http://finance.yahoo.com/news/watch-china-neocons-steinbock-141602183.html
Would Romney Win Bring Return of 'Neocons'?
By bgamall4 Follow Fri, 24 Aug 2012, 8:06am 2,761 views 33 comments
In Reno NV 89502
Watch (2) Share
Quote
Permalink Like Dislike Viewing Comments 1-33 of 33 Last » See most liked comments
|
Premium member bgamall4 is moderator of this thread. |
Follow
Befriend
38 threads
2,313 comments
They never went away.
Follow
Befriend (1)
303 threads
5,304 comments
If by Neocons, you mean that it will piss of the Liberals and they will refer to them as the party of "NO" again. Then yes probably.
Follow
Befriend
38 threads
2,313 comments
Yes- because what's really important these days is to simply forget about actually running the country. Instead, its very important to try and annoy liberals at all cost.
Follow
Befriend (14)
821 threads
2,811 comments
63 male
Las Vegas, NV
bgamall4's website
Premium
CaptainShuddup says
I guess you haven't read Pat Buchanan, a conservative who has said that the Neocons are the WAR PARTY. Wake up guys.
Follow
Befriend (14)
821 threads
2,811 comments
63 male
Las Vegas, NV
bgamall4's website
Premium
Ruki says
The theme of this thread is the return of the Neocons, the War Party. They are dangerous and mistakenly think we can fence in the Russians and that we are the only superpower. That is a fatal mistake.
Follow
Befriend (1)
303 threads
5,304 comments
bgamall4 says
Come one Gary, give me something here. You need to at least post something positive that I sink my teeth into about Obama.
We've been electing the "Default Douche Bag" for waaaaaaaaaaay Far too long.
The Liberals really need Romney to win, it is the only way(and I have ran the numbers and compiled the data, and made the charts... I made a study).
The Liberals need a serious burning this time. Then next time, they might put more stock in who opposes THEIR liberal candidate, as a contingency that THAT guy(Being Romney here) just might win.
If that makes the Liberals feel screwed, then I want them to know, they brought it upon them selves.
But at least give me something positive about Obama, why should we re-elect Obama? If it's because he's not "that GUY" that's just not enough.
Because to the other 50% of Americans, Obama is "That Guy" that we don't want another 4 years of.
Follow
Befriend (14)
821 threads
2,811 comments
63 male
Las Vegas, NV
bgamall4's website
Premium
Ruki says
Putin has already threatened to destroy construction on any Shield. Did you bother to read the article? That is your homework. Read what the conservative Pat Buchanan says about the neocon war party.
Follow
Befriend (14)
821 threads
2,811 comments
63 male
Las Vegas, NV
bgamall4's website
Premium
CaptainShuddup says
1. Avoid the possible prospect of Nuke War. Do we need more reasons? The Neocons attacked the people of the US on 911. If you don't believe that in the face of overwhelming evidence you are not trying hard enough. They are no longer fit to govern the United States.
Follow
Befriend (5)
7 threads
228 comments
Belgium, WI
Premium
CaptainShuddup says
Gawd, Cap'n ... I gotta agree with you. I will probably write your name in this year (I'm 'unelectable'). I voted for Obama, and might again. Why? Because of the hope thing. I HOPE he'll take up his first campaign promises in his second term and stop being the Republican he's been so far. Most importantly, the promise to open up government records. Liberal Schmiberals: they ain't really Liberals. I voted for Obama the first time because the 'conservatives' said he was a SOCIALIST. He ain't even a liberal. A liberal would be standing his ground based on the needs of the commons. Instead, what we have is the pseudo-liberals trying to suck the rich dry. Not the same thing at all. In order to help the commons, the commons must be able to help themselves to their own resources: THAT's socialism. Raping the rich who rape the wage slaves to candy-coat the lazy isn't liberalism: it's just pussy politics offered up to keep the illusion of authority.
Same thing with conservatives and 'libertarian' tea partiers: they SAY they want less government, but they spend their time buying gas and guns and clamoring for wars to steal other people's oil and metals through corporate enslavement by economic hit men. They don't really want to have less government, where they would be responsible for their own needs and not have smooth roads for their fake Humvees and Penis-shaped Avalanche trucks with comical plasticene bodywork.
