T1B

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:07 pm**

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emanu ... ical_views

Interesting guy. So, is this supposed to be good or bad for those afraid of Zionist conspiracies ?

Doesn't LTS TRN run around with drool coming out of his mouth to "wakey wakey" about conspiracies PNAC, Zionists ... is that just Marty ?

Emanuel was born in Chicago, Illinois in 1959. His father, the Jerusalem-born Benjamin M. Emanuel, is a pediatrician and was a member of the Irgun, a militant Zionist group treated as a terrorist organization during British rule

I guess this is good news for anyone thinking Obama was going to abandon Israel.

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:11 pm**

Tom In VA wrote:
I guess this is good news for anyone thinking Obama was going to abandon Israel.

Yeah, hooray for that.

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2008 10:06 pm**

Is he from the Joe Liebeman sect, or the John Stewart sect?

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2008 10:30 pm**

John Liebowitz, probably.

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2008 3:20 am**

Obama reminds me alot of a young Blair when he was pushing for Government, in that he is exceptionally good at selling himself to an audience both young and old.

You can easily believe that many people trusted them both and what was key to both their delivery is that they genuinely believe in what they're saying - you never see that artificial look, or tone that politicians like Bush had when they were reading from a script and just didn't care.

But then Blair turned out to be a manipulator and control freak.

But on topic, it is possible to dislike the yids in a good old fashioned, flatcap and truncheon/let's burn down the local pawnshop - kind of way without slapping on the tinfoil hat and turning to zionist conspiricies.

People like LTS give anti-semitism a bad name. :(

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2008 3:26 am**

Dr_Phibes wrote:
People like LTS give anti-semitism a bad name. :(

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2008 4:06 am**

Bradley Whitford's character Josh Lyman on NBC television series The West Wing is said to be based on Emanuel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emanuel

Who will they get to play Rob Lowe?

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2008 4:49 pm**

mvscal wrote:Good job, Dems. You just elected your very own Dubya Bush.

OK, I'll bite...

WFT are you talking about?

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2008 4:54 pm**

huh? wrote:
Dr_Phibes wrote:
People like LTS give anti-semitism a bad name. :(

people like huh? give sodomy a bad name

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2008 6:04 pm**

Precisely, and I think the implications are much more far reaching, Rahm isn't exactly engaged in a quixotic crusade against big business. I'm not sure he's willing to abandon Israel. His stance on Pelosi's pet legislation to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide is - NO GO, presumably for the same reason as Bush - i.e. don't want to piss Turkey off as an ally.

So, there's much more to be revealed, but Rahm has a reputation - "Good Cop, Bad Cop" of going Chicago Style on folks.

I'm expecting a ton of scandals to come out of Washington in the near future. Republicans and Conservative Democrats without a pristine history and who shit ice cream should probably be concerned. He is probably going to go after them like a South Side pit bull.

But again, to what ends, I don't know. Nor do the people that voted Obama into office. To a person, and I work with a lot of people that voted Obama (They wore they're Che Gueverra style t-shirts to work yesterday) no college, some college, or more degrees than a rectal thermometer college -

Don't have a clue what they're looking for, what they got, and they're happy he won and he's African American, and that he's about

CHANGE

Maybe Rahm is there for some sort of ballast, I don't know.

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2008 6:19 pm**

Administrations change...foreign policy is (relatively) constant.

America is still Israel's cat's paw. Eternally.

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2008 6:21 pm**

So that's what Ted Nugent was singing about.

Cat scratch fever.

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2008 6:23 pm**

Tom,

You expect a lot of scandals? Out of Washington?

Say it ain't so Tom.

You seriously think that Obama voters and activists will be upset that Obama has appointed someone who will see through his agenda with the ferocity it both needs and deserves? I couldn't be happier.

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2008 6:46 pm**

That's my point B. It's not "CHANGE" it's status quo. Bipartisanship and coalition building through intimidation. There's nothing new or "CHANGE" about that.

About Rahm, I know a vast number of far left Big Tenters whose primary issue with the Republican party is that they're in bed with big business. Somehow they always get fooled. Nobody is in bed with big business like the Democrats. This is just sort of - validation of that. So I'm implying that those poor bastards got duped - AGAIN.

Other activists, like PETA - I wonder what they thought of the Bull Slaughtering ceremony in Kenya

His plan, is going to do more for Big Business and Big Government than "Main Street" small business and medium size business. I think the only "CHANGE" there is only going to be - potentially - an increase in scope of 8A and Set Aside contracts.

I said it at the beginning, I'll say it now. Both McCain and Obama were purchased a long time ago. The investors, invested more in Obama, because that's what THEY need. It might, arguably, be what the country needs. But I don't know.

Last thing - I'm way too verbose -

Bidenesque if you will.

Rahm was the dog Clinton turned loose on Democrats to push NAFTA through. How is this making sure - as Obama suggested - to keep jobs here ?

So those hippie-esque organic living "Bring back the mom and pop stores" types that voted for Obama are in for a rude awakening.

Here's my prediction based on Rahm being chosen as Obama's enforcer.

More jobs overseas for big business.
Tax hikes and over-regulation to keep small to medium businesses unable to compete.
More social welfare programs to redistribute wealth and keep the "masses" placated.
Continual dilution of the education system to keep the "masses" - barely educated.
Continual misinformation and propaganda in the mainstream media - AND - government impingement on out of mainstream media to dilute the oppositions voices through the Fairness Doctrine.

And thanks to some sort of "crisis" as Biden mentioned .....

A further erosion of our civil liberties based on the notion of "security". The Patriot Act will be re-affirmed, strengthened, more power by the Federal Government will be siezed.

Okay, maybe I did watch Moby's video too much. That and a bunch of George Carlin

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2008 7:03 pm**

Tom,

You seem to be under the impression that the majority of Obama voters are anticipating some kind of dismantling of the Washington power structure. That is simply not the case. Though I can't speak for every Obama voter (and I'm sure Cuda will post some worthless factoid or anecdotal account to dispute this) what I want out of Obama is a government that is both functional and is working with the best interests of all Americans in mind. What I am not expecting is absolute 100% perfection.

Now, as for Emmanuel, he's just the type of person who can make shit happen a la LBJ before LBJ became obsessed with the idea of "winning" in Vietnam. He knows how things work in both the White House and on the Hill. But hey, can you think of a better candidate to move the Obama agenda in Washington? I'll listen.

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2008 7:09 pm**

so, Monica, what you're saying is that the people who voted for the guy who was All About Change don't really want anything to change?

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2008 7:18 pm**

BSmack wrote:what I want out of Obama is a government that is both functional and is working with the best interests of all Americans in mind.

We all want that.

I've no "problem" with Emanuel, I just found it ironic. Specifically, as I stated, to the ilk of an LTS TRN. That's really what inspired this post. LTS TRN's radical hysterics going on and on about big business, Zionists, cabals, and the Boy Scouts and somehow he thought Obama getting in office might change that. I think the choice of Emanuel is a sign that, it won't change that much, at least not enough to allow the LTS's of the "Big Tent" to finally blow their load.

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2008 7:50 pm**

BSmack wrote: Now, as for Emmanuel, he's just the type of person who can make shit happen a la LBJ before LBJ became obsessed with the idea of "winning" in Vietnam. He knows how things work in both the White House and on the Hill. But hey, can you think of a better candidate to move the Obama agenda in Washington? I'll listen.

You've got to be fucking shitting me.

That's like setting fire to your house because you have a mouse problem.

No wonder you are this board's village idiot.

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2008 7:52 pm**

Martyred wrote:
BSmack wrote: Now, as for Emmanuel, he's just the type of person who can make shit happen a la LBJ before LBJ became obsessed with the idea of "winning" in Vietnam. He knows how things work in both the White House and on the Hill. But hey, can you think of a better candidate to move the Obama agenda in Washington? I'll listen.

You've got to be fucking shitting me.

That's like setting fire to your house because you have a mouse problem.

No wonder you are this board's village idiot.

Like I said, you're free to name a better candidate. And don't go all Palin on me and say "anybody would be better".

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2008 8:08 pm**

BSmack wrote:
Like I said, you're free to name a better candidate.

This is the equivalent of waving the white flag.

Except when Tom does it, ("Gosh Mr. President, you sure are swell, hyuck-hyuck!") we mock him accordingly, right?

Without a doubt, you fully deserve every scrap of abuse hurled at you on T1B.

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2008 8:22 pm**

Martyred wrote:This is the equivalent of waving the white flag.

