Obama lies again

The more things change, the more they stay the same. So much for change we can believe in...... yes we can !!

How can you tell when a politician is lying ??? His lips are moving

I laughed my ass off when I heard this earlier.

Makes a great campaign speech..

A little different when you got your finger on the button..

If anyone believed that everything would be on the table when they went to the ballot box they are insane.

I wouldn't want to live in a country where everything the government did was on the table. Look at what the current and last administrations are doing to us as citizens. Our beliefs and loyalties are more fragmented and more passionate than ever before. Could you imagine our dissent if EVERYTHING was in the open?

I'm disappointed, but not terribly surprised.

Now it's time for Republicans to step up, seeings how it's quite suddenly become patriotic again to question the government. Warrantless wire-taps... it's an issue MADE for tinfoil-hatters.

Probably have to give them a few more months to forget that it was instituted by THEIR guy.

BigBadBeast wrote:

If anyone believed that everything would be on the table when they went to the ballot box they are insane.

I wouldn't want to live in a country where everything the government did was on the table. Look at what the current and last administrations are doing to us as citizens. Our beliefs and loyalties are more fragmented and more passionate than ever before. Could you imagine our dissent if EVERYTHING was in the open?

The problem isn't about secrets best kept secret. The problem is that these things give the government the power to go after anyone they "claim" has a terrorist link. It means they can snoop without warrant and invent reasons. Look who came under fire under the Bush administration. Drugs, pornographers, whore houses, and even a Vegas casino.

But gee America, we sure thought they were terrorists when we raided them. But of course even though no terrorist threat was found, we just couldn't ignore the other activities we just uhhh "accidentally" stumbled onto.

Sorry triple B, but in light of the phoney terrorism accusations the Bush administration made to push conservative agendas under free reign of these powers I hate to think who the "terrorists" are that the current socialist liberal will target.

I agree with all that, Ratzilla. I think Obama is a pretty good guy thusfar (certainly a HUGE improvement over his predecessor)... but unlike Republicans, I won't support blatant violations of the Constitution just 'cause I like the guy in power.

Dubya has already used his 'anti-terrorism' powers to spy on anti-war groups-obviously his political enemies. I expect that Obama will use those same powers to spy on anti-government tinfold-hat militia types (folks with whom I have deep roots... but can no longer take seriously), and probably some of the more rabid anti-abortion types.

It really is a grand American tradition, though- using government power against your political enemies. Dubya was certainly not the first and Obama won't be the last.

I think obama is going to use this to work against the far right. wait and see....
there is already a report out listing far right people as extremists

Quote :

The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in "rightwing extremist activity," saying the economic recession, the election of America's first black president and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of white-power militias.

A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines "rightwing extremism in the United States" as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.

"It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration," the warning says.

The White House has distanced itself from the analysis. When asked for comment on its contents, White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said, "The President is focused not on politics but rather taking the steps necessary to protect all Americans from the threat of violence and terrorism regardless of its origins. He also believes those who serve represent the best of this country, and he will continue to ensure that our veterans receive the respect and benefits they have earned."

newslink

Bighead wrote:

I agree with all that, Ratzilla. I think Obama is a pretty good guy thusfar (certainly a HUGE improvement over his predecessor)... but unlike Republicans, I won't support blatant violations of the Constitution just 'cause I like the guy in power.

Dubya has already used his 'anti-terrorism' powers to spy on anti-war groups-obviously his political enemies. I expect that Obama will use those same powers to spy on anti-government tinfold-hat militia types (folks with whom I have deep roots... but can no longer take seriously), and probably some of the more rabid anti-abortion types.

It really is a grand American tradition, though- using government power against your political enemies. Dubya was certainly not the first and Obama won't be the last.

This was my greater point. We know it happens, we know it won't stop. The best course of action? Don't be a neo-nutjob on either side of the fence and you should be fine. I don't like that it steps on anyones civil liberties any more than you guys do. All we can hope for is that they keep the country somewhat balanced and actually remove people worth removing. Either way, we should definitely choose anarchy BEFORE we become a police state. Luckily, that is much less likely to happen under the current CIC than the last.

Anarchy or Police State?

Which is less likely now?

Quote :

...and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans..

A few? WTF?

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Anarchy or Police State?

Which is less likely now?

I think either way the result would be anarchy. I use anarchy as opposed to revolution because short of a mass terrorist attack or police state status, I don't see the current fragmented social standing of our citizens being organized enough to be a revolution.

I think both are less likely now though.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Anarchy or Police State?

Which is less likely now?

Amerika has been marching steadily towards being a police state for the past several decades... for most if not all my life. I expect it to continue.

Bighead wrote:

Quote :

...and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans..

A few? WTF?

ALL? WTF?

I think 'thousands' would be a reasonable estimate.

Bighead wrote:

I think 'thousands' would be a reasonable estimate.

Possible speculation?

Of course. Hell, it'd be hard enough to define "disgruntled" clearly enough for any study. Then you'd run into problems 'cause 'disgruntled' folks likely won't be the most reliable for self-report.

But I can think of three that I've met personally. Statistically... there HAVE to be thousands just like them.

True, but then there are those who have not met any. Therefore, statistically there HAVE to be thousands not disgruntled.

I never implied otherwise.

Bighead wrote:

I never implied otherwise.

Nope just opinion.

Are you disgruntled BBB? Do we need to be concerned with you going postal?

Disgruntled, yes. Postal, not likely.

I would have to say that many of my boys were pretty excited when the whole shindig started, now damn near every one has an immediate distaste for their government and the citizenry for different reasons. It's like Vietnam Vet recovery 2.0 and most people aren't even paying attention.

I was barely around immediately post-Vietnam, so I wouldn't know... but were most people paying attention then?

I doubt it.

Bighead wrote:

I was barely around immediately post-Vietnam, so I wouldn't know... but were most people paying attention then?

I doubt it.

I wouldn't know and I doubt it as well. Thing is, we KNOW what happened to many of those guys and we are going through the same thing on an even larger scale.

History.. ..doomed.. ..repeat..

So what do you reckon has kept this Iraq fiasco from becoming "another Vietnam" from the perspective of people outside the military? Is it simply the lack of a draft?

Or the RELATIVELY low number of deaths (notice that I didn't say 'casualties'... 'cause there are tens of thousands of wounded)?

Both?

Bighead wrote:

So what do you reckon has kept this Iraq fiasco from becoming "another Vietnam" from the perspective of people outside the military? Is it simply the lack of a draft?

I would say so. It wasn't far off though with the troop stop-loss programs and retention through other bastard tactics they were using like "typo" tactics to retain troops or simply not letting them leave on their obligated dates. I actually believe that those were test cases to see if they could get away with reinstating the draft.

I know about the stop-loss thing... but what are 'typo tactics'?

Consider the beat-down, worn-out state that Bush has left our military in- and the long-term effort that will be required to make ANYTHING good come of Afganistan (even IF the wind-down in Iraq goes perfectly). Add to that Obama's numerous comments about 'service' and the like... and the hints that he'd make 'service' not exactly voluntary.

I think the draft is still a very real possibility- or perhaps some modified version of it (like that "skills-draft" email that went around a few years back).

Around the same time of the stop-loss there was some shady dealings going around.

People who would be on the verge of getting out would be given orders to deploy.
People would get orders intended for other people.
People on deployment would be kept from a day to several months beyond their exit dates simply by being told, "no planes going out this month".

So for the "legitimacy" of every one troop shoved into the stop-loss side of the aisle, there was one simply getting blindly fucked. When stop-loss was hitting the media waves you could dig for a bit of it. Or if you know a (former) soldier they could tell you about it as well.

I have a suspicion that anyone who likes guns that don't come under the hunting gun description, especially large collectors, or dealers from the former Confederacy will be on the shit list, as well as anyone who is very vocal about their rights who isn't a minority, gay, or female.

Anti-abortion groups won't be popular, nor will ministers who are unaccepting of liberal ways. Any straight white man who publically does anything to show pride in his gender or heritage may have a worry even if it's not meant in a sexist or racist manner, because of course any good socialist liberal can tell you that any such proud feelings in ones self among straight white males is simply evil.

Anyone who objects to taxes of any kind or government intrusion too loudly will of course be a potential target. Anyone who pushes for personal responsibility instead of governmental control will not be smiled upon. This will not be the administration to suggest that our cities need to get their shit together and clean up their mess instead of begging government to.

Likewise this administration will not agree with the logical idea that the good citizens in those cities should have more gun rights to protect themselves from the criminals who don't need gun rights. Start dropping gangbangers in their tracks and put their heads on stakes as a warning and big city gang problems will soon cease.

Yes, socialists have just as many on their hate lists as GW and his buddies did, and I'm sure revenge is on their minds.

I agree that alot of returning vets are disenchanted. Making even reservists and guardsmen serve more than one combat tour is one of the main complaints I hear. I recall the atmosphere the Nam vets returned to. The liberals often saw soldiers as tools of the government without considering what they might have felt personally, and conservative Americans didn't understand why returning soldiers weren't proud of going to the backstabbing toilet known as Vietnam.

Returning vets who weren't pro-war only had hippies for friends, and vets proud to serve were called baby killers due to the unfortunate cruelty that Americans had forgotten sometimes accompanies war. British and US bombers roasted thousands of children alive during WWII in Germany during the incendiary bombings of their cities, not to mention the nukes on Japan, but war protests in those days didn't seem to affect the public.

Vietnam was considered a political war, and WWII was considered a war for survival. Some are convinced Iraq is about fighting terrorism, but more are understanding all the time that it's just one more damn power play for territorial and financial control of resources in a cold war that didn't really end yet. And that includes alot of the troops.

You are right in that one major difference is the draft as far as how the public sees it. But the interesting lesson that was learned from Vietnam is that I have yet to see anyone who volunteered this time being spat on or called a baby killer. Vietnam soldiers were treated like crap who didn't want to be there in the first place. So far I have not "personally" witnessed any serious anti-soldier sentiments towards Iraq vets and I like that part.

"I think obama is going to use this to work against the far right. wait and see....
there is already a report out listing far right people as extremists"



A similar assessment of left-wing radicals completed in January was distributed to federal, state and local police agencies at that time.

"These assessments are done all the time, this is nothing unusual," Kuban said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090414/us_nm/us_usa_security_extremists

oh, the drama!!!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush+surveillance+domestic+spying&btnG=Search

Ratzilla wrote:

I have a suspicion that anyone who likes guns that don't come under the hunting gun description, especially large collectors, or dealers from the former Confederacy will be on the shit list, as well as anyone who is very vocal about their rights who isn't a minority, gay, or female.

Anti-abortion groups won't be popular, nor will ministers who are unaccepting of liberal ways. Any straight white man who publically does anything to show pride in his gender or heritage may have a worry even if it's not meant in a sexist or racist manner, because of course any good socialist liberal can tell you that any such proud feelings in ones self among straight white males is simply evil.

Anyone who objects to taxes of any kind or government intrusion too loudly will of course be a potential target. Anyone who pushes for personal responsibility instead of governmental control will not be smiled upon. This will not be the administration to suggest that our cities need to get their shit together and clean up their mess instead of begging government to.

Likewise this administration will not agree with the logical idea that the good citizens in those cities should have more gun rights to protect themselves from the criminals who don't need gun rights. Start dropping gangbangers in their tracks and put their heads on stakes as a warning and big city gang problems will soon cease.

Yes, socialists have just as many on their hate lists as GW and his buddies did, and I'm sure revenge is on their minds.

If only we could revert to medieval warfare tactics to insure our rights, I would be one of the first M.O.U.T. trained guys to sign up.

I do think that right wing extremist groups will be targetted, and I say GOOD. Those that would bomb buildings in Oklahoma or burn abortion clinics NEED to be locked away. The good thing is that the left is typically not so agenda ridden as the right. They DO have their agendas but they don't peg them to God and all gather under one banner so easily. I can see some of what you are saying but fortunately in many cases, Liberals and Democrats are their own failsafe. It's why the GOP blamed them for not being able to get anything done for so long.

Ratzilla wrote:

I agree that alot of returning vets are disenchanted. Making even reservists and guardsmen serve more than one combat tour is one of the main complaints I hear. I recall the atmosphere the Nam vets returned to. The liberals often saw soldiers as tools of the government without considering what they might have felt personally, and conservative Americans didn't understand why returning soldiers weren't proud of going to the backstabbing toilet known as Vietnam.

Returning vets who weren't pro-war only had hippies for friends, and vets proud to serve were called baby killers due to the unfortunate cruelty that Americans had forgotten sometimes accompanies war. British and US bombers roasted thousands of children alive during WWII in Germany during the incendiary bombings of their cities, not to mention the nukes on Japan, but war protests in those days didn't seem to affect the public.

Vietnam was considered a political war, and WWII was considered a war for survival. Some are convinced Iraq is about fighting terrorism, but more are understanding all the time that it's just one more damn power play for territorial and financial control of resources in a cold war that didn't really end yet. And that includes alot of the troops.

You are right in that one major difference is the draft as far as how the public sees it. But the interesting lesson that was learned from Vietnam is that I have yet to see anyone who volunteered this time being spat on or called a baby killer. Vietnam soldiers were treated like crap who didn't want to be there in the first place. So far I have not "personally" witnessed any serious anti-soldier sentiments towards Iraq vets and I like that part.

My reference wasn't so much the issue of disrespect given to returning soldiers from the citizenry. There is no doubt they are treated better than those from Vietnam. They are dealing with a different issue from the citizenry now. Thanks to modern medicine we have more maimed soldiers returning than ever before. Although the government takes good care of some of them, there are many others that are slapped together and given minimal post-service benefits. The psyche of the soldier is also different. Many of my old Marine buddies are fine because we are essentially brainwashed into killing machines but the PTSD suffered by many returning soldiers is a serious issue that is overlooked many times.

It isn't through blatant disrespect that they are mistreated but through ignorance and neglect. I don't care what you did for your country or how competent you are, try being confined to a wheelchair for the rest of your days and getting a job over a recent graduate that has no life or leadership experience.

I'm not so sure it was right wing radicals who hit OKC. McVey may have been used to make everyone think so, but too much was not right about OKC. I'm not talking about things I heard on Limbaugh radio either. There were just too many things that either made no sense, or made alot of sense but weren't addressed. I can elaborate if needed, but to make it short for the moment, leftist radicals had far more to gain from the OKC attack.

I haven't heard a good run-down of that particular subset of 90's conspiracy theory in YEARS. Care to elaborate? For my own nostalgia, if nothing else...

It makes no sense first off why a man who just set up a huge truck bomb would be driving a car afterwards with no tags. It makes no sense why he had a pistol on the car seat, yet this man who blows up buildings made no attempt to shoot the officer who stopped him.

It makes too much sense that the lowest weasels of the democrat party had been screaming how something needed to be done about the rapidly growing popularity of militias, and before the bodies were cold at OKC, those democrats had a "500" page domestic terrorism bill on the table aimed at militias, etc.

It made no sense that the OKC fire chief initially reported a second blast crater inside the building yet that wasn't thoroughly pursued in the investigation.

It made no sense that no BATF employees, nor their kids who would normally be in the daycare came in that day. One agent was caught lying that he freefell in one elevator several stories, yet inspectors said the elevator safety brakes did not fail and none of them freefell.

It made no sense why two different seismographs in the area both recorded two different blasts. It made too much sense that scumbag Chuck Schumer's bill HR 2580 submitted right after OKC had wording in it that would give prison sentences for conspiracy theories publically made against the federal government.

Why in hell would militias knowing full well that some in Congress were pushing to get the Omnibus Counter Terrorism Act of 1995 passed give them exactly what they needed to get it done?

The whole thing stunk. We saw how the government tried to BS their way through Waco and Ruby Ridge. I think they were just more successful with OKC. I'm not saying I believe without doubt that anyone in government knew about it beforehand, but I do think there's alot we were kept from knowing afterwards. OKC was the Congressional leftists dream.

You make a compelling case, and I enjoyed your write-up. I feel like I'm 20 years old again.

Quote :

It makes no sense first off why a man who just set up a huge truck bomb would be driving a car afterwards with no tags. It makes no sense why he had a pistol on the car seat, yet this man who blows up buildings made no attempt to shoot the officer who stopped him.

Yeah, that never made sense to me either. Also, remember how the feds found a receipt for all the ammonium nitrate in Terry Nichols' trash can? Just seems awful convenient... like a poorly written law & order episode.

I've heard the thing about none of the BATF people showing up... but never seen any real documentation or confirmation of it. Seems like a smoking gun IF true... but it's a pretty big 'if'.


I voted for Obama knowing full well that I was effectively voting for Clinton's Third Term... and he hasn't disappointed. I fully expect federal agencies to shift their attentions from left to right, just as they did with Clinton's arrival. We're in for more conspiracy theories just like this OKC talk.

And let's not forget Vince Foster.

Have a look at the OKC dead list. Lots of feds and military, but no BATF and they did have offices there.

http://www.techunl.net/murrah/default.htm

You guys are starting to sound like the leftists regarding the 9/11 attacks.

I personally believe we had a stake in both. If not directly, by fault on non-prevention alone.

OKC may have been a bad example as there are many doubts as to the whos and whys.

At any rate though, As Bighead stated, I knew what I was voting for. I'm also fairly well convinced that it wouldn't have mattered anyway. Bigger strings than we can see definitively are being pulled to create the illusion of balance.

One party is a small forward, the other a shooting guard. They are both fast, sneaky and they keep passing the ball (us) back and forth. In the end it doesn't matter which one makes the shot, we still end up in the same basket.

Anyone care to take a stab at who the team's coach is?

Obviously the large banks get their way. And Israel plays Congress like a cheap fiddle. If anyone knew of 9/11 and did nothing to stop it I could believe Israel might. I can easily picture some Zionists who'd gladly watch anything in America fall if it meant Muslims over there would die in great numbers. What a perfect way to destroy your enemies. Stand back and watch the worlds biggest hit squad do it for you.

It's known that extreme Zionists were willing to sacrifice all the jews of Europe during WWII if it meant Israel would survive, and they still have power in Israel. I don't trust them at all.

BigBadBeast wrote:

Anyone care to take a stab at who the team's coach is?

E.T.?

E.T is a jew?

In all seriousness, The U.S. Gov knew about the plane's long before they hit the towers. It's likely they had a decent idea where they were going and they definitely had enough time either way to deal with them before they hit their targets.

While in the Marine Corps I was an Air Traffic Controller. Without a doubt, if there is something in the air in the USA, even pre-9/11, you would know everything you wanted if you wanted, even if it wasn't squawking.

If ya'll are going to talk conspiracy, at least make up some new ones..

nitromaxx98 wrote:

If ya'll are going to talk conspiracy, at least make up some new ones..

Liam Neeson, Dog the Bounty Hunter, Mike Tyson, Barbara Streisand and myself are out to get you.

and this one too.

Of course our government knew there were planes in the wrong flight paths before they hit, but did they know before that day?

I think the Saudis knew for sure since I think wealthy Saudis funded it. I think Israel knew and both they and the Saudis saw it as a way to get the US to fight their battle with Saddam. He was a competitor to the Saudis and shot scuds at Israel. The both wanted him gone and I suspect they both hyped the threat of Iraq.

I wouldn't be surprised if Israel fabricated and supplied GW with much of the supposed intelligence on Iraqs chemical weapons. I'm not anti-Jewish, but I'm very suspicious of the Zionists in Israel. As I say, they were quite willing to watch their bretheren die before to advance the state of Israel.

Quote :

It's known that extreme Zionists were
willing to sacrifice all the jews of Europe during WWII if it meant
Israel would survive, and they still have power in Israel. I don't
trust them at all.

Since Isreal was founded by post WWII powers, I don't understand this statement.

Quote :

At any rate though, As Bighead stated, I knew what I was voting for. I'm also fairly well convinced that it wouldn't have mattered anyway. Bigger strings than we can see definitively are being pulled to create the illusion of balance.

One party is a small forward, the other a shooting guard. They are both fast, sneaky and they keep passing the ball (us) back and forth. In the end it doesn't matter which one makes the shot, we still end up in the same basket.

Anyone care to take a stab at who the team's coach is?

I've heard it said that if you want to know who's REALLY in charge... then think about who it is that you're not allowed to criticize. I won't tell you just who that is- because I'm not allowed to criticize them either. There are very real consequences if said criticism is taken seriously.

Quote :

because I'm not allowed to criticize them either. There are very real consequences if said criticism is taken seriously.

Must be the pope. He'll send you to hell.

I thought Obama was the Pope?