Welcome President Obama

cowboyangel · Post by **cowboyangel** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 5:57 pm

the focus on the president is a diversion from those who really run things-central bankers, the fed, big banks, the IMF, BIS, and yes, the Bilderbergers and their ilk. Ick.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 6:07 pm

I hear the song of the obama-bots............coming from the obama-tron.........

Apollonaris Zeus · Post by **Apollonaris Zeus** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 6:37 pm

OK, i'm at the commercial segment:

purchase a copy of this DVD!

Apollonaris Zeus · Post by **Apollonaris Zeus** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:00 pm

So now I'm at the point in the video on Carbon Taxes.

Hmmmm, are the main underwriters of this video the coal and oil industries?

Apollonaris Zeus · Post by **Apollonaris Zeus** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:36 pm

OK I stopped the video at where they say that Al Quaida is an arm of the CIA! I understand and have known about the Federal Reserve and our need to abolish it.

But enough of this raging bullshit!

CA a while back you were promoting Zen and eastern beliefs theologies.

What happened?

cowboyangel · Post by **cowboyangel** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:07 pm

Haven't left it, just moved onto Shoalin with guns.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:09 pm

in memory of "Quai Chang Kains'" passing? (sp?)

cowboyangel · Post by **cowboyangel** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:11 pm

I heard that many of the alleged 9/11 hijackers, were seen at various military bases off and on before 9/11. Doesn't surprise me. They loved cheap Florida strip joints and booze and broads too...wonderful for ultra conservative Islamisits....wouldn't ya say....

cowboyangel · Post by **cowboyangel** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:12 pm

I miss Kane. Damn

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:18 pm

a formative program, for some of us.............

what is an "ultra conservative islamist"?

cowboyangel · Post by **cowboyangel** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:48 pm

not much different from an ultra conservative christian.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:32 am

I guess what I'm wondering is, by "ultra conservative" are you referencing a way of living their religion, or, a certain political theory.

cowboyangel · Post by **cowboyangel** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 9:51 am

that's a good question. Ultra-anything implies a kind of inflexibility with ones views and a rigid adherence to a narrow set of beliefs that if not imposed on others, becomes a reason to condemn those outside the gates. Strict moral behavior codes characterize the adherents. The strains of living up to this sometime show up in sensational moral declines like Jimmy Swaggart etc. When the political dimension comes in, that becomes the most disturbing part of the "ultras"- the need to enforce their beliefs on others through well connected and funded power plays. In 9/11, that many of the "hijackers" were seen in nightclubs doing very un-Islamic things, that should send up a warning flag about their commitment to ultra right Islamic values. I just don't buy the reasoning that these guys were given some kind of "special pass" to misbehave.

Apollonaris Zeus · Post by **Apollonaris Zeus** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 10:46 am

cowboyangel wrote:I heard that many of the alleged 9/11 hijackers, were seen at various military bases off and on before 9/11.

I believe you saw the CIA spies. But beard and long hair on many people and they all look alike.
They loved cheap Florida strip joints and booze and broads too...wonderful for ultra conservative Islamisits....wouldn't ya say....

Just preping for those 70 virgins in the afterlife! There's lots of booze in heaven and its free

I forgot your website can you post the link if you still have it up

AIIZ

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 2:18 pm

Zeus " but i'm hearing innuendos and associations"
oHHH, heaven forbid that someone say something bad about Saint Obama. Forget the allegations then. Go by his record.
He said that he would get us out of Iraq by march... Didn't happen
Close Gitmo,,, didn't happen
We screamed about the bailouts,,, he increased them.
We screamed about the military budget,,,he increased it.
We screamed about Bush's police state laws,,,, he made them worse.
We screamed about GOV taking over private enterprise,, he did more.
But, WTF, give him a chance.
GOV is not allowed to bargain on the price of drugs from BIG PHARMA.
OK, lets see what he does with health care reform. Think he's going to do anything that will cut back on the profits of BIG PHARMA ?
We'll wait and see.

Apollonaris Zeus · Post by **Apollonaris Zeus** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:53 pm

can't sit still wrote:Zeus " but i'm hearing innuendos and associations"
oHHH, heaven forbid that someone say something bad about Saint Obama. Forget the allegations then. Go by his record.
He said that he would get us out of Iraq by march... Didn't happen
Close Gitmo,,, didn't happen
We screamed about the bailouts,,, he increased them.
We screamed about the military budget,,,he increased it.
We screamed about Bush's police state laws,,,, he made them worse.
We screamed about GOV taking over private enterprise,, he did more.
But, WTF, give him a chance.
GOV is not allowed to bargain on the price of drugs from BIG PHARMA.
OK, lets see what he does with health care reform. Think he's going to do anything that will cut back on the profits of BIG PHARMA ?
We'll wait and see.

Yes wait and see.

cowboyangel · Post by **cowboyangel** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 12:53 am

The Phoniness of Obama Marches On.

"We do not want a PAX Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children â€” not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women â€” not merely peace in our time but peace for all time." President John F. Kennedy, 1963

"I will not hesitate to use force unilaterally, if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests wherever we are attacked or imminently threatened. ...We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense, in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability â€” to support friends, participate in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities." Sen. Barack Obama, Foreign Affairs (July/August 2007)

"Our interest in Afghanistan is to prevent it from becoming a haven for terrorists bent on attacking us. That does not require the scale of military operations that the incoming administration is contemplating. It does not require wholesale occupation. It does not require the endless funneling of human treasure and countless billions of taxpayer dollars to the Afghan government." Bob Herbert, The New York Times, January 6, 2009

Those who thought that the election of Barack Obama as American President would mean a fundamental shift in U.S. foreign policy should have lost their illusions by now. Faces change but the system remains. When you want change, it's necessary to look beyond a single individual and evaluate the team he is working with ...or for. And the Obama team is what can be called a soft neoconservative team, all devoted to maintaining the military-industrial complex, [http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090610/pl_ ... rms_boeing] and all sold out with the ideology of permanent wars rather than permanent human progress.

The truth is that during the last election, both candidate McCain [http://www.TheNewAmericanEmpire.com/tremblay=1088] and candidate Obama [http://www.TheNewAmericanEmpire.com/tremblay=1090] were favorable to the policy of permanent wars [http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=9616] under the cover of fighting terrorism. That is the reason I had concluded then that candidate Obama was only marginally superior to candidate McCain, but not fundamentally different. In fact, I believe that as far as character goes, McCain was probably more his own man than Obama, who has demonstrated a tendency to align himself with powerful interests in order to bolster his political career.

There seems to have been a deal here: Obama will be kept busy shaking hands, traveling and delivering grand speeches or sermons, while Chief of cabinet Rahm Emanuel [http://www.theweek.com/article/index/92 ... s_main_man] would run the White House. Everything then felt into place: Marine Corps General James Jones [http://www.acus.org/press/general-james ... ty-advisor] was named National Security Advisor (N.B.: The national security adviser heads the National Security Council, which is the part of the White House structure that deals with foreign policy), and Bush's Defense Secretary Robert Gates [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15986.html] was asked to remain at his post. This alone should have persuaded most everyone that U.S. foreign policy would only change in tone, not in substance.

By enlarging and expanding the Afghanistan-Pakistan war [http://news.antiwar.com/2009/06/10/move ... istan-war/], just as U.S. troops reduce their unwelcomed presence in Iraq, Obama has de facto endorsed interventionism and militarism as the cornerstone of his foreign policy. This is a failed policy, besides being immoral, because it requires the pursuit of a contradiction, i.e. killing civilians [http://news.antiwar.com/2009/06/11/us-s ... ir-strike/] and supporting authoritarian regimes while attempting to obtain the support of a foreign population in favor of democracy.

What is more, Obama is enlarging a war that has no clear rationale behind it and no clear objectives. If the main rationale is to build his political image as â€œcommander-in-chiefâ€

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 2:48 pm

Is our fearless leader getting a touch paranoid?

Never before in the history of Annapolis has the Commander in Chief required that all Naval officers in his presence be disarmed.

No Naval Swords for USNA Graduation this year - Threat to the Dear Leader Inside the Beltway - Washington Times
No Weapons for Anyone
From today's you couldn't make it up if you tried file.......Obama' s protectors have ordered graduating Midshipmen.. ..and I suppose Commissioned Officers through Flag rank...to leave their swords at home. Full Dress White includes "wear sword". More to the point...those badges of office have been earned in a manner Obama and his minions just wouldn't begin to understand. Important traditions that inspire are kind of lost on the red banner crowd, apparently.

Further, ceremonial swords never seemed to bother the Secret Service for any previous President. And before World War II, the swords were not particularly "ceremonial" , I've seen some of those blades, boarding actions did occur on the China Station pre-war against river pirates, warlords, etc. Those swords were worn not just to graduation, but to Inaugurations, in the receiving line at the White House afterward, to the Inaugural Ball. Somehow nobody gave it a second thought. Somehow even Presidents in the past didn't presume to specify items of uniform.

But of course, what worked for Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan, F.D.R., the Bushes, T.R., any other rational non-cult leader.....doesn' t work for this former state senator anointed by the Chicago machine.

Does he secretly consider our Naval and Military leaders "the enemy"? Perhaps the message this sends escaped his handlers. Sad. And .....follow me on this Obama and minions..... insulting. Actually it's contemptible.

The Washington Times
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Inside the Beltway

SWORDLESS SAILORS

Graduating midshipmen of the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis are being told in writing to leave at home or in their vehicles all "ceremonial swords" and anything else "that might be considered a weapon or a threat by screeners" for Friday's outdoor commencement ceremonies featuring an address by President Barack Obama.

Inside the Beltway has obtained the academy's list of prohibited items for this year's graduation exercises, which, besides ceremonial swords, includes umbrellas.

Yes, cell phones and texting are still allowed.

http://washingtonti mes.com/news/ 2009/may/ 21/inside- the-beltway- 97423759/

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:23 pm

Looks like the obama koolaide is losing it's taste;
"six months into his presidency, his popularity was lower than George W Bush's at the same stage of his tenure. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -over.html

littleflower · Post by **littleflower** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:28 pm

is your glass EVER half full?

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:50 pm

My glass is all the way full. That doesn't change the fact that the turd in DC is destroying both the country and the people.

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 7:59 am

It seems that Arkansas is in the news;
http://americangrandjury.org/arkansas-a ... e-same-day

littleflower · Post by **littleflower** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:30 am

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:27 am

it is interesting, although not surprising, how quiet this board is regarding the screw ups and worse, perpetrated my the messiah......

I know, given all things being the same, if it were a republican prez, the board would be lit up with complaints.........

I understand the "left" leaning of the majority of the group, ( and, therefore, their wanting to "look the other way")

and, also note some have been quite critical, and questioning, of his actions........
I applaud keeping the magnifying glass on him, as it should be with any prez..........or V.P. , speaker, etc.........

littleflower · Post by **littleflower** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:33 am

i absolutely agree, ygmir ....

but can we let go of this birth certificate thing? i fear the alternatives (biden? pelosi?) as much as obama...

the real problem is with the fawning press... but they've already lost the mainstream, it seems.

as for css - i suspect he would be saying the same stuff no matter who is sitting in the oval office.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:40 am

I for one, appreciate haveing and being, the "loyal opposition"........

and, the birth certificate thing:

well, some will not let it go. I suspect it hs merit, but, feel civil war would ensue if he were removed.......I think if it were that clear, it would have been posted on the front page of every paper.......
and, by now, it has been corrupted enough that it'll never be proven.......
In that sense, I agree, move on.....but, remember.......
and, how long did it take for "some" to let go of the whole "stolen election" thing?.........
As well as agreeing with you about biden/pelosi............

Oldguy · Post by **Oldguy** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:13 pm

Kegger! Keeger! Kegger!

Let's do it old school.

A few brews, a few smokes, a rap session, perfect.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:12 pm

Birthers?
Let me go on record to say that I have never seen George Bush's birth certificate.
Weren't some of us crowing for the law be changed to allow Arnold to run for president? Are these the same people as the birthers?

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 5:16 pm

egad.......

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Sat Aug 01, 2009 7:59 am

This is an interesting quote from the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, John Holdren. "A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States,"
". Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential"
http://www.caseyresearch.com/displayCdd.php?id=185
OK, so our technology director wants the country to de-develop. That's cool. He wants a good environment and quality of life. That's cool. He wants re-distribution of wealth. That's in line with White House policy.
OK, so no strip-mining, no clear-cutting, no oil drilling. No smokestack industries, no road-building. That will cut down on our exports so we won't have much in the way of imports. No imported cars or imported oil.
We'll ream all those rich people and take our pool of investment capital and hand it out to all the unfortunates worldwide. That should work wonders for the birthrate in countries that already can't support their population.
After we get rid of our investment capital, we can all start up cottage industries. Obama's tech wizard wants to de-develop the US. Did he stop to think that this would also de-develop employment?