Visit the U.S. Politics Online Discussion Forum Archives!

Sponsored by:

U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum  

Bookmark Us! E-Mail DONATE NOW! Photo Gallery Document Archives Quiz! Register to Vote!!!
Go Back   U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum > Miscellaneous > Off-Topic

Off-Topic A forum to discuss anything non-political. This would include computers, cars, the Internet, credit, so on and so forth.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2005
WPK WPK is offline
Joint Chiefs of Staff Member

 
Member Since: Jul 2005
Location: woodland park, co
Posts: 1,679

   
Re: See US politics From another angle .

The Patriot act came from 9/11. A little anthrax was not the reason for the Patriot Act, but 3000 dead Americans had everything to do with it.
Reply With Quote
  #122 (permalink)  
Old 07-24-2005
pressjr pressjr is offline
Concerned Citizen
press

 
Member Since: Jul 2005
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 26

Arkansas     Arkansas

Re: See US politics From another angle .

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathaksung
It looks like a democratic system. It's not. The two parties are all under control of inside group. Politicians are puppets. The campaign is actually like a horse racing. And the candidates are like domesticated horses.

This time the inside group like Bush to stay in 2nd term of president because he is obedient. He followed the order to start an injustice war. So they keep him there because they want more war. The other candidate who may be a possible threat to Bush were advised to leave.

What is the target of politicians? President. Can you immagine a department manager give up the chance to be raised to the position of executive president? But Tom Daschle and Al Gore were advised to abandon to election 2004. Because they may defeat Bush. And they obeyed. That's why I say it's a domestic horse racing. Everything depends on Master's will.

They leave some incompetant horses for Demo and make it a chaotic circus. Let them attack each other. All to make sure Bush can continue to be a "war president".

And of course, you always see those government accessaries, discredit this and support that. At the purpose to weak Demo and strenthen Bush.
you're absolutely right on that. Politics are rigged, and he with the most money comes out on top.
__________________
I'm the farthest democrat you'll ever meet. I support abortion on any level of any age for any reason, gay marraige (and no, they didn't choose to be gay. That's what the Christians brainwash you into thinking), and John Kerry. The only democrat I don't like is Bill Clinton, and not because he slept with his inturn. He got credited for all the good economic success that happened in his term that Reagan and Bush Sr. set up for him.
Reply With Quote
  #123 (permalink)  
Old 07-24-2005
CAMmando's Avatar
CAMmando CAMmando is offline
U.S. House Representative
Insert Label Here

 
Member Since: Dec 2004
Location: Arizona
Posts: 653

Arizona     United_States

Re: See US politics From another angle .

Quote:
The Corperates.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard66.html

[i]
Businessmen or manufacturers can either be genuine free enterprisers or statists; they can either make their way on the free market or seek special government favors and privileges. They choose according to their individual preferences and values. But bankers are inherently inclined toward statism.

Commercial bankers, engaged as they are in unsound fractional reserve credit, are, in the free market, always teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Hence they are always reaching for government aid and bailout.

Investment bankers do much of their business underwriting government bonds, in the United States and abroad. Therefore, they have a vested interest in promoting deficits and in forcing taxpayers to redeem government debt. Both sets of bankers, then, tend to be tied in with government policy, and try to influence and control government actions in domestic and foreign affairs...

...The first major investment banking house in the United States was a creature of government privilege. Jay Cooke, an Ohio-born business promoter living in Philadelphia, and his brother Henry, editor of the leading Republican newspaper in Ohio, were close friends of Ohio U.S. Senator Salmon P. Chase. When the new Lincoln Administration took over in 1861, the Cookes lobbied hard to secure Chase the appointment of Secretary of the Treasury. That lobbying, plus the then enormous sum of $100,000 that Jay Cooke poured into Chase’s political coffers, induced Chase to return the favor by granting Cooke, newly set up as an investment banker, an enormously lucrative monopoly in underwriting the entire federal debt.

Cooke and Chase then managed to use the virtual Republican monopoly in Congress during the war to transform the American commercial banking system from a relatively free market to a National Banking System centralized by the federal government under Wall Street control. A crucial aspect of that system was that national banks could only expand credit in proportion to the federal bonds they owned – bonds which they were forced to buy from Jay Cooke.

Jay Cooke & Co. proved enormously influential in the post-war Republican administrations, which continued their monopoly in under-writing government bonds. The House of Cooke met its well-deserved fate by going bankrupt in the Panic of 1874, a failure helped along by its great rival, the then Philadelphia-based Drexel, Morgan & Co....

...After 1873, Drexel, Morgan and its dominant figure J.P. Morgan became by far the leading investment firm in the U.S. If Cooke had been a "Republican" bank, Morgan, while prudently well connected in both parties, was chiefly influential among the Democrats. The other great financial interest powerful in the Democratic Party was the mighty European investment banking house of the Rothschilds, whose agent, August Belmont, was treasurer of the national Democratic party for many years....

...The massive U.S. loans to the Allies, and the subsequent American entry into the war, could not have been financed by the relatively hard-money, gold standard system that existed before 1914. Fortuitously, an institution was established at the end of 1913 that made the loans and war finance possible: the Federal Reserve System. By centralizing reserves, by providing a government-privileged lender of last resort to the banks, the Fed enabled the banking system to inflate money and credit, finance loans to the Allies, and float massive deficits once the U.S. entered the war. In addition, the seemingly odd Fed policy of creating an acceptance market out of thin air by standing ready to purchase acceptance at a subsidized rate, enabled the Fed to rediscount acceptance on munitions exports.

The Federal Reserve was the outgrowth of five years of planning, amending, and compromising among various politicians and concerned financial groups, led by the major financial interests, including the Morgans, the Rockefellers, and the Kuhn, Loebs, along with their assorted economists and technicians.

Particularly notable among the Rockefeller interests were Senator Nelson W. Aldrich (R.-R.I.), father-in-law of John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and Frank A. Vanderlip, vice president of Rockefeller's National City Bank of New York. From the Kuhn, Loebs came the prominent Paul Moritz Warburg, of the German investment banking firm of M.M. Warburg and Company. Warburg emigrated to the United States in 1902 to become a senior partner at Kuhn, Loeb & Co., after which he spent most of his time agitating for a central bank in the United States....

...The Round Table

In England, Cecil Rhodes had launched a secret society in 1891 with the aim of maintaining and expanding the British Empire to re-incorporate the United States. After the turn of the 20th century, the direction, organization, and expansion of the society fell to Rhodes's friend and executor, Alfred Lord Milner. The Milner Group dominated domestic planning in Britain during World War I, and particularly the planning for post-war foreign and colonial policy. The Milner Group staffed the British delegation of experts to Versailles. To promote the intellectual agitation for such a policy, the Milners had also set up the Round Table Groups in England and abroad in 1910.

The first American to be asked to join the Round Table was George Louis Beer, who came to its attention when his books attacked the American Revolution and praised the British Empire of the 18th century. Such loyalty could not go unrewarded, and so Beer became a member of the Group about 1912 and became the American correspondent of Round Table magazine. We have seen Beer's pro-British role as colonial expert for The Inquiry. He was also the chief U.S. expert on colonial affairs at Versailles, and afterward the Milner Group made Beer head of the Mandate Department of the League of Nations....

...The CFR

The American branch of the new group took a while to get going. Finally, the still inactive American Institute of International Affairs merged with a defunct outfit, begun in 1918, of New York businessmen concerned with the postwar world, and organized as a dinner club to listen to foreign visitors. This organization, the Council on Foreign Relations, had as its honorary chairman Morgan lawyer Elihu Root, while Alexander Hemphill, chairman of Morgan's Guaranty Trust Company, was chairman of its finance committee. In August 1921, the two organizations merged into the new Council on Foreign Relations, Inc., a high-powered organization embracing bankers, lawyers, and intellectuals.

While varied financial interests were represented in the new organization, the CFR was Morgan-dominated, from top to bottom. Honorary president was Elihu Root. President was John W. Davis, Wilson's Solicitor-General, and now chief counsel for J.P. Morgan & Co. Davis was to become Democratic Presidential candidate in 1924. Secretary-Treasurer of the new CFR was Harvard economic historian Edwin F. Gay, director of planning and statistics for the Shipping Board during the war, and now editor of the New York Evening Post, owned by his mentor, Morgan partner, Thomas W. Lamont....

...Rockefeller, Morgan, and War

During the 1930s, the Rockefellers pushed hard for war against Japan, which they saw as competing with them vigorously for oil and rubber resources in Southeast Asia and as endangering the Rockefellers' cherished dreams of a mass "China market" for petroleum products. On the other hand, the Rockefellers took a non-interventionist position in Europe, where they had close financial ties with German firms such as I.G. Farben and Co., and very few close relations with Britain and France. The Morgans, in contrast, as usual deeply committed to their financial ties with Britain and France, once again plumped early for war with Germany, while their interest in the Far East had become minimal. Indeed, U.S. Ambassador to Japan, Joseph C. Grew, former Morgan partner, was one of the few officials in the Roosevelt Administration genuinely interested in peace with Japan.

World War II might therefore be considered, from one point of view, as a coalition war: the Morgans got their war in Europe, the Rockefellers theirs in Asia....

and on and on so it goes
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #124 (permalink)  
Old 07-29-2005
kathaksung kathaksung is offline
Lieutenant Governor

 
Member Since: Feb 2001
Location: San Jose, Ca. U.S.A.
Posts: 482

   
Re: See US politics From another angle .

9. How to blow a ballon bigger (7/29/05)

If the paper value of the whole stock in maket is 20 t (trillion), then there may be only 1 t stock is active in trading. The rest stock is inactive (sleeping stock). Because some owners hold it to control the company; some owners hold it as long term investment. (mostly the people hold it as retirement investment)

Only a little fund can change the whole value. When there is 1.1 trillion investment fund entering the market and caused a 10% increase on 1 t stock, the rest sleeping stock(19 t) felt their asset increased by 10% too. That's how a baloon is multiplied by 19 times.

So there are two ways to increase stock market value.
1. To increase the investment fund in the stock market. This is what government has done to push the pension fund, 401(k) fund into the stock market. And Bush is doing now to put S.S. fund to the market.

2. To reduce the stock for sell also can raise the stock price.

When the money supply is 1 t. But the supply of stock for selling increased to 2 t, then there will be a 50% drop of price.(1t fund/2t is 0.5) Original $1.00 share can only get $0.50. If the stock for selling reduced to 0.5 t. Then the price will double. $1.00 share can sell for $2.00. A 100% increase. (1t fund/0.5t is 2) Reduce the quantity of stock for selling is a more effective way to boost the price.

This is why Bush's plan allow the privatization fund heritable. Old people would have sold the pension stock because it's foolish not to spend it before their death. Now they will think, "if I have no necessity to sell it, whatever happen to me, my son will have it." The inactive stock will go on sleeping. There will be a significant quantity of stock avoid to be sold in the market.

While a small amount of investment fund (say, 1t) support a fantacy of a big treasure ballon (say, 20t), interest group hope more people sleep on the paper stock to go on with their dream. So it will make them easy to blow the ballon bigger.
__________________
If Feds call you and defame my message, it is a tactic of intimidation. They don't want people know the fact.
It also proves what I wrote are truth. They are afraid of it.
Reply With Quote
  #125 (permalink)  
Old 08-19-2005
kathaksung kathaksung is offline
Lieutenant Governor

 
Member Since: Feb 2001
Location: San Jose, Ca. U.S.A.
Posts: 482

   
Re: See US politics From another angle .

10. "Sleep with the stock paper", better forever(8/9/05)

When I have learned the rare data about average investor's return (3.7%), I was surprised that how such a data could be leaked from a tight censorship net of Inside Group.They want people sleeping in the dream that stock market is a gold mine with high profit gain.

A lot of people thought because company having a good business, so stock could be sold at a higher price. That the profit of stock trading was from the wealth comapny created. It's wrong. The wealth company created were distributed by dividend. Even some CEO re-invest or buy back the stock, the money they spent is still a steal from the dividend that shareholders deserved. The reality is sellers profit (or loss) came from the money paid by buyers not from company.

If a company had a profit margin at 1.00/share, and stock price was $10.00, when it makes 1.20/share next year, should the stock price be raised to $12.00? Not neccessarily. When buyers is tight with money. It could be still $10.00 or even a loss, $9.00. It depends on the supply and demand - the stock for sale and new fund willing to invest.

The Nasdag collapsing in 2000 is such sample. When Inside Group thought it was time to harvest, they poured out the stock they held. The investment fund couldn't maintain the usual price, a collapse took place. Did high tech. business had trouble then. No, they still made same profit as usual. But when there was not enough fund going to the market to buy increased amount of stock for sale, the stock price dropped to the bottom too. Nasdaq index lost 2/3 from 5000 to 1700. Those who slept with stock paper with the dream of high profit gain lost their most. The loser is always average investor.

I re-read that "Break the buy-high, sell-low pattern". I found the point of article is: "And that's where some of the good news comes in. Investors slowed the rate of redemptions last year to a pace that would lengthen average stock-fund ownership to 4.2 years. (the 20 years average is 2.9 years) " It advised that if people could hold the stock longer, the return would be better. So in the end it wrote, "As a long-time practitioner of dollar cost averaging, I can note one other benefit: You don't have to make a lot of decisions and you don't second-guess yourself. So you sleep better."

The purpose of the article is clear. With the release of data, it wants you hold the stock not for trading. The longer the better. In last message "9. How to blow a balloon bigger" I've told of the best way to boost stock price is to reduce the quantity of stock for selling. It will make them easy to blow the balloon bigger and delay the crisis from exploding. That's why Inside group want you "don't make a lot of decisions and sleep" on that paper. Better forever.
__________________
If Feds call you and defame my message, it is a tactic of intimidation. They don't want people know the fact.
It also proves what I wrote are truth. They are afraid of it.
Reply With Quote
  #126 (permalink)  
Old 08-29-2005
kathaksung kathaksung is offline
Lieutenant Governor

 
Member Since: Feb 2001
Location: San Jose, Ca. U.S.A.
Posts: 482

   
Re: See US politics From another angle .

11. Squeeze every bit of your retirement fund to support a stock market balloon.

Read my message "9. How to blow a balloon bigger" you know There are two ways to keep stock price from falling. The two articles from Mercury News show how this government and the media they controlled are working hard to push every bit of money to the stock market to keep the balloon from exploding.

1. One way is try to find every bit of money available in 401(k).

Re: "Automatic enrollment in 401(k) plans is endorsed

Workers must choose not to contribute

By Jack Sirard, Sarcramento Bee

..... Studies show that up to 20 percent of employees who are eligible to join theri
comany's 401(k) plan fail to do so.

..... Automatic enrollment, which is a growing trend nationally, changes a worker's decision from having to choose to join a 401(k) to having to choose not to join. "
(Mercury News, 7/24/05)

Thus the 20% workers who haven't made up their mind are automatically being pushed into an investment pension fund.

2. The other way to keep the stock price from falling is to reduce the stock for selling.
Re: "Almost half of job-switchers cash out 401(k)s

By Kaja Whitehouse, Dow Jones

Almost half, or 45%, of all workers who left their employer last year opted to cash out their 401(k) savings, according to a new study. .....

Employers would often force distributions for accounts worth less than $5,000 because they found them too costly to maintain. .....

Under the new rules, employers are required to either maintain small balances - defined as anything between $1,000 and $5,000 - or automatically roll the money into an IRA when workers depart. This way, workers with small balances will only take their money in cash if they take the initiative to do so. "
(Mercury News, 7/26/05)

This is how they push workers to join 401(k) investment plan, and try their best to prevent workers from cashing their 401(k) portfolios, even if it's a small amount.
__________________
If Feds call you and defame my message, it is a tactic of intimidation. They don't want people know the fact.
It also proves what I wrote are truth. They are afraid of it.
Reply With Quote
  #127 (permalink)  
Old 08-29-2005
Benjamin's Avatar
Benjamin Benjamin is offline
Moderator
I'm Back from the Ether of University!

 
Member Since: May 2004
Location: United States - Louisiana
Posts: 7,999

United_States     Louisiana

Re: See US politics From another angle .

Hmmmmm...... See US Politics from another angle, on many different boards. I must say I'm impressed.

http://boards.historychannel.com/thr...art=0&start=-1

http://news.bostonherald.com/talkBac...ay;threadid=41

http://www.capecodonline.com/cgi-bin...c;f=1;t=001441

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/...hp/t-8532.html

http://www.forumclick.com//showthread.php?t=3675&page=2

http://forums.officer.com/forums/pri...ad.php?t=21152

http://forum.hunting.net/asppg/tm.as...5&mpage=5&key=

http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=4491&page=1

http://forum.cygnus-study.com/showthread.php?t=7208

http://www.originaldissent.com/forum...t=10397&page=2

http://nopc.antares-dev.com/yabbse/i...;threadid=5175

http://www.bearpit.net/index.php?showtopic=353

http://forums.armageddononline.org/s...ead.php?t=2814
__________________
To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.

President Theodore Roosevelt
1918
Reply With Quote
  #128 (permalink)  
Old 09-09-2005
kathaksung kathaksung is offline
Lieutenant Governor

 
Member Since: Feb 2001
Location: San Jose, Ca. U.S.A.
Posts: 482

   
Re: See US politics From another angle .

Are you a member of cyberspace team? I don't find other reason that any one would spend his time to copy the list of URL to show it here. What do you want to prove?

-------------

12. Paper value (9/2/05)

Why did I say people who bought the stock are sleeping on a paper? Because if it is liqudated, most likely you will get little money back. And CEO of these big firms don't work for the interest of shareholders but for the interest of Inside Group.

Five years ago, when managers of pension fund held billions of Enron's stock, they never knew they were holding only a bunch of pieces of papers which worth nothing. Did Enron lost its value in one night or just in a short period? No. A lot of firms are run in same way. What about GM? It's bond was ranked as junk recently. What does that mean? It means GM is in same level like Enron had been. The debt it owes is much bigger than its asset. The long term bond GM issued is about 300 billions. Compare to Iraq war, its cost is only 68 billion a year. Yet, GM is still a foundamental stock of Dow Jones index. How many other companies are in the same level?

Since stock market is such a market full of balloon. Those expert who know it deeply avoid to get involve in it. Here is an article published recently.

"Greenspan invests cautiously

By Jeannines Aversa, AP,

Greenspan keeps all of his holdings in money-market accounts and Treasury securities, which are considered the world's safest investment, a financial disclosure form shows."

(Mercury News, 7/29/2005)

Further more. on 8/27/05, Mercury News reported:

"It can 'readily disappear' if economy stumbles

Rising house and stock prices have made many people feel more wealthy and have helped to support consumer spending.

Greenspan, however, said people shouldn't count on that paper wealth, which can evaporate if economic conditions deterriorate rapidly."

I have repeatedly said the stock is no other than a paper in this thread. Seven days ago, Greespan's comment proved my opinion.
__________________
If Feds call you and defame my message, it is a tactic of intimidation. They don't want people know the fact.
It also proves what I wrote are truth. They are afraid of it.
Reply With Quote
  #129 (permalink)  
Old 09-09-2005
Benjamin's Avatar
Benjamin Benjamin is offline
Moderator
I'm Back from the Ether of University!

 
Member Since: May 2004
Location: United States - Louisiana
Posts: 7,999

United_States     Louisiana

Re: See US politics From another angle .

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathaksung
Are you a member of cyberspace team? I don't find other reason that any one would spend his time to copy the list of URL to show it here. What do you want to prove?.............
Well, I'm a moderator. I think I owe it to our members to show that your posts are not exclusive here. I think of it as something of a disclaimer.

Ben
__________________
To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.

President Theodore Roosevelt
1918
Reply With Quote
  #130 (permalink)  
Old 09-09-2005
sglaine's Avatar
sglaine sglaine is offline
President
Smokey say's becareful while Camping in the Woods

 
Member Since: May 2004
Location: Vermont
Posts: 15,312

United_States     Vermont

Re: See US politics From another angle .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin
Well, I'm a moderator. I think I owe it to our members to show that your posts are not exclusive here. I think of it as something of a disclaimer.

Ben


I agree with you Ben.

Nice job there.
__________________
Have a Great Day And Smile.
Laughter is the best medicine


Politicians and diapers need to be changed often and for the same reason.
Reply With Quote
  #131 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2005
kathaksung kathaksung is offline
Lieutenant Governor

 
Member Since: Feb 2001
Location: San Jose, Ca. U.S.A.
Posts: 482

   
Re: See US politics From another angle .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin
Well, I'm a moderator. I think I owe it to our members to show that your posts are not exclusive here. I think of it as something of a disclaimer.

Ben

A moderator or a detective? Do you track every poster like that?

------------

Roberts, a secret agent of D.O.J.

Roberts ducked important questions Demo asked him in hearing. So at the end he is mostly a man of unknown to the people. This is a typical figure of D.O.J.: hide everything with a cover. Does everything in covert.

Is he a speculist? After he refuses to show his stand, he can later turn out to be red, or if necessary, to be blue. Or just a flip-flop. This is a typical figure of secret agent. They really have no interest in any side. They only favour what their master favours. So they really have no opinion.

He will be selected as the judge of Supreme Court. Because that's the choice of Inside Group. Bush is only a puppet to deliver the words. Demo Senators only played a little bit what opposition Party should do. They knew Roberts will take over the seat. All this is a drama.

But when you select a general, how can you don't know his opinion about war? (his excuse is he only can answer in specific battle) How can you select a CEO for the company who refuse to express his idea about economy?

When US politics develops to this point that an mostly unknown person can take such an important job, is this drama too ridiculous? Bush administration even sealed Roberts record from public.

Roberts is more likely a secret agent who will work for the Feds, (D.O.J.) and the real master behind - Israel.
__________________
If Feds call you and defame my message, it is a tactic of intimidation. They don't want people know the fact.
It also proves what I wrote are truth. They are afraid of it.
Reply With Quote
  #132 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2005
Benjamin's Avatar
Benjamin Benjamin is offline
Moderator
I'm Back from the Ether of University!

 
Member Since: May 2004
Location: United States - Louisiana
Posts: 7,999

United_States     Louisiana

Re: See US politics From another angle .

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathaksung
A moderator or a detective? Do you track every poster like that?.........
No, I don't. But sometimes I have my hunches.

Ben
__________________
To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.

President Theodore Roosevelt
1918
Reply With Quote
  #133 (permalink)  
Old 09-29-2005
kathaksung kathaksung is offline
Lieutenant Governor

 
Member Since: Feb 2001
Location: San Jose, Ca. U.S.A.
Posts: 482

   
Re: See US politics From another angle .

D.O.J. hurriedly sent Roberts to the seat of Chief Justice is for the framed case of September 24, I think. My case is the most important one for D.O.J. since I reveal the true face (crime) of them. To frame a case, they even sacrifice both directors of FBI and DEA in a secret deal in 2001.

On 5/10/2002, I wrote "65. Birthday Party on May 3 (5/10)", revealed there was an attempt framed case on me and my family on 5/3. Several days later, my tenant and a neighborhood suddenly left.(both were from China. see #85, 86) It was until three months later when newspaper reported Ashcroft had been rebuked by judge in May for cheating the court, I then knew I was under the surveillance by FISA warrant. When judge found they were cheated by Ashcroft and FBI, they cancelled the warrant. Two Chinese secret police, my tenant and a neighborhood, had to leave.

The surveillance recovered in November 2002 when D.O.J. claimed Patriot Act gave them such power. But how could they frame an innocent man without evidence? They still need evidence to carry out an arrest.

Since then, D.O.J. tried their best to "break" the wall of "share information from foreign intelligence" with "domestic criminal law enforcement". The recent "Pentagon's information about Atta" is such an effort.

This issue must have been passed into Supreme Court. I think, Chief Justice William Rehnquist had defended the fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Thus he became the obstacle of D.O.J.. He had a cancer.

If Rehnquist's health condition was very bad, he would have resigned earlier. But he hadn't. That means he himself felt he was still OK for the job. His death was sudden. I think it was a controlled murder. I have said, "2. Control the death on will. They can make target getting sick by slow poison, once the death is necessary for Feds, what they have to do is just increase the dose, the target died to intelligence' demand without causing a suspicion." (186. Slow poison (12/6/03))

When I found there was another big framed case set up on 9/24, I revealed it on 9/2. (see "339. The September plot (9/2/05)") Next day, Chief Rehnquist died. Roberts is hurried to be nominated and said his confirmation is almost certain and will be in post in October. Because the framed case will break off on 9/24. D.O.J. needs a man of their own to guarantee the case can be set up by "sharing foreign intelligence information with domestic criminal law enforcement"

William Rehnquist's death and Roberts' nomination may signal the death of 4th Amendment that American people will lose the protection from "unreasonable search and arrest". US Justice will be ruled by an evil group.

(The 4th Amendment has been made to protect people from the "plant" of corruptive law enforcement force. That the warrant must based on evidence not the "plant". The "sharing information" low the standard to "suspicion" (foreign intelligence source) and made search and arrest possible based on "plant". see "335. 4th Amendment (8/17/05)")
__________________
If Feds call you and defame my message, it is a tactic of intimidation. They don't want people know the fact.
It also proves what I wrote are truth. They are afraid of it.
Reply With Quote
  #134 (permalink)  
Old 09-30-2005
Jihad4Beer's Avatar
Jihad4Beer Jihad4Beer is offline
Joint Chiefs of Staff Member
Thread Killer

 
Member Since: Apr 2005
Location: The Great Satan
Posts: 1,897

   
Re: See US politics From another angle .

He's also posting on this forum.

http://www.omanforum.com/threads/sho.../fpart/12/vc/1

That's right Kath, we are onto you.

We're coming to get you!!!!!!
__________________
One day, I will sneak across the border into Canada and be an illegal alien. It will be fun.
Reply With Quote
  #135 (permalink)  
Old 10-09-2005
kathaksung kathaksung is offline
Lieutenant Governor

 
Member Since: Feb 2001
Location: San Jose, Ca. U.S.A.
Posts: 482

   
Re: See US politics From another angle .

13. Fallacy (9/12/05)

Fallacy 1. "Politicians stole all the extra SS tax money and spent them in the general fund for their own purpose."

Answer: The surplus of S.S. tax are now in the form of "I.O.U." which is no difference to the national bond.

To the logic of fallacy, when people deposit their money in bank, he will rant: "The money is all gone. The bank spent it by lending it to the others. But what's the business with him how does bank spend the deposit? What people care is the bank will pay them back the deposit with interest.

In sameway, what's business with him when the Congress spend it in general fund? Only when they will pay it back with interest. Remember if they don't borrow from S.S.Trust fund, they still will borrow by issueing Treasury note.

Fallacy 2. "I like privatization because I can handle it by myself. I want have my own choice."

Answer: The original purpose to set up Social Security is to guarantee people will have a stable income when they retired. Privatization won't guarantee this. It put Social Security in a risk.

People pay insurance company. The payment is guaranteed to be used in retirement payment. Bush lured them to a casino, said that people may win more. The reality is people then will exchange their money with a paper its value may evaporate when economy turns downward.
It's not for a stable society but lead the society to an dangerous gamble.

Yes, there are many choice of gamble: Black Jack, slot machine.... but more you gamble more you will lose.

Fallacy 3. "Social Security will collapse".

Answer: It's an intimidation. A tactic Bush used to use all the time. He had cried, "sky is falling" 28 years ago, the sky didn't fall.
Re: 'For Bush, a Long Embrace of Social Security Plan
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
Published: February 27, 2005

in the summer of 1978, in the heat of his unsuccessful race for a House seat from West Texas, G.W.Bush said Social Security "will be bust in 10 years unless there are some changes,"

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/27/po...rtner=homepage

He scared us into an unnecessary war. He is now scaring us to give him the power to handle our retirement fund. But insolvency is 37 years away. (2042) If US could solve the same problem in 1978, so can they do in 2042. Bush has better to deal with the historical national deficit which he created. If he can't handle the war spending and disaster spending well, US economy will collapse much earlier than S.S. he intimidated.
__________________
If Feds call you and defame my message, it is a tactic of intimidation. They don't want people know the fact.
It also proves what I wrote are truth. They are afraid of it.
Reply With Quote
Reply