Who Attacked Our Economy? Why Does No One Care?
By Diana West | February 13, 2009
I want you to read something. It’s a snatch of transcript from a Jan. 27 C-SPAN interview with Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., that has received zero coverage in what we think of as the mainstream media.
To set the C-SPAN scene, Kanjorski is harkening back to the middle of last September, when, as it happens, John McCain was enjoying his brief lead in the presidential polls and the economy as we knew it was imploding. Here’s what Kanjorski said:
“I was there when the Secretary (of the Treasury Hank Paulson) and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve (Ben Bernanke) came those days and talked to members of Congress about what was going on. It was about Sept. 15. Here’s the facts, we don’t even talk about these things.
“On Thursday at about 11 o’clock in the morning, the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the United States to the tune of $550 billion, as being drawn out in the matter of an hour or two.
“The Treasury opened up its window to help. It pumped $105 billion into the system and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks. They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn’t be further panic out there, and that’s what actually happened.”
Kanjorksi continued:
“If they had not done that, their estimation was that by 2 o’clock that afternoon, $5.5 trillion would have been drawn out of the money market system of the United States, would have collapsed the entire economy system of the United States and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed.
“Now we talked at that time about what would happen if that happened. It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it. And that’s why when they made the point we’ve got to do things quickly, we did.”
These are staggering revelations. (Watch them yourself here.) Given their sudden appearance out of the blue, you have to wonder, first, could they possibly be true? If so, why weren’t we the people told about this $550 billion electronic run on the banks? And why haven’t we heard a word of it since? Even since Kanjorski spoke on C-SPAN last month, there has been scant MSM coverage. The story’s biggest exposure came when Rush Limbaugh played the audio and analyzed it on the air this week. Otherwise, the story has been little more than blogfodder, appearing at places such as Politico.com and the Economist blog with little comment. Writing at Portfolio.com this week, Felix Salmon quite decisively dismissed the whole story as “fiction.”
Is it? If what Kanjorski says is “fiction,” Americans, particularly Americans in Kanjorski’s 11th district of Pennsylvania, need to know. After all, this isn’t a story that just goes away on its own, particularly not when Paul Kanjorski is chairman of the Capital Markets Subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee. Of course, incredible as Kanjorski’s revelations were, almost equally incredible was the interviewer’s failure to ask the next obvious question of national interest: Who or what was responsible for that electronic run on the banks “to the tune of $550 billion”?
That’s where Limbaugh went with the story. “Now, let’s assume for a second here that elements of this are true,” Limbaugh said of Kanjorski’s statement. “Let’s assume that there was a $550 billion … electronic run on the banks and money market accounts in one to two hours. The question is who was doing this? Who was withdrawing all this money? And the next question is why? That’s where my mind starts exploding, and this is dangerous to have these explosions going this way. Could it have been George Soros? Could it have been a consortium of countries — Russia, China, Venezuela — countries that are eager to have Barack Obama elected because they know that will make it easier for them to continue their own foreign policies in the world?”
I’ve heard serious people float similar theories regarding financial attacks on our economy emanating from the Middle East, but again, who knows?
One thing we do know is that former President Bush made extremely cryptic public statements regarding the stability of our markets at this time in question last September, statements noted by Accuracy in Media’s Cliff Kincaid. These began with a Sept. 18 Bush announcement that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was stepping up its enforcement action “against illegal market manipulation.” As Kincaid wondered, manipulation “by whom or what? The President didn’t say.” On Sept. 19, President Bush further announced that the SEC had “launched rigorous enforcement actions to detect fraud and manipulation in the market. Anyone engaging in illegal financial transactions will be caught and persecuted (sic — good ol’ W.).” Again, what was Bush talking about?
On that same day, Kincaid reports, “the SEC announced a `sweeping expansion of its ongoing investigation into possible market manipulation in the securities of certain financial institutions.’” Why? What was going on? If ever there was a vital, compelling reason for congressional hearings, Kanjorski’s “electronic run on the banks” story is it.
Guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media or its staff.
100 comments
The last part of the headline is the REAL question?
Why does no one care??
This country desperately needs someone from the “top” to rally the troops…We see T.Boone Pickens doing it…We need someone like him to rally the troops because the lib’s are fast approaching a “silence them” attack… It is coming slowly but with vicious intent….
I suggest you look up George Soros and see his history of short-selling a country’s currency to bankrupt the banking system. He hates the U.S. and would love to do the same to our government. I wouldn’t put it behind him to put out an order to his conglomerate of financial barons to crash the markets in order to stop John McCain’s campaign.
Obama is Soros’ puppet and is deeply indebted to Soros for his victory in the presidential campaign. He is power-mad and wants to see the U.S. become a groveling weak country with a huge bloated government that stifles businesses and consumes over half the income of its productive workers. It worked with the European communists and destroyed the Soviet Union. That’s where we are headed.
Rush Limbaugh, by the way, is a tremendously successful businessman because he does understand the economy, how to succeed economically and how to find the people to help him run his business.
Obama has never met a payroll, never led a city or even a successful charity drive. He is the least qualified POTUS this country has ever elected, and he is trying to lead us into a real disaster because of his ignorance.
Re: Post 3;
Your comment:
“Obama has never met a payroll, never led a city or even a successful charity drive. He is the least qualified POTUS this country has ever elected, and he is trying to lead us into a real disaster because of his ignorance.”
And – the George W. Bush administration had huge budget deficits each of the eight years of their existence; the George W. Bush administration almost TRIPLED the national debt from $5 trillion to $13 trillion; the George W. Bush administration led us (and falsely, at that) into the longest and most costly U.S. military adventure of all time; the George W. Bush administration led us into a modern-day economic meltdown that has destroyed many times over the amount of wealth destroyed in the ‘29 market crash and Great Depression – - so – - it most certainly seems to me that the “IGNORANCE” of George W. Bush and his minions has already led us into a few “real DISASTERS”!
On top of it all, Bushleaguer is a certified alcoholic and a career C- legacy student – who even has significant problems using the English language! And you call Obama “the least qualified POTUS this country has ever elected” ???
Were you born brainwashed – or did you strive over a lifetime to become that way?
Geez!
If I had to pick just one thing that resulted in an “attack on our economy” – I would pick the following: the Bush administration relaxed regulatory distinctions between “investment” and “regular” banks – and in the process, they either eliminated or chose to overlook existing regulations governing leverage, i.e., the amount of loans a bank could write in relation to its capital on hand.
Immediately thereafter (beginning in 2002), financial institutions of all stripes and sizes engaged in an out-and-out hyper-lending binge (even a couple hundred small, local banks have failed in the last year or so) – wherein many of the larger institutions had lent up to 30 TIMES the amount of capital on hand – resulting in a situation wherein even the tiniest percentage of loan defaults could sink the ship! It was run amok lender speculation! Creditor-induced, not borrower-induced.
So, as far as I’m concerned, self-induced insolvency (coming from insufficient regulation and oversight, along with gigantic doses of greed and incompetency) of our largest financial institutions is what “attacked our economy” – and has driven it to the brink of failure.
And those blaming the Clinton administration, the Community Reinvestment Act, poor people, people buying more house than they allegedly could afford, etc., are ideologically bloviating unadulterated hot-air up through their dunce hats.
Dear Mr./Ms. Wysiwyg,
You wrote: “I suggest you look up George Soros and see his history of short-selling a country’s currency to bankrupt the banking system. He hates the U.S. and would love to do the same to our government. I wouldn’t put it behind him to put out an order to his conglomerate of financial barons to crash the markets in order to stop John McCain’s campaign.”
No need to follow your suggestion. I have followed Soros’ career for years. 1) Would you name one country that Soros has bankrupted? (You do understand what “bankrupt” means, don’t you?). 2) What evidence do you have that Soros hates the US? 3) I think that you mean “Put it PAST him…,” not “behind” him. 4) Would you please explain how anyone could order a group of financiers to cause the American stock market to crash? I am very intersted to learn how this might be done. 5) You don’t seem to remember what happened in September. What did either Soros or the stock market do to influence McCain’s campaign? Wasn’t it McCain who derailed his own campaign by saying and doing stupid things? (Stating repeated times that he didn’t have much understanding of economics. Insisting that “the fundamentals of the economy were strong.” Suspending his campaign and cancelling his debate with Obama to deal with the crisis. Then unsuspending his campaign and debating after all. Calling for a 9/11-type commission to study the economic crisis… which woudl have accomplished what? Going to Washingon “to straighten things out” but then doing and saying nothing.)
I must say that, based on your comment, you dont have even an elementary understanding of economics. Care to list what advanced economic courses you have taken or economic experience you have? What about the positions you have held in banking or finance?
As for your abysmal ignorance of US history, note this: Obama has been president for less than a month. He has had a superb education, obviously is a brilliant politician (do you think it is just an accident that he came from only two years in the Senate to become the first African-American chief executive?) and has gotten his stimulus package turned into law. Yet you call him the least qualified president? What do you know about Van Buren, W.H. Harrison, Tyler, Fillmore, Buchanan, A. Johnson, Grant, Hayes, Arthur, B. Harrison, Harding, Coolidge, Ford, Carter and Bush II among others? Could you please indicate how each was more qualified than Obama? I would be very interested to read your analysis.
Most sincerely,
Brian R. Sullivan
P.S. Would you please explain the origins of your ridiculous pseudonym?
Mr. Sullivan, you are aware that Soros has tried to scam countries all over the world and was charged in France. Why would you attempt to make him sound like a model citizen? Spending half of your post on that argument seems a waste of time. Unless you are him, of course:)
This shouldn’t be a partisan argument at this point. This situation as at critical stage for those who wish this country to continue as a republic and start following the meaning of the original Constitution. It’s not a matter of who hates Bush and who hates Obama.
And if Obama has such a fantastic mind and fine college background, why would he not allow transcripts of that time released? You’d think he’d be proud to show off those grades.
Re: Post 7;
Your comment:
“This shouldn’t be a partisan argument at this point.”
You might inform the GOPs in the House and Senate how they might “contribute” in a non-partisan, cooperative and collaborative way.
Your comment:
“And if Obama has such a fantastic mind and fine college background, why would he not allow transcripts of that time released? You’d think he’d be proud to show off those grades.”
If no other recent presidential candidate has released transcripts of his school grades – I don’t understand why you’d expect Obama to do so. However, the guy received a scholarship from Harvard based in part on his successfully completing undergraduate studies at Columbia – he was selected Editor of The Harvard Law Review – and he was a Professor of Consitutional Law at the University of Chicago School of Law – all of which seems to speak volumes - and prove a point. Plus – I don’t recall any legitimate request being made to see his Columbia and Harvard transcripts during the campaign and, consequently, I do not recall him refusing to “allow transcripts … to be … released”. (???)
Just an opinion: At one time, I happened to have some experience in working in University-level admissions – some experience in teaching – and some experience in working among some singularly-intelligent people and high intellectual achievers and, believe me, anyone who has had these experiences would have no difficulty in seeing the difference in the intellectual development and mental acuities between George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
My whole life, I’ve happened to believe that the American President should come from among ONLY “the best (in terms of character) and the brightest (in terms of intelligence)”. Obama is the 13th president of my lifetime – and based on my very close observation of his 2-year campaign and one month in office – he certainly gets my Blue Ribbon in “the best and the brightest” category. (In terms of pure intellect, in my lifetime, I think only Bill and Hillary Clinton may be in the same ballpark as Obama.)
It may be, however, that character and intellect account for very little in the partisan wars of Washington. (It seems to me that a centrist Obama may already be in the midst of a partisan divergence with the extreme left within his own party. ???)
Soros is not simply a far-left Liberal. He is a far-left Liberal Crook. He was convicted of insider trading and seeking to bankrupt Societe Generale, one of France’s largest banks in a scam to seize control and make profits in the meantime. He appealed twice, was denied twice and fined about $1.2 billion. Which is actually not much for this Hungarian-born financial maven, whose wealth certainly puts him in the class of those who can bankrupt major institutions. He is well known for his efforts to buy the election for Senator Kerry in 2004 and then for Senator Obama in 2008. He is undoubtedly, however, not the only one. Setting aside for the moment the countries who are fiercely determined to weaken the United States, there is a coterie of internationalists whose wealth, power, ambition and arrogance are certainly transnational. Obama himself, while not so wealthy (yet … take a look at how Slick Willy and Hilly cleaned up after leaving the White House) made it very clear in word and deed, not to mention the dispersed history of his Liberal (in some instances illegal alien) family, that he regards himself as “transnational” in his politics even to the extent of campaigning for U.S. President in Berlin. It remains to be explained what happened in a secret meeting Senator Rockefeller had with Obama not long before this collapse occurred (suspiciously just as McCain and Palin emerged with a sharp upward lift after the Republican Convention). We do know that Rockefeller passed his super-delegate vote for Obama in opposition to the will of his own state party to support Clinton. As to the sophomoric lecture disdaining the matter of bankrupting countries, it not only can be done, it is done. Those who want education and facts rather than partisan rant can read, for example, “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” and related works. One thing is certain, responsible citizens must find the facts in this matter. Who did, in fact, begin the “run” that nearly destroyed the U.S. economy? Which did, in fact, reverse the election to Obama’s favor. There is a related question, arising from matters reported by known Liberal columnist Maureen Down in the liberal NYTimes—that massive campaign contributions to the Obama campaign were accepted from Saudi Arabia, Iran, China and other countries. Obama and his apparat has refused so far to account for this. Responsible American citizens need to know whether our democracy is “for sale” to hostile foreign interests, unscrupulous politicians and rant-infected political partisans of any stripe. All those forces, of course, do seek such power. The question is the degree to which we have been led into surrendering our nation’s birthright. Let’s get the facts. Soros? Rockefeller? Iran? China? Others? I don’t care. Let’s get the facts.
TK, your assessment of the Bush administration as one of a spendthrift is correct – That’s why most of the nation disagreed with his policies, and why his popularity dropped into the low 30s.
I don’t see any correlation between his budget deficits which were borne of a war and the need to protect us from another attack like that of 9/11, which cost us a trillion dollars, not an elective spending program like Obama proposes.
Whether or not the war was totally warranted will take years to sort out, but it was entered into with the urging and consent of a balanced Congress. Check those votes again before blaming President Bush for sending our troops into battle.
The current economic meltdown was engineered by the Democrats who were lining their pockets with contributions from the financial institutions that were following the laws they put into place to force them to loan money to people who could not repay the loans.
Either George Soros or a coalition of foreign bankers caused a huge run on our banks on September 11, 2008, which was intended to cause our entire financial system to collapse, and would have succeeded if the Fed had not halted the withdrawal of funds after short but massive withdrawal occurred.
McCain handled the resulting threat to our economy badly, but he was misinformed, as was GW Bush. It was all a huge scam, as evidenced by the lack of results from the $700 Billion that was to cure it. The problem remains, and Obama is as clueless as Bush was as to how to handle it. The problem is that Obama is the puppet who is handled by those who caused the problem and who will tell him what to do, since they own him.
GW Bush is a no more a certified alcoholic than anyone else who admits he once drank more than he should have, and certainly no worse than our current president who admits to having used illegal drugs. Nobody knows about Obama’s grades – apparently they were too low for him to make public. Obama does read a teleprompter well, but does not do well without it.
Yes, Obama is the least qualified POTUS this country has ever elected. Just compare his resume to any other president.
TK – “If no other recent presidential candidate has released transcripts of his school grades – I don’t understand why you’d expect Obama to do so” – really?
That’s your defense? That no one else does it?
If all of the other candidates jumped off of a bridge should Obama do it as well (I sound like my father)?
The only conclusion that can be drawn from the fact that our candidates refuse to make their college transcripts available is that we are consistently electing sub-par people.
Brian R. Sullivan and TK are just 2 examples of how the usurper Obama got elected: the supposed intellectuals spewing their vitriol interwoven with twisted facts (in combination with derelict journalists and Obama’s faithful voter fraud group, ACORN, working hard to get him elected).
OK then, BRS and TK, let’s just forget the discussion that Soros manipulated our market on Sept. 15, 2008, in order to help Obama win. Doesn’t Obama’s dishonesty* just this past week cause you to worry about who exactly IS in charge of our country? Why all his lies? And are you just going to give him a total pass on everything? (*Lying during his news conference about “no pork,” the circumstances surrounding Japan’s “Lost Decade,” claiming that no economists are against the bill, broken campaign promises on how legislation will be enacted, and on and on.)
It’s clear that this megalomaniac has his sights on “World Leader.” Why else his LIES to get the Pork bill passed? This new debt puts our country in the same range as the European Welfare states in term of % of gov’t debt to GDP.
But IF you can, please just focus on answering WHY he lied in pushing the Pork bill (let’s focus on Him, your chosen one).
Stan, #9. Great post; I would suggest that you check out Cliff Kincaid’s posts (all you can get your hands, mouse, etc., on) here at AIM, if you have not yet done so. He is excellent at laying out all the who, what and wheres. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why his is not a household name… Check it out, and if you have, spread the word!
Responsible, concerned citizens need to start talking about this; we must continue to bypass the lame stream media. For your family and friends who like video/tv news, they can check out http://www.pjtv.com. There’s an “Economy/Finance” category that explains it all 1,2, 3. It’s excellent! The more we can talk, and break away from the “silence” where the left has effectively corraled us (heck, think about family get togethers where there are liberals amongst us—how effective (for them!) we can’t even have a discussion about politics!)!
Thank you very Sara Jean. I do not usually engage in online forums, and I’ll leave this as my last remark. AIM is a serious venue, the article is a serious article, and all deserve better than refugees from freshman English going from article to article leaving political spam. The issue is this: increasing credible information indicates hostile actions were taken to collapse the American economy. Serious information indicates that junior Senator Obama purchased the airwaves and blanketed neighborhoods with ACORN vote-stuffers with the largest bankroll in American political history, including untold millions from nations in the Middle East (where he had personally received funds for his travel, education, large mansion and other activities over the years), China and elsewhere. What are the facts? Who benefits? Is there anyone who would like to make a case for American citizens NOT finding out the truth?
MY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
For Wysiwig: You did no more than repeat your previous statements in your latest comment. You still have not answered the questions I raised, which pertain to both of your entries.
1) Would you name one country that Soros has bankrupted? You do know what “bankrupt” means, don’t you?
2) What evidence do you have that Soros hates the US?
3)Would you please explain how anyone could order a group of financiers to cause the American stock market to crash? I am very interested to learn how this might be done.
4)What did either Soros or the stock market do to influence McCain’s campaign?
5)… you call him the least qualified president? What do you know about Van Buren, W.H. Harrison, Tyler, Fillmore, Buchanan, A. Johnson, Grant, Hayes, Arthur, B. Harrison, Harding, Coolidge, Ford, Carter and Bush II among others? Could you please indicate how each was more qualified than Obama? I would be very interested to read your analysis.
6)Care to list what advanced economic courses you have taken or economic experience you have? What about the positions you have held in banking or finance?
7)You wrote (in your second entry): “I don’t see any correlation between his budget deficits which were borne of a war and the need to protect us from another attack like that of 9/11, which cost us a trillion dollars, not an elective spending program like Obama proposes.” For someone who is trying to sound knowledgable about economic matters, you sure have a great many facts wrong. A) When Bush II left office, the national debt was DOUBLE what it was when he entered office. Can you explain (as opposed to the fantasy figures you give)? B) By his own admission, Bush chose to invade and occupy Iraq on false information. He then spent three years denying not only that fact but insisting his failed strategy was actually succeeding. Did this cost money? Does it still? How much? You think that this is a good economic record?
8)Would you please explain the origins of your ridiculous pseudonym?
Texmom:
1)“Soros has tried to scam countries all over the world and was charged in France.” Can you name such countries and explain what the scam was?
2) Why would [I] attempt to make him sound like a model citizen? Why? I have done no such thing. Can you cite a statement of mine where I maintained or insinuated any such thing?
3) You asked: “And if Obama has such a fantastic mind and fine college background, why would he not allow transcripts of that time released? You’d think he’d be proud to show off those grades.”
What I wrote was: “Obama has been president for less than a month. He has had a superb education, obviously is a brilliant politician (do you think it is just an accident that he came from only two years in the Senate to become the first African-American chief executive?)” What does you question have to do wih what I wrote? Do you understand what a non sequitur is?
What I wrote was: “Obama has been president for less than a month. He has had a superb education, obviously is a brilliant politician (do you think it is just an accident that he came from only two years in the Senate to become the first African-American chief executive?)”
I have no idea why Obama hasn’t released his college and law school transcripts. I can tell you why I never have: it’s nobody’s business. But in case it isn’t clear to you, you don’t get into Harvard Law without extraordinary grades. You don’t become President of the Harvard Law Review
unless you are not only brilliant but a superb speaker and possess a extremely keen mind.
BY THE WAY, WHAT LEVEL DID YOU ACHIEVE IN YOUR EDUCATION? WHERE DID YOU ATTEND SCHOOL? WHAT WERE YOUR GRADES?
Stan:
1) What are the sources for your information about George Soros?
2) “Who did, in fact, begin the “run” that nearly destroyed the U.S. economy?” Have you been asleep for the past decade? It was the greedy, irrational and short-sighteed segments of the American people who acted on the belief that the economy could only go on expanding forever and that the warnings being issued about such could be ignored.
3) You wrote: “There is a related question, arising from matters reported by known Liberal columnist Maureen Down in the liberal NYTimes—that massive campaign contributions to the Obama campaign were accepted from Saudi Arabia, Iran, China and other countries.” Please give the date and publication in which Dowd (not “Downs”) supposedly reported this.
4) You wrote: “The question is the degree to which we have been led into surrendering our nation’s birthright. Let’s get the facts. Soros? Rockefeller? Iran? China? Others? I don’t care. Let’s get the facts.”
A)You don’t care?After the earlier parts of your comment, how can you expect anyone to accept your claim to impartiality?
B) What, exactly, is “our nation’s birthright”?
SaraJean:
1) You wrote: “Doesn’t Obama’s dishonesty* just this past week cause you to worry about who exactly IS in charge of our country? Why all his lies? And are you just going to give him a total pass on everything? (*Lying during his news conference about “no pork,” the circumstances surrounding Japan’s “Lost Decade,” claiming that no economists are against the bill, broken campaign promises on how legislation will be enacted, and on and on.)
It’s clear that this megalomaniac has his sights on “World Leader.” Why else his LIES to get the Pork bill passed? This new debt puts our country in the same range as the European Welfare states in term of % of gov’t debt to GDP.
But IF you can, please just focus on answering WHY he lied in pushing the Pork bill (let’s focus on Him, your chosen one).”
IT’S DIFFICULT TO ADDRESS SO MANY MISCONCEPTIONS PACKED INTO SO FEW WORDS. BUT I WILL TRY.
A) You claim the Stimulus Act is “the Pork bill.” Please specify which parts and the cost of those parts which constitute “pork.” That will require you to do more than repeat the statements put out by others. YOU are going to have to do the research.
B)Accept for argument’s sake that Obama is a liar. Why would that make me wonder who is in charge of the presidency? Were not Hitler and Stalin liars? Did their constant lies suggest they were not in charge of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union? Your logic escapes me.
C) Please explain why you think Obama is a megalomaniac. Do you know what that word means?
D) Why do you think Obama has to try to be “World Leader.”? Any president of the US has automatically become such since about 1943.
E) “Why else his LIES to get the Pork bill passed?” Since I reject the premise of your question, I can hardly answer it. But if I did accept your premise, I could come up with dozens of alternatives to being “world leader” (whatever that means) as reasons to wanting the Stimulus Bill passed into law. Can’t you?
F) “This new debt puts our country in the same range as the European Welfare states in term of % of gov’t debt to GDP.” Please give specifics. Which countries? What figures (dollar amounts, please)? Again, YOU are going to have to do some work… only to find out your statement is false.
G) You have repeatedly referred to Obama’s “lies.” Please provide specific quotes of his which you claim are lies. Then please explain why the statement you cite is a lie.
H) Why do you think that I believe Obama is “the one”? What is that supposed to mean? Please enlighten me.
2) Can you explain what the following actually means? Can you provide a few examples? “The more we can talk, and break away from the “silence” where the left has effectively corraled us (heck, think about family get togethers where there are liberals amongst us—how effective (for them!) we can’t even have a discussion about politics!)!”
Finally, if you are getting your information and opinions from Cliff Kincaid (as your latest post indicates) then you are relying on a liar and an ignorant fool. Challenge your convictions. Put your moral courage to the test. Do some INDEPENDENT research and answer my questions. But be prepared: the truth is going to hurt you, although it just might set you free.
Brian R. Sullivan
Mr. Bryan R. Sullivan,
Were you, by any chance, in my freshman economics class this last fall? Just curious. To answer your first question to me—but since I am not making a career of this as you are, that’s all my time will allow. Sources on Soros easily available within 5 seconds include so many web citations that it’s hard to know where to stop, but here’s one:
—http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64659-2005Mar24.html
Surely, Mr. Bryan R. Sullivan, you have heard of the Washington Post … rather little inclined to any but liberal reporting and losing readership in droves, but having occasionally to report the truth, even about Mr. Soros.
By the way, Mr. Bryan R. Sullivan, scourge of minor typos, it is Dowd. Great catch. Profound. I’m sure we can give you extra credit for spelling, or perhaps typing dexterity. Now please scurry over to all the other posts where your info-war-for-justice must be sending a thrill up your leg. I doubt anyone else, certainly not I, will take you seriously nor need waste any more time in reply when your name appears.
For the rational readers: this is why I seldom engage in online discussions. ‘The bad money drives out the good.’ But the article at the head deserves serious pursuit, even if Mr. Bryan R. Sullivan does not know what ‘birthright’ we are dicussing, the same one incidentally that allows him to amuse himself here.
I believe Mr. Sullivan is a rude, mean-spirited troll who only visits conservative-oriented sites to belittle the authors and commenters. He refuses to check out the subjects himself, but rather bullies and belittles other commenters.
No wonder people leave after a single post.
Bea
Lol ! Touche !
Stan, as a fellow educator I find myself increasingly inundated with the “politically-correct” and “logically-undernourished” who would have been considered, in an earlier day, the phenomenon of “social promotion.” Too ignorant to graduate, but too overgrown and loud to keep around. (Where is “shop class” when you need it? lol ) Students now believe that hectoring, hysterical arm-waving and pretending to be Rap Artists (art?) are the equivalent of reason and responsibility. The peril, and one that our Founding Fathers (and Mothers) warned us about, is the mob-and-pitchfork-brigade cultivated by the Ayers, et al., intent upon silencing any but their own shrieks. Even more deadly to democracy than the ultra-wealthy-from-Davos-Bilderberg-Bohemian Grove—even more noxious than the long-term “agents of influence” from the Soviet Empire (Armand Hammer is an example, and others? if you get my drift … ), Allah-told-me-to-cut-your-head-off-with-a-kitchen-knife Chicago Islamists, You-Owe-Me-Bitch-Race-Baiting-Is-My-Profession street rappers and the simply spoiled rich kids—are the impassioned ignorant.
Eileen, I agree with you, Wysi and Stan. I connected to this article after Rush read it on the air, and was appalled at the attitude of the dissenting trolls. I wish they would go back to the DU and Daily Kooks site where they belong.
Bea
Eileen,
Do not leave out the Let-Most-of-the-Country-Starve-and-Paint-KickKnacks-for-Walmart-While-We-Massacre-Unarmed-Youth-in-Tianamen-Square-Brigade. Who are run by the elitists who also command the small, but effective Computer-Hackers-and-Economy-Hackers-Conducting-Assymetric-Warfare-Brigade.
In response to Brian R. Sullivan’s request for Obama’s lies.
1. “I could no more disown him than I could my racist uncle.” (paraphrase) Obama several weeks before throwing Rev. Wright under the bus.
2. He also claimed that his administration would set a new bar for ethics. Then he hired Geitner and Daschle, both of whom willingly shirked their ‘patriotic’ duty to pay taxes. Don’t try and tell me that it was a mistake either. Geitner at least was given written instructions from the IMF (his employer at the time of his tax fraud) explaining that he was being compensated in his salary to pay the payroll taxes in the US since the IMF is based overseas and doesn’t pay US taxes.
3. He claimed that the passion of the march on Selma is what ‘inspired’ his parents into the mood to conceive. He was born four years prior to the march. A little lie certainly… possibly a mistake. It could also be the words of someone who has drank his own kool-aid.
There are many more examples Brian R. Sullivan. Hell, if you just type “Obama’s lies” into google you’ll get thousands of responses. Some of them are credible too.
Excellent, Christopher. There are many more related lies that Obama is hiding, such as his foreign student status at Occidental University which he refuses to allow us to view.
Also there are his foreign travels to countries that were barred to U.S. passport holders but where he went to Indonesia to update his status as an Indonesian citizen to allow him to travel to Pakistan. Of course, his passport documents are hidden as well.
Bea
Dear Stan,
I asked you to support your statement about George Soros. You wrote: “Soros is not simply a far-left Liberal. He is a far-left Liberal Crook. He was convicted of insider trading and seeking to bankrupt Societe Generale, one of France’s largest banks in a scam to seize control and make profits in the meantime. He appealed twice, was denied twice and fined about $1.2 billion. Which is actually not much for this Hungarian-born financial maven, whose wealth certainly puts him in the class of those who can bankrupt major institutions.”
Very little of this is true. Certainly The Washington Post article you cited does not support what you claim.
1) You cannot be a “far-left Liberal” You don’t seem to understand what those terms mean. By definition, you can’t be simultaneously a liberal and a far-leftist.
2) You don’t seem to know much about French politics and the working of the French court system. The supposed offense committed by Soros took place in 1988. (Who was President of France then? What party did he lead?). IF Soros did what is claimed, it would not have been a crime under American law. The trial in this regard was held in 2002, fourteen years later. (Why so much time? Who was French president in 2002? What party did he lead?)
3) “in a scam to seize control and make profits in the meantime.”? Really? No evidence of that was introduced. What is the source of this statement?
4) “fined about $1.2 billion.” Nonsense. The court imposed a fine of $2 million. ($1,200,000,000 vs. $2,000,000 is a bit different,no?)
5) Soros paid nothing because this case is still under appeal to the European Court of Human Rights
because of the political nature of his conviction.
6) ” [Soros] whose wealth certainly puts him in the class of those who can bankrupt major institutions.” Again, nonsense. Last year Soros was worth about $9 billion. That net worth was based largely on stocks, bonds, real estate. Today that would probably be worth half or less than a year ago. Very little of that wealth was or is liquid, the only wealth Soros would have had available for the ridiculous plot you allege. That would put Soros even in early 2008 at about 100th down the list of the world’s wealthiest men. So you think that a man worth roughly $5 billion in the fall of 2008 could undermine an economy of $14 trillion? Are you serious? $5,000,000,000 (of which maybe 10% was liquid; that is about $500,000,000) vs. $14,000,000,000,000. I asked you to explain how Soros could do this. BUT YOU CAN’T, CAN YOU?
You claimed to be short of time, thus unable to answer my other questions. But you make me doubt your sincerity because you did have enough time to go on to try to insult and belittle me. What does that have to do with answering my questions?
You are dodging and weaving but providing no answers about the sources of your opinions.
I’m not asking anyone to take me seriously. I am asking you to act like a serious man. But either you can’t or you won’t.
And I’m still waiting for you to explain what is the “national birthright” to which you refer. You might also pay some more attention to spelling, as in the case of my prename.
Dear Bea McCool,
What you believe about me matters not at all. Your attempt to dismiss or discredit me is just plain stupid, since it’s based on near-total ignorance. Because I hold opinions you don’t share and state facts that threaten you, you respond that I am a “rude, mean-spirited troll.” That reveals the mentality of a child. Furthermore, what difference would it make if I were such? Being rude or mean-spirited is no impediment to making a rational argument or carefully studying a subject.
But why you think that I don’t do my own research on current events astonishes me. That’s how I have made my living. That’s what allowed me to retire to do what I please at age 54 (in 1999). But that is still how I spend my days now. I use most of my waking hours reading and writing. Most of my writing is devoted to modern Italian history and military history. But I follow current domestic and world events avidly and carefully.
You, on the other hand, seem to rely on others to do your thinking for you. In this case (Soros, the current economic world crisis, etc., it appears that you accept total nonsense.
However, you attitude that people should go “where they belong” appalls me. I am a free man in a free country. I go where I please. I write what I please, where I please. If you don’t like that, you’re living in the wrong country.
Dear Eileen B,
You write as if you are a public high school teacher who has contempt for many of your students. That must be a very unpleasant way to earn a living. I enjoyed being a teacher from 1976 until 1991, when I became a senior research professor at the Institute for National Strategic Studies at National Defense University. But I imagine that my students were much smarter, much better educated and far more mature than those you teach. I feel sorry for you in that regard. Teaching highly intelligent people who are eager to learn is a joy. It seems to be one you have never enjoyed.
You also seem unhappy with the consequences of living in a democracy. People, even the young and ignorant, have the right to say what they please. Given your profession, you are forced to listen. Again, I feel sorry for you, if you are trapped in that way. But since the people of average intelligence and income have to pay taxes and often fight in our wars, they still must have the political right to express themselves. That’s what makes a democracy a stronger form of government than a dictatorship or a monarchy. Just governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. That just led to a new administration being elected by the majority of the voters. You seem to have a problem with that.
Too bad.
“Even more deadly to democracy… are the impassioned ignorant.” Do you really believe that? If so, I feel even more sorry for you.
Dear Mr. Rodgers,
Are you serious? You call these statements lies?
1) Obama’s originally spoke in regard to what Wright had previously said. Obama rejected those statments as unacceptable to him but went on to express affection for Wright. Obama rejected Wright entirely, several weeks later, based on the latter’s SUBSEQUENT comments.
2) Obama not only said he would set a new bar for ethics, he did. Some of his nominees didn’t seem to pay close attention. Your nonsensical “don’t tell me…” is precisely what I am going to tell you. Do you think Obama is an idiot?… that he would knowingly nominate men whose tax problems are a matter of public information,discoverable by the press, although after several weeks of digging? Whatever else you might think of the president, he didn’t lie, Daschle and Geithner lied to him. Geithner was confirmed by the Congress (the body which actualy does the hiring, not the president), which chose to forgive him. Daschle wisely withdrew.
3) “Selma … possibly a mistake.” No kidding. Again, you claim that Obama might have deliberately told a lie about something so easy to check? Why?
4) “There are many more examples Brian R. Sullivan.” No, there are many more false attacks. But if you rely on the web to provide you with the truth, you will find little or none. Using the web to find facts is to rely sources displaying political and ideological biases.
You go looking for what you want to believe and you find it. That is hardly a search for the truth.
By the way, do you believe that George Soros ruined the economy to get Obama elected?
Brian R. Sullivan
Dear Ms. McCool,
Are you capable of logic? If the nonsense you relate in your latest comment had any basis in fact, it would be easy to uncover.
1) “his foreign student status at Occidental University which he refuses to allow us to view.” This would be a matter of public record, vias records, available from the State Dept. How could this be hidden, especially before the election? Obama did not and does not have control over the release of this information.
2) “his foreign travels to countries that were barred to U.S. passport holders…” Really? Which countries? And how could this be known and yet no evidence be available? Have you ever traveled outside the US? It would seem not or you have forgotten the documentation involved on return.
3) “but where he went to Indonesia to update his status as an Indonesian citizen to allow him to travel to Pakistan. Of course, his passport documents are hidden as well.” This is simply gibberish. What dates are involved? If you know, how do you? If the documents are hidden, how do you or anyone else know about them? When were Americans barred from visiting Pakistan? How does anyone “update his status as an Indonesian citizen”? Have you ever updated your status as a citizen? How can you hide your passport records? It does seem you have little or no notion about State Dept. record keeping or the passport and visa requirements of either the US or Indonesia (or Pakistan, for that matter).
You have descended into the realm of hallucination.
Brian R. Sullivan
I have just come upon this “thread.” The original article is serious, but I am struck by the fixation the alleged “Brian R. Sullivan” has in his vitriol and medium-IQ commentary. (He must be from some hollow in West Virginia.) For the rest of us, this individual exemplifies why you and I and sane Americans must act. While Brian (if that is his name) thrills in his attention here, let us leave this thread and do what we need to do to reclaim our nation – just exactly because idiots like this are not fit to do so. (Brian, get a life, you are not going to start your career here, and get some therapy.)
Stan (regarding Brian Sullivan)
“I doubt anyone else, certainly not I, will take you seriously nor need waste any more time in reply when your name appears.”
In other words, Stan has been shown to be a clown, and so he’s leaving in a snit.
Andy, are you Brian’s freshman roommate at the University of Southern North West Virginia at East Hoople?
Thank you Stan and Der. I just wasted 20 minutes formulating a reply to Mr. Sullivan, but when I entered the “code word” I was rejected. Grrrr! Of course I had typed it in exactly, but this was one time I neglected to copy the reply to my clipboard, and my work was lost.
Oh, well. Mr. Sullivan was not worth the effort and the time to provide the links he was too lazy to find himself. I won’t bother in the future.
Bea
Brian R. Sullivan,
Your disdain for web based research is misplaced. Never in the history of man has so much information been available to the common person. Where do you think dissenting information about political candidates is going to be found? In the Library of Congress? Are print newspapers superior in some way? Where do you get your information? Do you divine it from a crystal ball or chicken innards?
A) (I’ve decided to use letters this time) Obama lied about Rev. Wright when he said that he would stand by him. He claimed to disagree with his statements but stated that he would not sever ties. As soon as the Reverend became politically hazardous he was dumped like last week’s leftovers. No matter what he said subsequently (speaking of which, can you provide those subsequent statements?).
B) If Obama knew about Geitner’s improprieties and still offered him the position of Sec. of the Treasury then yes, I do consider him an idiot. If he didn’t know… well… that’s even worse. If the media was able to discover Geitner’s tax fraud before the POTUS and staffthen something is wrong. The implication of course is that Obama knew that Geitner had broken the law and offered the post anyway. So much for raising the bar on ethics.
C) Whether it was a deliberate lie or not is inconsequential. The ‘Selma statement’ (as I like to call it) is just another example of how little the truth means to him. Do you think when he was writing the speech that he forgot when his date of birth was? Either he thought of the contradiction and ignored it, making him a liar even if the lie is small, or he forgot when he was born… no wonder he wouldn’t release his transcripts.
It’s not really a surprise that Rush Limbaugh would suggest a scenario where ‘the commies ruined our economy’, and with a straight face, no less.
Equally unsurprising is the fact that the deep thinkers on this forum would embrace such a bankrupt (get it?) notion.
What? Run along now Andy, the grownups are talking.
Dear Mr. Rodgers,
What you call my “disdain” for web-based research is based on indisputable facts: the web contains enormous amounts of misinformation, political propaganda disguised as facts, paranoid conspiracy fantasies, and comments by persons who don’t understand the issue about which they write.
At the same time, the web also contains a great deal of solid information. But you need to know how to separate the false from the true; opinion from fact. The web offers no guide about how to do that.
Most people can’t distinguish the bad from the good because they lack the time or the education to find the truth. Instead, a great many seem to use the web only to reinforce their previously-held positions. One could describe the web as the most democratic source of information. But, as Edmund Burke and other conservative political theorists point out, there are a few disadvantages to democracy. One is that education, wealth, leisure and intelligence are not distributed equally. But the vote in a democracy IS equally distributed.
Jefferson acknowledged that a democracy could only function properly with an educated voting public. But how many people in contemporary America have formed an educated opinion about how many F-22s to buy, what are the most sensible marginal tax rates or what is a reasonable amount of money to fund NASA? And these are only a few of the many complex problems which our elected officials must solve. The amount of research necessary to understand the issues facing the country now would be enormous. By the time a person had done that amount of work, the issues would have already changed or been decided.
On the other hand, if to find answers quickly, people search out answers on the web, they aren’t going to find only answers and facts. They are also going to encounter misinformation, falsehood, and ideological blather. Consider the nonsense that appears on the AIM blog, for example.
You ask: “Where do you think dissenting information about political candidates is going to be found? In the Library of Congress? Are print newspapers superior in some way? Where do you get your information? Do you divine it from a crystal ball or chicken innards?”
The answer: correct information can be found in a wide array of sources, depending on the subject. Much of that might be found in the Library of Congress, which I visit on average once or twice a month. (It’s not a long drive from my home.)
Consider what topics political campaigns usually revolve around: taxes, wars, unemployment, health care, ongoing diplomacy and – quite often – the attribution of quotations, the personal associations of candidates, previous positions later changed.
You can research these and other matters in a number of major sources: the Congressional Record; the Census Reports; GAO and CBO reports; CIA publications, such as its annual “Fact Book”; the home town newspapers of candidates; the better newspapers, ranging from the Wall Street Journal to the NY Times (and comparing stories in each paper as they unforld over the course of days or weeks); scholarly journals; video recordings of speeches; biographies; memoirs; history texts and so on. In turn, if you find a particularly provocative remark in a source, it’s a good idea to check the citation – if given – in a footnote and track that source down. (The lack of a cited source is a sign that the author may be making something up. Jerome Corsi is notorious for this type of dishonesty.)
Such research does take time. It also requires familiarity with the research process. Most people have neither. I have both.
However, you don’t have to use the Library of Congress to do such work. The main local public library in a city or the county seat can provide most of this information, especially with the assistance of Interlibrary Loan.
In terms of your questions:
A) Have you gone to the trouble of re-reading Wright-Obama newspaper stories published last year? It seems not. Your account of what happened is simply not true. In particular, you ascribe statements to Obama that he simply did not make. How about doing your own research to establish the facts? Then provide “chapter and verse.”
B)Once again, your account of Geithner’s vetting is not accurate. No president has the time to do his own vetting, even for cabinet and equivalent positions. (Have you ever been inside any of the Executive Offices?)That’s a job for aides. They did not report back the full story of Geithner’s tax questions. Geithner and Obama spoke, of course. Geithner did not initially reveal his IMF tax problems to the president-elect. But with Geithner’s name in nomination, it was either Geithner’s responsibility to withdraw or for Congress to reject or approve the nomination. Congress aproved. How you turn this story into a lie by Obama baffles me.
C)“Whether it was a deliberate lie or not is inconsequential.” On the contrary. You don’t seem to understand what a lie is. Why don’t you look up the definition in a dictionary? “Deliberate” is the criteria. A lie is not the equivalent of false or incorrect information. For example, do you think the millions of people who once claimed the sun revolves around the earth were liars?
Also, you might also look up the definition of perjury to understand the American legal definition of a lie.
Dear Ms. McCool,
“Out of your own mouth are you condemned.” If something took you twenty minutes to formulate and type, it would likely have taken you only ten minutes to repeat the statement. You decided not to do that.
As you reveal, you are not serious.
Brian R. Sullivan
Mr. Rodgers-
regarding your anemic attempt at sarcasm, I thank you for supporting my contention that this forum is largely populated by shallow, childish (and childlike)one-trick ponies.
Christopher Rodgers, Stan, Bea and all the other free thinkers, here: Kudos!
How refreshing to be able just to scroll down past the long-winded convoluted ramblings of the two (2) trolls; both of whom have hopefully departed! If they are still lurking, however, I wonder if they have the courage or attention necessary to read the following: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/15/the-peron-pattern/ ?
Oh, how wonderful would it be if these drones woke-up, packed their things and took off (for good) to destinations where their policies have already been implimented! Talk about “thrill going up my leg”!
sarajeanspeak: “How refreshing to be able just to scroll down past the long-winded convoluted ramblings…”
English translation:
thank god I can quickly scroll past actual facts (which scare me) and get to the comfort-giving content-free posts of those in Limbaugh Lockstep.
simple things for simple minds…
Brian R. Sullivan,
As usual you respond with much nonsense.
Your assertion that web based research only furthers peoples preconceived notions is assuming that the person doing the research begins with one. If that is that case then no research, whether you approve of the method of research or not, is valuable. The web is an excellent forum for research because of the vast amount of sources available on it. I can’t drive to the Library of Congress, but I can access it online. If I want to read a local newspaper in Minnesota I can find that paper online. Before the ubiquity of the web these types of resources were unavailable to people who were not fortunate enough to be in the correct locale. Using web based resources and a little discretion I can (and have) write a paper that is acceptable to a college professor or a scientific journal. What makes their judgment less sound than yours?
In response to Geitner. The work of the aides reflects the character of the boss. You claim to have been in the military so you should know that. #### flows uphill. If the staff is doing poor work it means that they are either being poorly supervised or that the executive in charge has set a low bar.
For the other two, you didn’t really respond. You merely challenged my ability to read. Where are all of the facts that you hold so dear when it’s someone’s post that disagrees with you?
Mr. Kriest,
Regarding your (and Sullivan’s) feeble attempt at humor by calling me Mr. Rodgers, along with your attempt to sound intelligent by using the word ‘anemic.’ (uh oh! break out the dictionary!) If you have nothing constructive to offer (and you don’t from what I’ve seen) then why bother?
The trolls think they’re so clever! Yet they have no clue that even with the kewpie like “head action,” (as they try to “defend” the facts against their Wizard “Messiah;” what exactly IS behind the curtain?) that they are just pawns for the usurper’s and his self-serving socialist Congress’ big plan (much bigger than their recent Friday the 13th Porkulis): http://www.blogtalkradio.com/VOS/blog/2009/02/14/In-the-Dark-of-Night-weve-been-sold-down-the-river
Do you trolls really think you’re going to get a piece of the cut which they have all assuredly staked out for themselves in the country’s new make-up which they are busy structuring? No, just like the journalists at the usurper’s first “news conference,” the ones who were not preordained to ask questions (why even show up if they knew they wouldn’t get to ask questions?) they were merely “pawns” giving credibility to the usurper’s “news conference prop.”
So you pawns, continue to busy yourselves with disputing the statements here http://www.blogtalkradio.com/VOS/blog/2009/02/14/In-the-Dark-of-Night-weve-been-sold-down-the-river , loading up on the Extra-strength Tylenol to counter all your kewpie-caused whiplash. Or you could just wake-up and think about which life would really be better.
This is the text at the link which I referenced in my #38 post in case you’re interested and you could not access it. Please just disregard this post if you are not interested in accessing it:
Date / Time: 2/14/2009 12:33 PM
In the Dark of Night – we’ve been sold down the river
There is only one reason why this administration would put together such a hasty bill with no care for the details. “The size and scope” is all that they were after. Since this is the second TRILLION to be printed…it will guarantee only one thing. The total destruction of the US dollar. I don’t know why everyone is still debating the details… the DEVIL is in the details, and we’ve let him into the white house. This isn’t an administration, it’s a coup!!
Pours BILLIONS into “neighborhood stabilization programs” Keep up the payscale and expand the outreach of “community organizations” like A.C.O.R.N. which is a necessity for Obama to continue building and feeding his political machine. How can it even be legal to FEDERALLY FUND A GROUP WHICH IS UNDER CRIMINAL INDICTMENTS FOR FRAUD in at least 12 US States? These bulky portions of the package maintain political control and good favor of lower income, uneducated populations
Expand Cable Outreach and hook everyone up via Analog to Digital Conversion: If you want to fool everyone and track them at the same time, you need 100% market penetration. BILLIONS in the latter portion of the bill are designated for use of LCCR (Leadership Conference on Civil Rights) to “educate vulnerable (including rural) populations” on this conversion. It appears Obama is keeping his promise to give priority perks to the “community organizers” who ensured his fraudulent election. Without them his 53% winner would have been a landslide loss. If you live “out in the country” (where Obama did have a landslide loss) guess who’s going to get paid to come to your door about this “conversion?”
Collect all personal medical information of every US citizen and resident on record everywhere for a new National Data Base accessible to the Federal government, via the Center for Disease Prevention and Control for purposes to include “bio-surveillance.” As illegal as it would appear providing huge financing for indicted criminals in A.C.O.R.N. how can a Law be passed that preempts our Constitutional right to privacy – not only without our consent but without our foreknowledge?!!
The HIDDEN AGENDA BEYOND HR1
HR1 is only the first of 10 related pieces of legislation which, together, rewrite the nature of our Nation.
In a tromp d’oleil (trick of the eye) beyond any prior political take-over of a nation, here’s a review of what’s been going on in Washington at the same time – again unreported by any Mainstream Media, despite their public responsibility to information for free use of the airwaves:
1. While all were busy watching the House of Representatives initial action on HR1, the Senate sailed through SCHIP program. Its massive Federal funding has remained unreported in the Media tallies of T.A.R.P. 1 & 2 plus HR1’s added near TRILLION dollars. The scope of this mandate for government payments for children’s Health Care covers the births and medical care of illegal aliens, claiming these costs will be covered by adding yet another $1 to every pack of cigarettes sold. Estimates, however, indicate the US is short twenty-two million smokers to fund this new law. Which might be a problem since HR1 provides MILLIONS of dollars for Smoking Prevention! Even less attention has been given to the fact that SCHIP legislates this mandate for children’s Health Care be provided to the ripe age of 30 years old!!
2. Then when all eyes turned toward the Senate’s action on HR1 the House of Representatives voted in an unfathomable new law called “Global Poverty Act” (S2433). This law, now on its way to the Senate for finalization, quadruples such US funding abroad (beyond even our normal foreign aid.) Of greater concern than where on earth all this money is to come, it gets much worse, including:
1) placing US military troops under the jurisdiction of the United Nations and
2) placing a GLOBAL TAX on all US citizens!!!
3. In a subterfuge that outdoes Machiavelli, there is action to move the Census to supervision by the White House. This fits like a crucial puzzle piece with HR1 funding of Obama’s community organizers while giving his Chief of Staff direct control of the forthcoming redistricting of Congress. Remember – your vote only counts in relation to the total voting populace in your district. Such redistricting combined with social engineering can give extraordinary weight to populations who would otherwise be in the minority.
The lipstick on the pig of HR1 is already compounded by the squandering funds of T.A.R.P; Global Taxation and SCHIP- WITHOUT ANY MAINSTREAM MEDIA REPORTING ON THE TOTAL TALLIES. Also note the equally unreported introduction of a bill for the REPARATIONS OF SLAVERY (yet to reach the floor of Congress but already prepared!)
Also, by no coincidence, on January 6, another overlooked bill was introduced to eliminate term limits on the Presidency, by deleting one of our most critical Constitutional amendments which protects us from attempts at dictatorship by our leadership. Buried in an earlier record of this previously failed legislation is record of a powerful new sponsor for this law: none other than Barney Frank. Ask yourself: Why is the Head of the Banking Committee sponsoring legislation to allow a permanent “President?!”
This item above is truly of concern, SaraJean. Do you have other web citations on these bills?
As to the allegedly two “voices” above (it maybe one person talking to himself, or it may be two pimply guys without dates in different dorm rooms)
who keep disrupting the discussion with their middle school educations, simply by-pass those by-lines so he can leave his (?) dorm room in some West Virginia community college and go out to collect their (?) Obama welfare checks. I’ve not found a single thing they’ve written, disagree or not, to be remotely interesting or worth reading—with one exception. Their/his hectoring, which has nothing to do with informed discourse, clearly demonstrates the nature of Obama’s so-called populist “infantry.” Numbskulls easily brainwashed by those implicit in the very first article in this thread and behind the initiatives in SaraJean’s references above. As noted by the gentlelady earlier, the armies of “impassioned ignorance.”
Now on matters worth our time, it would be useful to obtain specific web citations to the legislation discussed above. Thank you. When I have a few more moments, I will add any that I find as well.
Der,
Thank you for your interest. In the past Cliff Kincaid (of this website) has offered prompt responses to serious, worthy inquiries. I will say, in my comings and goings, many of the items discussed in my post were familiar to me (they are not “conspiracy” material) but I personally do not have specific citations to offer here, at this time. Resources do abound with Heritage, RedState, CATO, and other honest website sources, or the blogs RebuildTheParty.com, TeamSarah.org, and others! Sen. DeMint of SC could probably also give some direction for you (on Bret Bier’s FoxNews special last night on the Path of the Porkulis bill through Congress, we saw that Sen. DeMint and Heritage have faithful Bloggers whom they trust to surface all the facts of the socialist agenda barrelling down on us).
Good luck! Keep us posted on what you find about the unfortunate, criminial and deceitful onslaught to ruin our country!
Poking my head back in. As expected, the liberal garbage have made their point: the insects gnaw away, just as the Framers of the Constitution warned us could happen.
(If you have a barrel of sewage and add a cup of wine, do you have wine or sewage? Sewage, of course. But the liberal agitators know that if you have a barrel of wine and add a cup sewage—you still get sewage. So it is easier for them to corrupt the discussion than it is for reasonable people to redeem it.)
Barack Hussein Obama knows this also, and his factions are clearly not only political disputants within a common Constitutional framework. They are, in fact, its enemies.
What we see happening is the culmination of decades of implanting exactly the worst kind of leadership in a Congress that still has an even lower public approval rating than did butt-head President Bush and certainly less than his whore of a predecessor President Billary.
Compound this with the take-over and manipulation of a mass media that has betrayed our society and cannot be trusted to tell the truth. The anesthetized ignorance and apathy of the population (anesthetized by frenzies of consumerism fed by Chinese slave labor, by debased mass media, by drugs fueling crime so intense that the forces moving north were analyzed recently as on the verge of turning Mexico into a full-blown narco-state), which is increasingly stoked into class and race warfare to keep us fractured and dissipated at home.
A nation whose two most recent Presidents, Clinton and Bush, have each in their own way failed in the office to which they were elected. Clinton leaves us, among other things, with “Steak Knife Rahm,” whose outrageous attempt to seize and gerrymander the United States in toto should be enough for people with pitchforks to be marching on the White House. (Get ready for illegal immigrants, welfare cheats and drug merchants to suck up your taxes, corrupt your children and vote-fraud themselves into office.)
And Bush leaves us with a Republican Party (always able to shoot itself in the foot at every turn, but the only viable major opposition) so demoralized and devoid of leadership that there is no effective opposition to the current usurpation of the United States. Se we have Barney Frank, one of the most disgusting purveyors of economic decline, now slobbering that he is its savior.
My suggestion: leave the thread now. We have plenty of grist from sane commentators, including the original article. What we need to do now is not to waste energy addressing the idiots of the left. We need to be working tirelessly to mobilize what may be left of effective conscience in the political system, preparing to undertake lawsuits of historic proportions, and reaching the American People to wake them up.
If there is any back-handed good news in this scenario, it is at first rather grim. That is, the actions now underway by the shill Obama and his grinning idiots in Congress will undoubtedly not stem the collapse of our economy. It will get worse, and at some point the pain will be even too much for the “crass media” to cover up and America will awake. We can only hope that by that time, civil liberties, legal protections and Constitutional action have not been so eviscerated that we cannot take back our country.
Or that the elites whose transnational interests and foreign patrons lie at the heart of this darkness, are not able to provoke race and class warfare at home, along with escalating wars abroad in order to secure further their financial, political and amoral hegemony. Now is not the time for debating the intentional distraction by morons. The morons have made it clear. It is time for action.
Thank you for the sage advice TedMcW.
Goodbye Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Kriest. Neither of you are here for constructive discussion. Neither of you are here with an open mind, which makes this entire affair futile. Enjoy your trolling. Enjoy your flame wars. I am going to do something constructive from now on.
If you don’t like the direction the country is going, check out resistnet.com and see if it fits you.
Who Attacked America’s Economy?
Dear Mr. Rodgers,
You wrote: “Your assertion that web based research only furthers peoples preconceived notions is assuming that the person doing the research begins with one. If that is that case then no research, whether you approve of the method of research or not, is valuable.”
But I had written: “the web contains enormous amounts of misinformation, political propaganda disguised as facts, paranoid conspiracy fantasies, and comments by persons who don’t understand the issue about which they write.
At the same time, the web also contains a great deal of solid information. But you need to know how to separate the false from the true; opinion from fact. The web offers no guide about how to do that.
Most people can’t distinguish the bad from the good because they lack the time or the education to find the truth. Instead, a great many seem to use the web only to reinforce their previously-held positions.”
ARE YOU ABLE TO SEE HOW YOU HAVE DISTORTED AND MISCHARACTERIZED MY STATEMENT?
You wrote: “The web is an excellent forum for research because of the vast amount of sources available on it.”
Do you understand the meaning of “forum”? As in many other cases, such as “lie,” you misuse words. That makes it hard to fathom what you are trying to express.
You wrote: ” I can’t drive to the Library of Congress, but I can access it online.”
No, you can only access a tiny fraction of what LoC holds from the web. Someday, after millions of man hours of work, most – but not all – of LoC will be available online. But that will not be for many decades. However, the types of publications I mentioned can be obtained through a good public library through Interlibrary Loan.
You wrote: “Using web based resources and a little discretion I can (and have) write a paper that is acceptable to a college professor or a scientific journal. What makes their judgment less sound than yours?”
Again, you misuse a word. Please look up the correct meaning of “discretion.”
To the point: Which college professor and which scientific journal? In other words, if one or the other accepts such work, their standards are probably very low. Another relevant factor is what subject you are writing on. When I taught modern European history at Yale, I demanded papers be written from original research in primary documents. That would be very difficult – if not impossible – from only web sources. The same is true for many other subjects. For some subjects, however, it might be possible.
You wrote: “The work of the aides reflects the character of the boss. You claim to have been in the military so you should know that. #### flows uphill. If the staff is doing poor work it means that they are either being poorly supervised or that the executive in charge has set a low bar.”
From what experience do you draw this erroneous notion? Have you ever worked at any level in government? It seems not, otherwise you would not hold such a naive belief.
Did Washington’s selection of Benedict Arnold to command at West Point indicate Washington’s poor supervision or “low bar” expectations? Did the fact that Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White were Soviet spies somehow reflect badly on Hull, Morgenthau and Hoover, even on Roosevelt? Did Nixon as vice president indicate that Eisenhower was a poor president? Obama has been in office for less than a month. As he admitted, he made mistakes.
You wrote: “You claim to have been in the military so you should know that. #### flows uphill.”
In this case, I’m at a loss to understand you. The first part of your sentence undermines the second part. However, my experience from over thirty years in the Marine Reserve, academe and the Defense Dept. indicates just the opposite. What’s your experience in such matters?
You wrote: “For the other two, you didn’t really respond. You merely challenged my ability to read. Where are all of the facts that you hold so dear when it’s someone’s post that disagrees with you?”
This is even more disappointing. You don’t seem to be able to understand standard English. I didn’t challenge your ability to read. I suggested that you re-read the text of Obama’s two Wright-related speeches and the comments Wright made in-between. I presumed that rather than me doing the work for you – thus raising your suspicions that I wasn’t quoting accurately and completely – that you find the truth by yourself. But you haven’t, have you?
I also pointed out that you don’t seem to understand what the word “lie” means and suggested you use a dictionary and a law handbook to discover the vocabulary and legal definitions.
You wrote: “Regarding your (and Sullivan’s) feeble attempt at humor by calling me Mr. Rodgers…”
This mystifies me. I presume you are a man whose last name is Rodgers. Am I mistaken?
You wrote, finally: “Goodbye Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Kriest. Neither of you are here for constructive discussion.”
You think you know what my intentions are? How did you acquire such powers?
What you have demonstrated about yourself is that you are unable to conduct an argument based on facts. NOTE THAT YOU STILL HAVEN’T ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS I POSED TO YOU. You do seem to be both frightened of the truth and unable to think very clearly.
Dear SaraJean,
You have made clear through your #38 & #39 what I have suspected. You depend on right-wing radio commentary for your opinions. If you find such drivel convincing, you are beyond any help I can offer.
But I make you a challenge anyway. Look up the text of S2433. Try to find language that supports the claim that the bill authorizes: “1) placing US military troops under the jurisdiction of the United Nations and
2) placing a GLOBAL TAX on all US citizens!!!”
It may be that you have no idea how to find the text. If so, let me know and I will guide you. But I doubt that you will because it would undermine your faith in the unbelievable.
Dear der,
You appear to have a low opinion of West Virginians. Why? I find your ignorant dismissal of the entire population of a state all the more incomprehensible since they voted overwhelmingly against Obama in the recent election. So are they as inferior as you claim?
Dear Mr. TedMcW,
You wrote: “Barack Hussein Obama knows this also, and his factions are clearly not only political disputants within a common Constitutional framework. They are, in fact, its enemies.”
Am I one of those enemies? Three times in my life, I swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all its enemies, foreign and domestic. Then I acted on that oath. I and my men killed hundreds of Communist cadre, VC and NVA in Vietnam, 1968-69. In 1990-91, I helped plan “Desert Storm” working for SOLIC. Without going into detail – which I can’t – I know that I saved a good number of American and Coalition lives. I also planned operations that resulted in thousands of Iraqi casualties. I have been wounded twice in combat. I have been decorated with the Silver Star. I served in the Marine Reserve from 1964 to 1993.
Now, what about you? What have you done for your country?
In your #42 you made many false statements that indicate it is YOU who are an enemy of the Constitution. If you don’t know why, I suggest you read the Federalist Papers. After that, if you still think I am such as you describe, why don’t you come visit me and discuss the matter face-to-face? But I think you would not, instead hiding as you do now behind a pseudonym.
Brian R. Sullivan
Dear jo,
I looked at the site you suggested.
Now, I have a request. Ask yourself why you don’t have the courage to post under your full name. I’m not asking you to explain to me or tell anyone else. I do ask that you give yourself a truthful answer.
Brian R. Sullivan
You claim to have “killed hundreds.” What a recommendation. Maybe that’s why nobody wants a ranting sociopath to know their name. Have you ever had a restraining order placed against you?
You can’t tell us about your “secret” contributions to winning the Gulf War. Ooooooh, loverboy … I am so turned on.
For all anyone knows, your name is Walter Mitty. Nobody’s sure. But your narcisstic disorder is plain to see. Have you been to the VA lately?
Or maybe you’re too busy helping Obama make the largest increase in government spending, stimulating the economy by massive Democrat porkbarrel, including “bailing us out” with STD programs (maybe this is because Americans are getting screwed) and other sheer crap.
Polls are showing that the American people know they’ve been had. That’s why, as the poster says, Ayatollah Obama is having to fly around the country now trying to shuck and jive about it.
For those here who are compos mentis and have not had the pleasure of “killing hundreds” along with loverboy Brian R. Sullivan (aka Walter Mitty), I too will depart Mr. Mitty’s (aka machine-gun-Sullivan’s) rhetorical shores.
Thank you, Purple Heart Daughter. I would not have found the citation to http://www.resistnet.com if it had not been for Killer Mitty’s dragging himself forward by his bloody, having “killed hundreds” stumps.
The floor’s all yours Walter. Kill as many people as those who will send you their names, addresses and phone numbers. What’s yours by the way?
My name is Jay Oberdorfer. I live outside Denton, Texas. I have three Air Medals and Silver Star. I got them for saving lives, not killing hundreds.
You can meet me Tuesday at noon sharp at the police headquarters in Ft. Worth, TX. Otherwise, get back on your meds.
I ran across the poster at http://jihadobama.posterous.com/ and thought that it summed up what’s going on in this country. In honor of Brian R. Sullivan, please forward it to everyone you can.
God bless you, Jay. I only came back to this board to advise you not to reveal yourself to the very hateful Mr. Sullivan, but I see that you have risen to the challenge and are strong enough to handle the likes of this evil troll.
You’d think that the liberals would all be happy now that they have total control of our government, all three branches, plus the media and all minority votes in the civilian population. But no, somehow this is never enough for liberals. They have to destroy all opposition, not just engage in polite debate. They elected the far-left closet Muslim to lead this country, and they will follow him in whatever direction he takes them.
Fortunately there are still hundreds of millions of people who do not want to be controlled by a monstrous communist-type government, and they will fight tooth and nail to retain the freedom our ancestors died to give this great country.
Those who voted for Mr. Hope&Change; without any history of granting either to his organized neighborhoods in Chicago, have given us the maniacal dictator who thinks he can stop the seas from rising and heal the planet. What an egomaniac! Never did the supporters of this fraudulent care that the changes he would bring would destroy our great country. They were so blinded by his charisma and their hatred for GW Bush that they bought the proverbial pig in a poke. Now we begin to pay for their ignorance.
Bea
Dear Ms. Alice Raymond B,
I don’t claim anything. I state the truth about myself. What I wrote was:” I and my men killed hundreds of Communist cadre, VC and NVA in Vietnam, 1968-69.” In other words, it was a group effort. I deserve only a small part of the credit.
How do you think we won the Cold War? It was a WAR. You win wars by convincing the enemy to give up. In this case, it involved a great deal more than just killing Communists. But several times, as in Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan, we sent the message with killing. Later on, we sent the message with economic and military power. In the end, we sent the message by exhausting the bastards. But we always underlined our message with the proof that if we had to, we would kill them all. Not hundreds, not thousands, not even millions, but by the hundreds of millions. This is a revelation to you?
You wrote: “You can’t tell us about your “secret” contributions to winning the Gulf War. Ooooooh, loverboy … I am so turned on.”
If so, then you are a fool.
What I did write was: “I helped plan “Desert Storm” working for SOLIC. Without going into detail – which I can’t – I know that I saved a good number of American and Coalition lives. I also planned operations that resulted in thousands of Iraqi casualties.”
You will note that I wrote that I can’t go into details. That doesn’t mean I can’t describe what I did in general terms. (In my previous comment, I assumed that describing what I did at any length would be otiose.) Do you know what SOLIC is? Do you understand what “psyops” is? Do you know what “deception” and misinformation” in a military sense means? If so, I can explain in outline what I did. If not, look up what those words or acronym means and let me know if you want an explanation. Withihn limits set by law, I can.
You wrote: “For all anyone knows, your name is Walter Mitty. Nobody’s sure. But your narcisstic disorder is plain to see. Have you been to the VA lately?”
If you want to know who I am, Google my name. You’ll probably find three “Brian R. Sullivan”s. But you will be able to tell which one is me easily.
Do you understand what “narcisstic” means? I think not. I do have neuroses. Narcissism isn’t among them.
Have I been to the VA hospital recently? Yes, indeed. I go about once a month. I am 60% disabled for combat wounds and now that I’m older, I need a fair amount of treatment. I also suffer from hemochromatosis. At my disability rating, I get free treatment and medicine for that and a few other ailments. Does that upset you? Why not write a letter to Gen. Shinseki and complain? If you mention my name, he’ll remember me. We met at Gen. Odom’s funeral.
I will skip over the ignorant nonsense that follows to get to your last attempt at belittling me. Namely: “For those here who are compos mentis and have not had the pleasure of “killing hundreds” along with loverboy Brian R. Sullivan (aka Walter Mitty), I too will depart Mr. Mitty’s (aka machine-gun-Sullivan’s) rhetorical shores.”
Are you so stupid that you think killing hundreds of people is a pleasant thing to do? Do you think that my men and I enjoyed doing that? Do you have the slightest idea of what human corpses smell like after a few hours in the Vietnamese sun? (Or under the Kuwaiti sun, for that matter.) Have you ever buried a rotting, decomposing corpse? Have you ever had to stack them like sandbags as a defense? I wrote what I did to explain who I was to the snide Mr. TedMcW. one of the all-too-common summer soldiers who populate this blog. I didn’t direct my comments to you. So why are you sticking your nose in my and his business?
Let me get to the real point: TRY TO THINK. If people such as you mock those who have killed for their country, how much longer do you think young Americans will be willing to continue to do it? Do you think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are going to end soon? Do you think those will be our final wars? I don’t. So, how do you expect men and women to keep going over there – each time to go through an experience you can’t even begin to imagine – if fools like you attempt to degrade their predecessors? If you knew anything about war in general or Vietnam and Desert Storm in particular, I doubt you woudl have written the words you did. Whether or not you realize or understand, you have disgraced yourself.
I am who am and what I have stated. If you really want to know the truth about me, do a small bit of research.
“Thank you, Purple Heart Daughter. I would not have found the citation to http://www.resistnet.com if it had not been for Killer Mitty’s dragging himself forward by his bloody, having “killed hundreds” stumps.
The floor’s all yours Walter. Kill as many people as those who will send you their names, addresses and phone numbers. What’s yours by the way?”
“his bloody”? What does that mean? The first time I was wounded it was from mortar round framents in my legs and arms. The second time it was with RPG fragments, as well as pieces of my platoon sergeant’s skull. His name was S/Sgt. Lowe, by the way. You can find his name on the Wall under 23 Feb. 1969.
You want my address? Google me.
And no, I won’t accept your apologies. As we used to say: you aren’t worth a pimple on a good Marine’s ass. Worse, you don’t deserve to be an American.
Dear Mr. Oberdorfer,
You wrote: “My name is Jay Oberdorfer. I live outside Denton, Texas. I have three Air Medals and Silver Star. I got them for saving lives, not killing hundreds.
You can meet me Tuesday at noon sharp at the police headquarters in Ft. Worth, TX. Otherwise, get back on your meds.”
I asked you a question. I hope that you did as I asked regarding the poster. It does seem to have struck a nerve. If so, good.
Air Medals don’t mean anything, if you received them in SE Asia. As for more recently, they still seem to give them out with the MREs. Your Silver Star impresses me since I have one and know something about what it takes to win one. But the “killing hundreds” is unworthy of you. That’s what war is like when you enemy doesn’t run away but stands and fights, and when your side has the arty, the air and the naval gunfire and, finally, you command a Marine platoon or company. But you know that, so why the attempt at puffing yourself up and trying to put me down? Does it help you to sleep better at night knowing that you never killed anyone? Count your blessings.
As for your nonsense about meeting you, please explain why. I’m quite serious about this request. (And why a police station? Are you afriad of me?)
As for “your meds,” for someone with your background, that’s simply despicable. I take six medications a day, all from the Vet Affairs hospital pharmacy. But all are for physical problems, such as high blood pressure. Equally despicable is that poster. If that’s how you feel about your country, then you don’t like democracy. In case you haven’t noticed, Obama was elected president in November, along with an increased Democratic majority.
Dear Ms. McCool,
On the basis of the following nonsense: ” They elected the far-left closet Muslim… a monstrous communist-type government… the maniacal dictator who thinks he can stop the seas from rising and heal the planet.,” I hesitate to address you. But I do have a few questions for you:
1) How can a person be a Muslim and a Communist? 2)How can you be a Muslim but never make the hajj, do drink alcohol, eat pork, never go to a mosque, never pray toward Mecca and have your children baptized? Ever read the Koran? Ever read the Sharia strictures about what is and is not permitted to the faithful. It seems not.
But since I have gone to the trouble of replying to all of your communications, I request you respond to mine.
1) “his foreign student status at Occidental University which he refuses to allow us to view.” This would be a matter of public record, visa records, available from the State Dept. How could this be hidden, especially before the election? Obama did not and does not have control over the release of this information.
2) “his foreign travels to countries that were barred to U.S. passport holders…” Really? Which countries? And how could this be known and yet no evidence be available? Have you ever traveled outside the US? It would seem not or you have forgotten the documentation involved on return.
3) “but where he went to Indonesia to update his status as an Indonesian citizen to allow him to travel to Pakistan. Of course, his passport documents are hidden as well.” This is simply gibberish. What dates are involved? If you know, how do you? If the documents are hidden, how do you or anyone else know about them? When were Americans barred from visiting Pakistan? How does anyone “update his status as an Indonesian citizen”? Have you ever updated your status as a citizen? How can you hide your passport records? It does seem you have little or no notion about State Dept. record keeping or the passport and visa requirements of either the US or Indonesia (or Pakistan, for that matter).
Please address these questions.
By the way, I don’t know why you think I’m a liberal. As my life history shoudl make plain, I’m a conservative. I realize that is difficult, if not impossible, for you to comprehend. After all, you think you are a conservative but I’m an “evil troll” (what ever that childish nonsense is supposed to mean).
The answer is simple, however. You are not a conservative. )I doubt you could even explain what a conservative is.) It is a real question how to define your politics. Political theory is based on rational ideas, not paranoid fantasies. But if I absolutely had to define your politics, my guess would be that you actually have none. Instead, your notions about government seem based on fear, hatred, xenophobia, ignorance, cowardice, bigotry, credulence and what I can only describe as a kind of Zorastrian/Manichean concept of the balance of good and evil. (My aplogies to Zoroastrians.) In other words, if you were more intelligent, I imagine you would be attracted to some form of totalitarianism – so long as your property rights were respected.
And why not put your money where your mouth is? If things are headed as you think, why haven’t you fled the country?
Brian R. Sullivan
I know I said that I wasn’t coming back, but I got a comment in my email and had to set Mr. Sullivan straight on one point.
dis·cre·tion
n.
1. The quality of being discreet; circumspection.
*2. Ability or power to decide responsibly.*
3. Freedom to act or judge on one’s own: All the decisions were left to our discretion.
I do not misuse words and your attempts to undermine my argument by attacking my lexicographical ability is sad. Maybe on one of your trips to the Library of Congress (post #32) you should take a glance at a copy of Webster’s. Though I’m sure that dictionary is a poor source according to you.
Dear Mr. Rodgers,
It pleases me that you finally began to use a dictionary. Now that you have started, please look up the other words I suggested, such as “lie.”
As to the matter at hand, I will quote you: ” Using web based resources and a little discretion I can (and have) write a paper that is acceptable to a college professor or a scientific journal.”
Now let us reduce your statement to the essentials, in regard to your use of “discretion.”
Namely: “Using web based resources and a little discretion I can…write a paper…”
Now consider the definition of “discretion” that you indicate you meant: “*2. Ability or power to decide responsibly.*”
Now, I will plug that into your statement: “Using web based resources and the ability or power to decide responsibly I can… write a paper.”
Do you think that statement is correct in terms of vocabulary, grammar and logic?
To go farther, I will quote you again: “I do not misuse words and your attempts to undermine my argument by attacking my lexicographical ability is sad”
1) Your claim to verbal infallibility is ridiculous. Everyone misuses words, some more than others. But you have done it in the midst of your defense of your errors. Consider your use of “sad” above.
I did not “attack your lexicographical ability. What I did was to point out your misuses of the English language. I will do so again, as well as pointing out a few more:
#11 “the only conclusion” and “sub-par people”; #21 “I could no more disown him than I could my racist uncle.” (paraphrase) Obama several weeks before throwing Rev. Wright under the bus.”; #29 “lies,” “improprieties,” and “When the date of his brith was…”;
#36 “Your assertion that web based research only furthers peoples preconceived notions is assuming…” (In case you don’t understand my point in this regard, consider the first and last two words in the preceding quotation.); #36 “forum”;
#37 all of it.
As regards your departure from and return to this site, take a look at Proverbs 26:11.
I have addressed every question you have posed to me. On the other hand, you continue to evade answering my questions:
1) “Have you ever worked at any level in government? It seems not, otherwise you would not hold such a naive belief.
Did Washington’s selection of Benedict Arnold to command at West Point indicate Washington’s poor supervision or “low bar” expectations? Did the fact that Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White were Soviet spies somehow reflect badly on Hull, Morgenthau and Hoover, even on Roosevelt? Did Nixon as vice president indicate that Eisenhower was a poor president?”
2) “I suggested that you re-read the text of Obama’s two Wright-related speeches and the comments Wright made in-between. I presumed that rather than me doing the work for you – thus raising your suspicions that I wasn’t quoting accurately and completely – that you find the truth by yourself. But you haven’t, have you?”
3)“You wrote: “Regarding your (and Sullivan’s) feeble attempt at humor by calling me Mr. Rodgers…”
This mystifies me. I presume you are a man whose last name is Rodgers. Am I mistaken?”
4) “You think you know what my intentions are? How did you acquire such powers?”
I would appreciate answers.
Finally, after asking you several times to consult a dictionary, you responded: ” Though I’m sure that dictionary is a poor source according to you.”
Mr. Rodgers, you don’t seem to be able to think very clearly.
Brian R. Sullivan
Dear Ms. Alice Raymond B,
I made a mistake in my rejoinder to you in my #51. My platoon sergeant’s name was S/Sgt Robert M. Lough. (I did send you the correct date of his death, one that I recall all too frequently.) I was tired last night and had recently written a letter to a Mr. Lowe, hence my mistake.
Please accept my apologies for this error.
As for the other comments I addressed to you, I continue to stand behind them – metaphorically, that is.
Brian R. Sullivan
Well, nothing changes on this forum. First a bunch of right wing lemmings glom onto another ridiculous notion foisted on them by noted economist Rush Limbaugh (“The billioniare commie wrecked our economy!”). Then, when a thoughtful person who actually READS, and can actually THINK, points out the failure(s) of said notion, he is set upon by the faithful in a toothles barrage of guaranteed 100% fact-free dogmatic swill.
TedMcW’s eloquent post (#42) is worth re-reading; his analogy that the sewage totally ruins the wine, regardless of the ratio, is a good reminder for us to take the high road. I’d think “we” all can understand the ramifications of doing just that, and we’ll go further with the progress which WE MUST in order to turn this crisis around; our country’s future depends on it. “They” will always reach to have the last word but who cares, if, in our efforts, we can awake just one more Patriot to what is really going on here. (When we find “they” are like “this” it is pointless to spend valuable time on them; they just care about their agenda.)
On Sept 15 beginning about 11 am, within an hour or two massive withdrawals of over $500 billion triggered near-collapse in the U.S. economy. So, Mr. Kriest-complex, was it you? If not (and let’s suppose your piggy bank is not as big as your ego), would you mind if other citizens found out who it was?
Sullen-
What happened in September is no mystery. You could, to quote Yogi Berra, look it up.
But by all means, don’t. Facts can be so confusing to people like you. I suggest you continue to turn to Rush Limbaugh for the answers…
A colleague just drew my attention to this discussion. I have just read the whole thing (which takes fortitude and possibly dramamine, I must say).
I don’t read as widely in the works of Dr. Yogi Berra, Nobel economist and baseball malapropist, as do some. So I doubt scholarly fellow just above will want to “confuse me” with a “fact,” since adolescent insults are so much cheaper. But if one were to confuse me with a fact, at the moment, I’ll settle for this one: who made the withdrawals.
In the meantime, for those to whom the word “fact” means something more than name-calling, here is the citation you can “look up” concerning Rep. Kanjorski’s recent statements:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NMu1mFao3w
Finally, I agree with several writers above that the “mini-mob” action of those clearly bent on shouting down serious inquiry deserves no further answer. The value for me has been to see how essential it is for responsible citizens to pursue these matters to the truth, no matter what it takes.
Re: Post 55;
One of the few meaningful comments made on this thread!
Over a fairly long life thus far, I’ve had several occasions to cross paths with various groups of people who had some pretty incredible (and, in many cases, abhorrent) extremist ideologies and agendas which they promoted in some of the most moronic, idiotic, uninformed, uncaring, demeaning, non-thinking, robotic and fantasmagorical ways I could ever imagine. Sometimes the effort was truly sad to behold; other times, it was as comedic a thing as I’ve ever seen.
However, in spite of those experiences, I guess I’ve never truly realized the true depth and breadth of mindless rote and robotic dittoheadism as is evident in some of the extremist, purely ideological, rightwing rockhead posts in this thread! The off-the-wallism of some of the more extreme posts is pretty breathtaking – and some, to me, are incredibly embarrassing, in that I can’t possibly imagine an honest, open-minded and ostensibly well-educated American citizen making some of these outlandish comments.
Re: Post 10:
Your comment:
“I don’t see any correlation between his budget deficits which were borne of a war and the need to protect us from another attack like that of 9/11, which cost us a trillion dollars, not an elective spending program like Obama proposes.”
So – Bush II almost tripled the $5 trillion national debt he inherited in 2000 to more than $13 trillion – due to a $1 trillion expense of a war and protecting us from another attack ??? Exactly how did the $1 trillion you describe morph into some real-world $8 trillion ???
And, keep in mind, it was Reagan who got the ball REALLY rolling in terms of increasing the national debt: When he took over from Carter, he inherited a total-to-date national debt of approximately $800 billion – and by the time Reagan left office – he (like Bush II) had almost multiplied the debt by four time to some $3 trillion. (Bush I and Clinton accounted for another about $2 trillion increase – to some $5 trillion – between them – BUT Clinton had annual budget surpluses in 5 of his 8 years and actually paid down the national debt a little.)
So – the national debt has increased some 16-fold – from $800 billion to $13+ trillion – since Carter left office – about $11 trillion accumulating under GOP administrations – and, while some of the debt under Carter was inherited from Nixon and Ford – let’s just say Carter and Clinton accounted for the other $2 trillion.
Therefore – (1.) it is totally disengenuous for any current-era Republican or so-called “conservative” to claim the GOP agenda includes a “fiscal conservatism” plank or that GOPs seek to achieve”fiscal responsibility” and “balanced budgets”; and, (2.) after Reagan, Bush I and Bush II ran up some nearly $11 trillion in additional national debt – it is absurd to for GOPs to harp on a DEM president for adding another $1 trillion – - especially after the most recent $8 trillion, give-or-take, that Bush II added – without any visible assist to the American economy whatsoever.
And, keep in mind, for six of the years in which Bush II was adding $8 trillion to the national debt – the GOP controlled both the House and the Senate. And, of course, Bush II’s “war” and other of his measures to “protect us” – were also “elective” – since the House and Senate (both GOP-controlled) voted “aye” to let him spend that money!
For me – as I’ve said, the Bush II administration and the $8 trillion (not including the FINAL costs of the Iraq adventure and the Afghanistan action) it added to the nation debt and its laissez-faire love affair with Big Business and Wall Street – is “who attacked our economy”!
After 8 years of Bush II and 28 years of failed “Reaganomics”, it’s patently ridiculous for GOPs to be atacking Obama for his economics after only four weeks in office. Even if Obama blows $2-$3 trillion trying to overcome the mess that GOPs created – that amounts to only 20% or so of what Reagan and Bush II blew!
And – other than spouting the usual “tax cut, tax cut, tax cut” and “deficit, deficit, deficit” – not a single Republican has publicly offered a SINGLE constructive alternate idea (or ideas) over the last month – except to keep up their same-old, same-old, same-old “anti-Democrat” blather.
If the damned Democrats are bad – the damned Republicans are demonstrably worse!
The battle between partisan ideologues will ultimately be what kills the Golden Goose.
Interesting fact – turns out Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) is Chair of the House Subcommittee on Capital Markets and apparently one of those loonytoon rightwing conspiracy Democrats who are trying to crucify messiah Obama.
WHAT HAPPENED IN SEPTEMBER, FOR THOSE NOT PAYING ATTENTION.
For the past ten years or so, especially after the Bush II administration instructed regulators to go easy on such financial institutions as Countrywide, mortgages were given to millions of people who should not have qualified. These were the so-called sub prime mortgages, which offered a low introductory interest rate but would increase a great deal later.
Real estate prices had been zooming upward at an unprecedented rate. Many people who could not afford the higher rate that would kick in after their low introductory mortgage rate, nonetheless took out sub prime loans. They knew that they could meet the lower mortgage payments but before the higher rate began, they intended to sell their house at a fair or even big profit. For about 7-9 years, depending on location, this system worked for many. Irresponsible lending institutions, seeing the road to gigantic profits and believing the cycle would never stop, lent to the increasingly “unworthy.”
Some borrowers went even farther, buying and selling houses perhaps four or five times, making a profit each time. But like all bubbles (Going back to the Tulip Bulb and South Sea Bubbles of the 18th century), the housing bubble eventually burst. (Which is why these phenomena are called “bubbles.”)
Why and How? Banks and non-real estate financial institutions also sought to make huge profits from the housing bubble. Several clever fellows in the industry figured out a way to bundle hundreds or thousands of mortages together into bond issues. They bought bundles of mortgages from companies like Countrywide and then sold them as bonds. Since these seemed like good investments, many pension funds, foreign banks, rich individuals, even so-called sovereign investment funds (that is, a large portion of the savings held by countries like the United Arab Emirates and Norway) bought these bonds. Each bond was based on a fraction of many mortgages in a bundle.
For a while, everyone was happy. In the US, the system enabled over two-thirds of the population to “own” a house. Of course, until the mortgage was paid off, the mortgage holder did not really own his/her house. The bank did.
The inevitable crisis began in 2007. After years of such deals, the American housing market was saturated. Just about everyone who could afford a mortgage and a great many who really could not, held one. That meant that people who had gotten a sub prime mortgage in expectation of selling their house before the higher interest rate kicked in had a harder and harder time finding a buyer. As demand dropped, so did housing prices. Then the ceiling fell in.
Millions of people who had not been able to unload their latest house got the dreaded notice that their mortgage interest rate was about to go up. In many cases, the increases were huge. More and more people were stuck with mortgages the monthly payments for which they could not meet. When they failed to meet their obligations, they were foreclosed upon. Or, if the current value of their homes exceeded the amount of their mortgatge, they just abandoned their property, leaving the bank stuck with an unsellable building. The market began to be flooded by foreclosed or abandoned homes. That meant not only a further decrease in home values, it also meant that the banks were holding worthless paper.
The bigger problem, however, began abroad. The value of bonds, like stocks, fluctuates. The bonds based on foreclosed mortgages could no longer pay the interest they previously had. The many foreclosures had ended the flow of payments to bond holders. The value of the bonds dropped even more. Then the bond holders tried to dump them. But there were very few takers for bonds whose value was falling daily.
The various institutions and governments holding such increasingly devalued paper no longer could pay obligations with bond revenues. They began calling in other loans to get the capital to meet such expenses as pension checks and budget deficits.
Matters got worse and worse over the course of 2007. The world’s supply of available capital began to shrink as lenders called in their debts but debtors could not pay back their loans. Banks and other lending institutions held on to what money thay had and stopped giving many loans to businesses, fearing they would never be repaid. American consumers (especially those with sub prime mortgages) were no longer able to use their homes as collateral. They not only failed to meet mortgage payments, they could not pay their monthly credit card bills. The banks holding those credit card debts could no longer expect to receive such payments. To maintain at least some capital, banks soon stopped making loans to anyone or anything, even excellent risks.
Wall Street, like any human institution, operates party on psychological factors. By late August-early September, it was becoming very clear that the entire global banking and credit system was facing collapse. The need for capital was growing but the sources were shrinking. People began unloading stocks to raise capital. As more stocks were sold than were boughtbought, the value of stocks began to fall. A bear market emerged in record time. As stock brokers and investment houses saw such a steep and sudden decline, either they sold their stock before it fell even farther or strongly advised their customers to do so. This culminated in the events of mid-September, rather like what had happened in October 1929.
No one conspired to make this happen. In fact, it could not have resulted from a plot because the amounts of money needed to cause this cycle were so enormous and the amounts of money needed to stop it far exceeded any private holdings, even those of the richest like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. Only governments, with the ability to print money or to borrow huge amounts of capital, had the resources to meet the challenge.
Unfortunately, the rich countries of the EU (the governments of many being among the most prominent sub prime bond holders) are not under a single central bank or authority, the way the US, Japan and China are. The Europeans operated on an individual basis, often at cross purposes with each other. The German government even denied it faced a problem at all – until too late. Thus, the sum of EU capital – roughly 30-35 % of the global total – was not used in a coordinated fashion to deal with the crisis. Paulson and Bernanke tried to create a unified global response to the crisis but failed to get real cooperation from the EU countries.
From September onward, the TARP was put inot place and helped to prevent matters from deteriorating into an immediate deep depression in the US. But this proved to be no more than a holding action. Meanwhile, more and more banks and investement firms went under. In other cases, firms like Lehman Brothers were deliberately allowed to fail – with disastrous results. Then American businesses, large and small, began to go bankrupt or faced that fate in the immediate future. The Big Three Detroit auto manufacturers, the virtual symbol of American capitalism, used their power and prestige (and the threat of gigantic increases in unemployment) to beg enough funds from Congress to stay alive for a while.
Nonetheless, unemployment began to rocket upward as other companies went bankrupt or cut back on labor costs by massive layoffs. Consumer spending in the US began to plummet downward, making matters even worse. In Februay 2009, Obama and the Democrats in Congress passed a gigantic stimulus bill to try to turn matters around.
Will this work? That remains to be seen. Will even more funds need to be injected into various parts of the American economy? Probably. Will things get worse? Certainly for the next several months and perhaps longer.
What was George Soros’ part in this? He lost about half his wealth. Did he or anyone else engineer this? No one has such power. Even the US government, backed by the $14 trillion US economy, may not be strong enough to withstand the waves crashing against the foundations of the world economy. But we can hope.
Sir, you must not have a job, or your employer doesn’t know of your online addiction here. As a postdoctoral fellow in political economics and plenty of years consulting and teaching, I can say you have far more propoganda “talking points” from whomever’s hypnotized you than you do a rigorous education. Right now, based on what I’ve seen, you’re politico-economic knowledge rate is about 12 percent. Give or take, trending downward. Even though my wise grandfather explained that some endeavors are “like feeding beans to a chicken,” be advised that others here will relent and agree with you in slavish lockstop only after you have written something here at least 15,000 words by tomorrow noon. Your topic shall be: Why Did Democratic Representative Kanjorski State That There Was a Run on Credit Triggering the Current Crisis, Who Did It, and Why. Please use only one side of the page, double-spaced. But answer the question. Extra credit if you can omit insults, daring people to meet you face-to-face, and no references to how many people you have helped to kill.
Post 63;
Your comment:
“I can say you have far more propoganda “talking points” from whomever’s hypnotized you than you do a rigorous education. Right now, based on what I’ve seen, you’re politico-economic knowledge rate is about 12 percent. Give or take, trending downward.”
How about checking out some of the other people posting here and listing THEIR “politico-economic knowledge rate” – along with reporting your “post doctoral” assessments of THEIR (oftentimes plainly absurd) “propaganda talking points”.
I think there’s a real question as to who has been “hypnotized”.
post 63 gets a C minus for attempted sarcasm and an F on content. We can only assume that this post was in response to post 62, but since it is virtually content-free, it’s hard to know for sure…
I love you Andy I will sux you any ways you wants.
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Obama! Michele!
Andy I sux you good!
Dear Mr. Swill,
I deliberately avoid making a comment about the possible link between your pseudonym and your comment.
I will address what little content exists in your # 63.
I detect envy in your question about my employment, so I will try to ease your pain. (It does seem that you have been unable to find a position and that is a cause of considerable anxiety. Am I correct?) I was able to retire about a decade ago. Since then, I have spent my time researching and writing articles for publication. (Care for a copy of my bibliography? Let me know.)At the moment, I’m working on two book manuscripts. One is a history of intelligence operations by the major European powers in the 1918-40 period. The other is an edited and annotated edition of Margherita Sarfatti’s second, unpublished biography of Mussolini. This is hard work. It takes up most of my time. But I enjoy it. As for the amount of time it takes me to deal with inane comments such as yours, it amounts to about an hour a day.
Now some questions for you: 1) Where do you hold your fellowship? 2) Who was your grandfather? 3) was he actually wise? 4) How do you expect me to know what goes on in Kanjorski’s mind? Why don’t you ask him?
As for the rest… The American way of war basically consists of using firepower, rather than manpower, on the battlefield. That usually results in kill ratios overwhelmingly in American forces’ favor. Consider Vietnam, my first war. The US lost about 58,000 dead in that conflict. Enemy losses have never been firmly established and Hanoi has never released even official figures. But an educated guess would put all NVA, VC and Lao Dong cadre dead at about 2 million. When you consider that only about 15% of American troops “in country” were combat forces, you get a rough notion of how many enemy a US infantry platoon or company would kill over the course of a year (or 13 months, for Marines). I presume you can work out the simple math. (Admittedly ARVN also deserves some of the credit. But ARVN never possessed the overwhelming firepower that US forces did, so their kill ratio was nowhere as good as ours.)
Our ground forces could call in air power of all kinds, arty, naval gunfire (in the USMC case). If we caught an enemy force, generally we could annihilate it. The major problem – apart from our truly wretched strategy – was finding and fixing the enemy in place. My unit was fairly good at such “fixing in place.” When we succeeded, I called in the air strikes and fire missions, since I was the officer in charge. Think about what happens to an enemy company backed into a corner and then hit by F-4s dropping “snakes and nape” or coming under a ToT. (I imagine you don’t understand these terms. If so, do a bit of research.)
As for the snide aspect of your comment… well, what have YOU done for your country? As for your more general ignorance, I repeat: ” Are you so stupid that you think killing hundreds of people is a pleasant thing to do? Do you think that my men and I enjoyed doing that? Do you have the slightest idea of what human corpses smell like after a few hours in the Vietnamese sun? (Or under the Kuwaiti sun, for that matter.) Have you ever buried a rotting, decomposing corpse? Have you ever had to stack them like sandbags as a defense? I wrote what I did to explain who I was to the snide Mr. TedMcW. one of the all-too-common summer soldiers who populate this blog. I didn’t direct my comments to you. So why are you sticking your nose in my and his business?
Let me get to the real point: TRY TO THINK. If people such as you mock those who have killed for their country, how much longer do you think young Americans will be willing to continue to do it? Do you think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are going to end soon? Do you think those will be our final wars? I don’t. So, how do you expect men and women to keep going over there – each time to go through an experience you can’t even begin to imagine – if fools like you attempt to degrade their predecessors? If you knew anything about war in general or Vietnam and Desert Storm in particular, I doubt you would have written the words you did.”
That applies to you, too. I do feel compelled to add that while you are willing to let other Americans do the fighting and dying for you seem blissfully oblivious to what such combat experience entails.
As to the “face-to-face” nonsense, please carefully re-read Mr. Oberdorfer’s #49 and my subsequent rejoinder.
Dear Mr. towandab,
I’m not sure what to make of your spectacular display of stupidity. I couldn’t find your point. Care to explain?
I will say that you seem very upset by the popularity of Barack and Michelle (note the correct spelling) Obama. However, their popularity is none of your business, is it? Nobody is coercing you to join in, while other people’s opinions are theirs to hold as they please.
Furthermore, while your “comment” was juvenile, your apparent attitude about social gender relationships seems very anachronistic. Why “Obama, Michele” [sic]? Should it not be “Barack and Michelle”? Why do you think a woman is only the appendage of her husband? Why can’t you recognize that particular married couple as equals in their partnership? Do I detect misogyny?
Finally, there was a time when American whites felt free to address African-Americans by their first names, even persons unknown to the former. (See the film version of “To Kill a Mocking Bird”.) I doubt very much that you are a friend or relative of Michelle Obama. So how about dropping your attitude of racist superiority in regard to her name? After all, Michelle Obama undoubtedly got a far better education than you have and afterwards held a number of prominent permanent positions. In all of them, I imagine she did more good (and made more money) than you ever will.
BOTH OF YOU: if that hasn’t provoked the green-eyed monsters who seem to inhabit your souls, let me goad your monsters even farther. This took me about 12 minutes. That leaves me with another 48 or so for later this day.
Most sincerely,
Brian R. Sullivan
wsyiwyg-
“Rush Limbaugh, by the way, is a tremendously successful businessman because he does understand the economy, how to succeed economically and how to find the people to help him run his business.”
OK, wysiwyg, you owe me a new keyboard. I spit coffee all over this one, Danny Thomas style, after reading the above unwittingly hilarious piece of nonsense.
Re: Rodgers, Post 11;
I would be fully in favor of a requirement that anyone announcing his/her intention to run for president be FIRST subjected to a statutorily-required, complete, thorough background check carried out by multiple professional agencies with all of their results published in the general media – BEFORE any individual could officially begin a presidential campaign.
Mr. or Ms. TK,
That’s how many saw her in college, but she’s First Lady now, and you should be more polite in public, whatever your private beliefs.
Re: Post 41;
Your comment:
“Keep us posted on what you find about the unfortunate, criminial and deceitful onslaught to ruin our country!”
I presume you mean the VERY “unfortunate, criminal and deceitful onslaught to ruin our country” perpetrated by the George W. Bush and Dick Cheney administration – recently departed while leaving us the most disastrous economic, political and international affairs conditions since Herbert Hoover left office?
(Are you aware that one has to go back to this very same Hoover administration to find a GOP administration that did not include a Nixon or a Bush!)
As to the answer to the title question “Who attacked our economy”, Pogo said it best:
We have met the enemy, and he is us.
Re: ewt, Post 72;
Just to clear up a point you obviously missed – inadvertently or on purpose:
My #70 Post was referring to the INDIVIDUAL WHO WROTE Post 66 – “towandab” – NOT the subject of his/her post.
To reiterate (for your benefit): In my opinion, “towandab’s” POST 66 above was a classless, moronic and racist post.
On the other hand, if you’re making a seemingly inane and falsified assertion that Michelle Obama WAS considered “classless, moronic and racist” by “many in college” – then I guess you and “towandab” are two of a kind.
Re: Post 12;
Your comment:
” … how the usurper Obama got elected …”
Assuming you actually know the definition of the word “usurper” – - how would you compare your alleged “usurper” status of Obama in the election of 2008 to the similarly-alleged “usurper” status of G. W. Bush in the election of 2001 ???
It appears these comments may go on forever. In the interest of time, may I sum it up?
Person A: I am an enlightened liberal who is so far intellectually superior to most of the people on here that it is pathetic that I am even addressing them.
Person B: I am a conservative with ethics, who truly “gets it”, while these crazy wacko liberals continue to ruin my country.
OK, now that we have settled that…
Amen, Texmom. Well said.
What is not settled is the topic at top that began this brawl: Who, pray tell, triggered the massive bank withdrawals that began this meltdown, and why. All of us deserve to know the truth about that.
But it will not come here. I’m pursuing this with my own Congressional, community and professional contacts. I recommend that everyone else do the same in our democracy. Millions are getting hurt and more on the way.
Are Americans producing less today than on September 13, the day or two before these bank maneuvers occurred? Are we not working as hard? Of course the fundamentals remain largely the same, with the exception (a) that massive “loopholes” were fostered in our mortgage lending system making loans to those who could never otherwise qualify for credit; (b) much of this was securitized in increasingly greedy and crazy ways (along with our learning that some of the wealthiest and greediest in our society have played fast and loose); (c) someone(s) very powerful and sophisticated figured out how to send the monetary system into a nose-dive; (d) some regulatory controls (including over Fannie Mae) have been tightened; and (e) the Congress in its “infinite wisdom” (sarcasm deserved) is in the process of increasing the percent of GDP soaked up in government spending by at least THREE TIMES what it has ever been in our history, all nearly overnight with the recent bill that no one had time to read or debate – squandering billions on pork barrel but with precious little (so says the Congressional Budget Office and other rational analysts) to “bail out” the economy.
All of this deserves the most intense scrutiny by every citizen, Democrats, Republicans and independents like me.
Ignoring the testosterone-poisoned geniuses who seem to have commandeered this discussion (you describe their positions succinctly) – can we get at least one, single, solitary answer: Who suddenly withdrew $550 billion from U.S. accounts within a few hours before the hemorraging was stopped, and why?
LewistonL:
Absolutely. There is no doubt that someone/some group withdrew huge amounts in what would appear to be an economic attack. This should be of great concern to all Americans regardless of political persuasion. We deserve to know the whole story. We deserve much better than any of us are getting.
Dear Texmom,
Your commented: “Person A: I am an enlightened liberal who is so far intellectually superior to most of the people on here that it is pathetic that I am even addressing them.”
In this, you display both some misunderstandings and some biases.
1) There are tens of millions of “enlightened” conservatives on this planet, a great many of them here in the USA.
2) I presume you mean “enlightened” in the sense of “educated.” You can be very enlightened without being well educated in a formal sense. Abraham, Lincoln provides a stunning example.
3) But here I detect a hostility mixed with envy toward those with better educations than yours. That is a widespread attitude; but it is a pernicious one. It discourages Black kids from getting a good education by fear of being called “White.”
Among persons such as I suspect include you, there is also a sense fo resentment. “What good did her education do her? She’s still a jerk!” The notion being that getting a good education is a waste of time.
I hope you don’t think like this.
4) “intellectually superior.” This is a real evasion on your part. The more appropriate phrase is “more intelligent.” But that would put you in a hopless contradiction. If the members of this group, to which you clerly don’t think you belong, are more intgelligent, it’s likely that their arguments, are too. And you don’t agree with or like those arguments.. because they’re based on a mixture of logic and facts, the kinds of things you learn in school, particuarly college and beyond.
5) “most of the people here.” This displays a hope or an assumption, that YOUR side is more numerous. But how would you know? It also continues to reflect the idea that the liberals are a small minority. But that ignores the results of the 2006 and 2008 elections, as well as broad public support for our rather moderate president’s additions to a pretty liberal approach in the STIM.
It seems very obvious, as has happened a dozen or so times before in American history, that the national mood has shifted, this time to the center left. I imagine it will be there for twenty-thirty years, the times these cycles have lasted before. After that, it will undoubtedly shift back to the right.
Brian R. Sullivan
p.s. I attended a university so I do not suffer from university envy. (Specifically, IU Bloomington. It isn’t Columbia, but I tried.)
Nor do I think getting an education is a waste of time. What I do think is a waste of time is throwing attitude at people instead of trying to come together to solve problems.
I never said “most of the people here”. I have no clue where you got that.
Are you Bill Maher in disguise, you rascal??
Dear Mr. Leiston,
1) “Are Americans producing less today than on September 13, the day or two before these bank maneuvers occurred?” Far less. Have you not been following the news about productivity levels? For whom or what is there t produce when businesses can’t get loans to pay for orders. Inventory is stacking up.
2) “Are we not working as hard?” Those who have jobs are. But that’s not the point. Since about 2002, American wages levels have not risen and have dropped in many sectors. That helped inspire the huge wave of loans. In turn, that led to the sub prime mortgage scandal and subsequent disaster.
It’s a very bad things in many ways when it looks like the American Dream is fading.
3) “Congress… is in the process of increasing the percent of GDP soaked up in government spending by at least THREE TIMES what it has ever been in our history…”
This is well beside the point. The huge size of our economy creates an entirely different scale than in the past. Think of this: if the GDP of the US were only $3 trillion, it would be pretty risky to borrow one-third the amount for a stimulus. But if it were $14 triilon, borrowing one third or c. $4.7 triilon would be much less risky.
Secondly, as the very conservative Margaret Thatcher siad in a similar situation in the mid-1990s: “TINA. There is no alterantive.” That was Thatcher, mind you.
4) “the recent bill that no one had time to read or debate… ” Nonsense. Thousands of lobbyists and congressional staffers have been poring over drafts since at least October, when Obama’s chances of victory kept rising. Do you think that such a large bill could be created in a few days?
You really don’t seem to understadn hwo your own government works.
If you mean ordinary members of the public, I will agree. But how much time did Obam ahave? It seems precious little before the next disaster loomed up. And how much does the ordinary fellow know about the needs to stimulate the economy in OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY. He wants his local roads repaired, that’s necessary infrastructure. But high-speed rail in California? Outrageous, that’s nothing but pork!
5) “squandering billions on pork barrel but with precious little (so says the Congressional Budget Office and other rational analysts) to “bail out” the economy.” See my previous comment. Actually, what is commonly called “prok” (always a matter of perspective) has a surprisingly small part in this bill. If yoi wnat to find an outrageous example, look at the recent Highway Act. In contrast, the Stim is very, very lean.
You are not correctly summarizing the CBO analysis. That’s rather shameful. Adn there are an euqal number of serious sober pro-Stim analyses. The bottom line is really that no one knows or could know. This is unprecednted in many ways.
6) “testosterone-poisoned geniuses who seem to have commandeered this discussion.” Do you include me in that group? Then address me directly, not through a pseudonym and by trying to avoid individual personalities. And, if there’s a testosterone problem, it seems to be your lack thereof.
7) “Who suddenly withdrew $550 billion from U.S. accounts within a few hours before the hemorraging was stopped, and why?”
Can you really be so dense? Not very much “who” but very much “what.” That is, gigantic financial institutions acting on what their analysts see unfolding around the globe, 24 hours a day, combined with orders for other almost-as-large institutions, in turn based on developments in other parts of the economy. Read something about what happened in the US Stock Market in October 1929 to get a general idea of how a crash develops. But the scale today, just 70 years later, is gigantically greater in every sense.
It does seem you don’t have much of an idea about how orders to buy and sell are made. We no longer have men on the floor shouting out buy or sell orders worth $5,000 or even $100,000. This isn’t the 19th century. Get a book – there are literally hundreds – on how the contemporary global market functions.
But if you really need a villain, I can suggest a shadowy, vague and – so far – unproven possibility: a nefarious plot by the Jesuits, the Bolsheviks and the Bavarian Illuminati to destroy the world economy and then divide the ruins among them. Of course, that will inevitably lead to World War III. But we’ll be probably deal already from malnutrition and disease.
AIM tells us that al Qaeda is about to attack American with the plague.
Partially sincerely – well, mostly actually – but a bit not so sincerely,
Brian R. Sullivan
(17 minutes, Mr.Swill)
Dear Texmom,
There is a very depressing aspect what you have written. Try to be serious for a moment. You don’t know me. You know very little about me. Yet you seem to think you have an undestanding of my psyche. To put it mildy, that makes you look like a fool.
I tried to teach you something. I’m sincere. By your response, you actually reinforced my worst assumptions about you by either being unable or unwilling to comprehend. That’s none of my business, of course. But to encounter a person, even in this way, who conflates ideas, opinions, analyses, etc with signs of insanity or mental illness is an even worse self-commentary.
I do ask a favor: please try to address just one of my previous enumerated statements.
Brian R. Sullivan
Dear Texmom,
Please re-read you #77 and see for yourself what you wrote.
Also, I left out a phrase in my previous comment: “But to encounter a person, even in this way, who conflates ideas, opinions, analyses, etc WITH WHICH THEY DISAGREE with signs of insanity or mental illness is an even worse self-commentary.
“trying to come together to solve problems.” On the AIM blog? Are you kidding? You want me to come together with racists, misogynists, anti-Semites, paranoid conspiracy groupies, homophobes, ignorant fools, covert and no-so-covert Nazis, End of Timers, etc, ad nauseum?
Well, let me be polite: no.
Brian R. Sullivan
Brian:
I agree that the “get help” comment was sarcastic and ill advised.
I wrote it because your conclusions from my post were so far off base that it was incomprehensible. I have no idea how you possibly could have come to the conclusions that you did. But perhaps my sarcasm was not warranted.
Shhhhhhh … let’s catch up quietly, but don’t let Brian hear us … he’s busy writing to himself about his secret missions and so forth … better to just let him talk to himself in the mirror.
So … shhhhhh … Here is some of the soap opera synopsis.
Andy thinks he is Kriest (get it? wink, wink), and was delighted it seems to have a “Groupie” in Towandab. We’re not sure if Mr. or Ms. Towandab is male or female, that that may not matter to Andy Kreist (get it?)
Nor apparently does Andy mind about TK’s accusation that Towandab, his new-found love, is a moronic racist. Maybe it’s just me, but … shhhhhhh, Brian is writing, don’t disturb him … but Towandab sounds Pakistani, maybe Muslim or something. So TK may be setting the stage for stirring up a religious gun-battle as well. We’ll see, since TK sees racism wherever he looks, and morons. Remember his famous line in the movies:“I see morons.” “And racists.” Shhhhhhh … Brian is writing.
And Mr. Frank Leigh (get it, get it, frankly … wink, wink)gets what they call in the soap opera business a “ten lines or less part.” He likes Pogo. (Maybe not such a bad observation, Mr. Frankly). Or perhaps not wanting to be outdone in clever cultural citations by Mr. Kreist’s (get it … ) reference to Yogi Berra.
SO … what will the next episode bring …. shhhhhhh, Brian’s writing madly, singing to himself …
This program brought to you by …
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64659-2005Mar24.html
http://jihadobama.posterous.com/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/15/the-peron-pattern/
The Rev. Wright Christian (Not you Mr. Kreist, the other one) Hatred of Whitey Society
And with a grant from The Obama Foundation For Distributing the Wealth (actually, it’s your own grant, your own money, taken away, siphoned off to Obama Michelle & Co., and 1 cent on every dollar returned generously to you)
…
Is this funny or what?! Shhhhhh, Brian’s still writing …
mrj, failed comedy writer-
It’s pronounced “creased”.
Now don’t you feel stupid? For a whole variety of reasons, you really should.
Dear mrjsh,
Have you ever written anything for publication? I think not.
Do you exhibit both jealousy and incomprehension about writers who do have publications? It appears so.
Does your statement: “he’s busy writing to himself about his secret missions and so forth” indicate something about your ability to read and your knowledge of how sections of the Defense Dept function? So it seems.
1) What does “writing to himself” mean? Do you think no one has read my pubs? Well, I can send you a list of book reviews that deal with my work. I admit that some of my articles are for a rather small readership. But that’s the point of such efforts; they aren’t directed at the general public.
If you want a list of my historical publications, Google me. If you wish to know what I have published about national security matters, let me know. I’ll post a list. However, I doubt that you would be able to understand much of what I have written.
2) My work for SOLIC (do you know what SOLIC is; understand what it does?) in 1990-91 did not include what I did but what I proposed that SOLIC put into action. The secret missions (yes, that’s exactly what they were and what they remain) were carried out by others. I only conceived their outline.
3) What I stated was “At the moment, I’m working on two book manuscripts. One is a history of intelligence operations by the major European powers in the 1918-40 period. The other is an edited and annotated edition of Margherita Sarfatti’s second, unpublished biography of Mussolini.” In other words, I’m writing about intel ops some 70-90 years ago.
“Is that funny or not?” Well, it depends. If a person thinks it is humorous to read the self-revealing comments of a spiritually and intellectually barren person such as yourself, then I guess that it is. On the other hand, one might not find it amusing to read the comments of someone who has led a rather empty life, someone who has had no adventures of any significance – physical, intellectual or spiritual. I don’t find that funny at all, just sad.
I realize that you probably don’t have much experience with taking risks of any sort. (After all, you’re a person who’s even afraid to reveal your name.) But there are others who enjoy stretching themselves to the limit. That seems beyond your ken. To see the world entirely through the very narrow scope of your barren existence and limited intelligence means you simply can’t understand the larger world, that which lies beyond your limited horizon.
That is as I stated, quite genuinely, very sad. But what is somewhat outrageous, is that you assume (or want?)that other people share your limitations.
But some don’t.
Consider this: I don’t know how old you are or what resources you command. It may be very difficult for you to break out of the mental prison you have constructed for yourself. Nonetheless, in terms of the added enjoyment you would get out of life, it would be worth it.
Otherwise, you will go on until death admiring the painted cabinet but not the wealthy jewels it stores for you.
Brian R. Sullivan
Shhhhh, remember? Step aside, socialists! The rest of us have work to do!
Thanks, SaraJean. Joan Swirsky’s biography (below) explains why the unvarnished Obama is so troubling. I believe she has hit the nail on the head. (As a Jew, I was also very interested in her article “It’s the Jews, Stupid.”) I look in from time-to-time (reading BRS, or BS for short, I-See-Stupid-People-Kriest, I-See-Morons-and-Racists-TK, et al., is rather like seeing a snake swallow a rabbit, you don’t want to look but you can’t help it … sometimes, I admit, they are absurdly funny …). The redeeming features are modest but notable: 1) we realize now how threatening the truth is about Obama’s election on the heels of an intentional sabotage of our economy – which is why his “junior brownshirts” and the “jim jones koolaid brigade” have set so ferociously to disrupt the discussion; 2) we see the brownshirts for what they are; and 3) intelligent people occasionally surface good online resources I would not have found otherwise. Thank you.
Oops – Swirsky’s bio – and the underpinnings of her Obama commentary.
JOAN SWIRSKY, the recipient of seven Long Island Press Awards, wrote health, science and feature articles for The New York Times Long Island section for over 20 years, as well as for numerous regional and national publications. A former obstetrical nurse and Lamaze teacher, she is a practicing psychotherapist. For eight years, starting in 1985, Joan was a science writer for The Women’s Record on Long Island, during which time she wrote over 175 articles. Joan is a clinical nurse specialist (R.N., M.S., CS, CE) and certified psychotherapist. She was awarded a Nurse of Distinction Award by the New York State Legislature in 1991, received the Master’s Faculty Leadership Award from Adelphi University, and is a member of Sigma Theta Tau Nursing Honor Society. She was also the co-founder and Editor-in-Chief of REVOLUTION – The Journal of Nurse Empowerment from 1990 to 1995. The magazine, a national quarterly, received First Prize for Editorial Excellence from the prestigious national media Folio Awards in 1994. In addition, for 15 years, she was the editor of The Caucus Current, a monthly magazine on Jewish political issues.
Here’s something funny, although not funny ha ha…
Brian Sullivan is clearly an exceptionally intelligent person. He is vilified on this forum, and I think it is chiefly because of his level of intelligence. I’m old enough to remember extremely bright people referred to as “eggheads”. It was meant as a putdown, but how are you maligning someone by admitting that they are smart? (As a person of mere normal intellegence, I was never called an egghead. Several other compound words ending in head were used to describe me, but not “egghead”.)
In the case of this particular thread, Brian pointed out the absurdity of the notion that a concerted effort (by George Soros, no less!) to wreck the economy might be the reason for the dramatic selloff in September. His various points are NEVER, NOT ONCE, refuted or debunked. He is simply attacked. I really think it’s because he’s smarter that the rest of you (us).
As I said, not funny ha ha, but funny…
Thanks, Stan. The more that comes out about him, the more “campaigning” he does to keep snowing his drones over! Joan Swirsky sure knows her stuff; he has sent his thugs to Tenn. now that the Tennessee State Legislators have signed on with Orly Taitz’s Natural-Born Citizen case, along with a Brigadier General; I think she has the “Standing” issue covered which the Liberal courts handily used to derail ALL the other cases: http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/02/12/obamas-communist-radical-muslim-chicago-mafia-style-thugs-are-attacking-4-courageous-tn-state-representatives-we-need-to-show-appreciation-to-those-4-representatives-and-attack-those.aspx
I really try not to read “the sewage” herein, spewed or jotted, if I can help it. Our state of affairs are bleak enough without being reminded of the pathetic or despicable saps scourging our great country. Better to Keep fighting! and spreading the word!
We don’t have the luxury of not getting involved; our way of life and our opportunities will evaporate unless all such as us take action. Time has run out:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/16/mileage-meltdown/
And in my state, my district, only 3 of us are signed up, so boy, do we have to get started PRONTO! I see some value in this meeting model to get things rolling in the Resistance in our area!
http://www.resistnet.com/group/virginiaresistance/forum/topics/suggestions-for-meetings-4
“I really try not to read “the sewage” herein, spewed or jotted, if I can help it.”
That’s not a nice way to refer to the writings of Ms West and Mr Kincaid! Now you apologize!
Andy:
I cannot speak for others, but I certainly do not disagree with Brian because I am envious of his intellect. Have we ever considered that he could possibly be wrong about some of his points, even if they are well stated? There have been many people throughout history who were intelligent, educated and wrong.
As far as Soros, I don’t necessarily think he had a hand in this, but why would that be an impossibility? It wouldn’t have to be just his own money. He certainly could have worked this out with others. It is certainly worth noting that all of this money was being drawn at the same time. Even based on the world economy, it seems odd that this withdrawal would take place at the same exact time. And it is not like Soros has never done anything like this before. I think it is worthy of consideration.
Spot on, SaraJean. In my 60 years, having served in war and served in peace, having voted for Republicans and voted for Democrats (sometimes to my regret on both sides), having earned two graduate degrees, having raised two fine sons, I have never seen anything of such concern. The national apparatus has become so corrupted or paralyzed, local initiatives are essential. The Congressional election in 2010 will be crucial. We can be sure the current regime will do anything to remain in power. We must act. Eventually the economic collapse will stir the public, although news recently that a study was underway at the Army War College concerning how to use Federal troops to quell economic riots was disconcerting. Add to this Obama’s statement not long ago in Colorado: “We cannot continue to rely on our military … We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” I leave it to credentialed historians of the prelude and events of 1917, the rise of fascism and later those who deny the Holocaust to draw any parallels. We pray matters never grow so dire, which is why we must act now. Yet, if you read the work of Gerald Celente, a remarkably prescient scholar at The Trends Research Institute (http://www.trendsresearch.com), you will see how this current, contrived crisis and its political beneficiaries who are milking it for all it’s worth is unlikely to be resolved by the Obama-Reid-Pelossi-Barney-Frank-Bailout-Hoax just signed into law. I’m sorry I cannot provide you the entire, rather lengthy and detailed discussion in the The Trends Research Institute’s recent quarterly report, but you can get the flavor here:
http://www.trendsresearch.com/journal.html
The junior-Obama-brownshirts and Jim-Jones-Koolaid-Brigade are a distraction ready “taze” anyone who disagrees with them (or in the case of one above, who shall remain nameless, lull us to sleep with his litany of Medal of Honor, Nobel and Pulitzer Prize achievements). Ignore them. Responsible readers must act now in their own communities and own Congressional Districts. Or those who attacked America on September 14 and 15, 2008 in order to ensure Obama’s election will have only begun their work.
Re: Post 87;
Your comment:
“We’ll see, since TK sees racism wherever he looks, and morons.”
I described Post 66 as “Classless. Moronic. And, obviously, racist”.
Would you care to offer YOUR personal assessment of that post, including your interpretation of its meaning and and its quality?
Would you care to offer your best rationalization explaining exactly WHY Post 66 SHOULD NOT be viewed by most reasonable people as “classless, moronic, and probably racist”?
I don’t see racism everywhere I look – - but I do see a lot of very prejudicial personal and political points of view on this website, often exhibiting an extremely high level of vitriol aimed at those who may have divergent points of view (politics of personal destruction?).
And, with all due respect, look at some of the most outlandish and extreme posts here. If some of them don’t seem downright moronic to you, then you’re probably a practitioner of political correctness. If you feel better about it, I’ll refrain from using “moronic” in the future – and go with, oh, I don’t know – dumb, stupid, idiotic, mindless, simple-minded, childish, immature, addle-brained, soft-headed – or whatever terminology you indicate won’t offend your personal political-correctness guildelines and sensibilities.
(And, frankly, if you want my REAL unvarnished and totally private opinion of the person who wrote Post 66 – - it would be “a**h**e”.)
Let’s not forget Diane West’s article that began this discussion. Some of her other work is at:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/diana-west/
In reply to her title’s rhetorical question, we thank her that more of us are indeed realizing why we must care very much.
For those with less bandwidth, the report from the trends institute states in part:
“The “Panic of ‘08” will be followed by “The Collapse of ‘09.” In 2008, when the world’s largest financial firms and equity markets crumbled, Wall Street’s woes preoccupied the media. In 2009, the focus will broaden to include a range of calamities that will leave no sector unscathed….
we see nothing coming from his administration that can prevent The Collapse of ’09, the Greatest Depression or the brewing Revolution….
It’s unprecedented. There is nothing like it in the history of the United States. No week goes by without the Government buying into or buying up another failing “too big to fail” using taxpayer money. … It is a matter of historical fact: When people are homeless, helpless, desperate, jobless and hungry, sooner or later they will rebel. And it won’t be any different in America…..”
February 13 at 2:21 pm | #1 | Link
There have been many paranoid, nonsensical comments posted on AIM. But this one probably deserves a special prize for inane mindlessness.
1) George Soros is a special AIM villain. He’s a very rich man and a highly successful capitalist who is also – gasp! – a LIBERAL!!! But to argue that he could organize an two-hour $550 billion run on US banks goes beyond comic book fantasy into the realm of twisted insane nightmares. If he could have done that, Soros could have long before controlled the world and become dictator of the planet. He certainly would not have any need for Obama, his supposed puppet.
2) It is true that the Chinese government owns billions in US Treasury bonds. But that puts Beijing at our mercy, not the reverse. Remember the old adage: “If you owe the bank $1000, that’s your problem. If you owe the bank $1 million, that’s their problem.” An attempt by the Chinese to damage our economy would put at jeopardy the huge sums of money that Chinese government has invested in America.
Why would Beijing want to risk losing the wealth it has accumulated over the past 30 years? In what possible way would that benefit Chinese foreign policy? Already, the loss of the export market to the US, due to our financial problems, is putting the Chinese economy in deep trouble and stirring widespread unrest among the Chinese working class. The same things are happening in Venezuela and Russia. Chavez can no longer afford the subsidies that support low cost food and fuel for his population. His popularity is plunging and his reliance on naked force is growing. After all, as goes the US economy, so goes that of the world, especially now that China and Russia have become capitalist societies. So the argument is that they have created such catastrophes for themselves?
3) Sure, Bush II did issue vague warnings about the state of the US economy in September. (Had he been asleep before then?). But if you read the full texts of his comments and have stayed current with economic news since then, he obviously wasn’t referring in a cryptic manner to supposed dealings by Soros, Putin, Chavez and the Chinese. Bush was trying, in the midst of a presidential election, to shift focus from the subprime mortgage crisis – largely of his administration’s doing through regulatory negligence – to shadowy violators of SEC rules. But how absurd. The present crisis didn’t arise from the stock market (the SEC responsibility) but from financial institutions.
4) What Limbaugh, Kincaid and Bush II know about geo-economics could be put on a pinhead – with plenty of room to spare.
5) “Here’s the facts, we don’t even talk about these things.” So said Kanjorski as he proceeded to talk and contradict himself.
6) The question: “why weren’t we the people told about this $550 billion electronic run on the banks?” The answer: If you listen to or read Kanjorski’s comments carefully, you will realize he was talking about what Paulson and Bernanke warned WOULD happen without remedial action. (“They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so THERE WOULDN’T BE FURTHER PANIC out there, and that’s what actually happened.” My emphasis added.)But such steps were taken and the run never happened as the above comment alleges. Were Paulson and Bernanke telling lies to get quick action? (An AIM-like insinuation, I admit.) I don’t know. But neither does Kincaid.
7) Ms. West needs help in concocting stories to frighten little children. Would someone send her a copy of Grimm’s “Fairy Tales”?