Jump to content
Golden Retriever

John Bolton fired as national security adviser

Recommended Posts

Rumor has it Pompeo, another neocon supreme, is being considered for the position.  He's just Bolton with an Italian surname.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Eldnah said:

She was never a member of PIE though and so thats not really a fair acusation

 

i don't think she was accused of being a member of PIE she was accused of assisting their agenda while she worked as the legal office rof the NCCL (now called 'liberty'):

Paedophile Information Exchange allegations and response

''In February 2014, Harman denied allegations that she had supported the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) when the advocacy group was affiliated with Liberty, while she was the pressure group's Legal Officer from 1978 to 1982. Both the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph also claimed that Jack Dromey MP (her partner) and former Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt had offered support to apologists for the sexual abuse of children while they were working for NCCL. The Guardian also states that in an NCCL briefing note dated 1978, Harman urged amendments to a 1978 Child Protection Bill declaring that "images of children should only be considered pornographic if it could be proven the subject suffered", which Harman says was an argument intended to protect from "unintended consequences" such as parents being prosecuted for taking pictures of their children on the beach or in the bath.[67]

In a television interview, Harman said she had "nothing to apologise for," stating "I very much regret that this vile organisation, PIE, ever existed and that it ever had anything to do with NCCL, but it did not affect my work at NCCL."[68] Harman stated that while she did support the equalisation of the age of consent for gay men she had never campaigned for the age of consent to go below the age of 16 and accused the Daily Mail of trying to make her "guilty by way of association",.[69] Documents subsequently discovered by The Guardian contradicted her claim; Harman's name appears on a March 1976 NCCL press which states "NCCL proposes that the age of consent should be lowered to 14, with special provision for situations where the partners are close in age, or where consent of a child over ten can be proved."[70]Ed Miliband backed Harman and stated that she had "huge decency and integrity".[69]

The Daily Telegraph cast doubt on her assertion that the PIE had been "pushed to the margins" before Harman had joined the NCCL.''

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Harman

 

shes upto her neck in dodgy stuff:

 

''In January 2009, Harman proposed a rule change to exempt MPs' expenses from the Freedom of Information Act. Her parliamentary order aimed to remove "most expenditure information held by either House of Parliament from the scope of the Freedom of Information Act". It meant that, under the law, journalists and members of the public would no longer be entitled to learn details of their MP's expenses. Labour MPs were to be pressured to vote for this measure by use of a three line whip. Her proposal was withdrawn when the Conservative Party said they would vote against, and an online campaign by mySociety.[44] The failure of the motion led to the disclosure of expenses of British members of parliament.

In December 2010, it emerged that Harman was amongst 40 MPs who had secretly repaid wrongly claimed expenses between 2008 and 2010. In November 2010, Harman's parliamentary private secretary Ian Lavery had blocked a motion designed to allow the repayments to be made public.''

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Harman

she was accused of

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, muir said:

 

i don't think she was accused of being a member of PIE she was accused of assisting their agenda while she worked as the legal office rof the NCCL (now called 'liberty')

 

She was at the start of the thread by northern star - which is what I challenged

 

Ive no disagreement with you about her affiliation with them and other unpleasant types - which was typical left wing misguided - if you are anti / West/US/ tory you must be good guys bollox so we wont ask questions.

Which is fine for the Student Union - bit of a twat when its the leader of the labour party who thinks like this (Corbyn)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A. She doesnt know who they all are and 

 

B. She doesnt like the fact they are all men 

 

Yet campaigns tirelessly to have them in charge 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MrA said:

A. She doesnt know who they all are and 

 

B. She doesnt like the fact they are all men 

 

Yet campaigns tirelessly to have them in charge

 

she knows who they are she is just trying to distance herself from them because she doesn't want to be seen as part of their conspiracy

 

she's doing what politicians always do which is that if they don't like the question they are being asked they simply answer a different question which is the one they want to answer. By doing this they can stick to pre-prepared talking points

 

So she is asked if she is happy about the 7 top jobs in the EU being men and she doesn't want to answer to that reality so instead she talks about EU directives which she believes have delivered women to some sort of better situation. But are things that black and white or is there a discussion to be had about the shape of our society? How is the world of working out for people?

Britain facing its own opioid crisis with middle-aged women fuelling 60 per cent rise in prescriptions

7 September 2019 • 9:30pm
 
Britain is in the grip of a growing opioid crisis, with middle-aged women fuelling a 60 per cent rise in the numbers of heavy painkillers, anxiety medications and antidepressants prescribed in the last decade.

Medics warned that the trends show the situation in the UK could become  “devastating” - aping an epidemic seen in the US.

The Sunday Telegraph can reveal that 141 million prescriptions were issued for such drugs last year - a rise from 89 million in 2008.

The statistics show a doubling in the number of antidepressants issued, while prescribing of painkillers containing opioids has risen by more than a fifth

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/07/britain-facing-opioid-crisis-middle-aged-women-fuelling-60-per/

 

men and women are physically different have different biological roles to play and make different choices:

Harvard Study Confirms the Gender Wage Gap is Just a Myth

 
Posted by Mary Chastain    Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 11:00am

That mythical gender “weekly earnings gap can be explained by the workplace choices that women and men make.”

Not that it matters to the left, but a study from Harvard University titled Why Do Women Earn Less Than Men? proves the gender wage gap is indeed a myth because of the obvious reasons: work choices between men and women.

Why do men make more than women? Their choice of jobs and working a lot of overtime.

 

In order to prove their point, authors Valentin Bolotnyy and Natalia Emanuel looked at the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA). It is unionized, which means men and women are treated the same and have to follow the same rules and receive the same benefits. So why do the men earn more?

From the study’s abstract (emphasis mine):

Even in a unionized environment where work tasks are similar, hourly wages are identical, and tenure dictates promotions, female workers earn $0.89 on the male-worker dollar (weekly earnings). We use confidential administrative data on bus and train operators from the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) to show that the weekly earnings gap can be explained by the workplace choices that women and men make. Women value time away from work and flexibility more than men, taking more unpaid time off using the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and working fewer overtime hours than men. When overtime hours are scheduled three months in advance, men and women work a similar number of hours; but when those hours are offered at the last minute, men work nearly twice as many. When selecting work schedules, women try to avoid weekend, holiday, and split shifts more than men. To avoid unfavorable work times, women prioritize their schedules over route safety and select routes with a higher probability of accidents. Women are less likely than men to game the scheduling system by trading off work hours at regular wages for overtime hours at premium wages. These results suggest that some policies that increase workplace flexibility, like shift swapping and expanded cover lists, can reduce the gender earnings gap and disproportionately increase the well-being of female workers.

Overtime pays time-and-a-half. The authors found that men train and bus drivers accepted overtime more than their women counterparts by 83%. These males twice as likely took overtime than the females. Men accepted scheduled overtime scheduled three months in advance 7% more than the women.

As women moved up the food chain and had the opportunity to prioritize their schedules, the majority of them “moved away from working weekends, holidays, and split shifts more than men.”

Bolotnyy and Emanuel wrote that the evidence they discovered “so far on the earnings gap in our setting suggests that insufficient flexibility and high female values of time outside the workplace are its root causes.”

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/bolotnyy/files/be_gendergap.pdf

John Phelan, an economist at the Center of the American Experiment, provided an excellent analysis of the study. The gender wage gap came to light due to a dumb methodology that ignores basic observations (emphasis mine):

It ignores the fact that according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), in 2017, men worked an average of 8.05 hours in an average day compared to 7.24 hours for women.

True, women are more likely to be raising children, taking care of elderly family members, or doing housework, leaving them with fewer hours in the day for paid employment. But this does not alter the essential fact: that people working fewer hours, on average, can be expected to earn lower incomes, on average.

Let me repeat: When you work fewer hours, you will make less than what others make who work more hours.

This led Phelan to conclude that this “‘gender wage gap’ is as real as unicorns and has been killed more times than Michael Myers.”

https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/12/harvard-study-confirms-the-gender-wage-gap-is-just-a-myth/

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, alfredo79 said:

 

 

LOL

 

Trump saying that Bolton is too much of a pussy, and not hawkish enough.

 

anyways I dont look at this as such a big deal as many people are doing.

 

One radical Zionist neocon replaced by another.

 

The Trumptards are just trying to hang on to anything to try and prove that their saviour is "fighting the deep state"

 

LOL

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't trust anything coming out of a politically biased blog or news source.  It's pretty obvious to anyone with common sense that Trump disagreed with Bolton on how to handle North Korea and Iran.  Bolton has not seen another country that he didn't have dreams of bombing and destroying.   He's one of the original creators of the Neocon peace-through-war platform.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, motleyhoo said:

I wouldn't trust anything coming out of a politically biased blog or news source.  It's pretty obvious to anyone with common sense that Trump disagreed with Bolton on how to handle North Korea and Iran.  Bolton has not seen another country that he didn't have dreams of bombing and destroying.   He's one of the original creators of the Neocon peace-through-war platform.

 

  

 

there is no spin, Trump told reporters straight up that Bolton was holding him back, and that he wanted to be even more hawkish.

 

I really dont know who is crazier between Bolton and Trump.

 

They are both psychopaths in my books. To hell with both of them.

 

Trump

 

"If we have nukes why can't we use them"

 

"we should have taken all of their oil"

 

"we should kill family members of terrorists"

 

"I would do worse than water boarding"

 

Remember that Trump dropped the largest bomb since Hiroshima on Afghanistan just to prove how "tough" he was.

 

The guy he replaced Bolton with is not any better, he may actually even be worse, but he is just more low profile.

 

Trump is a psychopath. I think those who continue to defend him are verging on mentally deranged.

Edited by Vancity Eagle
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2019 at 8:19 PM, Vancity Eagle said:

 

The guy he replaced Bolton with is not any better, he may actually even be worse, but he is just more low profile.

its all part of the show, puppet is a puppet.....

 

all this replacing is to grab peoples attention and to highlite politics as most important thing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 9/13/2019 at 2:19 PM, Vancity Eagle said:

I really dont know who is crazier between Bolton and Trump.

 

I won't even dare to speculate. The coin flip says, Trump.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 We now have our answer.   It's, Charles Kupperman, a man who was involved with group of neocons who put forth the proposition that a USA initiated nuclear first strike against Russia is winnable.  Here's is one of his quotes:

 

"But depending on how the nuclear war is fought, it could mean the difference between 150 casualties and 20 million casualties. I think that is a significant difference, and if the country loses 20 million people, you may have a chance of surviving after that."

 

 When I first heard of the neocon advocacy of a first strike nuclear exchange with Russia being winnable, I was astounded by the audacity and stupidity of such  doctrine.  Even announcing it publicly as they did puts our World at greater risk of destruction.  He is worse than Bolton.  Neocon hubris is bottomless.  I believe the answer is neocons are cracked, all of them.  Trump is one. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by JacksonsGhost
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JacksonsGhost said:

 We now have our answer.   It's, Charles Kupperman, a man who was involved with group of neocons who put forth the proposition that a USA initiated nuclear first strike against Russia is winnable.  Here's is one of his quotes:

 

"But depending on how the nuclear war is fought, it could mean the difference between 150 casualties and 20 million casualties. I think that is a significant difference, and if the country loses 20 million people, you may have a chance of surviving after that."

 

 When I first heard of the neocon advocacy of a first strike nuclear exchange with Russia being winnable, I was astounded by the audacity and stupidity of such  doctrine.  Even announcing it publicly as they did puts our World at greater risk of destruction.  He is worse than Bolton.  Neocon hubris is bottomless.  I believe the answer is neocons are cracked, all of them.  Trump is one. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He's got some pedigree. Wasn't he an advisor or something to Reagan at the fag-end of the Cold War? I know that his career part somewhat parallels that of Bolton and that he's most certainly a hawk. Thing is, now that Trump has fired Bolton, his protege will continue on the same trajectory. I doubt this appointment will do much to allay any fears the Iranians might have.

Edited by Nemuri Kyoshiro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Nemuri Kyoshiro said:

He's got some pedigree.

 

Yes, he goes way back to Saint Reagan's reign.  That's when that crazy quote was sourced. 

 

The Russians have developed the Poseidon in response.  We call it the Tsunami sub.  It's a drone sub sporting a 100 megaton thermonuclear device.  The casing is salted with Cobalt-60.  The 150 foot tsunami  and Cobalt-60 would wipe out all coastal areas of the US/wherever and render them uninhabitable for a couple hundred years.  We're still a few years from full deployment.   This is about 100 Megatons.  Imagine this going off underwater.

 



Right now he's there as a substitute.   However, he is Bolton's crony and choice to fill his position.  I'm betting he's the final choice.  This will definitely concern the Iranians.  Neocons have a hatred of Iranians that borders on psychotic from my observations.   One has to be very careful in the US when speaking fairly about Iran.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JacksonsGhost said:

The Russians have developed the Poseidon in response.  We call it the Tsunami sub.  It's a drone sub sporting a 100 megaton thermonuclear device.  The casing is salted with Cobalt-60.  The 150 foot tsunami  and Cobalt-60 would wipe out all coastal areas of the US/wherever and render them uninhabitable for a couple hundred years.  We're still a few years from full deployment.   This is about 100 Megatons.  Imagine this going off underwater.

 

It's enough to make you weep. As is Fukushima isn't already devastating the oceans. Man is the stupidest animal on the planet. As for Iran, this is destined to run and run. The Israelis have got their knickers in a twist about them and, as we know, when Israel shouts "jump", America asks "how high?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Nemuri Kyoshiro said:

Israel shouts "jump", America asks "how high?"

 

That would be "How high, sir!".

 

The sources of Israel's control over the US stems from the sheer number of prominent positions being held by Jewish folks.  Also, they are rabidly backed by a few tens of millions of crazy Zionist evangelical Christians.  These people vote too at a much higher rate than normal.  I've a number of these Zionist Christians in my family.  If can go the rest of my life w/o hearing "Iran is going to nuke Israel.", I'd consider it an accomplishment.

I'm not mincing words when I say some of these evangelical neocons want to bring about the return of the Messiah.

Edited by JacksonsGhost
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, JacksonsGhost said:

 

That would be "How high, sir!".

 

The sources of Israel's control over the US stems from the sheer number of prominent positions being held by Jewish folks.  Also, they are rabidly backed by a few tens of millions of crazy Zionist evangelical Christians.  These people vote too at a much higher rate than normal.  I've a number of these Zionist Christians in my family.  If can go the rest of my life w/o hearing "Iran is going to nuke Israel.", I'd consider it an accomplishment.

I'm not mincing words when I say some of these evangelical neocons want to bring about the return of the Messiah.

The Hebrew Roots crowd too. I used to watch a bloke called Trey Smith, whose films were quite informative, but he seems to be heading in that direction. He's pitching third temple coins that have Trump's head on them. Trump is compared to Cyrus in some quarters. The New Testament is under attack. Some wish to eradicate Paul from the book, others wish to alter the harsh words that Jesus spoke to the Pharisees and Scribes. The Westcott-Hort heresy is becoming common currency too and it's unnerving to see this unswerving devotion to Israel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump's new national security adviser is the anti-Bolton in style only

Robert O’Brien might be just as hawkish as John Bolton, but he is "certainly not as pugilistic," according to people close to the president's new adviser.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/18/trump-to-nominate-us-hostage-negotiator-robert-obrien-as-national-security-adviser-1501811

Edited by alfredo79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not much is known about this new guy Obrien.

 

I suspect that is what they want. This is a PR move by Trump to help his election prospects. Probably a clash of egos as well.

 

Charles Kupperman, the neocon guy on the board of the anti-Islamic hate group Centre for Security Policy, still remains the deputy National Security Advisor.

 

I think we should all remember that, the faces come and go, the agenda remains the same.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×