Basejumper.com - archive

http://www.youtube.com/...waLw&feature=fvw

Discuss.

Wow i was going to put up a big post telling you how dumb your post is but decided it was a waste of my time.

Still trying to raise that post to jump ratio, Sangi ?

you do know that the numerator doesn't matter dick when your denominator is ZERO ?

Uhm, how's this topic relevant to jumping?

well, I'm confused. you ask about the topic's relevance, but didn't you start this thread? why not just ask yourself?

then again, relevance to BASE is irrelevant in the Hangout.

just not understanding your point...

Sorry, I didn't quote vid666, I was referring to his statement..

He was stating I don't have any jump numbers and that everything I say here means nothing without the jump numbers, so I asked him, how's that relevant to the topic of this thread, when my intention is to discuss politics and not jumping in this topic..

If you come to the BASE jumping board to discuss politics, do you go to the political discussion board to discuss BASE jumping ?

"I am just saying..."

The Hangout - Pull up a chair and have chat. A hangout for non BASE related discussions and debates.

Takes 8 minutes for the film to summarize its point
and I quit watching then. Unfortunately I agree with
the central theme, which is basically:

The right and left are two faces of the same thing.

As long as the majority of Americans have cable TV,
food, cell phones, cars and lack skills in logic, math,
and economics then the elected officials running our
governments can get away with doing stupid shit.

do you realize your profile lists you as being in the UK?
yet you wish to discuss US politics?

wait, you do not wish to discuss US politics, you merely wish to watch a discussion on US politics. if you wished to participate in the discussion, you might actually express an idea.

if you do not wish to participate in a discussion in your own thread, what is your purpose/goal? you come off as a lame troll.

do you aspire to live in the US?

instead of discussing BASE or US politics, why not participate/start a thread on a topic that you can be considered knowledgeable?

I indeed wish to see people discuss and voice their opinions, specially americans..

So what if I live in UK? This actually affects the whole world..

if you care about it, then engage in a discussion. heck, a political topic in the Hangout is the perfect place to express an opinion. plus, it really does not have to be a credible opinion. (unlike giving BASE advice.)

None of that matters if N korea decides to wipe america off the map anyway!


Im right with you all the way though....its all fucken corrupt

They won't, both sides know, if there was a nuclear war - there would be no winners.

All government is evil. Everything the government does is paid for with money that is collected through force and coercion. If the government is providing a service that you want, then you don't need them to force you to pay for it, and if they are forcing you to pay for something that you don't want, then it is no different than someone stealing from you. If you are in the market for something, and there is competition for your business, you will get a better product, service, or price. The government has a coercive monopoly on everything they do. That is why the things the government does is overpriced and of low quality.

A more PR friendly way of stating this:

Government is always an instrument wielded by those in power to oppress those who are not.

Who are "those in power"?

If there is truth in what is said in the Obama Deception, are we left to watch the dominoes falling as the New World Order wields their power?

And what does it say about this nations citizenry that so many would buy into the deception?

again, what is YOUR opinion?
what is the video about?
should people watch it?
is it accurate?
is it flawed?
do you agree with it's premise?

I can NOT conduct a discussion with you if choose to remain quiet. I might as well chat with the wall!

Those who control the apparatus of government. It's not meant to be all conspiratorial. Whoever is making the laws and executing them to their agenda is, by definition, oppressing those who are not.



I don't know. I didn't watch the video.

Government oppression of those not in power = evil. Correct?

The Obama Deception is based on the conspiracy that The New World Order is "those that are in power" and that he is merely another piece to their puzzle for one world government.

That's why I asked who are "those in power". It's sorta like asking if you really have a permanent record from your school days.

Or the mysterious, "they" and "them".

is this one of those alex jones shorts? Interesting to listen to for sure. to get ideas from all sides and make yoru own opinion... more people (not just Americans) need to form their own opinions.

Yes it is an Alex Jones movie, it runs 1:53, not so short.

sorry my sarcasm wasn't apparent. But still like to watch some of him and his colleagues work to keep an open mind.

Do you read Infowars or Prison Planet or both? I never heard of him, Alex Jones, until "The Obama Deception" started showing up on friends Facebook pages.

Sorry I missed the sarcasm, I thought you were asking a question.

"Evil" is a pretty loaded term. Government = Oppression might be more correct.



Actually, I kind of believe that the US democracy is reasonably functional. But the fact that we democratically choose who gets to be the oppressor doesn't make it any more right for them to oppress everyone else.

My issue with this is, what kind of democracy is based on two parties? Where's the choice? If you ask a dozen people on the street the names of anyone on the ballot other than Obama and McCain, you will get a blank look. The media do such a good job of obscuring the other candidates, that the winner is usually the one who spends the most money, who the media takes on as their favorite, or, if you like the NWO theme, who The Man wants to win. This last election looked very pre-determined right from the start........

I don't think he was referring to the jump number. My interpretation is he was referring to the quality of the interventions.

But I may be wrong

To further illustrate your point...

Dec. of 2008: In 21-plus months, Barack Obama raised roughly $750 million from donors, surpassing all of his White House opponents this year and also eclipsing the total amount of money raised by all of the presidential candidates combined in 2004.

April of 2009: President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle, filing their tax forms right on time, made $2.7 million last year and paid just under one-third of their adjusted income in federal taxes.

While the income, mostly his, was far more than the U.S. median household income of about $50,000, it was quite a decrease from the $4.2 million the Obamas made in 2007.

And this is a man who voters claimed to be supporting because he "understood what it was like to be an average American citizen".

The Obama campaign was the best marketing strategy money could buy at $750 million.

Election reforms are needed if we are going to move past choice A or choice B. The White House should not be up for sale.

Part of the reason he raised $750 million was because he focused less on larger donors and more on small donors. By doing whatever he did to win the support of lots of people at a grassroots level, and make them believe that their $100 or $200 donation would make a difference, his campaign amassed HUGE sums of money from tiny contributions.

Theoretically, you'd think that if a candidate can get the support of that many people on a grassroots level, he must be proportionally in favor overall. However, the other candidates were still busy chasing the large donors in the old-fashioned way, and hence fell behind in overall campaign contributions.

The Obama campaign and money-raising machine was absolutely genius. It focused properly on a grassroots level, used lots of Web 2.0 tricks to spread virally through YouTube, Facebook, and other social media (which the McCain campaign for the most part failed to utilize), and basically came in right under the radar, until suddenly stupid slogans like "Change we can believe in" were suddenly able to evoke a predictable response from pre-primed audience.

On election day, Obama's website had a place where you could go and sign up to carpool to the polls. Voters who otherwise wouldn't make it to the polls due to transportation issues could enter their address and cell phone number, or sign up as a driver and get a list of people to pick up on the way. McCain's website had no such thing. Imagine how many more votes were cast because of this (especially among poorer demographics with no cars etc).

Basically, Obama won because whoever was running that campaign deserves a lifetime honorary Mensa membership. And a swift kick in the ass.

Again, "marketing won"...is that how we want our nation governed?

If you look at the donor list there are plenty of "large" donors as well. Which makes payback time a very sticky situation for someone who claimed he opposed lobbyists and was going to be the administration of transparency.

He recently took time to speak at a fundraiser in California, already gearing up for the next campaign. The marketing strategy will no doubt play a huge role again, it will be interesting to see what they come up with as "hope" and "change" won't play the next go around.

From a Washington Post article:

But those with wealth and power also have played a critical role in creating Obama's record-breaking fundraising machine, and their generosity has earned them a prominent voice in shaping his campaign. Seventy-nine "bundlers," five of them billionaires, have tapped their personal networks to raise at least $200,000 each. They have helped the campaign recruit more than 27,000 donors to write checks for $2,300, the maximum allowed. Donors who have given more than $200 account for about half of Obama's total haul, which stands at nearly $240 million.

Obama's success in assembling bundlers offers another perspective on a campaign that promotes itself as a grass-roots effort. While the senator from Illinois has had unprecedented success generating small donations, many made online, the work of bundlers first signaled the seriousness of his candidacy a year ago and will be crucial as he heads into the final Democratic primaries with a lead against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.).
ad_icon

The bundler list also sheds light on those who might seek to influence an Obama White House. It includes traditional Democratic givers -- Hollywood, trial lawyers and Wall Street -- and newcomers such as young hedge fund executives, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, Chicago-based developers and members of the black business elite. One-third had never contributed to a presidential campaign, much less raised money.

The list includes partners from 18 top law firms, 21 Wall Street executives and power brokers from Fortune 500 companies. California is the top source, with 19 bundlers. Both Illinois and Washington, D.C., have six, and five hail from New York.

University of California $1,385,675
Goldman Sachs $980,945
Microsoft Corp $806,299
Harvard University $793,460
Google Inc $790,564
Citigroup Inc $657,268
JPMorgan Chase & Co $650,758
Stanford University $580,904
Sidley Austin LLP $574,938
Time Warner $547,951
National Amusements Inc $541,251
WilmerHale $524,292
UBS AG $522,019
IBM Corp $518,557
Skadden, Arps et al $510,274
Columbia University $503,566
Morgan Stanley $490,873
US Government $479,956
General Electric $479,454
Latham & Watkins $467,311

Warren Buffett was an early, high profile Obama supporter. Hard to get much richer than the Oracle of Omaha, unless you're a geeky computer guy from Seattle.

I doubt many people will remember how Obama's predecessor secured his nomination. A bunch of the party faithful kept pushing him in front of the other candidates because he was "electable." They did not brag about his policies at all.

The US system has always had behind the scenes power. It was atrocious 100 years ago. It should be better today, but there is no guarantees.

I also think it is far more effective than the countries who vote for a national party. The party then decides who to seat with the population actually lacking a "local" representative. The fringe parties tend to get substantial power (just like our left/right wing "bases.")

And don't forget the two geeky computer guys from Mountain View, CA with their Surveillance, I mean Google Earth program or the talk show host from Chicago who recently purchased a home in D.C. to be closer to the White House.

Money makes the world go around
The world go around
The world go around
Money makes the world go around
It makes the world go 'round.

"Muhaha ha.
MuAhaha Ha.

MUAHHHA HA A A AHHHH..."

-Barack Hussein Obama

All the claims for change he made reminded me of high school class president elections. Everbody cheers, but we all know that when elected he won't, can't, deliver on all those rediculouse promises.

How else is ANY candidate introduced to the public? Any level of elected office.

From the local judge to the commander-in-chief, the public must vote into office they feel will best suit themselves as citizens. With marketing as a tool they can show themselves and their records to the public for interpretation and judgment. And the strategy of the Obama campaign was brilliant! However, the grass roots campaign didn't fall in line for a marketing campaign, they, I, felt that this candidate had the intellect, education, background, progressiveness, anti-war stance, charisma, freshness, courageous, new and a slurry more adjectives that what a large percentage of Americans wanted in their candidate. And now, President.

So again, this is how you want our nation governed?

By the guy who has the most money, huge media support and puts together a good "sell" gets the gig.

It doesn't matter to you that there were other candidate choices, but because they didn't have the "marketing", they weren't heard?

Choice A or Choice B. Whoever has the most money and can sell themselves the best wins; having nothing to do with who is most qualified to get the job done.

Living in Illinois and having had said President, and I use the term loosely in his case, as a Senator, I was immune to the Kool-Aid and still am.

Choice A [or] Choice B, whoever has the most
money and can sell themselves the best wins.

Sad but true.

I personally would prefer out-lawing any paid
political ads (FUCK TV) and instead have more
debates and have a series of tests that each
of the candidates had to take with the results
being revealed publicly.

I totally agree with Green and with Tizzy. If any of you watch the movie and like it, check out Zeitgeist too. It blew my mind. A lot of the stuff in both movies, however, is also propaganda from the other side of this, but a lot of the stuff should not be overlooked and should be spread so that it is worldly known and better investigated. This NWO stuff really does add up, IMO, and it scares the shit out of me. Anyone seen Demolition Man or read 1984? You want to live like that? Not me!

I'm good at scouring the internet for anything and everything I want

Any time I found something hard to believe or just wanted to double check it, I dig around, find at least a few resources to compare and use my inductive logic from there. One interesting thing I found in the hours of googling and Wikipedia searches after each of these movies was this (a letter written in 1803 from the current president Thomas Jefferson to the current Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin)

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/biog/lj34.htm

A National Bank

"From a passage in the letter of the President, I observe an idea of establishing a branch bank of the United States in New Orleans. This institution is one of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution. The nation is at this time so strong and united in its sentiments that it cannot be shaken at this moment. But suppose a series of untoward events should occur sufficient to bring into doubt the competency of a republican government to meet a crisis of great danger, or to unhinge the confidence of the people in the public functionaries; an institution like this, penetrating by its branches every part of the union, acting by command and in phalanx may, in a critical moment, upset the government. I deem no government safe which is under the vassalage of any self-constituted authorities, or any other authority than that of the nation or its regular functionaries. What an obstruction could not this Bank of the United States, with al its branch banks, be in time of war! It might dictate to us the peace we should accept, or withdraw its aids. Ought we then to give further growth to an institution so powerful, so hostile? That it is so hostile we know, 1. from a knowledge of the principles of the persons composing the body of directors in every bank, principal or branch, and those of most of the stock-holders; 2. from their opposition to the measures and principles of the government and to the election of those friendly to them; and, 3. from the sentiments of the newspapers they support. Now, while we are strong, it is the greatest duty we owe to the safety of our Constitution to bring this powerful enemy to a perfect subordination under its authorities. The first measure would be to reduce them to an equal footing only with other banks as to the favors of the government. But in order to be able to meet a general combination of the banks against us in a critical emergency, could we not make a beginning towards an independent use of our own money, towards holding our own bank in all the deposits where it is received, and letting the Treasurer give his draft or note for payment at any particular place which, in a well-conducted government, ought to have as much credit as any private draft or bank note or bill, and would give us the same facilities which we derive from the banks? I pray you to turn this subject in your mind and give it the benefit of your knowledge of details; whereas, I have only very general views of the subject." (to Albert Gallatin, Dec. 13, 1803. ME 10:437)

If only he wasn't doing pretty much exactly the same things as his predecessor.

More war funding? Check.
Launch a larger war in another country (Afghanistan)? Check
Continue government take over of banks, manufacturers, and everything else? Check
Military tribunals to keep "terrorism suspects" out of real courts? Check
Keeping Guantanamo Bay prison open? Check

The playbook used by the Obama administration appears to have been written by Dick Cheney. I am hard pressed to find a single area of government activity where Obama has not continued upon, and in most cases enlarged, the Bush agenda.

Meet the new boss...same as the old boss.

The neck ties are different, that's where the "change" part comes into play.

agreed.

I have NO problem with someone marketing their ideas, or the ideas of their candidacy. Politics is nothing BUT marketing. It is the art of getting people to unite toward a cause.

Ron Paul got more traction in this country than he would in most others. I saw several discussions from people promoting his ideas.

The sad thing fact is few politicians tell the truth.

The good news is that few politicians can keep a secret. When some discuss secret organizations or agendas, I think of all the politicians recently caught in sex scandals. People seem impossible to keep small information private. I can't see any complex conspiracy NOT being compromised by leaks.

Heck, NIXON could not stop leaks!

Research the Bilderberg Group.

You can start here, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/...e/article6283373.ece

I am with you on pretty much all of this. I won't pretend like i know a lot about the guantanamo bay thing but i heard that they were actually working on building some type of prison like in idaho to replace it. I could be wrong though. Anyone hear anything about this?

I told everyone that obama just talked a lot and when he was in office things would stay the same or get worse. That seems to be what always happens. Every election we get to pick between a douche and a turd!

At this point no state wants to take on the Gitmo prisoners, the 1st prisoner was transferred to NYC for trial this month. There are terrorists that have gone through trial and are serving sentences in U.S. Federal Prisons. However, prison officials and state representatives are fighting adding "terrorists" to the prison population where gangs are prevalent. One argument against placing them in U.S. prisons is: Are we willing to risk that an inmate in prison for robbery is then paroled as a devoted Islamic fundamentalist waging war on his own country?

What people aren't paying attention too, as they are diverted by the shiny object of Gitmo is that in Afghanistan the U.S. operates a much larger prison that is no doubt violating legal rights. Unlike Gitmo, no one is allowed inside this prison to check on detainees.

The prison at Bagram seems to fly under the radar.

You can read about it here. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...or-Barack-Obama.html

There's a fully completed facility in Montana, where the local townspeople are asking for the Gitmo detainees to be transferred. It was built as a normal prison, but then politics (what else) kept it empty. It's fully completed and stocked--just empty. The local people wanted to fill it to create jobs for the local economy. It's no shock that it's apparently not going to happen.

Article here.

okay so i was way off haha. Thanks.

Theres a chapter in Freakonomics about this...

Freakonomics

Yeah I liked that book, I also read
"The Undercover Economist" which
was a similiar book that used econ
concepts and applied them to lots
of random everyday things.

Right now I am reading a book
Adam Lanes loaned me called
"Economics In One Lesson".

It is good & I agree with most
of the author's points, however
the book is mis-titled, in my
opinion, because it does not
actually teach econ theories
but instead de-bunks lots of
popular illogical arguements.

Just ordered it.... sounds interesting

Cheers

Here is a book I wish was required
reading for everyone in high school:

Scratch Beginnings

New or Used for $15

yeah. we should impeach him. probably should have voted for Sarah Palin.