war pigs Posted October 24, 2004 Share Posted October 24, 2004 Bush's cabinet members are all part of the Project for the New American Century... http://www.newamericancentury.org/ the goal of this project, as stated on their site... "The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership." basically, what they're saying is America exists as the worlds predominant superpower and that, through any actions, both economically and militarily, they should "rule the world"...this shit is sick... the notions for the invasion of Iraq has been around for a while...there was a letter sent by this conglomerate to Clinton urging him to invade Iraq and remove Hussein from power...it was signed by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Jeb Bush, and about 23 others, most of whom are members of Bush's cabinet... 9/11, while tragic, is no reason to re-elect Bush....keeping someone like him in office will only ensure that there will be more 9/11's...i hate how the republicans are using that shit as a reason to vote for them...and of course, most of the "lowest common denominator" types buy into that shit... people don't hate america for "our freedom"..they hate us because we run around trying to impose our way of life on other countries and cultures, and the general american attitude is that we're better than everyone else...it's a load of shit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KING BLING Posted October 24, 2004 Share Posted October 24, 2004 POSTED BY SOMEONE ELSE >>> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Da Moaner Posted October 24, 2004 Share Posted October 24, 2004 one is black, one is pink. thats the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alcohol Posted October 24, 2004 Share Posted October 24, 2004 http://www.dontjustvote.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobo knife Posted October 24, 2004 Share Posted October 24, 2004 Originally posted by Father John@Oct 23 2004, 01:55 PM We set up elections to make a playground more satisfying for the larger public while the real world issues of oppresion, money, power, will probally never change. Quoted post Around the turn of the century political and economic leaders decided that the mass public isn't capable of making wise decisions for its own good; they thought the public should only be allowed to watch what goes on in nat'l politics...and not have any power in the decision making process. Thats pretty much how they feel today, the wise people in high places know whats good for america...not the public. They use the T.V. and other media to convince us that what they are doing is right and moral. Invading iraq was something that had to be done. Iraq's oil is something america can't afford to lose, in the next 20 maybe 30-40 years that oil will literally be priceless. missing a chance on that "vast supply of power and wealth" would definitely jeopardize our global stranglehold. So really it shouldn't come as any surprise that conquered Iraq...we HAD to.(we as in U.S. corporations) So you see, the political leaders couldn't just say that outright...they had to make up this wonderful story about freedom and wmd and terrorism. to most of you this isn't any revelation but whatever...hopefuly the difference in Kerry and Bush will be that Kerry won't engage us in any more wars strictly to help out freinds in the defense and oil industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KING BLING Posted October 24, 2004 Share Posted October 24, 2004 Originally posted by hobo knife+Oct 24 2004, 06:53 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (hobo knife - Oct 24 2004, 06:53 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Father John@Oct 23 2004, 01:55 PM We set up elections to make a playground more satisfying for the larger public while the real world issues of oppresion, money, power, will probally never change. Quoted post Around the turn of the century political and economic leaders decided that the mass public isn't capable of making wise decisions for its own good; they thought the public should only be allowed to watch what goes on in nat'l politics...and not have any power in the decision making process. Thats pretty much how they feel today, the wise people in high places know whats good for america...not the public. They use the T.V. and other media to convince us that what they are doing is right and moral. Invading iraq was something that had to be done. Iraq's oil is something america can't afford to lose, in the next 20 maybe 30-40 years that oil will literally be priceless. missing a chance on that "vast supply of power and wealth" would definitely jeopardize our global stranglehold. So really it shouldn't come as any surprise that conquered Iraq...we HAD to.(we as in U.S. corporations) So you see, the political leaders couldn't just say that outright...they had to make up this wonderful story about freedom and wmd and terrorism. to most of you this isn't any revelation but whatever...hopefuly the difference in Kerry and Bush will be that Kerry won't engage us in any more wars strictly to help out freinds in the defense and oil industry. Quoted post [/b] Not that you aren't a credible PHD with many published pieces but is there any facts you might include here to back up your conspiracy theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobo knife Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Originally posted by KING BLING+Oct 24 2004, 06:36 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KING BLING - Oct 24 2004, 06:36 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> Originally posted by hobo knife@Oct 24 2004, 06:53 AM <!--QuoteBegin-Father John@Oct 23 2004, 01:55 PM We set up elections to make a playground more satisfying for the larger public while the real world issues of oppresion, money, power, will probally never change. Quoted post Around the turn of the century political and economic leaders decided that the mass public isn't capable of making wise decisions for its own good; they thought the public should only be allowed to watch what goes on in nat'l politics...and not have any power in the decision making process. Thats pretty much how they feel today, the wise people in high places know whats good for america...not the public. They use the T.V. and other media to convince us that what they are doing is right and moral. Invading iraq was something that had to be done. Iraq's oil is something america can't afford to lose, in the next 20 maybe 30-40 years that oil will literally be priceless. missing a chance on that "vast supply of power and wealth" would definitely jeopardize our global stranglehold. So really it shouldn't come as any surprise that conquered Iraq...we HAD to.(we as in U.S. corporations) So you see, the political leaders couldn't just say that outright...they had to make up this wonderful story about freedom and wmd and terrorism. to most of you this isn't any revelation but whatever...hopefuly the difference in Kerry and Bush will be that Kerry won't engage us in any more wars strictly to help out freinds in the defense and oil industry. Quoted post Not that you aren't a credible PHD with many published pieces but is there any facts you might include here to back up your conspiracy theory? Quoted post [/b] The constitutional system was originally designed “to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority,” in the words of the leading framer, James Madison. Political power, he explained, must be in the hands of “the wealth of the nation,” men who can be trusted to “secure the permanent interests of the country”—the rights of the propertied—and to defend these interests against the “leveling spirit” of the general public. If the public were allowed to participate freely in elections, Madison warned his colleagues, their “leveling spirit” might lead to measures to improve the conditions of those who “labor under all the hardships of life, and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings.” Agrarian reform was the primary threat that Madison perceived; by now, it is much broader. In a modern version, the general public are considered “ignorant and meddlesome outsiders” who should be mere “spectators of action,” not participants (Walter Lippmann); their role is only periodic choice among the “responsible men,” who are to function in “technocratic insulation,” in World Bank lingo, “securing the permanent interests.” The doctrine, labeled “polyarchy” by democratic political theorist Robert Dahl, is given firmer institutional grounds by the reduction of the public arena under the “reforms.” Democracy is to be construed as the right to choose among commodities. Business leaders explain the need to impose on the population a “philosophy of futility” and “lack of purpose in life,” to “concentrate human attention on the more superficial things that comprise much of fashionable consumption.” People may then accept and even welcome their meaningless and subordinate lives, and forget ridiculous ideas about managing their own affairs. They will abandon their fate to the responsible people, the self-described “intelligent minorities” who serve and administer power —which of course lies elsewhere, a hidden but crucial premise. these thoughts first surfaced in american politcs circa 1920's....i think. And which part of my statement do you view as conspiracy theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_Tesseract Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Originally posted by Cracked Ass@Oct 21 2004, 01:28 PM I'm down for a return to the Clinton years. Sort of a do-nothing president, but at least he refrained from instigating a fresh army of America-haters and alienating all our allies and trashing the environment and further enabling rampaging corporations and etc. etc. Quoted post War in yugoslavia, i'm certain that the american economy is so connected to the gun/military industry that theres no way you guys can have a presidency without a war. The bushers traditionally hit the middle east for obvious reasons and i'm sure that Kerry will continue Clintons Balkan wars...dont get me wrong i prefer Kerry 100000 millions times over bush but as an outsider i hate both 5000000 times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BROWNer Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 this thread is disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_Tesseract Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 thanx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justaname Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Originally posted by KaBar2@Oct 21 2004, 10:49 PM With a substantially Republican-dominated Congress, even if Mr. Kerry does get elected, it is unlikely that he will be able to rack up very many wins in the culture wars. The Supreme Court justices are getting older by the day, several want to retire, at least one is in poor health, so one way or another, there are going to be some new Supreme Court justices. If Mr. Kerry is elected, he cannot appoint them without his choices being approved by the Senate (if memory serves.) In order to get them approved by the Senate they will have to be either rather conservative, or at least pretty much unbiased in favor of the Left. He might could work out a package deal--appoint a conservative for every moderate liberal (there will be four spots open) leaving the Supreme Court more or less balanced. Quoted post for this is why you need to pay attention to your local politicians. i agree that most are liars but at least you have an idea of who they are and who are most likely to do things in your favor. presidential election is important but remember, who you vote to the house of representatives, congressmen and senates are the one who will dictate whether your rights can be protect or reject, that also include what the shit your next president attempts to pass. so you should pay more attention to your state political structure, vote for the right ones. what i just said sound like a bunch of bullshit anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaBar2 Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Well, Seeking, at least you didn't stoop to ad hominem attacks when your insider information didn't carry the argument. You can be proud of that, anyway. And by the way, although I never claimed to be anything other than a nobody, I find it pretty amusing that a guy from Detroit is claiming that Houston is a nowhere town. LOL. At least you haven't lost your sense of humor. Is it snowing up there yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rojotelefono Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 I admit to not knowing a thing about american politics, but having caught the news earlier, I pity you poor sods having to choose between those two.... Quite frankly, Bush deserves to go for the Iraq debacle (as does Blair - we'll see in 2005). BUT who the hell is this Kerry guy? On snap first impressions, I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him... maybe I have a real aversion to heavily religious politicians Guess its the old 'which one is the lesser tosser' voting strategy. Good luck all.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skroez Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.