Flight 253 passenger Kurt Haskell: 'I was visited by the FBI'

[sirs]

Isn't it interesting to watch when the left uses "the population" to justify decisions contrary to what the Government does, but then can turn on a dime to justify what a liberal government wants to do to this country, despite overwhelming disagreement by the population

One wonders how that possibly can be reconciled

[BT]

I am not sure what the U.S. has budgeted for "homeland security," but I am sure the amount is not consistent with any great amount of popularity.

Homeland Security should be broken up. It's nothing but a jobs program and enemies of the state should be dealt with just like Uncle Joe would have done, liquidate them.

[Michael Tee]

<<Homeland Security should be broken up. It's nothing but a jobs program . . . >>

Agreed.

<< . . . and enemies of the state should be dealt with just like Uncle Joe would have done, liquidate them.>>


The enemies of the state are alright, it's the enemies of the people who need to be liquidated.

[BT]

The enemies of the state are alright, it's the enemies of the people who need to be liquidated.

The people are the state.

[Michael Tee]

<<The people are the state.>>

Sure, that's why the U.S. is in Afghanistan when nobody wants to be there and that's why there's no public option health insurance when most people want it to be there.

Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer still resonates with some folks, I guess.

[BT]

that's why the U.S. is in Afghanistan when nobody wants to be there

In October 2001, polls indicated that about 88% of Americans backed the war in Afghanistan versus 12% who disapproved.

[Michael Tee]

<<In October 2001, polls indicated that about 88% of Americans backed the war in Afghanistan versus 12% who disapproved.>>

Sept. 1, 2009, 57% of the American people opposed the war in Afghanistan.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/01/cnn-poll-afghanistan-war-opposition-at-all-time-high/

[BT]

So you think that 8 years of being in favor of the war is trumped by 5 months of being against the war even though what is driving this switch in opinion is the debate about sending more troops to Afghanistan?

[Michael Tee]

People wise up, or they learn the hard way.  A mistake is a mistake.  Whether it takes 8 seconds or 8 months or 8 years to recognize it as such is immaterial.  The American people have wised up to the mistake, and we're just marking time after their fateful realization.  Eight years of a huge mistake don't cancel the day of recognition that follows.

Your argument - - numerically balancing years of mistaken support against months following recognition of the mistake - - is ludicrous.  Would you expect them to wait a full 8 years before acting upon recognition of the initial mistake, until 8 years of believing in war could be matched by 8 years of believing it was a mistake?

My point was the divergence between democracy and the reality of your profoundly undemocratic country.  When the people were for the war, their "elected representatives" pursued it.  When the people turned against the war, their "elected representatives" pursued it more vigorously.  It's pretty clear whose interests the "elected representatives" are pursuing, and it's certainly not the people's. 

Why don't you at least have the honesty to admit that both "parties" are the face of the military-industrial complex and nobody else stands a chance in the farcical "elections" that are permitted every four years?

[Amianthus]

Why don't you at least have the honesty to admit that both "parties" are the face of the military-industrial complex and nobody else stands a chance in the farcical "elections" that are permitted every four years?

Over on the Democratic side, Halperin and Heilemann report that early in the campaign, a full year before the election, Hillary Clinton was so sure she'd win, she had already started preparing for her presidency.

"She had two top advisors start to plan her transition for after she won the general election, even before she was the nominee. That's how confident she was that things were headed in that direction," Halperin said.

What Clinton didn't realize, according to the authors, was that some of her fellow Democratic senators - whose support she thought she had - actually preferred Obama.

"The sort of mythology is that Hillary Clinton was the establishment candidate. That Obama had to run kind of a guerilla campaign against her. In fact, Obama was the establishment candidate. There were a number of United States senators, Democratic leaders, who secretly and privately encouraged him to run behind the Clinton's back," Halperin said.

Revelations from the Campaign

[Rich]

>>One wonders how that possibly can be reconciled.<<

There's no need to justify it. They left isn't interested in what they people think. As obama said, the Constitution tell us what they government can't do to you. Obama and they left are more interested in what the government CAN do to you. They believe they are the ruling elite and the people can eat cake. They know best. Just like Hitler, Moa, Stalin ...

[sirs]

<<The people are the state.>>

Sure, that's why the U.S. is in Afghanistan when nobody wants to be there and that's why there's no public option health insurance when most people want it to be there.

Bzzzzz....MOST people don't want Health Care Reform, per the Democrats

[Michael Tee]

<<What Clinton didn't realize, according to the authors, was that some of her fellow Democratic senators - whose support she thought she had - actually preferred Obama.

<<"The sort of mythology is that Hillary Clinton was the establishment candidate. That Obama had to run kind of a guerilla campaign against her. In fact, Obama was the establishment candidate. There were a number of United States senators, Democratic leaders, who secretly and privately encouraged him to run behind the Clinton's back," Halperin said.>>

Neither Hillary nor Obama could have been a serious contender for Party leadership without the prior vetting of the military-industrial complex, which through the MSM can relegate candidates to "crank" or "loser" status from the outset - - see Ron Paul, see Dennis Kucinich, see Howard Dean for that matter.  Although the exact control mechanisms aren't always clear, the end result is always the same - - "No matter who you vote for, the government always wins."  If the establishment  - - and I don't mean the Party establishment, I mean the military-industrial complex (to use Eisenhower's phrase) or the Power Elite (C. Wright Mills) - - realizes that they have a maverick on their hands (and I mean a REAL maverick, not a John McCain) then that person is choked off from MSM exposure, favourable comment from the MSM roster of talking heads, etc. and support is shifted to those "reliables" who have the best chance of beating him. 

Obama drew a lot of Wall Street support in his campaign, which should have been a tip-off then and there that this guy was no populist.  Some bloggers DID see through both Obama and Hillary, and kudos to them.  Some were so determined to oust Bush that they silenced or played down their doubts about Obama, thinking perhaps that this time, this one time, things would be different.  Hah!

Frankly, I don't see how you can have serious contests within either party between "establishment" and "non-establishment" candidates.  The term "establishment" is itself ambiguous - - there is a Party hierarchy, the top of which may be considered the "establishment" within the Democratic Party, i.e., the Party bosses, but all of the bosses work for "the establishment" in the sense of the word in which it refers not to a Party establishment but to the military-industrial complex.

I think the progressives or whatever they want to call themselves now that they're scared of the "L"-word just aren't getting their message out and that is DESPITE the radical development of communications that was ushered in by the internet.  There are entire demographic sectors that they are just not reaching.

[Amianthus]

I think the progressives or whatever they want to call themselves now that they're scared of the "L"-word just aren't getting their message out and that is DESPITE the radical development of communications that was ushered in by the internet.  There are entire demographic sectors that they are just not reaching.

Or only exist in the minds of the liberals...