• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

U.S. Politics

Page 2100 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
Re:

Beech Mtn said:
Samantha Power, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, was 'unmasking' at such a rapid pace in the final months of the Obama administration that she averaged more than one request for every working day in 2016 – and even sought information in the days leading up to President Trump’s inauguration, multiple sources close to the matter told Fox News.
....while the above is troubling the other thing that should concern is how and why she could actually accomplish this..... this was not part of her job description....

whose position had no apparent intelligence-related function
"We [the NSA] apply two criteria in response to their request: number one, you must make the request in writing. Number two, the request must be made on the basis of your official duties, not the fact that you just find this report really interesting and you're just curious,” he said in June. “It has to tie to your job and finally, I said two but there's a third criteria, and is the basis of the request must be that you need this identity to understand the intelligence you're reading"
.

.....and the other question is where exactly was the information gleaned from these "unmaskings" going and how was it being used....

Cheers
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
The US Has New Red Line in Syria — And It’s F*cking Ridiculous
By Darius Shahtahmasebi

September 21, 2017 "Information Clearing House" - In its latest breach of international law, the U.S. is unilaterally attempting to prevent the Syrian government from reclaiming its own territory. From Reuters:

“U.S.-backed Syrian militias will not let government forces cross the Euphrates River in their bid to recover eastern Syria, their commander said on Friday, but Russia said army units had already done so near the city of Deir al-Zor.”

Reuters notes that Russia is involved in this particular part of Syria, bolstering the Syrian Arab Army and its allies with air power.

According to Reuters, an aide to Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, said the government would fight any force that comes within its path, including U.S.-backed forces. According to Deir ez-Zor military council commander Ahmed Abu Khawla, who fights under the banner of the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF):

“Now we have 3 km between us and the eastern riverbank, once our forces reach the area, any shot fired into that area we will consider an attack on the military council.”

He added:

“We have notified the regime and Russia that we are coming to the Euphrates riverbank, and they can see our forces advancing…We do not allow the regime or its militias to cross to the eastern riverbank.”

The “Deir ez-Zor military council” was established under the banner of the U.S.-backed SDF as recently as December 2016. This was arguably a poor attempt to legitimize Washington’s aspirations for the oil-rich region. In actuality, 4,000 fighters backed by foreign powers can hardly be a more legitimate force than the current Syrian government and its forces, but as is usually the case, the United States is not remotely concerned with the legality of this current strategy
Unsurprisingly, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov just held a phone call to discuss Syria, presumably to try to come to some agreement about the partition of the region.

Why Russia and Syria should concede Syrian territory to the U.S. and its allies has not been made clear given the land belongs to Syria in the first place. The corporate media’s longstanding anti-Assad narrative was undermined when the U.N. reported that 500,000 Syrians had begun returning home to areas liberated by the Syrian army in the first half of 2017 alone.

The U.S. media has also downplayed the fact that Russia is backing one side of this conflict and the U.S. is backing another — even though this emerging conflict puts 900 U.S. personnel directly at risk. What happens if and when the Syrian army decides it wants to defend itself from the U.S.-backed forces? Will the Russian and American air forces collide – or will the situation be successfully de-escalated?

That is a question no one seems prepared to answer — and that no one is even willing to discuss. The ‘trusted’ media outlets who do touch on the issue tend to fully support the United States’ bid to interfere further in Syria
.

http://theantimedia.org/us-draws-red-line-syria/

Cheers
 
Re: Re:

Scott SoCal said:
aphronesis said:
Ask me a serious question. I know what was happeing there in '75. You'll have to make a lot of creative omissions to prove that life is qualitatively better.

And again, even if it were better that doesn't mean it's as good as it might be.
Well fvck. Where is that not true?
Your argument is that people should love it for what it is because it's better than what was. According to and Fukkuyama and Thomas Friedman anyway.

I guess after you found a paragraph you could mobilize you didn't bother reading on to the debt China is taking up. So if your model of capitalism is so great why are so many red states miserable? Uncle Sam got the boot on the neck?
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
I still like capitalism more than communism and or socialism. Just me though.

There is a balance in place like Japan but they have been on the decline or flat since 90's bubble bust. But they still are doing well compared to many places.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Re: Re:

aphronesis said:
Scott SoCal said:
aphronesis said:
Ask me a serious question. I know what was happeing there in '75. You'll have to make a lot of creative omissions to prove that life is qualitatively better.

And again, even if it were better that doesn't mean it's as good as it might be.
Well fvck. Where is that not true?
Your argument is that people should love it for what it is because it's better than what was. According to and Fukkuyama and Thomas Friedman anyway.

I guess after you found a paragraph you could mobilize you didn't bother reading on to the debt China is taking up. So if your model of capitalism is so great why are so many red states miserable? Uncle Sam got the boot on the neck?
So tell me, what is the source of the debt China is taking up? How about the source of the debt the US is taking up?

I couldn't care less if people love capitalism, that's not my argument. But at least it can be sustained. Is everybody guaranteed to win? No, but when has that ever been true? Socialism tries but you know what? If everyone win then no one wins. A try for equal outcomes will always fail. Always has and always will.

Being miserable is relative.
 
Re: Re:

Scott SoCal said:
rhubroma said:
Scott SoCal said:
rhubroma said:
The Guardian conveniently leaves out the long arm of the US controlled IMF in the neoliberal equation of rising public debt and the social state's inability to compete, or dig itself out of the deficit hole the capitalist rigged markets it cynically rules over has generated. We don't need to rehearse all the CIA sponsored terrorism in the southern hemisphere, when not outright US military intervention to arrest peasant attemps to unionize and keep their natural resources for themselves and out of the hands of the rapacious American multinationals. You know, the Banana Republics et all.

Naturally capitalism's response has been to cultivate deficit crisis as a weapon to cut social programs and the right of corporations and its doctrine that the rich should plunder the poor, or its controlling the desire for democracy. Chile comes primarily to mind, though not much Gaurdain attention (or other media outlets for that matter) have given any attention to the appalling fact that the US and the British of course, have worked unremittingly to ensure that democratic impulses have been repressed in the Middle East, by unwaveringly state sponsored support of Isalmic radicalization to counter nationalism in Saudi Arabia and Israeli apartheid. I'm sure Semper will recall them having done so in Iran back in 53 to prevent popular sovereignty from nationalizing Iranian oil to now invent the classic "security delemma." It only makes sense though on the assumption that the United States has a right to control most of the world, and that US security requires something akin to absolute global control.

Meanwhile, it's well known that most of the people around the world deem the US to be the number one threat to global peace, not Iran and not even North Korea.

By the way which country in South America is it (?), in which the peasants again wanting to control their own land and resources and prevent the rapacious corporate wolves from plundering them, has resulted in the US government suing their state on grounds of "violating" the "right to market expansion." Again, corporations now have more rights than people. But of course it's all about spreading "freedom" and "democracy."

But its much more convenient to put the spotlight on the foibles and failures of Chavez.
It's simply the latest example. The rest is excuse making.

Even in China it's not at all hard to track standard of living increases and reductions in numbers of Chinese living in poverty since market-based economic reforms started to take hold in the early 1980's.

Equal outcomes for all = crappy outcomes for nearly all.
Presumably you are referencing Aphro's link. Look China's reduction of poverty is part and parcel to a general multiplication of loaves and fishes, which capitalism did know how to generate, but that needs to be contectualized within the dynamic of long term outcomes. Africa, to date, has not fared so well. And it isn't as if the growth could not have been obtained by other paradigms, but under the forces that be never stood a chance (look at the concerted effort against collectivism), which was my above point. Prepotency and the hegemon have excluded alternatives, which means greed.

Then there is the question of rationally thinking about the impact of growth. Perhaps one day humans will realize the limits of materialism. I doubt it. But between China, the US and, as you indicate, Scandinavia, there is world of difference in how economic resources are allocated, or should even be perceived. Looking into the crystal ball I foresee major upheavals.

In the meantime the 196 countries of the world (195 if we consider the extinction of North Korea), have a say that amounts to less than 1% of what the US president thinks his own country has over global affairs.
And this, more than any other, is the reason your version of utopia will never fly. Telling/demanding doesn't work and it never will.

Like water seeking it's own level, people will find their balance. Most are already are already in the process... I'll give you a small example; the average age of light motor vehicles in the USA is up to 11.5 years. That's up from 9.6 years in 2002. Multiply that over the number of light vehicles in the USA and its a sea-change vis-a-vis consumerism.
I've got no illusions of utopia. That's your obsession about what you think I'm on about, to not have to doubt, or even place up for discussion, your own convictions (creed). That's extremely limiting at best, at worst, among the arrogant powers that be at the moment, pernicious. Trump's oration at the UN was exemplary in this regard.

And the only one "telling" people around here anything, has been your smug disquisitions about the virtues of the "free market" and complacently dismissive voice-over on what "human nature" is. People finding their own balance and light car consumption in the USA? Whoa, that's deep man. Hey why don't you look into the boom in luxury yachts, or the wage gap between the executive class and workers now and what it was 40 years ago? Or how many hours of work does it take one (if that is even possible anymore) to meet basic family living standards (home, education, healthcare) over the same period?
 
Re: Re:

Scott SoCal said:
aphronesis said:
Scott SoCal said:
aphronesis said:
Ask me a serious question. I know what was happeing there in '75. You'll have to make a lot of creative omissions to prove that life is qualitatively better.

And again, even if it were better that doesn't mean it's as good as it might be.
Well fvck. Where is that not true?
Your argument is that people should love it for what it is because it's better than what was. According to and Fukkuyama and Thomas Friedman anyway.

I guess after you found a paragraph you could mobilize you didn't bother reading on to the debt China is taking up. So if your model of capitalism is so great why are so many red states miserable? Uncle Sam got the boot on the neck?
So tell me, what is the source of the debt China is taking up? How about the source of the debt the US is taking up?

I couldn't care less if people love capitalism, that's not my argument. But at least it can be sustained. Is everybody guaranteed to win? No, but when has that ever been true? Socialism tries but you know what? If everyone win then no one wins. A try for equal outcomes will always fail. Always has and always will.

Being miserable is relative.
Not sure what you mean by "source" here. Eventually China will refinance the US debt and US reach will contract. (And I'm not referring strictly to what China holds. You once objected to me when I characterized economic growth in zero sum terms and yet that's all you talk in lately. There are other ways to win. The biggest impediment to improvement are the people who say " this is how it is and always has been"

Not much innovative spirit there.

Who said anything about "love." Many are economically miserable. "Poor choices"? "Deplorable" character
 
Re: Re:

Scott SoCal said:
aphronesis said:
Scott SoCal said:
aphronesis said:
Ask me a serious question. I know what was happeing there in '75. You'll have to make a lot of creative omissions to prove that life is qualitatively better.

And again, even if it were better that doesn't mean it's as good as it might be.
Well fvck. Where is that not true?
Your argument is that people should love it for what it is because it's better than what was. According to and Fukkuyama and Thomas Friedman anyway.

I guess after you found a paragraph you could mobilize you didn't bother reading on to the debt China is taking up. So if your model of capitalism is so great why are so many red states miserable? Uncle Sam got the boot on the neck?
So tell me, what is the source of the debt China is taking up? How about the source of the debt the US is taking up?

I couldn't care less if people love capitalism, that's not my argument. But at least it can be sustained. Is everybody guaranteed to win? No, but when has that ever been true? Socialism tries but you know what? If everyone win then no one wins. A try for equal outcomes will always fail. Always has and always will.

Being miserable is relative.
But what do you win?
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
I've got no illusions of utopia. That's your obsession about what you think I'm on about, to not have to doubt, or even place up for discussion, your own convictions (creed). That's extremely limiting at best, at worst, among the arrogant powers that be at the moment, pernicious. Trump's oration at the UN was exemplary in this regard.

And the only one "telling" people around here anything, has been your smug disquisitions about the virtues of the "free market" and complacently dismissive voice-over on what "human nature" is. People finding their own balance and light car consumption in the USA? Whoa, that's deep man. Hey why don't you look into the boom in luxury yachts, or the wage gap between the executive class and workers now and what it was 40 years ago? Or how many hours of work does it take one (if that is even possible anymore) to meet basic family living standards (home, education, healthcare) over the same period?
I've got no illusions of utopia.
Unless you've changed your stance in the last 90 minutes or so then you are being more than a little disingenuous. Revolution to include happy downsizing followed by an economic equilibrium where central control bureaucracy focused solely on well being. Or something like that.

to not have to doubt, or even place up for discussion, your own convictions (creed)
Well show me something better. One thing I have that you don't is an open mind. I'm not married to any particular system but, like pro cycling, meritocracy has it's place.

And the only one "telling" people around here anything, has been your smug disquisitions about the virtues of the "free market" and complacently dismissive voice-over on what "human nature" is.
I'm not telling anyone anything. If you and others here have a problem when I offer my opinion regarding your lack of basic understand on issues connected with human nature then you have a problem with it. I'm either right or I'm wrong. Prove me wrong. So far you haven't. Frankly, I don't care either way. Head in the sand is head in the sand and you have the absolute right to live however you want.

that's deep man
It is deep. It debunks your nonsense... and world view but that's been debunked since forever.

Hey why don't you look into the boom in luxury yachts
Always gonna be outliers, bro. Quick question, what the luxury yachts per (world) capita? Don't bother. It's a small number.

or the wage gap between the executive class and workers now and what it was 40 years ago?
Hey, who's fault is it that an actor can make $40 million a picture and the best high school math teacher in my town makes $72,500 a year? Don't bother blaming that on corporate executives... just keep clamoring foot $15/hr.

Lastly, one should consider the cost of a family before having one. I realize that declaration is heresy to the committed, but...
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Re: Re:

aphronesis said:
Not sure what you mean by "source" here. Eventually China will refinance the US debt and US reach will contract. (And I'm not referring strictly to what China holds. You once objected to me when I characterized economic growth in zero sum terms and yet that's all you talk in lately. There are other ways to win. The biggest impediment to improvement are the people who say " this is how it is and always has been"

Not much innovative spirit there.

Who said anything about "love." Many are economically miserable. "Poor choices"? "Deplorable" character
By "source" I mean "cause."

Human nature, like climate change, is real. Instead of a few hundred years of evidence we have tens of thousands.
To use the climate change argument, the biggest impediment to change is to deny what is true.

Not much innovative spirit there.
Funny. Scientists put a man on the moon not by denying gravitational forces but working to overcome them.

We can cope with human nature... much more difficult if one attempts to rationalize away its existence.
 
What's on the moon? Who gives a ***?

You posit "human nature" as an ahistorical constant while claiming "history" as your guide and alibi.


Sustained historical workacross peeiods shows something rather different. Myriad "natures" almost always socially determined and developed.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Re:

aphronesis said:
I have no problem with issues you connect to human nature; more that you've been unwilling or unable to define "human nature".
As it relates to competitive nature? Economics? Work? Love and sex? Primal needs? The house in the Hamptons? Keeping up with the Jonses? Prioitization? Leisure? Anger issues? Liberty?

Here's a question. If all else is equal, will people generally gravitate towards freedom or tyranny? Why?
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Re:

aphronesis said:
What's on the moon? Who gives a ****?

You posit "human nature" as an ahistorical constant while claiming "history" as your guide and alibi.


Sustained historical workacross peeiods shows something rather different. Myriad "natures" almost always socially determined and developed.
Ahistorical constant. Oxymoron.

Lots of elements of human nature are historical. One exceptionally simple example is world population.

Social development is/can be overcoming a natural path. *** tons of examples both successful and not.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
Reclaiming the Truth About Vietnam
by ROBERT KOEHLER
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

“From Ia Drang to Khe Sanh, from Hue to Saigon and countless villages in between, they pushed through jungles and rice paddies, heat and monsoon, fighting heroically to protect the ideals we hold dear as Americans. Through more than a decade of combat, over air, land, and sea, these proud Americans upheld the highest traditions of our Armed Forces.”

OK, I get it. Soldiers suffer, soldiers die in the wars we wage, and the commander in chief has to, occasionally, toss clichés on their graves.

The words are those of Barack Obama, five-plus years ago, issuing a Memorial Day proclamation establishing a 13-year commemoration of the Vietnam War, for which, apparently, about $65 million was appropriated.

Veterans for Peace calls it money allocated to rewrite history and has begun a counter-campaign called Full Disclosure, the need for which is more glaring than ever, considering that there is close to zero political opposition to the unleashed American empire and its endless war on terror.

Just the other day, for instance, 89 senators quietly voted to pass the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, signing off on a $700 billion defense budget, which ups annual military spending by $80 billion and, as Common Dreams reported, “will dump a larger sum of money into the military budget than even President Donald Trump asked for while also authorizing the production of 94 F-35 jets, two dozen more than the Pentagon requested.”

And of course, there’s no controversy here, no media clamor demanding to know where the money will come from. “Money for war just is. Like the tides,” Adam Johnson of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting tweeted, as quoted by Common Dreams.

Oh quiet profits! The Full Disclosure campaign rips away the lies that allow America’s wars to continue: GIs slogging through jungles and rice paddies to protect the ideals we hold dear. These words are not directed at the people who put Obama into office, who did so believing he would end the Bush wars. The fact that he continued them mocks the “value” we call democracy, indeed, turns it into a hollow shell.
So I pause in the midst of these numbers, this data, letting the words and the memories wash over me: Agent Orange, napalm, beloved patriot, My Lai. Such words link only with terrible irony to the clichés of Obama’s proclamation: solemn reverence . . . honor . . . heads held high . . . the ideals we hold dear . . .

The first set of words sickened a vast segment of the American public and caused the horror of “Vietnam Syndrome” to cripple and emasculate the military-industrial complex for a decade and a half. Slowly, the powers that be regrouped, redefined how we fought our wars: without widespread national sacrifice or a universal draft; and with smart bombs and even smarter public relations, ensuring that most of the American public could watch our clean, efficient wars in the comfort of their living rooms.

What was also necessary was to marginalize the anti-war voices that shut down the Vietnam War. This was accomplished politically, beginning with the surrender of the Democratic Party to its military-industrial funders in the wake of George McGovern’s 1972 presidential campaign. Eventually, endless war became the new normal, and blotting the shame of our “loss” in Vietnam from the historical record became a priority.
A slice of that reality can be found in a New Yorker article written in 2015 by Seymour Hersh, the reporter who broke the story some four and a half decades earlier. In the article, Hersh revisits the story of one of the GI participants in My Lai, Paul Meadlo:

“After being told by (Lt. William) Calley to ‘take care of this group,’ one Charlie Company soldier recounted, Meadlo and a fellow-soldier ‘were actually playing with the kids, telling the people where to sit down and giving the kids candy.’ When Calley returned and said that he wanted them dead, the soldier said, ‘Meadlo just looked at him like he couldn’t believe it. He says, “Waste them?” When Calley said yes, another soldier testified, Meadlo and Calley ‘opened up and started firing.’ But then Meadlo ‘started to cry.’”

And that’s the war, and those are our values, buried with the dead villagers in a mass grave.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/09/22/reclaiming-the-truth-about-vietnam/

Cheers
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
SEPTEMBER 22, 2017
Any White Cop Can Kill a Black Man at Any Time
by DON FITZ
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

And the cop will not go to jail. This is what has sparked protests by thousands in St. Louis from September 15 through today.

In 2011, St. Louis cop Jason Stockley fired 5-7 shots at Anthony Lamar Smith, killing him. Stockley claimed that Smith was selling drugs and chased him at high speed and shot him to defend himself. The story was briefly reported as another drug deal gone bad, and it was just incidental that the cop was white and the victim was black. [See 2011 story HERE].

But the case turned out to be a lot more than that. His mother, Annie Smith, said that “They wouldn’t let me kiss him or hug him goodbye.” Kirkwin Taylor reported that he and his 5-year-old son had been riding with Smith and were at a fast-food restaurant with him. Taylor was inside when the police approached. He disputed that Smith had drugs and a gun. “I wouldn’t have had my son in there if there was a gun.”

When Stockley first approached Smith’s car, he carried his own AK-47, an unauthorized weapon, as well as his police gun. Was it possible that Smith sped away because he was terrified of the cop and not because he was selling drugs?

Stockley received a 30 day suspension for carrying the AK-47 and resigned from the police force in 2013. He moved to Houston TX to take a lucrative management job. After a wrongful death suit brought on behalf of Smith’s young daughter resulted in $900,000 damages the City’s prosecuting attorney found new evidence and charged the former cop with murder in 2016.

A device from inside the police car recorded Stockley telling his partner, “I’m gonna kill that ******!” as they chased Smith at over 80 miles per hour through the streets of St. Louis. Additionally, a video showed that after Stockley killed Smith, we went back to the police car, grabbed an object and placed it by the victim.

The prosecuting attorney charged that Stockley had planted a .38-caliber revolver so he could falsely claim “self-defense.” Tests showed that the gun had DNA from Stockley but not from Smith. The prosecutor also pointed out that it would make no sense for an officer who had killed a suspect to handle the evidence, since they are trained not to.

Stockley decided to not request a jury trial, so that a single judge would decide his fate. That went to Judge Timothy Wilson. His attorney was probably well aware that of 83 cops have been charged with killing civilians during the last 12 years and none has ever been convicted in a “bench trial.”

Judge Wilson waited almost a month to announce his decision. The verdict would come out only a few miles from Ferguson MO, where white cop Darren Wilson killed an unarmed black man, Michael Brown in 2014.
During the month, the media reviewed evidence against Stockley and observed that, with the charge of first degree murder, he could be the first white cop to ever receive a death sentence for murdering a black man. But they also said he could be given a sentence of life in prison, or be convicted of second degree murder. As a side note, they stuck in the potential decision of “not guilty” as if it needed to be included as a theoretical possibility.

But, in the days immediately before the September 15 announcement of the verdict the tune of TV news stories changed. Now they featured the new Missouri Governor Eric Greitens (a Donald Trump Republican) and the new St. Louis City Mayor Lyda Krewson (a Hillary Clinton Democrat) calling for “calm” when the verdict was announced. It was clear that both had been told what the verdict would be and that the Democratic and Republican bosses were closing ranks against black St. Louis
.

Two days later, on September 15, the verdict was announced and the entire progressive community was stunned. Jason Stockley would not get the death penalty. He would not get life imprisonment. He would not get 30 or 20 or 10 years imprisonment. He would not even do one day in jail. Judge Wilson decreed that he was innocent and set him free. Free to make buckets of money writing memoirs of the agony he claimed to feel. Free to become a cause célèbre of the Ku Klux Klan.
What does the judge’s decision mean? It means that a Klansman who is worried that he might not get away with lynching can become a cop. When he has an urge to kill a black man, he can chase him down a city street at 80 miles per hour, smash into his car, point a gun at him and fire it several times, go back to the cop car to get heroin and a gun, throw them on the body without even bothering to wipe his fingerprints off, and get ready for a press interview where he feigns remorse over a killing which was “unfortunately necessary.” Then he walks away scot free
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/09/22/any-white-cop-can-kill-a-black-man-at-any-time/

Cheers
 
Re: Re:

Scott SoCal said:
rhubroma said:
I've got no illusions of utopia. That's your obsession about what you think I'm on about, to not have to doubt, or even place up for discussion, your own convictions (creed). That's extremely limiting at best, at worst, among the arrogant powers that be at the moment, pernicious. Trump's oration at the UN was exemplary in this regard.

And the only one "telling" people around here anything, has been your smug disquisitions about the virtues of the "free market" and complacently dismissive voice-over on what "human nature" is. People finding their own balance and light car consumption in the USA? Whoa, that's deep man. Hey why don't you look into the boom in luxury yachts, or the wage gap between the executive class and workers now and what it was 40 years ago? Or how many hours of work does it take one (if that is even possible anymore) to meet basic family living standards (home, education, healthcare) over the same period?
I've got no illusions of utopia.
Unless you've changed your stance in the last 90 minutes or so then you are being more than a little disingenuous. Revolution to include happy downsizing followed by an economic equilibrium where central control bureaucracy focused solely on well being. Or something like that.

to not have to doubt, or even place up for discussion, your own convictions (creed)
Well show me something better. One thing I have that you don't is an open mind. I'm not married to any particular system but, like pro cycling, meritocracy has it's place.

And the only one "telling" people around here anything, has been your smug disquisitions about the virtues of the "free market" and complacently dismissive voice-over on what "human nature" is.
I'm not telling anyone anything. If you and others here have a problem when I offer my opinion regarding your lack of basic understand on issues connected with human nature then you have a problem with it. I'm either right or I'm wrong. Prove me wrong. So far you haven't. Frankly, I don't care either way. Head in the sand is head in the sand and you have the absolute right to live however you want.

that's deep man
It is deep. It debunks your nonsense... and world view but that's been debunked since forever.

Hey why don't you look into the boom in luxury yachts
Always gonna be outliers, bro. Quick question, what the luxury yachts per (world) capita? Don't bother. It's a small number.

or the wage gap between the executive class and workers now and what it was 40 years ago?
Hey, who's fault is it that an actor can make $40 million a picture and the best high school math teacher in my town makes $72,500 a year? Don't bother blaming that on corporate executives... just keep clamoring foot $15/hr.

Lastly, one should consider the cost of a family before having one. I realize that declaration is heresy to the committed, but...
There is currently an ongoing immigration crisis of epoch making proportions from impoverished and war torn zones into Europe. There is a concentration of wealth among the financial lords, while entire nations are on the brink of economic collapse, because lending institutions want their pound of flesh. There is the recall of nuclear armeggedon and the burden of environmental causes to end comfortable life on the planet. All of which should concern anyone who isn't a fanatic, or has a modicum of critical spirit. So this is what you call successful outcomes? If I want to learn more about human nature, I'll read Catulus or Seneca.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
Greg Bacon says: • Website
September 19, 2017 at 10:02 am GMT • 100 Words
From an April 2003 Haaretz article:

The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it’s possible.

This is a war of an elite. [Tom] Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/white-man-s-burden-1.14110

If we’re not careful, these same treacherous back-stabbing thugs will get the USA involved in a hot war with Iran, while Israel sets on the sideline, laughing about how gullible and stupid those Americans are
.

Cheers
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
While the Syrian Arab Army, the Russian aviation and Hezbollah are preparing to finish off Daesh, the Pentagon is planning a new war against Syria, this time with Kurdish troops. Just as the mission of the Caliphate was to create a Sunnistan straddling Iraq and Syria, so the mission of « Rojava » is to create a Kurdistan straddling the two states, as the Pentagon has been publicly stating for the last four years.

According to US grand strategy, as defined by Admiral Cebrowski in 2001, and published in 2004 by his assistant Thomas Barnett, all of the Greater Middle East must be destroyed except for Israël, Jordan and Lebanon.

Consequently, the imminent victory against Daesh will change nothing of the Pentagon’s intentions.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/09/thierry-meyssan/after-the-caliphate-rojava/

Cheers
 
blutto said:
Greg Bacon says: • Website
September 19, 2017 at 10:02 am GMT • 100 Words
From an April 2003 Haaretz article:

The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it’s possible.

This is a war of an elite. [Tom] Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/white-man-s-burden-1.14110

If we’re not careful, these same treacherous back-stabbing thugs will get the USA involved in a hot war with Iran, while Israel sets on the sideline, laughing about how gullible and stupid those Americans are
.

Cheers
More psycho bio bombast please. If you're going to grind your petty little axes at least find people who can write better than a 26 year old swinging *** who barely knows how to get laid and takes it out in tough guy staccato.

If you're impressed by that as saying something and unclear how to discern bluster from prose choke up on the block quotes. All the grown ups in the room can find the salient parts.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
Scott SoCal said:
rhubroma said:
I've got no illusions of utopia. That's your obsession about what you think I'm on about, to not have to doubt, or even place up for discussion, your own convictions (creed). That's extremely limiting at best, at worst, among the arrogant powers that be at the moment, pernicious. Trump's oration at the UN was exemplary in this regard.

