Pedro Martínez: You don't need to. the whole idea of an EMP bomb is that it is detonated high up so the effect is as widespread as possible.

(V): I can imagine that could be the impression you had. I had quite the opposite feeling. The problem lies with the interpreters and translators in Strasbourg and Brussels. :)

(V): Sure, but what I mean is that if the anti-missile system is efficient as it should be, the EMP bomb would not even come close. But I might be wrong in this, as I'm no "bomb expert". :)

The Usurper: Well, most dictatorships rise not from a strong democracy, but from splintered and poor people....

I know, you are going to say that is their first objective, to make us so weak we will give up our freedom to be saved at any cost, and they are so smart, they are actually counting on other smart people to help them accomplish this....

its like all the rest of your conspiracies (or are they all just one big one tied together?)

Its like saying there was a conspiracy by the founders of the US to make us a republic....

The Usurper: Okay, I think I got it now....

Conservatives want us to be a dictatorship and are trying to get there through dominance and power....

and liberals want us to be a dictatorship and are trying to get there by making us so weak we wont have any fight left to stop it....


If this is true, we are actually in a good place, with half liberals and half conservatives, both fighting against the others, actually keeping either one from completing their objectives!!!!

I still want to hear V explain to me how it is okay to regulate banks because they took our money, but we are not allowed to regulate individuals who take our welfare? IE drug tests, or why not even regulating their reproduction as well?

Czuch: "If this is true, we are actually in a good place, with half liberals and half conservatives, both fighting against the others, actually keeping either one from completing their objectives!!!!"

Unfortunately, the so-called Conservatives & so-called Liberals are not really competing. Thay are on the same side and the enemy is YOU.

That's the point I am making that somehow you continually fail to acknowledge, let alone deny.

Czuch: "I still want to hear V explain to me how it is okay to regulate banks because they took our money, but we are not allowed to regulate individuals who take our welfare? IE drug tests, or why not even regulating their reproduction as well?"

I'm afraid both the handouts (to rich & poor) & the regulations (of banks & welfare recipients) rather prove we are in a collectivist society. And I'm afraid one can't approve of either without being a collectivist. Not only are we not safe, we are already enslaved. The chains are just not so apparent yet in everyone's lives.

The Usurper: Not only are we not safe, we are already enslaved.

So are they fighting for an end game, or have they already achieved it?

If they already have us, why not put the hammer down and get it over with already?

Take us out of our misery already...

The Usurper: Unfortunately, the so-called Conservatives & so-called Liberals are not really competing. Thay are on the same side


So they use different tactics for the same results? The whole point is to make us weak, and then hammer us with a new world order?

Czuch: "So are they fighting for an end game, or have they already achieved it?"

Precisely, they are fighting for an End Game. Had they achieved it already, you and I wouldn't be free to discuss it right now.

"So they use different tactics for the same results? The whole point is to make us weak, and then hammer us with a new world order?"

That is correct.

The Usurper: Not only are we not safe, we are already enslaved.


Had they achieved it already, you and I wouldn't be free to discuss it right now.


It cant be both.... we are free yet enslaved at the same time?

Czuch: "It cant be both.... we are free yet enslaved at the same time?"

Sure it can be. Just ask yourself what you need the government's permission to do now. And what the government does not permit you to do, whether or not you ask for it. Now compare that to what Americans in the past did not need permission for, and you begin to see the incremental progress of enslavement. Keep in mind, asking permission means you are not free, even if the permission is granted. What is granted can also be denied. And also observe, the chains are thickening, not weakening. Some slavery arrives instantly; some approaches gradually, so that we, as frogs, don't notice the water heating up....or if we do, it doesn't burn enough all at once to make us react.

The Usurper:I can't build a deck on the back of my house without a government permit.  Even though the current deck exists but is rotting out.  I can replace boards one at a time and over time could rebuild it that way.  That's legal.  But I can't build it all at once unless I give them 200 dollars to say it's ok.  Then they will come out and look at it and say, "looks good."  (I built it anyway without their blessing)

A man is building his dream home in a newly developing area.  As the area grows, sidewalks will be put in by the contractors (a State law).  but the single home owner is being forced to build a sidewalk (under the same regulation) even though a) he'll never be able to use it and b) an new one will be build (and the old one will have to be torn up.

Cost?  15 thousand dollars to the home owner.  Stupid incompetent public servants.  (oxymorons all)

Artful Dodger: "Stupid incompetent public servants."

Those are good examples, among many thousands more & growing daily. I would only suggest that the so-called "public servants" are not really stupid or incompetent. Some at the lower levels do really believe all this regulation is somehow for the "greater good of the greater number," (a Marxist principle when coercion - i.e., laws - is utilized to achieve it) misinformed as they are. But at the higher levels, it is by design, not ignorance.

The reason I mention the 'incompetence' part is because of this excellent article I recently read, called:

THE US GOVERNMENT DID NOT FAIL ITS MISSION
IN THE WAKE OF HURRICANE KATRINA
http://freedom-force.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=FEMA_Katrina&refpage=issues


The point therein is very well made that the government precisely & effectively succeeded in its mission....only that mission is not what most consider it to be.

Pedro Martínez: Tricky... As we are talking about taking out a missile at low orbit levels... maybe even higher. Plus if someone has sneaked one into a satellite.. then no anti missile system could stop it.

"There are two kinds of capitalism: Competitive capitalism and monopoly capitalism. The first is good for everyone. The second is good for only the monopolists. Incidentally, monopoly capitalism is the foundation of collectivism. All monopoly capitalists forge partnerships with government as the way in which they maintain their monopolies. They love socialism, communism, neo-conservatism, and all other variants of collectivism, as you no doubt have observed from present-day elitists, all of whom are collectivists."
--G. Edward Griffin

This is posted as a defense of competitive capitalism as well as an argument against monopoly capitalism.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml


-----------------------------
GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the [U.S.A. Patriot Act] could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

"I don't give a godd**n," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a godd**ned piece of paper!"
-----------------------------------

No need to defend Bush here. He is indefensible, just as are many Democratic presidents who likewise manifested disdain for the Constitution they took an oath to uphold & defend.

The Usurper: Scary.... but it explains your lobbying system.

(V): This is something you really ought to see. It is 2 hours at the National Press Club Conference in Washington. It is about UFOs and ETs. I downloaded & watched. No frills, just heavy duty testimony.

http://www.netro.ca/disclosure/npccmenu.htm

(V): I was being facetious, thanks anyways, I wasn't even close to being serious about those questions
I certainly don't need people trying to pump ideas or "enlighten me" , even though you may think so.
A.D., maybe renaming this The propaganda or special agenda board would be a better fit

March 25, 2009
Op-Ed Contributor
Dear A.I.G., I Quit!

The following is a letter sent on Tuesday by Jake DeSantis, an executive vice president of the American International Group’s financial products unit, to Edward M. Liddy, the chief executive of A.I.G.

DEAR Mr. Liddy,

It is with deep regret that I submit my notice of resignation from A.I.G. Financial Products. I hope you take the time to read this entire letter. Before describing the details of my decision, I want to offer some context:

I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.

After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials. In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself.

I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.

You and I have never met or spoken to each other, so I’d like to tell you about myself. I was raised by schoolteachers working multiple jobs in a world of closing steel mills. My hard work earned me acceptance to M.I.T., and the institute’s generous financial aid enabled me to attend. I had fulfilled my American dream.

I started at this company in 1998 as an equity trader, became the head of equity and commodity trading and, a couple of years before A.I.G.’s meltdown last September, was named the head of business development for commodities. Over this period the equity and commodity units were consistently profitable — in most years generating net profits of well over $100 million. Most recently, during the dismantling of A.I.G.-F.P., I was an integral player in the pending sale of its well-regarded commodity index business to UBS. As you know, business unit sales like this are crucial to A.I.G.’s effort to repay the American taxpayer.

The profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation. I never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money. I did, however, like many others here, lose a significant portion of my life savings in the form of deferred compensation invested in the capital of A.I.G.-F.P. because of those losses. In this way I have personally suffered from this controversial activity — directly as well as indirectly with the rest of the taxpayers.

I have the utmost respect for the civic duty that you are now performing at A.I.G. You are as blameless for these credit default swap losses as I am. You answered your country’s call and you are taking a tremendous beating for it.

But you also are aware that most of the employees of your financial products unit had nothing to do with the large losses. And I am disappointed and frustrated over your lack of support for us. I and many others in the unit feel betrayed that you failed to stand up for us in the face of untrue and unfair accusations from certain members of Congress last Wednesday and from the press over our retention payments, and that you didn’t defend us against the baseless and reckless comments made by the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut.

My guess is that in October, when you learned of these retention contracts, you realized that the employees of the financial products unit needed some incentive to stay and that the contracts, being both ethical and useful, should be left to stand. That’s probably why A.I.G. management assured us on three occasions during that month that the company would “live up to its commitment” to honor the contract guarantees.

That may be why you decided to accelerate by three months more than a quarter of the amounts due under the contracts. That action signified to us your support, and was hardly something that one would do if he truly found the contracts “distasteful.”

That may also be why you authorized the balance of the payments on March 13.

At no time during the past six months that you have been leading A.I.G. did you ask us to revise, renegotiate or break these contracts — until several hours before your appearance last week before Congress.

I think your initial decision to honor the contracts was both ethical and financially astute, but it seems to have been politically unwise. It’s now apparent that you either misunderstood the agreements that you had made — tacit or otherwise — with the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, various members of Congress and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, or were not strong enough to withstand the shifting political winds.

You’ve now asked the current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. to repay these earnings. As you can imagine, there has been a tremendous amount of serious thought and heated discussion about how we should respond to this breach of trust.

As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house.

Many of the employees have, in the past six months, turned down job offers from more stable employers, based on A.I.G.’s assurances that the contracts would be honored. They are now angry about having been misled by A.I.G.’s promises and are not inclined to return the money as a favor to you.

The only real motivation that anyone at A.I.G.-F.P. now has is fear. Mr. Cuomo has threatened to “name and shame,” and his counterpart in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has made similar threats — even though attorneys general are supposed to stand for due process, to conduct trials in courts and not the press.

So what am I to do? There’s no easy answer. I know that because of hard work I have benefited more than most during the economic boom and have saved enough that my family is unlikely to suffer devastating losses during the current bust. Some might argue that members of my profession have been overpaid, and I wouldn’t disagree.

That is why I have decided to donate 100 percent of the effective after-tax proceeds of my retention payment directly to organizations that are helping people who are suffering from the global downturn. This is not a tax-deduction gimmick; I simply believe that I at least deserve to dictate how my earnings are spent, and do not want to see them disappear back into the obscurity of A.I.G.’s or the federal government’s budget. Our earnings have caused such a distraction for so many from the more pressing issues our country faces, and I would like to see my share of it benefit those truly in need.

On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes. In light of the uncertainty over the ultimate taxation and legal status of this payment, the actual amount I donate may be less — in fact, it may end up being far less if the recent House bill raising the tax on the retention payments to 90 percent stands. Once all the money is donated, you will immediately receive a list of all recipients.

This choice is right for me. I wish others at A.I.G.-F.P. luck finding peace with their difficult decision, and only hope their judgment is not clouded by fear.

Mr. Liddy, I wish you success in your commitment to return the money extended by the American government, and luck with the continued unwinding of the company’s diverse businesses — especially those remaining credit default swaps. I’ll continue over the short term to help make sure no balls are dropped, but after what’s happened this past week I can’t remain much longer — there is too much bad blood. I’m not sure how you will greet my resignation, but at least Attorney General Blumenthal should be relieved that I’ll leave under my own power and will not need to be “shoved out the door.”

Sincerely,

Jake DeSantis


Sort of skipped by the press and Barney Frank.....

this sheds a little light on aig and the fleecing the American people are getting by corporate government

GoodTimeCharlie: I can't enlighten you Charles.. it don't work that way.

And yes.. I think we do need a board for propaganda... I think you'll be amazed at how much we are pumped at with every day.

And are you saying you'd be happy with a Big Brother society?

The Usurper: The Conservative party over here has promised (or so their leader has.... that if the Conservatives get into power they will open up and publish all the UK secret UFO info.

(V): Maybe I am one of "their" agents and have been assigned here to counter you and the usurper

(V): And are you saying you'd be happy with a Big Brother society?

Apparently you are...

What do you think socialism is anyway? You are so proud of your government health care and your government schools and your government everything, but you claim disdain for a big brother society????

GoodTimeCharlie: oooOOooo A secret agent!! I better implement the dead man protocol on all the 'evidence' I have hidden on the web.

Czuch: You perhaps I suggest strongly, have got what Big Brother means confused. Your Homeland security is Big Brother, some of our new laws on terror are 'Big brother', not socialism.. as pure socialism (not the fake USSR crap) ... is to benefit the people. Not just the few at the top like in the old Russia. Stalin basically saw to that.

And IMHO.... wasn't your revolution against the British Empire and your constitution socialist?? ...... "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. "

And Lincoln goes onto say... " that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

(V): as they bought and sold slaves and plotted to take Indian land,Mexican land and Spanish colonies

GoodTimeCharlie: Yep. Problem with good intentions.. one factor... man and his perception, or lack of it.

(V): You perhaps I suggest strongly, have got what Big Brother means confused.


Any control a government has on you is a form of big brother.... if it is giving you health care or welfare or any other, is all a form of big brother.....

also, I dont interpret "for the people" to mean that it is a government that does everything for the people, but simply it is there at the pleasure of the people to mean it is not there for its own benefit, and to me, that also means it should be as small in unobtrusive as possible, and that is the exact opposite of the socialist model that you support.

GoodTimeCharlie:  There does seem to be a lot of propaganda being thrown around lol

Czuch: No. It isn't.

And Czuch... a real working model of socialism as worked out in the USSR by those who could... but rejected by the 'bosses' would lead to less government and less power for the government. The local community would be in more charge as they being the local people would be able to better work out their needs.

... But, alas. The consequences for the soviet bosses is that most would not be needed, so the idea was thrown away.

No, can you know see the difference between real socialism and a fake socialism, and basing your views on a false socialist model then is like feeding false data to a computer and asking it to work out an accurate answer based on that false data.. It don't work.

Artful Dodger: I accept your apology,it takes a big man to admit he's wrong

America interfearing with Parkisan. When will they ever learn

Mousetrap: well they did treble their aid to them over the next 5 years, so as usual they think it gives them the "right" to interfear.

Artful Dodger: "I've seen nothing to indicate that this is true. Got any hard facts?"

The only facts I have is the report itself. I have no reason to doubt its verity, just as I have no reason to doubt the verity of the report issued by the ACLU about 21 homicides via torture in our American gulags. As you say (on the quote about the Constitution) Bush hasn't denied it. Of course he may just be 'above' such things. lol Could I swear on my life it is true? No. I couldn't swear on my life that there is a continent named Africa, either...as I haven't actually set foot on it. And who knows...even if I DID set foot on it, maybe somebody tricked me, and the world map is falsely drawn. Let's look carefully at the source, and see if it is pro-Republican or pro-Democrat.

I googled "bush it's a goddamned piece of paper" and here are the results:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush+it%27s+a+goddamned+piece+of+paper&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=


By the way, when I say Bush is indefensible, I don't mean he doesn't have a right to a defense, contrary to your insinuation. I just mean that, in my opinion, his defense won't stand up. Please remember I'm the one who thinks people deserve fair trials...whereas you're the one who thinks prisoners should be murdered upon capture to avoid the annoyance & expense of having to house & feed them, etc.

GoodTimeCharlie: "Maybe I am one of "their" agents and have been assigned here to counter you and the usurper"

You're doing remarkably well. You deserve a promotion. :o)

GoodTimeCharlie: "I was being facetious, thanks anyways, I wasn't even close to being serious about those questions
I certainly don't need people trying to pump ideas or "enlighten me" , even though you may think so.
A.D., maybe renaming this The propaganda or special agenda board would be a better fit"

That's a good point. Maybe you better stick to the nightly news, where you are more likely to receive fair & balanced coverage. It's the enlightened thing to do. Or maybe you have an even better source? God forbid you be propagandized. But it's good to know there is not much risk of that happening with you.....you are so above that. lol

The Usurper:"The only facts I have is the report itself."

Then the question becomes, how reliable is this report?  Who wrote it?  What is this person's history?  Does he/she have an axe to grind against Bush or the Republicans?  Who are the sources? 

You write about his incident as if it were true.  And when asked for proof, assume to be true the very thing you are trying to prove!  That is question begging pure and simple.

No.  It's not enough evidence for such a serious charge.  And to build a case with such questionable evidence puts everything else you say in a questionable light.

I am very disappointed in Bush.  I think he failed in many ways as President.  But if he is to be criticized, it can't be because I may dislike him or distrust him.  My criticism must be true or based on truth.  Not a "gut" feeling which could be attributed to bad pepperoni.  Honest, hard, verifiable facts.  Nothing less than that will do.  Hearsay is not evidence.  It's more often closer to a lie than it is the truth.

The Usurper:  I agree with GoodTimeCharlie on the name change.  Just because you can google it and get a thousand hits doesn't make it true.  And just because it appears on the nightly news doesn't make it false. 

Put stones in people's shoes and let them decide for themselves.  You are convinced that your worldview is true.  And it may be.  But it's also possible that you have been fooled.  I view most things with at least a slice of skepticism.  I want to remain open to the possibility that my view is wrong.  None of us are infallible. 

The Usurper:And can you show me a report where Bush is interviewed where he was asked about the incident where he didn't deny it.?? ;)

(V): can you know see the difference between real socialism and a fake socialism,

So what you have in the UK, that is the fake socialism?

The local community would be in more charge as they being the local people would be able to better work out their needs

That doesnt sound like any UK socialism, or really socialism anywhere in the world right now.

The Usurper:   The original article with the quote you cite appeared in the DC Indymedia.   It was submitted by "anonymous."   That's a great source now isn't it?  BTW, anyone can post an article on the site.  Since that is the case, there is no way to check the source.  Where did this anonymous get this info?  The author claims that he talked to three sources that overheard the comment.  Sure.  Who were they?  We can never know.  Doug Thompson just reported it, he's not a witness to what, if anything, was said.

And what about Doug Thompson?  It's his site that carried this questionable quote.  Here are some titles to a few of his other articles:  # Bush's betrayal   # Burn in hell, Mr. President   Americans no longer buy Bush's lies

--many more of the same kind can be found there

Many other sites carried the piece you posted and but this comment sums up the original source nicely: 

12/17/2005 - 14:11:37PM  
BY: Ray
Capitol Hill Blue seems to have a recurring problem with anonymous sources.

I mean, conned for 20 years by the same guy? Doug Thompson should have retired in shame. Obviously he is a gullible mark, and if he doesn't name his "sources" I won't believe a word he says.

Thompson originally retracted the article but then decided to repost it.  He retracted it because it lacked a verifiable source.  One has to wonder why he then decided to repost it and claim that he now "stands by the story."  Maybe his obvious hate for Bush had something to do with that decision.

On one website, this message preceeded the article: 

"Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate."

  no kidding.  Mr Anonomous is a hard man to track down.  Getting a statement from him seems impossible.

In the end Greg, you'll have to find a more credible story because this one fails the test of truth.  And if you insist that it's true, that will reflect heavily upon you in my view.  Are you going to be one of those that embraces a story simply because you want it to be true (because it fits into your worldview scenario)? 

If this story is untrue (and it most likely is a fabrication) then you have fallen for the very thing for which you warn others.  Time to rethink this one. 

The Usurper: The only facts I have is the report itself.


like the 9/11 report?????

Czuch:  Exactly.  It's like saying, "The only facts I have are in this fake document." 

Artful Dodger: You guys are having a field day with this one. lol

Ok, let's assume he didn't say it, for the sake of argument. But you said this:

"My criticism must be true or based on truth."

True. The question then is, does Bush in fact despise the Constitution? Did his actions while in office provide overwhelming evidence of that? Did he undermine the Constitution, oversee the gutting of its Bill of Rights, and otherwise act as if he were not bound by it, in true dictatorial style?

Yes, he did. So whether he said these words in actuality is not very relevant. I think he probably did, but then I wasn't there. And they are only words, after all. What he DID, however, is very relevant.

I expect now you'll want a list of things he did to undermine the Constitution, with links to supporting evidence, etc.

But really, so much information is out there, the evidence is so complete, that if you don't recognize it already, nothing I could post could change your mind.

Like Charlie the good time guy, or whatever he calls himself now, he already is enlightened. Why trouble him further? :o)

The Usurper: Now,now, let's not be petty