Comments on: Politics briefly quash science in Washington furore http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/politics-quash-science-in-washington-furore-for-now.htm Examining scientific and political claims (eg HIV=AIDS) and dissent in the light of the scientific literature Wed, 07 Jan 2009 19:50:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Cathyvm http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/politics-quash-science-in-washington-furore-for-now.htm#comment-6053 Cathyvm Sun, 03 Aug 2008 06:50:53 +0000 http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/politics-quash-science-in-washington-furore-for-now.htm#comment-6053 I don't normally comment on US politics; we don't get much coverage here. As a hetero female I can say Obama is rather scrummy-looking, and he seems to be "smarter than the average bear", but would it make me want to vote for him? Doubtful. As Baby Pong pointed out they all seem to be puppets like Tony Labiar [not sic]. Basically it's choose pro-corporate or pro-corporate - an increasingly common phenomenon in most developed countries. Next year may be the first time in my (adult) life that I don't bother to vote. The Diebold machine issue makes me laugh (in despair). Didn't Bush justify invasion of EYE-raq as taking democracy to the country? Democracy my increasingly sagging bottom! I don’t normally comment on US politics; we don’t get much coverage here. As a hetero female I can say Obama is rather scrummy-looking, and he seems to be “smarter than the average bear”, but would it make me want to vote for him? Doubtful. As Baby Pong pointed out they all seem to be puppets like Tony Labiar [not sic]. Basically it’s choose pro-corporate or pro-corporate - an increasingly common phenomenon in most developed countries. Next year may be the first time in my (adult) life that I don’t bother to vote. The Diebold machine issue makes me laugh (in despair). Didn’t Bush justify invasion of EYE-raq as taking democracy to the country? Democracy my increasingly sagging bottom!

]]> By: Truthseeker http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/politics-quash-science-in-washington-furore-for-now.htm#comment-6052 Truthseeker Sun, 03 Aug 2008 02:35:19 +0000 http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/politics-quash-science-in-washington-furore-for-now.htm#comment-6052 Hmmm Diebold machines..very relevant just now in NYC, see latest post. Thanks for the inspiration. However, we trust that you have revised your opinion of Obama's qualifications in the wake of his triumphant tour of points East across the sea, when European leaders went gaga over the prospect of dealing with a clearminded, tall, well educated man of the 21st C world. The only people who will lose Obama his crown are the illiterates who can't bring themselves to view him as their leader because he is too overqualified to relate to and trust - one of them darn prodigies you can't imagine having a beer with. But you really think Ron Paul's honesty and sanity are big enough to overcome his limitations of skill and stature? Hmmm Diebold machines..very relevant just now in NYC, see latest post. Thanks for the inspiration. However, we trust that you have revised your opinion of Obama’s qualifications in the wake of his triumphant tour of points East across the sea, when European leaders went gaga over the prospect of dealing with a clearminded, tall, well educated man of the 21st C world.

The only people who will lose Obama his crown are the illiterates who can’t bring themselves to view him as their leader because he is too overqualified to relate to and trust - one of them darn prodigies you can’t imagine having a beer with. But you really think Ron Paul’s honesty and sanity are big enough to overcome his limitations of skill and stature?

]]> By: Baby Pong http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/politics-quash-science-in-washington-furore-for-now.htm#comment-6051 Baby Pong Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:47:21 +0000 http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/politics-quash-science-in-washington-furore-for-now.htm#comment-6051 I believe it was the poster called "Marcel" who first pointed out on this blog, many months ago, that Obama was a phony and that if he were genuine, the media would not be promoting him, they would be suppressing him like they did a genuine reformer, Ron Paul. Not that Marcel is omniscient or anything. He also predicted that Hillary would beat Obama (which could still happen if Hillary's wet dream comes true and Obama gets assassinated or something). Marcel's prediction was well-founded, but, as he also pointed out, the super-elite Bilderberg/CFR/Trilateral kingmakers love both of them, so it was clear that it didn't matter which of them they finally selected, the end result would be the same. "Oh, what a wonderful milestone for black people!" "Oh, what a wonderful milestone for women's rights!" Whichever spin they chose, it would serve to distract from the reality that both candidates are fully dedicated to a New World Order that hates both blacks and women. (more on this below in this sadly disorganized post) In any event, for anyone who wants to throw a monkey-wrench into the elitist's New World Order plans for a world dictatorship with everyone (except the elitists themselves of course) being monitored 24/7 by RFID chips, it seems to me that you should hope that McCain wins. This is because the policies of both McCain and Obama, to move the US toward a North American Union modeled after the EU, a precursor to eventual World Government (which means world dictatorship), to continue and repeat the many frauds like Hiv/Aids, 9/11, bird flu, HPV, vaccination (undoubtedly soon to become mandatory), to continue and expand the various wars, etc., will be very similar except in the smallest details. But Obama would be much worse because his blackness and phony liberal persona will serve as a feint that will persuade left-leaning people to support these policies, the same policies that they would oppose if they were promoted by McCain or Bush. As historians have noted, Nixon could only go to China because of his right wing credentials. A "liberal" would have been called a communist for going to China. So the charismatic "leftist" Obama will find it easier to institute fascist New World Order policies than will the "rightist" McCain. He will be supported and called visionary and compassionate for instituting the same policies that would get McCain opposed and denounced as a tyrant. That's why they installed the "liberal" Tony Blair and the "liberal" Bill Clinton into office, where they both proceeded to institute fascist NWO policies. Left/Right is all a big game, and the intellectuals of this blog ought to be able to see through it. McCain for president! (Like your vote matters, they also have those Diebold voting machines now, and can program whichever outcome best meets their needs) I believe it was the poster called “Marcel” who first pointed out on this blog, many months ago, that Obama was a phony and that if he were genuine, the media would not be promoting him, they would be suppressing him like they did a genuine reformer, Ron Paul.

Not that Marcel is omniscient or anything. He also predicted that Hillary would beat Obama (which could still happen if Hillary’s wet dream comes true and Obama gets assassinated or something). Marcel’s prediction was well-founded, but, as he also pointed out, the super-elite Bilderberg/CFR/Trilateral kingmakers love both of them, so it was clear that it didn’t matter which of them they finally selected, the end result would be the same. “Oh, what a wonderful milestone for black people!” “Oh, what a wonderful milestone for women’s rights!” Whichever spin they chose, it would serve to distract from the reality that both candidates are fully dedicated to a New World Order that hates both blacks and women. (more on this below in this sadly disorganized post)

In any event, for anyone who wants to throw a monkey-wrench into the elitist’s New World Order plans for a world dictatorship with everyone (except the elitists themselves of course) being monitored 24/7 by RFID chips, it seems to me that you should hope that McCain wins.

This is because the policies of both McCain and Obama, to move the US toward a North American Union modeled after the EU, a precursor to eventual World Government (which means world dictatorship), to continue and repeat the many frauds like Hiv/Aids, 9/11, bird flu, HPV, vaccination (undoubtedly soon to become mandatory), to continue and expand the various wars, etc., will be very similar except in the smallest details.

But Obama would be much worse because his blackness and phony liberal persona will serve as a feint that will persuade left-leaning people to support these policies, the same policies that they would oppose if they were promoted by McCain or Bush. As historians have noted, Nixon could only go to China because of his right wing credentials. A “liberal” would have been called a communist for going to China. So the charismatic “leftist” Obama will find it easier to institute fascist New World Order policies than will the “rightist” McCain. He will be supported and called visionary and compassionate for instituting the same policies that would get McCain opposed and denounced as a tyrant.

That’s why they installed the “liberal” Tony Blair and the “liberal” Bill Clinton into office, where they both proceeded to institute fascist NWO policies.

Left/Right is all a big game, and the intellectuals of this blog ought to be able to see through it.

McCain for president!

(Like your vote matters, they also have those Diebold voting machines now, and can program whichever outcome best meets their needs)

]]> By: Truthseeker http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/politics-quash-science-in-washington-furore-for-now.htm#comment-6050 Truthseeker Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:32:37 +0000 http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/politics-quash-science-in-washington-furore-for-now.htm#comment-6050 My point O chimney pipe cleaner is not that Obama shouldn't compromise ior play electoral or Presidential politics, only that leadership qualities including principled politics are the sine qua non for the kind of voters he attracted originally who are fed up with compromise with voter and lobbyist, and Obama shouldn't be exhibiting that kind of behavior on center stage, especially when he is abandoning many of his earlier positions now and taking on rightist advisers eg economists from the Chicago school, adding up to enough platform change to disenchant the lefties and Arianna Huffington, author of the new book Right is Wrong, who lambasted him on ABC Sunday morning. Yes it would be a fine thing if Nader had a decent chance. But yes Obama #1 was never that independent, if you wish to say so. I am not sure it was clear at the time where his limits were, but there was something about his style which implied a new level of inner direction matching his fine words. That link should not have been broken. PS eg <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02fisa.html" rel="nofollow"><b><u>Obama Voters Protest His Switch on Telecom Immunity</u></b></a>. <i>July 2, 2008 Obama Voters Protest His Switch on Telecom Immunity By JAMES RISEN WASHINGTON — Senator Barack Obama’s decision to support legislation granting legal immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Bush administration’s program of wiretapping without warrants has led to an intense backlash among some of his most ardent supporters. Thousands of them are now using the same grass-roots organizing tools previously mastered by the Obama campaign to organize a protest against his decision. In recent days, more than 7,000 Obama supporters have organized on a social networking site on Mr. Obama’s own campaign Web site. They are calling on Mr. Obama to reverse his decision to endorse legislation supported by President Bush to expand the government’s domestic spying powers while also providing legal protection to the telecommunication companies that worked with the National Security Agency’s domestic wiretapping program after the Sept. 11 attacks. </i> My point O chimney pipe cleaner is not that Obama shouldn’t compromise ior play electoral or Presidential politics, only that leadership qualities including principled politics are the sine qua non for the kind of voters he attracted originally who are fed up with compromise with voter and lobbyist, and Obama shouldn’t be exhibiting that kind of behavior on center stage, especially when he is abandoning many of his earlier positions now and taking on rightist advisers eg economists from the Chicago school, adding up to enough platform change to disenchant the lefties and Arianna Huffington, author of the new book Right is Wrong, who lambasted him on ABC Sunday morning.

Yes it would be a fine thing if Nader had a decent chance. But yes Obama #1 was never that independent, if you wish to say so. I am not sure it was clear at the time where his limits were, but there was something about his style which implied a new level of inner direction matching his fine words. That link should not have been broken.

PS eg Obama Voters Protest His Switch on Telecom Immunity.

July 2, 2008
Obama Voters Protest His Switch on Telecom Immunity
By JAMES RISEN

WASHINGTON — Senator Barack Obama’s decision to support legislation granting legal immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Bush administration’s program of wiretapping without warrants has led to an intense backlash among some of his most ardent supporters.

Thousands of them are now using the same grass-roots organizing tools previously mastered by the Obama campaign to organize a protest against his decision.

In recent days, more than 7,000 Obama supporters have organized on a social networking site on Mr. Obama’s own campaign Web site. They are calling on Mr. Obama to reverse his decision to endorse legislation supported by President Bush to expand the government’s domestic spying powers while also providing legal protection to the telecommunication companies that worked with the National Security Agency’s domestic wiretapping program after the Sept. 11 attacks.

]]>