Title: OBAMA GETTING HIGH ON THE DOWN LOW Source:
YOU TUBE URL Source:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY Published:Jan 30, 2008 Author:HOUNDDAWG Q. SCHWARTZ Post Date:2008-01-30 23:36:37 by HOUNDDAWG Keywords:None Views:2304 Comments:122
Poster Comment:
The "respectable" media ignores this the same way they ignored Clinton's "bimbo eruptions" before he was elected.
Just perhaps your Father should have spent less time on political correctness and more on teaching of social manners. That lack has been liberally demonstrated.
The fact that you apparently look upon any system-approved selectee favorably while accepting the manufactured image without suspicion or skepticism would indicate that you're either hopelessly maladjusted or tragically naive.
There is no third possibility.
And, your attempts to elevate him with the shameless use of white guilt is proof of your immoral pragmatism, and America has suffered quite enough because of that, thank very much.
Which CFR member or members told Obama that war in Iraq was a dumb idea and why didn't they (apparently) tell the rest of the CFR politicians (who are legion)?
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
What makes me think you guys are not going to apologize?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Larry Sinclair Polygraph Test Indicates "Deception" In Obama Claims.
Good post, ari.
Wouldn't it be refreshing to see some honest to goodness criticism of Barack's record and/or public statements instead of the repetition of Clinton/Rove patented smear tactics?
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
For blacks as a group it's mostly an optical illusion. Those accomplishments can only happen at all in a predominately white society. But there are two black men I would consider voting for. Unfortunately they'd never want the job.
As we meandered our way through the ever busy Bree Street, Harry could not help observing how filthy downtown Johannesburg had become. I had made the same disturbing observation myself the day I arrived, but had been reluctant to accept the disturbing fact that decay of public infrastructure seems to be the story in areas of the city inhabited by blacks. Predominantly black areas have become an eyesore. The beautiful lawns and flowerbeds I noticed in some areas three years earlier now tell sad stories of degradation. Some of them have become open-air urinals.
Which CFR member or members told Obama that war in Iraq was a dumb idea and why didn't they (apparently) tell the rest of the CFR politicians (who are legion)?
First you're assuming he means what he's saying. I wouldn't do that with a CFR-affiliated candidate. Second, you're assuming that he hasn't talked out of both sides of his mouth on this issue (he has). Just like the NAFTA commentary recently where he criticized Hillary for supporting it, but basically said we couldn't abolish it, he has also said that he would not give a timetable for our departure from Iraq.
I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Before we invaded and bombed Iraq, when it was not popular to do so, Obama spoke out against the war in Iraq.
Delivered on Wednesday, October 2, 2002 by Barack Obama, Illinois State Senator, at the first high-profile Chicago anti-Iraq war rall
Which CFR member or members told Obama that war in Iraq was a dumb idea and why didn't they (apparently) tell the rest of the CFR politicians (who are legion)?
Actually, Zbig Brzezinski was saying that it was a dumb idea from the start. I remember him saying it on CNN a few weeks after the invasion started.
Not that many politicians may have acted on that belief, but, according to Lincoln Chafee, most Democrats in Congress privately shared it.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Before we invaded and bombed Iraq, when it was not popular to do so, Obama spoke out against the war in Iraq.
The globalists take a very longterm view of our political systems. They know that war is very unpopular. For example, Woodrow Wilson was swept into his second, fateful term, on the slogan "he kept us out of war."
Just because a candidate affiliated with the globalists expresses an opinion that appears contrary to a single, unique goal that has already been realized, does not mean that they disagree with the underlying principles of moving the planet toward global government.
We take the Iraq war very seriously, but it is just another brick in the wall to the globalists.
The real problems are twofold:
The stated goals of the CFR are diametrically opposed to individual liberties and America's national sovereignty.
The lack of accountability for the CFR's influence means that shadowy groups can impose policy on our government without public knowledge.
I find it impossible to support anyone appearing to be the lesser of two CFR evils.
I find it impossible to support anyone appearing to be the lesser of two CFR evils.
Who was the last president that you supported? Calvin Coolidge?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
If all you care about is the Iraq war, this might be significant.
The Iraq war is not all that I care about. Brzezinski has been making other sensible suggestions, like the desirability of negotiating with Iran, and of establishing a peace in Israel/Palestine. You can read all about it in his book The Choice.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Yeah, sure, we're supposed to take seriously someone who thinks Ike and JFK were selected by sworn enemies of the Republic.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
How would that be relevant? For those who follow the Hegelian dialectic, each juncture in history is an opportunity. There will always be more chances to shape the future. They can afford to take a very long view.
They don't need any single candidate (clearly they have many, including Obama/McCain/Hillary/Romney/Huckabee/Edwards and so forth), and the Iraq war could have been started at a different time.
So you won't give Obama any credit for having spoken out forcefully against the Iraq war in 2002, even naming Wolfowitz and Perle by name (now that was really an unpopular thing to do)? Because in your opinion, he was following the orders of CFR?
'He will make Cheney look like Gandhi.' U.S. conservative pundit Pat Buchanan, imagining presidential hopeful John McCain in the White House.
Iraq is quickly moving into the past. We must keep our eyes on the future. Obama has discussed invading Pakistan, and he has talked of sending billions of dollars in US aid to Africa. He has also talked about using US troops under UN command in Africa. These are future areas of conflict, and Obama has left himself wide open to movement in that area. He also has our stay in Iraq covered, because he has declined to give a time line for withdrawal.
You're focused on what you want to hear. Obama may be out of office before his popular talk of withdrawal happens. Meanwhile, he may have us embroiled in Pakistan and Africa, which are both of great strategic value.
If all you care about is the Iraq war, Obama may be of some help to you.
If you care about stopping the use of America's political, industrial, and military force as a tool for achieving global government, you will run as far away from supporting Obama as you can.
In the long run, wars and domestic tyranny are how global government will be achieved.
And you think McCain and Hillary, especially McCain, will keep us out of other wars?
McCain has repeatedly promised us 100 years of wars. I think Obama's comments once about striking terrorists in Pakistan was a mistake. He hasn't repeated it to my knowledge.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Based on his Senate history, Barack Obama as president would likely push to expand human rights and reduce poverty abroad using cooperation rather than confrontation. If foreign events permit.
...
"While his efforts on the committee don't always get headlines, he's worked across the aisle on critical issues like nuclear nonproliferation, pressing (then-U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay) Khalilzad for a commitment for no permanent bases in Iraq, stopping the genocide in Darfur, and bringing war criminals to justice," said Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor.
But critics say Obama's brief experience in the Senate leaves voters in the dark about how he would handle foreign policy. They also attack some of his positions as naive, including his expressed willingness to meet leaders of Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea in his first year of office.
...
Confronting claims he's light on foreign policy experience, the senator has surrounded himself with well-known foreign policy advisers, including several who served in the Clinton administration: former national security adviser Tony Lake, former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig and Susan Rice, who was assistant secretary of state for African affairs.
Obama's chief foreign policy adviser on the campaign is Denis McDonough, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. McDonough took the job after Mark Lippert, a Navy reservist, was called to serve in Iraq.
When not campaigning, the senator often used full committee hearings to express his opposition to the Iraq war or his concern about the Bush administration's policy toward Iran.
'He will make Cheney look like Gandhi.' U.S. conservative pundit Pat Buchanan, imagining presidential hopeful John McCain in the White House.
First you're assuming he means what he's saying. I wouldn't do that with a CFR-affiliated candidate.
Obama, in Oct of 2002, as a young man, just turned 41, early into his political career spoke out vociferously against the war. He had the foresight and the political courage to say to the old establishment politicians that it was a mistake when virtually no one else said a mumbling word. What did that gain him politically at that moment?
McCain is CFR ... do you disbelieve him when he says we'll be there a hundred years?
he has also said that he would not give a timetable for our departure from Iraq.
He supports a plan to immediately begin troop withdrawal from Iraq at a pace of one or two brigades a month, to be completed by the end of 2008. It's right there on his website. Which other candidate has been more specific?
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said last night that fears of widespread sectarian and ethnic conflict in Iraq following a U.S. troop drawdown are not sufficient reason to justify the continued deployment of a large U.S. millitary force there.
The Illinois senator argued that logic, used by some supporters of the war in Iraq, was inconsistent with the U.S. military posture toward countries in the midst of genodical conflict, such as Congo and Sudan.
"Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven’t done,” Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.
“We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven’t done. Those of us who care about Darfur don’t think it would be a good idea,” he said.
Obama acknowledged it is likely there would be increased bloodshed if U.S. forces left Iraq.
“Nobody is proposing we leave precipitously. There are still going to be U.S. forces in the region that could intercede, with an international force, on an emergency basis,” Obama said between stops on the first of two days scheduled on the New Hampshire campaign trail. “There’s no doubt there are risks of increased bloodshed in Iraq without a continuing U.S. presence there.”
The greater risk is staying in Iraq, Obama said.
“It is my assessment that those risks are even greater if we continue to occupy Iraq and serve as a magnet for not only terrorist activity but also irresponsible behavior by Iraqi factions,” he said.
'He will make Cheney look like Gandhi.' U.S. conservative pundit Pat Buchanan, imagining presidential hopeful John McCain in the White House.
What does he mean, robin? He has said we should work to stop genocide in Africa. This will be under UN command. That's American troops fighting in blue helmets and taking orders from non-American commanders.
"Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven’t done,” Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.
“We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven’t done. Those of us who care about Darfur don’t think it would be a good idea,”
he said.
'He will make Cheney look like Gandhi.' U.S. conservative pundit Pat Buchanan, imagining presidential hopeful John McCain in the White House.
Unilaterally. That's diplomatic speak for "without multilateral agreement." The easiest way to secure multilateral agreements, especially if they favor progress toward global government, is in the UN.
Larry Sinclair Polygraph Test Indicates "Deception" In Obama Claims.
What makes me think you guys are not going to apologize?
Don't you want to wait for the second examiner's results?
We may find that the results say more about the examiners' politics than Larry Sinclair.
For instance, suppose the examiner is a closet homophobe conservo who is concerned more about alienating the establishment and possibly the future prez than at sustaining the assertions of someone he personally despises.
After all, one former polygraph expert-turned critic calls polygraph "A mechanical Charlie McCarthy" and claims that it's most effective when people refuse to take it!
Here is something to consider:
"The dirty little secret behind the polygraph is that the "test" depends on trickery, not science. The person being "tested" is not supposed to know that while the polygraph operator declares that all questions must be answered truthfully, warning that the slightest hint of deception will be detected, he secretly assumes that denials in response to certain questions -- called "control" questions -- will be less than truthful. An example of a commonly used control question is, "Did you ever lie to get out of trouble?" The polygrapher steers the examinee into a denial by warning, for example, that anyone who would do so is the same kind of person who would commit the kind of behavior that is under investigation and then lie about it. But secretly, it is assumed that everyone has lied to get out of trouble.
The polygraph pens don't do a special dance when a person lies. The polygrapher scores the test by comparing physiological responses (breathing, blood pressure, heart, and perspiration rates) to these probable-lie control questions with reactions to relevant questions such as, "Did you ever commit an act of espionage against the United States?" (commonly asked in security screening). If the former reactions are greater, the examinee passes; if the latter are greater, he fails. If responses to both "control" and relevant questions are about the same, the result is deemed inconclusive.
The test also includes irrelevant questions such as, "Are the lights on in this room?" The polygrapher falsely explains that such questions provide a "baseline for truth," because the true answer is obvious. But in reality, they are not scored at all! They merely serve as buffers between pairs of relevant and "control" questions.
The simplistic methodology used in polygraph testing has no grounding in the scientific method: it is no more scientific than astrology or tarot cards. Government agencies value it because people who don't realize it's a fraud sometimes make damaging admissions. But as a result of reliance on this voodoo science, the truthful are often falsely branded as liars while the deceptive pass through."
Although I know these things, I don't know that Larry Sinclair does, or how truthfully he answered the so called control questions, or how much of the so called "deception" was based on those as opposed to the actual test which he may have passed with flying colors. Polygraphs are supposed to have a follow up report detailing the reasons for pass, fail, or inconclusive results. The absence of a detailed report but this advanced leak, possibly to intimidate the other examiner and skew his results may say more about the examiner than Larry Sinclair.
Do you think that some asshole who is afraid of being dropped from the federal speakers' luncheon circuit would engage in deception if he deemed it necessary to protect his credentials?
It will be interesting to see if the other examiner will be influenced by the fact that the first to blab his results is a "Former President of the American Polygraph Association". Perhaps that was the intention of this examiner who jumped the gun and it is he, more so than Sinclair who has a hidden agenda.
If anything, the fact that Sinclair was willing to test at all says more than any "interpretation" by a state worshiper whose livelihood depends on selling snake oil.
Update: I (Mr. Maschke) have posted to YouTube the following commentary on why -- pass or fail -- Mr. Sinclair's polygraph results will be evidence of nothing:
So, before demanding an apology perhaps the first examiner should explain how he knows that the second examiner will "confirm his results" and "Did the deception he "found" have to do with the control questions to which he expected Sinclair, and in fact all examinees to lie?"
And, before you declare Obama the victim perhaps since you seem to put so much faith in a polygraph, (in fact a preliminary and ambiguous leak that serves your needs and possibly the examiner's as well) you should insist that Obama submit to a polygraph!
("Oh no, we don't want that!", aristeides and iconoclast cry!) If anything, the two examiners now have considerable motivation to agree, lest they only cancel each other and further discredit their chosen "profession". The first examiner had to know that when he leaked this stuff, and he has only succeeded in impeaching his own professionalism as a result. The test could have been useful if Sinclair took it and Obama was asked but refused. But now someone has unilaterally defeated the whole line of inquiry and allowed Obama an escape chute, (while ostensibly protecting their polygraph racket) and this examiner cannot claim ignorance of that fact or innocence for his actions.