There are 300 million US citizens you can choose from. If you are incapable of naming ONE who would be a better choice than Emmanuel, you need to quaff a cup of STFU post haste. And if you can, please give me his name so I can evaluate the merits of your argument.

Except when Tom does it, ("Gosh Mr. President, you sure are swell, hyuck-hyuck!") we mock him accordingly, right?

I don't mock Tom. Tom's a great guy to have a drink with. Even if you're not drinking.

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2008 8:52 pm**

Martyred wrote: Except when Tom does it, ("Gosh Mr. President, you sure are swell, hyuck-hyuck!") we mock him accordingly, right?

I've been mocked ?

The Outrage.

I think it's safe to say that after 10 or so years on these boards, we've all been mocked. It's part of the fun. We all have pretty thick skins and can talk about things - frankly - and with a sense of humor.

I didn't view BSmack's question as a white flag, I think it's a valid question to ask. My answer would be I don't know, mostly because I don't know what Obama's real agenda is.

I explained the impetus for this thread. And as expected there are some within the "Big Tent" that are just a little put off ... not hysterically so ... but nevertheless see this as a sign that some things won't change.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-schm ... tml?page=2

The article is quite good and outlines BSmacks points as to why Rahm is the right choice. The dissention appears in the comments, just a little bit, ... maybe just enough ...

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

:twisted:

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2008 9:46 pm**

BSmack wrote:
Martyred wrote:This is the equivalent of waving the white flag.
There are 300 million US citizens you can choose from. If you are incapable of naming ONE who would be a better choice than Emmanuel, you need to quaff a cup of STFU post haste. And if you can, please give me his name so I can evaluate the merits of your argument.

That's the equivalent of waving it even harder

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:09 pm**

Cuda is correct.

Monica, you are a white flag waving punching bag for beltway carpetbaggers.

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:17 pm**

Martyred wrote:Cuda is correct.

Not possible. Were he correct, we would be able to see the tear in the space/time continuum. As we cannot, it is patently obvious that Cuda is yet again dead wrong.

But hey, by all means continue gnashing your teeth at the prospect of a revitalized and stronger America.

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:32 pm**

BSmack wrote:...a revitalized and stronger America.

Okay. Sure.

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:51 pm**

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:You seem to be under the impression that the majority of Obama voters are anticipating some kind of dismantling of the Washington power structure.
Gee, I can't imagine why. I mean it was only the underlying theme of his entire campaign. Guess that was all a bunch of bullshit he said to just to get elected, right?

Obama will "dismantle the Washington power structure"...

...right after Pelosi "ends funding for the war".

Stupid fucking liberals.

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:03 pm**

Works for me.

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:24 pm**

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:You seem to be under the impression that the majority of Obama voters are anticipating some kind of dismantling of the Washington power structure.
Gee, I can't imagine why. I mean it was only the underlying theme of his entire campaign. Guess that was all a bunch of bullshit he said to just to get elected, right?

Let me help you. Change does not equal a total dismantling of the government. And anybody who construes change to mean just such a thing is an idiot.

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:39 pm**

BSmack wrote: Let me help you. Change does not equal a total dismantling of the government. And anybody who construes change to mean just such a thing is an idiot.

Gee, you were manning the Red Barricades and occupying the Tractor Factory, what, just 72 hours ago?

You're a fucking hack.

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:44 pm**

Well they certainly gave the appearance they were going to take on "big money" and "Wall Street". I guess they are, but probably only where the biggest money and the foundation of Wall Street tell them.

http://theprolific.com/2008/08/meet-oba ... e-backers/

Number One -

Donor: Goldman Sachs & Co.

How Much: $627,730

What They’ll Want: Goldman Sachs is one of Wall Street’s most prestigious investment banks. Like others in the securities industry, it advises and invests in nearly every industry affected by federal legislation. The firm closely monitors issues including economic policy, trade and nearly all legislation that governs the financial sector. The firm has been a large proponent of privatizing Social Security, a move that would likely make billions of dollars available for private investment, one of Goldman’s special forte. However, with potentially a Democratic Congress and President, Goldman will likely shift gears. Look for the powerhouse investment bank to continue pushing forward on legislation that would essentially further deregulate the investment banking/securities industry. This includes a hands-off approach for any legislation barring speculative bets made on oil and other commodity prices, an activity some blame for higher oil prices. The firm will also likely tap executive privilege to continue its aggressive expansion into China’s sensitive financial sector which will invariably require acquiescence from Chinese leaders. More than any other Wall Street firm, Goldman features a revolving door between New York and DC (Governor and Senator Corzine, countless Treasury Secretaries including the current, Henry Paulson) so don’t be surprised if many are donating to secure Obama Cabinet posts.

.

Donor: JP Morgan

How Much: $398,021

What They’ll Want: One of the nation’s leading financial services firms, JP Morgan offers commercial and consumer banking, credit services, securities brokering, and financial consulting. Also its subsidiary, Chase Bank, is one of the top consumer credit card issuers in the country. It’s no surprise that the firm lobbies heavily on legislation that affects the nation’s financial industry, including bankruptcy reform and banking deregulation. The New York based firm will likely ask or pressure Obama to ease any moves to raise capital gains taxes (the tax wealthy individuals as well as ordinary investors pay when making a gain on an assets), as many of JP Morgan’s wealth private banking clients would be hurt by such a move.

Donor: Citigroup

How Much: $393,899

What They’ll Want: Citigroup is the world’s second largest financial services firm with $1 trillion in assets. Aside from its large bank accounts, the global giant has been one of Washington’s most succesful lobbyists. In 1998, Citigroup’s lobbying helped repeal a federal law that prevented banks from getting into other businesses, allowing the company to acquire an insurance firm and beef up its stake in investment banking. The bank will likely lobby Obama on a number of issues, including financial privacy, bankruptcy reform and terrorism reinsurance.

Donor: UBS AG

How Much: $378,400

What They’ll Want: While UBS’s home offices are in Switzerland, American employees of this Swiss bank are allowed to donate on behalf of the organization. And donate they do. Being the self-proclaimed world’s largest manager of private wealth assets, or, “the world’s biggest manager of other people’s money,” UBS has much at stake in this next election cycle. Any raise in the capital gains tax will hurt UBS as money normally deposited into private accounts will shift to the government in the form of tax revenues. In addition, on July 17, 2008 the US Senate disclosed that the U.S. loses around $100 billion annually due to offshore tax evasion. The Senate report accused Swiss bank UBS AG for allegedly marketing tax-evasion strategies to wealthy Americans. U.S. clients hold about 19,000 accounts at UBS, with an estimated $18 billion to $20 billion in assets, in Switzerland, according to the findings from the Senate probe and Justice Department prosecutors. Look for UBS leaders to press to alleviate this issue if Obama makes it to the White House.

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:49 pm**

Watch for the Schindler Effect*

* The worse the Kike swindle of America becomes, the more repeats of "Schindler's List" there are on TV. Of course, it's just a coincidence.

Posted: **Fri Nov 07, 2008 12:48 am**

So I'm listening to Mark Levin's show.

More about Rahm.

Known as Rahmbo in Washington.

Washington is gripping about being intimidated by .... a former ballet dancer.

Emanuel also served on the Board of Directors for Freddie Mac from 2002-2004.

This is going to be exciting.

Is LTS around yet ? Should we send out a search party ?

Posted: **Fri Nov 07, 2008 1:54 am**

Tom In VA wrote: Is LTS around yet ? Should we send out a search party ?

Just leave some crumbled up matzo and a nice, tall glass of Manischewitz wine on the credenza, brush your teeth, say your prayers and go to bed young man... And remember...

...NO PEEKING!

Posted: **Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:29 am**

Cuda wrote: people like huh? give sodomy a bad name

One non-sequiter deserves another...

Posted: **Fri Nov 07, 2008 4:57 am**

huh? wrote:
Cuda wrote: people like huh? give sodomy a bad name
One non-sequiter deserves another...

Nothing like a good Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum reset.

Posted: **Fri Nov 07, 2008 4:36 pm**

mvscal wrote: He is going to take them on to his staff.

The people who voted for him right ?

Posted: **Fri Nov 07, 2008 7:06 pm**

How many heebs do you think work in the Oil Bidness?

My guess is around... none

Posted: **Fri Nov 07, 2008 8:47 pm**

Cuda wrote:How many heebs do you think work...

Griftin' ain't easy.

Posted: **Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:57 pm**

mvscal wrote:You know, Marty, we really ought to come up with a solution to the Jewish Question, don't you think?

Let them join the human race. That's all I'm interested in, then, we're all cool.

T1B

Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff

Re: Rahm Emanuel - Chief of Staff