Hey Admin

[ormonde]

"Ormonde was wrong about the protests starting 5 years after the war was raging....Republicans opposed it the minute JFK sent 5th SFG in in 1962"

Well I was not referring to the Republicans or the Democrats in the government itself - I was referring to actual organized "Public" protest (bi-partisan) which did indeed start roughly 5 years after the war started.

[rsquirell]

There were demonstrations (at least around the University of Washington)...but they were usually small affairs put on by communists and super-libs. Republicans generally shun such events, seeking not to be confrontational. David Horowitz was the Editor of "Ramparts" magazine which, like "The Oracle" was a Haight-Ashbury counter-culture rag. He said his parents were, and he was, a communist at that time. A SF soldier ( I can't remember his name) was a collumnist for him ( in 1966 I read the guy's book about his exploits with Project Delta). The SF soldier was very anti-war. I thought having a war you didn't try to win was stupid...but I let myself be drafted and had to reenlist to go. I wound up in an outfit similar to Project Delta ( which didn't exist in 1968.) Wars may be stupid...but they sure are fun to fight. LBJ went into politics as a poor school teacher...and came out the fifth richest President in US history...but I won't say VietNam was concocted for Johnson's financial gain....oh no.

[ormonde]

rsquirell

Just a suggestion if its possible, you might want to consider changing the title of this thread from "Hey Admin" to something more appropriate to our discussion as it might attract other curious posters who may wish to join in.

[rsquirell]

I edited the title in the first post, but it still comes up "Hey Admin". How does one edit the thread title? Rassmussen has kerry up by 2 today...and zogby has bush up by 3. Polls are funny...www.drudgereport.com Matt Drudge has a poll wrap of about eight different pollson his site.

[ormonde]

"I edited the title in the first post, but it still comes up "Hey Admin". How does one edit the thread title?"

I thought editing the initial title in your first post should have done it - apparently I'm wrong. This might have to be done by "admin", but since he said he'd no longer be posting to this thread, it may not be able to be changed. I saw the latest Zogby poll - it is interesting how much variance there is in these polls.

[rsquirell]

Remember the Govenor's dance in "The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas" while he waited for the poll results to come in? Makes you wonder about all the high Clinton poll numbers during the Impeachment that the media was bombarding us with to convince the Senate to run a sham trial. The democrats said the republicans would pay a heavy price at the polls for bringing Impeachment....but it was the democrats who've lost seats ever since. Polls are only an indicator...and shouldn't be relied on as gospel...but I can't help looking at them.

[ormonde]

I have a theory - it is a personal hypothetical idea so for the sake of fun, humor me. It is well understood that "Big Moneyed" interests are at the heart of both campaigns (its always been that way). As I have illustrated in some previous posts here, the economy as well as the international financial system is on the verge of disaster. Suppose John Kerry were to win the election (or selection) due to the "Secret" support of the financiers who control essentially everything (e.g., The G8 - the finance ministers of the wealthiest countries. You know, that secret "Nexus" of a shadow defacto world government that many speak of). The reason being that they know the real truth that the international banking system is going to blow, and it will blow a lot quicker with a Bush in office. So by ensconcing Kerry, they can slow down an inevitable crisis, then in 4 years (maybe 8 years) they can install the guys that they really favor - the Republicans that will start the whole cycle of Bush like economics all over again (that is negative debt financed consumption as a means of growth). Again, it will be a way to avert disaster in the short run. I know it may sound "Way Out", but I like to explore as many scenarios as possible.

[rsquirell]

Well...there is a lot of foriegn money pouring in ( it's easier now after "campaign finance reform" with those 544 groups...foriegners can use a front man and pour scads of money without identifing themselves.) I believe they're the ones who are sponsoring all those thugs who've been shooting up, robbing and vandalizing the republican campaign headquarters all over the country. Those don't seem to be the normal democrats I know..but then, again...look at this comment from Mrs. Edwards..

[ormonde]

"Well...there is a lot of foriegn money pouring in"

Sure there is...that's one thing that makes me believe maybe there is something going on here on a larger scale that nobody is talking about (or even "Hinting" about). Maybe the "Fix" is already in - who knows.

[rsquirell]

People all over the world stand to lose big bucks if our war on terror succeeds. The reason France, Germany and Russia opposed attacking Iraq is their high-ups were sluffing billions from the "Oil for Peace" program. The only reason the race is even close is George Soros has been pouring mega millions into an anti-war media smear for the past year. I don't think the Republic will survive another anti-american administration...we haven't cleaned up the mess from the previous one. Here's the latest from www.worldnetdaily.com

[rsquirell]

Since you don't have any vids to post I thought I'd help you out, Ormonde. This one comes from the internet http://s7.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=B5...FB009D061D4080

[ormonde]

"I don't think the Republic will survive another anti-american administration"

Well, I've never liked the term "Anti-American". Try going to Italy on the streets of Milan and accuse someone of being "Anti-Italian". They would be appalled - because they have some residue left in their heads as to how a real democratic society should function (not the kind that is just talked about). To simplify the category that the candidates fall within in the simplest terms it would be:

George Bush = Very Bad
John Kerry = Bad

So it should be obvious in the five minutes you need to devote to thinking about this is that its not a very difficult decision to make before you enter the voting booth - that is if it's a swing state, keep the worst guy out otherwise it does not matter much who you pull for.

[rsquirell]

I consider someone who actively works against his country for the enemy durin time of war Anti-American...sorry to rub your sensitivity. Kerry collaborated with the enemy in Paris (while he was still an officer), and presented their case during his 1971 Senate hearing. Until yesterday his picture hung in the Communist Hall of Fame in Ho Chi Mihn city (formerly Saigon).

[ormonde]

"I consider someone who actively works against his country for the enemy durin time of war Anti-American"

I hope that you don't mean "Actively Works" to mean "Speaks Out". I still believe in the 1st Amendment despite the Patriot Act's attempt to undermine it.

"sorry to rub your sensitivity."

Oh don't worry - I'm thick skinned...I can take it.

P.S. - I got a good laugh from the "Voting.wmv"

[rsquirell]

No...I mean actively works. Collaborating with the enemy means conspiring, plotting and scheming. By presenting their 8 point plan to release the POWs to the Senate committee, members of that committee actively challenged Kissinger ( the executive branch) who was in negotiations at that moment trying to get a better deal...and when the Senators said "Fine...we'll do it." It encouraged the North VietNamese to hold out for the full package...which probably delayed the release of the POWs another year. But what the hey, Ormonde...you aren't going to fight any war in support of this country...no skin off your nose. Blind yourself to the treachery. Making deals with the enemy is a little more than "speaking out" and "free speech".