bush dynasty!!!!!!!!! ive always believed bill would again , so we could have a clinton dynasty --- wheres chelsea?
-
Comment -
nmComment -
Somehow I get the feeling you haven't spend more than one hour -lifetime- on investigating the honesty of US elections. But if you want to lean back in your chair and make fun of people who have invested time in it, go right ahead.
Just tell me this. Is it the act of investigating that makes one a conspiracy theorist? Or is it finding out things in the process that aren't the official party line? Or must a 'conspiracy theorist' present airtight proof to lazy people who don't want to be bothered, and would rather lean back in their chairs to make fun of those who take the trouble to investigate?Comment -
But come on, if you say something then you've got to be prepared to be questioned about it. In turn, you provide evidence to back up what you're claiming. And this generally doesn't include youtube videos.
Let's take the following:
So you're saying that elections are being manipulated. OK, I'm listening. They're being manipulated without a trace. And where is your evidence? Since they're being manipulated without a trace, there is no evidence. I don't know how interested isetcap or WB is in this, but I'll say that I am. Provide some evidence and you've got my ears. The best evidence is always statistics - is there some pattern in the results that is very highly statistically significant?The candidate that is owned by corporations has a major edge in elections that are close, because electronic elections can be manipulated without a trace.Originally posted by pags11Originally posted by BuddyBearOriginally posted by curiousComment -
I really wasn't intending to revive my own dead thread here, but I do have to reassert my respect for the poster who - irrationally, I had thought - insisted that Sen Clinton would pull it out in the end.
Even when everyone else, a few days before the Ohio and Texas primaries, were writing her presidential political obituary.
Now I hear that it may be that Florida and Michigan may get to vote again, maybe by mail ballot, and this time it will count. And those two states are likely to go to Hillary (Florida already has, tho it didn't count, they were being punished by the DNC for jumping ahead with their primaries.)
Really bizarre. I'd hope BO would then be so pissed that he'd go the Third Party route. Not that I want to see Imperialist John win, but the country needs more than the Left and Right wing of but one party, ie the War Party.
BTW, I thought tacomax arguments, stated just above, are sound reasoning. Tho I've seen him trashed on this board.
Just an observation, I would never wish to get into a pissisng contest with other boardies here. Maybe because I know that I am - uh - somewhat older than the majority of posters.
This forum, I think, probably has the youngest mean or average age than the other big ones. Just a guess . . .Comment -
Tho I also concur with DH that we are likely but one terror attack - real or contrived - away from a suspension of the Constitution. And pertual rule by The Deciders, Bush and Cheney. And, of course, by those whom old RW Emerson once called "the rulers of the rulers of the earth."
And yes, the great overwhelming majority of Americans will meekly accept their new state of subservience without protest . . . as long at their bellies are full and the tube serves up ever new drama and reality shows.Comment -
Don't bet a lot on that 'one hour theory,' DH. Not only have I looked into or studied some of the stuff, I got first-hand accounts as well including from one of my grandfathers who worked on LBJ's infamous senate campaign in 1948. But the vote rigging noise of late, sorry, in my opinion there isn't enough evidence to convince me of what you obviously believe with all your heart. Just because something could happen doesn't mean it did happen.
And if it makes you feel better about what you believe to assume I'm lazy or ignorant or blinded by some eternal optimism and faith in everything being hunky dory just because I don't share your beliefs, then be my guest.Comment -
Taco, I'm not interested in the election, because I don't think anything will change. After years of discussing topics like the 9/11 inside job and rigged voting, and trying to do so in an articulate way, I've reached a point where I no longer care to go in-depth into a subject where I've already helped inform plenty of minds.
If you want to find out, you will. If you don't want to spend the time, you won't. Personally, I'm done with the bewildered looks in cyberspace (especially on this forum, which has become about the sizes of our private parts). It's good enough for me that in my neck of the woods it is common knowledge that 9/11 was an inside job and that the voting is rigged. Those are accepted facts of life here, and certainly not focal points around which our lives revolve. Once the shift is made away from believing the official accounts, there is no way back. The warnings have been out there for a long time, but a lot of people would prefer not to know. So be it.
