|
Post by chadgumbo on Mar 21, 2006 22:40:45 GMT -5
From Jashley earlier today: Pres. Bush held a news conference today, and the main topic of discussion was Iraq. One of the reporters sitting front and center (Helen), asked the president to remind us why it was he had wanted to go to war? Pres. Bush strongly denied wanting to go to war. "No president wants to go to war, Helen" he said. She tried several times to ask follow up questions, but the president kept rambling on about how Iraq had been warned by the world community that they either fully disclose, submit to weapons inspections... blah blah blah - or face military invasion. Now this was [glow=red,2,300]a perfect example of this adminstration's spin machine at work![/glow] Yes, the UN did indeed agree that Iraq needed to submit to disclosure and inspections or face the possiblility of invasion, but what President Bush failed to point out was that the UN never endorsed the invasion. However, his inference was that he had the "world community" behind him when he'd decided to invade. Maybe he figured 3 years had been long enough for us all to be a little fuzzy on the details of March 2003. And so it continues -
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Mar 22, 2006 12:01:14 GMT -5
Hoy Hoy All, Scott, The amen was for calling the democrats p*ssies. ... WE NEED THE WACKOS. They are (most of 'em, anyway) ... and I am! And in outing Valerie Plame, it turns out the Vice President also removed the task force charged with monitoring Iran's development of wmd (including nuclear). Now, there is no apparatus to provide an objective analysis of just where the development is ... we have only the Administration's "word" for what is going on. We already know how reliable that is ... but, if the last official word was 10 years, and we are now hearing suggestions that they might have it "now" ... just who do you think is spinning a new yarn? And why would they be doing that? ... Gee, let me give you three guesses. Just a minor correction. Mohammad Mosaddeq was the elected prime minister of Iran in 1953. The CIA sponsored a coup d'etat that assassinated him and put the Shah into power (a pattern that was so successful that it was followed in several other "troublesome" countries -- Guatemala, Chile -- and not so successfully in Cuba). The Shah was so tyrannical (his secret police are still feared by Iranians) that his rule led directly to the Islamic Revolution of 1979, and the rise of the Ayotollah. So was I. But who am I? I was also saying, well, if he does have wmd, let's at least give the U.N. inspectors the time they need to find them. If they are there, the world will line up behind us to slap him silly. But no ... we had to go it alone; because, as the President and the VP said on more than one occasion -- SH has a direct connection to 9/11 and the WTC, and we have to take the fight to the terrorists.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Mar 22, 2006 17:12:15 GMT -5
I am reading the newspaper today, and it is just chock full of country goodness (oops, that was the amazing rhythm aces that said that) ... I guess what I mean to say is that it was just full of interesting tidbits. I'll ignore GW's announcement that we are in Iraq forever (and try not to say "I told you so"), or that Enron is collecting almost $100 million dollars a year from Portland General Electric (a fully owned subsidiary of Enron) which it collects as "taxes" from consumers before mailing the check to corporate headquarters, where it is used to pay off creditors and reduce Enron's tax liability to .... (dare I say it?) ... $0.00.
Instead, I will focus on the rich stroking the backside (and by now, probably the front side as well) of the rich, as announced by the Secretary of Homeland Security, Mr. Michael "what can I do for your [financial] security today" Chertoff. It seems that the General Accounting Office reported, in January, that there were at least 3,400 chemical plants in this country that it considered to be "high priority" because a worst-case release of toxic chemicals at any one of them might sicken or kill more than 1000 people. Additionally, it pointed out that there were over 15,000 chemical plants in the U.S. that had, for the last four years, resisted implementing any standards for security against either accidental or terrorits related incidents. The GAO furthermore concluded that (1) it was unclear whether or not efforts to have companies voluntarily establish such standards was effective, (2) Homeland Security did not have the authority to impose such standards, and therefore (3) Congress needed to take action.
Well, Congress ... per its usual hasty and timely efforts to addess matters of consequence, has done squat. Representative Ed Markey (D-Mass) floated a bill making mandatory rules, on-site inspections, whistle-blower protections, and a requirement that industry replace toxic chemicals with less dangerous materials, when feasible.
You could hear the cats wailing all the way up here in Portland! Chertoff has sided, all along, with the American Chemical Council (another one of those professional industry groups that seems to carry significant clout whenever legislation is pointed their way). Such government regulation of business is unheard of, particularly the "interference with business" that the proposal for using substitute chemcals would pose. He also has said he was opposed to any government interference ... let alone congressional legislation ... to "mircromanage" the private sector by mandating standards for security.
Well ... all of that has been taken care of, and Mr. Chertoff has changed his mind. It's okay for Congress to enact provisions that assign each of the 15,000 plants to one of four risk groups, settng performance goals for each category, but leaving the details of how to do it up to the plant operators. This is the crux of the bill proposed by the Democrat with a direct tunnel to FoxNews -- Joseph Lieberman (maybe he'll run against Jeb Bush in the Republican Primary in 08).
Chertoff also backed an industry proposed plan that would prevent state and local governments from enacting tougher rules (following suit of the FDA, which now sets the national standards for labels on foods and which cannot be preempted by local governments who want tougher standards). I mean, for god's sake, we cannot expose business operators to "inconsistent rules" that expose businesses to "ruinous liability" if the people next door to a plant using toxic chemicals decide they want some assurances and protections in case the "safeguards" of the plant operators should fail; instead, we want them to follow rules set by people who don't live within a thousand miles of the same plant!
Okay ... this is what it means: Congress will regulate security at chemical plants, but it will authorize the chemical plant operators to design the standards, determine how they meet the targets, and to use private contractors to audit their compliance! Put another way, they will set their own rules of behavior, then pay the salary of the folks they hire to verify that they are following their own rules. Now this is democracy and free enterprise in action! Government can sacrifice the safety of its citizenry because it cannot regulate the operations of a class of people who can afford to purchase the tools and the chemicals.
We have all been standing on our heads! How stupid. Of COURSE the factory owners have the right to make mistakes that will imperil thousands of citizens, because the citizens don't have enough money to own the factories.
I should have known!
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Mar 23, 2006 1:32:53 GMT -5
Mohammad Mosaddeq was the elected prime minister of Iran in 1953. The CIA sponsored a coup d'etat that assassinated him and put the Shah into power (a pattern that was so successful that it was followed in several other "troublesome" countries -- Guatemala, Chile -- and not so successfully in Cuba). Don't forget...America! Assassination was such a handy tool back then but it did bring on the heat. Now, character assassination proves to be just as useful.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Mar 25, 2006 14:48:04 GMT -5
Well warm up those vocal chords......dick! I don't see how it's possible that the Dem's, or a Party of Martian Alien's, or a troop of girlscouts could do a worse job of Iraq ...national security..the well being of the US citizens..ect. All it takes is just a little honesty and integrity! BUSH/CHENEY 04, my ass. I have a buddy that sez that will be our last election. Course I don't believe him......yet. RIP Buck Owens "Love's gonna live here.." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Cheney: If Democrats can lead, then I can sing on American Idol Fri Mar 24, 6:04 PM ET
ORLANDO, Florida (Reuters) - U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney on Friday rejected charges by Democrats that the Bush administration was mishandling Iraq and said: "If they are competent to fight this war, then I ought to be singing on American Idol."
During a campaign stop in Orlando, Cheney predicted that national security would dominate congressional elections in November and sought to rally Republicans amid dwindling popular support for President George W. Bush.
In Washington, Democratic National Committee spokesman Luis Miranda called the criticism of his party an attempt to divert attention from the situation in Iraq, which is torn by violence three years after the U.S.-led invasion.
Referring to a notoriously acerbic judge on the American Idol television talent contest, Miranda said, "Simon Cowell is more loved than this administration and its failed Iraq policy. Cheney wouldn't last long on American Idol."
Speaking to a Republican crowd at a fund-raiser for U.S. Rep. Ric Keller (news, bio, voting record) of Orlando, Cheney dismissed accusations that the administration was "dangerously incompetent" and defended the war in Iraq and Bush's anti-terrorism tactics.
He spoke in favour of Bush's controversial executive order allowing the National Security Agency to conduct wiretaps within the United States without warrants.
"Some Democrats in Congress have decided the president is the enemy and the terrorist surveillance program is grounds for censuring the president," Cheney said, adding, "The American people have already made their decision. They agree with the president."
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Mar 25, 2006 15:35:06 GMT -5
Ugh....Remember The Alamo! These folks are getting focused and organized. I think we better get that way too, or our odds of a nice future will plummet...again. I've recently "experienced an event" that shook my argument on this topic, as it caused me great distress, but, to not check this situation will be catastrophic. We can only afford to try and save one country at a time. L.A. braces for protest, as Bush addresses 'emotional debate'Pending legislation spurs tens of thousands to march
Saturday, March 25, 2006; Posted: 10:38 a.m. EST (15:38 GMT)
Students from Huntington Park High School in Los Angeles march in a demonstration Friday.
(CNN) -- As thousands of people were expected to protest legislation cracking down on illegal immigrants on Saturday, President Bush said he planned to toughen enforcement of immigration laws.
"America is a nation of immigrants, and we're also a nation of laws," Bush said in his weekly radio address.
"When illegal immigrants know they will be caught and sent home, they will be less likely to break the rules, and our immigration system will be more orderly and secure."
The president acknowledged it was an "emotional debate" but continued "America does not have to choose between being a welcoming society and being a lawful society."
A march against proposed legislation in Congress was set for Saturday through downtown Los Angeles, California, a day after thousands of people staged similar demonstrations in Georgia, Arizona and elsewhere. (Watch crowds take over streets in Phoenix, Arizona -- 0:42)
Next week, the Senate will take up immigration overhaul, with at least four different proposals rattling around the Capitol.
Among the thorny issues the Senate will tackle is Bush's guest worker program for immigrants, which has proven unpopular with many of his fellow Republicans. Senators must also decide whether more than 11 million people already in the United States illegally will be given a chance to earn legal status -- a process critics dismiss as "amnesty."
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Mar 27, 2006 13:11:25 GMT -5
Here we go...the proverbial shit is hitting the fan. As I type this, around 2000+ (so far) Hispanic students are gathering and protesting in Dallas that have walked out of class to demand we ignore the fact that they are "illegal aliens". It's happening in many other cities also. 500,000 in LA this past week end, and Mexican protesters blocking the LA freeway.... They are getting bolder and braver in their demand that they be allowed to enter and stay in this country waving their Mexican flags and sending all of their earnings "home" to Mexico. Like I said, PC or not (who cares?), we can't afford this shite!!! Immigration protest erupts in fisticuffs PROTEST: Slurs, hot tempers highlight countering demonstrations at Bank Calumet
BY JERRY DAVICH This story ran on nwitimes.com on Sunday, March 26, 2006 12:03 AM CST
MUNSTER,IN Blaring car horns, racist slurs and angry fisticuffs punctuated a volatile encounter of protesters and counter-protesters Saturday morning outside Bank Calumet.
"God bless America! Stay out of our business!" yelled members of the locally based Indiana Federation for Immigration Reform and Enforcement.
"Go home (expletive) Nazi racists!" yelled members of an opposing group of circling counterprotesters.
The federation, a public interest organization advocating what it calls immigration policies with an impact, demonstrated against bank loans for undocumented aliens, echoing six similar previous local protests.
Several members of the Chicago Minuteman Project joined the federation, hoisting protest signs to passing motorists and exchanging verbal jabs with visibly angry counterprotesters.
"We're not racists, we're LEGAL Americans," Minuteman members yelled under American flags whipping in a fierce wind. "Those people are Communists."
The counterprotesters -- some from the Progressive Labor Party of Chicago, others from Purdue University Calumet or there on their own -- chanted in bilingual defiance: "¡Obreros unidos jamas seran vencidos!" or, "Workers united will never be defeated!"
Susana Findley, a Gary native whose parents were born in Mexico, said illegal immigrant workers arrived here for the same reason federation members' ancestors arrived: To find work and a better life.
"But those racist immigrants forget about that," said Findley, nodding toward the federation's camp.
Several counterprotesters arrived earlier than the scheduled 10 a.m. federation protest, setting up shop at the corner of Calumet Avenue and Ridge Road.
When 63-year-old Chicago Minuteman member Rick Biesada arrived and pulled out his protest sign, he claimed that two counterprotesters yanked it from him. When he yanked it back, the men assaulted him, knocking him to the ground, he said.
The Lindenhurst, Ill., resident was treated by paramedics at the scene for a gash over his eye and dizziness, spending a few minutes inside an ambulance before returning to the protest.
"I wished he fell to the ground harder," Findley said.
Munster police Sgt. Nick Hudak, one of several officers showing up to stand between the opposing groups, said no arrests were made and no other injuries occurred.[glow=red,2,300]LET ME HELP YOU VISUALIZE THIS:[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Mar 27, 2006 23:50:05 GMT -5
hmmmm....I'm shocked at the dishonesty! You would think something like this would stir up some questions even from the "sheep".
I read a story recently (and believe it or not, didn't post it) about Hussein contemplating using "camels of mass destruction"... ;D...it's true. Camels with suicide bombers on them. Man, It's a good thing we invaded when we did!!! WMD's = camels .... ;D ;D ;D
Bush told Blair determined to invade Iraq without UN resolution or WMD Mon Mar 27, 2:13 AM ET NEW YORK (AFP) - US President George W. Bush made clear to British Prime Minister Tony Blair in January 2003 that he was determined to invade Iraq without a UN resolution and even if UN arms inspectors failed to find weapons of mass destruction in the country, The New York Times reported.
Citing a confidential British memorandum, the newspaper said the president was certain that war was inevitable and made his view known during a private two-hour meeting with Blair in the Oval Office on January 31, 2003.
Information about the meeting was contained in the memo written by Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The Times.
"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," the paper quotes David Manning, Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, as noting in the memo.
" 'The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March,' Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. 'This was when the bombing would begin'," the paper continued.
The timetable came at an important diplomatic moment, the paper said.
Five days after the Bush-Blair meeting, then US secretary of state Colin Powell was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to present evidence that Iraq posed a threat to world security by hiding unconventional weapons. ;D (camels)
Stamped "extremely sensitive," the five-page memorandum had not been made public, according to the report. Several highlights were first published in January in the book "Lawless World," which was written by British lawyer and international law professor Philippe Sands.
In early February, Channel 4 in London first broadcast excerpts from the memo.
But since then, The New York Times has been able to review the five-page memo in its entirety.
The document indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable, the paper said.
Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Blair agreed with that assessment.
The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq, The Times noted.
Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a US surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.
Hey, am I the only one still bitching?!
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Mar 28, 2006 12:06:44 GMT -5
Nope (you're not the only one still complaining).
Here's my first complaint ... I noticed on the title page that chad had submitted a post at 7:40 PM (yesterday), but it's not there! I also noticed, in a different thread, that several messages Hank Randall was replying to weren't there, either (mostly in reference to some guy protesting tape police at a show). Is there a way that individuals can retract posts? Or is there a conspiracy to silence certain posters taking place?
As to the notes from the Blair/Bush January meeting in which the two fearless leaders decided that it was going to be "invasion", no matter what happened ... this is not news, just confirmation. Of course, the fact that the invasion was on the map and just looking for an excuse will not influence Bush supporters, in the least. I mean, those who still support the President (and are proud of it) are the 37% that actually got him elected. They want the U.S. to aggressively defend its empire and drive us to bankruptcy with overt militarism and nationalism (including closing our borders).
I take heart in the courage of the over 1,000,000 immigrants (legal and illegal) who took to the streets in the past week to protest draconian measures proposed by hardliners in the House who will throw down the gauntlet over immigration in the same way they threw down the gauntlet over wmds and tyranny in Iraq or in the so-called "achievement gap" in our schools ... where they basically said, "we won't leave anyone behind, we'll just make it impossible for 40% of the kids in the country to demonstrate "proficiency", thus driving them out of the system" ... a typical tough guy/tough love approach.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Mar 28, 2006 13:52:36 GMT -5
I take heart in the courage of the over 1,000,000 immigrants (legal and illegal) who took to the streets in the past week to protest draconian measures proposed by hardliners in the House Scott, I think you know my opinion of the "hardliners in this house". But I have a question for you. Do you feel it is of any importance to enforce our border control or immigration policies? I feel that any nation should be as generous as possible, but certainly not at their own peril. The damage caused by the Dubya administration combined with an unchecked immigration overrun at this point in American history can only lead to one thing....disaster! Any social services that we are trying desperately to hang on to will undoubtedly turn to pulp in record time given the MASSES of ILLEGAL immigrants FLOODING into this country because of the message they have gotten from Dubya. "Hey...come get ya some, and work for my rich friends!!!" Not to mention the fact that while I am still standing at the airport holding my shoes with my laptop scattered from one end of the belt to the other, "obeying" some asshole that looks like him...Bin Laden himself with his entire entourage could simply be walking across the border (or they may have to strain themselves and crawl under the fence ;D) at any one of thousands of points along the southern borders. Drug cartels, Mexican (illegal) street gangs, massive amounts of OUR economy sent "home" to Mexico, ect, ect,.... Instead of solving problems anymore we compound them daily!!! I say that this is more of Dubya's plan for an aristocratic America. That ain't how I want to live! I just don't think we can save ourselves and Mexico too. Ya gotta make a choice. REMEMBER THE ALAMO....IMPEACH BUSH!!!
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Mar 29, 2006 13:03:59 GMT -5
The immigration question is a complex one, not easily answered with sound-byte one-liners (nor with nationalistic protectionism, either). I won't go into the type of detail I think a proper response warrants, but will also try to avoid simplistic solutions.
Your closing lines about "Dubya's aristocratic America" come close to explaining a whole lot about much that is going on -- in fact, it dovetails neatly with much that I have been trying to say in this forum for the past couple of years. Most of it began with the great (mis)communicator and is reaching fruition now. In no conscious order of importance or relevance, here are just a few of the factors I see at work in cementing a corporate state that entrenches an aristocratic oligarchy at the top of the heap:
• reduce or eliminate restrictions to economic growth through legislation and/or executive fiat (impacting taxation, environmental concerns, issues related to the workforce, lobbyists, healthcare, overseas flight) • crush the unions • use the once "liberating" internet to consolidate and centralize data on all citizens • provide cheap labor (crush all -- or most -- unions, move jobs overseas to people without worker protection and/or security, plant closures, reduce unemployment compensation, promote illegal immigration, reduce pension and benefit packages to workers ... not executives) • create and promote issues that cause social schisms, keeping the lower classes fighting amongst themselves (abortion, gay rights, inadequate health care, immigration, Terry Schiavo, militias) • perpetual war (fear yielding increasing power to central governments, gradual reduction and/or elimination of rights, an external enemy against whom to unite -- or further deepen the internal social schisms, tons of money -- borrowed or otherwise -- to the military-industrial-complex)
and above all else (maybe)
• increased centralization of power and control (of both government and business, with the two moving ever closer together all the time).
Please note that the more "liberal" position being bandied about in terms of immigration comes from Shrub. The Christian Right (whom we all know are being "persecuted" in a "War on Christianity") and its hard-core Republican Conservative response is draconian -- use high tech databases to track all citizens, thusly making it easier to identify those illegally trying to enter the system (see a point, above, about data mining); deport those seeking or holding employment without proof of citizenship (see previous); classify any effort to help, assist, nurture, protect, educate or otherwise offer compassion to any illegal immigrant a felony (more regulation by fear). Shrub, on the other hand, recognizes that this illegal work force is essential to the American economy (see points, above), and takes a more "humane" view.
To wit ... American businessmen are the primary beneficiaries of most illegal immigration. Illegals are not going to join a union (see points, above), so workforce protection is a thing of the past, for them (hours of work, overtime pay, work safety, salary scales and the like, and don't even think of "benefits"). Such business action serves to drive down pay and other work-related issues in other sectors of the economy, too. When a worker becomes ill (or suffers a work-related accident), they must rely on taxpayers to provide them the health care that they need.
But still, they come. They come because where they come from sucks more than it does here. They come because they have a dream of what they might be able to accomplish if they were paid a decent wage (not that what they get here is considered "decent" by most Americans ... which is why the job openings for them exist).
And our "free trade" agreements are nothing more than legal contracts to bind the existing poor conditions in place in the countries from which they come. Why do we not expend our energies to truly develop the economies in Latin America? Why do we not insist that Mexico (for example) adopt fair labor laws? Why, when we "modernize" a car factory in Vera Cruz (that is, displace six in ten workers with high-tech machinery) do we not make sure that other forms of employment are available for those displaced by the "modernization"? Why do we help Latin American leaders (and leaders in other places, too) crush any movement towards unionization or democratic organization when it begins to take place?
Believe me, if it wasn't in the best interests of the major players in this country's economy to have a sizable pool of cheap labor to whom it owed no benefits and few worker's rights, "illegal" immigration would not be a problem.
But immigration itself is and always has been one of those Nativist and popular issues that well-up from the hidden recesses of our "land of the free" nightmares ... usually when other issues are what are really driving the panic. We have a long and "proud" history of becoming hysterical about "those" people moving to our country in vast numbers (even though "those" in question have changed over time) ... and a sad story to tell about what we did to them. The Irish. Southern and Eastern Europeans (remember the Red Scare of the 20's?). The Chinese and Japanese (and I don't just mean World War II hysteria). Vietnamese and Cambodians. Most of those Nativist movements gained momentum during periods of conservative administration, when fear tends to become the modus operandi and business secretly tightens its grip.
Nope ... immigration laws exist aplenty. They are not enforced. We don't need a Berlin Wall on the Arizona border, nor do we need armed vigilantes to patrol the border. We don't need the National Guard to do that, or the army (remember, this President wanted them to be engaged somewhere else -- as a FIRST OPTION!). And we can find ways to either (1) ease those illegally in the country to full citizenship or (2) punish those who bring them here and profit from their presence.
But I prefer looking to the future, and to larger possibilities. We are at a place in our development where a loose confederation of North American states makes a whole lot of sense. It can take many forms, but it cannot be dominated by Big Brother (as most in this country would probably insist if such a union were to take shape). One form it cannot take is an inappropriately named "Free Trade Agreement".
|
|
|
Post by featphoto on Mar 29, 2006 17:32:33 GMT -5
I wouldn't normally post the URL to a commercial site, but this one deserves a look ... it's where I get the various buttons and stuff that my son loves to wear to school and piss off the administration and right wing students (my son is the one who wears a kilt to school and other anarchic things like that), plus the odd bumper sticker that finds its way on our cars ... you all might not believe it, but I agree completely and whole heartedly with your assessment of Bush and the smarmy bottom feeders with whom he has surrounded himself. I think my problem with the whole conspiracy thing has more to do with my doubt that most of Dubyah's cohorts could spell the word, never mind engage in the practice ... anyway, for your dancing & dining pleasure: www.stickergiant.com/page/sg/CTGY/bushs_last_day
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Mar 29, 2006 21:40:01 GMT -5
... you all might not believe it, but I agree completely and whole heartedly with your assessment of Bush and the smarmy bottom feeders with whom he has surrounded himself. I think my problem with the whole conspiracy thing has more to do with my doubt that most of Dubyah's cohorts could spell the word, never mind engage in the practice ... Hank, I have no problem believing that you can see through the fog fabricated in an extremely insulting manner by people with an endless supply of gall. In fact, I swear I think BillL can too. The more of a cohort of Dubya's they are, the less they need to be able to spell...conspiracy. Actually tho, a long time ago it was a conspiracy. Now it's a PLAN!!!
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Mar 29, 2006 22:17:14 GMT -5
The immigration question is a complex one, Your closing lines about "Dubya's aristocratic America" come close to explaining a whole lot about much that is going on -- in fact, it dovetails neatly with much that I have been trying to say in this forum for the past couple of years. And Scott you lay it out so well! I think you and I have always generally said the same thing. I tend to keep the faith that the average FeatFan reading these is somewhat enlightened to their surroundings and can "read between the lines" of my too general comments and opinions. Yep...the notion of an aristocratic nation was hatched in the early...'60s. For Hanks sake I won't go into it, but you would need to describe groups like the Trilateral Commission (big brother of The Carlyle Group), military industrial complex, ect. ect...... You would need to go into the JFK "PLOT", Nixon, Johnston, Arlen Specter, Gerald Ford, Raygun, ect. ect.... They justify and "smokescreen" all this caca using terms like "for the good of the country"..."national security ;D,", "democracy ", ect. ect..... I grew up around illegal Mexican immigrants in West Texas my entire life, and it was always a perfect balance; everybody won! I know many Mexican American nationals that think this is a huge mistake, and cannot have a good ending! It's no accident, and it ain't from compassion that Dubya has knocked down border control, and sent the message for them to "come get some!" Just the same that it was not "an act of nature" for crack cocaine to suddenly run rampant throughout the country. For the answer to that one...google for Mena, Arkansas and Air America. Think about it! How are they gonna get to their One World Aristocratic Existence without tearing down the standards of a place like America? They're looking at their future, and I'm looking at mine. Unfortunately for me...they have the big guns...for now anyway. PS = are we supposed to be posting on that well kept secret....the new message board?
|
|