Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Wed Oct 01, 2014 3:00 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 2:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:25 pm
Posts: 630
Location: Ede, The Netherlands
What is ur choice...

it;s tough for me to call overseas not hearing and knowing everything.. but i root for OBAMA right now..

_________________
If You Ain't Dutch, You Ain't Much!!

New Amsterdam was a Dutch settlement est. at the southern tip of Manhattan Island which served as seat of the colonial government in the New Dutch territory. It was renamed New York in honor of the then Duke of York.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:35 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
Man you're really asking for action with this thread. Let me just vote for Obama and let others beat on me too.

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 9:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:19 am
Posts: 1504
Election is rigged. Mc Cain will win. Corporations win, working class loses. Ralph Nader would be my choice in a perfect world. US is technically a democracy but corporate media influences the masses.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 1:52 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:09 pm
Posts: 2083
Location: Hingham, MA
Ollie wrote:
Election is rigged.


Don't just toss that allegation out there, Ollie. Tell us how you know.

As for the "corporate media" you speak of, to the degree that they can influence the voting, they're shamelessly in the tank for Barack Obama, not John McCain. But unless Obama stops digging the hole he has put himself in – and soon – you are right on one score: McCain will win, and probably in a landslide. Not even the media will be able to save Obama.

So far, he and Joe Biden are conducting the most amateurish and undisciplined presidential campaign in my lifetime. The nation deserves better.

_________________
If you think nobody notices you and you're all alone, try not paying your bills.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 1:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
Bob in Boston wrote:
Ollie wrote:
Election is rigged.


Don't just toss that allegation out there, Ollie. Tell us how you know.

As for the "corporate media" you speak of, to the degree that they can influence the voting, they're shamelessly in the tank for Barack Obama, not John McCain. But unless Obama stops digging the hole he has put himself in – and soon – you are right on one score: McCain will win, and probably in a landslide. Not even the media will be able to save Obama.

So far, he and Joe Biden are conducting the most amateurish and undisciplined presidential campaign in my lifetime. The nation deserves better.


Well said


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 10:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Bob in Boston wrote:
Ollie wrote:
Election is rigged.


Don't just toss that allegation out there, Ollie. Tell us how you know.

As for the "corporate media" you speak of, to the degree that they can influence the voting, they're shamelessly in the tank for Barack Obama, not John McCain. But unless Obama stops digging the hole he has put himself in – and soon – you are right on one score: McCain will win, and probably in a landslide. Not even the media will be able to save Obama.

So far, he and Joe Biden are conducting the most amateurish and undisciplined presidential campaign in my lifetime. The nation deserves better.

I fail to see where this claim holds water.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:27 am 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4200
Location: Zelienople, PA
I see that you don't recognize political panic when you see it.

Maybe if we put it in terms of pollmetrics, you could get a better feel? No. Dems*No. Reps/available electoral votes + available voters * Republican POTUS wins in last 30 years... ???

:lol:

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 12:24 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:30 pm
Posts: 6266
Bob, do you really not think that Fox News is not behind McCain in a similar manner that MSNBC is to Obama? There are newspapers and media outlets all over the country that are slanted in both directions. Talk radio is dominated by conservative hosts and boast a huge ratings lead over leftist outlets like Air America. I think it is a wash. Most media has morphed into entertainment.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 2:13 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:09 pm
Posts: 2083
Location: Hingham, MA
Az Bucco fan wrote:
Bob, do you really not think that Fox News is not behind McCain in a similar manner that MSNBC is to Obama? There are newspapers and media outlets all over the country that are slanted in both directions. Talk radio is dominated by conservative hosts and boast a huge ratings lead over leftist outlets like Air America. I think it is a wash. Most media has morphed into entertainment.


No, AZ, I don't. What have you seen in Fox's coverage that makes you think it's behind McCain?

As for the newspapers, I'd love for you to keep a tally of how many across the country – and specifically which ones – endorse Obama for president, as opposed to those that endorse McCain . . . and then share your findings with the board. I say "which ones" because the results need to be weighted, Sabrmetrics-style, by market size. Thus, if the Kootenai Valley Press in Bonners Ferry, Idaho, endorses McCain, that would have the tiniest fraction of the impact of the Los Angeles Times's endorsement of Obama. The Obama endorsements will ounumber those for McCain by an order of magnitude.

