BS: Unity

Subject: BS: Unity
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 03:34 AM

They went to Unity New Hampshire to convince the American voting public that they were on the same side.
"The words slipped from their tongues so quick and easy, that they seemed hardly worth the saying at all"

But the body language said something different.
When he kissed her cheek the silent scream could be heard all over the world......but not in Unity!

When he laid his hand on her shoulder the inner shudder was clearly visible...but not in Unity!

Their bodies were hard and cold,antimagnetic....in Unity!

Their eyes never met...in Unity!

The voters are as divided as the candidates......in Unity!

The Party has no soul, no principles, no guts.
Little Hawk is so right, it's about expediency, power, greed.
Kick the bastards out and start again, you are still a young country, still have optimism and warmth in your hearts, these bloodsuckers will drain you dry....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 08:31 AM

Sorry, Ake, but it's a tad late... The system is very much in place and the only way out is for someone to literally sneak into power who has a good heart and an open mind...

Yeah, those of us who support Obama hope that he is that person but there is no guarentee... The only thing that is guarenteed is that John McCain ain't that someone...

Oh, daddy won't ya take me back to Mulenburg County
Down by the Green River where Paradise lay
Well, I'm soory my son but your too late in askin'
Mr. Peabody's coal train has hauled it away (John Prine)

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 10:09 AM

Ake, in my opinion, you've got it wrong- or at least, are misunderstanding the implications of it

It reminded me last night of what my mother would say when I and my brothers had a fight. We were not a demonstrative family but when my mother would say, Now, tell him you're sorry.

And we would. Even though we knew the other person was wrong and we *hated* each other. We did it in the name of 'expediency' and in the cause of family, and because we had no choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 12:24 PM

The way I saw it they were doing a good job of making up, and they both were giving it their full intent. Ake saw shudders and screams--I saw none. Maybe those were projections of inner revulsion.

These guys knpw full well they have a much larger and more important task than leveling each other. And they both know the other is in many ways a lot like them.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: katlaughing
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 04:34 PM

It took great maturity, poise, and vision to did what they did, yesterday. They understand the importance of them united and I thought they did a grand job of it. I loved that Hillary looked so refreshed and ready for more and she was very eloquent. I know it may be a calculated PR thing, the heat, or just what is comfortable, but I also love to see a man with his sleeves rolled up, ready for whatever may come...maybe even do the dishes!**bg**

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 04:57 PM

I didn't see it, so I can't comment...other than to say that they did the politically smart and expedient thing which they would have to do under these circumstances. They work in a huge power structure called "the Democratic Party" and so they must play the party game accordingly, and they do.

Bobert is right that the only way things can really change is for a genuinely goodhearted and idealistic person to "sneak" into office past all the machinations of the Democratic and Republican parties and their corporate backers.

What are the chances against that occurring? Well, the chances against it are tremendous, but that doesn't mean it's completely impossible.

Is Obama that person? Danged if I know. If I was down there right now, I'd vote for him, but I'd do it with the strong awareness that it might not turn out anything like I had hoped it would once he's in power.

We shall see.

*****

Now the people I remember who really openly stood up for effective change in America's disastrous foreign policy during the primaries were mostly Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. They never had a chance. You will not see the Democratic Party or the Republican Party give people like that a real chance at the presidency. No sir.

Like Bobert said, someone will have to sneak in past corporate security to really change things. And if he succeeds, then he'll have to watch his back very carefully and have the best bodyguards in the world for the next 4 years.

It's not the president who really runs the USA, it's the great financial/military/media oligarchy that puts him in office, and that oligarchy is a many-headed dragon. Sometimes the different heads will even bite each other when they quarrel over the spoils. This dragon would make even Medusa look like a hometown girl.

****

Hillary and Obama? Oh, they're doing the smart thing to do. We won't know until November how well it will pay off for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Charley Noble
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 05:24 PM

Ake-

I usually shudder myself when politicians are doing what they need to do in public but I think your interpretation of body language is seen through (what is the opposite of rose-colored glasses?) puce-colored glasses!

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 07:59 PM

Puce with a "k", I think...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 08:03 PM

How about plaid-coloured glasses? That would produce a very textured effect.

I gather that neither one of them did the "two fingers in a V sign" behind the other's head at any point during the happy proceedings?

;-D

You know, if they could just get Chongo on board now to back Obama's ticket, that would wrap it up. But they'd have to offer him a LOT.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Emma B
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 08:07 PM

this should do it :)

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 08:13 PM

They both suck...Oh goodie, one farce supporting another farce, in a campaign against another farce!! whoopie, aren't we lucky???!!??