And the only one "telling" people around here anything, has been your smug disquisitions about the virtues of the "free market" and complacently dismissive voice-over on what "human nature" is. People finding their own balance and light car consumption in the USA? Whoa, that's deep man. Hey why don't you look into the boom in luxury yachts, or the wage gap between the executive class and workers now and what it was 40 years ago? Or how many hours of work does it take one (if that is even possible anymore) to meet basic family living standards (home, education, healthcare) over the same period?
I've got no illusions of utopia.
Unless you've changed your stance in the last 90 minutes or so then you are being more than a little disingenuous. Revolution to include happy downsizing followed by an economic equilibrium where central control bureaucracy focused solely on well being. Or something like that.

to not have to doubt, or even place up for discussion, your own convictions (creed)
Well show me something better. One thing I have that you don't is an open mind. I'm not married to any particular system but, like pro cycling, meritocracy has it's place.

And the only one "telling" people around here anything, has been your smug disquisitions about the virtues of the "free market" and complacently dismissive voice-over on what "human nature" is.
I'm not telling anyone anything. If you and others here have a problem when I offer my opinion regarding your lack of basic understand on issues connected with human nature then you have a problem with it. I'm either right or I'm wrong. Prove me wrong. So far you haven't. Frankly, I don't care either way. Head in the sand is head in the sand and you have the absolute right to live however you want.

that's deep man
It is deep. It debunks your nonsense... and world view but that's been debunked since forever.

Hey why don't you look into the boom in luxury yachts
Always gonna be outliers, bro. Quick question, what the luxury yachts per (world) capita? Don't bother. It's a small number.

or the wage gap between the executive class and workers now and what it was 40 years ago?
Hey, who's fault is it that an actor can make $40 million a picture and the best high school math teacher in my town makes $72,500 a year? Don't bother blaming that on corporate executives... just keep clamoring foot $15/hr.

Lastly, one should consider the cost of a family before having one. I realize that declaration is heresy to the committed, but...
There is currently an ongoing immigration crisis of epoch making proportions from impoverished and war torn zones into Europe. There is a concentration of wealth among the financial lords, while entire nations are on the brink of economic collapse, because lending institutions want their pound of flesh. There is the recall of nuclear armeggedon and the burden of environmental causes to end comfortable life on the planet. All of which should concern anyone who isn't a fanatic, or has a modicum of critical spirit. So this is what you call successful outcomes? If I want to learn more about human nature, I'll read Catulus or Seneca.
So it's global banking fault?
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
Pepe Escobar Unmasks Trump Doctrine: Carnage For New Axis Of Evil
Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Asia Times,

North Korea, Iran, Venezuela are targets in "compassionate" America's war on the "wicked few." It's almost as though Washington felt its hegemony threatened.

This was no “deeply philosophical address”. And hardly a show of “principled realism” – as spun by the White House. President Trump at the UN was “American carnage,” to borrow a phrase previously deployed by his nativist speechwriter Stephen Miller.
One should allow the enormity of what just happened to sink in, slowly. The president of the United States, facing the bloated bureaucracy that passes for the “international community,” threatened to “wipe off the map” the whole of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (25 million people). And may however many millions of South Koreans who perish as collateral damage be damned.

Multiple attempts have been made to connect Trump’s threats to the madman theory cooked up by “Tricky Dicky” Nixon in cahoots with Henry Kissinger, according to which the USSR must always be under the impression the then-US president was crazy enough to, literally, go nuclear. But the DPRK will not be much impressed with this madman remix.

That leaves, on the table, a way more terrifying upgrade of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Trump repeatedly invoked Truman in his speech). Frantic gaming will now be in effect in both Moscow and Beijing: Russia and China have their own stability / connectivity strategy under development to contain Pyongyang.

The Trump Doctrine has finally been enounced and a new axis of evil delineated. The winners are North Korea, Iran and Venezuela. Syria under Assad is a sort of mini-evil, and so is Cuba. Crucially, Ukraine and the South China Sea only got a fleeting mention from Trump, with no blunt accusations against Russia and China. That may reflect at least some degree of realpolitik; without “RC” – the Russia-China strategic partnership at the heart of the BRICS bloc and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) – there’s no possible solution to the Korean Peninsula stand-off.

In this epic battle of the “righteous many” against the “wicked few,” with the US described as a “compassionate nation” that wants “harmony and friendship, not conflict and strife,” it’s a bit of a stretch to have Islamic State – portrayed as being not remotely as “evil” as North Korea or Iran – get only a few paragraphs.
The art of unraveling a deal
According to the Trump Doctrine, Iran is “an economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violence, bloodshed and chaos,” a “murderous regime” profiting from a nuclear deal that is “an embarrassment to the United States.”

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted: “Trump’s ignorant hate speech belongs in medieval times – not the 21st century UN – unworthy of a reply.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov once again stressed full support for the nuclear deal ahead of a P5+1 ministers’ meeting scheduled for Wednesday, when Zarif was due to be seated at the same table as US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. Under review: compliance with the deal. Tillerson is the only one who wants a renegotiation.

Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani has, in fact, developed an unassailable argument on the nuclear negotiations. He says the deal – which the P5+1 and the IAEA all agree is working – could be used as a model elsewhere. German chancellor Angela Merkel concurs. But, Rouhani says, if the US suddenly decides to unilaterally pull out, how could the North Koreans possibly be convinced it’s worth their while to sit down to negotiate anything with the Americans ?
Afghanistan comes to South America
The Trump Doctrine, as enounced, privileges the absolute sovereignty of the nation-state. But then there are those pesky “rogue regimes” which must be, well, regime-changed. Enter Venezuela, now on “the brink of total collapse,” and run by a “dictator”; thus, America “cannot stand by and watch.”

No standing by, indeed. On Monday, Trump had dinner in New York with the presidents of Colombia, Peru and Brazil (the last indicted by the country’s Attorney General as the leader of a criminal organization and enjoying an inverted Kim dynasty rating of 95% unpopularity). On the menu: regime change in Venezuela.

Venezuelan “dictator” Maduro happens to be supported by Moscow and, most crucially, Beijing, which buys oil and has invested widely in infrastructure in the country with Brazilian construction giant Odebrecht crippled by the Car Wash investigation.

The stakes in Venezuela are extremely high. In early November, Brazilian and American forces will be deployed in a joint military exercise in the Amazon rainforest, at the Tri-Border between Peru, Brazil and Colombia. Call it a rehearsal for regime change in Venezuela. South America could well turn into the new Afghanistan, a consequence that flows from Trump’s assertion that “major portions of the world are in conflict and some, in fact, are going to hell.”

For all the lofty spin about “sovereignty”, the new axis of evil is all about, once again, regime change.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-20/pepe-escobar-unmasks-trump-doctrine-carnage-new-axis-evil

Cheers
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
Re: Re:

Scott SoCal said:
rhubroma said:
Scott SoCal said:
rhubroma said:
I've got no illusions of utopia. That's your obsession about what you think I'm on about, to not have to doubt, or even place up for discussion, your own convictions (creed). That's extremely limiting at best, at worst, among the arrogant powers that be at the moment, pernicious. Trump's oration at the UN was exemplary in this regard.

And the only one "telling" people around here anything, has been your smug disquisitions about the virtues of the "free market" and complacently dismissive voice-over on what "human nature" is. People finding their own balance and light car consumption in the USA? Whoa, that's deep man. Hey why don't you look into the boom in luxury yachts, or the wage gap between the executive class and workers now and what it was 40 years ago? Or how many hours of work does it take one (if that is even possible anymore) to meet basic family living standards (home, education, healthcare) over the same period?
I've got no illusions of utopia.
Unless you've changed your stance in the last 90 minutes or so then you are being more than a little disingenuous. Revolution to include happy downsizing followed by an economic equilibrium where central control bureaucracy focused solely on well being. Or something like that.

to not have to doubt, or even place up for discussion, your own convictions (creed)
Well show me something better. One thing I have that you don't is an open mind. I'm not married to any particular system but, like pro cycling, meritocracy has it's place.

And the only one "telling" people around here anything, has been your smug disquisitions about the virtues of the "free market" and complacently dismissive voice-over on what "human nature" is.
I'm not telling anyone anything. If you and others here have a problem when I offer my opinion regarding your lack of basic understand on issues connected with human nature then you have a problem with it. I'm either right or I'm wrong. Prove me wrong. So far you haven't. Frankly, I don't care either way. Head in the sand is head in the sand and you have the absolute right to live however you want.

that's deep man
It is deep. It debunks your nonsense... and world view but that's been debunked since forever.

Hey why don't you look into the boom in luxury yachts
Always gonna be outliers, bro. Quick question, what the luxury yachts per (world) capita? Don't bother. It's a small number.

or the wage gap between the executive class and workers now and what it was 40 years ago?
Hey, who's fault is it that an actor can make $40 million a picture and the best high school math teacher in my town makes $72,500 a year? Don't bother blaming that on corporate executives... just keep clamoring foot $15/hr.

Lastly, one should consider the cost of a family before having one. I realize that declaration is heresy to the committed, but...
There is currently an ongoing immigration crisis of epoch making proportions from impoverished and war torn zones into Europe. There is a concentration of wealth among the financial lords, while entire nations are on the brink of economic collapse, because lending institutions want their pound of flesh. There is the recall of nuclear armeggedon and the burden of environmental causes to end comfortable life on the planet. All of which should concern anyone who isn't a fanatic, or has a modicum of critical spirit. So this is what you call successful outcomes? If I want to learn more about human nature, I'll read Catulus or Seneca.
So it's global banking fault?
....well they are a big major part of the big picture....nothing happens without them not only being in the mix but supplying the grease which allow the big wheels to turn eh....the studies I've seen say the banks are 72.538765% to blame....

Cheers
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS