Viewing 12 posts - 31 through 42 (of 42 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #50306
    Profile photo of L Tecolote
    L Tecolote
    Survivalist
    member8

    FDR was a competent politician, but only marginal as a military leader. Still, he at least wasn’t trying to lose completely — just trying to make sure Stalin got the lion’s share.

    Cry, "Treason!"

    #50307
    Profile photo of L Tecolote
    L Tecolote
    Survivalist
    member8

    Another piece of the same old story – you don’t have to like it:

    Cry, "Treason!"

    #50308
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous
    Survivalist

    Darn, why does it have to be Alex Jones? He is one of the least likely to be listened to by the majority of Americans. And like a broken clock, this is one of the times he’s still right. I’ve had exactly this concern for some time, listening to Putin, but also listening to our own leaders. The post I provided a few days ago about the CG at Ft. Benning and his briefing to leaders in the surrounding communities around Ft. Benning, was highly significant despite some here that didn’t believe he knew what he was talking about. I had an interesting discussion with a retired but previously fairly highly placed senior officer, and he smiled and nodded his head when I said to him exactly what I said here: people in his (the Ft. Benning CG’s position) know stuff.

    IF people are watching and looking beyond (or instead of) the MSM sources of “news,” it’s so blatantly obvious that what Putin is charging is in fact based in truth. Heck – Benghazi was involved in shipping arms across the Mediterranean to Turkey, and then on to Syria. We destabilized Libya, which was the forerunner to the destabilization of Egypt and other northern African nations. Syria got worse by the month. Iraq never recovered from the massive destabilization we created there under the guise of 9/11 (with which it had nothing to do). We didn’t learn from the Russians with a protracted war in Afghanistan. The Russian supply chain was very short, yet they couldn’t do it – why did we think we could? Etc., etc., etc.

    Do I trust Putin? Only marginally, but that’s a significant jump from my trust level with our own senior government leaders (Obama and his handlers, as well as W and his handlers before him).

    So no, Tec, I don’t like the video – both because there is a significant, objectively truthful amount of information coming from Putin, and no one can argue that his charges about our government and its controlled media are simply not telling the public what’s going on. It’s been all about shifting polls almost by the hour, for many, many months. Trump this, Clinton that, a rare smattering of Evan McMullin or Gary Johnson, and even less on Jill Stein, plus JayZ, Katy Perry, and whatever “stars” are shining for Cankles. They’ve simply replaced the Kardashians in the “news.” Good info, though. Thanks, Tec.

    #50309
    Whirlibird
    Whirlibird
    Survivalist
    member10

    FDR was a competent politician, but only marginal as a military leader. Still, he at least wasn’t trying to lose completely — just trying to make sure Stalin got the lion’s share.

    I respectfully disagree. FDR was the first of the new breed of politicians and policies. Sleazy for sure, but competent? No.

    FDR’s new deal, was no more than a rehash of the Hoover programs that FDR ran against.

    He allowed himself to lose against Stalin, his list of failures rivals Killary.

    Competent?

    #50310
    Profile photo of MountainBiker
    MountainBiker
    Survivalist
    member10

    Love him or hate him, Putin at least seems to value the Russian people and culture, as opposed to the hatred for all things traditionally American Obama has spewed, and what we have seen based on Hillary’s actions. Both Obama and Clinton are only too willing to make the interests of Americans subservient to Islam and in the case of Hillary, her private bank account.

    #50314
    Whirlibird
    Whirlibird
    Survivalist
    member10

    Which poses the question, which is more dangerous, the national ideologue, the truly corrupted or the religious fanatic?

    #50315
    Profile photo of L Tecolote
    L Tecolote
    Survivalist
    member8

    “An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought.” — Simon Cameron, US financier & politician (1799 – 1889)

    He allowed himself to lose against Stalin, his list of failures rivals Killary.

    Yes, he did, but I don’t think he intended to block Stalin from taking over Eastern Europe, at least not after his advisors “advised” him. Perhaps Truman might have, but much had been settled before he got the chance. No doubt, FDR”s list of failures is long, though the people who used their power to put him in that office would consider them “accomplishments.” For us ordinary Citizens, they were failures, but the globalist Deep State got what they paid for. And what did they “pay” him? Probably not much in Federal Reserve “Notes,” (he was already wealthy) but he got to posture as the heroic champion, first, “saving” the economy with his alphabet soup federal agencies, then “defending democracy,” against the flagrantly evil Axis (whose losing military efforts were financed no less thoroughly/profitably by themselves, than they similarly financed the Allies.) It also enabled the Deep State to strengthen their financial hold on the Soviets, who, at least in Stalin’s day, wanted few ties to Wall Street/London.

    Still, they had planned a certain outcome, a Sovietized Eastern Europe, and a Communist China … and they got it. This made possible a splendidly profitable financial (“cold”) war at a time when continuation of worldwide “hot” war would have been both impractical (since most of the world was worn out) and counterproductive to collecting their “winnings,” setting up the next phase of their op — to knock down this overly prosperous industrial power that was too proud and full of itself, too damn likely to spread this liberty thing too far, and eventually, to kick off the next cycle of profitable world war. With the possible exceptions of JFK, and RWR, they got everything they paid for.

    Considering the global realpolitik turning points of the last 70 years, the USA blew a lot of opportunities to make the world a better place — by “policy,” by treaty, and most of all, by design. Our troops were often bogged down and getting slaughtered in successive BS wars that the head toads never intended to win, but only to milk, for popularity, votes, cash, and “best” of all, the approval of their bankster masters. The few small foreign opportunities, which might, under the right kind of help from us, have led to a gradual increase in freedom in various nations, “our” government first falsely encouraged, then at crisis, spurned potential allies, sided with known enemies, and left the freedom seekers to twist in the wind — over and over and over again. Why does the law of averages not kick in and provide at least a few successes? To my mind, at least, our interests would include getting stuck in fewer wars, and encouraging more liberty, throughout the world. Are we such a monumentally incompetent people (present company excepted) that we can’t get a government to serve those ends?

    Sadly, I think the present answer is, yes. Most of our fellow Citizens have failed to fully understand how the world really works, including longstanding and well-organized threats, swallowing whole the Public Fool System/Major Media version of where we are and how we got here. Those who don’t even suspect what they’re up against almost always lose. But how would they know?

    Cry, "Treason!"

    #50318
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous
    Survivalist

    Which poses the question, which is more dangerous, the national ideologue, the truly corrupted or the religious fanatic?

    Who’s the religious fanatic – and why?

    #50327
    Whirlibird
    Whirlibird
    Survivalist
    member10

    Which poses the question, which is more dangerous, the national ideologue, the truly corrupted or the religious fanatic?

    Who’s the religious fanatic – and why?

    In this case, Zero has consistently sided with the mooselims against all logic. That seems to fit.

    #50328
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous
    Survivalist

    Ah – OK. I thought you were referring to the presidential candidates and couldn’t figure out which one fit that description. I’m still assuming you’re referring to The Donald and Billary as the other two. Assuming that’s the case, I’d say Trump MAY be less dangerous solely because we don’t know for sure what he’d do in office. We most certainly know what Obama would do (“fundamentally transform”) and Hillary (finish the job Obama really started, with a good foundation from “W”). Trump’s a wild card (in multiple senses of that term). He could end up being just as dangerous – we just don’t know yet.

    #50329
    Profile photo of namelus
    namelus
    Survivalist
    member7
    #50341
    Profile photo of namelus
    namelus
    Survivalist
    member7
Viewing 12 posts - 31 through 42 (of 42 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.