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 08:22 PM

What I am waiting for is fir them to be caught sneakin' outta a motel room together...

Yeah, that might cinch the deal...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 08:41 PM

Kee-rist, Bobert! Yeah, that's all we need. My God...the media would be falling all over themselves in a state of total ecstatic frenzy... ;-)

And what would Bill say? For that matter, what would Michelle say?

Ouch.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Charley Noble
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 08:50 PM

Amos-

"Puce" is a real color. The most interesting description I've come across is this one:

"Puce literally means 'flea'. It is speculated that it refers to the colour of a squashed flea or the colour of a flea full of blood. Another theory is that the colour name comes from the flea's droppings of digested blood, which spread out in deep red stain when water contacts them. Brownish-purple to dark brown."

"Puke" is an entirely different concept.

Cheerily,
Charley noble

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 08:51 PM

Bill would say, "Ahhhh, shit happens" and then go over to his girl freinds house for the night...

Michelle??? Yeah, there's the "ouch" in the deal... You seen her arms, LH??? You seen Barak's arms??? She would put a whup on Barak that make him wish he's just taken the corprate route after Hravard Law... Sho nuff would... If it were a prize fight, I'd bet on Michelle... TKO in Round 2 without the film of Barak and Hillary at the No-Tell-Motel... With the film??? 'Bout 15 seconds and Barak and the canvas would be room mates...

Well, that's they way I see it...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 09:22 PM

Yeah. ;-) That's how I see it too. You've got Bill's reaction down just perfectly.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Hear! Hear!
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 09:38 PM

The late, great George Carlin decisively came out as recently as March, and said he DID NOT support Obama or anyone else this year--like every other election year since he stopped participating in the electoral process after the 1972 election, when the Dems changed their party rules to keep out the likes of McGovern.

In his honor, I humbly offer these gems from him:

“The next time they give you all that civic bullshit about voting, keep in mind that Hitler was elected in a full, free democratic election”

“If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten” (that one ended up being prophetic for 2000 & the Supreme Court theft of the election)

Here is one that describes, for me, the reality of this year's election choices:

“Just cause you got the monkey off your back doesn't mean the circus has left town.”

And finally, just because it describes how so many of us feel about corporate selected candidates this year, one of my all time fave quotes by Carlin:

“The very existence of flame-throwers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done.”

And as George loved to point out about all conventional politics: we're screwed.

From a 1999 Mother Jones interview:

"Honesty has no place in politics. It would throw everything off."

"I'm on the left because I think there's a little more attention to human needs than to property rights. But I don't think much of political activism. It's so shortsighted. Most people are interested in their own personal comfort. I've said that about environmentalists -- I think they care about bike paths and places to park their Volvos, not the planet as an abstraction."

"I'd like for people to feel better and have better lives, but I don't think that's in the cards through political action. I think bloodshed is still the way you get dramatic change. That'll never happen because they've got all the guns now. At least they've got the nice guns, the big ones, the ones with night vision."

And then there is his more recent piece on politicians and voting you can see at You Tube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u6lCBnRoHQ

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 09:49 PM

I dunno. I think you lot are seriously misestimating the gentleman's character, and slandering a decent man. The notion of him running off and having an affair is not impossible but highly improbable. The notion of him having one with HIllary is sheerly delusional.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 09:58 PM

Why would they want to go off and screw each other??...when they can screw ALL OF US????!!!!???....AND THEY WILL!!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 10:05 PM

Finally, after reading the latest posts, it seems that people are agreeing with my earlier position, when I first started posting(on the Hillary thread) that all these 'candidates' suck square eggs, and DON'T represent ANY of us...we 'have' to conform to their agendas, no matter how ridiculous. As I wrote before, 'We are living in perilous times, for this country.....'

P.S. So, when I wasn't 'crazy'..I just was sane ahead of the pack...Welcome aboard!!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Cecil
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 10:58 PM

GfS:...Do your music! Most of everything you say here is right on the target..but music is your genius. I see you posted lyrics, which are cool too, but your compositions are the most wonderful, unique stuff to go through my ears, and into my heart in years!!...Don't frustrate yourself here. Most everything here is uneducated opinions, or half thought out venting, your music is sheer genius, and a gift from God!!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 11:50 PM

"Finally, after reading the latest posts, it seems that people are agreeing with my earlier position, when I first started posting(on the Hillary thread) that all these 'candidates' suck square eggs, and DON'T represent ANY of us...we 'have' to conform to their agendas, no matter how ridiculous."

Perhaps "people" are agreeing with you, Oh Sainted One, but not many of them. Count them.

Ake
Bobert
katlaughing
Amos
Little Hawk
The Sane One (right)
Charley Noble
GUEST,Hear! Hear! - (And you just know the value of his/her opinions.)
GUEST,Cecil (Why do I have this nagging feeling that The Sane One has an alter ego?)

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Cecil
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 12:05 AM

Because naggy people, feel that way

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 12:11 AM

ha, I say.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 06:15 AM

My point in starting this thread was to encourage a discussion on the state of the Democratic Party.

It seemed obvious to me and others who viewed the "Unity" video that Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama loathe one another.

The Party seems merely a vehicle to propel either of the candidates to personal power. Both were prepared to use colour, religion, or sexism, as a lever to damage their opponent or to gain support for themselves.
The needs of the American electorate come pretty far down the list as far as I can see.

This election has about as much to do with democracy as the last election in Iraq, It is simply about power, the Party appears to have no core principles to distinguish it from the Republicans.

The object of the exercise is "power for powers sake"

If the Democratic Party had a "soul", perhaps Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama might have found some common ground and would not hate one another quite so much....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 06:24 AM

Ebbie....Never mind the quantity....Look at the quality!!

As opposed to the "clubbies" in their boxes...:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Cecil
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 06:39 AM

I agree with Akenaton. Furthermore, when people want to compliment each other, on here, some crank wants to accuse that person of being the same one, who is being complimented. I've seen this to myself and others. Funny, that should appear on a thread called 'Unity'! Twice 'Ebbie' has done this to me, as one other, who later saw that I wasn't. Not that I really care that much, but it seems to me, that some people cannot have others, on here, to take a nod of acknowlegement, from their fellow peers, without their knickers getting in a twist! Speaks volumes about what kind of person that is!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Hear! Hear!
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 08:59 AM

The unity farce was like watching the king push an open enemy and disloyal subject before the court, to make them repent by public humiliation.

And indeed, these people represent the Democratic Party aristocracy.

Barak Obama is the nominee, because he was hand picked by the Democratic Leadership Council faction of that aristocracy (Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry), to steal power from the other faction of that aristocracy, the Clintons.

No one ever gets nominated in the Democratic or Republican party without the aristocracy selecting them, without their (the aristocracy's) corporate masters approving them, and instructions being given to the loyal subjects (partisan political activists of either party) to get them "elected".

This year is no different. Or as I read on another thread--just because the horse in a horse race is a different color, doesn't mean they aren't a horse.

Obama is a horse of a different color, running in the American political aristocracy's horse race.

He is no different than any other corrupt corporate puppet candidate that has been put forward in recent decades by the Democrats.

The media aristocracy is now declaring (this includes Olberman, the prince of the Democratic media aristocracy) that Obama is sticking it to the progressive left, and leaving them in the political wilderness AGAIN, just like all the other Democratic aristocrat candidates going back to Carter, have done.

This is the formula. Pander to the left to secure the nomination, then pander to the right for the general election.

Why do they continue with this losing electoral strategy?

Because the Republicans have been winning the presidency by running conservatives, not moderates, for the last 40 years. And because the so-called left puts up with it election after election after election.

Obama is certainly following this pattern, even though he is the first candidate in nearly half a century who doesn't have to do that. He has more money than god, and an electorate that is ready to rebel against the current ruling party.

So if there were ever a prayer that this election year/candidate might be different, or that the Democratic party had even a sliver of it's integrity as the "party of the people" things COULD change.

And it is true. This year could have been different. Obama could have been a candidate for authentic change. But this year won't be different, and Obama will not change a thing. Why? Because he is becoming rich and powerful beyond his wildest dreams, by stealing money and dreams from the people who want to see a black president.

Why do I say this?

Because the candidate has said himself in every speech he has made since clinching the nomination, that he sees the progressive causes of the liberal left as "wrong".

Unity?

You bet.

The unity of criminals and thieves.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 09:39 AM

It is to laugh. Enjoy yourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Hear! Hear!
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 09:52 AM

And anyone who thinks we will rid ourselves of the horror of Dumbya & his right wing evangelical zealotry by electing Obama, think again.

Obama has been wooing conservative evangelical voters with a zeal not seen by anyone outside the Republican party.

From the NYT:

"Young conservative evangelicals seem more open to Obama's 'Christian' message of caring for the poor, fighting genocide, health care for all and climate change," David Brody, senior national correspondent of the Christian Broadcasting Network, noted on Tuesday on the Web site after the radio program. "They also like the fact that he is reaching out to try and find common ground with conservative faith voters."

From Politico:

"The conservative Evangelical biographer of George W. Bush and Tom DeLay has moved on to a new subject: Barack Obama. And his new book, due out this summer, may lend credibility to Senator Obama's bid to win Evangelical Christian voters away from the Republican Party.

The forthcoming volume from Stephen Mansfield, whose sympathetic "The Faith of George W. Bush" spent 15 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list in 2004, is titled "The Faith of Barack Obama." Its tone ranges from gently critical to gushing, and the author defends Obama-and even his controversial former minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright-from conservative critics, and portrays him as a compelling figure for Christian voters.

"Young Evangelicals are saying, 'Look, I'm pro-life but I'm looking at a guy who's first of all black-and they love that; two, who's a Christian; and three who believes faith should bear on public policy," Mansfield, who described himself as a conservative Republican, said in a telephone interview. "They disagree with him on abortion, but they agree with him on poverty, on the war."

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 10:31 AM

The problem is the ruling aristocracy, as Guest Hear! Hear! has described it. You have wheels within wheels governing that ruling aristocracy...and of course they do a lot of infighting amongst themselves for the spoils of power, so it's not what could be characterized as a "conspiracy", rather it is simply a manner of behaviour that arises out of common forms of self-interest on the part of the aristocrats.

And who are the aristocrats? Well, they're the richest and most powerful people at the top of corporate industry, the insurance industry, banking, media and communications, the military...

Those people get to know each other as they grow up, they tend to go to the same educational institutions and join the same clubs and associations. They pass on those connections from one generation to the next, and that is a process so natural that why would most of them even question it?

They have common interests, and those interests serve to maintain and strengthen the position of the ruling classes.

It's not a conspiracy, it's merely what happens when people with common interests engage in an overall social power structure. It may end up seeming like a conspiracy to the people outside the gates of the mansion, but it isn't a conspiracy in my opinion, it's just the natural result of people in a certain position having common interests and objectives.

As I've said, they do a lot of infighting amongst themselves. They have power struggles within their own ranks. We have just witnessed the apparent conclusion of a lengthy power struggle within the Democratic Party between the Clinton Machine...which was powerful enough that they felt unbeatable...and a coalition of other people in the Democratic Leadership Council who decided to back Obama instead of Clinton.

Now would any of these worthies have thought of backing Dennis Kucinich? Ha! Not a chance, because Kucinich intended to make real and radical changes in American foreign and domestic policy and he made no bones about it. People like Dennis Kucinich (or Ron Paul) are anathema to the ruling power structure, and they will never get its backing.

If they are backing Obama, and they are, then it indicates one of two things:

1. He is already their chosen tool, and in cahoots with them, which means that things are not going to change much at all if he's elected.

or

2. He is not their tool yet, but they figure they can control him.

I was pretty sure when this whole process started a year ago that the Democratic Party Machine was absolutely set on having Hillary Clinton run, and win the election....and that Obama and Edwards were just there to make it look good...as if there really was a horse race happening and not a coronation. Just for show. I was surprised when the party insiders decided to back Obama instead.

There could be a number of reasons for that, but it's clear that the Clinton people overplayed their hand early, and perhaps a number of their envious peers were just waiting for a chance to bring them down a peg or two. Or...perhaps they think Obama is more likely to win the election than Hillary.

Or...perhaps the overall plan at an even higher level (above the Duopoly) is to have the Republicans win the election by running a Democrat who can't win. ;-) (That's what Riginslinger seems to think is happening.) (I have no opinion about that.)

Whatever it is, I view it all as another grand stage play that is being presented on the mass media in the usual soap-opera-like manner by the Great Oz to befuddle the masses, and make them think they have a representative democracy that actually works instead of an untouchable oligarchy represented by two subservient political parties.

One thing, though...if Obama is elected it will at least put to bed one old ghost that badly needs to be put to bed in the USA. It will prove to the American public that you CAN have a president of the USA who is not a 100% White man...and the world will not end because of that, and life will still go on.

That would be something to see. People might finally get it through their heads that skin color in humans is no more significant than the color of fur on rabbits.

It's not any reason in itself to vote for Obama...but it would still be a very memorable milestone, nonetheless.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: wysiwyg
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 11:12 AM

If they have any sense they'll keep up the dance-- great ratings.

For whatever reason, Obama and Hillary are great theater. People missed her when she went quiet.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Hear! Hear!
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 11:33 AM

They miss being able to engage in misogynist attacks against a powerful woman.

The color of the man is the carrot the oligarchy is dangling before the public, to hypnotize them again. The public is so angry with the status quo this election year, they had to do something.

This time around, the black man proved to be easier to control and manipulate than the white woman. Hence, the nomination of the black man.

But one thing you can be sure of: nothing changes on Inauguration Day. We are still as screwed as we are today, because the oligarchy doesn't care who wins: they are both beholden to the oligarchs, so it is a win/win for them.

The oligarchs are very shrewd. They picked a little known politician with no political baggage (also known as a record), with a butt load of charisma and celebrity appeal, to beat a woman many people perceive as their nagging mother-in-law, lecturing them to do the right thing.

Which one does everyone LIKE best?

Hands down, the charismatic celebrity, with the Black Camelot narrative, of course!

We want to buy that one!

And they do.

Jack and Jill Dumbass Public are even sending their money to the guy without being asked!

But the question is, will the 100 million (that number is correct, folks) eligible voters who continue to sit out the game and refuse to vote, jump back in to play the Celebrity President Sweepstakes?

Don't forget, it is going to be sweeps month in the run up to the general election.

And that's all, folks!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 11:59 AM

"They miss being able to engage in misogynist attacks against a powerful woman."

Hey, look, they're not completely bereft in that respect...they still have Michelle Obama (a clearly powerful woman) to launch misogynist attacks against. ;-) Did you know that she "hates America", for instance?

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 12:23 PM

Readthe first half dozen posts or so, which gave indication whatsoever of what this is all about... Gave up.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: wysiwyg
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 12:38 PM

I don't care what it's "about," it's a Mudcat thread. They tend to wiggle. :~)

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 12:40 PM

This is really asinine drivel, like listening to nameless howler monkeys in the night.

It is just possible that the Unity shtick was voluntary, and that the two candidates intended to present a unified face to make a point.

GHH has a sweeping conviction about underhanded party mechanics and secret power committees that completely ignores the reality of Obama's unprecedented popularity, especially among younger voters. Akneton is convinced that he sees hatred and revulsion in two politicians acting nice to each other, for political purposes.   

I grant you the world is sometimes devious. But really, folks....it isn't that devious!!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 01:21 PM

Well Ebbie, I hope you're reading!

The Clinton machine chose Obama at the early on, because he was far more to the left than she, and would make her look more like a centrist, plus he was black, which they thought the electorate would elect a white woman before a black,..but it backfired on them....
the source of this info has the inside stuff on it. Told me months ago!
Still, we have no real candidate, who represents us!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 01:29 PM

"My secret inside sources have the REAL story... highly reliable information... evil incarnate is loose on the land/....it's the inside scoop...." yadda yadda yadda yadda.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 01:30 PM

That sounds like an interesting possibility of just what might have happened to me, GfS.

The primaries are a dog and pony show. They are intended to flummox the public and keep them hyped up and interested...but...the process can sometimes go a bit awry for the controllers and force them to make a change of plan partway through. I think that's what probably happened for the Democrats this time. I really think they originally had every intention of running Hillary for president, but it didn't work out because Obama turned out to be unusually charismatic...and then there was the problem of the Black voting bloc going almost entirely for Obama, that being a bloc which had always supported the Clintons in the past. The Clintons did not foresee that happening. They had grown to used to a sense of entitlement there, and it hurt them badly.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Micca
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 01:32 PM

I got this today, I pass it on without comment

"We, in Ireland , can't figure out why people are even bothering to hold an election in the United States .
On one side, you have a woman who is a lawyer, married to a lawyer, running against a lawyer who is married to a woman who is a lawyer.
On the other side, you have a war hero married to a good looking woman who owns a beer distributorship.
What are you lads thinking over there?'"

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 02:17 PM

The source I had, (personal close ties)was a businessman and owner and CEO of a well known company, who was invited to the White House during the Clinton administration, on the encouragement to move the industry to China. he has always been 'in the know' about such matters. The information that I gave you, was not an 'opinion' Furthermore, the Clinton's would have liked to put Billy Boy as head of the U.N. concurrently while she was president. So, Amos, you can opine as much as you want, but it will never erease the facts...yes, FACTS..remember those??

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 02:23 PM

Very interesting, GfS. But they are "facts" you will not be able to prove to Amos or anyone else here, unless maybe you could maybe invite them one at a time to meet this businessman you know and talk the whole thing over at some length.

Bill as head of the U.N. and Hillary as president would have been a hilarious situation to witness. I'm almost sorry not to see it happen. Well, almost, yeah.


Micca, almost all North American politicians of any great note seem to be lawyers...or war heroes.....or both. Scary, isn't it? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 02:47 PM

Well, GtS, I have developed a begrudging respect for your talents, bvut not for your rhetorical polemic when it comes to politics. You have been exposed to a small number of inside facts. When it comes to Clinton, anything is possible--he was an effective president in many ways but also one of the wheelingest of dealers, I am sure.

As for "no candidate who represents us" it depends on what you mean by "us". Obama is as good a shot as I've seen in the last decade at representing large numbers of folks who want intelligence and reasoned discourse to underlie political decisions. I am watching his move toward the center with interest, but so far not with apprehension. Of course, in a sea of corruption such as we have bred in Washington for the last two hundred years, anything is possible. Keep your fingers crossed.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 02:54 PM

Little Hawk, you are probably correct, but still, when the primaries were in full swing, we watched with all the anxiety, and speculation, to see how this was going to play out. It is also why, as things unfolded, why it was the Clinton machine that brought out all the dirt on Obama. They were merely bringing out more reasons on why they thought the electorate would 'surely' swing back over to Hillary. Obama was a shill, who because people wanted a 'change'(choke), came out ahead. It was funny, how in Hillary's speech, toward the end she adopted the change message, and in her speech, she said,'...yes, and I think the American people want to turn the page, on past Washington politics as usual, and....' What she failed to realize, was, and is, Hillary, you are the page!
What a lot of the American people don't realize, is that the Clinton/Bush cabal is the same thing, working in conjunction with each other, while America is asleep at the wheel, Deciding who they like because of the 'emotional entertainment value' of these eloquent farce ridden speeches they spew out. And the same goes for O-blabbo. I look at the zeal of their supporters, and think...'jeez, these people would believe a flock of pigs flying overhead'!! All of the lot, are controlled, bought and paid for..what don't you understand about that. The real candidates are shut out of the pre-dominance in the news, as Paul, Burton, Kucinich, Keyes, and more. Though the candidates I mentioned are vastly different, depending on your personal view, at least they had a bit more integrity, as to their personal beliefs, and integrity, will get you nowhere in politics!
Also, in reference to our friend in Ireland: What do you get when you cross a corrupt politician, with a dishonest lawyer?                                       
                               V
                               V
                               V
                               V
                               V


                            Chelsea

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 03:05 PM

Well, I sympathize, but your raving dissatisfaction is (IMO) a natural consequence of participating in a very large number of people trying to run a notionally democratic system. The leading edges of the curve are going to get lost in the rumbling tepid sentiments of the large middle.

Anyway, the rave is pleasant enough reading as long as we don't take it too seriously.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 03:07 PM

Hey Amos!!..Look up!...there goes that flock of pigs again!!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 03:09 PM

I pretty much agree with all that, GfS, and I've seen it that way for some time. Yes, "the Clinton/Bush cabal is the same thing, working in conjunction with each other". The Democrats and Republicans are like two football teams who show up every couple of years at a political Superbowl, and the public is supposed to pick which one to root for. "Good cop - Bad cop" Take your pick. The trouble is, no matter which one gets picked you end up with the same goddamn Big League running the whole football schedule! This is the part people don't get, because they're so mesmerized by the game and by team loyalty.

I'm not clear on exactly what Obama is yet, though, personally speaking. If he gets elected, then we'll find out. He's a very good speaker, I think, but what would he do when in power? Hmm. That remains to be seen. I will be very surprised if the USA pulls out of Iraq, no matter who gets elected.

The tremendous zeal of a candidate's supporters is always attributable to the fervency of their hopes. They figure that somehow this candidate is going to make those hopes be realized once he's in office. It's kind of sad, really, to see the hunger in people for something better, knowing how likely it is that they will be betrayed by those whom they cast their votes for.

Yeah, Hillary and Bill didn't realize that the hunger for "Change" out there would count them out as part of "the old establishment". It must have come as quite a shock by the time it began to sink in.

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 03:12 PM

Was that right?..'notionally' or 'nationally'..if it was 'notionally', well you're pretty entertaining as well!..good play on words..hats off to you!

Subject: RE: BS: Unity
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 03:46 PM

Notionally was intentional.

LH, I think you and GfS should meet in meatspace. You have a lot to share.



A