uscitizen
Villified User
Epi just committed suicide on this one.
US politics and election
- Thread starter kathaksung
- Start date
Epi just committed suicide on this one.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
They're trying to engineer society into not committing murder.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
LOL thanks for that one H2O!
kathaksung
New member
533. "Change" what? (Iowa lesson 2, A covert totalitarian) (1/18/08)
Obama won Iowa Demo Caucus with a great victory, a big conflict to what poll predicted that Clinton led other Demo candidates. He owes the victory to "people want a change". The other candidates, Clinton and Edwards, also followed to claim that they are for "change" too. The ridiculous thing is, nobody dares to say what they try to change. It's a taboo. The utmost limit they could go is "to change the status quo". That's it. They stopped here.
What is the status quo? Let's review seven years since Bush stole the seat of US president. In his regime, US suffered 911 attack which now majority of American people think government more or less involved in. With that as justification he activated two wars in Mid-east: war on Afghanistan and war on Iraq. The government also passed Patriot Act - a law that seriously hurt civil rights of people. Bush also signed a lot of Presidential Directive and executive order to expand police power and erode civil liberty. In his ruling, torture and warrantless eavesdropping blossom and prosper. What else has he achieved? A high national debt you have to pay later.
So what is mainstream of public opinion for "change"? Simple, abandon the war policy, (withdraw from Iraq), invest money in domestic society (spend more for society than on war expense) and recover civil liberty. But even such a simple opinion became a taboo, a scarcity for candidates. They dare not to put it at the point of slogan. All they can do is shout "change". Change what? They dare not say.
In fact, despite most of GOP candidates (belongs to Bush regime, the target of change) the current leading Demo candidates are the same. Hillary and Edwards, both voted for Patriot Act and Iraq War authorization Bill. In this main point, they are no difference to Bush. How hypocrite they are when they cried "change". They should be the target of change. Even Obama is a puppet too. He voted for Patriot Act and voted for the bill for funding the Iraq war, although he voted against Iraq war authorization bill. People have nothing else to choose. Among three rotten apples, they have to choose the lesser one.
The only candidate with a distinctive flag is Ron Paul. He is anti - Iraq war and insists the value of civil liberty. But in a covert totalitarian, a disfavor of the Inside group will never win in a manipulated election.
Not only candidates dare not speak out what people are thinking, (maybe due to the media censorship) the Iraq war and civil rights topic are also the taboo of media. In election news from mainstream media (in my area, Mercury News which I collected a pile of newspaper) there are a lot of report about religious topic, immigration or medicare or sometimes even about economy. All these are long existed problem not related to Bush regime much. They just avoid to touch the topic of Iraq war and civil liberty. (notice what TV and newspaper report on campaign news)
"Change". Change what? Ask your candidate.
It's sad to see such a phenomenon. Candidate shout of "change" but dare not say what to change. That is totalitarian. People, candidates dare not speak up. Then an election became a puppet show. The Inside Group pick up candidate through rigged election. (Feds controlled election office) and make people believe the result through fake poll. (manipulated media).
Obama won Iowa Demo Caucus with a great victory, a big conflict to what poll predicted that Clinton led other Demo candidates. He owes the victory to "people want a change". The other candidates, Clinton and Edwards, also followed to claim that they are for "change" too. The ridiculous thing is, nobody dares to say what they try to change. It's a taboo. The utmost limit they could go is "to change the status quo". That's it. They stopped here.
What is the status quo? Let's review seven years since Bush stole the seat of US president. In his regime, US suffered 911 attack which now majority of American people think government more or less involved in. With that as justification he activated two wars in Mid-east: war on Afghanistan and war on Iraq. The government also passed Patriot Act - a law that seriously hurt civil rights of people. Bush also signed a lot of Presidential Directive and executive order to expand police power and erode civil liberty. In his ruling, torture and warrantless eavesdropping blossom and prosper. What else has he achieved? A high national debt you have to pay later.
So what is mainstream of public opinion for "change"? Simple, abandon the war policy, (withdraw from Iraq), invest money in domestic society (spend more for society than on war expense) and recover civil liberty. But even such a simple opinion became a taboo, a scarcity for candidates. They dare not to put it at the point of slogan. All they can do is shout "change". Change what? They dare not say.
In fact, despite most of GOP candidates (belongs to Bush regime, the target of change) the current leading Demo candidates are the same. Hillary and Edwards, both voted for Patriot Act and Iraq War authorization Bill. In this main point, they are no difference to Bush. How hypocrite they are when they cried "change". They should be the target of change. Even Obama is a puppet too. He voted for Patriot Act and voted for the bill for funding the Iraq war, although he voted against Iraq war authorization bill. People have nothing else to choose. Among three rotten apples, they have to choose the lesser one.
The only candidate with a distinctive flag is Ron Paul. He is anti - Iraq war and insists the value of civil liberty. But in a covert totalitarian, a disfavor of the Inside group will never win in a manipulated election.
Not only candidates dare not speak out what people are thinking, (maybe due to the media censorship) the Iraq war and civil rights topic are also the taboo of media. In election news from mainstream media (in my area, Mercury News which I collected a pile of newspaper) there are a lot of report about religious topic, immigration or medicare or sometimes even about economy. All these are long existed problem not related to Bush regime much. They just avoid to touch the topic of Iraq war and civil liberty. (notice what TV and newspaper report on campaign news)
"Change". Change what? Ask your candidate.
It's sad to see such a phenomenon. Candidate shout of "change" but dare not say what to change. That is totalitarian. People, candidates dare not speak up. Then an election became a puppet show. The Inside Group pick up candidate through rigged election. (Feds controlled election office) and make people believe the result through fake poll. (manipulated media).
kathaksung
New member
534. Feds strategy (Iowa lesson 3) (1/23/08)
1. Pre-conception mind control. Iowa is a small state. Its Primary used to be neglected by media. But this time Media beat the drum to propaganda the Iowa Caucus in advance, said it's important because in most recent two elections, Iowa picked up the right choice - Bush. It hints that an Iowa choose President would be President of US. So Feds prepared two winners of their own in both parties: John Edwards and Mike Huckabee.
2. Bush is an unpopular president. He can sit on that chair due to the corrupt voting system. But after eight years bad performance, it's hard to keep GOP in top position anymore. The Insiders group has to have one of their own representative - John Edwards, to be the leading candidate of Demo. The tactic:
(1) Three years preparation. Edwards was planted in Iowa for more than three years before 08 Caucus. How can an individual, not very popular in his party, be so sure that he could win the next election that he even sacrifice four years to move to a small state? He is not that foresight. It was a strategy planned by his master - Feds.
(2) Create a cold weather to prevent rivals' supporter from attending. (Iowa Demo Caucus count on the heads of attendants) Feds created deadly cold temperatures and dangerous roads condition on Caucus day. Edwards' supporters would come to vote (Most of them informants of Feds, vote under discipline) while others may be halted by harsh weather.
(3) They thought a white domain, conservative state would prefer a white man to a woman or black.
Feds almost succeeded in this strategy. The nearly four years hard work in local Iowa and cold weather worked. Edwards beat the Hillary - a big banner of Demo of Bill Clinton, although it's a small, one point victory of 30% vs. 29%.
But Feds loses to the will of people. It didn't expect people are so resentful that they turned out despite the cold weather, abandoned racial prejudice to vote for Obama. People want change.
3. Why Feds planted Edwards in Iowa, not big state like Florida? Because Iowa is a small state easy to be influenced and be propagated as indicative. Giuliani runs Florida because there is more votes there. It's practical. Feds ran Iowa for its psychological operation. Iowa Demo Caucus count on heads of present voters. It's direct and clear and honest. Winning an honest campaign will justify the later rigged ones. I believe if Edwards had won the Iowa, then he would have been rewarded most victories in later primary of other states. The rest campaign count on ballots - a system easy to be rigged.
To reach their goal, Mercury News - the tool of the Feds - introduced the counting method of Iowa Demo Caucus in detail one day before the voting. The purpose is to show people: see, (if) Edwards win the first caucus, it's honest. So there will be no doubt when he wins all the way of other campaign. Only Feds under-estimated the indignation of the people. It failed in Iowa Demo caucus.
4. Un-common sense. Obama won Iowa Caucus because it was an honest voting. People view him the one who can cause change. Huckabee won Rep's Iowa with no reason. Just because the ballot counting is a corrupt system easy to be rigged.
The two favorites of the Feds, Edwards and Huckabee, are unpopular compare to their rivals. They too, have much less campaign fund then their rivals. Huckabee's victory may indicate Feds will send its representative to the president chair in rogue's way. They can manipulate a poll number or voting result willfully. No matter how unreasonable it is.
1. Pre-conception mind control. Iowa is a small state. Its Primary used to be neglected by media. But this time Media beat the drum to propaganda the Iowa Caucus in advance, said it's important because in most recent two elections, Iowa picked up the right choice - Bush. It hints that an Iowa choose President would be President of US. So Feds prepared two winners of their own in both parties: John Edwards and Mike Huckabee.
2. Bush is an unpopular president. He can sit on that chair due to the corrupt voting system. But after eight years bad performance, it's hard to keep GOP in top position anymore. The Insiders group has to have one of their own representative - John Edwards, to be the leading candidate of Demo. The tactic:
(1) Three years preparation. Edwards was planted in Iowa for more than three years before 08 Caucus. How can an individual, not very popular in his party, be so sure that he could win the next election that he even sacrifice four years to move to a small state? He is not that foresight. It was a strategy planned by his master - Feds.
(2) Create a cold weather to prevent rivals' supporter from attending. (Iowa Demo Caucus count on the heads of attendants) Feds created deadly cold temperatures and dangerous roads condition on Caucus day. Edwards' supporters would come to vote (Most of them informants of Feds, vote under discipline) while others may be halted by harsh weather.
(3) They thought a white domain, conservative state would prefer a white man to a woman or black.
Feds almost succeeded in this strategy. The nearly four years hard work in local Iowa and cold weather worked. Edwards beat the Hillary - a big banner of Demo of Bill Clinton, although it's a small, one point victory of 30% vs. 29%.
But Feds loses to the will of people. It didn't expect people are so resentful that they turned out despite the cold weather, abandoned racial prejudice to vote for Obama. People want change.
3. Why Feds planted Edwards in Iowa, not big state like Florida? Because Iowa is a small state easy to be influenced and be propagated as indicative. Giuliani runs Florida because there is more votes there. It's practical. Feds ran Iowa for its psychological operation. Iowa Demo Caucus count on heads of present voters. It's direct and clear and honest. Winning an honest campaign will justify the later rigged ones. I believe if Edwards had won the Iowa, then he would have been rewarded most victories in later primary of other states. The rest campaign count on ballots - a system easy to be rigged.
To reach their goal, Mercury News - the tool of the Feds - introduced the counting method of Iowa Demo Caucus in detail one day before the voting. The purpose is to show people: see, (if) Edwards win the first caucus, it's honest. So there will be no doubt when he wins all the way of other campaign. Only Feds under-estimated the indignation of the people. It failed in Iowa Demo caucus.
4. Un-common sense. Obama won Iowa Caucus because it was an honest voting. People view him the one who can cause change. Huckabee won Rep's Iowa with no reason. Just because the ballot counting is a corrupt system easy to be rigged.
The two favorites of the Feds, Edwards and Huckabee, are unpopular compare to their rivals. They too, have much less campaign fund then their rivals. Huckabee's victory may indicate Feds will send its representative to the president chair in rogue's way. They can manipulate a poll number or voting result willfully. No matter how unreasonable it is.
kathaksung
New member
535. Huckabee and Evangelical (Iowa lesson 4) (1/28/0
Why I say Huckabee is a representative of the Feds?
1. Media blew the trumpet on Iowa Primary to hint that it had correctly selected the president in recent primaries. It hints that Edwards (planned to win Demo Caucus though failed) or Huckabee would be the next US President. It is a pre-conception mind control. I view it as Feds' intention.
2. Huckabee was unpopular compare with other Republican's candidates. He also has less campaign fund than his rivals. How could he jumped to the leading seat? He is said conservative, so are the most of other GOP candidates. Is he a Bush basher? Then nobody can compare with Ron Paul. Does he have any extraordinary policy to appeal public? None. How could he suddenly become a hot idle and win the Iowa Primary? The media voluntarily cooked his news. (compare to how media deliberately censor the news of Ron Paul) Since the election office and the media are manipulated by Feds, I view him as Feds' candidate.
Anyhow, media gave a reason why Huckabee won Iowa - it says religion lift him to victory. When did President election become a religious campaign? Is it for a politician or for a missionary? It's as ridiculous as that a man won the CEO of a big firm because he identifies himself as an evangelical. The media says, "Affable Huckabee wins over evangelical voters."
3. Although it is absurd, I think media - a traditional mind control tool - this time tells truth. I view evangelical voters as a power base of the Inside group who controls this country. "Evangelical voters" doesn't mean majority of Americans but the will of the Inside Group. Here is the story how Feds related to this power base and how its representative announcing its annual plan in the name of prophecy.
Quote, "John Ashcroft to teach class at Va. college
By Richard Willing, USA TODAY
One month after leaving office, former U.S. attorney general John Ashcroft has a new job: He'll be a part-time professor at a Christian university run by television evangelist Pat Robertson
<http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-16-ashcroft-teach_x.htm>
Quote, 'Pat Robertson Predicts Worldwide Violence, U.S. Recession in 2008
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
NORFOLK, Va. - On Wednesday's "700 Club" broadcast, the founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network predicted that evangelism will increase and more people will seek God as the chaos develops.
Last year, Robertson predicted that a terrorist act, possibly involving a nuclear weapon, would result in mass killing in the United States.
<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,319728,00.html>
1. When Feds has the technique to alter climate, such like create hurricane, earthquake.... while people don't know there is such kind of technique, they would believe it's work of God. (Hurricane Katrina, 2005 South Asia tsunami...)
2. When Government insider used to activate false flag terror attack (911 attack, anthrax letter....)to grab power and money from people, innocent people thought it was done by Al Qaida, Saddam....
3. While Feds controlled the election system by their informant or assets, it's easy to rig the election. That's how Bush could be selected twice and Ron Paul always be neglected.
You know the trick, then you know so said God for Pat Robertson is Feds. He just announces their annual plan in advance. Plan sometimes went soured due to the situation. But he still goes on with his psychological operation under the cover of evangelical broadcaster. He had predicted Bush would be president. (they control media and election office) He almost successful in prediction of nuclear attack in 2007. (Remember 8/31/07, a B-52 mis-loading nuclear missiles and flying over US continent) Now re-consider the meaning of his words:"evangelism will increase and more people will seek God as the chaos develops."
_________________
If Feds call you and defame my message, it is a tactic of intimidation. They don't want people know the fact.
It also proves what I wrote are truth. They are afraid of it.
Why I say Huckabee is a representative of the Feds?
1. Media blew the trumpet on Iowa Primary to hint that it had correctly selected the president in recent primaries. It hints that Edwards (planned to win Demo Caucus though failed) or Huckabee would be the next US President. It is a pre-conception mind control. I view it as Feds' intention.
2. Huckabee was unpopular compare with other Republican's candidates. He also has less campaign fund than his rivals. How could he jumped to the leading seat? He is said conservative, so are the most of other GOP candidates. Is he a Bush basher? Then nobody can compare with Ron Paul. Does he have any extraordinary policy to appeal public? None. How could he suddenly become a hot idle and win the Iowa Primary? The media voluntarily cooked his news. (compare to how media deliberately censor the news of Ron Paul) Since the election office and the media are manipulated by Feds, I view him as Feds' candidate.
Anyhow, media gave a reason why Huckabee won Iowa - it says religion lift him to victory. When did President election become a religious campaign? Is it for a politician or for a missionary? It's as ridiculous as that a man won the CEO of a big firm because he identifies himself as an evangelical. The media says, "Affable Huckabee wins over evangelical voters."
3. Although it is absurd, I think media - a traditional mind control tool - this time tells truth. I view evangelical voters as a power base of the Inside group who controls this country. "Evangelical voters" doesn't mean majority of Americans but the will of the Inside Group. Here is the story how Feds related to this power base and how its representative announcing its annual plan in the name of prophecy.
Quote, "John Ashcroft to teach class at Va. college
By Richard Willing, USA TODAY
One month after leaving office, former U.S. attorney general John Ashcroft has a new job: He'll be a part-time professor at a Christian university run by television evangelist Pat Robertson
<http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-16-ashcroft-teach_x.htm>
Quote, 'Pat Robertson Predicts Worldwide Violence, U.S. Recession in 2008
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
NORFOLK, Va. - On Wednesday's "700 Club" broadcast, the founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network predicted that evangelism will increase and more people will seek God as the chaos develops.
Last year, Robertson predicted that a terrorist act, possibly involving a nuclear weapon, would result in mass killing in the United States.
<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,319728,00.html>
1. When Feds has the technique to alter climate, such like create hurricane, earthquake.... while people don't know there is such kind of technique, they would believe it's work of God. (Hurricane Katrina, 2005 South Asia tsunami...)
2. When Government insider used to activate false flag terror attack (911 attack, anthrax letter....)to grab power and money from people, innocent people thought it was done by Al Qaida, Saddam....
3. While Feds controlled the election system by their informant or assets, it's easy to rig the election. That's how Bush could be selected twice and Ron Paul always be neglected.
You know the trick, then you know so said God for Pat Robertson is Feds. He just announces their annual plan in advance. Plan sometimes went soured due to the situation. But he still goes on with his psychological operation under the cover of evangelical broadcaster. He had predicted Bush would be president. (they control media and election office) He almost successful in prediction of nuclear attack in 2007. (Remember 8/31/07, a B-52 mis-loading nuclear missiles and flying over US continent) Now re-consider the meaning of his words:"evangelism will increase and more people will seek God as the chaos develops."
_________________
If Feds call you and defame my message, it is a tactic of intimidation. They don't want people know the fact.
It also proves what I wrote are truth. They are afraid of it.
kathaksung
New member
536. Feds and Obama (2/3/08)
It seems Feds has a deal with Obama and chooses him as the most favorite of Demo candidate.
1. Mercury News - a tool of Feds - recommends: Barack Obama as Demo candidate and John McCain as GOP candidate. That's not a decision based on opinion or policy but on Feds' intention. John McCain is famous for his "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.". If Mercury News is anti-war, then it should have picked up Ron Paul. But it chooses a warmonger. Then why it picks up Obama in Demo instead of Clinton?
2. From Republican's platform, Obama is easier to be defeat than Clinton. So they would rather have Obama as their rival. Or in another word, it will be more reasonable to defeat Obama in a rigged election. Obama may represent mainstream public opinion. So what. Ron Paul has a more distinctive flag, hasn't Feds successfully put him at the bottom? With same tactic they can easily defeat Obama. Justify it as Americans are not ready for a black president.
3. Even if Obama wins. He is easier to be manipulated than Hillary. Hillary, backed by a huge Demo party machine, has to take care of the interest of the Demo Party more or less. Obama is a new berry. He has not that burden. He will satisfy Feds demand more than to his party.
4. Bush is awarded by two terms of US President because he loyally carries out the policy of Feds. DOJ got Patriot Act and warrantless eavesdropping, DOD got fat budget and war. Feds got their own representative as their head: Ashcroft, Gonzalez, Mukasy. This time, when they failed to get Edwards as Demo president candidate, they have him as their future head - Attorney General.
Quote, "Attorney General Edwards?
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Illinois Democrats close to Sen. Barack Obama are quietly passing the word that John Edwards will be named attorney general in an Obama administration.
http://www.creators.com/opinion/robert-novak/attorney-general-edwards.html
It seems Feds has a deal with Obama and chooses him as the most favorite of Demo candidate.
1. Mercury News - a tool of Feds - recommends: Barack Obama as Demo candidate and John McCain as GOP candidate. That's not a decision based on opinion or policy but on Feds' intention. John McCain is famous for his "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.". If Mercury News is anti-war, then it should have picked up Ron Paul. But it chooses a warmonger. Then why it picks up Obama in Demo instead of Clinton?
2. From Republican's platform, Obama is easier to be defeat than Clinton. So they would rather have Obama as their rival. Or in another word, it will be more reasonable to defeat Obama in a rigged election. Obama may represent mainstream public opinion. So what. Ron Paul has a more distinctive flag, hasn't Feds successfully put him at the bottom? With same tactic they can easily defeat Obama. Justify it as Americans are not ready for a black president.
3. Even if Obama wins. He is easier to be manipulated than Hillary. Hillary, backed by a huge Demo party machine, has to take care of the interest of the Demo Party more or less. Obama is a new berry. He has not that burden. He will satisfy Feds demand more than to his party.
4. Bush is awarded by two terms of US President because he loyally carries out the policy of Feds. DOJ got Patriot Act and warrantless eavesdropping, DOD got fat budget and war. Feds got their own representative as their head: Ashcroft, Gonzalez, Mukasy. This time, when they failed to get Edwards as Demo president candidate, they have him as their future head - Attorney General.
Quote, "Attorney General Edwards?
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Illinois Democrats close to Sen. Barack Obama are quietly passing the word that John Edwards will be named attorney general in an Obama administration.
http://www.creators.com/opinion/robert-novak/attorney-general-edwards.html
kathaksung
New member
Fake poll to control your mind (8/21/08)
Quote, "McCain Takes Lead Over Obama
8/20/08
A new national poll (according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.) shows Republican John McCain pulling ahead of Democrat Barack Obama, with a 5-point lead. It's a sharp turnaround for McCain, who has generally trailed Obama in national polls.
http://news.aol.com/elections/article/mccain-takes-lead-over-obama/141577
Shameless swindler (8/20/08)
They selected Bush as president twice by rigged election and justify it with fake poll. So once again, they prepare to steal another election.
When most of Americans believe Government more or less involved in 911 attack and 80% people thought US is on the wrong direction, how could they still support such an evil party? Think with your brain. Despite the unnecessary war in Iraq, do you satisfy with the economic situation right now?
And they still say McCain leads 5 point and treat us like fools. Shameless swindler.
Quote, "McCain Takes Lead Over Obama
8/20/08
A new national poll (according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.) shows Republican John McCain pulling ahead of Democrat Barack Obama, with a 5-point lead. It's a sharp turnaround for McCain, who has generally trailed Obama in national polls.
http://news.aol.com/elections/article/mccain-takes-lead-over-obama/141577
Shameless swindler (8/20/08)
They selected Bush as president twice by rigged election and justify it with fake poll. So once again, they prepare to steal another election.
When most of Americans believe Government more or less involved in 911 attack and 80% people thought US is on the wrong direction, how could they still support such an evil party? Think with your brain. Despite the unnecessary war in Iraq, do you satisfy with the economic situation right now?
And they still say McCain leads 5 point and treat us like fools. Shameless swindler.
DigitalDave
Sexy Beast!
usc and beefy, quit being a dumbasses. Handing people money taken from taxes is not social, its fiscal. Taking peoples money from them when they are young and giving it to them when they are older is not social, it's fiscal.
I don't give a fuck what they call it or what it's intent is, all it is, is taking money from someone and handing it back out. It ain't doing a damn thing to change people socially.
I don't give a fuck what they call it or what it's intent is, all it is, is taking money from someone and handing it back out. It ain't doing a damn thing to change people socially.
Epicurus
Reasonable
USC thought he did so well in this thread, he added one of my quotes to his sig as proof of my ownage. Then I pointed out how retarded his argument was and he took it down.
kathaksung
New member
Even the traditional voters of GOP - military votes - their donation now goes to Obama. Yet, the poll want you to believe McCain leads Obama 5 points. Isn't that too easy to cheat the public? When the media is at their grasp, they do whatever they want to do. Then justify it by fake poll. This was how Bush could win the campaign in 2000 and won again in 2004. They select politicians by rigged election. (intelligence control the election office, manipulate the votes) And justify the result by fake poll. (they control media).
Study: Troops Deployed Abroad Gave Six Times More To Obama Than To McCain
By Greg Sargent - August 14, 2008, 11:22AM
This is really, really perplexing. It turns out that according to a new analysis <http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/08/troops-deployed-abroad-give-61.html>, troops deployed abroad have donated six times more money to the candidate who wants to bring the troops home from Iraq:
According to an analysis of campaign contributions by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Democrat Barack Obama has received nearly six times as much money from troops deployed overseas at the time of their contributions than has Republican John McCain, and the fiercely anti-war Ron Paul, though he suspended his campaign for the Republican nomination months ago, has received more than four times McCain's haul.
Despite McCain's status as a decorated veteran and a historically Republican bent among the military, members of the armed services overall -- whether stationed overseas or at home -- are also favoring Obama with their campaign contributions in 2008, by a $55,000 margin. Although 59 percent of federal contributions by military personnel has gone to Republicans this cycle, of money from the military to the presumed presidential nominees, 57 percent has gone to Obama.
Interestingly, the analysis notes that in 2000, George W. Bush outraised Al Gore by two to one among military personnel, but in 2004, with the war underway, John Kerry closed the gap somewhat. Now, with the war having gone on for more than five years, the Dem has an overwhelming advantage among troops abroad
Contributions from U.S. Troops Deployed Abroad
Recipient .................. Total ........ Number
Obama, Barack ......$60,642 ........134
Paul, Ron ................$45,512......... 99
McCain, John ..........$10,665 .........26
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/08/troops-deployed-abroad-give-61.html
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/study_troops_deployed_abroad_g.php
Study: Troops Deployed Abroad Gave Six Times More To Obama Than To McCain
By Greg Sargent - August 14, 2008, 11:22AM
This is really, really perplexing. It turns out that according to a new analysis <http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/08/troops-deployed-abroad-give-61.html>, troops deployed abroad have donated six times more money to the candidate who wants to bring the troops home from Iraq:
According to an analysis of campaign contributions by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Democrat Barack Obama has received nearly six times as much money from troops deployed overseas at the time of their contributions than has Republican John McCain, and the fiercely anti-war Ron Paul, though he suspended his campaign for the Republican nomination months ago, has received more than four times McCain's haul.
Despite McCain's status as a decorated veteran and a historically Republican bent among the military, members of the armed services overall -- whether stationed overseas or at home -- are also favoring Obama with their campaign contributions in 2008, by a $55,000 margin. Although 59 percent of federal contributions by military personnel has gone to Republicans this cycle, of money from the military to the presumed presidential nominees, 57 percent has gone to Obama.
Interestingly, the analysis notes that in 2000, George W. Bush outraised Al Gore by two to one among military personnel, but in 2004, with the war underway, John Kerry closed the gap somewhat. Now, with the war having gone on for more than five years, the Dem has an overwhelming advantage among troops abroad
Contributions from U.S. Troops Deployed Abroad
Recipient .................. Total ........ Number
Obama, Barack ......$60,642 ........134
Paul, Ron ................$45,512......... 99
McCain, John ..........$10,665 .........26
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/08/troops-deployed-abroad-give-61.html
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/study_troops_deployed_abroad_g.php
kathaksung
New member
570. Distract in election (9/14/08)
What has the Republican government done in past seven years? If it was a restaurant, the menu they served you were: a false flag attack of 911, the price you paid, 3,000 lives. an unnecessary war in Iraq. Price: 4,100 loss of US soldiers; a Patriot Act, price: loss of your civil rights; low federal bench interest rate below 2% for more than two years from 2002 to 2004, price: sub-prime crisis in housing market; banned US banks from facilitating transactions with Iran’s banks in later 2006, which forced Iran to turn to Euro in oil trading, price: high oil price; war on terror, price: 858 billion so far; and a mess of financial crisis, price: to take over the bankrupt firms with tax payers dollar...... when you leave the store, without awareness, they also charged your credit card with a huge amount of money : this government creates an unprecedented national debt. Big trouble is waiting for you ahead.
Now it's time to change the management of the restaurant. To attract people the Republican makes it a circus show. The star of a circus - the clown - is too old, so they pick up a bikini woman to sale tickets. But a beauty queen doesn't mean a qualification for a VP. The experience to wear bikini doesn't mean experience to wear a uniform. She is a blank in foreign affairs, diplomacy, military, legislature..... Can you imagine Harvard University to fill the vacancy of its vice principal by a primary school teacher with the reason of "small town school value"? No respectable institution, or big firm or large cooperation will do like that. Then why Palin is selected for the VP of US?
1. She was a champion of a beauty pageant so she could attract sights by her appearance. 2. She is used to do lip service - to attack the Demo opponents. Media beat the drum on "Palin power". Says that she is a pit bull in attacking Obama. All they can find are odds and bits: something about a bridge, some scandal about her family, the style of her eye glass, or her dress.... It is said thus she turns away some white women's votes. It's cheerful like a circus. But what is in it? Nothing, media turns it into a gossip land.
Here we saw another tactic of the Feds which we are familiar with: distraction. They diverse the public attention to somewhere of nowhere. The purpose is to let you forget the 911 truth, a cheating president, the growing budget deficit, the rising unemployment rate and high gas price. They want you to forget the real purpose you go to a restaurant, and to believe it was because some white women's votes the evil management could grasp that restaurant again.
But are you fools to go the way they want you to go? Do you go to a restaurant for tasty food or only as they suggested, to see the color of a waitress' lip? If there is an honest election system, Republican will win only if moose votes.
What has the Republican government done in past seven years? If it was a restaurant, the menu they served you were: a false flag attack of 911, the price you paid, 3,000 lives. an unnecessary war in Iraq. Price: 4,100 loss of US soldiers; a Patriot Act, price: loss of your civil rights; low federal bench interest rate below 2% for more than two years from 2002 to 2004, price: sub-prime crisis in housing market; banned US banks from facilitating transactions with Iran’s banks in later 2006, which forced Iran to turn to Euro in oil trading, price: high oil price; war on terror, price: 858 billion so far; and a mess of financial crisis, price: to take over the bankrupt firms with tax payers dollar...... when you leave the store, without awareness, they also charged your credit card with a huge amount of money : this government creates an unprecedented national debt. Big trouble is waiting for you ahead.
Now it's time to change the management of the restaurant. To attract people the Republican makes it a circus show. The star of a circus - the clown - is too old, so they pick up a bikini woman to sale tickets. But a beauty queen doesn't mean a qualification for a VP. The experience to wear bikini doesn't mean experience to wear a uniform. She is a blank in foreign affairs, diplomacy, military, legislature..... Can you imagine Harvard University to fill the vacancy of its vice principal by a primary school teacher with the reason of "small town school value"? No respectable institution, or big firm or large cooperation will do like that. Then why Palin is selected for the VP of US?
1. She was a champion of a beauty pageant so she could attract sights by her appearance. 2. She is used to do lip service - to attack the Demo opponents. Media beat the drum on "Palin power". Says that she is a pit bull in attacking Obama. All they can find are odds and bits: something about a bridge, some scandal about her family, the style of her eye glass, or her dress.... It is said thus she turns away some white women's votes. It's cheerful like a circus. But what is in it? Nothing, media turns it into a gossip land.
Here we saw another tactic of the Feds which we are familiar with: distraction. They diverse the public attention to somewhere of nowhere. The purpose is to let you forget the 911 truth, a cheating president, the growing budget deficit, the rising unemployment rate and high gas price. They want you to forget the real purpose you go to a restaurant, and to believe it was because some white women's votes the evil management could grasp that restaurant again.
But are you fools to go the way they want you to go? Do you go to a restaurant for tasty food or only as they suggested, to see the color of a waitress' lip? If there is an honest election system, Republican will win only if moose votes.
kathaksung
New member
Quote, "Let's hold up the $50B stimulus for folks on food stamps and welfare, but pass the $700B bailout so Paulson can get his personal $500M back from Goldman Sachs. Am I reading this right?"
A few weeks ago, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released a statement of administrative policy today recommending Bush veto a proposed second stimulus package. The $56.2 billion package, announced y More..esterday, would extend unemployment benefits for seven weeks, increase food stamp benefits by 10 percent, and provide $50 million for food banks, among other proposals. This afternoon, Senate conservatives successfully blocked the bill, as the motion to proceed won 52 votes, eight shy of the necessary 60.
In the press briefing today, just an hour before the Senate vote, Dana Perino said the White House opposed the measure, specifically citing its extension of unemployment and food stamp benefits as explanation:
PERINO: There’s some elements of the package that have been put forward by Democrats that we do not think would be stimulative to the economy, such as unemployment insurance. The food stamps, we believe we have met the need.
In fact, the tanking economy has left more Americans in need of food assistance than ever, with 28 million Americans expected to receive food stamps this year, “the highest level since the aid program began in the 1960s.” At the same time, the purchasing power of food stamps has declined dramatically.
Alongside unemployment benefits and food stamps, the OMB also objected to a provision increasing infrastructure spending, arguing, “Infrastructure spending is never an effective means to create rapid stimulus.” However, a Center for American Progress study found that two million jobs could be created within two years through robust investment in green energy and infrastructure.
A few weeks ago, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released a statement of administrative policy today recommending Bush veto a proposed second stimulus package. The $56.2 billion package, announced y More..esterday, would extend unemployment benefits for seven weeks, increase food stamp benefits by 10 percent, and provide $50 million for food banks, among other proposals. This afternoon, Senate conservatives successfully blocked the bill, as the motion to proceed won 52 votes, eight shy of the necessary 60.
In the press briefing today, just an hour before the Senate vote, Dana Perino said the White House opposed the measure, specifically citing its extension of unemployment and food stamp benefits as explanation:
PERINO: There’s some elements of the package that have been put forward by Democrats that we do not think would be stimulative to the economy, such as unemployment insurance. The food stamps, we believe we have met the need.
In fact, the tanking economy has left more Americans in need of food assistance than ever, with 28 million Americans expected to receive food stamps this year, “the highest level since the aid program began in the 1960s.” At the same time, the purchasing power of food stamps has declined dramatically.
Alongside unemployment benefits and food stamps, the OMB also objected to a provision increasing infrastructure spending, arguing, “Infrastructure spending is never an effective means to create rapid stimulus.” However, a Center for American Progress study found that two million jobs could be created within two years through robust investment in green energy and infrastructure.
kathaksung
New member
In March, New York Times and NBC had a poll that 81% people said they believed "things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track," and 78% people said the nation is worse off than five years ago. Things get worse since. I wonder how that 80% vs 20% poll with 60 point difference could become a negative 5 point as a recent poll said that McCain led over Obama by 5 point.
I don't think the people of that 81% would vote Republican otherwise it means they wish a bad driver stay on wrong track and wish to go on with a worse live. It doesn't make sense. Then how could mainstream media got such a contradictory poll result?
Here is a strange poll result in August by Reuters/Zogby.
Quote, "McCain Takes Lead Over Obama
8/20/08
A new national poll (according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.) shows Republican John McCain pulling ahead of Democrat Barack Obama, with a 5-point lead. It's a sharp turnaround for McCain, who has generally trailed Obama in national polls.
http://news.aol.com/elections/article/mccain-takes-lead-over-obama/141577
This is a rare mistake the ruler of this country has made. It reveals that this country is a covert totalitarian. The insiders select president by rigged election and justify the result by fake poll. They could even cheat you with 65 point diffrence and turn black into white. It is easier to manipulate an election when to get the competition at an even condition.
And the 2008 election said that Obama won the president campaign by 53% vs 47%. Still far from that 81% "wrong track" poll done by New York Times/CBS News in March/April. The real number should be 80% vs 20%. Because the financial situation of US gets much worse in October and November from April. It only proves election is rigged by the intelligence. They could put a notorious Bush to a second president term in 2004. And turned a landslide victory of 2008 into a small margin by 53% vs 47%.
I don't think the people of that 81% would vote Republican otherwise it means they wish a bad driver stay on wrong track and wish to go on with a worse live. It doesn't make sense. Then how could mainstream media got such a contradictory poll result?
Here is a strange poll result in August by Reuters/Zogby.
Quote, "McCain Takes Lead Over Obama
8/20/08
A new national poll (according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.) shows Republican John McCain pulling ahead of Democrat Barack Obama, with a 5-point lead. It's a sharp turnaround for McCain, who has generally trailed Obama in national polls.
http://news.aol.com/elections/article/mccain-takes-lead-over-obama/141577
This is a rare mistake the ruler of this country has made. It reveals that this country is a covert totalitarian. The insiders select president by rigged election and justify the result by fake poll. They could even cheat you with 65 point diffrence and turn black into white. It is easier to manipulate an election when to get the competition at an even condition.
And the 2008 election said that Obama won the president campaign by 53% vs 47%. Still far from that 81% "wrong track" poll done by New York Times/CBS News in March/April. The real number should be 80% vs 20%. Because the financial situation of US gets much worse in October and November from April. It only proves election is rigged by the intelligence. They could put a notorious Bush to a second president term in 2004. And turned a landslide victory of 2008 into a small margin by 53% vs 47%.
kathaksung
New member
Caroline's withdraw (1/22/09)
President Kennedy was assassinated by the Feds. To prevent his family members to rise in power to investigate the truth of murder, the other member of Kennedy's family either was murdered or intimidated when they dare to gain power politically.
So we saw Robert Kennedy was murdered before he could win a president campaign. And a scandal prevented Senator Ted Kennedy to join a president election. Jacklin died early in her 60s because she knew something about her husband's death. Jr. Kennedy died in a misterious air plane accident.