Talk radio? Sure, it's dominated by conservatives. That's because they're providing the balance that consumers of news can't find in the mainstream media. But except for Rush Limbaugh and a few lesser personalities (Hugh Hewitt, Laura Ingraham, to name two), it's local. No matter how forceful the political opinions of Mark Belling in Milwaukee or Howie Carr here in Boston, only the most fanatical Sirius listeners or fans of online audio streaming will hear them anywhere else.

_________________
If you think nobody notices you and you're all alone, try not paying your bills.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 2:29 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:09 pm
Posts: 2083
Location: Hingham, MA
Willton wrote:
Bob in Boston wrote:
Ollie wrote:
Election is rigged.


Don't just toss that allegation out there, Ollie. Tell us how you know.

As for the "corporate media" you speak of, to the degree that they can influence the voting, they're shamelessly in the tank for Barack Obama, not John McCain. But unless Obama stops digging the hole he has put himself in – and soon – you are right on one score: McCain will win, and probably in a landslide. Not even the media will be able to save Obama.

So far, he and Joe Biden are conducting the most amateurish and undisciplined presidential campaign in my lifetime. The nation deserves better.

I fail to see where this claim holds water.


Willton, do you really want to go there? Because you'll still be trying to tread water on Election Day from the H2O that can be poured on that argument.

_________________
If you think nobody notices you and you're all alone, try not paying your bills.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 5:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Bob in Boston wrote:
Willton wrote:
Bob in Boston wrote:
Don't just toss that allegation out there, Ollie. Tell us how you know.

As for the "corporate media" you speak of, to the degree that they can influence the voting, they're shamelessly in the tank for Barack Obama, not John McCain. But unless Obama stops digging the hole he has put himself in – and soon – you are right on one score: McCain will win, and probably in a landslide. Not even the media will be able to save Obama.

So far, he and Joe Biden are conducting the most amateurish and undisciplined presidential campaign in my lifetime. The nation deserves better.

I fail to see where this claim holds water.


Willton, do you really want to go there? Because you'll still be trying to tread water on Election Day from the H2O that can be poured on that argument.

You're the one making the conclusory remark that Obama and Biden are "conducting the most amateurish and undisciplined presidential campaign in my lifetime." While I don't know how old you are, I'd really like to know what your definition of "amateurish and undisciplined" is with regard to a presidential campaign, and how you think Obama's campaign is somehow more within that definition than any other election campaign in your lifetime.

So yes, open the floodgates and let's see what comes out. (Hopefully doing so won't leave a trail of dead, endangered fish in Oregon. See http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/c ... index.html)

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 5:16 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:22 pm
Posts: 2495
Better be careful, this is how we started out on the "Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin" thread. You've only got 10 more pages to go................


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:07 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
Bob, nice to hear from you again.

Does the fact that news departments of the major networks (exception is NBC) are controlled by corporate America have an impact on slant of the news. It is very clear to me that it does. ABC, CBS, and CNN all are at a minimum neutral, leaning Republican. And let's stop the ridiculous fair and balanced BS of Fox. They don't even attempt to hide their bias for everything Conservative. Any time of day you get a steady stream of your stuff.

Radio is probably 90% conservative.

So, that leaves newspapers. And while I read many of them, few other Americans do. Hate to down your source of a pay check, but you know very well how subsriptions are consistently falling. So, if the are for Obama somewhat, it matters much less today then yesterday. They are of less import today and it will only lessen in the future.

So, the perception the the media is librel no longer hold your water. No, my friend (McCain's favorite phrase), if anything it slants your way, the wrong way.

Now, don't get all fired up, let's try to keep it light.

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:13 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:09 pm
Posts: 2083
Location: Hingham, MA
Substitute2 wrote:
Bob, nice to hear from you again.

Does the fact that news departments of the major networks (exception is NBC) are controlled by corporate America have an impact on slant of the news. It is very clear to me that it does. ABC, CBS, and CNN all are at a minimum neutral, leaning Republican. And let's stop the ridiculous fair and balanced BS of Fox. They don't even attempt to hide their bias for everything Conservative. Any time of day you get a steady stream of your stuff.

Radio is probably 90% conservative.

So, that leaves newspapers. And while I read many of them, few other Americans do. Hate to down your source of a pay check, but you know very well how subsriptions are consistently falling. So, if the are for Obama somewhat, it matters much less today then yesterday. They are of less import today and it will only lessen in the future.

