Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Another one bites the dust.....

CRAWFORD, Texas - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resigned, officials said Monday, ending a monthslong standoff with critics who questioned his honesty and competence at the helm of the Justice Department.

Republicans and Democrats alike had demanded his resignation over the botched handling of FBI terror investigations and the firings of U.S. attorneys, but President Bush had defiantly stood by his Texas friend until accepting his resignation Friday, according to senior administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The Justice Department planned a news conference for 10:30 a.m. EDT, in Washington. Bush planned to discuss Gonzales' departure at his Crawford, Texas, ranch shortly thereafter.

Solicitor General Paul Clement will be acting attorney general until a replacement is found, said the officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid pre-empting the announcement.

Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff was among those mentioned as possible successors. However, a senior administration official said the matter had not been raised with Chertoff. Bush leaves Washington next Monday for Australia, and Gonzales' replacement might not be named by then, the official said.

"Better late than never," said Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, summing up the response of many in Washington to Gonzales' resignation.

Gonzales served more than two years as the nation's first Hispanic attorney general.

Bush steadfastly ? and at times angrily ? refused to give in to critics, even from his own GOP, who argued that Gonzales should go. Earlier this month at a news conference, the president grew irritated when asked about accountability in his administration and turned the tables on the Democratic Congress.

"Implicit in your questions is that Al Gonzales did something wrong. I haven't seen Congress say he's done anything wrong," Bush said testily.

Gonzales, 52, called Bush on Friday to inform him of his resignation, according to a senior administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity to not pre-empt Gonzales' statement. The president had Gonzales come to lunch at his ranch on Sunday as a parting gesture.

Gonzales, whom Bush once considered for appointment to the Supreme Court, is the fourth top-ranking administration official to leave since November 2006. Donald H. Rumsfeld, an architect of the Iraq war, resigned as defense secretary one day after the November elections. Paul Wolfowitz agreed in May to step down as president of the World Bank after an ethics inquiry. And top Bush adviser Karl Rove earlier this month announced that he was stepping down.

Reacting to Monday's developments, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said that Gonzales' department had "suffered a severe crisis of leadership that allowed our justice system to be corrupted by political influence."

Gonzales could not satisfy critics who said he had lost credibility over the Justice Department's handling of warrantless wiretaps related to the threat of terrorism and the firings of several U.S. attorneys.

As attorney general and earlier as White House counsel, Gonzales pushed for expanded presidential powers, including the eavesdropping authority. He drafted controversial rules for military war tribunals and sought to limit the legal rights of detainees at Guantanamo Bay ? prompting lawsuits by civil libertarians who said the government was violating the Constitution in its pursuit of terrorists.

There were indications that the development came suddenly. Bush normally handles Cabinet resignations with efficiency, only allowing news of them to leak when a successor has been chosen and appearing with both the person departing and the replacement when the public announcement was made. That was not to be the case this time, the official said.

The president had no candidates for Gonzales' replacement to his ranch over the weekend for interviews, the official said.

"It has been a long and difficult struggle but at last, the attorney general has done the right thing and stepped down," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a vocal critic.

The flap over the fired prosecutors proved to be the final straw for Gonzales, whose truthfulness in testimony to Congress was drawn into question.

Lawmakers said the dismissals of the federal prosecutors appeared to be politically motivated, and some of the fired U.S. attorneys said they felt pressured to investigate Democrats before elections. Gonzales maintained that the dismissals were based the prosecutors' lackluster performance records.

Thousands of documents released by the Justice Department show a White House plot, hatched shortly after the 2004 elections, to replace U.S. attorneys. At one point, senior White House officials, including Rove, suggested replacing all 93 prosecutors. In December 2006, eight were ordered to resign.

In several House and Senate hearings into the firings, Gonzales and other Justice Department officials failed to fully explain the ousters without contradicting each other.

U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, and can be removed. But congressional Democrats said politics played an unusually critical role in the ouster of several prosecutors.

In 2004, Gonzales pressed to reauthorize a secret domestic spying program over the Justice Department's protests. Gonzales was White House counsel at the time and during a dramatic hospital confrontation he and then-White House chief of staff Andrew Card sought approval from then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was in intensive care. Ashcroft refused.

The White House subsequently reauthorized the program without the department's approval. Later, Bush ordered changes to the program to help the department defend its legality. The domestic surveillance program was later declared unconstitutional by a federal judge and since has been changed to require court approval before surveillance can be conducted.

Similarly, Gonzales found himself on the defensive in early March for FBI's improper and, in some cases, illegal prying into Americans' personal information during terror and spy probes. On March 9, the Justice Department's inspector general released an audit showing that FBI agents, over a three-year period, demanded telephone and Internet companies to hand over their customers' personal information without official authorization.

The damning audit also found that the FBI had improperly obtained telephone records in non-emergency circumstances, and concluded that it underreported to Congress how often it used national security letters to ask businesses to turn over customer data. The letters are administrative subpoenas that do not require a judge's approval.

Gonzales declared himself upset and frustrated over the findings. But lawmakers said they had begun to lose confidence in him.

i dont know if i have to be jealous of your country or pity it ...

The US attorney general is a lying sack of shit, has no regard for law, or our Constitution, it's time to go.

Now if we could just get rid of two more people who think they do not have to abide by the laws of this country, and arrogantly dismiss our Constitution, America would regain some credibility.

Do neither.  Just give all of us Americans free wine, to celebrate with on January 20th, 2009.  :beer:

I am seriously going to throw a party that night.  be bigger than my new years eve 2000 party haha

Quite a long list we have going here....


    Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense: GONE.  Resigned November 8, 2006.

    John R. Bolton, Ambassador to the United Nations: GONE.  Resigned December 5, 2006.

    Harriet E. Miers, White House Counsel: GONE.  Resigned January 4, 2007.

    Peter Wehner, White House Director of Strategic Initiatives: GONE.  Resigned March 29, 2007.

    Meghan O'Sullivan, Deputy National Security Adviser: GONE. Resigned April 2, 2007.

    J.D. Crouch II, Deputy National Security Adviser: GONE.  Resigned May 4, 2007.

    Sara M. Taylor, White House Director of Political Affairs: GONE.  Resigned Late May, 2007.

    Dan Bartlett, White House Counselor: GONE.  Resigned June 2, 2007.

    Rob Portman, OMB Director: GONE. Resigned June 19, 2007.

    KARL ROVE, Prince of Darkness: GONE.  Resignation effective August 31, 2007.
   
    Alberto Gonzalez: GONE. Resignation effective September 17, 2007

Some were pretty normal, and much less controversial than others.  It's common for people to jump ship on a lame duck President, so that they can take high paying jobs on various boards of directors, thus helping to reinforce the cycle of corrupt politics and greed.

regardless of why, that is a pretty long list.

Didn't the WH Chef leave, too?  Probably got tired of using his skills to whip up baked beans. :hihi:

My calculations figure 3.....can't forget Condi!  She was right there warping the constitution along with Dubya and Cheney.

agreed, shes a total POS just like the rest of them.

Darn skippy, she sits up there and lies through her teeth like the rest of them.

good news for sure !  we definitely need to get rid of a whole bunch of more people though...

Now I'm not going with the recent flow or anything......but I'm willing to start a gambling pool........if Alberto Gonzalez get's arrested or accused of trying to score some pole in a Barne's & Noble's bathroom in the next 30 days......you guys all owe me (and Bob Allen) $20!

Reno 911? ?
By Ann Coulter
FrontPageMagazine.com | 8/30/2007

This week, congressional Democrats vowed to investigate Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' firing of himself. Gonzales has said he was not involved in the discussions about his firing and that it was "performance-based," but he couldn't recall the specifics.

Right-wingers, like me, never trusted Gonzales. But watching Hillary Rodham Clinton literally applaud the announcement of Gonzales' resignation on Monday was more than any human being should have to bear. Liberals' hysteria about Gonzales was surpassed only by their hysteria about his predecessor, John Ashcroft. (Also their hysteria about Bush, Rove, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Libby, Rice, Barney and so on. They're very excitable, these Democrats.)

Liberals want to return the office to the glory years of Attorney General Janet Reno!

There is reason to believe Reno is precisely the sort of attorney general that Hillary would nominate, since Reno was widely assumed to be Hillary's pick at the time. As ABC News' Chris Bury reported the day Reno was confirmed: "The search for an attorney general exemplifies Hillary Clinton's circle of influence and its clout. ... The attorney general-designate, Janet Reno, came to the president's attention through Hillary Clinton's brother, Hugh Rodham."

Let's compare attorney generals:

Civilians killed by Ashcroft: 0

Civilians killed by Gonzales: 0

Civilians killed by Reno: 80

Reno's military attack on a religious sect in Waco, Texas, led to the greatest number of civilians ever killed by the government in the history of the United States. More Americans were killed in Waco than were killed at any of the various markers on the left's via dolorosa ? more than Kent State (4 killed), more than the Haymarket Square rebellion (4 killed), more than Three Mile Island (0 killed).

Innocent people put in prison by Ashcroft: 0

Innocent people put in prison by Gonzales: 0

Innocent people put in prison by Reno: At least 1 that I know of

As Dade County, Fla., state attorney, Janet Reno made a name for herself as one of the leading witch-hunters in the notorious "child molestation" cases from the '80s, when convictions of innocent Americans were won on the basis of heavily coached testimony from small children.

Charged by Reno's office in 1984 with child molestation, Grant Snowden was convicted on the manufactured testimony of one such child, who was 4 years old when the abuse allegedly occurred.

Snowden, the most decorated police officer in the history of the South Miami Police Department, was sentenced to five life terms ? and was imprisoned with people he had put there. Snowden served 11 years before his conviction was finally overturned by a federal court in an opinion that ridiculed the evidence against him and called his trial "fundamentally unfair."

In a massive criminal justice system, mistakes will be made from time to time. But Janet Reno put people like Snowden in prison not only for crimes that they didn't commit ? but also for crimes that never happened. Such was the soccer-mom-induced hysteria of the '80s, when innocent people were prosecuted for fantastical crimes concocted in therapists' offices.


Number of obvious civil rights violations ignored by Ashcroft: 0
Number of obvious civil rights violations ignored by Gonzales: 0

Number of obvious civil rights violations ignored by Reno: at least 1

On Aug. 19, 1991, rabbinical student Yankel Rosenbaum was stabbed to death in Crown Heights by a black racist mob shouting "Kill the Jew!" as retaliation for another Hasidic man killing a black child in a car accident hours earlier.

In a far clearer case of jury nullification than the first Rodney King verdict, a jury composed of nine blacks and three Puerto Ricans acquitted Lemrick Nelson Jr. of the murder ? despite the fact that the police found the bloody murder weapon in his pocket and Rosenbaum's blood on his clothes, and that Rosenbaum, as he lay dying, had identified Nelson as his assailant.

The Hasidic community immediately appealed to the attorney general for a federal civil rights prosecution of Nelson. Reno responded with utter mystification at the idea that anyone's civil rights had been violated.

Civil rights? Where do you get that?

Because they were chanting "Kill the Jew," Rosenbaum is a Jew, and they killed him.

Huh. That's a weird interpretation of "civil rights." It sounds a little harebrained to me, but I guess I could have someone look into it.

It took two years from Nelson's acquittal to get Reno to bring a civil rights case against him.


Number of innocent civilians accused of committing heinous crimes by Ashcroft: 0
Number of innocent civilians accused of committing heinous crimes by Gonzales: 0

Number of innocent civilians accused of committing heinous crimes by Reno: at least 1

Janet Reno presided over the leak of Richard Jewell's name to the media, implicating him in the Atlanta Olympic park bombing in 1996, for which she later apologized. I believe Reno also falsely accused the Miami relatives of Elian Gonzalez of violating the law, which I am not including in her record of false accusations, but reminds me of another comparison.


Number of 6-year-old boys deported to totalitarian dictatorships by Ashcroft: 0
Number of 6-year-old boys deported to totalitarian dictatorships by Gonzales: 0

Number of 6-year-old boys deported to totalitarian dictatorships by Reno: 1

Not until Bush became president was the media interested in discussing the shortcomings of the attorney general. Whatever flaws Alberto Gonzales has (John Ashcroft has none), we don't have to go back to the Harding administration to find a worse attorney general.

From the phony child abuse cases of the '80s to the military assault on Americans at Waco, Janet Reno presided over the most egregious attacks on Americans' basic liberties since the Salem witch trials. These outrageous deprivations of life and liberty were not the work of fanatical right-wing prosecutors, but liberals like Janet Reno.

Reno is the sort of wild-eyed zealot trampling on real civil rights that Hillary views as an ideal attorney general, unlike that brute Alberto Gonzales. At least Reno didn't fire any U.S. attorneys!

Oh wait ?


Number of U.S. attorneys fired by Ashcroft: 0
Number of U.S. attorneys fired by Gonzales: 8

Number of U.S. attorneys fired by Reno: 93

---

Now before you bash it, argue against her points.

Um....whats YOUR point? 

Ann Coulter!!!!!

Yippie!

 ::)

She fails to mention that both Republicans and Democrats called for him to resign. That our Attorney General is to serve the Nation (Constitution) not King "Decider".

I'm glad Democrats are excitable about things like, our Constitution, checks and balances, and the law.

Nothing for nothing that poor guy Richard Jewel died yesterday at 44 years old.  Some kidney problems.  That sucked for the guy.  You find a bomb while doing your job and then get accused of being the bomber...Then after years of misery you get sick and die at a young age. RIP.

Fair enough.

Here goes:

1.) Regarding her "innocent people put in prison" charge, this is certainly the most dubious and difficult to prove.  Her logic is as such: 

 She doesn't know of any innocents "put in prison" (not sure whether this means prosecuted and found guilty or simply locked away) by Ashcroft/Gonzalez, and uses this to state that there haven't been any.  She then states that she knows of 1 "at least" who was wrongly put away by Reno, and uses this as evidence that others have, as well. 

Anyone who's taken a basic course in logic (or has any common sense) knows this is complete bullshit.  The absence of evidence of something does not imply that it doesn't exist...it simply means there is no evidence.  The right should be familiar with this, as it's used to explain the existence of God, all the time.  And the presence of one "at least" that Coulter knows of does not imply a trend. 
 
2.) Regarding civil rights violations...this one is just laughable.  How seriously were allegations of voter fraud investigated by Bush Admin. AGs?  How many are held without trial?  Of course, if we include civil liberties in this (PATRIOT Act, anyone?), then Reno would win via the ten run rule.

3.) Regarding the deportation of Elian Gonzalez, I'm not sure the government SHOULD have the power to take a child from his father, simply to spite Castro.  The father had a right to his child, whether it was politically inconvenient for the Clinton Admin. or not.

4.) Regarding the firing of US Attorneys, I think it's obvious that the real question isn't the firings (which the AG has the right to do) but the nature of those firings.  The Bush Admins firings were due to political reasons, rather than reasons associated with the effectiveness/merit of those attorneys.  I'm not familiar enough with those fired by Reno to comment on them. 

The whole piece is ridiculous. 

"yeah, well....fine, AG isn't the best and I don't like him either but, but, but look at who Clinton appointed!!  RENO STINKS! Hillary picked her!  She'll pick someone just as bad next time just you watch!  Blame Clinton!"

beyond ridiculous.

Her point is to take the heat off a very embarrassing and serious incident in the republican ranks. She attempts this by constructing a selective argument composed of dishonest articulation and half truths.

Truth is, both parties are full of shit.

If somebody wants to declare victory because their shit stinks a tad less than the other, in selected rooms, be my guest.

It's a typical right wing maneuver to get people off the subject at hand. 

And the 'left' is any different? Please...

its not nearly as bad as the Coulters, O'reilys and Hannitys of the world.

can't argue with this post

please.... Morons like Al Franken and Michael Moore are equally if not more deceitful and biased thana ny of the aforementioned.

I'd say yes, without a doubt.

Please show me some examples of both.

Thanks.

Once again, here is the point.

Angry Neo-Con poster hijacks the thread to avoid the subject at hand, imagine that.

I thought you were an independent?  ::)

Why would I provide you with information that is easily attainable showing the outright lies Moore has shown in his films or the distortions Franker has committed on his failed radio network?  Franken wouldn't even have a career if it wasn't for Coulter or O'Reilly.  I could provide you with a fucking video of Moore sucking Bin Laden's dick and providing a statement saying he is a lying bastard and you'd somehow say it was biased or irrelevent.  The difference between you and me is that I try to read both sides of the argument but don't hide the fact that I'm conservative.  You try to lie about your political affiliation and alignment and only goto the likes of the daily worker for your information.  Only when a respected publication publishes something that fits your agenda do you acknowledge it.  The New York Times made it clear as day that Bush won your state in 2000, but you'll never post that article.  You focus solely on the negative and are so blind you can't even find fault in your own party.

Your laugh at Republicans because they disagree and don't follow the collective thought, yet call them stooges in the same breath.  You're a bright shinging example of why people should stay in college rather than rely on shady, biased websites for their education.

LOL, that's what I thought. Did you write that in the airport bathroom or what?

The difference is that you are a pathological liar. Where I tell the truth.

It's as simple as that. 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA? ? This is gotta be the post of the year.? SLC Punk does no wrong and HE NEVER TELLS A LIE!? ?What is so sad is that there isn't a person here who doesn't know some of the stunts you've pulled and turn around and batt your eyes like an innocent lamb.? Unreal man, unreal.


It's not even fun debating with you anymore.  You're so far out there and blind you are truly incapable of having a normal conversation.  You make your assertions and that is it, game over, no room for any other opinion.  Have you ever been wrong?

I never said I haven't been wrong, although I find very little about the Iraq fiasco that I was incorrect about. I pretty much called it out since day one.

The issue is honesty.

You always accuse me of using far left websites as my sources, which is blatantly false. This has been pointed out to you several times, yet you still repeat it as truth.

Pilferk pretty much owned you on all of this a week or so and you still are slinking around here lying.

That's the difference. You lie constantly in your posts, and when you are informed politely by people such as Pilferk that you are not being honest, you continue anyway.

I'm not sure why you are here? You got banned for posting my real name on this forum. Everybody thought it was a complete dirtbag move, even for you. That's the truth, it happened, you were banned for what you did. Now you have come back and continued to taunt and lie.

What's the real reason? Trying to find out my home address now or what? Tampa airport is where I travel from, if that is the angle you are working. Although I don't like public restrooms.

I've never been a die hard Micheal Moore supporter BUT, Nothing Micheal Moore has ever said or done has caused chaos and the deaths of innocent people.

That's a good point.

Where right wing fascist mouth pieces have done nothing but.

Doubt you shall recieve.

Michael Moore tries to blame every problem on the current administration, but steers clear of any facts compromising his agenda. By polarizing Bush and the republicans the focus is taken off what is not a left/right problem, but a rotten system where every politician is forced to follow the same corruptive agenda that has plaged the country for decades.

Noam Chomsky is another. One of the most knowledgable persons on the earth, with soaring and intelligent criticism of the system, marvelously seems to have missed the influence on policy by the likes of CFR, TC, The Bilderbergers and the general Capitalist Elite. He's a brilliant commentator, but don't contribute shit when it comes to solutions. His mission is to get everybody pissed, but fails miserably as to where this anger should be pointed. In the end, he's nothing but a tool. A protector of the status quo.

He also had some brilliant insights into the acquisition of language, speech, reading (decoding)/writing and correlations with intelligence.

The 10 most obvious crimes of the Little Generalisimo can be found HERE (http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000734.htm)

It's a good thing he resigned.

Who has his job now? Any good?

The position is open for now. The Dept. is being run by a Dep. AG. Bush will have an uphill battle to fill the position if he trys to pick anyone who isn't very likable since the Dems control both Houses of Congress.

Moore has been out spoken against Clinton (as well as various other corporations and individuals no matter what their political leanings) in the past in his other films, not just Bush and the Neo-Cons.



Chomsky is critical of hypocrisy and lies, regardless of the political party, spanning decades. The rest of your paragraph seems the exact opposite of what I gather from his writing. He seems quite precise.

I never claimed him to exclusively cover Republican activities. But I did say he deployed the very same tactics as the right wingers. That is, paint a certain picture by downplaying one side and exaggerating the other.

It's actually pretty laughable of you to claim otherwise since this tactic has been around since the dawn of politics. If there was a manual you'd see it on the first page.


Yes, but only the hypocrisy and lies he's comfortable with. How can a man be so blunt and honest on most domestic and international affairs, yet so avoidant when it comes to the true corruptness of institutions like the Fed, CIA, NSA, Pharmasutical industry, IMF, the World Bank etc. etc.?

Most get a pass in my book for their opinions since they're so ignorant of the world around them. Chomsky on the other hand knows what's going on, but choose not to talk about it. That may not directly apply to what we're discussing, but it is none the less a serious issue considering his position.

You seem to be twisting around what you would like to argue about.

Moore and Chomsky don't take their talking points from anybody. They are not talking heads like junkie Rush, or Sean Hannity. The right wing all gets together and acts as one organized group. Their mission is to muddy the argument and attack others who don't agree with them. It starts with Rove and trickles its way through it's various media outlets and out of the mouths of their public supporters.

Your claim was that the left is no different that the right in regards to logical fallacies, purposely spreading misinformation, and out right deceit. I disagreed. You pick Moore as an example. I pointed out that Moore has gone after government officials on both sides of the aisle-before taking on Bush, he was taking on Clinton. I don't recall anybody in the Neo-Con propaganda machine take issue with any republican past or present (Except, for those who speak against Bush.) All I do see, is them walking lock step on AM radio, Fox news, loony right wing websites, news papers and via talking heads such as Hannity, O'Liely, Coulter and so forth. They have the same message they spit out daily, it's all the same. Vicious lies, half truths, innuendos, strawman arguments and personal attacks. They have their very own network they claim is "fair and balanced". That network has daily memos every morning of what the right wing message will be. That is not news, that is propaganda. The left wing simply is not this organized or cunning.

The left has been lazy and irresponsible, but in no way, do they even approach the ruthlessness that the Neo-Cons have to misinform the public, smear their opposition, and lie- no way in hell.


That is an interesting argument. You seem to be attacking his silence. In your view he should be addressing these issues you find important, and since you feel that he is not, then he must be avoiding them. Even if I were to accept that argument (which I won't) what does that have to do with what we are talking about?

Here is a transcript of a speech where Chomsky attacks both sides of the aisle for their dishonesty towards the American public during the 04 election, in particular Kerry. His claim is that these men are merely puppets of the "pharmaceutical industry", "financial institutions" and the "insurance industry".

http://www.chomsky.info/talks/2005012502.htm

In a great interview with Chomsky he addresses the greed of the Pharmaceutical industry:

http://www.cptech.org/pharm/noam.html

In this particular speech, Chomsky addresses the IMF/World Bank and domestic issues created by globalization. "This talk was given on what political activists call S26, the international day of action against the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank."

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V120/N46/46chomsky.46n.html

I could find that with a simple search in a minute.

Sounds like you have been reading too much Prison planet to me...

Don't assume I'm as lazy as you are, throw some Alex Jones shit to the wall and think it will stick.

Please don't sully the names of junkies everywhere by linking them to him.? :rant:  ;)

Nor did I claim them to.


You're treading right wing territory now. This is what I disagreed with: It's a typical right wing maneuver to get people off the subject at hand.


Well, it seems we're in disagreement on what we view as difference. True, the right are more brute in their approach, whereas the left deploy more intellectual methods. But the tactic remains the same; make your opponent appear worse than he is and downplay your own.


What are we talking about? I can only answer for myself: The dishonest use of knowledge and information.


As far as terrorism is concerned, the administration very consciously chose actions that it was expected would increase the threat of terror and, in fact, did. It?s not because they want terror, it?s just not much of a priority for them.

The first example of my view.

Notice how he first brings up a serious point, which is a great piece of information, but instead of taking the full leap he backs down right before the finish line. "The administration very consciously chose actions....". That's pretty heavy indication of them wanting more terror, but he dare not say it.


I have no problem with the information presented here. But what is he not mentioning?

How about the use of formaldehyde in food, water and vegetables?

How about the increasing use of sleeper drugs in the population? How about the fact that they want as many people on drugs as possible?

I think I've seen him mention some of this, but he always contributes this to the greed factor.

How about linking the CFR members views on population control and dumbing down the population to enforce their policies? The people hanging out in organizations like this are also the main influent and owners of the pharmasutical industry, so how about that for a connection?


Chomsky gave several examples to support his claim that the World Bank and the IMF continue to make erroneous predictions about economic situations. He even poked fun at the tendency the organizations have for writing new theorems without empirical data. ?Every crisis spawns new models,? Chomsky quipped.

He thinks this is funny? Attributed to some sort of laziness or misinformation on their part? These organizations employ some of the most brilliant minds in the world. They have think-thanks where people do nothing but analyze and think up new strategies 24/7. Could it be possible that the economic exploitation is only one part of the scheme?

Every crisis spawns new models

Well, they're not really new models, more like phase 2 models. They very well know what they're doing.

Greed is part of globalization, and a serious one. But the main purpose is control, control over people.

Once again he fails to make the blatantly obvious connections, or should I say, choose not to.

And that is my main concern with him. He might not 'take orders' from anyone, but the fact still remains that his activities are supporting the elite's real goal, world government.


Sorry man, assumptions and personal attacks are not my style.

free the heads, jail the feds, free the heads jail the feds, free the heads jail the feds.............

Quite a catchy tune there FC!

Actually, at the time, most people called us freaks.

It is a badge of honor.

You certainly elude to it.



You seem to be missing the point.





LOL, what are you talking about?



Woah woah woah. You are attacking perceived silence again. You have missed the point entirely. It is not something I will accept as an argument.

Besides, it's irrelevant to this conversation, and I only pointed it out to show you that you can use the internet to find plenty (not just the quick ones I showed you) interviews (Chomsky does a lot) with him discussing the very issues you claim he is silent about. And to put more simply, I could care less.


You aren't doing anything but repeating Alex Jones and his ilk. I posted links to show you that there are plenty of articles out there that show the opposite of his/their claims. I'd call it lazy, since it took me all of a minute to do so.

I love how his hand continuously reached under the toilet stall trying to grope someone.

Your instict is correct, but not the conclusion. Let me give you an example.

In a country whos name elude me right now, Enron had an operation. Due to reasons I'm sure you're aware of, it soon came to massive demonstrations against the company. Not long after the problem was solved when the army came in and 'took care of it'.

Now, nobody's claiming Enron issued any orders or demands (although that is certainly possible given that there are a fair amount of people out there who arrange this for companies). But the local authorities and/or generals know where their interests are, and acted accordingly. In this scenario both parties have total deniabillity, but the end result was still the same. The dissidents 'went away' and everybody could get back to business. I'm sure you're familiar with these implicit agreements in the political landscape.

The same of course applies for Moore and Chomsky, and really almost everybody else in the world who want exposure beyond the grassroot level. If they don't agree to the rules of conduct the career is over.

That's what I'm eluding to, and that's why, even though their message is both true and intelligent, I have no respect for their work


We both missed the point from the start.


Well fuck the argument. Forget this meaningless left/right bickering and let's talk about that quote. We both know Chomsky has reliable information, and that shit right there is pretty big. By 'very conscious actions' I suppose he's referring to the administration's steel determination on taking those actions. So how does that not suggest a conscious effort to increase the terror threat? Even I can see that warfare based on lies to achieve concealed goals will most definitely lead to more terror. So it's not incompetence. It could be greed attributed to the oil, arms industry etc. But again, that does not explain the neo cons hardcore determination on the issue, nor the pre-written terror laws.

So considering these factors, how can the fact-pattern-conclusion oriented Chomsky possibly not conclude this to be what it appears? Imo that is a blatant consistency error.


I read him for a short period myself, but I've yet to see him adress those issues. And I can promise you, if he did there would be immediate reaction on certain sites. The man is much talked about in those enviroments.


Jesus, again? Where does this urge come from?

If I were you I'd say you're doing anything but repeating Chomsky and other credential leftists. If I were you I'd say you've become emotional attached to a dogma, forcing you to defend issues you at heart may have some problems with. I'd say you had become a slave to limited belief.

But I'm not going to do that because I know the world is not that black and white.

And yes, you posted links and I read them. All good readings, but there's nothing in there contradicting my belief. Just different conclusions. And stop with the Alex Jones nagging. Just because I've referred to him once or twice does not mean he's my sole occupation, far from. But perhaps he's the only one you know of, and figure he's the boss of alternative information or whatever (that chain of thought seems familiar).

Trust me, I always give it to the assholes who deserve it. But I can't find it in myself to attack perceived silence, or compare it to the blatant lies of the Neo Cons.

Hey, Polluxm thinks they are all bad. Dems are the same as the neo-cons in their smear and misinformation campgains. Michael Moore and Chomsky are merely talking heads for the elite leftist agenda, that also supports the IMF, World Bank, CIA, and looks the other way while the pharmaceutical industry rape Americans.

LOL, well the guy is persistent!

I gotta hand it to you. That's a beautiful piece of republican rethorics.

Rove is out, and I'm always looking for work.