U.S. Politics

Page 402 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 17, 2009
2,280
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
We really just don't ever learn, do we?
We'll just send over some military hardware, we won't really get involved. We are just helping foster the growth of Democracy, worldwide.:rolleyes:
We should probably send some advisors too. Teach 'em how to use the stuff only, of course
 
We are arriving at the point at which the concept of "freedom" and "liberty" will be given a new dimension and subordinated to that of "security." This has been the inevitable outcome of a misguided providential concept of the civilizing role of the US globally, an aggressive economic and foreign policy based upon supporting even the most uncivilized regimes (that renders the former notion a blatant hypocrisy) and technologies that develop far more quickly than the ponderous legal apparatus in establishing laws to prevent their abuses.

Throw in for good measure the megalomania and perversion of some in high positions of covert power and the rest is a foregone conclusion, however ghastly and pathetic.
 
rhubroma said:
We are arriving at the point at which the concept of "freedom" and "liberty" will be given a new dimension and subordinated to that of "security." This has been the inevitable outcome of a misguided providential concept of the civilizing role of the US globally, an aggressive economic and foreign policy based upon supporting even the most uncivilized regimes (that renders the former notion a blatant hypocrisy) and technologies that develop far more quickly than the ponderous legal apparatus in establishing laws to prevent their abuses.

Throw in for good measure the megalomania and perversion of some in high positions of covert power and the rest is a foregone conclusion, however ghastly and pathetic.
Sure, that's the precondition for the pastoral comfort and tacit ideology of the first worlds.

You know the line from Tacitus: They make it a desert and call it peace.
 
aphronesis said:
Sure, that's the precondition for the pastoral comfort and tacit ideology of the first worlds.

You know the line from Tacitus: They make it a desert and call it peace.
That's a good one, but there was also this: The changeful change of circumstances. [Lat., Varia sors rerum.]

The happy times aren't going to last forever, though how many are completely oblivious to the declining fate of civilizations.
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,354
0
0
python said:
in a way, this politically driven idiotic failure of the american foreign office to acknowledge the uncomfortable, yet clear facts - that the un and the turkish police found syrian rebels use and possess sarin gas - this will make obama responsible for the tears of american mothers...but of course, mothers tears are off limits to the nsa cyber craft and so they will remain undetected and will have to dry :rolleyes:
"Al-Qaeda" were busted with sarin gas in Iraq as well. Planning attacks in neighboring countries.

The syrian regime using chemical weapons would be unbelievably irrational. Why would they provide the US with an excuse to intervene just to kill off 150 rebels? Are they really that stupid? Possibly, but I think I'll stick to blaming the guys with the motive to use chem weapons who have been caught red-handed with chem weapons. Seems more likely.
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,354
0
0
Foreign policy looks like another area of politics that wont change regardless of whether the democrats or the republicans are in charge. Much like the eager to turn "1984" into reality.

The neocons wanted regime change in Libya, Syria and Iran.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY2DKzastu8

I blame the war-mongering think tanks (PNAC, Brookings Institution, WINEP, etc) and "defence" contractors.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,924
0
0
Lots of food for thought in this excellent article, which puts the whole secrecy 'debate' into a Catch-22 framework.

So the logic of this situation is this:

A. We profess to be a country governed by the Constitution and ultimately by the people through the electoral process.

B. To be able to exercise our rights as citizens, via the electoral process, we need information on the major issues of how our government is operating.

C. To “protect us” from our “enemies” we need intelligence agencies gathering information to discern threats to our country and this “gathering” must include information on all of our citizens.

D. The operations of these intelligence agencies must be cloaked in secrecy to keep our “enemies” from knowing what we know.

E. Only a very few of our elected representatives are allowed information on the operations of our intelligence community as putative oversight.

F. These intelligence representatives are precluded by secrecy laws from disclosing what they learn to their legislative colleagues.

G. If they can’t disclose any intelligence information that they find disturbing, then in effect they have no oversight ability over the Intelligence Establishment since they can’t get legislation to counter it.

H. Without oversight the Intelligence Agencies can do as they please.

I. Therefore when it comes to Intelligence the American people are unable to exercise their rights as citizens via informed votes in the electoral process.

