans a better chance at the coming election. Bush's vileness and sickness knows no bounds! ... read on
Bush / Sunni Alliance Against the Shia?
Paying Insurgents Not to Fight
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
It is impossible to keep up with all the Bush regime's lies. There are simply too many. Among the recent crop, one of the biggest is that the "surge" is working.
Launched last year, the "surge" was the extra 20,000 - 30,000 US troops sent to Iraq. These few extra troops, Americans were told, would finally supply the necessary forces to pacify Iraq.
This claim never made any sense. The extra troops didn't raise the total number of US soldiers to more than one-third the number every expert has said is necessary in order to successfully occupy Iraq.
The real purpose of the "surge" was to hide another deception. The Bush regime is paying Sunni insurgents $800,000 a day not to attack US forces. That's right, 80,000 members of an "Awakening group," the "Sons of Iraq," a newly formed "US-allied security force" consisting of Sunni insurgents, are being paid $10 a day each not to attack US troops. Allegedly, the Sons of Iraq are now at work fighting al Qaeda.
This is a much cheaper way to fight a war. We can only wonder why Bush didn't figure it out sooner.
The "surge" was also timed to take account of the near completion of neighborhood cleansing. Most of the violence in Iraq during the past five years has resulted from Sunnis and Shi'ites driving each other out of mixed neighborhoods. Had the two groups been capable of uniting against the US troops, the US would have been driven out of Iraq long ago. Instead, the Iraqis slaughtered each other and fought the Americans in their spare time.
In other words, the "surge" has had nothing to do with any decline in violence.
With the Sunni insurgents now on Uncle Sam's payroll, with neighborhoods segregated, and with al Sadr's militia standing down, it is unclear who is still responsible for ongoing violence other than US troops themselves. Somebody must still be fighting, however, because the US is still conducting air strikes and is still unable to tell friend from foe.
On February 16, the Los Angeles Times reported that a US air strike managed to kill 9 Iraqi civilians and 3 Sons of Iraq.
The Sunnis are abandoning their posts in protest, demanding an end to "errant" US air strikes. Obviously, the Sunnis see an opportunity to increase their daily pay for not attacking Americans. Soon they will have consultants advising them how much they can demand in bribes before it pays the Americans to begin fighting the war under the old terms. If Sunnis are smart, they will split the gains. Currently, the Sunnis are getting shafted. They are only collecting $800,000 of the $275,000,000 million it costs the US to fight the war for one day.
That's only about three-tenths of one percent, too much of a one-sided deal for the Americans.
If the Sunnis negotiate their cut to between one-quarter and one-half of the daily cost to the US of the war, the Sunnis won't need to share in the oil revenues, thus helping the three factions to get back together as a country. Even 20 per cent of the daily cost of the war would be a good deal for the Sunnis. A long-term contract in this range would be expensive for Uncle Sam, but a great deal cheaper than John McCain's commitment to a 100-year Iraqi war.
If Bush's war turns out to be as big a boon for the Sunnis as it has for Tony Blair, we might have a modern-day version of "The Mouse That Roared"--a movie about an impoverished country that attacked the US in order to be defeated and receive foreign aid--only this time the money comes as a payoff for not fighting the occupiers.
As the world now knows, Blair's "dodgy dossier" about the threat allegedly posed by Iraq was a contrivance that allowed Blair to put British troops at the service of Bush's aggression in the Middle East. Now that Blair is out of his prime minister job, he has been rewarded with millions of dollars in sinecures from financial firms such as JP Morgan and millions more in speaking engagements. As part of the payoff, the Bush Republicans have even put Mrs. Blair on the lucrative lecture circuit.
Ask yourself, do you really think Blair knows enough high finance to be of any value as an advisor to JP Morgan, or enough about climate change to advise Zurich Financial on the subject? Do you really believe that after hearing all the vacuous speeches Blair has delivered in those many years in office anyone now wants to pay him huge fees to hear him give a speech? Even when it was free, people were sick of it.
Blair is simply collecting his payoff for selling out his country and sending British troops to die for American hegemony.
The Sunnis seem inclined to do the same thing if Bush will pay them enough.
Is the next phase of the Iraq war going to be a US-Sunni alliiance against the Shi'ites?
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan's first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand. He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
|
|
|
Posts:
339
Registered:
4/14/07
|
|
(19 of 22)
Feb 21, 2008 1:32 PM
|
Matoia....Hillary Clinton is a hot mess. and no one I'd want for President.
that woman is up to no good
Media Struggles To Whitewash Clinton Vote Fraud Suspicions
Professor offers new excuse - claims Hillary overturned a 13 point deficit because her name was higher on the ballot
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, January 10, 2008
The media has gone into overdrive trying to whitewash Hillary Clinton's inexplicable defeat of Barack Obama in the New Hampshire primary and sideline questions about vote fraud, with the latest excuse being that Clinton's name appeared above Obama's on the ballot paper.
In reality, Clinton's reversal of a 10-13 point pre-polling deficit to Obama is highly suspicious and smacks of vote fraud, especially considering the fact that the New York Senator gained a crucial 7% swing thanks to provably vulnerable Diebold electronic voting machines.
In addition, the head polling clerk of the town of Sutton was forced to admit that they completely failed to count 31 votes for Republican candidate Ron Paul, initially reporting his final tally as zero.
The only mention in the establishment press of potential vote fraud in relation to the Clinton/Obama discrepancy fraud came on CNN at around 5:06am the morning after the primary.
"All the pollsters are unlikely to have made the same mistake so what could have happened? Something must have happened," remarks CNN's political analyst Bill Schneider.
Hillary's show of staged emotion is cited as a potential reason for the change, but at the time it happened almost all pundits were in uniform agreement that Clinton tearing up only harmed her chances because it made her appear weak. Some even likened it to the infamous Dean scream, which mothballed Howard Dean's success in 2004.
Another excuse is that voters experienced a sudden bout of involuntary racism when they entered the polling booth and refused to vote for Obama, a black man. On the face of it this is patently absurd. New Hampshire isn't South Carolina or Mississippi, it's an urbane part of the country which includes a huge swathe of Independents - not normally noted for their racist sentiment. In addition, Obama swept Iowa which is packed full of evangelical phony Christians and other groups more closely associated with racist sentiment.
Schneider reluctantly moves on to the third and only plausible explanation - vote fraud.
But now the establishment have dreamed up a new excuse to stop people asking questions about the whole fiasco - Hillary Clinton won because her name was higher up on the ballot paper!
"Without a doubt, a big source of the discrepancy between the pre-election surveys and the election outcome in New Hampshire is the order of candidates' names on the ballot and in the surveys," says Stanford University professor Jon Krosnick. "Our analysis of all recent primaries in New Hampshire showed that there was always a big primacy effect -- big name, big-vote-getting candidates got 3 percent or more votes more when listed first on the ballot than when listed last."
Research does show that this has a minor impact of increasing a candidate's numbers, but only by a maximum average of about 2% - Hillary had to overturn a mammoth deficit of 10-13% (Zogby had Obama leading her 42/29 per cent before the primary.
However, with Barack Obama showing little interest in contesting the decision, it appears that no proper investigation of what happened will take place and Hillary will roll into Michigan safe in the knowledge that, as the anointed Neo-Con establishment candidate, she has the full support of crooked Diebold voting machines in her bid to steal the nomination even though a growing number of Democrats are rejecting her pro-war, big government underpinnings.
|
|
|
Posts:
492
Registered:
10/21/07
|
|
(18 of 22)
Feb 19, 2008 7:23 PM
|
Matty baby,
Hillary was never convicted of any crime during the Whitewater investigations. There is a difference between someone making a statement, than telling the truth.
During the Clinton Administration, his opponents, (mainly Republicans), tried to convict them of many crimes.
The only one that stuck, was that spunk on a shank's blue dress. I always tell people who bring up Monica and Bill, that I 'hired' Bill to be the head administrator of the United States, not my minister. If every man was impeached for being a 'ho', every women would have to go to jail to 'get some'.
If being a wife of a 'ho', is Hillary's main problem, I say that is 'her business', if she choose to stay in the marriage. If I was his wife, I would sizzle every credit card, and he would need protection from his secret service. But, hey, that's me.
--
?Can't we all... just... get along??
Rodney King, philosopher
|
|
|
Posts:
8,633
Registered:
11/4/06
|
|
(17 of 22)
Feb 19, 2008 2:50 PM
|
you should see Michell Obamas resime', yes her house is very much so in order !
here's one on Hillary, theres
also white water investigations while she was first lady but below was during Iowa campaign 08,
Tonight on the local 10 p.m news (WHO-TV, Des Moines, Iowa): Hillary Clinton's people hired a local cleaning company to come in and clean her Iowa Caucus headquarters a few times a week. As the Iowa Caucus came closer and closer, Hillary's people asked the cleaning company to come in more frequently until they were coming in 7 days a week prior to the caucus.
After it was all over, the owner of the cleaning company sent Hillary his bill. Nothing. So he called Hillary's people, faxed them, e-mailed them. Still nothing. If he did get a hold of one of Hillary's people, all he got was the run around.
Finally, when the tv folks got a hold of Hillary's people, they proclaimed that they were never presented with a bill. (Like in Iowa, it's magic fairyland and the mice come out after midnight to do the cleaning for free? Like they thought, "Golly gee, those folks in Iowa sure are nice cleaning up after us for nothing.") When Hillary's people discovered that the piece was gonna air on the 10 o'clock news, they proclaimed that the check would be in the mail to the cleaning folks tomorrow (Monday, Feb. 11).
--
This free speech message aproved by MATOIA, unless deleted by HBO MODS.
--
Edited by MATOIA at 02/19/2008 11:52 AM
--
Edited by MATOIA at 02/19/2008 11:52 AM
|
|
|
Posts:
339
Registered:
4/14/07
|
|
|
Posts:
492
Registered:
10/21/07
|
|
(15 of 22)
Feb 14, 2008 12:42 PM
|
I heard that Michelle Obama is going around telling women groups that, 'if she, (Hillary) cannot take care of her own house, how can she take care of the White House?'
Why isn't someone talking about her remarks? Are they appropriate? Can she actually say her house is in order?
Best not throw rocks. They might smack back in ya face!
--
?Can't we all... just... get along??
Rodney King, philosopher
|
|
|
Posts:
352
Registered:
1/28/08
|
|
(14 of 22)
Feb 2, 2008 11:38 PM
|
Isn't it crazy that throughout the history of the U.S., it takes a big "explosion" as well as a distortion of the "truth" to get some sort of law passed that benefits the elite...
It's like their playing GOD...
|
|
|
Posts:
539
Registered:
10/24/06
|
|
(13 of 22)
Feb 2, 2008 12:26 AM
|
> > Hillary is a scandal unto herself. The slight
> notion
> > that her "creds" give her the experience to lead
> a
> > nation is laughable.
>
> A scandal indeed. How dare she run for President of
> the United States of America. Women have been
> attempting to run for president since 1872, when
> Victoria Woodhull ran with Frederick Douglass.
> Hillary's experience to lead the nation laughable?
> ? No, George W. Bush's "experience" was laughable,
> but unfortunately, being a man, he was taken
> seriously, and the U.S. and the world is worse off,
> and more tragic for it.
>
> > First, she would have to become
> > a lesbian
>
> Women endure degradation for daring to forge new
> territory, while men can be any old damned thing,
> including incompetent.
>
> > to have sex with as many woman as her
> > husband.
>
> We don't know the sex lives of most our presidents,
> and what business is it of ours anyway, as long as
> they're doing the job? I contend there are far worse
> things, like lying us into war, decimating the
> Constitution, outing a CIA agent, wiretapping, and
> torture.
>
> > Then, go on national TV and lie about it.
> >
>
> It was no one's business, and he should have said
> that. Unfortunately, he lied. Millions of tax
> dollars went south fighting this petty charge.
>
> > If she can't keep Bill's Willy under control
> what
> > about Iran?
>
> Interesting how women are somehow in charge of their
> husband's willies, and how that translates, in lesser
> minds, with an ability to lead.
Well typed! Thank yoU
|
|
|
Posts:
539
Registered:
10/24/06
|
|
(12 of 22)
Feb 2, 2008 12:23 AM
|
> RE: Iraq....New Freedom
>
> Someone needs to direct spending to
> programs for young men that direct their
> focus in a positive direction..Any Ideas.???
> The Motor cyle racing that is new
> over there...they need incentives to
> make that a big draw at the race track.
> Iraqi soldiers are already guarding it and
> ng it and making
> check points........
