OBAMA: Polish Zbigniew Brzezinski 's Creation

[MB_722]

This was an interesting story. seems plausible.

http://theuniversalseduction.com/articles/obama-polish-zbigniew-brzezinski-s-creation

This is the deeper reason why Obama and Patrick spout the identical platitudes of utopian reform, the abolition of partisan strife, and the healing of our "broken souls" by the touch of a false messiah.

this line stuck out for me. (not for Biblical reasons)

He seems to be acting like the perfect candidate and people are falling for it.

They're all puppets.




except for RP   

[Decker]

This was an interesting story. seems plausible.

http://theuniversalseduction.com/articles/obama-polish-zbigniew-brzezinski-s-creation

this line stuck out for me. (not for Biblical reasons)

He seems to be acting like the perfect candidate and people are falling for it.

They're all puppets.




except for RP   

That's quite a website you linked--aliens, the lizard man, ufos and a theory that Obama is a Manchurian puppet of military hawk and US supremacist Zbigniew Brzezinski. 

I imagine that these same objections in the article of "utopian reform" were prevalent during the formation of this country.

On a different but related topic, what do you think of the "Ron Paul is Insane" websites? 

As a supporter of Ron Paul, you should be familiar with them b/c it's always in one's best interest to know your enemies. http://www.quazen.com/News/Opinions/Five-Reasons-Why-Ron-Paul-is-Insane.68521

http://bitsblog.florack.us/?p=7598

http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2007/11/14/stusViewsRonPaulIsInsane

http://donklephant.com/2008/02/05/ron-paul-is-insane/

[MB_722]

That's quite a website you linked--aliens, the lizard man, ufos and a theory that Obama is a Manchurian puppet of military hawk and US supremacist Zbigniew Brzezinski. 

I imagine that these same objections in the article of "utopian reform" were prevalent during the formation of this country.

hehe, I didn't look through the whole site. Like anyone else I don't believe everything I read. There must be some truth in that piece I posted. He is being portrayed as America's Saviour. That isn't right. I for one can see right through that. He's the wolf the rest are sheep.

On a different but related topic, what do you think of the "Ron Paul is Insane" websites? 

As a supporter of Ron Paul, you should be familiar with them b/c it's always in one's best interest to know your enemies. http://www.quazen.com/News/Opinions/Five-Reasons-Why-Ron-Paul-is-Insane.68521

http://bitsblog.florack.us/?p=7598

http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2007/11/14/stusViewsRonPaulIsInsane

http://donklephant.com/2008/02/05/ron-paul-is-insane/

I don't think anything of it, they can have that opinion. Some are blinded by party politics. The people calling Ron Paul insane should have their sanity checked before calling him insane.

[MB_722]

No more Ron Paul and his silly principles

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

It is wonderful to see that the Republican Party has chosen John McCain as its probable nominee. We won't have to listen to Ron Paul talking about freedom and restoring the Constitution and a sound monetary system anymore.

We can now move on as a nation with open borders, higher taxes, runaway inflation, more manufacturing jobs moving out of America, higher gas prices, a national ID card where our government can keep track of us 24 hours a day, a private banking system called the Federal Reserve system that can cause boom or bust at any time, a 100-year war with Iraq, our troops in every nation.

We won't have to listen to Paul wanting to restore the republic that our forefathers set up. What a waste of time to think we can become a nation of freedoms again. We need to continue paying our income taxes so that we can pay the interest on our national debt. It's great to see that the Republican Party wants to remain status quo and not interrupt any of our systems all in the name of democracy. Congratulations to the Republicans that voted for John McCain.

MIKE MONAGHAN

Turlock

 

http://www.modbee.com/opinion/letters/story/230380.html

[Decker]

hehe, I didn't look through the whole site. Like anyone else I don't believe everything I read. There must be some truth in that piece I posted. He is being portrayed as America's Saviour. That isn't right. I for one can see right through that. He's the wolf the rest are sheep.

I like websites like that.  I'm a David Ickes fan.

I think the Obama supporters' hearts are in the right place.  There is no political progress without an idea articulated and supported by a movement.  It's like the populist message of Bobby Kennedy.  Sometimes it sounds lofty but so what?  I mean what was Reagan's Morning in America and Shining City on a Hill or Bush's 1000 points of light other than rhetoric.  I think the only people taking the hyperbolic "Savior" criticism seriously are Obama's opponents and detractors.

Here are the national narratives being developed about Obama:  He's a deluded Savior/christ figure, he's all flowery talk with no substance, he's unpatriotic, he's a far left ultra-liberal politician.  None of those criticisms are very good and some are just patently false:  he's not unpatriotic and he's hardly a liberal poltician.

When I see someone posit one of those narratives as a bona fide criticism of Obama, I know that's not a serious critique of the candidate's platform.  It's BS.

Obama wasn't my first choice for president.  He wasn't my second choice even.  But if he is the democratic nominee, he will get my vote.  He seems competent and McCain is just another Bush rubber-stamp so I'll choose the Obama.

I don't think anything of it, they can have that opinion. Some are blinded by party politics. The people calling Ron Paul insane should have their sanity checked before calling him insane.

Where has dismissing Paul's critics outright gotten you so far?  Your political opponents must be met head on.  If there's one thing I learned from these debate boards, it's that nothing is obvious or self-evident where political prejudice exists.

[MB_722]

I like websites like that.  I'm a David Ickes fan.

I think the Obama supporters' hearts are in the right place.

thats the problem right there. It shouldn't be about having your heart in the right place. It's about using your head.
 

There is no political progress without an idea articulated and supported by a movement.  It's like the populist message of Bobby Kennedy.  Sometimes it sounds lofty but so what?  I mean what was Reagan's Morning in America and Shining City on a Hill or Bush's 1000 points of light other than rhetoric.  I think the only people taking the hyperbolic "Savior" criticism seriously are Obama's opponents and detractors.

Here are the national narratives being developed about Obama:  He's a deluded Savior/christ figure, he's all flowery talk with no substance, he's unpatriotic, he's a far left ultra-liberal politician.  None of those criticisms are very good and some are just patently false:  he's not unpatriotic and he's hardly a liberal poltician.

When I see someone posit one of those narratives as a bona fide criticism of Obama, I know that's not a serious critique of the candidate's platform.  It's BS.

Obama wasn't my first choice for president.  He wasn't my second choice even.  But if he is the democratic nominee, he will get my vote.  He seems competent and McCain is just another Bush rubber-stamp so I'll choose the Obama.

I'm grouping all the candidates together except for RP here. For the remaining candidates, none of them come across as pessimistic, everything from obama and hillary comes across as rosy. they have all the answers to solve the problems with out hurting anyone. It's unrealistic to hear and will never be a reality, somebody is going to suffer because of their socialist-like policies without addressing the actual cause of the problems. Excessive spending and inefficient government. They won't cut spending, they will throw more money at the problems, it will not solve anything. Nothing is ever as good as it seems. The wool is being pulled over peoples eyes because candidates would rather win votes than give the voters the truth.
 

Where has dismissing Paul's critics outright gotten you so far?  Your political opponents must be met head on.  If there's one thing I learned from these debate boards, it's that nothing is obvious or self-evident where political prejudice exists.

No where.

No matter what is said they will not believe the things ron paul says until they see it for themselves. It's too far from reality for them to believe it. Also people have been taught to conform to what the majority does.

[Decker]

thats the problem right there. It shouldn't be about having your heart in the right place. It's about using your head.

That's not a problem.  I'm not saying the supporters are jettisoning any cerebral criticism of the man just b/c they decided to support him.  That's facile.  The possiblity exists that his supporters looked at the issues, pondered his position and chose him as their candidate.  Makes sense to me.  He just happens to kick rhetorical ass.
 

I'm grouping all the candidates together except for RP here. For the remaining candidates, none of them come across as pessimistic, everything from obama and hillary comes across as rosy. they have all the answers to solve the problems with out hurting anyone. It's unrealistic to hear and will never be a reality, somebody is going to suffer because of their socialist-like policies without addressing the actual cause of the problems. Excessive spending and inefficient government. They won't cut spending, they will throw more money at the problems, it will not solve anything. Nothing is ever as good as it seems. The wool is being pulled over peoples eyes because candidates would rather win votes than give the voters the truth.

I know I'll take heat for this, but you are doing the same thing you accuse Obama supporters of doing--supporting a candidate as damn near infallible in his person and positions.  I think Ron Paul is mistaken about some of his issues--the gold standard, his economic policy--but that's my opinion.

I think Ron Paul is great in pointing out the mistakes of the Iraq war and he has my support on that issue.  His ideas for our economy and gov. issues from an originalist interpretation of the Constitution and I do not support that.  Government can be extremely efficient in the proper role.  I don't buy that blanket statement damning government.

[MB_722]

That's not a problem.  I'm not saying the supporters are jettisoning any cerebral criticism of the man just b/c they decided to support him.  That's facile.  The possiblity exists that his supporters looked at the issues, pondered his position and chose him as their candidate.  Makes sense to me.  He just happens to kick rhetorical ass.

hahah possibly. there is a alot of rhetoric spewing from obama's mouth.
 

I know I'll take heat for this, but you are doing the same thing you accuse Obama supporters of doing--supporting a candidate as damn near infallible in his person and positions.  I think Ron Paul is mistaken about some of his issues--the gold standard, his economic policy--but that's my opinion.

I think Ron Paul is great in pointing out the mistakes of the Iraq war and he has my support on that issue.  His ideas for our economy and gov. issues from an originalist interpretation of the Constitution and I do not support that.  Government can be extremely efficient in the proper role.  I don't buy that blanket statement damning government.

I think it's a given we don't agree with everything the candidates say. It's impossible to like everything about one candidate. Otherwise we sound like idiots. Like I am right now.  haha

for all candidates they need to clearly define the word future. For what obama is proposing is it a short term solution or a long term solution? It can be for anything here. Does his short term solution create more problems than it solves? So the next question would be, what would be the point in electing someone who only has short term solutions? The system that he is working within is corrupted, is inefficient.

It seems presidents who are elected today, are not able to create formidable long term plans [bush managed somehow] that have a positive effect and in the short term it may be very negative.  The people do not want to come to this reality, they don't want to deal with the pain. So politicians give the people what they want. More of the same.

One thing I like about ron paul that no other candidate is bringing to the table is systemic change to many bureaucracies, eliminating them altogether. Atleast he is bringing it to the table, the rest are not. Hilary, Obama or Mcwar do not want to change anything, only thing they want to change is whose ass is in the oval office.

[Decker]

hahah possibly. there is a alot of rhetoric spewing from obama's mouth.
   

I think it's a given we don't agree with everything the candidates say. It's impossible to like everything about one candidate. Otherwise we sound like idiots. Like I am right now.  haha

for all candidates they need to clearly define the word future. For what obama is proposing is it a short term solution or a long term solution? It can be for anything here. Does his short term solution create more problems than it solves? So the next question would be, what would be the point in electing someone who only has short term solutions? The system that he is working within is corrupted, is inefficient.

It seems presidents who are elected today, are not able to create formidable long term plans [bush managed somehow] that have a positive effect and in the short term it may be very negative.  The people do not want to come to this reality, they don't want to deal with the pain. So politicians give the people what they want. More of the same.

One thing I like about ron paul that no other candidate is bringing to the table is systemic change to many bureaucracies, eliminating them altogether. Atleast he is bringing it to the table, the rest are not. Hilary, Obama or Mcwar do not want to change anything, only thing they want to change is whose ass is in the oval office.

The problem always does come back to the people.  But let's not forget that it is the vested interests that make politics happen.  The interesting thing about this election cycle is that common guys like you are getting some attention for supporting fringe candidates like Ron Paul.  Paul isn't bought and sold by the financial elites that run this country.  That's why he's marginalized by the liberal media.  Corporate media.

That's a good point you bring up about change.  Obama wants to change things within the current system.  Which is really tantamount to no change.

Our government does need a destroyer.  But it also needs a statesman's touch to fill the void.  I would prefer a man of Feingold's character to fill the void but he's decided not to run.  And Ron Paul is marginalized by the system.