RocketMan » Sat Nov 05, 2016 9:52 am wrote:Okay, slad, so what exactly is the range of opinions that is acceptable to you? What criticism of Clinton is okay and what is beyond the pale?
I'm sorry but you're just coming off as shrill and panicky. Make no mistake, the rest of us are scared as well, but perhaps many do not see this election as the precipitating event that you clearly do.
Just... please don't condescend. Sorry to see that this is the way you manage cognitive dissonance.
when someone uses fucking Drudge ...way too easy to condescend....I'd say it's not condescending...I'd say it's just plain stupid
I'm not panicky or shrill (not fond of the misogyny here and it's not going to push me off this board ....way too much of that please stop...it's really getting old )
just the fucking truth
it would be nice if someone understood the law here before they went off on "What's going to happen"
it's not that difficult to have a working understanding of U.S. law.....there is the google machine
The Long, Sexist History of ‘Shrill’ Women
Last edited by seemslikeadream on Sat Nov 05, 2016 3:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started. They could still get him out of office. But instead, they want mass death. Don’t forget that.
Your antiquated arsenal of gendered insults never fails to make me cringe, bud.
Clinton is a bureaucrat, far worse than any witch. Witches are, in general, pretty cool human beings.
I agree. I dated a witch for a while and hung out with her witch friends. Wiccans. Coolest people I ever met. Salt of the earth type people that wouldn't hurt a fly. I apologize for the misspeak. I should know better to phrase it that way considering that I once dated a witch.
"A mind stretched by a new idea can never return to it's original dimensions." Oliver Wendell Holmes
witch ....another lovely sexist word...just can't get enough...yummy
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started. They could still get him out of office. But instead, they want mass death. Don’t forget that.
Interesting is the relatively recent development in conspiracy lore, really brought into focus and come to a full circle of sorts in this overlong election cycle. I recall a time when the GOP's job was red-baiting and it was GHWB who sacrificed children at the altar of Magog. This has been the problem I have with conspiracy culture as it relates to US politics: it fails to recognize the unified purpose behind all the bluster.
backtoiam » Sat Nov 05, 2016 4:14 am wrote:The uranium deal. Hillary sold the Russians one fifth of U.S. uranium, which can be used to make a nuclear bomb, and is now blaming them for wanting to start a nuclear war, hacking everything, etc...ain't that a kick in the pantsuit. This witch sold uranium to the Russians. Let that sink in.
Today WikiLeaks begins its series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also controls the Podesta Group, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank. Part 1 of the Podesta Emails comprises 2,060 emails and 170 attachments and focuses on Mr Podesta's communications relating to nuclear energy, and media handling over donations to the Clinton Foundation from mining and nuclear interests; 1,244 of the emails reference nuclear energy. The full collection includes emails to and from Hillary Clinton.
In April 2015 the New York Times published a story about a company called "Uranium One" which was sold to Russian government-controlled interests, giving Russia effective control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for the production of nuclear weapons, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of US government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off the deal was the State Department, then headed by Secretary Clinton. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) comprises, among others, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy.
As Russian interests gradually took control of Uranium One millions of dollars were donated to the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from individuals directly connected to the deal including the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer. Although Mrs Clinton had an agreement with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of Uranium One were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons.
When the New York Times article was published the Clinton campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, strongly rejected the possibility that then-Secretary Clinton exerted any influence in the US goverment's review of the sale of Uranium One, describing this possibility as "baseless".
Mr Fallon promptly sent a memo to the New York Times with a rebuttal of the story (Podesta Email ID 1489).
In this memo, Mr Fallon argued: "Apart from the fact that the State Department was one of just nine agencies involved in CFIUS, it is also true that within the State Department, the CFIUS approval process historically does not trigger the personal involvement of the Secretary of State. The State Department’s principal representative to CFIUS was the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs. During the time period in question, that position was held by Jose Fernandez. As you are aware, Mr Fernandez has personally attested that “Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter.”