Most of the campaign arguments are just "he said, she said" crap that doesn't have anything at all to do with real needs or the responsibilities of government and citizens. It's just a pie-eating contest held in front of starving prisoners who don't speak the language.
Follow
Befriend (1)
303 threads
5,304 comments
Auntiegrav says
Have we been drinking from the same cup?
Follow
Befriend (5)
7 threads
228 comments
Belgium, WI
Premium
CaptainShuddup says
Maybe it's the contaminated water. I hear that peroxide is good for that.
Follow
Befriend (5)
7 threads
228 comments
Belgium, WI
Premium
Ruki says
Who's really the whack job here? Someone who believes a story by a government investigative committee or someone who questions the official tale? Whether it truly as the story says, or falls under LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) or MIHOP (made it happen on purpose), there are still questions to be answered that were conveniently avoided and evidence was too conveniently disposed of.
There was a focal point for the war game schedules, intercept authority changes, and information and evidence control, and it wasn't in Afghanistan.
I recommend you wear your tinfoil hat under a helmet, as the Chinese may decide that there are too many big pieces of America orbiting the planet when the Neocons try to take over the world again.
Follow
Befriend (14)
821 threads
2,811 comments
63 male
Las Vegas, NV
bgamall4's website
Premium
Ruki says
If he did it Ruki, the Chickenhawks would crap in their pants. You know it. It is on his turf. It isn't like the Cuban missile crisis. Putin is fearless and will take the US to the brink if in his national security interest.
Follow
Befriend (14)
821 threads
2,811 comments
63 male
Las Vegas, NV
bgamall4's website
Premium
Ruki says
Well, before he died, Larry Eagleberger, a Neocon, said he fully believed that the Russians and the US would lob nukes at each other. He said it on Kudlow. This was probably circa 2011. The Neocons are madmen. Russia could destroy Europe and that would destroy the US ultimately.
Follow
Befriend (5)
7 threads
228 comments
Belgium, WI
Premium
Ruki says
Why does that always come up? Here's a better question for you: Did we get to the Moon because we were competing with the Russians?
No. We got to the moon because of socialism. Thousands of corporations agreed to put aside their differences, cooperate and establish the specifications that would have to be adhered to in order to accomplish something that was important(if they wanted to get in on the lucrative government contracts being thrown around). Sure, the contest is what set the priority, but the activities were based on finding the best way to do something and then agreeing to do it.
In the present state of anger and fear, caused both by the bullying Neocons and the Useless Democrats trying to one-up each other with speeches, we have ended up with belief systems piled on top of belief systems that people are afraid to question because they might be singled out as a "freak" without a mob of sycophants to protect them from criticism.
Are you accusing me of being a freak because I question the official story of what happened on 9/11/2001, or because you know something that wasn't published about those events that gives you special confidence in the incompetence of our military defenses?
Prior to 9/11, our Air Force and Navy did not fail to intercept and investigate threatening aircraft and hijackings within 15 minutes. ON 9/11, the system failed 4 times.
I and thousands of others have spent millions of manhours maintaining those aircraft just for that purpose, and I am surprised that there wasn't something available to shoot down at least one (the possibility is reasonable that they did).
If you're not paranoid, you're not paying attention.
Follow
Befriend (14)
821 threads
2,811 comments
63 male
Las Vegas, NV
bgamall4's website
Premium
Auntiegrav says
Correction. Antigrav is right about questioning 911. 911 was an inside job. Check out this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm
Most people do not know that the Taliban went to Texas in 1997. They then refused a pipeline to Halliburton investments giving Cheney motive for both the Afghan war and 911 to galvanize the public. He is a monster and a mass murderer.
Also on the PNAC (Neocon) website, the statement was that going to the middle east would be done quicker if a Pearl Harbor type event happened. That was posted in 2000. Cheney was a member of PNAC.
Cheney had both motive for and knowledge of 911. It is an open and shut circumstantial case.
Follow
Befriend (14)
821 threads
2,811 comments
63 male
Las Vegas, NV
bgamall4's website
Premium
Ruki says
Ruki read my post above. You are showing manifest ignorance. Even many conservatives believe 911 was an inside job. The original firefighters in the buildings said it was an inside job. There was a gag order on their comments for years. Maybe still is on. They heard explosions and detonations not associated with the planes.
Follow
Befriend (14)
821 threads
2,811 comments
63 male
Las Vegas, NV
bgamall4's website
Premium
Ruki says
Sorry Ruki, watch this:
and this:
and this showing the squibbs coming out as the explosions were timed top to bottom as the firemen said:
and this:
Now, Ruki, if you have the guts to watch all these videos you will see overwhelming evidence that 911 was an inside job.
Follow
Befriend (14)
821 threads
2,811 comments
63 male
Las Vegas, NV
bgamall4's website
Premium
And watch this Ruki:
and this:
Follow
Befriend (14)
821 threads
2,811 comments
63 male
Las Vegas, NV
bgamall4's website
Premium
If anyone watches all these videos and does not see that our government was involved, they are the tin foil wearers.
Follow
Befriend (14)
821 threads
2,811 comments
63 male
Las Vegas, NV
bgamall4's website
Premium
Ruki says
You didn't watch them. You are intellectually dishonest Ruki.
Follow
Befriend (5)
7 threads
228 comments
Belgium, WI
Premium
I thought the question was whether Romney would bring back the Neocons...
Apparently, it brings back the McCarthy-ites.
Let's all go on a witch hunt. "Give them a pitcthfork, and they think they own the bloody plaith."
I didn't avoid your question because I didn't have an answer, Ruki. I avoided your question because it was asinine.
There are about 25 people who actually believe the moon landings were faked. What is the actual usefulness of that question? Other than to use it as an insult? You don't really want to know the answers to anything. You just want to spew out rhetoric and hunt witches.
I didn't even say I thought that 9/11 WAS a conspiracy. I just said that we should question the official story. I don't know what happened. The point is that neither do you..but you're willing to use the event as justification for further witch hunts and wars and to condemn anything you feel is uncomfortable to deal with.
Your model of the universe has a very thick insulation around it, so to answer your question about tin foil hats: You don't need one. There's not much that isn't already insulated.
Follow
Befriend (14)
821 threads
2,811 comments
63 male
Las Vegas, NV
bgamall4's website
Premium
Auntiegrav says
Ruki is just afraid, as many are, to face the obvious truth that America false flagged the Towers. If Bin Laden was involved he deserved to be punished. But I don't see Cheney punished
I don't see the youngest brother of George Bush, Marvin Bush punished. He was in charge of security until the day of 911. His successor died in the attacks. Marvin Bush was in charge of the cameras that would have detected people bringing explosives into the buildings prior to 911. And his successor died on his FIRST DAY on the job.
He had questioned the administration and was not popular. He died on the first day on the job, 911.
Follow
Befriend
3 threads
2,564 comments
bgamall4 says
Do tin hats really come in your size? Marvin Bush was on the frigging board of directors of the security camera company for christ sakes. Do you have any idea whatsoever as to what a board director does or what that means? Obviously not. Then there is another small problem with your theory, Marvin Bush left the securicam board in may 2000, over a year before 9/11. What successor died in the attacks? Does he have a name?
Oh, right, he knew all about the bombing of the twin towers 1 1/2 years ahead of time and resigned. So if he had stayed on the board then he would have been part of the conspiracy since he was on the board on 9/11, but since he resigned ahead of time then he must have been part of the conspiracy since he knew ahead of time and resigned. AND he was in NY on the day of 9/11, a major implication in the conspiracy. So why should he be in NY other than to watch the results of the bombing of the WTC that he helped set up. Oh yea, he lived and worked in NY at the time, but that's certainly not a valid explanation of him being there.
See it's all perfectly clear.
Could I please, please have some of whatever it is that 9/11 conspiracy people smoke?
Follow
Befriend (14)
821 threads
2,811 comments
63 male
Las Vegas, NV
bgamall4's website
Premium
bob2356 says
His contract terminated on 911. Look it up. He was in NYC on 911. Did you bother to look at the videos above and think that you are smoking something wholesome?
Follow
Befriend (14)
821 threads
2,811 comments
63 male
Las Vegas, NV
bgamall4's website
Premium
bob2356 says
John O'Neill, an adversary of the Bush family regarding terrorist investigations in the past:
http://911review.org/Media/Never-forget-9_11.html
"Never forget that September 11 2001 former assistant director of the FBI, and an expert on terrorism,
John O'Neill (a Bush adversary) starts his first day of work at the WTC.
O'Neill replaced Marvin Bush as head of security for the WTC."
Follow
Befriend
21 comments
What the hell does this have to do with Real Estate?
Follow
Befriend
3 threads
2,564 comments
bgamall4 says
What contract? He was a company director, they get elected or appointed. His was last elected (for the 7th year I believe) in may 1999 for a term ending May 2000. He didn't stand for reelection or failed to get reelected in 2000. Securicam is a public, company, it's public record. He wasn't head of security for the WTC, he was a company director for one of the security subcontractors. I read all this years ago when the conspiracy stuff was flying hot and heavy. If you had the vaguest clue how corporations work you would see how utterly ridiculous what you are saying is.
bgamall4 says
So you are talking about O'neill not bush's successor on the board of securicam. O'neill didn't work for securicam, he worked for Kroll a totally different company. He could not have replaced Bush at anything, it wasn't the same company and Bush was never head of security. He didn't die on his first day, he started in august.
Were do you get this stuff? Oh yes, I know, the white house went in and changed all the SEC's and corporate records for every company that had any involvement at all in the twin towers, the pentagon, air traffic control, and the airlines. Only the 9/11 conspiracy bloggers have the truth. Of course. I forgot.
I've seen these videos years ago, they didn't prove anything then and I don't believe they have improved with age.
Get a life.
Follow
Befriend
3 threads
2,564 comments
jerrypap says
the topic is romney and neocons. conspiracy nuts seem to dovetail with neocons all too frequently.
Follow
Befriend
21 comments
That is my point. This site is supposed to be about real estate - not politics.
Follow
Befriend (5)
7 threads
228 comments
Belgium, WI
Premium
jerrypap says
Well, I guess the question I have that relates it to real estate is this:
IF (big IF) building 7 was demolished when Giuliani said "pull it" (rather than just pulling the team out.."you didn't build that"), then that sort of implies that the means to demolish the building was already in place. How many other buildings are pre-wired for self-destruct in order to protect nearby structures from collateral damage of uncontrolled collapse? Does it make the nearby buildings more or less valuable/risky? Should we even tell the occupants if such is the case? The owners?
At what point do the occupations in the building get evaluated in comparison to those of the nearby buildings, and where is a line drawn (if any) between the value of colocation for boring meetings vs. the risks created by colocation? Does terrorism change the outlook for industrialized cities in a de-industrializing economy, where people can just as well work via telecommuting and make the threat of terrorism less likely?
Follow
Befriend
41 threads
918 comments
Larkspur, CA
jerrypap says
Start a discussion and you will have to make this choice:
jerrypap says
This site covers lots of topics Start a discussion and you will have to make this choice:
Choose Forum:
Real Estate
FSBO
Open House Reviews
For Rent
Investing
Science and Tech
Health Insurance
Politics
Religion
Humor
Miscellaneous
Suggestions
Follow
Befriend
1 threads
213 comments
Arlington, TX
Romney has already said he will increase Defense spending and do his best to instigate war with Iran to prevent them from perfecting nuclear tech, but I think Africa is where the next wars will be fought.
Not to be all conspiracy theoristy, but
Mysterious fatal crash offers rare look at U.S. commando presence in Mali
In pre-dawn darkness, a Toyota Land Cruiser skidded off a bridge in North Africa in the spring, plunging into the Niger River. When rescuers arrived, they found the bodies of three U.S. Army commandos — alongside three dead women.
What the men were doing in the impoverished country of Mali, and why they were still there a month after the United States suspended military relations with its government, is at the crux of a mystery that officials have not fully explained even 10 weeks later.
The Special Operations Command said it could not answer questions about where the soldiers were going, nor why they were traveling with the unidentified Moroccan women, saying the matter is under investigation.
“From what we know now, we have no reason to believe these women were engaged in acts of prostitution.”
“It seems really dubious that six people died in a single-car accident. It’s just very fishy,” Gregg said in a telephone interview.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/mysterious-fatal-crash-provides-rare-glimpse-of-us-commandos-in-mali/2012/07/08/gJQAGO71WW_story.html?hpid=z1&utm_source=TomDispatch&utm_campaign=e556c26672-TD_Turse7_12_2012&utm_medium=email