Venezuela may kick US Rep out

[Ed Norton]

If this is how he felt why did he stay in for so long? Does it take 33 years to figure this out? :blink:

At least he got it. Most people today still don't.
Smedley Butler was a true American hero. Read the excerpt below.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Business Plot, The Plot Against FDR, or The White House Putsch, was an uncovered conspiracy plot involving several wealthy businessmen to overthrow President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933.

Purported details of the matter came to light when retired Marine Corps General Smedley Butler testified before a Congressional committee that a group of men had attempted to recruit him to serve as the leader of a plot and to assume and wield power once the coup was successful. Butler testified before the McCormack-Dickstein Committee in 1934 [1]. In his testimony, Butler claimed that a group of several men had approached him as part of a plot to overthrow Roosevelt in a military coup. One of the alleged plotters, Gerald MacGuire, vehemently denied any such plot. In their final report, the Congressional committee supported Butler's allegations on the existence of the plot, [2] but no prosecutions or further investigations followed, and the matter was mostly forgotten.

 

[Garfield1966]

If this is how he felt why did he stay in for so long? Does it take 33 years to figure this out? :blink: I guess his conscience kicked in about the same time as his pension.

Typically, officers (especially from his generation) do not speak out publicly against their leaders while still on active duty. They wait till they are retired to speak out. Military are trained to follow orders and not question them. That is how the military operates.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Hopeful,

Castro would'nt deal with DEMS, or the GOP.
In Chavez, I'm not so sure. I find the guy a BS "artist" to a certain extent, (though I'm prepared to be proven wrong)

As to the "GUY" in Iran, he's just a figure head.
If Iran was drawn into a war, the people themselves would revolt against the religous "rulers"
(this opinion, has been stated many times, by so called "people in the know"

As for N. Korea, CHINA would "#### slap" that LUNATIC for hindering China's "new found" success, in that region"


Garfield 1966,

I STRONGLY believe that HILLARY will be the next POTUS.
Remember, in a lot of peoples minds, they know a vote for Hillary, is ALSO a vote for BILL.
If Bill were not on the scene, I'd be singing a somewhat different tune.

Her strategy for winning is simple....A HUGE ton of (legal) $$$ money.
With a SUPERIOR carde of advisors, and staff(Guys like Rahm Emanuel, and(ugly ) James Carville(I love the guy), just to name a few, concentrate VERY HARD on the "sure states" that can deliver the needed electoral votes.(PS, it's not Ohio or florida)

Then add a VERY highly qualified, and likeable VP, like Bill Richardson/NM......then it's "OFF to the races"

Bush is "digging" a HOLE so deep for the GOP, that it may take them 20 years to recover.


NH/BB's

 

[Hopeful]

Hopeful,

Castro would'nt deal with DEMS, or the GOP.
In Chavez, I'm not so sure. I find the guy a BS "artist" to a certain extent, (though I'm prepared to be proven wrong)

As to the "GUY" in Iran, he's just a figure head.
If Iran was drawn into a war, the people themselves would revolt against the religous "rulers"
(this opinion, has been stated many times, by so called "people in the know"

As for N. Korea, CHINA would "#### slap" that LUNATIC for hindering China's "new found" success, in that region"
Garfield 1966,

I STRONGLY believe that HILLARY will be the next POTUS.
Remember, in a lot of peoples minds, they know a vote for Hillary, is ALSO a vote for BILL.
If Bill were not on the scene, I'd be singing a somewhat different tune.

Her strategy for winning is simple....A HUGE ton of (legal) $$$ money.
With a SUPERIOR carde of advisors, and staff(Guys like Rahm Emanuel, and(ugly ) James Carville(I love the guy), just to name a few, concentrate VERY HARD on the "sure states" that can deliver the needed electoral votes.(PS, it's not Ohio or florida)

Then add a VERY highly qualified, and likeable VP, like Bill Richardson/NM......then it's "OFF to the races"

Bush is "digging" a HOLE so deep for the GOP, that it may take them 20 years to recover.
NH/BB's

Keep in mind that Howard Dean had the "lock" for the nomination and ultimately Kerry got nominated.
Assuming that Bill will have a lot to say IF Hillary got elected is a pretty profound statement. Although I dislike her as a carpetbagger who came to New York knowing there would be no decent challenger for the Senate, she is, however, a smart woman who would call her own shots. She was and still is far more left than her Bill is. She would've divorced Bill a long time ago had it not been for her political ambitions. She has moved her self to the center to attain these goals. Should she win the White House, her natural left wing agenda would surface the day after election day. Personally, I think come election day, the silent majority in this country are going to come out and not vote vote for her or Obama. I really doubt it. I know plenty of liberal woman who would vote for Obama over Hillary. They just do not like her, plain and simple.

She has been given a free ride by the media until now. The closer election day comes, more of the real Hillary will become evident, as ALL the candidates will.

 

[Ed Norton]

Keep in mind that Howard Dean had the "lock" for the nomination and ultimately Kerry got nominated.
Assuming that Bill will have a lot to say IF Hillary got elected is a pretty profound statement. Although I dislike her as a carpetbagger who came to New York knowing there would be no decent challenger for the Senate, she is, however, a smart woman who would call her own shots. She was and still is far more left than her Bill is. She would've divorced Bill a long time ago had it not been for her political ambitions. She has moved her self to the center to attain these goals. Should she win the White House, her natural left wing agenda would surface the day after election day. Personally, I think come election day, the silent majority in this country are going to come out and not vote vote for her or Obama. I really doubt it. I know plenty of liberal woman who would vote for Obama over Hillary. They just do not like her, plain and simple.

She has been given a free ride by the media until now. The closer election day comes, more of the real Hillary will become evident, as ALL the candidates will.

Obama, Hillary, Kusinich, Rudy, Gingrich,Demicans, Republicrats .....Reminds of back in the day when I used to watch the con artists rip off suckers at three card monte on 40 deuce.
Keep your eye on the card... keep your eye on the card... where's the black... where's the black....suckers! :down: :down:

 

[Ed Norton]

The Original Foreign Policy


December 18, 2006

It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world.
George Washington


Last week I wrote about the critical need for Congress to reassert its authority over foreign policy, and for the American people to recognize that the Constitution makes no distinction between domestic and foreign matters. Policy is policy, and it must be made by the legislature and not the executive.

But what policy is best? How should we deal with the rest of the world in a way that best advances proper national interests, while not threatening our freedoms at home?

I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism.

Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not we that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations- entangling alliances with none.†Washington similarly urged that we must, “Act for ourselves and not for others,†by forming an “American character wholly free of foreign attachments.â€

Yet how many times have we all heard these wise words without taking them to heart? How many claim to admire Jefferson and Washington, but conveniently ignore both when it comes to American foreign policy? Since so many apparently now believe Washington and Jefferson were wrong on the critical matter of foreign policy, they should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

Of course we frequently hear the offensive cliché that, “times have changed,†and thus we cannot follow quaint admonitions from the 1700s. The obvious question, then, is what other principles from our founding era should we discard for convenience? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed and free speech causes too much offense in our modern society? Should we give up the Second amendment, and trust that today’s government is benign and not to be feared by its citizens? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights?

It’s hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify interventionist policies today. The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change. If anything, today’s more complex world cries out for the moral clarity provided by a noninterventionist foreign policy.

It is time for Americans to rethink the interventionist foreign policy that is accepted without question in Washington. It is time to understand the obvious harm that results from our being dragged time and time again into intractable and endless Middle East conflicts, whether in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or Palestine. It is definitely time to ask ourselves whether further American lives and tax dollars should be lost trying to remake the Middle East in our image.

Ron Paul

 

[FWAAA]

Stealing? Like the recent US Supreme court ruling that extends eminent domain for the seizing of private property for use other than public?

What happened at UAL? Didnt the employees own UAL? Did they choose BK reorganization? How much of UAL do the employees own now, in addition to their paycuts?
Chavez Nationalizes, the US Capitalizes. In one case it goes to the public, in the other it goes to the rich.

You apparently don't realize that even victims of eminent domain get paid the fair market value for the siezed property. Even under the Supreme Court's misguided ruling of which you complain. Granted, the owners may not like the value, but they are paid for their property.

Chavez, on the other hand, is appropriating property without any compensation to the former owners. Just like many other dictators have done throughout history.

The pilots and mechanics at UAL were the beneficial owners of 55% of UAL - ESOPs are a great tool for management to screw workers, and UAL is a great example. I'm all in favor of employee ownership of their employers, but ESOPs are a pretty lousy way of going about it. As I've posted before, it's a shame that AA's employees didn't buy more of their employer at the historic low prices of February-April, 2003. Had they done so, and held on to today, the concessions' financial impact would have been much smaller on those who bought and held. And you're right, Mr Owens, there wasn't enough AMR stock to enable EVERYONE to do that, but there was more than enough for the intelligent gamblers to do so.

But spin it however you want, Mr Owens. The US government did not nationalize UAL and make their stock worthless. Crappy UAL management did. Management that the pilots and mechanics were powerless to control.

Strong man dicator theft? Well the fact is that phone lines tend to run on private and public property, maybe he was just taking it back.

I applaud Chavez's actions and his thumbing his nose at the New World Order that redistributes wealth in such an unfair way. Even if he is a fake, hoarding wealth for himself at least he is showing the worlds people that they can say No to the direction his enemies are taking us.

W O W. My only solace is that your views are probably shared by only a tiny minority of Americans. Even the dumb-ass Democrats in Congress don't think too highly of Mr Owens' new hero, Hugo Chavez. I will applaud when we take him out, ala Manuel Noriega. Rogue dictators deserve to die via cruise missile airstrikes, and it's only a matter of time until Chavez gets his.

Edit to add: Yes, Noriega was simply arrested following a conventional invasion, not blown to bits in a tremendous explosion. But that doesn't mean that Chavez is safe from a cloudburst of bunker-buster bombs.

 

[Seatacus]

Rogue dictators deserve to die via cruise missile airstrikes, and it's only a matter of time until Chavez gets his.

Then he can meet the real Diablo.......

 

[Hopeful]

You apparently don't realize that even victims of eminent domain get paid the fair market value for the siezed property. Even under the Supreme Court's misguided ruling of which you complain. Granted, the owners may not like the value, but they are paid for their property.

And would you believe the Liberal Justices of the Supreme Court voted in favor of the eminent domain case. I thought for sure Republican appointees would have voted in favor.

http://www.ij.org/pdf_folder/private_prope...pinion-6-05.pdf

 

[Hopeful]

I saw in the News that Venezuala may ask the US envoy to leave. It seems that Chavez feels that the phone company should belong to the people of Venezuela. The US envoy rufled feathers when it was reported: "The top American envoy to Venezuela told Caracas' Union Radio the planned takeover of CA Nacional de Telefonos, or CANTV, should proceed "in a transparent, legal manner" and that Venezuela's government must offer "fair and quick compensation to the people who are affected or the owners."
Hmmm. Maybe Chavez should take a page out of US law and declare the company bankrupt, making the stock worthless or like AA threaten to declare the company bankrupt,giving them pennies on the dollar, then instead of forcing the workers to work for less under a court injunction force the phone companies creditors to continue to supply the phone company with what it needs.

Its no wonder that so many people get angry at the US. What a hypocrite to demand that the stockholders (Americans)be made whole when here in the USA companies with hundreds of millions of dollars in cash declare themselves bankrupt, cheat their emplyees and the stockholders alike and come out richer than ever before. I didnt hear any US politicians declare that the stockholders of UAL-which was employee owned, NWA, Delta or USAIR be made whole or given "fair and quick compensation".These people saw their stock become worthless and in the case of UAL then watch them issue new stock at $30/share!!!

In our Congress, you see a move from both sides of the aisle to ensure the checks and balances with respect to the presidency.
But in Venezuela, Chavez was just granted powers to do what he pleases in that country. His powers can now go unchecked.
Great system!

 

[Ed Norton]

In our Congress, you see a move from both sides of the aisle to ensure the checks and balances with respect to the presidency.
But in Venezuela, Chavez was just granted powers to do what he pleases in that country. His powers can now go unchecked.
Great system!

I see you're still sleeping...you need to wake up, brother.

 

[Hopeful]

I see you're still sleeping...you need to wake up, brother.

Sleeping?
He is already talking about eliminating term limits now that he has the power.

You need to wakeup!

Tell me again, Norton Pal O Mine! EXACTLY WHAT DO BUSH DO TO CHAVEZ?

 

[Ed Norton]

Sleeping?
He is already talking about eliminating term limits now that he has the power.

You need to wakeup!

Lets see. George Bush has had a very high number of presidential signing statements. A signing statement on a bill can change a bill to something that it was not intended to be.
A president can rule by decree with an Executive Order, especially with a sympathetic or lame congress.
Slick Willie himself was talking about eliminating term limits for the president a few years back.

Tell me again, Norton Pal O Mine! EXACTLY WHAT DO BUSH DO TO CHAVEZ?

For one Bush tried to to take him out in 2002, even though Chavez was democratically elected (albeit without U.S. corporate sponsorship). Isn't democracy what we're all about? Aren't we in Iraq to bring democracy to the Iraqui people (wether they want it or not)?
This all stinks of hypocracy. We talk about freedom and liberty, yet it has to be on our terms.
What talk about freedom and liberty, yet we as Americans have had the Bill of Rights decimated by Bush and his post 9/11 antics. How many so called terrorists have they caught since they passed the Patriot Act, started tapping our phones and reading our mail? Land of the free? Hardly.
Yes I know, move to Caracas. Nah, I'd rather go with Trixie to THE MOON!

 

[Hopeful]

Lets see. George Bush has had a very high number of presidential signing statements. A signing statement on a bill can change a bill to something that it was not intended to be.
A president can rule by decree with an Executive Order, especially with a sympathetic or lame congress.
Slick Willie himself was talking about eliminating term limits for the president a few years back.

For one Bush tried to to take him out in 2002, even though Chavez was democratically elected (albeit without U.S. corporate sponsorship). Isn't democracy what we're all about? Aren't we in Iraq to bring democracy to the Iraqui people (wether they want it or not)?
This all stinks of hypocracy. We talk about freedom and liberty, yet it has to be on our terms.
What talk about freedom and liberty, yet we as Americans have had the Bill of Rights decimated by Bush and his post 9/11 antics. How many so called terrorists have they caught since they passed the Patriot Act, started tapping our phones and reading our mail? Land of the free? Hardly.
Yes I know, move to Caracas. Nah, I'd rather go with Trixie to THE MOON!

Man, I sure hope the FEDS are watching you!

By the WAY, I don't think the US has been hit since 9/11/01...Do you?

 

[Ed Norton]

Man, I sure hope the FEDS are watching you!

By the WAY, I don't think the US has been hit since 9/11/01...Do you?

Why would you that? Don't you believe in free speech? Only if it's government sanctioned, right?
If Thomas Jefferson were alive today I'm sure he'd be on a government watch list or probably in Guantanamo in an orange jumpsuit; after all he wrote the following un-American (by todays standards)inflamatory and dangerous words:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

9/11? Nineteen cave dwellers outsmarted NORAD?What a joke! With the U.S. southern border so open that you could march a division of Chinese troops through yet no terrorists have snuck in? Please!
Oh thats right, I forgot. We're fighting terrorists Iraq so we won't have to fight them over here. I bet you buy that crock of shite too.