Is there anything left that we can come together on?

[bripat9643]

The left in this country has become so extreme and so radicalized that I've really come to the conclusion that the U.S. should be peacefully divide up so that conservatives can restore the United States of America (what ever half remained for us) and liberals would be free to destroy a new nation built on socialism and free from the Constitution that they hate so much.

I would really like to be wrong (for once). But watching liberals insist that a grown man has every right to walk into a women's restroom and slap women and little children in the face with their penis just affirms what I already thought.

So with that in mind - I'm wondering if anyone can post something that conservatives and liberals can come together on. There are some items which one would think we be basic and obvious (like the U.S. Constitution, defense, and the right of children to be free from the opposite sex in the restroom) but it would appear that would not be the case. If we can't even agree on these basic and obvious issues, what can we agree on?

Half? Get real! The derp-derp coalition accounts for 25% of the population. How about we give y'all a Sister-kissing reservation?

Your unsubstantiated trolling is not appreciated. Here's the percentage breakdown. The nation would have to be split three ways. Those who think for themselves, and the other two sections.

I think in the final analysis, wouldn't it be better for us to come together than to be fooled into destroying each other for those who would have us enslaved?

Antelope have no reason to "come together" with lions. For the same reason, conservatives and libertarians have no reason to come together with leftwing douche bags. The only reason you turds want to be together is so you can loot and enslave us.

Go fuck yourselves.

What I'm saying, is this has nothing to do with "libertarian" or "progressives," or the "left" or the "right."

It has to do with the good people of this land freeing themselves of control of the Deep State. It has to do with individual sovereignty and bringing back the protections of the Bill of Rights. We need eliminate the Imperial Presidency and bring back the rule of law.

Why did Ike warn us of the military-industrial-complex? Why did JFK want to reduce the scope and power of the CIA?

Seems the only people that really get it are Alaskans. They just won't have the folks on the left or right divided by the globalists.

Two notable anti-globalists, from the left and the right.

Left wingers are dedicated to implementing exactly what you oppose. So how do you propose to "come together" with them?

 

[initforme]

Has anyone actually considered that a lot of division is healthy for a country? I believe it is.

 

[HUGGY]

I know you are... But what am I?

 

[initforme]

Division is what keeps the country rolling forward.

 

[MisterBeale]

The left in this country has become so extreme and so radicalized that I've really come to the conclusion that the U.S. should be peacefully divide up so that conservatives can restore the United States of America (what ever half remained for us) and liberals would be free to destroy a new nation built on socialism and free from the Constitution that they hate so much.

I would really like to be wrong (for once). But watching liberals insist that a grown man has every right to walk into a women's restroom and slap women and little children in the face with their penis just affirms what I already thought.

So with that in mind - I'm wondering if anyone can post something that conservatives and liberals can come together on. There are some items which one would think we be basic and obvious (like the U.S. Constitution, defense, and the right of children to be free from the opposite sex in the restroom) but it would appear that would not be the case. If we can't even agree on these basic and obvious issues, what can we agree on?

Half? Get real! The derp-derp coalition accounts for 25% of the population. How about we give y'all a Sister-kissing reservation?

Your unsubstantiated trolling is not appreciated. Here's the percentage breakdown. The nation would have to be split three ways. Those who think for themselves, and the other two sections.

I think in the final analysis, wouldn't it be better for us to come together than to be fooled into destroying each other for those who would have us enslaved?

Antelope have no reason to "come together" with lions. For the same reason, conservatives and libertarians have no reason to come together with leftwing douche bags. The only reason you turds want to be together is so you can loot and enslave us.

Go fuck yourselves.

What I'm saying, is this has nothing to do with "libertarian" or "progressives," or the "left" or the "right."

It has to do with the good people of this land freeing themselves of control of the Deep State. It has to do with individual sovereignty and bringing back the protections of the Bill of Rights. We need eliminate the Imperial Presidency and bring back the rule of law.

Why did Ike warn us of the military-industrial-complex? Why did JFK want to reduce the scope and power of the CIA?

Seems the only people that really get it are Alaskans. They just won't have the folks on the left or right divided by the globalists.

Two notable anti-globalists, from the left and the right.

Left wingers are dedicated to implementing exactly what you oppose. So how do you propose to "come together" with them?

I don't paint everyone with a broad brush. Stereo-typing is not something I like to do.

Have you ever read "A People's History of the United States?" or "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media?"

There is a substantial difference between your garden variety voluntary cooperatives and state forced collectivization. I believe anarcho-socialism and anarcho-syndicalism can exist side by side. The key is voluntarism.


I'd rather be a member of a credit union than a customer of a bank any day.

Believe it or not, in my youth, I lived in a housing co-operative. It was during the time when Clinton was running against Bush. And wouldn't you know it, there was actually some members, a very few, but some, who wanted Bush to win. . .

Ah, how young and stupid we all were. I think a few of the wiser ones might have seen the writing on the wall, but that was long ago. . . . far away now. . . . .

 

[MisterBeale]

Has anyone actually considered that a lot of division is healthy for a country? I believe it is.

 

[MisterBeale]

Division is what keeps the country rolling forward.

It's certainly good for television ratings and website views.

 

[bripat9643]

Half? Get real! The derp-derp coalition accounts for 25% of the population. How about we give y'all a Sister-kissing reservation?

Your unsubstantiated trolling is not appreciated. Here's the percentage breakdown. The nation would have to be split three ways. Those who think for themselves, and the other two sections.

I think in the final analysis, wouldn't it be better for us to come together than to be fooled into destroying each other for those who would have us enslaved?

Antelope have no reason to "come together" with lions. For the same reason, conservatives and libertarians have no reason to come together with leftwing douche bags. The only reason you turds want to be together is so you can loot and enslave us.

Go fuck yourselves.

What I'm saying, is this has nothing to do with "libertarian" or "progressives," or the "left" or the "right."

It has to do with the good people of this land freeing themselves of control of the Deep State. It has to do with individual sovereignty and bringing back the protections of the Bill of Rights. We need eliminate the Imperial Presidency and bring back the rule of law.

Why did Ike warn us of the military-industrial-complex? Why did JFK want to reduce the scope and power of the CIA?

Seems the only people that really get it are Alaskans. They just won't have the folks on the left or right divided by the globalists.

Two notable anti-globalists, from the left and the right.

Left wingers are dedicated to implementing exactly what you oppose. So how do you propose to "come together" with them?

I don't paint everyone with a broad brush. Stereo-typing is not something I like to do.

Have you ever read "A People's History of the United States?" or "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media?"

There is a substantial difference between your garden variety voluntary cooperatives and state forced collectivization. I believe anarcho-socialism and anarcho-syndicalism can exist side by side. The key is voluntarism.


I'd rather be a member of a credit union than a customer of a bank any day.

Believe it or not, in my youth, I lived in a housing co-operative. It was during the time when Clinton was running against Bush. And wouldn't you know it, there was actually some members, a very few, but some, who wanted Bush to win. . .

Ah, how young and stupid we all were. I think a few of the wiser ones might have seen the writing on the wall, but that was long ago. . . . far away now. . . . .

Howard Zinn, the author of "A People's History of the United States" is a Stalinist, and Noam Chomsky, the author of "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media" is a Maoist. Neither anarcho-socialism and anarcho-syndicalism can exist, period. They are both contradictions in terms. Given the material you read, it's easy to understand why you believe these systems are feasible.

Both credit unions and housing cooperatives exist within the context of a market economy where people are free to contract as they like. That's the only thing that keeps them tolerable.

 

[Dr Grump]

How will we know? The world has been laughing at Obabble for eight straight years.

Nope. The rest of us like him. Not a great president but an okay one. The only people who 'laugh' at Obama (when then not spitting tacks) are US neocon whackjobs - and they're even a minority in their own country.

 

[MisterBeale]

Your unsubstantiated trolling is not appreciated. Here's the percentage breakdown. The nation would have to be split three ways. Those who think for themselves, and the other two sections.

I think in the final analysis, wouldn't it be better for us to come together than to be fooled into destroying each other for those who would have us enslaved?

Antelope have no reason to "come together" with lions. For the same reason, conservatives and libertarians have no reason to come together with leftwing douche bags. The only reason you turds want to be together is so you can loot and enslave us.

Go fuck yourselves.

What I'm saying, is this has nothing to do with "libertarian" or "progressives," or the "left" or the "right."

It has to do with the good people of this land freeing themselves of control of the Deep State. It has to do with individual sovereignty and bringing back the protections of the Bill of Rights. We need eliminate the Imperial Presidency and bring back the rule of law.

Why did Ike warn us of the military-industrial-complex? Why did JFK want to reduce the scope and power of the CIA?

Seems the only people that really get it are Alaskans. They just won't have the folks on the left or right divided by the globalists.

Two notable anti-globalists, from the left and the right.

Left wingers are dedicated to implementing exactly what you oppose. So how do you propose to "come together" with them?

I don't paint everyone with a broad brush. Stereo-typing is not something I like to do.

Have you ever read "A People's History of the United States?" or "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media?"

There is a substantial difference between your garden variety voluntary cooperatives and state forced collectivization. I believe anarcho-socialism and anarcho-syndicalism can exist side by side. The key is voluntarism.


I'd rather be a member of a credit union than a customer of a bank any day.

Believe it or not, in my youth, I lived in a housing co-operative. It was during the time when Clinton was running against Bush. And wouldn't you know it, there was actually some members, a very few, but some, who wanted Bush to win. . .

Ah, how young and stupid we all were. I think a few of the wiser ones might have seen the writing on the wall, but that was long ago. . . . far away now. . . . .

Howard Zinn, the author of "A People's History of the United States" is a Stalinist, and Noam Chomsky, the author of "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media" is a Maoist. Neither anarcho-socialism and anarcho-syndicalism can exist, period. They are both contradictions in terms. Given the material you read, it's easy to understand why you believe these systems are feasible.

Both credit unions and housing cooperatives exist within the context of a market economy where people are free to contract as they like. That's the only thing that keeps them tolerable.

Although I don't agree with everything that Zinn and Chomsky write and believe, your misrepresentation of them is laughable. It is clear that you have tunnel vision and only read or view those sources that you believe are amiable to your POV.

I doubt you have read any of their work. I doubt you have read either Marx or Lenin either for that matter. Zinn is a Democratic Socialist, Chomsky is a Libertarian Socialist.





Unless you think they are lying? You would just rather believe the characterization of those sources that you like, rather than the philosophers themselves? That's rich.

 

[bripat9643]

Antelope have no reason to "come together" with lions. For the same reason, conservatives and libertarians have no reason to come together with leftwing douche bags. The only reason you turds want to be together is so you can loot and enslave us.

Go fuck yourselves.

What I'm saying, is this has nothing to do with "libertarian" or "progressives," or the "left" or the "right."

It has to do with the good people of this land freeing themselves of control of the Deep State. It has to do with individual sovereignty and bringing back the protections of the Bill of Rights. We need eliminate the Imperial Presidency and bring back the rule of law.

Why did Ike warn us of the military-industrial-complex? Why did JFK want to reduce the scope and power of the CIA?

Seems the only people that really get it are Alaskans. They just won't have the folks on the left or right divided by the globalists.

Two notable anti-globalists, from the left and the right.

Left wingers are dedicated to implementing exactly what you oppose. So how do you propose to "come together" with them?

I don't paint everyone with a broad brush. Stereo-typing is not something I like to do.

Have you ever read "A People's History of the United States?" or "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media?"

There is a substantial difference between your garden variety voluntary cooperatives and state forced collectivization. I believe anarcho-socialism and anarcho-syndicalism can exist side by side. The key is voluntarism.


I'd rather be a member of a credit union than a customer of a bank any day.

Believe it or not, in my youth, I lived in a housing co-operative. It was during the time when Clinton was running against Bush. And wouldn't you know it, there was actually some members, a very few, but some, who wanted Bush to win. . .

Ah, how young and stupid we all were. I think a few of the wiser ones might have seen the writing on the wall, but that was long ago. . . . far away now. . . . .

Howard Zinn, the author of "A People's History of the United States" is a Stalinist, and Noam Chomsky, the author of "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media" is a Maoist. Neither anarcho-socialism and anarcho-syndicalism can exist, period. They are both contradictions in terms. Given the material you read, it's easy to understand why you believe these systems are feasible.

Both credit unions and housing cooperatives exist within the context of a market economy where people are free to contract as they like. That's the only thing that keeps them tolerable.

Although I don't agree with everything that Zinn and Chomsky write and believe, your misrepresentation of them is laughable. It is clear that you have tunnel vision and only read or view those sources that you believe are amiable to your POV.

I doubt you have read any of their work. I doubt you have read either Marx or Lenin either for that matter. Zinn is a Democratic Socialist, Chomsky is a Libertarian Socialist.





Unless you think they are lying? You would just rather believe the characterization of those sources that you like, rather than the philosophers themselves? That's rich.

The phrase "libertarian socialist" is a contradiction in terms. You can't be a libertarian and also a socialist. Chomsky once defended the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia that murdered 3 million people. That's all you need to know about him.

Zinn's history of American could have been written by Pravda during the Soviet era. It's an anti American piece of trash.

 

[MisterBeale]

The left in this country has become so extreme and so radicalized that I've really come to the conclusion that the U.S. should be peacefully divide up so that conservatives can restore the United States of America (what ever half remained for us) and liberals would be free to destroy a new nation built on socialism and free from the Constitution that they hate so much.

I would really like to be wrong (for once). But watching liberals insist that a grown man has every right to walk into a women's restroom and slap women and little children in the face with their penis just affirms what I already thought.

So with that in mind - I'm wondering if anyone can post something that conservatives and liberals can come together on. There are some items which one would think we be basic and obvious (like the U.S. Constitution, defense, and the right of children to be free from the opposite sex in the restroom) but it would appear that would not be the case. If we can't even agree on these basic and obvious issues, what can we agree on?

That Congress pay should be based on results of what they accomplish and it should be we the people who vote on if they get a pay raise not Congress it's self. I can think of no other line of work where the empoyees get to decide if they get a raise and how much they get.

That is a great point. But can we get liberals to agree on that?

I doubt you could even get conservatives to agree on that. . .

 

[candycorn]

The left in this country has become so extreme and so radicalized that I've really come to the conclusion that the U.S. should be peacefully divide up so that conservatives can restore the United States of America (what ever half remained for us) and liberals would be free to destroy a new nation built on socialism and free from the Constitution that they hate so much.

I would really like to be wrong (for once). But watching liberals insist that a grown man has every right to walk into a women's restroom and slap women and little children in the face with their penis just affirms what I already thought.

So with that in mind - I'm wondering if anyone can post something that conservatives and liberals can come together on. There are some items which one would think we be basic and obvious (like the U.S. Constitution, defense, and the right of children to be free from the opposite sex in the restroom) but it would appear that would not be the case. If we can't even agree on these basic and obvious issues, what can we agree on?

Actually, lately, I have been devoting my time to researching something called the "Deep State."

It is a concept known as a State within a State.

It is something that liberals were afraid was taking control during the Bush admin, that has continued during the Obama admin. This is what Cindy Sheehan, (noted socialist) protested against. Did you know that she doesn't support Bernie Sanders or Hillary?

Here is an interview that Bill Moyers does of a Republican staffer, Mike Lofgren.

Essay: Anatomy of the Deep State
Essay: Anatomy of the Deep State | BillMoyers.com

There is the visible government situated around the Mall in Washington, and then there is another, more shadowy, more indefinable government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable to tourists at the White House or the Capitol. The former is traditional Washington partisan politics: the tip of the iceberg that a public watching C-SPAN sees daily and which is theoretically controllable via elections. The subsurface part of the iceberg I shall call the Deep State, which operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power. [1]

During the last five years, the news media has been flooded with pundits decrying the broken politics of Washington. The conventional wisdom has it that partisan gridlock and dysfunction have become the new normal. That is certainly the case, and I have been among the harshest critics of this development. But it is also imperative to acknowledge the limits of this critique as it applies to the American governmental system. On one level, the critique is self-evident: In the domain that the public can see, Congress is hopelessly deadlocked in the worst manner since the 1850s, the violently rancorous decade preceding the Civil War.

As I wrote in The Party is Over, the present objective of congressional Republicans is to render the executive branch powerless, at least until a Republican president is elected (a goal that voter suppression laws in GOP-controlled states are clearly intended to accomplish). President Obama cannot enact his domestic policies and budgets: Because of incessant GOP filibustering, not only could he not fill the large number of vacancies in the federal judiciary, he could not even get his most innocuous presidential appointees into office. Democrats controlling the Senate have responded by weakening the filibuster of nominations, but Republicans are sure to react with other parliamentary delaying tactics. This strategy amounts to congressional nullification of executive branch powers by a party that controls a majority in only one house of Congress.

Despite this apparent impotence, President Obama can liquidate American citizens without due processes, detain prisoners indefinitely without charge, conduct dragnet surveillance on the American people without judicial warrant and engage in unprecedented — at least since the McCarthy era — witch hunts against federal employees (the so-called “Insider Threat Program”). Within the United States, this power is characterized by massive displays of intimidating force by militarized federal, state and local law enforcement. Abroad, President Obama can start wars at will and engage in virtually any other activity whatsoever without so much as a by-your-leave from Congress, such as arranging the forced landing of a plane carrying a sovereign head of state over foreign territory. Despite the habitual cant of congressional Republicans about executive overreach by Obama, the would-be dictator, we have until recently heard very little from them about these actions — with the minor exception of comments from gadfly Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. Democrats, save a few mavericks such as Ron Wyden of Oregon, are not unduly troubled, either — even to the extent of permitting seemingly perjured congressional testimony under oath by executive branch officials on the subject of illegal surveillance.

These are not isolated instances of a contradiction; they have been so pervasive that they tend to be disregarded as background noise. During the time in 2011 when political warfare over the debt ceiling was beginning to paralyze the business of governance in Washington, the United States government somehow summoned the resources to overthrow Muammar Ghaddafi’s regime in Libya, and, when the instability created by that coup spilled over into Mali, provide overt and covert assistance to French intervention there. At a time when there was heated debate about continuing meat inspections and civilian air traffic control because of the budget crisis, our government was somehow able to commit $115 millionto keeping a civil war going in Syria and to pay at least £100m to the United Kingdom’s Government Communications Headquarters to buy influence over and access to that country’s intelligence. Since 2007, two bridges carrying interstate highways have collapsed due to inadequate maintenance of infrastructure, one killing 13 people. During that same period of time, the government spent $1.7 billion constructing a building in Utah that is the size of 17 football fields. This mammoth structure is intended to allow the National Security Agency to store a yottabyte of information, the largest numerical designator computer scientists have coined. A yottabyte is equal to 500 quintillion pages of text. They need that much storage to archive every single trace of your electronic life.

Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. My analysis of this phenomenon is not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial cabal; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day. Nor can this other government be accurately termed an “establishment.” All complex societies have an establishment, a social network committed to its own enrichment and perpetuation. In terms of its scope, financial resources and sheer global reach, the American hybrid state, the Deep State, is in a class by itself. That said, it is neither omniscient nor invincible. The institution is not so much sinister (although it has highly sinister aspects) as it is relentlessly well entrenched. Far from being invincible, its failures, such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, are routine enough that it is only the Deep State’s protectiveness towards its higher-ranking personnel that allows them to escape the consequences of their frequent ineptitude. [2]


Oddly enough, life long researcher and experience of a left leaning, ivory tower academic, Peter Dale Scott comes to the same conclusion. He was a Canadian diplomat for four years and a professor at Berkley for over thirty years.


The Hidden Government Group
by Peter Dale Scott
The Hidden Government Group, by Peter Dale Scott

For some time now, I have been analyzing American history in the light of what I have called structural deep events: events, like the JFK assassination, the Watergate break-in, Iran-Contra, or 9/11, which repeatedly involve law-breaking or violence, are mysterious to begin with, are embedded in ongoing covert processes, have political consequences that enlarge covert government, and are subsequently covered up by systematic falsifications in the mainstream media and internal government records. [1]


The more I study these deep events, the more I see suggestive similarities between them, increasing the possibility that they are not unrelated external intrusions on American history, but parts of an endemic process, sharing to some degree or other a common source. [2]


For example, one factor linking Dallas, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and 9/11, has been the involvement in all four deep events of personnel involved in America’s highest-level emergency planning, known since the 1950s as Continuity of Government (COG) planning, or more colloquially inside the Pentagon as “the Doomsday Project.” A few of these actors may have been located at the top, as overseers of the secret COG system. Others – including some I shall talk about today – were located further down in its secret communications network.


I see this planning group as one among many in what I have chosen to call the American deep state, along with agencies like the CIA and NSA, the private groups like Booz Allen Hamilton to which more than half of the US intelligence budget is outsourced, [3] and finally the powerful banks and corporations whose views are well represented in the CIA and NSA. But if only one group among many, the COG planning group is also special, because of its control of and access to a communications channel, not under government control, that can reach deeply into the US social structure. I discuss these matters at some length in my next book, The American Deep State, due out in November.


COG planning was originally authorized by Truman and Eisenhower as planning for a response to a crippling atomic attack that had decapitated government. In consequence its planning group contemplated extreme measures, including what Alfonso Chardy in 1987 called “suspension of the Constitution.” [4] And yet in Iran-Contra its asset of a secret communications network, developed for the catastrophe of decapitation, was used instead to evade an official embargo on arms sales to Iran that dated back to 1979. My question today is whether the network could have been similarly misused in November 1963.


The Iran-contra misuse has been well-documented. Oliver North supervised the sale of arms to Iran by using his resources as the National Security Council action officer for COG planning, under cover of a “National Program Office” that was overseen by then Vice-President George H. W. Bush. [5] North and his superiors could thus use the COG emergency network, known then as Flashboard, for the arms sales to Iran that had to be concealed from other parts of the Washington bureaucracy as well as the public. So when North had to send emergency instructions for arms delivery to the US Embassy in Lisbon, instructions that directly contravened the embargo prohibiting such sales, he used the Flashboard network to avoid alerting the Ambassador and other unwitting personnel.


The documented example of Iran-Contra allows me to explain what I am saying about the users of the COG network, and also what I am not saying. To begin with, I am not saying that a single “Secret Team” has for decades been using the COG network to manipulate the US Government from outside it. There is no evidence to suggest that North’s actions in Iran-Contra were known to any of his superiors other than CIA chief William Casey and probably George Bush. The point is that a very small group had access to a high-level secret network outside government review, in order to implement a program in opposition to government policy. They succumbed to the temptation to use this secure network that had been designed for other purposes. I have argued elsewhere that this secure network was used again on 9/11, to implement key orders for which the 9/11 Commission could find no records. [6] Whether it was also used for illicit purposes is not known.


It is certain that the COG emergency network program survived North’s demise, and continued to be secretly developed for decades, at a cost of billions, and overseen by a team including Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. It is relevant that the two men’s presence on the committee spanned three administrations – those of Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton — even though at one point under Clinton neither man held a position inside the U.S. government. Such continuity was essential for a group so secret that few records existed of its activities. And on 9/11 COG plans were officially implemented for the first time, by Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the two men who had planned them for so many years. [7]


Whether or not they knew about Iran-Contra, Cheney and Rumsfeld were on the COG planning committee at the time of Iran-Contra. There is no such obvious link between COG planning and Watergate, but the involvement of COG personnel in Watergate is nonetheless striking. James McCord, one of the Watergate burglars, was a member of a small Air Force Reserve unit in Washington attached to the Office of Emergency Preparedness (OEP) that was assigned “to draw up lists of radicals and to develop contingency plans for censorship of the news media and U.S. mail in time of war.” [8] His unit was part of the Wartime Information Security Program (WISP), which had responsibility for activating “contingency plans for imposing censorship on the press, the mails and all telecommunications (including government communications) [and] preventive detention of civilian ‘security risks,’ who would be placed in military ‘camps.’” [9] In addition, John Dean, perhaps the central Watergate figure, had overseen secret COG activities when serving as the associate deputy attorney general. [10]


In the case of the JFK assassination, I wish to focus on two men who functioned as part of the communications network of the Office of Emergency Planning (OEP), the agency renamed in 1968 as the Office of Emergency Preparedness (to which McCord was attached), and renamed again in 1982 as the National Program Office (for which Oliver North was the action officer). [11]

And here is the concrete evidence that you need to verify that every year, the POTUS extends the state of emergency that authorizes the C.O.G. which suspends Constitutional law, which troubles, alternately, (depending on who is control of the oval office,) each and every year. Unless the Congress challenges this, every year, the state of emergency which was declared in 2001 continues.

Message -- Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks
TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:
Message -- Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks


Ostensibly, this is what both Ike and JFK warned us about.

God bless you....wish I could give that post 1,000 "Thank You's". There is the government that we see that we believe represents us and then there is the shadow government that is secretly pulling the strings. It's like the WWF...you have the wrestlers (politicians) that act out the script of the ones that own WWF (the bankers) to give us the illusion that we have a say and nothing could be further from the truth.

This corporate entity was created in deception and it has only gotten more corrupt and more deviant over time. The coup de e'tat that happened when JFK was publicly murdered was truly the day that the final nail in the future of this country was hammered. We have simply been dying a slow death since then....like a once healthy 60 pound dog that has a 40 pound tick attached to it and sucking it's life's blood...slowly and a little at a time and getting more and more bloated. This corporate entity that tries to pass it's self off as a legitimate governmental body is nothing but a for profit venture when it was taken into receivership by the International Monetary Fund in 1950 after the Federal Reserve bankers bankrupted us but here is the rub, they also own and control the IMF. They bankrupted us, liquidated our assets and then pawned us off on another one of their subsidiaries....new boss is the same as the old boss with the same results...but their wealth was 100 percent protected. If people only knew...if they could ONLY comprehend what has been done to them....SMH.

But let's be honest - how was any of that possible? The complete and total abandonment of the U.S. Constitution by progressive idiots like Woodrow Wilson and FDR.

If the highest law in the land is strictly enforced (as it absolutely should be), there is no Federal Reserve, IMF, etc. There is no Department of Energy, Department of Education, etc. bankrupting the nation.

No Air Force, no NASA, no Louisiana Purchase….

 

[candycorn]

The left in this country has become so extreme and so radicalized that I've really come to the conclusion that the U.S. should be peacefully divide up so that conservatives can restore the United States of America (what ever half remained for us) and liberals would be free to destroy a new nation built on socialism and free from the Constitution that they hate so much.

I would really like to be wrong (for once). But watching liberals insist that a grown man has every right to walk into a women's restroom and slap women and little children in the face with their penis just affirms what I already thought.

So with that in mind - I'm wondering if anyone can post something that conservatives and liberals can come together on. There are some items which one would think we be basic and obvious (like the U.S. Constitution, defense, and the right of children to be free from the opposite sex in the restroom) but it would appear that would not be the case. If we can't even agree on these basic and obvious issues, what can we agree on?

That Congress pay should be based on results of what they accomplish and it should be we the people who vote on if they get a pay raise not Congress it's self. I can think of no other line of work where the empoyees get to decide if they get a raise and how much they get.

That is a great point. But can we get liberals to agree on that?

I doubt you could even get conservatives to agree on that. . .

What? I thought the RWNJs were “angry”.

 

[P@triot]

No Air Force, no NASA, no Louisiana Purchase….

And your point would be???

As far as the Air Force - that's nonsensical. The U.S. Constitution absolutely grants authority for defense to the federal government (multiple times in fact). If you want to get technical about the name so you can cut off your nose just to spite your face - no problem. We can let the Navy or the Army absorb them. They'll still provide the same services.

As far as NASA - you are correct. A waste of trillions of dollars. However, there have been some defense applications that came out of it. That institution should be completely shut down and any part of it that does have military applications should be absorbed by the military.

And as far as the Louisiana Purchase, once again I must ask, your point would be???

 

[Never3ndr]

Antelope have no reason to "come together" with lions. For the same reason, conservatives and libertarians have no reason to come together with leftwing douche bags. The only reason you turds want to be together is so you can loot and enslave us.

Go fuck yourselves.

What I'm saying, is this has nothing to do with "libertarian" or "progressives," or the "left" or the "right."

It has to do with the good people of this land freeing themselves of control of the Deep State. It has to do with individual sovereignty and bringing back the protections of the Bill of Rights. We need eliminate the Imperial Presidency and bring back the rule of law.

Why did Ike warn us of the military-industrial-complex? Why did JFK want to reduce the scope and power of the CIA?

Seems the only people that really get it are Alaskans. They just won't have the folks on the left or right divided by the globalists.

Two notable anti-globalists, from the left and the right.

Left wingers are dedicated to implementing exactly what you oppose. So how do you propose to "come together" with them?

I don't paint everyone with a broad brush. Stereo-typing is not something I like to do.

Have you ever read "A People's History of the United States?" or "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media?"

There is a substantial difference between your garden variety voluntary cooperatives and state forced collectivization. I believe anarcho-socialism and anarcho-syndicalism can exist side by side. The key is voluntarism.


I'd rather be a member of a credit union than a customer of a bank any day.

Believe it or not, in my youth, I lived in a housing co-operative. It was during the time when Clinton was running against Bush. And wouldn't you know it, there was actually some members, a very few, but some, who wanted Bush to win. . .

Ah, how young and stupid we all were. I think a few of the wiser ones might have seen the writing on the wall, but that was long ago. . . . far away now. . . . .

Howard Zinn, the author of "A People's History of the United States" is a Stalinist, and Noam Chomsky, the author of "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media" is a Maoist. Neither anarcho-socialism and anarcho-syndicalism can exist, period. They are both contradictions in terms. Given the material you read, it's easy to understand why you believe these systems are feasible.

Both credit unions and housing cooperatives exist within the context of a market economy where people are free to contract as they like. That's the only thing that keeps them tolerable.

Although I don't agree with everything that Zinn and Chomsky write and believe, your misrepresentation of them is laughable. It is clear that you have tunnel vision and only read or view those sources that you believe are amiable to your POV.

I doubt you have read any of their work. I doubt you have read either Marx or Lenin either for that matter. Zinn is a Democratic Socialist, Chomsky is a Libertarian Socialist.





Unless you think they are lying? You would just rather believe the characterization of those sources that you like, rather than the philosophers themselves? That's rich.

It seems like you are a conspiracy theorist.

As an FYI far more conspiracies are disproved rather than proven. That isn't that I'm saying that conspiracies don't exist nor that there aren't conspiracies that are not going on as we speak...what I AM saying is that if you believe them as a rule rather than as an exception you have a far more distorted view of reality than the person that just believes the picture presented to them (at least in America, not so much for some other nations).

 

[candycorn]

No Air Force, no NASA, no Louisiana Purchase….

And your point would be???

As far as the Air Force - that's nonsensical. The U.S. Constitution absolutely grants authority for defense to the federal government (multiple times in fact). If you want to get technical about the name so you can cut off your nose just to spite your face - no problem. We can let the Navy or the Army absorb them. They'll still provide the same services.

As far as NASA - you are correct. A waste of trillions of dollars. However, there have been some defense applications that came out of it. That institution should be completely shut down and any part of it that does have military applications should be absorbed by the military.

And as far as the Louisiana Purchase, once again I must ask, your point would be???

Only if you interpret the Constitution (hiss!!!!) does it include an air force. It does not grant an authority for such a force. Otherwise you could quote where it does. You can’t. NASA has lead to more societal and worldwide advances than any other investment made by the people of the US. Few would argue the LA Purchase was a major instrument in westward expansion.

None of the above was constitutional from a strict reading of the document. Maybe in the new country you morons want to inhabit, you can use tin cans and wire, have no air force, and live in the square footage you yourself only occupy. No thanks. I’ll take the USA any old day.

 

[PredFan]

What a fuckstick. It's turds like you that has made this country the laughing stock of the globe.

You want the US to become the true laughing stock of the world? Vote Trump....

Who cares what you losers think?

 

[P@triot]

No Air Force, no NASA, no Louisiana Purchase….

And your point would be???

As far as the Air Force - that's nonsensical. The U.S. Constitution absolutely grants authority for defense to the federal government (multiple times in fact). If you want to get technical about the name so you can cut off your nose just to spite your face - no problem. We can let the Navy or the Army absorb them. They'll still provide the same services.

As far as NASA - you are correct. A waste of trillions of dollars. However, there have been some defense applications that came out of it. That institution should be completely shut down and any part of it that does have military applications should be absorbed by the military.

And as far as the Louisiana Purchase, once again I must ask, your point would be???

Only if you interpret the Constitution (hiss!!!!) does it include an air force. It does not grant an authority for such a force. Otherwise you could quote where it does. You can’t. NASA has lead to more societal and worldwide advances than any other investment made by the people of the US. Few would argue the LA Purchase was a major instrument in westward expansion.

None of the above was constitutional from a strict reading of the document. Maybe in the new country you morons want to inhabit, you can use tin cans and wire, have no air force, and live in the square footage you yourself only occupy. No thanks. I’ll take the USA any old day.

So to be clear - you believe it's ok to break the law if you deem the results justify it?

 

[P@triot]

I’ll take the USA any old day.

But that's just it - you hate the USA and everything it stands for. You spit on the U.S. Constitution.