>> ^MarineGunrock:

@Boise_Lib

LOL butthurtz
And thanks for the linky.


Exactly.
And, as Nixon learned, it's the cover-up not the crime.

Monday, August 15. 2011

Nero in the White House
By Mychal Massie

Three significant historical events have been eclipsed by Obama: 1) Jimmy Carter will no longer be looked upon as the worst president in American history; 2) Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton will no longer be recognized as the greatest liars in presidential history; 3) Clinton's stain on Monica's dress, and what that did to the White House in general and the office of the president specifically, will forever pale in comparison to the stain and stench of Obama.

I need not spend much time on the failure of Obama as president. His tenure has been a failure on every measurable level. So much so, in fact, that some of the staunchest, most respected liberal Democrats and Democratic supporters have not only openly criticized him – some even more harshly than this essayist – but they have called for him to step down.

Richard Nixon's words "I am not a crook," punctuated with his involvement in Watergate, and Bill Clinton's finger-wagging as he told one of the most pathetic lies in presidential history, in the aftermath of Obama, will be viewed as mere prevarications.

Mr. Nixon and Clinton lied to save their backsides. Although, I would argue there are no plausible explanations for doing what they did, I could entertain arguments pursuant to understanding their rationales for lying. But in the case of Obama, he lies because he is a liar. He doesn't only lie to cover his misdeeds – he lies to get his way. He lies to belittle others and to make himself look presentable at their expense. He lies about his faith, his associations, his mother, his father and his wife. He lies and bullies to keep his background secret. His lying is congenital and compounded by socio-psychological factors of his life.

Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood.

As the stock markets were crashing, taking with them the remaining life saving of untold tens of thousands, Obama was hosting his own birthday celebration, which was an event of epicurean splendidness. The shamelessness of the event was that it was not a state dinner to welcome foreign dignitaries, nor was it to honor an American accomplishment – it was to honor the Pharaoh, Barack Hussein Obama. The event's sole purpose was for the Pharaoh to have his loyal subjects swill wine, indulge in gluttony and behavior unfit to take place on the property of taxpayers, as they suffer. It was of a magnitude comparable to that of Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski's $2 million birthday extravaganza for its pure lack of respect for the people.

Permit me to digress momentarily. The U.S. Capitol and the White House were built with the intent of bringing awe and respect to America and her people. They were also built with the intent of being the greatest of equalizers. I can tell you, having personally been to both, there is a moment of awe and humility associated with being in the presence of the history of those buildings. They are to be honored and inscribed into our national psyche, not treated as a Saturday night house party at Chicago's Cabrini-Green.

The people of America own that home Obama and his wife continue to debase with their pan-ghetto behavior. It is clear that Obama and family view themselves as royalty, but they're not. They are employees of "we the people," who are suffering because of his failed policies. What message does this behavior send to those who today are suffering as never before?

What message does it send to all Americans who are struggling? Has anyone stopped to think what the stock market downturn forebodes for those 80 million baby boomers who will be retiring in the next period of years? Is there a snowball's chance in the Sahara that every news program on the air would applaud this behavior if it were George W. Bush? To that point, do you remember the media thrashing Bush took for having a barbecue at the White House?

Like Nero – who was only slightly less debaucherous than Caligula – with wine on his lips Obama treated "we the people" the way Caligula treated those over whom he lorded.

Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.

It is quite simple:

Spreading out the wealth by any means will lead to a better economy.

Wisdom of crowds is a real phenomena (proven in millions of experiments).

Many people making economic decisions in the market will lead to better overall direction for the economy. As history has proven the greater the gap between rich and poor the worse and more volatile the economy gets.

Who is responsible for the current economic condition? The poor and the middle class? no, the money they make goes right back into the economy. So who is keeping money out of the economy and therefore stopping the exchange of goods and services from happening? The rich, the banks, and the business sector are sitting on over 1 trillion dollars each. It is clear who is responsible and it is clear that they cannot be trusted with that money considering our current economy. Why not tax them like they were taxed back in the Reagan days(or how about Nixon)? We know that the government won't be keeping its money out of the economy.

-Karl

they use HIV viruses that have been "neutered" and will not infect you.

Also hundreds of studies and experiments show cannabis cures cancer but companies are truly not interested in cures they cannot patent. It is not a cynical viewpoint it is the truth. Even the pink ribbon organization has officially stated they do not wish to endorse or even mention a cure when asked about the studies that show that cannabis cures cancer. There is a cure that the AMA and american cancer society has acknowledged since the 1970's yet people continue to suffer through chemo and radiation therapy and continue to die simply because Nixon was so anti-cannabis and the corporations would loose money if people could be cheaply cured. I am the least cynical person you are likely to find, there is just tons of evidence I found and keep finding that is incredibly sad when it comes to this issue.

-Karl

ps. If you know about this stuff it is actually quite reassuring in a personal way since cancer, diabetes, nerve damage, etc. are successfully treated with cannabis but it is very sad to think of all the people suffering needlessly.

Futurama has Nixon down pat!

"The boy clearly pressed the button as well. In no wwway did I press the button before I said "go""

Where the Buffalo Roam

>> ^paganif1:

What is this from?

Where the Buffalo Roam

In reply to this comment by paganif1:
What is this from?

i heard from an older person that Nixon scared republicans because he was so damn good at being a criminal ... gotta have some way to leash your dogs

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all
From Article:
'When President Barack Obama took office, in 2009, he championed the cause of government transparency, and spoke admiringly of whistle-blowers, whom he described as “often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government.” But the Obama Administration has pursued leak prosecutions with a surprising relentlessness. Including the Drake case, it has been using the Espionage Act to press criminal charges in five alleged instances of national-security leaks—more such prosecutions than have occurred in all previous Administrations combined. The Drake case is one of two that Obama’s Justice Department has carried over from the Bush years.

Gabriel Schoenfeld, a conservative political scientist at the Hudson Institute, who, in his book “Necessary Secrets” (2010), argues for more stringent protection of classified information, says, “Ironically, Obama has presided over the most draconian crackdown on leaks in our history—even more so than Nixon.”
...
Mark Klein, the former A.T. & T. employee who exposed the telecom-company wiretaps, is also dismayed by the Drake case. “I think it’s outrageous,” he says. “The Bush people have been let off. The telecom companies got immunity. The only people Obama has prosecuted are the whistle-blowers.” '

All right, I can see why some would be upset I called His Earness "The Obamateur."

However, my comment is based on historical precedent. Nixon almost caused Charles Manson to get a mistrial by stating off the cuff that Manson was guilty.

Punka$$ Manning is either guilty and deserves death for treason, or he's a fking fool who--much like Michael Jackson--willingly placed himself in a situation where the perception is he's guilty.

Also, for those completely in the dark, Manning is subject to the UCMJ and has only some of the protections of civilians.

>> ^Gallowflak:

>> ^bobknight33:
Its a Joke, just a joke. That was funny.

I guess the left can't take a laugh unless they make the joke.

If it was a joke, why wasn't it fucking funny? If you're going to trivialize the barbarism to which journalists are commonly exposed in their pursuit of information, you can at least make the joke a good one. That's not the biggest issue for me, though. It's that I know she was only half-joking.
I'm starting to think "the right" are mentally deficient by default, and I'm not even on the same fucking continent as you people.
Here's a thought; you won't be able to find a right-wing, mainstream party anywhere in western Europe that's more conservative than the Democrats. Your political system is a trainwreck of sodomy. You are doing something wrong. And on the right, little concepts like reality don't seem to factor into it.


Only in a few red-states (like mine, Utah) think that classical conservatism via the Republican party with Abraham Lincoln being the first elected, still think it's the same and alive and beating. They also believe that Nixon and especially Reagan fit into it's precepts. These people get A's in academia for thinking this. I won't even begin to explain as to why academia in th U.S. is full of shit as well as "Republican" followers or fellow "revolutionaries" or "jackoffs" like The Tea Party (the unfortunate rock band with that name needs to change it, or be tied with it and them--unfairly). The idiots calling it "The Tea Party" or "Neo-Con:The Second Shot Party" for us, couldn't even begin to tell you what the Boston Tea Party was for or about; they're clueless to history and if you tell them so, they believe they're only--more correct...

The party called "Republicans", died with Teddy Roosevelt.

/Every politician since the U.S. started in 1776 are turning in their graves... Except for some since prohibition--the Others™, that failed, and lead us to a near coup (Mafia wise). The U.S. state picked, history books don't bother to tell you how close it was. All it tells you is how AWESOME your state and country are--fuck everyone else except Britain when we get to the chapter called "People and Countries that make great lapdogs.".

I hope our secondary drug war doesn't turn out the same; but, ironically, it's starting to have a great potential for it. Brought to you by the people that don't read about history. Neo-Conolgy...

//dev/null

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Reagan was the prototype.


No no, Nixon was the prototype. Reagan was the first model to be mass produced.

First of all, the book is being charged because the staff members of NYTimes had to read through piles upon piles of information, sifting through the redundant text and picking out things that are actually worth of note (U.S. Diplomatic cable leak alone were over 250,000 classified cables from various U.S. Embassies).

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/over_250000_us_diplomatic_documents_released_by_wi.php

And they summarized the information they found into a book, and is charging a service fee for the work they've put in. I have no disillusions about why the book is being charged as it is called a 'service fee' and that's how a free market works, you trade in resource or capital value in exchange for goods and services.

I heard the story on NPR interviewing NYTimes executive editor Bill Keller and he explains the situation a little further than just purely relying on this little video clip for all the information on the matters involved (do some research of your own over this matter. It wouldn't hurt). It seemed that NYTimes as well as other journalistic organizations couldn't really trust this Julian Assange guy, as he acted on this hidden agenda of his own that Assange never fully reveals; an alterior motive separate from fighting against the evils of the world and taking down giant corporations.

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/01/133277509/times-editor-the-impact-of-assange-and-wikileaks

Keller also mentions his doubts against the demand for full disclosure of everything, including exposing his staff writers to the public eye to be hassled and receive death threatened from this numerous yet anonymous people. But that's another issue.

I have my own reasons to be skeptical about Assange's full motives.

http://videosift.com/video/Julian-Assange-helps-a-falling-old-man?loadcomm=1#comment-1135222

And from the looks of it the guys at NYTimes had a reason of their own, whatever it may be and have cut ties with Julian Assange. They suspected something was off with Assange, though they never fully reveal just exactly what it was. But they are a journalistic organization and I'm sure they've had plenty of research done on their part. Anyways that's what Keller suggests in his interview, and that's what most other journalistic organizations are saying as well at this point who has also cut ties with Assange.

Now I highly doubt NYTimes is doing this because they are somehow a part of the media conglomerates trying to undermine the works of Julian Assange. NYTimes may have gotten a bit inattentive over the years and let a few things slip (especially during the Bush years). But that doesn't mean they are ones to shy away from criticizing the wrongs of our society. They've took on Nixon's administration before, they've dealt with Daniel Ellsberg. It's not like this was the first time dealing with a situation like this. So there must have been a pretty damn good reason why such reputable journalistic organizations decided to cut ties with Assange.

We all have our doubts and suspicion. And as I've already mentioned I have my own doubts about this Assange guy. All I can say for now is that Julian Assange is just a human. Of course we shouldn't undermine the fact that he did a very difficult and brave thing as well as muster up quite a resource around him using his skills and talent. But when someone has a motive of their own that does not coincide with what he preaches himself to be, it creates a disconnect from its audience and raises suspicion amongst his partners. If he is working for the good of humanity, why is he censoring himself or trying to manipulate how the story is leaked? Why is he trying to make a career out of whatever that he is doing? If he is really serious about the cause, why won't he just go balls out against the government like Ellsberg did who was very clear about his intent, who gave up his career, his friends and his life, instead of going around the world putting himself on this role of elusive vigilante?

Assange is not this knight in shining armor on a white horse that you guys make him out to be, in my opinion. But perhaps he was just a curious boy who managed to climb up a tall tree and kicked the hornet's nest and watch the shit go down. While the rest of us down on the ground doesn't know exactly why or how it all happened.

I'm in and out of the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission building in Casper about a few times every month, and all I see are businessman from the petroleum industry (including Encana fucks) bitching about not getting enough permits to drill. And I don't care how much the state increases the number of permits, it's fucking never enough. They view them as a goddamn birthright. Of course these guys drive there in their Hummers, so they probably each need a well just to fill their gas tanks. I even heard one of those assholes complaining that Nixon would never have signed the Clean Water Act if he knew all the regulations it was going to create. Makes you want to scream.

*quality

>> ^Sarzy:

THEM'S FIGHTIN' WORDS. Seriously, I was obsessed with this movie when it came out. I saw it theatrically eight times, which is still a record for me. I actually bought the soundtrack, which I almost never do. I even bought the music book so that I could attempt to play the theme on the piano, even though my piano playing skills were basic, putting it kindly. I haven't seen the movie in years, so I don't know how well it holds up (I'm almost afraid to revisit it, as I'm fairly sure I won't find it as mind-blowingly great as my 11-year-old counterpart). But I know the soundtrack holds up -- there's an sense of awe and a majesty to it that I just love, and I definitely think it's among Williams' best work.
>> ^shuac:
One of Williams' least inspired scores. Get back to me when they do Superman.
My favorite YT comment: The asian kid in the white shirt with guitar was the best!


Oh come on! It's far too simplistic for me. Boring changes with a weak narrative thread (melody). I don't think it fits with the film's subject matter very well either. I don't hear much awe. I hear something similar-sounding to awe: yawn.


Look at his wins (scores that matched up very well with the films): Jaws, Star Wars, Superman, Raiders of the Lost Ark, JFK, Nixon. Nixon is especially good, so much so I bought the soundtrack. The main theme **IS** Nixon, it's that fucking good.

Anyway, it's a matter of taste and I happen to know you have excellent taste in films. You're just wrong about *this*.