PDA

View Full Version : You have Zero impact


alkemical
08-18-2014, 08:19 PM
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/214857-who-rules-america


The new study, with the jaw-clenching title of "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens," is forthcoming in the fall 2014 edition of Perspectives on Politics. Its authors, Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin Page of Northwestern University, examined survey data on 1,779 national policy issues for which they could gauge the preferences of average citizens, economic elites, mass-based interest groups and business-dominated interest groups. They used statistical methods to determine the influence of each of these four groups on policy outcomes, including both policies that are adopted and rejected.
The analysts found that when controlling for the power of economic elites and organized interest groups, the influence of ordinary Americans registers at a "non-significant, near-zero level." The analysts further discovered that rich individuals and business-dominated interest groups dominate the policymaking process. The mass-based interest groups had minimal influence compared to the business-based interest groups.

The study also debunks the notion that the policy preferences of business and the rich reflect the views of common citizens. They found to the contrary that such preferences often sharply diverge and when they do, the economic elites and business interests almost always win and the ordinary Americans lose.



Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/214857-who-rules-america#ixzz3Angpgf82
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Rohirrim
08-18-2014, 08:27 PM
But, you don't understand. You have a chance to become an elite yourself! And then you will reap the benefits!

Life will be good.

TailgateNut
08-18-2014, 09:31 PM
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/214857-who-rules-america

......and Water IS Wet.

BroncoBeavis
08-18-2014, 11:00 PM
Came in here expecting an AtheNihilist type conversation.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-19-2014, 12:08 AM
But, you don't understand. You have a chance to become an elite yourself! And then you will reap the benefits!

Life will be good.

Yeah - all you have to do is keep blowing billionaires, and the wealth will eventually trickle down their collective leg to you.

Just ask any right-wing lemming on this forum.

baja
08-19-2014, 12:26 AM
forum response; Wait until my party gets in power than we will fix this

ghwk
08-19-2014, 12:33 AM
This is not an uplifting thread.

baja
08-19-2014, 12:34 AM
This is not an uplifting thread.

We still have the Broncos. ;D

alkemical
08-19-2014, 01:50 PM
This is not an uplifting thread.

It's not. Some of it is the reality of the situation. What it does illustrate is how people who continue to buy into ideologies of Left/Right | Liberal/Conservative have been manipulated to feel as though they've won when their "group" wields power. Meanwhile; their actually losing - due to a cognitive and/or logical fallacy they accept it, blaming the "others" for the failures.

This information should offer empowerment. Start asking better questions, and being better students of history.

alkemical
08-19-2014, 01:50 PM
forum response; Wait until my party gets in power than we will fix this

The bird of fascism needs a left & right wing.

NorthernistCaliforneeway7
08-19-2014, 02:57 PM
It's not. Some of it is the reality of the situation. What it does illustrate is how people who continue to buy into ideologies of Left/Right | Liberal/Conservative have been manipulated to feel as though they've won when their "group" wields power. Meanwhile; their actually losing - due to a cognitive and/or logical fallacy they accept it, blaming the "others" for the failures.

This information should offer empowerment. Start asking better questions, and being better students of history.

I think its ok to have be divided on issues like America is today. The major problem in my opinion (other than awareness of issues) is theres simply no respect shown by people towards others with differing opinions. Its severely lacking here in the USA. Sometimes I feel like people would vote for a knowingly deceitful, power hungry ass hat from their party before they would vote for the other side, character be damned.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-19-2014, 06:39 PM
It's not. Some of it is the reality of the situation. What it does illustrate is how people who continue to buy into ideologies of Left/Right | Liberal/Conservative have been manipulated to feel as though they've won when their "group" wields power. Meanwhile; their actually losing - due to a cognitive and/or logical fallacy they accept it, blaming the "others" for the failures.

This information should offer empowerment. Start asking better questions, and being better students of history.

Not sure how applicable this theory is to the present day insofar as only one side or ideology, i.e., the right, has wielded power in America for the last few decades.

Obama is little more than Republican Light. Clinton was only able to retain power by making dramatic compromises with the right and by co-opting GOP positions in some instances.

alkemical
08-20-2014, 04:50 PM
I think its ok to have be divided on issues like America is today. The major problem in my opinion (other than awareness of issues) is theres simply no respect shown by people towards others with differing opinions. Its severely lacking here in the USA. Sometimes I feel like people would vote for a knowingly deceitful, power hungry ass hat from their party before they would vote for the other side, character be damned.

It's even a lack of respect. It is cognitive dissonance that is illustrating these failures.

alkemical
08-20-2014, 04:51 PM
Not sure how applicable this theory is to the present day insofar as only one side or ideology, i.e., the right, has wielded power in America for the last few decades.

Obama is little more than Republican Light. Clinton was only able to retain power by making dramatic compromises with the right and by co-opting GOP positions in some instances.

The bird of Fascism needs left & right wings to fly.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-20-2014, 06:23 PM
The bird of Fascism needs left & right wings to fly.

Not in this country. Just two right wings.

B-Large
08-21-2014, 06:57 AM
Yet people laugh at the grassroots Tea Party movement.... Big government yield great power to those who have access to its scope and reach.

cutthemdown
08-21-2014, 07:06 AM
If you want to feel like you make a difference get involved in local politics. Sometimes the decisions made locally have more to do with your day to day life then national politics.

ludo21
08-21-2014, 08:32 AM
If you want to feel like you make a difference get involved in local politics. Sometimes the decisions made locally have more to do with your day to day life then national politics.

:strong:

BroncoBeavis
08-21-2014, 08:48 AM
Not in this country. Just two right wings.

I won't believe it until I see it in cartoon form. :)

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-21-2014, 10:38 AM
I won't believe it until I see it in cartoon form. :)

Just take a quick glance at the nearest mirror. :welcome:

BroncoBeavis
08-21-2014, 10:40 AM
Just take a quick glance at the nearest mirror. :welcome:

Just to clear this up for me, Labron.

Do you even believe the left-wing has extremists? Or do you, by definition, place all the nutty people on "the right?"

Fedaykin
08-21-2014, 10:41 AM
Yet people laugh at the grassroots Tea Party movement.... Big government yield great power to those who have access to its scope and reach.

If you think the TP are anything other than a useful tool of the same elite, then you didn't learn much from the OP.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-21-2014, 10:47 AM
Just to clear this up for me, Labron.

Do you even believe the left-wing has extremists? Or do you, by definition, place all the nutty people on "the right?"

Sure, Cletus. However, the country has moved so far to the right since Red Ink Ron that even Saint Ron himself would be purged from today's GOP for being too liberal.

Your problem is one of historical context.

broncocalijohn
08-21-2014, 11:03 AM
Not sure how applicable this theory is to the present day insofar as only one side or ideology, i.e., the right, has wielded power in America for the last few decades.

Obama is little more than Republican Light. Clinton was only able to retain power by making dramatic compromises with the right and by co-opting GOP positions in some instances.

I believe people will vote for 1) social structure and 2) economic light

What I mean is they will vote based on either their social concerns like gun rights or health care and (2) I need a job! It will be the simple aspect of economics. Sure groups like Tea Party are now looking at Debt but for many, it will be they want the unemployment percentage lower as they either want a job or a better paying/career oriented job. The politicians will tell us everything we want to hear but it will possibly come down to the simple things in life as all the Wall Street stuff is over their heads.

So for most, much of the same or lesser of two evils.

Most don't think of Obama as Republican Light. If he is trying to be that guy, I think it isn't working.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-21-2014, 11:16 AM
Most don't think of Obama as Republican Light.

Only two groups of people in America don't think of Obama as GOP Light:

1) The suckers who went for the "hope and change" okey doke and/or still support him.

2) The brainless Fox News lemmings and moonbats on the far-right lunatic fringe who still believe Obama is some sort of radical socialist.

BroncsRule
08-21-2014, 11:24 AM
Sure, Cletus. However, the country has moved so far to the right since Red Ink Ron that even Saint Ron himself would be purged from today's GOP for being too liberal.

Your problem is one of historical context.

The Left has extremist nutbags, sure - but the Democratic party effectively marginalizes them.

The Right sends its extremist nutbags to the Senate these days.

That's the difference: On the Right, the nutbags are driving the bus.

BroncoBeavis
08-21-2014, 11:25 AM
Only two groups of people in America don't think of Obama as GOP Light:

1) The suckers who went for the "hope and change" okey doke and/or still support him.

2) The brainless Fox News lemmings and moonbats on the far-right lunatic fringe who still believe Obama is some sort of radical socialist.

Keep lappin' up that Kos Koolaid, Labron. LOL

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/31/study-obama-most-liberal-senator-last-year/

A new study suggests Obama had the most liberal voting record in 2007.

The study also shows both senators have moved to the left compared to previous years. In 2005 - Obama's first year in the Senate - he was ranked the 16th most liberal, and he came in at number 10 in 2006.

The plain and sad fact is that as soon as a liberal's ideas prove ineffectual, or at least his ability to deliver them... you'll start calling him a Republican.

Because to you, to fail is to be Republican. It's a purely circular mental affair.

broncocalijohn
08-21-2014, 11:39 AM
Only two groups of people in America don't think of Obama as GOP Light:

1) The suckers who went for the "hope and change" okey doke and/or still support him.

2) The brainless Fox News lemmings and moonbats on the far-right lunatic fringe who still believe Obama is some sort of radical socialist.

so you are saying the far right and the far left?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-21-2014, 11:47 AM
The Left has extremist nutbags, sure - but the Democratic party effectively marginalizes them.

The Right sends its extremist nutbags to the Senate these days.

That's the difference: On the Right, the nutbags are driving the bus.

Hammer --> nail --> head.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-21-2014, 11:53 AM
Keep lappin' up that Kos Koolaid, Labron. LOL

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/31/study-obama-most-liberal-senator-last-year/



The plain and sad fact is that as soon as a liberal's ideas prove ineffectual, or at least his ability to deliver them... you'll start calling him a Republican.

Because to you, to fail is to be Republican. It's a purely circular mental affair.

Leave it to Cletus to cite Obama's record as a senator and ignore BO's record as president in making his "case."

Cletus is just another one of the aforementioned Fox lemmings who struggles with the same old "socialist in bed with Goldman Sachs" cognitive dissonance when assessing Obama.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-21-2014, 11:57 AM
so you are saying the far right and the far left?

Nope.

Read it again.

The people who still support Obama are closer to the middle of the road.

Liberals and progressives washed their hands of him a long time ago (which isn't to say they didn't gift him their "lesser of evils" vote in 2012.)

BroncoBeavis
08-21-2014, 11:59 AM
The Left has extremist nutbags, sure - but the Democratic party effectively marginalizes them.

The Right sends its extremist nutbags to the Senate these days.

That's the difference: On the Right, the nutbags are driving the bus.

Just curious, you've been here for all the Bernie Sanders for Prez talk, haven't you? :)

BroncoBeavis
08-21-2014, 12:02 PM
Nope.

Read it again.

The people who still support Obama are closer to the middle of the road.

Liberals and progressives washed their hands of him a long time ago (which isn't to say they didn't gift him their "lesser of evils" vote in 2012.)

What's funny is you just dismantled your own point.

"I washed my hands of him! Right after I voted for him in his last ever election."

Can't tell you how many "Conservatives" did exactly the same thing w/ Bush after 2004.

You can't truly claim you've washed your hands of someone you voted for quite literally at every opportunity.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-21-2014, 12:08 PM
What's funny is you just dismantled your own point.

"I washed my hands of him! Right after I voted for him in his last ever election."

Can't tell you how many "Conservatives" did exactly the same thing w/ Bush after 2004.

You can't truly claim you've washed your hands of someone you voted for quite literally at every opportunity.

I know subtle distinctions aren't your forte, but it's not impossible to vote for a guy whose agenda you don't support solely in an effort to prevent a much worse candidate from taking power.

And yes, I realize some of the righties made the same argument for Dumbya in 2004, but there's just one problem: Kerry was a better candidate than, say, Gramps, Bible Spice, or Mittens.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-21-2014, 12:14 PM
Just curious, you've been here for all the Bernie Sanders for Prez talk, haven't you? :)

Just curious: You are aware that Sanders is an Independent, right?

In any case, if Bernie's positions seem extreme to you, then you're simply confirming my observation re: your complete lack of historical perspective.

If either Saint Ron or Nixon were around today, they would be spewed out of your party's mouth so fast it would make your head spin.

broncocalijohn
08-21-2014, 12:18 PM
Nope.

Read it again.

The people who still support Obama are closer to the middle of the road.

Liberals and progressives washed their hands of him a long time ago (which isn't to say they didn't gift him their "lesser of evils" vote in 2012.)

I am not sure about that. While many can say he isn't liberal enough, I think he has done enough for liberals to know that with a mixed congress, they are not going to get everything in their "pipe dream" list. You mentioned Clinton which is a great example. His re election and legacy was getting the welfare act passed based on Republican (and voters) pressure. It was a huge item for his term and Dems have taken much credit for that bill (but not as many know it was Repubs pressure). Of course most have been washed away by Obama and those are the items Conservatives look at and say, "how is he Republican light?"

Obama makes Republicans wanting Clinton back.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-21-2014, 12:34 PM
I am not sure about that. While many can say he isn't liberal enough, I think he has done enough for liberals to know that with a mixed congress, they are not going to get everything in their "pipe dream" list. You mentioned Clinton which is a great example. His re election and legacy was getting the welfare act passed based on Republican (and voters) pressure. It was a huge item for his term and Dems have taken much credit for that bill (but not as many know it was Repubs pressure). Of course most have been washed away by Obama and those are the items Conservatives look at and say, "how is he Republican light?"

Obama makes Republicans wanting Clinton back.

You say Obama has "done enough for liberals?"

Name one thing.

And please don't try to cite the ACA.

baja
08-21-2014, 12:40 PM
You say Obama has "done enough for liberals?"

Name one thing.

And please don't try to cite the ACA.

He gave them a black president

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-21-2014, 12:51 PM
He gave them a black president

Baja's account = hacked.

Would you say the same thing if Herman Cain had been elected?

broncocalijohn
08-21-2014, 12:55 PM
You say Obama has "done enough for liberals?"

Name one thing.

And please don't try to cite the ACA.

Climate change funding. Also, I doubt Solyndra would have been funded by the evil Republicans (and wish Dems didn't either!). Obama proposed a climate resilience fund. Not sure exactly what that would give us.

He is pushing the Dream Act and has seemed to allow these new flux of illegal aliens coming over the border to stay for a significant amount of time.

Gun control was stated in his speech for his second term. I think that is exactly what liberals want. You rarely get that from Conservatives. BTW, some in his bill should have been passed and maybe would have if they are broken down individually.

broncocalijohn
08-21-2014, 12:58 PM
Baja's account = hacked.

Would you say the same thing if Herman Cain had been elected?

If a conservative voted for a black Republican president, it would be because of his politics not his skin color. Obama's skin color had a ton to do with getting votes from "feel good" white liberals and of course blacks themselves that had never voted before and many won't vote again (some will be because they didn't get what they thought Obama would give them).

mhgaffney
08-21-2014, 01:32 PM
The Left has extremist nutbags, sure - but the Democratic party effectively marginalizes them.

The Right sends its extremist nutbags to the Senate these days.

That's the difference: On the Right, the nutbags are driving the bus.

Hate to tell you, but the "extreme nut bags of the Left" are basically correct on most of the issues.

MHG

BroncoBeavis
08-21-2014, 01:40 PM
Hate to tell you, but the "extreme nut bags of the Left" are basically correct on most of the issues.

MHG

Somehow, I can see why you'd think that.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0411/More_than_half_of_Democrats_believed_Bush_knew.htm l

That is: More than half of Democrats, according to a neutral survey, said they believed Bush was complicit in the 9/11 terror attacks.

I'm still not sure this represents actual belief, as opposed to a kind of trash talk about a president you hate. (Bush wasn't mentioned in that survey question, but had been earlier in the poll.)

It does, though, offer a bit of context to the suggestions on the left that mass insanity has beset the GOP. LOL

baja
08-21-2014, 01:41 PM
Baja's account = hacked.

Would you say the same thing if Herman Cain had been elected?

It was supposed to be a joke liberal / black president - get it. ;D

Rohirrim
08-22-2014, 08:59 AM
Just curious, you've been here for all the Bernie Sanders for Prez talk, haven't you? :)

Pre-Reagan era Bernie would have been mainstream. There have been oceans of propaganda spewed since then that have twisted the general conception of things. Corporations don't spend billions on advertising because it doesn't work.

BroncoBeavis
08-22-2014, 09:05 AM
Pre-Reagan era Bernie would have been mainstream. There have been oceans of propaganda spewed since then that have twisted the general conception of things. Corporations don't spend billions on advertising because it doesn't work.

Lolz. Pre-Reagan, openly calling yourself a socialist would've probably earned you some warrantless FBI surveillance..

Your historical concept of pre-80's America is pretty creative.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-22-2014, 10:14 AM
Lolz. Pre-Reagan, openly calling yourself a socialist would've probably earned you some warrantless FBI surveillance..

Your historical concept of pre-80's America is pretty creative.

Um, I believe he was referring to Sanders' positions on issues.

And the smart money says you're probably not old enough to recall much about "pre-80s America."

BroncoBeavis
08-22-2014, 10:32 AM
Um, I believe he was referring to Sanders' positions on issues.

Like what? Federal funding for abortion? You think that would've sold in 1980? You do realize the Hyde amendment predates even Reagan. Even Carter supported it.

Higher energy taxes? Yeah, that would've sold like hotcakes in the 70's. LOL

The Welfare state? The 70's were a model for how our government lacks the means to truly care for people. The great society experiment unraveling is partly what brought Reagan to power. Yet you're telling me a man selling a message of "double down" on it would've overcome?

Give me something. Some "New Socialist" idea Bernie has that would've prevented him from being tailed by the FBI back then, like all the old Socialists of that era were.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-22-2014, 10:43 AM
> The 70's were a model for how our government lacks the means to truly care for people<.

Stopped reading right there.

You clearly have no clue as to what life in America was like prior to the Red Ink Ron Revolution.

And Saint Ron "came to power" via the usual GOP chicanery, i.e., the "southern strategy," back room deals with our enemies re: hostages, stinger missiles, etc.

BroncoBeavis
08-22-2014, 10:48 AM
Stopped reading right there.

You clearly have no clue as to what life in America was like prior to the Red Ink Ron Revolution.

And Saint Ron "came to power" via the usual GOP chicanery, i.e., the "southern strategy," back room deals with our enemies re: hostages, stinger missiles, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980
United States presidential election, 1980
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/ElectoralCollege1980.svg/349px-ElectoralCollege1980.svg.png

LOL

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-22-2014, 10:53 AM
^

Hmmm....hostage crisis....Dumbya's approval rating in the 90s following 9/11...


...see any similarity there?


Of course you don't.

BTW, I never said Reagan's strategy didn't work - I just said it was based on the usual GOP frauds and felonies.

BroncoBeavis
08-22-2014, 11:01 AM
^BTW, I never said Reagan's strategy didn't work - I just said it was based on the usual GOP frauds and felonies.

As it ever is with the hyper-partisans. When your party loses (by 10 points) it's because they were cheated.

When your party wins (by 4 points), it's because of a broad democratic mandate for Progressive Action! LOL

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-22-2014, 11:10 AM
As it ever is with the hyper-partisans. When your party loses (by 10 points) it's because they were cheated.

When your party wins (by 4 points), it's because of a broad democratic mandate for Progressive Action! LOL

Revealing your ignorance re: history once again.

You should probably do a Google search for "southern strategy" and "October surprise."

For extra credit, you can read all about how your hero outfitted our enemies with stinger missiles as part of the hostage deal.

BroncoBeavis
08-22-2014, 11:53 AM
Revealing your ignorance re: history once again.

You should probably do a Google search for "southern strategy" and "October surprise."

For extra credit, you can read all about how your hero outfitted our enemies with stinger missiles as part of the hostage deal.

Oh, Labron.

Iran wanted the Shah extradited for trial (execution) We sheltered the shah, and opposed his extradition. We were never going to get the hostages back until that happened. Or until the Shah died. Which he did, @ the end of July. At which point we started negotiations on Iran's new terms.

But the Ayatollah was pretty pissed by that point, and on record in his own country saying he'd never release the hostages to Carter.

Now I don't blame Carter for the whole episode. But given the way it went down, it's pretty tough to visualize any scenario where the hostages could have been released under Carter. I think Carter realized this. Which is why he tried the ill-fated helicopter raid.

As far as the 'southern' strategy, the funniest part is in 1980, Carter's biggest electoral state and majority of support was in the South.

The dude got 4% more of the vote in Alabama than he did in New York. LOL

Today's Democrats love to forget how before the early 90's, Dixie was prime Democrat country.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-22-2014, 01:20 PM
Oh, Labron.

Iran wanted the Shah extradited for trial (execution) We sheltered the shah, and opposed his extradition. We were never going to get the hostages back until that happened. Or until the Shah died. Which he did, @ the end of July. At which point we started negotiations on Iran's new terms.

But the Ayatollah was pretty pissed by that point, and on record in his own country saying he'd never release the hostages to Carter.

Now I don't blame Carter for the whole episode. But given the way it went down, it's pretty tough to visualize any scenario where the hostages could have been released under Carter. I think Carter realized this. Which is why he tried the ill-fated helicopter raid.

As far as the 'southern' strategy, the funniest part is in 1980, Carter's biggest electoral state and majority of support was in the South.

The dude got 4% more of the vote in Alabama than he did in New York. LOL

Today's Democrats love to forget how before the early 90's, Dixie was prime Democrat country.

Now that's a selective reading of history if there ever was one, Cletus.

You failed to mention anything about the October surprise, Saint Ron's stinger missile deal with Iran, etc.

Come back when you've done your homework!

BroncoBeavis
08-22-2014, 01:40 PM
Now that's a selective reading of history if there ever was one, Cletus.

You failed to mention anything about the October surprise, Saint Ron's stinger missile deal with Iran, etc.

Come back when you've done your homework!

Maybe you can show me how either the house or senate investigation corroborated you on that particular conspiracy theory.

As for the rest of us, we'll just recognize more OM Gaffneanism for what it is.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/26/reagan-s-october-surprise.html

One of the classic conspiracy theories of the 80's and early 90's (before the black helicopters, truthers, and birthers) was the belief that Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign has conspired with the government of Iran to delay the release of American hostages who had been captured during the 1979 revolution.

This theory was written up in a 1992 book by Gary Sick entitled October Surprise. The theory has never gained real legitimacy, and it seems that there are still new holes are being found in it.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-22-2014, 01:49 PM
^

Ah - I almost forgot: If a criminal gets away with his crime, then the crime never happened, according to right-wing ethics.

And "the daily beast" was where you stopped reading?

L0L.

Rohirrim
08-22-2014, 01:52 PM
Lolz. Pre-Reagan, openly calling yourself a socialist would've probably earned you some warrantless FBI surveillance..

Your historical concept of pre-80's America is pretty creative.

The discussion of single payer, universal health care was being openly debated even in the Nixon WH. Bring it up now and you're a communist. And that's only one example.

BroncoBeavis
08-22-2014, 02:07 PM
^

Ah - I almost forgot: If a criminal gets away with his crime, then the crime never happened, according to right-wing ethics.

And "the daily beast" was where you stopped reading?

L0L.

Yes, The Daily Beast. Formerly known as Newsweek. In fact it still was Newsweek when that article was published.

Or how about the New Republic, as quoted in the Congressional Record...

http://fas.org/irp/congress/1991_cr/h911104-october2.htm

Like Bani-Sadr and Brenneke, Rupp's sudden recall of the October Surprise came about belatedly. Only after his conviction for bank fraud, Rupp began telling newspapers and TV stations that he flew Casey to Paris on October 18, 1980, and insisted that Bush was present on the tarmac at the French airport. There are numerous inconsistencies in Rupp's account. He was unable to produce any proof that he worked for the CIA, and the plane he said he piloted to Paris that weekend, according to leasing company records, was actually parked in California. Furthermore, Rupp's passport (and Brenneke's too, for that matter) shows no exit from the United States or entry into France in October 1980. Rupp told reporters he didn't know who his passengers were at the time of the flight to Paris. He claims only to have recognized the `Old Professor' six years later when Casey was shown `testifying on television' about the Iran-contra scandal (a dubious detail, seeing that Casey had a stroke a day before the televised hearings). Rupp also said it was only years later that he recognized the `tall man with the crooked eyes'--the person at the Paris airport--as George Bush. Is it conceivable that Rupp would not have recognized Bush or Casey when he saw them? After all, he claims to be a long-time CIA employee and pilot--and Bush was head of the CIA four years before. Moreover, Brenneke says that Rupp was one of `Casey's favorite pilots.'

As for the allegations about Bush's presence in Paris on October 19 and 20, Secret Service records and contemporaneous news accounts of Bush's speeches show indisputably that he is publicly accounted for almost hourly--in numerous campaign stops--from October 15 through the late evening of October 18. On Sunday morning, October 19, according to information obtained by Gordon Crovitz of the Wall Street Journal, Bush had a private lunch with Judge Potter Stewart at the Chevy Chase Country Club. And Secret Service records show that agents went to the club to provide protection for Bush that Sunday morning. On the evening of October 19 Bush spoke to at a campaign event at the Washington Hilton, which is substantiated by newspaper accounts. On Monday, October 20, according to a schedule released by the White House and confirmed by newspaper and wire service reports, Bush campaigned the entire day in several cities in Connecticut.

Yep. Pretty much the handywork of some creative-fiction Gaffneyesque conspiracy kooks.

Really. Read the whole thing. And maybe next time you'll spare yourself the embarrassment of having associated yourself with something like it.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-22-2014, 06:06 PM
^

Cletus = just as clueless as ever...

[Over the years, Republicans have adamantly denied that Reagan or his campaign struck a deal with Iranian radicals to extend the hostage crisis through the 1980 election. But substantial evidence has built up supporting Bani-Sadr’s account and indicating that the release of the 52 hostages just as Reagan was taking the oath of office on Jan. 20, 1981, was no coincidence, that it was part of the deal. [For the latest summary of the evidence, see Robert Parry’s America’s Stolen Narrative.]

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-22-2014, 06:16 PM
From the guy who broke the Iran-Contra story for the AP...


http://www.truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/13904-americas-false-history-allows-the-powerful-to-commit-crimes-without-consequence


Seasoned journalist Robert Parry offers a thoroughly researched account of how the Republican Party and neocons have conspired to creative a false narrative about America's political and constitutional history. In particular, Parry tenaciously documents the accusations that he has pursued for years: that the Nixon campaign undermined peace talks that likely would have ended the Vietnam War in 1968 or 1969 in order to win the presidency; and that the Reagan campaign conspired with the revolutionary Iranian government to ensure that the US embassy hostages were not released before the 1980 election in order to seal Jimmy Carter's defeat.

Furthermore, Parry ties together calamitous US foreign policy decisions with the "stolen narrative" that has suppressed the true account of how the neocons and right wing rose to power in the US. Indeed, Parry connects the dots from the sabotaged Lyndon Johnson Vietnam peace talks to the deceptions that led to the Iraq War and beyond.

At the end of Chapter Eight of America's Stolen Narrative, Robert Parry writes: "But the end result of the failed investigations into the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush meant something else for the American people. They were left wandering in a wilderness of false narratives, trying to chart their future on a map drawn by liars."

nyuk nyuk
08-22-2014, 06:40 PM
As it ever is with the hyper-partisans. When your party loses (by 10 points) it's because they were cheated.

When your party wins (by 4 points), it's because of a broad democratic mandate for Progressive Action! LOL

Bingo.

And that arrogance at close victories certainly served a few Colorado Senate candidates well...

nyuk nyuk
08-22-2014, 06:42 PM
From the guy who broke the Iran-Contra story for the AP...


http://www.truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/13904-americas-false-history-allows-the-powerful-to-commit-crimes-without-consequence


Hmm. Only seems to rip **** at conservatives.

Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, The Press & Project Truth (1992)
Trick or Treason: The October Surprise Mystery (1993)
The October Surprise X-Files: The Hidden Origins of the Reagan-Bush Era (1996)
Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq (2004)
Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush (2007)
America's Stolen Narrative: From Washington and Madison to Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes to Obama (2012)

For some odd reason, that strikes me as him having an agenda.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-23-2014, 12:01 AM
Hmm. Only seems to rip **** at conservatives.


For some odd reason, that strikes me as him having an agenda.

I guess that saves you from having to look at whether Parry's claims are true or not.

Just bury your head in the sand and listen to Hannity and Rehab Rush.

BroncoBeavis
08-25-2014, 08:45 AM
Hmm. Only seems to rip **** at conservatives.

Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, The Press & Project Truth (1992)
Trick or Treason: The October Surprise Mystery (1993)
The October Surprise X-Files: The Hidden Origins of the Reagan-Bush Era (1996)
Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq (2004)
Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush (2007)
America's Stolen Narrative: From Washington and Madison to Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes to Obama (2012)

For some odd reason, that strikes me as him having an agenda.

Give it up man. The dude calls out Newsweek as suspect, then follows up with a rebuttal from "Truth-out.org". LOL

alkemical
08-28-2014, 04:09 PM
I still have a hard time understanding why people buy into the left-right paradox.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-28-2014, 06:15 PM
Give it up man. The dude calls out Newsweek as suspect, then follows up with a rebuttal from "Truth-out.org". LOL

It's easy to see why you dislike Parry.

After all, he's the guy who broke the news of Saint Ron's Iran-Contra misdeeds for the AP.