ForumGarden

George Carlin - Politicians - YouTube

I will be as displeased with the next President as I was with the previous one, and I promise I have no idea who the next President will be. The one thing his administration will be doing is interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, a thing no US administration has any right to do and invariably cocks up because it has no military power worthy of the name.

The trouble with US intervention abroad - and at home too, but let that pass - is that thousands, tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of unarmed passive civilians die as a consequence. The inadequacy of the US military is its complete inability to inflict those deaths at first hand, merely being morally responsible those deaths by their collateral interference along with that of the US intelligence agencies. Why employ these wet-nursed barking goons if the country's not prepared to let them off their leash once they've deployed.

And, red or blue in the White House, the military and their covert colleagues will still be deployed and the unarmed passive foreign deaths will still occur in outrageous numbers.

As George Carlin says, some fool voted them into office in the first place.

Dixville Notch tied last night in New Hampshire = satanic illuminati letting us know the tie is planned.

Google Doodle showing 23 Red and 23 Blue votes for Nov 6 = angelic Google letting us know the tie is planned.

RMoney and "Obama" tied in everyghing, from voting machines results to accused, stripped and "jailed".

Only difference: only "Obama" is sentenced to death by SCOTUS.

posted 28 October 2012

WILLARD toupee RMoney will be "elected" with 60+ million votes 45th president. What happens next?

WILLARD toupee RMoney will be "elected" with more than 60 million votes 45 th president, although like McCain, he gets in fact less than 5 million people to vote for him.

An act prepared by "results" announced first as a technical draw.

Same script as "Panama canal born" John McCain, except that the remake has this role not in the loser but in the winner role.

But what happens immediately after?

All explained 1998 (1) and 2007 (2). The script is extended with the the supervised ethnic civil war as explained by Last Prophet long ago.

"Romney" will be "elected" but probably the illuminati will not have to stage another fake inauguration, with a "mistake" in oath, like with "Obama". (3)

"Romney" will probably be "jailed" shortly after the "election" and shortly after "Obama" is jailed and sentenced to "death" by SCOTUS for "the most sophisticated conspiracy ever in politics", at the start of the supervised ethnic civil war.

If indeed RMoney will be inaugurated then not only the 44th title will be stripped from "black" "Kenyan" "Hussein Obama II" but also the 44th title (or 45th , depending wether "Obama" stripped before the inauguration) of President of the USA will be stripped from toupee "Mormon" "Mitt Willard Romney".

Unlike Lance Armstrong, the stripped are not falsely accused sport champions (4).

This time the accused are just illuminati actors playing fake identities.

Unlike Lance Armstrong Tour de France titles, the stripped titles will not remain vacant

In fact both titles will be transferred to one and the same illuminati real identity, Hillary Clinton.

And as expected from the Laws of End Time Reductionism, at the end of the day, wether or not "Romney" is inaugurated and if yes wether or not that happens after "Obama" is stripped, it will not be two titles but only one and the same title that will be transferred: the title of 44th POTUS, the successor of GW Bush.

IF "elected" WILLARD toupee RMoney is inaugurated as 44/45 th president he will be stripped shortly after.

Like "Obama" not stripped from beard and moustache (5), WILLARD not stripped from toupee. (6)

Like "Obama" stripped from 44th presidential title, RMONEY stripped (again) from 44th presidential title.

Notes

(1) Billary Clinton *** HORRBLE TRUTH *** revealed 1998 - yet nobidy echoed until today

#1 since 2001

Clinton Lewinsky how it was staged - Google Search

archived first Feb 2003

Internet Archive Wayback Machine

(2) "Obama"'s role in A-plan, explained 2007:

Archived first April 2008:

The Last Antichrist: Hillary Clinton 2008 for dummies - the TWO basic facts- explained worldwide first

The 2008 October surprise script was exposed by Last Prophet more than 4 years ago: "“Obama impeached asks his crowd to elect Clinton".

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/consp ... cript.html

(3) Barack Obama Oath of Office, January 2009

Barack Obama Oath of Office - YouTube

(4) Lance Armstrong falsely accused is part of several agendas - explained 2004 for the doping conspiracy agendas and January 2009 for the rewrite history agenda

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/wide- ... -acts.html

(5) "OBAMA" makes one LAST "OSAMA" video to prove that "Bin Laden's death" is a lie

"OBAMA" makes one * LAST * "OSAMA" video to prove that "Bin Laden's death" is a lie - Christian Forums

(6) why actor Richard Jenkins alias toupee "Romney" wears a deliberaty obvious toupee in the movie "Rum Diary", 2011

*WHY* is bvious if you are well aware of it and invisible otherwise - Christian Forums

Just what I needed.

Maybe I'll apply to the Benedictines at Buckfast and resort to prayer instead of forums.

TruthIsNeverTooHorrible;1409953 wrote: WILLARD toupee RMoney will be "elected" with more than 60 million votes 45 th president, although like McCain, he gets in fact less than 5 million people to vote for him.

An act prepared by "results" announced first as a technical draw.


I note from this morning's news site that "President Barack Obama has been re-elected to a second term, defeating Republican challenger Mitt Romney".

Would you like to comment on your post from last night, in the context of the claimed result?

If that particular statement of "fact" was actually garbage, does it cast doubt on the validity of every other ridiculous piece of twaddle you've inflicted on the site since your arrival?

Would you like to start discussing with us rather than continuing to blitz the Internet with inane unreadable foolishness?

Týr;1409952 wrote: George Carlin - Politicians - YouTube

I will be as displeased with the next President as I was with the previous one, and I promise I have no idea who the next President will be. The one thing his administration will be doing is interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, a thing no US administration has any right to do and invariably cocks up because it has no military power worthy of the name.

The trouble with US intervention abroad - and at home too, but let that pass - is that thousands, tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of unarmed passive civilians die as a consequence. The inadequacy of the US military is its complete inability to inflict those deaths at first hand, merely being morally responsible those deaths by their collateral interference along with that of the US intelligence agencies. Why employ these wet-nursed barking goons if the country's not prepared to let them off their leash once they've deployed.

And, red or blue in the White House, the military and their covert colleagues will still be deployed and the unarmed passive foreign deaths will still occur in outrageous numbers.

As George Carlin says, some fool voted them into office in the first place.Advances in technology and its effects on warfare has led to an even greater disparity between national interest maximization and acts of war that can be morally justified.

The fact remains that without a cultural change in the fundamental values of the nation we'll continue to pump out gorillas that have no desire to question their moral stance when faced with orders from their "superiors".

We need to take away the fact that people view the military as merely "a job", and in the context of a capitalist society becomes even more perverted with regard to moral judgment, which will force those with the power to decide what does or does not justify war neither posses nor is given the impression that they have a complete fighting force to impulsively deploy.

Taking away monetary incentives to join the army will go along way to help with this but what is most needed is a cultural change in the ideals of the nation which I think you underestimate Obama and his potential to steer this country toward higher humanistic values that many of us feel is the ultimate point in life, regardless of income or reputation.



Let's not forget how the Republicans have used every means they found available to deny Obama's credibility and I honestly think that you will see a complete reversal of the timidness that has enveloped the democratic party of late. With the schizophrenic ideologies of the republican party at the moment I think the democrats are finally going to stomp their feet. This nation voted in a president that they feel represents their values which is a man that has more humanistic integrity than any other I can think of and it just pisses off the republicans because it threatens their pocketbook values which is exactly the causes that have led to your resentment expressed in the OP. We're moving forward

K.Snyder;1409982 wrote: I think you underestimate Obama and his potential to steer this country toward higher humanistic values that many of us feel is the ultimate point in life, regardless of income or reputation. Had he withdrawn US forces back onto American soil during his first term I would see that as a possibility but the fact is he didn't. Given that he didn't, I see no greater claim to the moral high ground on his part than from any of his opponents.

The advantage of seating one of his opponents in the White House is a headlong rush to financial collapse, after which deploying these people becomes moot. What will the US do in those circumstances? Hire them out as mercenaries to other employers?

The only option after hyperinflation is to lay them off and sell their repulsive hardware for scrap.

Týr;1409983 wrote: Had he withdrawn US forces back onto American soil during his first term I would see that as a possibility but the fact is he didn't. Given that he didn't, I see no greater claim to the moral high ground on his part than from any of his opponents.

The advantage of seating one of his opponents in the White House is a headlong rush to financial collapse, after which deploying these people becomes moot. What will the US do in those circumstances? Hire them out as mercenaries to other employers?

The only option after hyperinflation is to lay them off and sell their repulsive hardware for scrap.A complete withdrawal of every troop deployed overseas is as much as I can ask for but I'm forced to accept this will not be completed in Afghanistan until the end of 2014. Democracies must vote with the utmost faith that the candidates will reflect their ideals and aspirations upon winning office and anyone other than Obama was surely to perpetuate what I find to be an extreme issue with US foreign policy.

I think it's hard to make an immediate judgment on the principle of double effect without observing how the Afghan people will be able to handle their role once the US does complete their withdrawal. Obama obviously did not want to risk destroying what he felt was progress against al-Qaeda and the Taliban by an immediate withdrawal so the argument is whether there was in fact progress which becomes his word against yours or anyone else who wanted him to immediately withdraw US troops once he'd taken office in 2008.

