America could be ‘taken over,’ warns Ross Perot [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : America could be ‘taken over,’ warns Ross Perot


Ruble Noon
10-01-2012, 15:12
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/america-could-taken-over-warns-ross-perot-152428497.html

The Maggy
10-01-2012, 15:58
20 years ago, he was made fun of for predicting our current crisis. I hope that he is wrong about this one.

JBnTX
10-01-2012, 16:21
"Former presidential contender and billionaire Ross Perot is worried that America is a sitting duck for an unnamed foreign invader."


That "unnamed foreign invader" has a name.
It's the Militant Islamic Fundamentalist Movement led by Iran.

Bren
10-01-2012, 16:29
20 years ago, he was made fun of for predicting our current crisis. I hope that he is wrong about this one.

20 years a go he personally started us on the road to our current crisis by causing Bill Clinton to be elected president - events like dominoes brought us from there to here.

If he couldn't predict that very obvious result, I have to question his predictive powers.

Ruble Noon
10-01-2012, 16:36
20 years a go he personally started us on the road to our current crisis by causing Bill Clinton to be elected president - events like dominoes brought us from there to here.

If he couldn't predict that very obvious result, I have to question his predictive powers.

No Bren, you caused Clinton to be elected.

GAFinch
10-01-2012, 17:14
Comparing the Washington establishment to a bunch of fiscal drunks, Perot is still waiting for America to undergo an intervention, before it finds itself owned by a new global power. "It's like the guy who's drinking—sooner or later, he's got to put a cork on the bottle, right?"

Many Republicans have already admitted to having a problem and are taking a harder stance on spending, which is why they're being vilified as right wing extremists by the left, even thought they're just using common sense in the face of an imminent economic disaster. Either progressivism or capitalism will get blamed for the disaster and the winner will probably drastically shape the future of this country.

juggy4711
10-01-2012, 17:50
20 years a go he personally started us on the road to our current crisis by causing Bill Clinton to be elected president - events like dominoes brought us from there to here.

If he couldn't predict that very obvious result, I have to question his predictive powers.

Is this some deranged, bizarro version of it's Bush's fault? It's Perot's fault that it is Clinton's fault?

TheExplorer
10-01-2012, 18:05
Is this some deranged, bizarro version of it's Bush's fault? It's Perot's fault that it is Clinton's fault?

That's what I thought.:rofl:

countrygun
10-01-2012, 18:28
No Bren, you caused Clinton to be elected.

News flash for you Slick.

A lot of us voted for Perot and got Clinton as a result. We learned about third parties, the braindead still dream and refuse the intrusion of reality and continue of their fantasy, OR they were asleep in history class and are merely first time ignorant who haven't been taught about the effects of third parties

G17Jake
10-01-2012, 19:13
America has already been taken over. It is time to take it back.

Snowman92D
10-01-2012, 19:25
No Bren, you caused Clinton to be elected.

The Clinton thing was my fault. I was one of the dumbasses who voted for Perot because he was the Real Deal, I was tired of voting against the "lesser of two evils", and I wanted to teach the Republican Party a lesson.

Mea culpa.

Ruble Noon
10-01-2012, 19:30
The Clinton thing was my fault. I was one of the dumbasses who voted for Perot because he was the Real Deal, I was tired of voting against the "lesser of two evils", and I wanted to teach the Republican Party a lesson.

Mea culpa.

Nah, it was Bren's fault for not voting for liberty as is the crash that ensued because he voted against Perot.

The Maggy
10-01-2012, 19:54
No one has yet been able to show Perot's causation of Clinton. There is only a loose correlation between Perot being on the ballot and Clinton winning.

Using the same logic; someone could assume crime rates increase because more ice-cream is being sold through the summer months.

Will one of you three that keep claiming this show me some math behind how Perot caused Clinton?

countrygun
10-01-2012, 20:04
No one has yet been able to show Perot's causation of Clinton. There is only a loose correlation between Perot being on the ballot and Clinton winning.

Using the same logic; someone could assume crime rates increase because more ice-cream is being sold through the summer months.

Will one of you three that keep claiming this show me some math behind how Perot caused Clinton?

An that would prove either Perot helped Clinton,

or

it would prove that a vote for a libertarian now, would be as useless as a vote for Perot was then,

either way it makes a case for voting Romney

Bren
10-02-2012, 05:54
Is this some deranged, bizarro version of it's Bush's fault? It's Perot's fault that it is Clinton's fault?

Perot took many times the voters that Bush needed to beat Clinton (I posted the actual numbers in another thread). If you were around back then, you know he took the majority of them from the Republican party. Had he not done so, Bush would have won the popular vote by a very wide margin and, fairly certainly, the electoral vote.

That would have meant, no Bill Clinton, first or second term. Maybe no AWB. No Janet Reno. Likely No Waco and then no Oklahoma City, just among the first things that come to mind. Then, likely no Barack Obama, no Hillary Clinton as candidate or sec of state, a completely different course of events in the middle east - even 9/11 is fairly questionable.

Snowman92D
10-02-2012, 06:42
George H.W. Bush had made some comments about the imminence of a "new world order" during the run-up to the first Gulf War, and that...and a few other issues that now were clearly irrelevant...caused a substantial number of conservatives to leave the Republican fold, in a snit, to vote for Perot.

That was a very costly lesson that we're still trying to dig out from under.

OctoberRust
10-02-2012, 07:01
"Former presidential contender and billionaire Ross Perot is worried that America is a sitting duck for an unnamed foreign invader."


That "unnamed foreign invader" has a name.
It's the Militant Islamic Fundamentalist Movement led by Iran.


Yes!!! Just like Iraq about to invade us in 2003, right? :rofl:

QNman
10-02-2012, 10:58
Perot is still waiting for America to undergo an intervention, before it finds itself owned by a new global power. "It's like the guy who's drinking—sooner or later, he's got to put a cork on the bottle, right?"

THIS is why I voted for Perot.

QNman
10-02-2012, 11:00
George H.W. Bush had made some comments about the imminence of a "new world order" during the run-up to the first Gulf War, and that...and a few other issues that now were clearly irrelevant...caused a substantial number of conservatives to leave the Republican fold, in a snit, to vote for Perot.

That was a very costly lesson that we're still trying to dig out from under.

H. w. lost for the same reason W. would have lost had his first term looked more like his second - because he was a mealy-mouthed moderate "centrist" trying to pretend he was a conservative.

Skyhook
10-02-2012, 11:07
George H.W. Bush had made some comments about the imminence of a "new world order" during the run-up to the first Gulf War, and that...and a few other issues that now were clearly irrelevant...caused a substantial number of conservatives to leave the Republican fold, in a snit, to vote for Perot.

That was a very costly lesson that we're still trying to dig out from under.

Yes, a lot of otherwise intelligent folks went with Perot. That lack of savvy, political sophistication some may call it, seems to dominate our younger set.

If you voted for Perot back then, you had lots of well-meaning company which resulted rather directly in a Republican loss. Splitting the group weakens it and the Democrats are extremely good at dividing us as we see by the efforts of Obama's admin.

Happypuppy
10-02-2012, 11:21
I agree with him, but I suspect the senerio he sees maybe different. My view is the biggest threat is the use of SuperPacs. The recent ruling by the US Supreme Court that Corporations are viewed the same as individuals and can contribute as much as they want to political campaigns is a huge threat.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/29/business/analysts-expect-a-flood-of-corporate-campaign-contributions.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Be it Israel or China or whomever all they have to do is start a corporation / SuperPac and run their own candidate. We can literally be forced (coerced ) into voting in a agents of a foreign nation.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/reformers_court_decision_creates_huge_opening_for.php


Sent via Messenger Pigeon

juggy4711
10-02-2012, 17:32
Perot took many times the voters that Bush needed to beat Clinton (I posted the actual numbers in another thread). If you were around back then, you know he took the majority of them from the Republican party. Had he not done so, Bush would have won the popular vote by a very wide margin and, fairly certainly, the electoral vote.

That would have meant, no Bill Clinton, first or second term. Maybe no AWB. No Janet Reno. Likely No Waco and then no Oklahoma City, just among the first things that come to mind. Then, likely no Barack Obama, no Hillary Clinton as candidate or sec of state, a completely different course of events in the middle east - even 9/11 is fairly questionable.

To believe that to be the case is delusional. The last time a political party won the presidency more than two terms in a row was when FDR was president. Had Bush 41 won a second term, Clinton or some other Dem would most likely have won in '96.

No Janet Reno, no Waco, and no OKC bombing doesn't mean there would not have been a D controlled congress passing the AWB with a President R or D signing it into law, or that both D and R controlled congresses would not have spent us into oblivion to this point, again with a R or D President signing off on it.

The entire point a lot of the third party types here have is that looking to history there is no reason to believe anything would be substantially different regardless of which party controlled the presidency in the last 30 years.

You can pretend that if only GHWB had won in 92, none of the substantive problems we face would exist but it just isn't the case.

GAFinch
10-02-2012, 17:53
I agree with him, but I suspect the senerio he sees maybe different. My view is the biggest threat is the use of SuperPacs. The recent ruling by the US Supreme Court that Corporations are viewed the same as individuals and can contribute as much as they want to political campaigns is a huge threat.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/29/business/analysts-expect-a-flood-of-corporate-campaign-contributions.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

How are corporations any worse than unions? They're groups of individuals with yearly profits similar to unions. What about the $8 billion of taxpayer money that the administration spent delaying the cuts to Medicare Advantage until after the election? What about the unknown amount of taxpayer money being pledged to defense contractors to not issue layoff notices until after the election? What about the $80 billion of taxpayer money being spent by Bernanke to delay (not prevent) a double-dip recession until after the election? The $1 billion or so voluntarily spent on SuperPACs this year is meaningless in comparison.


Be it Israel or China or whomever all they have to do is start a corporation / SuperPac and run their own candidate. We can literally be forced (coerced ) into voting in a agents of a foreign nation.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/reformers_court_decision_creates_huge_opening_for.php

You don't remember the contributions the Clintons received from the Chinese years before Citizens United?