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

U.S. Politics

Page 600 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
RetroActive said:
I read that earlier thanks. I like these tid bits from the comments...

"intended for the few pretentious circumlocutory initiates"
"This tortured exercise in logorrhea"
...granted the article doesn't read like USA Today or have the "simplified clarity" of an Alex Jones rant....but after having spent way too much time in terminals over the last few months I would say it nailed that surreal terminal thang pretty darn well....I mean complicated problems require complicated analysis and not "bullet" type analysis grunted out in monosyllables ( that kinda stuff only leads to 2-d nonsense like the tax cuts are required for job creation mantra that is regularly regurgitated by simpletons the world over...whereas the reality is no credible study has ever found a hard 3-d/4-d connection between the two...it remains a paper bound 2-d idea that has only a tangential relationship to 3-d/4-d reality....a mere theory with no basis in fact...)

...that being said I wonder how many heads exploded in the Blockhead Collective before some higher functioning blockhead successfully put those comments to paper.....

Cheers
 
blutto said:
...granted the article doesn't read like USA Today or have the "simplified clarity" of an Alex Jones rant....but after having spent way too much time in terminals over the last few months I would say it nailed that surreal terminal thang pretty darn well....I mean complicated problems require complicated analysis and not "bullet" type analysis grunted out in monosyllables ( that kinda stuff only leads to 2-d nonsense like the tax cuts are required for job creation mantra that is regularly regurgitated by simpletons the world over...whereas the reality is no credible study has ever found a hard 3-d/4-d connection between the two...it remains a paper bound 2-d idea that has only a tangential relationship to 3-d/4-d reality....a mere theory with no basis in fact...)

...that being said I wonder how many heads exploded in the Blockhead Collective before some higher functioning blockhead successfully put those comments to paper.....

Cheers

http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jread2/Auge Non places.pdf

http://cidadeinseguranca.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/deleuze_control.pdf

On the other hand, for the moralists and human nature buffs there's this

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118114/chris-hedges-pulitzer-winner-lefty-hero-plagiarist.


Per the first link no utopia, it bad, simple, everyone should aspire to strip malls instead.
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,363
0
0
blutto said:
...granted the article doesn't read like USA Today or have the "simplified clarity" of an Alex Jones rant....but after having spent way too much time in terminals over the last few months I would say it nailed that surreal terminal thang pretty darn well....I mean complicated problems require complicated analysis and not "bullet" type analysis grunted out in monosyllables ( that kinda stuff only leads to 2-d nonsense like the tax cuts are required for job creation mantra that is regularly regurgitated by simpletons the world over...whereas the reality is no credible study has ever found a hard 3-d/4-d connection between the two...it remains a paper bound 2-d idea that has only a tangential relationship to 3-d/4-d reality....a mere theory with no basis in fact...)

...that being said I wonder how many heads exploded in the Blockhead Collective before some higher functioning blockhead successfully put those comments to paper.....

Cheers
I found those comments ironic and funny. I read it yesterday morning and emailed it around with this comment:
This guy should go work in 'the camps' in the tar sands. His head would explode in such an artificial, controlled 'space'. The dehumanization is complete.

Relax, I appreciated it.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
RetroActive said:
...from the article...

"The U.N. even went so far as to single the United States out in a report on human rights, saying criminalization of homelessness in the United States "raises concerns of discrimination and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment."

"I'm just simply baffled by the idea that people can be without shelter in a country, and then be treated as criminals for being without shelter," said human rights lawyer Sir Nigel Rodley, chairman of the U.N. committee. "The idea of criminalizing people who don't have shelter is something that I think many of my colleagues might find as difficult as I do to even begin to comprehend."

...and...

"This is cruelty at its basest and most pointless. "

...and this from parts of the richest nation the world has ever seen....if Christ, the dude who, if memory serves me well, said bring me the homeless, bring me the hungry, were to visit today he would probably first weep and then get down to some serious well deserved smiting...and in those End Times the elevator wouldn't be goin' up, it be goin' way way down...

....till that reckoning, repeat after me...."they hate us for our freedoms"....."they hate us for our freedoms"...."they hate us for our freedoms"....

Cheers
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
Man, that is simply ****ing outrageous!:eek: :mad:

Some seriously eye-opening stuff here too about the wealth and organization of our latest opponents in the apocalyptic war on terror.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/15/iraq-isis-arrest-jihadists-wealth-power
....find below a little look at the background of this highlight of the necon/Bush/Cheney regime's reign....and as an article previously posted states the US of A didn't even get the oil, China got it....all in all heck of a job Shrub....

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/06/eric-margolis/saddam-hussein-was-right/

Cheers

Cheers
 
RetroActive said:
You euor socialists don't get it, and this is why we'll always be the richest country. That article even said so.