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
-- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864Comment -
It seems to be quite common for a people to think that it (fascism or some other oppressive form of government) couldn't happen to them:
- torture --------> yeah, but....
- wiretapping (phones)-----> uhm, well....
- media propaganda machine -----> not on the news I watch!!
- imprisonment without a right to trial --------> not really, ... right?
- 9/11 inside job -------> Oh my, you're a conspiracy theorist! Why didn't you SAY so!?! Thank goodness...
- Elections being rigged -------> you're a conspiracy theori-ist!! haha!!!Comment -
Sorry but DH is pretty much right. There may be some nuisances to everyone's arguments and claims, but overall, his main thesis is accurate: Corporate America elects candidates, not people.
For example, the only candidate running who is remotely qualified to be president of the United States is Ralph Nader. Nader has dedicated his entire life to public service/consumer advocacy and has helped pushed some of the most important legislation that has ever been enacted in the United States. There are so many things in this country that are due to Nader from the safety of the water you drink to the airbags in your car to the handling and processing of food in this country. His list of achievements are so long it makes Obama and Clinton look like they haven't spent a day in public service.
Meanwhile, Nader who is know for his relentless anti-corporate rhetoric and is truly the only candidate who is not bought and paid for by special interests, can barely get any coverage on the news media. He is barred from public debates, ridiculed by the media and so-called "pundiatry", and even the so called "liberal" democrats have convinced their base (the people who agree with virtually all his positions) that he is a bad guy and the reason the democrats can't win.
In the end, the corporations win. What difference does it make between Clinton or Obama or McCain. They all support the same hegemonic imperialistic policies...the only differences are in the tactics in which they intend to accomplish those goals.
Oh...and you have to be kidding me to think that the elections in this country are not rigged. The most hilarious part is that the United States offers other countries (mainly in Africa and other 3rd world nations) delegates to monitor their elections. The irony of that is priceless......Comment -
There's a lot I like about Nader, Buddy, but at the same time he's certainly not high on my list of people I want dealing with many if not all of the international issues. Hell, I'm not even sure he'd make my list at all, much less rank high.Comment -
I love that word (conspiracy theorist)Dark Horse. The right wingers love using that word. it dumbs down the discussion and basically tries to end the debate. One thing the right wingers are good at is the word game. http://www.flickr.com/photos/50087332@N00/190545745Comment -
Understanding he won't win (and I don't even think it will be a result of vote fraud), Nader will be receiving my vote in November. Anyone who can't see that the "change" candidate in this election is really no change at all is being bamboozled. All 3 of the Redemocratican candidates are career politicians and they are always playing the politics game. Nader's agenda is the only one that realizes our highest priority both socially and economically, is moving toward an energy policy that allows us to sustain ourselves. I think Buddy will acknowledge that corporate America should embrace this vision and I think Willie will acknowledge that we would be positioned better internationally if we led the world in advancing green technologies.Comment -
Yes, this is what a notorious right-winger has to say about DH's favorite "conspiracy".
If you're really interested in hard evidence over cult mysticism then read this Vast Right Wing Publication's attempt at the word game.Comment -
Pretty funny how Clinton dances around the issue in that video. Clinton is a very smart guy, and that is about the stupidest way he's ever addressed a question. lol
If there was political gain in getting to the 9/11 truth, does anyone doubt he would sing an entirely different tune?
This was what the person asked, before Clinton insulted him and tried to make a fool out of him in every possible way in that short span of time: "We want a new investigation into the attacks of 9/11..."
That was it, because as some of us may know the 'official 'investigation' was a joke.
Clinton may as well have answered that he never had sex with that woman.Comment -
I pretty much agree with Dark Horse here. No matter who wins there will be lobbyists, corporations will have control, and basic needs will not be provided. Sometimes I wonder if 911 was a setup between the Bush Administration and Rudi Giuliani - it's ironic because from what I understand no one of major political importance died due to 911. Regardless of whether 911 was in inside job or not though the only way things are going to change is if the political parties are overthrown and/or enough people get together and push a new party to meet the heights of the two existing major parties. I don't see that happening for two reasons. First, if someone did a good enough job of pushing a new party chances are they would be bought out. Second, while many of us talk about it, very few people will actually stand up and do something about it (myself included).Comment -
I find it commical that you Bush lickers who called Clinton a liar for eight years and spent up a lot of my tax dollars going after absolute bullshit now believe him because it fits your agenda. I'll believe these guys. Could they all be liars?
January 14, 2008 at 11:56:43
Twenty-five U.S. Military Officers Challenge Official Account of 9/11
by Alan Miller
Official Account of 9/11: “Impossible”, “A Bunch of Hogwash”, “Total B.S.”, “Ludicrous”, “A Well-Organized Cover-up”, “A White-Washed Farce”
January 14, 2008 – Twenty-five former U.S. military officers have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation. They include former commander of U.S. Army Intelligence, Major General Albert Stubblebine, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Col. Ronald D. Ray, two former staff members of the Director of the National Security Agency; Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, and Major John M. Newman, PhD, and many others. They are among the rapidly growing number of military and intelligence service veterans, scientists, engineers, and architects challenging the government’s story. The officers’ statements appear below, listed alphabetically.
Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD “A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It’s impossible,” said Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret). [1] With doctoral degrees in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Col. Bowman served as Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.
“There’s a second group of facts having to do with the cover up,” continued Col. Bowman. “Taken together these things prove that high levels of our government don’t want us to know what happened and who’s responsible. Who gained from 9/11? Who covered up crucial information about 9/11? And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place? When you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that it’s highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads passing through Dick Cheney.”
Regarding the failure of NORAD to intercept the four hijacked planes on 9/11, Col. Bowman said, “I'm an old interceptor pilot. I know the drill. I've done it. I know how long it takes. I know the rules. … Critics of the government story on 9/11 have said: ‘Well, they knew about this, and they did nothing’. That's not true. If our government had done nothing that day and let normal procedure be followed, those planes, wherever they were, would have been intercepted, and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive.”
During his 22-year Air Force career, Col. Bowman also served as the Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology. He also flew over 100 combat missions in Viet Nam as a fighter pilot.Comment -
Comment -
Im not into the 911 conspiracy thing, but thats just my opinion. I do wonder how many of you who believe that big corporations own the elections, would really care if you had become very rich by owning stocks in them over the last 25 years.My guess is youd be like me and wouldnt care one way or the other, JMO.
laterComment -
My vote doesn't mean much. Here's my voting history for U.S. president since I turned 18 in 1991:
1992: Ross Perot (Independant)
1996: Harry Brown (Libertarian)
2000: Ralph Nader (Green)
2004: John Kerry (Democrat) {my vote was anti-Bush more than pro-Kerry}
2008: Hobama (Democrat) {My anti-republican vote}
In my younger years, I didn't like either of the major parties and figured my vote wouldn't count much anyway. After watching Bush eek out a victory with less popular votes in 2000, I've become condemned of picking the lesser of two evils.
I'd restate my prediction that McCain will win against whoever the Dems serve up, because there just won't be enough support for a woman or a black across the entire U.S. Unless McCain comes out as being a pedophile or something, he's a cinch.Comment -
I disagree Slacker! The American public has had it with the Republicans. I think the Democrats could have Mickey Mouse run for president on their ticket and still beat the republicans.Comment -
Mickey Mouse is far more accomplished than either of them.Comment -
I'd vote for Bugs in a heartbeat. That hare's got brains and can dodge bullets like no other. But he's probably pick Daffy or Elmer Fudd as his VP and that would ruin the ticket. Mickey's too much of a wuss for me.Comment
