Asses of Evil

Here it is. The smoking gun. The memo that has "IMPEACH HIM" written all over it.

The top-level government memo marked "SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL," dated eight months before Bush sent us into Iraq, following a closed meeting with the President, reads, "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Read that again: "The intelligence and facts were being fixed...."

For years, after each damning report on BBC TV, viewers inevitably ask me, "Isn't this grounds for impeachment?" -- vote rigging, a blind eye to terror and the bin Ladens before 9-11, and so on. Evil, stupidity and self-dealing are shameful but not impeachable. What's needed is a "high crime or misdemeanor."

And if this ain't it, nothing is.

The memo, uncovered this week by the Times, goes on to describe an elaborate plan by George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to hoodwink the planet into supporting an attack on Iraq knowing full well the evidence for war was a phony.

A conspiracy to commit serial fraud is, under federal law, racketeering. However, the Mob's schemes never cost so many lives.

Here's more. "Bush had made up his mind to take military action. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

Really? But Mr. Bush told us, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

A month ago, the Silberman-Robb Commission issued its report on WMD intelligence before the war, dismissing claims that Bush fixed the facts with this snooty, condescending conclusion written directly to the President, "After a thorough review, the Commission found no indication that the Intelligence Community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons."

We now know the report was a bogus 618 pages of thick whitewash aimed to let Bush off the hook for his murderous mendacity.

Read on: The invasion build-up was then set, says the memo, "beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections." Mission accomplished.

You should parse the entire memo -- posted on my website -- and see if you can make it through its three pages without losing your lunch.

Now sharp readers may note they didn't see this memo, in fact, printed in the New York Times. It wasn't. Rather, it was splashed across the front pages of the Times of LONDON on Monday.

It has effectively finished the last, sorry remnants of Tony Blair's political career. (While his Labor Party will most assuredly win the elections Thursday, Prime Minister Blair is expected, possibly within months, to be shoved overboard in favor of his Chancellor of the Exchequer, a political execution which requires only a vote of the Labour party's members in Parliament.)

But in the US, barely a word. The New York Times covers this hard evidence of Bush's fabrication of a casus belli as some "British" elections story. Apparently, our President's fraud isn't "news fit to print."

My colleagues in the UK press have skewered Blair, digging out more incriminating memos, challenging the official government factoids and fibs. But in the US press nada, bubkes, zilch. Bush fixed the facts and somehow that's a story for "over there."

The Republicans impeached Bill Clinton over his cigar and Monica's affections. And the US media could print nothing else.

Now, we have the stone, cold evidence of bending intelligence to sell us on death by the thousands, and neither a Republican Congress nor what is laughably called US journalism thought it worth a second look.

My friend Daniel Ellsberg once said that what's good about the American people is that you have to lie to them. What's bad about Americans is that it's so easy to do.


-----------
Greg Palast is author of the New York Times bestseller, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. Read the memo in its entirety at www.GregPalast.com

I think it was actually called "The Axis of Evil"

Ya I know.. I was saying Asses of Evil for the Bush Adminstration

Yeah Bush and Ass are Synonymous.

If this memo turns out to be real, I'm all for his impeachment. But I'll reserve most judgment until I know more.

Even if it's real though, I doubt anything will happen. The Republicans in Congress actually changed ethics rules to try and a shield House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) from probes into his dealings with Washington lobbyists. Luckily, the media actually covered it and opinion polls of the House GOP fell drastically forcing them to change the rules back. But it's still unlikely they would do anything against their man, W. You've never seen any group circle the wagons until you've seen Republicans in action.

Why is it that the republicans are so ruthless? Once they find a flaw, which they always do, they enhance it, and overly-exaggerate it until that person is left hopeless and speechless. I have to give it to republicans, they are great at campaigning because all they do is slander democrats. I remember a poll done by NBC, or CNN, one of those, that compared the amount of time slandering, to the amount of time actually talking about their plan. It was something outrageous like 70/30%, meaning if they were speaking for 30 minutes, 20 minutes of it would be slandering, and the final 10 minutes would actually outline their plan, which isnt much.

OK, this website gregpalast.com is a totally liberal skewed site. Not only that, but this guy is totally biased to the left. His whole website is devoted to bush-bashing. Here is the memo he says the London Times found:

Quote:

---

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT

(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)

---

When the hell does the memo end and the editorial resume? When it says "The two broad US options were:..." or,"Conclusions:..."????

Here is the page for the London Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,2086,00.html

Ok why isn't this story, which would be HUGE if it were real, on the front page? After searching for the words "bush memo", no results were found. Hmmmmm, I think our friend Greg Palast might just be full of shit.... lets do a google search....

Wow, what a surpriese! I din't find anything in 8 pages about this this! They were all about that national guard memo in Texas that says bush was AWOL... and that was during the campaign... Apparently this Greg Pallast is affiliated with the BBC... one fo the most liberal slanted news orginazations out there.....

Anyone who wants to prove the validity of Greg Palast's claims, or the validity of this memo, is welcome to try.

It does seem like slander BS, but who knows whats true now a days, lol!

Dude, did you read my post? There is NO MENTION of this memo anywhere but this Greg Palast's website! Look for yourself!

XTC I am kinda surprised by your post altho i havent spent any time reading any back posts. But going on our past conversations I wouldnt have expected you to be questioning the US media...... but I'm glad you are.

bush impeached??funny.

Did anyone read my post? I basically proved that this website is complete garbage, yet morlbory continues to believe.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...593607,00.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...5_intel06.html

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/pro..._the_facts.php

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, May 06, 2005
Washington, DC
Progressive Democrats of America Make National Call of Support for Congressional Letter Demanding Investigation of British Intelligence Leak on Iraq Invasion Strategy

Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), ranking minority member of the House Judiciary Committee, has released a letter signed by 88 fellow Representatives. The letter demands an investigation into the revelation that the American and British governments colluded secretly to manipulate intelligence as a means of justifying a decision to invade Iraq that had already been made. The Conyers letter and names of the House signatories can be read here:

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democ...emoltr5505.pdf

The revelations came on Monday, May 2nd by way of a report published in the London Telegraph, which described a leaked British intelligence memo from July of 2002. The memo, stamped "Secret, " described concerted efforts by both British and American officials to "fix intelligence and facts around the policy." The policy in question was the invasion of Iraq. The memo noted specifically that the invasion would be illegal if a justification were not found or created.

The London Telegraph report can be read here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, , 2087-1592724, 00.html

The British memo in question can be read here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, , 2087-1593607, 00.html

Rep. Conyers' letter specifically notes that the secret British memo includes revelations that:

* Prime Minister Tony Blair chaired a meeting at which he discussed military options, having already committed himself to supporting President Bush's plans for invading Iraq.
* British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw acknowledged that the case for war was "thin" as "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran."
* A separate secret briefing for the meeting said that Britain and America had to "create" conditions to justify a war.
* A British official "reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

The information revealed by this memo, which has not been denied by either the American or British governments, confirms accusations by a wide variety of 'whistleblowers' who have accused the Bush administration of manufacturing evidence for war against Iraq. Among these are:

* Richard Clarke, former White House Counter-Terrorism Czar, who accused the administration of using the September 11 attacks to justify an Iraq invasion, thus creating the political cover described in the British memo.
* Tom Maertens, National Security Council director for nuclear non-proliferation for both the Clinton and Bush White House, backed up Clarke's story with his own eyewitness testimony.
* Roger Cressey, Clarke's former deputy, who witnessed one of the most damning charges that has been leveled against the administration by Clarke: They blew past al Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks, focusing instead on Iraq.
* Donald Kerrick, a three-star General who served as deputy National Security Advisor under Clinton and stayed for several months in the Bush White House, likewise saw this happening.
* Paul O'Neill, former Treasury Secretary for George W. Bush, was afforded a position on the National Security Council because of his job as Treasury Secretary, and sat in on the Iraq invasion planning sessions which were taking place months before the attacks of September 11. Those planning sessions kicked into high gear when the Towers came down.
* Greg Thielmann, former Director of the Office of Strategic, Proliferation, and Military Issues in the State Department, who was stunned to see the White House use the 'uranium from Niger' war justifications that had been so thoroughly debunked.
* Joseph Wilson, former ambassador and career diplomat, who personally debunked the uranium story after traveling to Niger to investigate the claims.

The most damning testimony regarding "fixing intelligence and facts around the policy" came from Air Force Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski in a 2004 interview with Salon magazine.

The Kwiakatowski interview with Salon can be read here:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature...10/osp_moveon/

Kwiatkowski worked in the office of Undersecretary for Policy Douglas Feith, and worked specifically with a secretive Pentagon organization run by Feith called the Office of Special Plans. Kwiatkowski reported: "From May 2002 until February 2003, I observed firsthand the formation of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans and watched the latter stages of the neoconservative capture of the policy-intelligence nexus in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq."

"I saw a narrow and deeply flawed policy, " continued Kwiatkowski, "favored by some executive appointees in the Pentagon used to manipulate and pressurize the traditional relationship between policymakers in the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies. I witnessed neoconservative agenda bearers within OSP usurp measured and carefully considered assessments, and through suppression and distortion of intelligence analysis promulgate what were in fact falsehoods to both Congress and the executive office of the president."

Progressive Democrats of America stands with Rep. Conyers and the 88 House members who are signatories to his letter and demands that a full and complete investigation be immediately undertaken into this matter.

Media Contact for this release:
Kimberly Krautter
Toll Free (877) 368-9221
[email protected]

What I was asking was, why isn't this on the front page? If this were truly damning of the Iraq war, the media would give it practically 24/7 coverage.... why when i search for it in google, does it come up with nothing but that Texas Air National Guard memo? Maybe because this memo is not that important.

if keith olberman on msnbc isnt chasing it,the story isnt impotant to liberals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hydrizzle

What I was asking was, why isn't this on the front page? If this were truly damning of the Iraq war, the media would give it practically 24/7 coverage.... why when i search for it in google, does it come up with nothing but that Texas Air National Guard memo? Maybe because this memo is not that important.

---

Could it be that the media is controlled and is told what to print and what NOT to print? Do you believe only what the media puts on the front page? Why do so many people distrust Bush if he is genuinely trustworthy? The man is obviously mentally handi-capped. Ask him a question that involves deep thought, and you get a confused look and stammering. Or even a question that requires a truthfull answer. Stuttering and stupid Bush. Why defend this? A figurehead for the Alluminati is all he is.

A nazi like police force and fear are the only things keeping questions from being answered truthfully and the people from revolting. The amunition is there to defeat this tyrannical government if enough of the people could only find the balls to use it. Maybe when enough people are unemployed and enough of our children die for the will of the Elite, things will change. But I doubt it. Americans have become fat wimps. As long as we have a meal and a paycheck the boat don't rock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cannabist00

A nazi like police force and fear are the only things keeping questions from being answered truthfully and the people from revolting. The amunition is there to defeat this tyrannical government if enough of the people could only find the balls to use it. Maybe when enough people are unemployed and enough of our children die for the will of the Elite, things will change. But I doubt it. Americans have become fat wimps. As long as we have a meal and a paycheck the boat don't rock.

---

Are you saying that we should revolt agaisnt the US? Well, I'll be one of the real freedom-fighters drawin a bead on your head while you try to put in your communist dictatorship. Bye the way have you compared the statistics of our country to those of others? We are way far ahead of the game. I think those might go down alot of a revolution happened dumass.

I think someone on these Boards Said. Well I don't care if Bush lied about the Iraqi war. Or maybe it was on another political board I frequent and they also said you can't be impeached for just lieing. I say to that first, its easy for YOU to say you don't care. But what about the Troops who were told that Our information was ROCK solid on the WOMD. Now it might be that Bush Fixed information or Fed lies to the Troops to get them to Iraq. Also it is an impeachable, Rackettering, being fraudulant to gain money is Rackettering. And Bush gained A LOT of money in Military Funding due to Iraq.

I'm glad to see that the Downing Memo is getting attention on CNN.

I'm waiting for FOX NEWS to finally have to aknowlege the existance of the memo. I love fox news. Don't get me wrong I'm a big Liberal, I watch it to keep up with the water cooler talks with my right wing co-workers. I'm also addicted to the infotainment aspect to this cable news channel as it's full of right wing hate vomit that's devoid of any real news. My favorite are the prime time "shouties". I love watching Hannity call some guy a baby killer, and Colmes respond with will be back after the break. I really can't wait for them to spin this memo story with their hate retoric.

I've taken the liberty to write O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo:

Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight

Liberals and their ongoing crusade to smear the truth and the Bush Administration, by any means possible. that's the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo.

Liberals are up in arms about a supposed leaked memo from the British government detailing the minutes of a meeting in July, 2002, between Blair and his upper intelligence and military chiefs. Though the British Government has not disputed the validity of this memo, IT'S VALIDITY HAS NOT BEEN CONFIRMED, BY BLAIR OR ANY OF HIS STAFF.

A group of 89 Democratic congressmen have written to Mr Bush expressing their shock at the revelations. Well intentioned or not, these congressmen are asking the president to respond to an accusation that HAS NOT BEEN VALIDATED.

Mainstream media attention was understandably scarce, at first. But pressure from the Progressives and Liberals has insured that this poor excuse for a "smoking gun" get undeserved attention. I state once again that the alleged memo is NOT VALID and has no place in Journalism where accusations must be checked before blurting them out for our enemies to use as propaganda. Look what happened to Dan Rather?

So why are liberals up in arms? Let's look at the facts:



Liberals hate the Bush Administration. Since the Bush Administration is an Administration of Moral Values and work to defeat Terrorism, Liberals hate morals, values and love Terrorism


Since the Downing Memo has not been Validated, it is invalid, Therefore, the liberal agenda is an agenda of lies and deceit.


In 1980, 79 percent of Canadians said that religion was important for the nation there. That number has now dropped to 61 percent. That has nothing to do with this Talking Point, I just think it's a shame.




"Talking Points" is convinced that the USA cannot defeat terrorism and any other evil if it constantly has to respond to allegations of conspiracy, smoke screening the issue, and staging justifications to entice the American public to support the President's war against the evil doers.

"Talking Points" feels that it has spent enough time on this issue and will not waste anymore time on this so that we can pursue real stories that matter, because we're looking out for you.


Later tonight on the program:



Are you a traitor for not running down the street and shooting any suspected illegal alien in the face? This pinhead commentator says that you aren't.

I'll be talking to Aphrodite Jones, about the Michael Jackson case. She'll give me a blank stare when I ask "Do you think He's guilty?"

James Dobson and Pat Roberson will be with us to talk about "What would Jesus do to fight terror?"

We'll talk about Ward Churchill.. Not because he's done anything newsworthy lately, I just feel the need to remind you to hate him.

maybe fox is just regular news without the liberal whining?is that why you hate it.they dont give liberals the time of day and could care less what they have to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amsterdam

maybe fox is just regular news without the liberal whining?is that why you hate it.they dont give liberals the time of day and could care less what they have to say.

---

Ya, i bet thats a sure fire way to form a complete opion about a subject... only hear one side of the story.

Considering we hear the "Republican" side everyday on the networks. And now they take this document... put the burden of truth on the ones who claim it. Meanwhile disclaiming the memo as rubbish.

As well as lay the ground work to discourage future opinions of our GOV.

All the while, never reporting on anything the memo says... they dont even tell you the subject of the damned thing. They only say its a memo between British leaders.. nothing else.


Notice this... in this dialouge he discounts the validity of the memo 5 times directly and several other times indirectly, meanwhile never even considering any other possibility.

and then there is this..."because we're looking out for you".... Well this is just fucking scary.

He brings God into the mix for what reason I am still unclear it brings no point to the dialogue...

"In 1980, 79 percent of Canadians said that religion was important for the nation there. That number has now dropped to 61 percent. That has nothing to do with this Talking Point, I just think it's a shame."


Also take a look at how the last thing he mentions is Terror and Evil before going to commercial....done to let you sit and rot in your hate for a few minutes before then takeing your mind off it with some other BS news stories like Micheal Jackson


"Talking Points" is convinced that the USA cannot defeat terrorism and any other evil if it constantly has to respond to allegations of conspiracy, smoke screening the issue, and staging justifications to entice the American public to support the President's war against the evil doers.

"I'll be talking to Aphrodite Jones, about the Michael Jackson case. She'll give me a blank stare when I ask "Do you think He's guilty?"


The overall message i get from this is leave your government alone do do whatever they want to do in order to fight the evil. They care about us and those damned "left-wing" fuckers need to shut the hell up. Nobody wants to hear their opinion and they spout nothing but lies and deciet in order to control the government. So they will no longer report on "liberal" issues.

Did I paraphase it correctly?


And on a final note...

THE US INVADED A NATION BASED ON INFORMATION THAT HAD NOT BEEN VALIDATED.

i agree the info was crap,but when every country and their intelligence thought they did,why risk it.

i agree it was a blunder but what is done is done,move on,

everything amsterdam says is wrong this is my new religon

Everything everyone BUT Amsterdam says is wrong. This is my age old religeon, the religeon of crazy conspiracy therorists is wrong.

no.

Wow, compelling argument...

yes.

LMAO, cant we all just get along! LOL!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amsterdam

i agree the info was crap,but when every country and their intelligence thought they did,why risk it.

i agree it was a blunder but what is done is done,move on,

---

Crap info yes... but thats not the only thing to look at... look at the way it is presented... It envokes fear, and gives you both the down gradeing of the opposition and reasons to back the advertisers...

you being in advertisment should know that this is a classic example of fear used in advertiseing.. and thats what this is .. its an advertisement. It's recruiting at its finest.

Its saying dont join them... they are cracked pots and need mental help. Join us because we are looking out for your best interests.

It says dont join them because they love terrorists.(subconscuosly that makes "liberals" terrorists too) Join us because you have to to to fight the "liberals from takeing over the world with their comunists beliefs.

It does everything a fear based advertisement is ment to do.


"a liberals politics is all based on feelings.

i work in marketing for a hardware store and the use of fear is used in all marketing,it is a powerful human feeling

anyone not afraid of something?"

-Amsterdam, off my Fear thread

But dont used your college education for thinking ok... that would be a waste.

Peace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hydrizzle

Are you saying that we should revolt agaisnt the US? Well, I'll be one of the real freedom-fighters drawin a bead on your head while you try to put in your communist dictatorship. Bye the way have you compared the statistics of our country to those of others? We are way far ahead of the game. I think those might go down alot of a revolution happened dumass.

---

No. you are saying that. I am saying we should revolt against any tyrannical government. NOT the US in general. You stand so ready to believe any protest aganist our government is a protest against the entire country. How stupid can you be? Apparently, very stupid. I, in no way, support Communism. Your Billy Jo Badass comment about "drawing a bead" on my head is so imbecillic and juvenile. Not at all impressed.

Could you clarify what statistics you are talking about comparing to other countries? And what game? And could you clarify your last statement? It makes no sense what so ever. Unless you are calling yourself a dumbass. Of course, the evidence is there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cannabist00

Could it be that the media is controlled and is told what to print and what NOT to print? Do you believe only what the media puts on the front page? Why do so many people distrust Bush if he is genuinely trustworthy? The man is obviously mentally handi-capped. Ask him a question that involves deep thought, and you get a confused look and stammering. Or even a question that requires a truthfull answer. Stuttering and stupid Bush. Why defend this? A figurehead for the Alluminati is all he is.

A nazi like police force and fear are the only things keeping questions from being answered truthfully and the people from revolting. The amunition is there to defeat this tyrannical government if enough of the people could only find the balls to use it. Maybe when enough people are unemployed and enough of our children die for the will of the Elite, things will change. But I doubt it. Americans have become fat wimps. As long as we have a meal and a paycheck the boat don't rock.

next post....

No. you are saying that. I am saying we should revolt against any tyrannical government. NOT the US in general. You stand so ready to believe any protest aganist our government is a protest against the entire country. How stupid can you be? Apparently, very stupid. I, in no way, support Communism. Your Billy Jo Badass comment about "drawing a bead" on my head is so imbecillic and juvenile. Not at all impressed.

Could you clarify what statistics you are talking about comparing to other countries? And what game? And could you clarify your last statement? It makes no sense what so ever. Unless you are calling yourself a dumbass. Of course, the evidence is there.

---

Ok, first off, our media is not controled by anything except for ratings. The more polular topics get watched more, so make them more money. There is no illuminati that controls the media, that's conspiracy-theroy garbage.

"nazi police force"?? Do our police storm into your home with no warrant, steal your children, slaughter Jews, wantonly kill civilians? No, they don't. Don't back off on your comment, you were calling for another American Revolution, only this one would take us into anarchy, then eventually a dictatorship or despotism. What I mean by "the stats will go down", is that if a revolution happens here, it will be one big warzone, which isn't too good for the economy.

Quote:

---

No. you are saying that. I am saying we should revolt against any tyrannical government. NOT the US in general.

---

... but you just said we shoudl revolt against the US, which is controlled by the Illuminati! Dont mince your words. The statistics of the US I compare to all other 3rd world countries. If you were born in, say, Bolivia or Somalia, I don't think you would have time to worry about if the illuminati are controlling your government. You might be a little more worried that a gang will kill your son, or there won't be enough to eat for your children, or if the scrape you just got will turn gangrene and have to be amputated (no doctors). DAMN, you people are spoiled by the luxurious lifestyle you live in the industrialized world.

By the way, the word "revolt" implies that you are fighting against your own government, not a foriegn one. That would be called "war". My comment about drawing a bead is immature? How about you call to revolution? Oh and yes, if some fucks like you decided to revolt, I would be camped up in a window, picking terrorists like you off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hydrizzle

Ok, first off, our media is not controled by anything except for ratings. The more polular topics get watched more, so make them more money. There is no illuminati that controls the media, that's conspiracy-theroy garbage.

"nazi police force"?? Do our police storm into your home with no warrant, steal your children, slaughter Jews, wantonly kill civilians? No, they don't. Don't back off on your comment, you were calling for another American Revolution, only this one would take us into anarchy, then eventually a dictatorship or despotism. What I mean by "the stats will go down", is that if a revolution happens here, it will be one big warzone, which isn't too good for the economy.


... but you just said we shoudl revolt against the US, which is controlled by the Illuminati! Dont mince your words. The statistics of the US I compare to all other 3rd world countries. If you were born in, say, Bolivia or Somalia, I don't think you would have time to worry about if the illuminati are controlling your government. You might be a little more worried that a gang will kill your son, or there won't be enough to eat for your children, or if the scrape you just got will turn gangrene and have to be amputated (no doctors). DAMN, you people are spoiled by the luxurious lifestyle you live in the industrialized world.

By the way, the word "revolt" implies that you are fighting against your own government, not a foriegn one. That would be called "war". My comment about drawing a bead is immature? How about you call to revolution? Oh and yes, if some fucks like you decided to revolt, I would be camped up in a window, picking terrorists like you off.

---

I knew I should have left this ignoramous alone.

First, so your small mind can comprehend the rest of what I post, not all revolutions are violent. Got that in your tiny mind? Good. Now pay attention.

Second, the media is so controlled and manipulated by market strategists and political spinsters that the real truth gets lost in translation. Dummies like you believe everything they see and hear from the corporate controlled media. They plan it like that. It works perfectly for people like you who have to be told what to do all their lives because you can't think for yourself.

Third, yes I do advocate a revolution that puts control of our government back in the hands of the people and out of the corporate boardrooms. Barbarism is not needed to accomplish this. Protesting unjust domestic and foriegn policies, voting out the corrupt politicians, voting for election reform
and forcing policy makers to adhere to our background constitution on ALL decisions regarding our rights and liberties would indeed be a revolutionary thing in this Korporate America. And stop using the word freedom. It has no meaning. We are not free in this country, we just have some liberties. If you are governed at all, you are not free. Learn the difference. Liberty one thing, freedom, another.

Fourth, yes our police are using nazi tactics to bust people for using a simple plant. Or do you justify their tactics simply because cannabis is illegal? Arresting sick and dieing people who use cannabis as medicine? Criminals in your eyes, I guess. Firing a hundred + rounds at an unarmed suv driver who was simply too stupid to stop? Arresting and handcuffing a five year old girl who was just simply throwing a fit like all youngsters do at some time in their childhood? I guess you think tasers are acceptable deterents of unruly pregnant women who won't get out of their vehicle? Or that it is ok to fire a shotgun into the back of an 11 year old boy who is already lieing on the floor restrained by other cops? This is your idea of protect and serve? Blowing away innocent people at a wrong address drug bust? Imprisoning a sick and dieing man and withholding the only thing that helps him keep his chemotherapy medications down? So that he chokes on his own vomit and dies in prison? There are many more examples but I fear your small mind can't hold them all.

I want a return to a fair government of the people, by the people, and for the people, so therefore I am a "terrorist". That is an incredibly stupid comment.

Oh well, good luck with your ignorant self.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cannabist00

Fourth, yes our police are using nazi tactics to bust people for using a simple plant.

---

I dont see them putting people in camps, or murdering millions with gasses for the sake of a "superior" race. That was a bad example.

You know, I was just thinking. I really have to love Hydrizzle and Amsterdam. It's the simplicity of there beliefs that you really have to admire. Better yet, you("liberals") have to love them too and thats because of their loyalty. If they are so ready to be such a part of something so simple. Imagine how they will be for us ("liberals") when they find out the truth. God damn when that comes ..... we have truely won the war.

lol

I can't even be assed to reply to this thread but im going to say this:

Marlboroman, XTC, Cannabist00, Euphoric... I've read all of your posts and they make perfect sense, I agree %100..

But then Hydrizzle comes along, ignores pretty much every valid point you make, calls you a terrorist, and then thinks he's won the argument. It's head-wrecking.

WOW you guys are all crazy, spoiled brats. You don't seem to understand just how good we have it here.... why don't you go live in some shitty ass country in Africa, and then see how bad you want to come back to the oppresive dictatorship known as the United States. Yeah, cause everyone know that our standerd of living is WAY LOW compared to somalia...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hydrizzle

WOW you guys are all crazy, spoiled brats.

---

See what I mean :rolleyes: