William Kelly Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 The Election ended tonight. If either Hillary Rodham Buh or O' bomb em wins absolutely nothing will change. I'll bet there will be a new Attorney General of the USA. BK ________________________________ Yes Bill there's still a chance of that! But remember, even if a dem is elected, the Legislative Branch will have woken up and Republicans (minority, no matter) will be on TV every night, unlike the current Senata and house Mummy majority leaders. Any new AG will have to pass through this crew, and besides look who was just appointed at the suggestion of NY dem Chuck "American Expres" Schumer. Its a shell game with two shells and both may as well be owned by shell. Sure you can find a micro-difference, but after looking at the last eight years, I have concluded that Lesser of Two Evilism -- as media-managed-- IS the evil. No way Bush could have done this without a completely toothless Democratic party. And it pays them well to be gummy! A new attorney general might be more sympathtic to our Special Federal Grand Jury Petiton, or not interfere with the convening of such a grand jury by a Federal District Attorney. Sp a change at President and AG could be the most significant political event for those interested in advancing a legal resolution to the assassination of JFK. The regime change would also likely make it easier to obtain FOIA records and possible enforcement of JFK Act. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathaniel Heidenheimer Posted March 9, 2008 Author Share Posted March 9, 2008 The Election ended tonight. If either Hillary Rodham Buh or O' bomb em wins absolutely nothing will change. I'll bet there will be a new Attorney General of the USA. BK ________________________________ Yes Bill there's still a chance of that! But remember, even if a dem is elected, the Legislative Branch will have woken up and Republicans (minority, no matter) will be on TV every night, unlike the current Senata and house Mummy majority leaders. Any new AG will have to pass through this crew, and besides look who was just appointed at the suggestion of NY dem Chuck "American Expres" Schumer. Its a shell game with two shells and both may as well be owned by shell. Sure you can find a micro-difference, but after looking at the last eight years, I have concluded that Lesser of Two Evilism -- as media-managed-- IS the evil. No way Bush could have done this without a completely toothless Democratic party. And it pays them well to be gummy! --------------A new attorney general might be more sympathtic to our Special Federal Grand Jury Petiton, or not interfere with the convening of such a grand jury by a Federal District Attorney. Sp a change at President and AG could be the most significant political event for those interested in advancing a legal resolution to the assassination of JFK. The regime change would also likely make it easier to obtain FOIA records and possible enforcement of JFK Act. ------------ BK Bill I hope you're right. I just don't see it though. The party of 2009 is the same one that has been in charge while Bush created the most secretive government ever. THey were nothing more than accomplices and legitimaters of secrecy. I dont see a party that has just caved in and legitimated (by not saying a word of opposition to the RADICALLY regresive nsa telecom immunity bill or the nsa stuff itself, suddenly turning around and doing something progressive about CIA records. Remember what Clinton did to kill off MLK investigations in 2000? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathaniel Heidenheimer Posted May 1, 2008 Author Share Posted May 1, 2008 If anyone can explain to me how our completely rigged Corporate Selections can produce any change at this late state of profound corruption, well I'm all ears. Elections are now a tool of reaction. They only serve to divide the opposition over meaningless communications ploys. I dont say this about all elections all the time, but now our fake corporate elections can only serve the ruling vermin. Can anyone immagine a more loyal opposition in history than todays corporate Bendovercrats? It has become surreal how they can manage to always be on the defensive when the Republicans have about 17 % support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathaniel Heidenheimer Posted August 22, 2008 Author Share Posted August 22, 2008 Does anyone still think that the US elections will produce any chage? Oboma has somehow managed to be trailing a senile guy who cant remember how many houses he owns. In the year following the least popular admin in history he has said nothing. THe best thing we can do is denounce the THE FAKE CORPORATE ELECTIONS, 2008! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 What about Obama's choice of running mate? Has he missed out on many votes by not selecting Clinton, or was the animosity between them during the primaries (?) too great to ever be overcome? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathaniel Heidenheimer Posted August 26, 2008 Author Share Posted August 26, 2008 What about Obama's choice of running mate?Has he missed out on many votes by not selecting Clinton, or was the animosity between them during the primaries (?) too great to ever be overcome? ------ It is usefull to compare Hillary's role to that of Teddy Kennedy in 1980, Jesse Jackson of 1988. Howard Dean in 2004. As the dems have moved right they used to find a need to show a prime time bone to their left/core. Usually this candidate is more akin to what poll majorities want but considered "too liberal" for the media kingmakers. It is therefor notworthy just how far right this years version is. Hillary was amazingly trying to donn the role of Tribune of the (White) working class, -- actually it was more a draping of lanuage by CNN-- even when Clinton's had done more than anything to declassify the democrats. It is truly a remarkable sign of just how far this party has come and just how top-down this election has been administered, that the role of Teddy, Jesse and Howard will now be played by Ms. Rosewater von Wallmart! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Hall Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 What about Obama's choice of running mate?Has he missed out on many votes by not selecting Clinton, or was the animosity between them during the primaries (?) too great to ever be overcome? ------ It is usefull to compare Hillary's role to that of Teddy Kennedy in 1980, Jesse Jackson of 1988. Howard Dean in 2004. As the dems have moved right they used to find a need to show a prime time bone to their left/core. Usually this candidate is more akin to what poll majorities want but considered "too liberal" for the media kingmakers. It is therefor notworthy just how far right this years version is. Hillary was amazingly trying to donn the role of Tribune of the (White) working class, -- actually it was more a draping of lanuage by CNN-- even when Clinton's had done more than anything to declassify the democrats. It is truly a remarkable sign of just how far this party has come and just how top-down this election has been administered, that the role of Teddy, Jesse and Howard will now be played by Ms. Rosewater von Wallmart! You make good points, Nat. There will be a similar throwing of bones to the true conservatives (as distiniguished from the neocons) next week in Minneapolis, but I couldn't bring myself to watch it if I wanted to do so. I might have to break down and watch WJC tonight since his petulance will be on display and could provide the only drama the convention will likely have. And where are all the protesters who were supposed to be holding demonstrations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathaniel Heidenheimer Posted August 27, 2008 Author Share Posted August 27, 2008 Chris -- yes the Republicans will make a show of throwing bones to the Main Street religious part of their party. But with the hosting of that CNN religious thing last week, this bone throwing has been given to a higher hand, that of Wolf Blitzer, the selector! What effect will this have on the evangelicals? Will they still fall for the same Republicans bait and switch on abortion? To me the real point is that they don't need to throw a bone to the Corporate Wing. They are too visibly chewing thier fillet mignon! How will they try to hide THAT feast? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Hall Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 (edited) Chris -- yes the Republicans will make a show of throwing bones to the Main Street religious part of their party. But with the hosting of that CNN religious thing last week, this bone throwing has been given to a higher hand, that of Wolf Blitzer, the selector! What effect will this have on the evangelicals? Will they still fall for the same Republicans bait and switch on abortion?To me the real point is that they don't need to throw a bone to the Corporate Wing. They are too visibly chewing thier fillet mignon! How will they try to hide THAT feast? I don't understand your comments about the religious thing on television last week or Wolf Blitzer, which means I have been doing more reading and less television watching (a perrenial New Years resolution, I might add). I am a Catholic and not an evangelical, so I don't really follow the evangelicals' voting trends and positions. Remember a few short months ago when Rev. Hagy, the Houston-based 400 lb televangelist from whom McCain recently disassociated himself, called the Catholic Church "the great whore" and then apologized to any Catholics who "might have been offended by my remarks." This is the same preacher whose church pays him over $1,000,000 per year (and he will modestly admit that "I'm worth every bit of it") and who ran around on his first wife. I don't follow that crowd (Pat Robertson, the late Rev. Falwell, etc.). Also, there is no corporate wing to the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. There are Democratic and Republican wings to the corporate multi-national interests, and they are nurtured and bought with the same dollars. That is why you see pictures of both parties seemingly equally represented at the Bilderberg Group, CFR and Tri-Lateral Commission meetings. The Democratic and Republican Parties do their bidding, not the other way around. Edited August 28, 2008 by Christopher Hall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathaniel Heidenheimer Posted August 28, 2008 Author Share Posted August 28, 2008 Chris, what I was alluding to was CNN's broadcast of megachurch leader's joint interview with both McCain and Obama. This was a new step, because it moved the religion-values-propaganda (not that real values are but just how they are used in politics) from being associated with One candidate to the religion-valuespropaganda being associated more with the "referee" who asks the questions. Propaganda wise this makes it seem like thes highly subjective and loaded "morality" issues are more objective since they SEEM TO the viewer at home to be questions coming from someone who is "not taking sides" A new step in media brainwashing, if you ask me, but who can count them anymore!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 The Election ended tonight. If either Hillary Rodham Buh or O' bomb em wins absolutely nothing will change. What about the choice between Obama and McCain? I would have thought the appointment of new members of the Supreme Court would encourage Clinton supporters to vote for Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Hall Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 Chris, what I was alluding to was CNN's broadcast of megachurch leader's joint interview with both McCain and Obama. This was a new step, because it moved the religion-values-propaganda (not that real values are but just how they are used in politics) from being associated with One candidate to the religion-valuespropaganda being associated more with the "referee" who asks the questions. Propaganda wise this makes it seem like thes highly subjective and loaded "morality" issues are more objective since they SEEM TO the viewer at home to be questions coming from someone who is "not taking sides"A new step in media brainwashing, if you ask me, but who can count them anymore!? Nat- I had forgotten about this event/debate. I didn't know that Wolf Blitzer was the moderator and I didn't watch any of it. Nonetheless, the old media has historically been able to set the agenda for public debate, but its ability to do so is now being whipsawed by conservative and liberal blogs and news aggregators. It's about time. I don't want to only be able to consider and evaluate the issues that the alphabet media, Fox, NTT, WaPo, etc. have determined fit for my consumption. Given their corporate ownership, I certainly don't trust their objectivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now