Obama is finally busted for being a Socialist

[InHouston]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY4K23Y7Qas&feature=related

[El Nino]

Yeah good vid. He is a total dirtbag socialist. That Plumber would probably make a better President for the Country. Sad thing is though, is McCain is JUST as bad. We're screwed. Why do Americans settle for these literal clowns who are unfit for even a management position at Chuck E. Cheese's?

[trish]

Yeah, it's easy to bust someone when you put words in their mouth.

What do markets do? They spread the wealth around. Every fixture of a nation's economy moves money. That's the whole point of a working economy. Spreading the wealth to those who are behind you doesn't mean giving money to those who don't work as hard. (That interpretation would suggest you worked for your all your money. Did you? All of it? As hard as ALL those who made less?). It means giving some tax breaks to those people who made your success possible, by paying the taxes that provide for the monetary, legal, transportational and other infrastructure necessary for businesses [to] thrive. Those who reap 90% of our nation's wealth only pay 50% of the taxes. That's not fair. It [is] time [the] very wealthy put their flag stick pins on and pay some fucking taxes.

[El Nino]

Define "Wealthy". Are you sure you know where your tax dollars are being spent?

[InHouston]

Yeah, it's easy to bust someone when you put words in their mouth.

What do markets do? They spread the wealth around. Every fixture of a nation's economy moves money. That's the whole point of a working economy. Spreading the wealth to those who are behind you doesn't mean giving money to those who don't work as hard. (That interpretation would suggest you worked for your all your money. Did you? All of it? As hard as ALL those who made less?). It means giving some tax breaks to those people who made your success possible, by paying the taxes that provide for the monetary, legal, transportational and other infrastructure necessary for businesses thrive. Those who reap 90% of our nation's wealth only pay 50% of the taxes. That's not fair. It time very wealthy put their flag stick pins on and pay some fucking taxes.

And there it is ... Socialism at it's finest. I've busted my ass at Burger King, Hartz Chicken, bus boy, courier driver, file clerk, data entry clerk, night time student with a full time job during the day, and still bust my ass and regularly work 10 to 15 hours a day as a Software Engineer. My taxes average $35,000 to $50,000 + annually depending on what I earned in a respective year.

Give me a break Trish.

[trish]

Ever get a blister at any of those jobs? That ain't workin', that's called puttin' in time. It's tiring, yeah. It's boring, yeah. But workin'...come on, give me a break.

[trish]

Sorry, couldn’t resist. But really, you’ve worked at Burger King. So what? Everybody except John Sidney McCain III works themselves up from the bottom. While you’re on the way, you shouldn’t have to pay a lot of taxes. Others who as more successful can take on that burden while you’re struggling. Now that you’re a big success, you can make up for not paying your fair share earlier in your career.

[El Nino]

Trish, you trust that the money being stolen from you is actually going to altruistic, beneficial and "agreeable" projects? Sadly, and if you do the research, you will find it that the opposite holds true. Don't support the welfare/warfare crime syndicate

[trish]

Money is not stolen from me. I know what I make and what I pay. I also know what you call research.

[El Nino]

Money is not stolen from me. I know what I make and what I pay. I also know what you call research.

Ha! Let me ask you Trish, do you pay federal income tax?

[Oli]

Nice editing on the clip...not!

If Obama's a socialist, how do you describe our current President and his administration?

I mean, buying equity in major financial institutions? Capitalists and free marketers right?

So, we privatize profits, but socialize (or if you'd rather, nationalize) losses?

Yeah, Obama's a real threat to free markets :roll: :smh :smh

[NYBURBS]

Nice editing on the clip...not!

If Obama's a socialist, how do you describe our current President and his administration?

I mean, buying equity in major financial institutions? Capitalists and free marketers right?

So, we privatize profits, but socialize (or if you'd rather, nationalize) losses?

Yeah, Obama's a real threat to free markets :roll: :smh :smh

Ah I call what we have now fascist. The democratic platform is socialist. Great choices :roll:

Fascism:
"A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism." (Post 9/11, Bank Bailout, Excessive signing statements America? Yep)

Socialism:
An "economic, social and political doctrine which expresses the struggle for the equal distribution of wealth by eliminating private property and the exploitative ruling class. In practice, such a distribution of wealth is achieved by social ownership of the means of production, exchange and diffusion." (Probably a little more benign definition than it really deserves. Nevertheless it does not do well with individual freedom).

Capitalism:
Capitalism is an economic theory which stresses that control of the means of producing economic goods in a society should reside in the hands of those who invest the capital for production. It is a system based on the production of goods and services for exchange rather than use. Private ownership and free enterprise supposedly leads to more efficiency, lower prices, better products (No we have not had this in this nation in a long time. Rather, we have a system of massive government control and partial ownership).

[InHouston]

Money is not stolen from me. I know what I make and what I pay. I also know what you call research.

Ha! Let me ask you Trish, do you pay federal income tax?

I bet she doesn't. Let Uncle Sam stick her for 30% of her income and see if she wants to dole out more to the lazy "have nots" of this country.

[InHouston]

Nice editing on the clip...not!

If Obama's a socialist, how do you describe our current President and his administration?

I mean, buying equity in major financial institutions? Capitalists and free marketers right?

So, we privatize profits, but socialize (or if you'd rather, nationalize) losses?

Yeah, Obama's a real threat to free markets :roll: :smh :smh

Blah blah blah ...

[El Nino]

Money is not stolen from me. I know what I make and what I pay. I also know what you call research.

Ha! Let me ask you Trish, do you pay federal income tax?

I bet she doesn't. Let Uncle Sam stick her for 30% of her income and see if she wants to dole out more to the lazy "have nots" of this country. Yeah, and/or imperialistic neocon slimeballs who enjoy "nation building" and "forcing democracies" as favorite past times. Money well spent for sure!

[trish]

Get off it. The democratic party is not, has not and never will advocate the elimination of private property and you know it. Such a claim is a complete distortion. Neither is the democratic party advocating the elimination of wealth, only that law that has given the wealthy an undue advantage (beyond the advantage the wealth itself brings) over the last eight years be allowed to run out.

Characterizing the democratic party as socialist, or the republican party as fascist is cheap, sophomoric and lacks intellectual integrity. It would be exactly like characterizing the libertarian party as anarchist, unless of course you like that label.

So InHouston, what makes you think I don't pay Federal taxes, and what makes you think I wouldn't be willing to pay more? You're a rather presumptive little bitch.

[Oli]

Nice editing on the clip...not!

If Obama's a socialist, how do you describe our current President and his administration?

I mean, buying equity in major financial institutions? Capitalists and free marketers right?

So, we privatize profits, but socialize (or if you'd rather, nationalize) losses?

Yeah, Obama's a real threat to free markets :roll: :smh :smh

Blah blah blah ...

Another cogent answer from our Conservative friend.

[NYBURBS]

Get off it. The democratic party is not, has not and never will advocate the elimination of private property and you know it. Such a claim is a complete distortion. Neither is the democratic party advocating the elimination of wealth, only that law that has given the wealthy an undue advantage (beyond the advantage the wealth itself brings) over the last eight years be allowed to run out.

Characterizing the democratic party as socialist, or the republican party as fascist is cheap, sophomoric and lacks intellectual integrity. It would be exactly like characterizing the libertarian party as anarchist, unless of course you like that label.


It's not sophomoric at all. There is a partial nationalization of banks taking place as we speak. The neo-con wing of the republican party is fascist, plain and simple. There are endless posts in here by people, mainly democrats, complaining about these policies, I just happen to call it what it is.

Democrats advocate heavily for things such as government sponsored (paid for?) universal health care and increased entitlement spending, along with market policies that require heavy regulation, among other things (The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977?). That is a socialist agenda, it's not yet a total one where they openly advocate no private property, but it's a large step in that direction.

If you want to label my position as anarchist so be it. I do believe in having some government though, just drastically reduced from where it is now.

[El Nino]

Get off it. The democratic party is not, has not and never will advocate the elimination of private property and you know it. Such a claim is a complete distortion. Neither is the democratic party advocating the elimination of wealth, only that law that has given the wealthy an undue advantage (beyond the advantage the wealth itself brings) over the last eight years be allowed to run out.

Characterizing the democratic party as socialist, or the republican party as fascist is cheap, sophomoric and lacks intellectual integrity. It would be exactly like characterizing the libertarian party as anarchist, unless of course you like that label.


It's not sophomoric at all. There is a partial nationalization of banks taking place as we speak. The neo-con wing of the republican party is fascist, plain and simple. There are endless posts in here by people, mainly democrats, complaining about these policies, I just happen to call it what it is.

Democrats advocate heavily for things such as government sponsored (paid for?) universal health care and increased entitlement spending, along with market policies that require heavy regulation, among other things (The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977?). That is a socialist agenda, it's not yet a total one where they openly advocate no private property, but it's a large step in that direction.

If you want to label my position as anarchist so be it. I do believe in having some government though, just drastically reduced from where it is now.

Yes NYBURBS, you speak wisely

[yodajazz]

Money is not stolen from me. I know what I make and what I pay. I also know what you call research.

Ha! Let me ask you Trish, do you pay federal income tax?

I bet she doesn't. Let Uncle Sam stick her for 30% of her income and see if she wants to dole out more to the lazy "have nots" of this country.

So being poor equates to being lazy? Rich people are better than poor people? I don't have the word to discribe what a disgusting philosophy that is. Certainly Jesus Christ didn't think that way when he said "blessed are the poor in spirit ...) The founders of this nation had a principle that all men were created equal.

InHouston, you don't know life as well as you think you do. Every human has qualities as well as faults. There are some sociopath criminals, true, but most people are just living with the hand they have been dealt. People with money are not better, than people with less money, they are just lucky, or blessed in other words.

Jesus Christ was in fact the most critical of the people who thought they were better than others, the pharisees. His one act of violence was throwing the 'money changers' out of the temple.

There is another Bible principle, which says to be thankful of what you have. You could have a stroke and be parylized and be unable to enjoy whatever material wealth that you have. I have a son who is autistic, and is classified as mentally handicapped, but he is a good soul full of love and tells me that he loves me most everyday. I have people close to me that are in ill health. But all you punk assed mf's can do is complain about paying taxes. If you cannot appreciate what you have been blessed with, one day it will be taken from you.

If you are lucky enough to get very old, one day one of those poor people you complain so much about will be taking care of you, feeding you and wiping your ass. Then you will appreciate that there are some poor people low enough to take care of you, or it might happen to someone else you love. Life has a way of teaching us the true value of human hands.

But until you learn...

P.S. I am not paying anywhere near 30% taxes, but I would gladly exchange places with someone who does.

[NYBURBS]

It should not be a matter of complaining about the poor being lazy or the rich being lucky. I would be the first to tell you that the very rich in this country skate on their taxes because most of their "wealth" is taxed by capital gains rather than income taxes. They also rely heavily on borrowing so as to avoid certain taxes.

With that said, the idea is that you know best how to live your life and spend your money, just as I do for my own affairs. If you make poor decisions than you should deal with the consequences. The system we have now does not adequately provide for or fix the social ills it purports to correct, yet it taxes average people to a point where it is essentially slavery. There are so many opportunities you or I have missed because of the tax system.

Aside from that, this system is too heavily centralized. We take from Joe in NY to give to Peggy in Delaware (or vice versa), with little thought to regional differences and needs. Also private charities can channel the same benefits, but leaves you the choice as to what to support. I am not advocating abandoning people, in fact I donate my time to a local non-profit. Government comes with the force of law, compelling you to be subservient, and as such it should be greatly limited in its application. We all need to stop looking at this as rich vs poor, and rather view it as free vs enslaved.

[InHouston]

Money is not stolen from me. I know what I make and what I pay. I also know what you call research.

Ha! Let me ask you Trish, do you pay federal income tax?

I bet she doesn't. Let Uncle Sam stick her for 30% of her income and see if she wants to dole out more to the lazy "have nots" of this country.

So being poor equates to being lazy? Rich people are better than poor people? I don't have the word to discribe what a disgusting philosophy that is. Certainly Jesus Christ didn't think that way when he said "blessed are the poor in spirit ...) The founders of this nation had a principle that all men were created equal.

InHouston, you don't know life as well as you think you do. Every human has qualities as well as faults. There are some sociopath criminals, true, but most people are just living with the hand they have been dealt. People with money are not better, than people with less money, they are just lucky, or blessed in other words.

Jesus Christ was in fact the most critical of the people who thought they were better than others, the pharisees. His one act of violence was throwing the 'money changers' out of the temple.

There is another Bible principle, which says to be thankful of what you have. You could have a stroke and be parylized and be unable to enjoy whatever material wealth that you have. I have a son who is autistic, and is classified as mentally handicapped, but he is a good soul full of love and tells me that he loves me most everyday. I have people close to me that are in ill health. But all you punk assed mf's can do is complain about paying taxes. If you cannot appreciate what you have been blessed with, one day it will be taken from you.

If you are lucky enough to get very old, one day one of those poor people you complain so much about will be taking care of you, feeding you and wiping your ass. Then you will appreciate that there are some poor people low enough to take care of you, or it might happen to someone else you love. Life has a way of teaching us the true value of human hands.

But until you learn...

P.S. I am not paying anywhere near 30% taxes, but I would gladly exchange places with someone who does.

Well, gladly send in 30% of your income anyway. Oh, I suppose you feel you need more money to afford that level of income tax. Well there you have it. You're reluctant, as I am, to continue paying in more of your hard earned money.

Being poor does not equate to being lazy. Poverty equates to a lack of money. There are the "have nots" who work hard, and will one day perhaps prosper from their labors or perhaps not. Then there are the lazy "have nots". Those are the people I am referring to.

You presume I don't know much about life? Anyone, such as yourself, who touts the teachings of Jesus Christ as a basis for their case, doesn’t understand much about the universe from which our species spawned from. There is no divine being, nor is there a scheme devised by such a divinity that equalizes the playing field for the human race. The world, where humans are concerned, is an imperfect place filled with imperfect people such as you and I, and all around you is a result of complex carbon chemistry. There are people in the lead, people in the middle, and people taking up the rear in this race of life. I help people in my own ways by inspiring them with reason and sound experience that I’ve gathered from my own life.

Just the other night, there was little black kid about nine years old sweeping the curb in front of a local convenience store. As I pulled in, I inadvertently blocked him from sweeping the curb in front of my vehicle. As I exited my vehicle he politely asked “Excuse me sir, can I please sweep the curb in front of your truck?” I said, “No problem sir.” and enthusiastically moved my vehicle back. As I walked into the store, I marveled at how polite and industrious this little black kid was. As I returned to my vehicle, he waved at me and said “Have a good night sir.” I asked, “Come here for a second. I want to talk to you.” I told him that his hard work, politeness, and good professional manner will take him far in life. I held up a $20 bill and said “I will give you this $20 if you make me a promise. That you never change. You be your own hard-working self like you are now, and to not be influenced by the youth of your generation that dresses and acts ghetto just to be cool and tough.” While telling him this, I had him look around at the gang tags on the walls and fences around the community and to always rise above such groups of people. And that one day he would be a doctor, or a lawyer, or a scientist, or whatever he would like to be. He promised me, and I handed him his well-deserved $20. He is the epitome of what I respect. He is a “have not”, but is working hard and taking initiative that you just don’t see often enough in people his age. Like me when I was young, I was a “have not”, and like me, he probably will not be a “have not” for very long. He doesn’t need handouts like the Democrats want. That spoils people and fosters laziness and apathy. What young people like him need is for adults to take a personal interest, instill some inspiration, and layout some sound guidance for an effective path in life.

And to Oli, is that cogent enough for you? And to correct you Oli, I’m not a Conservative you blithering idiot. If you pay attention to my posts you’d know that. I’m a staunch Atheist who is liberal, conservative, independent, and libertarian all at the same time. I’m all over the map and embrace what is sensible in all areas, reject what is illogical and ineffective, and I don’t subscribe to “think tanks” or “group think” like you do. To do the latter is a clear example of inferior thinking.

[Buzz]

While you're all working yourselves into a tizzy again about taxes and welfare, consider where most of your federal taxes really go:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/172/486274438_0673e54640.jpg

That's right, nearly 2/3 of all you pay in federal taxes goes to the Pentagon. The US defense budget is more than all the other defense budgets of all the other countries on Earth, combined! Do you really think that the rest of planet Earth is going to attack you simultaneously?

Taxes are going to have to go up to pay for all these recent Wall Street bailouts. Yet McCain says that the area where he won't cut the budget is for the Pentagon.

Well USA, you have to make some choices now. To really make a substantial difference in your national budget you'll have to cut where McCain says he won't cut. Otherwise all these arguments about high taxes paying for welfare are moot, since most of your taxes don't go for social programs. They go to the military. This is all easily verifiable.

[hippifried]

That's just the discretionary budget. The majority of taxes go toward entitlements. The biggest entitlement, over a third of the total budget & working its way toward half, is service on the debt.

[NYBURBS]

While you're all working yourselves into a tizzy again about taxes and welfare, consider where most of your federal taxes really go:

That's right, nearly 2/3 of all you pay in federal taxes goes to the Pentagon. The US defense budget is more than all the other defense budgets of all the other countries on Earth, combined! Do you really think that the rest of planet Earth is going to attack you simultaneously?

Who says anything about McCain dude? I loathe his party platform just as much. I would pull out of all of these countries, and let them settle their own crap. Korea? Not our problem. Western Europe? They can defend themselves. Georgia, Ukraine, etc? I wouldn't appreciate Russian troops/missiles in Mexico so it's not a hot idea to stick ours on their border. That on 9/11 we did not have adequate air defense coverage over our own sovereign air space is inexcusable. I can guarantee you if that was over Korea or Iraq we would have had no shortage of armed jets with which to intercept planes.

The argument being made by many people in America today is not that McCain is the solution, it's that the political party system (especially 2 party system) is a disaster and both spout dangerous and misguided policy platforms.

[Buzz]

That's just the discretionary budget. The majority of taxes go toward entitlements. The biggest entitlement, over a third of the total budget & working its way toward half, is service on the debt.
Good point...a large part of the federal budget is interest payments on borrowing to pay for PAST wars.

http://www.fcnl.org/budget/2009_budget_chart.GIF

[NYBURBS]

Yea and the democratic party has such a great track record on overseas involvement right? Kennedy and Vietnam? LBJ and Vietnam? Clinton and the Balkans? Clinton and Somalia? Both parties are spending our wealth and blood overseas, they just slap different spins on it. I 100% agree that we are dooming our posterity with debt, I just ask people to wake up and see both parties are engaged in this.

[trish]

NYBURBS wrote:
It's not sophomoric at all. There is a partial nationalization of banks taking place as we speak.

Of course ist’s sophomoric. It’s sophomoric to suggest that a partial nationalization of the banks (implemented in the hope to rescue a collapsing economy) is a deliberate attempt to eliminate private property nor even the elimination of the ruling classes (your definition of socialism). Surely you are aware of the distance between your own definition and your own description of current events.


Democrats advocate heavily for things such as government sponsored (paid for?) universal health care and increased entitlement spending, along with market policies that require heavy regulation, among other things (The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977?).

By your own definition that is not a socialist agenda. These positions do not entail the elimination of private property. The concepts of public property and public programs do not entail the elimination private property; nor even the ruling classes (though personally, I’m all for eliminating the ruling classes…not to be confused with the wealthy classes).

Not only does the democratic party not advocate the elimination of private property, it explicitly and openly supports and depends on the idea of private property. Democrats want everyone to have a job and make money. Money moves through small business and drives the economy more efficiently when middle and lower money earners have enough money to spend. Democrats want to make sure that ordinary people can afford to have private property. Your implicit claim that the democratic party is secretly against the whole notion of private property, that if we give an inch toward the ideals of the democratic party, socialism will be soon to follow, all that is just fear mongering. Perhaps inadvertent on your part, but empty and vacuous fear mongering. Hardly the wise insight that El Nino takes it to be.

[NYBURBS]

They are steps in that direction, an ideology that the government can use your capital and property better than you can. GSEs were essentially experimentation in this area, and that has helped lead us to disaster. Given the type of economy we now have (and the fact that our actual production was shipped overseas) that leaves the banks and their credit as essentially being the means of production in this economy. That fits in just perfectly with what I wrote.

What we had before was neither socialism nor capitalism but rather some type of mixed bag. Where we are currently moving toward is socialism, not in big huge steps but rather in smaller more deliberate ones. Of course we could have another neo-con revolution and continue down the path toward fascism. Either way the choices suck at the moment.

[trish]

A drive north might take you from Texas to Illinois, but it doesn't follow that it will take you to the North Pole nor does it follow the North Pole is the intended destination. To characterize a north bound trip as a dangerous, deliberate approach toward the freezing pole is just silly. [However, this aspect of your argument is not only silly but off the point: recognizing that there can be public property is taking absolutely no steps northward toward the elimination of private property].

[El Nino]

That on 9/11 we did not have adequate air defense coverage over our own sovereign air space is inexcusable. I can guarantee you if that was over Korea or Iraq we would have had no shortage of armed jets with which to intercept planes.

Ehh, wrong, there was an order for a NORAD standown on 9/11 per Dick Cheney. We had plenty of time to intercept. Plus there were drills that emulated terror attacks of the exact kind, at the same exact time. It confused response and made sure the attacks could occur. Chances of this happening randomly? 1:1,000,000,000,000.

I'm just making a detailed correction. I do like what you have to say though.

[Oli]

And to Oli, is that cogent enough for you? And to correct you Oli, I’m not a Conservative you blithering idiot. If you pay attention to my posts you’d know that. I’m a staunch Atheist who is liberal, conservative, independent, and libertarian all at the same time. I’m all over the map and embrace what is sensible in all areas, reject what is illogical and ineffective, and I don’t subscribe to “think tanks” or “group think” like you do. To do the latter is a clear example of inferior thinking.

If you can pull one of your past posts that states a liberal or moderate leaning slant, I will retract my characterization of you as a Conservative.

And will you answer the original question? Is not what Treasury has done a socialist move? Is not what your attempting to ascribe to Obama exactly what the Capitalist championing, Free Market, lack regulations Republican Administration has just done?

[Mugai_hentaisha]

A drive north might take you from Texas to Illinois, but it doesn't follow that it will take you to the North Pole nor does it follow the North Pole is the intended destination. To characterize a north bound trip as a dangerous, deliberate approach toward the freezing pole is just silly. [However, this aspect of your argument is not only silly but off the point: recognizing that there can be public property is taking absolutely no steps northward toward the elimination of private property].

Trish you are right to a point a drive north might take you from texas to illinois but it doesn't follow that it will take you to the north pole nor does it follow the north pole is the intended destination. But the route itself does start limiting the possible destinations and the North pole is one of them.

Someone said in the aftermath of katrina that the most horrible words that one would hear is, "Hi I am from the Government and I am here to help!"

I beg to differ slightly here I feel the scariest words in the near future will be, "Hi I am from the government and I am here to run your bank!"

After all look what the Government did with all the money we gave them in the form of income taxes, yeah trust them they will do an excellent job.....of Fraking us right up the ass!


TES
William

[chefmike]

That on 9/11 we did not have adequate air defense coverage over our own sovereign air space is inexcusable. I can guarantee you if that was over Korea or Iraq we would have had no shortage of armed jets with which to intercept planes.

Ehh, wrong, there was an order for a NORAD standown on 9/11 per Dick Cheney. We had plenty of time to intercept. Plus there were drills that emulated terror attacks of the exact kind, at the same exact time. It confused response and made sure the attacks could occur. Chances of this happening randomly? 1:1,000,000,000,000.

I'm just making a detailed correction. I do like what you have to say though.

That's a crock of shit, just what I'd expect from a shill for the Alex Jones tinfoil truther clowns.

[El Nino]

That on 9/11 we did not have adequate air defense coverage over our own sovereign air space is inexcusable. I can guarantee you if that was over Korea or Iraq we would have had no shortage of armed jets with which to intercept planes.

Ehh, wrong, there was an order for a NORAD standown on 9/11 per Dick Cheney. We had plenty of time to intercept. Plus there were drills that emulated terror attacks of the exact kind, at the same exact time. It confused response and made sure the attacks could occur. Chances of this happening randomly? 1:1,000,000,000,000.

I'm just making a detailed correction. I do like what you have to say though.

That's a crock of shit, just what I'd expect from a shill for the Alex Jones tinfoil truther clowns.

You're a crock of shit, do the research, asswipe...

[chefmike]

All of your crackpot Alex Jones tinfoil truther theories have been debunked ad nauseum. Myself and others are quite familiar with what you consider research, El Ninny. You must be cooking up meth in that bunker, El Nimrod.

[El Nino]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-5PKQTUz5o

Read 'em and weep, asshole. You're in a total state of ignorance, or denial. I don't really know which one.

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES
Public Hearing
Friday, May 23, 2003
Hart Senate Office Building
Room 216
Washington, DC

......excerpt........

[[the following Cheney stand down order is confused for a shoot down order]]

MR. HAMILTON: We thank you for that. I wanted to focus just a moment on the Presidential Emergency Operating Center. You were there for a good part of the day. I think you were there with the vice president. And when you had that order given, I think it was by the president, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists, were you there when that order was given?

MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant. And --

MR. HAMILTON: The flight you're referring to is the --

MR. MINETA: The flight that came into the Pentagon.

MR. HAMILTON: The Pentagon, yeah.

MR. MINETA: And so I was not aware that that discussion had already taken place. But in listening to the conversation between the young man and the vice president, then at the time I didn't really recognize the significance of that.

And then later I heard of the fact that the airplanes had been scrambled from Langley to come up to DC, but those planes were still about 10 minutes away. And so then, at the time we heard about the airplane that went into Pennsylvania, then I thought, "Oh, my God, did we shoot it down?" And then we had to, with the vice president, go through the Pentagon to check that out.

MR. HAMILTON: Let me see if I understand. The plane that was headed toward the Pentagon and was some miles away, there was an order to shoot that plane down. -----[[notice the panel member is trying to coerce the witness to affirm this]]

MR. MINETA: Well, I don't know that specifically, but I do know that the airplanes were scrambled from Langley or from Norfolk, the Norfolk area. But I did not know about the orders specifically other than listening to that other conversation.

MR. HAMILTON: But there very clearly was an order to shoot commercial aircraft down. -----[[notice the panel is forcing a perspective that doesn't exist]]

MR. MINETA: Subsequently I found that out.

MR. HAMILTON: With respect to Flight 93, what type of information were you and the vice president receiving about that flight?

MR. MINETA: The only information we had at that point was when it crashed.

MR. HAMILTON: I see. You didn't know beforehand about that airplane.

MR. MINETA: I did not.

MR. HAMILTON: And so there was no specific order there to shoot that plane down.

MR. MINETA: No, sir.

MR. HAMILTON: But there were military planes in the air in position to shoot down commercial aircraft.

MR. MINETA: That's right. The planes had been scrambled, I believe, from Otis at that point.

MR. HAMILTON: Could you help me understand a little the division of responsibility between the FAA and NORAD on that morning?

MR. MINETA: Well, FAA is in touch with NORAD. And when the first flight from Boston had gone out of communications with the air traffic controllers, the air traffic controller then notified, I believe, Otis Air Force Base about the air traffic controller not being able to raise that American Airlines flight.

[El Nino]

The NORAD standown in 2 minute...

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/03/norad-stand-down-in-2-minutes.html

Is your brain working ok today Chef?

[chefmike]

You're still grasping at straws to support your crackpot theories, El Ninny. Back to the bunker, slick.

[trish]

WTF you guys arguin' 'bout? Haven't you heard already? There was no plane. The Pentagon was taken out by a missile.

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/Missile-Not-Flight-77.html

[chefmike]

I thought that El Ninny said that it was taken out by a UFO...and we all know that his er, research is infallible...not since Jamie Michelle(also an Alex Jones acolyte who is rumored to be the current inhabitant of a strait-jacket and a padded cell) posted here have we heard such sane and rational explanations of the way things really are...

[fitz207]

Palin is so out of touch! So what does she call McCain's plan to buy back the bad mortgages with taxpayer money? Isn't that socialism and redistribution of the wealth?

Not to mention that is is a bad idea - there would be no guarantee that the people who got into these bad mortgages would not behave the same way again, and it may encourage many homeowners who are paying their mortgage, to default in order to get in on the "goodies"

[fitz207]

Let me see under Pres.Bush we are nationalizing banks, created the large HomeLand Security Dept, ran up the deficits. So seems the Republicans are the socialists. Sen.McCain's economic policies are the same: Tax cuts for people making over 250K (5% of the Pop) and the rest of us can wait for it to trickle down like the last eight years.

Vote for the Sen.Obama. He was just endorsed by the Economics Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman.

Sen.Obama was also endorsed by all the science nobel prize winners too.

[NYBURBS]

Palin is so out of touch! So what does she call McCain's plan to buy back the bad mortgages with taxpayer money? Isn't that socialism and redistribution of the wealth?

Not to mention that is is a bad idea - there would be no guarantee that the people who got into these bad mortgages would not behave the same way again, and it may encourage many homeowners who are paying their mortgage, to default in order to get in on the "goodies"

Ya it is a bad idea, but then again so was the 700 billion dollar give away they keep trying to spin and they both voted for.

[Mugai_hentaisha]

Palin is so out of touch! So what does she call McCain's plan to buy back the bad mortgages with taxpayer money? Isn't that socialism and redistribution of the wealth?

Not to mention that is is a bad idea - there would be no guarantee that the people who got into these bad mortgages would not behave the same way again, and it may encourage many homeowners who are paying their mortgage, to default in order to get in on the "goodies"

Ya it is a bad idea, but then again so was the 700 billion dollar give away they keep trying to spin and they both voted for.

you tell it like it is

People wake up and see how your state's congresspersons and senators voted

TES
William

out of all of WV's congress and senators, 1 congress woman, did not vote for it, guess who I am voting for in Nov.

[yodajazz]

This person puts the "spread the wealth" in the larger context of what Obama was saying to Joe the Plumber. So a statement taken out of context is the basis of the controversy.


Joe the Plumber lied to Barack Obama and received a thoughtful and honest answer to his dishonest question. After a well-considered discussion of the ramifications of his tax plan to Joe’s fictional business situation, Barack asked Joe to think about those who are coming behind him. He asked Joe to consider how much faster he would have been in a position to buy his hypothetical business under Obama’s tax policies.

Near the end of the conversation Barack summed up: "My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."

Out of this entire exchange the McPalin campaign chooses to pull “spread the wealth” out of context. From this slender thread they weave a story of a new mythic American hero; Joe the Plumber, a character to rival Paul Bunyan or Pecos Bill. In the land of tall tales, plumbers make more than a quarter million dollars and a three percent higher tax rate on all that income above the quarter mil will determine whether or not Joe will create jobs. If you don’t believe in Joe, you must be a socialist. The McPalin handlers must think we’re children. What a sorry excuse for a presidential campaign.

[Ben]

5 years later... anyone think he's a socialist? In which case the working class must be winning the class war -- ha ha!

Where are all the commies? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svx7UAhNFdU)