Obama's first evil act as president

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby chlamor » Mon Jan 26, 2009 4:54 pm

How Obama's New Rules Keep Intact
The Torture Ban That Doesn't Ban Torture
ALLAN NAIRN

January 26, 2009

If you're lying on the slab still breathing, with your torturer hanging over you, you don't much care if he is an American or a mere United States - sponsored trainee.

When President Obama declared flatly this week that "the United States will not torture" many people wrongly believed that he'd shut the practice down, when in fact he'd merely repositioned it.

Obama's Executive Order bans some -- not all -- US officials from torturing but it does not ban any of them, himself included, from sponsoring torture overseas.

Indeed, his policy change affects only a slight percentage of US-culpable tortures and could be completely consistent with an increase in US-backed torture worldwide.

The catch lies in the fact that since Vietnam, when US forces often tortured directly, the US has mainly seen its torture done for it by proxy -- paying, arming, training and guiding foreigners doing it, but usually being careful to keep Americans at least one discreet step removed.

That is, the US tended to do it that way until Bush and Cheney changed protocol, and had many Americans laying on hands, and sometimes taking digital photos.

The result was a public relations fiasco that enraged the US establishment since by exposing US techniques to the world it diminished US power.

But despite the outrage, the fact of the matter was that the Bush/Cheney tortures being done by Americans were a negligible percentage of all of the tortures being done by US clients.

For every torment inflicted directly by Americans in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo and the secret prisons, there were many times more being meted out by US-sponsored foreign forces.

Those forces were and are operating with US military, intelligence, financial or other backing in Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Jordan, Indonesia, Thailand, Uzbekistan, Colombia, Nigeria, and the Philippines, to name some places, not to mention the tortures sans-American-hands by the US-backed Iraqis and Afghans.

What the Obama dictum ostensibly knocks off is that small percentage of torture now done by Americans while retaining the overwhelming bulk of the system's torture, which is done by foreigners under US patronage.

Obama could stop backing foreign forces that torture, but he has chosen not to do so.

His Executive Order instead merely pertains to treatment of "...an individual in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, in any armed conflict..." which means that it doesn't even prohibit direct torture by Americans outside environments of "armed conflict," which is where much torture happens anyway since many repressive regimes aren't in armed conflict.

And even if, as Obama says, "the United States will not torture," it can still pay, train, equip and guide foreign torturers, and see to it that they, and their US patrons, don't face local or international justice.

This is a return to the status quo ante, the torture regime of Ford through Clinton, which, year by year, often produced more US-backed strapped-down agony than was produced during the Bush/Cheney years.

Under the old -- now new again -- proxy regime Americans would, say, teach interrogation/torture, then stand in the next room as the victims screamed, feeding questions to their foreign pupils. That's the way the US did it in El Salvador under JFK through Bush Sr. (For details see my "Behind the Death Squads: An exclusive report on the U.S. role in El Salvador’s official terror," The Progressive, May, 1984 ; the US Senate Intelligence Committee report that piece sparked is still classified, but the feeding of questions was confirmed to me by Intelligence Committee Senators. See also my "Confessions of a Death Squad Officer," The Progressive, March, 1986, and my "Comment," The New Yorker, Oct. 15, 1990,[regarding law, the US, and El Salvador]).

In Guatemala under Bush Sr. and Clinton (Obama's foreign policy mentors) the US backed the army's G-2 death squad which kept comprehensive files on dissidents and then electroshocked them or cut off their hands. (The file/ surveillance system was launched for them in the '60s and '70s by CIA/ State/ AID/ special forces; for the history see "Behind the Death Squads," cited above, and the books of Prof. Michael McClintock).

The Americans on the ground in the Guatemalan operation, some of whom I encountered and named, effectively helped to run the G-2 but, themselves, tiptoed around its torture chambers. (See my "C.I.A. Death Squad," The Nation [US], April 17, 1995, "The Country Team," The Nation [US], June 5, 1995, letter exchange with US Ambassador Stroock, The Nation [US], May 29, 1995, and Allan Nairn and Jean-Marie Simon, "Bureaucracy of Death," The New Republic, June 30, 1986).

It was a similar story in Bush Sr. and Clinton's Haiti -- an operation run by today's Obama people -- where the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) helped launch the terrorist group FRAPH, the CIA paid its leader, and FRAPH itsef laid the machetes on Haitian civilians, torturing and killing as US proxies. (See my "Behind Haiti's paramilitaries: our man in FRAPH," The Nation [US], Oct 24, 1994, and "He's our S.O.B.," The Nation [US], Oct. 31, 1994; the story was later confirmed on ABC TV's "This Week" by US Secretary of State Warren Christopher).

In today's Thailand -- a country that hardly comes to mind when most people think of torture -- special police and militaries get US gear and training for things like "target selection" and then go out and torture Thai Malay Muslms in the rebel deep south, and also sometimes (mainly Buddhist) Burmese refugees and exploited northern and west coast workers.

Not long ago I visited a key Thai interrogator who spoke frankly about army/ police/ intel torture and then closed our discussion by saying "Look at this," and invited me into his back room.

It was an up to date museum of plaques, photos and awards from US and Western intelligence, including commendations from the CIA counter-terrorism center (then run by people now staffing Obama), one-on-one photos with high US figures, including George W. Bush, a medal from Bush, various US intel/ FBI/ military training certificates, a photo of him with an Israeli colleague beside a tank in the Occupied Territories, and Mossad, Shin Bet, Singaporean, and other interrogation implements and mementos.

On my way out, the Thai intel man remarked that he was due to re-visit Langley soon.

His role is typical. There are thousands like him worldwide. US proxy torture dwarfs that at Guantanamo.

Many Americans, to their credit, hate torture. The Bush/Cheney escapade exposed that.

But to stop it they must get the facts and see that Obama's ban does not stop it, and indeed could even accord with an increase in US-sponsored torture crime.

In lieu of action, the system will grind on tonight. More shocks, suffocations, deep burns. And the convergence of thousands of complex minds on one simple thought: 'Please, let me die.'

Allan Nairn writes the blog News and Comment at www.newsc.blogspot.com.


www.counterpunch.org/nairn01262009.html

AD posted this article on it's own in the forum. It belongs here as well which relates to the overall fraud and PR ploy that is Obama.

The sooner the folks who support Obama cast off their blinders the sooner we will be heading to a place of honesty and dignity. As long as millions of folks are sucked into the political energy sink of The Democrats and Obama Inc. the Empire can continue it's death march.
Liberal thy name is hypocrisy. What's new?
chlamor
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:26 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Nordic » Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:27 am

DoYouEverWonder wrote:
Nordic wrote:Didn't it occur to anyone that these missile strikes were done without Obama's permission? This is the realm of the CIA, unmanned aerial drones killing people remotely. The CIA does what it wants, and hell, they're probably figuring they're gonna pull some shit and see what Obama does about it.

He's been President less than a week, do you think the CIA is going to wait for his permission before doing what they feel like, and what they've been doing forever?

Hell no.

Obama has almost no control over this. It will be interesting to see what happens if he DOES try to wrest control of it.

He's no idiot, he knows what happened to JFK as much as any other thinking and informed person.

My point: Why the knee-jerk blaming of this on Obama?





President orders air strikes on villages in tribal area

24 January 2009

Barack Obama gave the go-ahead for his first military action yesterday, missile strikes against suspected militants in Pakistan which killed at least 18 people.

Four days after assuming the presidency, he was consulted by US commanders before they launched the two attacks. Although Obama has abandoned many of the "war on terror" policies of George Bush while he was president, he is not retreating from the hunt for Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ja ... air-strike


And you take this at face value .... because ......??

What do you think they're gonna say?

And what do you think the press is gonna report?
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Postby vigilant » Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:22 am

RocketMan wrote:Me, I'm just at the stage of learning what we're up against. I weaned myself off the plentiful teat of mainstream discourse relatively late in life (I'm 30 and been reeling since I was 28 or so), so I'm just trying to make sense of it all. Mr. Ahmed to me seems to be one of the most even-handed, calm analysts of the current predicament there are.


Welcome to the rabbit hole. Place your tray table in the upright position for the numerous times you will be slamming head first into your own preconcieved perspectives that were modeled for you by God, uhhh..I mean the devil, and his associates.

(see Cleary's translation of book "The Golden Flower" for understanding of the phrase "turn the light around")

If your light truly and suddenly turns around and you "punch through the moon at noon" you will be freaking out at approximately the speed of light. You can survive this epiphany, or it can also be fatal....

The old saying from the movies "go ahead, scream as loud as you want, nobody can hear you anyway" is applicable. The more you try to alert fellow travelers, family, and friends, the closer you will be to being forcefully medicated and restrained in a psych ward. Busting other peoples paradigms is a dangerous sport and not recommended for the faint of heart.

In the event of a water landing you will need to know where the emergency exit is. Failure to find the emergency exit will result in prolonged periods in a "flooded" rabbit hole environment, which causes delusions, hallucinations, savior mentality, bliss, paranoia, ecstasy, angel mans syndrome, sudden death, sudden life, etc...

This is your mission, should you choose to accept it. The route to total sanity and vision, is through the route of blindness and completely delerious insanity.

Its a long trip, but worth the journey, but only if you make it out sane, which is actually insane according to the rest of humanity.

See?
The whole world is a stage...will somebody turn the lights on please?....I have to go bang my head against the wall for a while and assimilate....
vigilant
 
Posts: 2210
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Back stage...
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby compared2what? » Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:38 am

Nordic, I know you weren't addressing me. And actually, I don't take it at face value, in a sense. But only in the sense that it was obvious we were going to have to at least put a hurting on Pakistan (and possibly have a real war with them) months ago in order to protect our investment in a little piece of real estate called Afghanistan, there being no viable diplomatic alternative owing to the political impossibility of any American-backed or American-friendly or even more than coldly-American-tolerant government there facing anything but eternal hellish and bloody resistance from the populace.** It was just a question of under what auspices and in what form. I wouldn't have been incredibly surprised if Bush/Cheney had started a conflagration on their way out the door. Because they have no shame. But it didn't seem like they were going to, plus their real hard-on is for the Gulf in general, and Iran in particular. So I figured Obama would. For one thing, there's just no way that a politician who takes his advice from Zbig "Grand Chessboard" Brzezinski wouldn't be fully down with such a plan. And for another, you could kind of infer it from the out-of-Iraq, into-Afghanistan stuff he campaigned on. But to me, anyway, the former was a surer predictor than the latter. Afghanistan is just what Zbi-bi's always wanted. He practically can't keep his hands off it. And when you try to stop him, he only starts molesting parts of formerly Yugoslavia, anyway. So Pakistan was clearly where we were going.

Assuming that all goes well, and we manage to keep Azerbaijan, Armenia and Kazakhstan more on the NATO/EU than the Commie side of the equation, once we've got Afghanistan and Pakistan nailed down, that just leaves Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and...well, I guess, Georgia, arguably. Then the cold war will be over! Yay. Finally, we'll be able to get down to brass tacks with Syria and Iran, if they're still there.

Yes, I am pretending China isn't there.

**ON EDIT: Plus, India wouldn't put up with it forever.
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Trifecta » Tue Jan 27, 2009 6:56 am

cynicism is a nasty way of telling the truth
the future is already here—it just got distributed to the wealthy first
User avatar
Trifecta
 
Posts: 1013
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 4:20 am
Location: mu, the place in between dualism
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby professorpan » Tue Jan 27, 2009 11:34 am

The atrocities keep mounting:

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/122428/

Obama's Other Family-Planning Move

President Obama's decision to repeal the global gag rule ("Mexico City Policy") will make a huge difference in the lives of countless families around the world. With a stroke of a pen, Obama has taken a key step towards advancing international family planning and women's health.

But let's also note the other important move Obama made on family planning yesterday.

In a related move, Obama also said he would restore funding to the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA). Both he and Clinton had pledged to reverse a Bush administration determination that assistance to the organization violated U.S. law known as the Kemp-Kasten amendment.

Obama, in his statement, said he looked forward to working with Congress to fulfill that promise: "By resuming funding to UNFPA, the U.S. will be joining 180 other donor nations working collaboratively to reduce poverty, improve the health of women and children, prevent HIV/AIDS and provide family planning assistance to women in 154 countries."

Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, executive director of the U.N. Population Fund, said: "The president's actions send a strong message about his leadership and his desire to support causes that will promote peace and dignity, equality for women and girls and economic development in the poorest regions of the world."

Indeed, it does more than just send a message; by restoring UNFPA funding, Obama is poised to save some lives.

This never should have been controversial. In Bush's first term, the former president intended to maintain UNFPA funding at Clinton-era levels. Then- Secretary of State Colin Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, "We recognize that UNFPA does invaluable work through its programs in maternal and child health care, voluntary family planning, screening for reproductive tract cancers, breast-feeding promotion and HIV/AIDS prevention." The administration sought the money, and Congress overwhelmingly approved it.

And then, some right-wing activists with the Bush administration's ear, starting complaining bitterly. Since its inception in 1969, the Fund has won widespread recognition for its work in improving the lives of women in developing countries, but for far-right leaders, most notably in the religious right, UNFPA is a pro-abortion enterprise that supports China's one-child policy.

Bush put a hold on the money he'd already requested and received, so he could investigate UNFPA's work in China. When international investigators and a U.S. team found "no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization" in China, Bush suppressed the findings and blocked the funding anyway. It's a callous, twisted position he maintained for the rest of his terms in office.

Because of Bush's actions on UNFPA, fewer women in developing countries received pre-natal care, fewer doctors were trained to deal with pregnancy complications, fewer HIV prevention programs could operate, and less medical equipment was made available to expectant mothers.

Obama is going to make this right.
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby RocketMan » Tue Jan 27, 2009 11:48 am

Prof. Jonathan Turley: Obama accomplice in war crime if fails to prosecute Bush officials.

http://rawstory.com/rawreplay/?p=2827
-I don't like hoodlums.
-That's just a word, Marlowe. We have that kind of world. Two wars gave it to us and we are going to keep it.
User avatar
RocketMan
 
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:02 am
Location: By the rivers dark
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Cosmic Cowbell » Tue Jan 27, 2009 11:55 am

Thanks for keeping us up to date on the evil doings of the evil doer Professor.....

Image

Not bad for the first week. Now if certain thread participants would be so kind and answer the very simple question you asked in another thread (to paraphrase), "What's your plan"...in their own words.

chlamor, I found some of those parts above from various posters at this link in the comments section -- 14. being a key one. They're all great points, but since they aren't all original with you, a link seems appropriate. Thanks.


Not the first time BTW...

~C
User avatar
Cosmic Cowbell
 
Posts: 1774
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 5:20 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby professorpan » Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 pm

Not the first time BTW...


And I was accused of boilerplate...
:roll:
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby compared2what? » Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:29 pm

Pan, I'm glad to see you back on the thread. Did you have a chance to read the Army Field Manual on interrogation techniques to which Obama is reverting?

Did you notice that when it come to terrorism suspects, the techniques it explicitly permits include but are not limited to: isolation; prolonged sleep deprivation for 30-day-increments, with an increment-renewable-on-request option; sensory deprivation; "Fear Up" techniques (basically, the exploitation of an existing fear and/or the creation of a new fear, plus psychological manipulation thereof)?

When Judge Crawford threw out the case against Mohammed Al Qatani because his treatment "met the legal definition of torture" a week or two ago, those were the very techniques she was referring to.

On the good news tip: Waterboarding is not, in the letter of the law, a permissible interrogation method anymore. But then again, according to the last administration, it already wasn't.

professorpan wrote:I'm sure he will do plenty of things that will piss me off. And I will be outspoken when that occurs, just as I've been outspoken about any politician, regardless of party. But unlike the Obama-can-do-no-good RI brigade, I have now seen evidence that he will do some, possibly many, very good things.


As an opponent of torture whose President just signed orders his administration depicted as a torture ban that in fact made interrogation techniques which meet both the common-sense and legal definitions of torture the new universal standard, do you now feel any need to be outspoken? As you would about any politician?

I too see evidence that he will do some good things, btw. And I hope that he will do many good things, although I myself don't see evidence that he will yet.

Torture's not a gray area to me, however. Neither is rhetorically deceptive Presidential showboating on issues as serious as torture is. They're both clearly unacceptable, and have to be protested in the most outspoken and plainspoken terms possible.

Perhaps you agree with me. And if not, perhaps you can change my mind. So let me know, either way.

Thanks,

c2w
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby RocketMan » Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:55 pm

Now if certain thread participants would be so kind and answer the very simple question you asked in another thread (to paraphrase), "What's your plan"...in their own words.


I don't much care for the self-righteous tone. I don't need to have a "plan" to cast a critical eye on the Obama administration just as one does not need a plan to post uncritical praise of Obama and deride those who aren't drinking the same brand of Kool-Aid.

Like I previously said, I'm personally at the stage of learning about a new way to look at the world, one where there aren't any individual saviors and where U.S. foreign policy is much more of a continuity than dependent upon different administrations.

I think it's as unreasonable and unhelpful to demand a fully formed political action plan as it is to demand a thorough explication of what happenened on 9/11 if someone is not satisfied with the official account.
-I don't like hoodlums.
-That's just a word, Marlowe. We have that kind of world. Two wars gave it to us and we are going to keep it.
User avatar
RocketMan
 
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:02 am
Location: By the rivers dark
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby American Dream » Tue Jan 27, 2009 1:06 pm

I was going to remove this post and place it here, but I think it deserves a highlight. The final paragraph alone is worth its weight in gold:

Take-home message: Gitmo is a symptom. Barack Obama is a symptom. Obama promising to close Gitmo is like placing a band-aid over a cancerous tumor.

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2009/01/o ... hypocrisy/

Obama, Guantánamo, and US Hypocrisy
by Mickey Z. / January 26th, 2009



Snapshots from the United States of Incarceration…

So, the Pope of Hope announced his (purported) objective of closing the military detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba (“Gitmo”) within one year and we’re expected to herald this announcement as a drastic break from the past. But—as some of the regulars on my blog instantly declared—if President Obama were serious about hope and change, he’d close the prison tomorrow, apologize to the detainees, and offer them financial reparations. That could be promptly followed up with the immediate indictment of all government officials (including those in Obama’s administration) responsible for supporting torture, secret prisons, extraordinary rendition, extrajudicial punishment, etc. And why not toss in the immediate closing of the US military base at Guantánamo Bay and the return of that land to Cuba? That, I submit, would be a minuscule first step upon which we could build.

Waiting a year to close a single prison is nothing to celebrate. Transferring those illegally detained humans is not change anyone can believe in. Public promises about not torturing have been heard before and even if we could trust such dubious assurances, why are we so goddamned appreciative when a US president merely declares his theoretical intention to think about adhering to fundamental international law?

The Chairman of Change has made no secret of how he wholeheartedly adores the bogus war on terror. Closing Gitmo (an act which still falls squarely into the believe-it-when-you-see-it category) is at best a strategic sidestep by a cautious and calculating new president.

A related New York Times piece began oh-so-cleverly: “Is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed coming to a prison near you?” In the Jan. 24, 2009 article—“Guantánamo Detainees? Not in My State,”—journalists (sic) Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane wrung their hands over the 245 remaining inmates being “released into quiet neighborhoods across the United States.” It’s illustrative of the utter depravity we tolerate as normal in the home of the brave that war criminals like Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright, Dick Cheney, Wesley Clark, Colin Powell, Bill Clinton, etc. etc. walk freely among us while the newspaper of record preys on gullible readers with sensationalism and xenophobic fear mongering.

In that same Times article, Mazzetti and Shane inadvertently offered another manifestation of America’s cultural rot when they mentioned a discussion of reopening San Francisco’s Alcatraz Prison specifically for the assumed terrorists detained (illegally) at Gitmo. But a spokesman for California Senator Diane Feinstein was quick to clarify that Alcatraz was a “national park and tourist attraction, not a functioning prison,” and that the senator “does not consider it a suitable place to house detainees.”

I suggest you take a few seconds to contemplate the depth of moral vacuity it requires for a society to accept a former prison as a national park and tourist attraction. Alcatraz is not an ancient artifact that curious humans are lining up to explore but rather, it’s merely a inactive part of still fully active injustice system. More than one out of every 100 American adults is imprisoned in the land of the free while others plunk down cash to tour a prison?

As of December 31, 2007: 2,193,157 prisoners were held in Federal or State prisons or in local jails. That’s an estimated 506 prison inmates per 100,000 US residents. Breaking it down more specifically, there are…

481 white male prison inmates per 100,000 white males in the US
1,259 Hispanic male inmates per 100,000 Hispanic males
3,138 black male inmates per 100,000 black males

(Of course, this doesn’t include all the dis-labeled folks locked in nursing homes against their will and the innumerable animals in laboratories, zoos, etc.)

As Angela Davis sez: “There’s always a tendency to push prisons to the fringes of our awareness [so] we don’t have to deal with what happens inside of these horrifying institutions.”

Take-home message: Gitmo is a symptom. Barack Obama is a symptom. Obama promising to close Gitmo is like placing a band-aid over a cancerous tumor.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Cosmic Cowbell » Tue Jan 27, 2009 1:25 pm

RocketMan wrote:I don't much care for the self-righteous tone.


For the record, I could give less of a shit what you do (or do not) care for. I hope that's clear....
RocketMan wrote:I don't need to have a "plan" to cast a critical eye on the Obama administration just as one does not need a plan to post uncritical praise of Obama and deride those who aren't drinking the same brand of Kool-Aid.


We will never agree as long as those on the whiny, bitchy side of the equation label those who don't whine, bitch and moan "kool aid drinkers" "obamabots" etc etc.. Since we're in a labeling mood, I knew it wouldn't be long for the Chlamor Hipster Fanboy Army to make it's presence known. Cue Code Unknown and the rest...

RocketMan wrote:Like I previously said, I'm personally at the stage of learning about a new way to look at the world, one where there aren't any individual saviors and where U.S. foreign policy is much more of a continuity than dependent upon different administrations.

I think it's as unreasonable and unhelpful to demand a political action plan as it is to demand a thorough explication of what happenened on 9/11 if someone is not fully satisfied with the official account.


Nobody is asking for a detailed plan. The question is simply what are you for. We already know what your against (ad nauseum). Is it Anarchic revolution? Communism, or do you just want everyone to 'get along'? The better question might be, what are you willing to give up to attain your world of 'shangri-la'?

Unless you offer realistic, attainable alternatives, IMO, you're simply a bunch of hipster whiners looking to impress the chicks at the next P.I. party.

(I'll simply assume you don't care for that tone either...LOL).
User avatar
Cosmic Cowbell
 
Posts: 1774
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 5:20 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby vigilant » Tue Jan 27, 2009 1:36 pm

Cosmic Cowbell wrote:Thanks for keeping us up to date on the evil doings of the evil doer Professor.....

Image

Not bad for the first week. Now if certain thread participants would be so kind and answer the very simple question you asked in another thread (to paraphrase), "What's your plan"...in their own words.

chlamor, I found some of those parts above from various posters at this link in the comments section -- 14. being a key one. They're all great points, but since they aren't all original with you, a link seems appropriate. Thanks.


Not the first time BTW...

~C



Always enjoy reading your posts whether I agree with em or not...

But this un here gave me the giggles. It struck my funny bone hard. Thanks for this one, it made my day...

You do realize don't you, that you just posted an artistic rendition of the Pyramid and All Seeing Eye, in the same post with a pro Obama message? This little logo you posted signifies a pyramid due to the shape of the hands, the hole in the middle is the eye, and the rays shooting outward, etc...its got it all bud.

So you might want to be a little more careful next time you decide to illustrate your point with graphics.

(i'm still laughing my ass off on this un, and i'm wondering if you're not jerking our chain. was this really a pro Obama post?)



Nobody is asking for a detailed plan. The question is simply what are you for. We already know what your against (ad nauseum). Is it Anarchic revolution? Communism, or do you just want everyone to 'get along'? The better question might be, what are you willing to give up to attain your world of 'shangri-la'?

Unless you offer realistic, attainable alternatives, IMO, you're simply a bunch of hipster whiners looking to impress the chicks at the next P.I. party.


What is it with this "you must give up something to get something" jedi politician mind trick that people don't see? These people just stole a few trillion dollars. They are partying big and living large, while half of us are running around thinking, "any crumbs we get must be paid for by giving up something" because the nation is broke.

Damn sure is broke. Peek in pyramid wallet Obama has in his pocket, you'll find a lot of loot. With the amount of loot they are stealing right this moment, trillions by the way, we could all party in Shangra La for the next few hundred years. By the way its the "fruit of our labor and energy" they are partying with. Their idea of a party is take our money, kill some more people with it, take their stuff too, and use our patriotic bodies as the cannon fodder. Yes Obama voted for all this.

I'm more in the mood to ask, "what are you willing to gain, by locking these folks up, breaking into their piggy banks, and getting your hard work back in your own pocket". Willing to give up? That trips me out. I call it 'brainwashed', because that is what most of our nation is.

Alternative 1: Demand that these folks spend the rest of their life in gitmo, take their piggy banks so we can gitmo of our stuff back, and spend the money unbrainwashing our country.
The whole world is a stage...will somebody turn the lights on please?....I have to go bang my head against the wall for a while and assimilate....
vigilant
 
Posts: 2210
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Back stage...
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Cosmic Cowbell » Tue Jan 27, 2009 2:18 pm

vigilant wrote:Always enjoy reading your posts whether I agree with em or not...

But this un here gave me the giggles. It struck my funny bone hard. Thanks for this one, it made my day...

You do realize don't you, that you just posted an artistic rendition of the Pyramid and All Seeing Eye, in the same post with a pro Obama message? This little logo you posted signifies a pyramid due to the shape of the hands, the hole in the middle is the eye, and the rays shooting outward, etc...its got it all bud.

So you might want to be a little more careful next time you decide to illustrate your point with graphics.

(i'm still laughing my ass off on this un, and i'm wondering if you're not jerking our chain. was this really a pro Obama post?)


Hmmm...I was under the assumption that the image represented 1/2 of the international sign for a blowjob....different strokes I suppose.

vigilant wrote:Alternative 1: Demand that these folks spend the rest of their life in gitmo, take their piggy banks so we can gitmo of our stuff back, and spend the money unbrainwashing our country.


Hey...that's a GREAT idea....see, that wasn't so hard now was it. Tell you what, you, Chalmor, Rocketman, Ninakat and the rest go on up ahead and get started OK...I'll be right behind you...promise.
User avatar
Cosmic Cowbell
 
Posts: 1774
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 5:20 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 156 guests