K.Snyder;1410060 wrote:

........without observing how the Afghan people will be able to handle their role once the US does complete their withdrawal


Suspect the same as they did before America was even a country ?

Bruv;1410064 wrote: Suspect the same as they did before America was even a country ?I agree that any change has to come from within a culture, which is why I feel war should only be entertained only as a means to preserve a nation's sovereignty or if there is an imminent threat to the lives of other citizens within a sovereign state.

I suspect that Obama would have scaled back our military to make it much smaller yet much more effective with the primary use of special forces. This would reduce inevitable civilian casualties which is primarily the focus in this thread I believe.

Of course, this is assuming Obama would have given the order to proceed with "Operation Enduring Freedom".

Don't you see any irony in calling an armed operation in a foreign country "Operation Enduring Freedom"?

Bruv;1410070 wrote: Don't you see any irony in calling an armed operation in a foreign country "Operation Enduring Freedom"?I'm assuming this question is aimed toward myself personally.

I'll answer in this way "I agree that any change has to come from within a culture, which is why I feel war should only be entertained only as a means to preserve a nation's sovereignty or if there is an imminent threat to the lives of other citizens within a sovereign state."

I'm a democratic socialist who doesn't believe in the use of the word "foreign" unless I'm to make sense to those who use it. I only us it as a means to highlight disparities between the humanistic values that presuppose world peace. I believe I mentioned that as well when I'd said "anyone other than Obama was surely to perpetuate what I find to be an extreme issue with US foreign policy". I further relate this to "I think you underestimate Obama and his potential to steer this country toward higher humanistic values that many of us feel is the ultimate point in life, regardless of income or reputation."

It was in response to your post but wasn't meant 'personally'

I am having to read your posts several times, but luckily I think I get you now......ain't you glad?

I think you are a little confused, or that is how I am reading it.

As I understand it you believe in an international brotherhood, equality for all, plus self determination for all border less countries.

But you also appear to believe war is OK "as a means to preserve a nation's sovereignty"



Am I reading you wrong ?

Bruv;1410095 wrote: It was in response to your post but wasn't meant 'personally'

I am having to read your posts several times, but luckily I think I get you now......ain't you glad?

I think you are a little confused, or that is how I am reading it.

As I understand it you believe in an international brotherhood, equality for all, plus self determination for all border less countries.

But you also appear to believe war is OK "as a means to preserve a nation's sovereignty"



Am I reading you wrong ?"a nation's sovereignty" couldn't exist under one world order, obviously, so I'm speaking strictly with regard to humanitarian aid, whether it be food or defense. The events leading up to the attacks on 09/11 is far different than Obama immediately withdrawing troops given the state of the war when he'd gained office.

This leads us back to the question that the thread has no other choice but to pursue, which is "Obama obviously did not want to risk destroying what he felt was progress against al-Qaeda and the Taliban by an immediate withdrawal so the argument is whether there was in fact progress which becomes his word against yours or anyone else who wanted him to immediately withdraw US troops once he'd taken office in 2008."

Obviously this is the case given the context is strictly a function of "I will be as displeased with the next President as I was with the previous one" when connected with "Why employ these wet-nursed barking goons if the country's not prepared to let them off their leash once they've deployed."

Sorry I am still having problems joining up your words in an orderly manner.......my problem.

Anyway.......let me try and put into words what my one liners really meant......to me at least.

I saw the opening post to be about Obama withdrawing US troops and his failure to deliver on that promise, and whether Democrat or Republican,they are basically the same.

I shall try and ignore Truth ect etc. contribution and concentrate on yours.

I distilled your comment to mean, although you would prefer America didn't invade sovereign countries, it was better to wait till they had sorted out the damned foreigners in Afghanistan, because they wouldn't know how to cope otherwise.

I am sure there is more to it, I have cut it down to basics.

I find that to be misguided and arrogant, in that the problems that the western powers are there to correct are caused by their own earlier actions.

The Afghan/world situation reminds me of the young man who pleads for clemency due to being an orphan.The Judge has to remind him he is on trial for murdering his parents.

The rise of extremist Islam is associated to the rise in outside and unwanted influence on proud conservative countries. Influence, being tiny cultural impositions such as movie and TV entertainment, bringing cultural uncertainties, also financial, political and finally military muscle.

Every action has a reaction.

Bruv;1410148 wrote: Sorry I am still having problems joining up your words in an orderly manner.......my problem.

Anyway.......let me try and put into words what my one liners really meant......to me at least.

I saw the opening post to be about Obama withdrawing US troops and his failure to deliver on that promise, and whether Democrat or Republican,they are basically the same.

I shall try and ignore Truth ect etc. contribution and concentrate on yours.

I distilled your comment to mean, although you would prefer America didn't invade sovereign countries, it was better to wait till they had sorted out the damned foreigners in Afghanistan, because they wouldn't know how to cope otherwise.

I am sure there is more to it, I have cut it down to basics.

I find that to be misguided and arrogant, in that the problems that the western powers are there to correct are caused by their own earlier actions.

The Afghan/world situation reminds me of the young man who pleads for clemency due to being an orphan.The Judge has to remind him he is on trial for murdering his parents.

The rise of extremist Islam is associated to the rise in outside and unwanted influence on proud conservative countries. Influence, being tiny cultural impositions such as movie and TV entertainment, bringing cultural uncertainties, also financial, political and finally military muscle.

Every action has a reaction.


I don't agree.

• Terrorism is not the inevitable by-product of poverty. Many of the September

11 hijackers were from middle-class backgrounds, and many terrorist leaders,

like bin Laden, are from privileged upbringings.

• Terrorism is not simply a result of hostility to US policy in Iraq. The United

States was attacked on September 11

th

and earlier, well before we toppled the

Saddam Hussein regime. Moreover, countries that stayed out of the Iraq war

have not been spared from terror attack.

• Terrorism is not simply a result of Israeli-Palestinian issues. Al-Qaida plotting

from the September 11

th

attacks began in the 1990s, during an active period in

the peace process.

• Terrorism is not simply a response to our efforts to prevent terror attacks. The

al-Qaida network targeted the United States long before the United States

targeted al-Qaida. Indeed, the terrorists are emboldened more by perceptions

of weakness than by demonstrations of resolve. Terrorists lure recruits by

telling them that we are decadent and easily intimidated and will retreat if

attacked. (White House 2006, 9-10)

• Political alienation. Transnational terrorists are recruited from people who

have no voice in their own government and see no legitimate way to promote

change in their own country. Without a stake in the existing order, they are

vulnerable to manipulation by those who advocate a perverse vision based on

violence and destruction.

• Grievances that can be blamed on others. The failures the terrorists feel and

see are blamed on others, and on perceived injustices from the recent or

sometimes distant past. The terrorists’ rhetoric keeps wounds associated with

this past fresh and raw, a potent motivation for revenge and terror. 3

• Sub-cultures of conspiracy and misinformation. Terrorists recruit more

effectively from populations whose information about the world is

contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories. The

distortions keep alive grievances and filter out facts that would challenge

popular prejudices and self-serving propaganda.

• An ideology that justifies murder. Terrorism ultimately depends upon the

appeal of an ideology that excuses or even glorifies the deliberate killing of

innocents. A proud religion – the religion of Islam – has been twisted and

made to serve an evil end, as in other times and places other religions have

been similarly abused.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA471870

I find it odd ... no, really stupid ... when our leaders try to use all the negatives of the terrorists as justification for us to continue occupying sovereign foreign lands. "Well, they hate us, and if we left we don't know for certain that they would stop trying to kill us, so there's no point in withdrawing the troops."

Disappointing response..............sorry.

You can't start in the 90's or the 80's or the 60's.........take it back a few more years and start from there.

This is a random extract from a 95 page Thesis that starts......



"The United States is at war. It will be a long war. The Terrorist attacks of 11 Sept 2001 were the catalyst that brought the US to this war : The Global War on Terrorism"

NO it wasn't The catalyst !!!!

Only a particularly partisan point of view..............obviously.

Bruv;1410148 wrote: I distilled your comment to mean, although you would prefer America didn't invade sovereign countries, it was better to wait till they had sorted out the damned foreigners in Afghanistan, because they wouldn't know how to cope otherwise.

That's because you've been reaching since your originally ambiguous and morally relative question.

I've led the thread to the only question possible in continuing it in any sort of respectable way...

Was there progress in Afghanistan prior to Obama being elected president and is the principle of double effect morally justifiable given the circumstances of the conflict thereafter? Anyone not wishing to answer it is not contributing to the thread at all. All they do is claim moral high ground and run off in the sunset.

K.Snyder;1410189 wrote: That's because you've been reaching since your originally ambiguous and morally relative question.
My first input was to question the suggestion that Afghanistan needed to be 'solved' or 'healed' by Obama's troops presence......as said." how the Afghan people will be able to handle their role once the US does complete their withdrawal. Obama obviously did not want to risk destroying what he felt was progress against al-Qaeda".....

I said they would manage as well as before America came about.

I've led the thread to the only question possible in continuing it in any sort of respectable way...

Was there progress in Afghanistan prior to Obama being elected president and is the principle of double effect morally justifiable given the circumstances of the conflict thereafter? Anyone not wishing to answer it is not contributing to the thread at all. All they do is claim moral high ground and run off in the sunset.
That is a clever gambit, old fashioned and good.

Why not just reverse a wrong and leave ? Afganistan I mean, not the thread.

Bruv;1410192 wrote: Why not just reverse a wrong and leave ? Afganistan I mean...I just don't understand why you would think I felt any different. Nothing I'd said in this thread, or any other, suggested it in the least. My questions are sincere, which is an attempt to create an understanding for possible justifications to not immediately withdraw the troops after an obviously unjustified invasion of Afghanistan.

It's the same Aunt Sally that has no use for the principle of double effect. Anything other than bringing it up is a wholehearted attempt to goad and ridicule.

oscar;1410152 wrote: I don't agree.

• Terrorism is not the inevitable by-product of poverty. Many of the September

11 hijackers were from middle-class backgrounds, and many terrorist leaders,

like bin Laden, are from privileged upbringings.

• Terrorism is not simply a result of hostility to US policy in Iraq. The United

States was attacked on September 11

th

and earlier, well before we toppled the

Saddam Hussein regime. Moreover, countries that stayed out of the Iraq war

have not been spared from terror attack.

• Terrorism is not simply a result of Israeli-Palestinian issues. Al-Qaida plotting

from the September 11

th

attacks began in the 1990s, during an active period in

the peace process.

• Terrorism is not simply a response to our efforts to prevent terror attacks. The

al-Qaida network targeted the United States long before the United States

targeted al-Qaida. Indeed, the terrorists are emboldened more by perceptions

of weakness than by demonstrations of resolve. Terrorists lure recruits by

telling them that we are decadent and easily intimidated and will retreat if

attacked. (White House 2006, 9-10)

• Political alienation. Transnational terrorists are recruited from people who

have no voice in their own government and see no legitimate way to promote

change in their own country. Without a stake in the existing order, they are

vulnerable to manipulation by those who advocate a perverse vision based on

violence and destruction.

• Grievances that can be blamed on others. The failures the terrorists feel and

see are blamed on others, and on perceived injustices from the recent or

sometimes distant past. The terrorists’ rhetoric keeps wounds associated with

this past fresh and raw, a potent motivation for revenge and terror. 3

• Sub-cultures of conspiracy and misinformation. Terrorists recruit more

effectively from populations whose information about the world is

contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories. The

distortions keep alive grievances and filter out facts that would challenge

popular prejudices and self-serving propaganda.

• An ideology that justifies murder. Terrorism ultimately depends upon the

appeal of an ideology that excuses or even glorifies the deliberate killing of

innocents. A proud religion – the religion of Islam – has been twisted and

made to serve an evil end, as in other times and places other religions have

been similarly abused.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA471870


At the beginning of that thesis it also states:



The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student author and do not necessarily represent the views of the US Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to this study should include the foregoing statement.)

I won't waste any longer wondering HOW exactly that provides 'evidence' :wah:

And where did I say It was 'evidence '.... evidence of what exactly ?



I happened to think the author made some damn good points and I shared them.

That's what a forum Is for Is It not ? Sharing opinions that raise debate.

Where does your Aunt Sally come into it ?

I realised you thought the original wrong was not right, but when you start to qualify it, you fall into the same trap as justifying it to start with.

Does that make sense to you ?

Bruv;1410200 wrote: Where does your Aunt Sally come into it ?

I realised you thought the original wrong was not right, but when you start to qualify it, you fall into the same trap as justifying it to start with.

Does that make sense to you ? I'm going to watch some horse racing and use my new foot scrubber.

oscar;1410201 wrote: I'm going to watch some horse racing and use my new foot scrubber.


Best use your "Foot Spa" in an armchair, you dont wanna take a TV into the shower.

Bruv;1410200 wrote:

I realised you thought the original wrong was not right, but when you start to qualify it, you fall into the same trap as justifying it to start with.

Sorry, perhaps I'm not being clear enough. [I didn't think the thread needed any justifications with regard to the past since the entire context is entirely dependent on the next president but none the less...]

I'm not opposed to conflict with al-qaeda nor the taliban, especially after the attacks on 09/11 that killed roughly 3,000 civilians(Non-combatants). I'm opposed to full blown out war operations that should otherwise be treated as police actions.

"it" needs to be qualified.