What the Clinton campaign spokesman failed to disclose, however, was the fact that a few days before sending his rebuttal to the New York Times, Jose Fernandez wrote on the evening of the 17 April 2015 to John Podesta following a phone call from Mr Podesta (Email ID 2053): "John, It was good to talk to you this afternoon, and I appreciate your taking the time to call. As I mentioned, I would like to do all I can to support Secretary Clinton, and would welcome your advice and help in steering me to the right persons in the campaign".
Five days after this email (22 April 2015), Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon wrote a memo to the New York Times, declaring that "Jose Fernandez has personally attested that 'Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter',” but Fallon failed to mention that Fernandez was hardly a neutral witness in this case, considering that he had agreed with John Podesta to play a role in the Clinton campaign.
The emails show that the contacts between John Podesta and Jose Fernandez go back to the time of internal Clinton campaign concern about the then-forthcoming book and movie "Clinton Cash" by Peter Schweizer on the financial dealings of the Clinton Foundation.
In an email dated 29 March 2015 (Email ID 2059), Jose Fernandez writes to Podesta: "Hi John, I trust you are getting a brief rest after a job well done. Thanks no doubt to your recommendation I have joined the CAP [Center for American Progress] board of trustees, which I'm finding extremely rewarding."
Same crap a year later from btiam. If you took the time to actually research Uranium One you would be aware of its history and evolution. You did this in the Bundy Malheur Occupation thread and I debunked it then. Do you ever really learn?
Edited to add,
Claim like these are only made by people completely ignorant of our cooperative agreements with Russia dealing with nuclear weapons, its raw materials and nuclear wastes.
Canada's been trying to dump their highly radioactive liquid waste in the US for two years and you're good with that, right, btia? Any other politicians selling our natural resources to foreigners? I'd imagine so. I think they call that "commerce" or "capitalism" or something like that.
Last edited by Iamwhomiam on Sat Nov 05, 2016 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Same crap a year later from btiam. If you took the time to actually research Uranium One you would be aware of its history and evolution. You did this in the Bundy Malheur Occupation thread and I debunked it then. Do you ever really learn?
I disagree with you and I do not trust Snopes. It is that simple.
"A mind stretched by a new idea can never return to it's original dimensions." Oliver Wendell Holmes
Whistleblower Julian Assange has given one of his most incendiary interviews ever in a John Pilger Special, courtesy of Dartmouth Films, in which he summarizes what can be gleaned from the tens of thousands of Clinton emails released by WikiLeaks this year.
John Pilger, another Australian émigré, conducted the 25-minute interview at the Ecuadorian Embassy, where Assange has been trapped since 2012 for fear of extradition to the US. Last month, Assange had his internet access cut off for alleged “interference” in the American presidential election through the work of his website. ‘Clinton made FBI look weak, now there is anger’
John Pilger: What’s the significance of the FBI's intervention in these last days of the U.S. election campaign, in the case against Hillary Clinton?
Julian Assange: If you look at the history of the FBI, it has become effectively America's political police. The FBI demonstrated this by taking down the former head of the CIA [General David Petraeus] over classified information given to his mistress. Almost no-one is untouchable. The FBI is always trying to demonstrate that no-one can resist us. But Hillary Clinton very conspicuously resisted the FBI's investigation, so there’s anger within the FBI because it made the FBI look weak. We've published about 33,000 of Clinton's emails when she was Secretary of State. They come from a batch of just over 60,000 emails, [of which] Clinton has kept about half – 30,000 -- to herself, and we've published about half.
Then there are the Podesta emails we've been publishing. [John] Podesta is Hillary Clinton’s primary campaign manager, so there’s a thread that runs through all these emails; there are quite a lot of pay-for-play, as they call it, giving access in exchange for money to states, individuals and corporations. [These emails are] combined with the cover up of the Hillary Clinton emails when she was Secretary of State, [which] has led to an environment where the pressure on the FBI increases. ‘Russian government not the source of Clinton leaks’
JP: The Clinton campaign has said that Russia is behind all of this, that Russia has manipulated the campaign and is the source for WikiLeaks and its emails.
JA: The Clinton camp has been able to project that kind of neo-McCarthy hysteria: that Russia is responsible for everything. Hilary Clinton stated multiple times, falsely, that seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our publications. That is false; we can say that the Russian government is not the source.
WikiLeaks has been publishing for ten years, and in those ten years, we have published ten million documents, several thousand individual publications, several thousand different sources, and we have never got it wrong. ‘Saudi Arabia & Qatar funding ISIS and Clinton’
JP: The emails that give evidence of access for money and how Hillary Clinton herself benefited from this and how she is benefitting politically, are quite extraordinary. I’m thinking of when the Qatari representative was given five minutes with Bill Clinton for a million dollar cheque.
JA: And twelve million dollars from Morocco …
JP: Twelve million from Morocco yeah.
JA: For Hillary Clinton to attend [a party].
JP: In terms of the foreign policy of the United States, that’s where the emails are most revealing, where they show the direct connection between Hillary Clinton and the foundation of jihadism, of ISIL, in the Middle East. Can you talk about how the emails demonstrate the connection between those who are meant to be fighting the jihadists of ISIL, are actually those who have helped create it.
JA: There’s an early 2014 email from Hillary Clinton, not so long after she left the State Department, to her campaign manager John Podesta that states ISIL is funded by the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Now this is the most significant email in the whole collection, and perhaps because Saudi and Qatari money is spread all over the Clinton Foundation. Even the U.S. government agrees that some Saudi figures have been supporting ISIL, or ISIS. But the dodge has always been that, well it’s just some rogue Princes, using their cut of the oil money to do whatever they like, but actually the government disapproves.
But that email says that no, it is the governments of Saudi and Qatar that have been funding ISIS.
JP: The Saudis, the Qataris, the Moroccans, the Bahrainis, particularly the Saudis and the Qataris, are giving all this money to the Clinton Foundation while Hilary Clinton is Secretary of State and the State Department is approving massive arms sales, particularly to Saudi Arabia.
JA: Under Hillary Clinton, the world’s largest ever arms deal was made with Saudi Arabia, [worth] more than $80 billion. In fact, during her tenure as Secretary of State, total arms exports from the United States in terms of the dollar value, doubled.
JP: Of course the consequence of that is that the notorious terrorist group called ISIl or ISIS is created largely with money from the very people who are giving money to the Clinton Foundation.
JA: Yes.
JP:That's extraordinary. ‘Clinton has been eaten alive by her ambition’
JA: I actually feel quite sorry for Hillary Clinton as a person because I see someone who is eaten alive by their ambitions, tormented literally to the point where they become sick; they faint as a result of [the reaction] to their ambitions. She represents a whole network of people and a network of relationships with particular states. The question is how does Hilary Clinton fit in this broader network? She's a centralising cog. You’ve got a lot of different gears in operation from the big banks like Goldman Sachs and major elements of Wall Street, and Intelligence and people in the State Department and the Saudis.
She’s the centraliser that inter-connects all these different cogs. She’s the smooth central representation of all that, and ‘all that’ is more or less what is in power now in the United States. It’s what we call the establishment or the DC consensus. One of the more significant Podesta emails that we released was about how the Obama cabinet was formed and how half the Obama cabinet was basically nominated by a representative from City Bank. This is quite amazing.
JP: Didn’t Citybank supply a list …. ?
JA: Yes.
JP: … which turned out to be most of the Obama cabinet.
JA: Yes.
JP: So Wall Street decides the cabinet of the President of the United States?
JA: If you were following the Obama campaign back then, closely, you could see it had become very close to banking interests.
JA: So I think you can’t properly understand Hillary Clinton's foreign policy without understanding Saudi Arabia. The connections with Saudi Arabia are so intimate. ‘Libya is Hillary Clinton’s war’
JP:Why was she so demonstrably enthusiastic about the destruction of Libya? Can you talk a little about just what the emails have told us – told you – about what happened there? Because Libya is such a source for so much of the mayhem now in Syria: the ISIL, jihadism, and so on. And it was almost Hillary Clinton's invasion. What do the emails tell us about that?
-----------------------------
JA: Libya, more than anyone else’s war, was Hillary Clinton’s war. Barak Obama initially opposed it. Who was the person championing it? Hillary Clinton. That’s documented throughout her emails. She had put her favoured agent, Sidney Blumenthal, on to that; there’s more than 1700 emails out of the thirty three thousand Hillary Clinton emails that we've published, just about Libya. It’s not that Libya has cheap oil. She perceived the removal of Gaddafi and the overthrow of the Libyan state -- something that she would use in her run-up to the general election for President.
So in late 2011 there is an internal document called the Libya Tick Tock that was produced for Hillary Clinton, and it’s the chronological description of how she was the central figure in the destruction of the Libyan state, which resulted in around 40,000 deaths within Libya; jihadists moved in, ISIS moved in, leading to the European refugee and migrant crisis.
Not only did you have people fleeing Libya, people fleeing Syria, the destabilisation of other African countries as a result of arms flows, but the Libyan state itself err was no longer able to control the movement of people through it. Libya faces along to the Mediterranean and had been effectively the cork in the bottle of Africa. So all problems, economic problems and civil war in Africa -- previously people fleeing those problems didn’t end up in Europe because Libya policed the Mediterranean. That was said explicitly at the time, back in early 2011 by Gaddafi: ‘What do these Europeans think they’re doing, trying to bomb and destroy the Libyan State? There’s going to be floods of migrants out of Africa and jihadists into Europe, and this is exactly what happened. ‘Trump won’t be permitted to win’
JP: You get complaints from people saying, ‘What is WikiLeaks doing? Are they trying to put Trump in the Whitehouse?’
JA: My answer is that Trump would not be permitted to win. Why do I say that? Because he's had every establishment off side; Trump doesn’t have one establishment, maybe with the exception of the Evangelicals, if you can call them an establishment, but banks, intelligence [agencies], arms companies... big foreign money … are all united behind Hillary Clinton, and the media as well, media owners and even journalists themselves.
JP: There is the accusation that WikiLeaks is in league with the Russians. Some people say, ‘Well, why doesn’t WikiLeaks investigate and publish emails on Russia?’
JA: We have published about 800,000 documents of various kinds that relate to Russia. Most of those are critical; and a great many books have come out of our publications about Russia, most of which are critical. Our [Russia]documents have gone on to be used in quite a number of court cases: refugee cases of people fleeing some kind of claimed political persecution in Russia, which they use our documents to back up.
JP: Do you yourself take a view of the U.S. election? Do you have a preference for Clinton or Trump?
JA: [Let’s talk about] Donald Trump. What does he represent in the American mind and in the European mind? He represents American white trash, [which Hillary Clinton called] ‘deplorable and irredeemable’. It means from an establishment or educated cosmopolitan, urbane perspective, these people are like the red necks, and you can never deal with them. Because he so clearly -- through his words and actions and the type of people that turn up at his rallies -- represents people who are not the middle, not the upper middle educated class, there is a fear of seeming to be associated in any way with them, a social fear that lowers the class status of anyone who can be accused of somehow assisting Trump in any way, including any criticism of Hillary Clinton. If you look at how the middle class gains its economic and social power, that makes absolute sense. ‘US attempting to squeeze WikiLeaks through my refugee status’
JP: I’d like to talk about Ecuador, the small country that has given you refuge and [political asylum] in this embassy in London. Now Ecuador has cut off the internet from here where we're doing this interview, in the Embassy, for the clearly obvious reason that they are concerned about appearing to intervene in the U.S. election campaign. Can you talk about why they would take that action and your own views on Ecuador’s support for you?
JA: Let’s let go back four years. I made an asylum application to Ecuador in this embassy, because of the U.S. extradition case, and the result was that after a month, I was successful in my asylum application. The embassy since then has been surrounded by police: quite an expensive police operation which the British government admits to spending more than £12.6 million. They admitted that over a year ago. Now there’s undercover police and there are robot surveillance cameras of various kinds -- so that there has been quite a serious conflict right here in the heart of London between Ecuador, a country of sixteen million people, and the United Kingdom, and the Americans who have been helping on the side. So that was a brave and principled thing for Ecuador to do. Now we have the U.S. election [campaign], the Ecuadorian election is in February next year, and you have the White House feeling the political heat as a result of the true information that we have been publishing.
WikiLeaks does not publish from the jurisdiction of Ecuador, from this embassy or in the territory of Ecuador; we publish from France, we publish from, from Germany, we publish from The Netherlands and from a number of other countries, so that the attempted squeeze on WikiLeaks is through my refugee status; and this is, this is really intolerable. [It means] that [they] are trying to get at a publishing organisation; [they] try and prevent it from publishing true information that is of intense interest to the American people and others about an election.
JP: Tell us what would happen if you walked out of this embassy.
JA: I would be immediately arrested by the British police and I would then be extradited either immediately to the United States or to Sweden. In Sweden I am not charged, I have already been previously cleared [by the Senior Stockholm Prosecutor Eva Finne]. We were not certain exactly what would happen there, but then we know that the Swedish government has refused to say that they will not extradite me to the United States we know they have extradited 100 per cent of people whom the U.S. has requested since at least 2000. So over the last fifteen years, every single person the U.S. has tried to extradite from Sweden has been extradited, and they refuse to provide a guarantee [that won’t happen].
JP: People often ask me how you cope with the isolation in here.
JA: Look, one of the best attributes of human beings is that they’re adaptable; one of the worst attributes of human beings is they are adaptable. They adapt and start to tolerate abuses, they adapt to being involved themselves in abuses, they adapt to adversity and they continue on. So in my situation, frankly, I’m a bit institutionalised -- this [the embassy] is the world .. it’s visually the world [for me].
JP: It’s the world without sunlight, for one thing, isn’t it?
JA: It’s the world without sunlight, but I haven’t seen sunlight in so long, I don’t remember it.
JP: Yes.
JA: So , yes, you adapt. The one real irritant is that my young children -- they also adapt. They adapt to being without their father. That’s a hard, hard adaption which they didn’t ask for.
JP: Do you worry about them?
JA: Yes, I worry about them; I worry about their mother.
‘I am innocent and in arbitrary detention’
JP: Some people would say, ‘Well, why don’t you end it and simply walk out the door and allow yourself to be extradited to Sweden?’
JA: The U.N. [the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention] has looked into this whole situation. They spent eighteen months in formal, adversarial litigation. [So it’s] me and the U.N. verses Sweden and the U.K. Who’s right? The U.N. made a conclusion that I am being arbitrarily detained illegally, deprived of my freedom and that what has occurred has not occurred within the laws that the United Kingdom and Sweden, and that [those countries] must obey. It is an illegal abuse. It is the United Nations formally asking, ‘What’s going on here? What is your legal explanation for this? [Assange] says that you should recognise his asylum.’ [And here is]
Sweden formally writing back to the United Nations to say, ‘No, we're not going to [recognise the UN ruling], so leaving open their ability to extradite.
I just find it absolutely amazing that the narrative about this situation is not put out publically in the press, because it doesn’t suit the Western establishment narrative -- that yes, the West has political prisoners, it’s a reality, it’s not just me, there’s a bunch of other people as well. The West has political prisoners. Of course, no state accepts [that it should call] the people it is imprisoning or detaining for political reasons, political prisoners. They don’t call them political prisoners in China, they don’t call them political prisoners in Azerbaijan and they don’t call them political prisoners in the United States, U.K. or Sweden; it is absolutely intolerable to have that kind of self-perception.
JA: Here we have a case, the Swedish case, where I have never been charged with a crime, where I have already been cleared [by the Stockholm prosecutor] and found to be innocent, where the woman herself said that the police made it up, where the United Nations formally said the whole thing is illegal, where the State of Ecuador also investigated and found that I should be given asylum. Those are the facts, but what is the rhetoric?
JP: Yes, it’s different.
JA: The rhetoric is pretending, constantly pretending that I have been charged with a crime, and never mentioning that I have been already previously cleared, never mentioning that the woman herself says that the police made it up.
[The rhetoric] is trying to avoid [the truth that ] the U.N. formally found that the whole thing is illegal, never even mentioning that Ecuador made a formal assessment through its formal processes and found that yes, I am subject to persecution by the United States.
Iamwhomiam » Thu Nov 03, 2016 4:20 pm wrote:Wow! Sounder, that is one very smart post.
Jack wrote... Yeah, seriously. It must be the smartest post ever on this board. Sounder is a very, very smart guy. As he argues, he's responsible for this mess of a world and one cannot trust him.
Too clever by half Jack. Funny thing is, I do feel responsible for the messed-upness of this world. That's a good thing right?
I remember in high school and college, all the smart kids doing their impression of intelligence by being the best at parroting back the ‘information’ given by the teachers. They developed good memory but not much active engagement with said information.
I decided that using ones intelligence in this way, while good for personal advancement, may not be so good for social growth and development. As it happens I was the smartest kid in class, testing wise*, but did not at all identify as being smart. I felt incredibly ignorant. I was told many things but knew little with certainty, beyond a few math problems.
So I went my own way, and thanks to Kuhn, Morris Berman and others, came to the realization that a better application of intelligence is to create new forms and connections between them, rather than depending on existing forms for ones grounding. (Although to be fair, grounding in existing forms is a necessary first step.)
Later I determined that our split model of reality creates the bad assumptions that continue to produce the messed-upness in this world.
Why do we stick with this poor reality model? Co-dependence?
And Iam, why does self evident truth bother you so much?
Smart people are considered smart because they are the ones that know best how to converse and convince in terms of our current 'categories of understanding'. Therefor they are most responsible for the maintenance of intellectual structures, our dominant narrative. They are then the ones responsible for the messed-upness in this world, not regular people.
*small school
There's no accounting for one's beliefs.
Your smart ('smart' being either a gerund...) post was meant for Jack to be (...or a present participle) smarting after he read it. Unless, of course, I'm wrong. But that is how I took its meaning. And I'm not at all bothered by self evident truth, quite frankly, it's all I know.
And you are very smart, as you're well aware. But for a smart guy, I'm confused that you wrote this, "Later I determined that our split model of reality creates the bad assumptions that continue to produce the messed-upness in this world."
Our physical reality has a constructive and destructive cycle, as does everything physical throughout this universe. People tend to see things as good or bad, the eternal harmonic balance of construction, chaos, and destruction.
But it is the smart guys who got us thinking outside the box, mostly due to developments in quantum mechanics that violated the rules of Physics, to see dimensions beyond our own, and a great many at that. So, without that binary thinking you disdain we'd still be firmly locked inside our binary thinking.
And you're not guilty for causing the world's problems, but with snide commentary you're not really making it better.
Besides, it's all only a mental construct. The reality you experience is not real, but rather an illusion, though delusion would in general be more apt a word to use. This is not a slur or an attack against your character, as I am here with you, sharing your delusion. The only thing is, I understand this, and perhaps you do not, though that I would find surprising.
I've seen several references to Weiner being in a rehab but I didn't realize it was a sex rehab. Weiner has screwed up shit for a lot of powerful people. I bet he isn't real popular in that circle right about now.
Say Sounder, I saw listed on the C2C website a video about petroglyphs and decided to check it out. This one involves a sun dagger, but not the more famous one you might be familiar with. At 2:45 minutes in, a gentleman being interviewed at that site shares some profound insights I believe you would appreciate. Holographic mentality vs logical mentality. He's now deceased. His name is Rollin Gillespie and he had been a NASA rocket scientist.
In response to that New York Times article (NYT is super right wing right?) about how state sponsors of terrorism like Saudi Arabia , Qatar and the UAE have given tens of millions to Clinton...had to make this
so hope Assange is freed and given the nobel peace prize one day.
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
