Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by poncho, May 23, 2013.
By Paul Craig Roberts
Great stuff, Poncho. Thank you
The source, Prison Planet, says:
"It doesn’t occur to the conservative writer that something is amiss when marshall law is established over one of America’s main cities and its metropolitan area, 10,000 heavily armed troops are put on the streets with tanks, and citizens are ordered out of their homes with their hands over their heads, all of this just to search for one wounded 19-year old suspect."
It did occur to this conservative that Boston is a very liberal place and that the liberals were in charge of this all the way. They even had the US Attorney for the area speak at the press conference following the capture. I don't know why the US Attorney was there at all. I don't think that there was a conservative for miles in any direction.
It was the local Boston police with the help of the Federal government that conducted that dragnet in Boston. It was somewhat of a local matter. As a small-town Hoosier, what influence could I have had had in what the police in another city hundreds of miles away did? And why should I voice an uneducated opinion on how another city's police handle an investigation? Why am I as a conservative being blamed for what a Democrat city, state, and federal government did?
Last time we talked CMG I posted a link to a report from the Brookings Institution. Which Path To Persia. Remember? You couldn't be bothered with it because "it was written by liberals". Now without much surprise you are blaming the liberals in Boston for the police state they have there.
One question. If this Big Brother police state attitude is the fault of local liberals why is the exact same thing happening at the exact same time even with the exact same type of legislation all over the world?
The Big Brother police state is taking shape on a global level it's not just a local policy but a global one.
Paul Craig Roberts (the source of the article) might have had you in mind when he wrote this piece. No offence meant
CMG but you are a good example of what PCR is talking about. If it doesn't fit your agenda it's not fit to think about.
No one is blaming you for what happened in Boston just like no one blamed you for what happened in NOLA after Katrina.
We have to stop looking at everything as a left vs right issue or we're all going to be to blame for the global police state dictatorship that is being built right in front of our eyes while we waste time and energy fighting amongst ourselves.
What is Brookings "liberal" foreign policy? Arm radical muslims and set them loose on regimes targeted for "regime change". Spun so liberals will think it's some great humanitarian cause.
Skip over to the "conservative" corporate sponsored think tank the Heritage Foundation. What do they suggest as a foreign policy? Arm radical muslims and set them loose on the regime targeted for "regime change". Spun so conservatives will think it's some great fight against the Islamic hoards that want to destroy us.
It's the same policy sponsored by the same huge multinational corporations being carried out under both democratic and republican administrations. Sponsored by the same giant multinational banks and corporations. The only difference is how it's sold to liberals and conservatives. The only reason people refuse to see the obvious is because we are so locked into the false left vs right debate we're blinded to the truth.
We either wake up and stop letting ourselves be manipulated by the foreign bankers and corporations that use these "think tanks" to control us now or we just keep letting them divide us and learn to love being their slaves.
Poncho, I have dozens of books here that I haven't read and then you linked me to a 143 page book, or white paper, called Which Path to Persia? You were saying that it was the source of Obama's Iranian policy, and I conceded that you probably are correct since Brookings is an ultra-left think tank and Obama is not known for hard work.
As for Boston, I can't tell if it was heavy-handed or not. I think that that is for the people of Boston to decide to some extent. I now live in a suburbs and have a small corn/soybean field across the street but I would expect a state of emergency called by my township or county if there was terrorism in town.
I just don't see how I can criticize Democrat-run Boston for something that looks okay from a distance. I guess that they did shut everything down but everything probably would have shut down anyway. The economic loss would have been less than the shutdown for Hurricane Sandy. Big cities do have shutdowns from time to time.
As for the GOP foreign policy being the same as the Democrats, I have to disagree. The GOP was not fooled by the Arab Spring and has never liked the Democrat policy towards Iran. The GOP thinks that there is a war against terrorism.
The GOP wasn't fooled by the "arab spring"? That's strange because I never heard anyone from the GOP explain how the "color revolutions" we've seen taking place we're instigated by the corporate sponsored NGOs that work hand in hand with the state dept. But I have heard the GOP spin it to fit their own agenda to fund and arm radical islamist groups and use them to overthrow the "bad guys" that refuse to do business with the multinational corporate sponsors of the democratic and republican parties.
I do remember it was Tony Cartalucci that wasn't fooled by the "color revolutions" and how he connected all the dots between the multinational corporate sponsors of the NGO and both political parties.
I don't hear the GOP explaining why the exact same type of "events" are being used as pretexts in the exact same ways to reduce civil liberties and install the exact same type of Big Brother police states all over the world using practically the same type of police state legislation as they and their democratic "opponents" are using here.
If the GOP thinks we're in a war against terrorism then how come so many of them have come out in support of known terrorists groups like MEK? Even to the point of being paid lobbyists for them? How is it that the GOP's foreign policy is the same as the democrats foreign policy that differs only in how fast they want to arm the radical islamic groups that the state dept and it's corporate sponsored NGO's having been working with? I never hear about the GOP taking Obama to task about cutting congress out of the loop when it comes to the UN and NATO being in command of our military now. I never hear the GOP threatening to cut off the funding for the unconstitutional illegal wars started by Bush and expanded by Obama. I never hear the GOP do anything but complain about Obama using drones to kill american citizens without due process. I hear them huffing and puffing to score political points with the few faithful GOPers that are left. But that's about it.
In the long run, Poncho, you know that you are closer to the Democrats than the GOP because you are more critical of the GOP, right?
As well he should be more critical...
Probably because of those within the party who are know as "conservative".
I remember the days of JFK (an avowed liberal - I heard him say so in a speech) who seemed then more of a conservative than many in the GOP today.
I'm sure you believe the same about anyone that criticizes the GOP. The fact of the matter is I got stuck in a time warp and can't get out.
When the GOP got co opted by big government, all war all the time, endless debt, anti liberty, constitution hating, neo liberal neocons I clung to my limited government, pro liberty, anti needless war, pro life, conservative roots. Evidently you don't have that problem.
So it comes as no surprise that you'd think me a traitor to the GOP.
Just to clarify when I say pro life I mean all life as God intended and Jesus taught not just the life of pre born Americans. A life that gets snuffed out at 19 years of age in a needless unconstitutional illegal war or by a drone from 20,000 feet without due process of law is every bit as precious as a life that gets snuffed out in the womb. IMHO.
If all that makes me a bad person in your eyes then what does that make you?
Poncho, I don't think of anyone as a traitor to a political party. You have a God-given right to freedom of belief. I just don't see that the GOP is actually "me, too" on foreign policy, as you say. Personally, I did not like Mubarak because of his ill-treatment of the Copts and his inability to cope with the squalor and poverty of Egypt. But I did not want Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood and American fighter planes going to Egypt. I am for a military build-up of American power, and I would like to see a re-examination of so many troops in Europe. I was in favor of missiles in Poland. I did not want Iraq to slip back into the orbit of Iran, if it has. Mostly I am in favor of the development of domestic oil supplies and the abandonment of the Arab world to the Europeans who actually consume the oil from there. Whatever Obama was trying to do surreptitiously in Libya, the disgrace is that he did not have use enough resources to get it done.
"Poncho, I don't think of anyone as a traitor to a political party. You have a God-given right to freedom of belief. I just don't see that the GOP is actually "me, too" on foreign policy, as you say."
I didn't say republicans are "me too" I said both parties are controlled by the same um what you might call "special interests". I call them the foreign banks and corporations because that's who they are. How can the republicans have different foreign policy than the democrats when the policy is being dictated to them by the same interests that dictate foreign policy to the democrats?
The only difference is in the approach the republicans sell the policy to you. At it's core it's the same interventionist policy that the government under different administrations have been acting on for decades.
The democrats sell it as a "humanitarian" policy, the republicans sell it as "being tough on terrorism". When the rubber meets road it's always the same we step in arm the "opposition", divide the population, cause civil war, create a lot of dead bodies and refugees, install a "friendly government" that will let the foreign banks and corporations come in and loot whatever is left that is of any value.
There's nothing patriotic about it. It's not about red white and blue it's only blood red and dollar green. It's not about protecting our freedom, it's not about liberating others. There's nothing humanitarian about it at all. It's cold blooded neo colonialism painted with a thin coat of whatever it takes to get us all to go along with it. Period.
So the two foreign policies are just alike except different. The Democrats have a humanitarian policy and the Democrats are in power. So the Democrats prevail, and you can save your criticism of the GOP because they have only been invited to the restaurant with Obama once in 4 1/2 years. Your criticism is not with the Democrats but with the corporations, but give the Democrats more power in 2014 and we won't have any more corporations left because we will be in another undeniable Depression. As for your party, you can go to the restaurant with the Democrats because you will be the only ones left to sit at the table with the Democrats to challenge what you call their humanitarianism overseas.
That makes no sense CMG. You are the one claiming there are two foreign policies. I'm saying there's one foreign policy. Here, I'll say it again "there's only one foreign policy" okay?
One does not mean two. One equals one. One. There just one foreign policy and it's formulated by the foreign banks and corporations and it's sold to the public and the government through the think tanks and mass media they control and through an army of lobbyists on capital hill.
As we say down here in Tn "it don't make no nevermind to them" which party is "in control" of government because they control both parties. Get it now? It's like a horse race where all the horses have the same owner.
Okay now you think I'm being unfair to the corrupt establishment republicans because it seems to you that I don't give equal time to bashing the corrupt establishment democrats. Is that about right?
It ain't like that at all CMG. No it ain't. I just figure you all are doing a wonderful job of it and you don't me to tell you something you already know. What could I add to your agruments about democrats and liberals that you haven't fivured out on your own, except for the fact that the democrats are bought and paid for by the same people that bought and paid for the republicans?
Once you figure out how true that last part is CMG it'll be like the flood gates opening up and you'll arrive at a whole new level of understanding about a lot of these policies both parties have been using to turn this country into a third
world big brother militarized police state hell hole. I promise!
The whole left vs right debate is a sham. It's divide and conquer. It keeps us focued on our own little political agendas so we'll never be able to see the big picture and it ain't a pretty picture to behold once you do manage to crawl out of false left vs right paradigm and see how the world really operates.
We disagree, Poncho, that both parties have a core interventionist foreign policy designed by banks and corporations, although I am sure that we can agree that financial interests do lobby the government for help overseas and perhaps we can agree that the government should act in the best interests of both our people and our financial interests.
It was your source Paul Craig Roberts who said that conservatives should be critical of shutting down Boston--something that from the distance of the Middle West seems practical and something that conservatives had nothing to do with.
As you know, I am an expert on nothing with opinions on everything, and I can agree with you that we can live through bad leadership of both parties. I believe in the old Eisenhower policy of peace through strength.
All I know is government is fed it's policies by the minnions working for the foreign banking cartel and the transnational corporations. And the only way you can disagree with it is if ignore all the evidence that is staring you right in the face any time you check out who is sponsoring all these "think tanks" or who controls the mass corporate media or who sponsors orgs like La Raza or who the lobbyists work for.
It's always the same foreign banks and huge multinational corporations that share the same lust for money power and control.
The evidence is manifest. But I understand your agenda to beat the puppets in the democratic party "next time around" is way more important than beating the puppeteers that control them now.
I get that CMG. I've always got that.
Now let's everyone hold hands democrats and republicans alike and all march over the cliff together. Ready? Let's go, yer left vs right yer left vs right yer left vs right yer left vs right yer left vs right . . .
Arming Al Qaeda: It's Okay It's Bipartisan
Does that sound like two "different" foreign policies or the same old thing? Arm the opposition, divide the population, create civil war, increase the body count and refugees, install a "friendly" dictatorship that will allow the foreign banks and corporations to go in and claim anything left that has any value.
Same o same o.
Yer left, yer left, yer left vs right, yer left vs right, yer left vs right . . .
Divide and conquer. The art and science of pitting two or more groups against each other in order to drain their energy, waste their time and keep them from forming a united front against an invading or occupying force.
"...To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." Zbigniew Brzezinski
Two parties, one policy. Yer left, yer left, yer left vs right, yer left vs right, yer left vs right . . .
"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting" Sun Tzu
Wake up and unite all ye barbarians, let us take our country back from the foreign banking and corporate occupiers.
One Way Or Another
Who's policy is this CMG?
That is a pretty good take on things. The only thing I would disagree with is the degree of credibility you give the GOP. To put it my way, there is a difference between the two major parties, it just takes an electron microscope to see it. I think the two Senators from my state illustrate the point in clarity. I live in Kentucky, and our Senators are Paul and McConnell. Mitch McConnell is a typical, big government, establishment politician, more concerned with his political power than governing by the Constitution. When Rand Paul ran in the Republican Primary, Mitch opposed him vigorously. Paul won by 58% of the vote, and about the same margin in the General Election. Paul represents what the Republican Party needs to be, or at least a step towards it. Until people like McConnell are taken out of leadership (hope we the people of Kentucky solve that in 2014) and office, and are replaced by Paul type leadership, the gap will remain narrow with the Democrats.
Other than that, we agree. Here is a question to ponder though, which is worse, the deceit of the Obama administration or the Nixon administration? They both played games with the IRS, and personally, I believe either would stop at nothing to acheive their goals if they can get by with it. Nixon did not.