“Today, the New York Times, in a news/analysis article, essentially declared that there was no hope for any kind of restraint of growing government spying on the public. Not if it is up to the people’s representatives.” Baker goes on:

“When even an establishment-serving entity like the New York Times virtually concedes that there’s no hope for reform even when the vast majority might want it, this is a signal that something is deeply amiss in this society.”

“What the Times and other media will not and perhaps cannot say, is this: not only is Congress impotent in these matters, but it wouldn’t even matter if the president himself chose to act. Here’s why.

As history shows us, when it comes to the overall direction of American governance, absent generally minor tweaks of foreign policy and somewhat more robust swings on certain domestic issues that rouse voting bases (notably things like gay and reproductive rights and, lately, immigration) presidents of both parties rarely deviate from a kind of “consensus” cobbled together by people in academia, media and government, a consensus that almost always serves the interests of a fairly small number of wealthy people and interests. (If you’ve never heard this notion, a visit to one of our remaining public libraries might be in order.)

This is not a partisan issue. It doesn’t matter who is president. No “ordinary American who can dream of one day becoming president” is in a position to alter the basic equation, which would involve bucking the vast military-financial-industrial-academic complex that drives the American economy, funds our political elections and keeps people in line through any means necessary. That’s as true of Obama as it was of Kennedy or Nixon or…fill in the blank.
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/06/14/catch-22-and-the-secrecy-debate/#more-65688
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
Lots of food for thought in this excellent article, which puts the whole secrecy 'debate' into a Catch-22 framework.






http://jonathanturley.org/2013/06/14/catch-22-and-the-secrecy-debate/#more-65688
essentially declared that there was no hope for any kind of restraint of growing government

There is the problem.

I get bashed here routinely for commenting on the wisdom of our founders. But they understood human nature. No doubt about that.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
There is the problem.

I get bashed here routinely for commenting on the wisdom of our founders. But they understood human nature. No doubt about that.
....yup...yup..no doubt about their wisdom and so on and so forth....though there is this wee itty bitty problem of putting into place a system that allowed slavery....and really wasn't that great to women....or indigenous folks....but except for those tiny insignificant quibbles it was stone-cold perfect stuff handed down from on high to run that city on the hill thingee...

...good on you, you banged another one out of the park...and who woulda thunk given that kinda stellar commentary you get bashed here routinely....yeah, you're right, there just ain't no justice in these here parts....

... I really wish I were there to give you a big hug, pat you on the head, and tell you things will be all better....

....now I understand your frustration, but hang in there my dear friend, because as we speak your soul-mates at NSA are identifying the last of those know-it-all liberals... the FEMA camps are ready...so once the liberal roundup is complete, its just a question of deleting all those pesky liberal facts that the world-wide webz seem to be so chocked full of...and once the world is cleansed of that silly left-leaning nonsense you can pontificate to your heart's content, and as an extra added bonus, the world will be free of SoCal bashing....and then life will be most perfect, with nary a contrary thought to be found, and you can wallow about forever in that special bliss you wrong wingers so desperately crave....

...have a nice wknd...


Cheers
 
Scott SoCal said:
There is the problem.

I get bashed here routinely for commenting on the wisdom of our founders. But they understood human nature. No doubt about that.
So did Heraclites, though so what?

The so called Founding Fathers were also a masonic cove of megalomaniacs who approved of slavery and were religious bigots with it. There's no doubt about that. Hence any document that they produced shouldn't be treated as some divinely set forth holy writ that can't be modified to address the new circumstances, and challenges, of modernity. This is stupidity personified. Your blind faith in their so called wisdom is that of a zealot and contrasts with the very principle of reason they believed they were being guided by. Furthermore they made no mention of that fundamental quality of any civil society, which is solidarity, and applied a utilitarian statecraft criteria in the "right to bear arms" that surely is hostile to the citizenry today.

You mean these founding fathers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSJmYnHdvsc

And today's the inevitable result of the 2nd amendment foundation...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPDuYXGAuBw

You have no rights...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9-R8T1SuG4

We are all equal...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymd1ligYyfk
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,354
0
0
Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media

Military's 'sock puppet' software creates fake online identities to spread pro-American propaganda

The US military is developing software that will let it secretly manipulate social media sites by using fake online personas to influence internet conversations and spread pro-American propaganda.

A Californian corporation has been awarded a contract with United States Central Command (Centcom), which oversees US armed operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, to develop what is described as an "online persona management service" that will allow one US serviceman or woman to control up to 10 separate identities based all over the world.

The project has been likened by web experts to China's attempts to control and restrict free speech on the internet. Critics are likely to complain that it will allow the US military to create a false consensus in online conversations, crowd out unwelcome opinions and smother commentaries or reports that do not correspond with its own objectives.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
The US military is developing software that will let it secretly manipulate social media sites by using fake online personas to influence internet conversations and spread pro-American propaganda.

....from...http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks

....actually it is far beyond developing and well into the more developed stage...in fact my sources tell me a Mk 2 beta software package has been running since at least 11-08-12 ( replacing the absolutely disastrous Mk 1 system ) ....unfortunately for its designers it continues to show strains of the Mk 1's marked inability to interface constructively with even the simplest of reality models....work continues....and up-dates will follow as they become available....

Cheers
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,924
0
0
Tyler'sTwin said:
I sincerely hope that you're not posting this two year old story in order to suggest that our Scotty is a covert ops sockpuppet?

rhubroma said:
So did Heraclites, though so what?

The so called Founding Fathers were also a masonic cove of megalomaniacs who approved of slavery and were religious bigots with it. There's no doubt about that. Hence any document that they produced shouldn't be treated as some divinely set forth holy writ that can't be modified to address the new circumstances, and challenges, of modernity. This is stupidity personified.

You mean these founding fathers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSJmYnHdvsc

And today's the inevitable result of the 2nd amendment foundation...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPDuYXGAuBw

You have no rights...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9-R8T1SuG4

We are all equal...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymd1ligYyfk
Totally agree, Rhub. I have never understood this 'the great and noble Founding Fathers knew absolutely everything best' line of thinking. Just about the most charitable description that I can come up with for such views is, 'anachronistic'.

The only rational way forward apart from some sort of horrendously bloody revolution, would probably be a Constitutional Convention, charged with revising, rewriting, updating, or otherwise altering the existing document, in order to reflect the realities of a multicultural, multilingual, 21st century industrial society. No one who ever held elected office would be allowed to take part in this endeavor.

Thanks for that brilliant selection of clips by a brilliant man, who really knew his sh!t!:cool:
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
Uh-oh. It looks like hope has died and the slow ones are just figuring it out. From hope to nope.

Is there any chance that ridiculous Nobel peace prize can be revoked? Who had the bright idea to award that before Obama had done anything other than con people into electing him?
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
BroDeal said:
Uh-oh. It looks like hope has died and the slow ones are just figuring it out. From hope to nope.

Is there any chance that ridiculous Nobel peace prize can be revoked? Who had the bright idea to award that before Oboma had done anything other than con people into electing him?
He was elected on the basis of one brilliant speech. No vetting, no background, no resume, no qualifications. Cult of personality.

As Rhub would say... stupidity personified.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
I sincerely hope that you're not posting this two year old story in order to suggest that our Scotty is a covert ops sockpuppet?



Totally agree, Rhub. I have never understood this 'the great and noble Founding Fathers knew absolutely everything best' line of thinking. Just about the most charitable description that I can come up with for such views is, 'anachronistic'.

The only rational way forward apart from some sort of horrendously bloody revolution, would probably be a Constitutional Convention, charged with revising, rewriting, updating, or otherwise altering the existing document, in order to reflect the realities of a multicultural, multilingual, 21st century industrial society. No one who ever held elected office would be allowed to take part in this endeavor.

Thanks for that brilliant selection of clips by a brilliant man, who really knew his sh!t!:cool:
I sincerely hope that you're not posting this two year old story in order to suggest that our Scotty is a covert ops sockpuppet?
Not to worry.

I have never understood this 'the great and noble Founding Fathers knew absolutely everything best' line of thinking. Just about the most charitable description that I can come up with for such views is, 'anachronistic'.
Hogwash. Who says they knew everything best? Do you doubt they were wise men? Are wise men not fallible?
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
blutto said:
....yup...yup..no doubt about their wisdom and so on and so forth....though there is this wee itty bitty problem of putting into place a system that allowed slavery....and really wasn't that great to women....or indigenous folks....but except for those tiny insignificant quibbles it was stone-cold perfect stuff handed down from on high to run that city on the hill thingee...

...good on you, you banged another one out of the park...and who woulda thunk given that kinda stellar commentary you get bashed here routinely....yeah, you're right, there just ain't no justice in these here parts....

... I really wish I were there to give you a big hug, pat you on the head, and tell you things will be all better....

....now I understand your frustration, but hang in there my dear friend, because as we speak your soul-mates at NSA are identifying the last of those know-it-all liberals... the FEMA camps are ready...so once the liberal roundup is complete, its just a question of deleting all those pesky liberal facts that the world-wide webz seem to be so chocked full of...and once the world is cleansed of that silly left-leaning nonsense you can pontificate to your heart's content, and as an extra added bonus, the world will be free of SoCal bashing....and then life will be most perfect, with nary a contrary thought to be found, and you can wallow about forever in that special bliss you wrong wingers so desperately crave....

...have a nice wknd...


Cheers
... I really wish I were there to give you a big hug, pat you on the head, and tell you things will be all better....
There? Where is there?

You telling me things will be better is like BO telling you he's not listening to your phone calls.

your soul-mates at NSA
I can only imagine how bad your case of hives must be. Your messiah is Bush on steroids. How f'ing ironic is that?

I'm guessing you're gonna be in a bad mood for a long, long time. Sad really. Lessee, where's my frowny face.... :(

so once the liberal roundup is complete,
You never disappoint. You do realize its the conservative roundup? Minor point to be sure... but if you are going to be taken even slightly seriously you may want to at least attempt to get your facts straight.

The good news? Your propaganda is excellent.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Your messiah is Bush on steroids. How f'ing ironic is that?
....hmmm....Your?....nope, wrong country.....messiah?...not much on that blind faith stuff....Bush on steroids?....can't imagine how anybody could want to in any way shape or form be associated with **** Cheney, especially when blind faith is involved....sooooo....How f'ing ironic is that?.....gee good question...should maybe be rephrased as....How f'ing wrong is that?....because you packed a whole bunch of wrong into just one little sentence....but hey, that is what you do best isn't it?....

Cheers
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
blutto said:
....hmmm....Your?....nope, wrong country.....messiah?...not much on that blind faith stuff....Bush on steroids?....can't imagine how anybody could want to in any way shape or form be associated with **** Cheney, especially when blind faith is involved....sooooo....How f'ing ironic is that?.....gee good question...should maybe be rephrased as....How f'ing wrong is that?....because you packed a whole bunch of wrong into just one little sentence....but hey, that is what you do best isn't it?....

Cheers
Not wrong. Ironic. Just ironic.

No time to bail out now, B. Do the right thing and just go down with the ship.

What I do best is pointing out the hypocritical BS from people like you.

You're welcome.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Not wrong. Ironic. Just ironic.

No time to bail out now, B. Do the right thing and just go down with the ship.

What I do best is pointing out the hypocritical BS from people like you.

You're welcome.
....you're a funny guy you...always aspiring to be a Dead-Eye, always turning out to be Dead-Wrong....have you considered changing your moniker to Scott SoWrong?....

....but by all means carry on...gawd knows we need the laughs here....and at least you are consistently best at giving us that...

Cheers
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
blutto said:
....you're a funny guy you...always aspiring to be a Dead-Eye, always turning out to be Dead-Wrong....have you considered changing your moniker to Scott SoWrong?....

....but by all means carry on...gawd knows we need the laughs here....and at least you are consistently best at giving us that...

Cheers
SoWrong? Never considered that one.

Wasn't it just a few post back where you stated people running away from this thread when I post?

And somehow here you are.:rolleyes:
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,172
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
He was elected on the basis of one brilliant speech. No vetting, no background, no resume, no qualifications. Cult of personality.

As Rhub would say... stupidity personified.
but what choice did we have? a cranky, old dude with a history of cancer with a genius for a running mate vs. a young, handsome, level-headed mystery with a genius for a running mate.

one would think the smart money is on the latter.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
gregod said:
but what choice did we have? a cranky, old dude with a history of cancer with a genius for a running mate vs. a young, handsome, level-headed mystery with a genius for a running mate.

one would think the smart money is on the latter.
Well, McCain is still bumping around.

But I understand your point all too well.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS