Flip Cain's 9-9-9 over and what do you get



6-6-6



The ANTI-CHRIST IS revealed, or at least who is working for him.


TELL ALL YOUR RELIGIOUS FRIENDS LOL


Sit back and watch as they go into spasms as they try to rectify the conflict they'll have between thinking everything Herman Cain says is so smart and the fact that he's chosen the numerical symbol of the great beast as his own.

If they scoff at it, suggest they are in league with Herman, but only if you are sure they don't have guns handy. Such words is "fightin words".

Of course there is more "proof" as most fundamentalists would see proof as being.

His name Cain naturally is the name of Cain in the biblical story of Cain and Abel.

Cain was the first murderer, and some fervent fundamentalists interpret revelations as saying Cain will be right hand of the Anti-Christ or the Anti-Christ himself, but both are pretty bad. LOL

THEN THERE IS THE WISE WORDS OF MICHELLE Bachman herself......:-D

When asked about Herman's 9-9-9 plan, she said that "the DEVIL is in the details". Wow if there is ever proof that fundamentalists can have the spirit speak through them that's it. hehehehe.

For those who are sarcasm-challenged, yes I'm being sarcastic.

Please don't waste your time telling me how stupid I am for believing this.

One of the fundamental problems with Repuglican thinking is its totally foreign logic, and claims to being simple common sense while not displaying any sense in what they say or write whatsoever.

Now rather than a lengthy point by point explanation, that would put anyone to sleep. I have a simple little bit of writing that should allow anyone to understand the grounding in which Repuglicans root their logic and their reasons.

A group of 100 Repuglicans are asked to read a series of simple statements, and then give their conclusion as to the overall meaning they have.

Vodka and ice will ruin your kidneys.

Rum and ice will ruin your liver.

Whiskey and ice will ruin your heart.

Gin and ice will ruin your brain.

Soda and ice will ruin your teeth.

After some deliberation the 100 Repuglicans were all unanimous as to what this meant overall.

Their answer: Ice is a dangerous, toxic substance and should be avoided at all cost.

worldwide.

It's beyond what simple demand would cause.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/06/09/1155...

Of course, I know many a liberal finds it hard to care too much about expensive gasoline, because it helps achieve one cherished goal reducing greenhouse emissions. The fact that the working class and poor are hit hardest by this doesn't matter apparently.

WHAT should make an impact is the role it's playing in the price of food. Millions literally are struggling to get enough to eat facing starvation thanks to speculators driving up the price with their artificial demand - basically legalized gambling has taken over the global financial system, and allowed the gamblers to write the rules as they go. It should be no surprise then that prices just go up and up, ensuring most of the gamblers win on almost every bet.

Perhaps I need to make it clear what creates 'artificial demand' vs. normal in the commodity markets.

Most people who are Unfamiliar with how the stock market or commodities market work have a simple notion on how it works. They think when you buy stock or commodities you pay the price listed to do so.

If only, but the truth is you can "purchase control" of stock or a commodity for a fraction of the actual cost.

On the stock market it costs you $50 to "purchase control" of $100. You are fronted the other $50. While that seems like a great deal, it's extremely restrictive compared to commodity trading.

To "purchase control" of $100 worth of product on a commodity market only costs $6 dollars.

It should be no surprise that the financial gambling institutions we call banks are now flooding the commodity markets, and basically overwhelming the system's checks and balances to create their own artificial demand that keeps prices going up and up and up.

The commodity market used to consist of "end users" or "wholesalers/distributors" of a commodity. Oil companies would buy oil commodities to sell later. Agribusiness would buy the grain Etc. to make food.

Today as the article explains 9 our of 10 of the bidders on the commodity market are strictly buying it to turn a profit, and have neither the means nor the desire to use what the bought. Their only purpose is to hold on to it long enough to sell it at a good profit.

It's their demand for investment opportunities that is driving the price higher than it would be if it were only led by supply/demand factors. This demand has NOTHING to do; it does NOT reflect actual consumer demand or need.

What is sad and interesting is the many who would rather speculate on what's happening rather than just going to McClatchy, the one media company with a liberal POV who has been happily spelling it out for those for whom facts actually matter for several years now.

If you are someone who believes two third world developing nations are behind the "demand" causing the rising prices, this article is a reality/fact check. Somehow though I doubt if such individuals will get it considering how willing they are to believe two third world developing nations are more able to afford the high price of fuel and food better than the Western economies.

First let me say I am NOT writing this to express what I hope happens.

It's just my personal analysis of how the current political situation could develop into a primary disaster for President Obama should the economy stall out.

To me it's odd how all the pundits are predicting President Obama runs a high risk of not being reelected in a general election. They talk as if Democrats are mindless robots who will support President Obama no matter what policy he pursues, and no matter who might step forward to challenge him.

It's odd to me, because the current political situation is exactly the kind that produces a viable primary challenger to a sitting president who fails to take aggressive action to fix the nation's problems (as the voters see it, not just DU'ers).

Blaming the idiot Refucklicans can only work so many times and for so long.

As of now, Democrats may overwhelmingly support the President, but much of that support is soft in part due to the White House strategy of assuming they'll get those votes, because the Republicans will nominate a loon.

However as Jimmy Carter showed, and Reagan demonstrated, even the looniest candidate can start to look "not so bad" after months of spending billions to change the mind of the USA about someone.

Unfortunately, most people do not remember how the political establishment gasped in horror when Reagan became the Rethuglican candidate for president.

He was the "impossible to believe" candidate back then, and it was a forgone conclusion President Carter was going to win reelection.

It was the disastrous failure of the Iran hostage rescue mission that handed the election to Reagan.

The vast majority do NOT even pay Attn. to the election until the month before.

In the meantime people will pay Attn. to their lives and if they are worried about their job and financial situation, their anger against those in charge will only grow.

That anger will be expressed in extreme frustration among Democrats, and it would only take a decent candidate to knock the legs out from under President Obama should he head into the election with a weak economy Etc.

Just who is viable is not clear right now, but becoming viable will also be determined by the situation at that time.

Should the economy get better, even slowly, President Obama will not have a viable challenger.

If the economists like Krugman are right, that's not a sure thing.

In that case, President Obama could find himself upset by a surprise last minute entry into the Democratic primary contest, and end up resigning because of it just like President Johnson did.

One more thing that is also parallel. President Johnson lost mostly because of the Vietnam war.

While Washington DC pretends the wars are out of sight and out of mind, the American public has not forgotten, and we can be sure as the Republicans up the volume on their claims that we are 'broke' Progressives and liberals will shout back then bring the troops home and save enough to pay for medicare Etc. This will keep the military involvements in the forefront of issues the public bases who to support when voting.

The economy and the continued involvement in a hot war in Afghanistan and a large presence in Iraq both together costing billions and billions borrowed from China + a sick economy are potentially enough to sink President Obama IN THE PRIMARY.

The chances of that happening only get worse as it becomes clear President Obama's team continues to act as if he is immune from such a thing, and only focus on winning the general - the same mistake that President Johnson's team made in 1968

There are lots of myths the American propaganda machine has fed you. Much of which the taste you really liked, or you would have made a little effort to see how false that is.

We spend so much on defense, because #1 our military industrial complex successfully attached itself like a parasite to our government by lobbying itself into an untouchable position in regards to funding. Nothing was ever enough to defend ourselves.

We spend to have OUR WAY in the world.

I doubt if you realize how often the Europeans did NOT support or believe OUR way was the smartest way, but guess what we have used OUR military might to force them to do things our way.

But our media rather than cover the points of disagreement, sums it all up by reporting Europeans are cheating the USA and letting us pick up the tab for their defense.

Did you even notice how harshly Team Bush came down on France and Germany when they refused to go along in the run up to the Iraq war?

They did NOT think it was in their interests, nor that it was a good idea, and most don't care that we took out Saddam, because he was NO real threat.

Their POV though was dismissed and disrespected. Only someone who doesn't follow world events could think they are riding our defense coattails after the most dramatic example in recent history of the USA demanding they pay for a war they think is a terrible idea. Then when they refuse claiming they are riding on our defense coattails.

The threats YOU were taught existed and justified the huge defense bill, simply did NOT exist in the minds of Europeans. They were boogeymen meant to scare Americans into spending butt loads of money on things we didn't need.

Of course we're told the reason is actually that they are cheating the USA by letting us pick up their defense tab.

Finally Europeans have learned one simple lesson from all our spending, spending often based on pride, rather than common sense.

And that is, it is far far cheaper to find peaceful solutions through negotiations or if that fails, containment than it is to make the war option the first and only option as we do.

They realized after WWII that the price of pride and ego is just not worth the cost, and are constantly reminded of just how worthless it is by our own endless actions to "teach" other nations a lesson.

---

oh in regards to the WWII reference.

The UK fought ALONE for ONE full year against Nazi Germany. They fought alone withOUT American aid. The only thing we offered them was a lease on a fleet of mothballed, out of date warships, because we did NOT want to offend Germany.

Most American know this, but instead of realizing that "holding the line" solo is actually doing the "saving". Instead we've been taught we rescued them.

So cocky and blinded by pride most don't consider what would have happened if we decided "not to save them".

If they did, they'd realize sitting on the sidelines allowing Hitler to win would have meant we were the next target and not in a far weaker position, because we'd face Hitler with the resources of a conquered Europe along with Japan solo.

Nothing explodes the myth of American foreign policy doing things based on "saving" other nations better than this, but it takes thinking beyond what you are told to be proud of.

It was in OUR OWN interests to get involved, and because of that we saved each other. For the USA to claim our intervention was a sort of generosity is absurd and hubris of the worst kind.

by several points. Yet they elect Governor Evil and give the Republicans huge majorities in their legislature.

The American Corporate News Establishment (ACNE) has done a great job of convicing the nation that this is all due to President Obama's health care bill, and rise of the militant Tea Party, but that does NOT hold water with me.

The Tea Party types were around in 2008, yet had no impact. Suddenly in 2010 they are able to turn the table over so to speak? hmmmm

It defies our electoral history. No matter how bad a president has been, I can't recall a historical election where 2 years later the people said enough, and there have been President's who have done far far more in terms of grand changes than President Obama, like President Johnson.

Has there been any thought put into investigating election rigging, or is the FBI fine with the extreme swings that happened in 2010.

I'd love to hear something on this.

 
The tremendous power that Unions once had in significant part stemmed from their reputation as the good guys among NON union people, as fighters for the middle class.

Yet Union leadership never understood this, and instead assumed Union members were the ONLY source of their POLITICAL strength exclusively.

This meant cultivating and sustaining the positive image of Unions among the NON union people was not done. Nothing was spent. Instead Unions expected politicians they helped elect to do that for them, and it's taken decades for them to realize that was a huge mistake.

Considering that even at peak Union membership never topped 40% (and that's decades ago) It should have been obvious that Union strength depended on the desire of NON-union workers to join them as well as the overwhelmingly positive image Unions ONCE had.

One great example of many of just how oblivious the leadership was is their utter refusal to confront mob influence, and even worse not even attempt to counter this being used as a cudgel to destroy Union's good name.

So now after fighting the worst fight ever in political history Unions are getting serious, hmmm.

Well if they want to have a chance they better start telling the Union troops that treating people who ask questions as "enemies" is not a good idea.

Union members need to wake up and realize NON-union Americans ARE UTTERLY CLUELESS, completely ignorant as to the positive reasons associated with being in a Union are.

Any time their asked questions should be seen as an opportunity to educate, NOT an opportunity to vent and treat the questioners like a waste of time.

When it comes to Unions, no group puts on a meaner, more hostile public face, making defeating them much easier.

Even the most vile republithug knows that he better make some commercials kissing babies and helping those who can't help themselves. Keeping the public informed on the good things about Unions though isn't in any union member's job description, so.

In today's world 'being real' is not good enough is NOT nearly good enough. That means you have to present a public image that is MUCH better than real, sincere and good and promote the hell out of it.

Because Unions haven't tried, among the general public the reputation lies in tatters.

Wisconsin is proof of why I'm right.

The fact that so many think it means their winning is a good example of how detached Union leadership is from reality.

You are not winning when you are one defeat away from losing it all. You are in survival mode, and should you win this one, you have decades to make up for to get even.

If the polls are to be believed, the #s in support of Unions have shifted by the amount of UNION MEMBERS who VOTED REPUBLICAN! Enough to give them the support of the majority of Wisconsin voters, but far short of enough for victory.

In any case given the penchant for DUer's especially Union types to NOT read a post before commenting and attacking. I'll stop here. Far be it for me to try and stop a nasty bad habit that has turned many a sympathetic individual NOT fortunate enough to be a Union member into haters instead.

If you think I'm anti Union - that just means you did NOT read what I wrote, and a good indication as to why I am right and you are wrong.