Now Kennedy's daughter was intimidated when she tried to test that forbidden area. On 1/20, Ted Kennedy was sent to hospital after he had a seisure in Obama's Inauguration Ceremony. The warning was the result of an high tech. EM wave weapon. One day later, we saw the news:
Quote, "Kennedy Drops Bid for Senate Seat
1/22/09
A person who worked closely with Caroline Kennedy says her decision to abruptly withdraw her bid for New York's Senate seat was unrelated to the poor health of her uncle, Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy.
http://news.aol.com/article/kennedy-withdraws-senate-bid/313916
Is that particular description - "unrelated" ridiculous?
President Kennedy was assassinated by the Feds. To prevent his family members to rise in power to investigate the truth of murder, the other member of Kennedy's family either was murdered or intimidated when they dare to gain power politically.
So we saw Robert Kennedy was murdered before he could win a president campaign. And a scandal prevented Senator Ted Kennedy to join a president election. Jacklin died early in her 60s because she knew something about her husband's death. Jr. Kennedy died in a misterious air plane accident.
Now Kennedy's daughter was intimidated when she tried to test that forbidden area. On 1/20, Ted Kennedy was sent to hospital after he had a seisure in Obama's Inauguration Ceremony. The warning was the result of an high tech. EM wave weapon. One day later, we saw the news:
Quote, "Kennedy Drops Bid for Senate Seat
1/22/09
A person who worked closely with Caroline Kennedy says her decision to abruptly withdraw her bid for New York's Senate seat was unrelated to the poor health of her uncle, Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy.
http://news.aol.com/article/kennedy-withdraws-senate-bid/313916
Is that particular description - "unrelated" ridiculous?
kathaksung
New member
Israel's yes man in White House. US acts only as a servant for Israel.
Quote, "Olmert: I told US not to vote for Gaza resolution:
Tue, 13 Jan 2009
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert says he had told the US president not to vote in favor of the recent United Nations resolution on Gaza.
"I told him (George W. Bush) the United States could not vote in favor. It cannot vote in favor of such a resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote in favor," said Olmert on Monday.
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=81953§ionid=351020202
Quote, "Olmert: I told US not to vote for Gaza resolution:
Tue, 13 Jan 2009
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert says he had told the US president not to vote in favor of the recent United Nations resolution on Gaza.
"I told him (George W. Bush) the United States could not vote in favor. It cannot vote in favor of such a resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote in favor," said Olmert on Monday.
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=81953§ionid=351020202
Cancel10
Independent Thinker
Had Paul ran as a Libertarian, he would have received a maximum of 5% of the vote and 0 electoral votes. People will always choose the lesser of two evils (Democrat or Republican). Had he won the Republican nomination however I am convinced he could have won the election. Americans are ready for big change, not more of the same.
I held my nose and voted for McShame. The only person I'd actually be excited about voting for is Ron Paul. Whether you like or dislike his policies, you must admit he is a man of great conviction and stays true to his principles. It doesn't surprise me at all that he garnered support from virtually every part of the political spectrum.
kathaksung
New member
Israel's Siege of Washington
Jan. 2009.
BEIRUT -- If the Israeli attack on Gaza that started 18 days ago was designed partly to send a message to incoming U.S. President Barack Obama, the U.S. Congress in the past week seems to have joined the battle to handcuff the new president and lay down the law for him, even before he takes office.
Obama has tried to remain aloof and stay out of the political battle over the Gaza war by making no substantive statements about it. Israel and its many supporters in Washington have different plans for him. He stayed away from the war, but they have brought the war to him -- shoving it down his throat as his first pre-incumbency lesson in how American presidents behave vis--vis Israels desires -- if they wish to remain in power.
The House of Representatives voted last Friday by 390-5 for a resolution that completely backed Israel in its onslaught against Gaza, specifically affirming Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza". A day earlier, the Senate overwhelmingly supported Israel and its right to defend itself against terrorism.
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=102125
Jan. 2009.
BEIRUT -- If the Israeli attack on Gaza that started 18 days ago was designed partly to send a message to incoming U.S. President Barack Obama, the U.S. Congress in the past week seems to have joined the battle to handcuff the new president and lay down the law for him, even before he takes office.
Obama has tried to remain aloof and stay out of the political battle over the Gaza war by making no substantive statements about it. Israel and its many supporters in Washington have different plans for him. He stayed away from the war, but they have brought the war to him -- shoving it down his throat as his first pre-incumbency lesson in how American presidents behave vis--vis Israels desires -- if they wish to remain in power.
The House of Representatives voted last Friday by 390-5 for a resolution that completely backed Israel in its onslaught against Gaza, specifically affirming Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza". A day earlier, the Senate overwhelmingly supported Israel and its right to defend itself against terrorism.
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=102125
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
No. You got it backwards. Running as a third party candidate in our present system is a futile waste of time and is wasted energy. RP has the right idea for Libertarians. Become part of a coalition of one of the major parties as the RR did. It's the only way Libertarians can accomplish anything of significance until the political land scape changes.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I don't know about winning the election. I think historical forces were dramatically against Republicans in 2008. I don't Lincoln himself could have gotten elected.
Having said that I think you have the right idea. Ron Paul and Libertarians would be more effective politically as a member of a coalition of one of the major political parties, obviously the Republican party. Though I don't believe Libertarianism can be an affective governing philosophy I do think that they can help provide the leadership to guide the Republicans out of their current mess.
I mean who appears to be more competent, sane and reasonable, Ron Paul or Rush Limbaugh?
It's to late for the present but I think that Ron Paul would have made an excellent RNC Chairman. I think he could have done for Republicans what Howard Dean did for Democrats. It would be ironic too as both men are MD's.