The defense industry this year abandoned its decade-long commitment to the Republican Party, funneling the lion share of its contributions to Democratic presidential candidates, especially to Hillary Clinton who far out-paced all her competitors.
An examination of contributions of $500 or more, using the Huffington Post�??s Fundrace website, shows that employees of the top five arms makers - Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics �?? gave Democratic presidential candidates $103,900, with only $86,800 going to Republicans."
I’m pretty sure Hillary will win and John ‘Bilderburger’ Edwards will be VP. Just like Bush is a stealth-lib, giving a bad name to conservatism that’ll take years to overcome, maybe Hillary is a stealth-neocon. Won’t all the lib/fascists be surprised!!
[quote]Magnate wrote:
I assume this is done with the expectation she will do no more to end Iraq than Bush has. If so, they’re probably right.
[/quote]
Yup. For all the ranting about Hillary and “Defeatocrats” (some of which is justified), her foreign policy plans are only marginally less interventionist than those of the Republican field. And Obama is even worse.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Magnate wrote:
I assume this is done with the expectation she will do no more to end Iraq than Bush has. If so, they’re probably right.
Yup. For all the ranting about Hillary and “Defeatocrats” (some of which is justified), her foreign policy plans are only marginally less interventionist than those of the Republican field. And Obama is even worse.
[/quote]
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Wait a minute. Since when did “employees of the top five arms makers” become the “defense complex”?
Since when did the defense complex support presidential candidates by a measly 100k?
I smell snake oil.[/quote]
I know you always click the link. Did you see exactly who is contributing? Its executives, real players in those companies.
I think Edwards will be VP, because it was his speech at the Bilderburger Conference in 2004 that got him paired with Kerry. The powerful people in the world like the guy and they (the Dems) want a white male on the ticket — all good reasons for Hillary to forget the past and take him on. It would make a lot of people with a lot of power happy.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Wait a minute. Since when did “employees of the top five arms makers” become the “defense complex”?
Since when did the defense complex support presidential candidates by a measly 100k?
I smell snake oil.
I know you always click the link. Did you see exactly who is contributing? Its executives, real players in those companies.
I think Edwards will be VP, because it was his speech at the Bilderburger Conference in 2004 that got him paired with Kerry. The powerful people in the world like the guy and they (the Dems) want a white male on the ticket — all good reasons for Hillary to forget the past and take him on. It would make a lot of people with a lot of power happy.
[/quote]
They’ll pick Edwards because he’s their only shot at NOT alienating the white-Southern vote. It won’t help, but at least he’s a shot…
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Magnate wrote:
I assume this is done with the expectation she will do no more to end Iraq than Bush has. If so, they’re probably right.
Yup. For all the ranting about Hillary and “Defeatocrats” (some of which is justified), her foreign policy plans are only marginally less interventionist than those of the Republican field. And Obama is even worse.
How exactly is Obama worse? I’m just interested. [/quote]
Because his foreign policy views are almost as bad as this disastrous administration’s. He called for unilateral attacks on Pakistani soil, which is the dumbest thing anyone’s said in a while. He also gave a speech talking about how avian flu in China or a poor child in Pakistan were threats to American security. It sounds almost as bad as Bush’s Second Inaugural, the gold standard for that kind of idiocy. It’s that kind of thinking that has gotten us in the straits we’re in, this stupid desire to go around fixing all the ills of the world with American money and American lives.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Magnate wrote:
I assume this is done with the expectation she will do no more to end Iraq than Bush has. If so, they’re probably right.
Yup. For all the ranting about Hillary and “Defeatocrats” (some of which is justified), her foreign policy plans are only marginally less interventionist than those of the Republican field. And Obama is even worse.
How exactly is Obama worse? I’m just interested.
Because his foreign policy views are almost as bad as this disastrous administration’s. He called for unilateral attacks on Pakistani soil, which is the dumbest thing anyone’s said in a while. He also gave a speech talking about how avian flu in China or a poor child in Pakistan were threats to American security. It sounds almost as bad as Bush’s Second Inaugural, the gold standard for that kind of idiocy. It’s that kind of thinking that has gotten us in the straits we’re in, this stupid desire to go around fixing all the ills of the world with American money and American lives.[/quote]
Well, here’s the trouble: if the government spends the money on something besides war, odds are it makes things better — more education, better roads, and so on. War is a good way to spend money and not get anything back. That IS the goal afterall. The goal is bankruptcy. Why do you think Bush and his buddies spent like drunkem sailors?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Magnate wrote:
I assume this is done with the expectation she will do no more to end Iraq than Bush has. If so, they’re probably right.
Yup. For all the ranting about Hillary and “Defeatocrats” (some of which is justified), her foreign policy plans are only marginally less interventionist than those of the Republican field. And Obama is even worse.
How exactly is Obama worse? I’m just interested.
Because his foreign policy views are almost as bad as this disastrous administration’s. He called for unilateral attacks on Pakistani soil, which is the dumbest thing anyone’s said in a while. He also gave a speech talking about how avian flu in China or a poor child in Pakistan were threats to American security. It sounds almost as bad as Bush’s Second Inaugural, the gold standard for that kind of idiocy. It’s that kind of thinking that has gotten us in the straits we’re in, this stupid desire to go around fixing all the ills of the world with American money and American lives.
Well, here’s the trouble: if the government spends the money on something besides war, odds are it makes things better — more education, better roads, and so on. War is a good way to spend money and not get anything back. That IS the goal afterall. The goal is bankruptcy. Why do you think Bush and his buddies spent like drunkem sailors?
[/quote]
Government spending makes things better? Ever heard of No Child Left Behind?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Magnate wrote:
I assume this is done with the expectation she will do no more to end Iraq than Bush has. If so, they’re probably right.
Yup. For all the ranting about Hillary and “Defeatocrats” (some of which is justified), her foreign policy plans are only marginally less interventionist than those of the Republican field. And Obama is even worse.
How exactly is Obama worse? I’m just interested.
Because his foreign policy views are almost as bad as this disastrous administration’s. He called for unilateral attacks on Pakistani soil, which is the dumbest thing anyone’s said in a while. He also gave a speech talking about how avian flu in China or a poor child in Pakistan were threats to American security. It sounds almost as bad as Bush’s Second Inaugural, the gold standard for that kind of idiocy. It’s that kind of thinking that has gotten us in the straits we’re in, this stupid desire to go around fixing all the ills of the world with American money and American lives.
Well, here’s the trouble: if the government spends the money on something besides war, odds are it makes things better — more education, better roads, and so on. War is a good way to spend money and not get anything back. That IS the goal afterall. The goal is bankruptcy. Why do you think Bush and his buddies spent like drunkem sailors?
[/quote]
care to expand on this? I’m just interested to see what your point of view is.
Well, here’s the trouble: if the government spends the money on something besides war, odds are it makes things better — more education, better roads, and so on. War is a good way to spend money and not get anything back. That IS the goal afterall. The goal is bankruptcy. Why do you think Bush and his buddies spent like drunkem sailors?
care to expand on this? I’m just interested to see what your point of view is.[/quote]
Sure. Politicians gain power from a crisis. What is the ultimate crisis? War. The second best crisis is economic. Look at how Washington gained a lot of power in the 1930s. So, it my contention that there are two options in play here: the war on terror (or in Iraq) and so on, which may eventually be used to justify a decrease in civil liberties, and a meltdown in the value of the dollar. This last allows government to enact strict price controls (Richard Nixon did it). The government can then inflate with impunity.
"REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN ON THE POSSIBILITY AND DESIRABILITY OF PEACE
WITH INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL BY LEONARD C. LEWIN
“A BOOK THAT SHOOK THE WHITE HOUSE.”
–US. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT
Report from Iron Mountain unveils a hitherto top-secret report of a government commission that was requested to explore the consequences of lasting peace on American society. The shocking results of the study, as revealed in this report, led the government to conceal the existence of the commission–they had found that, among other things, peace may never be possible; that even if it were, it would probably be un-desirable, that “defending the national interest” is not the real purpose of war; that war is necessary; that war deaths should be planned and budgeted. REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN tells the story of how the project was formed, how it operated, What happened to it. It includes the complete verbatim text of the commission’s hitherto classified report."
Well, here’s the trouble: if the government spends the money on something besides war, odds are it makes things better — more education, better roads, and so on. War is a good way to spend money and not get anything back. That IS the goal afterall. The goal is bankruptcy. Why do you think Bush and his buddies spent like drunkem sailors?
care to expand on this? I’m just interested to see what your point of view is.
Sure. Politicians gain power from a crisis. What is the ultimate crisis? War. The second best crisis is economic. Look at how Washington gained a lot of power in the 1930s. So, it my contention that there are two options in play here: the war on terror (or in Iraq) and so on, which may eventually be used to justify a decrease in civil liberties, and a meltdown in the value of the dollar. This last allows government to enact strict price controls (Richard Nixon did it). The government can then inflate with impunity.
"REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN ON THE POSSIBILITY AND DESIRABILITY OF PEACE
WITH INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL BY LEONARD C. LEWIN
“A BOOK THAT SHOOK THE WHITE HOUSE.”
–US. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT
Report from Iron Mountain unveils a hitherto top-secret report of a government commission that was requested to explore the consequences of lasting peace on American society. The shocking results of the study, as revealed in this report, led the government to conceal the existence of the commission–they had found that, among other things, peace may never be possible; that even if it were, it would probably be un-desirable, that “defending the national interest” is not the real purpose of war; that war is necessary; that war deaths should be planned and budgeted. REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN tells the story of how the project was formed, how it operated, What happened to it. It includes the complete verbatim text of the commission’s hitherto classified report."
[/quote]
[Editor’s Note: The Report from Iron Mountain is a vehicle of disinformation. It was released to the public for the purpose of deception. Its stated conlcusion is that the mass of humanity is so weak and fragile that the world could not handle the revelation of an ET presence on Earth and therefore it’s more desirable to withhold such information from the public. Its real goal was to set the stage for a looming alien ‘threat’ that would eventually herald an in-your-face alien appearance by an armada of UFOs that will be witnessed by just about everyone on the planet. The fake alien invasion scenario will likely be staged in the midst of other orchestrated calamities in order to stampede the public into believing we have to give up our national sovereignty and liberties in the interest of self preservation. …Ken Adachi]
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Wait a minute. Since when did “employees of the top five arms makers” become the “defense complex”?
Since when did the defense complex support presidential candidates by a measly 100k?
I smell snake oil.
I know you always click the link. Did you see exactly who is contributing? Its executives, real players in those companies.
I think Edwards will be VP, because it was his speech at the Bilderburger Conference in 2004 that got him paired with Kerry. The powerful people in the world like the guy and they (the Dems) want a white male on the ticket — all good reasons for Hillary to forget the past and take him on. It would make a lot of people with a lot of power happy.
They’ll pick Edwards because he’s their only shot at NOT alienating the white-Southern vote. It won’t help, but at least he’s a shot…
[/quote]
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Wait a minute. Since when did “employees of the top five arms makers” become the “defense complex”?
Since when did the defense complex support presidential candidates by a measly 100k?
I smell snake oil.
I know you always click the link. Did you see exactly who is contributing? Its executives, real players in those companies.
I think Edwards will be VP, because it was his speech at the Bilderburger Conference in 2004 that got him paired with Kerry. The powerful people in the world like the guy and they (the Dems) want a white male on the ticket — all good reasons for Hillary to forget the past and take him on. It would make a lot of people with a lot of power happy.
Well, here’s the trouble: if the government spends the money on something besides war, odds are it makes things better — more education, better roads, and so on. War is a good way to spend money and not get anything back. That IS the goal afterall. The goal is bankruptcy. Why do you think Bush and his buddies spent like drunkem sailors?
care to expand on this? I’m just interested to see what your point of view is.
Sure. Politicians gain power from a crisis. What is the ultimate crisis? War. The second best crisis is economic. Look at how Washington gained a lot of power in the 1930s. So, it my contention that there are two options in play here: the war on terror (or in Iraq) and so on, which may eventually be used to justify a decrease in civil liberties, and a meltdown in the value of the dollar. This last allows government to enact strict price controls (Richard Nixon did it). The government can then inflate with impunity.
"REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN ON THE POSSIBILITY AND DESIRABILITY OF PEACE
WITH INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL BY LEONARD C. LEWIN
“A BOOK THAT SHOOK THE WHITE HOUSE.”
–US. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT
Report from Iron Mountain unveils a hitherto top-secret report of a government commission that was requested to explore the consequences of lasting peace on American society. The shocking results of the study, as revealed in this report, led the government to conceal the existence of the commission–they had found that, among other things, peace may never be possible; that even if it were, it would probably be un-desirable, that “defending the national interest” is not the real purpose of war; that war is necessary; that war deaths should be planned and budgeted. REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN tells the story of how the project was formed, how it operated, What happened to it. It includes the complete verbatim text of the commission’s hitherto classified report."
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
"Defense Complex Supports Hillary Clinton
I’m pretty sure Hillary will win and John ‘Bilderburger’ Edwards will be VP. Just like Bush is a stealth-lib, giving a bad name to conservatism that’ll take years to overcome, maybe Hillary is a stealth-neocon. Won’t all the lib/fascists be surprised!!
[/quote]
I wouldn’t go so far to say a stealth neocon but all sarcasm aside I think you are right that many of her supporters have an ill informed opinion of her politics. Many of the casually informed liberal people where I live will vote for her assuming she stands for things that she doesn’t and will certainly be surprised when they are disillusioned.