Ulsterman and The CIA Takeover of a Independent Blogging Scene of The USA

Need for power!

Nothing more than hypotheses. I suppose the rumors about O’Commie being a CIA plant himself are not believable while you latch onto this “revelation” like a newborn to its mother. Corporate America (Wall Street more appropriately) is partially to blame for the election of O’Commie. You can pretend you haven’t seen who his most sizable donors are, but you would be engaging in intellectual dishonesty.

The more airtime you give Ulsterman, the further you legitimize him. Move on already and don’t make the same mistake of voting for an empty suit in the future (if you even get another chance).

Where are you seeing this universal love for O’Commie? You should put away your delusions of grandeur.

Dems only care about the slaughter of innocents abroad when it’s the Repubs breaking international law. When it’s their guy they’ll turn a blind eye so long as you promise them spending programs even if it never materializes. Like children rebelling against their Father they have no real beliefs or values. There are honorable exceptions of course, but the number of Republicans who saw Bush for what he was and turned away in horror far outnumbers the so-called liberals who have the intellectual and emotional honesty to admit they’ve been duped by Obama.

Seiva7 you stupid peabrained little girl lemme explain something to you. Do you remember how you and the rest of the Dems screamed blue murder during Bush and Cheneys hideous criminal warmongering? How they were War Criminals and should be brought to justice (they were and should have been, along with Tony Blair)? DO YOU REMEMBER THE COMPARISONS WITH HITLER?

Well then, since BO has been in power not only has lied about ending Gitmo, not only has he lied about holding investigations into the torture and criminal behaviour, he is continuing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. PLUS he expanded into Pakistan – do you know how many innocents those drones have killed?, and now Libya and he’s gearing up for Syria. ALL ILLEGAL WARS I MIGHT ADD.

And while you are celebrating OBL capture do remember they invaded a Sovereign Nation do do so without any discussing with the Pakistanis. Another illegal act of war dipshit. Oh but they’ve changed the name so the Kool Aid drinkers don’t figure it out, “kinetic engagement” is the new cool term for “we want to steal your resources and we’ll bomb the shit out of you because we care”. Ron Paul is right, there’ll be ground troops in Pakistan soon. Of course Iran is also still a target but he better be careful with both Paki and Iran – they have nukes and they are pals with China and Russia.

Thanks to Obama it is now on table that it is okay to try and assassinate another Head of State even when he has not threatened you. ILLEGAL in case you didn’t know. If a foreign head of state decides to send a team to take out Obama, well then they can’t complain can they?. What’s good for the goose and all that. If they take out Ghaddafi, how many Dems will be screeching that BO should be impeached for war crimes? Imagine if it was Bush doing this! Loathsome hypocrites you are.

Obama has out warmongered Bush and that takes some doing.

(Oh and I do believe that he not only consolidated the Patriot Act but the Supreme Court has now just passed a resolution to allow police to search homes without a warrant. Bush would never have dared to go that far.)

The only good thing he has done is announce a return to the 1967 borders for Israel and a peace deal in September. However given the rest of his war mongering I suspect this just furthers the ‘game’. His Wall Street paymasters will be very upset (Zionists to a man) and Israel will be apoplectic with rage. War will certainly erupt if any attempt is made to force Israel to comply with International Law. Ooh whoopie, we haz another war. What a surprise! Not.

I hope to god America gets a Republican as President again because that’s the only way Dems will give a shit about anyone else and the slaugher of innocents. It’s a hollow, fickle “caring”, used only for political effect, but at least it’s better than the grotesque silence re Democrats crimes.

God the Kool Aid drinkers disgust me. Obama is your Jim Jones. Drink up little Obamabots it’s time for some kinetic engagements because you iz so compassionate.

*barf*

BTW as BO has just been inciting revolution in the ME will he be as tolerant if the people revolt in the US or will the army deal with them? What do you think? Be sweet justice though if the Chinese play the game according to the new rules America has just created and they send arms to the “rebels”. Maybe they’ll send drones over Washington – if a rag tag group with boxcutters could manage it on 9/11 (riiiiight!) I’m sure the Chinese or Russians could do better.

That would be poetic even though it won’t happen. YET.

If Repubs have any sense they’ll run someone like Herman Cain or Alan West – men of integrity who will cause the Dems heads to explode. Hurling racist abuse at these men (which they do) while simultaneously holding the deluded belief that only they are non-racist and tolerant should be fun to watch. Stupid people deserve to suffer mental turmoil.

Whether Ulsterman really does have an “insider” ala Deep Throat in Watergate, or he is full of crap is up in the air. You simply refuse to believe cause it is Obama. If it had been about Bush you’d have been lapping it up and would have certainly allowed that it might very well be true.

Here’s an article from the REAL Left, which might hopefully make some of you fraudulent children take your head out of your ass. The ONLY reason you excuse Obama is because he’s half black. When you don’t hold someone to the same standards as everyone else because of their skin color you are a racist who believes deep down that person is not equal and cannot bear the criticism without crumbling. How pathetic.

“Who is the Real Reactionary?
Ron Paul: More Progressive Than Obama?

By CHARLES DAVIS

Ron Paul is far from perfect, but I’ll say this much for the Texas congressman: He has never authorized a drone strike in Pakistan. He has never authorized the killing of dozens of women and children in Yemen. He hasn’t protected torturers from prosecution and he hasn’t overseen the torturous treatment of a 23-year-old young man for the “crime” of revealing the government’s criminal behavior.

Can the same be said for Barack Obama?

Yet, ask a good movement liberal or progressive about the two and you’ll quickly be informed that yeah, Ron Paul’s good on the war stuff — yawn — but otherwise he’s a no-good right-wing reactionary of the worst order, a guy who’d kick your Aunt Beth off Medicare and force her to turn tricks for blood-pressure meds. By contrast, Obama, war crimes and all, provokes no such visceral distaste. He’s more cosmopolitan, after all; less Texas-y. He’s a Democrat. And gosh, even if he’s made a few mistakes, he means well.

Sure he’s a murderer, in other words, but at least he’s not a Republican!

Put another, even less charitable way: Democratic partisans – liberals – are willing to trade the lives of a couple thousand poor Pakistani tribesman in exchange for a few liberal catnip-filled speeches and NPR tote bags for the underprivileged. The number of party-line progressives who would vote for Ron Paul over Barack Obama wouldn’t be enough to fill Conference Room B at the local Sheraton, with even harshest left-leaning critics of the president, like Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi, saying they’d prefer the mass-murdering sociopath to that kooky Constitution fetishist.

As someone who sees the electoral process as primarily a distraction, something that diverts energy and attention from more effective means of reforming the system, I don’t much care if people don’t vote for Ron Paul. In fact, if you’re going to vote, I’d rather you cast a write-in ballot for Emma Goldman. But! I do have a problem with those who imagine themselves to be liberal-minded citizens of the world casting their vote for Barack Obama and propagating the notion that someone can bomb and/or militarily occupy Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen and Libya and still earn more Progressive Points than the guy who would, you know, not do any of that.

Let’s just assume the worst about Paul: that he’s a corporate libertarian in the Reason magazine/Cato Institute mold that would grant Big Business and the financial industry license to do whatever the hell it wants with little in the way of accountability (I call this scenario the “status quo”). Let’s say he dines on Labradoodle puppies while using their blood to scribble notes in the margins of his dog-eared, gold-encrusted copy of Atlas Shrugged.

So. Fucking. What.

Barack Obama isn’t exactly Eugene Debs, after all. Hell, he’s not even Jimmy Carter. The facts are: he’s pushed for the largest military budget in world history, given trillions of dollars to Wall Street in bailouts and near-zero interest loans from the Federal Reserve, protected oil companies like BP from legal liability for environmental damages they cause – from poisoning the Gulf to climate change – and mandated that all Americans purchase the U.S. health insurance industry’s product. You might argue Paul’s a corporatist, but there’s no denying Obama’s one.

And at least Paul would – and this is important, I think – stop killing poor foreigners with cluster bombs and Predator drones. Unlike the Nobel Peace Prize winner-in-chief, Paul would also bring the troops home from not just Afghanistan and Iraq, but Europe, Korea and Okinawa. There’d be no need for a School of the Americas because the U.S. wouldn’t be busy training foreign military personnel the finer points of human rights abuses. Israel would have to carry out its war crimes on its own dime.

Even on on the most pressing domestic issues of the day, Paul strikes me as a hell of a lot more progressive than Obama. Look at the war on drugs: Obama has continued the same failed prohibitionist policies as his predecessors, maintaining a status quo that has placed 2.3 million – or one in 100 – Americans behind bars, the vast majority African-American and Hispanic. Paul, on the other hand, has called for ending the drug war and said he would pardon non-violent offenders, which would be the single greatest reform a president could make in the domestic sphere, equivalent in magnitude to ending Jim Crow.

Paul would also stop providing subsidies to corporate agriculture, nuclear energy and fossil fuels, while allowing class-action tort suits to proceed against oil and coal companies for the environmental damage they have wrought. Obama, by contrast, is providing billions to coal companies under the guise of “clean energy” – see his administration’s policies on carbon capture and sequestration, the fossil fuel-equivalent of missile defense – and promising billions more so mega-energy corporations can get started on that “nuclear renaissance” we’ve all heard so much about. And if Paul really did succeed in cutting all those federal departments he talks about, there’s nothing to prevent states and local governments — and, I would hope, alternative social organizations not dependent on coercion — from addressing issues such as health care and education. Decentralism isn’t a bad thing.

All that aside, though, it seems to me that if you’re going to style yourself a progressive, liberal humanitarian, your first priority really ought to be stopping your government from killing poor people. Second on that list? Stopping your government from putting hundreds of thousands of your fellow citizens in cages for decades at a time over non-violent “crimes” committed by consenting adults. Seriously: what the fuck? Social Security’s great and all I guess, but not exploding little children with cluster bombs – shouldn’t that be at the top of the Liberal Agenda?

Over half of Americans’ income taxes go to the military-industrial complex and the costs of arresting and locking up their fellow citizens. On both counts, Ron Paul’s policy positions are far more progressive than those held – and indeed, implemented – by Barack Obama. And yet it’s Paul who’s the reactionary of the two?

My sweeping, I’m hoping overly broad assessment: liberals, especially the pundit class, don’t much care about dead foreigners. They’re a political problem at best – will the Afghan war derail Obama’s re-election campaign? – not a moral one. And liberals are more than willing to accept a few charred women and children in some country they’ll never visit in exchange for increasing social welfare spending by 0.02 percent, or at least not cutting it by as much as a mean ‘ol Rethuglican.

Mother Jones’ Kevin Drum, for example, has chastised anti-Obama lefties, complaining that undermining – by way of accurately assessing and commenting upon – a warmonger of the Democratic persuasion is “extraordinarily self-destructive” to all FDR-fearing lefties.

“Just ask LBJ,” Drum added. The historical footnote he left out: That LBJ was run out of office by the anti-war left because the guy was murdering hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese. But mass murder is no reason to oppose a Democratic president, at least not if you’re a professional liberal.

There are exceptions: Just Foreign Policy’s Robert Naiman has a piece in Truth Out suggesting the anti-war left checking out Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico who’s something of a Ron Paul-lite. But for too many liberals, it seems partisanship and the promise – not even necessarily the delivery, if you’ve been reading Obama’s die-hard apologists – of infinitesimally more spending on domestic programs is more important than saving the lives of a few thousand innocent women and children who happen to live outside the confines of the arbitrary geopolitical entity known as the United States.

Another reason to root — if not vote — for Ron Paul: if there was a Republican in the White House, liberals just might start caring about the murder of non-Americans again.”

Bored now. Buh bye peabrain faux liberal. From this end you are as ‘fundy’ and ‘wingnut’ in your own way as the tards on the other side. It’s very tiresome and you are played like fiddles.

I suggest we start a rumor that seiva7 is on Obama’s payroll. Seems a much more likely scenario and would explain this obsession with attacking the credibility of a private citizen simply because he opposes President Titantic.

How much does he pay you to defend him, seiva7?

.

Oh, hello Ulsterman, thank you for the comment,