If we punish these homeless people it will send a message to them, and other lazy people. They need to pick themselves up by their bootstraps, go out and get a job and be productive members of society. If they can't do that simple task, then they deserve to starve. Maybe that will finally motivate them.

Having spat that sarcastic nonsense out, this is actually a fairly complicated problem that just doesn't center around simple laws. Some homeless people are just one step below working poor who just happen to be stuck panhandling, but may have a place to sleep, a running phone, a car, etc. Others are in need of serious psychological help. Others suffer untreated physical ailments.

My hometown of Portland, Oregon had a plan (maybe still do) where you could go to a local soup kitchen, make a donation (or not) and they would hand you out little coupons for food at the soup kitchen that you could hand to homeless people, many of whom didn't even know the kitchen existed. A much more practical way to help, then making an unenforceable law based on absurdity.
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,363
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
You euor socialists don't get it, and this is why we'll always be the richest country. That article even said so.

If we punish these homeless people it will send a message to them, and other lazy people. They need to pick themselves up by their bootstraps, go out and get a job and be productive members of society. If they can't do that simple task, then they deserve to starve. Maybe that will finally motivate them.

Having spat that sarcastic nonsense out, this is actually a fairly complicated problem that just doesn't center around simple laws. Some homeless people are just one step below working poor who just happen to be stuck panhandling, but may have a place to sleep, a running phone, a car, etc. Others are in need of serious psychological help. Others suffer untreated physical ailments.

My hometown of Portland, Oregon had a plan (maybe still do) where you could go to a local soup kitchen, make a donation (or not) and they would hand you out little coupons for food at the soup kitchen that you could hand to homeless people, many of whom didn't even know the kitchen existed. A much more practical way to help, then making an unenforceable law based on absurdity.
Work? Why work? Get in the game it only goes up, up, up.

"Cluster Of Central Banks" Have Secretly Invested $29 Trillion In The Market
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-15/cluster-central-banks-have-secretly-invested-29-trillion-market
 
Reading up the latest in Iraq, I have just about concluded it is the biggest, most costly debacle in US history. But you really need a mirror to see it all, and why I say that.

• Recall how when we first invaded, we were told that the Iraqi people would greet us as their liberators with open arms?
• Recall how when Rumsfeld spoke about "shock and awe" the so-called terrorists would just capitulate?
• Recall the weapons of mass destruction?
• Recall the supposed connection between Saddam and Al Quaeda?
• Recall that oil prices would drop with the supply? (We're actually getting less oil from Iraq now, than even what Saddam sold us).
• Recall "Mission Accomplished"?
• Recall less than three years ago Obama calling the war a success?

We went through nearly all of Bush's administration, and now most of Obama's fighting a war that has supposedly ended a few times.

Now, what's become the longest war in American history, with 4,500 dead soldiers, nearly a million of them with injuries, over 300,000 vets with brain injuries, over a half-million dead Iraqi civilians, costs well over $2b and estimated to top $4 trillion, we've come to the point where things were certainly worse than they were in 2002. Not just in the US, but in Iraq and the entire Middle East as well.

And the hawks want us to pour even more money, more soldiers, more ammunition, even though the nation is broke, and our will to fight for nothing drained.

The only thing left for Obama is to be like Nixon at his best, and pull what's left of the plug. Something former Army Colonial Andrew Bacevich (who calls himself a conservative) noted the other day, in one of his many sage articles on this topic. It appears, despite lacking a spine on so many domestic issues, Obama may have found one here. From yesterday:

“The United States is not simply going to involve itself in a military action in the absence of a political plan by the Iraqis that gives us some assurance that they’re prepared to work together.”

You might think to yourself, "if only we knew then, what we know now..." But the fact is, we did know that at the time. We knew it going in. There were quite a few vocal people saying this is what would happen. But they were shouted down by the neocons, pushed away by the monied interests, and the liberals either caved, or those that didn't like Max Cleland, were voted out of office.

Someone feel free to explain to me I'm wrong. Tell me why it was all worth it, or why we should send more troops back over there and what that would accomplish. I'm all ears.
 
The US administration gave the American public what they wanted back then: an easy solution that would soothe their fears and satisfy their lust for revenge for 9/11: war on terror. While in reality it is by definition impossible to wage a war on terror. War breeds terror. But any voices trying to reason why starting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would result in chaos, where drowned in an ocean of patriotic voices and black&white reasoning.

A lot of terrorists died, a lot of soldiers, and many, many more innocent civilians. Oh, and Halliburton made a nice profit.
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,363
0
0
Alpe:

A Million People Killed
Iraq: The Biggest Petroleum Heist in History?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38590.htm

“Iraq’s oil production surged to its highest level in over 30 years last month, surprising skeptics of the country’s efforts to restore its oil industry after decades of war and neglect.” (Wall Street Journal)
Washington’s Iraq “Victory” — Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/06/14/washingtons-iraq-victory-paul-craig-roberts/

Throw in the lagging GDP, the flagging petro-dollar, military-industrial profits, global hegemony etc, etc., etc.

p.s. Syria and Iran have to be worked into the mix too.
 
I do realize I was being somewhat conservative with my numbers.

Again, I wonder if anyone out there can give an example that was a bigger, more costly fiasco in US history. While the Viet Nam war was a loss, and very costly in loss of life, I don't think it matches this in scope. The only thing I can think of that tops it is maybe the Civil War. But even then, the outcome of that, as costly as it was, turned out to be beneficial for the country as a whole, especially when in terms of direct freedom for black people, and individual freedom.

But I'll still stand by what I said. This war, or I should say "these wars" as the entire war on terror regardless of the border, is essentially one war. And the worst ignominious failure in our nation's history.

Someone tell me I'm wrong?
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,659
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
I do realize I was being somewhat conservative with my numbers.

Again, I wonder if anyone out there can give an example that was a bigger, more costly fiasco in US history. While the Viet Nam war was a loss, and very costly in loss of life, I don't think it matches this in scope. The only thing I can think of that tops it is maybe the Civil War. But even then, the outcome of that, as costly as it was, turned out to be beneficial for the country as a whole, especially when in terms of direct freedom for black people, and individual freedom.

But I'll still stand by what I said. This war, or I should say "these wars" as the entire war on terror regardless of the border, is essentially one war. And the worst ignominious failure in our nation's history.

Someone tell me I'm wrong?
We've certainly had wars with greater loss of US life. I particularly do not pay attention to the dollars, simply because I completely agree with all your previous bulleted points. If I paid more attention to all this, I'd be so livid angry I would not be able to function in daily life.

We've had other eph ups - support for the Nationalist Chinese was one. The Mexican war (prior to the Civil War) was one that was most likely a complete waste. But the cost in human life and dollars was nothing like this. Where else went badly? Korea? At least we managed to get out of Korea without the entire region collapsing politically and economically. Damage restricted mostly to N Korea (and S, of course, but S recovered nicely).

Nam ticked me off - Nixon outright lied to the public and killed more of OUR soldiers so he could get reelected. All well documented by historians.

But, yeah. Iraq was a mistake. And a bad one.
 
Mar 13, 2009
12,232
0
0
blutto said:
....find below a little look at the background of this highlight of the necon/Bush/Cheney regime's reign....and as an article previously posted states the US of A didn't even get the oil, China got it....all in all heck of a job Shrub....

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/06/eric-margolis/saddam-hussein-was-right/

Cheers

Cheers
was not about the oil companies. it was about being able to influence where the resources go.

why does one think about the new AFRICOM focus, which centre is actually in southern italy?

ring fencing resources from the Sinos.

KONY? I have my suspicions that State (dep't) or NSA managed to spike those youtube hits. Now, if I was the cable or fibreoptics provider telcom, i'd wanna know that my bandwidth was actual bandwidth and not phantom bandwidth that Uncle Sam were not paying for. #openinternetWebfreedom
 
Mar 13, 2009
12,232
0
0
rhubroma said:
Those that have had the most hardship and by far suffered the greatest loss of life, were those America was supposed to have liberated.
yeah nah yeah

"supposed to have liberated" ??? you mean, that is what they tell us and what we believe. utter BS. Like the librarian (laura bush) going to Afghanistan to teach girls to read.

we believe the burson marsteller talking points on the whole, because we are sheep, and an unthinking race, sorry, unthinking species.
 
Mar 13, 2009
12,232
0
0
hiero2 said:
We've certainly had wars with greater loss of US life. I particularly do not pay attention to the dollars, simply because I completely agree with all your previous bulleted points. If I paid more attention to all this, I'd be so livid angry I would not be able to function in daily life.

We've had other eph ups - support for the Nationalist Chinese was one. The Mexican war (prior to the Civil War) was one that was most likely a complete waste. But the cost in human life and dollars was nothing like this. Where else went badly? Korea? At least we managed to get out of Korea without the entire region collapsing politically and economically. Damage restricted mostly to N Korea (and S, of course, but S recovered nicely).

Nam ticked me off - Nixon outright lied to the public and killed more of OUR soldiers so he could get reelected. All well documented by historians.

But, yeah. Iraq was a mistake. And a bad one.
smedley butler

i prefered gieves myself, he wore white gloves, and made a great high tea
 
Mar 13, 2009
12,232
0
0
Jagartrott said:
The US administration gave the American public what they wanted back then: an easy solution that would soothe their fears and satisfy their lust for revenge for 9/11: war on terror. While in reality it is by definition impossible to wage a war on terror. War breeds terror. But any voices trying to reason why starting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would result in chaos, where drowned in an ocean of patriotic voices and black&white reasoning.

A lot of terrorists died, a lot of soldiers, and many, many more innocent civilians. Oh, and Halliburton made a nice profit.
did you hear about David Milch's take on the second iteration gulf war. About it needing to fit within a narrative of viewing habits of tv patron. When it got drawn out, like a 10th series of game of thrones, they had long passes their attention and were just sick and resentful of the bush admin.

i think the theory has legs, much like slavov zizek's stuff. pop culture masquerading as intellectual theory and academia.

but milch is worth wasting some time on. he is on youtube, in some lectures a some liberal arts college like New School talking about screen writing
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,924
0
0
Alpe, you're not wrong. Sadly. Opponents of the gung-ho, post 9/11 'let's stick it to Saddam' mood were called all sorts of dreadful things, all the way up to "traitor". But, to be honest, I don't think that any of us who vehemently opposed intervention at the time, could possibly have imagined the all-round magnitude of the clusterfcuk that was uncorked with Saddam's demise.

Jagartrott, spot on about the appeal to revenge after 9/11.

Good one liner, Rhub. As usual.
 
blackcat said:
yeah nah yeah

"supposed to have liberated" ??? you mean, that is what they tell us and what we believe. utter BS. Like the librarian (laura bush) going to Afghanistan to teach girls to read.

we believe the burson marsteller talking points on the whole, because we are sheep, and an unthinking race, sorry, unthinking species.
I wasn't referring to we, whomever that might be, but the official neocon explanation for the invasion and the fact that the majority in Congress scandalously approved. At the time it seems overwhelmingly more Americans than not did too, with the media generally in tow and the willfully circumscribed boycotting French wine, while finding Freedom Fries more appetizing.

There I'd say a case for unthinking species could be made, however, I'd like to think these were more or less isolated cases.
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,659
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
Alpe, you're not wrong. Sadly. Opponents of the gung-ho, post 9/11 'let's stick it to Saddam' mood were called all sorts of dreadful things, all the way up to "traitor". But, to be honest, I don't think that any of us who vehemently opposed intervention at the time, could possibly have imagined the all-round magnitude of the clusterfcuk that was uncorked with Saddam's demise.

Jagartrott, spot on about the appeal to revenge after 9/11.

Good one liner, Rhub. As usual.
Yes. Perhaps surprising to me, that you see this, as you do not live in the States.

But yes. And even those of us who opposed it generally gave a grudging go-ahead. My thought, and hope, and general expectation, was that they would go in, take care of the essentials, and get back out within perhaps 3 months. And that they had a plan to do so. I thought it was pretty obvious that if we got stuck there for 6 months - it would be a tar baby, and we would be stuck there for a long time.

But the total collapse of the society, the total lack of US leadership foresight and planning, the total shocking level of sectarian violence. I think I've read that a few people did predict the possibility of some of this. But if they did, they sure never got much of anybody's ear.

Bush and Cheney etc had an itch to be listed in the history books. They wanted to showcase neocon doctrine as truth. Well, they sure got part of their wish.

And now the drama continues, with ISIS and Syria. Syria has bombed ISIS positions. Syrian rebel commanders have quit - saying they can not fight two fronts. It is increasingly looking like we are about to have a 2nd Islamic-hard-liner ruled country in the region. The Syrian rebel movement was largely responsible for spawning the opportunity for ISIS to exist.

In my head I am seeing parallels with the Red Army in 1917, and the Balkans in recent history. When anarchy rules, single men can make the difference. And there is usually MUCH more hatred, killing, despotism, all that jag, than ever exists in a civilized and stable country. I think the annals of history continually tell us that the rule of individuals is not a pretty thing for many. They rule by manipulating the mob. And the mob has a mind of its own. (for clarity, I do not mean "mob" as in slang for gangsters. I mean "mob" as in dictionary definition.) Wasn't it the infamous Machiavelli who gave us the quote about ruling people by giving them something to fear? The mob is more than the sum of the individuals, it is an embodiment of fear, and the binding quantity behind that fear.

My prediction at this moment - the US will avoid involvement. But the cost will be allowing ISIS to create a new country. Syria and Iraq will continue to exist, but they will be geographically much smaller. The Kurds may (only slightly long odds) form a new state. This is very dependent on how willing they are to reconcile with Baghdad in the face of ISIS. It is hard to say from here.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS