JTT
 
  1  
Thu 22 Jul, 2010 02:26 pm
@ican711nm,
Nope, the information documenting US state terrorism is information straight from US government files, straight from former CIA agents who grew tired of the incredible brutality, the monumental criminality of their governments; this is what normal, moral people would do, Ican.

Sadly, you're not one of those normal, moral people.


ican711nm
 
  0  
Thu 22 Jul, 2010 03:40 pm
@JTT,
JTT, until you provide a specific link or specific links to "former CIA agents who grew tired of the incredible brutality, the monumental criminality of their governments," I will continue to believe you are merely preaching OD fairy tales in emulation of nazis propagandist, Joseph Paul Goebbels.
okie
 
  0  
Thu 22 Jul, 2010 04:00 pm
@ican711nm,
ican, if my memory serves me correctly, I think JTT may be the same one that thinks Bush brought down the towers, so I would not expect much in the way of evidence from JTT. My apologies if I am wrong about that, JTT, but I believe that is correct, which would render pretty much any of JTT's opinion posts as potentially and likely fairly useless, baseless, and fairytale like.
JTT
 
  1  
Thu 22 Jul, 2010 05:08 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
JTT, until you provide a specific link or specific links to "former CIA agents who grew tired of the incredible brutality, the monumental criminality of their governments,"...


Wear ya bin, Man?

Quote:
THE SECRET WARS OF THE CIA:

part II

CIA COVERT OPERATIONS IN CENTRAL AMERICA, CIA MANIPULATION OF THE PRESS, CIA EXPERIMENTATION ON THE U.S. PUBLIC

by John Stockwell

a lecture given in October, 1987

John Stockwell is the highest-ranking CIA official ever to leave the agency and go public. He ran a CIA intelligence-gathering post in Vietnam, was the task-force commander of the CIA's secret war in Angola in 1975 and 1976, and was awarded the Medal of Merit before he resigned. Stockwell's book In Search of Enemies, published by W.W. Norton 1978, is an international best-seller.

...

The United States CIA is running 50 covert actions, destabilizing further almost one third of the countries in the world today....

By the way, everything I'm sharing with you tonight is in the public record. The 50 covert actions - these are secret, but that has been leaked to us by members of the oversight committee of the Congress. I urge you not to take my word for anything. I'm going to stand here and tell you and give you examples of how our leaders lie. Obviously I could be lying. The only way you can figure it out for yourself is to educate yourselves. The French have a saying, `them that don't do politics will be done'. If you don't fill your mind eagerly with the truth, dig it out from the records, go and see for yourself, then your mind remains blank and your adrenaline pumps, and you can be mobilized and excited to do things that are not in your interest to do....

Nicaragua is not the biggest covert action, it is the most famous one. Afghanistan is, we spent several hundred million dollars in Afghanistan. We've spent somewhat less than that, but close, in Nicaragua....

[When the U.S. doesn't like a government], they send the CIA in, with its resources and activists, hiring people, hiring agents, to tear apart the social and economic fabric of the country, as a technique for putting pressure on the government, hoping that they can make the government come to the U.S.'s terms, or the government will collapse altogether and they can engineer a coup d'etat, and have the thing wind up with their own choice of people in power.

Now ripping apart the economic and social fabric of course is fairly textbook-ish. What we're talking about is going in and deliberately creating conditions where the farmer can't get his produce to market, where children can't go to school, where women are terrified inside their homes as well as outside their homes, where government administration and programs grind to a complete halt, where the hospitals are treating wounded people instead of sick people, where international capital is scared away and the country goes bankrupt. If you ask the state department today what is their official explanation of the purpose of the Contras, they say it's to attack economic targets, meaning, break up the economy of the country. Of course, they're attacking a lot more.

To destabilize Nicaragua beginning in 1981, we began funding this force of Somoza's ex-national guardsmen, calling them the contras (the counter-revolutionaries). We created this force, it did not exist until we allocated money. We've armed them, put uniforms on their backs, boots on their feet, given them camps in Honduras to live in, medical supplies, doctors, training, leadership, direction, as we've sent them in to de-stabilize Nicaragua. Under our direction they have systematically been blowing up graineries, saw mills, bridges, government offices, schools, health centers. They ambush trucks so the produce can't get to market. They raid farms and villages. The farmer has to carry a gun while he tries to plow, if he can plow at all.

If you want one example of hard proof of the CIA's involvement in this, and their approach to it, dig up `The Sabotage Manual', that they were circulating throughout Nicaragua, a comic-book type of a paper, with visual explanations of what you can do to bring a society to a halt, how you can gum up typewriters, what you can pour in a gas tank to burn up engines, what you can stuff in a sewage to stop up the sewage so it won't work, things you can do to make a society simply cease to function.

Systematically, the contras have been assassinating religious workers, teachers, health workers, elected officials, government administrators. You remember the assassination manual? that surfaced in 1984. It caused such a stir that President Reagan had to address it himself in the presidential debates with Walter Mondale. They use terror. This is a technique that they're using to traumatize the society so that it can't function.

I don't mean to abuse you with verbal violence, but you have to understand what your government and its agents are doing. They go into villages, they haul out families. With the children forced to watch they castrate the father, they peel the skin off his face, they put a grenade in his mouth and pull the pin. With the children forced to watch they gang-rape the mother, and slash her breasts off. And sometimes for variety, they make the parents watch while they do these
things to the children.

This is nobody's propaganda. There have been over 100,000 American witnesses for peace who have gone down there and they have filmed and photographed and witnessed these atrocities immediately after they've happened, and documented 13,000 people killed this way, mostly women and children. These are the activities done by these contras. The contras are the people president Reagan calls `freedom fighters'. He says they're the moral equivalent of our founding fathers. And the whole world gasps at this confession of his family traditions.


http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Stockwell/StockwellCIA87_2.html



And then there's Part 1,

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Stockwell/StockwellCIA87_1.html


JTT
 
  1  
Thu 22 Jul, 2010 05:11 pm
@okie,
Your memory is lousy, Okie. It's that part of you that's been raised to make unwarranted and sweeping assumptions based on the flimsiest of evidence, based on the propaganda that you've been and are daily fed.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Thu 22 Jul, 2010 07:37 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Cy speaking to Ican: Dude, do you even know the difference between Correlation and Causation?



Quote:
Now more clearly than ever, the CIA, with its related institutions, is exposed as an agency of destabilization and repression. Throughout its history, it has organized secret wars that killed millions of people in the Third World who had no capability of doing physical harm to the United States.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Stockwell/JStockwell_quotations.html


The correlation here, Cy, the one that you missed, big time, or, oooooohh, this is awful to contemplate, the one that you really actually don't care about, is that what the CIA does/has done/continues to do, marks the United States as the biggest terrorist state on the planet.

Would you care if it was your wife or her family members who were saved for democracy?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Thu 22 Jul, 2010 08:00 pm
@JTT,
Okie, you are right!

JTT's alleged evidence is from a lecture. John Stockwell gave this lecture in October, 1987. That was when Reagan was president!
John Stockwell wrote:
I urge you not to take my word for anything. I'm going to stand here and tell you and give you examples of how our leaders lie. Obviously I could be lying. The only way you can figure it out for yourself is to educate yourselves.
JTT
 
  1  
Thu 22 Jul, 2010 08:35 pm
@ican711nm,
You have a tortured sense of what's right, Ican. You asked for the evidence, you conveniently leave out,

"By the way, everything I'm sharing with you tonight is in the public record. The 50 covert actions - these are secret, but that has been leaked to us by members of the oversight committee of the Congress."

before you snuck in,

"I urge you not to take my word for anything. ... "


JTT's alleged evidence is from a lecture. John Stockwell gave this lecture in October, 1987. That was when Reagan was president!

Is this supposed to magically make all this information about the illegal CIA actions that has been supplied by the US government just disappear?

Reagan was one of the worst of the steady stream of war criminals that has occupied the White House. Kind of an ironic choice of colors for a "house" that has directed so much pain and suffering, torture, rape and murder to so many innocents around the world, doncha think, Ican?


0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Thu 22 Jul, 2010 08:59 pm
@rabel22,
I am 100% behind you, rabel. Here is a woman doing what humans are supposed to do -- improve, grow in "wisdom and grace" -- and she becomes a victim of the far right. Then the Obama administration, in its attempts to be everything to everyone on both sides of aisle, fired her.

Wait until her book is published!
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Thu 22 Jul, 2010 09:09 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I'm working on materials for the ENG 101 class I will be teaching this fall. Our text has an essay by Paul Krugman in which he writes: "Over the past 30 years most people have seen only modest salary increases: the average annual salary in America, expressed in 1998 dollars, rose from $32,522 in 1970 to$35,864 in 1999."

I have been quoting the Census Bureau states that illustrate that for 80% of the population, real wages have essentially remained flat since 1979. Krugman demonstrates the situation is worse.

Krugman went on to say,"Over the same period, however, according to Fortune magazine, the average real annual compensation of the top 100 CEOs went from $1.3 million -- 39 times the pay of an average worker -- to $37.5 million, more than 1,000 times the pay of ordinary workers."

And they sent so many jobs overseas.

Thanks, CEOs!
spendius
 
  -1  
Fri 23 Jul, 2010 03:25 am
@plainoldme,
The ENG 101 is a propaganda class I presume.
roger
 
  1  
Fri 23 Jul, 2010 03:33 am
@spendius,
Certainly seems unrelated to a low level English class.
dyslexia
 
  0  
Fri 23 Jul, 2010 07:15 am
@roger,
well, I could have used John Dos Passos USA Trilogy but no, being an academic purist I used Kurt Vonneguts' Player Piano when I taught sociology 101.
plainoldme
 
  0  
Fri 23 Jul, 2010 09:48 am
@spendius,
We appreciate your ignorance.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Fri 23 Jul, 2010 09:50 am
@dyslexia,
Are you a Dos Passos fan? I consider the USA Trilogy, taken as a whole, one of the great American novels, an unflinching examination of what America is.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Fri 23 Jul, 2010 09:50 am
@roger,
What do you know?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Fri 23 Jul, 2010 09:51 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

The ENG 101 is a propaganda class I presume.


Such a statement presumes that the statement is untrue, when it is actually perfectly true.

Cycloptichorn
plainoldme
 
  1  
Fri 23 Jul, 2010 09:52 am
Here is an interesting statement from the always interesting Jonathan Chait:

One outgrowth of the Shirley Sherrod debacle is that people have started to take note of the way the Obama administration folded like a cheap suit in the face of a half-baked accusation from a non-credible source. "It is hilarious to watch the White House scrambling out of fear for Andrew Breitbart," writes Erick Erickson. Jonathan Bernstein likewise castigates the administration's panicked response.

These observations are accurate as far as they go. But I don't think there's a generalized pattern of the administration folding in the face of right-wing attacks, credible or otherwise. Rather, the issue is that the Obama administration is, and always has been, terrified of engaging on race.

Obama's call for a "national conversation on race" in 2008 was interpreted by many people as a desire to use his campaign to alter racial perceptions. I think it was a bluff -- an attempt to remove race from the campaign, by talking about it at a high intellectual level one time, and thus to shame anybody from using race in grubbier ways afterward. It succeeded.

One interesting aspect of the Obama phenomenon, that I've noted before, is that conservatives genuinely believe that his race is his greatest (or possibly only) political asset. Both sides, in other words, have been terrified of race. I would argue that race has played an important role in conservative opposition to his policies, but mainly in a sublimated way. Rush Limbaugh's charge that health care reform was "reparations" was an explication of an unspoken belief among many conservatives that his agenda amounted to redistribution from whites to blacks.

Gradually, variants of this accusation have risen to the surface more frequently. Obama's hasty damage control when his stray, unplanned comment on Skip Gates showed the administration's concern. The absurd Fox News crusade against his alleged policy of not prosecuting blacks, and the implication of supporting political intimidation of whites, has thrown the administration on the defensive. And the administration's response to the Sherrod video betrayed its utter terror. If there is a single idea the Obama administration most fears, it is that the Obama presidency systematically favors blacks over whites.

The Obama administration is able to hang tough in the face of many right-wing charges. Anything that carries the whiff of racialism, though, and they'll run for the hills.

-----------------

And, for further consideration, you might want to read the reader responses that follow: http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/76502/obamas-achilles-heel?utm_source=TNR+Daily&utm_campaign=50c274a9e9-TNR_Daily_072310&utm_medium=email
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -2  
Fri 23 Jul, 2010 10:46 am
HOW IS THE FOLLOWING TAX INCREASE GOING TO WORKOUT FOR OUR ECONOMY?
HOW'S IT GOIN' TO WORK OUT FOR YA?
Quote:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/541131/201007211841/The-Tax-Tsunami-On-The-Horizon.aspx
The Tax Tsunami On The Horizon

Posted 07/21/2010 06:41 PM ET
...

Fiscal Policy: Many voters are looking forward to 2011, hoping a new Congress will put the country back on the right track. But unless something's done soon, the new year will also come with a raft of tax hikes — including a return of the death tax — that will be real killers.

Through the end of this year, the federal estate tax rate is zero — thanks to the package of broad-based tax cuts that President Bush pushed through to get the economy going earlier in the decade.

But as of midnight Dec. 31, the death tax returns — at a rate of 55% on estates of $1 million or more. The effect this will have on hospital life-support systems is already a matter of conjecture.

Resurrection of the death tax, however, isn't the only tax problem that will be ushered in Jan. 1. Many other cuts from the Bush administration are set to disappear and a new set of taxes will materialize. And it's not just the rich who will pay.

The lowest bracket for the personal income tax, for instance, moves up 50% — to 15% from 10%. The next lowest bracket — 25% — will rise to 28%, and the old 28% bracket will be 31%. At the higher end, the 33% bracket is pushed to 36% and the 35% bracket becomes 39.6%.

But the damage doesn't stop there.

The marriage penalty also makes a comeback, and the capital gains tax will jump 33% — to 20% from 15%. The tax on dividends will go all the way from 15% to 39.6% — a 164% increase.

Both the cap-gains and dividend taxes will go up further in 2013 as the health care reform adds a 3.8% Medicare levy for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and joint filers making more than $250,000. Other tax hikes include: halving the child tax credit to $500 from $1,000 and fixing the standard deduction for couples at the same level as it is for single filers.

Letting the Bush cuts expire will cost taxpayers $115 billion next year alone, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and $2.6 trillion through 2020.

But even more tax headaches lie ahead. This "second wave" of hikes, as Americans for Tax Reform puts it, are designed to pay for ObamaCare and include:

The Medicine Cabinet Tax. Americans, says ATR, "will no longer be able to use health savings account, flexible spending account, or health reimbursement pretax dollars to purchase nonprescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin)."

The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike. "This provision of ObamaCare," according to ATR, "increases the additional tax on nonmedical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10% to 20%, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10%."

Brand Name Drug Tax. Makers and importers of brand-name drugs will be liable for a tax of $2.5 billion in 2011. The tax goes to $3 billion a year from 2012 to 2016, then $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018. Beginning in 2019 it falls to $2.8 billion and stays there. And who pays the new drug tax? Patients, in the form of higher prices.

Economic Substance Doctrine. ATR reports that "The IRS is now empowered to disallow perfectly legal tax deductions and maneuvers merely because it judges that the deduction or action lacks 'economic substance.'"

A third and final (for now) wave, says ATR, consists of the alternative minimum tax's widening net, tax hikes on employers and the loss of deductions for tuition:

• The Tax Policy Center, no right-wing group, says that the failure to index the AMT will subject 28.5 million families to the tax when they file next year, up from 4 million this year.

• "Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly deduct, or 'depreciate') equipment purchases up to $250,000," says ATR. "This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment. In January of 2011, all of it will have to be 'depreciated.'"

• According to ATR, there are "literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place," plus the loss of some tax credits. The research and experimentation tax credit will be the biggest loss, "but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs."

• The deduction for tuition and fees will no longer be available and there will be limits placed on education tax credits. Teachers won't be able to deduct their classroom expenses and employer-provided educational aid will be restricted. Thousands of families will no longer be allowed to deduct student loan interest.

Then there's the tax on Americans who decline to buy health care insurance (the tax the administration initially said wasn't a tax but now argues in court that it is) plus a 3.8% Medicare tax beginning in 2013 on profits made in real estate transactions by wealthier Americans.

Not all Americans may fully realize what's in store come Jan. 1. But they should have a pretty good idea by the mid-term elections, and members of Congress might take note of our latest IBD/TIPP Poll (summarized above).

Fifty-one percent of respondents favored making the Bush cuts permanent vs. 28% who didn't. Republicans were more than 4 to 1 and Independents more than 2 to 1 in favor. Only Democrats were opposed, but only by 40%-38%.

The cuts also proved popular among all income groups — despite the Democrats' oft-heard assertion that Bush merely provided "tax breaks for the wealthy." Fact is, Bush cut taxes for everyone who paid them, and the cuts helped the nation recover from a recession and the worst stock-market crash since 1929.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Fri 23 Jul, 2010 10:49 am
@ican711nm,
Quote:
HOW IS THE FOLLOWING TAX INCREASE GOING TO WORKOUT FOR OUR ECONOMY?


You do understand that the last time we increased taxes, the economy subsequently skyrocketed? And the last time we cut them, the economy plummeted?

Your one-dimensional analysis is horrible, Ican.

Cycloptichorn
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1721
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.21 seconds on 07/28/2025 at 10:39:27