See US politics From another angle .
 

See US politics From another angle .

It looks like a democratic system. It's not. The two parties are all under control of inside group. Politicians are puppets. The campaign is actually like a horse racing. And the candidates are like domesticated horses.

This time the inside group like Bush to stay in 2nd term of president because he is obedient. He followed the order to start an injustice war. So they keep him there because they want more war. The other candidate who may be a possible threat to Bush were advised to leave.

What is the target of politicians? President. Can you immagine a department manager give up the chance to be raised to the position of executive president? But Tom Daschle and Al Gore were advised to abandon to election 2004. Because they may defeat Bush. And they obeyed. That's why I say it's a domestic horse racing. Everything depends on Master's will.

They leave some incompetant horses for Demo and make it a chaotic circus. Let them attack each other. All to make sure Bush can continue to be a "war president".

And of course, you always see those government accessaries, discredit this and support that. At the purpose to weak Demo and strenthen Bush.

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

Re: See US politics From another angle .
 

Mmm hmm. It's like you were reading Chomsky and decided to take his stuff to the next exponent.

Wild.

I'm not sure that he said anything that was incorrect. Is it not really a two party system with both politicians almost identical? Don't both parties spend and take? Don't both parties continue to expand the size of the government, and increase the deficit and budget?

This guy isn't all wrong.

Aside from being in need of an English as a Second Language class, the originator does indeed offer a concise external perspective on American politics.

Point of contention: USA is a Republic, not a democracy. Refer to a good political science text to understand the difference.

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

To quote PJ O'Rourke: "Democrats and Republicans alike pilage the environment and squander taxpayer resources. At least Republicans try to make a profit, Democrats do these things just for fun."

Well if this guy takes this literally he's looney in my opinion but if you look at this in a more figurative and satirical sense it makes sense.

I guess Master is a UFO who is out to take over the world. I guess its weapons are George W. Bush and our two party system.:rolleyes:

To again quote the great PJ O'Rourke (who was once kind enough to put a dedication in one of his books with the words "F*ck 'em if they can't take a joke")

Democrats and Republicans are like two cheeks of the same buttocks.

Hope no-one minds an "alien" quoting that. Can't say the political parties in my country are any different. Where I used to live (the East End of London) people were so disenfranchised, they used to turn out for the UK's home grown Nazi party in droves. Which is a bit worrying.

I'll refrain from "cracks" about Hillary! :p

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/m...e/profile.html

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

http://forums.delphiforums.com/polic...ages/?msg=25.1

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

"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.

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.

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...2004Mar16.html

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.

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.

About Clark
 

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.

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

US Politics from another angle.
 

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.