How many times have president's promised x, y, and z, then got elected, and then did the exact opposite of what they promise. They make deals with their supporters that they will do their bidding once in office, the supporters don't care what they have to say to get elected. Do I really need to pull up the list of things Obama promised that he lied about? That is one great example. He was a puppet for other interests- charismatically lied his way into office- and then did the bidding of the people who got him there.
All have right to change mind as they get new info.
Just because someone lied or changed their mind----does NOT mean they did it because Corps got to them.
All presidents? And no specific examples of it yet? Find a couple right quick on Obama---maybe win a Pulitzer and get him impeached, etc.
How many times have president's promised x, y, and z, then got elected, and then did the exact opposite of what they promise. They make deals with their supporters that they will do their bidding once in office, the supporters don't care what they have to say to get elected. Do I really need to pull up the list of things Obama promised that he lied about? That is one great example. He was a puppet for other interests- charismatically lied his way into office- and then did the bidding of the people who got him there.
All have right to change mind as they get new info.
Just because someone lied or changed their mind----does NOT mean they did it because Corps got to them.
All presidents? And no specific examples of it yet? Find a couple right quick on Obama---maybe win a Pulitzer and get him impeached, etc.
Regardless you are entitled to your belief that its a true democracy etc. but it isn't my job to convince you otherwise in the end. Do some thorough research and you will uncover some nasty twists and turns in there. The truth is most people don't have the time/energy or the desire to find out whats really going on so the lie and charade persists. But to be clear, I totally respect your point of view I'm not here to convert you in any way, just thoughtful conversation in everyone's benefit...
So--nothing specific in all of your vast study and knowledge of it comes to mind right away. Let's just go with, 'We know it is happening, so it is!'
Not trying to be smart---but looks from afar as okey-doke by media.
Regardless you are entitled to your belief that its a true democracy etc. but it isn't my job to convince you otherwise in the end. Do some thorough research and you will uncover some nasty twists and turns in there. The truth is most people don't have the time/energy or the desire to find out whats really going on so the lie and charade persists. But to be clear, I totally respect your point of view I'm not here to convert you in any way, just thoughtful conversation in everyone's benefit...
So--nothing specific in all of your vast study and knowledge of it comes to mind right away. Let's just go with, 'We know it is happening, so it is!'
Not trying to be smart---but looks from afar as okey-doke by media.
What specific examples are you looking for, an example of a president making a decision based on external pressure? You are actually in need of one, I am happy to find one, but their are truly BILLIONS i'm shocked that you don't realize that....
What specific examples are you looking for, an example of a president making a decision based on external pressure? You are actually in need of one, I am happy to find one, but their are truly BILLIONS i'm shocked that you don't realize that....
Regardless you are entitled to your belief that its a true democracy etc. but it isn't my job to convince you otherwise in the end. Do some thorough research and you will uncover some nasty twists and turns in there. The truth is most people don't have the time/energy or the desire to find out whats really going on so the lie and charade persists. But to be clear, I totally respect your point of view I'm not here to convert you in any way, just thoughtful conversation in everyone's benefit...
Name a candidate that you feel is NOT in the tank. Maybe it is easier that way?
Regardless you are entitled to your belief that its a true democracy etc. but it isn't my job to convince you otherwise in the end. Do some thorough research and you will uncover some nasty twists and turns in there. The truth is most people don't have the time/energy or the desire to find out whats really going on so the lie and charade persists. But to be clear, I totally respect your point of view I'm not here to convert you in any way, just thoughtful conversation in everyone's benefit...
Name a candidate that you feel is NOT in the tank. Maybe it is easier that way?
So--nothing specific in all of your vast study and knowledge of it comes to mind right away. Let's just go with, 'We know it is happening, so it is!'
Not trying to be smart---but looks from afar as okey-doke by media.
It's similar in a way to looking at DNI's quasi hedge because if you look for any one example, you are zooming in way too far to see the big picture. The way to understand it is looking for patterns that persist over time. In this case there are many patterns that persist that point to the same recurring issue, and that is that the president is an employee for other interests.
So--nothing specific in all of your vast study and knowledge of it comes to mind right away. Let's just go with, 'We know it is happening, so it is!'
Not trying to be smart---but looks from afar as okey-doke by media.
It's similar in a way to looking at DNI's quasi hedge because if you look for any one example, you are zooming in way too far to see the big picture. The way to understand it is looking for patterns that persist over time. In this case there are many patterns that persist that point to the same recurring issue, and that is that the president is an employee for other interests.
People say for example. Perry was making 45-50K. Now as gov 150K. But net woth now over 3M. So, they say he getting money somehow from corp. CNN or MSNBC would be so gleeful to get evidence of it. Where is it?
I think things may be shady and look bad. But I do not feel everyone is in the tank. That is just too hard for me to do. Very neagtive to live that way. Blame everything on corp and 'corrupt' politicans. Life is bad for me because of them. If it weren't for all of this I would have a great job and life would be so easy.
People say for example. Perry was making 45-50K. Now as gov 150K. But net woth now over 3M. So, they say he getting money somehow from corp. CNN or MSNBC would be so gleeful to get evidence of it. Where is it?
I think things may be shady and look bad. But I do not feel everyone is in the tank. That is just too hard for me to do. Very neagtive to live that way. Blame everything on corp and 'corrupt' politicans. Life is bad for me because of them. If it weren't for all of this I would have a great job and life would be so easy.
You are being smart, but it's alright that happens in political conversation. I will ask you again what type of example are you looking for I am happy to provide you with any. But again when you say give me an example its a bit vague and I am completely uncertain about what you are looking for....
You are being smart, but it's alright that happens in political conversation. I will ask you again what type of example are you looking for I am happy to provide you with any. But again when you say give me an example its a bit vague and I am completely uncertain about what you are looking for....
People say for example. Perry was making 45-50K. Now as gov 150K. But net woth now over 3M. So, they say he getting money somehow from corp. CNN or MSNBC would be so gleeful to get evidence of it. Where is it?
I think things may be shady and look bad. But I do not feel everyone is in the tank. That is just too hard for me to do. Very neagtive to live that way. Blame everything on corp and 'corrupt' politicans. Life is bad for me because of them. If it weren't for all of this I would have a great job and life would be so easy.
Life is not bad for me at all. I don't live in a negative way at all this is all presumptious. But, based on my observation over time the thing called democracy is a farce, and as a result the direction things continue to move is not in the favor of the common people. The problem isn't just the people who happen to be there, it is designed that way, people have been trying to take money out of politics for a long time and it is repeatedly rejected.
People say for example. Perry was making 45-50K. Now as gov 150K. But net woth now over 3M. So, they say he getting money somehow from corp. CNN or MSNBC would be so gleeful to get evidence of it. Where is it?
I think things may be shady and look bad. But I do not feel everyone is in the tank. That is just too hard for me to do. Very neagtive to live that way. Blame everything on corp and 'corrupt' politicans. Life is bad for me because of them. If it weren't for all of this I would have a great job and life would be so easy.
Life is not bad for me at all. I don't live in a negative way at all this is all presumptious. But, based on my observation over time the thing called democracy is a farce, and as a result the direction things continue to move is not in the favor of the common people. The problem isn't just the people who happen to be there, it is designed that way, people have been trying to take money out of politics for a long time and it is repeatedly rejected.
That is part of the pattern that persists over time, when a candidate is NOT bought and sold you can watch their careers dismantled...
If it were so pervasive---folks would be gleeful to vote for a fringe guy---people would feel they getting back at corp.
If you and I running---we would demonstrate exactly how/why other candidates were doing corps bidding. We win avg guys votes---no problem. But gott have proof! Not conspiracy theory.
We all stand so far back and look and see---then say he voted that way beause he got backing from tobacco groups, or pharma groups. I think they may feel obligated to sometimes, but not to the extent we all are led to believe.
Jeb--be forever linked to what? His family making money off oil? So he has their backing? He obviously will vote in their interest?
That is part of the pattern that persists over time, when a candidate is NOT bought and sold you can watch their careers dismantled...
If it were so pervasive---folks would be gleeful to vote for a fringe guy---people would feel they getting back at corp.
If you and I running---we would demonstrate exactly how/why other candidates were doing corps bidding. We win avg guys votes---no problem. But gott have proof! Not conspiracy theory.
We all stand so far back and look and see---then say he voted that way beause he got backing from tobacco groups, or pharma groups. I think they may feel obligated to sometimes, but not to the extent we all are led to believe.
Jeb--be forever linked to what? His family making money off oil? So he has their backing? He obviously will vote in their interest?
You are being smart, but it's alright that happens in political conversation. I will ask you again what type of example are you looking for I am happy to provide you with any. But again when you say give me an example its a bit vague and I am completely uncertain about what you are looking for....
Take latest guy---what has Obama done that you feel he did under corp pressure?
You are being smart, but it's alright that happens in political conversation. I will ask you again what type of example are you looking for I am happy to provide you with any. But again when you say give me an example its a bit vague and I am completely uncertain about what you are looking for....
Take latest guy---what has Obama done that you feel he did under corp pressure?
I liked Ron---but I have liked a lot of fringe guys---even ole Ross. But I still say chicken and egg. Corp back a guy that tends their way already. Then when in office and they support an initiative that favors that corp---people say---see! When they don't people don't say anything. Big cycle--so all you here are what supports the narrative
I liked Ron---but I have liked a lot of fringe guys---even ole Ross. But I still say chicken and egg. Corp back a guy that tends their way already. Then when in office and they support an initiative that favors that corp---people say---see! When they don't people don't say anything. Big cycle--so all you here are what supports the narrative
Take latest guy---what has Obama done that you feel he did under corp pressure?
Excellent question...let's just pick one example..
How about the 2008 bank bailouts? Giving back to your campaign supporters, very generous. And then that same money being donated back into your campaign next time around. Where does the money come from?
Take latest guy---what has Obama done that you feel he did under corp pressure?
Excellent question...let's just pick one example..
How about the 2008 bank bailouts? Giving back to your campaign supporters, very generous. And then that same money being donated back into your campaign next time around. Where does the money come from?
Oooh I kind of expected that to be one. Of course I was not for that.
But many, many people were for reasons they felt were good for the nation at that time.
Link comes up red screen for me. With little box in corner. But the gist is that the banks only supported Obama and not Romney? Would the same have been said if Romney had won and supported a bailout? If Obama hadn't, do you think he would have backlash from banks?
Oooh I kind of expected that to be one. Of course I was not for that.
But many, many people were for reasons they felt were good for the nation at that time.
Link comes up red screen for me. With little box in corner. But the gist is that the banks only supported Obama and not Romney? Would the same have been said if Romney had won and supported a bailout? If Obama hadn't, do you think he would have backlash from banks?
Maybe war is a better example...who are the private contractors who thrive on our tax dollars? The commander in chief determines where/when we go to war, and then our tax dollars are funneled into PRIVATE CORPORATIONS that make military supplies, weapons, helicopters etc etc for us. One example is the Carlyle group who George Bush Sr. is a senior advisor for (while his son was President of the US and sending us to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that's no conflict of interest). Shockingly, these people also make money rebuilding the places that were destroyed by their weapons so its even sicker than that, but you don't need to go all the way down the rabbit hole to consider the fact that somebody profits when we go to war, and they are closely related to politics.
Maybe war is a better example...who are the private contractors who thrive on our tax dollars? The commander in chief determines where/when we go to war, and then our tax dollars are funneled into PRIVATE CORPORATIONS that make military supplies, weapons, helicopters etc etc for us. One example is the Carlyle group who George Bush Sr. is a senior advisor for (while his son was President of the US and sending us to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that's no conflict of interest). Shockingly, these people also make money rebuilding the places that were destroyed by their weapons so its even sicker than that, but you don't need to go all the way down the rabbit hole to consider the fact that somebody profits when we go to war, and they are closely related to politics.
Yes a few rounds already, all have been booted. I'm sure more will come around...
Really wish he had been accurate on records. I have actually tried that a tad with a small amt on soccer games I watched. So far, pretty interesting. I know you are not for it. But think he was right--if it can be used---soccer is only sport to try it.
Yes a few rounds already, all have been booted. I'm sure more will come around...
Really wish he had been accurate on records. I have actually tried that a tad with a small amt on soccer games I watched. So far, pretty interesting. I know you are not for it. But think he was right--if it can be used---soccer is only sport to try it.
Oooh I kind of expected that to be one. Of course I was not for that.
But many, many people were for reasons they felt were good for the nation at that time.
Link comes up red screen for me. With little box in corner. But the gist is that the banks only supported Obama and not Romney? Would the same have been said if Romney had won and supported a bailout? If Obama hadn't, do you think he would have backlash from banks?
Well the gist was that those same banks supported BOTH sides prior to the election, then got bailed out, and donated bailout money back into BOTH sides. I'm not more anti-Obama than I am anti-Romney, if he was fit for president he would have done the exact same thing. The "if Obama hadn't" question operates on the assumption that this ever was even remotely a possibility, but yes he would have had backlash, and at that level of things backlash is a bullet in the head, or other means of blackmail to destroy a career (Monica Lewinski is a good example, you can't believe she wasn't working for someone can you?). You have to realize its not just the banks themselves, but SEVERAL other players that have a vested interest in things going that way, and these players are EXTREMELY powerful. These are not people who you can just f**k over, it doesn't work that way.
Oooh I kind of expected that to be one. Of course I was not for that.
But many, many people were for reasons they felt were good for the nation at that time.
Link comes up red screen for me. With little box in corner. But the gist is that the banks only supported Obama and not Romney? Would the same have been said if Romney had won and supported a bailout? If Obama hadn't, do you think he would have backlash from banks?
Well the gist was that those same banks supported BOTH sides prior to the election, then got bailed out, and donated bailout money back into BOTH sides. I'm not more anti-Obama than I am anti-Romney, if he was fit for president he would have done the exact same thing. The "if Obama hadn't" question operates on the assumption that this ever was even remotely a possibility, but yes he would have had backlash, and at that level of things backlash is a bullet in the head, or other means of blackmail to destroy a career (Monica Lewinski is a good example, you can't believe she wasn't working for someone can you?). You have to realize its not just the banks themselves, but SEVERAL other players that have a vested interest in things going that way, and these players are EXTREMELY powerful. These are not people who you can just f**k over, it doesn't work that way.
Really wish he had been accurate on records. I have actually tried that a tad with a small amt on soccer games I watched. So far, pretty interesting. I know you are not for it. But think he was right--if it can be used---soccer is only sport to try it.
Really wish he had been accurate on records. I have actually tried that a tad with a small amt on soccer games I watched. So far, pretty interesting. I know you are not for it. But think he was right--if it can be used---soccer is only sport to try it.
Maybe war is a better example...who are the private contractors who thrive on our tax dollars? The commander in chief determines where/when we go to war, and then our tax dollars are funneled into PRIVATE CORPORATIONS that make military supplies, weapons, helicopters etc etc for us. One example is the Carlyle group who George Bush Sr. is a senior advisor for (while his son was President of the US and sending us to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that's no conflict of interest). Shockingly, these people also make money rebuilding the places that were destroyed by their weapons so its even sicker than that, but you don't need to go all the way down the rabbit hole to consider the fact that somebody profits when we go to war, and they are closely related to politics.
Nope--war is absolutely not a better example. Look, people are gonna make money off of war---whether they support you or not. There is no way I can make the leap to a guy going to war to make money. If it were this obvious Congress couldn't say yes to it. There are many, many, many that made money off of the war that did not support Bush directly or indirectly. It so happens some of his supporters made profit. It was not designed that way. If he decided to go to Mars---some of his supporters make money on that and some nonsupporters as well. Nobody ever, ever, ever points out the many that did not support him that made money. And there were many more of those. But, again, this does not drive ratings or make for a good story.
Maybe war is a better example...who are the private contractors who thrive on our tax dollars? The commander in chief determines where/when we go to war, and then our tax dollars are funneled into PRIVATE CORPORATIONS that make military supplies, weapons, helicopters etc etc for us. One example is the Carlyle group who George Bush Sr. is a senior advisor for (while his son was President of the US and sending us to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that's no conflict of interest). Shockingly, these people also make money rebuilding the places that were destroyed by their weapons so its even sicker than that, but you don't need to go all the way down the rabbit hole to consider the fact that somebody profits when we go to war, and they are closely related to politics.
Nope--war is absolutely not a better example. Look, people are gonna make money off of war---whether they support you or not. There is no way I can make the leap to a guy going to war to make money. If it were this obvious Congress couldn't say yes to it. There are many, many, many that made money off of the war that did not support Bush directly or indirectly. It so happens some of his supporters made profit. It was not designed that way. If he decided to go to Mars---some of his supporters make money on that and some nonsupporters as well. Nobody ever, ever, ever points out the many that did not support him that made money. And there were many more of those. But, again, this does not drive ratings or make for a good story.
Nope--war is absolutely not a better example. Look, people are gonna make money off of war---whether they support you or not. There is no way I can make the leap to a guy going to war to make money. If it were this obvious Congress couldn't say yes to it. There are many, many, many that made money off of the war that did not support Bush directly or indirectly. It so happens some of his supporters made profit. It was not designed that way. If he decided to go to Mars---some of his supporters make money on that and some nonsupporters as well. Nobody ever, ever, ever points out the many that did not support him that made money. And there were many more of those. But, again, this does not drive ratings or make for a good story.
Which brings me back to observing any specific example is unsatisfactory, but looking at patterns over the course of time starts to raise some serious eyebrows. There are weapons of mass destruction, we go destroy everything, there were no weapons of mass destruction, who profits? It goes on and on and on and there are some very alarming patterns that reveal themselves. Each one example is unsatisfactory because even if its true it could be an isolated incident. If it isn't true than it doesn't logical follow that no instances are true. The big picture and the pattern is the only way to reveal what we are living in.
Nope--war is absolutely not a better example. Look, people are gonna make money off of war---whether they support you or not. There is no way I can make the leap to a guy going to war to make money. If it were this obvious Congress couldn't say yes to it. There are many, many, many that made money off of the war that did not support Bush directly or indirectly. It so happens some of his supporters made profit. It was not designed that way. If he decided to go to Mars---some of his supporters make money on that and some nonsupporters as well. Nobody ever, ever, ever points out the many that did not support him that made money. And there were many more of those. But, again, this does not drive ratings or make for a good story.
Which brings me back to observing any specific example is unsatisfactory, but looking at patterns over the course of time starts to raise some serious eyebrows. There are weapons of mass destruction, we go destroy everything, there were no weapons of mass destruction, who profits? It goes on and on and on and there are some very alarming patterns that reveal themselves. Each one example is unsatisfactory because even if its true it could be an isolated incident. If it isn't true than it doesn't logical follow that no instances are true. The big picture and the pattern is the only way to reveal what we are living in.
Well the gist was that those same banks supported BOTH sides prior to the election, then got bailed out, and donated bailout money back into BOTH sides. I'm not more anti-Obama than I am anti-Romney, if he was fit for president he would have done the exact same thing. The "if Obama hadn't" question operates on the assumption that this ever was even remotely a possibility, but yes he would have had backlash, and at that level of things backlash is a bullet in the head, or other means of blackmail to destroy a career (Monica Lewinski is a good example, you can't believe she wasn't working for someone can you?). You have to realize its not just the banks themselves, but SEVERAL other players that have a vested interest in things going that way, and these players are EXTREMELY powerful. These are not people who you can just f**k over, it doesn't work that way.
Whoa Not the Lewinsky conspiracy.
So, the banks supported both sides? So someone that has your argument cannot lose then? No matter who got elected was gonna have pressure from the average folks to do something, thus, leading into the conspiracies of doing corps bidding.
Well the gist was that those same banks supported BOTH sides prior to the election, then got bailed out, and donated bailout money back into BOTH sides. I'm not more anti-Obama than I am anti-Romney, if he was fit for president he would have done the exact same thing. The "if Obama hadn't" question operates on the assumption that this ever was even remotely a possibility, but yes he would have had backlash, and at that level of things backlash is a bullet in the head, or other means of blackmail to destroy a career (Monica Lewinski is a good example, you can't believe she wasn't working for someone can you?). You have to realize its not just the banks themselves, but SEVERAL other players that have a vested interest in things going that way, and these players are EXTREMELY powerful. These are not people who you can just f**k over, it doesn't work that way.
Whoa Not the Lewinsky conspiracy.
So, the banks supported both sides? So someone that has your argument cannot lose then? No matter who got elected was gonna have pressure from the average folks to do something, thus, leading into the conspiracies of doing corps bidding.
I would use something like NRA or gaay rights. Where, clearly one candidate got the backing. Then show me how the candidate got benefit or felt obligated to change sides because of their backing, or afraid to lose their backing, etc.
Know what I mean? Just because we suspect there are raccons in the basement and your neighbors have caught a couple in theirs---doesn't mean you have them---yet. Not best analogy---but you get point.
I would use something like NRA or gaay rights. Where, clearly one candidate got the backing. Then show me how the candidate got benefit or felt obligated to change sides because of their backing, or afraid to lose their backing, etc.
Know what I mean? Just because we suspect there are raccons in the basement and your neighbors have caught a couple in theirs---doesn't mean you have them---yet. Not best analogy---but you get point.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.