CLASSIC NEO CON THINKINGS

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,561
314
83
Victory Lane
O'Malley: 'The Presidency of the U.S. Is Not Some Crown to Be Passed Between Two Families'

Martin O'Malley, a likely Democratic presidential candidate, took a shot this morning at Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, saying that the presidency is not a "crown" and need not "be passed between two families." Of course Clinton's husband Bill Clinton was president. And Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, and brother, George W. Bush, were both president.

"Well I think that our country always benefits from new leadership and new perspectives. I mean, let's be honest here: the presidency of the United States is not some crown to be passed between two families. It is an awesome and sacred trust, that to be earned, and exercised, on behalf of the American people," O'Malley told ABC's George Stephanopoulos.
...........................................................................


huh the crown is not supposed to be just passed from one power family to another over and over ?

:shrug:
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,561
314
83
Victory Lane
The relationship between the two regimes has been long-lasting. Hundreds of North Koreans have worked at about 10 nuclear and missile facilities in Iran. There were so many nuclear and missile scientists, specialists, and technicians that they took over their own coastal resort there, according to Henry Sokolski, the proliferation maven, writing in 2003.

Even if Iran today were to agree to adhere to the Additional Protocol, it could still continue developing its bomb in North Korea, conducting research there or buying North Korean technology and plans. And as North Korean centrifuges spin in both known and hidden locations, the Kim regime will have a bigger stock of uranium to sell to the Iranians for their warheads. With the removal of sanctions, as the P5+1 is contemplating, Iran will have the cash to accelerate the building of its nuclear arsenal.

So while the international community inspects Iranian facilities pursuant to a framework deal, the Iranians could be busy assembling the components for a bomb elsewhere. In other words, they will be one day away from a bomb?the flight time from Pyongyang to Tehran?not one year as American and other policymakers hope.
.............................................................................................

the sneaky fucking mullahs

they are just coming in the back door

WWIII is coming soon

:142smilie
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,561
314
83
Victory Lane
We didn't bother stopping North Korea from acquiring the necessary technology to produce atomic weapons, because of their relationship with, and proximity to China. We didn't stop the Soviets, the Chinese, India, Pakistan, Israel, or (probably) South Africa. However, we did stop Iraq...who had as much likelihood of manufacturing a nuclear (or nookUlar, according to the dunce who got us into that three trillion dollar war) device as I do. We're jumping on Iran because of their rabid hatred for Israel, who could easily exterminate them in hours...but who woulld -- of course -- prefer that we use our military, and our money to do the job. I don't know about anyone else here, of course, but I personally don't want to go to war with Iran, simply to satisfy Nuttenyahoo and the equally ferocious and just as profoundly unbalanced Republicans. There is no way that a war with Iran can lead to a good outcome. No rational human being could possibly draw any other conclusion than that we are acting as an agent of Israel, and we are intent on taking over all of the Middle East. That won't earn us any new friends. If we act as Nuttenyahoo's surrogate, we will pay a very steep price for that privilege, in treasure and lives.

.............................................................................
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,561
314
83
Victory Lane
Eliminating Iran's nuclear facilities with U.S. missile strikes would take a matter of days, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said in a radio interview Tuesday.

"Even if military action were required -- and we certainly should have kept the credible threat of military force on the table throughout which always improves diplomacy -- the president is trying to make you think it would be 150,000 heavy mechanized troops on the ground in the Middle East again as we saw in Iraq. That's simply not the case," Cotton told Tony Perkins on the Family Research Council's Washington Watch program, according to CNN.

"It would be something more along the lines of what President Clinton did in December 1998 during Operation Desert Fox," he added. "Several days of air and naval bombing against Iraq's weapons of mass destruction facilities for exactly the same kind of behavior -- for interfering with weapons inspectors and for disobeying Security Council resolutions. All we're asking is that the president simply be as tough as in the protection of America's national security interest as Bill Clinton was."

Iraq isn't Iran, in terms of geography or military capability. "Several days" of bombing may indeed knock out some of Iran's nuclear facilities. The obvious follow-up question, however, is: What happens after the bombing ceases? Cotton, a defense hawk who gained prominence by authoring a controversial letter in protest of nuclear negotiations with Iran, didn't get into that answer Tuesday. But several high-ranking U.S. military officials have already made the consequences of bombing clear.

"The United States would obviously be blamed and we could possibly be the target of retaliation from Iran, striking our ships, striking our military bases," former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in 2011, adding that "severe economic consequences ... could impact a very fragile economy in Europe and a fragile economy here in the United States."

Far from preventing Iran from developing a nuclear bomb, Panetta said, an attack could actually motivate it to accelerate the enrichment process deeper underground and "we would have an escalation that would take place that would not only involve many lives, but I think could consume the Middle East in a confrontation and a conflict that we would regret."
.........................................................................

this little pencil neck cotton picker is pathetic.

GOP loves them some war. Bomb Iran a few days....


what a fucking stupid.

It would start the biggest shitstorm in the middle east we have ever seen.

WWIII at your service.

Maybe this guy is a puppet for ex President Cheney
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,561
314
83
Victory Lane
PANAMA CITY (AP) -- President Barack Obama on Saturday declared his refusal to refight the Cold War battles while Cuban President Raul Castro rallied to his defense, absolving Obama of fault for the U.S. blockade in a stunning reversal of more than 50 years of animosity between the United States and Cuba.

"In my opinion, President Obama is an honest man," Castro said - a remarkable vote of confidence from the Cuban leader, who praised Obama's life and his "humble background."

Turning the page on the longstanding U.S. policy of isolation, Castro and Obama were expected to meet later Saturday on the sidelines of the Summit of the Americas - the first substantial meeting between a U.S. and Cuban president in more than five decades.


The flurry of diplomacy, which kicked off Friday evening with an historic handshake between Obama and Castro, was aimed at injecting fresh momentum into their months-old plan to restore normal relations between their countries.

"The Cold War has been over for a long time," Obama said. "And I'm not interested in having battles frankly that started before I was born."

Castro, in a meandering, nearly hour-long speech to the summit, ran through an exhaustive history of perceived Cuban grievances against the U.S. dating back more than a century - a vivid display of how raw passions remain over American attempts to undermine Cuba's government.

Then, in an abrupt about face, he apologized for letting his emotions get the best of him. He said many U.S. presidents were at fault for that troubled history - but that Obama isn't one of them.

"I have told President Obama that I get very emotional talking about the revolution," Castro said through a translator, noting that Obama wasn't even born when the U.S. began sanctioning the island nation. "I apologize to him because President Obama had no responsibility for this."

Speaking just before Castro, Obama acknowledged that deep differences between their countries would persist. Yet he said he was uninterested in getting bogged down in ideology, instead casting the thaw in relations as an opening to create "more opportunities and resources for the Cuban people."

"The United States will not be imprisoned by the past," President Barack Obama said. "We're looking to the future.
................................................................................

what a great President

what a great man


:0074:0074
 

Skulnik

Truth Teller
Forum Member
Mar 30, 2007
21,421
703
113
Jefferson City, Missouri
PANAMA CITY (AP) -- President Barack Obama on Saturday declared his refusal to refight the Cold War battles while Cuban President Raul Castro rallied to his defense, absolving Obama of fault for the U.S. blockade in a stunning reversal of more than 50 years of animosity between the United States and Cuba.

"In my opinion, President Obama is an honest man," Castro said - a remarkable vote of confidence from the Cuban leader, who praised Obama's life and his "humble background."

Turning the page on the longstanding U.S. policy of isolation, Castro and Obama were expected to meet later Saturday on the sidelines of the Summit of the Americas - the first substantial meeting between a U.S. and Cuban president in more than five decades.


The flurry of diplomacy, which kicked off Friday evening with an historic handshake between Obama and Castro, was aimed at injecting fresh momentum into their months-old plan to restore normal relations between their countries.

"The Cold War has been over for a long time," Obama said. "And I'm not interested in having battles frankly that started before I was born."

Castro, in a meandering, nearly hour-long speech to the summit, ran through an exhaustive history of perceived Cuban grievances against the U.S. dating back more than a century - a vivid display of how raw passions remain over American attempts to undermine Cuba's government.

Then, in an abrupt about face, he apologized for letting his emotions get the best of him. He said many U.S. presidents were at fault for that troubled history - but that Obama isn't one of them.

"I have told President Obama that I get very emotional talking about the revolution," Castro said through a translator, noting that Obama wasn't even born when the U.S. began sanctioning the island nation. "I apologize to him because President Obama had no responsibility for this."

Speaking just before Castro, Obama acknowledged that deep differences between their countries would persist. Yet he said he was uninterested in getting bogged down in ideology, instead casting the thaw in relations as an opening to create "more opportunities and resources for the Cuban people."

"The United States will not be imprisoned by the past," President Barack Obama said. "We're looking to the future.
................................................................................

what a great President

what a great man


:0074:0074

10488050_10152970324001163_5882870655260464719_n.jpg
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,561
314
83
Victory Lane
11130090_953605448007270_3552405835312163296_n.jpg


..
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,561
314
83
Victory Lane
Here's the interesting thing about this, you know, who's aligned with President Obama, whose foreign policy is closest to President Obama?" Paul said on CNN?s "State of the Union." "Interestingly, many of the hawks in my party line right up with President Obama. Think about the big issues we've had in the couple -- the last couple of years. The war that Hillary prominently promoted in Libya, many of the hawks in my party were right there with her. Their only difference was in degrees. They wanted to go into Libya as well, they just always want boots on the ground. Some of the hawks in my party, you can't find a place on the globe they don't want boots on the ground."

Speaking out against the war in Libya is a common refrain for those opposed to military engagement, and Paul has repeatedly made this same criticism in the past. His willingness to make it again shows that, at least on some matters, he?s not going to muddy previously held positions in order to soften his image. The same held true with respect to Syria, with Paul suggesting once more that he would be comfortable keeping President Bashar Assad in power.

?I didn't support the arming of the Syrian rebels because I felt like it would make al Qaeda and ISIS worse. I didn't support the bombing of Assad. President Obama supported the bombing of Assad. So did the neo-cons in my party,? said Paul. ?So, really, they're together in supporting many of these interventions, and I've been the one not supporting these interventions, because I fear that if you bombed Assad, you would allow ISIS to go stronger.?

.............................................................
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,561
314
83
Victory Lane
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Okc9EHyQyKw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

....


hedge worships this guy
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,561
314
83
Victory Lane
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_TMrJDHu_TU?list=PLd1jfZiEy1S5NWTMuXx0C_hM0QQzku5B6" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

.........................................

get ready hedge and ronnie


times they are a changing
 

hammer1

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 17, 2002
7,791
127
63
Wisconsin and Dorado Puerto Rico
U Read this Doggies and others

U Read this Doggies and others

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_TMrJDHu_TU?list=PLd1jfZiEy1S5NWTMuXx0C_hM0QQzku5B6" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

.........................................

get ready hedge and ronnie


times they are a changing



Reagan insider: 'GOP destroyed U.S. economy'
Reagan insider: 'GOP destroyed U.S. economy'
Commentary: How: Gold. Tax cuts. Debts. Wars. Fat Cats. Class gap. No fiscal discipline

By Paul B. Farrell, MarketWatch
ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) --

"How my G.O.P. destroyed the U.S. economy." Yes, that is exactly what David Stockman, President Ronald Reagan's director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed piece, "Four Deformations of the Apocalypse."

Get it? Not "destroying." The GOP has already "destroyed" the U.S. economy, setting up an "American Apocalypse."

Jobs recovery could take years
In the wake of Friday's disappointing jobs report, Neal Lipschutz and Phil Izzo discuss new predictions that it could be many years before the nation's unemployment rate reaches pre-recession levels.

But what this indictment by a party insider -- someone so close to the development of the Reaganomics ideology -- says about America, helps all of us better understand how America's toxic partisan-politics "holy war" is destroying not just the economy and capitalism, but the America dream. And unless this war stops soon, both parties will succeed in their collective death wish.

But why focus on Stockman's message? It's already lost in the 24/7 news cycle. Why? We need some introspection. Ask yourself: How did the great nation of America lose its moral compass and drift so far off course, to where our very survival is threatened?

We've arrived at a historic turning point as a nation that no longer needs outside enemies to destroy us, we are committing suicide. Democracy. Capitalism. The American dream. All dying. Why? Because of the economic decisions of the GOP the past 40 years, says this leading Reagan Republican.

Please listen with an open mind, no matter your party affiliation: This makes for a powerful history lesson, because it exposes how both parties are responsible for destroying the U.S. economy. Listen closely:

Reagan Republican: the GOP should file for bankruptcy

Stockman rushes into the ring swinging like a boxer: "If there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation's public debt ... will soon reach $18 trillion." It screams "out for austerity and sacrifice." But instead, the GOP insists "that the nation's wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase."

In the past 40 years Republican ideology has gone from solid principles to hype and slogans. Stockman says: "Republicans used to believe that prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts -- in government, in international trade, on the ledgers of central banks and in the financial affairs of private households and businesses too."

No more. Today there's a "new catechism" that's "little more than money printing and deficit finance, vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes" making a mockery of GOP ideals. Worse, it has resulted in "serial financial bubbles and Wall Street depredations that have crippled our economy." Yes, GOP ideals backfired, crippling our economy.

Stockman's indictment warns that the Republican party's "new policy doctrines have caused four great deformations of the national economy, and modern Republicans have turned a blind eye to each one:"

Stage 1. Nixon irresponsible, dumps gold, U.S starts spending binge

Richard Nixon's gold policies get Stockman's first assault, for defaulting "on American obligations under the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement to balance our accounts with the world." So for the past 40 years, America's been living "beyond our means as a nation" on "borrowed prosperity on an epic scale ... an outcome that Milton Friedman said could never happen when, in 1971, he persuaded President Nixon to unleash on the world paper dollars no longer redeemable in gold or other fixed monetary reserves."

Remember Friedman: "Just let the free market set currency exchange rates, he said, and trade deficits will self-correct." Friedman was wrong by trillions. And unfortunately "once relieved of the discipline of defending a fixed value for their currencies, politicians the world over were free to cheapen their money and disregard their neighbors."

And without discipline America was also encouraging "global monetary chaos as foreign central banks run their own printing presses at ever faster speeds to sop up the tidal wave of dollars coming from the Federal Reserve." Yes, the road to the coming apocalypse began with a Republican president listening to a misguided Nobel economist's advice.

Stage 2. Crushing debts from domestic excesses, war mongering

Stockman says "the second unhappy change in the American economy has been the extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40% of gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion, it will be 40 times greater than in 1970." Who's to blame? Not big-spending Dems, says Stockman, but "from the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."

Back "in 1981, traditional Republicans supported tax cuts," but Stockman makes clear, they had to be "matched by spending cuts, to offset the way inflation was pushing many taxpayers into higher brackets and to spur investment. The Reagan administration's hastily prepared fiscal blueprint, however, was no match for the primordial forces -- the welfare state and the warfare state -- that drive the federal spending machine."

OK, stop a minute. As you absorb Stockman's indictment of how his Republican party has "destroyed the U.S. economy," you're probably asking yourself why anyone should believe a traitor to the Reagan legacy. I believe party affiliation is irrelevant here. This is a crucial subject that must be explored because it further exposes a dangerous historical trend where politics is so partisan it's having huge negative consequences.

Yes, the GOP does have a welfare-warfare state: Stockman says "the neocons were pushing the military budget skyward. And the Republicans on Capitol Hill who were supposed to cut spending, exempted from the knife most of the domestic budget -- entitlements, farm subsidies, education, water projects. But in the end it was a new cadre of ideological tax-cutters who killed the Republicans' fiscal religion."

When Fed chief Paul Volcker "crushed inflation" in the '80s we got a "solid economic rebound." But then "the new tax-cutters not only claimed victory for their supply-side strategy but hooked Republicans for good on the delusion that the economy will outgrow the deficit if plied with enough tax cuts." By 2009, they "reduced federal revenues to 15% of gross domestic product," lowest since the 1940s. Still today they're irrationally demanding an extension of those "unaffordable Bush tax cuts [that] would amount to a bankruptcy filing."

Recently Bush made matters far worse by "rarely vetoing a budget bill and engaging in two unfinanced foreign military adventures." Bush also gave in "on domestic spending cuts, signing into law $420 billion in nondefense appropriations, a 65% percent gain from the $260 billion he had inherited eight years earlier. Republicans thus joined the Democrats in a shameless embrace of a free-lunch fiscal policy." Takes two to tango.

Stage 3. Wall Street's deadly 'vast, unproductive expansion'

Stockman continues pounding away: "The third ominous change in the American economy has been the vast, unproductive expansion of our financial sector." He warns that "Republicans have been oblivious to the grave danger of flooding financial markets with freely printed money and, at the same time, removing traditional restrictions on leverage and speculation." Wrong, not oblivious. Self-interested Republican loyalists like Paulson, Bernanke and Geithner knew exactly what they were doing.

They wanted the economy, markets and the government to be under the absolute control of Wall Street's too-greedy-to-fail banks. They conned Congress and the Fed into bailing out an estimated $23.7 trillion debt. Worse, they have since destroyed meaningful financial reforms. So Wall Street is now back to business as usual blowing another bigger bubble/bust cycle that will culminate in the coming "American Apocalypse."

Stockman refers to Wall Street's surviving banks as "wards of the state." Wrong, the opposite is true. Wall Street now controls Washington, and its "unproductive" trading is "extracting billions from the economy with a lot of pointless speculation in stocks, bonds, commodities and derivatives." Wall Street banks like Goldman were virtually bankrupt, would have never survived without government-guaranteed deposits and "virtually free money from the Fed's discount window to cover their bad bets."

Stage 4. New American Revolution class-warfare coming soon

Finally, thanks to Republican policies that let us "live beyond our means for decades by borrowing heavily from abroad, we have steadily sent jobs and production offshore," while at home "high-value jobs in goods production ... trade, transportation, information technology and the professions shrunk by 12% to 68 million from 77 million."

As the apocalypse draws near, Stockman sees a class-rebellion, a new revolution, a war against greed and the wealthy. Soon. The trigger will be the growing gap between economic classes: No wonder "that during the last bubble (from 2002 to 2006) the top 1% of Americans -- paid mainly from the Wall Street casino -- received two-thirds of the gain in national income, while the bottom 90% -- mainly dependent on Main Street's shrinking economy -- got only 12%. This growing wealth gap is not the market's fault. It's the decaying fruit of bad economic policy."

Get it? The decaying fruit of the GOP's bad economic policies is destroying our economy.

Warning: this black swan won't be pretty, will shock, soon

His bottom line: "The day of national reckoning has arrived. We will not have a conventional business recovery now, but rather a long hangover of debt liquidation and downsizing ... it's a pity that the modern Republican party offers the American people an irrelevant platform of recycled Keynesianism when the old approach -- balanced budgets, sound money and financial discipline -- is needed more than ever."

Wrong: There are far bigger things to "pity."

First, that most Americans, 300 million, are helpless, will do nothing, sit in the bleachers passively watching this deadly partisan game like it's just another TV reality show.

Second, that, unfortunately, politicians are so deep-in-the-pockets of the Wall Street conspiracy that controls Washington they are helpless and blind.

And third, there's a depressing sense that Stockman's message will be lost in the 24/7 news cycle ... until the final apocalyptic event, an unpredictable black swan triggers another, bigger global meltdown, followed by a long Great Depression II and a historic class war.

So be prepared, it will hit soon, when you least expect.
 

MadJack

Administrator
Staff member
Forum Admin
Super Moderators
Channel Owner
Jul 13, 1999
105,812
2,105
113
70
home
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YgXCw2eYUaU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top