← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · All Old Right
Thread ID: 14548 | Posts: 56 | Started: 2004-07-15
2004-07-15 22:38 | User Profile
It seems the latest trick up Bush's sleeve is to discourage pissed off conservatives from voting Kerry, just to kick Bush's ass out. They're not even asking us to vote Bush anymore, just to stay home. I have to admit, I wobbled a little. But, no way is he getting another 4 years. I can't do the pro-life nut scene of Petrouka or Libertarian pro-immigration.
Bush had his time and failed miserably. I hope I am not alone, in taking real action to get him out. Also, a Bush victory could very well land us in Hillaryland in 2008. That psycho bitch will make Kerry/Edwards look like a political dream team.
2004-07-15 23:41 | User Profile
How is the Bush campaign trying to get pissed off conservatives to stay home?
Your vote won't change anything. So, the only reason to vote is for principle. So, in principle, do you support Kerry? If not, you shouldn't be voting for him. I'm voting for the Constitution Party.
2004-07-16 05:15 | User Profile
I'm not too crazy about Bush either, but Kerry is a hundred times worse. Unless you are a lunatic, a Marxist or on drugs, the only thing to do when you go into the voting booth is to hold your nose and vote for Bush. I don't like it any more than you do, but it's assinine to cut off your nose despite your face.
2004-07-16 05:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]How is the Bush campaign trying to get pissed off conservatives to stay home?
[/QUOTE] Boortz show yesterday, 7/15. One of the latest talking points on Glen Beck, Limbaugh, Boortz, and Michael Graham, directly or indirectly, that principled people would never vote Kerry just to get rid of Bush. Polls indicate that the majority of the Kerry vote IS to get rid of Bush. The Bush bots always brag about how Kerry voters aren't voting for Kerry. They're right. The election is a simple thumbs up or done on what Bush has down. There are no distinctions. The police state of the "war on terror" will have a major victory in a Bush re-election.
2004-07-16 06:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OPERA96] I don't like it any more than you do, but it's assinine to cut off your nose despite your face.[/QUOTE] I have to give the Dems one thing, they try to steal all of my money... and they try to steal my guns, so they can steal my money. But, I've never had any of them reach so deeply into my personal life as Bush, scrutinizing practically any of my purchases, wanting to scan my eyeball or DNA for ID, humiliating searches for me and my elderly relatives at airports, the slimy illegals hanging out at the local corners. And, last, but not least, alienating virtually all of US allies over some bullshit action for Israel.
Who cares if the Dems steal the money and the property. Bush and the GOP want my soul!!!
2004-07-16 06:11 | User Profile
I am quite disgusted with Bush on several issues but the thought of Kerry and the dillusional team that he would select is just too much to fathom. Kerry would sell this country out to every internation treaty faster than you can blink. Foreign policies aside, the further damage he would do within is unthinkable. The Jews would run circles around that liberal idiot and would be running the place in a few months.
We lost America a few decades ago but it began when the Jews arrived in mass numbers in the early years of the 20th century. Its all downhill from here. The only question for one to consider when going to the polls is how quickly one wants the demise to be. This time in America reminds me of the words of Cicero -
A nation can survive its fools (LIBERALS), and even the ambitious(CONSERVATIVES). But it cannot survive treason from within (JEWS). An enemy at the gates is less formidable (ISLAMISTS), for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor(JEWS) moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor (THE SNAKE, SATAN, aka - The JEW); he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear.
I will vote for Bush as I would rather my children have a gradual dissent rather than a shock so they can adjust easier.
2004-07-16 06:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=All Old Right]I have to give the Dems one thing, they try to steal all of my money... and they try to steal my guns, so they can steal my money. But, I've never had any of them reach so deeply into my personal life as Bush, scrutinizing practically any of my purchases, wanting to scan my eyeball or DNA for ID, humiliating searches for me and my elderly relatives at airports, the slimy illegals hanging out at the local corners. And, last, but not least, alienating virtually all of US allies over some bullshit action for Israel.
I couldn't disagree more. The dems have no morals, and that steals the souls, not of the strong but of future generations. I agree its a pain with Bush, but Kerry is a million times worse. I hope you don't have a gun. I hope the thousands more cops that Clinton employed didn't bother you as Kerry boy is 20 times more liberal and socialistic as he. I don't know where you live but I live in the burbs of Chicago and we have a cop on every corner to make sure you breathe correctly. They are untrained and only there as a harrassment. At least when I go to the airport it is something I can expect rather than harrassment, which I believe to be a known factor.
Screw Kerry and Edwards. Those 2 will place far more controls over you than you can perhaps foresee. I trust no liberal. With Bush, at least I know what the hell to expect.
2004-07-16 06:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=All Old Right] And, last, but not least, alienating virtually all of US allies over some bullshit action for Israel. QUOTE
You got it wrong, Israel is just an excuse as they despised us long before that. When the wall fell, we were no longer of use. And now that the unequiped Europeans have no longer use of us to protect them, they show there boldness. This just didn't happen overnight. It has been a slow process since the Berlin Wall fell. To blame it on Bush shows how much of history you follow. Tell me please - Why do you feel the need to pander to nations that try to dictate what others should do? I find it inexcusable that others think what the liberal media dictates should be your thoughts.
Israel was a big mistake but it was not our idea but the brits. No one wants the demons. We just passed them on to the arabs. Bush didn't do that. Personally, I'm peeved at the Japs. If they hadn't involved us in WW11, 200,000+ would not exist and in our time that would be less a few million. Bush thinks in this era and Arafat thinks of the injustice done over 60 years ago. I am just thankful for every freaken Jew that leaves my country and goes back to Israel where God can destroy them.
2004-07-25 01:23 | User Profile
" No one wants the demons. We just passed them on to the arabs. Bush didn't do that." (whatever the first two sentences mean, which I don't get; to the third...)
Yes he did -- as a puppet. No American can vote for him, only traitors. Him or Kerry, either one. To vote for either is to betray democracy (which of course some say happened in the remote past somewhere, but the question keeps representing itself every 4 years).
The Democrats must allow the question of the causes of the Iraq war to be raised, or they go in under the girlie mens gig, and deserve what they will get. I'll tie the hoods.
2004-07-25 01:41 | User Profile
I have been reading about the guy running with Kerry and maybe he will be the answer,,,,,,, If something happens to Kerry then Edward would take the chair.
I wonder how he feels about the Jews, haven't read anything about it,,,,,anyone knows?
2004-07-25 05:04 | User Profile
GG:
I heard an interesting story about slaves. The shippers would avoid the yellow/half-breeds because they caused too much trouble. They'd go straight for the black ones. This November, I'll do my best to cause the GOP some trouble. I'm going to do that every election until traditional conservatives get let back in the GOP game or someone's game. Maybe, if they ever get elected to any political office in the next 20 years, they'll start avoiding me and my kind, instead of wanting to decide what I eat for breakfast and when I use the bathroom.
2004-07-25 14:55 | User Profile
You can certainly count on the flea-sized memory of the American people to vote for George Bush and re-elect him for 4 more years....or maybe forever. The neo-con machinery has done it's job so well, even if it wasn't perfect, pertaining to the Iraq War. In the eyes of the masses, the job in Iraq has been a success, especially now with the overwhelming acceptance of Iyad Allawi, Iraqi Prime Minister, by the rest of the world, including the Arab world. The neo-cons had raised the siege and tired out the opposition. The anti-war movement is toast, barely able to raise any legitimate oppostion to George Bush.
Folks, we've lost this particular battle. This isn't to say that we were wrong about our feelings about the Imperial War and the impediments on our freedoms at home. We were and still are in the right about the impending consequences of having an occupied government and it's vicious plan for subjugation of the world. John Kerry is not going to win the presidency, although I'd love to see George Bush ejected from office, because too many Americans buy into the media brainwashing that George Bush is ordained by God to eradicate evil, evil being any state or person that's not American.
The reality is setting in. The United States through Neo-Con dominance is poised to take over the world, and George Bush has made them the backroom promise to do just that. Watch for the Media to follow and crown George W Bush the new Ceasar.
2004-07-25 15:32 | User Profile
Never in a 100 years will I vote for a liberal demonrat. Sit home, yes. Nader, possibly. But a goddamned card carrying commie, never.
2004-07-25 16:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]Never in a 100 years will I vote for a liberal demonrat. Sit home, yes. Nader, possibly. But a goddamned card carrying commie, never.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, ditto.
There's not a spit's worth of difference twixt the twain, IMHO.
Both are the scoin of the New England elite. Kerry was on JFK's yacht as a kid, for Pete's sake. Bush is of course old Yankee blue blood. Both went to Yale, both are Bonesmen. Kerry is emblematic of the intermarriage of the various bloodlines of the rich - he's a Jewish and French mix.
Schwarzenneger is married to a Kennedy and yet everybody says he's a Republican.
The fight isn't DemonRat versus Pubbie, but rather We the Sheeple versus the Jewish-WASP (and others) elite axis.
We need a revolution, and whatever speeds the plough on that is good for us.
For that reason I guess that it could be that Bush presents the better option for a collapse (I think the crazy bastard might actually attack Iran, and Kerry is less likely to do that), and so for us he might be the more beneficial candidate under a "worse is better" theory.
But even then, I suspect it doesn't matter at all, since both Bush and Kerry are run from Tel Aviv.
Walter
2004-07-25 16:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]Never in a 100 years will I vote for a liberal demonrat. Sit home, yes. Nader, possibly. But a goddamned card carrying commie, never.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, ditto.
There's not a spit's worth of difference twixt the twain, IMHO.
Both are the scoin of the New England elite. Kerry was on JFK's yacht as a kid, for Pete's sake. Bush is of course old Yankee blue blood. Both went to Yale, both are Bonesmen. Kerry is emblematic of the intermarriage of the various bloodlines of the rich - he's a Jewish and French mix.
Schwarzenneger is married to a Kennedy and yet everybody says he's a Republican.
The fight isn't DemonRat versus Pubbie, but rather We the Sheeple versus the Jewish-WASP (and others) elite axis.
We need a revolution, and whatever speeds the plough on that is good for us.
For that reason I guess that it could be that Bush presents the better option for a collapse (I think the crazy bastard might actually attack Iran, and Kerry is less likely to do that), and so for us he might be the more beneficial candidate under a "worse is better" theory.
But even then, I suspect it doesn't matter at all, since both Bush and Kerry are run from Tel Aviv.
Walter
2004-07-25 16:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] For that reason I guess that it could be that Bush presents the better option for a collapse (I think the crazy bastard might actually attack Iran, and Kerry is less likely to do that), and so for us he might be the more beneficial candidate under a "worse is better" theory.
Walter[/QUOTE]
It's true. Bush [I]is[/I] the "worse is better" candidate. Except for the 2nd Amendment issue where Kerry is worse, and in that case worse is simply... worse.
2004-07-25 17:09 | User Profile
Political candidates fall into 2 categories; People we know are Jews and people that may or may not be Jews. We Know Kerry and Nader are Jews. The Constitution part was founded by a Jew, therefore must be a false-flag operation. Since Kerry picked Edwards, he had no doubt how Edwards feels about Jews and probably has some Jewish blood (why would he pick an objective liberal gentile when he could pick a Marrano?). Badnarik looks like a Jew. Since he was chosen over known Jew Russo without comment of smear, he probably is a Jew.
The only thing left is to waste your vote on a write-in like Ron Paul, which is probably what I'll do.
In general, the right is more vigilant than the left regarding "big-brother" issues, and for that reason, it makes strategic sense for the Jews to press things like the Patriot Acts with a republican in office. Bush is a relative of Kerry's and I don't doubt he's at least a fraction Jewish.
2004-07-25 17:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE][travis] We Know Kerry and Nader are Jews. [/QUOTE]
Nader's a Lebonese Arab. Actually, I see that as a point in his favour.
[QUOTE]The Constitution part was founded by a Jew, therefore must be a false-flag operation. [/QUOTE]
I didn't know that - please explain.
Walter
2004-07-25 17:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=travis] We Know Kerry and Nader are Jews. [/QUOTE]
Nader is Lebanese, no? Not that he couldn't be both. I have never heard N. called jewish and he is the only candidate that has actively named the zionist.
2004-07-25 17:28 | User Profile
Howard Phillips, the founder of the CP is a Jew.
Anyone who is a prominent figure and has any Jewish blood is part of organized Jewry. Look at the modus operandi. Career activist. Nader has not publicly named the zionists. Do not confuse some comments in Pat Buchanens site with public comments. The Jews know how to play the "target audience" game. If he has made comments designed to be widely heard, please advise.
2004-07-25 17:39 | User Profile
The internet is "public". When Nader published words critical of zionist control of Congress (this is coming from my memory) he is naming the jew. Just because it is not pick up and massed produced by the jewish controled media does not negate this fact. It is not that I don't agree with you in spirit, but I do not see that you demonstrated Nader's jewishness.
2004-07-25 17:50 | User Profile
I thought it was well known that Nader is a Jew. Jewish public figures are all too often "part Jewish". What this means to me is part Jew and part Marrano. Being part something is a way to use the power of suggestion to promote race mixing. The target audience means of diseminating information is part of the Jewish modus operandi. They tell the left one thing and the right another about the same issue. Don't be fooled by this clever trick. The only person I know of who was as much as "part Jewish" and a public figure and critical of organized Jewry is chess champion Bobby Fischer and you can see that he no longer has their permission to be a public figure. Nader is still a public figure because he's part of organized Jewry.
2004-07-25 18:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]Never in a 100 years will I vote for a liberal demonrat. Sit home, yes. Nader, possibly. But a goddamned card carrying commie, never.[/QUOTE]
Kerry is easily the most liberal member of the US Senate (according to the New American conservative index)... absolutely incredibly, Kerry is even more liberal than all the members of the House! The only silver lining to this dark cloud is that Kerry missed a lot of votes so his score isn't very reliable.
2004-07-25 18:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]The internet is "public". When Nader published words critical of zionist control of Congress (this is coming from my memory) he is naming the jew. Just because it is not pick up and massed produced by the jewish controled media does not negate this fact. It is not that I don't agree with you in spirit, but I do not see that you demonstrated Nader's jewishness.[/QUOTE]
Nader actually called Israel a "puppeteer."
[URL=http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=64895]Arutz Sheva:[/URL]
[QUOTE]What has been happening over the years is a predictable routine of foreign visitation from the head of the Israeli government. The Israeli puppeteer travels to Washington. The Israeli puppeteer meets with the puppet in the White House, and then moves down Pennsylvania Avenue, and meets with the puppets in Congress. And then takes back billions of taxpayer dollars. It is time for the Washington puppet show to be replaced by the Washington peace show." [/QUOTE]
Howard Phillips of the Constitution Party is a [URL=http://www.gwu.edu/~action/philint.html]Jew[/URL], so I agree with Travis that it's very likely a false flag operation.
[QUOTE]FAMILY BACKGROUND I was born on Chiswick Road in Ward 21 of Brighton in Boston. I grew up in Ward 22, Precinct 9 on [Raden] Road a couple of blocks from there. When my wife and I were married we first lived on [Machet] Street in Oak Square, also Ward 22, Brighton. So that is my home. Boston is a city of 22 wards. Brighton is adjacent to Newton and Brookline and to the Back Bay; it's one of the outlying wards. And I'm of Jewish heritage. When I was growing up, the portion of Brighton in which we lived was predominately Jewish. There are other parts of Brighton that were predominately Irish-American, Italian-American -- but it was really a melting pot, all kinds of people there. [/QUOTE]
Walter
2004-07-25 20:02 | User Profile
As critic of Israel - and spoiler for Democrats - Nader irks Jews
By Matthew E. Berger
WASHINGTON, July 6 (JTA) -- Jewish communal officials are trying to ensure that Ralph Nader does not play the same role in the 2004 presidential election as he did four years earlier.
Nader, the 2000 Green Party candidate who some say took key votes away from Democratic candidate Al Gore in a razor-tight election, again is seeking the White House, this time as an independent.
An outspoken opponent of aid to Israel and a constant critic of U.S. policy in the Middle East, Nader for years has been a thorn in the side of many liberal and conservative Jews. While his domestic policy views, which traditionally have focused on consumer rights, align closely with those of most Jewish voters, Jews largely have avoided Nader because of other differences with him and his style.
As the Democratic and Republican candidates vie to prove their pro-Israel credentials -- long a staple of American presidential races -- Nader has chosen to voice views harshly critical of Israel.
If he establishes himself as a credible candidate, those views could spark more public discussion of positions associated with diehard critics of the Jewish state, such as those that say Israeli interests dictate U.S. foreign policy, and with the Israeli peace movement, such as opposition to the route of Israel's West Bank security barrier. Some recent controversial comments are giving Jewish communal officials an excuse to criticize Nader. But while there is genuine fury at what Nader is saying, some liberal Jews may also want to discredit Nader to minimize the Jewish vote for him in key states, aiding the presumptive Democratic candidate for president, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, against President Bush.
In an interview last month, Nader told American Conservative magazine that he believed Congress and successive U.S. administrations, beginning with Ronald Reagan's, have been "puppets to Israeli military police."
In the interview with Pat Buchanan, a critic of Israel, Nader said the United States was ignoring the Israeli and Palestinian peace movements and that Democrats and Republicans defer to the pro-Israel lobby in Washington because of political considerations.
Nader often has used the issue of Israel to demonstrate his belief that both major political parties are too similar.
Nader has some Jewish backers. Some of his most loyal activists are Jewish, including Alan Morrison, director of the Public Citizen Litigation Group, the legal arm of Nader's consumer advocacy group.
Calls to Nader's campaign seeking comment, and information about Jewish support for his candidacy, were not returned.
But Nader's recent comments on Israel prompted rebukes from several Jewish figures.
"Nader's diatribes send the wrong message, because there are too many in the Arab world who use any sign of weakness in the U.S.-Israel relationship as a justification for hardening their opposition to the Jewish state," Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) said.
The Anti-Defamation League wrote Nader a letter calling his comments "offensive hyperbole."
"One may disagree with America's Middle East approach, but to assert that U.S. policy in such a complex and volatile region is the product of wholesale manipulation by a foreign government fails to take into account important U.S. interests that are involved," the letter read. "Moreover, the image of the Jewish state as a 'puppeteer,' controlling the powerful U.S. Congress, feeds into many age-old stereotypes which have no place in legitimate public discourse."
As a non-profit organization, the ADL does not endorse political candidates, and officials say the group's rationale for coming out against Nader is not political.
Rep. Israel, who is backing Kerry, also said he was not motivated by partisan politics in criticizing Nader's remarks.
"For me, this isn't about pro-Kerry or anti-Kerry," he told JTA. "It's anti-Nader because of Nader's castigation of U.S.-Israeli relations. I'll let the chips fall where they may."
But Nader's comments allowed one group, the National Jewish Democratic Council, to merge politics with support for Israel. The group, which is backing Kerry, is working to highlight Nader's Middle East rhetoric in a bid to keep Democrats from defecting to Nader's camp.
"The NJDC will be committed to making sure that the American Jewish community knows where he stands on Israel and other issues," David Harris, the group's deputy executive director, said of Nader.
Certainly, Jews are not the only liberal constituency worried about Nader's impact on the upcoming election. Concerned that Nader would take votes away from Kerry in key states, the Green Party chose a different candidate for president this year. The party's nominee, David Cobb, has said he will not campaign in swing states.
é Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
2004-07-25 20:05 | User Profile
Notice how the article starts off with reference to "Jewish communal officials..." Imagine America where White people are allowed "communal officials" who look out for White interests. As it is we are all expected to be jewish nationalists.
2004-07-25 20:19 | User Profile
Actually, it might be quite irrelevant who [I]anybody[/I] votes for, even [I]if[/I] it mattered. :nerd:
[IMG]http://images.ucomics.com/comics/trall/2004/trall040724.gif[/IMG]
2004-07-25 20:20 | User Profile
Bardamu, I think the article you posted is not a "broadcast" article but one designed for a target audience. Considering what we do know about Jews, rule # one should be: never trust Jews. #two is: with Jews, nothing is ever what it seems.
The internet may be "public" but you probably won't find the puppet comments on the CNN site or FOX.com. Instead you will only find it where a specific audience is found.
2004-07-26 01:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=travis]I thought it was well known that Nader is a Jew. .[/QUOTE]
Why would you have thought something that was not true was well known? Did you mean you thought everybody here hated Jews and "liberals" so much they would automatically assume one was the other? Anybody who calls somebody else a Jew just to set them up is worst than a jew.
Ralph Nader biography Ralph Nader gained fame with his book "Unsafe At Any Speed" and the GM trial that followed. Ever since he's been an outspoken critic of corporate abuses of consumers and the environment. Consumer advocate Ralph Nader was born on February 27, 1934 in Winsted, Connecticut to Rose and Nathra Nader. Rose and Nathra Nader were Lebanese immigrants. Nathra owned and operated a restaurant called Highland Arms. Rose raised her only child Ralph to be a serious minded boy, never allowing him to play with toys because to her they were a waste of time. But Ralph was an intelligent
2004-07-26 01:27 | User Profile
Maybe I'm wrong. I read something a long time ago about him being Jewish. If he's not Jewish, why do they allow him to have social position? Espescially if he's an Arab. Does it not seem odd that he's the son of Lebanese immigrants from an era when Arabs did not immigrate to the US? This sounds like all the Jews who came here as "German immigrants". BTW, Nader's running mate, Winona LaDuke is Jewish. I think most of you guys underestimate the number of Marranos in high places.
2004-07-26 01:33 | User Profile
Nader is a common Arab name. I don't think he is a jew.
2004-07-26 01:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]Nader is a common Arab name. I don't think he is a jew.[/QUOTE] That doesn't mean much. Jews take names from the countries they live in and invent names and change them at will. Only about 40% of Jews have Jewish sounding names. I guess they learned the benefits of this after the inquisition. Marranos are quite common. I hope you're right. More power to him if you are.
2004-07-26 06:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=All Old Right]It seems the latest trick up Bush's sleeve is to discourage pissed off conservatives from voting Kerry, just to kick Bush's ass out. They're not even asking us to vote Bush anymore, just to stay home. I have to admit, I wobbled a little. But, no way is he getting another 4 years. I can't do the pro-life nut scene of Petrouka or Libertarian pro-immigration.
Bush had his time and failed miserably. I hope I am not alone, in taking real action to get him out. Also, a Bush victory could very well land us in Hillaryland in 2008. That psycho bitch will make Kerry/Edwards look like a political dream team.[/QUOTE]
Getting Bush out of office is such a desirable goal, I can see how someone would be willing to vote Kerry/Edwards in order to get him out. I, however, will not knowingly vote for someone who is evil (at least not when there are other options). I didn't vote for Bush last time, but had Buchanan not been running, I might well have done so, for I did not realize Bush was evil in 2000 (although I was worried about the possibility). I know Kerry is evil and I won't pull the lever for wickedness, especially when I'm not even convinced its the lesser of two evils, but possibly the greater. While I agree that Peroutka over-emphasizes the abortion issue, he's basically a Christian Nationalist, of sorts, so I would think he'd be popular on this board. The only reason I'm not voting for him is because Nader takes a lot of paleo-con positions (albeit for largely, though not entirely, different reasons) and even recently named the Jew in a fairly big way (he called Bush and the Congress puppets of Ariel Sharon, which they are). Plus Nader may well be factor in this race, while Peroutka is going to barely rate a footnote. Some of you can't stomach Nader's leftist positions on some issues, and I sympathize, but I consider Nader to be to the right of Kerry and arguably, albeit not in a conventional sense, to the right of Bush. That's good enough for me. I can't support the LP as long as they support War Street Journal-style "open borders." Until they drop that plank, they're just leftists who understand economics (if not international trade).
2004-07-26 06:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=GunnerGal]I am quite disgusted with Bush on several issues but the thought of Kerry and the dillusional team that he would select is just too much to fathom. Kerry would sell this country out to every internation treaty faster than you can blink. Foreign policies aside, the further damage he would do within is unthinkable. The Jews would run circles around that liberal idiot and would be running the place in a few months.
The Jews already run the place. They will continue to do so, irrespective of the election results (unless Nader wins, and that's not going to happen - and if it did, he'd be shot). It should be noted, however, that there is one bulwark to stand up against a President Kerry; the Republican Congress. They've been pretty worthless under Bush, but they did some good work (albeit not nearly enough, but still infinitely more than decades of Democratic congresses ever did) under Klinton. Remember when the Republican House, in 1996 if I recall, voted down an appropriation bill for the Bosnian occupation? Suddenly paleo-cons were supposedly taking over the GOP and William Kristol Himself threatened to secede to the Democratic Party. This is why, especially if a Kerry victory looks likely come November (as I suspect it will), that we must all vote Republican for the U.S. House, as well as the U.S. Senate (unless you live in Pennsylvania; Keystone Staters should vote Democrat just to rid their state of the scourge of Arlen Spectre, IMHO).
2004-07-26 06:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=GunnerGal]"And, last, but not least, alienating virtually all of US allies over some bullshit action for Israel."
You got it wrong, Israel is just an excuse as they despised us long before that.
Despised us? You seem to be forgetting something; France and Germany were correct and we were wrong. Pointing out our foolishness isn't evidence of hatred. Its arguably evidence of friendship, so to speak. The fact that some Europeans envision a world where Europe, rather than Israelo-America (to be followed by China, once our corrupt system collapses under its own weight) is the dominant power in the world, is also not evidence of hatred, but rather of intelligence, good planning and hope for the future. The Europeans should be working for a more powerful and certainly independent Europe. Its more-or-less their duty, after all.
2004-07-26 06:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]I have been reading about the guy running with Kerry and maybe he will be the answer,,,,,,, If something happens to Kerry then Edward would take the chair.
I wonder how he feels about the Jews, haven't read anything about it,,,,,anyone knows?[/QUOTE]
Edwards was behind a plan to send U.S. troops to Israel, so that we could do the IDF's dirty work for them and take the heat off the Jews. He seems to be slightly more Zionist than Kerry, just as Kerry is slightly more Zionist than Bush. The Forward, a publication of the Jewish establishment read only by Jews, rejoiced in the selection of Edwards, calling him "a true friend of Israel."
2004-07-26 07:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]We need a revolution, and whatever speeds the plough on that is good for us.
That's always been a tempting argument, but I don't agree with it. We need to be clearly seen on the side of what's right, not talking about how evil will actually turn out good in the long run. Bush is evil, so we need to oppose him utterly (ditto Kerry). There can't be any equivocations on such fundamental questions of the day.
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]For that reason I guess that it could be that Bush presents the better option for a collapse (I think the crazy bastard might actually attack Iran[/QUOTE]
Its clear from the news in the last 10 days or so that the neo-cons and their media are gearing us up for that purpose, which will presumably not happen until after Bush has had the draft going for about a year, i.e. 2006 (if he gets re-elected, that is). I find it difficult to believe that even Bush would attack Iran when we don't have any troops to do it with, but then I find the entire Bush administration thus far rather difficult to believe as well, so who knows? I imagine Kerry is somewhat less likely to launch a major war against Iran (one we couldn't win, by any sensible defintion of "victory"), but if the masters want a war with Iran, and it seems they do, I rather doubt it will matter much which of their servants is in the White House.
2004-07-26 07:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=travis]Political candidates fall into 2 categories; People we know are Jews and people that may or may not be Jews. We Know Kerry and Nader are Jews.
Nader is an Arab, as well as a fervent anti-Zionist who has been declared an anti-Semite by the ADL. Methinks you're barking up the wrong tree there, even if he is a bit of an old-fashioned "liberal" in several repellant respects.
2004-07-26 07:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Nader's a Lebonese Arab. Actually, I see that as a point in his favour.[/QUOTE]
Indeed. Whites have basically shown they won't fight the Jews. Arabs are the only people on Earth who WILL fight the Jews (which is precisely why "our" government is currently embarked on a mission to exterminate and/or enslave the Arab race).
2004-07-26 07:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=travis]Anyone who is a prominent figure and has any Jewish blood is part of organized Jewry. Look at the modus operandi. Career activist. Nader has not publicly named the zionists. Do not confuse some comments in Pat Buchanens site with public comments. The Jews know how to play the "target audience" game. If he has made comments designed to be widely heard, please advise.[/QUOTE]
Nader's remarks in The American Conservative ([url]http://www.AmConMag.com[/url]) were tame compared to what he said at the National Press Club in Washington, where he called Bush and the Congress both puppets of Ariel Sharon, and was immediately denounced as an anti-Semite by the ADL. You need to give Nader more credit; he may be wrong about a great many things, but I don't believe he's a Jew and it seems he's somewhat of a good man.
2004-07-26 07:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=travis]Maybe I'm wrong. I read something a long time ago about him being Jewish. If he's not Jewish, why do they allow him to have social position? Espescially if he's an Arab.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps, like Pat Buchanan (or David Duke, for that matter), he's carved out a niche for himself without reference to Jewish interests. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.
[QUOTE=travis]BTW, Nader's running mate, Winona LaDuke is Jewish.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps, but I'd always heard she was a Native American activist who represented the tribal interests of her little ethnic grouping in rural Minnesota. I could be wrong....but Marrano Jews posing as Native American activists in rural Minnesota? It seems unlikely.
2004-07-26 07:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]Nader is a common Arab name. I don't think he is a jew.[/QUOTE]
I recall that Nader got 12% of the Arab-American vote in 2000 (compared to 2.7% overall), while Gore got only 34% of the Arab vote (and Bush got 54%, which he surely won't be getting this time), which does tend to imply they were knowingly voting for one of their own.
2004-07-26 07:47 | User Profile
There is absolutely NO good reason to vote for Dubya. He's a failure and a stupid sniveling puppet for every cause he promotes. I really can't see much of a disadvantage on voting for Kerry. Sure, he's a liberal Jew, and I'm sure that his positions on foreign policy are no different than Bush's (wait until Kerry's first term to find out). However, I disagree that Nader is the best thing. Even though he did name Israel as a prime supporter of the US, he still takes crazy positions. With a Republican House and a weak Republican Senate, Kerry may become more centrist. For example, I read that Nader is for homosexual marriage and he is also is for some socialistic policies such as a mandatory six-hour work day. However, I read this material 4 years ago, when Nader was still a member of the Green Party, so he may have been pandering to his base.
2004-07-26 07:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Tornado]I read that Nader is for homosexual marriage [/QUOTE]
So's Kerry, but unlike Nader, he just lies about it until after the election.
2004-07-26 09:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE][Kevin_O'Keeffe]That's always been a tempting argument, but I don't agree with it. We need to be clearly seen on the side of what's right, not talking about how evil will actually turn out good in the long run. Bush is evil, so we need to oppose him utterly (ditto Kerry). There can't be any equivocations on such fundamental questions of the day.[/QUOTE]
One doesn't exclude the other.
We decry Bush and his evil deeds even as we egg him and the Dispensationalists on in sticking America's foot into the Middle Eastern bear trap.
It's called politics, or more precisely hypocrisy. We need to master the concept if we hope to win.
[QUOTE]Its clear from the news in the last 10 days or so that the neo-cons and their media are gearing us up for that purpose, which will presumably not happen until after Bush has had the draft going for about a year, i.e. 2006 (if he gets re-elected, that is). I find it difficult to believe that even Bush would attack Iran when we don't have any troops to do it with, but then I find the entire Bush administration thus far rather difficult to believe as well, so who knows? I imagine Kerry is somewhat less likely to launch a major war against Iran (one we couldn't win, by any sensible defintion of "victory"), but if the masters want a war with Iran, and it seems they do, I rather doubt it will matter much which of their servants is in the White House.[/QUOTE]
I think that the neo-Kahns really have little choice but to try to take out Iran. If the Mullahs get nukes then Israel has lost its monopoly on nuclear terror in the region - its unspoken ace in the hole. And who knows what they'll will do with their new-found power anyway?
So, it's one way or the other. I agree that no matter who is elected in November, some sort of campaign against Iran is in the offing.
As to the manpower issue, you're absolutely right that this is the big constraint, but maybe the neo-Kahns will cut a deal with the Kurds and the Turks to hack off parts of Iranian territory for them in exchange for boots on the ground.
For example, the Kurds could get Kurdish Iran plus some territory, in exchange for an independent state and giving up claims on Turkish Kurdistan. The Turks could get the Turkic-speaking areas of Iranian Azerbaidzhan. This would give the Turks and outlet to the Caspian and would fulfill their primary foreign policy goal of gaining a direct land and sea route to the vast Turkic-speaking and Moslem areas of Central Asia, including Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kirgizstan, and even the Uighur-populated areas of Western China.
It sounds like a deal to me. It would kill several birds with a single stone - provide willing occupation troops for the fight with Iran, end the Kurdish struggle for national self-determination, enlarge NATO member Turkey's reach all the way into China, end Iranian ambitions in the region, and strengthen Israel's dominant position as sole nuclear player.
Of course, this is pure speculation, but it must have occurred to somebody in Tel Aviv by now.
Walter
2004-07-26 11:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]
Perhaps, but I'd always heard she was a Native American activist who represented the tribal interests of her little ethnic grouping in rural Minnesota. I could be wrong....but Marrano Jews posing as Native American activists in rural Minnesota? It seems unlikely.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.nationalist.org/alt/2000/aug/squaw.html[/url]
[url]http://www.msmagazine.com/apr01/laduke.html[/url]
[url]http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0885717.html[/url]
[url]http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Winona_LaDuke[/url]
[url]http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/w/wi/winona_laduke.html[/url]
[url]http://voices.cla.umn.edu/newsite/authors/LADUKEwinona.htm[/url]
She's not a Marrano. There is no secret to it. Jewish on her mother's side....the side that counts under Talmudic law.
2004-07-26 11:19 | User Profile
Walter, I applaud your ability to see things from a strategic standpoint.
2004-07-26 18:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Tornado]There is absolutely NO good reason to vote for Dubya. He's a failure and a stupid sniveling puppet for every cause he promotes. I really can't see much of a disadvantage on voting for Kerry. Sure, he's a liberal Jew, and I'm sure that his positions on foreign policy are no different than Bush's (wait until Kerry's first term to find out). However, I disagree that Nader is the best thing. Even though he did name Israel as a prime supporter of the US, he still takes crazy positions. With a Republican House and a weak Republican Senate, Kerry may become more centrist. For example, I read that Nader is for homosexual marriage and he is also is for some socialistic policies such as a mandatory six-hour work day. However, I read this material 4 years ago, when Nader was still a member of the Green Party, so he may have been pandering to his base.[/QUOTE] Sure Kerry and a Democrat administration will be influenced by the Democrat neocons, but at least on the Democrat/liberal side you have many more opposing voices (e.g., Black Caucus, hispanics, et al.). It doesn't seem possible to me that a Democrat could have launched a war against non-whites/non-Christians with what Bush presented to attack Iraq. If you are against further adventures into Syria and Iran (as that miserable skinbag Krauthammer recently advocated) then Kerry is a very real option (or if you are not in a battleground state, then vote Peroutka and Constitution Party).
2004-07-26 19:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]If you are against further adventures into Syria and Iran (as that miserable skinbag Krauthammer recently advocated) then Kerry is a very real option (or if you are not in a battleground state, then vote Peroutka and Constitution Party).[/QUOTE]
Worse is better, Jack.
I'm all for a war with Iran and Syria simultaneously.
Remember that our best (only?) hope lies in a general collapse.
An open ended war might just do the trick. The Empire might just crumble, and our European, Christian and English-speaking American nation might just then be reborn.
It's a dream, I know. But I believe its the best shot we have of actually winning.
I guess that means I should vote for Shrub, but I'm afraid I'd actually puke when the time comes. I'll probably write in Ron Paul, as suggested above.
Walter
2004-07-26 19:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=travis]Walter, I applaud your ability to see things from a strategic standpoint.[/QUOTE]
Thanks, Travis.
Of course, it probably won't shake out like that at all.
Walter
2004-07-26 19:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=travis]Maybe I'm wrong. I read something a long time ago about him being Jewish. If he's not Jewish, why do they allow him to have social position? Espescially if he's an Arab. Does it not seem odd that he's the son of Lebanese immigrants from an era when Arabs did not immigrate to the US? This sounds like all the Jews who came here as "German immigrants". BTW, Nader's running mate, Winona LaDuke is Jewish. I think most of you guys underestimate the number of Marranos in high places.[/QUOTE]
In fact around the turn of the century the US did let in a significant number of Lebanese (Greek Orthodox) Christians. I can tell you that among this contingent today, very little culture survives from the "old country" save for the preference for certain ethnic dishes.
Basically, their story is similar to the Greeks and Sicilians who arrived here on the same boat.
2004-07-27 14:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]the Kurds could get Kurdish Iran plus some territory, in exchange for an independent state and giving up claims on Turkish Kurdistan. The Turks could get the Turkic-speaking areas of Iranian Azerbaidzhan. This would give the Turks and outlet to the Caspian and would fulfill their primary foreign policy goal of gaining a direct land and sea route to the vast Turkic-speaking and Moslem areas of Central Asia, including Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kirgizstan, and even the Uighur-populated areas of Western China.[/QUOTE]
Not implausible, but to the extent that it matters (hard to say), you can bet the Russians wouldn't like this AT ALL.
2004-07-27 14:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=EDUMAKATEDMOFO]In fact around the turn of the century the US did let in a significant number of Lebanese (Greek Orthodox) Christians. I can tell you that among this contingent today, very little culture survives from the "old country" save for the preference for certain ethnic dishes.
Basically, their story is similar to the Greeks and Sicilians who arrived here on the same boat.[/QUOTE]
There were also some Syrians, many of whom settled in Detroit and thus did not become completely assimilated, due to having their own cohesive community. The character "Klinger" on the old t.v. show "M.A.S.H." was essentially a representation of one of the Lebanese immigrant descendants who could, if he really existed, have been a distant cousin of Ralph Nader....
2004-07-27 17:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]Not implausible, but to the extent that it matters (hard to say), you can bet the Russians wouldn't like this AT ALL.[/QUOTE]
True, but they could probably be mollified too, by letting them keep northern Kazakhstan, attach Abkhazia and South Ossetia (now in Georgia), and a free hand to wipe out the Chechens.
It could happen.
Walter
2004-07-31 18:40 | User Profile
I am torn this election. Bush deserves to be fired. I would go so far as to say better a liberal than a neo-con as President. The problem is that Kerry individually has supported the war in Iraq and continues to do so, at least insofar as he has proposed no exit strategy.
Still, divided government may be our best alternative for now--a conservative congress controlling domestic policy and a liberal President to keep us out of stupid wars. A really feckless dove like Jimmy Carter might actually be useful now.
2004-07-31 21:35 | User Profile
John Kerry and His Role in the Undermining of U.S. Intelligence-Gathering
" Victims. That's what we've become. A society of victims. But when we wallow in victimhood, we deny natural law. We shun nature. We reject the simple truth of cause and effect. But we do so at our peril.
Consider the current brouhaha over the intelligence failures preceding 9/11 and leading up to the war in Iraq. (Case in point: If we blame the CIA, we--we who voted the CIA-degraders into office--cleverly sidestep taking responsibility. Thus we anoint ourselves victims. How convenient. How conscience-salving.)
Here's how the tortuous illogic goes:
First, we strip the CIA buck-naked, then say, ''Why weren't you wearing your clothes?''
Next, we build a wall between the CIA and FBI, then say, ''Why weren't you guys talking?''
And when the CIA is embarrassed by its nakedness; when the FBI is caught hunkering down behind that wall; when those inevitable chickens come home to roost, whom do we blame?
Do we blame ourselves? Do we blame the people who took the CIA's clothes off and who laid that wall brick by brick in the first place? Do we blame the legislators, like John Kerry, who--in the nineties, under Clinton--hamstrung the CIA by eviscerating its human intelligence-gathering capabilities (which now must be painfully and painstakingly rebuilt, even as the wall between that agency and the FBI is being loudly torn down)?"
"Today we're suffering the consequences of poor governance. On 9/11 we paid in blood for the bad choices made under Carter and Clinton, with their encouragement. Kerry personally yanked the pants off the CIA. And now he wants you to absolve him. He wants you to pretend you didn't see him do it. He wants you to believe it was Bush who undid the belt. No: He wants more than that. He wants you to make believe it was Bush who undid the belt--even if you know better (as does he, as does Edwards, as does Moore).
And he wants you to get rid of Bush, who is outfitting the CIA as never before, so he can yank its pants off all over again! But he will do this only after a respectable period of time has passed. You see, he must first make you believe he really wants the CIA fully clothed. Then, when your defenses are down, when you aren't looking, down come the pants again, too!
People, get a clue! In a democracy, the government you get is the one you earn. If we go back on Bush now, we go back to the era that brought us 9/11. We then set in motion the next 9/11."
" It's up to you. All I can say is: If you get in Kerry's car and you end up upside-down in a ditch, donââ¬â¢t say I didnââ¬â¢t warn you. And this time, you've forfeited your right to whine."
Read the whole article:
[url]http://www.chronwatch.com/content/c...ay.asp?aid=8768[/url]