12/13/16 1:44 PM

There's no question that Obama responding to Assad crossing the "red line" with chemical weapons by imposing a no-fly zone would have us in a very different place. I thought that was the right thing to do at the time and I still think so. But I am not foolish enough to believe that the outcome would have been "good." When the ground is tilted steeply downhill, you can take many paths but you still tend to end up at the bottom.

Like some smart person said: In Iraq and Afghanistan, we invaded and things turned out really badly. In Libya we didn't invade but we did impose a no-fly zone and things turned out really badly. In Syria we didn't invade and we didn't impose a no-fly zone and things turned out really badly. Thermodynamics tells us that things tend to go to low energy states. The Middle East seems to have a similar imperative to go to the "sheit state."

Pretending that any of us, or anyone, has a good idea of how proposed actions in the Middle East will turn out is the height of foolishness.

12/13/16 2:52 PM

You are correct, as none of us has access to real information beyond what the presstitute media wants us to believe.

"We" may not have imposed a no-fly zone over Syria, but that's not to say that Trilateral members in DC didn't arm, bribe and otherwise support "rebels" against the legitimate government of Syria.

I mean, scroll down to see who's a member in Rockefeller's private club known as the Trilateral commission. You have Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Rockefeller, Bush I, and the chairmen of JP Morgan Chase, Citicorp, The Coca Cola Company, Bank of Israel, Columbia Broadcasting, Time Inc., Lehman Bros, Harvard, Wells Fargo Bank, ...plus a bunch of US Rep's and Senators.

https://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2005/11/21/the-global-elite-who-are-they/

BTW, almost all White House cabinet positions are occupied by Trilateral commission members, so expect a Trump cabinet to be no different. Reagan wasn't a member, but his cabinet was filled out with them, and he/they was/were able to follow through with gross privatization of many gov't functions including legislation applying to those same functions, and with media consolidation in overdrive ever since, etc.
No wonder that the media depicts Reagan as popular and "successful".
The Reagan years were a good time for work-seekers, and I was happy for that.

One thing about Obama is that he quietly (seems the media was the most quiet, given the implications) failed to renew the internet protocol agreements, so it's now in private hands. Expect big changes in coming years as far as access to information and new taxation schemes are concerned.[/i]

12/14/16 6:34 AM

...another conspiracy theory that refuses to die. Not interested.

12/14/16 1:58 PM

<img src=https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s480x480/15421012_10154372148353621_4150230037636999081_n.jpg?oh=0b0a5d02a0c302ed5e11fbd45f2b5ebc&oe=58B10582>

12/14/16 2:20 PM

That's great Walter. LOL

12/14/16 2:32 PM

The partisan divide is but masterful stagecraft.

12/14/16 7:14 PM

<img src=https://scontent.fdet1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15350569_722918687882105_1239986965072938218_n.jpg?oh=fb416c2cf35b497c5b1d1bda6d457bf2&oe=58EC84FC>

12/15/16 5:58 AM

...there isn't going to be a single policy or meeting or whatever during the Trump administration where someone isn't going to be claiming that it benefits him financially in some way. This is going to be incredibly fertile ground for malcontents and conspiracy theorists. What we've already seen is that the media focus is generally more on the noise than the substance and that is bound to continue. The same it true for the orgy of rampant speculation and symbolic interpretation that's been going on since the election. I'm going to reserve judgement until he gets into office and actually does something.

12/15/16 9:48 AM

quote:

---

...another conspiracy theory that refuses to die. Not interested.

---

12/15/16 10:44 AM

"I'm going to reserve judgement until he gets into office and actually does something."

you mean aside from enabling and normalizing legions of racist and white-supremacist? isnt that enough of trump 'doing something' to give you pause?

12/15/16 10:55 AM

" isnt that enough of trump 'doing something' to give you pause?"

I seem to recall this in history... I hope it does not go unabated as in the past.

12/15/16 2:32 PM

"I grew up in a town where the John Birch Society was not considered to be a fringe group. The Trilateral Commission and other bogeymen were part of the discussion. It still makes me laugh today, 50 years on."

Trilateral commission was created in '73, that would be 44 years ago.

The commission includes many of the most powerful people. What part of the discussion makes you laugh today?

But Kerry, what does the John Birch Society have to do with it? That some of their members dared to bring up the subject? So that's laughable? Why?

12/15/16 7:22 PM

"you mean aside from enabling and normalizing legions of racist and white-supremacist? isnt that enough of trump 'doing something' to give you pause?"

Trump's displayed irreverence in general, whether it's in regard to women or people of Mexican heritage or those with physical disability, is more along the lines of a Howard Stern "shock" celebrity entertainer. Was there particular racism beyond pointing out the likelihood of personal bias of someone who criticized his stance on ILLEGAL immigration? Are you in favor of illegal immigration? If so, what rate (?) of illegal immigration, that is my question.
The problem with illegal immigration is that it involves the ultimate corruption of law, i.e. that enforcement of the law is selective . Thus the powerful and connected are free to violate the law by filling their factory with illegal foreign workers at the expense of the citizenry. They are taking their own subsidy that the rest of us would be convicted for and likely fined into poverty if we were to do the same.

Trump's arrival in the Presidency is indicative of change in the air, facilitated at the media-tycoon level by those who are interested in having sweeping changes occur at the top levels of government. A character like Trump is perfect to them because his personality becomes the subject, distracting from where the impetus for such change is coming from.
What changes am I talking about? How about Time magazine's article where they allowed Parag Khanna to outline these changes by giving him the opportunity to review his own book (!), with nary a critical review (I thought that might be a first).
Time-Warner's brass has membership in Trilateral Commission just like the other media corporations/conglomerates, so their recommended changes to government, as outlined by Congress, is what the Trump freakshow will try to hide, and will cause crisis sufficient to warrant (gain consent for) implementation.
Are you ready for:

"To showcase this latest book, TIME published Khanna’s own summary, 5 Radical Solutions to Fix Our Busted Government, in which he discusses 5 policy recommendations that are very reminiscent of Technocracy policies seen in the 1930s:"
1.Abolish the electoral college
2.Create a streamlined and expert Cabinet
3.Replace the Senate with an Assembly of Governors
4.Let the Supreme Court modify the Constitution
5.Restore a strong federal service that knows how to run a country

The question is, what sort of crisis will the Trump years have to bring, in order for public consent for Trilateral/media's proposed changes? What will it take?

Of course the elite's endgame is "global governance" over an "energy economy" and a more homogeneous "global society", but what of the sovereign nation? How much further will they have to go with new crises to kill it off, when gaining consent for radical changes means that the current system will first have to be viewed as a failure.
Perhaps also the above list could be a trial balloon, floated to test the waters for other means of altering the constitution and/or replacing representatives with "experts".
But how does one interpret "Restore a strong federal service that knows how to run a country"?

Make no mistake, Trump is an insider, strictly playing the role that has been crafted for him, with the media as his stage hands. It's the old "problem, reaction, solution", with the solution being the end game.

12/16/16 1:52 PM

Sorry, but I can't help but laugh at all of this nonsense. This same conspiracy malarkey has been around for decades. None of it is going to happen, but if ruminating over it makes you happy, so be it.

This is hardly the first time that Time Magazine has published the views of some fringe wingnut. It's basically the print equivalent of "click bait" on the Web. It creates some buzz and publicity, but there's no substance to it.

12/16/16 2:25 PM

Note that Time's brass sits on the same private commission as the rest of the big media outlets.
The "partisan" competition between them is nothing but stagecraft.

I've read Time Magazine over my lifetime, and again, the significance of what I pointed out was the fellow being given the privilege of essentially reviewing his own book, which makes the topic of his review note-worthy imo.

Your dismissive attitude is betrayed by your use of the general "all of this", and pretending to find humor that you failed to disclose.

Did you perhaps get the term "wingnut" from watching FOX News?

You keep popping off about "conspiracy", do you care or dare to say what you mean?

And really, there is no need to apologize up front. You are entitled to your own set of beliefs and are supposed to be free to share them!

12/16/16 3:04 PM

Senators Lindsay Graham, John McCain and Marco Rubio are pushing for investigations. Leftists?

12/16/16 6:59 PM

...predates Fox news by several decades.

Regarding conspiracies, what I'm referring to is the notion that we're all being manipulated by one shadowy group or another and we're just unwitting pawns in a world run by evil power brokers. The same crap was being floated back in the 70's when I first started paying attention to politics (and probably long before that). It's about as credible as the constantly revised predictions of "the Rapture" or your average chain letter/email. I didn't buy into it then and I'm not about to now.

Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps you're the one who's being manipulated into parroting and perpetuating this paranoia? I find it somewhat disappointing that people still get sucked into this morass under the guise of "being in the know" and "critical thinking", when it's really just alarmist "groupthink". It's essentially a religion based on suspicion of anyone perceived to have power. Sure, there are a lot of bad actors in the world and we need to keep them under control as best we can, but we are not living on a great chessboard or in a global puppet theater.

As much as I hate to admit it, the only person screwing up my life is ME.

12/16/16 7:37 PM

"As much as I hate to admit it, the only person screwing up my life is ME."

That you are aware of anyway...

12/17/16 8:19 AM

" We can debate whether the Iraq war should have happened or not"

Wow!

After 10 years, after the Bush administration had to ADMIT they invaded another country without a valid reason, and as a consequence putting the US international standing in the toilet, there's still people who need to "debate " if the invasion can be somehow justified???

Talk about Obama's "inept" foreign policy? Compare to what standard set by his predecessor?

I'm sure Trump will come out with flying color!!! After all, he wore a "Republican" coat. He can do no wrong. At worst, whatever his booboos, it will be merely "debatable" !

12/17/16 9:32 AM

quote:

---

You keep popping off about "conspiracy", do you care or dare to say what you mean?

---