# just confirms



## duckmander (Aug 25, 2008)

what we already know.

http://www.atlah.org/broadcast/ndnr07-28-08.html


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

How convenient. The individual is calling for conservatives to boycott CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and the NY Times in an effort to stop Obama. That way, the kool aide drinkers can get their "truth" directly spoon fed to them by FoxNews, Rush, and others.

Don't like the fact that folks offer opposing views in the mainstream media? Easy fix. Shut off access to those opposing views by calling for a boycott.

Remember, the Cold War was not won by military might. It was won by providing citizens with communist countries with information. It was won with personal computers, not tanks or nukes.


----------



## crna (Nov 7, 2002)

bigdaddy
for clarification, the cold war was won because we had a president who had the stones to stand up to the russians. he was prepared to do whatever it takes to win. remember, evil will always prevail if good men do nothing.


----------



## wiskodie1 (Sep 11, 2006)

Um&#8230; I think the reason Russia failed had more to do with the fact that the Russian oligarchy was suckered into taking out more debt than they could afford during the arms race and then were forced to sell off their countries nation holdings to cover that debt. None of which really hurt the oligarchy, but it did a nice job of ruining their country and sinking the population into a state of poverty that they will never recover from on their own. In the world of chess it was a masterful stroke, but not one we can take credit for.

"All the world is a stage"

Over and out-


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

BigDaddy

Have you noticed there are Democrat politicians trying to silence Rush (and a few others) via the so called "Fairness Doctrine" ... Liberal radio (and TV) just doesn't attract listeners/viewers. They've tried.

Whos fault is that? ...

Do you then try to choke the life out of the first ammendment ... just because (even though folks have the right to say what they want) no one is required by law to listen???

Please go into some detail for me on just how that ought to work.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

BigDaddy said:


> Remember, the Cold War was not won by military might. It was won by providing citizens with communist countries with information. It was won with personal computers.


Hmmm ... Just how many folks had "personal computers" prior to 1989? ... and just where was the Internet prior to 1989? OH and how many folks in Communist Eastern Europe might have had both computers and Internet access prior to 1989?

There's a project for you ... Do a little research and get back to me on that.

You really need to unclog your mind before you begin typing ... me thinks


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Actually DecoyDummy, you are the one that needs to do a little research. You see, email was actually developed in the late 1960s not the 1990s. In fact, ARPANET was launched in 1972. However, up until the mid 1980s, all email was done mainframe to mainframe. This being said, mainframe computers were truly networked in some fashion well before Yahoo and Google were invented. In fact, news companies like the AP began using electronic means to transfer information over 20 years ago.

What happened in the mid 1980s? The personal computer. Remember the old Commodore 64s? Then the Mac? Then the PC? These units were not real powerful, but equipped with a simple modem, people from all over the world could communicate without having to find a mainframe. This includes people behind the Iron Curtain. It is this access to information that first began to put cracks in the Berlin Wall, not Uncle Ronny.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Well BigDaddy, I guess we'll get to see firsthand how to defeat socialism if we get Obama for four years.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Big Daddy ... I bet you are correct ... all these repressed folks behind the Iron Curtain were finding ways to hook up to main frame systems in the 1960s plotting ways to break away from Soviet repression.

Keep in mind here ... your reference to "20 years ago" is 1988 ... you can't possibly think that an entire revolution was spawned in a matter of months via a communication system that was in it's infancy..

I submit that personal computers had little to do with the down fall of Nicolae Ceauşescu of Romania in 1989 ... do you have any idea how many folks in Romania even knew of personal computers ... before 1989??


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

BigDaddy, computers all around Russia? Our church has had a missionary in the Ukraine for ten years now. They are lucky to have an indoor bathroom and a clothes washer much less a computer. As a matter of fact our church is sending money for a washer and dryer for the orphanage :eyeroll:

Wiskodie1, I can see liberalism has crept into your interpretation of history. Although Russia today is often referred to as an oligarchy the people became rich after the fall of Russia. So you see you have a messed up chronological order. Russia was in economic trouble because of the arms race, that is true. However, they didn't realize how much trouble they were in until Reagan proposed star wars. They knew a system like that would cost them billions and billion and there was no way they could match us. Reagan swamped them in the arms race, then confronted them in their time of weakness. 
If Obama gets elected that's what Russia and all enemies will do, confront us in our time of weakness.

Here is the correct chronology of the rise of oligarchy (if it even exists) as outlined by wikipedia.



> Russia has been labeled an oligarchy because of the power of certain individuals, the oligarchs (often former Nomenklatura), who gained great wealth after the fall of Communism.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

BigDaddy said:


> Remember, the Cold War was not won by military might. It was won by providing citizens with communist countries with information. It was won with personal computers, not tanks or nukes.


You are completly 180 off on the distributor.



> It is this access to information that first began to put cracks in the Berlin Wall, not Uncle Ronny.


I will allow that the idea of information was a trickle at best at first but it was R.R that caused it gush to burst the damn.

B.T.W.....I _was_ there when it happened.


----------



## wiskodie1 (Sep 11, 2006)

Good going plainsman, I was wondering if anyone ever looked into the Russian oligarchy, glad to see you took some time to look it up, it's an important fact as to why Russia failed. And yes they did maintain a lot of the wealth and some of their power off their holdings, most of them were huge industrialists prior to the fall, they owned and or controlled vast amounts of the countries assets, and they got suckered into taking out more debt than they could afford during the arms race. Once they were upside down on the deal the banks called in the loans and they were forced to sell off. Most of their holdings and involvement were hidden from the country. It wouldn't look good to spotlight a couple of key Russian families as capitalist industrialist behind the red curtain, but they were there all the same. They sold their people into poverty trying to save their power base and it worked. The true Russian Oligarchy predates the Soviet Union and is documented all the way back to the mid eighteen hundreds, which is also when Russia started there industrial era. Most of the first families were nobles at the time under the Tsar (Czar). After the Russian revolution and the rise of the Soviet Union the nobles lost their nobility but were allowed oversight and control of industry and trade, they gradually strengthened their control and became an oligarchy; from there they exerted pressure on the government. They used their wealth and influence to slowly edge out the international banking oligarchy which had funded the Russian Revolution against the Tsar. This more or less placed the old nobles back in power of Russia, In retaliation the banks funded the red scare in the US shattering our WW1 alliance with Russia and from there they slowly worked at regaining control, this lead to multiple wars around the globe and the eventually started an arms race. The Russian oligarchy was forced to reply in kinds which lead to the cold war. The Russian oligarchy was forced to expend all of their resources on the arms race in a bid to maintain their power. When their money was exhausted they were forced to sell off their assets and in return were allowed to maintain some of their power base. The sell off caused the Soviet Union to collapse and plunged the country into poverty. They couldn't hide the selloff of the country and their deeds were brought to light in front of the Russian people. Poverty ignited a huge black-market in Russia and a few folks got rich, they are called the New Russian Oligarchy which refers to the leading heads of the post soviet union black market and they are now taking the blame for what those that are still in control did.

And credit isn't ours. The world banking Oligarchy pulled this trick off, granted they couldn't have done it without the USA pushing Russia in the Arms race, but then again where do you think we got the money for the cold war from? I know no one like hearing they were used as pawns, but that's more or less the role we played in this. I don't know why you would really care, hell it still says we won the cold war in the history books. I'm not sure how all of this would make me a liberal? Not that I'm overly concerned about it, it common knowledge on this forum that you throw everyone you differ with under that bus.
Ok this part will be way off subject but it should help to confuse plainsman further.
While my Fiancé was at the RNC she attended a lecture, it was geared towards teaching campaign volunteers how best to secure votes for their candidate both at the state and local levels. The lecture covered a lot of different techniques. So take a guess at how many votes you need to secure in this country to guaranty your candidate wins the national election? According to the pro's at the RNC its 6%.....yep that's it, 6% of the population will guaranty your guy wins, less than 12% of this country votes in a presidential election year. So what makes anyone left or right think we have any sort of pull with our government? Do you think they worry about their voting base once they are elected? Do you think 12% of the total population can exert any sort of pressure on these people? The answer is no! so if anyone in here doesn't like what they see in our government it's not because of left or right. It's because as a whole we don't have enough force to exert change. But yet we see change every day? Guess what, it's not the populous causing it and it sure as hell isn't the populous benefitting from it. So ask yourself who has been benefitting this whole time?

LOL, let the games begain!!!!


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

crna said:


> bigdaddy
> for clarification, the cold war was won because we had a president who had the stones to stand up to the russians. he was prepared to do whatever it takes to win. remember, evil will always prevail if good men do nothing.


correct........ :lol:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I'm not sure how all of this would make me a liberal?


Well if I am wrong about that I am sorry, because that is a nasty label. I though that because it would appear you blame everything on the nasty rich. You may not be far off, but there are a lot of nasty people that are not rich. Perhaps a lot more because not many are rich.

Forgive me if I don't just take your word for all of this. Only 12 percent vote sounds extremely low. I thought they said we had better than 50% of those who could legally vote turn out to vote in the last election. Is the 12 percent derived from our total population including children who can not vote?

As to history you are correct it says we won the cold war. They also give most of the credit to Reagan. Where do you find all the oligarchy information. It sounds like a conspiracy web site. I am serious this doesn't sound kosher, it sounds a little off the wall like the guys who thought there was a mother ship behind the last comet to pass earth. I'm not sure though because I certainly have not gone into Russian history like you apparently have. Like most things the truth perhaps is somewhere in between.


----------



## wiskodie1 (Sep 11, 2006)

Well thanks for the apology plainsman! or whatever that was? You sneaky old bugger you  LOL

As for the Russian history, I ended up looking into that because the Czar of Russia came to our aid during the civil war and supported President Lincoln with his fleet; I thought that sounded a bit strange at the time so I started looking into how all that happened. As it turns out its right in line with the old adage, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. But at the time we were in a war with ourselves and it's a bit hard to see how the South was the Czar enemy. Of course the plot thickens from there but it's a great story to piece together if you like history. As for conspiracy&#8230;. Well I think that just about constitutes anything not in a 6th grade history book these days. And since they seem to have left out all of this info then yes feel free to call it that, but it's all in black and white archives which are spread out across at least 3 different countries. Still it will be a nice hobby for you this winter. I'll give you a hint to help you along&#8230;. Follow the money 

If it seems to you that I am railing against the rich, you would be mistaken. I have simple laid down a timeline of events that show one example of the oldest game in the world, the game of thrones, and it is still played today just as it has always been. A good book to read that will show this statement as true would be "the grand chess board" it was written in 1997 and it outlines the steps needed to achieve global supremacy. I'm sure that rings in your ear as conspiracy  LOL but you might like to look into it because it's anything but. The Author of the book is a guy by the name of Zbigniew Brzezinski. And here's the best part, him and your good buddy Obama are friends. As a matter of fact I think he is still Obama's Top foreign policy advisor.

The 6% and 12% was what the lecturer at the RNC said. My fiancé said he broke it all down step by step, but I was working at the time and couldn't attend it for myself. I also found the number very low, but my Fiancé is one smart cookie and she insisted those were the numbers he broke it down to. If they are true, then I'm sure you can see why it has become so hard for us Americans to pressure our politicians. We simply don't have the numbers to matter. So in the big money game of politics who do you think they cattier to? The 6%/12% of the population that voted them into office or the people that gave them all the money to get there? you can think what you want, but I'll keep my eye on the money, and if thats the case you can expect there plans wont be to benefit Americans or the country we live in. its greed, you always speak of the redistribution of weather and rail against the liberals and there greed, well that's only a half truth because it works both ways. Redistribution of wealth can go both ways. You said yourself you don't want to give your money away to people that don't work for it. Ether do I, I don't want to give my hard earned cash away to ANYONE! I support moderation in all things.

Well I got to run, my spaceship is waiting

Over and out-


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> you always speak of the redistribution of weather and rail against the liberals and there greed, well that's only a half truth because it works both ways.


Yes, I do know that. The problem is how do we stop the greed of the rich when they provide the jobs, and if we control them we muzzle capitalism. It's a quandary isn't it.



> Well I got to run, my spaceship is waiting


See you on your next revolution around the sun. 

By the way, your post was darn interesting reading. I can't imagine how much I can get out of you if I keep poking. oke:


----------



## h2ofwlr (Feb 6, 2004)

6 and 12% does not make sense at ALL. Something is missing.

Here is why, we have 300M people in the US, now lets knock off 25% for under age 18. That leaves 225M. Now there are those that can not vote, from foreigners, to felons, etc.. Say there are 25M of them for a round number of 200M who can vote. Usually 55 to 75% of the voters who are elegible to vote do so for national elections. Lets say 2/3 which is 130M voters.

I know some guys are going 'why not just say the % is 66% and not 12%.' Here is why, quite possibily it is the swing voters that decide the election and is what is meant by the 12% figure. So can 15M voters decide an outcome of an Pres election, YES most definately they can. And why it is these voers than can get a person into office.

We just saw it this last week with women voters defecting from the Dems to support Palin. That is where McCain picked up much of his lead. And of course the undecides who were waiting to see who the VP choices would be. I think many more decided that a fresh face with exec experience would be better suited as VP than a old has been that is part of the stalemate in Washington. These undecides choose McCain over Obama/Biden to help tip the scales.

But the race is far from over. There are still many undecides out there. And if a gaff happens again like last weeks 'lipstick on a pig' by Obama or Biden's 'maybe I should withdraw' comment, it will turn off the undecides and they will move towards McCain/Palin. But if McCain or Palin make a gaff, the reverse can happen too.

And then consider the upcoming debates, lets just say they will be interesting and some voters could be swayed, especially the independent voters.

A lot can happen over the next 8 weeks time yet.


----------