So, the perception the the media is librel no longer hold your water. No, my friend (McCain's favorite phrase), if anything it slants your way, the wrong way.

Now, don't get all fired up, let's try to keep it light.


Substitute2, don't take my word for it. Here, check what Hillary Clinton's ex-chief strategist, Mark Penn, told a CBS News interview posted just this morning. You'll have to scroll down to the fourth and third questions from the end, but I urge you to do so and then tell me whether you still think the nets "all are at a minimum, leaning Republican."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/11/politics/politicalplayers/main4442492.shtml?source=mostpop_story

Or, if you have a problem with where he's coming from, try this exchange from "The McLaughlin Group" on Aug. 31:

Quote:
Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift: "[McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin] is not a serious choice. It makes it look like a made for TV movie. If the media reaction is anything, it’s been literally laughter in many places across news-"
Host John McLaughlin: "Where is that? See that?"
Clift: "In very, very many newsrooms."


Still not persuaded? National Public Radio reported in late July:

Quote:
All three network anchors and dozens of other reporters followed Barack Obama on his whirlwind tour through the Mideast and Europe this week, sparking humor-infused complaints from the John McCain campaign. Project for Excellence in Journalism Director Tom Rosenstiel says there's nothing new about hating on the media, but that Obama has in fact enjoyed a disproportionate amount of coverage.


Here's the full study in question, if you'd like to read it:
http://journalism.org/node/12009

Or, if you'd prefer a foreign perspective: Under the imprimatur of MacLean's magazine, which is Canadian, blogger John Parisella wrote:

Quote:
Is this media bias in favour of the new darling, Obama? If one analyzes volume of coverage, it is clear Obama is favoured. Some of it has a lot to do with the tight Democratic race against Hillary Clinton, which lasted many months and packed all the suspense of a movie thriller. Some of it can be attributed to the nature of his candidacy: he’s the first African-American nominee and he’s got a compelling narrative to boot. Perhaps a lot has to do with change-and the media, whether consciously or unconsciously, sees Obama as the better agent of change.
Is McCain correct to complain that he is a victim of media bias? There is no doubt that Obama has captured the imagination of the media, and his stellar performance overseas may actually reinforce that fact.


Thank you for the welcome back.

_________________
If you think nobody notices you and you're all alone, try not paying your bills.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 7:48 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:09 pm
Posts: 2083
Location: Hingham, MA
Willton wrote:
So yes, open the floodgates and let's see what comes out.


Barack Obama's campaign has made at least three decisions or calculations that underscore its amateurism and indiscipline and already are paying big dividends for John McCain. They will continue to do so unless they're reversed, and two of them are irreversible:

1. The news media turned Obama into a political rock star, and he sat back and basked in it. This, despite the fact that his resume may be the thinnest of any major presidential candidate in American history. He rode that aura to the Democratic nomination, never bothering to spell out a definitive plan for the change that he has been saying is so needed. Now there are 52 days left to the election, voters finally are paying attention to the campaigns, and he's yet to be heard from. All most people know so far is that, if elected, he intends to raise taxes on Americans earning at least $250,000, slap a "windfall profits" tax on Big Oil, and continue to oppose drilling for our own oil and natural gas.

It leads him to say laughable things such as -- and I paraphrase: We could save as much oil by inflating our tires to the proper pressure as we could get by drilling.

There's an emerging buyers' remorse among Democrats that he's blowing it. The Politico.com website, hardly a conservative news outlet, reported in a Sept. 10 piece headlined "Autumn Angst: Dems Fret about Obama":

Quote:
he let a narrative take hold in the news media and among many of his own supporters that led to expectations that he should be far ahead, leading to disappointment when he isn’t.


Here's the URL:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13357.html

With so thin a resume, he figures to be tested severely in the debates, the first of which is coming up in just two weeks. They'll be watched heavily, maybe by more viewers than in any previous presidential campaign. Absent a TelePrompTer, it will be a minor miracle if he doesn't say something regrettable, especially when the questions turn to defense policy and foreign affairs.

2. The campaign was so sure of itself and so flush with cash that it announced it wouldn't accept federal funding. Now, if its poll numbers continue to drop and Democratic donors decide they don't want to pour their resources into what may be another losing candidate, it's too late to ask for the federal $$$ after all.

3. The Obama campaign has dissed women voters -- and women generally -- and split the Democratic Party. First, by not putting Hillary Clinton on the ticket and then compounding it by turning to her to try to rescue him from the backlash over the assault on Sarah Palin.

His indiscipline also has led him to call a woman reporter "sweetie" on at least one occasion. She didn't like it, and said as much on TV. Women increasingly are taking over the ranks of news reporting, and his victory isn't so certain that he can afford to pi$$ off the sisterhood. Here's the URL for that one:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/14/obama-calls-reporter-swee_n_101754.html

Now that Joe Biden is embarrassing himself almost daily -- his most recent being an unforced admission that Hillary Clinton may have been a better choice for the No. 2 spot on the ticket -- Obama can't replace him without appearing to have panicked.

Another Biden gem: boasting that an Obama-Biden administration would prosecute Bush "crimes." Yeah, that'll really charm the Republican voters they'll need, especially in the swing states. It assumes that all other Americans hate Bush as much as the Democrats and the media do. They don't. They're disappointed in him, but they don't hate him, and they don't want to see him hauled into court (figuratively speaking).

Another Biden gem: self-righteously questioning why Republicans, if they care so much about developmentally disabled children, don't support embryonic stem-cell research. Oh, that one went over big with mothers who've given birth to Down syndrome children.

Still another: telling "Meet the Press" last Sunday that while he believes life begins at conception, it would be "inappropriate" to impose this "religiously based view" on anyone else. That earned him an immediate, stinging rebuke from eminent Catholic clergymen, and he's a Catholic. He and Obama are going to need Catholic votes, too.

And another: calling on Chuck in the wheelchair to stand up and take a bow at a campaign appearance in Columbia, Mo., earlier this week. He recovered from that one nicely, but the episode exposed poor work by his advance staff and has earned him huge scorn nationally.

The campaign also has shown its amateurism by targeting Sarah Palin rather than McCain. She's No. 2 on the Republican ticket, guys, not No. 1. As columnist Karl Rove (yes, that Karl Rove) noted in Thursday's Wall Street Journal, that's a classic mistake that Democrats going all the way back to Adlai Stevenson in 1952 have made, and every candidate who has done it, lost -- big.

And have I mentioned Obama's repeated use of 'hood dialect and inflection at campaign appearances? In his now-famous putting-lipstick-on-a-pig remark earlier this week, he strung out the word "policy" at least three times: e.g., "poli-sayyyy." Doing that is turning off white voters. One of them: the eminent feminist, liberal intellectual, academician, and unabashed Obama supporter Camille Paglia. She has written twice now in her last two columns for Salon.com that he needs to stop it.

The most recent:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin

Obama obviously is articulate; he doesn't need to speak that way. It isn't presidential. So why does he? He has got to know that the black vote is already in his pocket, and probably most of the youth vote, too -- such as it is.

Notice that I'm only now mentioning his choice to go to a gym and work out while on his celebrated tour in Germany this summer rather than visit wounded US troops. Way to solidify the military vote, Barack! And his hubris at requesting to deliver his speech at the Brandenburg Gate, where only heads of state (JFK, Ronald Reagan) previously have spoken, and then using the occasion to slam his own country. And displaying a fake presidential seal for himself, as if he'd already been elected. And dodging the question at the Saddleback Church debate on when life begins by answering, "That's above my pay grade." And his campaign's dumping hundreds of unused American flags into the trash after his acceptance speech at Invesco Field. Shows a high regard for his country, eh?

There's so much more, I could go on for hours. But perhaps this is enough for now.

_________________
If you think nobody notices you and you're all alone, try not paying your bills.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:49 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
Let us all listen to the debates, my friend. I'm certain that you will see them as John McCain Day. Try to be a little less Rushish and more realistic..
Because you quote the only liberal on The McGlochlin group, you can't claim the show has a liberal bias. My God check out his panel. I know you have no respect for anyone else's mind but come on, stop the insults. Half truths cost the arguer credibility with any other statements, don't you think?
Can't we start dealing in facts, my friend?

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:02 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
85,000 at his acceptence speech was not caused by the press asking them to be there. Your boy couldn't draw that many if he promised money at the end of his speech.

That my friend is America telling your party that they want serious change. You guys and your hate politics of devision may work again, but would John McCain want the Presidency at the expense of his nation? Her always brags that he doesn't want that, yet there he is out there doing the divide and conquer thing that Bush used. Let's use Religion, sexism and make sure we are seen as the victim, and we'll win. Straight out of the Bush/Rove play book. It worked then and may work now but what about our country? Do we lose again?

Make sure it works by doing the big lie, over and over. The suckers will believe it, they did when Bush swift boated Kerry. Let's see-- we'll make him a Muslim, just look at his name, Let's say he hate women, hey let's tell them he follows a way out preacher's every word, and on, and on, and on... It works for Bush and may work for McCain.

What about what's left of our country? Do you give a shiiiit?

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:06 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:09 pm
Posts: 2083
Location: Hingham, MA
Substitute2, I'm having difficulty understanding how you can use that language with me and still address me as friend.

I have insulted you only in your own mind. I have not sought to force you or anyone else to see politics my way. If you don't find my efforts at debate reasonable, that is your problem. And I do deal in facts. It is you, sir, who seem to persist in delusion.

You and I apparently never will agree. So rather than risk this discussion taking on a tone that would not do justice to this board, as Jeremy (I believe it was) once said to me, it has come to an end as far as I am concerned.

_________________
If you think nobody notices you and you're all alone, try not paying your bills.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:28 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:25 pm
Posts: 630
Location: Ede, The Netherlands
Argentum wrote:
Better be careful, this is how we started out on the "Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin" thread. You've only got 10 more pages to go................


is there a limit for a thread?? mmm.. WOW my first!!

_________________
If You Ain't Dutch, You Ain't Much!!

New Amsterdam was a Dutch settlement est. at the southern tip of Manhattan Island which served as seat of the colonial government in the New Dutch territory. It was renamed New York in honor of the then Duke of York.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: MC CAIN or OBAMA
PostPosted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 9:17 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:19 am
Posts: 1504
Forget everything you've ever learned.

As I spout off about secret societies many of you will label me a nut. Just think for yourself, guys. Do not allow yourself to be taken in by the media, our school history books, and tradition. The outcome of our presidential elections are totally predictable because our government, media, and bankers are headed by members of high level free masonry. They all scratch each other's back (media moghuls in cahoots with politicians while the Federal Reserve keeps creating obscene wealth for the elite from thin air.)

Basically you can't trust any politician who belongs to the Council on Foreign Relations. Obama and Clinton clearly helped Mc Cain. Kerry helped George II. All these elite types belong to the same country clubs. Everything you see on TV is garbage. None of these people have allegiance to the United States.

We don't have a two party system so much. Both are capitalists so the working class will always be exploited. The Illuminati control both the Republican and Democratic parties, so no matter which candidate wins the Illuminati rule and continue their agenda. Each nation has its own branch. CFR is America's branch. The Illuminati finances all the wars in the world and control the majority of elections (of heads of state.)

Some politicians are good folks, but look out for those in the CFR. They have no morals. Republicans are seemingly for family values, but they only use conservative minded people to get elected. Democrats exploit the working class. Obama and the Clintons don't want us to have universal healthcare. He's a liar. He wants to keep poor people in the slums.. that's how Democrats stay in office.

This may sound far fetched, but ask yourself why we don't have a central bank? The Federal Reserve is not a branch of the U.S. government. This is ludicrous. They can do whatever they want. They are the real terrorists. Our leaders and international bankers are orchestrating a financial collapse that could destroy the U.S.A. and other countries in the world. I believe we are headed for another Great Depression similar to 1929-32.

The world is basically controlled by thirteen families, among them the Rockefellers, Duponts, Rothschilds, Onassis, Van Duyns (Bushes are in that bloodline.) There's even a Chinese family among the thirteen. These families are vastly richer than Bill Gates. Anyone who is very high in freemasonry has a connection to one or more of these families (this includes almost all the presidents in the previous century.)

Pease gentlemen.. even if you don't buy the secret society stuff do some research on the Federal Reserve, on our involvement in wars around the world. Look at the all seeing eye on the back of a one dollar bill.

Anyone who really wants to learn more should, in my opinion, start reading the work of Dr. Michael Parenti. He is a world historian who states the facts. He's not a nutcase. He doesn't talk about the Illuminati. He himself voted for Bill Clinton in '04 (like many he voted for the lesser of two evils.) He is a great social activist, a real American hero. In his words “Globalization is an attempt to extend corporate monopoly control over the entire globe." www.michaelparenti.org


Attachments:
G8meeting.jpg
G8meeting.jpg [ 126.8 KiB | Viewed 255 times ]
Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits