Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)

    Obama or Romney: War and Economic Collapse Regardless Who Wins the Election

    Obama or Romney: War and Economic Collapse Regardless Who Wins the Election

    By Kurt Nimmo
    October 16, 2012

    CNN is making a big deal out of Romney’s “right leaning” supporters.

    The corporate media branch of the Pentagon’s psyops program thinks there’s a good chance these “severely conservative” voters may push Romney over the top and get him installed in the White House as preeminent teleprompter reader for the global elite.

    In August, Peter Schiff, economic adviser to Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign, said he thinks the economic implosion will occur during the next administration.

    He has no faith in Obama and little in Romney to turn things around.

    Despite the flaccid neo-Tea Party rhetoric of Paul Ryan, prior to the Obama administration Republicans out-spent Democrats threefold. Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II racked up $6.4 trillion dollars in debt and thus put to rest the obscene fantasy of “fiscal conservatism.”

    In September, according to official figures, the national debt surpassed $16 trillion. In reality, it is much higher – well over $200 trillion when unfunded liabilities from Medicare and Social Security are thrown into the mix.

    “Let’s get real. The U.S. is bankrupt,” writes Boston University economic professor Laurence Kotlikoff.

    Due to the astronomical debt and profligate spending by largely unaccountable professional political careerists in Washington, “what we have to look forward to is a very bleak future,” writes Michael Snyder.

    “Even if we totally scrapped our current monetary system and repudiated the debt, the transition would be ‘rocky’ at best and we would not enjoy anything close to the standard of living that we are enjoying today.”

    As for war, a Romney win in November will ensure the re-installment of the Bush-era neocons and a speedy timeline for war in the Middle East, particularly against Syria and sooner before later Iran.

    Because the election is a couple of weeks away, Romney’s saying there’s no need to attack Iran in response to its imaginary nuclear weapons program.

    His foreign policy advisers, on the other hand, are neocons who have repeatedly called for taking out Iran.

    More frightening, Romney is close friends with Israel’s ardent Likudnik, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Mitt has stated that they “almost speak in shorthand.”

    Martin S. Indyk, a United States ambassador to Israel in the Clinton administration, told the New York Times that Romney would “subcontract Middle East policy to Israel,” i.e., the U.S. will attack Israel’s enemies during the reign of Mitt.

    In other words, if Romney wins we can expect an attack on Iran that would certainly compound the above mentioned economic problems.

    Following Obama’s lackluster performance during the last presidential debate, his administration trotted out what can be described as “Iran Attack Light,” a plan to use “surgical strikes” against the country in lieu of an all-out attack.

    Foreign Policy CEO and editor at large David Rothkopf, a former Clintonite, “reported that the White House and Israeli officials ‘assert that the two sides, behind the scenes, have come closer together in their views [regarding Iran] in recent days,’” according to the Jerusalem Post.

    Bizarrely, the establishment media continues to pretend there is a widening chasm of difference between Obama and Romney.

    In fact, they both present the same economic and foreign policy goals, which are, of course, not their goals but those of the global elite.

    The establishment media does its part by playing up minor differences in style between the two and uses a trusty false left-right paradigm to distract weary voters and excite indoctrinated loyalists.

    Obama or Romney: War and Economic Collapse Regardless Who Wins the Election :
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2
    Senior Member 4thHorseman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Gulf Coast
    So, throw in the towel? Horse hockey. The problem can be solved.

    1. Privatize SS and Medicare and kill Obamacare. Over 20 to 30 years the unfunded obligations will no longer exist, and obligations will be funded directly by private, fully secured accounts. Why have we not done this before? Because politicians want THEIR HANDS on that money to buy votes to stay in office. We must take it away from them.
    2. End all legalized bribery being perpetrated via LOBBY MONEY. To me this is the largest single threat we face because it is the lobby money fostering the special interest voting in Washington leading us into virtually every lousy decision that has been made in the last 60 years. Problem is that the very people pocketing the lobby money are the ones that have to vote it out. This is why grass roots programs such as the TEa Party are critical to our survival. They have a potential to change party politics and rules, while the elites running the parties today are not going change unless we find a way to force them to.
    3. Energy Independence. We should have had this after the first Arab oil embargo in the 1970's. Why did we not? See above. LOBBY MONEY. Can we do it now? Absolutely, and within 5 to 10 years. The addition of new natural gas finds and extraction methods coupled with our known oil, gas and coal reserves shows potential of over 500 years of carbon energy. While this is going on intensify research on a safer, more cost effective grid including more efficient ways to get electricity from points of origin to end users (current loss rate is 40 to 50%). Build a short/mid/long term plan to phase in hydrogen as an alternative to gasoline. That would solve pollution problems in cities, provide a renewable energy resource (three fourths of the world covered with water, 2 atoms of hydrogen per molecule). Solar energy could be used to do this and more efficiently than using solar for generating electricity, half of which would get lost in transmission. Plus, the technology I think would work best already exists and has been used successfully for over 60 years.
    "We have met the enemy, and they is us." - POGO

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts