What has happened to me, philosophically, in the last several years is just amazing. I still regard myself as a broad-minded Christian conservative Republican. But the people around me would probably regard me as a crazy Communist radical if I laid-out my current perspective in all of its glory.
THE JFK ASSASSINATION: JFK was an immoral sex animal. He was a Catholic having sex with every good looking girl he could get his hands on. BUT, I think that a person has to be crazy to believe the single bullet theory. To me, it is clear that the federal intelligence services conspired with members of the Dallas Police Force to do him in.
THE VIETNAM WAR: Did you know that Ho Chi Minh came to us first, but we said, "No"? Oh, my heavens! I supported the Vietnam War, but I have since learned that the North Vietnamese were more conservative than President Nixon! As my son was watching that movie on "Woodstock," recently, I commented to him that the anti-war protesters there would have been shocked and angry at the conservatism of the North Vietnamese -- far, far, far to the right of President Nixon!!! -- and would have preferred President Nixon over the North Vietnamese!!!
How strange!!! How unbelievably strange!!!!
When we warred against North Vietnam, we warred against "mom and apple pie." No joke. We really did.
9/11: I have watched the World Trade Center buildings fall a hundred times. At this point I think that you have to be crazy to believe that a bunch of Arab terrorists were responsible.
Do you know what I think Osama Bin Laden is going to say, if he is captured alive? He is going to say, "What???!!! I did THAT???!!!"
But he will not be captured alive.
At this juncture, I think that 9/11 was about insurance coverage.
CORPORATE BONUSES: This subject makes me crazier than any other. AIG is small potatoes. Forget AIG.
They are ALL writing memos justifying "bonuses." Do you know what those memos say? They say, "I have very cleverly laid-off 150 employees, saving the corporation $15,000,000 this year. GIVE ME A BONUS!!!"
It is really theft from shareholders and employees.
It is evil.
Arrest them, please.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
see my additional posts as well, too much for one posting:
ReplyDeleteYou've regressed!
As for large scale plots of any kind, the bigger, the more likely the story will crumble, one weak link is broken, leads to the next link . . . The more players, the more likely there will be exposure. This is for JFK and WTC
ALSO, this is all before me. I didnt live through some of these items of discussion (or was a cute little kid at the time, now I'm just cute!)
My investigative department is poorly funded and undermanned. All I have is history books and, better yet, the internet, where facts are mixed in with urban legend and accepted as fact
What are your sources, other than opinion/interpretation of history, and almost plausible arguments from those willing to mix urband legend (or propogate such materials) with the facts and opinion and present as fact.
I'm not DISRESPECTING you, just leveling the playing field, letting witnesses know that your source of info may be the same as almost ALL OF OURS. Its a case of interpretation.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
ReplyDeleteJFK, I'm not disagreeing that he was what he was, but, why the need to describe him as ...an immoral sex animal... before exposing the plot to kill him
JFK - key players are dead. I'm sure there were parties that wanted him dead. Internal and external (international). This is probably a constant issue for all presidents.
Admit that we will never KNOW what happened. There are oswald facts about his meeting with communists (cuba or otherwise . . .) Were they seeking someone. Did they desire this, but didn't act, but oswald just happened to come along and they said 'why not give it a try, and sent him on his way. Perhaps Oswald was just an oddball who went and did this. BUT he alligned himself with these factions he found attractive in order to subconsciously justify what he was doing/seeking out support . . . I have a feeling its mostly the latter half of what I said. I don't think communist entity went out recruiting someone for the deed and hired on oswald the hit man, or oswald the disenfrachised that they had identified years ago and were tagging him along for something like this. I think this was 80% originated in Oswalds world and any other associations are real, but of his invention.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
ReplyDeleteVietnam - What was that war about? Communism, wasn't it?
I know there was a Vietnam before communism. France sort if declared them a 'free state' but still within French union
(Japan was in the mix, but with Japan's defeat, now what, with vietnam? back to the french?)
And so, it starts.
Vietnam (primarily north) seeks support. We go with France (of course), and the 'government' after Japan's defeat finds
a friend in China. Mom and apple pie went with the first party that would give them guns and ammo, and with a communist flavor that got the US nervous at a time when they want to curtail the spread of communism. Who can blame vietnam for wanting to fight for independence. Who can blame them for asking US for help, who can blame us for sticking with our 'allied' friends after world war II. Who can blame mom and apple pie for accepting conveniently timed offers of assistance from the north (china, and ussr eventually). Now, the french stepped out while we were just training troops as support. We stepped things up and threw more people there to curtail communist (I think mom died and apple pie went rotten at this point). Its just a combination of situations that are ripe for war. External parties watching other external parties take over and not liking the way things are going.
Internally, they just want 'independence' and are willing to go down the list of folks they'd most like to take aid from, to the least, but would still be willing to take aid from.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
ReplyDelete9-11
How has watching the towers fall alligned you with people who say its about insurance?
Not one of those closeup films where about 2 stories down from where the collapse is currently going on, you can see some energy discharge/flash of light/puff of smoke . . . and those are charges going off, expertly bringing down a tall building vertically like it was staged by a pro-demolition crew. Ask me if I think that stuff is real. My answer? Yes, I DON'T think that film is altered. BUT, I do think that there were no charges set at key points to bring the tower down. I think thats energy discharge of various forms at weak points in the structure that are failing. Even though it is 'weak' points, it still takes IMMENSE amount of energy to rip steel apart . . . of that size. THOSE were the points where the structure was faultering, it just took time for the material above to catch up with it, and at that point, the next weak point is faultering 30 feet below.
Once again, a plot to plant explosives? No one sees? No huge quantities of missing explosives? Or large quanties purchased (perhaps imported from overseas???) I'm not buying. As for Osama's 'I did that???' reaction? He may just react that way. Is he another oswald patsy. Convenient to blame? Who knows. Again, I don't have investigative forces out there to determine. But, I do think it was an act of hatred, not insurance. I think we have the right area of the world targeted as to where it originated. Probably right organization too. Perhaps that organization would have been, even without Osama. His money sure helped. Perhaps he is just the face we are given to focus hatred on. Did he actually start out saying 'take those buildings down'. I dunno. Generally though, he aided in funding (As did many others). Best part of these organizations is that their
'cells' work in moderate autonomy. Just identify targets that would be great to have them hit. Highly symbolic targets. Set the cells free, give them some money, perhaps some trained personell, and lets see what they can make of it. And so, from seed, ground, fertilizer, grew the 9-11 plot. We don't have the benefit of a picture of osama at the front of the briefing room with a pointing stick pointing at a picture of the two towers and X marks the spot for where the planes are to hit. No, I don't think anyone was paying anyone else $$$ to recruite folks to fight a religious war serious enough to die for by way of flying a plane that they are on, into a building IN THE NAME OF AN INSURANCE claim. INdeed, someone did recruit, and did convince and planes they were on did hit buildings. But Inusrance claim driving this?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Corporate part 1
ReplyDelete-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Corporate bonuses - I'm not with you, and I'm not against you. The whole idea of corporate structure and big business must just rub you the wrong way. Its all a mixed bag though. First, admit it, the structure of corporation, board of directors, corporate exectutives ('C'insertletterhere'O's). Its their duty to the shareholders (which the are, also) to keep the company healthy. OK, now its economic downturn time either just for the company, or perhaps nationally, or, perhaps, globally. They've GOT to do it. Lay off people, downsize . . . Its irresponsible for them to not do it, given corporate structure. IS there some kind of social responsibility/unspoken unwritten social contract that they are violating when they do this? Perhaps! They do have to keep the complany financially healthy. BUT also, who can afford to buy their product when everyone is unemployed.
OK, the main idea of this was 'I got rid of 150 people, saved company X dollars, now give me 10% of X dollars as bonus. You don't like that. NO, I don't like that either, even if its unspoken, unwritten. All that corporate officer did was their proper duty (assuming it really had to be done) to keep the company healthy, profitable, to not have to take losses quarter after quarter when the $$$ income from product sold doesn't support the salary base of the employees and other costs of maintaining the business.
SO, how would I arrange things? This is just me shooting from the hip. I want to see exec's rewarded for keeping a company healthy long term. I want the exec's there long term if they are good. Let the exec's have a corporate owned mansion and good car to give them the immediate reward of the good life for taking on an important, highly responsible job. BUT HEre is how we pay them. Some factor of lowest and highest pay scale of employees of that company (lets say we pay the $250,000, which is nothing now-a-days). The company does NOT GIVE THEM SHARES OR OPTIONS TO BUY AT BELOW MARKET PRICE. If Mr Exec wants shares, he's got to buy them, cash. What the company WILL do for the exec is give the exec shares ON LOAN TO HIM. MR Executive gets to keep the dividends ONLY. THATS his pay other than salary.
corporate part 2
ReplyDelete-=-=-=-
BETTER YET, his dividens are of the nature that its a payout of a 5 year rolling average. First few years will be an estimate of course. and if the exec can't live up to the estimate, then make up the difference by going LOWER than the 5 y ear rolling estimate. Yes, businesses will be run much differently than quarter by quarter, 'drop those 3000 employees so we get a spike in our share price when the common investor see's we are doing something to lower costs and keep dividned flowing' style of running things. I don't mind if, with this method of compensation the executives make MORE money that the old quarter by quarter, 'gimme bonus' method. I want to see corporate health, and board members and execs pay tied to it. I don't want to see the exec walk away with 500,000 shares they didn't have before, as they were
gifted to him, as the bonus, or brought on option at 40% below market value (so they couldn't loose, no matter what). Are they 'evil'? That is in the heart of the person doing the deed. There IS a difference between 'I am going to lay off people, save company money and get bonus' versus 'I can't keep on all these people during this downturn, there's been a quarter with losses and no end in sight of downturn, I must do something' and they do something by laying off people and walk pridefully and say 'see, I saw this coming, I kept us profitable, functioning, healthy and your share prices reflect that . . . gimme money. Not too much difference. But there are different styles out there like that.
Gotta change the rules a bit to reward for long term corporate health, and keeping us 'on shore' folks employed. Thats all. I might be a victim of corporate trimming the salaries . . . sooner or later, and an exec or two might earn a honored position on my dart board, but, given current environment, and the fact that they pay people big bucks to do these things, then of course you are going to attract people of this type into these positions. My CEO isn't 'evil embodied'. He has given orders to reduce headcount by 10,000s of thousands. Our IT division has property and employees overseas, H1B visa types all over the place because the USA doesn't have enough technically trained population to fill the positions (?). If my company's neighbor is doing this and getting an edge on profitiblity, and drawing investors, and increasing share price, or course my company will do this
too. Its short term foolish otherwise. Might even drive a company down long term too if costs are not trimmed. That too has to be changed. Its the rules these folks are GOVERNed by. Talk to your US and state representatives about this stuff.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Hi, Tom. Since we are Catholic, and known to be Catholic, I thought it important to be clear that I am not prejudiced by my religion when I talk about Kennedy's murder. Thus, I bring up the business of Kennedy's sexual misbehavior. He was an animal.
ReplyDeleteIt is also fair to comment on Kennedy's sexual misbehavior because in the end it began to affect policy.
The Inga Arvad Affair is the best example.
Inga was a pretty blonde German woman bedded repeatedly by Kennedy.
The FBI, reflecting the disgust and distrust of Kennedy family liberalism among the scions of the Military Industrial Complex, was delighted. As Kennedy "did" Inga, microphones listened, cameras clicked.
After Kennedy became President, American intelligence officials became alarmed that the Kennedy's were now in power, and were showing signs of desiring to kill the intelligence community's financial support.
So, a film of Kennedy delivering a budget address accidentally catches the following exchange. Just as Kennedy is about to announce budgetary allocations for the intelligence services, an agent on the platform with Kennedy leans forward and whispers, "Remember Inga." Kennedy responds with something like, "I won't, you son of a bitch."
What had happened is that the FBI sat Kennedy down and played their Inga Arvad sex recordings for him, to show him what would leak out if he did not do their bidding.
The same bunch who pulled the Inga Arvad extortion finally had Kennedy shot.
The theory that Oswald was a lone shooter is nonsense. There are just too many bits and pieces of problematic evidence laying around -- for example, the enhancement of the grassy knoll in the Zapruder film, showing what appears to be a cop with glasses firing a rifle toward the President.
http://kennedykilledhimself.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/badgeman11.jpg
Re 9/11: When I say that 9/11 was about insurance coverage, I don't mean that Muslim crazies did not take over the planes.
ReplyDeleteWhat I mean is this: When a plane slams into the side of a building, the side into which the plane slams will be the most injured side, and therefore the side most prone to collapse.
In other words, instead of falling the way they did -- straight down -- the building tops should have fallen sideways, destroying other buildings.
Both buildings tried to do that -- tops, above the damage, began to fall toward the planes' entry points.
But, each building begins to crumble beneath at the right moment, dropping the sideways-tilting load straight down instead.
One could argue that that initial collapse began the pancaking beneath them, in each case.
The problem is that the pancaking itself was perfectly symmetrical, instead of biased in favor of the side receiving the blow of the fall.
Also, WTC2, the second hit but the first to fall, while consistently featuring a load above the plane's entry point equal to about double the weight above the other plane's entry point on WTC1, fell in an identical way.
Given the internal and external building superstructures, should this have happened?
Next, why in Heaven's Holy Name did World Trade Center 7 go down?
Fires fed by fuel in a building tank were blamed.
But the collapse of WTC7, like the WTC1&2 collapses, was straight down, and portions of the media -- beginning with BBC -- announced the collapse 23 minutes before it happened, as though a press release from a guilty source reached their news desk too early.
My theory: Intelligence services picked-up on the Muslim plot, and decided to let it happen, to "sell the [unmarketable]buildings to the insurance companies."