See US politics From another angle . [Archive] - Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums @ Officer.com

kathaksung

02-19-2004, 07:15 PM

Master = insider group = those who control US media and intelligence.
---------------
Gang of four

Whatever they talked about economy, immigrant, medicine..... The main point of choosing candidates is. Pro or anti war.

Because inside group needs more war in Mid-east, they make the candidates mostly pro-war one.

Bush is a war president. There is no doubt. He is designated for a second term.

The leading four candidates of Democratic are all pro-war (or at least, obedient to the will of inside group). Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards, Gephardt. They all voted for authorizing Iraq war power to President Bush. Gephardt is the one who introduced the War Authorization Bill. Lieberman, Edwards were the hardest supporters of that bill. The three were hard supporters of Iraq war and honest followers of inside group. Even though they knew most of their constituents are against Iraq war. Now to try to win the chair of Demo President candidate, they changed their face that they are against Bush's Iraq war policy. That's very hypocrite and is almost an open lie.

Most people realize this and go for Howard Dean. To block Dean, inside group threw out Wesley Clark because he has no vote record. You can see the gang of four gathered up fire on Dean but avoid to touch Clark. This is the tactic how inside group to choose their favorite candidate. Follow this line, you can see the reality through the cover up smoke. Whatever they show you of scandal, poll rate..... And surely there will be more to come.

As for Clark who tries to defeat Dean by stealing his anti-war idea, I think he is an insider working for intelligence for a long time. Under his commander he had helped FBI fulfilled two big events. In Waco slaughter and bombing Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia.

See story in: "193. Bombing Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia" and "194. D.o.D. worked for D.o.J. (1/6)" at:

http://hometown.aol.com/katsung563/myhomepage/profile.html

If there is harassment (blank page, slow entering, server busy....) try

http://forums.delphiforums.com/police915/messages/?msg=25.1

jarhead6073

02-20-2004, 12:45 AM

What a freak. You're a freakin psycho. Normally I ignore blatently insane conspiracy blather like this but you are full blown moron.

retired

02-20-2004, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by jarhead6073
What a freak. You're a freakin psycho. Normally I ignore blatently insane conspiracy blather like this but you are full blown moron.

Calling he or she a freak, or psycho, or moron is a litle harsh and unlike you. Name calling insults don't accomplish anything. Rebutting what was posted is far more effective. Some of what he or she has posted is accurate.

kathaksung

03-01-2004, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by jarhead6073
What a freak. You're a freakin psycho. Normally I ignore blatently insane conspiracy blather like this but you are full blown moron.

People talk like that in a forum are more like homeless psycho murmured to themselves on street. Normally people pass by leave them alone. So do I. There is another situation. When my comment is too true to touch someone's nerve, they couldn't help to curse. I, too, leave them alone.
-------------------
Manipulate poll

Howard Dean is a vivid sample of how insider group to use media and intelligence to manipulate an election.

1. In last October, when Dean became a threat to Bush, they at first threw out Wesley Clark to block him. Media said that Clark was the only one in Democratic Party which could beat Bush. ( try to divert the support of Dean to Clark) CNN-USA Today Gallop poll said Clark lead over Bush at the rate of 49% to 46%. How could they get such a result when not much people knew who Clark was?

Even media beat the drum to blow up Clark, the general has never led in any of Demo's primary. Where is the base of that 49% vs Bush's 46%?

2. When they failed to block Dean by Clark, inside group threw out Kerry. Kerry won the first Demo Primary in January. The tactic was the same. Now they said Kerry is the one who can beat Bush. The problem is how could Dean, as a leading candidate in Iowa, suddenly dropped into a result of 18% vs Kerry's 38%? Media use a word "Iowa surprise" to explain this drama. It's not convincible. Consider Demo candidates have similar stands on important issues, that 75% Iowa voters are anti-war, that Kerry has voted for Iraq war authorization Bill.

3. Same show had acted in recall of California. Before the recall, poll said Arnold had 26% vs Bustmonte's(Demo)28%. Another Rep's candidate, Mclintok, had a steady 14%. Mclintok wouldn't pull out the campaign after persuation. Then CNN poll suddenly boosted Arnold a 40% vs Bustmonte's 28%. (with Mclintok's 14% unchanged)
Obviosly, inside group once thought Mclintok would pull out, but he didn't. Of course that wouldn't trouble them, because they control election office thus they control the result. (just like in Florida election) All they had to do was immediately threw out a poll to justify Arnold's victory.

This is how insider group manipulate American election. They steal it by intelligent covert job. (Those who controlled intelligence, they controlled election office) And make people believe the result is reasonable by fake poll.

SomeGuy

03-01-2004, 08:40 PM

Know what? I honestly don't know. You could be right, you could be wrong; I know there's something wrong with US politics. Whether it's this insider group you keep talking about, I don't know. Simple voter apathy, combined with yellow journalism, could easily explain alot of what you're saying, too.

Jarhead: Elaborate, please. I'm not sure I agree with him either, but enough of what he says is correct to dismiss him as some psycho.

kathaksung

03-12-2004, 09:35 PM

I agree with you. I could be right, I could be wrong. I just share my opinion with people. That's what a forum is.
----------

Media censorship

The tactic inside group used to pull down Howard Dean.

1. A negative propaganda against Dean before Primary. Dean got more criticism than any other Democratical candidates did.

2. Control Primary election. Justify the result by fake poll. (see message "Manipulate poll")

3. Media censorship. They decided to terminate Dean's campaign right from the begining of Primary by created an "Iowa surprise". After a short period of "hopeless" comment about Dean, Media censored the news of Dean and put the focus on Kerry. There is no reason for Kerry's sudden leap up. It's only the result of manipulation of media - the decision of inside group. When Dean announced his pull out, he was still the second leading candidate of Demo.

Quote, "Study: Network news criticizes Dean most
- - - - - - - - - - - -
ASSOCIATED PRESS

Jan. 16, 2004 | LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Howard Dean received significantly more criticism on network newscasts than the other Democratical contenders, who were the subjects of more favorable coverage, according to a study released Thursday.

More than three-quarters of the coverage of Dean's foes by the nightly news programs was favorable, while a majority of attention to Dean was negative, the Center for Media and Public Affairs found.

The study found that 49 percent of the coverage of former Vermont Gov. Dean was positive, compared to 78 percent of the rest of the Democratic field, collectively.

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/01/16/dean_media/

Why the Corporate Media Wiped Out Howard Dean
News/Comment; Posted on: 2004-02-17 13:22:42 [ Printer friendly ]

On December 1, 2003, Howard Dean was ahead by twenty points in the polls when he appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews and said, "We're going to break up the giant media enterprises." This pronouncement went far beyond the governor's previous public musings about possibly re-regulating the communications industry, and amounted to a declaration of war on the corporations that administer the flow of information in the United States.

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=2096

EireHalo82

03-14-2004, 10:50 PM

whether what Kathaksung is saying is true or not, he has brought up some very good points IMO, a lot of what he has said is very plausible.

I mean just HOW powerful is the media? The media has more power of influence over than anything else IMO. How many good hearted Americans trust what they read in the paper and see on TV as the truth?

How many of us really look behind what the Media says and ask ourselves, WHY are they saying this?

Living in Europe during the last war in Iraq really broadened my perspectives on the use of Propoganda by the media, to influence people in one particular way of thinking. In Ireland about 90% of the people i talked to had an extreme dislike towards George Bush because of the war. They would say really dumb thinks like "He's only fighting his Father's battle" or "Bush just wants their oil."

where would they come up with things like that? try the HUGE anti-war media campaign that flooded the country.

As to why they were so Anti-war even though the country officially claims neutrality, i have some ideas, but i guess my point is that the media has a great amount of influence over the opinions of the people.

after all, what we see and read in the news has gotta be true...right?

kathaksung

03-22-2004, 08:59 PM

"after all, what we see and read in the news has gotta be true...right?"

You complained 90% of people in Ireland you met dislike Bush. You thought its the propaganda of media. I don't agree. Ireland is one of western countries which is a traditional ally of US. The people and media there more agree with US then Islamic value. There is no doubt on that. If the media and people there anti-Bush's policy, then it's something wrong with US.

Is US media that good as you said. They are not freedom running press but under the control of big operation. They censor anti-war information, and you rarely hear the voice of Arabic people. Like what I said in Dean's campaign, they could censor his campaign news and made people thought he lost support. If Jassica Linch is not an honest woman, then we would have believed what media said that there was a heroic fighting in Iraq. Rumsfeld once has proposed a "strategy office" which was designated to let out disinformation. Though it failed because it was obvious a workshop of "lies", I think a covert one still is working.

Common value shared by every one. Anti war is one of it. When you think American support war, read this, it's not from so said mainstream media.

Cheating

They steal the election through intelligence work.(control election office, make cheating easy) And make people believe the result by poll. Unless you can make the election more transparent and being under monitor, you live under a covert totalitarism.

An example of how they cheat people:

Most people of the world oppose war in Iraq. Americans are the same. But through media, they censor the anti-war sentiment and gave a poll of that more than 60% U.S. people support war. But when it went to Capital Hill, they can't cheat like what they did on poll because there is a count on each "yes" or "no" from congressmen and senator. And these law makers knew what their constituents think. That's why there was a DC sniper shooting at the time to pass the authorizing Iraq war power to President Bush. It's a intimidation. Many law makers bent to the threat and vote against their constituents' will.

Quote, "----- Original Message -----
From: "mike burke"
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 2:56 PM
Subject: Democracy Now Exclusive: Survey Shows
Congress Overwhelmed w/ Anti-War Calls

*** DEMOCRACY NOW EXCLUSIVE ***

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 27, 2002

CONGRESS OVERWHELMED WITH ANTI-WAR CALLS FROM
"THE SILENCED MAJORITY"

Republican and Democratic Senate offices report
"overwhelming" opposition from their constituents to war with Iraq. This comes as Congress prepares to pass a war resolution granting President Bush sweeping powers to invade Iraq.

The national news radio show Democracy Now!
conducted an informal survey on Thursday of 70 Republican
and Democratic Senate offices.

Of the 26 offices which responded to our inquires, 22 reported an overwhelming majority - in some cases up to 99 percent -- of constituents opposed war in Iraq; three said the response was split and just one office Among the findings:

Democrats
* Wisconsin Sen. Herb Kohl: Aides say they are receiving 1,000-2,000 calls per week with the overwhelming number opposed to an attack on Iraq.

* Washington Sen. Patty Murray: Over 5,000 letters and
phone calls were received last week on Iraq, aides say. Only about 100 came from constituents who supported an attack.

* California Sen. Dianne Feinstein: Staff in her San Francisco office reported about 200 calls a day with 99 percent of the callers opposing the war.

* New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman: The D.C. office has been receiving at least 1,300 calls a day with about 70 percent opposed to war.

Republicans
* North Carolina Jesse Helms: Staff declined to give figures but said the "majority is against" when it comes to calls on Iraq.

* Nebraska Charles Hegal: According to aides, constituents favor diplomacy over war at a rate of 5 to 1.

* Virginia John Warner: About 150 constituents a day are calling into the D.C. offices. "A very small minority supported military action," said one aide.

"It's extraordinary that, as Senators work with the Bush Administration to draft a war resolution, their constituents are expressing overwhelming opposition an attack against Iraq," said Amy Goodman, the host of Democracy Now! "Unfortunately we are hearing very little about this in the media. These calls
represent the silenced majority, not the silent majority."

Democracy Now is a daily nationwide news show
based in New York. It is broadcast on over 130 public
radio and television stations around the country.

The election need transparancy and monitor from people. Otherwise it is only a covert totalitarian.

EireHalo82

03-25-2004, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by kathaksung
"after all, what we see and read in the news has gotta be true...right?"

You complained 90% of people in Ireland you met dislike Bush. You thought its the propaganda of media. I don't agree. Ireland is one of western countries which is a traditional ally of US. The people and media there more agree with US then Islamic value. There is no doubt on that. If the media and people there anti-Bush's policy, then it's something wrong with US.

hmm...i dont think you really understood a word I said Kath...

and as for Ireland being a big ally of the US, have you ever been there? I have, i lived there. Ireland is a Neutral country, that helps out with some peace keeping duties. Look up some Irish news articles on the internet about the war and see how much Ireland backed the U.S. The only support given to the U.S. during the war was use of Shannon Airport for refueling of transport aircraft, and the only reason they let it be used is because they had to, America basically payed for the entire airport. Do you know that the people were stoning the airplanes and protesting all over the country that American troops were using Irish soil as part of the war effort?

You think that Ireland supports the U.S. more than Islamic value, in your words?
Ireland is 90% Roman Catholic, why don't you go look for yourself the Catholic church's position on Israel and Palestine...

..try educating yourself on a subject first before you start stating facts that you dont have a clue about.

kathaksung

04-01-2004, 07:56 PM

Well, when I say Ireland agrees with US more than with Islamic value, I mean the basic value sush like social system; humanity;morality....
Ireland, as well as US, are viewed as a member of Western countries, not Islamic one.

What you pick up is an individual event: Iraq war. Then don't complain Ireland alone. US is protested by most people of the world. Even Bush's ally Britain and Spain are against it. (Here I mean the people of these countries. Bush only got support from top leader Blair and Aznar) If you live in other country, you still will see samething, either it's a Roman Catholic or other.

Quote, "Opinion of U.S. Abroad Is Falling, Survey Finds
Majorities Doubt War in Iraq Is Quelling Terrorism
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 17, 2004; Page A22

A year after the invasion of Iraq, anti-American views have hardened in Europe and in Muslim countries, where lopsided majorities oppose President Bush and are suspicious of U.S. motives, according to a new nine-country opinion poll

The survey, the largest of its kind, found slipping support for the U.S. war on terrorism in Europe and negative views of the United States in all foreign countries polled except Britain. Big majorities said that the United States does not consider other countries' interests and that Europe should develop more diplomatic and military independence.

Majorities in seven of the eight foreign countries said the war in Iraq hurt or had no effect on the war on terrorism, and only in the United States did a majority believe that the ouster of Saddam Hussein will make the Middle East more democratic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64388-2004Mar16.html

kathaksung

04-13-2004, 02:52 PM

About Liberman

Liberman is another choice of inside group. That's obvious when they made Al Gore pull out of the election of 2004. If you know from the beginning that US politics is played by a shadow group of insiders. The debate of 9 candidates is only a drama for the public and give some material for those experts to discuss.

The road map of Mid-east is not finished yet. Bush, though is awarded a high approve rate by media, is actually disliked by most Americans. With Liberman as Demo's candidate, either elected can assure insider group that their interest will persist.

Liberman, who actively pushed the "patriot Act" passing through, and stand firmly by the side of Bush when he need Iraq war power, is actually a Republican inside Democratic party. He was arranged to be vice President in 2000 election if Bush failed, and in 2002, they paved way for him to be the President's candidate of Democrats by forcing Al Gore's pulling out.

Spiderman

04-14-2004, 01:54 AM

You know, if Master reads this board, Inside Group may become interested in who you are. Just a thought, but do you have a backdoor in your rabbit hole?

O.k. fun and games aside. How many of you have ever wondered how much truth our media really gives us anyway? Have you, by-chance, ever taken a gander at any non-American publications about American involved events? Sometimes, the difference in reporting is...unsettling. It can tend to make one wonder, who's telling the truth here? Don't get me wrong, you'd never catch me off of American Soil. From time to time though, I wonder about the purity of my media.

kathaksung

04-22-2004, 08:46 PM

About Clark

Clark is a tool used by inside group to block Dean. Dean's anti-war opinion gathered support from the people and becomes a threat to Bush. So in September they throw out Clark to replace him.

Why when Clark announced to be 10th Demo candidate he could be suddenly jumped over others and was said the one could defeat Bush while a lot people asked in internet, "Who is Clark?"?
If people support Clark because of his anti-war opinion, then Dean has that opinion much longer then Clark. Why Dean can't defeat Bush but Clark can?

The answer is obvious. Dean's anti-war opinion is honest. It is against the will of inside group. So they must stop him. Clark is a patsy of that group. He had been an admirer of Bush cabinet. Now he stole Dean's opinion in order to block the way of Dean to become the president candidate of Democratic Party. A patsy always change his mind to favour his master.

Media is in stronghold of inside group. So Clark has been titled "he is the only one who can beat Bush." "another name of Clinton", "another Esenhower".... That's how inside group to manipulate election by propaganda. And the way to pick up the candidate of their own.

Cockney Corner

04-23-2004, 08:24 AM

Politicians have plans they don't tell everyone about? Tell me it ain't so.

PhilipCal

04-29-2004, 10:16 PM

The guy makes some good points.There's some truth to his arguments.No one can claim we have a perfect system,maybe not even a good one,but it beats the Hell out of the alternative.

kathaksung

05-02-2004, 08:57 PM

Hilary is a favorite of inside group because she is an obedient politician.

Hillary is arranged as an emergent stopper if Clark and Kerry can't block Dean's way. The inside group had prepared for that already.

She was bribed by high income of her book: "Living history". She is arranged a possible candidate of 2008 President campaign. But she may be also used as a spare part to block Howard Dean if Clark and Kerry can't block him. That's why she was arranged to visit US troops in Iraqi after Bush's visit.

Hilary was registered as a candidate for 2004 president election. An arragement of inside group.

I saw from another web site that Hillary Clinton filed on Oct 3rd, with the Federal Election Commission to run for President in 2004.

Registration:
Presented by the Federal Election Commission
CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM ID: P00003392

Office Sought: President
Election Year: 2004
State: Presidential Candidate
District: 03
Party: DEM (Democratic Party)

NOTE:
Candidate listings may appear here as a result of draft committees or independent expenditure committees
registering with the FEC. If no official documents appear below, the individual identified here has taken no action
to become a candidate.

http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?P00003392

kathaksung

05-12-2004, 08:58 PM

Media deception (5/3)

How media issued polls to manipulate the sentiment of American people?

To block Howard Dean to become a real rival to Bush, inside group has thrown out Wesley Clark and John Kerry one after another. To help these puppets to win over Dean in Democrate's primary, CNN-USA Today Gallop in early October, 2003, had a poll (49% vs 46%) said Clark was the only one who could beat Bush. Then in January, it gave a similar poll said Kerry was the only one who could beat Bush.

And it's interesting to reveiew other media's poll at that time when they tried to justify Kerry's victory over Dean.

Re: "Kerry's standing has strengthened not only against his Democratic rivals but also against Bush. For the first time, he clearly defeats the president in a head-to-head matchup, 53% to 46%. By 63% to 24%, those surveyed say Kerry would be a good president.(USA TODAY, 2/2/2004)

Re: 52 Percent of Voters Don't Want to See Bush Re-Elected (44% Do), 37 Percent Strongly Want to See Him Re-Elected, 47 Percent Strongly Do Not. (Newsweek Poll , Saturday January 24,)

Now watch the dramatic change of the poll. They were done after Howard Dean was pulled down from Demo's primary.

Fox's Last-night poll says: "45% Bush to 45% Kerry" (2/21)

Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll shows George W. Bush attracting 47% of the nation's likely voters while John F. Kerry is the choice for 45%. (2/21)

Same USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll said in April that "The survey, taken Friday through Sunday, shows Bush ahead 50% to 44% among likely voters......The president's job-approval rating was steady at 52%."

What happened from February to April which boost Bush's approve rate?

Paul O'Neill, Richard A. Clarke, revealed Bush from the beginning decided to invade Iraq. WMD, "democracy" is only an excuse.

The insurgence of Fallujah, and insurgence of Shiite revealed Bush's "war on Iraq" is becoming a quagmire for US.

All these proved Bush is a dishonest man, an incompetent president. Yet all these nagative things boost his rate. Please tell me I may missed something Bush did good in this period. Otherwise review what media said and polled and to see how inside group control the mind of American people.

They control US by media and intelligence. They justify rigged election (through intelligence) by fake poll (media). They even turn negative things into positive. To maintain the approve rate of a patsy president always around 50%. Despite how notorious he is. All to make sure they will have him a second term.

kathaksung

05-23-2004, 06:58 PM

There are many petitions suggest to impeach Bush. It won't succeed. On the contrary, he will be awarded for a second term.

Why the media beat the drum on a personal affair and almost impeached President Clinton from his post. While awarded President Bush with a high approve rate when he misled American people to an unnecessary war?

If you can view the whole thing from another angle. That terrorist group is manipulated by CIA and Mosad. And what Bush did was following a "road map" a powerful group designed earlier. You may know it better.

The bombing of US Cole and embassy in Africa were provokation for a Mid-east war. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz had lobbied Clinton for the war in Jan. 1998 but failed. Clinton ordered missil bombing in Sudan and Afghanistan but didn't start a war. He was punished by Lewinsky scandal and was almost impeached from his post.

Since bombing of Cole and US embassador in Afirica were not big enough to touch off a war, they had a big attack in US. Many information revealed that 911 was allowed to happen. With which Bush started war with Afghan. But that was not the main target of "road map". Bush then started war with Iraq even though there was no sufficient justification. He did a good job for that power group. How could him be impeached?

Bin Laden was not found because he is too important for intelligence. His existence gives an excuse to make "war on terrorism" an endless one. He won't be arrested or killed until they found another terror leader to substitute him.

Another possibility is that Bin Laden had already died. US intelligence keeps him alive so from time to time they can issue a tape of "Bin Laden's" to flame a public's sentiment about terrorism to the need of inside group.

The "Road map" is not finished. There are more "evil countries" in the list. The "war on terror" is used by US inside group to squeeze more power and money from American people. So Bush will stay in his post, as well as Bin Laden.

Group 29

05-23-2004, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by PatrickM98
Can't you just limit your senseless drivel to one board instead of polluting the whole forum with your idiotic thoughts???

He can't even limit it to one website. He has found Glocktalk.com and is filling them in on some of his manifestos as we speak. :D

oscarmitre

05-23-2004, 09:28 PM

Just for fun google his nick. He's everywhere. He isn't a poster. he's an infestation.:(

retired

05-23-2004, 11:53 PM

So what is he doing wrong?

oscarmitre

05-24-2004, 01:29 AM

First time I was in a police forum elsewhere I asked the same question when a few posters were critical of him. To be blunt I thought that because his message in essence was anti-Bush (at that time) the others were just climbing all over him in a reflexive response from the Right. I was proved wrong. One regular there showed me how he appears on many police/leo forums and posts what they call the "tinfoil hat" stuff. Granted he doesn't abuse or harass in his posts but I suppose I'm a bit tired of reading the same stuff all the time. Now I generally ignore his posts.

So I suppose he isn't doing anything wrong in the sense that wrong implies a poster who is offensive or deliberately provocative and looking to start a flame war. I think it's fair to say that he posts to get reactions which then take off and become repetitive and go nowhere. And before you respond that plenty of posts do that, yes I agree, but I have never seen someone post in this way. I don't want to be insulting or condescending but I wonder if the poor bloke is suffering a mental illness. That remark is genuine and is not a drive-by insult at him.

I just wish he would do it at stormfront and not here.

Group 29

05-24-2004, 11:19 AM

He is actually entertaining in a way. And who knows, maybe we are all insane and living in his sane world. :D

kathaksung

06-03-2004, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by oscarmitre
Just for fun google his nick. He's everywhere. He isn't a poster. he's an infestation.:(

When Hillary's "Living history" published, it was almost in every library. Same thing were for other books. Do you think they are infestation?

Yes, I post in many different forums. Because a lot of people only go to one web-site, (just like a lot people only go to one library nearest to them). I try to share my information with them. Remember, a lot of people don't check other's behavior like you, they don't follow others, and they don't get into other people's business.
-----------

How Bush Sr. lost presidency/

There were two war on Iraq. One started by GW. Bush. The other one was started by his father Bush Sr.

Bush Sr. won the Persian Gulf war beautifully. Compare with his son, Bush Sr. got the support from most countries of the world. US soldiers suffered much less casulties compare with GWB's. And US paid a little amount of war fee. Most spending were shared by other countries.

GW. Bush misled US into an unjust war. He lost the support from UN. He lost traditional allies. He made US paid an huge war fee, and let US army dropped in an Vietnam like war of daily casulty. We don't know when can we leave that quagmire.

One thing strange happened. Bush Sr., though had a glorious victory, and got an approvement rate of 90% then, lost the President campaign to Clinton. While GW. Bush had so bad a war, he is still awarded a rate of nearly 50% and is predicted to win the president campaign in a landslide victory in election 2004.

Why? The answer is pretty simple. America is controlled by inside group. Their interest is for the security of Israel. Their target is occupying Iraq to oppress the hostility of Islamic countries against Israel. So when Bush Sr. stopped to invade Iraq to save US soldiers' lives, it was against the inside group's will. He was punished for failure in president election.

GW Bush is much obedient. Despite it was hurting the interest of US, he started a war to the favour the inside group. He will be awarded 2nd term of president. The inside group creates a situation for his succeeding. Maintain his approve rate by rigged poll around 50%. Incapacitate his rival Demo Party. And try to boost the economy in 2004.

Que

06-08-2004, 06:48 PM

And will someone please be so kind as to identify Master?

Dollar Bill.

kathaksung

06-12-2004, 04:56 PM

Censorship and Liberal media (6/3)

A news in internet in August 2002:

"The crowd was standing at the barricades and the police had called a state of
emergency. Pepper spray was used on group early on. Batons were used on some
people. Group included babies in strollers and older people, also people in
wheelchairs.
There are snipers on the roofs. Police have opened fire on protesters with rubberbullets, pepper spray and gas. The crowds of people are moving around and regrouping. "
http://portland.indymedia.org:8081/front.php3?article_id=17241&group=webcast

It seemed a scene taking place in totalitarian country. But it was in Portland, citizens protested Bush's war policy and were surpressed. If it happened in Moscow, Beijing, you could see big title and pictures as first hand news in media. But this time, there was no report from media. I learned it from internet. There is a strong censorship on anti-war news. Inside group needed war. Media coordinated. They created a feeling that most of people were pro-war.

If Michael Moore is not a famous film director, his "Fahrenheit 9/11" wouldn't be known by public. If his film haven't been awarded the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival, it may still have been blocked from distributing. So far American people still have no chance to watch it. Is Disney a media, or rather a tool of inside group? All this happened in US, famous for its "Bill of Right". The free speech has to struggle for its existence against invisible censorship. What kind of "freedom" Bush can bring to Iraqis? You imagine.

"Patriot Act" seriously erodes civil liberty. More than hundred towns, cities, even states passed resolution condemning it. As "liberal" media, it should be a big issue to be discussed, criticized. Have you often heard of it? Rarely. Abandon the title of "liberal", even if media dare not to comment at this topic, as "media", should they do some very basic thing to report it? Yet, they failed in their professional duty. New York joined the long list of cities to condemn Patriot Act recently. A sponsor said, "The Patriot Act is really unpatriotic, it undermines our civil rights and civil liberties," Because New York was the victim of 9/11 attack, and Patriot Act was a result of that attack, the resolution of New York is significant. Yet, the news is censored by most media. I learned it only from a message from internet.

Quote, "UnderReported.com

.....Queries on news.google.com yield no results for CNN. Two queries for the New York Times yield no relevant results, and I was unable to find an article by searching on the nytimes.com website itself. Did this amazing story really go unreported in the city's own New York Times

Pete_undercover

[Post# 463683 </cgi-bin/wwwthreads/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=national&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&vc=1&Number=463683>]

Though there are "Demo" paty and "Rep" party, "liberal" media and "conservative" media, It's only a cover up. Once it touches the interest of inside group, there is no Democracy and liberal. All principle and opinion are given up. Media and politicians, are only tools of inside group.

kathaksung

06-23-2004, 08:17 PM

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Though either Bush or Clinton are politicians cultivated by inside group, they more or less belong to a party and sometimes must stand for Party's interest. So the best way is to have a candidate of their own. We can see now how intelligence have their own people to join the campaign. Such like Clark. (Clark was pro GOP before, and was said not even registered as Demo the night before he became a president candidate of Demo Party), and Arnold Schwarzenneger.

Though he rides the boat of GOP, Schwarzenegger is propaganded more as a man of both parties. The tactic inside group used is:

1. Make Schwarzenegger keeping a distance from Bush because Bush is becoming notorious.

2. Emphasize his personal relationship with Demo. That his wife Maria is a niece of former President Kennedy. Reporting he was received warmly by Senator Edward Kennedy in DC.

3. To create a figure of a successful politician, inside group activated their resource in Demo to support Schwarzenegger. When Arnold became the governor, he turned over two bills, "Drive license for illegal immigrant" bill, "Automobile license fee" bill. These important bills signed by former Demo Governor Davis and supported by Democratic Party, now are abolished without trouble in a governmet dominated by Demo. Those Demos, once have voted yes on these bills, now vote no.

Another big event is the "Bond bill". The way Schwarzenneger suggested to solve California finance problem is borrowing money. Which was once opposed by Demo. Later it was passed without trouble too. Here we can see there is no opposing Party. Any opinion could be easily changed to master's will. When there is a demand from inside group, the opposing party became tame sheep.

4. Media blow up Schwarzenneger with big effort. In newspaper, (San Jose Mercury News which I read) almost everyday there is big article, often with picture about Schwarzenneger to boost his fame.

After they stole California, they are preparing to take over the US with their own candidate. You probably will see in near future they change the constitution the rule that only native born American can be US president. To pave the way particularly for their own candidate, Arnold Schwarzenneger.

Lt.Dayanara11

06-29-2004, 02:25 PM

I think that we should all proof read our postings before we hit the submit button.;)

kathaksung

07-02-2004, 04:27 PM

Government deception (5/13)

Bush said what happened in Abu Ghurayb prison was done only by a few people and high ranking military officials denied they knew anything about it. It was a lie. They knew it clearly there were vast abuse in the jail.

Quote, "Red Cross report details abuse, mistaken detentions in Iraq.
By Bob Drogin
Los Angeles Times.

Washington - Coalition military intelligence officials estimated that 70 to 90 percent of prisoners detained in Iraq since the war began last year "had been arrested by mistake," according to a confidential Red Cross report given to the Bush administration earlier this year.

The report described a wide range of prisoner mistreatment - including many new details of abusive techniques - that it said US officials had failed to halt, despite repeated complaints from the International Committee of the Red Cross. "(S.J.M.N. 5/11/04)

As a matter of fact, torture is a method intelligence used to squeeze information from detainees. US government covered it up with fake news, disinformation and lies. The death of Saddam Hussain's sons was a typical example.

News reported Saddam's sons Uday and Qusay, along with other two people, were all died in a six hours' long battle against 200 US soldiers. But forensic analysis revealed that Uday and Qusay were tortured before their death. There is an article with pictures and details on it.

Quote, "America's Uday and Qusay Conjuring Trick
Latest White House lies reveal larger hidden untruths

Unfortunately the forgery team completely forgot to use any putty around the ankles..... If you look at the color picture of the two cadavers lying side by side, the one on the right has unique brown marks on both ankles. These marks have been identified by experts as pressure sores, caused by iron clamps used to hold the ankles while this poor man was suspended upside down for torture in the "Adnan Chalabi Hilton". As I wrote earlier, death must have finally come as merciful relief for these two......."

http://www.joevialls.co.uk/transpositions/hussein.html

As I told before, media is controlled by inside group. It serves for the war policy of this group. Why this time it suddenly threw out a scandal which hurt the fame of Bush's administration? None of such kind of event happens by coincidence. They always have a purpose. (to be continued)

pwotr

07-04-2004, 10:58 AM

two parties because people let it be that way, the majority must be ok with it. If your not get off your *** and change it, or stop bitchin.

pwotr

07-04-2004, 10:59 AM

idea. since we are shipping jobs over seas, why not ship our interigation of war prisioners over seas too. I think China can help with that.

retired

07-04-2004, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by pwotr
two parties because people let it be that way, the majority must be ok with it. If your not get off your *** and change it, or stop bitchin.

Why does someone have to stop bitchin?:confused:

pwotr

07-04-2004, 11:27 AM

i can bitch all day, unless i get off my butt its just that, bitchin. no dis-respect. but what does it really mean to you? be ready to defend your point or be ready to vote your point. there are very different points here,I.E. the people who visit and post.

kathaksung

07-12-2004, 07:59 PM

Distraction (5/23)

The abusing of prisoners is systematic which can be traced to the end of 2001 when Guantanamo concentration camp was set up. News reported that there were 18 prisoners' death in Afhgan and Iraq, eight are investigated as "homicide" case. Compare to these, the abuse in Abu Ghurayb was mild. Government only show people a little bit of it but cover up the most.

1. US soldiers who was accused in abuse case, confessed at first they were assigned to do so for interrogation. Now media said it was for amusement.

2. Many people request the resignation of Rumsfeld. Then there was an immediate poll throwing out said " Most in US back Rumsfeld. 69% think he should keep job. 20% he should resign" (Washington Post-ABC news poll) Rumsfeld is the main pusher of Iraq war. He should be responsible for the embrassing situation of US in Iraq now despite abusing scandal. When so said poll said nearly half US public don't support Iraq war and Bush's rate is in a record low, how can the war eagle get such a high support rate ? Once again, in emergency, inside group used ther magic weapon - poll, to save their puppet. And how easy was it to lie on a number to wipe out the opposite voice. There was a random poll done by AOL about that time. I took part in and got such a result: Do you believe Rumsfeld approved the use of abuse on prisoners in Iraq?
Yes 57%; No 32%; Not sure 10%; Total Votes: 137,535
I believe this more truely reflects the attitude of American people. The users of AOL should be average.

3. A "beheading" case was thrown out to justify the abusing case. The beheading case was done in hastily so there was a lot of flaw. Which was used to vilify muslim. Play the same role as "Madrid bombing".

4.Nobody took the ball. It ends in the hand of weak people. Low ranking soldiers become scapegoat.

This is what Feds wanted. They need a case big enough to catch up public's attention but hurt least the interest of inside group. That's the tactic of distraction. Create a big event to cover up another which they don't want you to know. One sample was to charge Michale Jackson in a molesting case. Which happened on date Bush met a big protest in his London visit. D.O.J. used Michale Jackson's case to divert the attention on Bush's inglorious visit.

Then what case this time they want to cover up by prisoners' abusing case? That is a frame case applied on me. Which lasted for more then ten years. The case had led to the resignation of both directors of FBI and DEA in June, 2001, and again the resignation of director of DEA in Aug. 2003, I think.

In a similar situation in 2001, Feds had used same tactic to distract. In April that year, Ashcroft announced FBI had found 3000 pages of unreported document in McVeigh's case. So D.O.J. delayed the excution date of McVeigh a month later to June 11. As a matter of fact, the document was only an excuse used to delay the excution date. To let it to match the date they planed in a framed drug case in which many people would be slaughtered. They need a big event such like McVeigh's death to divert public's attention on thier murder case. The frame case was soured for some reason. In same attempt in Dec. 2003 and Apr. 2004, they tried to use terrorist attack by same tactic, I allege. As for why I think the abusing case is a distraction on mine, I've talked about it in latest messages on my home page. It's these experience enabled me to write the articles about US politics in a perspective angle.

See whole story at:

http://hometown.aol.com/kathaksung/myhomepage/profile.html
http://hometown.aol.com/sunkat563/myhomepage/profile.html
http://hometown.aol.com/katsung563/myhomepage/profile.html

If there is harassment (blank page, slow entering, server busy....) try

http://forums.delphiforums.com/police915/messages/?msg=25.1

BadgerFan

07-13-2004, 02:00 AM

My god, that typing was painful to read..this thread reminds me of "Foamy's Rant II" where he rants about having to use his "Idiot to English Dictionary"

http://www.illwillpress.com/ranttwo.html (warning - flash animation w/ bad language for those of you with audio at work)

kathaksung

07-22-2004, 07:16 PM

Ashcroft attacks (April, 04)

Ashcroft accused Jamie Gorelick erected the "wall" between the FBI and the CIA that kept them from sharing intelligence and possibly from doing more to prevent the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. That because FBI feared to touch that wall, they hadn't applied a permission to search suspect Zacarias Moussaoui's computer, so they lost chance to stop 911 attack in advance.

This is a blackmail.

There are two ways for FBI to apply a search warranty from Judge. One is by FISA court.(Foreign Intelligence Spy Act) In which a warranty is in a very low standard and is easy to get. The other way is by criminal law court which is in high standard because Americans are protected by 4th amendment from unreasonable search and arrest.

When Ashcroft said there is a wall to block sharing information between foreign information and criminal investigation, he is demanding a big police power expanding which makes 4th amendment mean nothing. He then can search and arrest American citizen at his will, only out of suspicion(FISA standard is low) while we should be protected by criminal law from being unreasonable search and arrest. (must based on evidence)

Ashcroft use Moussaoui's case as a foundation, said because FBI feared to touch the wall of criminal law so they didn't investigate Moussaoui's computer. It's hypocrite and is a misleading. We don't have to be a professional like A.G. or FBI to know that Moussaoui is a foreigner and fits for FISA. Why FBI hadn't apply FISA(obviously an easy one) but considered domestic criminal law? And why they even didn't apply? It is incompetence, a mistake, or a deliberate negligence? Many informations revealed that government knew 911 attack in advance, it was allowed to happen. Because they are benefit from it.

What Ashcroft wants is to give FBI more police power to search and arrest people. He wants to low the standard of criminal law. That's a blackmail in the name of "war on terrorism".

BTW, there is a deep meaning of "erect the wall of sharing information" . In fact, intelligence share the information already. The real meaning is they can't use that information to apply a search warrent. The wall prevent they use FISA standard on domestic criminal case.

Theoretically, FBI can't spy a citizen unless they have evidence the man has committed crime. When this "sharing information wall" is broken, now they can search a citizen covertly only on suspicion. Because FISA standard is low.

This is the real purpose of Ashcroft. And he claimed "Patriot Act" gave him such priviledge.
The fact is, under "Patriot Act", Bush and Ashcroft expand their fascist police power. American people are losing the protect from "unreasonable search and arrest" of 4th amendment.

Government and media never tell people about this. You are losing your constitutional right.

Quote, "9/11 panelist denies accusation on CIA-FBI 'wall'
Ashcroft had faulted official's 1995 memo

Washington Post
Monday, April 19, 2004

KENNETH CARNEY

07-22-2004, 10:21 PM

Agents Mulder and Scully have been notified and will investigate this matter. :p

kathaksung

08-01-2004, 05:58 PM

The two parties campaign are only a hoax drama. In the name of "democracy" it attracts people to watch and join the competition. But the candidate and result are all designated in advance. Innocent people are busy to campaign, to debate, to vote. They don't know they work in vain.

The interest of inside group is for more war in Mid-east. Bush is an obedient horse to his master. That's why he was selected to be president in 2000. That's why O'nelle observed Bush determined to start Iraq war in early 2001. To ensure Bush having a second term, in 2002, they forced Gore to abandon the 2004 election. When there is a black horse cropped up,(Howard Dean rose with anti-war idea) who drew support from public, inside group push out Wesley Clark to block him. When Clark failed in competition, with no convincible reason they pull down Dean by Kerry. So Bush does not have to worry about his rivalry. What Demo has is an incompetant candidate. They also bought an insurance by embedding a hard core follower to be vice president candidate(Edwards). In case unpopular Bush is too weak to win the campaign.

The media blow the trumpet on former president Clinton. Because he openly supported Bush's war policy. He was bribed 10 millions by his new published book.
The high ranking Democratics tone down critics on Bush. They are following the instruction of their master. Bush did nothing good but started an unjust war. Bashing him is no difference to bash the war. That's against the will of inside group. So you see a humble Demo, dare not to touch their rival even in their biggest mass pledge.

DNC: Don

kathaksung

08-12-2004, 06:44 PM

Who control election?

13 US Congressmen have asked help from UN to monitor US election. How can so said "democrtic" US get into such a plight? Rigging in election now is so obvious even high ranking politicians realize the gravity of the question.

People who vote don't decide whom be elected.
People who count the vote do.

The people who control the intelligence in US decide whom been elected. That's what happened in Florida 2000 election in which Inside group selected Bush. And in Demo's Primary in 2004 in which they dropped Howard Dean.

In a rigged election, they could move votes by thousands.

Quote, ""DELAND, Fla., Nov. 11 - Something very strange happened on election night to Deborah Tannenbaum, a Democratic Party official in Volusia County. At 10 p.m., she called the county elections department and learned that Al Gore was leading George W. Bush 83,000 votes to 62,000. But when she checked the county's Web site for an update half an hour later, she found a startling development: Gore's count had dropped by 16,000 votes, while an obscure Socialist candidate had picked up 10,000--all because of a single precinct with only 600 voters."

- Washington Post Sunday , November 12, 2000 ; Page A22

Re: "Yes. Something very strange happened in Volusia County on election night November 2000, the night that first Gore won Florida, then Bush, and then as everybody can so well remember there was a tie.
Something strange indeed. But what exactly? In the above report ( click for full version), written days after the election, hotshot Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank goes on to attribute the strange 16,022 negative vote tally from Volusia's precinct 216 to an apparently innocent cause.
"

Duke

08-16-2004, 01:45 AM

Someone has way too much time on their hands...:rolleyes:

I normally don't debase other people's comments but yours are completely nonsensical! Please do not waste your energy with another long-winded reply, for I will not be reading it. Good luck with your "issues."

Group 29

08-16-2004, 12:34 PM

My tag line speaks for itself. :D

kathaksung

08-23-2004, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by Duke
Someone has way too much time on their hands...:rolleyes:

I normally don't debase other people's comments but yours are completely nonsensical! Please do not waste your energy with another long-winded reply, for I will not be reading it. Good luck with your "issues."

Nobody force you to read. Leave it alone if you are so dislike it. Or have something to debate but don't throw stone.

---------------

From McGreevy gay affair to Lewinsky scandal

N.J. Governor McGreevey resigned to his gay aid scandal. His aid Golan Cipel came from Israel. According to McGreevey, that he was blackmailed 5 million dollars by Cipel for the gay affair scandal. The whole thing is resembled to other two events. Lewinsky scandal and Chandra Levy's death event.

There are some common points in these three cases.

1. All three men involved were important Democratic politicians. Clinton was US president; McGreevey is N.J. Governor; Gary Condit was Congressman, a member of intelligence committe.

2. All politicians were drawn into sex scandal. They were humiliated, lost or almost lost their posts.

3. Their sex partners were either aid or interns. A job close to politicians and influence them a lot.

4. Their sex partners are all jewish ethnic. Either from Israel or from a jewish family. (correct me if I am wrong. )

Are these three the only cases there in US politics circle? I don't think so. It's only the iceberg we can see above the sea. In underneath there are much more.

It seemed Israel try to recruit those aids and interns to influence US politics by control US politicians. The phenomenon is evident. Iraq war is for the interest of Israel. US soldiers fight and die for the security of Israel. All these pro-Israel policy were probably created under influence of these aids and interns, and pro-Israel politicians as well.

FNA209

08-24-2004, 02:02 AM

kathaksung-

I for one am glad you're back posting again. I was afraid they got you. You know, you want to be really careful posting all of these facts about all of the conspiracies. It's been known to happen- people sometimes just disappear.

SaNdMaN

08-25-2004, 04:40 AM

After they stole California, they are preparing to take over the US with their own candidate. You probably will see in near future they change the constitution the rule that only native born American can be US president. To pave the way particularly for their own candidate, Arnold Schwarzenneger.

Hey...Wasn't that a line from the movie "Demolition Man"?

FNA209

08-25-2004, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by SaNdMaN
Hey...Wasn't that a line from the movie "Demolition Man"?

Well, we all know that Hollywood uses movies as a vehicle to educate the great unwashed as to all of the conspiracies that are occuring. After all, the likes of Michael Moore and his crowd wouldn't lie to us......would they?

http://smilies.networkessence.net/s/contrib/edoom/spacecraft.gif

Joseph

08-26-2004, 04:57 AM

I sure hope this thread doesn't go on. OK everybody rest take your PROZAC and check back in November.:D:confused: :eek: :rolleyes:

retired

08-26-2004, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by FNA209
After all, the likes of Michael Moore and his crowd wouldn't lie to us......would they?

http://smilies.networkessence.net/s/contrib/edoom/spacecraft.gif

No, and neither do the politicians lie to us.:rolleyes:

retdetsgt

08-26-2004, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by retired
Why does someone have to stop bitchin?:confused:

Otherwise, why would we need lieutenants?:D :p

retdetsgt

08-26-2004, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by kathaksung

It seemed Israel try to recruit those aids and interns to influence US politics by control US politicians. The phenomenon is evident. Iraq war is for the interest of Israel. US soldiers fight and die for the security of Israel. All these pro-Israel policy were probably created under influence of these aids and interns, and pro-Israel politicians as well.

And the Democratic politicians are too weak to say no to a young woman? Doesn't say much for Democrats, does it. BTW, the guy in the McGeevey scandal has said he doesn't want money, but just an apology, so scratch that one off your list.

http://www.thnt.com/thnt/story/0,21282,1036038,00.html

Maybe the fact Iraq has oil and Saddam had designs on the rest of the Mideast oil could have had a little to do with it? I think Israel is well equipped to take care of itself. It did destroy Iraq's nuclear reactor after France sold it to them.

FNA209

08-26-2004, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by retired
No, and neither do the politicians lie to us.:rolleyes:

I'm simply alluding to the idea that Moore is an anti-american *********. He has all but said he released 911 to sway the vote.

I didn't, nor would I ever, say our so called public servants are any better. The problem, as I see it, is either we toss all of of them in the junk pile and start anew- or- continue to do what I think most of us do- continue to vote for the lesser of two evils. Both suck- all we can do is put the least suckee in.

kathaksung

09-03-2004, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by retdetsgt
And the Democratic politicians are too weak to say no to a young woman? Doesn't say much for Democrats, does it. BTW, the guy in the McGeevey scandal has said he doesn't want money, but just an apology, so scratch that one off your list.

http://www.thnt.com/thnt/story/0,21282,1036038,00.html

Maybe the fact Iraq has oil and Saddam had designs on the rest of the Mideast oil could have had a little to do with it? I think Israel is well equipped to take care of itself. It did destroy Iraq's nuclear reactor after France sold it to them.

Gay affair or spy case?

Quote, "Foreign Policy/Intelligence Columnist Andy Martin Says McGreevey Sex Scandal was Israeli Intelligence Operation
8/16/2004 8:49:00 AM

To: Assignment Desk, Daybook Editor
Contact: Andy Martin Worldwide Communications, 866-706-2639

NEW YORK, Aug. 16 /U.S. Newswire/ -- America's most respected foreign policy/intelligence analyst, Out2.com's Andy Martin, will publish a column and hold a news conference in New York today (Aug. 16) to disclose that the New Jersey sex scandal involving Gov. James McGreevey was really an Israeli intelligence operation gone sour.
NEWS CONFERENCE DETAILS:
Time/date: today (Aug. 16) at 1 p.m. EDT
Location: Southwest Corner of Fifth Avenue and 57th Street, New York City
"People have been confused by the McGreevey sex scandal," says Martin. "But McGreevey's dilemma is not a gay sex scandal. It is an Israeli intelligence operation gone sour. This is not a scandal about 'sex.' It is a scandal about 'secrets.'

"McGreevey said he had sex. He did. Golan Cipel says he is not gay. He's not. They are both right. Mr. Cipel was a junior Mossad case officer, originally posted to New York under official cover. The Mossad is well known for using human sex toys. McGreevey was lured into a relationship that was intended to penetrate New Jersey's homeland defenses.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?ReleaseID=34760

wannabeenytrp

09-04-2004, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by EireHalo82
The only support given to the U.S. during the war was use of Shannon Airport for refueling of transport aircraft, and the only reason they let it be used is because they had to, America basically payed for the entire airport.

Wow, you are way off with that portion of your comment! Ask people who served over in the mid-east and most will tell you they stopped off in Ireland. It is not just cargo planes...
The war is unpopular throughout Europe and the rest of the world. The reason Ireland let those planes land is not because the US paid for the Airport or because they had to... The reason is Ireland's economic growth was due to US tech companies setting up in Ireland. At one stage 65% of US tech companies in Europe were set up in Ireland. All that has changed since Russia, and the eastern europian nation are more cost effective! Everything else you said is pretty much on th emark, but I had to correct you on that point!

Over 100,000 U.S. troops have come through Shannon since January 2003, well over half of the U.S. troops serving in Iraq. Weapons that have passed through Shannon include personal small arms, class A explosives, napalm, cruise missiles and radioactive depleted uranium. It is now confirmed that the Irish government lied to its civilians when they denied that troops on these flights carried weapons and that weapons of mass destruction were being transported through Ireland [ -Irish Examiner, September 3rd].

kathaksung

09-22-2004, 09:03 PM

What good is Bush?

1. He cannot even express correctly what he thinks.

e.g. "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

2, He has no common knowledge. He doesn't know the money of Russia and Iraq.

Bush speaks of 'Soviet dinar' in speech about Iraq

Wed Aug 18, 8:28 PM ET HUDSON, United States (AFP) - US President George W. Bush spoke of "the Soviet dinar," even though dinars are the Iraqi currency.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040819/pl_afp/us_vote_bush_dinar&cid=1521&ncid=1963&sid=96378801

3. He had no ability to handle and foresee the development of a big event. He said "(Iraq war) Mission is accomplished". We know it is not.

4. He is dumb to react an emergence. He had no reaction to a big attack(When WTC was bombed) for 7 minutes.

To react properly in above events is not difficult for most people. How can be in such a great country like US, we have no better selection but an incompetent Bush?

No wonder he is the big joke abroad. George W. Bush is a big winner at the World Stupidity Awards in Canada.

Bush wins fest's top 'stupid award'
But U.S. president loses to Saddam for Just for Laughs' lifetime awards
Nelson Wyatt
The Canadian Press
July 25, 2004

MONTREAL - The November elections may still be ahead of him, but U.S. President George W. Bush has already come out a big winner at the World Stupidity Awards.

Mr. Bush was a dominating presence at the second edition of the awards presented at the Just for Laughs comedy festival taking place in Montreal

Mr. Black said the awards "celebrate the pros" and "perfection in idiocy" because real stupidity is hard work.

http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/soundoff/story.html?id=e3860266-8e91-439e-a02c-bcb68dc5382b

Bush, with his low IQ, even not dare to face kerry's challenge to debate each week. Yet, media from time to time said Bush is leading over Kerry. Do you believe it?
--------------
This is how insider group manipulate American election. They steal it by intelligent covert job. (Those who controlled intelligence, they controlled election office) And make people believe the result is reasonable by fake poll.

Metro174

09-23-2004, 01:22 AM

1. He cannot even express correctly what he thinks.

Hmmmmmm. Sounds like you're talking about someone on this forum. :rolleyes:

Seriously, I don't even kn ow why I bother to read your posts. I can never comprehend them.

Zoysya

09-23-2004, 09:11 PM

^agreed

Cougarman

09-23-2004, 09:50 PM

Kat gets around though. He's all over the bravenet forums too.

scanner

09-23-2004, 10:30 PM

Well as a Canadian I can tell you that stupidity award should rather be awarded to Canadians for voting liberals for 3rd time. Sadly but truly.

GWB is da man for leading world against terorism. At this point US has no better leader. But leader is nothing without his assistants. How successful US will be depends on how well American people in general respond to the situation.

John Kerry is too much flip-flopper. JK is rather a typical,if you look closely, a Canadian liberal than American democrat.

GWB made few mistakes when he took his presidency. First thing he did was that he ****ed off his own closest allies. That's why US looks alone today. And without allies, even phoney ones like France, war against terrorism can not be won. Another mistake he did is that he went to war in Iraq before finishing business in Afghanistan.

But, he did good job on Homeland Security front. At least the way I see it at the border every day. US economy is not in good shape but bear in mind that whole world is in economic crisis and in fact US is faring better than Canada and other developed nations. I don't think that democrats will make economy better so I would not blame Bush for unemployment.

Laughing at Bush is a sour laugh. Particularly when laughters are corrupted UN bureaucrats and freedom grabbing euro-pinkos.

Dave2886

09-27-2004, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by kathaksung
What good is Bush?

1. He cannot even express correctly what he thinks.

e.g. "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

2, He has no common knowledge. He doesn't know the money of Russia and Iraq.

Bush speaks of 'Soviet dinar' in speech about Iraq

Wed Aug 18, 8:28 PM ET HUDSON, United States (AFP) - US President George W. Bush spoke of "the Soviet dinar," even though dinars are the Iraqi currency. ]

3. He had no ability to handle and foresee the development of a big event. He said "(Iraq war) Mission is accomplished". We know it is not.

4. He is dumb to react an emergence. He had no reaction to a big attack(When WTC was bombed) for 7 minutes.

To react properly in above events is not difficult for most people. How can be in such a great country like US, we have no better selection but an incompetent Bush?
First, I'll say that I'm not the biggest fan of W, but I don't think he's a bad guy...and he is way better than Kerry.
1-I knew exactly what he meant by that statement. I should hope he IS thinking about new ways to hurt our country. That's how you foil terrorist plots, by thinking about how they'd strike, and then taking steps to prevent it.
2-First of all, who cares what they're currency is. Secondly, are you saying you've never had a slip of the tongue and said something when you meant to say another? Is it at all possible that he really does know the correct currency, but since he was just recently talking about Iraq that he accidentally said "dinar"?
3-I don't have much to say on this...except that, after all, he IS a politician.
4-I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a leader who takes the time to think about exactly what he's going to do, rather than just leaping into action, not knowing exactly what to do, but thinking he's got to do something immediately. Just because he didn't show an outward reaction, do you really think he was just sitting there thinking about the children's book for 7 minutes? Do you REALLY think he wasn't thinking as fast as he could about what to do in those 7 minutes? Put yourself in his shoes, and see how long it would take you to come up with a plan after learning about the "unthinkable" happening, and keep in mind, that you're not just thinking for yourself, but for the entire country.

People like you are so quick to latch onto any little thing, and blow it out of proportion just to support whatever opinion you already have. And by the way, just answer me this, are you an American citizen? I see that you live in CA, but judging from your postings, you are clearly not born and raised here, so I'm curious what your background is.

Netopalis

09-28-2004, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by scanner
Well as a Canadian I can tell you that stupidity award should rather be awarded to Canadians for voting liberals for 3rd time. Sadly but truly.

GWB is da man for leading world against terorism. At this point US has no better leader. But leader is nothing without his assistants. How successful US will be depends on how well American people in general respond to the situation.

John Kerry is too much flip-flopper. JK is rather a typical,if you look closely, a Canadian liberal than American democrat.

GWB made few mistakes when he took his presidency. First thing he did was that he ****ed off his own closest allies. That's why US looks alone today. And without allies, even phoney ones like France, war against terrorism can not be won. Another mistake he did is that he went to war in Iraq before finishing business in Afghanistan.

But, he did good job on Homeland Security front. At least the way I see it at the border every day. US economy is not in good shape but bear in mind that whole world is in economic crisis and in fact US is faring better than Canada and other developed nations. I don't think that democrats will make economy better so I would not blame Bush for unemployment.

Laughing at Bush is a sour laugh. Particularly when laughters are corrupted UN bureaucrats and freedom grabbing euro-pinkos.

I agree with all that you said scanner. This is just another example of liberalism but Canada no longer has any national scouting or outdoor clubs for the youth anymore, due to being too liberal.

You also really cant run out the room when you just got told US was attack. You would probably be in shock too and not sure what to think when you was first told that New York was under attack. I know I pause for a min thinking what the hel* just happen when I turn on the TV on 9/11. Kerry is a clown for saying he would of gotten up an ran out of the room. That would of just scared everone even more. On top of that Kerry has no idea what he would of done if he was in bushs shoes on that day.

djack16

09-29-2004, 05:38 AM

Originally posted by Dave2886

4-I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a leader who takes the time to think about exactly what he's going to do, rather than just leaping into action, not knowing exactly what to do, but thinking he's got to do something immediately. Just because he didn't show an outward reaction, do you really think he was just sitting there thinking about the children's book for 7 minutes? Do you REALLY think he wasn't thinking as fast as he could about what to do in those 7 minutes? Put yourself in his shoes, and see how long it would take you to come up with a plan after learning about the "unthinkable" happening, and keep in mind, that you're not just thinking for yourself, but for the entire country.

I'm from CA as well, born and raised, and I am a little taken aback by that statement. You would prefer the president sit on his *** for seven minutes to "think" rather than immediately depart and meet up with his advisors for a plan of defense and contact the Pentagon to assess the dangers that were looming overhead. Our president must be phased as little as possible by the gravity of the situation. What if a nuclear device as exploded on US soil? Maybe he would have taken thirty minutes reading to kids :rolleyes: . Our leaders must think on their feet in these times we live in. I don't know about you guys but when the T.V. switched on that early in the morning and I had JUST AWAKENED I was thinking, immediately, "Who the hell is attacking us and where is the Air Force?"

Dave2886

09-29-2004, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by djack16
...I don't know about you guys but when the T.V. switched on that early in the morning and I had JUST AWAKENED I was thinking, immediately, "Who the hell is attacking us and where is the Air Force?"
Wow, you must be really smart if you IMMEDIATELY knew after the 1st plane hit that we were under attack. You must have had some psychic premonition, because everyone I know, including all the news broadcasts on that day, thought that the first plane was simply a horrible accident. I don't think anyone watching at home, or in the news studios, or the president, knew IMMEDIATELY after that 1st plane hit exactly what was happening. It was not until the second plane hit that I realized what was happening, and I don't think I'd be wrong if I said that it's probably about the same time that most of the rest of the world thought the same thing.

As I said before, I don't want my leaders making knee-jerk reactions without carefuly and deliberately planning the best course of action. People who bitch about Bush sitting there for 7 minutes after being told what had just happened act like he was told that terrorists have hijacked 4 planes and have used them as bombs to blow up the WTC, the Pentagon and a 4th was enroute to the White House. That's simply not true. Most of that hadn't happened yet. The only thing he was told at that time was that a plane had crashed into the WTC. But the thing that irritates me the most is that people want to make such an issue about the number of minutes he sat there before leaving. It's not that big a deal! There are better things to bitch about!

kathaksung

10-02-2004, 08:05 PM

Whatever you said Bush was right to sit for 7 minutes when he heard the WTC was bombed, I think in his mind might be "God, it takes place after all. Now I must carry out my promise to invade Iraq."

Many information revealed that government knew 911 attack in advance. It was allowed to happen because they benefit from it.

What do you think with this?

Quote, "Government Insider Says Bush
Authorized 911 Attacks
From Thomas Buyea
9-17-4

Keep in mind when reading this, that the man being interviewed is no two-bit internet conspiracy buff.
Stanley Hilton was a senior advisor to Sen Bob Dole (R) and has personally known Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz for decades. This courageous man has risked his professional reputation, and possibly his life, to get this information out to people.
The following is from his latest visit to Alex Jones' radio show.

SH: My office was broken into about 6 months ago. The file cabinets - it was obvious they had been rifled through. Files were stolen. Files dealing with this particular case and particularly with the documents I had regarding the fact that the - some of these hijackers, at least some of them were on the payroll of the U.S. government as undercover FBI, CIA, double agents. They are spying on Arab groups in the U.S. And, in effect, all this led up to the effect that al Qaeda is a creation of the George Bush administration, basically. That the entity that he called al Qaeda is directly linked to George Bush. And all this stuff was stolen. Fortunately, I had copies. But this was just part of the harassment. The FBI has also been harassing some of my assistants and has planted a spy in our midst. And it is just outrageous that these Nazi tactics are being used - and the obstruction of justice, these people are criminals. And that's what's happening under the tremendous pressure here to just drop it. Or to shut up now and just go away.
.............
Alex Jones interview of Stanley Hilton, attorney for 911 taxpayers' lawsuit
Alex Jones Radio Show September 10, 2004 Transcription by 'RatCat'
AJ: He is back with us. He is former Bob Dole's chief of staff, very successful counselor, lawyer. He represents hundreds of the victims families of 9/11. He is suing Bush for involvement in 9/11. Now a major Zogby poll out - half of New Yorkers think the government was involved in 9/11. And joining us for the next 35 minutes, into the next hour, is Stanley Hilton. Stanley, it's great to have you on with us.

http://www.rense.com/general57/aale.htm

Stanley Hilton is bringing a lawsuit against the US Government charging involvement in carrying out the 9/11 attacks. Hilton has deposed top military officials who assert that the government were complicit in the attack.
click here to listen to interview <http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/091204hilton.htm>

part of the interview

"Just in a nutshell, you have a lawsuit going, you have deposed a lot of military officers. You know the truth. In a nutshell, just tell us what is going on.

Bush and Rice and Cheney and Rumsfeld and so forth were all involved in aiding and abetting and letting it all happen but all ordering it to happen. Bush ordered it. We have credible documents and witnesses testifying to this that he did. I went to school with some of these neo cons you hear today and I did a thesis on how to turn US into a dictatorship with a bogus crisis so this has been going on for 35 years.

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/091204hilton.htm

--------------

Unpopular Bush (Bush 2)

Even before Iraq war, the world viewed him a villain already. It was from report of his own State department.

Quote,"Many see Bush as villain, US embassies report
by Glenn Kessler and Mike Allen
Washington Post

Washington - the messages from US embassies around the globe have become urgent and disturbing: Many people in the world increasingly think President Bush is a greater threat to world peace than Iraq President Saddam Hussein....." (S.J.M.N. 2/24/03)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55326-2003Feb23.html

Now many viewed him as war criminal. In Belgium, Bush and Blair had been filed with lawsuit of war crimes. They were banned to Church of Nativity. Bush also had been indicted for war crimes by a group of Japanese lawyers. Of course, you can never see this kind of news from US mainstream media.
Inside group very carefully protect their puppet.

When Bush visited London last November, he met with a large protest from people which turned a state visit to a public humiliation. To save Bush's fame, D.O.J. at the same time threw out Michael Jackson's molesting case to distract.

What about American people? The biggest protest ever to Republican Convention in New York this September says all.

Early this year, more than 60 leading scientists-including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university presidents-issued a statement to protest Bush's scientific policies.
In March, a US business group that monitors federal spending took out a full-page advert in The New York Times, likening President George W. Bush to a corrupt chief executive officer who has forfeited public trust
In May, some 50 retired US diplomats wrote a letter to Bush urging him to reverse the Mid-east policy.

Professionals, from their own angle, protest Bush's policy. Bush is notorious, either in domestic or abroad.

Even Bush's closest ally Tony Blair keeps distance from him.

Quote, "LONDON (AFP) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair is refusing to fly to the United States to receive a medal bestowed on him by the nation for his support over last year's Iraq war, a London newspaper has reported.
US President George W. Bush has put huge pressure on his closest ally to pick up the medal in person, which was awarded over a year ago, the Sunday Mirror said, quoting a senior British government source.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1538&e=10&u=/afp/britain_us_iraq

Yet, from time to time, name brand media such like CNN, ABC, USA Today, Gallop issued poll result that Bush steadily has the approve rate around 50% and often leads over his Demo rival. What is the base of it?

---------------

This is how insider group manipulate American election. They steal it by intelligent covert job. (Those who controlled intelligence, they controlled election office) And make people believe the result is reasonable by fake poll.

djack16

10-03-2004, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by Dave2886
Wow, you must be really smart if you IMMEDIATELY knew after the 1st plane hit that we were under attack.

The center has been continually threated with destruction by many terrorists and was attacked before. It was an object of hate to many in the world. My conclusion was the worst case scenario had happened and I was correct. I don't want our administration to say "That's one terrible pilot. Must've been a horrible accident." I want them to find out what exactly is happening. I think this situation warranted getting up and leaving immediately.

The knee-jerk reaction you speak of is absurd regarding Bush's actions as he was being told information about the incidents. Obviously if Bush had departed immediately to see what would be done about a COMMERCIAL AIRLINER HITTING ONE OF THE TALLEST BUILDINGS IN AMERICA then it would appear he was doing everything he could to waste as little time as possible.

"Mr. Bush was informed that a plane had hit the World Trade Center in a telephone conversation with Ms. Rice shortly before walking into a second-grade classroom at the Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Fla. White House officials said he knew only that it was a single aircraft and not necessarily a terrorist attack. The president did not appear preoccupied until a few moments later, around 9:05 a.m., when his chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., entered the room and whispered into the president's ear about the second plane attack. At that moment Mr. Bush's face became visibly tense and serious." --NYT, 9/12/01.

Also, I don't believe this stupid crap about the "government" being behind the terrorist attacks. Especially how Bush is alleged to have authorized it. These terrorists that have been CONFIRMED to have executed these attacks, are CONFIRMED to have been radicals from a very early age, who were involved with terrorist leaders on the other side of the world, are not big supporters of our current administration's policies. They weren't involved with the U.S. Government in any way except that we had intelligence information on them. These types of allegations don't make sense all of the sudden because you put this Stanley Hilton guy up and purport that he is privy to all this information.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by kathaksung "Bush ordered it. We have credible documents and witnesses testifying to this that he did. I went to school with some of these neo cons you hear today and I did a thesis on how to turn US into a dictatorship with a bogus crisis so this has been going on for 35 years."[QUOTE][i]
Maybe he is a two-bit conspiracy buff who doesn't go on the internet lol! I would like to read his thesis too. Maybe you could help me with that kathaksung.

Jmax6900

10-05-2004, 08:58 PM

If we had not gone to war, the people would be saying Pres. Bush was soft and did nothing but stand idly by and let out country become ravaged by terrorists.

I for one believe we had a right to attack. Everyone was happy we attacked at first. Now that it is done, and people start realizing war costs money and lives, they're no longer happy. Let me tell ya, you can't stop a war in mid-flight unless you want to lose. I for one don't wanna lose. Pres. Bush has a backbone and fights for what he believes in....can't say that about Kerry can ya.

retired

10-05-2004, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by Jmax6900
If we had not gone to war, the people would be saying Pres. Bush was soft and did nothing but stand idly by and let out country become ravaged by terrorists.

I

I understand about not being soft, but why did we attack Iraq since they weren't involved with 911, and were not involved with AQ?:confused:

Sgt. Friday

10-06-2004, 01:20 AM

Point: Agreed the United States is a Republic not a democracy
Point: The Executive Branch of the three-tier system is indeed the weakest branch of the government
Point: Luckily the system in the United States is set up for debates on political issues that reveal (should reveal) all sides of issues.
Point: To have a partisan debate is better than having only bi-partisan thoughts

Cockney Corner: I watch your home country

kathaksung

10-12-2004, 09:35 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sgt. Friday
[B]

Kathaksung:

Kathaksung: Do you or do you not agree with this basic theory: If your actions needed to be illegal or unmoral (according to popular opinion and/or laws) would you commit a criminal act or unmoral act in a clear attempt to save another human life? YES or NO, don

DC_2

10-12-2004, 10:00 PM

Key thing to see here as it has been long before the current circus of the stars is that politics equals money. Not only here in the USA, but everywhere. If you follow the money to these politicians now for instance, you may find motive behind their actions. A true American has been known all too often to fall for the lure of money and the power it rules. These two are no less.

Point in fact, WAR: Why fight beyond logical reasons of need for ousting of other powers NOT sharing their wealth. Easy. Contracts that make money for making war. War prolonged is money more stretched out too, don't forget. And what better way to promote this than to put generals in charge that take orders instead of choosing decisive tactics. Did we not just relieve a general for doing such a plan to end all by speeding up the process with MORE troops in Iraq for instance? His plan was not financially viable to the investors. Thus they who also own the companies behind the scenes and per say give well for campaign contributions say out with the man. This not falling short on Bush now mind you.
Opposite side of stick shows they too benifit from Demilitarizing the system too as it in the long run guaruntees more kaos when events bring about attacks on us. No better way to cost tax payers money than by making mass killings here and loss of infrastructure. Insurance companies pay, SOME... but then won't. Thus WE foot the bill in aide for this too. More taxes!
Either side gets down to business and does it the old way of WW2, by golly we may wipe the slate clean world wide AND with all the nations in standing fashion next to us. Right now we might as well be a fly swatter in all domestic and international issues as we are not really achieving anything with either so called electorate running for this land of OURS.

Deputy757

10-13-2004, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by retired
I understand about not being soft, but why did we attack Iraq since they weren't involved with 911, and were not involved with AQ?:confused:
How about refusal to comply with UN resolutions set in place at the end of the first Gulf war, firing on/shooting down NATO aircraft, and the slaughter of innocent Iraqi/Kurdish civilians? Any or all of those work for me! Also, as to Iraq not being involved with Al-Qaida, ABC investigated this matter back in the late 90's. Here's a link to what they found then (but don't report now)!
Iraqi-Al Qaida ties (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40820)
Even Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism official that came out against Bush in 2004, saying there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaida, stated in 1999 (while defending Clintons attack of a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant) that the US was "sure it manufactured chemical warfare materials produced by Iraqi experts in cooperation with Osama bin Laden."
When they worked for the Clinton administration, Kerry foreign policy advisers Sandy Berger and Jamie Ruben went on the record that Iraq helped al Qaida make deadly VX gas at this same plant.
Finally, there was the Department of Justice's Nov.4, 1998, indictment of Osama bin Laden which said, "Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government, and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
I don't mind debating the right or wrong of any particular war but please quit making it sound like Bush was the first person to ever link Iraq and Al Qaida or that he did so without any supporting evidence!

retired

10-14-2004, 11:04 AM

Labrock

10-17-2004, 07:33 PM

Excellent Post!

retired

10-17-2004, 08:31 PM

[i
Finally, there was the Department of Justice's Nov.4, 1998, indictment of Osama bin Laden which said, "Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government, and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
I don't mind debating the right or wrong of any particular war but please quit making it sound like Bush was the first person to ever link Iraq and Al Qaida or that he did so without any supporting evidence! [/B]

As you may have noticed for all practical purposes I have stopped the pointless discusion about Iraq and terrorism. But as a last thought, I will submit this.

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.

The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

Have a nice day!:) :)

kathaksung

10-26-2004, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by Deputy757
How about refusal to comply with UN resolutions set in place at the end of the first Gulf war, firing on/shooting down NATO aircraft, and the slaughter of innocent Iraqi/Kurdish civilians? Any or all of those work for me! Also, as to Iraq not being involved with Al-Qaida, ABC investigated this matter back in the late 90's. Here's a link to what they found then (but don't report now)!
Iraqi-Al Qaida ties (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40820)

Israel refuses to comply with UN resolutions much more than Iraq. US and Britain war planes invade Iraq which was not authorized by UN. Mass slaughter of innocent Iraqis/Kurdish took place more than ten years ago, why not act then? Now there are mass slaughter in Sudan, and killings in many other countries such like N.Korea.... why not these countries? One thing I must point out, when a wolf wants to eat a sheep, it always finds reason.

---------------

Bad economy (Bush 3)

Bush boasted his tax cut policy. But since his three years of tax cut, the economy in consecutive years goes worse.

Bush government manipulate numbers to cheat people. Said economy is improved. Let's see some absolute numbers:

1. Bush has the worst job creation in 40 years. He is the only one got negative.
Total Nonfarm Payrolls (thous.) Bureau of Labor Statistics Establishment Survey

period ....start......end......Jobs created ..%chng....President
61-64....53,681... 59,583....5,902..... 11.15%...JFK/Johnson
65-68....59,583... 69,438 ...9,855....... 16.54% ....Johnson
69-72....69,438 ...75,620....6,182 .........8.90%....Nixon
73-76....75,620.. .80,692....5,072 ........6.71%....Nixon/Ford
77-80....80,692 ...91,100 ...10,408 .......5.77% ....Reagan I
85-88....96,353 ..107,132 ..10,779 ......11.19%.... Reagan II
89-92..107,132 ..109,725 ...2,593 .......2.42%...Bush, GHW
93-96 .109,725 ..121,232 ..11,507 .....10.49% ....Clinton I
97-00..121,232...132,436...11,204 .......9.24% ....Clinton II
01-8/04 .132,436 .131475 .... -961 .....-0.72%.....Bush, GW

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/PAYEMS.txt

2. Decreased income.

I.R.S. Says Americans' Income Shrank for 2 Consecutive Years
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON

Adjusted for inflation, the income of all Americans fell 9.2 percent from 2000 to 2002, according to the new I.R.S. data.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/29/business/29tax.html?position=&ei=5006&en=26b81d34ef09dc4e&ex=1091678400&adxnnl=1&partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1091106523-u3RTWXhX2RoUhGrVOfclPA

3. Increased poverty.

More Americans Uninsured, Living in Poverty

Census Data Shows Third Straight Annual Increase in Both Categories
By GENARO C. ARMAS, AP

WASHINGTON (Aug. 26) - The number of Americans living in poverty increased by 1.3 million last year, while the ranks of the uninsured swelled by 1.4 million, the Census Bureau reported Thursday..... It was the third straight annual increase for both categories. ...Approximately 35.8 million people lived below the poverty line in 2003,

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20040826103709990008

Yet media (So said crdible media poll like CNN, Gallop, ABC...) always matains Bush's rate around 50%. Said Bush leads over Kerry 11%. And news in internet said in electorade vote, Bush will have a landslide victory. Do you believe it? Do American people would rather vote for a president who proved bad?

--------------

Dark future (Bush 4)

Bush blows trumpet that he cut tax for you. It's only a trick to wangle votes. When he disguised as a Santa Clause to give you a tax cut cheque, at same time he quitely put a debt bill into that sock too.

He had cut tax for three years. The federal dificit went up for three years at a record high. It will hit a historical 422 billion dollars this year in adition to 375 billion of last year. The national dificit will be 2.2 trillion in next decade. If the tax cut goes on, then it will double to 4.4 trillion.

To fill the hole of that dificit, government have to borrow from financial market which will cause the rising of interest rate. As a result, it will leads to the break out of two bubbles: housing market and stock market.

The federal benchmark interest rate stays below 2% for three years since 2001. It creates a big credit bubble.

Personal debt increased, as well as national debt. The interest rate now is going up. Federal reserve bank has raised the rate three times in recent months. The rate is still below 2%. There is still a long road to go to the reasonable rate level. Meanwhile, housing market bubble and stock market bubble will break out at any time.

That's what we will face: a long time stagnant economy. And with great possibility, a big economy downturn when the two big credit bubbles exploded.

Bush dramatically increased national dificit. And allowed two big economic bubbles created which endangered financial market. We will have a very dark future. Main stream media rarely tell people about this. They keep issue the poll to maintain Bush's approve rate at around 50% and say he is steadily lead over Kerry at 8 %. Do people really not care about their pocket? Do they really support a president who bring them a bad economy?

------------------

This is how insider group manipulate American election. They steal it by intelligent covert job. (Those who controlled intelligence, they controlled election office) And make people believe the result is reasonable by fake poll.

DC_2

10-27-2004, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by retired
As you may have noticed for all practical purposes I have stopped the pointless discusion about Iraq and terrorism. But as a last thought, I will submit this.

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

Key note to add on this WHOLE terrorism scenario. Bin Lauden was not even a factor, nor even on 9/11 as he was laid up in a Pakistan hospital for treatmemts. Point two to show, money line traced now shows that Pakistan ISI which is basically a puppet show controlled by our CIA was the financer behind all terrorist activities even clear back to 1993 and most definately on 9/11. See where this is going?
We are our own worst enemy and those in power regardless of party (Dem. Commies or Rep. Nazis) are running the show. Did you also know that on 9/11 prior to first crashes even came at towers that ol' Chenny was in White House Battle Command room below ground and being given briefings every few minutes as to how many minute jets were out up to 1 hour before first hit? He kept nodding even up until they said 5 minutes out and made NO attempt to scramble US fighters nor tell NORAD to resume operations as they were ALL ordered to be on training exercise that day and to DISREGARD all blips out of location in the US air ways.
Money lost by politicians from no more cold war was recouped from War on Terrorism by financing through channels, the fanatics that are led to believe we are an evil country that will harm their existance. Evil people no, Politicians YES!. Remember even Iraq was our ALLY up though the Iran Contra affair as long as they used the weapons and money WE gave them to attack Iran. They decided, naaa. So we got all ****ed off starting with Bush Sr. who cut them that loan check. Pay back is a real ****er if playing with US politicians set on secret agenda huh.

Don't know about you folks, but on November 2 I am voting AMERICAN so as to have a clear soul afterwards. Only one has proven in words and writing who he'll truely represent and he IS registered in 48 states on ballot. Michael Narik of the Libertarian party. narnik.com is his political homepage too. Just one man's rant is all I have put here, as is still a FREE country to say so... for now anyway.

kathaksung

11-02-2004, 07:38 PM

Three months ago, I posted a message "Al Qaida", said that Bin Laden would issue tape when Bush needed. The prediction is awfully accurate. News of 10/29 said in a tape Bin Laden admitted he ordered 911 attack.

Al-Jazeera Airs Videotape by Bin Laden

Oct 29, 4:45 PM (ET)
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - Osama bin Laden, reading a statement to the American people in a new videotape aired Friday, directly admitted for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks and said "the best way to avoid another Manhattan" was to stop threatening Muslims' security.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041029/D861ANVO2.html

See the message I posted 3 months ago, notice the bold text:

Al Qaida: Bush's aid

Is that too conveinent to attribute everything to Al Qaida? Bali bombing in Indonesia, it's Al Qaida; Madrid bombing, it's Al Qaida; Nick Berg beheading, it's Al Qaida; Paul Johnson beheading, it's Al Qaida; Korean beheading; it's.....

Saddam and his high ranking officials were arrested or eliminated in their own land, show me Bin Laden or Al Zarqawi which does so much damage everywhere. But how can they survived in a land not theirs? (Bin Laden is not Afghanist, Zarqawi is not Iraqi) It only exists in media, in government propaganda, they use beheading case to wave people's indignation against Islamic people.

Who is Bin Laden? He was trained by CIA as "Freedom fighter", (now there is another name "terrorist") What he did always helped Bush to grasp more power and money and start war. When Bush needs something to raise his rate, Bin Laden would issue a tape on time to remind you he is still there that you need a leader in "war on terror". That's why he exists in media and government propaganda and never be captured.

Now they created another "Al Zarqawi" of Iraq. He played the same role of Bin Laden. He will arouse your hostility against Mid-east people and give Bush an excuse to stay in Iraq, prepare for more Mid- east war. That's the role of Al Qaida.

So next time when you ask "How can a rogue like Bush can stay in his second term?". The answer is "It's Al Qaida". This time the reply is correct and true. Only this Al Qaida is created by Bush himself and acted on Bush's behalf.

http://www.indystar.com/forums/show...3651#post983651 http://www.indystar.com/forums/showthread.php?p=983651

kathaksung

11-12-2004, 08:13 PM

Bush was elected not by people but inside group. (11/4)

Bush probably is the worst president in US history. In his first term, civil liberty is seriously eroded; economy is in a mess; the international reputation of America drops to the bottom because the unjust war he activated. Any president commits one offense of the above would have lost hi second term, yet Bush still stays. Why?

Because he is proved an obedient proxy of inside group. And inside group control US politics. How?

Through media and intelligence.

1. Media rarely report negative news relates to "Patriot Act". They seldom report the opinions of people all over the world because nothing is positive about Bush. We can only get it from Internet.
Media report "off-shoring jobs to overseas is good in long term to US, and cheered a "jobless recovery". They rarely report the feelings of unemployed people. They never talk about a dark economic future to American people because that will hurt Bush's fame.

Brand name media kept let out a steady figure of poll. They miraculously maintained Bush's approve rate at about 50%, and led over his rival by sometimes even 12% despite the insurgence in Iraq, rising casualties of US army and Iraqi civilians, scandal of Abu Ghraybu, news of no WMD.

2. Intelligence control. Feds have their accessories everywhere from big cooperations to small companies to punish, intimidate, and harass any anti Bush activity.

Michael Moors' "Fahrenheit 911" was blocked to be distributed by its own investor - Disney. It could go to public finally because it has won the award of best film in Cannes Festival. The film became too popular to be censored.

Linda Ronstadt was evicted from the Aladdin in Las Vegas after angering the casino's management with pro-Michael Moore comments during her concert. Celebrities got a treatment like this, not mention the ordinary people.

Former president Clinton got a heart attack after he gave an advice to Demo candidate Kerry. He told Kerry not to focus on Vietnam history but on Iraq war which touched the taboo of inside group.

Constant terror attack warning from D.O.J. and FBI. Though at last they didn't activate any terror bombing they still issued a Bin Laden's tape. Four days before election date.

Senate Minority leader Tom Daschle lost the election too. It's not a surprise if you still remember he was also the one who received the anthrax letter. He is a dislike of inside group.

Of course the biggest operation was to rig the election. When they told you Bush won Kerry by 51% vs 48%, you have to take it. You have no other way to verify it. You only know the vote you casted.

This is how insider group manipulate American election. They steal it by intelligence covert job. (Those who controlled intelligence, they controlled election office) And make people believe the result is reasonable by fake poll.

iamadorable

11-12-2004, 09:03 PM

Kat......Who are you? Everyone has a right to their views but could you just post a link vs the whole thing. If someone wants to read it, they will. I think I just went blind trying to read this thread........and still am not sure what is going on.

iamadorable

11-12-2004, 09:14 PM

Kat.....nevermind. I just did a google search and you are everywhere. Checked out a little about you........maybe you should ask your doctor to re-check your meds.....okay...good luck.

Duke

11-17-2004, 01:55 AM

Web Results 1 - 10 of about 5,350 for kathaksung. (0.33 seconds)
Tip: Save time by hitting the return key instead of clicking on "search"

The dark side of Federal law enforcement agency
... Here is a comment I posted in 'Washingtonpost.com': "From: KATHAKSUNG Feb-6 2:07
pm To: Kayaker (KSWENSON3) unread 1572 of 1721 1588.1572 in reply to 1588.3 T ...
hometown.aol.com/kathaksung/myhomepage/profile.html - 101k - Nov 15, 2004 - Cached - Similar pages

WinXPcentral - View Profile: kathaksung
... View Profile: kathaksung. kathaksung. Registered User. Last Activity: 11-05-2004
08:04 PM. Offline. Signature. ... Find all posts by kathaksung. ...
forums.winxpcentral.com/ member.php?find=lastposter&f=11 - 42k - Cached - Similar pages

ForumClick - View Profile: kathaksung
... View Profile: kathaksung. kathaksung. Registered User. Last Activity: 11-04-2004
06:50 PM. ... Find all posts by kathaksung. Find all threads started by kathaksung. ...
www.forumclick.com/member.php?find=lastposter&f=39 - 17k - Cached - Similar pages

History Channel: Profile
History Channel Index of Topics / Profile Profile for kathaksung. Registered Since,
May 25, 2001 3:45 PM. Occupation, Location, Homepage, Bio, Total Posts, 144.
boards.historychannel.com/profile.jsp?user=51864 - 30k - Cached - Similar pages

History Channel: Election perspective
... Threaded | Flat. kathaksung - 02/18/2004 11:39AM, Reply. Election perspective, ... 251.
Mortgage rate and September plot (8/29), kathaksung, 10/30/2004, 6:10PM. ...
boards.historychannel.com/threadedout. jsp?forum=10006&thread=100007055 - 48k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from boards.historychannel.com ]

The Smirking Chimp
... Ca. Last 10 message board posts by kathaksung Click here to see this info. Last
10 article comments by kathaksung Click here to see this info. ...
www.smirkingchimp.com/user. php?op=userinfo&uname=kathaksung - 18k - Cached - Similar pages

Cruel: Member Page for kathaksung
Name: kathaksung. E-mail: Private. Homepage: http://hometown.aol.com/kathaksung/
myhomepage/profile.html. Subject, #, Posted, Ct, Author, ...
www.cruel.com/discuss/viewMember.php/kathaksung - 20k - Nov 15, 2004 - Cached - Similar pages

plus613 - culture in the blender - kathaksung uploads
... olga kobrina, Lady with nice curves, images uploaded by kathaksung - total points
268. 1. Who wants to thrilla black gorilla? Who wants to thrilla black gorilla ...
www.plus613.com/uploader/kathaksung - 6k - Cached - Similar pages

Cape Cod Times Forums

kathaksung

11-23-2004, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by iamadorable
Kat......Who are you? Everyone has a right to their views but could you just post a link vs the whole thing. If someone wants to read it, they will. I think I just went blind trying to read this thread........and still am not sure what is going on.

There is a convenient way for you: Don't click on this topic. That saves your more time than to click on to see an URL.

And btw, it's strange that if you are not interested at my message, why search me in search engine? Curiosity or rather more, to follow me all the way?

--------------

Bush was elected not by people but inside group(2) (11/14)

People who vote don't decide whom be elected. Those who count the vote do.

Fraud in 2004 election is worse than 2000. Nobody could do that except a large powerful organization which abuse its power.

THE BLOWUP IN FLORIDA

In Baker County, for example, with 12,887 registered voters, 69.3% of them Democrats and 24.3% of them Republicans, the vote was only 2,180 for Kerry and 7,738 for Bush, the opposite of what is seen everywhere else in the country where registered Democrats largely voted for Kerry.

In Dixie County, with 4,988 registered voters, 77.5% of them Democrats and a mere 15% registered as Republicans, only 1,959 people voted for Kerry, but 4,433 voted for Bush. The pattern repeats over and over again - but only in the smaller counties where, it was probably assumed, the small voter numbers wouldn't be much noticed.

Franklin County, 77.3% registered Democrats, went 58.5% for Bush. Holmes County, 72.7% registered Democrats, went 77.25% for Bush. Yet in the larger counties, where such anomalies would be more obvious to the news media, high percentages of registered Democrats equaled high percentages of votes for Kerry.

More visual analysis of the results can be seen at

http://ustogether.org/election04/FloridaDataStats.htm

www.rubberbug.com/temp/Florida2004chart.htm.

http://www.nomorefakenews.com/

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm

In Ohio

Most voters in Ohio thought they were voting for Kerry. CNN's exit poll showed Kerry beating Bush among Ohio women by 53 percent to 47 percent. Kerry also defeated Bush among Ohio's male voters 51 percent to 49 percent. Unless a third gender voted in Ohio, Kerry took the state.

So what's going on here? Answer: the exit polls are accurate. Pollsters ask, "Who did you vote for?" Unfortunately, they don't ask the crucial, question, "Was your vote counted?" The voters don't know.

Here's why. Although the exit polls show that most voters in Ohio punched cards for Kerry-Edwards, thousands of these votes were simply not recorded. This was predictable and it was predicted. See TomPaine.com, "An Election Spoiled Rotten,"

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/an_election_spoiled_rotten.php

http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/electoral_reform/residual_ballot.php

kathaksung

12-02-2004, 08:21 PM

Bush was elected not by people but inside group (3) (11/26)

Bush sold his soul to devil

The fraud in 2004 election was vast and wide spread. And almost all of them favored Bush and GOP. It was a well planed rig. No other group then intelligence could carry out such an operation.

As a matter of fact, there might have been a long history to manipulate election. Only at that time it was covert and in small scale. It became evident in 2000 election when inside group create a suspending case in Florida. When Clinton left White House, he left for us a historical budget surplus. Demo did good in economy. There was no reason for people to change regime.

But good economy was not the interest of D.O.J.. What they needed was an expanding police power. For that power they had created Oklahoma bombing. They failed to pass a bill similar to Patriot Act after the Oklahoma bombing. They prepared for a bigger one - 9/11. But needed someone to carry it out.

That was why there was a pending case in Florida. The situation gave inside group a base to negotiate a deal with candidate. The merchandise was a terror attack and war, the payment was the seat of Presidency. There was a month long process for the negotiation. Bush won the deal at last. He sold his soul to the devil. He promised to activate Iraq war if he became President. He got it.

In the book "The Price of Loyalty" written by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill which provided about 19,000 pages of documents. It revealed Bush determined to go to war in Iraq even before the 9/11 attack.

That was why we saw Bush behaved so unusual after 9/11.

Re: "On the evening of Sept. 12, 2001, according to a newly published memoir, President Bush wandered alone around the Situation Room in a White House emptied by the previous day's calamitous events. Spotting Richard A. Clarke, his counterterrorism coordinator, Bush pulled him and a small group of aides into the dark paneled room.

"Go back over everything, everything," Bush said, according to Clarke's account. "See if Saddam did this."

"But Mr. President, al Qaeda did this," Clarke replied.

"I know, I know, but . . . see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred."

Reminded that the CIA, FBI and White House staffs had sought and found no such link before, Clarke said, Bush spoke "testily." As he left the room, Bush said a third time, "Look into Iraq, Saddam."

At last, Bush using a fake "WMD" to start the Iraq war. He fulfiled the deal and proved he is a loyal puppet. That was probably why he was chosen again in election 2004.

kathaksung

12-12-2004, 09:49 PM

Ohio 2004 plays the same role of Florida 2000

Bush was elected not by people but inside group (4) (12/7)

Tasted the sweet of advantage of a pending competition, Inside group established another one in election 2004. It is in Ohio.

The media created a situation that the country was divided by red and blue. And the result of election depended on a few undecided states. It was a psychological gimmick. They manipulate the public to focus on a few states but neglect the others. Did the nation real vote red and blue as they said? Not necessarily. It only made the rigging work easier for Feds. It made covert job easier in fixed states because people believe it was colored by red and blue already. Feds could concentrate their resource in the key state.

The key state was Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. Feds created a situation that the output of the key state decided the result of US election.

This year people found serious election fraud in Florida and Ohio. Florida was the key state in 2000, but not the planned one this year. The manipulation would be too obvious if Feds set the same state in controversial focus for consecutive two elections.

It was because people were alarmed by election 2000 so they had a tight observation on Florida. They found unusual phenomenon. But the suspicion was eliminated quickly by Feds. Florida is not in their plan this year. It is Ohio.

Then we can see vote controversy in Ohio. Media reported vote challenges in Ohio continue. Jassie Jackson; third party candidates, Democrats.... request a re-count. All these build up a pressure on Bush. It is a warning to him, "if you do not obey, then anytime we can overturn the result of election."

What is the ransom D.O.J. wants this time? Likely the control of the whole intelligence force of USA. D.O.J. not only control FBI, DEA, they want to control CIA too. And with it the fat budget of military intelligence.

The bill of re-organization of intelligence has been blocked in House. Bush worked hard, even pushed his GOP colleagues to pass it. Once it is passed, Americans will face a terrible intelligence monster. And you can expect the freedom and civil right are threatened.

Feds build up a pending case in election. (Though Ohio is more covert one than Florida of 2000) At the purpose to squeeze most from candidate. Americans are naive to think they have a democratic system. Their mind, as well as the election, are manipulated by Inside Group through media and intelligence.

kathaksung

12-23-2004, 02:35 PM

Cover up rigging election (12/17)
Bush was elected not by people but inside group (5)

On 11/28 there was an article in San Jose Mercury News to justify the Florida 2004 election.

"New vote count confirms Bush's north Florida win"

"How did the Republicans win so heavily in counties stocked with Democrats?

Last week, the Miami Herald went to see for itself whether Bush's steamroll through north Florida was legitimate. Picking three counties that fit the conspiracy-theory profile - staunchly Democratic by registration, whoppingly GOP by voting - two reporters counted more than 17,000 ballots over three days.

The conclusion: No conspiracy."

The whole story is like this. Teacher accused student cheating in final exam that he copied the answer from the book. A judge was assigned for the case. He came checking the exam paper. and found the answer was right. The conclusion: No cheating.

The judge only repeated what the teacher had done - Found the answer was all right. He didn't check the accusation that the answer was a copied one. He didn't answer the question. How did the student who had no knowledge of the content of test could have a perfect exam result.

Some media said because it was Bush's morale value which moved voters.

What made people register as a Demo or Rep? Their moral value. People generally vote to their morale value in election if there is nothing particularly happened. What made them switch vote to the candidate of the other party? When the party he registered to did some thing disappointed him. e.g. if the candidate did bad in economy which hurt voter's pocket, then they switched to the other one. That's not for moral value because otherwise he wouldn't register as a Demo or Rep.

But what good has Bush done in his first term? Economy is bad. Civil right eroded. The war is a opposed by most people. People lost so much in his administration. There is strong reason to have a regime change. .

Media justify Bush's victory by moral value. That's a gimmick. Moral value is why people registered to a party. If people voted on moral value, Bush would should lost heavily in Florida. . "How did the Republicans win so heavily in counties stocked with Democrats?"

The answer is simple. Intelligence switched the votes to their favor. This is how insider group manipulate American election. They steal it by intelligence covert job. (Those who controlled intelligence, they controlled election office) And make people believe the result is reasonable by media propaganda. Even if the result contradicts strongly to the reality.

kathaksung

01-01-2005, 09:39 PM

Psychological manipulation and propaganda (12/28)

Bush was elected not by people but inside group (6)

Some people apologized to the world that US has Bush elected for the second term. They don't have to. The majority of Americans didn't elect Bush. It was inside group which selected Bush by a rigging election and media propaganda.

There was really nothing good to justify Bush's victory, the media at last throw out a "moral value". But under this justification, Bush should have been a big loser because he is a dishonest man. He misled US to an unjust war by a big lie - that Iraq was an imminent threat to us.

Media rarely report the conflict exit poll in US election but beat the drum to same event happened in Ukraine. Yushchenko's poison case played same role as "Swift boat team" - to tarnish the rival in election.

A destroyed face played the propaganda to its utmost.

1. Most poison were used to hurt victim's health, on the purpose to take their lives. A poison to destroy someone's face is rarely heard. Does Dioxin only influence the skin of victim's face? Or the skin of all body? Though I don't know what happened to Yushchenko's body, it seems the skin of his neck and hands are all right.

2. Yushchenko vigorously active in election. It seems the poison didn't hurt his health much.

3. Yushchenko and Western media blow the trumpet said that he was poisoned. It seems the poison was selected for propaganda much more than killing.

4. Motive is important in any case. Who benefit from this election if the victim having a destroyed face?

5. Is perpetrator an amateur who selected a wrong poison to let others know that Yushchenko was obviously poisoned? Or just want to have a propaganda?

Next time when you see the TV repeatedly broadcast the collapse of World Trade Center; or a destroyed face; see the orange terror alarm code; or see the US map printed in blue and red color, be aware that it's a psychological manipulation. Government has a purpose.

kathaksung

01-12-2005, 09:27 PM

Make a blackmail more efficient (1/8)

Bush was elected not by people but inside group (7)

"Democrat wins Washington with 130 votes". Mercury News reported on Dec. 24. It said Democrat Christine Gregoire won the election by 130 votes out of 2.9million ballots cast in third round of recounting by hand. The previous count and recount declared that she had lost to her GOP rival Dino Rossi by 261 and 42 votes separately. The article came with a picture of smiling C. Gregoire. She really had a reason to smile to win the seat of governor of Washington at such a slim margin:0.004%.

The price of this victory may be big for Democrat : The seat of Presidency of US. I think it's a concession to the pressure of people whom demand investigation on obvious election fraud in Florida and Ohio.

Strange enough, the protest on rigging election are mostly from individual groups or observer. The high ranking of Democrats seem keep a blind eye on it. Kerry quickly admits his failure despite a controversial election. Have you ever heard any words from Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Edwards..... about the fraud? These people are experts. They know the principle of game. If there is no order from inside group, they won't make a move.

As a matter of fact, the result of election was decided long time ago. When they pushed Howard Dean out of the campaign in Democrat's Primary, the inside group had got what they want already. There is little difference between Kerry and Bush. They both voted for war and Patriot Act. Bush was elected because he was proved a loyalty of inside group. He was more eager to sell his soul.

The skill to squeeze more from an election now is more advanced. Though they are able to make a unilateral victory for a candidate, Feds created a situation that by only control several hundreds of votes they can decide a governor of a state. Or by only control the election result of a state, they can decide a president of US. With which they can more efficiently to blackmail the candidate.

Deputy757

01-12-2005, 11:26 PM

It's pretty much impossible to take anything else seriously from someone who claims there is little difference between Bush and Kerry! :rolleyes:

Group 29

01-16-2005, 03:27 PM

I'll bet kathaksung is in high demand at parties during the holidays.:D

KBeecher

01-22-2005, 09:41 AM

:D I guess she never thought to ask herself, how could those bastions of fairness, media, ever be wrong?

Better yet, is it possible, tell me its not so..... People are tired of being asked endless questions by a media that is neither fair or impartial and can's seem to realize the idea of elections is a free and impartial vote.

Without the endless questioning by the media.

Personally my answer to being questioned by media or anyone who approached me coming out of a polling place would have been to "get the #### away from me.":cool:

kathaksung

01-22-2005, 07:20 PM

Someone said Kerry is a leftist. Is he a leftist vote against Iraq war? Is he a leftist vote against Patriot Act? What is difference between Kerry and Bush on these issues? And these are most important issues for the election. There is little difference between Demo and Rep when it was issue for inside group.

--------------

Control media - intimidation(1/11)

CBS fires four staffers over Bush story. Dan Rather also will step down as anchorman of the "CBS Evening News". All these because they had been "myopic zeal" about Bush's story relied on forged documents.

They had reason to believe the documents handed to them at that time. The fact was Bush did escape the service in Vietnam. Some one did arrange him in National Guard to avoid Vietnam service. Bush's military record mysteriously missed. As CBS said, "It's a blow, but it's not fatal. ... Ninety-nine percent of the stories we do are accurate and solid."

They told the Truth. Only the documents they referred was a forged one which was supplied with an evil will. The mistake was made inadvertently.

Compare with Bush. He deliberately misled Americans into an unjust war. He deceived people by fake "WMD" and "imminent danger". He caused the loss of hundred of thousands lives of innocent people. Who is to be blamed?

A witness reported a theft. The accessory of the thief supplied a forge evidence to the witness, deliberately to discredit him. The witness was punished when he referred the forged evidence. The thief, though was a criminal, on contrary, got a prize. Bush was awarded a second term of presidency. A team of CBS lost their job.

Feds used to set up trap for people. Rumsfeld repeated trying to make it a legitimacy of his "Strategy office". They have a "Lie workshop" which produces misinformation and disinformation. CBS event can be viewed as an achievement of this "Strategy office".

Ive and Adams lost paradise after they ate the apple given by Satan. People know who was the evil. They painted Satan a snake. But it's not only the staffers of CBS lost their job. It's another step the American people lost the freedom of speech. It is an advance of Inside group to intimidate media workers for more self restriction. You can expect to have more "political correct" poll and news from media since.

kathaksung

02-01-2005, 07:28 PM

Bush's social security reform (1/28)
A plan to benefit financial group

What Bush intends to do is to drive young people to invest their retire pension into financial market. Who will be winner and who will be loser?

Financial market, especially the stock market, is a speculating market. How can Bush expect people will win in that market? He has no assurance. But one thing he knew for sure is that the financial group will benefit a lot from his proposal.

When people went to Las Vegas. The winner is always Casino. Aladdin, Mirage.... all these grand Hotel were built up on the money lost by gamblers. But at least those gamblers are willing to go there and they more or less got some entertainment.

For those who put their money in financial market, they can expect to contribute more to Gold Sach, JP Morgan, Citi Bank ....

That's probably why Bush only proposes the reform at young people and to a limit portion. If his proposal is real good as he said, then why didn't he suggest to privatize all social security fund, and apply it to all ages? He dares not. He knew there is a risk. Once such a fainancial disaster takes place, the impact won't be felt by young immediately because there is still sometime to their retirement age. They became a Guinea pig of Bush's plan.

The main work Bush did in his first term was to contribute a high profit for military industry and oil group. It seems the mission for him in 2nd term is for the profit of financial group. That is why he is awarded with four more years.

kathaksung

02-13-2005, 02:30 PM

Social security fund (2/8)

Bush uses the same tactic to carry out his policy: intimidation. In his first term, to start a war, he scared Americans that the "WMD" in Iraq posed imminent threat to US. Now, he repeated that social security is headed toward bankruptcy. He proposed that young people to privatize one third of their s.s. fund (4% of income) into financial market.

Does he really care for the benefit of young generation? No. He hurt them. In his first term, he had a tax-cut plan which mainly benefit the rich people. At the same time, he created a historical deficit. In another word, he borrowed the money to pay tax-cut. That loan he borrowed, after all, must be paid back. The payer will be the young generation. Bush put a debt burden on them. That's not enough, he is seeking to steal their retirement fund.

Is social security fund in danger now? Not really. The Social Security Administration estimates the fund will last until 2042; many economists estimate the fund will last much longer. There are many other ways to balance the s.s. fund account then. Here is a chart compare the shortage of s.s. funds compare to tax-cut over 75 years.

......Shortfall or cost as a percent of ..In trillions of dollars
..... GDP over 75 years ....................over 75 year

Shortfall, Social Security ....0.4% ............ NA
Trust Fund (CBO est.)

Shortfall, Social Security ....0.7% .............$3.7 trillion
Trust Fund (Trustees estimate)

Cost of the 2001/2003 tax....2.0%.......... $11.6 trillion
cuts, if made permanent

Tax cuts for top 1 percent,... 0.6% ............$3.4 trillion
if made permanent

http://www.cbpp.org/1-4-05socsec.htm

There was lesson from privatization. 401(k) was allowed to enter financial market in 1994. When the dot.com bubble broke out in 2001, many people suffered great loss in their retirement pension account and have to delay their retirement plan. Some people lost most of their pension when Enron went bankruptcy.

In Bush's plan, first of all, the young generation will lost 2 trillion. The administration fee of privatization estimated at 15% to 20% of total investment amount. Financial group win the first round even without a battle. And then, in a pool where big fish fighting with small fish and shrimp, who will be winner?

Most people left casino with full pocket? or empty pocket? Judge with your common sense.

Delta784

02-14-2005, 02:26 AM

You lost the election.

Get over it.

kathaksung

02-25-2005, 04:30 PM

291. CEO and company (2/14/05)

HP ousted its CEO - Carly Fiorina on 2/9. It proved my previous thought.

In early 1990s, I started to suspect it was the house I bought which caused persecution on me. One thing puzzled me was how could they even shut down a company to prevent me from buying the house. How could owner of the company bear the loss to benefit Feds?

Something occurred in 1993 solved this puzzle for me. In May that year, newspaper reported that former owner of Disneyland - Walter Disney was an informant of FBI. I thus knew that Feds ruled country through their informants, especially by the management of company.

About same time there was a campaign between two high ranking executives. They competed for the post of CEO of Disneyland. The struggle ended with one candidate died in a helicopter accident. So another puzzle came into my mind. Either candidate would have
been cooperative with Feds to be its informant, why Feds still choose the CEO by violence?

I finally had a conclusion. Feds now is not satisfied with informants. They need a CEO of their own. That someone represents for the interest of Feds rather than for the interest of company he works for. For example, Walther Disney might refuse to shut down Disneyland for the interest of FBI because that was his blood and sweat. But a CEO of Feds will do. (see "29. "I am you, American."")

In late 2001, HP CEO Fiorina announced acquisition of Compaq. Which was opposed by HP heir Hewllet. I thought it was a typical sample of how a CEO not work for the interest of the company she was employed. I wrote an article, pointed out Hewllet's opinion was for the interest of HP. Fiorina's was not. The recent development proved my theory about CEO. (see "57. FBI's interest" I wrote in 2002.)

Three years later Fiorina is ousted from HP. Her decision to emerge with Compaq played key role in her bad performance. I am an outsider of high tech. business. But even I knew it was a bad deal. How Fiorina in a position with much more information couldn't see the danger and took over a hot potato? What she did might have saved the Compaq from bankruptcy. She might have saved profit of some firms which held a large quantity of Compaq stock. She probably saved the stock market from another shocking downturn. Stock market was gasping in 2001 from the outbreak of dot.com bubble. It couldn't bear another news of bankruptcy of a big firm. What she did, was at the cost of HP's interest.

As what I have said if CEO made a damage, he has little to lose. Fiorina left with a fat pocket. She got 21.4 million of severance pay and a compensation of 8.15 million for 2004. It looks like she did something good and left with a reward. She might get another high ranking job.

KBeecher

02-26-2005, 11:13 AM

Let me get this straight; a CEO who was an FBI informant and the head of the biggest Mickey Mouse business in the world was killed because the FBI wanted a better CEO?

If that true, then that must mean that the headquarters for the FBI is now the Magical Kingdom. And I guess that must mean that Mickey Mouse, Minnie Mouse, Goofy, Snow White and the Dwarfs are all agents?

Well I have heard that the FBI is really mickey mouse.

But then again its hard not to believe someone who has spent so much time investigating the conspiracies that you seem to have. By the way, are you a big fan of Mel Gibson? If not, there are several movies of his you should watch, they would help you in your struggle to bring truth to the masses such as the officers on this board.

What you have said makes me question the information I read in the paper now about her just being a lousy CEO and that HP has consistently lost money in its deals brokered by her.

Oh well, I should know better than to trust the news media.

I know for a fact I can't wait to see your posts in order to be more well read about conspiracies by the US Government.

kathaksung

03-05-2005, 05:47 PM

Let me get this straight; a CEO who was an FBI informant and the head of the biggest Mickey Mouse business in the world was killed because the FBI wanted a better CEO?

.

I'm sorry I can't catch your point. Whom do you mean with "a CEO who was an FBI informant and the head of the biggest Mickey Mouse business in the world was killed because the FBI wanted a better CEO?"

1. Walter Disney passed away in 1960's.
2. In 1993 there was a competition for the CEO of Disneyland. So none of the candidates was CEO during campaign.
3. What I mean was either one if he became CEO of Disneyland, would have cooperative with FBI to be its informant. Why wiped out one with violence?

------------

292. From Disneyland, HP, to US. (2/19/05)

Disneyland had invested in Michael Moor's documentary film Farhenheit 911. But it refused to distribute the film after it was done. The decision of high ranking was political motivated. As Farhenheit 911 is a business successful film. It got the top prize in Cannes film Festival.

If you view US as a company and president as a CEO, you can find it is operated by inside group in same way they did to a business company.

What has Bush achieved in his first term? Patriot Act was passed and mid-east war activated. The suffering of Americans is apparent. Civil rights are seriously eroded. Lives and money are losing in war. US reputation in the world goes down. Bush hurt the interest of American people to benefit a little group and Israel. Former Prime Minister of Malaysia said that Israel rules world through its proxy, it let others fight and die for them. (The original word Marhatir used was Jews, I don't think it is proper here so replaced it with Israel) Bush is a proxy not work for the interest of US. He let Americans fight and die for the interest of Israel. He was rewarded for a second term.

What will Bush do in another four years? Likely more wars in mid-east to secure Israel. (Syria and Iran) And another important mission for him is to steal from the retirement savings from America people - their social security fund.

Bush's plan to privatize s.s. fund mainly will benefit financial group. And another purpose is to support the stock market from collapsing.

Because Feds held a large quantity of real estate properties, they keep interest rate at unreasonable low level since 2001 to maintain a prosperous housing market. The low interest rate produced two big bubbles in housing market and stock market. these two markets are also the cash boxes for Feds where they withdraw money for their spending.

When the economic situation won't allow interest rate staying in low level any more and turn up to go upward, the two bubbles are going to break up. It's hard to keep the house price to be higher when interest rate rises. So the only choice for them is to save the stock market which is controlled by big financial group.

What Bush going to do is to drive small fish into a slaughter market to lure the big fish from leaving. To keep a cash box of Feds to be active while the other one (housing market) will go low in recent future. As I have said, a CEO in US doesn't work for the interest of company he was employed. Bush works for the interest of inside group which selected him to be a president of US.

KBeecher

03-06-2005, 11:40 AM

They competed for the post of CEO of Disneyland. The struggle ended with one candidate died in a helicopter accident.

Those are your words, you intimated that FBI killed a competing CEO that was competing against someone for the post of the head cheese of Mickey Mouse world.

You did not however provide any evidence of collusion by FBI to do this. Nor did you name anyone who was involved.

It appears that you :rolleyes: , are just making statements to see your name and writing in print. Your validity appears to be suspect and possibly your written statements are not true.

I would suggest, rather than just writing things, you research them and then post where they are at. I do not suggest you use those sites on the web that are not valid, especially somebody's website that is not a valid resource for news or investigative reporting.

And by the way, those sites would include places from overseas such as england, france, germany and others that we all know like the US so much and usually print favorably for the US.

You might then become know as someone who is not living in la-la land or that is conspiracy nut.

:D

kathaksung

03-16-2005, 06:16 PM

What you said also fit for O.J. Simpson's case and Scott Peterson's case. I only raise the helicopter accident event to that level. Research? Sorry, I don't have that condition.

-----------

295. Who controls D.O.J.? (3/7/05)

Former President Kennedy was assassinated. Former President Clinton was impeached. All these revealed that even in top position, US politicians are under the control of intelligence. They were under the surveillance. They were extorted, blackmailed by intelligence. If they disobeyed, then they were punished by scandal, or even been assassinated.

Former President Nixon was impeached and lost his post in oval office in early 70's. The formal reason was he lied to cover up a tape which might reveal his awareness of illegal campaign activity. But lie and dirty campaign activity were common among high ranking politicians. It was only an excuse. Then what was the real purpose?

In March 2002, a news helped me resolved several puzzles. It was a tape of Nixon's conversation with former treasury secretary Connally. Re:

Quote, "Nixon Defended Envoy's Groping
1972 Tapes Also Reveal Talk of a Justice Dept. 'Full of Jews'

By George Lardner Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 1, 2002; Page A02

"Oh! Oh, God!" Nixon said with a sigh. "It erodes our confidence, our strength. They're untrustworthy. . . . Look at the Justice Department, it's full of Jews."
"Any place of power," Connally agreed. "SEC used to be -- all of them, those lawyers."
"Listen, the lawyers in government are damn Jews," Nixon said.
Both men agreed that Nixon should try to reduce the Jewish influence in a second term. Nixon told Connally on May 15 that he wanted no more than 2 percent of the government's political appointees to be Jewish, in proportion to the population. He later said 10 percent would be acceptable, "but certainly not 30 or 40 percent."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20361-2002Feb28.html

I then knew who control Justice department and why Nixon lost his job.

Nixon realized that there was a disproportion of government political appointees to the population. He thought it was not for the interest of US and tried to change that situation. He was impeached before he could do it.

Now I know why Sharon said, "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, to Shimon Peres, October 8th, 2001

Israel controls D.O.J.. D.O.J. controls FBI. And FBI keep Americans under surveillance, include Presidents.

----------

Yesterday I was blocked to this site. Page said,
"Forbidden
You don't have permission to access / on this server.
Apache/1.3.31 Server at 192.168.3.2 Port 80

It reminds me of totalitarian country when people missing without a trace. If I was blocked to the site, at least I should have a reason. To arrest a man needs a warrent. Don't know why they release the blocade today.