| Author | Post |
|---|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 2730 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 29th, 2008 07:03 pm |
|
THE END OF AMERICA UNDER OBAMACON
Obama's S.2433 Would Put US Under UN Mandate
11-29-8
SENATE BILL S. 2433 THE GLOBAL POVERTY ACT
According to David Bossie, President of the group 'Citizens United for American Sovereignty', based out of Merrifield Virginia, website: http://www.citizensunited.org/
The above- mentioned Senate Bill (S. 2433) is a piece of legislation in the works that all Americans need to know about and know now!
This bill, sponsored by none other than Sen. Barack Obama, with the backing of Joe Biden on the Foreign Relations Committee, and liberal democrats in Congress, is nothing short of a massive giveaway of American wealth around the world, and a betrayal of the public trust, because, if passed, this bill would give over many aspects of our sovereignty to the United Nations.
The noble sounding name of this bill, 'The Global Poverty Act' is actually a Global Tax, payable to the United Nations, that will be required of all American taxpayers. If passed in the Senate, the House has already passed it, this bill would require the U.S. to increase our foreign aid by $65 BILLION per year, or $845 BILLION over the next 13 years! That's on top of the billions of dollars in foreign aid we already pay out!
In addition to the economic burdens this potential law would place on our precarious economy, the bill, if passed in the Senate, would also endanger our constitutionally protected rights and freedoms by obligating us to meet certain United Nations mandates.
According to Senator Obama, we should establish these United Nations' goals as benchmarks for U.S. spending. What are they?
The creation of a U.N. International Criminal Court having the power to try and convict American citizens and soldiers without any protection from the U.S. Constitution.
A standing United Nations Army forcing U.S. soldiers to serve under U.N. command.
A Gun Ban on all small arms and light weapons --which would repeal our Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The ratification of the ' Kyoto ' global warming treaty and numerous other anti-American measures.
Recently, the Senate Subcommittee on Foreign Relations (where Sen. Joe Biden sits) approved this plan by a voice vote without any discussion! Why all the secrecy? If Senators Obama and Biden are so proud of this legislation, then why don't they bring it out into the light of day and let the American people have a look at it instead of hiding it behind closed doors and sneaking it through Congress for late night votes.
It may be only a matter of time before this dangerous legislation reaches a floor vote in the full body of the Senate.
Please write or call, email your representatives, the White House, the media, or anyone you think will listen, and express your opinions regarding this Global Tax giveaway and betrayal of the American people at a time when our nation and our people are already heavily burdened with the threats to our freedoms and economic prosperity.
Please send this email to as many folks out there in your networks as you can.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s2433/text
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 2730 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 25th, 2008 06:29 pm |
|
Have the Financial riots just begun??
Iceland Protests Turn Violent
Protesters in Iceland have clashed with police during a demonstration over the handling of the financial crisis.
By News Video
Monday, November 24, 2008
http://wjno.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=244038&article=4635529
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 2730 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 24th, 2008 02:17 pm |
|
Jim Sinclair - This Is IT, And IT Is NOW
11-24-8
Dear Comrades In Golden Arms,
Things are now "Out of Control."
This international financial crisis is now out of control as the world asks if the USA has two presidents, one president or no president at all.
It would appear that Paulson is in financial control with Bernanke as his second.
I warned you by personal email long before the statement was proven totally correct that "This is it." That was followed by "This is it, and it is now." Many people laughed it off.
This is it, and it is now.
Now it is out of control.
Now we enter the Collapse of Confidence period.
Then we begin the Weimar Experience.
It has all hit the fan, and still the absolute majority have no clue. The OTC derivative dealers broke the system into millions of pieces of glass. This broken glass cannot be put back together.
It is heart rending to see a picture of GM autoworkers holding a prayer meeting for their retirement funds. The retirement money was never funded. It is a lost hope.
This is another responsibility the government has undertaken that is going to go wild.
Those of you still in freeze frame are headed for lines around your bank. Your bank will likely be acquired by another bank that also is in deep trouble.
The US dollar, like a leaderless company, will lose its respect and therefore value.
In order of importance the following MUST be done unless you want to be one of the suffering masses that will be all too visible this winter:
1. You must have your assets held anywhere they are in true custodial-ship accounts. That type of account at a bank or broker states clearly that the assets held there are not on the balance sheet of the host financial entity. Those assets are clearly segregated in your name. This must be reviewed by counsel to be sure you have what you think you have. Don't cheap out. All you have is depending on the validity of true custodial-ship accounts.
You cannot know all the banks are broke, however I feel ALL banks are broke because finance is an intertwined system that if visible would look like a spider's web. Problems on the top will materialize all along the web. Therefore the singular most important step you must take is the establishment of a true custodial-ship account.
Do not assume you have this type of account unless a competent attorney reviews the account papers.
2. I am extremely concerned about those of you who persist in holding certificates for gold rather than holding the actual metal either delivered to you or held for you in a true custodial-ship type account. The scams out there in gold are plentiful. The only way to avoid these scams absolutely is to have your gold in your own possession.
Every other means of holding gold is steps away from perfection. Some will be ok, but many will not.
3. Why would anyone fail to either take paper certificates or order their financial agent to make direct registration book entry at the transfer agent? In most cases you only have until year-end to accomplish this strategy.
4. Withdraw from ETFs.
5. If you carelessly keep large assets with your broker you are as mad as a hatter. The FDIC DOES NOT have the money to guarantee all they are undertaking. Withdraw excess money constantly from any net broker. If you are so stubborn that you think you can trade to insure yourself when your funds are not making money while still getting your money that counts you are nuts. Admit to yourself you are nothing more than a gambling addict in a downward spiral.
6. Leave no gold or coins with any coin dealer.
7. If you can withdraw from your corporate retirement plan do it.
8. Withdraw from credit unions.
9. Withdraw from all money market instruments.
10. This is it.
11. It is now.
12. It is out of control NOW.
The next two months are going to be shocking, but nothing compared to what you will have to experience in 2009.
Respectfully yours,
Jim
Jim Sinclair is a precious metals and commodities specialist. Some of the highlights of his nearly 50 year career include the founding of Sinclair Group of Companies (1977), which offered full brokerage services. Mr. Sinclair served as a Precious Metals Advisor to Hunt Oil and the Hunt family for the liquidation of their silver position as a prerequisite for the $1 billion loan arranged by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Paul Volcker. He was also a General Partner and Member of the Executive Committee of two New York Stock Exchange firms and President of Sinclair Global Clearing Corporation and Global Arbitrage. He has authored numerous magazine articles and three books dealing with a variety of investment subjects. He is a regular speaker at various commodities related events. In January 2003, Mr. Sinclair launched, "Jim Sinclairs MineSet," which now hosts his gold commentary and is intended as a free service to the gold community.
|
nunya
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 146 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 19th, 2008 05:12 pm |
|
pipeman wrote: ...
I actually heard about this several weeks ago on the radio. I don't remember which station (probably KTAR) whoever it was said reports were that the next one is supposed to be much larger than 9/11.
Maybe I'm a wacko too but I've been hearing this since 9/11. I believe the terrorists have every intention of following up. So far, through good intel and luck they haven't been able to do it.
I remember after 9/11 that a list of "high value targets" came out. Things like Hoover Dam, Golden Gate Bridge, Statue of Liberty, Wall Street, etc.
I hope our new president is as vigilante as the last. I know the terrorists are watching and waiting for an opportunity. They will never give up the fight.
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 2730 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 19th, 2008 04:25 am |
|
| maybe I should get some vanity plates that say Wacko
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 569 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 19th, 2008 02:35 am |
|
ok you conspiracy nut whacko.... just kidding gk : )
I actually heard about this several weeks ago on the radio. I don't remember which station (probably KTAR) whoever it was said reports were that the next one is supposed to be much larger than 9/11.
Let's all just hope and pray that this information is inaccurate.
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 2730 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 18th, 2008 09:45 pm |
|
Before any one gets their panties all bunched up and starts running off at the mouth claiming "Conspiracy nut" un-Anerican, retard or what ever irrational comeback you can think of, this info is ONLY offered for "thought"
I am not claiming it's true, and I am not claiming it is untrue, but it will prove helpful in the near future to know if events transpire as suggested. If this all does come about we must ask ourselves some very serious questions. And if it does not occur that is valuable information also. Remember Crazy Joe Bden guaranteed us that ObamoCon would be tested early on. This alone raises a question or a 1000
Al Qaeda says order given for US attack “far bigger than 9/11”
DEBKAfile
November 16, 2008, 4:43 PM (GMT+02:00)
DEBKAfile’s counter-terror sources report that US president-elect Barack Obama, European and Russian heads of state in Washington for the G20 conference over the weekend were briefed about a probable early al Qaeda attack.
Obama and his team have been advised that a new al Qaeda strike is highly probable in the United States or against a key US target in Europe, North Africa or the Middle East.
DEBKA-Net-Weekly 372 of Nov. 14 disclosed that al Qaeda’s Yemen base, a reliable barometer for Osama bin Laden’s schemes, issued a Directive to All Fighters in Arabia on Nov. 9 presaging a major operation in the United States that will “change the political and economic world” and be “far bigger than 9/11.”
The notice said “the operation is very near” and “precise instructions were in the hands of “the fighters, who are already on their way to America” armed with bin Laden’s orders. The pretext offered for the attack is the rejection by the US and Europe of al Qaeda’s four-year old truce offer whose original pre-condition was the withdrawal of their armies from Iraq and Afghanistan.
The day after the new president’s election, al Qaeda issued a little-noticed statement declaring Barack Obama a murtad, i.e. an apostate whose betrayal of Islam is judged the most heinous. Believers have the duty to execute a murtad unlike other non-believers whose death sentence is optional.
Thursday night, Nov. 14, Central Intelligence Director Gen. Michael Hayden said: “Al Qaeda, operating from its safe haven in Pakistan’s tribal areas, remains the most clear and present danger to the United States.” He was addressing a Washington think-tank.
“Today, virtually every major terrorist threat that my agency is aware of has threads back to the tribal areas. Whether it is command and control, training, direction, money, capabilities, there is a connection to the FATA (Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas.)”
Hayden also mentioned Yemen and Somalia as important al Qaeda theaters of operation.
In private, most heads of the intelligence agencies fighting al Qaeda admit that an attack on the United States or major American interest outside is only a matter of time.
http://www.debka.com/index1.php?skip=yes
(Editor's note - DEBKA is a well-known Mossad information/disinformation outlet. To the best of our knowledge and according to the experts we trust and respect, there is no such thing as 'al Qaeda' any more than it existed in its original form as a CIA construct. Further, Osama bin Laden is, in all likelihood, no longer above room temperature. The 'warning' below is another indication of a major false flag attack...like 9-11, the 7-7 London bombings, the Spain train massacre, the Bali slaughter, etc. The Israelis often seem to warn about such attacks...and years later wind up being prime suspects or are somehow alleged to be involved in them. In this case, a nice clear warning would give them a post-attack blanket of insulation and plausible deniability. Always use critical thinking when reading these sorts of things. See earlier examples of Mossad 'warnings,' etc, below.)
By Christopher Bollyn
Exclusive to American Free Press
4-14-5
U.S. investigators and the controlled media have ignored a preponderance of evidence pointing to Israel's intelligence agency, the Mossad, being involved in the terror attacks of 9/11.
From the very morning aircraft smashed into the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon, news reports have indicated Israeli intelligence being involved in the events of 9/11 - and the planting of "false flags" to blame Arab terrorists and mold public opinion to support the pre-planned "war on terror."
Shortly after the destruction of the twin towers, radio news reports described five "Middle Eastern men" being arrested in New Jersey after having been seen videotaping and celebrating the explosive "collapses" of the WTC.
These men, from a phony moving company in Weehawken, N.J., turned out to be agents of Israeli military intelligence, Mossad. Furthermore, their "moving van" tested positive for explosives.
Dominic Suter, the Israeli owner of Urban Moving Systems, the phony "moving company," fled in haste, or was allowed to escape, to Israel before FBI agents could interrogate him. The Israeli agents were later returned to Israel on minor visa violations.
The Assistant Attorney General in charge of criminal investigations at the time was Michael Chertoff, the current head of the Dept. of Homeland Security. Chertoff, the son of the first hostess of Israel's national air carrier, El Al, is thought to be an Israeli national.
One of the Israeli agents later told Israeli radio that they had been sent to "document the event" - the event which took the lives of some 3,000 Americans.
Despite the fact that the Israelis arrested in New Jersey evidently had prior knowledge or were involved in the planning of 9/11, the U.S. mainstream media has never even broached the question of Israeli complicity in the attacks.
ISRAELIS FOREWARNED
On September 12, 2001, the Internet edition of The Jerusalem Post reported, "The Israeli foreign ministry has collected the names of 4,000 Israelis believed to have been in the areas of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon at the time of the attack."
Yet only one Israeli was killed at the WTC and two were reportedly killed on the "hijacked" aircraft.
Although a total of three Israeli lives were reportedly lost on 9/11, speechwriters for President George W. Bush grossly inflated the number of Israeli dead to 130 in the president's address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.
The fact that only one Israeli died at the WTC, while 4,000 Israelis were thought to have been at the scene of the attacks on 9/11 naturally led to a widespread rumor, blamed on Arabic sources, that Israelis had been forewarned to stay away that day.
"Whether this story was the origin of the rumor," Bret Stephens, the Post's editor-in-chief wrote in 2003, "I cannot say. What I can say is that there was no mistake in our reporting."
ODIGO INSTANT MESSAGES
Evidence that Israelis had been forewarned several hours before the attacks surfaced at an Israeli instant messaging service, known as Odigo. This story, clear evidence of Israeli prior knowledge, was reported only briefly in the U.S. media - and quickly forgotten.
At least two Israel-based employees of Odigo received warnings of an imminent attack in New York City more than two hours before the first plane hit the WTC. Odigo had its U.S. headquarters two blocks from the WTC. The Odigo employees, however, did not pass the warning on to the authorities in New York City, a move that could have saved thousands of lives.
Odigo has a feature called People Finder that allows users to seek out and contact others based on certain demographics, such as Israeli nationality.
Two weeks after 9/11, Alex Diamandis, Odigo's vice president, reportedly said, "It was possible that the attack warning was broadcast to other Odigo members, but the company has not received reports of other recipients of the message."
________________________________
Who Provided The London 7-7 Warning?
Xymphora
7-21-5
Despite quite a lot of discussion on the issue, it seems clear now that the Mossad office in London received six minutes warning from British authorities of the London bomb attacks. This isn't surprising, as Netanyahu was in town and would have been guarded with extreme caution by both British and Israeli officials. Bibi is one of the most likely assassination targets in the world, and is a pain in the ass to look after wherever he goes.
Six minutes warning was also presumably not enough time to shut down the subway system, if in fact the warning was even sufficiently precise to refer to a subway attack (it is unclear how specific Bibi's warning actually was, although it is odd that the conference he was to attend was in a hotel over one of the attacked subway stations).
This leaves a startlingly big unanswered question: where did the warning come from?
We're now definitively told that the non-suicide bombers/suicide bombers/non-suicide bombers were actually suicide bombers - and this time we mean it, dammit!, though the 'fifth man' seems to have again disappeared, the 'mastermind' isn't the mastermind, the real 'mastermind' is one of the bombers, and the whole nature of the explosives is inexplicably still being investigated - meaning that four unremarkable guys wandered into the London subway system all by themselves, leaving behind a car full of explosives (if there was no 'fifth man' or 'mastermind', was going to use these explosives?), and simply blew themselves up. Who then provided the warning? And why provide a warning so late that it was not useful?
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m13908&l=i&size=1&hd=0
_______________________
Bali Bomber Claimed CIA/Mossad Involved In Bombing
Written by Webmaster
Sunday, 12 October 2008
We publish this story in retrospect of the original statement made by a Bali bomber, who said he believed the CIA or the Mossad was indeed involved in the Bali attack in 2002 that killed 202 people, including 88 Australians and 28 Britons. It makes good reading for the record as Worldfutures.info did track down elements to state in 2004 that the second Bali bombing was also the act of terror from either the CIA or Mossad and even an Australian group seeking revenge!
The ringleader of the Bali bombers claims that the attack on the nightclub district in 2002 was much larger than he had expected and that the only explanation for so much carnage was that the bombers were aided by the CIA, KGB or Mossad.
Imam Samudra, the alleged mastermind behind the attack who also chose the targets, told the London Times in an interview that the second explosion was bigger than the bombers had expected and the attack killed far more people than originally intended.
The death toll amounted to 202 people, 168 of whom were foreign nationals including 88 Australians and 28 Britons.
He claimed the bombers had never meant to kill so many people. What happened at Paddy's Bar and the Sari Club was "unacceptable", he said.
Had he made the bomb? "No, no, no!" he said, shaking his head. "I didn't help to make it, and who made the bomb and when I don't know."
The second explosion was much bigger than they had expected, he said.
The only explanation, he suggested, was that "the CIA or KGB or Mossad" - those familiar bogeymen of the conspiracy theorist had somehow tampered with the bomb. "It is very possible," he claimed.
Despite The Times' best efforts to scoff at the claim, the fact that U.S. and British authorities were tipped off in advance of the bombing is documented.
The second bomb, which was loaded inside a Mitsubishi L300 van, was detonated as people fled out into the streets as a result of the panic generated by the smaller first bomb which was detonated inside the nightclub.
Initial reports said the Mitsubishi bomb consisted of C4, a military grade plastic explosive which is difficult to obtain, but the story was soon changed and the bomb was said to be of a more crude design. The sheer devastation the bomb wrought on surrounding buildings in the area suggested that a powerful explosive was used.
Allegations of U.S. and British government prior knowledge and even involvement in the Bali bombing have repeatedly surfaced.
During an interview for an Australian documentary, former Indonesian President Abdurrahman Wahid unequivocally fingered the Indonesian authorities as the true culprits behind the October 2002 bombing. Wahid said the authorities were acting at the behest of Western intelligence agencies.
Indonesia has become renowned for rampant corruption and state involvement in terrorist atrocities. Sources told the film makers that government-connected criminals were carrying out an agenda of depopulation in the targeted areas by lowering the value of property and resources, then buying it on the cheap.
By following international news reports out of Taiwan at the time, we were able to confirm that the U.S. government had advance knowledge of the Bali bombing. They passed that knowledge on to the Taiwanese government and told them to keep the information top secret.
Hours before the bombing took place, the U.S. withdrew all its administrative staff and diplomats from Indonesia, citing a "security threat". The British government also received the same warning but this wasn't passed on to any relevant authority or the hundreds of victims carelessly making their way to a beach party.
Immediately after the bombing, the FBI, the Australian Secret Service and British secret police swooped in to the bomb site and ruthlessly took charge of the investigation, much to the chagrin of the Indonesian authorities and the Balinese police.
The online documentary, The Truth About The Bali Bombings, explores some of these issues. Watch the four-part video in our video section.
http://www.worldfutures.info/News/Latest/Bali-Bomber-
claimed-CIA/Mossad-involved-in-bombing.html
________________________________
And other examples of probable Israeli Mossad tragedies....
http://just-another-inside-job.blogspot.com/2007/04/mossad-attack-at-taba.html
|
It.is.a.Conspiracy.Elliot
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 13 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 15th, 2008 12:03 am |
|
| Elliott, how is your campaign for 2012 coming?
|
Fisher2008
Member
| Joined: | Sun May 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 217 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 14th, 2008 05:18 pm |
|
Bambi
If you look at the fees the crooks are making off debt cards,we should shread those as well.
Elliott Fisher
Former Independent for dist 2 supervisor.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 14th, 2008 04:10 pm |
|
I saw this on the news last nite.
Remember the term "Layaway'? Well, Sears is bringing it back and people are using it....once again. Don't use your credit card....just lay it away till you have the money saved up, then pay cash. Worked before. Can work again as part of the spending discipline we must go thru to right ourselves. Cut up the credit cards and become debt free.....except perhaps your home and car.
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 2730 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 14th, 2008 03:33 am |
|
UNPRECEDENTED RAPE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERWAY IN DC
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd413.htm
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 13th, 2008 09:50 pm |
|
   Get those Mad Liberals.  you're next.
Last edited on Thu Nov 13th, 2008 10:04 pm by Bambi
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 2730 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 13th, 2008 07:11 pm |
|
We all knew it! We all had that feeling deep down inside and wondered why they could not see it. The truth is now out!!
Liberals clinically mad, concludes top psychiatrist
Eminent doctor makes case leftist ideology is a mental disorder
WASHINGTON – Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder
."Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."
While political activists on the other side of the spectrum have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to "the vast right-wing conspiracy."
For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.
Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by both Barack Obama and his Democratic primary opponent Hillary Clinton can only be understood as a psychological disorder.
"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do."
Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:
creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government. "The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."
Last edited on Thu Nov 13th, 2008 10:26 pm by gk
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 2730 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 12th, 2008 07:55 pm |
|
Them rascal fags are at it again. Just havin some good natured and wholesome fun at the expense of GOD fearin families!
Lesbians, condoms go wild in attack on Christian church
Making out at pulpit, shouting blasphemies in front of children
Posted: November 11, 2008
9:07 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Worshippers at a Bible-teaching church in Lansing, Mich., were stunned Sunday when members of a pro-homosexual, pro-anarchy organization named Bash Back interrupted their service to fling propaganda and condoms around the sanctuary, drape a profane banner from the balcony and feature two lesbians making out at the pulpit.
According to a blog posting by Nick De Leeuw on Right Michigan, the Bash Back organization orchestrated a protest in front of Mount Hope Church to draw the church's security staff away from the sanctuary.
Then Bash Backers who had dressed up and mixed in with church worshippers took action.
According to De Leeuw, "Prayer had just finished when men and women stood up in pockets across the congregation, on the main floor and in the balcony.
READ THE REST HERE http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80743
|
soloyosh
Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 10th, 2008 07:10 pm |
|
If McCain was gonna run the country like he ran his campaign, we'd be screwed.
Obama stayed on message and didn't sink into the distractions and hate of the McCain campaign. All you had to do was watch McCain's concession speach. That was one of the best speeches I'd seen him give, ever. All the boo's from the crowd at the the mention of Obama's name. What, did they think they had lost a football game? No class.
I'm skeptical of Obama, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for the time being just as I did his predicessor when he got elected and after September 11th, 2001. I would have extended the same to McCain.
Give the guy a chance.
Cheers
|
2 cents
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 323 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 10th, 2008 02:17 pm |
|
Exit polls: How Obama won
By: David Paul Kuhn
November 5, 2008 03:37 AM EST
Barack Obama, who will be the nation’s first African-American president, won the largest share of white support of any Democrat in a two-man race since 1976 amid a backdrop of economic anxiety unseen in at least a quarter-century, according to exit polls by The Associated Press and the major television networks.
Obama became the first Democrat to also win a majority since Jimmy Carter with the near-unanimous backing of blacks and the overwhelming support of youth as well as significant inroads with white men and strong support among Hispanics and educated voters.
The Illinois senator won 43 percent of white voters, 4 percentage points below Carter’s performance in 1976 and equal to what Bill Clinton won in the three-man race of 1996. Republican John McCain won 55 percent of the white vote.
Fully 96 percent of black voters supported Obama and constituted 13 percent of the electorate, a 2-percentage-point rise in their national turnout. As in past years, black women turned out at a higher rate than black men.
A stunning 54 percent of young white voters supported Obama, compared with 44 percent who went for McCain, the senator from Arizona. In the past three decades, no Democratic presidential nominee has won more than 45 percent of young whites.
See Also
It also appears youth turnout rose 1 point since 2004, to constitute 18 percent of the electorate.
McCain won a majority of every other age of white voters, which appeared to limit Obama’s reach into many traditionally Republican states.
Obama performed slightly worse with white women, 39 percent of voters, than Al Gore did in 2000. McCain won the votes of white women, 53 to 46 percent, perhaps an indication of the historical candidacy of his running mate, Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska.
Obama compensated for the drop-off in white female support with the strong 41 percent support from white men. No Democrat since Carter had until Tuesday’s election earned more than 38 percent of the white male vote.
In 2000, white women split between the two parties while Republicans won white men by 24 percentage points. That white male gap was dramatically narrowed Tuesday to 16 points, a trend that began with the financial crisis, and one that allowed Obama to split the male vote overall.
McCain won only 57 percent of the votes of white men, who were again 36 percent of the electorate.
White college graduates, 35 percent of voters, broke for McCain 51 to 47 percent, marking roughly a 3-point gain for Obama compared to Gore’s 44 percent showing.
Obama performed at a similar level as Gore with working-class whites, earning 40 percent of their support to McCain’s 59 percent, which is roughly similar to George W. Bush’s performance in 2000 and 2004.
Obama’s victory also stretched into other key blocs won by Bush four years ago. Suburban voters, who were half of the electorate, split between Obama and McCain. Rural voters, who went for Bush by 19 points in 2004, leaned to McCain by 8 points. And married voters, who went to Bush by 15 points, leaned to McCain by 6 this year.
Hispanics, who as in 2004 were 8 percent of voters, went for Obama by more than 2-to1, 67 percent to 30 percent. That marks a roughly 10-point drop-off in Republican Hispanic support, compared to Bush’s performance in 2004.
Obama also won 84 percent of those Democrats who backed New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the hard-fought presidential primaries.
White independents, a fifth of voters, roughly split between the major party candidates, which has not occurred in a two-man race in three decades. It was McCain’s support that was down compared to Bush in 2004, no small referendum on his effort to campaign as the “maverick.” Obama earned the same level of support as Democrat John F. Kerry in 2004 — 47 percent.
On the major issues, 63 percent of voters said the economy was the most important, six times more than cited the war in Iraq (10 percent), health care (9 percent), terrorism (9 percent) or energy (7 percent).
Not since 1980, in the shadow of a gas crisis and stagflation, did the economy dominate voters' concerns as it did Tuesday. Back then, almost seven in 10 voters named either the economy or inflation, jobs and unemployment, or balancing the federal budget as the top issue on their minds.
In 2004, only 20 percent of voters cited the economy, while 22 percent cited moral values, 19 percent terrorism and 15 percent Iraq. In 2000 as well, the economy/jobs, taxes, education, Social Security and world affairs all carried roughly equal weight among the voters.
This marked issue contrast in four years explains, in large part, why Obama came into Election Day the strong favorite, both in national and state polling. Voters have seen Obama throughout most of the general election campaign as the more capable steward of the economy.
Nearly all voters agreed the economy was in poor shape. Eight in 10 said they were worried the economic crisis would harm their family’s future, while about half said they were “very worried.”
At least four in 10 said their family's financial situation worsened since 2004. And a stunning two-thirds expressed concern about affording health care.
More than a third of voters said the quality that mattered most in their candidate was the capacity to bring about change in Washington.
For McCain, who maintained his edge in the public’s view as the stronger candidate on national security issues, the utter dominance of economic issues overwhelmed his campaign.
About seven in 10 voters said they were worried about another domestic terrorist attack — about the same level of anxiety as in 2004 — and they leaned to McCain. But less than half as many voters this year named terrorism as their top issue, compared to four years ago
Fully 86 percent of those who said terrorism was the top issue voted for McCain — but they barely constituted one-tenth of the electorate.
The issue shift, though, was not the only factor behind the poor political environment for Republicans this year.
The public exhibited remarkably high, though not surprising, displeasure with the political status quo. Roughly three in four voters disapproved of the White House and Congress. Three in four voters saw the country on the wrong track, about 25 percent more than four years ago.
About a quarter of exit poll respondents approved of Bush’s job performance, where about half did four years ago. This year, half of voters said they "strongly disapproved" of Bush and about eight in 10 of those voters backed Obama.
© 2008 Capitol News Company, LLC
|
azsunshine
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 12th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 493 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 10th, 2008 01:38 am |
|
madirish wrote: You are correct, not all of the 57 million who did not vote for Obama, were white males. But a good part of them were white males. This election was interesting in the barriers that were broken or almost so with Obama and Clinton. I feel sorry for those voters that find only one thing about the candidate to vote for or against. If you embrace a single issue or candidate characteristic, you become an uninformed voter. I wonder how many people voted against McCain or didn't even bother to vote because he chose Palin as his running mate. I do not doubt the election would have been much closer and gone either way if the Republicans had chosen someone else, such as Olympia Snow. Many groups were energized to get involved in this election. The U.S. is changing demographically and I feel the sooner we can all accept the fact that the historical leader of the free world is not a white male, the better off we will be. I think everyone knows he is half black. Not all Obama dislikers (hate is too strong of a word) dislike him because of the color of his skin. As powerful as the RNC and DNC have become, controlling our politics, it no longer feels like a government of the people, by the people ...
I guess at my age I'm just tired of priviledged white males believing they always know best. We should be embracing the team that can best lead whether they are straight or gay; white, brown or purple; female, male or hermaphrodite.
That is why I didn't vote for Obama-I think he is inexperienced. I wish Colin Powell would have run. I wonder how many blacks registered Republicans switched to Obama just because he was black versus his stance on the issues.
I hope he does great. I hope he is the best President ever-our Country needs it. If he is one tenth his cheerleaders think he is-we will be better off.
Since we will now have a black President, we should get rid off Affirmative Action programs. That would be accomplished if society really accepts we have a black President and that US demographic has changed.
|
madirish
Member
| Joined: | Sun Feb 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 13 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 9th, 2008 05:48 pm |
|
You are correct, not all of the 57 million who did not vote for Obama, were white males. But a good part of them were white males. This election was interesting in the barriers that were broken or almost so with Obama and Clinton. I feel sorry for those voters that find only one thing about the candidate to vote for or against. If you embrace a single issue or candidate characteristic, you become an uninformed voter. I wonder how many people voted against McCain or didn't even bother to vote because he chose Palin as his running mate. I do not doubt the election would have been much closer and gone either way if the Republicans had chosen someone else, such as Olympia Snow. Many groups were energized to get involved in this election. The U.S. is changing demographically and I feel the sooner we can all accept the fact that the historical leader of the free world is not a white male, the better off we will be. As powerful as the RNC and DNC have become, controlling our politics, it no longer feels like a government of the people, by the people ...
I guess at my age I'm just tired of priviledged white males believing they always know best. We should be embracing the team that can best lead whether they are straight or gay; white, brown or purple; female, male or hermaphrodite.
|
nybrian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 20 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 9th, 2008 05:04 pm |
|
Most Democrats get the black vote, regardless of what the candidates color is. Kerry, Gore, Clinton, all received about 90% of the black vote. I guess one difference is that more blacks than normal came out, so the black vote meant more than normal. If every white person came out maybe McCain would have won. I happily voted for Obama because he had the better ideas (I'm white).
Now unfortunately for those Obama haters, you are probably stuck with him for 8 years. Everyone agrees that the economy will stink for the next year or two, but by 2012 it should be smoking again. That's just the business cycle at work.
As far as confidence in Obama, 90% of the people in this country have no confidence in Bush, so 53% is pretty good.
Finally, I watched Pat Robertson on CNN the other day. You know, the conservative minister who ran for president. Without being prompted, he said that Obama had the potential to be one of the best presidents in the history of the country. He has all of the tools, the great intelligence, the temperment.....
I think that is what many people who voted for him have seen in him.
|
2 cents
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 323 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 9th, 2008 04:27 pm |
|
This from MSNBC,
Nationally, the exit poll interviews indicated that:
- 61 percent of Obama's votes came from white voters; 90 percent of McCain's came from white voters.
- 23 percent of Obama's votes came from black voters; only one percent of McCain's came from African American voters.
- Latino voters accounted for 11 percent of Obama's vote and six percent of McCain's.
- Twenty-three percent of the Obama voters were under age 30 but only 13 percent of McCain backers were.
|
QCVillager
Member
|
Posted: Sun Nov 9th, 2008 02:56 pm |
|
madirish wrote: Boy I'm sure happy with the privileged white men we've had running the country lately! I find it quite amusing the people who seem to be most unhappy, upset or dissatisfied with the outcome of the election are white males. Wonder if they'd have been any happier with Hillary?
Didn't your mother ever tell you to give someone a chance?
Madirish
Madirish,
1) not sure where you come up with the idea that those most unhappy with outcome of the election are white males. in case you didn't see the results... 57,000,000 people voted against Obama. i can assure you they weren't all white males.
2) some of the absolute most unhappy and upset with the outcome (and even more so in the primaries) were HILARY voters. presumably many of them NOT white males.
3) i personally heard lots of white males in the run up to the election that would have much preferred Hilary over Obama. so there we have white males that would have voted for Hilary and when that didn't happen, voted instead for a ticket that had a female VP candidate.
so, you are contending that white males should give Obama a chance... since it isn't nice not to. but at the same time, you have no problem asserting that the reason a large group of people are unhappy is because of their whiteness and maleness ?
this is where i go back to that "what would happen if the shoe were on the other foot ?" exercise. so... what WOULD happen ?
|
madirish
Member
| Joined: | Sun Feb 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 13 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 9th, 2008 02:20 pm |
|
Boy I'm sure happy with the privileged white men we've had running the country lately! I find it quite amusing the people who seem to be most unhappy, upset or dissatisfied with the outcome of the election are white males. Wonder if they'd have been any happier with Hillary?
Didn't your mother ever tell you to give someone a chance?
Madirish
|
QCVillager
Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 8th, 2008 03:41 pm |
|
BWD, i always like to do the "what would happen if the shoe were on the other foot ?" exercise. you can imagine that people would be jumping up and down and screaming bloody RACIST murder if whites had voted 95% for a white candidate.
a friend of mine points out what he perceived as the ultimate irony in this election... that Obama and others have pointed to Obama's election as proof that the USA has finally overcome racism (to the greatest degree anyway)... YET, actually quite the opposite is true and that racism actually played a huge roll in this Presidential election. (for the same reasons you pointed out)
|
bigwavedave
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 621 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 8th, 2008 02:44 pm |
|
QCVillager wrote: Bambi wrote: He may not have a track record, but he has the people's confidence and the will to lead. Markets going up? During this financial meltdown, they will be all over the board in my opinion, because of uncertainty of the worldwide market itself and a new President. I predict by mid-year 2009, we will see much of that uncertainty on it's way out with Obama at the helm. That statement is based on faith and hope.
Bambi - here comes one at ya. most of my posts are opinion or outright fact... this one is different. it is more of a question or a plausible theory...
you say that Obama "has the people's confidence"... but i am not sure that is true. remember, the election ended up 53% / 47%. some 57,000,000 people voted against Obama. so it seems a stretch already to assert that he has the people's confidence.
now ADD in the Demographics of the vote... more older people and wealthier people voted for McCain than for Obama. this likely means the collective wealth of the 57m who voted for McCain is greater than that of Obama's voters... which means that these are the people that DRIVE the markets. my theory then is that Obama doesn't yet have the confidence of the people and especially doesnt have the confidence of the people that drive the markets.
Hopefully that will change over time.
I find it interesting that NOT ONE PERSON that I can see will say the one thing that swayed the election. RACE. There it has been said. According to most exit polls, of the 15,950,826 million black voters, 95% voted for Obama. So people do the math. Obama won the election by approximately 8 milion votes. He garnered the black vote of almost 15 million as opposed to McCains <1 million. I would say this election was as much about race as it was the other issues. You may not like the words, you may not like the result, but the facts speak for themselves. Race played a major part in this election. So everyone can argue about what caused their candidate to win or lose, but in the end, the numbers don't lie. Now I don't know how accurate exit polls are, but almost every exit poll I've seen show the same 95% number. If you don't believe the numbers, feel free to look them up yourself.
Vote by Race (this is a CNN poll on their website)
Total Obama /McCain/ Other/No Answer White (74%)43%/55%/2% African-American (13%)95%/4%/1% Latino (9%)67%/31%/2% Asian (2%)62%/35%/3% Other (3%)66%/31%/3%
|
nunya
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 146 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 7th, 2008 08:37 pm |
|
Last edited on Fri Nov 7th, 2008 08:51 pm by nunya
|
QCVillager
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 7th, 2008 08:34 pm |
|
Bambi wrote: He may not have a track record, but he has the people's confidence and the will to lead. Markets going up? During this financial meltdown, they will be all over the board in my opinion, because of uncertainty of the worldwide market itself and a new President. I predict by mid-year 2009, we will see much of that uncertainty on it's way out with Obama at the helm. That statement is based on faith and hope.
Bambi - here comes one at ya. most of my posts are opinion or outright fact... this one is different. it is more of a question or a plausible theory...
you say that Obama "has the people's confidence"... but i am not sure that is true. remember, the election ended up 53% / 47%. some 57,000,000 people voted against Obama. so it seems a stretch already to assert that he has the people's confidence.
now ADD in the Demographics of the vote... more older people and wealthier people voted for McCain than for Obama. this likely means the collective wealth of the 57m who voted for McCain is greater than that of Obama's voters... which means that these are the people that DRIVE the markets. my theory then is that Obama doesn't yet have the confidence of the people and especially doesnt have the confidence of the people that drive the markets.
Hopefully that will change over time.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 7th, 2008 05:48 pm |
|
| He may not have a track record, but he has the people's confidence and the will to lead. Markets going up? During this financial meltdown, they will be all over the board in my opinion, because of uncertainty of the worldwide market itself and a new President. I predict by mid-year 2009, we will see much of that uncertainty on it's way out with Obama at the helm. That statement is based on faith and hope.
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 2730 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 7th, 2008 05:35 pm |
|
| Historically the markets have alway gone up after an election, but not this time. The fundamentals are not there, and the ability of Obingo to be able to change the direction of this ever growing landslide is in question. He has NO track record and that makes people nervous
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 7th, 2008 05:23 pm |
|
nunya wrote: Bambi wrote: In the 1980-1982 recession, the unemployment rate rose as high as 10.8 percent before inching down
I remember this well. I graduated from high school to this and this was how I ended up in the military (smartest thing I ever did  ). Back then Life magazine did a story about my hometown (Anderson, IN) as it had the highest unemployment rate in the country for awhile.
My step son is taking a class to raise his ASVAB scores so he can get an Air Force job he wants. I told him he better hurry because he will soon have a lot more competition.
Life Magazine. It was the only magazine I read when I was a kid, as it had all the good pictures.
I bet more people will enlist in the Service during these times. 
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 7th, 2008 05:13 pm |
|
azcats_01 wrote: Bambi wrote: Many expect the jobless rate to climb to 8 percent, possibly higher, next year. In the 1980-1982 recession, the unemployment rate rose as high as 10.8 percent (THANKS TO CARTER) before inching down (THANKS TO REAGAN).
Not to mention interest rates were > 20% when Reagan took over. 
I remember selling homes at 17% interest rate. It was hard to understand why they would pay that rate, but then Bank CD's were also paying 17%. The objective of the borrower was to refinance once the rates went down. Personal income was still coming in for the wealthy as they were the only ones that could 1. qualify at that rate and 2. afford to pay that rate. Senior citizens, who were receiving !7% interest from their CDs., paid cash and still do. We'll probably never see that happen again....CDs at 17%. My dad was earning that amount back then from Valley National Bank. Then he would loan out his private money to small custom home builders at 19% interest rate...short term. Last edited on Fri Nov 7th, 2008 05:14 pm by Bambi
|
nunya
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 146 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 7th, 2008 04:55 pm |
|
Bambi wrote: In the 1980-1982 recession, the unemployment rate rose as high as 10.8 percent before inching down
I remember this well. I graduated from high school to this and this was how I ended up in the military (smartest thing I ever did ). Back then Life magazine did a story about my hometown (Anderson, IN) as it had the highest unemployment rate in the country for awhile.
My step son is taking a class to raise his ASVAB scores so he can get an Air Force job he wants. I told him he better hurry because he will soon have a lot more competition.
|
azcats_01
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 7th, 2008 04:54 pm |
|
Bambi wrote: Many expect the jobless rate to climb to 8 percent, possibly higher, next year. In the 1980-1982 recession, the unemployment rate rose as high as 10.8 percent (THANKS TO CARTER) before inching down (THANKS TO REAGAN).
Not to mention interest rates were > 20% when Reagan took over.
|
azcats_01
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 7th, 2008 04:51 pm |
|
sandragene wrote: The market continues to plummet because of unemployment reports. Unemployment is now what it was in 1994 under Clinton. At least Clinton had the coming internet, dot.com, and Y2K bubble to fuel jobs and wealth in this country (at least until that bubble burst in March 2000).
We can also thank Clinton, Greenspan and the Dems in Congress for starting the housing bubble that burst and created this mess we are in. 
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 7th, 2008 04:48 pm |
|
Many expect the jobless rate to climb to 8 percent, possibly higher, next year. In the 1980-1982 recession, the unemployment rate rose as high as 10.8 percent before inching down.
Stressed consumers are cutting back on their shopping and trying to trim their debt.
Nearly half a million Americans filed new claims for unemployment benefits in the last week alone, and skittish shoppers handed many retailers their weakest sales since 1969, government reports out Thursday showed. The Labor Department's unemployment report was expected to show net job losses for October to total about 200,000. The unemployment rate, now | | |