ATS.MIX: Above Politics Show 04

ATS MIX:

Above Politics Show 04

The AP boys, Martin and Justin, have their first interview with ATS Moderator Harlem Hottie, who reveals the inside scoop on a sinister political plot that the mainstream media is ignoring. Are you brave enough to hear what she has to say? Deny ignorance! ATS Member Dorian Gray wins the trivia challenge for a third time, which forces Justin to dig deep for a harder question. Martin rants about the nationalization of the Northern Rock bank (in the U.K.). Is Hillary Clinton going down in flames? Which ATS member recently made the news in Canada? Listen to Martin and Justin to find out!



PLEASE POST YOUR COMMENTS ON THIS SHOW THREAD ONLY OR GO TO THE ABOVEPOLITICS.COM HOME BELOW




To DOWNLOAD This Program, Put Your Mouse Cursor Over the BLUE SHOW FILE NAME, Then RIGHT CLICK. Slide The Cursor Down To SAVE TARGET AS And Then CLICK .... Now Just Decide WHERE You Want To Download The File To And CLICK SAVE. You Might Also Consider SUBSCRIBING To The Shows Through iTunes Where They Are Downloaded To Your computer Automatically.

VISIT THE ABOVE POLITICS HOME NOW

length: 35:19
file: atsmix_2828.mp3
size: 16559k
feed: atsmix


[edit on 2/21/2008 by Dave Rabbit]

Hydrazine is a derivative of ammonia. One of it's uses is to puff styrofoam peanuts, as is my understanding.

en.wikipedia.org...

It's in the news because there was a tankful of it on a spy satellite that was just destroyed by a "surface-to-space" missile because the hyrdazine could've been dangerous when the satellite entered Earth's atmosphere as it's orbit decayed.

www.cnn.com...#/video/tech/2008/02/21/pentagon.sat.shoot7a.cnn

EDIT to add: Another fine show, by the way. Justin, you really need to upgrade your microphone.

Martin, stop eating your microphone. You're popping your P's!



[edit on 21-2-2008 by Tuning Spork]

Tuning Spork, you are the winner! Dave will be stopping by when he can to deliver 500 freshly made applause points.

Done!

Good show keep em coming !

The US is certainly at a cross roads in terms of the topics in the AP Show 03 thread and in terms of the integrity of the voting process.

Related Notes

The NZ government owns a part of Air New Zealand and owns 100% of the state-owned enterprise Kiwibank . I wasn't fond of the NZ government decision to bail out Air New Zealand. While Kiwibank has been more successful then myself and others would have picked it hasn't shaken up the market to the degree it supporters claim that it has.

Privatisation is very very unpopular outside of the political right. The National Party has had to abandoned Privatisation along with a host of other policy's for the sake of electability .

In October 2001 the New Zealand Government announced that it would provide Air New Zealand with an $NZ885 million rescue package, and in return would take up 80% ownership. Gary Toomey resigned as CEO the same month.

Source

Got a question? Post 'em here and we'll see about answering some in the next show.

Originally posted by Justin_Case
Got a question? Post 'em here and we'll see about answering some in the next show.

OK here are my questions .

Would you support the creation of one or more independent body's whose aim was to run the US elections themselves and preserve there integrity ?

If you support such a measure how do you preserve the body's independence when politicians make all the appointments and would control the funding ?

I better top answering now, i dont want to be a conspiracy threads focus lol. Im afried i must take my leave of ATS for a while now. An issue has came about in real life which is going to take 99% of my time now. So sorry, but i must take my leave for a while now...

take Care all my friends.....

Dorian Gray

I have to take issue…but not with you guys.
While you were interviewing Corrine (sp?), she stated Barack Obama is not a Muslim. While that MAY be true, now, it has NOT always been the case as she made it sound.
“ The Los Angeles Times reported Thursday that Barack Obama’s campaign seems to be modifying its earlier affirmation that 'Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ in Chicago.'
In a statement to the Times on Wednesday, the campaign offered slightly different wording, saying: 'Obama has never been a practicing Muslim.' The statement added that as a child, Obama had spent time in the neighborhood’s Islamic center.
His former Roman Catholic and Muslim teachers, along with two people who were identified by Obama’s grade-school teacher as childhood friends, say Obama was registered by his family as a Muslim at both of the schools he attended.”
www.humanevents.com...

Why do people like this man? Really? Why? Maybe Senator Watson from Texas can help us out. What do you have to say, Senator?
video.google.com...

I think it speaks volumes. This is a state SENATOR who is a campaign representative! Shouldn’t he know? Shouldn’t he be able to spout off the, oh so long, list of great deeds the man has done? This is a guy who has dedicated his life to politics and it is his job to know what is going on, not only on the state level, but in Washington as well. All he can come up with is, “he inspires.” That’s pathetic! Motivational videos inspire, New Year’s resolutions inspire, trainers at gyms inspire, heck, even roles played by the most ignorant Hollywood actors can inspire! I guess they would be good candidates too?
I did hear some say, “He inspires people to believe in themselves.” He does? From what I see, the drooling legions of supports believe in him and look at him as though he is our SAVIOR in this great time of turmoil. He is only a man…
He is a fantastic speaker and knows how to play a crowd. He knows when to inflect a word here or let another hang there. He knows how to stoke a crowd by emphasizing words which mean nothing. Then, he lets the crowd build and frenzy upon itself.
He is a used car salesman.
He is also a man who refuses to put his hand over his heart and is married to a woman who said she is ashamed of the United States. None of that matters or is justifiable...right?
People don’t want to face the facts there is much unknown about the man, from his MUSLIM upbringing to what he truly believes. They are so enthralled by the man, they find ways to place what they “think” he means or what they “want” him to believe over what they know/don't know.
People are so willing to apologize for the man or ignore truths which will taint the perfect image they have of him. No one is perfect and no one believes in every ideal as you do.
To think anyone person is the savior of the nation, is putting to much faith in them and it extrodinarily dangerous.
It's frightening.

That's an interesting question. I'm sure that a lot of people are sifting Obama's background very carefully. They must also be watching every word he says. I've learned real fast that ATS members are dedicated investigators.

Originally posted by Justin_Case
That's an interesting question. I'm sure that a lot of people are sifting Obama's background very carefully. They must also be watching every word he says. I've learned real fast that ATS members are dedicated investigators.

I can't agree with you more.
But, I have 2 part question...
Do you think there is such hatred towards President Bush right now, anyone seems like a better choice and the question marks in their background are easier to overlook? Do you think the level of skepticism used in disecting President Bush's plan is not being applied fairly?

Hm. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but but I have been taling to some of the best on ATS. Even so, I can only tell you what I see from my perspectice as a media watchter.

I don't think the majority of Americans "hate" President Bush, but I do think they are deeply frustrated.

The ar in Afghanistan is largely seen as a just war. Most of the Afghan people want us there, and the MSM does report that. Even so, we still seem to be fighting in that theater with one hand tied behind our back.

The war in Iraq is no longer viewed by the majority of Americans as a good thing. This skepticism goes beyond the issue of WMD's, which we did not find. My sense is that most Americans were actualy willing to forgive Mr. Bush for that "mistake," which most ATS member don't think was a mistake at all.

The real sand in the shorts over Iraq has to do with the mis-management of that war. The recent change in tatics and troop levels was good to see, but many Americans are still hung up on just one point. Mr. Bush said that this recent escalation was all about giving he Iraqi government time to get their act together. which they have not done.

It's important to understand that most Americans over the age of 35 look at the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan through the lense of Vietnam. Anyone with a pulse can pick out the similarities between these three wars, and we get frustrated when the Bush administration refuses to admit what the average workin' guy can see plain as day.

There is also the matter of Osama Bin Laden to be considered. It's year SIX of the war, and that man is still not feeding the daisies. A lot of Americans find it hard to support the GOP when “their guy” hasn’t been able to bring Bin Laden down. There is a perception among many voters that Mr. Bush has mismanaged the war on terror.

These three failings, combined with the indignities of a domestic spying program, Guatanamo Bay, and the rather long list of boo-boo’s made by members of the Bush administration leave many Americans to feel like they need a break from Republican leadership. Let's also recall that when the Republicans held majorities in both houses of Congress, they acted poorly. The Bush presidency has grown government and drastically increased the national debt. It doesn’t help that Mr. Bush is himself such a poor verbal communicator.

It’s important to remember that a President gets credit for the things his/her party does right, while the entire party takes the blame for what that President does wrong. On top of all this, you’ve got the matter of the failing economy. Republicans take the rap for that one, too.

Bush43 isn’t the first President to suffer one crisis after another. Jimmy Carter went from one mistake to the next. Presidents Nixon and Johnson suffered terribly through Vietnam and various failures in the Cold War. Even the much loved Ronald Reagan had his bad moments.

It's hard to put your trust in a political party (again) when you feel like you were wrong to trust them in the first place. THAT's the real distaste that Americans are feeling at the moment.

If the wars had gone well, and if the economy were on solid ground, we'd be having a much different conversation. That would be true, even if OBL were still alive and well...vacationing in lovely north-western Pakistan.

I'm a conservately minded person, and even I am shocked that Mr. Bush has acted so much like a Democrat that I expect Nancy Pelosi to give him an achievement award afer he leaves office. He's done more to advance their cause than he ever did to help the GOP.

The way I view things is that the damage from the Iraq blunder is ill reversible and this will be Bush legacy along with the Budget deficit . Clinton main blunders IMO were downsizing the US military and withdrawing from Somalia . Out of those two only the withdrawl from Somalia has had effects that cant be or aren't easily undone .

Sure downsizing the US military was unwise but Bush and co did nothing to reverse the policy pre and post 9-11. So the US military could and can be enlarged as needed .

reply to post by Justin_Case


I see this…
WMD’s found or not, the war was necessary.

How it has been managed…you are correct, it is sad. However, I tend to think much of the mismanagement is because there is such a stress on “collateral damage.” Yes, it is horrible when innocent people die, yes it is tragic when homes are destroyed…but to think any of that can be avoided it foolish. The public doesn’t mind a war as long as you can ONLY kill the bad people. I think the worries of collateral damage are nothing more than an extension of political correctness. If you go to liveleak.com you can see countless encounters with terrorists, but you also hear, is the conversations the Apache pilots have with their commanders. The lengths to which they must go before they fire on even a KNOWN target are absurd.
You can hear the pilot checking with the copilot. Then, they send the information to the base. The man at the base sends it to his superior. The superior thinks about it. He then give the radio operator at the base the order and he tells the pilots. They exchange initials and give the time and date. What is also told to the pilots is the caliber of weapon to be used. Then, many times there is another discussion on whether another weapon will cause less “collateral damage.” The whole process is repeated…then, if the all the terrorists haven’t fled or dispersed, they can fire.
This is the process required to fire on a group lf men who just planted an IED or ambushed AMERICAN soldiers!
There are similar yet equally restricting rules of engagement for foot soldiers. There were about 12 steps they needed to take before they could go for a kill shot. With the new strategy, it’s down to about seven. Just because a person is firing on them, they don’t have the ability to fire back. They have to get confirmation the shots fired were directed at them. They have find the PERSON (the individual even if there are others with weapons around him) who fired. Never mind the fact he just tried to kill them, they have to demand he lower his weapon. If he refuses, warning shots are given. Then, after another demand of lowering the weapon, they WARN him they will open fire AGAIN. Finally, they can kill him.
IS that how wars are won? Do you ask your enemy "hey, buddy, do mind not shooting at me and can you put your gun down?"
If a man shoots at you…you should be able to kill him then and there.
This is because it is the most televised war in history and people seem to have forgotten how ugly and terrible wars are.
So, the ineptitudes of President Bush’s strategy or implementation in the War on Terror can only be blamed on parts of the public who wanted to see the war, but not the ugliness of it.
They can’t have it both ways.

Most American think the war in Iraq has simply taken too long. Mismanagemetn aside, the prevailing opinion is tha we're not getting good returns on our investment. it is now generally accepted that the Iraq mission is under-powered and likely to take another decade (at its current pace).

There is an old saying in politics that has been used by the media. "It's not what is that matters. It's what it looks like that matters." AS this time, the Republicans look like they havea weak leader who has initiated weak polcies. The economic downturn we are now fcing only adds fuel to thatAs negative fire.

As our national economic situation continues to get worse, more and more peole are going to WANT somebody to blame. That penalty always falls t oteh sitting President, which rubs off on his/her party.

EDIT: It's been confirm that Ralph Nader is going to run for President. Holy cow. Has he been brought in to take down Obama? Or, has does he have his sights set on wrecking Hillary?

[edit on 25-2-2008 by Justin_Case]

reply to post by Justin_Case


Ralph Nader is either a masochist or a man who likes to cause trouble with the Democratic Party.
while he doesn't take many votes in the entire picture, in a close race the few votes he gets may be the few the Dem's needed and lost out on to go over the top.

Originally posted by _Johnny_Utah_
Ralph Nader is either a masochist or a man who likes to cause trouble with the Democratic Party. while he doesn't take many votes in the entire picture, in a close race the few votes he gets may be the few the Dem's needed and lost out on to go over the top.

I don't think that Nader's involvement will improve McCain's chances for victory. He has a chance to sligtly affect the Clinton Obama delegates counts before they go to convention.

When you look at this from Clinton's point of view, Nader is a god send. She can blame HIM for any defeat of Obama. It would be a good idea to remember that Nader has the habit of saying some very nasty things when he's in the heat of battle. One wrong slur pointed in Obama's direction would benefit the Clinton camp considerably.