1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

US politics and election

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by kathaksung, Jun 29, 2008.

  1. kathaksung

    kathaksung New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2008
    Messages:
    160
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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).
     
  2. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    Great... Another copy and paste intellectual spewing Conspiracy Theories. Kat has about a dozen or more of this exact same post featured at MANY other sites....

    Its clear there is no setting these people straight...
     
  3. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Democrats always tout "change" without any specifics. If they said the change they want, no one would vote for them. High fuel prices, high taxes, more government controls on everything, socialism and so on.... who'd vote for that? So they have to be ambiguous.

    Clearly Silverstein was involved, but I see no connection to Bush, other than everyone tries to blame everything on the top dog. I'd think more likely an unelected group with little or no oversight. NSA perhaps? Congress is watched by too many watchdog groups. And the executive branch? Don't be silly. Nothing like that could be covered up for so long at that level of government.

    Interrogation techniques have been used since the CIA was created, this is not new. The war in Iraq was justified prior to Bush. Afghanistan was the main base of operations for Al Qaeda, what would you suggest? Send them love notes? Use of the public phone service has been tapped for ages. There is no right to privacy over the public phone service.

    What civil liberty has been infringed? I've asked this before, no one come up with a real answer. Just liberal talking points with no factual basis.

    Code for lose the war. A horrible idea and I'm against it.

    Code for corporate welfare and socialism. Both horrible ideas, and I'm against it.

    Code for revoking the policies that have prevented terrorist attacks for the past 7 years since 9/11. In other words, to support terrorists.

    Of course. They both had the good of the nation in mind, instead of political power. Now that those priorities are reversed, they are against both, even though they voted for them.

    Looney. I suppose everyone on the planet is a puppet if they happen to disagree with this stupidity. Oh wait.... maybe I'm a puppet... but then how would a puppet be allowed on this forum? Gasp! Maybe the owners of the forums are puppets for allowing me, being a puppet, on the forum! Maybe everyone reading your crazy post, and not supporting it, are all puppets! Good heavens!!! EVERYONE EVERYWHERE IS A PUPPET!!!!

    Suddenly... it's all clear now.

    Right, the puppet candidates, of the puppet public, on the puppet media, rigged the fake polls, with the puppet voting booth and puppet little old lady poll workers, who rigged the fake vote with the puppet election office....

    Just out of curiosity... other than YOU... and Ron Paul... is there anyone else on the whole planet, that is NOT a puppet, in your world? What color is the sky? Do any of the animals talk or have opinions on alternative energy sources? Like maybe an intellectual pink elephant, or talkative rabbit somewhere? Just wondering...
     
  4. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I figured as much, but I had fun with it. :D
     
  5. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    Andy, I have far too much respect for you to see you wearing a tin foil hat.

    Please,

    Read about Silverstein
     
  6. kathaksung

    kathaksung New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2008
    Messages:
    160
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    532. We need an honest, transparent election (Iowa Primary lesson 1) (1/13/07)

    Obama wins Iowa - a state with 92% white population. Why a white state which generally considered conservative has elected a black candidate? It means American people are too resentful to the policy of current government. They hate Iraq war and the loss of civil right.

    How can we have this result? Because Iowa Democratic Primary Caucus is an honest, transparent one. Residents gathered at the site on time to discuss their choices then raise their hands. The counting is present, direct and clear. Voters know the result right away. It makes an election hard to be rigged.

    As we have seen the mainstream of public opinion is to change the status quo, then Ron Paul should have won the Iowa Republican Caucus too. He has more distinctive flag than Obama has. But he only got 10%. Why? He obviously lost to a corruptive vote system in Iowa Republican Primary - ballot counting.
    The ballot was counted by election office. Then an officer would tell you the result. A number can be faked or altered easily. Voters can hardly verify it individually.

    This is proved in New Hampshire Primary:

    Quote, "Voter Fraud Against Paul Confirmed in Sutton, N.H
    By admin | January 8, 2008
    Sutton with 100% reporting reported 0 votes for paul but poster in Sutton posted:
    My mom, aunt, and dad all voted for RP today in my hometown, My mom and aunt both work passing out ballots, and checking them off. I just looked at the politico map and it says their town has ZERO votes for Ron. Now i know that there isn’t corruption on voting in that little town, so where they reported it must be. What do I do, anyone know???
    http://www.ronpaulwarroom.com/?p=655#more-655

    Greenville Vote Discrepancy SAME as Sutton
    Moreover, when Sutton had been found out, they quickly added 31 votes, and cited ‘human error.’ What is their excuse for this source, now showing Greenville at 25 votes:
    http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=news0807

    The problem is, you have to take what they told you but can't verify it. They could tell you it's zero, that forgery is easy to be find out. They could also tell you it's 31 (or 25) then it is hard for you to confirm it's a rigging while the real votes may be 131 or 125.

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

    This is a covert totalitarian country. They select president by rigged election. (They control the voting office by intelligence) and justify the result by fake poll. (They manipulate public opinion by media)
     
  7. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I understand. Sadly I have to believe in science, and science says two planes can't knock down those towers. I've looked at it from every angle I can as a complete skeptic, and unfortunately, it just isn't scientifically supportable. It had to have been an inside job. There simply isn't any other way.

    I looked at the Governments information, stuff from popular mechanics, stuff from PBS, stuff from other sources... all of it points to a clear indication that two planes and a bit of fuel can not possibly have caused the reinforced industrial grade steal superstructure to disintegrate.

    So I either toss my brains in the trash can and blindly follow the conventional wisdom of the masses... kinda like an obamabot... or I have to believe what my education and knowledge indicates must be true.

    Based on everything I know about physics, if I deny this, I might as well believe in hydrogen cars, grand bigoil conspiracies, and global warming stupidity.
     
  8. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    :eek:

    This is certainly not the thread for it but I would like to hear more about your thoughts on this topic. That is, if you are interested in sharing...

    Please post in one of the 9/11 threads about the towers and ask any questions you like about the issue. I will make it a priority to answer.
     
  9. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    None of what you said, makes any logical sense. Democraps are not conservative. Neither Hillary, nor Obama, are conservative by any stretch, so they had to choose one, and neither would be any indication of anything you suggest.

    You can have this result by having two crappy options, and choosing one of them. It's not that hard.

    Every election is claimed to "change the status quo", yet they all turn out the same. Ron Paul got only 10% because only 10% of the people voted for him, because only 10% thought he wasn't insane.

    Stop voting for democraps and that will not be a problem.

    It's amazing really. In the work place, when the boss comes to expect perfection from his employees, everyone resents it. It's the idea that somehow you can be perfect and never make a mistake or screw up or anything.

    Yet, when it comes to elections, there this idea that everyone should be absolutely perfect. Sorry, but it's not possible. What's worse is, every tiny little error, no matter how small, and everyone (normally democraps) instantly comes out with these conspiracy theories claiming it's a big cover up and rigging.

    Even on Ron Puals web link there, some idiot is talking about how the GOP rigged the Ohio election. Erm... but the facts are bit different. A couple of poll workers didn't want to spend Christmas recounting the entire counties ballots. So the selectively picked out ballots they knew wouldn't trigger a county wide recount. They made a mistake, and were convicted of it.

    Note: they didn't invent ballots, divine ballots, start tossing out ballots on shaky grounds, or dismissing military ballots, or find a stack of blank ballots and punch out the hole for gore on each one and say they got 'lost' and need counted now, they didn't find dead people voting for Kennedy, or prison inmates voting for Gore... none of that. Just a couple of guys who wanted to be home for the holidays.

    But oh! It must be a GOP scheme! Idiots. My view of Ron Pual drops every time I meet his supporters.

    For the record, yes there is some election fraud, and it should be stopped and punished. But there is no 'grand scheme' out there. If there is 17 people voting in a precincts with only 16 people, then find out about it. Last I checked, voter registrations should be public record.
     
  10. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    She use to past them at Politicalsoup all the time, I thought that named was the same lol
     
  11. Federal Farmer

    Federal Farmer New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    922
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Andy, the thing you've neglected to account for is the fact that, besides the aircraft hitting the towers (and destroying many of the main support columns), and the aviation fuel burning, is all of the other stuff inside the buildings that the aviation fuel ignited, like desks, and chairs, and carpet, and painted walls, and doors, and moldings, and ceiling panels, and wiring, and, and, and, and, so it wasn't JUST the aircraft, and it wasn't JUST the aviation fuel, and it wasn't JUST the stuff in the offices that caught fire, it was a cumulative effect of all of that that weakened the steel to the point that it lost it's strength (after all, steel IS formed by heating it).

    In the case of the steel in the WTC, the temperature that the steel used in the construction starts to lose it's strength is about 500C (930F), and by 600C (1100F), they've lost about half of their tensile strength. The fires in the WTC reached temperatures of about 1000C (1850F), or double that necessary to weaken the steel beyond it's ability to continue to handle the loadings it was subjected to PRIOR to the impact of the aircraft (mild steel becomes "red hot" at about 730C). After the aircraft hit the building and destroyed many of the structural components, all of the loads (horizontal and vertical) were shifted to the remaining structural elements, which, with the addition of the heating, made it impossible for them to maintain their integrity, so the buildings collapsed.

    Also, supposing for a moment that it was an "inside job", perhaps you can explain to me exactly what mechanism was used to bring them down that didn't involve any explosives, since any explosives, and the wires and det cord leading TO the explosives, that would have been used would have caught fire and burned up LONG before the towers fell (C-4 catches fire and burns at 350F, or the temperature of a common match). This is also completely discounting the fact of all of the prep work that's necessary before a building is blown (removal of ALL of the stuff inside the offices, removal of ALL of the interior non-bearing partitions (including the ones that formed the stairwells that people walked down), weakening of the steel support columns, weakening of all of the bar joists, and removal of the exterior partitions) to ensure that it falls like it's supposed to.

    It's kind of hard to rip all of that stuff out and dispose of it without anybody noticing. "Bob, where's my desk...and my chair...and my phone...and my carpet...and my door...and my walls...and the windows? Bob, why are their great big chunks cut out of these steel columns, the columns that I've never seen before? Bob, what are there wires running all over the place? Bob, don't you think we should get building maintenance up here? Bob? BOB? OH SH1T! BOB, what are you doing hanging on the edge of that great big hole in our floor, that goes down 4 stories?"
     
  12. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    You forgot how explaining how soooo many people where in on it, no one talks, and no one notices.....

    also why They needed to blow up the building in the first place....was 4 hijacked planes with everyone dead and crashing them into the Pentagon and WTC not enough?

    I also love how it was so we can Invade Iraq....Yet we set up no evidence at all Iraq had anything to do with it...now would that have not made sense to do?

    911 conspiracy people like to say no plane hit the Pentagon...but cant account for the dead airliner Hijacked then...Or that you can see the plane in pics ( they try to say you cant) they say the Engine was the wrong size in the pic....so i guess someone in the middle of everything drove up in a van and hauled one out for pics and no one saw it......

    Steal Melts at......who cares when it melts....it gets weak far far before that like you said.

    One guy tried to tell me they blew up explosives even when the planes hit, but went to early for the 2nd plane so you can see it...why would they need to blow them up when a Giant plane was hitting? And damn those must be good Piolts to be able to fly it into the building just where they set them up.....

    Its Worthless to debate these people as they believe because they want to, and no facts will change there mind.
     
  13. Federal Farmer

    Federal Farmer New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    922
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I know, but every once in a while you run across someone who genuinely hasn't properly researched it, and only knows what they've been told, by a bunch of idiot CT'ers who don't have the first clue WTF they're talking about, and I was hoping that Andy was one of the former, and just needed someone who actually DID know something about heavy commercial construction, steel, engineering, (not counting military explosives training) etc. to set him straight.
     
  14. Federal Farmer

    Federal Farmer New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    922
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah, right, THAT'S a possibility...NOT! I mean it's not like those engines weigh much, well, not much over 3.5 to 4.5 TONS!!!
     
  15. kathaksung

    kathaksung New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2008
    Messages:
    160
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
Loading...

Share This Page