> Maybe some other sports like
> soccer
> soccer ...tennis...basketball....baseball.
> polo......hockey(indoor)...ice
> ckey(indoor)...ice skating(indoor)
> swim teams.....and some music venues.
Yes! A peace in which art and sports can flourish
|
|
|
Posts:
539
Registered:
10/24/06
|
|
(11 of 22)
Feb 2, 2008 12:22 AM
|
> I remember when all I had to do was whip it out, back
> in the day. -AngryDan
> 
> I really don't see how the Bush Admin is still in
> office with all the fuck ups and scandals. All Nixon
> did was withhold tapes of secret meetings and censor
> them to be threatened with impeachment. All Bill did
> was get a BJ in the oval office. George Bush, Dick
> Cheney, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleza Rize,
> Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzalez the whole bunch of
> them have litterally fucked over 95% of the
> population of America.
>
> --
> "What difference does it make to the dead, the
> orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad
> destruction is wrought under the name of
> totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and
> democracy?" -Gandhi
Ask their base
|
|
|
Posts:
352
Registered:
1/28/08
|
|
(10 of 22)
Jan 31, 2008 9:08 PM
|
> > Hillary is a scandal unto herself. The slight
> notion
> > that her "creds" give her the experience to lead
> a
> > nation is laughable.
>
> A scandal indeed. How dare she run for President of
> the United States of America. Women have been
> attempting to run for president since 1872, when
> Victoria Woodhull ran with Frederick Douglass.
> Hillary's experience to lead the nation laughable?
> ? No, George W. Bush's "experience" was laughable,
> but unfortunately, being a man, he was taken
> seriously, and the U.S. and the world is worse off,
> and more tragic for it.
>
> > First, she would have to become
> > a lesbian
>
> Women endure degradation for daring to forge new
> territory, while men can be any old damned thing,
> including incompetent.
>
> > to have sex with as many woman as her
> > husband.
>
> We don't know the sex lives of most our presidents,
> and what business is it of ours anyway, as long as
> they're doing the job? I contend there are far worse
> things, like lying us into war, decimating the
> Constitution, outing a CIA agent, wiretapping, and
> torture.
>
> > Then, go on national TV and lie about it.
> >
>
> It was no one's business, and he should have said
> that. Unfortunately, he lied. Millions of tax
> dollars went south fighting this petty charge.
>
> > If she can't keep Bill's Willy under control
> what
> > about Iran?
>
> Interesting how women are somehow in charge of their
> husband's willies, and how that translates, in lesser
> minds, with an ability to lead.
......Respect.....
|
|
|
Posts:
865
Registered:
11/4/06
|
|
(9 of 22)
Jan 24, 2008 9:22 PM
|
> Hillary is a scandal unto herself. The slight notion
> that her "creds" give her the experience to lead a
> nation is laughable.
A scandal indeed. How dare she run for President of the United States of America. Women have been attempting to run for president since 1872, when Victoria Woodhull ran with Frederick Douglass. Hillary's experience to lead the nation laughable? No, George W. Bush's "experience" was laughable, but unfortunately, being a man, he was taken seriously, and the U.S. and the world is worse off, and more tragic for it.
> First, she would have to become
> a lesbian
Women endure degradation for daring to forge new territory, while men can be any old damned thing, including incompetent.
> to have sex with as many woman as her
> husband.
We don't know the sex lives of most our presidents, and what business is it of ours anyway, as long as they're doing the job? I contend there are far worse things, like lying us into war, decimating the Constitution, outing a CIA agent, wiretapping, and torture.
> Then, go on national TV and lie about it.
>
It was no one's business, and he should have said that. Unfortunately, he lied. Millions of tax dollars went south fighting this petty charge.
> If she can't keep Bill's Willy under control what
> about Iran?
Interesting how women are somehow in charge of their husband's willies, and how that translates, in lesser minds, with an ability to lead.
|
|
|
Posts:
28
Registered:
1/12/08
|
|
(8 of 22)
Jan 15, 2008 7:05 PM
|
Hillary is a scandal unto herself. The slight notion that her "creds" give her the experience to lead a nation is laughable. First, she would have to become a lesbian to have sex with as many woman as her husband. Then, go on national TV and lie about it.
If she can't keep Bill's Willy under control what about Iran?
|
|
|
|
|
