Jump to content

Hillary Clinton and the JFK Assassination


Recommended Posts

Well said Bernie!

It was like that here (and maybe there) with Special Branch infiltrating all the local left groups and parties.

There is abundant circumstantial evidence that the entire executive commitee of the Communist Party of Great Britain had (and probably still have) strong links with the intelligence services. How bizarre is that? Part of their day to day activities would certainly have included recruitment, raising finance, producing radical agitational literature, forging links with Union activists, exposing the hypocracy of the Labour Party etc... No wonder some of the big wigs in MI5 sat down for a moment and questioned the strategy of creating the very 'problem' which they were designed to neuter!

So The Weekly Worker, mouthpiece of the CPGB, now spends all its time and energy in dishing out gossip and misinformation on all the other left wing groups; its sole effort is to sow confusion and demoralisation among what remains of the left. It is no more than a Stalinist tabloid designed to confuse. Fair play, these MI5 boys have done their homework and understand how best to manipulate the left into a political desert.

But then there's always the danger of one of these agents going 'native'! And if as a result of economic turbulence over the coming period many new faces join these organisations, some will be inspired to do just that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A viable alternative to the Tory party

Bernie,

I actually wrote “A viable alternative to the Tory party IN THE EYES OF THE BRITISH ELECTORATE”

Even when unemployment was at an all time record, the miners were fighting for their lives and millions lived in fear of the dole

Bernie,

I was made redundant twice in the early 80’s. I left family and friends in my home town of Liverpool to seek employment as a Toolmaker, first in the Midlands and then on the south coast in the town of Chichester.

Ensconced on the affluent south coast (For our American friend's there was little unemploymemt at the time on the south coast of England. Particularly so in Light manufacturing, unlike the older Heavy Industry of Northern England) I watched the evening News with great sadness in 1984 when the Mining communities of the North and South Wales were devastated by Thatcher’s Tory Government. However I wasn’t surprised when she was re-elected in 1987, nor when Major was elected in 1992 (by then I’d moved back to my beloved home town)

Bernie, maybe the British intelligence services are putting something in the British electorate’s tea!

Apologies to our American friends for being so off base in terms of what this forum is all about. However Bernie’s differing views to mine regarding this little snapshot of British history maybe of some interest.

Regards

Chris Brown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bernie,

I actually wrote “A viable alternative to the Tory party IN THE EYES OF THE BRITISH ELECTORATE”

Chris in 1997 after 18 years of hard-line, hard right wing Thatcherism, even Kermit the Frog would have been a viable alternative! It really wasn’t the due to the ‘statesmanship’ of the New Labour leaders’ lurch to the centre/right: they won the 1997 election despite their capitulation to neo-con economic policies; despite kow-towing to the banks and other powerful financial institutions and despite their renunciation of all they had hitherto believed in (and how untrustworthy is

that?)

Put simply - they won because the Tories lost!

But just what IS alternative about New Labour, or for that matter, so as to include our American friends, Hillary or Obama? What have New Labour done that couldn’t feasibly have been done by a Tory Government? The political debate in the UK has now boiled down to which party has the best executive team to carry through the political needs of the hugely powerful and vastly rich.

The move to the ‘centre’ is nothing more than a realisation that the political system has been hi-jacked and now effectively suspended. New Labour has knowingly connived in this unprincipled deceit and they will no doubt retreat back into their middle class careers when they are inevitably booted out of office at the next election. Job done!

I often wonder how much longer the Soviet Union would have lasted had they employed the political trick of creating a ‘controlled’ opposition, similar to the ones used to such devastating effect in the West. Give the Russians two communist parties and therefore the ‘appearance’ that they have a choice, some control over their destiny, a say in how their country is run, when all the while it’s the same people running both parties and manipulating the people into a state of torpor. It would have been so easy! It IS so easy!

The Democrats and New Labour are nothing more than Neo cons with a face lift! And a pretty cheap one at that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leo. B. Harley believes that Hillary Clinton was involved in the cover-up of the Assassination of JFK. You can read the article here:

http://www.freewebs.com/leobharley/

I had no idea that Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater supporter when she was young. Tony Blair was a Conservative until he met his wife at university. He then joined the Labour Party, CND, etc. However, once he gained power he emerged once again as a Conservative. According to one MI5 agent, Blair had been recruited to infiltrate the Labour movement. His relationship with his so-called left-wing wife was his "legend". He was a "sleeper" who eventually got to the top of the organization he was spying on. Is it possible that Hillary Clinton was recruited by the CIA as a student? Remember, she was also involved in the Watergate investigation.

More than once James Files has mentioned to me that both Hillary and Bill are CIA connected. She is also one of the few women that attend the annual Bilderberg meeting.

She is ruthless and sorry to say, I think she and Bill will be our next President. I really hope not but JFK Jr. and Vince Foster's deaths will be wasted if she doesn't achieve her life long goal.

Just a side note, Files mentioned her family in Park Ridge lived next door to his ex-in-laws and he even gave her a motorcycle ride way back when. She knows James Files and don't count on a pardon!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris in 1997 after 18 years of hard-line, hard right wing Thatcherism, even Kermit the Frog would have been a viable alternative! It really wasn’t the due to the ‘statesmanship’ of the New Labour leaders’ lurch to the centre/right: they won the 1997 election despite their capitulation to neo-con economic policies; despite kow-towing to the banks and other powerful financial institutions and despite their renunciation of all they had hitherto believed in (and how untrustworthy is

that?)

IMO if the Labour party had not ‘modernised’ the BRITISH ELECTORATE wouldn’t have voted for them. 3 General Election wins. Never in the history of British politics had the Labour party enjoyed 3 consecutive mandates from the BRITISH ELECTORATE.

I often wonder how much longer the Soviet Union would have lasted had they employed the political trick of creating a ‘controlled’ opposition, similar to the ones used to such devastating effect in the West. Give the Russians two communist parties and therefore the ‘appearance’ that they have a choice, some control over their destiny, a say in how their country is run, when all the while it’s the same people running both parties and manipulating the people into a state of torpor. It would have been so easy! It IS so easy!

IMO if they would have continued with the expansionist policies of Arms and Space related activity’s Not much longer. However if they would have walked away from the direct competition with the worlds only REAL superpower, maybe a few years longer.

Bernie the bottom line is, whether you like it or not: Planned economies don’t use their resources as efficiently as Market economies.

By the way, what do you do to ‘earn a crust’ looked up your Bio, not much there.

Chris Brown

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Tony Blair was a Conservative until he met his wife at university. He then joined the Labour Party, CND, etc. However, once he gained power he emerged once again as a Conservative. According to one MI5 agent, Blair had been recruited to infiltrate the Labour movement. His relationship with his so-called left-wing wife was his "legend". He was a "sleeper" who eventually got to the top of the organization he was spying on."

John, I just can't buy this.

I was and still am of the opinion that the late John Smith, Neil Kinnock and Tony Blair all did their bit in moving the Labour party to the centre of British politics. Changing its focus to the needs of a modern market economy and making it a viable alternative to the Tory party in the eyes of the British electorate.

Chris Brown.

"A viable alternative to the Tory party"!? Did somebody really just write those words? New Labour are neither alternative nor viable and very soon they will receive an electoral thrashing for neglecting their core political base by "moving …to the centre".

And what do New Labour apologists really mean when they say "the centre". Do you mean an unprincipled acceptance of the neo-con political agenda, whether that's illegal wars, rampant privatisation, tax cuts for the rich, slavish subservience to big business or any other such "needs of a modern market economy"? Because that's the reality.

New Labour now has its grubby little fingers over every millimetre of this "middle ground" but it doesn't seem to have done its popularity much good.

When it does all eventually go bottoms up (and recent polls spell a humiliating disaster for this most pompous of governments) who will their apologists blame then? It used to be the "Loony Left"; they always had them as the scapegoat for previous Labour Leaders' futile attempts to show big business "how to run the capitalist system"!

Here's a delicious irony. Neil Kinnock spent most of his leadership struggling to expel The Militant (a small left wing faction inside the Labour Party) on the grounds that it was an "entryist organisation" with ideas "alien to democratic socialism". Year upon year was spent hounding this tiny organisation, even when unemployment was at an all time record, the miners were fighting for their lives and millions lived in fear of the dole, Kinnock, leader of the Official Opposition, saw fit to persist in this hounding, goaded on by the press, and goaded on by his bloated ambitions, until finally, he received his just reward – two election defeats! Ah yes, the irony… Here's Kinnock valiantly kicking out left wing, predominantly working class, "entryists" when all the while the left wing party he ostensibly 'lead' was stealthily being taken over by right wing, predominantly middle class, Tory entryists! You couldn't write it!

The role of the Labour party was long ago transformed from a radical socialist campaigning organisation to no more than a safety valve; a 'legitimate' way for workers to let off political steam, to stop them from drawing revolutionary conclusions, but always harnessed by a right wing leadership and herded by future promises of a vague 'socialist' mirage: promises they had no intentions of fulfilling, even if they had the power to do so.

By bowing to the inevitable dictats and irrepairable contradictions of a free market economy the Labour Party ultimately (and knowingly!) create despair and disillusionment thus preparing the ground for a new Conservative Government, who then have the authority to push the political agenda further and further to the right. And so it goes on…

So be warned America: Hilary or Obama won't make a jot of difference. They'll be no more than a breathing space, a consolidating period, holding the fort for the next wave of assaults from a re-charged Republican Party who will have a legitimate mandate to go even further than this time. Iraq? Iran? Small potatoes. Try China. Or Russia.

But first a dose of 'liberal' democracy is needed to lull the masses, to disillusion them with false promises, so that the right can return with a vengeance.

Terrifying!

This is all very interesting, but I am surprised no one has mentioned,......[i do not know if it is true or folklore, hence I do not use the word "fact"] that Bill Clinton was one of the individuals who was at the airport when Hale Boggs entered into eternity, not that his being present, if that is the case denoted anything other than being at the wrong place at the wrong time.....Does it not seem odd that the Unsolved Mysteries genre has never delved into that topic. Heck, they never even found the plane......

According to Skolnick:

"Another "flag officer", dissenting against Commander-in-Chief Clinton's treason was General David McCloud, head of the Alaska Military District. Assassinated by a sabotaged plane crash, McCloud had been in a position to know what the American CIA and FBI had done to cover-up what was done with Congressman Hale Boggs and his fellow airplane passenger, Congressman Nick Begich, Sr. (D., Alaska) when their plane was crashed and seized by a highly secret U.S. group in Alaska. By the way, WHO drove Cong. Boggs to the airport? Why a young man named Bill Clinton."

http://www.cloakanddagger.de/media/S_284_S...0SYNDROME_2.htm

NB - some interesting 'stuff' on the Clintons in the above piece, indeed!....

Peter:

Thanks for the Skolnick piece, (RIP). I just wish he would have cited sources for all he says. AFter I get some work done I am going to google some of this (murder of VInce Foster's wife's step son Neal Moody eg). Skolnick was one of the first people to educate me on how the world really works. I had, in1973, several of his tapes along with his long paper on the 12/8 /72 Watergate plane crash, and that was 100% sourced. ( Dorothy Hunt 's murder, along with many others) . The audio tapes I had were totally sourced, so in the summer of 1974, I flew to Washington DC and spent two days at the Liab of Congress looking up his cites. I left sickened. But not surprised.

So the trolls here can call us the "nuts" all they wish. We know what is real and we know the true danger of "where" we are today.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris in 1997 after 18 years of hard-line, hard right wing Thatcherism, even Kermit the Frog would have been a viable alternative! It really wasn’t the due to the ‘statesmanship’ of the New Labour leaders’ lurch to the centre/right: they won the 1997 election despite their capitulation to neo-con economic policies; despite kow-towing to the banks and other powerful financial institutions and despite their renunciation of all they had hitherto believed in (and how untrustworthy is

that?)

IMO if the Labour party had not ‘modernised’ the BRITISH ELECTORATE wouldn’t have voted for them. 3 General Election wins. Never in the history of British politics had the Labour party enjoyed 3 consecutive mandates from the BRITISH ELECTORATE.

I often wonder how much longer the Soviet Union would have lasted had they employed the political trick of creating a ‘controlled’ opposition, similar to the ones used to such devastating effect in the West. Give the Russians two communist parties and therefore the ‘appearance’ that they have a choice, some control over their destiny, a say in how their country is run, when all the while it’s the same people running both parties and manipulating the people into a state of torpor. It would have been so easy! It IS so easy!

IMO if they would have continued with the expansionist policies of Arms and Space related activity’s Not much longer. However if they would have walked away from the direct competition with the worlds only REAL superpower, maybe a few years longer.

Bernie the bottom line is, whether you like it or not: Planned economies don’t use their resources as efficiently as Market economies.

By the way, what do you do to ‘earn a crust’ looked up your Bio, not much there.

Chris Brown

IMO if the Labour party had not ‘modernised’ the BRITISH ELECTORATE wouldn’t have voted for them. 3 General Election wins. Never in the history of British politics had the Labour party enjoyed 3 consecutive mandates from the BRITISH ELECTORATE.

Again we hear the ‘spin’ word “modernise”. What does that mean if not capitulation to neo con free market economics? Here is the theory (believe me I heard it often enough during the 80’s) - “The Tories are popular and winning elections…therefore…we should become just like them and maybe we’ll win one”!

Incidentally Chris, yes you’re right, Labour has won 3 elections in eight years (1997 – 2005): but between the years 1964 to 1974 it won FOUR! And yep, that was WAY before they ‘modernised’.

This is where we differ Chris. To me a political party has a set of core values, beliefs and principles and decides on its policies accordingly. A political party should have a road map of where it wants to be and how it’s going to get there: it should have its own vision of a brighter future and it should be able to inspire and lead and be inclusive to its core supporters and beyond.

However, New Labour has disregarded all that and decided to simply open up a tacky market stall and just ASK passers-by "what would you like to hear?". Moods change according to the political and financial circumstances – core values don’t. People can tend towards knee-jerk reactions – political parties should be able to see around the corner and explain the bigger picture.

A political party’s job is to lead and inspire not ask. Alex Ferguson’s job is to create good football that the crowds turn up to see: he doesn’t ask them…he shows them! And if he gets it wrong then out he goes.

Labour has got it wrong every time. Never once has it even attempted to transform society or take on the vested interests of the top 200 families that dominate the economy. Never once! Of all the political formations over the last 100 years that is the ONLY avenue still left untried; every Labour Government has bowed to the immense pressures placed on them on day one, from the banks, the stock market, the judiciary, the media etc… rather than seek to defend the interests of the people who put them there.

I repeat Chris, New Labour won in 1997 because the despised Tories lost. It really is that simple. And the proof is the humiliating plummet in support for New Labour: never before has a government been held in such universal contempt. Surely a devastating defeat at the next election will seal this debate; it will prove outright that ‘modernisation’ hasn’t worked, that it was pure luck it coincided with a similar contempt for the Tories in 1997.

Why is this ‘modernised’ New Labour Party so unpopular Chris? How do you square that circle?

IMO if they would have continued with the expansionist policies of Arms and Space related activity’s Not much longer. However if they would have walked away from the direct competition with the worlds only REAL superpower, maybe a few years longer.

Bernie the bottom line is, whether you like it or not: Planned economies don’t use their resources as efficiently as Market economies.

By the way, what do you do to ‘earn a crust’ looked up your Bio, not much there.

Chris I wasn’t in any way lending even the slightest sliver of support for the Soviet Union; I despised that system more than the winner-takes-all free market rip off. I was merely making the point that had the people been given an ‘opposition’ party to temporarily vent their anger, they may have been lulled into thinking that they had a choice over their destiny. It would have been an enormously powerful social tool. I believe this is the purpose of the Democrats and New Labour: to lull people into thinking we live in a democracy.

Like high class magicians they dazzle the audience with a well-rehearsed patter, hoodwinking them with deft sleights of hand, tricking them with mirrored images, but most important of all - screening the rich theatre owners counting all the money!

It seems though that New Labour have now run out of tricks: either that or the audience has seen them all before. Over to Clinton or Obama, what will they pull out of the hat? 10 to 1 it’s not a rabbit, more likely it’ll be McCain!

My job Chris encompasses many disciplines including distribution, logistics, engineering maintenance and customer liaison: sounds impressive eh? OK, I’m a van driver! And yes, it’s a white van. But in my OWN time I write plays, comedy sketches, do a bit of acting and sing/play guitar in a couple of bands. I earn enough out of these activities to keep me in van driving!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again we hear the ‘spin’ word “modernise”. What does that mean if not capitulation to neo con free market economics[/b]

‘Neo con’ sounds like spin to me!

Incidentally Chris, yes you’re right, Labour has won 3 elections in eight years (1997 – 2005): but between the years 1964 to 1974 it won FOUR! And yep, that was WAY before they ‘modernised’.

4 terms of office between 1964 to 1979 and only one term with a workable majority.

The only time ‘OLD’ Labour enjoyed a workable majority anything like ‘New’ Labour was in 1945! Even the Tory party has ‘modernised’ in my lifetime. Political parties evolve just like the societies they spawn from (IMO)

This is where we differ Chris.

At last we agree on something!

Why is this ‘modernised’ New Labour Party so unpopular Chris? How do you square that circle?

Thatcher was once popular; she became unpopular in the eyes of the BRITISH ELECTORATE and was booted out by Conservative MP’s even though she still had the backing of grass roots Tory party members. IMO Politicians propensity to sleaze is directly proportional to their length of time in office.

My job Chris encompasses many disciplines including distribution, logistics, engineering maintenance and customer liaison: sounds impressive eh? OK, I’m a van driver! And yes, it’s a white van. But in my OWN time I write plays, comedy sketches, do a bit of acting and sing/play guitar in a couple of bands. I earn enough out of these activities to keep me in van driving!

Copy and paste to your BIO!

It never ceases to amaze me how many people who spout full visibly from our public servants seem reluctant to share detailed bio’s on this site.

Chris Brown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again we hear the ‘spin’ word “modernise”. What does that mean if not capitulation to neo con free market economics[/b]

‘Neo con’ sounds like spin to me!

Incidentally Chris, yes you’re right, Labour has won 3 elections in eight years (1997 – 2005): but between the years 1964 to 1974 it won FOUR! And yep, that was WAY before they ‘modernised’.

4 terms of office between 1964 to 1979 and only one term with a workable majority.

The only time ‘OLD’ Labour enjoyed a workable majority anything like ‘New’ Labour was in 1945! Even the Tory party has ‘modernised’ in my lifetime. Political parties evolve just like the societies they spawn from (IMO)

This is where we differ Chris.

At last we agree on something!

Why is this ‘modernised’ New Labour Party so unpopular Chris? How do you square that circle?

Thatcher was once popular; she became unpopular in the eyes of the BRITISH ELECTORATE and was booted out by Conservative MP’s even though she still had the backing of grass roots Tory party members. IMO Politicians propensity to sleaze is directly proportional to their length of time in office.

My job Chris encompasses many disciplines including distribution, logistics, engineering maintenance and customer liaison: sounds impressive eh? OK, I’m a van driver! And yes, it’s a white van. But in my OWN time I write plays, comedy sketches, do a bit of acting and sing/play guitar in a couple of bands. I earn enough out of these activities to keep me in van driving!

Copy and paste to your BIO!

It never ceases to amaze me how many people who spout full visibly from our public servants seem reluctant to share detailed bio’s on this site.

Chris Brown.

Firstly Chris, Neo con is a specific political direction: "modernisation" is nothing more than a buzz word to trick the people! I did ask what modernisation actually meant but you chose not to even attempt an answer.

The only time ‘OLD’ Labour enjoyed a workable majority anything like ‘New’ Labour was in 1945!

That's right when it had a radical socialist agenda! Chris believe me the Atlee Government was anything but modern! Wasn't it the 1945 Government that introduced the NHS and nationalised - amongst other things - all the utilities? The same recently privatised utuilities who are now ripping everyone off?

I asked: Why is this ‘modernised’ New Labour Party so unpopular Chris? How do you square that circle?

Thatcher was once popular; she became unpopular in the eyes of the BRITISH ELECTORATE and was booted out by Conservative MP’s even though she still had the backing of grass roots Tory party members. IMO Politicians propensity to sleaze is directly proportional to their length of time in office.

No Chris, it's not sleaze that people are concerned with, it's the lying, the deceit, the political bankruptsy, the inability to make sense of our economic system, the callous disregard they show to low paid workers, to the old and to the sick. That's why they are so unpopular. No one could bring themselves to believe that Labour would be or could be as cruel as the last Conservative Government. That's where modernisation has got you Chris. It's made them unelectable for another generation!

Copy and paste to your BIO!

It never ceases to amaze me how many people who spout full visibly from our public servants seem reluctant to share detailed bio’s on this site.

Firstly what I expect from my public servants and what you should expect from me are clearly two different matters. I have no problem placing my Bio details on this forum, I simply haven't got around to it yet. You asked me what I did - I told you. But like with the word "modernisation" I see you also struggle with definition of "reluctant!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"modernisation" is nothing more than a buzz word to trick the people! I did ask what modernisation actually meant but you chose not to even attempt an answer.

I see you also struggle with definition of "reluctant!"

Bernie, if I’m not sure of the meaning of a word, my first thought would be to look for its definition in a Dictionary. Maybe I spent too much time on my Technical education at the expense of my General education in my quest to become as competent a Mechanical Engineer as I could be. Maybe I along with the majority of the British electorate have a vested interest in the market economy we earn our living from. Maybe I along with the majority of the British electorate have more gumption that to be tricked by buzz words.

That's right when it had a radical socialist agenda!

Bernie, nothing wrong with being and/or supporting socialism. Unfortunately people with socialist beliefs are unlikely to see a Socialist Government in the UK or the USA in the foreseeable future.

Chris Brown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"modernisation" is nothing more than a buzz word to trick the people! I did ask what modernisation actually meant but you chose not to even attempt an answer.

I see you also struggle with definition of "reluctant!"

Bernie, if I’m not sure of the meaning of a word, my first thought would be to look for its definition in a Dictionary. Maybe I spent too much time on my Technical education at the expense of my General education in my quest to become as competent a Mechanical Engineer as I could be. Maybe I along with the majority of the British electorate have a vested interest in the market economy we earn our living from. Maybe I along with the majority of the British electorate have more gumption that to be tricked by buzz words.

That's right when it had a radical socialist agenda!

Bernie, nothing wrong with being and/or supporting socialism. Unfortunately people with socialist beliefs are unlikely to see a Socialist Government in the UK or the USA in the foreseeable future.

Chris Brown.

I've given my definition (in the political sense) of the word ‘modernisation’ but I'm still waiting for yours. I can only conclude you agree with my analysis: that it is nothing more than an outright acceptance, in this so called democracy, of pandering to the huge vested economic interests of the very rich and powerful.

Maybe I along with the majority of the British electorate have more gumption that to be tricked by buzz words.

Wow! Chris you must be the only person in the UK who doesn’t think that the role of a politician is to trick people. Are you saying that people don’t routinely complain of our MP’s duplicity, that they always talk the straight truth; that they don’t use words cleverly so as to squirm out of an unforeseen circumstance? So every government in history has been elected entirely on the merit of its electioneering strategy and not on mistruths, exaggerations and/or fear? Buzz words, spin, marketing strategies are fine for the short term, because in the short term people can be tricked. It may win an election or two but it’s substance people want to see.

For example: “Tough on Crime- Tough on the causes of crime”, a famous sound-bite from Tony Blair when he was the shadow Home Secretary. But ask any one of the millions of people who have been a victim of a rocketing crime wave in recent years just what does that sentence mean? They were buzz words Chris, part of the modernisers’ jargon. And people believed them.

Unfortunately people with socialist beliefs are unlikely to see a Socialist Government in the UK or the USA in the foreseeable future.

I agree with you, but almost certainly for very different reasons. From the tone of your contributions I get the feeling a socialist government is the last thing you would want to see. Of course if it followed the path of the old Soviet Union then I would agree with you. But like with all apologists for new Labour (read New Thatcherism) who are dazzled by, and in awe of, the free Market there is this haughty confidence that it will never be a popular idea

“It would be chaos!” and “It would never work!” and “People are too greedy” etc…. Hmm, Lord forbid, under socialism there may be foreign wars, economic chaos, millions dying of starvation, millions displaced or homeless; there could be a wholesale pollution of the planet and there would always be a small powerful elite who did nothing but lived like kings. “That’s what would happen under socialism!”

Imagine how awful that would be? We’d NEVER want to see that now would we? No best stick to what we know and just ‘modernise’ it every now and then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"modernisation" is nothing more than a buzz word to trick the people! I did ask what modernisation actually meant but you chose not to even attempt an answer.

I see you also struggle with definition of "reluctant!"

Bernie, if I’m not sure of the meaning of a word, my first thought would be to look for its definition in a Dictionary. Maybe I spent too much time on my Technical education at the expense of my General education in my quest to become as competent a Mechanical Engineer as I could be. Maybe I along with the majority of the British electorate have a vested interest in the market economy we earn our living from. Maybe I along with the majority of the British electorate have more gumption that to be tricked by buzz words.

That's right when it had a radical socialist agenda!

Bernie, nothing wrong with being and/or supporting socialism. Unfortunately people with socialist beliefs are unlikely to see a Socialist Government in the UK or the USA in the foreseeable future.

Chris Brown.

I've given my definition (in the political sense) of the word ‘modernisation’ but I'm still waiting for yours. I can only conclude you agree with my analysis: that it is nothing more than an outright acceptance, in this so called democracy, of pandering to the huge vested economic interests of the very rich and powerful.

Maybe I along with the majority of the British electorate have more gumption that to be tricked by buzz words.

Wow! Chris you must be the only person in the UK who doesn’t think that the role of a politician is to trick people. Are you saying that people don’t routinely complain of our MP’s duplicity, that they always talk the straight truth; that they don’t use words cleverly so as to squirm out of an unforeseen circumstance? So every government in history has been elected entirely on the merit of its electioneering strategy and not on mistruths, exaggerations and/or fear? Buzz words, spin, marketing strategies are fine for the short term, because in the short term people can be tricked. It may win an election or two but it’s substance people want to see.

For example: “Tough on Crime- Tough on the causes of crime”, a famous sound-bite from Tony Blair when he was the shadow Home Secretary. But ask any one of the millions of people who have been a victim of a rocketing crime wave in recent years just what does that sentence mean? They were buzz words Chris, part of the modernisers’ jargon. And people believed them.

Unfortunately people with socialist beliefs are unlikely to see a Socialist Government in the UK or the USA in the foreseeable future.

I agree with you, but almost certainly for very different reasons. From the tone of your contributions I get the feeling a socialist government is the last thing you would want to see. Of course if it followed the path of the old Soviet Union then I would agree with you. But like with all apologists for new Labour (read New Thatcherism) who are dazzled by, and in awe of, the free Market there is this haughty confidence that it will never be a popular idea

“It would be chaos!” and “It would never work!” and “People are too greedy” etc…. Hmm, Lord forbid, under socialism there may be foreign wars, economic chaos, millions dying of starvation, millions displaced or homeless; there could be a wholesale pollution of the planet and there would always be a small powerful elite who did nothing but lived like kings. “That’s what would happen under socialism!”

Imagine how awful that would be? We’d NEVER want to see that now would we? No best stick to what we know and just ‘modernise’ it every now and then.

I have read your comments about socialism with interest. However, that is not really the topic of the thread. I have therefore started a new thread on the subject here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12666

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the links in this story, which does not work, is http://xymphora.blogspot.com/barrels_of_laughter. The video link of Hillary on the Kupcinet show does not show Hillary. The post is dated April 1. Clearly an April Fool's joke.

I hope it's an April Fool's Joke. The show wasn't even Kup's Show. Irv was being interviewed by another talk show host. In that segment, at least, Irv was the only guest.

Kathy

Has anyone found any definitive proof one way or the other regarding Hillary's supposed appearance on Kup's Show? At least one 'blogger who wrote a critique of the Harley article claims that the interview did take place: http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2008/04/hil...assination.html

Any help on this issue is greatly appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John,

What do you think of this quote from Harley:

Assassination researcher John Simkin has found evidence linking the beautiful Karyn Kupcinet to Nancy Carole Tyler -- and thus, to Bobby Baker's operation.

Haven't you just speculated that Karyn could have been brought along to a Baker party or have a I missed the evidence noted in that sentence? The link that Harley provides there goes to Kathy's Witness 'blog which mentions only you trying to find connections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...