jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (35 posts)

Olin foundation funded Neocons & deregulation that lead to liar loans

  1. bgamall profile image85
    bgamallposted 7 years ago

    Here is the link. Remember Greenspan said to Bush "secure the oil ministry first thing" and then advocated liar loans in Feb 2004. Now we see another connection between the neocon oil wars and financial deregulation leading to liar loans and the decimation of the middle class.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? … ;aid=14102

    1. RKHenry profile image79
      RKHenryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Very interesting.  Thanks for the link bgamall

  2. profile image0
    Leta Sposted 7 years ago

    Interesting, bgamall...  Do you know how/who this nonprofit is affiliated with at all?  *edit:  I mean, actually, both the nonprofit mentioned in the post, and the nonprofit the article link comes from...

    1. bgamall profile image85
      bgamallposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Global research is just a website. Here is the info on them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Research

      Interesting that Olin Foundation was money earned by the selling of munitions. Don't know if they helped their cause:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_M._Olin_Foundation

  3. nicomp profile image58
    nicompposted 7 years ago

    Liar Loans... alliteration is the hallmark of specious arguments put forth by the Libs/Progressives/Democrats

    1. bgamall profile image85
      bgamallposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I don't follow. It is interesting that we had liar loans, loans that were based upon stated income without need for any verification, under the president most known for lying of any American president. And believe me, it isn't just liberals who think this. You should read Jesse Ventura's book!

      1. tksensei profile image60
        tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Well there's an unimpeachable source!

        1. bgamall profile image85
          bgamallposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          You can look it up. Just because you don't know and you contribute nothing doesn't give you any status other than a troll. Is this the only forum that you troll at Tksensei?

          1. tksensei profile image60
            tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Look what up? A book by Jessie 'The Body'? While I admire the fact that he "ain't got time to bleed," he does not stand as a great authority on political science. He's one of those 'George Bush blew up the Twin Towers' nuts, if that tells you how seriously he should be taken. He's probably wrote the book because he wanted an oil pipeline in Afghanistan, right?

            1. bgamall profile image85
              bgamallposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              He was an expert in explosives, knows how they work, and believed that the towers could not have fallen at the rate of gravity without explosives being present. He is, of course, right, and George Bush is an accessory to murder.   

              But I do apologize to you because I misunderstood your brief remark and having reread it, realize that it was not a trolling statement. Sorry.

              1. tksensei profile image60
                tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Right about what?





                (and apology accepted  - but no need, it's just a discussion forum after all is said and done)

              2. curiozities profile image59
                curiozitiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                As a Navy Seal, Jesse Ventura would've indeed been an expert on explosives--at the tactical level.  He'd know how to blow up a small bridge, blow a hole in the side of a ship, make a car bomb, or some such similar relatively small target. 

                He's not a structural engineer, however, and I used to work with many of them.  He wouldn't know exactly what it'd take to bring down such huge buildings as the WTC towers.  At least, I can guarantee you he never blew up anything anywhere near that size.

                Here is a more authoritative source on what happened during 9-11: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science … 27842.html.  And another thing I'll add is that few things make me laugh harder than to hear Rosie o'Donnell squawk about how steel can't be melted.  You see, my father used to work in a steel mill and his job was to supervise workers who melted the steel and formed it into sheets.

                1. bgamall profile image85
                  bgamallposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Sorry, you can't win this argument. He knows what explosives can do and there are plenty of structural engineers who agree with him. Lets go through a few points.

                  1. There were observable squibbs coming out of floors below the floors imploding. Those cannot be created any way except by explosives.

                  2. No building in the history of skyscrapers has ever fallen at the rate of gravity yet they want you to believe that three did so on the same day, with one not even being hit by a plane!

                  3. George Bush had an OJ like meltdown. I urge you to take a look at it. This is a guilty man. http://www.stumbleupon.com/s/#18IxUK/ww … c:Politics

                  4. Fema said the jet fuel burned for only a few minutes.

                  5. Rupert Murdoch was in on the coverup. Murdoch was the employer of Bill Kristol, of Fox News, who established the group PNAC.

                  6. PNAC wanted a Pearl Harbor like event. They called for a surprise attack on the United States on their website in 2000 and it was on that site for years and I saw it.

                  7. The youngest brother of George Bush, Marvin Bush, was the head of security and of the cameras in the towers. His successor died on the first day on the job, on 9/11.

                  8. Other members of PNAC besides Kristol included Karl Rove, Jeb Bush and Dick Cheney.

                  You cannot get the truth from Pop Mechanics. They are a fraud.

                  1. nicomp profile image58
                    nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    A squibb (sic) is a firecracker. Assuming squibbs (sic) were somehow secreted into the building and somehow installed without anyone noticing, they would have had no impact whatsoever on the structure.

                    What you saw coming out of the floors was part of the building, that reacted to pressure and 'exploded' outward to relieve that pressure. Simple physics.



                    No building in the history of skyscrapers has ever been hit by a fully loaded passenger airliner with a full complement of jet fuel.



                    OJ was found not guilty. (sorry, couldn't resist that one)



                    FEMA isn't a scientific organization. How'd they do when Katrina hit? I'd bet a weeks pay that you are quick to criticize them for that perceived debacle.



                    I hope Mr. Murdoch sues you. You are libeling him.



                    Just because someone/something called for something, it doesn't follow that they are responsible when something remotely similar takes place. Do you subscribe to the predictions of Jean Dixon also? Your are working in reverse in a forlorn attempt to connect dots that don't exist.



                    Marvin Bush owned part of the company that provided the cameras. He was on the board of directors. He was not head of security in the towers.



                    So?



                    I hope Popular Mechanics sues you for libel as well. You make a specious claim with no supporting evidence.

  4. Ralph Deeds profile image73
    Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago

    The John Olin Foundation, now defunct, is notorious for having funded all kinds of dubious right wing causes, for example, a study by a University of Chicago professor purporting to show that crime could be reduced by repealing laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.

    1. nicomp profile image58
      nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I guess the founding fathers were dubious right wingers.

      1. bgamall profile image85
        bgamallposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        They were not right wingers although they supported the right to bear arms. They called those who favored the international banking promotors federalists. The founding fathers opposed the international (British) central banking. They wanted international central banking banned from our shores and fought the revolutionary war to rid the colonies of the bank of England, a PRIVATE bank. Everyone who knew how bad these banks were opposed Alexander Hamilton as well.

        The same thing is happening today, right wing connected people are encouraging central bank power, and this banking class is destroying the American economy, destroying the middle class, and robbing your children. It is time to throw this bank off our shoulders just like Andrew Jackson did.

        1. nicomp profile image58
          nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I was just jumping on the arms issue. Your last paragraph is spot-on.

          1. profile image0
            Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            And I'd second that paragraph.

        2. Misha profile image76
          Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          For some reason you fail to see that left-wing people seem to do exactly the same. smile

          But yes, right wing is actually supposed to oppose this, and they don't, and this seems to be one of the roots of current American problems. smile

          1. bgamall profile image85
            bgamallposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            If you had read my second post I make a distinction between historical small government conservatives and lying, murdering, ponzi facilitating neocons. Big difference Misha! smile

            And of course, Obama has the same sort of banker first people in power as did Bush.

            I thought you were talking about guns Nicomp

            1. Misha profile image76
              Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              This still does not address the left wing part smile

              LOL You edited it a bit. Now with Obama it does smile

          2. Ralph Deeds profile image73
            Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            The difference is that the left wing people are really right, if you get my drift.

  5. bgamall profile image85
    bgamallposted 7 years ago

    Let me explain further, perhaps they were historical right wingers as opposed to the neocon right. They believed in limited government, but not as a shield for central bank shenanigans or the massive leverage of the investment bank ponzi housing scheme. From Wikipedia:

    "the anti-federalists mainly believed that:

    a) The Legislative had too much power (mainly because of the Necessary and Proper Clause) and that they were unchecked.

    b) The Executive branch had too much power, and that there was no check on him. A dictator would arise.

    c) A bill of rights should be coupled with the constitution to prevent a dictator (then believed to eventually be the president) from exploiting citizens. The federalists, on the other hand, argued that it was impossible to list all the rights, and those that were not listed could be easily overlooked because they were not in the official bill of rights. Rather, rights in specific cases were to be decided by the judicial system of courts."

    Jefferson would have opposed the attempt of a federal private bank to even issue currency. Jefferson believed that the congress, and not a central bank, had that authority. And he would have opposed the power of George Bush, considering him a traitor to the cause. He opposed the control of the money supply by a central bank.

  6. Misha profile image76
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    LOL Sure I do Ralph. smile Does not mean I agree though tongue

  7. tksensei profile image60
    tksenseiposted 7 years ago

    There's conspiracy nuts, then there's conspiracy NUTS.

    1. bgamall profile image85
      bgamallposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Tksensei, you are trolling again. Calling people names is trolling. You have proved nothing. You never prove anything on these boards.

      How do you explain the desire for PNAC to want a Pearl Harbor event?

      How do you explain George Bush's brother Marvin being in control of the security cameras at the towers?

      How do you explain George Bush's meltdown when he should have shown righteous indignation?

      How do you explain the fact that fire has never in the history of skyscrapers, brought one single one down at the rate of gravity?

      How do you explain that the fire lasted only minutes from the jets according to Fema?

      How do you explain that we went into Iraq and WMD turned out to be a lie?

      How do you explain why the Taliban were in Texas and the US press didn't report it?

      How do you explain how the boss of the guy who started PNAC also happened to own popular mechanics?

      How do you explain obviously observable squibbs coming out of the towers and WTC7 falling from the ground up?

      The stars do not line up this way by accident!

      1. tksensei profile image60
        tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I'm sorry, but when you go THAT far off the deep end you really can't expect to be taken seriously. I do apologize for making it personal, but not for pointing out when a train has left the tracks. The tracks are about a hundred miles THATAWAY...

        1. bgamall profile image85
          bgamallposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          You are apologizing for being a troll? Well at least that is something.

          1. tksensei profile image60
            tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            More like apologizing for possibly hurting your feelings. I hope you bought a round trip ticket and actually return to earth one day.

            1. bgamall profile image85
              bgamallposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I am not going to argue with you, troll, but I will say that there is far more evidence that Bush allowed 9/11 than didn't. Here is one important point. Nicomp says that fema cannot be trusted regarding the jet fuel burning for only a few minutes. However, the girl photographed peering out from the top floor before the collapse is INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION that what Fema said is CORRECT. Fema was right, that the jet fuel only burned for a few minutes. The temperature lowered in time for the lady to survive on the top floor.

              Fire has burned in skyscrapers for DAYS without them coming down. Your hero, George W Bush is a murderer and it will one day be revealed.

              And troll, you still haven't explained why PNAC wanted a Pearl Harbor type event prior to 9/11. You haven't even addressed the subject. Earth to Tskensie.

  8. bgamall profile image85
    bgamallposted 7 years ago

    Nice try Nicomp. Let them sue and it will all come out in court.

    If you have to rely on the fact that OJ was acquited you lose.

    As far as the buildings falling at the rate of gravity. None have ever fallen by fire, yet WT7 was not hit by a plane. And remember the lady at the top of one of the towers? She didn't fry up there, because it WASN'T THAT HOT.

    1. nicomp profile image58
      nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Take a deep breath... I was *joking* about OJ. As you chose to glom onto that comment out of all the points I made, you only make your case harder to take seriously.

      If there was a lady at the top of the tower who didn't 'fry' (rather callous of you), it's obviously because the building didn't burn anywhere near the top. It was on fire where the plane hit it. No one suggested the building was consumed by fire. Your argument is a classic straw-man maneuver.

      Regarding gravity: everything falls at the same rate, controlled demolition or uncontrolled demolition.



      Here's a sober critique of some conspiracy theories, written by a PhD in structural geology.
      http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM
      I don't expect you to read it, others might find it interesting.

      1. bgamall profile image85
        bgamallposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Ah but if the fire was only at the level of the planes, it would not have caused all floors to decouple at virtually the same time and fall at the rate of gravity. You can't have it both ways.

        As far as the lady who wasn't fried, she died a terrifying death and the blood is on George Bush's hands. I personally find the deaths in the WTC a repudiation of the United States government for all eternity. The United States has joined the other countries of the world in the expression of evil. I am sick that so many Americans lack the intellectual capacity to make this injustice right.

        1. nicomp profile image58
          nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Uncle.

 
working