If you were a US citizen . . .

Allan D wrote:

bliksem wrote:The majority of Americans, rightly or wrongly, would have no idea who he was if 9/11 had not happened.

Would anyone have heard of Hillary if she hadn't married Bill? At least Giuliani has done something and been responsible for running a government. I'd sooner vote for someone, man or woman, who had some sort of a record rather than had simply married someone who subsequently became famous.

Maybe not, but at least she's shown since then that there is a bit more substance about her than just bleating about 'leadership.' She's made her priorities and policies known and has so far resisted being drawn into just attacking her opponents (although she may start soon). And she has been a Senator for NY for the last 7 years, so it's hardly as though she's running purely on the back of being married to Bill (although it certainly helps to have him in your corner).

Anway, as the old joke goes, Bill and Hillary are driving through Arkansas soon after Bill won the presidency and they stop at a gas station on their travels. As the attendant fills their tank, Hillary looks out the window and notes that the pump-monkey is an old boyfriend of hers from college. "Wow, that was close," exclaims Bill. "You might've been the wife of a petrol pump attendant." "Not quite,"replies Hillary, "He might've been president."

mynah wrote:

Would anyone have heard of Hillary if she hadn't married Bill?

There are some who say we'd never have heard of Bill if he had not married Hillary...

Thanks Mynah - saved me the trouble.

mynah wrote:Things can get much worse...

Warning: The above article contains disturbing material.

He doesn't really look like your typical 'fire and brimstone' preacher.

He looks more like a 'Jesus wants us to feed the poor' kind of Christian.

The Evangelicals will probably fall for him, but they might be disappointed if he ever gets into office.

I don't think that's all that likely mind you. The best he can hope for his probably the VP slot on a Romney or Giuliani ticket.

Cheers.

He's probably not a bad guy, but there are some things that worry me seriously about him. For one, he claims being inspired by Ronald Reagan and publicly admits to gaining much of his non-biblical knowledge from cramming Reader's Digests. The most scary bit, however, is that there seems to be many Americans who think he is way too liberal in his thinking...

Dawkins' book was filled with dread about America and it's fondness for the Bible. He was talkin about something called the American Taliban or something.

It's not US christians per se we should be worried about - its the creationists that give me the heebie-jeebies

Not crashed any planes into buildings yet though.

If I were a US citizen, I would take a short rope and hang myself as soon as possible.

doremi wrote:Dawkins' book was filled with dread about America and it's fondness for the Bible. He was talkin about something called the American Taliban or something.

Whether one wants to be religious or not should be one's own choice, but every government should be strictly secular and headed by an earthly representative: Once you have a government where the guy at the top can't be held accountable for his screw-ups, you're in trouble.

Comparisons of Ron Paul to Gandhi?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north538.html

His politics does have a bit of a 'salt march' ring to it.

Allan D wrote:Not crashed any planes into buildings yet though.

Who hasn't?

bliksem wrote:Yes, his zero tolerance of people causing widespread chaos and turmoil through their vicious and brutal jumping over subway turnstiles and double parking. Death to the jaywalkers, that's what America needs right now.

Sounds like they're emulating our own anti-crime drives. One in which some 54 600 people were arrested looked excellent until it turned out that all but a handful were for parking and other minor traffic offences. Who wants to run the risk of confronting murderers and rapists if you can fill out your arrest sheet with nurses who dare to treat a broken hand without filling in the necessary forms first?

"Not crashed any planes into buildings yet though."

No, just bombed the odd abortion clinic here and there....

Allan D wrote:Not crashed any planes into buildings yet though.

Neither has the Afghani taliban.

Whoever gets elected, the opportunities for headlines like this one will not come around again soon...

*Buckaroo* wrote:If I were a US citizen, I would take a short rope and hang myself as soon as possible.

... click here for a 'Free Green Card'

lardbucket wrote:... click here for a 'Free Green Card'

Phurt...I am a GC holder since 93.

doremi wrote:

Allan D wrote:Not crashed any planes into buildings yet though.

Neither has the Afghani taliban.

They invited in those who did though.

Can anybody relate to this ?

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the light of publicity during those years. But now the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supra-national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

-David Rockefeller



The Planned Collapse Of USA
By Peter Chamberlin
MortysCabin.com
12-11-7

There is no shortage of speculation about "why" our leaders are still adamantly planning for the destruction of Iran, in the face of overwhelming popular opposition, even though everyone except the neocons and their allies believes that America would not survive our own actions. An irrational attack is planned and apparently the decision has been chiseled in stone. It may be for Israel. It may be for oil. Maybe it is for world domination?

We are launching a nuclear world war to save us from ourselves. "We have found the enemy and he is us." --Pogo. We risk blowing the world apart, to avoid watching America slowly choke on its own excesses.

The government has known for decades that America is on a countdown to self-destruction. Among the elite it is common knowledge that our "global economy" must one day collapse from its own dead weight. In 1974 an intensive research project was undertaken by the Stanford Research Institute and the Charles F. Kettering Foundation for the Dept. of Education. Their final report was released as the Changing Images of Man. It was compiled by the SRI Center for the Study of Social Policy, Director Willis Harmon. This is a far-reaching investigation into how the basic nature of man might be changed. The Aquarian Conspiracy describes the implementation of their work in the real world..

The most reassuring part of "Images" is that it confirms my own conclusions about our crisis, but it is also the most disturbing part, for it confirms my worst reservations about this time.

The object of the research was the development of a plausible vision of the future in which democratic methods survive, major problems are managed successfully if not resolved, and the unfolding of the human potential continues to expand. In other words, the postulation of a "desirable future" including feasible paths to its realization . . .

The government was looking forward to a very troubling future, trying to figure out the best path through it. The plan was to find ways to shape and mold mankind into a new cultural image, complete with new ideas and ideologies, even religious ones. The root of the problem was human nature, and solution was to reshape the competing forces of daily life, in order to forge a new image of a new human nature. The researchers were brutally honest in seeking all available knowledge pertaining to their research, and in assessing the current common image of man-on-earth.

The research revealed that there were a multitude of crises that were about to intersect in America's near future. Not the least of these converging catastrophes was a rapidly approaching breakdown of both American capitalism and democracy. The collapse was a natural result of globalism and monopoly capitalism. The basic greed that powers the system eroded the American political and economic structures, exposing the foundation of immorality and unfairness that amplifies the social unrest. The Stanford researchers clearly predicted that the American economy was destined to collapse from its own dead weight. The data also showed that that economic collapse was to be accompanied by disastrous social repercussions, such as rioting and upheaval, which would lead us into a "garrison state."

The thing about this research is that this work has confirmed that our economy based on parasitic capitalism, where the small elite sits atop the heap of men and gorges on their lifeblood, is destroying the social fabric of America. This system is based on a stacked deck, where the top elite always reap the profits that are made to rise to the top through the corporate profits-based system. The research confirmed that the growing inequities of such a system were ever increasing and with them, elevated social tensions. A system based on usury and putting everyone in the "poor house" is an economic order that is guaranteed to produce a democratic revolution, whenever the misery index of the armed populace exceeds the limits that they are willing to peacefully bear, without striking back at the source of their misery.

Changing Images of Man predicts an American economic collapse and a "garrison" (police) state," if the overwhelming inequities of our economic system are not corrected by powerful multinationals making more humane decisions. Alternatives to this doomsday scenario are discussed, all of which point to the need to devote all available resources towards transforming the image of man, changing man's nature, instead of altering the corrupted economic system which has brought America to this dire state. In this government study it was inappropriate to denounce the evil culprits behind all our troubles (who pull the strings on government itself), even though the task was to document and remedy the damage that they have done. Instead, they are cited as the hopeful "saviors," that we should look to for help and leadership. The hypocrisy of the hegemons! The authors admit that it is "utopian in 1974 to think of the multinational corporations as potentially among our most effective mechanisms for husbanding the earth's resources and optimizing their use for human benefit -- the current popular image of the corporation tends to be more that of the spoiler and the exploiter."

Instead of charging the people who are responsible for our situation (such as men like David Rockefeller), for manipulating our economy and our democracy to maximize their profits, the multi-national corporations and their owners were exalted as the potential saviors of mankind. Rockefeller and the elite have consistently taken steps to dominate the world by controlling people through "humanitarian" projects which, in the end, turn out to be profit mechanisms. The "green revolution" to spread corporate farming to the Third World has been the key to globalization's destabilizing of world labor markets, in order to create populations of "refugee workers," who are willing to go anywhere to find work for slave wages. This is the cause of the wave of illegal immigration into the US from Mexico. This is part of the proof that there are powerful individuals who are using their economic power to undermine nations in a long-term scheme to gain control of nations and multiply their profits.


Rockefeller writes on page 405 of his memoirs: "Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." (<http://lonelantern.org/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=356>Activists Go Face to Face With Evil As Rockefeller Confronted)

Everything that "Images" suggested to remedy shortcomings in the economic system was based on the assumption that men like this would acquire a new corporate benevolence, with CEOs gaining basic humanity. According to Rockefeller himself (who freely admits his efforts to replace America with a "one world" order), he has been working for the greater good of man, all along.

Their conclusions on American political shortcomings were that these would be tended to by the new improved humane politicians, sort of like Bush's "compassionate conservatives." Step 4 of their six-part strategy to "Bring About a Non-Catostrophic Transformation" -- "Encourage a politics of righteousness and a heightened sense of public responsibilities of the private sector . . . A politics of righteousness might have been laudable in any generation; it may be indispensable for safe passage through the times just ahead."

The report authors recognize the inevitability of the rising new image of man, describing it as a quasi-religious awakening within the collective mind of man, man's new human nature, relating it to the actual process of spiritual learning that has been going on within religions for thousands of years. They praise Freemasonry and the skills and disciplines inculcated within its members, speculating that their ways might be the key to shoring-up our free enterprise democratic society.

They developed a strategy to revitalize America's motivational images, symbols and institutions, outlining five separate approaches to the problem, describing the pluses and the pitfalls of each, according to their effects upon society. These approaches are defined as "restorative, simulative, manipulative, persuasive and facilitative." Restoration of crumbling icons works best in the early stages of societal transformation (revitalization cycle). The simulative strategy introduces new ideas, whenever the collapse of the old order becomes apparent. The manipulative strategy seeks to limit individual freedoms. Persuasive propaganda phase is to be coupled with proven mind control techniques, to keep down the social upheaval and shape the emerging image.

"No doubt existing consciousness-changing, behavior-shaping, subliminal persuasion, and other conditioning techniques could be used to accomplish some sort of transformation of sobering proportions (we ought to be able to be more effective than Nazi Germany). After previously citing Nazi reinvigoration of the Germanic icons and ideals."

The transforming revitalization process mirrors the psychiatric process of leading a patient through a psychotic break and the restructuring of his life, but on a national scale.

Once the transformation becomes apparent, social stability will become a problem, especially when society feels pushed by overextending the simulative stage. Actions taken to increase the polarization between "transformation enthusiasts and the conservatives" are called "constructive," except when it is desirable to take actions that "contribute to social cohesion." They were searching for the best path to bring about a controlled deconstruction of everything that "America" means and the reconstruction of a new improved vision of America. They are midwifes to the delivery of the "New World Order," as they go about the dirty business of guiding society through that predicted period of "friendly fascism."

The great anomaly is given as the great chasm between an efficiently functioning profit-driven capitalist society and the human needs and desires of that society which go unmet, so that "profits" can be taken. In fact, the "profit" really amounts to the bread that is taken from the poor. The inequities and the unfairness of the corporate system are causing the breakdown of American capitalism and American democracy. The American catastrophe is causing the breakdown of the world economy for the same reason, the basic inability of monopoly capitalism to meet the basic needs demanded by the world's people.

Bush's appointed task is to bully America through this turbulent period of upheaval, with as little disruption of corporate activity as possible. Government has taken the words of this study to heart, preparing a manipulative transformation, to divert or preempt the coming collapse of our nation with a massive war today. This is also one of the primary reasons for the coming world war, to serve as a prelude to American martial law. Instead of calling out the troops after the insurrection has begun, they plan to call out the troops first. If the American military is to forcefully control the homeland, including their own relatives, then the troops must first be convinced that the nation's survival depends upon their patriotic actions. This is why the world war against Iran has not started yet, because our National Guard must first be convinced that its duty is to put down the American rebellion which will surely accompany the bombing of Iran. The timing for their great takeover is crucial, if they want to move America past (through) the social unrest as quickly as possible.

Here are the "Elements of a Strategy for a Non-catastrophic Transition":

1. Promote awareness of the unavoidability of the transformation.

2. Foster construction of a guiding vision of a workable society built around the new image of man and new social paradigm.

3. Foster a period of experimentation and tolerance for diverse alternatives.

4. Encourage a politics of righteousness and a heightened sense of public responsibilities of the private sector . . . A politics of righteousness might have been laudable in any generation; it may be indispensable for safe passage through the times just ahead.

5. Promote systematic exploration of and foster education regarding man's inner life, his subjective experience.

6. Plan adequate social controls for the transition period while safeguarding against longer-term losses of freedom . . . Regulation and restraint of behavior will be necessary in order to hold the society together while it goes around a difficult corner.

There must be a new economics to deal with the "new scarcities." Arguing for corporate America to adopt a humanitarian aspect, the argument is made for an alternative "new socialism," where important sectors like energy might be nationalized for the good of the country, and greater pressure put upon corporations to mandate a sort of social awareness of employee needs, as much as shareholder profits.

"The appropriate question may be not so much how to bring about a transformation . . . but rather how to facilitate a non-catastrophic transformation." [page 195]

"Construct a guiding version of a workable society, built around a new positive image of humankind and corresponding vision of a suitable social paradigm. As the old order shows increasing signs of falling apart, some adequate vision of what may be simultaneously building is urgently needed for mobilization of constructive effort. The guiding vision has to include some way of providing for full and valued participation in the economic and social affairs of the community and society, especially for those who are physically and mentally able to contribute but find themselves in a state of unwilling idleness and deterioration of spirit."

Despite all the report's shortcomings and its hypocrisy, it does make some sound observations about what is needed for our immediate survival. We should take it as a guide to what our government knows about the coming mega-crisis and a template to help us see what changes we could make if there were truly a new economy, a new social contract, a new American state. For it is obvious to all those who take the time to look, that we are headed into period of national freefall, when American society plunges head first, into a dark abyss of uncertainty, as the old order passes away, and the New World Order rushes in to fill the void.

We are seeing the planned collapse of America, coming down the road we are on. What are we going to do to get our nation off that highway to hell?

Brilliantly written article that attempts to explain the Obama phenomenon as well as providing a reason to vote for him:

The new face of America

Once written off, Barack Obama is suddenly surging in the polls and could become the first African-American president . The reason is because he is the only man who can halt the racial, religious and cultural civil war that is tearing America apart.
Andrew Sullivan

Last week was a horrible one for Hillary Clinton. Her husband had thrown a wrench into her campaign to become president of the United States by declaring that he’d been against the Iraq war from the beginning - a transparent fib that reminded many Democrats of the pathological lying of the 1990s.

Two Clinton campaign staffers were then caught sending out e-mails warning that Barack Obama, her main rival for the Democrat ticket, was a closet Muslim. And one of her campaign co-chairmen raised the issue of Obama’s past drug use - something Obama had dealt with candidly years ago. Clinton was forced to apologise and her aide resigned. Grassroots Democrats were appalled at the descent into nastiness. It suggested desperation in the Clinton camp.

But everything came to a head in last Thursday’s Iowa debate between the Democratic candidates. Obama was asked by the moderator how he could claim to represent change on foreign policy when he had so many former Clinton administration officials advising him. Hillary burst into desperate laughter. “I’d love to hear him answer that,” she cackled. Obama paused, then fired: “Well, Hillary, I’m looking forward to having you advise me as well.” The audience erupted. In one moment, the Alpha Female ceded authority to the Alpha Male.

The Washington media are taken aback by Obama’s surge in the polls. They dismissed him months ago, buying into the notion that a Clinton presidency was inevitable. But they can’t ignore the facts in the key states: in Iowa, Obama is slightly ahead and has the organisational edge. In New Hampshire, Clinton’s double-digit lead has suddenly evaporated. In South Carolina, black voters have begun to switch en masse to Obama. It’s still far from over - and no one should discount Hillary Clinton - but the momentum is suddenly his.

How did it happen? Some will point to a solid, disciplined campaign on Obama’s part. Others will point to memorable moments like the one where he bested Hillary in last week’s debate. But this misses the core appeal and sustaining logic of the Obama candidacy. It transcends race; it runs deeper than the vagaries of daily campaigning; it represents a generational, cultural shift, and not just a political one. In a strange way, it even transcends Obama himself.........

Continues here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3056283.ece

Is this the guy who wants to invade Pakistan?

"It transcends race; it runs deeper than the vagaries of daily campaigning; it represents a generational, cultural shift, and not just a political one. In a strange way, it even transcends Obama himself........."

What does this mean? Are there no sub-editors at "The Times" anymore who are willing to put a blue pencil through Sullivan's purple prose? It reads more like a blurb on an album cover than a piece of political reporting.

For what it's worth here's my take on it in the "Have Your Say" column beneath the article for those who can't be bothered linking:

"Mr Sullivan has allowed himself to become carried away by his enthusiasm. His prose style is more reminiscent of a gushing rock critic writing about the latest pop sensation rather than that of a political reporter. It might be someone writing about Michael Jackson when "Thriller" came out.

The idea that Osama bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda will give up their struggle with the US and the West simply because Obama is President is too absurd for words. Obama is simply another Howard Dean and will fizzle out just as Dean did (although he might last longer thanks to Oprah and the media hype). He has no real experience and his programme is vague to the point of meaninglessness. The election will, and ought to be, between Rudy and Hillary as the only two serious candidates (with the exception of John McCain who, sadly, may be too old but is probably the best of all of them)."

Don't think Obama will get Imran Khan's support and even I would draw the line at invading a Full Member of the ICC. Test cricket ought to be, after all, sacrosanct.

*Buckaroo* wrote:Can anybody relate to this ?

No, it's total garbage written in Orwellian newspeak.

Allan D wrote:Is this the guy who wants to invade Pakistan?

"It transcends race; it runs deeper than the vagaries of daily campaigning; it represents a generational, cultural shift, and not just a political one. In a strange way, it even transcends Obama himself........."

What does this mean? Are there no sub-editors at "The Times" anymore who are willing to put a blue pencil through Sullivan's purple prose? It reads more like a blurb on an album cover than a piece of political reporting.

For what it's worth here's my take on it in the "Have Your Say" column beneath the article for those who can't be bothered linking:

"Mr Sullivan has allowed himself to become carried away by his enthusiasm. His prose style is more reminiscent of a gushing rock critic writing about the latest pop sensation rather than that of a political reporter. It might be someone writing about Michael Jackson when "Thriller" came out.

The idea that Osama bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda will give up their struggle with the US and the West simply because Obama is President is too absurd for words. Obama is simply another Howard Dean and will fizzle out just as Dean did (although he might last longer thanks to Oprah and the media hype). He has no real experience and his programme is vague to the point of meaninglessness. The election will, and ought to be, between Rudy and Hillary as the only two serious candidates (with the exception of John McCain who, sadly, may be too old but is probably the best of all of them)."

Don't think Obama will get Imran Khan's support and even I would draw the line at invading a Full Member of the ICC. Test cricket ought to be, after all, sacrosanct.

What a transparent, pathetic, neo-con you've turned out to be, Allan.

I take issue with your idiotic comments and here's why.

Firstly, you highlight a portion of the article and dismiss it as flowery, elegant, meaninglessness. That just isn't true. If you actually read the entire article you would see that the author provides exactly what you ask for. The whole article is about how Obama transcends race and daily campaigning. It's impossible to miss. Oxford educated did you say?

It's very easy to post trite, unsubstantiated, comments comparing the article to a Thriller review. If you didn't have such an utterly blinkered, narrow, world view, you'd realise that it's an opinion piece. This is the author's opinion. He's not reporting facts. What else could you possibly expect apart from his opinion on the Obama issue? Yes, the article is partisan. Yes, the article attempts to make a point. That is its prerogative as an opinion piece. What is your point?

Moreover, though the article is clearly partisan, it is not as "gushing" as you pretend. At several points throughout the article, the author admits that Obama has his own problems. He admits that Obama may not be the president that American dreams of. He writes that

None of this, of course, means that Obama will be the president some are dreaming of. His record in high office is sparse; his performances on the campaign trail have been patchy; his chief rival for the nomination, Senator Clinton, has bested him often. At times, she has even managed to appear more inherently likable than the skinny, crabby and sometimes morose newcomer from Chicago.

But you chose to ignore that didn't you? Yes. It suited your twisted outlook to pretend that the article is merely the textual analogue of a "I love Barack Obama" badge.

And secondly, you're an expert at making up utter falsehoods. At no point does the author attempt to say that electing Obama will lead to Al-Qaeda "giving up its struggle". He simply says the fact that Obama is black, grew up around Muslims, and has an African father will certainly not aid fundamentalist Islam and its policy of demonising America and American values. He does not even suggest that electing Obama will cause Al-Qaeda to give up its struggle. That is simply a one-eyed inference that you have made. And yes, it is absurd. That's why he doesn't say it.

Your style is to scour a liberal candidates' career and point out any indiscretion, big or small, that you can find. I wouldn't be surprised if you turned out to be one of those soulless, blood sucking, political strategists that will do anything to discredit an opponent. I might even call you Karl Rove from now on. You couldn't find an awful lot on Obama so you used the "Invade Pakistan" soundbite. Obama advocated sending troops into Pakistan in order to search for Al-Qaeda members. This is slightly different from an invasion (and all that that word entails), and you know so.

Of course, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion that Obama's campaign does not really stand for anything. That's not what I have a problem with. I disagree with you denigrating an article with a childish, selective, manipulative and idiotic critique. Don't be so parsimonius with the truth if you're going to post something serious.