BS: Our new Constitution and new Pentagon

Subject: RE: BS: Our new Constitution and new Pentagon
From: Peace
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 07:51 PM

Yes there is, Bobert. The notion that there is no way to stop the bastards is, IMO, wrong. However, there will be a price to pay, and it will be steep.

Subject: RE: BS: Our new Constitution and new Pentagon
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 08:04 PM

Yeah, yer right, Brucie... But even then it's a long shot and will take a major revolution... Problem is that last time we tried to pull it off the creeps killed off all our spokesmen... We can't beat these folks militaristically and they own the media and can have anyone dead they want dead so, ahhhhhhh, it is a long shot...

Throw in the dumbed down militaristic thinking epsilons they use as gate-keepers, I wouldn't have the slightest idea on how about going about stopping them... It's like they have all the power, all the guns and they can change the rules any time they want???

I am completely open to any ideas...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Our new Constitution and new Pentagon
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 08:12 PM

Voting isn't a bad first step.

Subject: RE: BS: Our new Constitution and new Pentagon
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 08:30 PM

With all due respect, Dick, but for whom???

I have voted all my adult life... The only major candidate who won was Jimmy Carter... That was pushing 40 years ago...

The process doesn't allow a Dennis Kucini8ch to even get asked a friggin' question in the debates and then Hillary and Edwards are making back=room deal to even get him outta the debates???

So, excatly how is voting going to bring about a cultural shift where the US isn't going to continue on it imperialistic/militraistic path??? That is the big question here...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Our new Constitution and new Pentagon
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Oct 07 - 12:16 AM

What Bobert said. I always vote too, Dick. Sure, it's a start, but not much of one as things stand now.

I'll tell you what will beat this $ySStem...it's own insanity and excessiveness will beat it in the end as happens with all corrupt systmes that overreach themselves. The trouble is, a lot of people will suffer and die before we reach that end, and there's no guarantee what will emerge out of the wreckage of this godforsaken $ySStem we are presently living under.

Subject: RE: BS: Our new Constitution and new Pentagon
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 27 Oct 07 - 06:09 PM

Well, let's see. Getting involved with local politics is time-consuming and dull--but it has a real effect on who's going to run for president. Simply calling congressman and letting them know what you feel they should vote for isn't a bad idea either. Believe it or not, they often listen.
Or, as I said, we can all move to Cuba, where Bush is working on installing a democracy. Of course, it would be nice if he tried it here first.

Subject: RE: BS: Our new Constitution and new Pentagon
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Oct 07 - 06:31 PM

Bush hates democracy, Dick... He absolutely hates it... It almost cost him the job he now has...

As fir writing Congressmen??? I've sent more letter to them knotheads over the last 40 years to choke an elephant... I'm probably responsible for several trees worth of paper... I've also writen letters to newspapers... I've marched in or co-organized many a demonstration...

The deck, I am afrain, is hopelessly stacked against the US surviving it's own corruption which is quickly eating US alive... The Iraq war is "Exhibit A" on just how a corrupt military/industrial complex can eat away at the4 fablic of our country... They wanted it and they got it... Just as they will get the next war... And the next until our working class is reduced to living like folks in Third World countries just lining the pockets of "Masters of War"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Our new Constitution and new Pentagon
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Oct 07 - 09:09 PM

I'm not an American citizen, dick, so I don't have much pull with your Congressmen. However, I wish both you and Bobert good luck in dealing with the situation as best you can, each in your own way, and I mean that. Meanwhile, I will try to deal with the Canadian situation in my own way.

Subject: RE: BS: Our new Constitution and new Pentagon
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 27 Oct 07 - 11:15 PM

I suspect that Bobert's (and my) activism is somewhat offset by the general public's apathy. But we keep plugging away.

Subject: RE: BS: Our new Constitution and new Pentagon
From: Peace
Date: 27 Oct 07 - 11:16 PM

Keep doing that, Dick.

Subject: RE: BS: Our new Constitution and new Pentagon
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 28 Oct 07 - 12:22 PM

Of course, a workable solution might be to find a really neocon fanatic and put him up to lead a third party--could siphon a lot of votes from the ones in power now. Roosevelt did this with Orville Faubus when it looked like Huey LOng might be getting out of hand.

Subject: RE: BS: Our new Constitution and new Pentagon
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Oct 07 - 02:01 PM

That's exactly how 3rd parties function in the USA. They siphon votes away from one of the 2 big parties, so the other one can win easily. That's because you have a "first past the post -winner takes all" type of system. Such systems are neither beneficial nor democratic in their effect on the political process, but they are great for maintaining entrenched power structures.

Subject: RE: BS: Our new Constitution and new Pentagon
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 09:50 AM

I'd love to hear the "Stringsinger"/ Little Hawk definition of who or what they think this mega-evil, all powerful "corporation" is that is plotting our collective downfall.

Sounds a complete and utter load of cobblers to me - "concentration camps" already built eh? - Got the addresses of any Frank? Can we go and see one so that we could at least pick out our bunk.


As they no doubt can identify "it", or "them" to match their scaremongering, I believe that analysis and investigation of their claims will result in the "corporation" being identified as a business venture, more than likely in public ownership with millions of shareholders, including insurance companies and pension funds, i.e. actually owned by those they are attempting to round up and jam into Frank's "Concentration Camps". Complete and utter crap.

Sounds as though LH spends far too much time war-gaming and believing a load of crap he read in comic books as a child. Talk about "Wag-The-Dogitis".

All these conspiracy theory believers - If you want to attempt to present a lie as the truth, the maximum number of people that can be aware of it is three, two who actually know that it is a lie and the third who is only in on the "lie" half of the story. Now for 911 how many would have to know - at least hundreds if not thousands - simply not plausible.

Subject: RE: BS: Our new Constitution and new Pentagon
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 09:58 AM

It's quite a large number of major corporate entities, Teribus, not just one monolithic name. Big business has one objective: to maximize its market share and its profits. That leads in one direction...if you accompany it with no moral sense of responsibility whatsoever.

I'm sure they are delighted to have your tacit support, and if you're young and vigorous enough they might even give you a key position as one of their hatchetmen. Or if not, well, they'll give it to your son(s) instead. Won't that be lovely? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Our new Constitution and new Pentagon
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 09:59 AM

Sorry I forgot. To the following: Richard Bridge; Little Hawk; Barry Finn.

I was not aware that the United States of America had made any attempt to "bomb" anyone back to the Stone-Age, or any other era for that matter, in recent years. They most certainly have the capacity and the ability, but, events show that so far they have resisted the temptation to actually do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Our new Constitution and new Pentagon
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 10:01 AM

The only temptation the USA has resisted lately (since 1945) is unilaterally dropping nuclear weapons on someone.

Let's see if they can continue resisting that one or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Our new Constitution and new Pentagon
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 10:09 AM

US Depleted Uranium weapons in the Balkans and Iraq amounts to over 10,000 Hiroshima sized bombs in the amount of radioactivity unleashed over 17 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Our new Constitution and new Pentagon
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 10:17 AM

Oh, well, that's different...the results are only noticeable to the local people who are directly affected by the radiation, and they may not even realize where it's coming from. It's the "invisible" way of nuking people. Much kinder and gentler.

Subject: RE: BS: Our new Constitution and new Pentagon
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 10:35 AM

"US Depleted Uranium weapons in the Balkans and Iraq amounts to over 10,000 Hiroshima sized bombs in the amount of radioactivity unleashed over 17 years." - Donuel

Now let's see:

The Depleted Uranium of which you speak occurs naturally - is that a danger to us all Donuel - No it isn't.

Only US Depleted Uranium weapons are the problem, Donuel? What about those fired by Saddam Hussein's gunships? What about those fired by the Soviets?

How is it that these Depleated Uranium weapons are only a problem in the Balkans and in Iraq, Donuel? How about in the locations in various countries where there are "live-fire" ranges where they practice and test these munitions? How about the factories where those munitions are machined and made?

Your statement is inaccurate, misleading, uneducated, emotive crap.

Subject: RE: BS: Our new Constitution and new Pentagon
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 12:51 PM

And it's counterproductive to raising support for foreign wars of aggression too. It causes a loss of confidence to speak of such things.

Just stop it right now, Donuel!

Subject: RE: BS: Our new Constitution and new Pentagon
From: Barry Finn
Date: 30 Oct 07 - 01:48 AM

Teribus, I said
"I do find that the stupidity of a military that's capable of bombing Afghanistan & Iraq back into the stone age"

not that
the "United States of America had made any attempt to "bomb" anyone back to the Stone-Age, or any other era for that matter"


note that I said they, as a military, was "capable" not that there was any "attempt" buy the military!
that was your twist on what was said. Please get it right.

If you want an address for these corporations try "any # Wall Street".
Or look up any of the Energy Trading firms, Chemical trading comodity Industries, etc.
You're like the little kid that's gotta be taken by the hand, shown into the bath room, placed in front of the urinal & then told what to look at before you can actually understand what's gotta be done. Get a grip man & start thinking for yourself.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Our new Constitution and new Pentagon
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Oct 07 - 02:29 AM

Reading through some of the posts on this thread Barry, it certainly is not me that needs to "get a grip" of reality.

As usual I am responded to by personal attack, not a single point that I have made to counter the more outrageous claims has been addressed.

By all means Barry, tell us HOW the Energy trading Companies and Chemical trading comodity Industries are building Frank's "Concentration Camps" and attempting to enslave us all.

"Any # Wall Street" - my arse. If you want a little piece of reality Barry, ask yourself, then go and find out, who works for these "Corporations" that Little Hawk & Co keep banging on about, find out who owns their shares. You will find that in the majority of cases where the stock is listed they are people no different from you or from me.

Subject: RE: BS: Our new Constitution and new Pentagon
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Oct 07 - 09:35 AM

The shareholders are simply a lot of poor saps (or maybe clever traders) who have invested their money in the corporate monster, Teribus. The Board of Directors of the corporate monster are the ones who control it. The few suits at the top (most importantly, the Chairman) control it. Most of the shareholders are just hoping their portfolio will go up this year, not down, and they don't have bugger-all to do with determining that corporation's policies...nor do they know bugger-all about it in the first place.


To say that the shareholders control the corporation or manage corporate policy is as laughable as saying that the voters control and manage government policy in the USA, the UK or anywhere else. LOL! That's funny, mate! If you believe it, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Subject: RE: BS: Our new Constitution and new Pentagon
From: Peace
Date: 30 Oct 07 - 12:40 PM

The coming thing is seeds disguised as seeds. Here's what happens. Ya drop tons and tons of seeds near rivers and water supplies. Seeds that turn into water-sucking plants. Eucalyptus, purple loose strife. Follow that up with air strikes wherein you drop fertilizer. Let the plants grow. THEN, instead of sending in the military, send in people who farm. Together, the people from both sides will have to find a way to defeat the trees and plants. The genius of sheer simplicity.

Subject: RE: BS: Our new Constitution and new Pentagon
From: Peace
Date: 30 Oct 07 - 01:11 PM

Just thought: it would give new meaning to the word 'silos'. We could be onto something here, guys and gals.

Subject: RE: BS: Our new Constitution and new Pentagon
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Oct 07 - 01:18 PM

Teribus, I would never automaticly respond to you with a knee jerk personal attack. I would weigh the issue, truth and tolerence of what you have to say. Ad Hominum attacks are often merely juvenile.

In this case I would would like to bind you with wire and force feed you DU like a goose in November. While I am sure you would cry nimby I would continue until you resembled a Macy's day balloon because in this case taking the respondsibility yourself for what you claim is fine to do to others is of paramount importence and morality.

Subject: RE: BS: Our new Constitution and new Pentagon
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Oct 07 - 02:14 PM

"The Board of Directors of the corporate monster are the ones who control it." - What bloody comic book did you lift that from Little Hawk??

"The Board of Directors" according to Company Law this side of the pond have to be nominated and elected to the Board and guess who has the final say as to whether they sit on the Board as Directors - dramatic roll of drums - The shareholders, yes Little Hawk, those poor saps who by investing their money in the corporate monster - actually own the bloody thing.

Now this other one I really liked:

"In this case I would would like to bind you with wire and force feed you DU like a goose in November." - Donuel

Very kind of you Donuel, now let's see what the WHO says would result from your actions.

Point 1 - 98% of everything you feed into me will not be absorbed but would pass right on through.

Point 2 - Contact exposure with DU through the skin is very low and unimportant.

Point 3 - Gut absorption rates for uranium in food and water are about 2% for soluble and about 0.2% for insoluble uranium compounds.

Point 4 - The fraction of uranium absorbed into the blood is generally greater following inhalation than following ingestion of the same chemical form. Of the uranium that is absorbed into the blood, approximately 70% will be filtered by the kidney and excreted in the urine within 24 hours; this amount increases to 90% within a few days.

Point 5 - In assessing potential health effects of exposure to depleted uranium no consistent or confirmed adverse chemical effects of uranium have been reported for the skeleton or liver.

So I am left with the distinct impression that there would be no swelling to the proportions of a "Macey's Day" Balloon or any engorgement of my liver like a Strasbourg Goose. But anyway Donuel, thanks for the gesture but as with most of your endeavours your time would be a damn sight better spent engaged in something a bit more purposeful.

Now then Donuel care to weigh the issues, truths and tolerance and come up with some sort of reponse to the questions you were asked relating to your assertion that:
"US Depleted Uranium weapons in the Balkans and Iraq amounts to over 10,000 Hiroshima sized bombs in the amount of radioactivity unleashed over 17 years."

Only US Depleted Uranium weapons are the problem, Donuel? What about those fired by Saddam Hussein's gunships? What about those fired by the Soviets?

How is it that these Depleated Uranium weapons are only a problem in the Balkans and in Iraq, Donuel? How about in the locations in various countries where there are "live-fire" ranges where they practice and test these munitions? How about the factories where those munitions are machined and made?

By the bye Donuel have you got any idea why it is called "Depleated" Uranium?

Natural uranium consists of a mixture of three radioactive isotopes which are identified by the mass numbers 238U (99.27% by mass), 235U (0.72%) and 234U (0.0054%).


Depleted uranium contains about 99.8% 238U, 0.2% 235U and 0.001% 234U by mass.

The main difference between DU and natural uranium is that the former contains at least three times less 235U than the latter.
DU, consequently, is weakly radioactive and a radiation dose from it would be about 60% of that from purified natural uranium with the same mass.

So Donuel it is actually less radioactive than natural uranium that can be found just lying about on the face of the planet - how come we didn't all die off centuries ago, if it is as dangerous as Donuel would like to make us all think it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Our new Constitution and new Pentagon
From: Peace
Date: 30 Oct 07 - 02:17 PM

So, my seed idea ain't gonna fly, is it. S'ok. I'll be back. Gonna make you all an offer you can't refuse . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Our new Constitution and new Pentagon
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Oct 07 - 03:33 PM

There are different types of shares, Teribus...

Preferred Shares and Common Shares. The Preferred Shares are usually issued to a small group of original investors who set up the company, appoint a Board of Directors from amongst themselves, and then issue a great number of Common Shares which are sold to the ordinary public...people such as you and me.

The ordinary public buys those shares in hopes that their investment will appreciate. The original investors, who are probably sitting on the Board, happily take the public's money and use it to finance the company's activities...and pay themselves a nice big salary as well.

On the higher corporate levels, those Board members are normally exceedingly wealthy men who already have their money in a number of different corporate endeavours, and they move that money around.

The ordinary public who have invested by buying Common Shares usually know very little about what is happening with corporate policy...mainly because they are busy with other matters, like their daily lives, their jobs, survival, the usual stuff. Accordingly, they trust the business pros in the Board to manage things for them...and they will not get upset if the value of their shares does not decline. Their input into corporate policy is normally ZILCH (nada) (nonexistent).

Now and then there is an election for a new Board of Directors. If you're a small shareholder, you may get a form letter in the mail advising you that you have the privilege to vote for the Board on such and such a date, time, and place...or you can send in your vote by mail. Since you don't know personally know anyone on the Board or who might soon be on the Board, you have little if anything to go on to make a voting decision...so what happens when most people get those form letters? Nothing. They do not go to the meeting. They do not vote. If they did go, they wouldn't know who to vote FOR. They would all have to actually know each other AND know the people nominated to serve on the Board to be in any position to be empowered to have a meaningful influence on who serves on the Board and what the Board does. You cannot vote effectively when you're out of the loop and don't know how to vote or for whom.

And most of them know little or nothing about it. So their influence on corporate policy, like the influence of ordinary voters on government policy is theoretically there in a potential sense, of course, but it never actually happens in reality.

What happens is that a group of corporate pros and insiders come to the election of the Board, they elect the people who THEY picked ahead of time to serve on the Board, and corporate policy remains in the hands of the insiders who are at the top of the corporation and always will be...aside from infighting, of course, amongst those very insiders...which happens a lot.

And that's reality, in almost every case.

That is essentially what happens in our party politics and our political elections as well. They are run by the insiders, for the insiders, and the public rubber stamps whichever insiders the system puts in front of them at election time. They choose Tweedeldum, Tweedledee, or Tweedledawk...all of whom have been picked by the insiders from among the insiders. The public does NOT have the real power, because the public is too disunited and uninformed and out of the loop to be ABLE to have the real power. 50,000 or 50 millions owners of something (a corporation or a nation) CANNOT work together effectively and CONTROL what they own, if they can't communicate with each other and figure out what the hell is going on.

And that's what the insiders depend on. The guys at the top. The politicians and corporate Board members. They don't fear the public, because the public has been rendered ignorant, disunited, and impotent. The only thing the insiders must fear, generally speaking, is competition from their fellow insiders.

Money serves money. And it goes around in a closed loop, run by those who already HAVE the most money. This is true in politics. It is true in corporate management too....Hollywood feelgood movies about working class heroes who challenge the system notwithstanding...

If I buy shares, Teribus, I am lending my money to an artificial entity called a "coroporation" on a calculated risk that I will get more money back some day. If I buy government bonds, I'm doing the same thing on a national scale. Who then has the power? Me, or the executives of the corporation or government I lent my money to? They have the power, because THEY HAVE MY money in their hands, and they will use it exactly as they see fit. They may even cause the corporation to go into receivership in order to create a tax loss against some bigger thing they're doing elsewhere. They may take the country to war. If so, I and the other shareholders are screwed. They have the power. We take the risk. They reap the main rewards. We get the crumbs that are swept off the table after they have eaten.

Subject: RE: BS: Our new Constitution and new Pentagon
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Nov 07 - 08:24 PM

Yup, DU is no more dangerous than Radon.


mmmmmmm DU with Radon sauce. yum

Since it is so safe China should start making their toys with DU.
Heck, who would be surprised if they do already.

Subject: RE: BS: Our new Constitution and new Pentagon
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 01:26 AM

Wrong again Donuel Radon (Naturally occuring) is more dangerous than similarly naturally occuring uranium or DU.

Little Hawk the investor whether he holds 'A' or 'B' shares, 'Preferred' or 'Ordinary' shares has the ultimate sanction, he or she can withdraw their money. It is up to the individual as to how ignorant he or she wishes to remain about their investments. Personal choice LH, not part of some great plan or evil scheme. Your little lecture is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions. "Corporations" are run by ordinary people, just like you and me, for the benefit of their shareholders, they have enough to do just doing that, without having any mega-evil plan for enslaving the masses, or to control governments, or for that matter building concentration camps to park us all in. Another fallacy dearly clung to by such as yourself and your fellow travellers is that "War is good for business" - generally it is not, quite the reverse in fact. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to recognise that a period of peace and prosperity are more conducive to making profit than a period of war, disruption and uncertainty, it does of course make a difference in what you are making.

Over this side Stock Brokerage Firms tend to be used and the investor relies on that company's intimate knowledge of the markets for advice, tends to work as well thinking back on the first shares I bought £5,000 of BP, became £25,000 in 10 years. If you elect to do so and pay extra for his services the Stock Broker can assign a manager to your portfolio of stocks and shares and he "works" your investments to maximise capital growth. This tends to be more long term and you get little or no income from your investments but the total worth of your investments increases amazingly.

Subject: RE: BS: Our new Constitution and new Pentagon
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 07:51 PM

We've had this very discussion before about DU's... I remember posting, ahhhh, 5 or 6 years ago about a VA doctor who was getting too close to the truth... He was fired by the Bush people who insisited that DU's were of no danger... The reason given for the firing was that the VA hospital was overstaffed... First of all, no VA hospitals are overstaffed, quite the opposite... Secondly, the same hospital hired not one, but two, doctors to take his place...

This DU arguments is typical of the Bushites... They "proclaim" but ain't interested in the truth... Might of fact, the truth is the enemy to all Bushites, the T-Bird included...

No, we don't want no truth gettin' out...

DU's if good for you... Better than Wonder Bread... Word on the street is that the health food stores are goin' to be sellin' DU suppliment pills come spring...

Maybe I'll send a couple bottles to Bush and Cheney??? Maybe a bottle to the T-zer???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Our new Constitution and new Pentagon
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Nov 07 - 01:03 AM

What has the current President of the United States of America or his Administration got to do with the World Health Organisation Bobert?

Natural uranium consists of a mixture of three radioactive isotopes which are identified by the mass numbers 238U (99.27% by mass), 235U (0.72%) and 234U (0.0054%).

Depleted uranium contains about 99.8% 238U, 0.2% 235U and 0.001% 234U by mass.

The main difference between DU and natural uranium is that the former contains at least three times less 235U than the latter.
DU, consequently, is weakly radioactive and a radiation dose from it would be about 60% of that from purified natural uranium with the same mass.

So Bobert according to science it is actually less radioactive than natural uranium that can be found just lying about on the face of the planet - So you tell us Bobert if DU is so dangerous how come we didn't all die off centuries ago, due to the amounts of natural uranium which is 1.67 times more radioactive.