WEATHER »

Comments by JohnTieber

Page 1 of 39 | Next

Posted on October 31 at 8:27 a.m.

"It is pathetic that we in Santa Barbara have kept the same people and party in office too long."

'Lois Capps — Empowering War and Domestic Tyranny Since 1998'
Noozhawk
30 October
http://www.noozhawk.com/article/john_...

"…Perhaps, like so many who enter the "representative" branch of the U.S. government, now among the most corrupt of any nation, with good intentions, Capps succumbed to the personal benefits of looting her own constituents, either via insider trading or via seemingly endless creation of debt-based currency transferred to criminal transnational banks, who then gift billions of dollars to the .01%, who then regift millions of those billions back to the politicians of both major parties…"

On Change the 24th

Posted on October 29 at 10:22 a.m.

random_kook wrote:
"…auditing the Fed…"

Good point; perhaps I'll go with this ^, though I was about to write:

In my opinion, voting — at least for *federal* "representatives" — serves no useful purpose.

So my recommendation, like George Carlin's...

[VIDEO - 00:53] George Carlin - Voting is meaningless
http://youtu.be/HeMGqTwWA6U?t=1m47s

… is not to encourage them by voting.

Though I respect those who plan to vote for Mitchum as a protest.

On Mitchum’s Biggest Role Yet?

Posted on October 29 at 7:24 a.m.

Priceless wrote:
"Capps is an idiot with NO record of accomplishments."

Perhaps more than an idiot.

In 1997, seventeen years ago, Lois Capps signed this pledge (see first six seconds of this video that I excerpted for paricipants in this discussion ;-) : http://youtu.be/IG75EcfRM9U?t=2m46s ] ):

"I seek to serve as a citizen legislator and not a career politician and therefore pledge to the citizens of my state that I will not serve in the United States House of Representatives for more than three two-year terms."

It's now been eleven years since she broke that pledge, and ceased being a citizen legislator in favor of becoming a career politician.

Perhaps, like so many who enter the "representative" branch of the US government, now among the most corrupt on earth, with good intentions, she succumbed to the personal benefits of looting her own constituents, either via insider trading [ http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/0... ], or via seemingly endless creation of debt-based currency transferred to criminal transnational banks, who then gift it to the elite, who then re-gift millions of dollars back to the politicians (of both major parties, the jackass gang as well as the elephant gang — so NO, for careless readers who unwittingly engage in strawman fallacies: I'm not necessarily suggesting voting for her opponent, except perhaps as a protest vote).

Not only did Lois Capps vote for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which *obliterates much of the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution* [ http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/... ], she issued a press release applauding its passage!

Sections 1021 and 1022 empower the vast security/surveillance apparatus of the federal government to secretly kidnap US citizens, detain US citizens indefinitely in a secret prison system, and even secretly execute US citizens.

Though she might be personally charming and, as Josh Friedman of FreeSLO repeatedly suggests in this three minute video [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG75E... ], "the nicest member in all of congress," her positions and votes on both domestic and foreign policy issues, considering how many tens of thousands of innocent deaths they cause, in my opinion do not adequately represent the citizens of this district.

On Mitchum’s Biggest Role Yet?

Posted on October 26 at 7:26 p.m.

Herschel_Greenspan wrote:
" since there is an election soon why Tieber do you think that Mitchum would have a different policy on Ukraine"

Setting aside the simple-minded assumption that the only choice one has in the election for this position is to vote for a candidate, perhaps either the jackass gang candidate or the elephant gang candidate — considering that I have neither written nor implied what this participant claims above, I'm confident that most participants here are intellectually capable of understanding the excerpt above to be nothing more than baseless conjecture regarding what I "think," and like most baseless conjecture, false, and therefore not meriting further response.

Herschel_Greenspan also wrote:
"So for Tieber goofy yahoo groups are credible…"

I'm 100% confident (actually, perhaps 110% confident ;-) ) that no participant here with a room temperature or higher IQ could possibly lack the ability to distinguish information — most particularly information in the form of embedded links that resolve at a wide variety of sites other than where those links are posted! — from a particular website that happens to host the posts that include those links.

On Lois Capps: Does Character Matter?

Posted on October 26 at 5:13 p.m.

tabatha wrote:
"And guess what, the small pro-Russian contingent have garnered a very small percentage of votes in the election."

The statement above, including adopting the tactic of NYT-CNN-AP-WaPo-ABC-CBS-MSNBC-Fox-HuffPo-Reuters-BBC-NPR-PBS… of referring to the 7 million inhabitants of Novorossiya attempting to avoid being "exterminated, with nuclear weapons if necessary" by the violently installed Kieva junta as "pro-Russian" appears to me to indicate a most fundamental misunderstanding of this issue, even if one only considers the history of that region since 1991.

Of course the "pro-Russian contingent" (referred by most of the world's media as the "anti-Kiev junta contingent") is attracting few votes!

Nearly all ethnic Russian Ukrainians live in the east, and even if they weren't fighting for their lives while attempting to rebuild their shattered cities with winter approaching, most have no interest in voting in an election held by a USA illegally installed government (about the 80th worldwide since 1953 [ http://www.alternet.org/world/america... ] ) that they rightfully consider illegitimate, especially considering that they are also busy getting ready for their own election to be held next Sunday, 2 November.

tabatha also wrote:
"Tieber's articles are highly biased and often factually incorrect."

"Highly-biased," of course, is subjective.

And the claim of "factually incorrect," is without merit without indicating which of "Tieber's articles" are, in fact, factually incorrect.

For instance, which of the 24 articles cited here…

'UKRAINE: Lois Capps gets her war: Neo-Nazis burn 149 people to death in Odessa; Neo-Nazi armor heading east, attacking Russian-Ukrainians'
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/S...

…and which of the 23 articles cited here (posted locally six days after Lois Capps's 6 March vote)…

'UKRAINE: meet Lois Capps' & John McCain's Neo-Nazi friends & employers of terrorist snipers who murdered nearly 100 civilians'
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/S...

…and which of the 15 articles cited here…

'UKRAINE: awakening to USA / EU / NATO lies; Germans resist USA Nazis; Kucinich; ANSWER; VFP petition'
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/S...

…are "factually incorrect."

On Lois Capps: Does Character Matter?

Posted on October 26 at 1:05 p.m.

DavyBrown wrote:
"...JT tries to wriggle out…"

I'm confident that sincere participants understand that a volunteered elaboration does not constitute "wriggling out."

Particularly competent readers will also have noticed that I used the present tense rather than the past tense (i.e. "use" not "used") in the final sentence of the comment this participant is attempting to respond to:

"...I use "loathsome" in one of the senses..."

I.e. "use" rather than "used" informs competent readers that I am prepared to use the same word in the future to describe Lois Capps.

DavyBrown also wrote:
"….Strelsky and other RUSSIANS …"

One must guess at the reason for the capitalization above, or the reference to Strelsky [sic], and Russians, neither of which appears in any of my comments in this discussion.

Perhaps this participant is having orientation difficulties, and does not understand which discussion he is posting in.

Regardless, I'm confident that most participants here are intellectually capable of understanding the simple chronology that dictates that Lois Capps' 6 March vote could not possibly have had anything to do with either the wildly demonized Putin, the Russian Federation, or "Strelsky" [sic] (I believe the writer is attempting to refer to Strelkov, one of the commanders of the Novorossia self-defense forces who, yes, oddly enough — ;-) — is of Russian ethnicity as, of course, are all 7 million people that at least one leader of the violentally-installed putsch government empowered by Lois Capps' 6 March vote proposed "exterminating with nuclear weapons if necessary" ).

Those who have not followed this issue closely and who are interested in that chronology might consider accessing…

'UKRAINE: Lois Capps gets her war: Neo-Nazis burn 149 people to death in Odessa; Neo-Nazi armor heading east, attacking Russian-Ukrainians'
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/S...

The piece above was posted locally on 4 May, two months following the 6 March Lois Capps' Ukraine vote; it provides the chronology prior to that vote, as well as citations in the form of 24 embedded links.

Here's an excerpt (the fifth paragraph):

"The $1 billion loan guarantee Lois Capps voted (along with 384 of her fellow dupes and warmongers of the US House of Representatives) to fund the Kiev junta apparently wasn't sufficient to motivate the Neo-Nazis to get the slaughter and chaos going in the east, and so the US recently approved $17 billion of our tax dollars as an initial investment to prod the Obama/McCain/Cheney-Kagan-Nuland-PNAC Neo-Nazi regime in Kiev to wage war on the eastern part of their own country, this time with better strings attached: the agreement stipulates that if these Neo-Nazis "lose control" of the east they'll lose some of the billions of US taxpayer dollars (and surely millions they'd otherwise be able to skim off for themselves)."

On Lois Capps: Does Character Matter?

Posted on October 26 at 10:34 a.m.

TEST - PLEASE IGNORE

Yes, well, anyone who still thinks it matters who "represents" us at the federal level of the imploding USA empire of chaos, destruction, and death (since World War II, more than <a href="http://www.alternet.org/world/americas-coup-machine-destroying-democracy-1953?page=0%25252C0&paging=off">80 legitimate governments overthrown</a> in the process of mass-murdering 30 million human beings...

Yes, well, anyone who still thinks it matters who "represents" us at the federal level of the imploding USA empire of chaos, destruction, and death (since World War II, more than <a href="http://www.alternet.org/world/americas-coup-machine-destroying-democracy-1953?page=0%25252C0&paging=off" rel="nofollow">80 legitimate governments overthrown</a> in the process of mass-murdering 30 million human beings...

On The U.S.A. Today

Posted on October 26 at 9:54 a.m.

nomoresanity:
"She's not evil, just incompetent."

I agree.

A participant in the SB Indy discussion attached to the 'Voices' piece, 'About Lois Capps…' mischaracterized as "nasty" my use of "loathsome," as in "…Were there any justice in this world, this loathsome woman, rather than anticipating a return to Washington DC…"

Rather than in the context of her behavior in terms of hiring practices or accepting some responsibility for a local tragedy, my use of that term (which has synonyms — despicable, contemptible, reprehensible, execrable, damnable, … — that can be correctly employed in regard to political behavior without suggesting moral origins of that behavior) here and in that discussion is not personal, but is in reference to the consequences of her votes (both domestic and foreign policy), consequences, regarding the latter, that can easily be forecasted by any thinking person with knowledge of USA government behavior overseas going back at least 70 years.

I.e. I use "loathsome" in one of the senses perhaps that nomoresanity uses "incompetent" above: failure to accept responsibility for the consequences of one's votes / hiring practices / political behavior.

On Lois Capps: Does Character Matter?

Posted on October 25 at 2:02 p.m.

In the event clarification is helpful:

Regarding legal vs moral/ethical, I wasn't suggesting either is superior; rather, only that a DUI defense attorney providing factual information from his area of expertise vs someone discussing moral/ethical concerns are unlikely to come to a consensus.

On Lois Capps: Does Character Matter?

Posted on October 25 at 12:44 p.m.

At the risk of stating the obvious:

It might be helpful to consider that Darryl Genis (consider, for instance @ October 24, 2014 at 2:11 p.m.: "Mallory's BAC was so negligible that there was a legal presumption that she was NOT impaired by alcohol at the time she was run down…"), an attorney who specializes in DUI defense, is commenting regarding the *legal* aspects, while AutoCoalition is commenting regarding less objective moral/ethical aspects.

On Lois Capps: Does Character Matter?

Page 1 of 39 | Next

event calendar sponsored by: