Explain what you want fixed? The voter fraud

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-campaign-launches-voter-fraud-web.html

Updated in light of today's news that kangaroo centers, petting zoos and ice cream parlors are included in Homeland Security's list of vulnerable terrorist targets:

If Its Broken, Why Haven't They Fixed It?

Fort Knox is robbed in an unusual way. Burglars break in through an air conditioning vent and shine a laser at the video cameras to blind them. Billions are stolen.

The head of Fort Knox (let's call him the Chief) announces that no one could have foreseen this type of burglary.

The commission investigating the robbery -- stacked with the Chief's business partners and friends -- finds that the break-in was unexpected. The commission makes numerous suggestions on how to thwart similar burglaries by installing motion detectors in the air conditioning vents and main vault.

Independent researchers, however, discover that there have been many previous break-ins at repositories of valuable items where the burglars crawled in through the air conditioning vents and shined lasers at video cameras.

They also discover that the Fort's security system would normally have caught the burglars in the act and alerted the military in time to stop the burglarly, but the system was undergoing a series of safety tests that night -- including some that were similar to what actually occurred -- and so the military assumed that the alarms were part of the test.

There had been safety tests before, but never so many at the same time. The Chief personally scheduled multiple, overlapping tests for the night of the robbery, and then oversaw the operation of the tests and the Fort's reaction to those tests.

Years pass, but the Chief does not follow the commission's recommendations. He fails to install any motion detectors.

That's circumstantial evidence that the Chief was in on the heist. Why? Because if the robbery really had not been foreseeable and if he was innocent, he would have a very strong incentive to install motion detectors to prevent further robberies at the Fort. His personal reputation, the government's reputation, and its gold reserves would all depend on it. You can bet that he'd shore up the Fort's defenses.

Perks

Let's take it a step further: the Chief's personal bank account has suddenly gotten alot bigger after the heist. That helps to prove he was in on it, right? But it also shows that one of the reasons the Chief is leaving the Fort's defenses in a compromised state now is so that additional heists can occur, and he'll get more loot.

9/11

Similarly, the 9-11 Commission -- stacked with cronies of the Bush administration (like executive director Philip Zelikow, who is very close to administration hawk Condoleeza Rice, and steered the Commission away from the most important lines of inquiry) -- found that the attacks were unexpected, despite very strong evidence that they were not, and despite the fact that the government scheduled numerous, overlapping war games for 9/11 -- some involving a plane flying into a building and others involving hijackings.

And while the 9-11 Commission made numerous recommendations on how to prevent future terrorist attacks -- many of them simple and inexpensive to implement -- the Bush administration has failed to do so. Indeed, the Department of Homeland Security, instead of protecting vulnerable targets, has instead randomly made up lists which include kangaroo centers, petting zoos and
ice cream parlors as high-priority terrorist threats.

Just like with the Chief, the current administration's failure to make the recommended and preventative changes -- many of them cheap fixes -- despite billions being spent on supposed homeland security, is strong evidence that the administration was in on it.

This is especially true because the administration has recieved so many perks from 9/11: justification for wars in Afghanistan (where a huge oil pipeline benefitting American companies was being held up by the Taliban) and Iraq (one of the world's largest oil producers), permanent military bases in the Middle East, and consolidation of power at home.

And by failing to implement the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission, the administration keeps open the possibility that another terrorist attack will occur which will whip the now-dissenting American public into line, justify the invasion of Iran, and allow for the suspension of our remaining constitutional rights.

The bottom line is that the administration's, like the Chief's, inaction to fix the alleged holes in security which allowed supposedly unforeseeable crimes to occur shows that they are guilty of the crimes, and hope to benefit from additional crimes in the future.

And if foreign terrorists really had carried out 9/11, why is the government using all of its resources spying on innocent people who obviously have never met a terrorist in their life?

You guys really do need to bring in some credible sources. The reality is that companies don't like unions, not because unions put them in a financial hole, but because they cut down on the profit margin (aka CEO wallets). Again, the republican goal is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. This is a perfect example of that. You guys gripe about the CEO payoffs from the 700B bailout, but support an idea (killing unions) that essentially does the same thing.

I work for MQ. If we had had a union for MTs, then we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.

While it's impossible to be completely prepared for a downturn of this magnitude, we began priming ourselves for a weakening economy earlier last year. We implemented strict cost cutting measures across all our operations. We reduced head count in individual businesses where appropriate and we scaled back on capital expenditures.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/118935-news-corporation-f2q09-qtr-end-12-31-08-earnings-call-transcript?page=3

Frankly I do not see much good coming from the policies of the last 8 years. An out of sight deficit, home foreclosures, terrible price hikes and job losses, I can;t see the pluses in these. Has Iraq made us safer? My gut tells me no. If there had, in fact been weapons of mass destruction than I would feel differently. I think what has matterd the most protecting the US have been more careful survellience domestically in the form of airline survelliences and the like.

I think Obama has the potential to make some positive changes, domestically and worldwide as well. While there is no guarantee of that I really don't feel that McCain will do to much except to continue more or less to promote the same policies as in the last eight years. We can do better than that. The post 9/11 politics of fear are eating the country alive economically. While there is never a guarantee that another terrorist attack will not occur, as they do every so often world-wide, I think it is foolish to sink your economy and play on the fears of its people on the remote chance that another one 'might occur someday.'

I like the message of hope and change that Obama speaks of, and if elected I hope that he is able to achieve some of his goals.

just one of many many many and the sheep who won't open their eyes to the mess the repubs have made will never learn

CNN just reported in Raleigh, NC-- people standing in line for 2 hours, and opps, all the sudden there are no ballots....there they are.....they are wet and will not go through the machine, so just put those to the side and we'll run them later.

There seems to be a HUGE list of this kind of stuff. And who benefits from a lower voter turnout? Hmmm.

First, let me say this testimony by a Cal State professor of economics pertaining to the proposed "cap-and-trade" program isn't light reading, but it isn't very long or overly technical, either. It's only a little over 3 pages, double-spaced with generous margins, and takes less than 10 minutes to read, especially since the whole first page is taken up with the economist's credentials and background which you can skip if you wish.

Second, we have to bring a certain mental framework to things like this, which I compare to digging the meat out of a walnut shell. People like this don't typically use the kind of sensational language that we're accustomed to hearing on the news, and they tend to be rather polite and very low-key in the way they say things, especially when they're addressing a Congressional committee.

So nothing here is "bolded" or "underlined" in the way it's expressed, and ordinary reader like ourselves can easily miss the significance of what this economist is trying to tell the committee, which - if you want to cut right to the chase - is that "cap-and-trade" will destroy our economy. Now, the economist uses somewhat less drastic terms but only SLIGHTLY less so, and if you simply think about the consequences of his predictions (which he expects the committee members to do), his meaning is quite clear.

Cap-and-trade is admittedly INTENDED to make energy costs higher, on the theory that higher prices will induce reductions in energy use, hence pollution, etc., etc. While this might sound like a good theory (odd, though, that those who support it are the very same people who laugh at "trickle-down" economics, which is exactly what this is, in reverse), it actually hides new taxes that consumers will ultimately pay for either directly or in the form of higher prices for literally everything because every good and every service includes an energy cost of one sort or another (and that, in turn, will also mean another layer of increased tax because you pay a higher sales tax when the price of anything goes up - a double whammy, in other words). At 8%, something that costs you $10 today = $10.80. If the price goes up to $15, you pay $16.20 - which is not only a 50% increase in the price, but also a 50% tax increase on that item. (It's critical to learn to think in percentages, and also to learn how prices are related to taxes!)

Cap-and-trade may just be the most horrendous idea ever to come down the pike. This economist thinks so, calling it the "most anti-consumer" idea proposed to any Congress in our history. This has nothing whatsoever to do with any political party. It's simply another example of the absolute madness that seems to grip Washington these days - and members of both parties are afflicted with this insanity.

So, as always, here's the link for those who wish to paste it into their browsers, and it's also in the clickable link below. This is a PDF file and I can assure you that there's no virus risk.

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/robert-michaels-testimony-april-23-2009.pdf