Speak Out 8/22/08

"Who Me" and city support for BBQ Fest

Sincere thanks for an interesting tidbit of information about the lack of any real city financial support for the SEMO Dist. Fair, and the Jaycee BBQ Fest this weekend at Arena Park.

Remember RIVERFEST? It is my understanding that the city gave little, or, no fiancial support for that great event either. Now, the River City Music Festival, which is just a glorious name for nothing more than a battle of the bar bands, gets financial support if my information is correct.

Great events, the SEMO Dist. Fair, the BBQ Fest, and the old RIVERFEST getting nada, and a bunch of bar bands, calling itself a music festival gets money. Odd, very odd indeed.

Makes me wonder how those millions of dollars that is collected each year through the Convention and Vistors Bureau sales tax are actually spent? Maybe some of it goes to political cronies, friends, girlfriends, or, really unimagitive people with the not-so-truthful title of "consultants," dreaming up really neat city slogans. Take the new slogan that we taxpayers paid one of the above for our new slogan. What is it now? "Where the River Turns a Thousand Tails?" Now, that is one really crappy slogan, and it only cost $34,000 (?) as part of Mayor Knutson's master plan to "brand" Cape Girardeau. Yep, a town that turns a lotta tails, that is what I sure want Cape Girardeau to be known for, far and wide. It sort of sends the almost subliminal message that you can ******** in Cape Girardeau, doesn't it? What the hell were they thinking, smoking, drinking when the mayor and the City Council accepted the slogan, and paid that bill?

Someone outght to go out and buy Lucas Conley's new book, "OBSESSIVE BRANDING DISORDER" and give it to the mayor and those other marketing wannabe no-nothings.

http://www.brandingdisorder.com/OBD/Obsessive_Branding_Disorder.html

By the way, who the hell are the Blakey's that got "congratulated" for something last weekend? Their "congratulations" were up on the Arena Park Kingshighway sign on Broadway. I passed by the park on Saturday, and it was the only thing up there on the sign. Down in the park, it looked like some group was having some kind of classic car show. Didn't know what the hell it was, if it was open to the public, or, what, because the Arena Park people thought that only having "Congratulations to Scott and Ashley Blakey" (?) was more important than informing passers by what was going on in the park that weekend.

No real offence meant to the Blakey's, but I could give a damn about the reason for their sole message of "congratulations" on the sign. I want to know what is going on in the park, not some abstract, personal hoo-hah for them.

While I am on the topic of ARENA PARK, I am a little peeved about the constant drumbeating on that sign for St. Louis events, like the MUNI and SIX FLAGS. Hell, instead of staying in Cape and spending our money here, it sends the message to pay big bucks and go to St. Louis for the weekend. No doubt, another ingenious "branding" ploy by our Mayor Knutson.

The Differrence between Iraq and Georgia

The POS-in-Chief, had the audacity to verbablly take our good friends in Russia to task for violating the "soverign nation" of Georgia. I found that odd, and a bit darkly amusing, since other recent American POS's-in-Cheif, notably Bush's father violated the soverign nation of Panama by attacking it unprovoked, and he violated the soverign nation of Iraq, by attacking it unprovoked.Clinton violated the soverign nation of Yugoslavia. Clinton, also, violated the soverign nation of Somolia, by attacking and invading it unprovoked. Oh, and he also, blew up an aspiring factory in the Sudan, which he had called a chemical weapons lab.

The current POS-in-Chief, attacked the soverign nation of Iraq, invaded it, occupied it, all of which was unprovked.

The POS Bush and his army of occupation has killed anywhere from tens of thousands to over 1 million Iraqi's, mostly civilians. His army of occupation has imprisoned over 100,000 others, and forced millions of Iraqi's to flee Iraq, or, become homeless in their own country.

In the case of Georgia. The Israeli-US trained and equipped Georgian Army recently arrested four Russian Peacekeepers in Southern Ossetia and menacingly surrounded the small Russian Army headquarters there.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90854/6432743.html

A similar tweaking of Russia's nose by those nasty little Georgians occured in 2006. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/29/georgia.russia/index.html

The Israeli-US backed army of Georgia attacked Southern Ossetia on August 08th. http://www.dw-world.de/dw/function/0,,12215_cid_3546695,00.html?maca=en-en_nr-1893-xml-atom in what many residents of Southern Ossetia and the Russians say was genocide by the Georgian Army.

Russia had no recourse but to send it's army into Southern Ossetia to protect it's small Peacekeeping force and the lives of Ossetians, most of whom hold Russian passports and are racially and culturally different than the Georgians. They prefer to be associated with Russia. http://ossetians.com/eng/news.php?newsid=371&f=3&PHPSESSID=28d1156505a6

There have been many nationwide conflicts in Georgia since the old Soviet Union disolved in the early 90's Most of the "elections" there were accompanied by civil war-type conflicts.

The recent election of the pro-Israeli, suck-up-to America-for-profit president of Georgia, was frought with fraud. Georgia is far from the shining "demoracy" that Bush and his toadie, Condi Rice claim.

The neocons have been busy since they took power with Bush in 2001. They have hastened to make former old Soviet allied countries, like Poland, Hungary, the Ukraine, Georgia and others members of NATO. So far, the Ukraine and Georgia are not, but strive to be. This has alarmed Russia as it would be ringed with countries, on their very borders, that would be potentially hostile to Russia. The neocons, not content to stop with promised NATO membership, are seeking to do the same in many of the former Russian states that end with "stan."

The neocon plan to install a missle control and detection radar facility in the CZECH Republic, and the placing of missles in Poland has drawn the greatesss response from Russia, and righly so.

Remember the US response when Russia planned to place missles in Cuba back in 1962? Why do you think that the response should be any different when Russia now faces a far more omnious threat from the neocons in the Bush regime by placing missles less than 150 miles from Russia?

About a year ago, President Putin warned at a multilateral conferance; in no uncertain terms, that Russia would not tolerate such a scheme by the Bushies.

The president has been unbelievably hypocritical in verbally attacking the Russians over their actions in Georgia. Bush is responsible for well over 4,000 American troops killed in an unprovoked war against the Iraqi people. He is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not well over a million Iraqis, the imprisonment of over 100,000 Iraqi nationals, the maiming of 30,000 American troops, the maiming of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and the dispalcement of a couple million more who fled the hostile invasion and aggressive occupation of their country. What moral ground does Bush have for critizing another nation, who has done far less, and under more moral justification for their actions, than that of this immoral president?

Then, there is the same action against Afghanistan. Another nation which has never harmed us, no matter what the current Democrat and Repbulican contestants claim as being a just war.

Yes, there are differnces between the unprovoked attack upon the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the incursion into Georgia by the Russians. Those differences do not declare the president, nor the American people who support his actions, in a moral, cleansing light. They are bathed in darkness, intrique, and deception.

"Russian mercenaries in Georgia"? Give me a break, please. Let's talk about Blackwater, CACI and other merc groups that the neocons have unleashed upon the Iraqi people.

I, for one, am very pleased to see the resurgence of a powerful Russian state and military. Perhaps they are our only hope in the battle against the globalists, facists, and neocons who have a stranglehold over this nation's government and control the world view of the weak minded, zealot American false "patriot."

Bush, Rice, Gates, they are all hypocrites. I cannot suffer the presence of hypocrites in our government. I pray for change, but I am concerned that Obama does not know, nor, intend true change. Therefore, I look for a massive change, most likely violent change in the months ahead for this nation; brought about by the people.

prudentdriver

back a couple of years ago most of the schools in the area switched to fall softball instead of spring. Our school also does the fall season.

Abortion

No one is ever going to agree on this topic, there will never be a definite solution to it. It is not about a republican or a democrat and what they did or didn't do.

kids have it easy

sure they do and back when I was a kid I had it easier than my parents did and they had it easier than their parents did. I thought the thing most parents wanted was to make life better for their kids. I still wouldn't go as far as to say that they have it easy when one area gets better another gets harder.

Me'Lange

Would love to make lunch today and catch up with everyone but finally back at work. Hopefully next week will be able to make it.

Robert Goodbody, Glad to see you are okay. Was starting to worry a-little about you.

Poppa's apology

Anyone who read your apology to Bear should be clearly convinced that it was sincere. If he would apologize to you, then perhaps this all could be put to rest and you both could continue to espouse your differing views.

You have taken on a yeoman's task in tackling the bullies of the forum. I wish you only the best in that effort.

RG

Poppa

while I am usually not on at night when the "fights" occur I will play devils advocate here and say that sometimes people just can not get along no matter what. You all three have your own opinion and you believe the way you do nothing wrong with that after all it is a free country and we all have our own opinion on things. I also think we have all taken things on here to personal at one time or another and to me it doesn't make anyone lesser of a person for doing so. You apologized that was your peace offering but you can't make someone accept an apology. Just please don't link everyone in to one category because of some. I have met Dru and Bear and personally I have no issue with either of them but that doesn't mean I always will agree with them. Guess we just need a SO boxing ring and some gloves.

poppa

no I wasn't offended. We have all said things in a heated exchange that would probably have been better off left out of the debate. Even when Babe sets me off I respect her opinion even if not agree with her views same with some others on here as well. Ignoring each others comments in the heat of exchange can help.

Bear

Sorry to hear about your wife. It is hard when you have everything else going on and then the flare ups start and seem to last. I know with my last one was afraid it would be worse but once again I got lucky still extremely tired though and went back to short days at work. Even though I started going to St Louis the neuro your wife has is great and I do still use him some for things like the last hospital stay.

By the way I am about ready for some more candles as well will get you an order within the next few days.

Abortion issue: Is no longer an issue. Republicans unpheld Roe vs. Wade by not voting to overturn it when they were in control of Congress. All it took was a simple majority vote. It would be hypocritical for any Republican or their supporters to make abortion an issue. It's a dead issue.

Actually, I think Republicans have accomplished much in eliminating abortions. It's akin to boiling a frog in wine...just turn up the heat a little at a time. Opposition to partial birth abortions caused citizens to realize how gruesome, repugnant and unnessary it is, really. Their stand has influenced PA's to bring charges of fetal death if a woman's fetus is killed along with herself. They have influenced judges to recognize that a father has choices, too, in the decision of abortion. I'm not disappointed in Republicans.

re: gold medal attention

What I find more amazing is that Phelps refused to take his ADD medication after he had taken it for a couple of years.

Just damn...nobody saved me from a funkle. giggle

Glad I had this handy. LOL!

Disgusting topic: Spinach Sandwich.

So fess up, who reported Instructor, Bear, and Poppa?

Police Cars:

I have gone into detail on the reasons "some" Police Officers are issued their own cars. ALL MSHP Officers have their own personal cars. In some jurisdictions Officers are issued their personal car and encouraged to use it on and off duty such as is done in Jacksonville, Fl as the mere presence of police vehicles cut down on crime. For the record, not all CGPD Officers have their own cars. If you disagree with the policy, first become familiar with what the actual policy is and then if you disagree, attend some meetings or contact your local councilman. If nothing can be accomplished in this manner, report any misuse of official vehicles by ANY government employee whether Police, Street Department. Police are in the spotlight because their vehicles are so readily identifiable.

Babe,

Do you mean if they fill their personal vehicles or their patrol cars? I know MSHP fills their patrol cars up at the Missouri Highway Department.

Babe,

I will have to check with my son to make sure, he does not have his own car, but I am sure he knows. I am guessing the CGPD rules are the same as described by Prudent Driver. I doubt they can take them out of town except on business, ie. investigation and prisoner transport and I do not believe Officers who live outside of the city limits can take the cars home. I worked for the state and if I ever got caught using a departmental car for anything other than business, I would have been in really big trouble.

Bethie

It's not the topic, persay, but the details that were offensive. After going into depth on the subject, I'm surprised that they didn't describe her putting the kotex on her person.

I didn't find the Miller's column disgusting although I can see how some may be offended by it. Actually I got a big laugh out of it because I remember my dad and husband both making that trip and hating every second of it.

This was taken from the Washington Post:

Officers' Personal Use of Police Vehicles Under Scrutiny

"According to this article, for many years Fairfax County's police department has had no rules with regard to how its official vehicles were used or how they far they could travel when officers were off duty. Now chief David M. Roher is warning that with fuel costs soaring and the county facing a budget crunch, the days of the taxpayer-funded personal use of police cars might soon be ending."

Babe--

I respect your opinion but disagree. I thought the column was comical...especially considering most guys dread that shopping trip. Luckily, my husband is not bothered by those constraints....he'll pick up anything he is asked to without complaint. I didn't find it to be inappropriately detailed.

Babe: At the time that I was talking about, Bush was the president, 7 of the 9 justices were appointed by Republican presidents and Congress was controlled by Republicans. But it wouldn't mattered who was president because to undo Roe vs. Wade was left to Congress only.

You said earlier that you supported what the Republicans did with abortion. Since the Republicans, by inaction, showed that they are pro-choice, does that mean that you are pro-choice?

I'm just a hillbilly and I'm just making a hillbilly observation.

Little_Mac: So all this talk of being pro-life to get Catholics into the Republican Party was not worth the risk of actually voting pro-life. I understand the deception among politicians, what I could never could understand is their supporters deceiving Catholics, their neighbors.

Actually I don't think about abortion, one way or the other it was a SO topic.

Little_Mac,

Sure does. I am sure my term would not make it past the filter.

So fess up, who reported Instructor, Bear, and Poppa?

-- Posted by Calvert_Deforest on Fri, Aug 22, 2008, 12:23 pm CDT

Easy come Easy go!!

Now I can get a word in uhhh Hello!

Little_Mac: I do find myself defending the Catholic Church at times in conversation, but as I feel now, it's doubtful that I return.

Babe: The first two years of GW's presidency.

Babe: Which brings us to the 109th Congress which had a Republican majority in the Senate of 55 seats to the Democrats lowly 44 seats. In the House, the Republicans held a majority of 231 to 202 Democrats, but still remained pro-choice.

Hilleco,

We can also add the fact that they did not abolish the Dept. of Education and the Dept. of Energy which Reagan promised to do in his reign except he didn't control congress. Those two departments as with most of the departments are useless.

The Republicans did not try to get us out of the New World Order United Nations either.

Let's also tack on the McCain-Feingold free-speech restriction bill signed by Bush and the Veterans Gun rights restriction bill he signed and the "Patriot Act" which restricts civil liberties, and the John Warner Military Commissions Act which makes us all potential terrorists, 2 never ending wars, swiss cheese borders, yada yada yada. Yep that's the New Improved Republican Party.

But the Dems are just as bad. They are both two sides of the same coin. We are pretty much s.c.r.e.w.e.d I would say.

InfoWarrior: Agree with everything you said. Very well put.

INFOWARRIOR on Ronald REAGAN

I don't know how old you are, but if you were around during Ronald Reagan's Primary Run against George H.W. Bush (41), and then for the General election of 1980, don't you think that the Ronald Reagan who campaigned so fiercely against the Council on Foreign Relations, and in the Primary against GHW Bush, whom Ronald Reagan truly hated, was much different than Ronald Reagan the president?

You brought up some often forgotten happenings during the supposed Ronald Reagan presidency. I know that at least one other here, or, who was here, beleives as I do, that something happened after they shot Ronald Reagan just a few months into his presidency in 1981. The eight years that followed, seemed to me to cast Ronald Reagan as window dressing, the front man, the talking head of the government, while the real workings and direction of that government was carried out by others who were diometirically opposed to Ronald Reagan's world view as expressed all the years of his life and especially during the campaign of 1980.

I believe that we lived under 12 years of George HW Bush and his elitist, globalist, CFR crowd of scum. Ronald Reagan was merely the show piece, while they ran the government according to their agenda and world view.

It is just my opinion, but when you consider the young man who shot Ronald Reagan, John Hinckley, jr, was the son of George HW Bush's oil company friend, John Hinckley, Sr, and his other son, according to the Rocky Mountain News, (a major Denver newspaper) was scheduled to have dinner in Denver with Neil Bush, GHW Bush's other son, the night of the attack on Reagan, it sure adds up to some might convincing circumstantial evidence. John Hinckley, Jr. cops an insantiy plea on the absurd pretext that he shot Ronald Reagan to get Jodi Foster's attention. The nation never really got to debate the merits of that absurd plea, because it would make more sense if he had shot Reagan to get his daddy's oil buddy, George HW Bush into the White House, where they felt he belonged. John Hinckley, jr, now roams the earth freely, at least on extended weekends, as this "doctors" no longer consider him to be a threat to society. The female who shot AT and MISSED Gerald Ford, spent 30 years in prison. Is her attempt to "kill" a president any less insane than Hinckley's? Shoot and miss, get 30 years. Shoot and seriously wound the president and put Jim Brady, well respected pesidential press secretary into a wheel chair, with serious brain and bodily damage, ya get unsupervised weekends to roam where you like.

Combine all that with the points that you made in the supposed Reagan years, and something smells to high heaven.

Republicans killing Republicans, or, at least trying to, what will the Bush's think of next?

REPUBLICAN CONTROL OF GOVERNMENT and the ISSUE OF ABORTION

Republicans took the majority in the US House of Representatives in 1994

Republicans took the majority in the US Senate in 1996

Republicans, more precisely, neocons took the presidency in 2001.

So, for many years, the Republcians were in the majority in the US House, and the US Senate, and held the presidency.

Also, they controlled the US Supreme Court. There are NINE justices on the US Supreme Court, seven of whom are Republicans.

Now, you can talk that crazy talk about RHINO's and "they are not really Republicans," but that is who they really are. They ran as Republicans, and their constiuents voted for them as Repbulicans. They were appointed to the US Supreme Court by other Republicans.

So, why is Abortion the red flag in front of the bull issue every two years? Why was it not addressed when the Republicans held the entire government in the majority? Well, if Abortion goes away as a campaign issue, what will the Republicans throw out there as bait every two years to get their gowing numbers of disenchanted, diseffected followers to vote for them? "Come on now, you have to vote for us, because we are pro-life, and you don't want them to win, because they will pick judges." That does it every time. If they need a kicker to sweeten the deal, they dredge us that Karl Rove brain child of "homosexual marriage." Both issues are dorminant until just a few months before an election every two years. After the Repbulcians get their votes from the dummies, those issues go away, never to be really addressed, only to be brought back out two years from then.

You have to have the bait issues for the dummies who cannot, or, will not follow the real issues, or, who begin to really think about the real issues. Then, when that happens, you wave that red flag of "abortion," before them and the dummies who have become questioners, now run to the side of a Republican, only to be screwed once the election is over.

Have you considered that it is some of you who think that you are Republcians who are not actually Republicans, but that they are?

I called the Missourian personally and told them to start requiring ALL posters post with their real names. By posting with their real names, it will stop these senseless personal attacks. As I understand it, a petition is now being drafted to either impliment a policy of using identity signatures OR discontinue the forum completely. That'll separate the mice from the men.

ok

when did they all get banned. I know we changed some responses earlier today.

Guess I have been out of the loop I knew hadn't seen pups on in a few but didn't think he was not coming back.

Semoangel70,

I think it happened about mid morning as that is when all of their posts from last night and today disappeared. I had just finished reading them and then they were gone.

I thought Pups said last week that he was out and not coming back due to the liberal bashing, may be one of my "senior moments" though.

Robert Goodbody

Hi Mike. Been a while. Hope the health is better. Even though I never agree with you, and you said my death would be meaningless, I am glad that your still alive and kicking.

Keep up the rants. I still scroll right on through...too many BIG words for my simpleton self. Thanks ME TOO and Mel.

Enjoy the Hoosier BBQ fest. My team will probably place, but with all those golf carts running around, that I paid for. I may be tempted to hijack one on principle.

Calvert

YOU called the paper and TOLD them what to do? I find that amusing since you have been a whirligig on this forum for quite some time. I think everyone can recognize your various personas by now.

thanks for the info red

By the way as you were in a form of law I am hoping you can answer a question. If a person committed a sex crime in 1981 do the have to register as a sex offender

Red

I posted for years with one of the first national bulletin boards under my real name and had no problems with doing so and I don't now. But they adhered to strict guidelines upon sign up. They allowed no hotmail, gmail or other junk email addresses and they verified with your internet provider that you were who you said you were.

Semoangel70,

There have been several successful challenges against Missouri's original Sex Offender Registration requirements. Missouri's Constitution prohibits ex-post facto laws and the court has ruled that person who were convicted prior to the inception of the registration requirements in 1995 do not have to register nor do people have to move in order to remain a certain distance from schools. An attempt was made in the last legislative session I believe to remedy this, but so far it has not happened as essentially from what I understand the constitution would have to be amended which always opens u a whole other area of concern. You might wish to clarify this with the local Sex Offender Registration person at the County Sheriff's Office as I am not an attorney.

MeLange

I hope Pups comes back from his hiatus, too. But he should know that this forum won't change for his moderate views to be accomadated, especially in an election year.

I just noticed that prudentdriver has been pulled as well!!

The Goose step has started at the Paper!!

Awww...thanks Red. I wish I had more time to post too. I'm actually getting to where I have free time...but it seems like those are the days when I come in and it's full of nothing but a bunch of toddlers pinching each other in here. Usually then I just lurk around reading and keep quiet cause I have nothing productive to say. I'm going to have to start piping in now that I'm getting more energy from the gym....it's time to get the WHIP out!! *grinz wickedly*

Red

Pups left his opus as being tired of conservative/liberal talk in this forum as his reason for leaving.

Theorist

It's not my call but as long as the actual SO comments are of a political nature then the comments will follow that path.

Babe,

Your post comes across as "moderate views will not be tolerated" we (my comrades and I) will not stand for it!

If I have misread your meaning, than I apologize, but somehow I think I am correct.

so oil is under $115. maybe it will be under $100 after hurricaine season. granted nothing crazy in the world happens...i mean like more wars are something.

alot of fuss about nothing today. if you don't like a poster don't read the post. if you read it and still don't like it don't respond. if you want to debate and someone else wants to argue don't respond.

i suspect that the paper does not want to be affiliated with the nonsense that has been taking place. this is not the first time this has happened. i appreciate educated debate (hillbilly or otherwise) as opposed to name calling.

hey rick,

cardinals 15

braves 1

bottom of the 7th

Calvert

Personal attacks vs. Real names::

Do you really think that there IS a solution to people disagreeing with each other?

Isn't that why this blog is so popular? Because its a place we can come to vent and disagree without the worry that some crazy will look you up in the phone book and commit unthinkable crimes against you because you disagreed with him.

IMHO I think those other people were pulled because they were getting close to knowing how to find each other and the paper wanted no involvement in what may have happen!! just my opinion

The Cards are hot tonite

15 to 1 with 23 hits bottom of the 8th

bob,

for the paper to be consistent it would need to require names for the SO print edition as well. much as it does for the editorials. i suspect this would lose the intended purpose of SO (to entertain).

however it is within the purview of the paper to do as it wishes and if people are offended with such and no longer entertained a change will be made.

SWBG

You think SO is just a form of entertainment? I think it's much more than that, really. It allows people to speak out on issues without reprecussions from those that might wish to muffle their voices.

Posters: I enjoy PUPS posts. SWBG is very informative on economics and the marketplace. I enjoy reading babe's posts. Me'Lange and I can almost get along. Most of you, like InfoWarrior, are well informed. But we don't always agree. I'm likely to shake while typing a response to a post that really makes me angry, so I'm better off saying nothing.

oldvet posted last night, sure wish he was back, but understand.

I don't particularly like the idea of people making threats on this blog, but just pass over them.

Just unimformed hillbilly thoughts.

babe,

from the papers perspective the value of SO is to entertain. it is not hard news as considered by a journalist. no more so than any editorial. is it educational? perhaps? but if it did not entertain few would be here. does it give a voice? perhaps only in the perspective of those who speak.

infowarrior,

appreciate the feedback. changed or not i think history dictates our views and that has a big influence on what we see now.

Hilleco

I must disagree with your post. I did not hit the button for anyone to be banned but I felt very uneasy reading the posts last night. When talking falls to the point of revealing personal information or physically threatening another person, it is time to call a halt. Evidently, from the posts, all the parties knew one another and should have taken it off the board to email, phone calls or personal visits.

SWBG

SO is sometimes much more a journialist effort than many of the 'hard core' reports from reporters on this paper. They do get grit for their so called 'news blogs' from this forum.

Here's a conspiracy theory for you. Perhaps the Missourian invents on-line personas in order to engage the posters? Like some sort of science experiment.

Calvert

You are not interesting. You are just like a wart that keeps coming back after being removed.

WHAT HAPPENED to REAl CHANGE? The post-shooting years of RONALD REAGAN?

Okay, someone made a valid point that politicians often lie to get elected and then after they are elected they change.

I don't believe that was the case with Ronald Reagan. I believe that Ronald Reagan was more of an idealogue, than he was a swarmy politician. I believe that Ronald Reagan held very deep felt convictions on what was the right path for America. He was a man that when he spoke on the campaign trail, he meant every word, and would never go back on his word. Except, until after he was shot. I believe that he was very bluntly told that "We nearly got you today. If you wish to live, if you don't want Nancy to have an "accident", here is what you are going to do."

Years ago, if someone would have told me that, I would have thought them to be some sort of flake, really on the fringe, and not dancing on this side of reality. During the alleged presidency of Ronald Reagan, I immeidately noticed some very non-Reaganesque happenings. INFOWARRIOR already named a few. Reagan wanted to ditch the Department of Education. After the election, that issue went away rather quickly. Allegedly, "Reagan" busted the union that represented the Air Traffic Controllers. Not likely for a union man himself, as president of the Screen Actors Guild. Reagan forced the Israeli's to stop, then withdraw from the Port of Beriut, Lebanon, when they had routed Assar Arifat and the PLO and had their backs against the sea on the docks of Beriut. The PLO boarded ships, with their arms, and sailed off with smiles on their faces. No, I don't think that was Reagan, it sounds a lot more like GHW Bush.

Then, "Reagan" sent American Marines to Beruit. They were there, in what had been a war zone, and was still a very hostile environment. CBS News reported that the Marines on gaurd there, had no mags, no ammo in their weapons. If attacked, they would have to take cover, open a mag pouch and click in the mag to be locked and loaded. It doesn't sound like it would take a lot of time to do so, but if attacked seconds are very precious. You are exposed, with an unloaded weapon. Kind of chilling just to think about it. If attacked, seconds is all is needed to kill your enemy if you get him by surprise. If his weapon is unloaded and he is fiddling around, unsnapping, unloosening the strap on his mag pouch, grasping a mag, pulling it out, and locking it into position, slaming the bolt home; he is a dead man. Reagan would know that. George HW Bush on the other hand, would not. He was very internationalist. I could see him and Kissinger devising a plan to send troops there, and for whatever reason, not allowing them to carry mags in the mag well of their weapon. I have a very healthy disdain, no, hatred for Henry Kissinger that goes back to about 1968. Allowing the PLO to escape the Israeli encriclement at the Port of Beruit has Bush-Kissinger written all over it. I don't see Ronald Reagan's imprint at all.

If you had called the Soviet Union, the "evil empire" as Ronald Reagan had done, would you think that Ronald Reagan would return a Lithuanian sailor to Russia, after he had jumped from the evil clutches of communism and his Russian ship while in an east coast American port? Nope, not Ronald Reagan. GHW Bush-Kissinger, yep, no doubt about it.

Ronald Reagan hated the Council on Foreign Relations, with good reason. He said that he would never have CFR members in his government if elected. After the shooting of Ronald Reagan, his government suddenly flooded with CFR members. Not Ronald Reagan at all. Most Americans were not familiar with the CFR, just as they still sleep in ignorance today. There was no real reason for Ronald Reagan to raise the issue of the Council on Foreign Relations as a campaign talking point, because most Americans would not fully understand what he was talking about unless he explained their insidiousnous to the crowd at the campaign rally. So, if there was no real reason for Reagan to campaign against the CFR, yet, he did, religiously, then why would he turn around and load up his government with CFR types? Not Ronald Reagan, but, again, GHW Bush and Kissinger, you bet they would.

Ronald Reagan absolutely hated GHW Bush and every intenationalist, globalist, elitist thing that he stood for. Why did he slink into the Republican Convention late, very late in the evening after the prime-time Television crowds had been lost, and meekly announce that his nemisis, GHW Bush would be his running mate? That is like Poppa and Bear being able to choose only one person that they wanted to go on a two week expenses paid trip to Hawaii, and they would each other. Isn't going to happen, and it didn't happen, without cohersion, in the case of Ronald Reagan picking GHW Bush as his running mate.

Remember that Ross Perot said that he had dropped out of the 1992 election during the summer, due to threats against his family by the GHW Bush people? Well, at the time, I wouldn't believe it. You know, good Republican that I was and all. However, after the GHW Bush years, and what his son, George has done to the poor Iraqi and Afghan people, I would believe it. If they would do Nine-Eleven, then, I have no doubts that they would attempt to kill Ronald Reagan.

Yes, you are right. Politicians lie. In the case of the GHW Bush-Kissinger running of the Ronald Reagan presidency, it was more than lies, it was a coup.

Uh-oh....~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Calvin

If you had any inside pull at the paper, as neither do I, then you wouldn't have been banned. You might as well cease your threats of blacklisting.

*hush* quiet Babe, someone's coming.

THE PYSCHELDELIC PSYCHICS OF WALL STREET

Bloomberg TV is reporting that Goldman Sachs is predicting oil will hit $165 a barrel by the end of this year.

It always used to amaze me how these financial fortune tellers could go on television news programs and make predictions like "WE'LL NEVER SEE $2.00 A GALLON GAS AGAIN."

How do they know, I would ask myself. Well, know we know. Since the very generious act of Senator Phil Gramm back in 2002, when he placed a bill inside legislation that was being passed in one of those midnight, mind numbing congressional sessions, Goldman Sach, BP Petroleum, all the Wall Street financial "investment" firms, now can go off shore to Dubai, Asia, and even foot loose, wide open London, and bet on the future price of oil. Since they already control a lot of oil futures, or, in the case of BP, oil futures and the actual oil, itself, they can rig oil pricing to make them huge profits on their future oil price gambling. Goldman Sachs and the others, NEVER take actual delivery of the oil when their futures come due. They quickly sell them for a huge profit, then buy some more and the cylce repeats itself.

The man who oversaw these traders in the US, where markets are regulated so such pre-Repbublican 2002 nonsense cannot happen, says that if the Congress would pull this legislation, nicknamed the ENRON LOOPHOLE, then you would see gas prices drop by half in one month. Now, think of that. The problem is not the lack of supply. It is the greed of the oil companies, the greed of the investment firms, the speculators, who thanks to their Republican friends in Congress can go off shore to gamble and drive up the price of oil, making huge profits while the rest of their country men suffer, lose their homes, fight to get by, and struggle to stay in the every decreasing middle class.

There was a news report last week, that the rich, the middle rich were not buying their trinkets like jewelry, homes, modest yachts, etc. They were holding tight. The Uber_FatCat_Rich, on the other hand, the Wall Street "investment firm" crowd, were buying $300 million dollar yachts and jewelry in the same price range.

It takes time for ______ to roll downhill. Eventually, it gets to the bottom of the hill. On the way down, that _______ is going to touch a lot of us before it makes it's full decent. I hope that you like the smell of depression. It smells a lot like _____, only the stink of poverty, and that of near poverty lasts twice as long, and stings a little.

Thank you, Phil Gramm and the 2002 Republican Congress for making the fat cat rich even more stinking rich. they couldn't have done it without you, and the Repbulican congress of 2002.

Actually, I'm capable of rejuvenating 12 times; however, my arch nemisis The Master has found a way to beat the time continuim and has unlimited amount of rejuvenations.

Doctor

Well, you've certainly died a few times in this forum.

Media is reporting that Biden is Obama's vp choice. What a wonderful day for Republicans. giggle

So here is what I suggest. All disgruntled Democrats vote for Bob Barr, and all disgruntled Republican's upset with what will soon be the McCain/Lieberman ticket, also vote for Bob Barr.

What will be the out come? We shall discovery that together.