Well, there's still time to build an underground bunker

• Watching press release - and I have no confidence in this admin.
  • Well, there's still time to build an underground bunker - and hoard food, like the -
  • Double standard doesn't cover Obama - it's more like a wolf in sheep's clothing...
  • Do you only have 1 channel in your home? - Questions
    • So CNN is - bad? NM
  • President has the cart - before the horse.
    • That's true - Bush did want to close Gitmo - - Zville MT
      • Actually, Bush SAID he wanted to close Gitmo...(sm) - Just the big bad
        • What! A cart - before the horse? NM
        • Our prisoners............ sm - m
        • But what's going to happen to all of those detainees? - Zville MT
          • I do think these are valid concerns...(sm) - Just the big bad
            • Are you kidding? I do not see a - comparison with a burglar and a terrorist.
              • Well, then how about serial killers.....(sm) - Just the big bad
          • I thought they were discussing sending them to Australia. - MT
          • So what do you think they should do? - -nm
            • I honestly don't know what should be done. - Zville MT
              • They haven't been brought to trial yet....(sm) - Just the big bad
            • Return them to their own countries......... sm - m
              • If sent back to their own country, - they could be released and more angry at USA
                • IF they survive in their own country.... sm - m

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

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxoiZdBSi-g

William/Wm Ayers and wife Bernadine Dohrn, terrorists-turned college professors.  That's some education, ya think?

Do your research, people.  All kinds of stuff is out there without political endorsements. 

Hi folks, sarah and I are both hiding underground now.  Please vote for us and we will pop up like groundhogs for the inauguration.

President Bush is pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union, effectively erasing our borders with both Mexico and Canada. This was the hidden agenda behind the Bush administration's true open borders policy.

Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA politically, setting the stage for a North American Union designed to encompass the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. What the Bush administration truly wants is the free, unimpeded movement of people across open borders with Mexico and Canada.

President Bush intends to abrogate U.S. sovereignty to the North American Union, a new economic and political entity which the President is quietly forming, much as the European Union has formed.

The blueprint President Bush is following was laid out in a 2005 report entitled "Building a North American Community" published by the left-of-center Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR report connects the dots between the Bush administration's actual policy on illegal immigration and the drive to create the North American Union:

At their meeting in Waco, Texas, at the end of March 2005, U.S. President George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin committed their governments to a path of cooperation and joint action. We welcome this important development and offer this report to add urgency and specific recommendations to strengthen their efforts.

What is the plan? Simple, erase the borders. The plan is contained in a "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" little noticed when President Bush and President Fox created it in March 2005:

In March 2005, the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States adopted a Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), establishing ministerial-level working groups to address key security and economic issues facing North America and setting a short deadline for reporting progress back to their governments. President Bush described the significance of the SPP as putting forward a common commitment "to markets and democracy, freedom and trade, and mutual prosperity and security." The policy framework articulated by the three leaders is a significant commitment that will benefit from broad discussion and advice. The Task Force is pleased to provide specific advice on how the partnership can be pursued and realized.

To that end, the Task Force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle affirmed in the March 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders that "our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary." Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America.

The perspective of the CFR report allows us to see President Bush's speech to the nation as nothing more than public relations posturing and window dressing. No wonder President Vincente Fox called President Bush in a panic after the speech. How could the President go back on his word to Mexico by actually securing our border? Not to worry, President Bush reassured President Fox. The National Guard on the border were only temporary, meant to last only as long until the public forgets about the issue, as has always been the case in the past.

The North American Union plan, which Vincente Fox has every reason to presume President Bush is still following, calls for the only border to be around the North American Union -- not between any of these countries. Or, as the CFR report stated:

The three governments should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments’ physical control of cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America. A long-term goal for a North American border action plan should be joint screening of travelers from third countries at their first point of entry into North America and the elimination of most controls over the temporary movement of these travelers within North America.

Discovering connections like this between the CFR recommendations and Bush administration policy gives credence to the argument that President Bush favors amnesty and open borders, as he originally said. Moreover, President Bush most likely continues to consider groups such as the Minuteman Project to be "vigilantes," as he has also said in response to a reporter's question during the March 2005 meeting with President Fox.

Why doesn’t President Bush just tell the truth? His secret agenda is to dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union. The administration has no intent to secure the border, or to enforce rigorously existing immigration laws. Securing our border with Mexico is evidently one of the jobs President Bush just won't do. If a fence is going to be built on our border with Mexico, evidently the Minuteman Project is going to have to build the fence themselves. Will President Bush protect America's sovereignty, or is this too a job the Minuteman Project will have to do for him?

President Bush is pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union, effectively erasing our borders with both Mexico and Canada. This was the hidden agenda behind the Bush administration's true open borders policy.

Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA politically, setting the stage for a North American Union designed to encompass the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. What the Bush administration truly wants is the free, unimpeded movement of people across open borders with Mexico and Canada.

President Bush intends to abrogate U.S. sovereignty to the North American Union, a new economic and political entity which the President is quietly forming, much as the European Union has formed.

The blueprint President Bush is following was laid out in a 2005 report entitled "Building a North American Community" published by the left-of-center Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR report connects the dots between the Bush administration's actual policy on illegal immigration and the drive to create the North American Union:

At their meeting in Waco, Texas, at the end of March 2005, U.S. President George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin committed their governments to a path of cooperation and joint action. We welcome this important development and offer this report to add urgency and specific recommendations to strengthen their efforts.

What is the plan? Simple, erase the borders. The plan is contained in a "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" little noticed when President Bush and President Fox created it in March 2005:

In March 2005, the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States adopted a Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), establishing ministerial-level working groups to address key security and economic issues facing North America and setting a short deadline for reporting progress back to their governments. President Bush described the significance of the SPP as putting forward a common commitment "to markets and democracy, freedom and trade, and mutual prosperity and security." The policy framework articulated by the three leaders is a significant commitment that will benefit from broad discussion and advice. The Task Force is pleased to provide specific advice on how the partnership can be pursued and realized.

To that end, the Task Force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle affirmed in the March 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders that "our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary." Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America.

The perspective of the CFR report allows us to see President Bush's speech to the nation as nothing more than public relations posturing and window dressing. No wonder President Vincente Fox called President Bush in a panic after the speech. How could the President go back on his word to Mexico by actually securing our border? Not to worry, President Bush reassured President Fox. The National Guard on the border were only temporary, meant to last only as long until the public forgets about the issue, as has always been the case in the past.

The North American Union plan, which Vincente Fox has every reason to presume President Bush is still following, calls for the only border to be around the North American Union -- not between any of these countries. Or, as the CFR report stated:

The three governments should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments’ physical control of cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America. A long-term goal for a North American border action plan should be joint screening of travelers from third countries at their first point of entry into North America and the elimination of most controls over the temporary movement of these travelers within North America.

Discovering connections like this between the CFR recommendations and Bush administration policy gives credence to the argument that President Bush favors amnesty and open borders, as he originally said. Moreover, President Bush most likely continues to consider groups such as the Minuteman Project to be "vigilantes," as he has also said in response to a reporter's question during the March 2005 meeting with President Fox.

Why doesn’t President Bush just tell the truth? His secret agenda is to dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union. The administration has no intent to secure the border, or to enforce rigorously existing immigration laws. Securing our border with Mexico is evidently one of the jobs President Bush just won't do. If a fence is going to be built on our border with Mexico, evidently the Minuteman Project is going to have to build the fence themselves. Will President Bush protect America's sovereignty, or is this too a job the Minuteman Project will have to do for him?

Didn't you know that? They have been here for years. Do you hear them begging for a bailout? Nope. Because they build decent cars.

The 3 big ones didn't bother to take heed during the last gas crunch and didn't learn a dang thing. If they did, we would have good cars now. GM built a good motor; the V6 3 liter engine. Our Old's Delta 98 (big luxury car)  V6 got 30 MPH. Our Buick LeSabre gets 28 MPH. Why didn't they put those engines in all their cars?

Because the AMERICAN PEOPLE wanted big, bad SUVs and V8 engines. So...if you want to sell cars, you build what people want.

Just like political arena, as soon as something goes wrong in America, they blame the president. As soon as high gas prices hit, they blamed the car companies and turn their backs on them and now they're in a mess. BUT, it doesn't mean they shouldn't have been working on alternate energy cars. Prius, made by Toyota, has been out for a few years now; 48 MPH.  Can't buy one now because that's what everybody wants. Yet when they first came out, hardly any takers.

So, it's not all the fault of the president or car companies. Think about it.

Avraham Hirschson, the Israeli tourism minister, said: I'm not a theologian, I'm the minister of tourism, and I'm not interested in the politics of our tourists as long as they come here. They come here as tourists, and they're friends of Israel.

    Friday 14 October 2005

    When the possibility of far-reaching war crimes and crimes against humanity exists, people of conscience have a solemn responsibility to inquire into the nature and scope of these acts and to determine if they do in fact rise to the level of war crimes and crimes against humanity. That is the mission of the International Commission of Inquiry on Crimes Against Humanity. The first session will be held October 21-22 in New York City. This tribunal will, with care and rigor, present evidence and assess whether George W. Bush and his administration have committed crimes against humanity. Well-established international law will be referenced where applicable, but the tribunal will not be limited by the scope of existing international law.

    The tribunal will deliberate on four categories of indictable crimes: 1) Wars of Aggression, with particular reference to the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. 2) Torture and Indefinite Detention, with particular reference to the abandonment of international standards concerning the treatment of prisoners of war and the use of torture. 3) Destruction of the Global Environment, with particular reference to systematic policies contributing to the catastrophic effects of global warming. 4) Attacks on Global Public Health and Reproductive Rights, with particular reference to the genocidal effects of forcing international agencies to promote abstinence only in the midst of a global AIDS epidemic.

    The Commission's jury of conscience will be composed of internationally respected jurists and legal scholars, prominent voices of conscience, and experts and monitors in relevant fields. The tribunal's legitimacy is derived from its integrity, its rigor in the presentation of evidence, and the stature of its participants. Representatives of the Bush administration will be invited to present a defense.

    Prior to the meeting of the Commission, teams with sufficient expertise will prepare preliminary indictments in each of the four areas, setting forth the scope of the Bush administration's actions and how they contravene legal and moral norms for international behavior. At the meeting of the Commission, there will be four prosecution teams that organize the presentation of the evidence. This evidence will be documents as well as eyewitness testimony by victims and observers of the crimes alleged. The formal proceedings will be held in a public venue and all attempts will be made to publicize and broadcast its deliberations internationally. The Commission's jury of conscience will come to verdicts and its findings will be published.

    The holding of this tribunal will frame and fuel a discussion that is urgently needed in the United States: Is the administration of George W. Bush guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity? The Commission will conduct its work with a deep sense of responsibility to the people of the world.

    The Commission is sponsored by the Not In Our Name statement of conscience, joined by the following individuals and organizations:

• James Abourezk, former United States Senator
  
  
  
• As'ad AbuKhalil, professor of politics & public administration, California State University-Stanislaus
  
  
  
• Dirk Adriaensens, Brussells Tribunal executive committee and coordinator SOS Iraq
  
  
  
• Dr. Nadje al-Ali, social anthropologist at the University of Exeter, founding member of Act Together: Women's Action on Iraq  and member Women in Black UK
  
  
  
• Anthony Alessandrini, organizer with the World Tribunal on Iraq and New York University Students for Justice in Palestine
  
  
  
• Edward Asner
  
  
  
• Russell Banks, novelist
  
  
  
• The Rev. Luis Barrios, Ph.D., associate professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice & Anglican Priest
  
  
  
• Amy Bartholomew, professor of law at Carleton University
  
  
  
• Greg Bates, Common Courage Press
  
  
  
• Phyllis Bennis, Institute for Policy Studies
  
  
  
• Michael S. Berg, grieving father of Nick Berg killed in Iraq May 7, 2004, and one man for Peace
  
  
  
• Ayse Berktay, from the organizing team of the World Tribunal on Iraq
  
  
  
• William Blum, author of Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II and Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower
  
  
  
• Francis Boyle, author of Destroying World Order and professor at the University of Illinois College of Law
  
  
  
• Jean Bricmont, Brussells Tribunal executive committee
  
  
  
• Marjorie Cohn, professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and executive vice president of National Lawyers Guild
  
  
  
• Lieven De Cauter, Brussells Tribunal executive committee
  
  
  
• Patrick Deboosere, Brussells Tribunal executive committee
  
  
  
• Michael Eric Dyson
  
  
  
• Peter Erlinder, William Mitchell College of Law and lead defense counsel, United Nations Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Arusha, Tanzania
  
  
  
• Larry Everest, author of Oil, Power & Empire: Iraq and the U.S. Global Agenda and Behind the Poison Cloud: Union Carbide's Bhopal Massacre
  
  
  
• Richard Falk, professor emeritus of International Law, Princeton, and Visiting Professor in Global and International Studies, UC-Santa Barbara
  
  
  
• Thomas M. Fasy, MD, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York City
  
  
  
• Lawrence Ferlinghetti, member, American Academy of Arts & Letters and founder & editor in chief, City Lights Books, San Francisco
  
  
  
• Ted Glick, former coordinator, Independent Progressive Politics Network
  
  
  
• Dr. Elaine C. Hagopian, former president of Association of Arab-American University Graduates (AAUG) and primary founder of the Trans-Arab Research Institute (TARI)
  
  
  
• Sam Hamill, director, Poets Against War
  
  
  
• International Movement for a Just World (JUST), Malaysia
  
  
  
• Abdeen Jabara, past president, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
  
  
  
• Dahr Jamail, U.S. independent journalist who has reported extensively from Iraq since the invasion
  
  
  
• C. Clark Kissinger, contributing writer for Revolution and initiator of the Not In Our Name statement of conscience
  
  
  
• The Reverend Doctor Earl Kooperkamp, Rector, St. Mary's Episcopal Church, West Harlem, New York City
  
  
  
• Joel Kovel, editor-in-chief, Capitalism Nature Socialism: A Quarterly Journal of Socialist Ecology, and author of The Enemy of Nature
  
  
  
• Jesse Lemisch, professor of history emeritus, John Jay College of Criminal Justice
  
  
  
• Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun magazine and author of The Left Hand of God: Taking Back America from the Religious Right
  
  
  
• New Jersey Civil Rights Defense Committee
  
  
  
• New Jersey Workers Democracy Network
  
  
  
• National Lawyers Guild
  
  
  
• National Lawyers Guild, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter
  
  
  
• Rev. Davidson Loehr, Ph.D., First Unitarian Universalist Church of Austin, Texas
  
  
  
• Robert Meeropol, Executive Director, Rosenberg Fund for Children
  
  
  
• Barbara Olshansky, deputy legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights and author of Secret Trials and Executions
  
  
  
• James Petras, professor emeritus of sociology at Binghamton University, New York
  
  
  
• Jeremy Pikser, screenwriter
  
  
  
• Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights and author with Ellen Ray of Guantanamo: What the World Should Know
  
  
  
• Stephen F. Rohde, civil liberties lawyer and co-founder of Interfaith Communities United for Justice and Peace
  
  
  
• Marc Sapir MD, MPH, co-convener of the UC Berkeley Teach In on Torture and executive director of Retro Poll
  
  
  
• Sister Annette M. Sinagra, OP
  
  
  
• State of Nature on-line magazine
  
  
  
• Inge Van de Merlen, Brussells Tribunal executive committee
  
  
  
• Gore Vidal
  
  
  
• Anne Weills, civil rights attorney in Oakland, National Lawyers Guild
  
  
  
• Leonard Weinglass, criminal defense attorney
  
  
  
• Naomi Weisstein, professor emeritus of Neuroscience, State University of NY at Buffalo
  
  
  
• Howard Zinn, historian
  
  
  

      --------
  

      The 2005 International Commission of Inquiry on War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration of the United States: Sessions take place Friday, October 21, 4-10pm, and Saturday, October 22, Noon-6pm, at the Grand Ballroom of the Manhattan Center, 311 W. 34th Street, New York City, NY.

This board will return to a dead state too

Posted By: huh? on 2006-03-10,
In Reply to: Oh, she revealed it on the Conservative Board - ??

The stupid rules have made these boards a place where only crickets chirp. Its sad that people are so childish and cannot discuss things like mature adults. This is why these boards will remain a snoozeville, because some people are not capable of mature conversation and get insulted by anyone who does not believe exactly like they do, but if you like it dead here...by all means enjoy the silence.

I watched a TV broadcast; it evoked thoughts in my mind. The thoughts irritated me. I FELT uneasy and I THOUGHT I could print the same on this board and why. This is, after all, still America despite the speech police and this is, after all still the liberal board.

I'm sorry you feel the need to throw the little personal zingers in.

I couldn't disagree more.  I think Obama is going to be torn apart if he is the nominee, more so than Clinton would.  Really, I just do not like the guy.  I think he is totally arrogant, along with his wife , and I do not believe for a minute that he is honest.  Of course, Clinton isn't either.  They're both lousy.

Yes, Ron Paul is out of the race...that's what I said, loooool.  In my opinion, he was the only person who ran that would be worthy of the presidency.

cuddle session for the cameras he can whisper it into Bush's soft, pink shelllike ear.

Too bad ignorance isn't painful.  Love those drive-by media types.  They're about as subtle as a trainwreck!

Libs are so angy and bitter all the time.  Also, let's not forget ACORN, voter fraud, the stolen election, etc.  The list goes on and on.  If McCain-Palin win, just watch what happens.  It'll be that crap all over again.

through and post every single link that has been posted on these boards in the last 60 days or so.  It's my responsibility to be an educated voter, as is yours.  Unfortunately, you didn't read my post very well or you would have seen that my beef isn't who you're voting for, it's the constant denial of both party's accusations.  I know that neither candidate is perfect, and who I choose to vote for is my choice.  My post was to gourdpainter specifically because GP seems to change her vote from day-to-day and when given the info she constantly asks for, she consistently denies it as "horsepuckey" or argues to the point of fatigue.  I'm tired of it.  Vote for who you want, but quit asking others for validation of your vote. 

I'm secure in my vote.  My reasons are my reasons.  I don't expect your approval or anyone else's when I get in that little booth.  Take your anger and spew it elsewhere.  I'm not interested. 

Too bad you can see that the post was directed to GP and not you.  I'm guessing that you just like to argue, too.