Violent political rhetoric fuels violent attitudes

Jan 25, 2011 By Jared Wadley

(PhysOrg.com) -- Political leaders regularly promise to "fight" for noble causes and "combat" pressing problems. They declare "war" on social problems, such as poverty, disease, drugs and terrorism.

This violent political rhetoric—whether politicians intend to or not—can enflame violent attitudes in many Americans, especially those predisposed to behave aggressively in daily life, according to new University of Michigan research involving three studies.

"The results presented here clearly refute the claim that violent political rhetoric is without negative consequences," said Nathan Kalmoe, a U-M political science doctoral candidate and study's author.

"The evidence might be sufficient to make political leaders think twice before infusing violent language into speeches and ads, particularly in situations when their audiences are already boiling over with hostility."

The debate about violent language intensified earlier this month when a 22-year-old man allegedly shot and killed six people, while injuring more than a dozen others in Arizona, including U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

Kalmoe conducted two national surveys and a local study before the 2010 mid-term elections to analyze attitudes about political violence.

While most people strongly rejected political violence, at least 15 percent of the respondents agreed with one or more violent statements.

Party affiliation played no role; Democrats and Republicans were equally likely to express support for political violence. Individuals predisposed to behave aggressively in social interactions reported violence levels several times greater than peers with low aggression scores.

In Kalmoe's first national survey, 412 adults read two television advertisement texts (one violent, the other non-violent) for two U.S. House candidates. The candidates were not identified by name or party.

Words involving violence were changed within the text. In contrast to the most extreme examples of violent language in politics, the words in the experiments were mild. They included fighting/struggling, fight/work, and battle/race. In addition, no person or group was targeted in the ads. Respondents were asked about their aggression levels and interest in violence against political leaders.

Those who were aggressive had strong predispositions to support political violence, and that increased when exposed to violent rhetoric, the research indicated. Young adults were more likely to adopt violent attitudes after exposure than older adults.

The second study was done in late summer 2010 with 512 adults who were exposed to one advertising text instead of two. Nearly 13 percent of respondents endorsed political violence, regardless of party affiliation.

The results in the second study also found that violent rhetoric greatly increased support for political violence among aggressive young adults, but had no significant effects among other subjects.

A sample of 384 college students responded to the third study in late summer/fall 2010. Unlike the other studies, respondents were told that the text came from a Republican or Democrat running for the U.S. House. They were also randomly given violent or non-violent text.

Students supported political violence at levels similar to those questioned in the national samples. Aggression was a weak predictor of violent attitudes, and partisanship remained unrelated in the findings, Kalmoe said.

As in the two national studies, violent language increased support for political violence among aggressive students. Participants reacted similarly to the ads whether they were attributed to a Democrat or a Republican.

Although the studies showed that violent political language had strong effects on violent attitudes, they did not test whether violent behavior was more likely. Even so, violent attitudes are a worrisome sign of incivility in politics, Kalmoe said.

Explore further: Less privileged kids shine at university, according to study

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Violent TV, games pack a powerful public health threat

Nov 27, 2007

Watching media violence significantly increases the risk that a viewer or video game player will behave aggressively in both the short and long term, according to a University of Michigan study published today in a special ...

Violent games not to blame for youth aggression: new study

Dec 14, 2010

How depressed young people are strongly predicts how aggressive and violent they may be or may become. Contrary to popular belief, however, exposure to violence in video games or on television is not related to serious acts ...

Recommended for you

Why are UK teenagers skipping school?

Dec 18, 2014

Analysis of the results of a large-scale survey reveals the extent of truancy in English secondary schools and sheds light on the mental health of the country's teens.

Fewer lectures, more group work

Dec 18, 2014

Professor Cees van der Vleuten from Maastricht University is a Visiting Professor at Wits University who believes that learning should be student centred.

How to teach all students to think critically

Dec 18, 2014

All first year students at the University of Technology Sydney could soon be required to take a compulsory maths course in an attempt to give them some numerical thinking skills. ...

User comments : 401

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

jscroft
3 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2011
... so everybody who disagrees with me just SHUT UP.
JRDarby
3.2 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2011
I think the violent rhetoric and the "war on [insert abstraction on which you can't rationally declare war]" is coming from a single ideological platform (and, in the US, political party).
ab3a
5 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2011
Do people who use sex word epithets engage in more sex? I wonder...
geokstr
1.8 / 5 (19) Jan 25, 2011
I think the violent rhetoric and the "war on [insert abstraction on which you can't rationally declare war]" is coming from a single ideological platform (and, in the US, political party).

You mean the Democratic party, non?

Non? I'm shocked.

Omnipresent incidents of violent leftist rhetoric, and real actual leftist violence, during the Bush era is of course but a distant memory in the Lewinskyite media, who are too busy drooling on Obama's shoes, now that the lefties are in power and want to make hay by manufacturing faux right wing connections to every nutjob, even when the nutjobs themselves claim to be on the left.

And Bob Beckel, a noted right wing fanatic, took credit on Fox (where else?) for inventing the "target" symbolism in political mapping, while those radical rightists at the DNC used targets on a map to show which states they were concentrating on in 2004, long before anyone had ever heard of the Satanic Palin and her mysterious uterus.

Hypocritical much?
geokstr
1.8 / 5 (16) Jan 25, 2011
Oh and let's not forget the violent rhetoric of the metaphorical use of knives, guns, enemies, punishing, kicking ass, relegation to backseat, get angry, getting in their face, hostage takers, trigger fingers, tearing up, hand-to-hand combat, etc, etc, ad nauseum, used by the Community-Organizer-in-Chief himself, much of it very recent, too.
JRDarby
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 25, 2011
Wow, geokstr. You sure assume a lot from a phrase that names no names. But since you want to bring it up, I'll give you some examples. These are all pulled verbatim from Wikipedia.

The term "War on Drugs" was first used by President Richard Nixon on June 17, 1971.

The phrase War on Terror was first used by former US President George W. Bush.

To be fair, here's another: The War on Poverty is the name for legislation first introduced by United States President Lyndon B. Johnson... he greatly escalated direct American involvement in the Vietnam War.

The expression war on Christmas has often been used to denote Christmas-related controversy in the media The term gained notability thanks in part to its use by conservative commentators such as Peter Brimelow and Bill O'Reilly during the first few years of the 2000s decade.
JRDarby
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2011
So, in general, do you see a trend here? At the very least, the article is right: people who use violent rhetoric tend to fuel violent attitudes and lead to actual violence.

Unfortunately I think this is a problem that crosses party lines. For whatever reason, America, and I mean both the people and the government, loves war. I still maintain that we see a lot of violent rhetoric coming mostly from one side of the spectrum, though.

Here's a good list of wars on concepts:

http://en DOT wikipedia DOT org/wiki/List_of_wars_on_concepts
geokstr
1.6 / 5 (15) Jan 25, 2011
So, JR, which "...single ideological platform (and, in the US, political party)" were you claiming the "violent rhetoric" was coming from, the Greens? No?

Your comment was an easily identifiable implied swipe at the right and the Republicans, was it not, and had more to do than with just "War ons"?

My comments gave just a tiny peek at the "violent rhetoric" coming from the other "ideological platform", including the leftist in the WH.

We're not going to sit quietly by anymore while we are maligned and impugned by leftists.
frajo
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2011
Glenn Beck: "You're Going To Have To Shoot Them In The Head".
mediamatters.org/mmtv/201101220005
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (17) Jan 25, 2011
I still maintain that we see a lot of violent rhetoric coming mostly from one side of the spectrum, though

And that must be the socialist/'progressives' as they are on record for the murder of millions of people in the last 100 years, and are still committing violence.
And that is inherent in their philosophy of coercion. Govt IS force, pure and simple.
Which party(s)in the USA want to expand the use of force (govt)? D and some Rs.
Independents, libertarians and others have banded together in grass roots organizations to limit the power of the state. To advocate for LESS violence. But of course, the 'progressives' don't want to loose power and immediately take any opportunity to lie accusing others of what they are doing.
Yes, we know which side of of the political spectrum supports and spreads violence.
geokstr
1.5 / 5 (15) Jan 25, 2011
Glenn Beck: "You're Going To Have To Shoot Them In The Head".
mediamatters.org/mmtv/201101220005

Wow, frajo, you really thrashed me there.

You managed to find one out of context metaphorical quote from a right winger, a TV pundit, talking about the those on the left calling for violent revolution and what that may come to.

I gave you a whole slew of violent metaphorical examples from the sitting President of the United State, but apparently they're just fine with you:
- "punish your enemies"
- "they bring a knife, we bring a gun"
- "hand to hand combat"
- "get in their faces"
- "hit back twice as hard"
- etc, ad nauseum

Who has more power to incite here, Beck or Barack?

Professor Piven calls for riots to bring down the system, and she's being defended by the left. This is apparently fine with you.

But of course, leftists are permitted to get as violent as they choose.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Jan 25, 2011
But of course, leftists are permitted to get as violent as they choose.

'Progressives' have NO choice but to become violent as they promote the coercive monopoly of force called govt.
Of course the 'progressive' oppose the use of violence to defend individual liberty.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 25, 2011
"Government ought to be as much open to improvement as anything which appertains to man, instead of which it has been monopolized from age to age, by the most ignorant and vicious of the human race. Need we any other proof of their wretched management, than the excess of debts and taxes with which every nation groans, and the quarrels into which they have precipitated the world?" -- Thomas Paine.

Maybe the US Constitution would work if it were followed.
Caliban
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2011
Glenn Beck: "You're Going To Have To Shoot Them In The Head".
mediamatters.org/mmtv/201101220005

Wow, frajo, you really thrashed me there.

You managed to find one out of context metaphorical quote from a right winger, a TV pundit, talking about the those on the left calling for violent revolution and what that may come to.

I gave you a whole slew of violent metaphorical examples from the sitting President of the United State, but apparently they're just fine with you:
- "punish your enemies"
- "they bring a knife, we bring a gun"
- "hand to hand combat"
- "get in their faces"
- "hit back twice as hard"
- etc, ad nauseum

Who has more power to incite here, Beck or Barack?


Since Glen Beck is on television and radio daily(minus most weekends) then the answer is Obviously Glen Beck. Are you one of his most ardent supporters?
RoninNJ
5 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2011
Violent games not to blame for youth aggression: new study
December 14, 2010

But...Violent Political Speech is.

This study is full of it, and look at the last paragraph...

Although the studies showed that violent political language had strong effects on violent attitudes, they did not test whether violent behavior was more likely. Even so, violent attitudes are a worrisome sign of incivility in politics, Kalmoe said.

This study proves nothing.
Caliban
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2011
"Government ought to be as much open to improvement as anything which appertains to man, instead of which it has been monopolized from age to age, by the most ignorant and vicious of the human race. Need we any other proof of their wretched management, than the excess of debts and taxes with which every nation groans, and the quarrels into which they have precipitated the world?" -- Thomas Paine.

Maybe the US Constitution would work if it were followed.


The pertinent section of that out-of-context quote from THom Paine is this bit here:

"it has been monopolized from age to age, by the most ignorant and vicious of the human race."

Which refers not to "the People" but to a very distinct minority- that of the wealthy and powerful, who coopt the functioning of government to serve their profit-seeking, and shift the costs of their parasitism onto the general populace in the form of exhorbitant taxes, reduced services depressed wages, and loss of individual rights.

frajo
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2011
Professor Piven calls for riots to bring down the system, and she's being defended by the left. This is apparently fine with you.
Your reasoning processor is broken.
gmurphy
4 / 5 (12) Jan 26, 2011
Quickly scanning these comments, the only people to repeatedly use the polarizing terms for political perspectives are geokstr and ryggesogn, who both make repeated references to "leftists" and "progressives", here's the wake-up call guys, it's not the 1950s anymore and there's more to the world than what Fox news shows you. Try developing a sense of humor, it helps :-P
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Jan 26, 2011
here's the wake-up call guys, it's not the 1950s anymore

But socialism persists.
BTW gmurphy, do think 'leftist' and 'progressive' are derogatory? If you are one of those, stand up, be proud.
Shift the costs of their parasitism onto the general populace in the form of exhorbitant taxes, reduced services depressed wages, and loss of individual rights.

Sounds like the govt, rent seekers and unions today.
ennui27
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 26, 2011
Hummmm trying to think of a time when the two most obvious commentators used violent imagery .... Maddow or Obermann .... NOPE - neither can compair to Beck or Limbaugh.

(Obermann did use some violent language once, and I got tired of his apologizing for it.)
jscroft
2.9 / 5 (7) Jan 26, 2011
Instead of arguing about who uses more violent metaphor, how about questioning the stupid PREMISE?

The tiny minority of people who REALLY care about the use of violent metaphor ought to consider getting outdoors more often.

Of the rest, one side (the Left) is feigning outrage in order to get the other side (the Right) to shut up. One wishes the Right would do a whole lot less tacit acceptance of a ridiculous premise and a whole lot more pointing and laughing at the stupid clowns who are advancing it.
Claudius
1.2 / 5 (13) Jan 26, 2011
Has anyone noticed there are more and more of these kind of articles in the media, that seem to have the intent to show that freedom of speech, etc. are sources of violence? The Constitution of the USA is in tatters and no one seems to notice these assaults.

And while the article complains of violence, it does not address the real issues pertaining to violence. While we have "gangs" of police roaming the country performing violent assault and murder and routinely getting away with it. In one recent case a "gang" of militarized police stopped a man for making an illegal left turn and when he would not allow a search of his car without a warrant, was beaten to a bloody pulp. The police department did nothing to the gang that performed the violence. This is just one of many examples that are becoming a routine part of our culture.

Claudius
1.2 / 5 (13) Jan 26, 2011
And yet, in response, the only comments I see here have to do with blaming one political party or the other, when the truth is that both political parties serve the same masters. Just different wings of the same bird of prey.

Who inspires this brutal and illegal behavior by those who are supposed to protect us and defend our rights? Is it talk radio? Is it the corrupt court system? Is it the "government" itself? Should our freedom of speech be lost because the media, that serves this out of control illegal system implies talk radio is the cause of violence?

Better to complain of the endless wars of aggression our "government" wage in the name of protecting us, resulting in the deaths of millions of innocents across the world.

When are people going to wake up to where the real violence is, and where it is coming from?
geokstr
1.1 / 5 (13) Jan 26, 2011
Since Glen Beck is on television and radio daily(minus most weekends) then the answer is Obviously Glen Beck. Are you one of his most ardent supporters?

This president has been omnipresent on TV since before he was elected. He has the bully pulpit with the loudest megaphone. His every word is amplified a thousand fold by an adoring media. His hardcore base of leftists and radicals have a history replete with violence, from attacking the right on campuses, to G8 protests, to PETA burning down labs, to SEIU/ACORN thugs, to profs like Piven advocating rioting, and on and on.

Who does Beck have? Little old ladies, ordinary citizens who read the constitution and think the government is too powerful, and Tea Partiers, who you and the leg-tingled media lie about and call racists for no reason except that they disagree with you.

And no, I don't watch Beck, don't care for his style. But he's waking up a lot of of people.

Socialism is dead (oops, violent metaphor, my bad.)
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Jan 26, 2011
When are people going to wake up to where the real violence is, and where it is coming from?

Like it not, we DO have two major parties. Therefore, if you do want to affect change, it must be done through the parties.
That process was started last NOV.
If you want to keep the process going, keep electing Republicans that want to limit the size and scope of the govt. What D wants to do that? Then both parties are NOT the same.
Are there Rs who want more govt power? Yes. They need to be voted out as was attempted in Delaware.

Examples of a pacifistic democrat:

"Any Congressional Bastard – yeah, that’s you Ryan, until you change your evil ways – that is proposing to get rid of Social Security, or of Medicare, needs a date with Madamoiselle G-.

You know, the lady with the blade…"
http:/theattackmachine.wordpress.com/
Caliban
4 / 5 (8) Jan 27, 2011
This president has been omnipresent on TV since before he was elected. He has the bully pulpit with the loudest megaphone. [...] to PETA burning down labs, to SEIU/ACORN thugs, to profs like Piven advocating rioting, and on and on.

Who does Beck have? Little old ladies, ordinary citizens who read the constitution and think the government is too powerful, and Tea Partiers, who you and the leg-tingled media lie about and call racists for no reason except that they disagree with you.

And no, I don't watch Beck, don't care for his style. But he's waking up a lot of of people.

Socialism is dead (oops, violent metaphor, my bad).


Yikes!
It appears that you have become totally detached from reality! You'd better get to a doctor for some help -seriously- before you hurt(oops- violent metaphor- my bad.) yourself!

geokstr
1 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2011
Go back to your PlaySkool game and leave the adults be, Callie.
Modernmystic
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 27, 2011
So you're really going to get into a pissing contest over who uses these terms more often rather than admitting that BOTH sides do...quite often...

Fucking sheep...
Moebius
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2011
I'm a middle of the road kind of guy, I think the far left AND the far right should be [fill in violent term], [fill in violent term] and [fill in violent term], not necessarily in that order.

How many people here can name all the horrible things that Saddam Hussein did? We all know he did a lot and have heard about many but can you name them? No. That is the way the human mind works, you hear these things and you form an opinion over time even if you can't remember the specific reasons. The same goes for violent rhetoric. No single thing causes someone to become violent and they won't be able to tell you one but that's how they become from hearing and seeing these things. Did Palin's idiotic crosshairs over Gifford (surveyor symbols according to her, yeah right) cause her to be shot? Not by itself but it has helped put a violent image in many peoples minds by the same principle that we know Saddam deserved to be hanged. It all adds up.
geokstr
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 27, 2011
Did Palin's idiotic crosshairs over Gifford

Oh, you mean like those idiotic target maps that Bob Beckel claims to have invented, or that the DNC used on their website in 2004, long before anybody even heard of Palin's uterus, or that are ubiquitously found in everyone's campaign rhetoric?

Implied blame of Palin for Gifford's shooting noted, despite all the evidence that if Loughner was anything, he was just another crazy leftist.

Middle of the road, my foot. Disgusting, and insufferable to the last.
Claudius
2.8 / 5 (18) Jan 27, 2011

How many people here can name all the horrible things that Saddam Hussein did?


Oh, the Saddam Hussein that we (or the CIA) put into power in a coup? The one we supplied with weapons of mass destruction and encouraged to attack Iran with 1,000,000 casualties? The one we gave the go-ahead to attack Kuwait? The one we blamed for 9/11 who we now know had nothing to do with it? The one we accused of non-compliance with disarmament even though the UN inspectors said he had completely complied? The one we launched an unjustified war of aggression against that has probably killed close to 1,000,0000 civilians and probably more with the use of depleted uranium?

If you are looking for violence, look at the acts of the US government that has promoted and instigated unbelievable violence across the world for the last 60 or so years.

In the meantime, don't tell me we need to restrict freedom of speech because a lunatic shot somebody.

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (52) Jan 27, 2011
all the horrible things that Saddam Hussein did...can you name them? No.
Sure. Gassed the kurds, drove off the marsh arabs, drained their marshes and burned their villages, persecuted everybody, killed lots, iran war which killed 1 million++ and got nowhere, invaded kuwait with the most dangerous WMD in the middle east at the time: his military... He said he invaded because his army was getting to be a problem, which we conveniently solved for him. And us.
That is the way the human mind works
Maybe yours. Our occupation of iraq and afghanistan were strategic in response to developments across the region and the threat of an emergent arab empire.
Oh, the Saddam Hussein that we (or the CIA) put into power in a coup?
Japan was our enemy, now our friend. russia was our friend, then our enemy, now our friend etc etc. Vietnam is our best buddy. Whats your point?
the US government... unbelievable violence
And you think it was unjustified? You are naive.
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (16) Jan 27, 2011
Our occupation of iraq and afghanistan were strategic in response to developments across the region and the threat of an emergent arab empire.


Yes, the development was that the Afghani's were preventing an oil pipeline from being routed through their country. And Iraq was in a nice strategic location, in addition to being on an oil field.

Japan was our enemy, now our friend. russia was our friend, then our enemy, now our friend etc etc. Vietnam is our best buddy. Whats your point?


We deliberately provoked Japan into attacking us, and staged the Pearl Harbor attack to look as if it were a surprise. Wall Street financed the Russian revolution and started the Cold War. After WWII, the US government shipped an enormous amount of leftover arms to Ho Chi Minh and provoked a war with the south. The point is, with friends like the US Govt., who needs enemies!
Claudius
1.6 / 5 (14) Jan 27, 2011
Oh, and in addition, when Pres. Kennedy tried to stop the Cold War he was assassinated by the very people who are running things today. Who you so admire.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (47) Jan 27, 2011
Yes, the development was that the Afghani's were preventing an oil pipeline from being routed through their country. And Iraq was in a nice strategic location, in addition to being on an oil field.
If you look at the bigger picture and set aside the populist spin for a moment... To the east is pakistan. To the west is syria. In between are numerous obsolete cultures whose more militant factions have been threatening to reestablish the caliphate and a new islamist empire.

Before we got there, there was nothing to prevent hordes of disaffected youth from swarming east to join the fight to defeat india in kashmir, overthrow the weak pakistani govt, head north into the balkans, west into israel, etc etc.

You may think oil = greed but the threat to ALL middle eastern supplies is very real, and we cannot let a radical new empire destroy the west now can we?

The allies have neatly compartmentalized the region by occupying afghanistan and iraq. Islamism is contained- for now.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (49) Jan 27, 2011
We deliberately provoked Japan into attacking us, and staged the Pearl Harbor attack to look as if it were a surprise.
Amateur. The Leadership of all major countries are on the SAME SIDE. The people they rule are their sworn enemy.
with friends like the US Govt., who needs enemies!
Exactly. The most useful, most dependable enemies you can have are the Ones you establish yourself.
Oh, and in addition, when Pres. Kennedy tried to stop the Cold War he was assassinated
Yah. The ones who would be eating their gobs of money while the world collapsed around them? The kennedys were most likely naive rogues who thought they were a force unto themselves, and earnestly wanted to end communism in cuba.

Communism was established there to invoke martial law and reduce the population growth on that small catholic island. The kennedys were killed because they thought they knew better than their Bosses, the ones who put castro in power to begin with. What else do you think you know?
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (16) Jan 27, 2011
You may think oil = greed but the threat to ALL middle eastern supplies is very real, and we cannot let a radical new empire destroy the west now can we?

The allies have neatly compartmentalized the region by occupying afghanistan and iraq. Islamism is contained- for now.


If you have no problem with invading and occupying countries just because there is some advantage to be gained, there isn't much left to say. What's next, and invasion of Mexico? It has vast natural resources, after all. Perhaps we should attack the Vatican, it has a lot of riches and could help pay for our other wars of aggression.

We should be ashamed of this. Everyone seems to be asleep. We waste our time arguing over whether a gunman was motivated by the right or the left and discussing whether freedom of speech is a good idea or not. It is disgusting.

ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (15) Jan 27, 2011
just because there is some advantage to be gained,

Depends upon the advantage. If that advantage is national security, it is not a bad idea.
The USA and the allies learned that lesson the hard way after WWI. That's why US forces are still in Germany, Japan and Korea.
One reason the USA supported Saddam Husein for a time was because of the cold war and Iran. After Iran attacked the USA in '79, a natural counter was Iraq.
The end of cold war also inspired Iraq to attack and enabled the USA and a ebullition to attack Iraq.
How many millions more died because Iraq was not defeated?
Caliban
4 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2011
Go back to your PlaySkool game and leave the adults be, Callie.


Didn't I warn you earlier of how impolite it is to speak with your mouth full?
You could at least SWALLOW before you speak, and then maybe people could understand what you are trying to say. Or not.

ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 27, 2011
That is the way the human mind works, you hear these things and you form an opinion over time even if you can't remember the specific reasons

That's why people learned how to write, so they would not forget the past.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (50) Jan 28, 2011
If you have no problem with invading and occupying countries just because there is some advantage to be gained
Advantage. It is a matter of SURVIVAL and the prevention of economic collapse and the DEATHS of millions, caused by people who want only to do these things to us so they can force their religion upon us. You would roll over and die rather than fight to protect your family and countrymen.
We should be ashamed of this.
YOU should be ashamed of this.
attack the Vatican
This is a different subject and not a bad idea at all.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Jan 28, 2011
If the Suez canal is shut down by radical Muslims, how many will support the invading and occupying the Suez Canal to keep vital products moving to Europe?
Claudius
2.9 / 5 (17) Jan 28, 2011
Depends upon the advantage. If that advantage is national security, it is not a bad idea.


This is the same logic the ancient Romans used to expand their empire. They were always being "threatened" by their neighbors. And of course, once they conquered their threatening neighbors, they had new ones who they felt were threatening. And once they had a conquered territory under their control, they sent Romans to "govern", which was really a euphamism for squeezing the wealth of the area dry and sending it back to Rome.

If expanding the American empire by any means is your goal, national security is the best excuse. The Nazi's used it, too.

YOU should be ashamed of this.


I am. Every patriotic American should be. We slaughter millions and don't even notice.
Claudius
2.8 / 5 (17) Jan 28, 2011
It is a matter of SURVIVAL and the prevention of economic collapse and the DEATHS of millions, caused by people who want only to do these things to us so they can force their religion upon us. You would roll over and die rather than fight to protect your family and countrymen.


If you want to prevent economic collapse, it is not necessary to invade other countries to do it. Just get rid of the off-shore banking cartel which is creating economic chaos across the globe.

Before we started attacking them and killing them in the millions, there was no threat from the Muslims. I am old enough to remember a time when the Muslims were regarded in friendly terms and lived in peace with the rest of the world. If you stir up a nest of fire ants, don't be surprised if you get stung.

The idea that the political situation in the Mideast is due to their desire to force their religion on us is so ridiculous it is hard to come up with a strong enough term to ridicule it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (50) Jan 28, 2011
This is the same logic the ancient Romans used to expand their empire. They were always being "threatened" by their neighbors. And of course, once they conquered their threatening neighbors, they had new ones who they felt were threatening. And once they had a conquered territory under their control, they sent Romans to "govern", which was really a euphamism for squeezing the wealth of the area dry and sending it back to Rome.
And had they not done this, someone in those neighboring regions would have done it to them. That is the nature of population growth. As it was, Rome lasted for 1000 years. They had no choice but to wage aggressive defense, and were able to sustain a thriving, stable culture which was of unparalleled benefit to the world then and now.
I am. Every patriotic American should be. We slaughter millions and don't even notice.
No, I meant you should be ashamed of your cowardice.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 28, 2011
The US is not good at empire building.

If it were, there would be no problems in the middle east as Iraq would now be a US colony along with Germany, Japan, Korea, Philippines, .....

Puerto Rico has had many opportunities to leave the US and has chosen not to.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (51) Jan 28, 2011
Before we started attacking them and killing them in the millions, there was no threat from the Muslims. I am old enough to remember a time when the Muslims were regarded in friendly terms and lived in peace with the rest of the world.
But not to want to understand WHY they are a threat now, but instead to blame your own country for it? Moslems were emerging from the ottoman empire, a ruthless regime which had kept their numbers in check by centuries of imposed hardship and warfare. The west freed them from that. Their populations are now exploding and their families are starting to starve, giving rise to the kind of radicalism which wants to create an islamist caliphate and empire, and conquer the world with it.

And 'patriots' like yourself want to blame your own country for this, and withdraw until this enemy lands on our shores? You want to hate something, go look in a mirror. Hate the thing you see.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (49) Jan 28, 2011
The idea that the political situation in the Mideast is due to their desire to force their religion on us is so ridiculous it is hard to come up with a strong enough term to ridicule it.
You like to invoke nazis? Watch modern day nazis and hear what they want, in no uncertain terms:
http
://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIoFiDE2awM
http
://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8b3vhTO248&feature=related
http
://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuslxJFpBuU

-They want to CONQUER you, take what you have, and FORCE you to convert or die. Hundreds of examples, in writing, interviews, and by their actions. In case you dont know, Ahmadinijad controls the largest army in the middle east? His forebear the Ayotollah peomised the exact same thing. You want to fight them in your backyard perhaps? No. you do not want to fight at all.
Claudius
2.5 / 5 (15) Jan 28, 2011
Thomas Jefferson:

"Conquest is not in our principles. It is inconsistent with our government."

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

"I abhor war and view it as the greatest scourge of mankind."

"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

We have gone from being a country that extolled and defended liberty to one that defends and justifies aggression and tyranny. America is rapidly becoming an Orwellian police state with unjustified foreign wars as a justification. We have forgotten who we are. The whole world is in fear of us, and rightly so.

Claudius
2.8 / 5 (16) Jan 28, 2011
They want to CONQUER you, take what you have, and FORCE you to convert or die. ... No. you do not want to fight at all.


Hermann Goering:

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (13) Jan 28, 2011
So Claudius, do you wait until a nuke kills thousands or millions in a US city to tell people they are under attack?
Before WWI, mobilizing an army was considered an act of war.
Now millions of people on the earth are 30 minutes away from being incinerated.
So yes, we had better act as if we are under attack if we don't want to BE attacked.
I wonder how the weakness of the USA contributed to the current situation in Tunisia and Egypt and ....?
Carter inspired USSR invasion of Afghanistan and Iran's attack on the US Embassy.
If Britain and the US had not praised Hitler and Mussolini and if they would have formerly defended China from Japanese invasion, maybe WWII not have happened.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (52) Jan 28, 2011
"Conquest is not in our principles. It is inconsistent with our government."
But, as attested to by many sources, it is a primary principle of our new enemy. The constitution provides for the common defense. 'Attack is the best defense.' -some German. And sometimes it is the ONLY OPTION.

Nazis- their main purpose was to provide applicable quotes for any occasion. No wait, that was Nietzsche. Give me a minute...
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (49) Jan 28, 2011
This'll have to do...
"
We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analysing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. I cannot believe that such a programme would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with the dictators." -Neville Chamberlain before the war
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Jan 28, 2011
"We, the German Führer and Chancellor, and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for two countries and for Europe.

"We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again. "
"My good friends this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honor. I believe it is peace in our time."
http:/www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1938PEACE.html

6 months later Germany invades Czechoslovakia.
frajo
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 29, 2011
Now millions of people on the earth are 30 minutes away from being incinerated.
Yes.
So yes, we had better act as if we are under attack if we don't want to BE attacked.
Who is "we"?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2011
Who is "we"?

Those who do not want to invite attack.
Claudius
2.5 / 5 (16) Jan 29, 2011
6 months later Germany invades Czechoslovakia.


And who financed Hitler's rise to power? Western financial oligarchs, including Wall Street. Who continued to profit from a relationship with the Nazis during WWII? Prescott Bush's Union Banking Corporation.

Wars are ARRANGED, they don't happen by accident, and the arrangers are usually the bankers who profit from both sides of the war.

And once a war is arranged, it is a simple matter to "denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."

"I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket." - USMC Major General Smedley Butler "War is a Racket"
Claudius
2.9 / 5 (17) Jan 29, 2011
So yes, we had better act as if we are under attack if we don't want to BE attacked.


What a wonder philosophy. The do unto others before they do unto you. And if there isn't enough evidence to justify the attack, just "fix the intelligence and facts around the policy" (Downing Street Memo.)

I wonder how the weakness of the USA contributed to the current situation in Tunisia and Egypt and ....?


Let's see, they were OUR puppets, WE propped up the dictators in those countries who have driven the people into revolt by their oppressive use of power. Was it our weakness that contributed to the situation? Or our general policy of supporting dictators?

Carter inspired ... Iran's attack on the US Embassy.


Ditto about propping up dictators.
Claudius
2.9 / 5 (17) Jan 29, 2011
"Conquest is not in our principles. It is inconsistent with our government."
But, as attested to by many sources, it is a primary principle of our new enemy. The constitution provides for the common defense. 'Attack is the best defense.' -some German. And sometimes it is the ONLY OPTION.


And when Thomas Jefferson wrote the above, our enemy was an Empire that had conquest as its primary principle.

Thomas Jefferson and his generation understood that if we behaved like our enemies, we would be no better than them. America had high principles then, which we have forgotten. We have become the empire builders, the oppressors of the modern world. We have become them, and in the process have lost our liberty.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (13) Jan 29, 2011
The US had high principles prior to WWII.
The defeat of Germany in WWI and the treaty of Versailles lead directly to WWII.
The US did nothing about the Japaneses or the rise of the NAZIs or the rise of the Soviets.
BTW, Jefferson ordered the attack on the Barbary Pirates.
The lesson learned from WWII is the US must be engaged in the world or the next war will be unacceptable.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (16) Jan 29, 2011
The US did nothing about the Japaneses or the rise of the NAZIs or the rise of the Soviets.


We deliberately provoked Japan into an attack. The plans are public now. We had broken the Japanese codes years before, and knew all about their attack while it was being planned. We withheld this information from the commanders in Hawaii to make it seem like a surprise attack.

As far as doing nothing about the Nazis and Soviets, we (Wall Street) financed both their rises to power.

The lesson learned from WWII is the US must be engaged in the world or the next war will be unacceptable.


The lesson is that we shouldn't prop up dictators just so we can knock them down again when it suits us. We shouldn't terrorize other countries to the point that they have no other recourse but to fight back.

And we shouldn't use all this as an excuse to destroy the Constitution.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (15) Jan 29, 2011
BTW, Jefferson ordered the attack on the Barbary Pirates


It was a declared war, not an attack, and in response to attacks and demands of tribute from the Barbary Pirates. Not the same as a war of aggression, it was a defensive war.
frajo
4 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2011
Now millions of people on the earth are 30 minutes away from being incinerated.
Yes.
So yes, we had better act as if we are under attack if we don't want to BE attacked.
Who is "we"?
Those who do not want to invite attack.

Didn't know you are Chinese.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (49) Jan 29, 2011
Who is "we"?
I don't know, Russians perhaps? You next maybe? Are you going to just sit there and wait, or hope that somebody does something to protect you?

"(CNN) -- The man who detonated a bomb at Domodedovo Airport in Moscow on Monday, killing 35 people, was a 20-year-old from the North Caucasus, the Russian Investigative Committee said Saturday.
The agency did not name the man and no further information about the investigation was immediately available.
Although there has been no claim of responsibility for the bombing, suspicion has centered on the North Caucasus, where a jihadist insurgency has been fighting to establish an Islamic emirate."

-Might make sense to actually go after these people before they have a chance to strike again, wouldnt it? And if they happen to be a country, somebody might have to invade. You know before you yourself get blown up. Macht Sinn? Claudius would blame this on the US and say we should just shoot ourselves in the head.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2011
frajo, are you saying the Chinese are inviting attack?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 29, 2011
frajo, are you saying the Chinese are inviting attack?

No, I think he's saying you're a paranoid imperialist.

And I think he's correct.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Jan 29, 2011
frajo, are you saying the Chinese are inviting attack?

No, I think he's saying you're a paranoid imperialist.

And I think he's correct.

How is the USA taking over the world?
Maybe SH and frajo prefer the socialist style of China.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2011
How is the USA taking over the world?
Maybe SH and frajo prefer the socialist style of China.
I'm sure you prefer socialism.

As to how is the USA taking over the world, if you can't recognize the imperialism of the US, which you even spoke of above, then you are most certainly an imperialist. Your irrational fear of other cultures and countries proves the paranoia.

Do you prefer baseball or football, Marjon? Why? This is a serious question.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2011
Watching most sports puts me to sleep.
I did enjoy watching the Rugby world cup in the late 90s.
I have no fear of other cultures.
I lived in Jeddah for a few years and experienced many cultures as Jeddah is an international city. I lived in Finland a few months, visited a few SE Asian countries.
I used to go diving in San Carlos, Sonora. The only time I would get nervous is when we had to stop at a roadblock. Men in black uniforms with M-16s was a bit unsettling.
It was also very uncomfortable returning to Jeddah and passing through customs. The capricious power these govt agents had was unsettling.
Even the few days spent in Leningrad were ok, except when one had to deal with the local govt agents.
Note the common thread?
So how is the USA imposing its power on the world? I see the USA trying to help people shake off tyrannical govts, except now as BHO embraces socialism. As SH likes govt, I'm not surprised he can't see that.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.1 / 5 (7) Jan 29, 2011
So how is the USA imposing its power on the world? I see the USA trying to help people shake off tyrannical govts, except now as BHO embraces socialism. As SH likes govt, I'm not surprised he can't see that.
As usual, you buy into the propaganda and ignore the fact.

The majority of Americans prefer watching football to baseball, which is hilarious. Football is socialist. They split all television revenue equally, which creates more equal competition and a more exciting sport to watch. Also provides higher salaries and a more level playing field. Few people like watching baseball because a team can "buy" the win through having 40x the payroll. Want to deny it? Tell me the last time the Pittsburgh Pirates appeared in a world series final game.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2011
Baseball has a monopoly granted by congress.
The MLB and NFL are businesses that provide entertainment. If people stop watching, stop attending games, they loose money. It makes good business sense to encourage a wide dispersion of talent among the teams to put on a good show.
Some baseball teams do quite well with little money due to quality management. The Twins are one team and the Rangers and Rays are examples as well. The Red Sox have deep pockets, but they also have quality management into the minors.
It's all a game and MLB needs to work out ways to keep the game competitive or loose the smaller markets.
See how effective MLBs anti-trust exemption is?
Claudius
2.6 / 5 (17) Jan 29, 2011
Claudius would blame this on the US and say we should just shoot ourselves in the head.


Only someone with blinders on could maintain that the U.S. represents a force for good in the world anymore. There are already checkpoints at our airports and soon to be at train stations, sporting events, shopping malls, on the highways. I visited the Soviet Union in 1984 and can say that there was more freedom of movement there at that time than there is here in this country.

Claudius
2.8 / 5 (16) Jan 29, 2011
We no longer have the protection of the Bill of Rights. No right to privacy exists and our telephone and internet communications are routinely monitored. The government can order the execution of any American it regards as a possible threat without due process of law. Now the talk is all about how freedom of speech needs to be curtailed. Citizens are being urged to spy on one another and a bill is being introduced to protect those who rat on their neighbors. It is worse than East Germany used to be.

I can remember what life used to be like here, and I don't like what has been done to my country during my life, especially in the last 10 years.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2011
I can remember what life used to be like here, and I don't like what has been done to my country during my life, especially in the last 10 years.

And why is that?
During the Clinton administration, how many times was the USA attacked and what did Clinton do about it?
Somalia: ran away
Al Kobar: nothing
Two US emabassies in Africa attacked: nothing
USS Cole: nothing.
Weakness invites attack.
Did you notice that border patrol stopped a radical Muslim from being smuggled into the USA?
http:/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1351385/Controversial-Muslim-cleric-caught-smuggled-U-S-Mexico-border.html
Worse than E. Germany? I watched the 'Lives of Other People'. Its not worse than that.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 29, 2011
Violent political rhetoric in the US is born of total ignorance.

End of story.

Those among Americans who'd call for any violence or revolution would do well to see what is going on in Egypt and Tunisia. There is no difference in economic opinion that outweighs what you can see occuring today.

Grow up, Marjon.

htp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThvBJMzmSZI
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2011
There is no difference in economic opinion that outweighs what you can see occuring today.
That's what motivated the protests, differences in economic 'opinion'.
When govt becomes tyrannical, as it is now becoming under our current regime, preventing people from engaging in free trade and not protecting property rights.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (53) Jan 29, 2011
I visited the Soviet Union in 1984 and can say that there was more freedom of movement there at that time than there is here in this country.
Right. A long time ago in a different world. Soviet martial law has been ended and now islamists can set bombs off in airports. Freedom is necessarily in inverse proportion to security.
Only someone with blinders on could maintain that the U.S. represents a force for good in the world anymore.
No, but only an idiot who lives in the past would fail to see that the world has never been more dangerous than it is today.

Isolationists are always quickly silenced by events of sufficient magnitude, when the Time is right. Which would be any day now.

Incidently I'm wondering what is the difference between attacking 'pirates' in their own ocean to end 'tribute', and attacking enemies in their homeland for attacking us in ours? Or strangling our vital oil supply? (answer- no difference) We were in THEIR ocean, not ours.
geokstr
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 29, 2011
Only someone with blinders on could maintain that the U.S. represents a force for good in the world anymore. There are already checkpoints at our airports and soon to be at train stations, sporting events, shopping malls, on the highways.

And only someone ideologically tone-deaf would make this ridiculous statement. The Soviet Union was worried about insurgency from within, not without. Our freedom and tolerance and civil rights are exactly what makes us vulnerable to fundamentalist Islam.

And you're saying we're not a force for good anymore because religious whackjobs want to attack us? Great logic.
geokstr
1.3 / 5 (13) Jan 29, 2011
The government can order the execution of any American it regards as a possible threat without due process of law.

Oh, you mean that traitorous al-Awlaki? He can forestall all that by simply turning himself over the the US for trial. Can you name all those other Americans the US has ordered killed without DP?
Now the talk is all about how freedom of speech needs to be curtailed.

And look which side of the ideological spectrum all that talk is coming from - the left - even while they spew what they consider "hate speech" against those on the right, were they ever to dare to talk like leftists.
Citizens are being urged to spy on one another and a bill is being introduced to protect those who rat on their neighbors. It is worse than East Germany used to be.

Cite please? Who is doing this "urging"? Do you mean that "moderate" Muslims are being asked to inform on violent radicals before they can blow something up? Gosh, how terrible.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (50) Jan 29, 2011
We no longer have the protection of the Bill of Rights.
We most certainly do.
No right to privacy exists
Yes it does- its in the constitution.
and our telephone and internet communications are routinely monitored.
No theyre not.
The government can order the execution of any American it regards as a possible threat without due process of law.
No it cant. I think you think youre living in iran or saudi arabia.
a bill is being introduced to protect those who rat on their neighbors.
This is NOT 1984, either the book or that quaint time period you seem to be living in. The good old days.

Did you know that germany had systematically implanted spies in all major US industries so that, by the time we entered ww2, it had plans and specs for all our weapons systems? This was able to happen because of the complacency of people like you.

'Fear the next generation' is what Hamas tells israel. 60% of gazans are below age 15. The whole WORLD needs to fear islamism.
Claudius
2.5 / 5 (18) Jan 29, 2011
And why is that?
During the Clinton administration,...


Nothing excuses the dismantling of the Bill of Rights.

Worse than E. Germany? I watched the 'Lives of Other People'. Its not worse than that.


I've been in the Soviet Union, and know better than to trust what is shown on the TV.

Haven't you noticed the "if you see something, say something" campaign? The law that will protect citizen spies? The eavesdropping on all communications? Peek and Sneak? The end of posse comitatus and the militarization of the police? The statement by the government that it can assassinate anyone it chooses?

What more do you need? Gulags? Concentration camps?

Claudius
2.3 / 5 (17) Jan 29, 2011
Incidently I'm wondering what is the difference between attacking 'pirates' in their own ocean to end 'tribute', and attacking enemies in their homeland for attacking us in ours? Or strangling our vital oil supply? (answer- no difference) We were in THEIR ocean, not ours.


I haven't noticed any attacks in our heimat (sorry, homeland) from any foreign power at all. What are you referring to?

As for strangling oil supplies, we have for some reason decided not to build any new refineries in a long time, and have more than ample reserves without having to depend on foreign oil.
Claudius
2.6 / 5 (17) Jan 29, 2011
And only someone ideologically tone-deaf would make this ridiculous statement. The Soviet Union was worried about insurgency from within, not without. Our freedom and tolerance and civil rights are exactly what makes us vulnerable to fundamentalist Islam.

And you're saying we're not a force for good anymore because religious whackjobs want to attack us? Great logic.


Then why is all the security in this new regime aimed at U.S. citizens. Why are we being humiliated at the airports, being spied upon by our own security forces, and subject to arbitrary assassination?
frajo
5 / 5 (5) Jan 29, 2011
Worse than E. Germany? I watched the 'Lives of Other People'. Its not worse than that.
He - please don't tell me who - takes Western TV movies for reality? My goodness, then the GDR politicians whom I never believed in my childhood that US Americans believe everything they see on TV were right after all?
I've been in the Soviet Union, and know better than to trust what is shown on the TV.
You are completely right. I've been living on both sides of the iron curtain.
Claudius
2.6 / 5 (18) Jan 29, 2011
Citizens are being urged to spy on one another and a bill is being introduced to protect those who rat on their neighbors. It is worse than East Germany used to be.

Cite please? Who is doing this "urging"? Do you mean that "moderate" Muslims are being asked to inform on violent radicals before they can blow something up? Gosh, how terrible.


Look up Infraguard. Then reference the "If you see something, say something" campaign. Reference the proposed bill: "A top US lawmaker unveiled legislation on Wednesday to protect individuals who tip off authorities to potential extremist threats from lawsuits, in the event that they turn out to finger innocents."

"House Homeland Security Chairman Pete King introduced the "See Something, Say Something Act" as a shield for those "acting in good faith" and with "objectively reasonable suspicion" that a plot may be unfolding."
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 29, 2011
It was "Das Leben der Anderen"

Nothing excuses the dismantling of the Bill of Rights.

I'm ok with that if that means no more federal banning of religion, no restrictions on firearms, no more federal govt regulations that take people's property rights to save a salamander, and that state's rights are fully protected and enforced. That would include homosexual marriage and abortion, all states rights issues.
I would also expect the federal govt to follow the rest of the constitution providing national security on the borders and where ever US security is threatened. Just as Jefferson did with the Barbary Pirates.
The US should follow BHOs advice, bring a gun to a knife fight. So for example, the US should have declare war on Iran and attacked until they surrendered for attacking the US embassy.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2011
For SH, the real socialism in US sports is sponsored by the NCAA. Universities are mostly govt funded. Players are not paid, yet generate significant income for the schools.
The NFL is a business. As a business, they can decide how to best create revenue.
Claudius
2.8 / 5 (18) Jan 29, 2011
No right to privacy exists
Yes it does- its in the constitution.

"The misnamed Protect America Act allows the US government to monitor telephone calls and other electronic communications of American citizens without a warrant. This clearly violates the Fourth Amendment." -Ron Paul
and our telephone and internet communications are routinely monitored.
No theyre not.

"Mark Klein, a retired AT&T communications technician, submitted an affidavit in support of the EFF's lawsuit this week. That class action lawsuit, filed in federal court in San Francisco last January, alleges that AT&T violated federal and state laws by surreptitiously allowing the government to monitor phone and internet communications of AT&T customers without warrants." Wired News 7 April 2006
Claudius
2.4 / 5 (17) Jan 29, 2011
The government can order the execution ...
No it cant. I think you think youre living in iran or saudi arabia.

"I wrote at length about the extreme dangers and lawlessness of allowing the Executive Branch the power to murder U.S. citizens ... with no due process of any kind. " - Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen - Salon.com 7 April 2007
a bill is being introduced to protect those who rat on their neighbors.
This is NOT 1984, either the book or that quaint time period you seem to be living in. The good old days.

"The Terrorism Information and Prevention System, or TIPS, means the US will have a higher percentage of citizen informants than the former East Germany through the infamous Stasi secret police. The program would use a minimum of 4 per cent of Americans to report "suspicious activity"." Sydney Morning Herald 15 Jul 2002
As for the proposed bill, I referenced it above.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 29, 2011

The US should follow BHOs advice, bring a gun to a knife fight. So for example, the US should have declare war on Iran and attacked until they surrendered for attacking the US embassy.


That was surprising, wasn't it. Imagine what would happen if we allowed the Chinese embassy in Washington to be taken hostage and occupied?
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 29, 2011
Or even better, what would happen if we occupied the North Korean embassy?
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (15) Jan 29, 2011
The government can order the execution of any American it regards as a possible threat without due process of law.

Oh, you mean that traitorous al-Awlaki? He can forestall all that by simply turning himself over the the US for trial. Can you name all those other Americans the US has ordered killed without DP?


Once the precedent that the President can order the murder of anyone he pleases without due process of law has been set, it will be used, even if it hasn't happened yet.

I also have to wonder if this is happening after all, but just in the black. There have been a number of suspicious suicides. Like shooting yourself twice in the head to commit suicide. Like the first shot to the head wasn't enough, you've got to pull the trigger again? I mean, how absurd can you get?
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (15) Jan 29, 2011
Re: Gary Webb suicide

"At 3:55 p.m. Friday afternoon Sacramento Coroner's Investigator Dave Brown determined that the dead man had committed suicide with a hand gun. Dave Brown said that the first wound was not fatal and a second shot took the man's life. Dave Brown further stated, "There is no other possibility but suicide." Spokesmen for the investigative units of three different sheriff's departments contacted stated that suicides seen with two shots to the head inflicted by a hand gun are extremely rare." newsmakingnews.com

On December 10, 2004, he was found dead from two gunshot wounds to the head.[21] Sacramento County coroner Robert Lyons determined that it was suicide. -Wikipedia
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2011
Maybe Webb would not have had a story if Congress had not supported the communists in Nicaragua.
"After embracing Daniel Ortega in front of news cameras, Harkin and Kerry flew back to Washington with a piece of paper signed by Ortega in which he claimed to be “non-aligned” between the U.S. and Soviet Union."
http:/archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11382
geokstr
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 29, 2011
Look up Infraguard.

I looked it up. It supposedly is to help guard against terrorist attacks. And what would you have the ordinary citizen do instead? If they see a couple swarthy gentlemen leave a box at the airport and then run, they should perhaps just go on about their business? Or if a moderate Muslim or even an infidel overhears other swarthy gentlemen talking about how best to perform jihad, they should just shut up about it and move along?

Hell, why don't we just implement sharia, invite Osama bin Laden to run for president, and clitorectomize all the girls 15 and under? That would avoid us having to be vigilant to protect our own freedom and way of life, right?

Are you serious?
geokstr
1 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2011
Then why is all the security in this new regime aimed at U.S. citizens.

Where did it say that this is aimed specifically at "US citizens"? Seems to me it is aimed at people in this country, citizens or not.

If there is going to be a terrorist attack in the US, do you think the act itself is going to be performed by people outside the country? With what - Jihad Mind Control?

But then again, you probably do think that Bush and Cheney personally set up all those "thermate" charges in the Towers so they could have an excuse to invade Iraq for their oil buddies.
geokstr
1 / 5 (7) Jan 29, 2011
No right to privacy exists

Yes it does- its in the constitution.

Sorry, Otto, but it's not. The SCOTUS found it in the streamers and auras and mists emanating from the penumbras of certain selected words and phrases that actually ARE in the constitution, so that they could find the right to kill those precancerous lumps of whatever whenever it was convenient, and void the laws of most of the states in the country to please Betty Friedan and Bella Abzug.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Jan 29, 2011
From Hollywood actor and producer Clint Eastwood:
"How many rights do you want to give to people who are trying to kill you just because you're you? . . . [Y]ou may be of a different religious sect, or you may be an agnostic, or you may be anything. But you're not one of them, so you're an inferior being. . . . Do you fight on 21st-century ideas or 17th-century, like the people who are against you?"
http:/online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703293204576106080298279672.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (49) Jan 29, 2011
No right to privacy exists

Yes it does- its in the constitution.

Sorry, Otto, but it's not. The SCOTUS found it in the streamers and auras and mists emanating from the penumbras of certain selected words and phrases that actually ARE in the constitution, so that they could find the right to kill those precancerous lumps of whatever whenever it was convenient, and void the laws of most of the states in the country to please Betty Friedan and Bella Abzug.
Are you talking about alternative medicine or what -?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (52) Jan 29, 2011
Please quote your entire lame-ass comments please:
The government can order the execution of any American it regards as a possible threat without due process of law.
"I wrote at length about the extreme dangers and lawlessness of allowing the Executive Branch the power to murder U.S. citizens"

-Translation without Salon spin: "The president, by LAW, can order the capture or killing of any operative, foreign or domestic, who is actively engaged in plotting or carrying out terrorist acts which threaten the lives of US citizens." -There. That should make more sense to you, or at least someone who actually cares about the safety of their fellow citizens, not to mention themselves.

We are doing the exact same things, for the exact same reasons, to scads of insurgents, by LAW, at this moment in Iraq and afghannisburg. Doesn't matter where the he'll they come from.
geokstr
1.3 / 5 (12) Jan 29, 2011
Are you talking about alternative medicine or what -?

No, I'm talking about abortion, which is where the "right to privacy" was first found in the "emanations" and "penumbras" by the Supreme Court in other "protections" in the constitution. Even supporters of abortion thought the legal argument used to legalize it was very poorly reasoned.

I apologize but I thought everyone was aware that the "right to privacy" is not in the constitution, and the phrase "emanations from the penumbra" is widely understood as a slightly sarcastic way to say that they made the legal stuff up. Guess I've been hanging around legal blogs too long.
Claudius
2.4 / 5 (17) Jan 29, 2011

-Translation without Salon spin: "The president, by LAW, can order the capture or killing of any operative, foreign or domestic, who is actively engaged in plotting or carrying out terrorist acts which threaten the lives of US citizens." -There. That should make more sense to you, or at least someone who actually cares about the safety of their fellow citizens, not to mention themselves.

Let's see, the President takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. He says he can kill anyone who presents a threat to the U.S. without due process of law. Let's see what the Constitution says about that (the one he is supposed to protect and defend:)

Fifth amendment: No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

Hmmm, where does it say "unless the President thinks someone is a threat?"
Claudius
2.6 / 5 (18) Jan 29, 2011
Are you serious?


About not liking a secret police in the U.S.? Of course.

"There are four steps to banning a person from flying:
It begins with law enforcement and intelligence officials collecting the smallest scraps of intelligence — a tip from a CIA informant or a wiretapped conversation."
-usatoday.com

So usually, an Infraguard agent is going to be a person in authority, a CEO of a corporation, or other such person. He or she has police powers and act as informants to the FBI. They can report anyone they want as being suspicious and get them on the no fly list, or terror watch list. And if you are on one of those lists, you have no appeal, no way of getting yourself off the list. You can't fly, you may lose your right to work, you may lose your right to possess firearms, etc, etc, etc.

You're ok with that, I see.
Claudius
2.8 / 5 (18) Jan 29, 2011

I apologize but I thought everyone was aware that the "right to privacy" is not in the constitution...


Here it is:

Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause ...

Why do I have to keep reminding people about the Constitution? They don't teach it in school anymore?

"The Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper." ??
frajo
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 29, 2011
So for example, the US should have declare war on Iran and attacked until they surrendered for attacking the US embassy.
Should China have declared war on the US and attacked until they surrendered for attacking the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia (and killing several people)?
Or is somebody here demonstrating his skills in using double standards?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Jan 29, 2011
So for example, the US should have declare war on Iran and attacked until they surrendered for attacking the US embassy.
Should China have declared war on the US and attacked until they surrendered for attacking the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia (and killing several people)?
Or is somebody here demonstrating his skills in using double standards?

Was the attack intentional?
Did the Iranians intend to attack the US Embassy?
Claudius
1.8 / 5 (16) Jan 29, 2011

But then again, you probably do think that Bush and Cheney personally set up all those "thermate" charges in the Towers so they could have an excuse to invade Iraq for their oil buddies.


Don't tell me you actually bought the official story. It is to laugh.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (52) Jan 29, 2011

But then again, you probably do think that Bush and Cheney personally set up all those "thermate" charges in the Towers so they could have an excuse to invade Iraq for their oil buddies.


Don't tell me you actually bought the official story. It is to laugh.
O NOES. A conspiracy theorist. Otto hates these guys.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Jan 29, 2011
the President takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States
...from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Say a group are exercising their right to assemble at a place of worship. They legally obtain materials to make bombs and plan to attack civilians. Say some law enforcement officer uncovers this information but cannot obtain a warrant to search or arrest or even wiretap this group.
How would anyone who swore to support and defend the Constitution proceed from all enemies proceed? Do whatever is needed to stop the attack or wait until the a suicide attack that would kill thousands?
Al Queda's attacks against the USA in the 90s were not criminal acts. They were acts of war and all those who aid and abet in the USA are enemies and should be treated as spies and saboteurs.
Claudius
2.5 / 5 (16) Jan 29, 2011
Say some law enforcement officer uncovers this information but cannot obtain a warrant to search or arrest or even wiretap this group.


I can't think of a reason why a police officer could not get a warrant if he has probable cause, in a short period of time. Judges are available 24 hours of the day, I know, my dad was one, and was not infrequently getting awakened at odd hours to sign warrants.

And if probable cause does not exist, there isn't sufficient reason to act. Certainly not to murder.

As soon as we begin taking legal shortcuts, we start down the path to tyranny. Why do you think they wrote the Bill of Rights, after all? To prevent just this sort of abuse.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Jan 29, 2011
Say some law enforcement officer uncovers this information but cannot obtain a warrant to search or arrest or even wiretap this group.


I can't think of a reason why a police officer could not get a warrant if he has probable cause, in a short period of time. Judges are available 24 hours of the day, I know, my dad was one, and was not infrequently getting awakened at odd hours to sign warrants.

And if probable cause does not exist, there isn't sufficient reason to act. Certainly not to murder.

As soon as we begin taking legal shortcuts, we start down the path to tyranny. Why do you think they wrote the Bill of Rights, after all? To prevent just this sort of abuse.

So they are arrested and since the evidence was illegally obtained, they must all be released.
BTW, law enforcement agents are not obligated to protect citizens according to SCOTUS.
Claudius
2.5 / 5 (16) Jan 29, 2011

So they are arrested and since the evidence was illegally obtained, they must all be released.
BTW, law enforcement agents are not obligated to protect citizens according to SCOTUS.


Well, don't obtain evidence illegally, then, if you want to convict. That's the way it's supposed to work.

Do it your way, and we wind up with places like Guantanamo, where more than a few internees have been known to be innocent.
frajo
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 30, 2011
So for example, the US should have declare war on Iran and attacked until they surrendered for attacking the US embassy.
Should China have declared war on the US and attacked until they surrendered for attacking the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia (and killing several people)?
Or is somebody here demonstrating his skills in using double standards?
Was the attack intentional?
The lame excuse of hypocrites with double standards. No car driver who's causing accidents goes unpunished, no matter his intentions. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan had any intention to attack the WTC.
Did the Iranians intend to attack the US Embassy?
Did the USA intend to overthrow Mossadegh 1953? Did the USA favour a Shah? Who
entered into agreement with an international consortium of foreign companies which ran the Iranian oil facilities for the next 25 years spitting profits fifty-fifty with Iran but not allowing Iran to audit their accounts or have members on board.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (15) Jan 30, 2011
The Taliban in Afghanistan aided and abetted the attack on WTC.
In 1953 the number 1 national security threat was the USSR. It's too bad Mossadegh was a socialist wanting to nationalize the oil industry.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (15) Jan 30, 2011
The Taliban in Afghanistan aided and abetted the attack on WTC.


So I assume you believe the Taliban was aiding and abetting Osama Bin Laden, who attacked the WTC?

From the FBI most wanted list:

"Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world."

and then, when asked why 9/11 was not mentioned on Bin Laden's most wanted listing:

"The 'FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11'. Vice President Cheney says, 'We've never made the case, or argued the case, that somehow Osama Bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11'"

On what evidence do you say that the Taliban in any way aided and abetted the WTC attack?
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (7) Jan 30, 2011
On what evidence do you say that the Taliban in any way aided and abetted the WTC attack?
They claimed responsibility.

An uncoerced confession is a rather strong piece of evidence in court.
Claudius
2 / 5 (16) Jan 30, 2011
On what evidence do you say that the Taliban in any way aided and abetted the WTC attack?
They claimed responsibility.

An uncoerced confession is a rather strong piece of evidence in court.


A confession like this?

"I was not involved in the September 11attacks nor did I have knowledge of the attacks.There exist a government within a government within the United States.The US Should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity.That secret government must asked as to who carried out the attacks."- Osama Bin Laden
Claudius
1.8 / 5 (15) Jan 30, 2011
Or perhaps like this?

"We have made it clear from the day one that we have no role in this event (9/11), nor is participation in operations on foreign soil part of our policy," said Taliban mouthpiece Qari Ahmadi.
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (15) Jan 30, 2011
I am completely stunned by the quality of the evidence in the form of confessions that the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden were responsible for the WTC attacks.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 30, 2011
When someone says "Yeah I did it." Then denies it later, that simply means that they regret taking responsibility. Waking the sleeping giant and so forth. Their Kuwaiti wing claimed responsibility on the day of the attack. OBL predicted "a black day for the US" the days prior.
Multiple AQ operatives have claimed personal implication in moving money and resources for the hijackers. ETC.

This is like the Kennedy assassination. There will probably be people who just can't believe that a bunch of men in a desert hellhole could have destroyed one of the greatest landmarks of "western economic progress".

Well it happened. Now let's fix the situations that led us to this point. We've ignored it long enough.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2011
Beyond that you discount Bin Laden himself claiming direct responsibility on several Al Jazeera broadcasts after the event. You're looking for a grassy knoll shooter when there isn't one.

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (48) Jan 30, 2011
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed- al qaeida
"March 2007, after four years in captivity, including six months of detention and alleged torture at Guantanamo Bay, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - as it was claimed by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal Hearing in Guantanamo Bay - confessed to masterminding the September 11 attacks, the Richard Reid shoe bombing attempt to blow up an airliner over the Atlantic Ocean, the Bali nightclub bombing in Indonesia, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and various foiled attacks." -and he personally beheaded Daniel pearl.
Claudius
1.9 / 5 (14) Jan 30, 2011
Beyond that you discount Bin Laden himself claiming direct responsibility on several Al Jazeera broadcasts after the event. You're looking for a grassy knoll shooter when there isn't one.



The CIA has admitted it has faked at least one Bin Laden video:

"The agency actually did make a video purporting to show Osama bin Laden and his cronies sitting around a campfire swigging bottles of liquor and savoring their conquests with boys, one of the former CIA officers recalled, chuckling at the memory. The actors were drawn from “some of us darker-skinned employees,” he said." -Washington Post

The video in which a purported Bin Laden takes responsibility has a number of problems, aside from the fact that the person in the video does not resemble Bin Laden: "...wearing of a gold ring, which is forbidden by Muslim law, and using his right hand, although he is left-handed." Wikipedia
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (14) Jan 30, 2011
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed- al qaeida
"March 2007, after four years in captivity, including six months of detention and alleged torture at Guantanamo Bay, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed�- as it was claimed by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal Hearing in Guantanamo Bay�- confessed to masterminding the September 11 attacks, the Richard Reid shoe bombing attempt to blow up an airliner over the Atlantic Ocean, the Bali nightclub bombing in Indonesia, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and various foiled attacks." -and he personally beheaded Daniel pearl.


So this proves what? That he was tortured into confession? What is the point?

I bet it wouldn't take very much torture to get you to confess to being the Easter Bunny. Would that be proof of your lagomorphic nature?

They even tortured his children. For shame.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 30, 2011
Yes, they made a video of him purporting him to be a male child molestor, something that would immediately break the image of him as a savior to destitute afghanis.

As I said, this will end up being another Kennedy stlye curiosity for those who want to follow a conspiracy theory to the day they expire.
Claudius
1.8 / 5 (15) Jan 30, 2011

As I said, this will end up being another Kennedy stlye curiosity for those who want to follow a conspiracy theory to the day they expire.


Best to let sleeping dogs lie, I suppose. We should never question what the government tells us.

Except, Kennedy and 9/11 were major events that changed the U.S. and our way of life profoundly. If they were engineered by rogue elements in our government, it is very important to discover what happened and bring the criminals to justice, and try to reverse the horrific changes that were made in response to them.

In the case of Kennedy, that is getting hard to do, as almost everyone involved is probably dead by now. E. Howard Hunt confessed and named names on his deathbed. He says they referred to the assassination as "the Big Event." Which it certainly was.

I wonder how the real conspirators referred to 9/11? Will we find out one day when someone on his deathbed confesses?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (53) Jan 30, 2011
They even tortured his children. For shame.
Claudius is the kind of patriotic American who would believe enemy propaganda over the word of people in his own govt, who accept this confession in concert with a great deal of corroborating evidence including the pearl video. For shame.
Claudius
2.4 / 5 (14) Jan 30, 2011
They even tortured his children. For shame.
Claudius is the kind of patriotic American who would believe enemy propaganda...


I'm in good company, then:

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government."
Edward Abbey (1927-1989) US author

So who is the enemy? Who wrote the Operation Northwoods document? Was it the enemy that wrote it? What does that document say about our government? That it makes lists of different ways it can terrorize Americans into believing Cuba has attacked us? Approved by the entire Joint Chiefs? Thank goodness Richard Nixon was not President at the time, or we would be having another conspiracy to debate involving an attack that started the Cuban-American War. Just like we are now finding out about the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

Do patriots idly sit by when their government goes rogue? That is not my definition.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (15) Jan 30, 2011
Claude reminds me of many Libertarians who argue for no national defense.
Most libertarians I know support the 2nd amendment for personal defense and this is under the aegis the US Constitution.
On the international level, there is no constitution governing relations between nation-states. Real anarchy. (Imagine, the world exists in anarchy!)
But the Libertarians don't support helping other nations from defending themselves or even defending their own nation-state.
I suggest these Libertarians need to take a look at the larger state of the world and prioritize their objectives.
Or, Claude is a socialist like many here and simply wants to undermine US liberty and prosperity.
geokstr
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 30, 2011
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed- al qaeida
"March 2007, after four years in captivity, including six months of detention and alleged torture at Guantanamo Bay, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

You do know, don't you, that we have captured al-Qaeda instruction manuals that teach their operatives to scream "torture" as soon as they are captured? And the "torture" claimed is often so outlandish that it reminds me of the phony claims that "social workers" pulled out of little kids back in the 1980's in the McMartin preschool case and others: the butcher knives inserted in tiny orifices with no wounds and being forced to watch giraffes having sex in the classroom on a weekday with other classes going on around them and no one else noticed the zoo animals being sneaked into the building.

How about that one highly publicized case of absolutely horrific torture of these poor innocent Gitmo detainees, where they put a bug in his cell and terrified him? No, not a listening device, but a little insect.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (15) Jan 30, 2011

You do know, don't you, that we have captured al-Qaeda instruction manuals that teach their operatives to scream "torture" as soon as they are captured?


So, you are saying that we are not torturing anybody?

"In 2007 it was reported that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the U.S. intelligence service, was using waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners and that the Department of Justice had authorized the procedure,[7][8] even though the United States hanged Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American prisoners of war in World War II.[9] Al-Qaeda suspects upon whom the CIA is known to have used waterboarding are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.[10][11] According to Justice Department documents, the waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed provided information about an unrealized terrorist attack on Los Angeles.' -Wikipedia
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (51) Jan 30, 2011
Do patriots idly sit by when their government goes rogue? That is not my definition.
No, apparently they side with enemies in denouncing their own govt, according to your definition. You've done nothing but seek to demean and degrade the govt with phony evidence that's proven to be false. Why because you can do that here and not get whipped or stoned for it which are clearly not torture because it says so in sharia?
Claudius
1.9 / 5 (14) Jan 30, 2011
]No, apparently they side with enemies in denouncing their own govt, according to your definition. You've done nothing but seek to demean and degrade the govt with phony evidence that's proven to be false.


If the evidence I have presented is phony, refute it. You haven't. You can't. Try refuting the Northwoods document, it's in the National Archives.

To be a patriot means defending the Constitution and the liberty of the people of the United States. Just as Eisenhower did in his famous farewell address:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

In my mind, Eisenhower's warning was not heeded, Kennedy was assassinated and a Junta has been in charge ever since.

Who do you side with, the Junta? Or the Junta's enemies?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Jan 30, 2011
defending the Constitution and the liberty of the people of the United States.

How do you propose to defend that liberty from foreign enemies?
Claudius
2.6 / 5 (15) Jan 30, 2011

How do you propose to defend that liberty from foreign enemies?


This is a non-sequitur, but I would answer in a manner prescribed by the Constitution.

A more difficult question would be how do you defend the Constitution against domestic enemies? Like a Junta?
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (14) Jan 30, 2011

"In 1934 he was involved in a controversy known as the Business Plot when he told a congressional committee that a group of wealthy industrialists had approached him to lead a military coup to overthrow Franklin D. Roosevelt. The individuals that were involved denied the existence of a plot, and the media ridiculed the allegations. The final report of the committee claimed that there was evidence that such a plot existed, but no charges were ever filed." -Wikipedia re: USMC Maj. General Smedley Butler

"a number of the most powerful of the American business elites, including individuals from General Motors, Prescott Bush, grandfather of George Bush Jr., J.P. Morgan and the Rockefeller dynasty, attempted to seize the White House by military coup, and to install a fascist regime in America."

Smedley Butler foiled the plan, it just took them a little longer to implement it, until 22 Nov 1963.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (15) Jan 30, 2011
This is a non-sequitur,

No, it is not.

but I would answer in a manner prescribed by the Constitution.

You are the expert, what does the Constitution say about defending attacks on liberty from foreign enemies?
Did Jefferson violate the Constitution by attacking the Barbary Pirates?

BTW, FDR WAS a fascist regime.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (15) Jan 30, 2011

Did Jefferson violate the Constitution by attacking the Barbary Pirates?


I do not think so. I also do not claim to be an expert on the Constitution.


BTW, FDR WAS a fascist regime.


And Kennedy was a Communist. I suppose that makes it ok to overthrow the government of the U.S. and give the conspirators a free pass?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Jan 30, 2011
Claude: When a president like FDR violates the Constitution and attempts to add more Supreme Court judges who would follow his bidding, what are the people to do?
FDR praised Mussolini's Fascism so who were the fascists?

Only Congress can declare war, not the president. Congress did not declare war on the Barbary states yet Jefferson ordered the attack.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (46) Jan 30, 2011
In my mind, Eisenhower's warning was not heeded, Kennedy was assassinated and a Junta has been in charge ever since.

And Kennedy was a Communist. I suppose that makes it ok to overthrow the government of the U.S. and give the conspirators a free pass?
Oh look Frajo endorses conspiracy theorists (but only the shallow, 2-dimensional ones who think that all leaders are greedy psychopaths or reptilians and couldn't be compelled by Higher, more Noble qualities which might still require them to slaughter millions, but for the common good and not the money -?)
frajo
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 30, 2011
On what evidence do you say that the Taliban in any way aided and abetted the WTC attack?
They claimed responsibility.

An uncoerced confession is a rather strong piece of evidence in court.
False self-confessions do exist. Politically motivated groups see "successful" attacks as a means to gain more followers, no matter whether their self-confession is true.
And, of course, we'll never know how much of the "facts" presented in the mass media are fabricated.

A government who has been found to attack and invade another country, being responsible for the death of one million of civilians, under made-up accusations,
can not be trusted by anyone except the war profiteers.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (15) Jan 30, 2011
Claude: When a president like FDR violates the Constitution and attempts to add more Supreme Court judges who would follow his bidding, what are the people to do?
FDR praised Mussolini's Fascism so who were the fascists?

And when a president like Kennedy tries to end the cold war and start the Treasury printing its own money again, what are the people to do?

Only Congress can declare war, not the president. Congress did not declare war on the Barbary states yet Jefferson ordered the attack.

The Pasha of Tripoli declared war on the U.S. Acting in defense seems within the President's authority.

Iraq and Afghanistan never declared war on the U.S. There was no attack from those countries. That is a different situation from the Barbary Wars.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (15) Jan 30, 2011
The Pasha of Tripoli declared war on the U.S. Acting in defense seems within the President's authority.

Radical Islam has declared war on the USA. Acting in defense seems within the President's authority.

In what universe's history did JFK try to end the cold war? JFK did support defending South Vietnam from communists.
Claudius
2.4 / 5 (14) Jan 30, 2011
The Pasha of Tripoli declared war on the U.S. Acting in defense seems within the President's authority.

Radical Islam has declared war on the USA. Acting in defense seems within the President's authority.

Iraq and Afghanistan did not declare war on the U.S. A group of former CIA assets declaring war on the U.S. does not justify invading the country of a third party.

In what universe's history did JFK try to end the cold war? JFK did support defending South Vietnam from communists.


Read Fletcher Prouty's book on the Kennedy Assassinaton. Kennedy was openly making plans to leave Vietnam the next year, and that seems to be the straw that broke the camel's back. One of Johnson's first acts as President was to reverse the new policy.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (15) Jan 30, 2011
Iraq and Afghanistan did not declare war on the U.S.


The Taliban did by supporting Al Queda and Iraq was in violation of a cease fire agreement from 1991.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Jan 30, 2011
""There is no rush to war," he continued.

"We waited 12 years and then went through the United Nations. It is now three months since we gave Saddam what we called a 'final opportunity'." "
http:/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2773771.stm

This documents the legal process followed prior to invading Iraq:
http:/www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Congressional_actions_on_the_Iraq_War_prior_to_the_2003_U.S._invasion
Caliban
4 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2011
Getting back to the article, I'll point out that rhetoric, by definition, is speech inherently designed to _persuade_, whether to sway belief, opinion, or to action -Or anything on a sliding scale from one end point to the other. And it can, has, and will be used for that purpose, thus the terms "rabble rousing", "proselytizing", and, to adjuncts like "agent provocateur", for example.

So, rhetoric, of any kind, unfortunately or not, is speech, and therefore is guaranteed constitutional protection, outside of that portion that is criminalized as treasonous or seditious.
I have no problem with that protection, but it has to be understood that it will result, occasionally, in violent action. Just as the granting of a driver's license will result in occasional harm.

The key issue is that Factual news reporting/journalism should be legally differentiated from mere opinion, and suitable disclaimers imposed and enforced in the mediasphere, with harsh penalties for deliberate lying.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Jan 30, 2011
Factual news reporting/journalism should be legally differentiated from mere opinion,

Who will decide fact from opinion? A govt agent? How will you ensure the judge/judges are objective?
How will you get around the fist amendment and penalize free speech?
BTW, there are laws call libel and slander to help sort this out.
Claudius
2.2 / 5 (14) Jan 31, 2011
Factual news reporting/journalism should be legally differentiated from mere opinion,

Who will decide fact from opinion? A govt agent? How will you ensure the judge/judges are objective?
How will you get around the fist amendment and penalize free speech?
BTW, there are laws call libel and slander to help sort this out.


And who will decide what is libel or slander when it is political speech?

It is quite the vogue now to call anyone who disagrees with official policy a racist, terrorist, or any of a number of derogatory terms. Should anyone who is a critic of official policy be silenced?

Whatever happened to "I may not agree with what he says but I will defend to the death his right to say it?"
Claudius
1.9 / 5 (14) Jan 31, 2011

The key issue is that Factual news reporting/journalism should be legally differentiated from mere opinion, and suitable disclaimers imposed and enforced in the mediasphere, with harsh penalties for deliberate lying.


Yes, that is the key issue. That information that is not officially approved of must be crushed and critics of authority must be punished. Expression of critical opinion is an act of terrorism, something that could not be discussed before because it was so un-American.

This is so Orwellian it gives me shivvers. If the official version of the truth is that 2+2=5, you had better not disagree or face the consequences.
Claudius
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 31, 2011
…that all the creatures of this new Power, who in the loss of public freedom had gained private fortunes, preferred a servile condition, safe and possessed, to the revival of ancient liberty with personal peril.

Tacitus, The Reign of Tiberius
Claudius
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 31, 2011
...hence freedom of speech became cramped and insecure, under such a Prince; one who dreaded liberty...

Tacitus, The Reign of Tiberius
Claudius
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 31, 2011
Nor upon the persons of the authors only was this cruelty inflicted, but also upon the books themselves; since to the Triumvirate of Justice orders were sent, that in the Forum and place of popular elections, the works of men so illustrious for parts and genius should be burned. Yes, in this very fire they imagined, that they should abolish the voice and utterance of the Roman People, with the liberty of the Senate, and all the ideas and remembrances of humankind...
Nay, with our utterance we had likewise lost our memory; had it been equally in our power to forget, as to be silent.

Tacitus, The Reign of Tiberius

The enemy here is not some external threat: it is tyranny itself.

We have forgotten the principles that made us great.
Skultch
4 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2011
Claudius, I'm with you on some of your views, but like most paranoid conspiracy theorists, you go too far, especially when you say:

our telephone and internet communications are routinely monitored


then defend it with

...monitor phone and internet communications of AT&T customers without warrants." Wired News 7 April 2006


I remember the NPR interview with that AT&T employee. The NSA was intercepting all internet (yes, all phone calls use it) traffic coming from overseas into the OC-192 in SanFran. Yes, this is wrong in concept and implementation. However, ~1/4 of international comms does not equal pervasive domestic comms. To then declare via implication that all US citizens are ROUTINELY monitored is EXACTLY the rhetoric and fear mongering you abhor.

There does not exist the motive nor capability to monitor all domestic phone and internet traffic.
Skultch
3.8 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2011
Also, Claudius, your singular example of a double gun shot suicide is ridiculous, and clearly show the depths of your paranoia. A semi-auto gun and the first shot triggering a finger reflex is all that is needed to explain a suicide like that, no matter the rarity.

This is the problem with extreme conspiracy theorists like you. You are all too willing to deduce and distrust ALL authority, but you conveniently forget to be skeptical of the cases, not patterns, that mildly support your grand claims.

I had to do this recently, so I could live a content life: turn off "Democracy Now!" for a couple weeks and get outside and see with your own eyes how great it is to live in a time like this, despite our challenges.
frajo
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2011
and see with your own eyes how great it is to live in a time like this, despite our challenges.
That's fine - for you, for me, for a lot of people.
However, this statement is not generally true, not even for the subset of non-evil people.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2011
Also, Claudius, your singular example of a double gun shot suicide is ridiculous, and clearly show the depths of your paranoia. A semi-auto gun and the first shot triggering a finger reflex is all that is needed to explain a suicide like that, no matter the rarity.
Webb was shot by a .38 revolver. The Webb case is a bit more convoluted than a simple suicide. Even I have questions in that one.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (47) Jan 31, 2011
That's fine - for you, for me, for a lot of people.
However, this statement is not generally true, not even for the subset of non-evil people.
Let me understand this; are you saying that you believe most people are evil? Or that people are either evil or non-evil all the time? And by evil do you mean -what? Desiring to inflict pain or misery for personal pleasure? If so then I would say that this evaluation could also be applied to you:
You are all too willing to deduce and distrust ALL authority, but you conveniently forget to be skeptical of the cases, not patterns, that mildly support your grand claims.
Except that instead of being misarchistic you tend to be more universally misanthropic.

For instance your inability to accept why it is sometimes necessary to attack or pursue criminals where they live indicates a certain detachment from the real world and a preference for criminality over the forces which keep it in check. And criminals can be considered evil. Yes?
Skultch
3 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2011
Webb was shot by a .38 revolver.


Was it double or single action? If double, my theory still holds plausible.

Either way, it's merely one example to support the claim of pervasive domestic assassinations. It's no different than restricting speech or gun ownership for all Americans because of this incident.

I think some (all?) people have a hard time emotionally reacting to the scope of our society. Our emotions evolved to work with small groups, not 10 thousand / 300 million / 7 billion. We are not well equipped to react well to emotionally charged events. Columbine, 9/11, etc. All sides of the political spectra exploit this.
Skultch
1 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2011
Let me understand this; are you saying that you believe most people are evil? Or that people are either evil or non-evil all the time?


I think Frajo just means that some "non-evil" people live in conditions of suffering. In a way, we all do. I've seen abject poverty first hand. Houses with no roofs, kids with no shoes, no food, little water. I made an assumption that the internet-enabled Claudius is nowhere near this situation.

What I should have said is: I know his type. Am I stereotyping, pre-judging. Yeah, but so far 20 of 20 people I know very well, that have the exact same opinions as Claudius have a very hard time enjoying life because of their paranoid worldview. I might also safely assume a history of moderate to heavy psychedelic drug use, or differently cause neural miswiring. Maybe it's condescending, but I'm just trying to help by adding some positive perspective.
Skultch
1 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2011
Except that instead of being misarchistic you tend to be more universally misanthropic.

For instance your inability to accept why it is sometimes necessary to attack or pursue criminals where they live indicates a certain detachment from the real world and a preference for criminality over the forces which keep it in check. And criminals can be considered evil. Yes?


Are you speaking to me or Claudius here? If me, I may have failed miserably to communicate my worldview.

Either way, it is illogical to say that because someone sees mistakes in geopolitical strategy (illegal wars) they must also support capitulation of anarchy (letting Islamists have their way). I understand the goal of the Caliphate, but I don't agree that it is the same level threat you seem to see.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (49) Jan 31, 2011
Are you speaking to me or Claudius here? If me, I may have failed miserably to communicate my worldview.
I'm saying that what you said about extremists can also be applied to frajos Weltanschuung and not only for supporting other extremists. Frajo thinks that attack is always wrong, and that you should wait unitl it occurs to you and then demand an apology I suppose.
I think Frajo just means that some "non-evil" people live in conditions of suffering. In a way, we all do.
I think that when frajo says that non-evil people are a subset of everybody else, thats what frajo means.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (50) Jan 31, 2011
I understand the goal of the Caliphate, but I don't agree that it is the same level threat you seem to see.
-I just uncovered some info for the other thread that might change your opinion:
http
://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-wikileaks-founder-huge-leak-resort.html

-The Moslem Brotherhood, the largest and oldest islamist organization in the middle east, has that as its fundamental goal.
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2011
so far 20 of 20 people I know very well, that have the exact same opinions as Claudius have a very hard time enjoying life because of their paranoid worldview.
I think in this case it's a bit careless to simply attest paranoia. There must be some impatient people in order to compensate for those who are too patient.
And I recommend to read the wikipedia entry on Claudius, the Roman emperor from 41 until 54. He was not only very remarkable. He was a revolutionary.
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2011
I know the scope of their goals (Spain-Indonesia). I doubt their ability to unify enough sects of the religion. Sure, western nations may suffer indirectly from instability in energy producing areas. However, I've known at least three types of Muslims, and none would agree enough to form a nation of that scope. The question is, how much oppression and poverty is enough to get them to put aside their differences?

Philosophically, what right do we have if several nations all want to implement sharia law? Yeah, they could succeed and then have even more ambitious goals, but I'd rather fight WWIII against a Caliphate than fight for 1,000 years and 100 Vietnam-type wars.
nada
3 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2011
If hearing enough words never translates in to action then....

...Wow, guess ADVERTISING is just a big waste of money.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Jan 31, 2011
I've known at least three types of Muslims, and none would agree enough to form a nation of that scope. The question is, how much oppression and poverty is enough to get them to put aside their differences?
Ever see 'Triumph of the Will'?
http
://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6939681968898938770#docid=721544746508320698

'Ein Volk, ein Feuhrer, ein Reich'
-At about 34:00 one Labor Service worker asks 'Kamerade, where do you come from?' And a number of others answer with their particular regions in turn; the message being that the reich is united. Only a few gens before, bavaria and prussia were at war, and before that, catholics were being slaughtered by protestants.

German nationalism was based on a myth- that the various tribes which settled europe were somehow all part of one thing. All it took to sell it was incessant propaganda, some great-looking uniforms, and a charismatic leader. And of course a common foe who was going to destroy them. A nation becomes an army.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (48) Jan 31, 2011
Yeah, they could succeed and then have even more ambitious goals
"The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a "Civilization-Jihadist" process with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" their miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all religions." -From the Muslim Brotherhood wiki article
but I'd rather fight WWIII against a Caliphate than fight for 1,000 years and 100 Vietnam-type wars.
-If the above quote plays out, we may not get a chance to decide. We may have our own fifth column to contend with. Guess we need a new Joe McCarthy.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 31, 2011
but I'd rather fight WWIII against a Caliphate than fight for 1,000 years and 100 Vietnam-type wars.

Atomic weapons ended WWII.
Your WWIII won't last long when Caliphat has WMD and are not afraid to use them.
frajo
3 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2011
Atomic weapons ended WWII.
Seems you are proud of killing hundred thousands of innocent humans.
Claudius
1.9 / 5 (13) Feb 01, 2011
Atomic weapons ended WWII.

Seems you are proud of killing hundred thousands of innocent humans.


I agree. Many time in this discussion I have gotten hints that certain persons here support the use of torture, support the idea of wars of aggression, support reducing or "getting around" the protections of liberty in the Constitution. And when the fact that millions of civilians have been killed in these wars of aggression is brought up, seem to not care because the victims are Muslim. When well-document plans of terrorism by the U.S. government is brought up, it is dismissed. Then if one tries to point out the immorality and unlawfulness of the above his sanity is put in question, just like it was done in the Soviet Union.

It gets to the point that one feels he is in debate with a group of concentration camp commanders. It is very creepy.
frajo
2 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2011
It gets to the point that one feels he is in debate with a group of concentration camp commanders.
No, those were different. They did not like discussions; they liked to obey "higher orders" to avoid being held responsible.
It's just the ordinary Gaussian distributions of empathy and intellectual capacity we meet here.
You've seen "The Reader"?
Claudius
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 01, 2011

No, those were different. They did not like discussions; they liked to obey "higher orders" to avoid being held responsible.

I chose commanders instead of guards because I assume the commanders were doing more than just following orders. Many of these commanders escaped via the "Ratlines" set up by the Vatican and used by U.S. Intelligence to help Nazis escape to other countries, so did not have to use a "higher orders" defense as they never faced justice. See Wikipedia about the Ratlines.

Col. Fletcher Prouty documents how he helped evacuate Nazis even before the end of the war. Deals were being made even then.
Skultch
3.5 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2011
Many time in this discussion I have gotten hints that certain persons here support the use of torture, support the idea of wars of aggression, ... blah blah blah


I do not support the current US imperialism. I fought in Iraq for the US, and in some ways, regret doing so. I feel that my patriotic motives were used for something illegal and immoral. After my tour, I separated from service and my contract is now fulfilled. I now try to dissuade people from joining the US military.

I also consider myself to have a healthy level of distrust of our government. I always have, even before the BS, illegal war I fought in. However, I stop short of assuming vast conspiracies supported by circumstantial evidence. Mostly, I don't wish to create negative energy towards futile endeavors. If I see injustice, I address it, but I don't chase things irrelevant to my life down a rabbit hole. Life is too short, and my energies are better spent elsewhere.
Claudius
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 01, 2011

However, I stop short of assuming vast conspiracies supported by circumstantial evidence.


So do I. But when the evidence is substantial, I allow myself the freedom to consider that something is going on.

The entity that goes by the name of the United States reveals itself with the Northwoods documents, available from the National Archives. The defense is always "but it wasn't implemented". But it shows the state of mind of the Joint Chiefs that they could make not just one plan, but multiple plans on how to terrorize the American people and blame the terrorism on Cuba. If Nixon had been President instead of Kennedy, we would have another "vast conspiracy" to debate.

If they could plan multiple acts of false-flag terrorism against Americans then, to assume they don't still make such plans is just willfully short-sighted.
Skultch
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 01, 2011
If they could plan multiple acts of false-flag terrorism against Americans then, to assume they don't still make such plans is just willfully short-sighted.


That's their job, and that's exactly why the Sec of Defense is a civilian. If he's an authoritarian D-bag just like most of the Joint Cheifs, we should address that specifically. It seems you want to make a further claim of govt inside govt and then address that instead. I just don't see the point of addressing such a loosely supported conspiracy when more actionable measures could be taken. People have been doing the former for at least 50 years and it's gone nowhere. Am I getting the wrong idea?

Call me quitter, but even if there is such a conspiracy, the popular reaction seems tantamount to a childish temper tantrum. Futile.
Claudius
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 01, 2011

That's their job


This is very different from your first statement in which vast conspiracies only have circumstantial evidence.

Now you say, well, the Joint Chiefs conspire to terrorize the American public and blame it on other governments all the time. It's their job. You then say we can rely on their superiors to stop them. Well, apparently it was Pres. Kennedy who personally did the stopping, not McNamara. Apparently we didn't have the right kind of President in office for 9/11.

Your point is that we are powerless to stop them, so why bother?

My answer is "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

Skultch
3.3 / 5 (3) Feb 01, 2011
I quoted the wrong part.

It's their job to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

You don't like how they might do it. I think it's also dangerous. I think we have appropriate checks. You don't. We disagree. I hope your life is successful and satisfying. I know mine will be.
frajo
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 01, 2011
No, those were different. They did not like discussions; they liked to obey "higher orders" to avoid being held responsible.
I chose commanders instead of guards because I assume the commanders were doing more than just following orders.
There were some who, like Rudolf Hoess, were fanatical killers. But most of them were mediocre bureaucrats acting like the 80 percent losers of the Milgram experiments. The German "Kommandant" should be translated as "foreman".
Many of these commanders escaped via the "Ratlines" set up by the Vatican and used by U.S. Intelligence to help Nazis escape to other countries, so did not have to use a "higher orders" defense as they never faced justice.
The ratlines are well known.
I was not talking about the legal, but the moral defence of mass murderers.
frajo
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2011
I think we have appropriate checks. You don't. We disagree. I hope your life is successful and satisfying. I know mine will be.
Tell this the victims of agent orange. Or those who survived My Lai.
And congratulations to your clairvoyance.
Skultch
1 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2011
And congratulations to your clairvoyance.


Thanks. I like to call it effort.
Claudius
2 / 5 (12) Feb 01, 2011

I was not talking about the legal, but the moral defence of mass murderers.

Good point.

I think that one of the problems with Americans is that they have never seen a tyranny first hand. When I visited the Soviet Union, the thing that first struck me was the incredible poverty there, instead of the superpower I expected. The next thing was, how similar Russia was to America.

Tyranny is banal. It is not like in the movies.

When Rome changed from a republic to a tyranny, most people didn't notice. There was still a Senate, after all. Elections were still held. The government still ran. If there had been trains, they would have run on time. The Legion was still defending the homeland.

Somewhat like it is now in America.
Claudius
2 / 5 (12) Feb 01, 2011

We disagree. I hope your life is successful and satisfying. I know mine will be.


I wish you the same. I am ex-military from decades before the Iraq war, so my point of view is a little different. The America I knew when I was young was at least superficially very different than now. Underneath, it was not, I know, but on the surface it was a much nicer place. When I was young I was a very gung-ho pro VietNam war type. Even when 9/11 happened I was waving the flag and supporting the Iraq invasion. It wasn't until later that I discovered how wrong I was.

I guess I took the red pill and can't go back. It would be nice to return to a state of ignorance. It is much nicer not to know.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (46) Feb 01, 2011
on the surface it was a much nicer place. When I was young I was a very gung-ho... It wasn't until later that I discovered how wrong I was.
The human brain is an unwieldy and fragile mechanism. A brain was never meant to get as large or last as long as ours. The memory inevitably gets scrambled, the logic processes begin to break down. It becomes prone to delusion and onslaughts of ungrounded emotion.

In other words maybe youre going senile?

The soviet union was not socialist- nobody had a say in anything. It was brutal martial law enforced by a vast military and police regime. Its purpose was to conclude the thorough destruction of the obsolete, prewar religion-based cultures. Mao was doing this same thing.

What you saw on your little vacation in the USSR was what cultural destruction looks like. This enabled the roughly 700 MILLION abortions to occur which has made the continent a peaceful place indeed.
cont
Claudius
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 01, 2011

In other words maybe youre going senile?


Skultch is nicer to talk to. We don't agree, but his heart is in the right place.

I am not sure yours is.

I could once again try to argue your points but in the past it was like Brer Rabbit's encounter with de Tar Baby. Not much point. It takes two to engage in debate, not one rabbit and a tar baby.

Ad hominem attacks are the last resort of the desperate.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (47) Feb 01, 2011
The enemy we face now has its obsolete culture still intact, and the riots you see are only all the excess people born above the limit of stability for any culture. Such was the case in both russia and germany before the wars, where the nazis used to award little blue xian crosses to mums who produced a baby for the fatherland.

This enemy is every bit as dangerous as the nationalist regimes of the 20th century, and for exactly the same reasons. Their culture produces gens of idle, hungry, disaffected youth with nothing else to do but march in the streets and blame minorities and whoever happens to be in charge for their misery. Giving them state secrets is the same as handing them to the gestapo or comintern. Not restricting their ability to operate in your country is the same as moving the pacific fleet to pearl and then engineering its destruction.

Cultures like this make war absolutely inevitable, as they always have. They were designed to do just that.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (46) Feb 01, 2011
I only know tar baby as a racial slur.
In other words maybe youre going senile?
Just an observation. You should be old enough to remember how relative freedoms ebb and flow in relation to the existance of enemies who would take advantage of them. The only way to increase personal freedom is to fight those who cause us to have to restrict them.

You refuse to accept the existance of this enemy and instead blame those who are only trying to protect us by limiting the ability of this enemy to do us harm.

Our freedoms increased after ww2 because the world was a safer place, and we have a system of govt which thrives on giving its people as much freedom as conditions will allow. We fight govts and cultures which do just the opposite.

By the way we won the vietnam war, decisively. We were there to participate in destroying the culture. We accomplished exactly what we wanted to and when we were done we got the hell out. Communism finished the job. VN is stable and peaceful now.
Skultch
5 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2011
The only way to increase personal freedom is to fight those who cause us to have to restrict {it}.


Well said {w/ minor correction}. I can't argue that.

If you've followed most of my posts on this site, you might have realized I play satan's lawyer from time to time. Sometimes in the same thread on different sides. Sorry, but I'm not a simple man, and my ideas sometimes conflict. Such is life. I'm also a cocky bastard who sometimes projects his personal life onto others. Sorry about that; it's not fair.

IMO, these topics are way too complicated for any online forum, especially a 1000 char forum.

I get that we have to fight for our freedom. I guess I feel like, when I tried, I got fucked for it, so now my perspective is to just enjoy the life I'm lucky to have survived. Yeah, I'm ignoring injustice, but I just don't have the same ideological energy I had at 22. Not every day at least. :)
Skultch
5 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2011
One more personal story and I'm done. I swear. ;)

I live in a very liberal community (9 ski resorts within 45 min). Almost all my friends are neo-hippy, drug addict, partyALLthetime, activists-in-opinion-only. They are all gloriously ineffectual, haphazardly informed, but still supremely opinionated. I have a lot of pent up political and ideological energy. That's the motivation for my recent diatribe on Claudius. Sorry dude.

In a way, I am aggressively judgmental in the hopes that it motivates someone to turn the microscope back on me, because I don't have many people in my life that can do that for me. No one is perfectly self-objective.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 01, 2011

I only know tar baby as a racial slur.

Not from me it isn't. I grew up in the 50's and the tar baby story has Brer Rabbit encountering a trap laid by Brer Fox and Brer Bear. It is a simulation of a baby made of tar, wearing a hat and smoking a pipe. Brer Rabbit says, "Howdo" and the tar baby doesn't answer. This is impolite and the rabbit tells the baby so, but it doesn't reply. Eventually, he hits the tar baby and gets trapped in it.

It is my was of saying it is a one-sided argument. Definitely not a racial slur. Just means it isn't worth arguing with you, since no matter how valid my points, you disregard them and then make attacks on my character.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (12) Feb 01, 2011

we have a system of govt which thrives on giving its people as much freedom as conditions will allow.


Sorry, I have to at least comment on this one.

We do not get our freedom from the government. Such a government is more correctly defined as a tyranny, which dispenses not freedom but privileges which can be taken away at the whim of the government.

The United States of America was founded on the principle that all of us possesses inalienable rights, that cannot be taken away by a government, and that governments are only valid if they protect those rights. Any other form of government should be overthrown.

Just in case you didn't know. For your general edification.

Claudius
1 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2011

Not restricting their ability to operate in your country is the same as moving the pacific fleet to pearl and then engineering its destruction.


Exactly what happened.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Feb 01, 2011
Atomic weapons ended WWII.
Seems you are proud of killing hundred thousands of innocent humans.

Total Casualties: Hiroshima: 135,000 Nagasaki: 64,000
"the Japanese Imperial Army marched into China's capital city of Nanking and proceeded to murder 300,000 out of 600,000 civilians and soldiers in the city."
Japanese civilians were innocent?
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2011
Atomic weapons ended WWII.
Seems you are proud of killing hundred thousands of innocent humans.

Total Casualties: Hiroshima: 135,000 Nagasaki: 64,000
"the Japanese Imperial Army marched into China's capital city of Nanking and proceeded to murder 300,000 out of 600,000 civilians and soldiers in the city."
Japanese civilians were innocent?
He just questioned the innocence of the WTC victims.
(No, marjon, you won't understand this.)
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 02, 2011
"I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'."
- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

War crimes ... the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity. -Wikipedia

A single death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic. - Stalin
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 02, 2011
Of course I don't understand frajo as it is complete nonsense.
How were people working in the WTC supporting the war effort on Al Queda?
Hiroshima and Nagasaski did produce war materials and a Japanese physician said the atomic bombs SAVED millions of Japanese and American lives.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 02, 2011
Why is the the current 'uncivil' behavior in Egypt not being condemned by the democrats and the media?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2011
Of course I don't understand frajo as it is complete nonsense.
How were people working in the WTC supporting the war effort on Al Queda?
Hiroshima and Nagasaski did produce war materials and a Japanese physician said the atomic bombs SAVED millions of Japanese and American lives.

And the WTC produced money for the war effort.

Of course he wouldn't understand, frajo. He's not much more reasoned than a caged beast.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (46) Feb 02, 2011
War crimes ... the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity. -Wikipedia

A single death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic. - Stalin
A single idiot is a tragedy. A single idiot posting multiple times is annoying. You do understand the need to save lives don't you? The bomb saved both US and Japanese lives by making invasion unnecessary. That is obvious. So is your cowardly attack on the country which has given you a good life as a result of it's efforts to preserve freedom, even for ingrates like yourself.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (49) Feb 02, 2011
We do not get our freedom from the government.
Founded... Inalienable... Overthrow... Another sloganeer in love with words. He recites from the constitution as he proceeds to trash it.

Our govt is composed of people who were put there because they know far more about governing than most citizens. Running a country and protecting it from enemies foreign and domestic is something which requires education, experience, and talent.

People like yourself who lack these things and are bitter about it, will often take their bitterness out on the very thing that protects and nurtures them. This is an indication of cognitive dysfunction and regression, not reason, an unfortunate result of decrepitation.
Definitely not a racial slur. Just means it isn't worth arguing with you
Many more people recognize it as the slur it is, which is why you used it.
Claudius
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2011

Many more people recognize it as the slur it is, which is why you used it.

Even after it was explained to you, you don't understand it. Amazing. No wonder you haven't been able to understand my other comments and information.

A single idiot

Ad hominem attacks are the last resort of the desperate.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2011
Atomic weapons ended WWII.
Seems you are proud of killing hundred thousands of innocent humans.

Total Casualties: Hiroshima: 135,000 Nagasaki: 64,000
"the Japanese Imperial Army marched into China's capital city of Nanking and proceeded to murder 300,000 out of 600,000 civilians and soldiers in the city."
Japanese civilians were innocent?
He just questioned the innocence of the WTC victims.
(No, marjon, you won't understand this.)

On another thread someone was saying how American civilians are responsible for the actions of their government hence not innocent.

Of course this only applies to Americans...
Claudius
1 / 5 (8) Feb 02, 2011

Founded... Inalienable... Overthrow... Another sloganeer in love with words. He recites from the constitution as he proceeds to trash it.

And here I was thinking I was quoting from the Declaration of Independence. I must be an idiot.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (46) Feb 02, 2011
Not restricting their ability to operate in your country is the same as moving the pacific fleet to pearl and then engineering its destruction.

Exactly what happened.
And yet you have no idea WHY. After all these years you get an inkling that things didn't happen for the reasons they told you it did, and right away you're all set to condemn them.

You don't look for any deeper causes, any more important Reasons for keeping things secret, you just know that you believed you were fighting for a country which was supposed to tell you exactly why you were sacrificing and suffering, and it didn't, and you're pissed about that arent you? You think they must be evil and greedy, because WHY ELSE would lie about something like that?

Fighting and dying is Inevitable in a world with endemic overpopulation. It always has been. And so if it is absolutely Unavoidable, then to prevent critical damage it has GOT to be Planned, Scheduled, and the Results of it Predetermined.
Cont
Claudius
1 / 5 (8) Feb 02, 2011

You don't look for any deeper causes, any more important Reasons for keeping things secret,

Never assume anything.

Of course I know why it was done. To enable Roosevelt, who ran for office on an anti-war platform, to justify involving the U.S. in the war in Europe. In order to do this, he followed a plan to force the Japanese to attack the U.S. The Japanese codes had all been known years in advance, so Roosevelt was able to comment on the progress of the attack as it approached Pearl Harbor. He withheld this information from the commanders in Hawaii to ensure it would appear to be a surprise attack.

Our govt is composed of people who were put there because they know far more about governing than most citizens.


Obviously, Roosevelt had the right stuff, something the ordinary American citizen couldn't comprehend, so it was necessary to deceive them in the election and then to fake a surprise attack to motivate them. Wonderful.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Feb 02, 2011
Pearl is evidence of this, that the war had a Gameplan and that was meant to proceed on a schedule. Japans invasion of Manchuria was only the first Action of the 20th century to deal with both their rampant overpop and that on the mainland. It was the start of a century of horrendous bloodshed due to the existence of cultures which made it Mandatory. Had japan not invaded, they themselves would have been invaded within a gen.

The ancient Asian cultures which would have prevented population control programs from being instituted, have largely been mitigated. China has joined the world community as a productive, stable entity, as have japan, Vietnam, south Korea, et al. One can only imagine what the region would look like today if the Effort had not been made to destroy all the obsolete cultures which has made peace and prosperity possible in the region.
Claudius
2 / 5 (12) Feb 02, 2011

a country which was supposed to tell you exactly why you were sacrificing and suffering, and it didn't, and you're pissed about that arent you?


Tell that to those who died at Peal Harbor.

And I'm not pissed, I am beyond being pissed at a government that makes up the rules as it goes along, whether Constitutional or not. I am beyond being pissed at those we elect in trust who routinely violate that trust on a daily basis. The name for this kind of behavior is treason, and it is not wise to blindly tolerate treason in our trusted representatives. Which we have unfortunately been doing for generations.

You will say the end justifies the means. Down that road lies tyranny.

To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
—Theodore Roosevelt
Claudius
2.2 / 5 (13) Feb 02, 2011

The bomb saved both US and Japanese lives by making invasion unnecessary


Didn't read Eisenhower's statement about how the Japanese were already defeated and looking for a way to surrender prior to the atomic bomb attacks. Didn't read the part about how it wouldn't save lives.

Got a blind spot in your reasoning, seems to me.
Claudius
2.4 / 5 (14) Feb 02, 2011
No, the real purpose of the atomic bomb attacks on Japan was to demonstrate what the bombs could do. Truman decided not to bomb an uninhabited island as a demonstration, and chose to kill civilians instead. Even though the Japanese were trying to surrender at the time.

"In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."
—James Madison
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 02, 2011
Ike was in Europe:
"Admiral William Leahy estimated that there would be more than 250,000 Americans killed or wounded on Kyushu alone. General Charles Willoughby, chief of intelligence for General Douglas MacArthur, the Supreme Commander of the Southwest Pacific, estimated American casualties would be one million men by the fall of 1946. Willoughby's own intelligence staff considered this to be a conservative estimate."
"During the summer of 1945, America had little time to prepare for such an endeavor, but top military leaders were in almost unanimous agreement that an invasion was necessary.

While naval blockade and strategic bombing of Japan was considered to be useful, General MacArthur, for instance, did not believe a blockade would bring about an unconditional surrender. The advocates for invasion agreed that while a naval blockade chokes, it does not kill; and though strategic bombing might destroy cities, it leaves whole armies intact. "
Omaha World Herald | November, 1987 | D
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 02, 2011
And the WTC produced money for the war effort.

What war effort?

Now that a CNN reporter has been attacked by the mob, the press may take a less civil tone to the revolution?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 02, 2011
"Nagasaki saved my life: How one PoW survived Burma's death railway, Japanese hellships AND the atom bomb

"I was taking care to avoid being splashed when there came a tremendous clap of thunder from the direction of Nagasaki. Then moments later, a sudden gust of hot air like a giant hairdryer blasted into me, knocking my shrunken frame sideways.

Later, the other prisoners came back from their day at a nearby factory and began to talk of a massive bomb raid. No one had any concrete information. We just knew that something big had happened down in Nagasaki.

Read more: http:/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254453/Nagasaki-saved-life-How-PoW-survived-Burmas-death-railway-Japanese-hellships-AND-atom-bomb.html#ixzz1CpbjkJGV
"
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2011
And the WTC produced money for the war effort.

What war effort?

Now that a CNN reporter has been attacked by the mob, the press may take a less civil tone to the revolution?

Maybe if the teargas canisters didn't say Made in the USA they wouldn't be attacking Americans on the streets.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 02, 2011
And the WTC produced money for the war effort.

What war effort?

Now that a CNN reporter has been attacked by the mob, the press may take a less civil tone to the revolution?

Maybe if the teargas canisters didn't say Made in the USA they wouldn't be attacking Americans on the streets.

I bet they don't mind seeing sacks of flour with 'Made in USA' on them.
Claudius
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 02, 2011

Ike was in Europe


"In the spring and summer of 1945, individuals working for the Japanese military contemplated a negotiated conclusion to the Pacific War. The most formidable obstacle to peace was the unwillingness of both sides to compromise their own stated objectives. The last ditch fanaticism of Japan's militaristic officials and a commitment from the Allied powers not to soften stipulations of unconditional surrender announced by Churchill and Roosevelt at Casablanca in 1943 could not be reconciled."
- World Affairs June 22, 1993

"a Gallup Poll on 29 June 1945 revealed that over 70 percent of the Americans surveyed desired to see the emperor hanged as a war criminal and Japan destroyed completely for its treachery in attacking Pearl Harbor without warning." World Affairs same article

Here's the real reason. People wanted blood for the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Which turns out was engineered by the Roosevelt administration.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2011
Maybe if the teargas canisters didn't say Made in the USA they wouldn't be attacking Americans on the streets.

I bet they don't mind seeing sacks of flour with 'Made in USA' on them.

If only they were, Marjon, if only they were.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 02, 2011
"500,000 Manpack" of supplies had been stacked up there on Okinawa. Now of course that wasn't all that would go into the invasion, because ships that had been preloaded for the invasion would also come in. But anyway, on Okinawa there was an enormous amount of equipment. And all of a sudden it was being reloaded on trucks, put back on transport ships, and sailing out to sea.

The first thing I asked the commander was, "Is this all going back to the United States?" He said, "No. We don't want any of that back. Anything that isn't going to be used is going to be junked." He said, "This is going to Hanoi in Indochina." And he said, "Actually about half is going to Indochina."

At that time, that didn't have the same impact on me that it would have today. I've since learned that when it got to Hanoi -- to the harbor of Haiphong -- it was turned over to the representatives of Ho Chi Minh."
- Col. Fletcher Prouty

This happened on the day of the Japanese surrender. The rest went to Korea.
Claudius
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 02, 2011
So much for not being ready to invade Japan.

And here we see the early plans for the Korean war and the war in Viet Nam.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2011
Watching to conspiracy theorists go head to head from opposite sides of the same argument is certainly entertaining.

My conspiracy theory: this post will be the fastest ever to get 1 ranked twice.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2011
Maybe if the teargas canisters didn't say Made in the USA they wouldn't be attacking Americans on the streets.

I bet they don't mind seeing sacks of flour with 'Made in USA' on them.

If only they were, Marjon, if only they were.


They receive 1.5 billion in aid every year. I'm sure not all of it is flower...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 02, 2011
Which turns out was engineered by the Roosevelt administration.

BS!
The Navy was 'ready' to invade Iwo Jima. How long did it take for the Japanese to surrender that small island? How many casualties?

The mainland would have been orders of magnitude worse.
Unless, of course, the women and children of Japan committed suicide as they did on Saipan.
"The civilian population of Saipan committed mass suicide by jumping off cliffs at Marpi Point or committing suicide with hand grenades in caves. An estimated 22,000 civilians died in the battle. "
http:/www.pacificwrecks.com/provinces/marianas_saipan.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (47) Feb 02, 2011
makes up the rules as it goes along, whether Constitutional or not...those we elect in trust who routinely violate that trust on a daily basis...treason...
Nice rhetoric. Feels good to say it dont it? Bet youve even tried to grow your hair long again. Off the pigs.
No, the real purpose of the atomic bomb attacks on Japan was to demonstrate what the bombs could do.
This is a How, not a Why.
to justify involving the U.S. in the war in Europe. In order to do this, he followed a plan to force the Japanese to attack the U.S.
This is a HOW, not a WHY. Nobody forced anybody to do anything. Leaders on all sides arranged for the various Players to enter the war at the proper Time, and for the Proper Reasons. The fleet was moved from San Diego to Pearl in preparation for this.

The emperor knew just when and how to attack the US, just as he knew how his carriers would be sacrificed at Midway, and when to capitulate after the bombs were dropped. This is how Shepherds work.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2011
I bet they don't mind seeing sacks of flour with 'Made in USA' on them.

If only they were, Marjon, if only they were.


They receive 1.5 billion in aid every year. I'm sure not all of it is flower...

The government receives that aid, not the people.

Last I checked they purchased plenty of tanks and tear gas with that money, not much in the way of food though.

By the way Marjon, the protestors that attacked the CNN reporter were pro-Mubarak. That's a pretty important piece of info you decided to leave out.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 02, 2011
Which turns out was engineered by the Roosevelt administration.


BS!


BS! is not a refutation. So here are the points again:

1) Roosevelt ran for office on an anti-war platform.

2)The McCollum memo, dated 7 Oct 1940, outlined a plan to provoke Japan into an attack. "throughout 1941, it seems, provoking Japan into an overt act of war was the principal policy that guided FDR's actions against Japan" - Wikipedia

3)"...everything that the Japanese were planning to do was known to the United States..." ARMY BOARD, 1944

4) "At no time, at no time has the military shown any genuine interest in finding the truth. Instead, you have perpetuated the largest cover-up in U.S. history. Not only did you keep critical information from the Hawaiian commanders in 1941, but for 54 years you have never told the truth about it." Congressional hearing 27 Apr 1995 Statement by Manning Kimmel, grandson of Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel

BS?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (44) Feb 02, 2011
At that time, that didn't have the same impact on me that it would have today. I've since learned that when it got to Hanoi -- to the harbor of Haiphong -- it was turned over to the representatives of Ho Chi Minh."
- Col. Fletcher Prouty

This happened on the day of the Japanese surrender. The rest went to Korea.
So? Whats your point? I see it as one more small bit of evidence that what both we and the communists were doing together is what it took to destroy the ancient virulent cultures in that part of the world. And together we succeeded in the only way possible. This is victory by any measure.

The commies busied themselves rounding up a few gens of angry, hungry, idle youth and sending them into our guns. What did that officer say when asked about Tet? "We were killing communists." Indeed we were, though in some other time and place they would have been nazi or white russians or cathars or catholics. Different uniforms, same people. This is how the world works.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2011
Which turns out was engineered by the Roosevelt administration.


BS!


BS! is not a refutation. So here are the points again:

1) Roosevelt ran for office on an anti-war platform.

2)The McCollum memo, dated 7 Oct 1940, outlined a plan to provoke Japan into an attack. "throughout 1941, it seems, provoking Japan into an overt act of war was the principal policy that guided FDR's actions against Japan" - Wikipedia

3)"...everything that the Japanese were planning to do was known to the United States..." ARMY BOARD, 1944

4) "At no time, at no time has the military shown any genuine interest in finding the truth. Instead, you have perpetuated the largest cover-up in U.S. history. Not only did you keep critical information from the Hawaiian commanders in 1941, but for 54 years you have never told the truth about it." Congressional hearing 27 Apr 1995 Statement by Manning Kimmel, grandson of Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel

BS?

Yes, BS.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 02, 2011
"The notation indicated Mitchell's newest obsession, the potential threat of attack from Japan. Though the insightful officer had recognized it, even written of the threat in 1913, his Pacific tour in 1923-24 brought it to the foreground of his reporting and eventually, his speaking."
http:/www.homeofheroes.com/wings/part1/6_survival.html

Gen Mithell's warnings were ignored so as to allow the US to have an excuse to enter a war that was never supposed to happen?
The attack on Pearl was a failure of leadership, not conspiracy.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2011

Yes, BS.

Explain why it is BS.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2011
Last I checked they purchased plenty of tanks and tear gas with that money, not much in the way of food though.


Who did you check with? How many tanks did they buy? How many crates of tear gas? You have a list somewhere? If not then shut the fuck up.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2011

Yes, BS.

Explain why it is BS.

"In 1941 America was not ready for war. With US forces queuing for arms alongside Britain and Russia, Roosevelt knew he needed more time to build America's military capacity. If war was to come, he wanted Japan to be seen to be the aggressor, but Roosevelt was in no hurry."
"The administration and military were both guilty of a staggering lack of co-ordination between Washington and Oahu, and between different services. Japanese messages were decoded by the army and navy on alternate days and all too often one service failed to properly communicate their new intelligence to the other. And it wasn't just codes: on the day of the attack, Japanese aircraft were spotted by American radar. No action was taken: they were assumed to be a flight of B-17 bombers due in from the mainland."
http:/www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/pearl_harbour_01.shtml
It's BS because no sane CiC would intentionally sacrifice top of the line battle ships.
Caliban
5 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2011
Last I checked they purchased plenty of tanks and tear gas with that money, not much in the way of food though.


Who did you check with? How many tanks did they buy? How many crates of tear gas? You have a list somewhere? If not then shut the fuck up.


@MM

Easy, there, Trigger.

I know that you are well aware that a good deal of the USD 1.5 Billion in "aid" that went to Egypt over the last 12-month was, in fact, of a military/tactical/development nature, which you as much as stated, two posts above.

"As for U.S. security and military aid to Egypt, which is about $1.3 billion annually, it does not aim to strengthen Egyptian military power against any external threat, as this would be contrary to the declared U.S. objective of ensuring Israeli security..."(from httpDEL://carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=23282)

For 2010, egypt imported about 3.5 Million Tonnes of grain and feed, (I don't see a $$$value, though).
Citation in cont.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2011
Our 'civil' president is allowing the creation of another Islamo-NAZI state like Iran.
Hopefully Egyptians won't permit the uncivil Muslim Brotherhood from taking over, as Obama seems to support.
Claudius
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 02, 2011

It's BS because no sane CiC would intentionally sacrifice top of the line battle ships.

Translation: It's BS because I can't refute the evidence, but I don't think it could happen.
Caliban
5 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2011
cont

httpDEL://carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=23282

So, out of approx USD 1.5 Billion in aid last year, about USD .3 billion was for grain/feed, or OTHER, and USD 1.2 Billion -or, 80 PER CENT- was military/security aid.

My guess is that the average citizen, when they saw a grain or feed sack that was stamped "PRODUCT OF USA", then they were happy to have it. When they saw tanks, US-equipped military/police/security forces, especially those shooting, tazing, or tear-gassing them, then they probably weren't so happy, and, since Egyptians are just as intelligent as people elsewhere, I would guess that they are aware that much of the weaponry of security forces is supplied by the US, even when(unlike the teargas canisters) it wasn't stamped "MADE IN USA".

Just the same, it is worth noting again that it was MUBARAK SUPPORTERS that have been attacking US nationals/journalists during the uprising, and not the general pop. Surprising, don't you think?

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 03, 2011

It's BS because no sane CiC would intentionally sacrifice top of the line battle ships.

Translation: It's BS because I can't refute the evidence, but I don't think it could happen.

No, there is no evidence. Only speculation.

MUBARAK SUPPORTERS that have been attacking US nationals/journalists

The US is throwing Mubarak under the bus just as Carter did with the Shah.
frajo
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 03, 2011
The US is throwing Mubarak under the bus just as Carter did with the Shah.
This remark shows your stance against democracy.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Feb 03, 2011
The US is throwing Mubarak under the bus just as Carter did with the Shah.
This remark shows your stance against democracy.

Where is the democracy in Iran?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Feb 03, 2011
"Egypt's banned Muslim Brotherhood movement has unveiled its plans to scrap a peace treaty with Israel if it comes to power, a deputy leader said in an interview with NHK TV."
http:/en.rian.ru/world/20110203/162433368.html
Democracies want to fight each other?
frajo
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 03, 2011
The US is throwing Mubarak under the bus just as Carter did with the Shah.
This remark shows your stance against democracy.
Where is the democracy in Iran?
You were talking about shah Reza Pahlevi and about Mubarak. You showed signs of sympathy for these dictators.
For the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki you didn't show any signs of sympathy.
frajo
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 03, 2011
Democracies want to fight each other?
The democratic government of Israel fought the Gaza democracy. But not the Egyptian dictatorship.

The democratic government of Chile was fought 1973 with the help of the CIA. The democratic government of Iran was fought 1953 with the help of the CIA.

You are ill equipped when it comes to democracy.
Claudius
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 03, 2011

No, there is no evidence. Only speculation.

Sigh. There are none so blind...

Let's try again.

At a Cabinet meeting, Secretary of the Navy Knox said, "Well, you know Mr. President, we know where the Japanese fleet is?" "Yes, I know" said FDR. " I think we ought to tell everybody just how ticklish the situation is. We have information as Knox just mentioned...Well, you tell them what it is, Frank." Knox became very excited and said, "Well, we have very secret information that the Japanese fleet is out at sea. Our information is..." and then a scowling FDR cut him off. (Infamy, Toland, 1982, ch 14 sec 5)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Feb 03, 2011
How did anyone know where the fleet was? There were no satellites. A lucky sub contact would be the only hint. It was almost pure luck the USA found the Japanese fleet near Midway, and at that time they did have an idea of where to look.
"the Japanese fleet is out at sea."
The Pacific is a very big ocean.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Feb 03, 2011
For the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki you didn't show any signs of sympathy.

How much sympathy was shown to the people of Nanking or the thousands enslaved by the Japanese during the war?
You were talking about shah Reza Pahlevi and about Mubarak. You showed signs of sympathy for these dictators.

Who was worse for the Iranian people, the Shah or the Ayatollah?
Claudius
2.4 / 5 (14) Feb 03, 2011

How did anyone know where the fleet was?

"Stinnett illustrates how through radio intercepts and decryptions, American, British and Dutch radio receivers across the Pacific triangulated signals from the Japanese fleet, including the attack order. Those intercepts were accumulated in Washington, not Honolulu, and Stinnett convincingly argues that this information was kept from Pearl Harbor commanders to ensure that America's isolationist tendencies would be overcome." Review of Robert Stinett's "Day of Deceit"
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 03, 2011
"The Japanese Fleet sailed across the Pacific in complete radio silence. At the same time, dummy radio nets in the home islands simulated the fleet's normal radio activity. This use of simulative electronic deception (SED) denied the U.S. the true location, intentions, and activities of the Japanese fleet."
http:/www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/accp/ss0134/lsn1.htm
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 03, 2011
"Jacobsen's review deserves to be read in full to get the flavor of some of the "gross omissions, errors and misinterpretations that Stinnett had to assemble to try to make his revisionist conspiracy theory seem plausible to the uninitiated."
"When all the revisionist chaff is separated out, there is no credible evidence that Corregidor produced JN-25B decrypts of intelligence value, much less any cryptanalytic intelligence on the Kido Butai, prior to 7 December 1941.... It is abundantly clear that revisionist allegations that pre-war Corregidor decrypts of JN-25B messages provided a forewarning of the Japanese attack are completely and utterly unfounded."
http:/intellit.muskingum.edu/wwii_folder/wwiipearl_folder/wwiipearlf-j.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 03, 2011
"According to Bates, NIPQ 11.1, this book contains "translations of documents by Japanese naval officers involved in the planning and execution of the attack on Pearl Harbor.... [The] authors contend that these documents prove, in so far as memory can be trusted, that the Japanese task force never broke radio silence until the strike was in the air, and that neither Churchill nor Roosevelt could have known of the attack plan." Kruh, Cryptologia 18.1, also notes the presence of "records confirming that the Japanese task force never broke radio silence," and calls this work a "major contribution to our understanding of that unforgettable day.""
http:/intellit.muskingum.edu/wwii_folder/wwiipearl_folder/wwiipearlf-j.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (47) Feb 03, 2011
You were talking about shah Reza Pahlevi and about Mubarak. You showed signs of sympathy for these dictators.
Shah of Iran
"His rule oversaw the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry under the prime ministership of Mohammad Mosaddeq."
"His White Revolution - a series of economic and social reforms intended to transform Iran into a global power - succeeded in modernizing the nation, nationalizing many natural resources and extending suffrage to women."
"Because he was a Secular Muslim himself, Shah gradually lost support from the Shiia clergy of Iran, particularly due to his strong policy of modernization, secularization and conflict with the traditional class of merchants known as bazaari, and recognition of Israel."
"Explanations for why the Shah was overthrown include...oppression, brutality, corruption... Basic functional failures of the regime have also been blamed - economic bottlenecks, shortages and inflation; the regime's over-ambitious economic program."
cont
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (47) Feb 03, 2011
The shah assumed power when his father was forced to abdicate by invading russians and british during ww2. He was initially well-liked by the people and was seen as a welcome change to his fathers rule. His main efforts were geared toward modernizing the country.

But as postwar pops swelled uncontrollably and the people began to experience hardship as a result, they blamed the shah for this. This strengthened the radical islamist factions. The shah began to increase security and reduce freedoms in response to growing unrest fomented by communists and fundamentalists, and was finally overthrown in 1979.

The ONLY thing which reduced unrest in iran was the hardship and death caused by the 11 year iran/iraq war. Pops have since recovered and iran now again prepares for war.

So we can see the results of overpopulation in iran even as we watch them again in egypt, yemen, and elsewhere today. Stability gradually replaced by chaos and brutality, and war again the only solution.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (48) Feb 03, 2011
authe Japanese task force never broke radio silence until the strike was in the air, and that neither Churchill nor Roosevelt could have known of the attack plan.
Except for the well-guarded secret communications sent periodically to let the west know exactly where they were, which only a very few were ever privy to.

The carriers were out to sea while the junk battleships were left waiting to be sunk. You simply cannot rely on the small snippets of disinformation leaked to muddy the waters and cover the trail.

The Lusitania was indeed carrying munitions. The battleship Maine was blown up from the inside. Hell, the Titanic was even steered directly into that iceberg, we now know. Because an extensive commercial aviation industry would be vital to the next war.

The navy has traditionally been used to start these sorts of things. Many many examples which, when taken by themselves, appear as screwups or happenstance; but together they begin to tell a different Story.
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (11) Feb 03, 2011

Except for the well-guarded secret communications sent periodically to let the west know exactly where they were, which only a very few were ever privy to.

I guess it is my job to play Devil's advocate and ask where that information came from, if for no other reason than to be able to reference it in the future.

Admiral Kimmel testified before Congress after the war and complained bitterly that Washington had known of the attack via intercepted dispatches and withheld the information from the commanders in Hawaii. He spent the rest of his life trying to clear his name.

So ... Lusitania, Maine, Titanic. I thought you hated conspiracy "theorists." Speaking of the Navy starting things, Gulf of Tonkin comes to mind as well.
Caliban
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2011
All things considered, in my view, "Conspiracy" can best be described as nothing more than Governmental operations and planning that are withheld from public knowledge, and often from other agency/departmental personnel.

And for the first one who wants to pooh-pooh that notion, let me remind you of the world-famous "Iran-Contragate" affair. Now who still insists that there are no conspiracies in or outside of government?

The list is long, indeed.

Claudius
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 03, 2011
Regarding "conspiracy," the key word in the definition is "criminal" but I am sure you know that. We aren't talking about legal operations by the government, but illegal ones.
Claudius
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 03, 2011
Remember what Claudius' friend Herod told him: "Trust No One".

With all those relatives dying off suspiciously, I'm sure he had a few thoughts about conspiracy as well...
Caliban
5 / 5 (1) Feb 03, 2011
Regarding "conspiracy," the key word in the definition is "criminal" but I am sure you know that. We aren't talking about legal operations by the government, but illegal ones.


Unfortunately, the distinction is entirely moot, if the conspiracy goes undetected. In purely operational terms, there is no difference.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 03, 2011
Why do government conspiracy buffs have so much faith in the competency of the government?
Claudius
2 / 5 (12) Feb 03, 2011

Unfortunately, the distinction is entirely moot, if the conspiracy goes undetected. In purely operational terms, there is no difference.

In legal terms, though, there is quite a a bit of difference. If the government secretly plans to do something legal, it is not reprehensible.

I hate to sound pedantic, but detectives are the ultimate conspiracy theorists. It is their job to discover plans by two or more individuals to break the law.

And it is in the nature of criminals that they take some pains to conceal their activities. Government conspirators usually have greater resources to conceal their tracks, and are usually above suspicion, since most people bow to authority.

But government is full of stinkers, and I for one no longer have faith in any of them.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Feb 03, 2011
But government is full of stinkers, and I for one no longer have faith in any of them.

But you have faith they have the intelligence and discipline to engineer massive conspiracies?
frajo
5 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2011
For the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki you didn't show any signs of sympathy.
How much sympathy was shown to the people of Nanking or the thousands enslaved by the Japanese during the war?
You justify/excuse your lack of sympathy with innocent victims of one group by referring to the lack of mercy of a second, non-innocent group which is connected to the first group by their nationality only. Obviously you don't see the implications of your ethics for your innocent compatriots on this globe.
You were talking about shah Reza Pahlevi and about Mubarak. You showed signs of sympathy for these dictators.
Who was worse for the Iranian people, the Shah or the Ayatollah?
You justify/excuse your sympathy for anti-democratic dictators by insinuating they are the best for their people.
Now just tell us whether a dictator would be better for your country.
Claudius
1.6 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2011
But government is full of stinkers, and I for one no longer have faith in any of them.

But you have faith they have the intelligence and discipline to engineer massive conspiracies?

I didn't say they were stupid or undisciplined, just stinkers. The dangerous kind.

Here's my criminal hierarchy:
1.) Petty thieves
2.) Murderers, rapists
3.) Mafia
4.) Government
5.) Banksters, big corporations, "Robber Barons"
6.) What Winston Churchill referred to as "The High Cabal."

(With apologies to the occasional person with integrity that gets into government. Ineffective though they are.)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Feb 04, 2011
Obviously you don't see the implications of your ethics for your innocent compatriots on this globe.

Why did Japanese soldiers rape and murder 300,000 Chinese in Nanking?
Why did the USA drop two atomic bombs?
The Japanese military committed more war crimes than the Germans. Why were there not war crime trials of Japanese like the Nuremberg trials?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2011
The Japanese military committed more war crimes than the Germans. Why were there not war crime trials of Japanese like the Nuremberg trials?

Unbelievably ignorant, even for you Marjon.

5725 Japanese were sentenced under the far east war crimes investigations.
202 people were sentenced during the totality of the Nuremberg trials. If you include the subsequent and US only Dachau trials, you can add another 1600 or so to that list for Germany.

The Japanese were punished to a far greater extent than Germany was.
Skultch
5 / 5 (2) Feb 04, 2011
But government is full of stinkers, and I for one no longer have faith in any of them.


Same here. It's a very small sample size, but everyone I have ever known that had political ambitions was a VERY unethical person. They just plain didn't care about anything but themselves. Dennis Kucinich is the lone exception, from my personal experience. He genuinely cares for all others, maybe to a fault.
Claudius
1.3 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2011
1 of 5
Here’s my historical analysis, half-baked as it is.
Archaeologists define the start of Civilization with the domestication of animals and invention of agriculture. So Civilization can be thought of in terms of farming.
At first, whoever started farming had to lure uncivilized people onto the farm to do the hard work (Epic of Gilgamesh.) The owner of the farm was the king, and the workers were his serfs. This pattern continued for a long time. With the Romans and Greeks we see attempts by people to rid themselves of kings and govern themselves. The Roman Republic was essentially a cooperative farm, in which ownership was shared among a group of Citizens who had equal authority. Of course, the hard work was given to migrant workers and slaves who could not be Citizens, but the example of greater liberty was established, and not forgotten. The Romans lost their Republic, but it served as an example for the future.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2011
2 of 5
Since the fall of the Roman Republic, there was a return to the more usual form of farming. Essentially, you can think it as a plantation, essentially a feudal society. The English colonies in America were essentially plantations serving the owners back in England. Through poor management from England, people began to want greater autonomy and eventually fought a war against the plantation owners. The United States of America was created to ensure that the plantation owners could not take back what they lost. One way to think of this is that instead of living as serfs on a plantation, we had our own garden to tend. The founders of this republic warned us of the danger of allowing tyranny to encroach on our new liberty. One can think of this as warning us to beware of weeds in the garden, and root them up when found. This requires eternal vigilance and determination.
Claudius
1.1 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2011
3 of 5
Unfortunately, Americans were so proud of their accomplishment that they assumed the farm would run by itself. We had “checks and balances” that would ensure that tyranny would never rise again. We forgot the warnings of eternal vigilance against threats to our liberty. In essence, we farmers planted a crop and went off to do other things, assuming that weeds could never grow in our wonderful garden. We forgot that the plantation owners might have an agenda, and didn’t realize they might send immigrants to our country with the express purpose subverting our system. These immigrants established a secret elite society whose purpose was to infiltrate the various power centers of our country, economic and political. By the time of Andrew Jackson, this corruption was well under way (The Indian Removal Act is one example.) The hidden elites began guiding the operations of our government and financial institutions, and over time subverted the entire system to serve their needs.
Claudius
1 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2011
4 of 5
So we now live in a country in which “citizens” have very little voice in the running of the government. Instead of inalienable rights we have privileges. Our elected representatives don’t represent us. When we vote in an election, it is always a choice between candidates who have been groomed and selected by the elites. We can choose between two evils, but can never vote for a candidate who will represent us. There are exceptions to this, but they are rare. One example: when Jesse Ventura was elected, it was a complete surprise to the power elites. When he took office, he was summoned to a meeting with a group of CIA officials to answer questions, many of which had to do with how in the heck had he gotten himself elected. The Republican and Democrat parties joined forces in the state legislature to make sure he could accomplish nothing of significance.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (45) Feb 04, 2011
I guess it is my job to play Devil's advocate and ask where that information came from, if for no other reason than to be able to reference it in the future.
So ... Lusitania, Maine, Titanic. I thought you hated conspiracy "theorists."
Otto sometimes is sarcastic for people familiar with his Theories.
Deduction. Its not the kind of thing you would ever have direct evidence for, except if that evidence was to be taken as obfuscation. 1)It was possible. 2)It was necessary, as was our entrance into the war at the Proper Time.
Regarding "conspiracy," the key word in the definition is "criminal" but I am sure you know that. We aren't talking about legal operations by the government, but illegal ones.
Above certain levels there is no distinction, only the acceptance of the Inevitable and the absolute necessity of preparing for it. If millions are going to die because once again there are too many of them, then one way or another they will die.
cont
Claudius
1 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2011
5 of 5
So now we live on a plantation again only we can’t see it because there is still a Congress, a Supreme Court and an Executive. All seems well. Until you notice that Congress passes laws that are completely unconstitutional and the Supreme Court does nothing about them. Until you notice that the Executive ignores the will of Congress by using Executive Orders and signing statements. This is bad enough, but it appears that the plantation owners have even greater plans. They seem to be working hard to establish a global plantation, with themselves at the top and the rest of us at the bottom. And unlike the Roman Empire, which mainly fell because of the difficulty of managing a large empire with crude accounting methods, the new system will have modern systems that will probably never fail. It is a terrifying prospect of the future, in which a global tyranny has settled itself over the globe, with tools at its disposal to ensure no chance of change, forever.
Just my 2 cents.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (49) Feb 04, 2011
Any Leader who is aware of this and does not prepare for it in order to protect what is truly irreplaceable and vital to the continued function of society, would be in effect committing a great crime.

I think Leaders accepted this horrendous Equation long ago and began to Manage Their flocks so that wars could be Engineered and the Results of them predetermined.

Like a dam which stores the flood waters and uses them to create electricity, Leaders realized that wars could not only be Managed to minimize damage, but they could be almost unimaginably beneficial in creating Order, consolidating Rule, and initiating Progress. Leaders who began to Manage conflict in this manner soon developed the skills to defeat much larger foes, as did Greece.

But the Philosophy was such an easy sell to rival leaders who shared the same problems, that it was soon spread worldwide. A Tribe of Leaders emerged, pledged to defend its store of Knowledge from the species that had flooded the world.
Claudius
1 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2011

Otto sometimes is sarcastic for people familiar with his Theories.

This implies that Otto was bringing up the Lusitania, Maine, & Titanic without sincerity?

What are Otto's Theories?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Feb 04, 2011
Guys, can we take the Jesse Ventura shit to PMs? This article is killing me. Let it die.
Claudius
1 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2011

A Tribe of Leaders emerged, pledged to defend its store of Knowledge from the species that had flooded the world.

So essentially, as we saw with the American experiment in Republic, the masses of "citizens" were too inept to keep their liberties? Unable or unwilling to be vigilant enough to see and pull the weeds from the garden? Thereby showing themselves to be poor stewards of liberty and not deserving of rule?

So we fall back into the old ways and mysteries, that an elite class will run things because they can do it well, and the rest of us are either serfs or surplus baggage. The dream of individual, inalienable liberty was a false one, and we must accept some form of tyranny since anything else is doomed to failure.

That seems to be the analysis.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Feb 04, 2011
So we now live in a country in which “citizens” have very little voice in the running of the government.

Did you notice the people, those that SH dislikes, spoke loud and clear in NOV?
Yes, we do have a govt that refuses to pay attention and follow the Constitution.
In 2012, the voice of the people will be heard again and in the mean time, those people SH dislikes will keep the pressure on Congress separating out the socialists and statists.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2011

In 2012, the voice of the people will be heard again

Well, let's assume Operation Mockingbird is still operational, and we have what the Rand Corp. referred to in the 1960s as "effective opinion control." Who is in control of public opinion? If public opinion is being effectively controlled, in what way are the people really being heard?
Skultch
5 / 5 (3) Feb 04, 2011
Claudius, this is where you lose my agreement, part 3:

These immigrants established a secret elite society whose purpose was to infiltrate the various power centers of our country, economic and political.


I'm not saying it didn't happen, I just require some evidence. If it's just a hypothesis, then everything from there breaks down.

Even if it did, in a very real way, we are all immigrants, so I don't see how that matters, unless they never truly "assimilated," for your hypothetical purpose. What's the difference if they are immigrants or not? If they truly became Americans, we aren't ruled by immigrants or outliers, we are merely ruled by shadows of ourselves. If so, so what? (besides a lack of representation) Explain how they would not be subject to the underlying chaos of all things and thus not 100% in control.
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Feb 04, 2011
Otto:

Deduction. Its not the kind of thing you would ever have direct evidence for...


Cool story, bro. Plausible, but I don't see how it's any more likely than the popular theory of history. This is kinda like the theological/materialistic debate; which is more likely? The difference being that any "theological" genesis story is without evidence. In the human history debate, there's at least some evidence on both sides.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2011

In 2012, the voice of the people will be heard again

Well, let's assume Operation Mockingbird is still operational, and we have what the Rand Corp. referred to in the 1960s as "effective opinion control." Who is in control of public opinion? If public opinion is being effectively controlled, in what way are the people really being heard?

In the '60s who imagined a decentralized internet.
Right now the public is in control of its opinion. ABCCBSNBCPBS have lost control.
Look how fast the AGWites have lost control.
If Libertarians would focus on economic issues and stop their Pearl Harbor conspiracies, they may make some traction.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2011

I'm not saying it didn't happen, I just require some evidence. If it's just a hypothesis, then everything from there breaks down.

I am thinking about Skull & Bones here.

Even if it did, in a very real way, we are all immigrants

Well, these particular immigrants, I think, had a mission. The rest are our ancestors. "Just visiting", to quote from "The Good Shepherd."

Right now the public is in control of its opinion. ABCCBSNBCPBS have lost control.

Well, SOME of the public is awake. The other 90% are still watching football, eating popcorn, and drinking beer. Probably a lot happier not knowing what is going on in the world, too. And they are going to vote in 2012.
Claudius
1 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2011

Look how fast the AGWites have lost control.

Have they? They may be discredited but that hasn't stopped the political agenda. Look at the problems Texas is having now with power because Obama has pledged to "bankrupt" any new coal power plants.
Claudius
1 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2011

A Tribe of Leaders emerged, pledged to defend its store of Knowledge from the species that had flooded the world.

I never thought I would say this, but I think I agree with Otto. I don't like it, and I don't know whose side he's on, but I think he's right. We are up a creek without a paddle.
Skultch
not rated yet Feb 04, 2011

I'm not saying it didn't happen, I just require some evidence. If it's just a hypothesis, then everything from there breaks down.

I am thinking about Skull & Bones here.


Wouldn't it be more likely that a bunch of smart, well educated, already powerful groups of families, with questionable ethical frameworks, actually just disagree with you or I on how to best advance the species (selfish, altruistic, or in between)? It seems to me, the vast conspiracy thing is superfluousness. (didn't know that was a word, lol)

Same goes with Otto's theory; dynamic and chaotic forces of need and selfish perspective instead of every top leader EVER sacrificing their own people by the tens of thousands or millions?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2011

Look how fast the AGWites have lost control.

Have they? They may be discredited but that hasn't stopped the political agenda. Look at the problems Texas is having now with power because Obama has pledged to "bankrupt" any new coal power plants.

This demonstrates the consequences of the AGW/green religion.
AGW lost the propaganda war. The only tool now is the EPA regulatory club which the Congress will soon take away. The same Congress that was recently voted in by people SH doesn't like.
Pissed off cold people are not likely to support higher costs for coal, oil and gas and are not likely to support restrictions on their development and processing in the USA.
Unless BHO plans a coup, he won't be in office after 2012 if he follows this path.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2011
Well, SOME of the public is awake. The other 90% are still watching football, eating popcorn, and drinking beer. Probably a lot happier not knowing what is going on in the world, too. And they are going to vote in 2012.

You are no better than the 'elites' you complain about.
Most people are too busy trying to earn a living and want the govt to leave them alone. The tea parties have shown their is a vast majority that when pushed too far will stand up and say no more. That is what really frightens the statists, a citizenry that is paying attention.
The most profound event of the 2010 election are the number of 'liberals' tossed out in state elections.
It is now in the hands of Rs and all Congressional districts in the USA will be redrawn soon. Mostly by Republican state legislatures.
MA will loose a Congressman and Texas will gain.
SoulmanOtto
4.7 / 5 (13) Feb 04, 2011
The dream of individual, inalienable liberty was a false one, and we must accept some form of tyranny since anything else is doomed to failure.
Freedom to do what exactly? Fly to Bermuda whenever you feel like it? Buy one more house like Nicholas Gage that you'll never have the time or inclination to visit? You want to rent porn stars like that sheen guy maybe?

Are you warm and is your belly full? So is mine. Freedom is directly related to the number of people there are vs the resources available to provide for their basic needs. The question, 'Do you think the future will be secure for your children?' -is the one which causes us the most anxiety. Without the traditional idea of gods Providence, there are few good answers. But if the world is being Managed to provide a secure future for humanity, then one can find comfort in this at least.
SoulmanOtto
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 04, 2011
Cool story, bro. Plausible, but I don't see how it's any more likely than the popular theory of history.
First off I think it is inevitable given the natural tendency of people of like minds and shared interests to come together and discuss them. Humans also have the ability to imagine possible futures and to try to influence them. It's what we do best. We see this at all levels of human endeavor and yet we think that things at the very top are chaos and happenstance? I doubt it.

These Rulers lived atop city mounds that recorded a history of growth, decay, collapse, and rebirth. They kept meticulous records of harvest yields, granary stores, and of who got how much. And they heard the complaints from all those feeling the effects of pop growth; and as the people would always blame them, would have wanted to know the cause.
SoulmanOtto
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 04, 2011
And in the writings of history we hear the same lament time and again... From Gilgamesh to Enoch to Solomon to plato to Augustine etc, of a helplessness over future decay, and of hints on What might be done to Accomodate it or even to use it to enormous Advantage, as did Joseph and pharaoh. I think the bible for instance is about nothing else about a Solution to this conundrum.

'Divide the people up and set them against one another.' -from the book of Enoch, the nephelim. 'A [Proper] Time for everything under the sun.' -was the Solution given to Solomon for his concerns about the future in ecc3. 'Zeus created the Illian war [Trojan] so that the great load of humanity might be emptied from the world.' There is SO much more.
Caliban
1 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2011
All certainly plausible, even likely, given that there are individuals, and indeed families, that possess wealth, power, and influence sufficient to make it so.

I take it as a given.

But I do not accept that this cadre is necessarily right, or understands what's best for humanity as a species or a culture.

The obvious answer would be a world government, staffed and operated by those of a diligent nature simultaneously least inclined and most competent.

What do you suppose the chances are of that happening?
Claudius
1 / 5 (8) Feb 05, 2011

I'm not saying it didn't happen, I just require some evidence. If it's just a hypothesis, then everything from there breaks down.

It was intended to be food for thought. That is why I prefaced the whole thing with "My analysis, half-baked."

As far as S&B goes, it is my analysis, I think it likely that this is what happened. Am I ready to take it to a Grand Jury? No. But we got from point A (The Revolution) to point B (the subversion of the Revolution) and there are numerous elements that point a finger in the direction of S&B. S&B seems to have European origins, they seem to have a mission, and the actions of their members indicates the mission is to occupy key positions in economics and politics. My 2 cents, as I said.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Feb 05, 2011
The obvious answer would be a world government,

Why?
staffed and operated by those of a diligent nature simultaneously least inclined and most competent.

These people are called saints. I didn't think you believed in religion.
Govt is POWER, pure and simple. Decentralizing that power entails less risk and allows opportunities for those most affected by that power to keep it under control.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2011

Freedom to do what exactly?

The word was liberty, not freedom. Liberation from oppressive government. Liberation from unwarranted searches, unjustified detention, cruel and unusual punishment, suppression of political speech, etc, etc. The Rights of Englishmen, the Bill of Rights.

If it was only about freedom to stay warm and eat enough to survive; slaves have that freedom.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (46) Feb 05, 2011
The obvious answer would be a world government, staffed and operated by those of a diligent nature simultaneously least inclined and most competent.
As long as cultures exist which either allow or force reproduction beyond their means to sustain it, there will need to be decisions made and actions taken to counter it. These cannot be done in the light of public scrutiny as the vast majority would oppose them. And yet as collapse and chaos are the inevitable result of overpopulation, these Decisions have to be made and these Actions taken, if the best and most valuable that humanity has created to date is to survive.

There is I think, and has been for the last few millennia, a functioning and effective world govt. Gentlemen, welcome to Empire.
Claudius
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 05, 2011

The question, 'Do you think the future will be secure for your children?' -is the one which causes us the most anxiety.

History has shown that putting security at the top of your priority list always leads to despotism. Do you really want another Tiberius or Caligula to run things for you?

"…that all the creatures of this new Power, who in the loss of public freedom had gained private fortunes, preferred a servile condition, safe and possessed, to the revival of ancient liberty with personal peril."

- Tacitus, The Reign of Tiberius

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

- Benjamin Franklin
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Feb 05, 2011
If it was only about freedom to stay warm and eat enough to survive; slaves have that freedom.
Indeed they did. They were taken from brutal cultures engaged in near-constant tribal warfare and internal violence and given passage to a new land where they could earn room and board in relative security. The chiefs who sold them into slavery were every bit as brutal as their keepers in the Americas could be, but usually were not.

They were the result of overpop, and they were brought here in part to enrich the demographics of the west. This is an ongoing theme of empire- at times Rome was majority slave. The rehomogenization of the species seems vital to it's continued health. Strife is created in overcrowded homelands causing the best and brightest to emigrate, enriching new populations. Undoing Babel.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Feb 05, 2011
History has shown that putting security at the top of your priority list always leads to despotism. Do you really want another Tiberius or Caligula to run things for you?
If that is the only thing that can keep you from being overrun, then yes. But this can be anticipated and Despots installed, and removed, as needed. Nero was instrumental in tailoring the Xian church to suit it's future emergence as the state religion, by martyring millions of xians whose beliefs weren't compatible. Population problems were critical back then, as always.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 05, 2011
If it was only about freedom to stay warm and eat enough to survive; slaves have that freedom.

How?
Slaves only have the food their master's give them and the shelter their master's provide. Something like today's modern welfare state in many areas of the US and Europe.
Recall the BHO supporter who thought BHO would pay her gas bill and house bill and ...?

Viktor Frankl believed liberty requires responsibility and promoted a Statue of Responsibility in San Francisco. I wouldn't have chosen SF as a symbol of responsibility, but they certainly do need more of.
Claudius
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 05, 2011

Viktor Frankl believed liberty requires responsibility and promoted a Statue of Responsibility in San Francisco.

I read his book "Man's Search for Meaning" quite a few years ago. Very good account of how he survived by finding a personal meaning of life. Not very helpful for an existential nihilist, though.

Liberty does not require personal responsibility, I would argue. It is Citizenship that requires that. Liberty, liberation from oppressive government, should never be conditional.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2011
Liberty requires citizens to be responsible.
The authors of the US Constitution declared this as an axiom.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Feb 05, 2011
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

-And where would franklins essential liberty be if the govt which guaranteed it collapsed? Where would his fortune be if the authority which gave it value, collapsed?

Franklin knew these things. He was engaged in selling the people of this new nation state on the idea that sovereignty was not an Illusion.

'Liberty' for you might mean the ability to go somewhere or say something I suppose, but for most it means the ability to stay at home and make babies. This is biologically the thing that is intended to give us the most happiness and contentment.

This 'liberty' will inevitably give way to a shortage of resources, rising unemployment and hunger, and increasing unrest. The people will blame WHATEVER govt, system, or individual that is in charge for it, no matter how beneficent. Liberties WILL be restricted as a result, in order to prevent collapse.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (45) Feb 05, 2011
Liberty requires citizens to be responsible.
The authors of the US Constitution declared this as an axiom.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams.
-Which means living within their means, right marjon? But your religions will invariably tell you that god will provide for however many babies you can produce for him.

This was ok back when your enemies were doing the same thing and it was the only way to keep from being overrun. But now they are the only thing which prevents people from acting responsibly and living within their means.

They insist on overpopulating and they resist ANY attempts to modify this behavior. They are thus the sole remaining cause of suffering, deprivation, instability, and war.

Religionists are taught to be responsible to their god and group at the expense of the rest of the world. That is why religions are evil and must end.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2011
Liberty requires citizens to be responsible.
The authors of the US Constitution declared this as an axiom.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams.


That is why convicted criminals lose their liberty. But until a conviction, a Citizen is presumed innocent, and liberty cannot be denied to him.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2011

-And where would franklins essential liberty be if the govt which guaranteed it collapsed? Where would his fortune be if the authority which gave it value, collapsed?

Franklin was quite aware of the threats to the new government. In spite of this he defended liberty. He was willing to face the risks rather than "sacrifice" his liberty.


'Liberty' for you might mean the ability to go somewhere or say something I suppose, but for most it means the ability to stay at home and make babies.

Liberty has nothing to do with your ability to go places or eat. It has to do with protection from tyrannical practices by the government. Read my previous post on this.


Liberties WILL be restricted as a result, in order to prevent collapse.

This is the traditional excuse of tyrants. You are obviously into realpolitik, which is sad.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Feb 05, 2011

Viktor Frankl believed liberty requires responsibility and promoted a Statue of Responsibility in San Francisco.

I read his book "Man's Search for Meaning" quite a few years ago. Very good account of how he survived by finding a personal meaning of life. Not very helpful for an existential nihilist, though.

Liberty does not require personal responsibility, I would argue. It is Citizenship that requires that. Liberty, liberation from oppressive government, should never be conditional.
-And would Frankl be musing about 'freedom' if he was occupied in fleeing an invading army? Would you be pondering liberty while you were starving or your home was being invaded by Crips?

A womans 'freedom to choose' is wholly about the freedom of not having to stand in breadlines all day. So is yours.

Look at the throngs in Cairo. This is what a FLOOD of unemployed, hungry, homeless young men looks like. In the past they would be on a battlefield, as they soon will be.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 05, 2011

This 'liberty' will inevitably give way to a shortage of resources, rising unemployment and hunger, and increasing unrest.

If you are saying that a tyranny is the best way to force population reduction programs down unwilling throats, I am in complete agreement. The Chinese have been especially good at this. How many have they killed? Something like 80 million? Give them a gold star for good performance.

Developed nations are somehow managing to hold onto at least some concept of liberty and their populations are declining. It is only in developing nations and among the poor we see rising populations. Let's help develop those nations and build on the concepts of liberty rather than sacrifice everything for survival. There are better, more humane ways to solve the population problem.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2011

Look at the throngs in Cairo. This is what a FLOOD of unemployed, hungry, homeless young men looks like

This is what a flood of unemployed, hungry, homeless men look like after living under a tyranny for decades. And we are getting ready to install another tyrant for them to enjoy.

Why is the U.S. so in love with tyrants? We are constantly propping them up.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2011

-And would Frankl be musing about 'freedom' if he was occupied in fleeing an invading arm

Frankl spent years in a concentration camp. So the question is moot. He's been there, done that, has the T-shirt.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (45) Feb 05, 2011
Liberty has nothing to do with your ability to go places or eat.
OF COURSE IT DOES. It doesnt exist if you are starving or dead.
It has to do with protection from tyrannical practices by the government.
Which one? Your govt which is desperately engaged in suppressing insurrection in order to prevent chaos and collapse? Or the invading govt who wants to steal what you have and run you off or kill you?
Read my previous post on this.
You have yet to understand just how FRAGILE and tenuous your way of life is. Consider living in the midst of drug gangs in northern mexico, or in Sri Lanka. Overpopulation is a TIDAL WAVE that will wash your armchair, your refigerator, your cell phone, and your carcass out to sea. Better run for high ground now.
"16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak." Matt24
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2011

You have yet to understand just how FRAGILE and tenuous your way of life is. Consider living in the midst of drug gangs in northern mexico, or in Sri Lanka.

Of course it is. Consider also whether life in Mexico is the result of a government that protects the liberty of its citizens.

I remember a Mexican I met at university in the early 1970's. He was from a wealthy family. One thing I will never forget is his description of how Mexico handled protesters. "They surrounded the square where the protesters were gathered, and machine gunned them down. No more protesters." He was smiling as he said this.

Liberty, despite its fragility, is worth preserving. If it is done right, it will "...insure domestic Tranquility ... promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

I still believe it is the best way.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (44) Feb 05, 2011

Look at the throngs in Cairo. This is what a FLOOD of unemployed, hungry, homeless young men looks like

This is what a flood of unemployed, hungry, homeless men look like after living under a tyranny for decades. And we are getting ready to install another tyrant for them to enjoy.

Why is the U.S. so in love with tyrants? We are constantly propping them up.
You dont understand. Youre totally ignoring the enormous impact of population growth. Europe went from relative peace and security to total war within a generation.

Egypt was peaceful and content when mubarak took power. He was a good leader who despite this found it necessary to begin restricting freedom AS the population grew and exceeded the threshold of instability. As any ruler would.

Had he not, his govt WOULD have already been supplanted by islamic radicals who would have done so, EXACTLY as they did in iran. It is population pressure which restricts freedom, one way or another.
Claudius
1 / 5 (8) Feb 05, 2011

You dont understand. Youre totally ignoring the enormous impact of population growth. Europe went from relative peace and security to total war within a generation.


No, you don't understand. I completely agree with you about population growth. I just don't agree that we need to sacrifice our liberty and way of life to do something effective about it.
Thrasymachus
3 / 5 (8) Feb 05, 2011
Liberation from unwarranted searches, unjustified detention, cruel and unusual punishment, suppression of political speech, etc, etc.
Don't forget unwarranted seizure of property and the right to due process that includes a jury trial before punishment is imposed. Since the end of the last World War, the greatest danger of privation of these liberties came not from government, but from other powerful private actors. Indeed, in a basically democratic republican form of government, the fundamental threat to liberty is not the government itself, but those powerful agents who can periodically seize control of the government, and otherwise successfully evade or resist it. A government that protects liberty must be able to resist these powerful private agencies, and have the wherewithal to detect and prosecute them when they infringe upon the liberty of others for their own profit.
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (11) Feb 05, 2011

He was a good leader who despite this found it necessary to begin restricting freedom AS the population grew and exceeded the threshold of instability. As any ruler would.


As any "ruler" would. An elected representative wouldn't.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 05, 2011
This 'liberty' will inevitably give way to a shortage of resources, rising unemployment and hunger, and increasing unrest.

How?
It has not occurred in the USA, but is becoming so as the US govt destroys liberty.
There would be no shortage of electricity in TX if the US govt had not restricted power plants.
The rolling blackouts in CA a few years ago was the result of less liberty due to govt regulations.
Europe went from relative peace and security to total war within a generation.

Europe has been at war for centuries.
Population was not the problem. Govt power was and is.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 05, 2011
A government that protects liberty must be able to resist these powerful private agencies,

The best way to ensure this it to LIMIT the power of the state, as the Constitution intended.
Claudius
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2011

A government that protects liberty must be able to resist these powerful private agencies, and have the wherewithal to detect and prosecute them when they infringe upon the liberty of others for their own profit.

And if, instead, the government is ruled by lobbyists from big international corporations, what then?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Feb 05, 2011
Liberty, despite its fragility, is worth preserving. If it is done right, it will "...insure domestic Tranquility ...
Absolutely. If, and ONLY if, the people can be restricted to living within their means.
Of course it is. Consider also whether life in Mexico is the result of a government that protects the liberty of its citizens.
Mexico has had a history of dealing with the results of overpopulation; abject poverty, rampant crime, insurrection, corruption. ALL of these things necessarily restrict liberty. And there is NO OTHER way to combat them, than by restricting liberty.

You want to combat drug gangs and insurrectionists? Then you must restrict their liberties. You want to combat crime committed by people whose families are starving? Isnt it better to combat the CAUSE of these conditions rather than the symptoms?

Americans have no concept of these symptoms. We have never lived with collapse, total war, widespread starvation. We can afford to muse.
frajo
5 / 5 (5) Feb 05, 2011
Liberty requires citizens to be responsible.
The authors of the US Constitution declared this as an axiom.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams.

You wanted to say - in an obscure manner - that the US Constitution is wholly inadequate for the current US population as they are not "moral and religious"?
And you would like to conclude that the powers you would like to rule the US therefore need not heed the US Constitution?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2011

A government that protects liberty must be able to resist these powerful private agencies, and have the wherewithal to detect and prosecute them when they infringe upon the liberty of others for their own profit.

And if, instead, the government is ruled by lobbyists from big international corporations, what then?

Why does this occur now? Because the govt is taking power it should not have to control these corporations. Consumers are more efficient and ruthless than any govt at controlling corporations.
If Teddy Roosevelt wanted to improve the quality of meat, he would have let a free press (Constitutional) do the job. The best, and worst,advertising for a business is word of mouth.
Oscar Mayer tied a yellow ribbon on his products to distinguish this quality from his competitors.
See how GE (govt Electric) was rewarded for their contributions to Obama? Take away the treat of 'cap and tax' and watch those 'donations' dry up.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2011
Want to combat drug gangs? Decriminalize their products.
Govts get a two-fer for making drugs illegal. They demand more power to control people's liberty and they create more financial opportunities for kick-backs from the gangs.
Decriminalization puts the responsibility on the consumer. Maybe even a three-fer. People demand the govt must protect them from their irresponsible, libertine actions.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Feb 05, 2011
He was a good leader who despite this found it necessary to begin restricting freedom AS the population grew and exceeded the threshold of instability. As any ruler would.
As any "ruler" would. An elected representative wouldn't.
And like I said, had he not begun to restrict the activities of the Islamic Brotherhood and others, he would have been replaced by them and they would have proceeded to do the SAME THINGS. Except they would have leaned more on the coptics and other minorities, blaming egypts ills on them rather than religion-mandated overpropagation.

And when those minorities were expelled, things would get better, thereby proving the radicals right... until pops grew to replace them in a generation. So rulers would of course blame their godless neighbors, and war would again commence. You understand the Pattern?

Nature restricts populations through competition, deprivation, and hardship. People who wish to assume the Role of nature must also do this.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 05, 2011
Liberty requires citizens to be responsible.
The authors of the US Constitution declared this as an axiom.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams.

You wanted to say - in an obscure manner - that the US Constitution is wholly inadequate for the current US population as they are not "moral and religious"?
And you would like to conclude that the powers you would like to rule the US therefore need not heed the US Constitution?

NO.
A majority of the US population IS religious and moral and advocates a return to Constitutional govt. The evidence lies in the 'progressives' use of courts to impose their immoral, irresponsible laws because they could not be passed by legislation.
Claudius
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 05, 2011

Why does this occur now? Because the govt is taking power it should not have to control these corporations.

No, it is the other way around. It was a mistake to define a corporation as a "person." Corporations, especially international ones, are not Citizens, and should not have the right to lobby. This step would probably be enough to put the U.S. back on the right track.
Claudius
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 05, 2011

Nature restricts populations through competition, deprivation, and hardship. People who wish to assume the Role of nature must also do this.

Why should we restrict ourselves to emulating natural processes? Should we become brutal savages in order to solve our problems? Aren't we better than that?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2011

Why does this occur now? Because the govt is taking power it should not have to control these corporations.

No, it is the other way around. It was a mistake to define a corporation as a "person." Corporations, especially international ones, are not Citizens, and should not have the right to lobby. This step would probably be enough to put the U.S. back on the right track.


Why does this occur now? Because the govt is taking power it should not have to control these corporations.

No, it is the other way around. It was a mistake to define a corporation as a "person." Corporations, especially international ones, are not Citizens, and should not have the right to lobby. This step would probably be enough to put the U.S. back on the right track.

Why will this stop any lobbying? SC Johnson is a private corporation and could be owned by one person. You would ban him from trying to keep the govt from controlling his business that employs thousands of people
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2011
Or how about a coalition of independent business owners who don't want the govt to tell them how to do business?
Or how about groups like the NRA that lobby to protect citizens 2nd amendment rights?
Citizens have the right to assemble and petition their govt for grievances.
frajo
5 / 5 (5) Feb 05, 2011
Consumers are more efficient and ruthless than any govt at controlling corporations.
You have evidence that consumers were more efficient at controlling dioxin distributing corporations 1976 in Seveso, 1984 in Bhopal, and 2011 in Germany?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Feb 05, 2011
frajo: What happens with an immoral govt:
"Legal abortion was supposed to end "back-alley abortions." But the practice and the mores of the back alley are with us still, tolerated by people for whom the ready provision of abortion trumps all else.
The nightmarish case of the Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell and the sting video of a counselor at a Planned Parenthood clinic cooperating with a supposed pimp show the dignity of women is decidedly secondary.

Read more: http:/www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/legal_ugly_unsafe_igmHR7AIndw0LBZjeBTSqO#ixzz1D79ZGs00
And let's not forget how PP protects child rapists by not reporting underage pregnancies.
"
Claudius
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 05, 2011

SC Johnson is a private corporation and could be owned by one person. You would ban him from trying to keep the govt from controlling his business that employs thousands of people

I have no problem with a person who owns a corporation lobbying, just with the corporations hiring lobbyists.

The fact is, not just Congress, but the entire government is on the payroll of big international corporations. This is a nightmare come true. It is the source of our eroding liberties. Corporations did not exist when the Constitution was written, and if they had, I am sure provisions would have been made to address this problem.

Remember that corporations are fundamentally un-democratic in nature, almost without exception. Those who rule over corporations do so with an iron fist. To allow corporations to participate in politics almost guarantees tyranny.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Feb 05, 2011
"Few scientific studies had confirmed the level of danger TCDD posed and there were scant industrial regulations to be followed. "
"The safety operations handled by the company's directors and local government were badly coordinated and to some extent incompetent. "
"In Seveso accident the responsible party was known from the outset and soon offered reparation. Moreover, the eventual disappearance of the offending factory itself and the physical exportation of the toxic substances and polluted soil enabled the community to feel cleansed. "
http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seveso_disaster
Govt stepped in AFTER the fact. Even the scientists were behind the curve. The company responsible compensated victims.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2011
"Union Carbide did not build the plant in Bhopal to increase profits. It could have supplied India with Sevin made in the United States more cheaply than it was able to produce it in India. In 1984, the Bhopal plant operated at a loss. It was reducing costs through manpower reductions, and it was up for sale. The plant was entirely run by Indian managers who operated the company as a separate entity. "
"In the case of the Bhopal plant, India allowed Union Carbide to maintain 50.9 percent interest in the Indian company. Nonetheless, India required that the plant be manned entirely by Indians, including all levels of management. This was not a moral demand, but a legal one."
http:/www.angelo.edu/events/university_symposium/85_George.html
corporations are fundamentally un-democratic in nature,

They have a board of directors and millions of shareholders that can vote AND customers that VOTE with their money every day. Very democratic.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (45) Feb 05, 2011
Should we become brutal savages in order to solve our problems? Aren't we better than that?
In another current article: the amish have doubled their pops in 20 years. This rate of growth is endemic throughout africa and the mideast. Without natural attrition, human pops grow explosively which inevitably leads to war. In gaza, 60% of the pop is 15 or under.

How would you propose to stop this? Family planning has saved the rest of the world, but it cant touch these cultures. How can you educate people whose religion tells them that anything you have to say to them comes straight from the devils mouth? It has always been this way.

Only recently has the west been able to offer people viable alternatives to raising large families, but cultures that resist these things will soon be engulfed in war. This is inevitable whether these wars are Engineered or not. But as it is possible to Engineer them, their course and extent can be Controlled so that civilization will survive.
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (11) Feb 05, 2011

But as it is possible to Engineer them, their course and extent can be Controlled so that civilization will survive.

Civilization is a curse. The whole problem has always been to find a way to keep some kind of civilization but at the same time to get rid of despots and tyrants and have some kind of self-rule.

So let's assume that the elites have their way and establish a global dictatorship with the primary goal of population reduction, and thereby reduce world population to what, 500 million or so? What then? Will we see some kind of utopia come about? Will these people, who in one way or another have murdered 93% of the human race suddenly become humane?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Feb 05, 2011
Civilization is a curse. The whole problem has always been to find a way to keep some kind of civilization but at the same time to get rid of despots and tyrants and have some kind of self-rule.
Youre still missing the point. Despots are also Inevitable and sometimes very necessary. Was king solomon a despot? The idea is that a Ruler can be installed or indoctrinated so that he can understand and accept that the Role he needs to play is in keeping with a better future.

It is easy to explain to a wise king solomon that 1)EVERYTHING is beautiful in its OWN TIME; and that 2)things must happen at the Proper Time, like the seasons, or they can be a threat. There is a [Proper] Time to love and to hate; to make war and peace; to embrace, in order to grow pops, and to refrain from embracing. These things are Inevitable. Despots are often needed to ensure that these things occur at the proper Time. Sad but true. As you say, civilization is a curse.
Claudius
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 05, 2011

They have a board of directors and millions of shareholders that can vote AND customers that VOTE with their money every day. Very democratic.

Tell that to the workers. Do they have a vote? Do they have any rights on the job? Are these "democratic" directors anything other than, at the best, benevolent dictators?

There was a very interesting documentary "The Corporation" in which corporations are looked at from a mental health point of view. The diagnosis was they are extreme psychopaths. The Alfred Hitchcock kind. They are not fit to run a government, and should be excluded from politics.
Claudius
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 05, 2011

These things are Inevitable. Despots are often needed to ensure that these things occur at the proper Time. Sad but true. As you say, civilization is a curse.

So what should our response be to this horrendous situation? Submit to a dictator and hope for the best? Or apply our minds to the problem and try to find a better answer?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (46) Feb 05, 2011
Will we see some kind of utopia come about?
Yes. Technology is giving us the means to moderate pop growth and keep it below the threshold of instability. This could not have developed or have a hope of being implemented without the world having been Managed to allow for it.
Will these people, who in one way or another have murdered 93% of the human race suddenly become humane?
Say youre a commander who needs to take a hill occupied by the enemy. He knows the only way to do this is to sacrifice a squad in a frontal assault so another can attack the flank unobserved. He asks for volunteers who also understand that their chances in the assault are slim.

Can we expect people with families to volunteer to sacrifice themselves for in essence the same thing? Even if that sacrifice could save a civilization?
cont
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Feb 05, 2011
Their religions will tell them to produce many sons who go off to fight against an enemy, whose own religions have convinced them to do the same thing. The sons are killed in battle and the enemy overruns the town, destroying, killing. WHAT is the DIFFERENCE? There is none.

We see how people in power routinely collude to fix prices, corrupt judges, parcel out neighborhoods for extortion. They do this for survival, for their families and their tribes. These are NOBLE reasons to them.

If a tribe of Leaders sees the world heading inexorably toward ruin and decides to do these same things on a global scale, for their own families and their Tribe, then is this not also a noble thing? If the ONLY alternative is collapse, irretrievable loss of accumulated Knowledge, ecological ruin, and eventual extinction, wouldnt you expect them to do absolutely ANYTHING in its defense?

This is the definition of humane. Not to act in the face of this would be the highest of crimes.
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (11) Feb 05, 2011

Will we see some kind of utopia come about?

Yes. Technology is giving us the means to moderate pop growth and keep it below the threshold of instability. This could not have developed or have a hope of being implemented without the world having been Managed to allow for it.

So the definition of utopia is world with a controlled population? Can a race of mass murderers ever be the seeds for a utopia, with or without technology? I don't think the inheritors of such a thing could live with themselves.
There were too many natives in the Americas to suit the European "settlers" and look what happened.


Even if that sacrifice could save a civilization?

Such a civilization is not worth saving. Better to start over from scratch.
Claudius
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 05, 2011

Say youre a commander who needs to take a hill occupied by the enemy. He knows the only way to do this is to sacrifice a squad in a frontal assault so another can attack the flank unobserved. He asks for volunteers who also understand that their chances in the assault are slim.

I remember a cartoon picturing two officers looking down on an encampment by a stream. Some soldiers are fetching water from the stream, and upstream is another soldier relieving himself into the stream. One of the officers is saying to the other "find out who that is, he's officer material."
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Feb 05, 2011
Submit to a dictator and hope for the best? Or apply our minds to the problem and try to find a better answer?
'Our' minds? The minds of a billion moslems who are busy filling up the world? Or the xians before them who were doing the same thing?

The Decisions were made millenia ago. The Solution is in place and its Function is optimal. 'We' have absolutely no choice in the matter. We can choose to conform or not; either way empire benefits, for it gives us the only alternatives we can choose.

The concept 'Liberty'- you didnt come up with that by yourself did you? You read about it somewhere and it gave you a certain feeling which you responded to in an expected way. But if you are able to think about it objectively for a moment, you may realize you have no idea what it means or how it applies to you in particular. A word with no meaning, defined with meaningless words, meant to evoke emotion, not thought. Brot und Freiheit. Blut und Boden. A banner to hoist. Fahne hoch!
Claudius
1 / 5 (8) Feb 05, 2011

Americans have no concept of these symptoms. We have never lived with collapse, total war, widespread starvation. We can afford to muse.

You are mistaken. I am a direct descendant of a Confederate cavalry officer. Speaking as a great great great grandson of a Confederate veteran, I think that at least half of the country underwent total war and extreme privation during and after the War of Secession. I think the United States of America died in that war.
Thrasymachus
3.4 / 5 (10) Feb 05, 2011
I think you're exactly right that it's the influence of private agents that have corrupted our government, Claudius, those private agents being, of course, the very international businesses and corporations that have been granted legal citizenship almost by accident. The right to lobby a government and redress it for grievances is a right of the citizen, not of any other institution. And the freedom of expression can only be meaningful if it refers to the freedom of sources of expression, which are always persons. Corporations have no ability of expression without commanding or parasitizing on a person's ability to express himself, either that of their employees or of their owners. Commanding or parasitizing another's expression without their explicit and informed consent infringes upon the freedom of expression.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Feb 05, 2011
So the definition of utopia is world with a controlled population? Can a race of mass murderers ever be the seeds for a utopia, with or without technology? I don't think the inheritors of such a thing could live with themselves.
There were too many natives in the Americas to suit the European "settlers" and look what happened.
The human race is the end result of a few million years of tribal warfare. The tribes which survived wer the ones who were most adept at slaughtering the enemy and impregnating the females.

A few million years of this has produced a species which has one way or another enabled itself to leave its birthplace, colonize the solar system and thereby ensure its own survival.

We are not guilty of the sins of our forefathers. They did what they did so that we may be alive today. We are not a race of vicious killers, and neither are they. They did what they had to in order to survive and so will we. Long Live Empire.
Claudius
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 05, 2011

The Decisions were made millenia ago. The Solution is in place and its Function is optimal. 'We' have absolutely no choice in the matter. We can choose to conform or not; either way empire benefits, for it gives us the only alternatives we can choose.

If the decision was made millenia ago, it was made by primitive minds. Time to go back to the drawing board.


Fahne hoch!

Die Reihen fest geschlossen!

Just who was Otto in 1926? Ein Kamarad? SA? SS? Are we about to see the 1000 year Reich?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (48) Feb 05, 2011
Wars over. We won.

Germans were duped just like everybody else. Just like you.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 05, 2011

Wars over. We won.

That's what I heard. So the ratlines worked. Most people still think the U.S. won WWII. Little do they know.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Feb 05, 2011

Wars over. We won.

That's what I heard. So the ratlines worked. Most people still think the U.S. won WWII. Little do they know.
What? Germans saved fully half their country from soviet communism, which was their stated goal. You seem to have trouble telling the difference between victory and defeat. Victory is when you survive.

Naw, it's easy duping you guys. Just give you a flag to wave, some music, some mantra babble like liberty or egalite or 'off with their heads', and you'll do just about anything they ask. And rallies; it's important for you guys to get together and cheer you know. Excites the old tribal instinct.
Claudius
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 05, 2011

Otto sometimes is sarcastic for people familiar with his Theories.

This does not seem like sarcasm this time.

What? Germans saved fully half their country from soviet communism, which was their stated goal.

Not the only goal. Wasn't world conquest up there too? Depopulating the world of untermenschen?

Ironically, Hitler's rise to power was financed to a great extent by Wall Street. So was Soviet communism. So who's saving who from what?
Claudius
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 05, 2011
No further comments on this, Otto?

Just for the record, unless this was all sarcasm, I think someone dropped you on your head when you were a baby. If you were being sarcastic, my apologies.

If you were not being sarcastic, I hope you and your ilk are defeated. So much for National Socialism, they were dupes, too.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (46) Feb 05, 2011
Not the only goal. Wasn't world conquest up there too? Depopulating the world of
You believe everything you read? Or only the stuff that doesn't make sense. When did hitler say he wanted to conquer the world?
Ironically, Hitler's rise to power was financed to a great extent by Wall Street.
Indeed it was, including a Player by the name of Prescott Bush.
So was Soviet communism. So who's saving who from what?
And you still have trouble accepting that the Rulers of these states could all be on the same side? Everybody shared everything. The best way to swap info and keep all sides apprised of things is through intelligence networks. That's their job. The heads of abwehr, mi5, OSS and others actually sat down to discuss the course of the war in 1943, Corsica I think it was.
Cont
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (46) Feb 05, 2011
Every spy that was landed on Brit soil was captured and either turned or killed. Brits were supplying Germans with materiel through a compromised Nazi network in Norway. All in all a very well-coordinated affair.

Stalinism was in no way communism. He and lenin killed all the true communists. What it WAS was 50 years of brutal martial law, meant to end the obsolete religionist cultures which would have prevented the 400-some MILLION abortions which have taken place since. Mao did much the same thing on a larger scale. Those abortions and their decendents who were never born, and the massive family planning efforts, is why the northern part of the continent is quiet today. The ONLY reason.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (47) Feb 05, 2011
THIS is the hand of Empire. ONE BILLION abortions. A country the size of India was never born because of the success of the wars and the creation of 'communism', which destroyed the cultures which would have prevented those abortions.

Without them- imagine a world war every generation. Imagine vast nuclear deserts devoid of life. Imagine the end of western civilization, the loss of accumulated knowledge about life, the universe, and absolutely no way to ever reclaim that knowledge.
http
://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/index.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2011
Tell that to the workers. Do they have a vote?

They have many opportunities to 'vote'. They can quit. Many companies use shares to fund 401k plans. Employees can under perform or sabotage the company or work really hard to make the company successful.
Claudius
1 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2011

When did hitler say he wanted to conquer the world?

No, that was the American version of Hitler, George Lincoln Rockwell, "This Time the World."

And you still have trouble accepting that the Rulers of these states could all be on the same side?

Not at all. You were the one who said " Germans saved fully half their country from soviet communism". I was pointing out they were the same, so who was saving who.

Everybody shared everything. The best way to swap info and keep all sides apprised of things is through intelligence networks. That's their job. The heads of abwehr, mi5, OSS and others actually sat down to discuss the course of the war in 1943, Corsica I think it was.

And didn't the Zionist Jews make a deal with Hitler for a Jewish homeland? So yes, I believe that.
Claudius
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2011

Every spy that was landed on Brit soil was captured and either turned or killed. Brits were supplying Germans with materiel through a compromised Nazi network in Norway. All in all a very well-coordinated affair.

So don't you think captured Germans did the same?

BTW, since you are claiming to be one of "them," did Hitler escape to Spain and end his days there as some evidence suggests? Does he have descendants? Did German corporations diversify outside of Germany during the war and retain their wealth to finance the Fourth Reich?

So, still being sarcastic? Want to recite the Horst Wessel Lied again? Do some marching around?
Claudius
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2011

THIS is the hand of Empire. ONE BILLION abortions

So why not mention some other population control measures? Fluoride, putting simian aids virus into polio vaccines in Africa, aspartame, and more recently GMO foods? Have I missed any?

Imagine saving Western Civilization by killing billions of unborn and born people. Something to be proud of?
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Feb 06, 2011
BTW, since you are claiming to be one of "them," did Hitler escape to Spain
Assuming that you are talking to one of otto's virtualizations: He's definitely not "one of them" as his German is error-ridden.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Feb 06, 2011
BTW, since you are claiming to be one of "them," did Hitler escape to Spain and end his days there as some evidence suggests? Does he have descendants?
No Jesus survived the xifiction and moved to France with his wife Mary mag where they founded the Merovingian line.
Imagine saving Western Civilization by killing billions of unborn and born people. Something to be proud of?
Allied forces were landed in Normandy and thousands died. But their sacrifice contained the remnants of the 3rd reich and prevented soviets from taking Europe. Something to be proud of? Yes it was absolutely necessary, and it prevented far worse from happening. You have not pondered Inevitability yet enough.
definitely not "one of them" as his German is error-ridden
A clever deception, nicht warh? Schatz?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Feb 06, 2011
Funny Frajo encourages only wackos who believe conspiracy theories that reinforce the idea that Leaders are necessarily evil, which is only another unfounded wacko theory, without accepting the reality of explosive population growth and the Inevitable result of it, that sometimes they HAVE to be evil, whether they are merely Acting as such or not.

Ergo, Frajo is only just another wacko conspiracy theorist who favors the standard populist feel-good theories over those which actually make some sense. Is this not a falsifiable statement?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (46) Feb 06, 2011
This is interesting:
"It is believed by some that populist movements can be precursors for, or building blocks for, fascist movements. Conspiracist scapegoating employed by various populist movements can create "a seedbed for fascism." National socialist populism interacted with and facilitated fascism in interwar Germany."

-Otto did not fully appreciate the meaning of Populist. This explains a very great deal; Frajos assemblage of fellow uprater teams of multiple anonymous nick-user Pudels, gangrating attacks against those whose views differ from what may be considered acceptable, the attraction to dogma vs logic, etc. Interesting indeed.
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2011
Tell that to the workers. Do they have a vote?

They have many opportunities to 'vote'. They can quit. Many companies use shares to fund 401k plans. Employees can under perform or sabotage the company or work really hard to make the company successful.


They can quit, to go to work for another corporation. From one dictatorship to another. What's the point of that?

Either way, corporations are psychopathic dictatorships and shouldn't be allowed to participate in government.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (46) Feb 06, 2011
For instance the dogma tenet that any country which attacks another is the wrongdoer. Did I state that correctly Frajo? But if explosive population growth has always been the norm in religionist cultures, then attack against an enemy's homeland is absolutely essential because if you don't you will inevitably be overrun.

This is even more Reason for Leaders to collude in Managing their own pops, because either would know that unless they attacked they would inevitably BE attacked.

An aside- what better way of quiescing a troublesome province than to have an Enemy army roaming back and forth through it? Hannibal traipsed up and down the Italian peninsula, consuming resources and running off all the tribes which had given Rome much trouble. With it's back thus secured, Rome was free to act in Europe.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2011
Either way, corporations are psychopathic dictatorships and shouldn't be allowed to participate in government.

That's your opinion not supported by data.
Like other statists here you revert to 'there ought to be a law', when the most effective solution is the govt should not have the power to make such laws.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (46) Feb 06, 2011
Either way, corporations are psychopathic dictatorships..
That's your opinion not supported by data.
Like other statists here you revert to 'there ought to be a law'...
"[Populism] can be understood as any political discourse that appeals to the general mass of the population, to the "people" as such, regardless of class distinctions and political partisanship - "a folksy appeal to the 'average guy' or some allegedly general will". This is in opposition to statism, which holds that a small group of professional politicians know better than the people and should make decisions on behalf of them."

-You see how cool and useful isms can be? According to wiki, both marjon and frajo are populists because they oppose 'statism' or 'the man' as most everybody who thinks isms are gay would say.

So that makes marjon and frajo of the same ilk. AND, according to wiki, it makes them both potential fascists. So word calcs do have a place, at least in humor eh?
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (12) Feb 06, 2011

That's your opinion not supported by data.

Are you looking for a scientific study on whether corporations are people or not? On whether they have the same rights as humans? Don't hold your breath.

Of course it's opinion, what else can a political statement be? Nevertheless, it is hard to say that a corporation has the same rights as a person and keep a straight face. The whole idea is ridiculous and should never have been incorporated into the system.

Also, just look at the results. To say corporations have undue influence in government is the understatement of the century. They OWN the government, and that is a real nightmare come true.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2011
Fascism = statism = socialism = anti individual liberty.
Are you looking for a scientific study on whether corporations are people or not?

No. You opinion corporation are dictatorships.
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Feb 07, 2011
Are you looking for a scientific study on whether corporations are people or not?

No. You opinion corporation are dictatorships.
What's so bad about it? You are sympathizing with dictators like Mubarak or shah Reza Pahlevi:
Who was worse for the Iranian people, the Shah or the Ayatollah?

Now just tell us whether a dictator would be better for your country.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2011
What's so bad about it? You are sympathizing with dictators like Mubarak or shah Reza Pahlevi:

Will Egypt swap one dictator for another? The Iranians did. Are they better for it?
I support limited to no government. Somalia is better off than their neighbors for NOT having a central govt that steals from them.
Will the Muslim Brotherhood improve Egypt? How has the democratically elected govt improved Gaza?
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (11) Feb 07, 2011

No. You opinion corporation are dictatorships.

Well, what do you think they are? Can the workers vote? Do the workers have any rights? Do they have any say as to the conditions of the workplace?

So Americans have (theoretically) rights, but lose them as soon as they get to work.

Corporations have no legitimate place in government. Mussolini defined Fascism as the perfect merger between business and government.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2011
Can the workers vote? Do the workers have any rights? Do they have any say as to the conditions of the workplace?

Yes, yes, yes.
frajo
5 / 5 (3) Feb 07, 2011
You are sympathizing with dictators like Mubarak or shah Reza Pahlevi

Will Egypt swap one dictator for another? The Iranians did. Are they better for it?
You don't have to decide on that.

You preferred (for the second time) not to answer the following question:
Just tell us whether a dictator would be better for your country.

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (46) Feb 07, 2011
Just tell us whether a dictator would be better for your country.
Hello populist proto-fascist (according to wiki)- Let otto swing at this one: If our country was faced with a problem or problems whose solutions could not properly be decided by the majority of the people (and there are many such problems) then I would want a well-informed dictator to be acting on them.

But I would not want the people to know that this was the case, in any case, because they would not like it. So I would give them spokesmodels to vote for with pseudo-Muslim names or great legs to make them think they are in charge. Win-win-win. Everybody happy even with faulty brains.
Claudius
2.4 / 5 (11) Feb 07, 2011

Can the workers vote? Do the workers have any rights? Do they have any say as to the conditions of the workplace?


Yes, yes, yes.

Well, from my personal experience with multiple corporations, the answer has always been: no, no, no.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2011

Can the workers vote? Do the workers have any rights? Do they have any say as to the conditions of the workplace?


Yes, yes, yes.

Well, from my personal experience with multiple corporations, the answer has always been: no, no, no.

Were you a slave?

You don't have to decide on that.

As the result affects the security of the USA, Europe and the ME, people should be concerned about the outcome.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Feb 07, 2011
Marjon, where did you develop this skill of immediately turning an entire room of disparate opinions against yourself? Not many people are capable of saying such idiotic things and keeping in character. Perhaps you can replace Beck or O'Reilly as you're jsut as full of hot air.
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Feb 07, 2011
As the result affects the security of the USA, Europe and the ME, people should be concerned about the outcome.
You don't have to decide what's better for another country.
But as you insinuate that shah Reza Pahlevi was better for Iran than the current government and better than democracy I'd like to know whether you think a dictator would be better for your country, too.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (46) Feb 07, 2011
But then in certain conditions a visible despot or dictator must be installed when, for instance, a minority threatens insurrection. FDR had certain dictatorial powers in his preparations for ww2.

But it is usually preferable to make the people think that is THEY who are choosing to enact what would otherwise be considered totalitarian measures, as in the populist actions favored by the majority in the face of rotfront insurrection at the end of the Weimar era in Germany. The people were (easily) made to think that totalitarianism was necessary by producing an imminent threat and economic hardship.

We the people rarely have a choce on these matters as one can readily see, only because we can be made to think that we DO. One can ask oneself, are my opinions really my own or are they merely a fashion statement? Do I look better in a black turtleneck or camo BDUs? Or tweed?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Feb 07, 2011
You don't have to decide what's better for another country.

It does if if affects my country.
If leaders were a bit more concerned about Hitler, millions of people may not have died.
"Subsequent to his succession as Shah, Iran became a major conduit for British and, later, American aid to the USSR during the war. This massive supply effort became known as the Persian Corridor, an involvement that would continue to grow until the successful revolution against the Iranian monarchy in 1979."
Yes, it would be nice if dictators and tyrants would only victimize their people. But the rot spreads. Fellow human beings escape and ask for help.
If your neighbor kept slaves locked in his basement would you care?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2011
frajo, where was the EU/US support for real democratic uprisings in Iran?
"Next, how is it that hardly anyone is pointing out except in conservative talk radio that when there was a real democratic outpouring in the streets of Iran, an attempted revolution against the dictatorship of the Holocaust-denying, America-hating, nuclear weapons–seeking Ahmadinejad in Iran, and Iran suppressed it with gunfire, Barack Obama said not a word. He totally ignored the young people trying to make Iran into a democracy."
"why should a large group of demonstrators be able to control the electoral process when they are a tiny fraction of the population?"
"The Bolsheviks seized power in Russia in 1917 with a tiny sliver of the urban population. The results were catastrophic."
http:/spectator.org/archives/2011/02/07/between-mubarak-and-a-hard-pla
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (51) Feb 07, 2011
"The Bolsheviks seized power in Russia in 1917 with a tiny sliver of the urban population. The results were catastrophic."

-Depends on your Perspective-
Claudius
1.6 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2011
"The Bolsheviks seized power in Russia in 1917 with a tiny sliver of the urban population. The results were catastrophic."

-Depends on your Perspective-

Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution
How western capitalists funded Lenin, the Bolsheviks, and the Soviet Union
-- by Antony C. Sutton, 1974s our ce: Reformed Theology

doubleudoubleudoubleu.scribd.com/doc/32349082/Wall-Street-and-the-Bolshevik-Revolution
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (50) Feb 07, 2011
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood...Make big plans, aim high in hope and work."
Daniel H. Burnham
US architect & city planner (1846 - 1912)
-Designed Union Station, Flatiron Bldg.
Claudius
1 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2011
WALL STREET AND
THE RISE OF HITLER
By
Antony C. Sutton

reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Feb 07, 2011
"why should a large group of demonstrators be able to control the electoral process when they are a tiny fraction of the population?"
"The Bolsheviks seized power in Russia in 1917 with a tiny sliver of the urban population. The results were catastrophic."
Only 3% of the US revolted against the UK.

Perhaps you should either take a hard stance or stfu when it comes to politics. Maybe then you wouldn't look like such a jerkoff.
Claudius
1 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2011
Chapter IV

WALL STREET AND WORLD REVOLUTION

What you Radicals and we who hold opposing views differ about, is not so much the end as the means, not so much what should be brought about as how it should, and can, be brought about ....

Otto H. Kahn, director, American International Corp., and partner, Kuhn, Loeb & Co., speaking to the League/or Industrial Democracy, New York, December 30, 1924

reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/chapter_04.htm
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2011
"why should a large group of demonstrators be able to control the electoral process when they are a tiny fraction of the population?"
"The Bolsheviks seized power in Russia in 1917 with a tiny sliver of the urban population. The results were catastrophic."
Only 3% of the US revolted against the UK.

Perhaps you should either take a hard stance or stfu when it comes to politics. Maybe then you wouldn't look like such a jerkoff.

"What we can conclude is that the American Revolution was a great republican inspired people’s war for Independence, but that the revolutionary coalition was divided across a spectrum from those pressing a rising mercantile empire on the one hand, to those desiring a republic of small government states on the other."
http:/hnn.us/articles/5642.html
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Feb 07, 2011
What we can conclude is that the American Revolution was a great republican inspired people's war for Independence
So the states' rights party won independence for a national setup that reduced states' rights? Like I said, learn something before you post so you don't appear to be laughably ignorant when you repeat moronic talking points.
but that the revolutionary coalition was divided across a spectrum from those pressing a rising mercantile empire on the one hand
Point proved, most federalists are not mercantilists because mercantilism was the status quo under british rule.

You're so ignorant that it's not worth pointing out where you make mistakes. It's easier to point out where you weren't wrong and just assume that you meant something else.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2011
"Historians' best estimates put the proportion of adult white male loyalists somewhere between 15 and 20 percent. Approximately half the colonists of European ancestry tried to avoid involvement in the struggle — some of them deliberate pacifists, others recent emigrants, and many more simple apolitical folk. The patriots received active support from perhaps 40 to 45 percent of the white populace, and at most no more than a bare majority."
This is a bit more than 3%.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2011
"Eighteen percent of Americans identify as Tea Party supporters. "
"They are better educated than most Americans: 37 percent are college graduates, compared to 25 percent of Americans overall. They also have a higher-than-average household income, with 56 percent making more than $50,000 per year. "
http:/www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002529-503544.html

Unlike the Egyptian mob, like the original tea party members, the modern tea party members have a common philosophy: limited government.
If the past is a predictor of the future, the modern tea party will succeed.
frajo
5 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2011
You don't have to decide what's better for another country.
It does if if affects my country.
Ok, Thus every human being on this planet is entitled to decide what's better for the US.
frajo
5 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2011
"The Bolsheviks seized power in Russia in 1917 with a tiny sliver of the urban population.
That was easy as the ruling tyrants comprised an even smaller percentage of the Russian population.
The results were catastrophic."
Compared to the suffering of the Russian population under the ruling aristocratic class any catastrophe was an improvement for the population.
Yes, for the wealthy and the mighty the Russian revolution was a catastrophe. A well deserved one for dissocial (cruel, merciless, unjust, greedy, robbing, killing, torturing, enslaving, disparaging, uneducated, and stupid) people like them.
They got what they sowed.
frajo
5 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2011
"Historians' best estimates put the proportion of adult white male loyalists somewhere between 15 and 20 percent.
...
This is a bit more than 3%.
Adult white males only? Marjon seems to promote sexism, racism, and slavery.
frajo
5 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2011
Unlike the Egyptian mob
He loves dictators like Mubarak and shah Reza Pahlevi and disparages people striving for democracy.
Isn't this what McCarthy was hunting? Unamerican activities?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 08, 2011
frajo, can't think of anything better to respond with?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2011
"Historians' best estimates put the proportion of adult white male loyalists somewhere between 15 and 20 percent.
...
This is a bit more than 3%.
Adult white males only? Marjon seems to promote sexism, racism, and slavery.

I think the best piece there is the lack of source, and the fact he confuses loyalist (as in loyal to the crown) with revolutionary.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2011
"Historians' best estimates put the proportion of adult white male loyalists somewhere between 15 and 20 percent.
...
This is a bit more than 3%.
Adult white males only? Marjon seems to promote sexism, racism, and slavery.

I think the best piece there is the lack of source, and the fact he confuses loyalist (as in loyal to the crown) with revolutionary.


What is the source of 3%? Sources I have seen suggest anywhere from 20-40% supported independence.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Feb 08, 2011
Compared to the suffering of the Russian population under the ruling aristocratic class any catastrophe was an improvement for the population.
Yes and unfortunately their misfortune was directly related to the fact that their numbers had exceeded the capacity of the infrastructure to provide for them. And only catastrophes, such as those which would result in the deaths of significant numbers of them, could ever remedy the situation at the time.

Fortunately these catastrophes not only killed millions as usual; but were PURPOSELY directed toward the CULTURES which were creating the problems to begin with. So that, instead of these cultures warring against one another and ruining and destroying piecemeal, only to recover a few generations later to do it ALL OVER AGAIN; the region can now look forward to a stable, peaceful future.

Frajo is so freeking concerned about human suffering but does not care WHY it happens, and so really only enjoys the chance to dogmatize.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (45) Feb 08, 2011
A well deserved one for dissocial (cruel, merciless, unjust, greedy, robbing, killing, torturing, enslaving, disparaging, uneducated, and stupid) people like them.
They got what they sowed.
Tribal warfare: tribes of class or location or ethnicity, there is little difference; each considers the other biologically a little less human than the others. Overpopulation divides neighborhoods, ethnic groups, age groups, and sets them against one another in a desperate struggle to maintain their way of life.

It is WRONG to let any sociopolitical dogma falsely define the strife created by overpopulation to further its own tribalistic agenda. You hate one social class, they hate you, conflict ensues with no HOPE of ever ending the cycle.

It is not the fault of the rich, the poor, the young, the ethnic, the worker, the bourgeois, etc. It is caused by our biology, and all those groups which would seek to exploit it to further their own ends. Which are invariably the religions.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Feb 08, 2011
What is the source of 3%? Sources I have seen suggest anywhere from 20-40% supported independence.
Go ahead and give us one.

The US Revolution has no hard statistics on the matter, the Neutralists were the largest estimated percentage, and the average of that figure from multiple contemporary sources, including Paine and Adams, (thought you read the founding fathers), was 50% of free men. Half the country didn't care if the Torries or Whigs ruled the roost, they just wanted to be left alone. Most estimates put the Loyalists at approx 40%, Adams is one of the lower estimates at one third. The Continental militia never fielded more than 20,000 men and if you really want to get technical, we'll double that and assume they were all married (which there weren't) resulting in a total of 40k out of 2 million people (estimated).

40,000/2,000,000= 0.02, or 2%. My bad, off by one. better than confusing Torrie for Patriot by far.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2011
What is the source of 3%? Sources I have seen suggest anywhere from 20-40% supported independence.
Go ahead and give us one.

The US Revolution has no hard statistics on the matter, the Neutralists were the largest estimated percentage, and the average of that figure from multiple contemporary sources, including Paine and Adams, (thought you read the founding fathers), was 50% of free men. Half the country didn't care if the Torries or Whigs ruled the roost, they just wanted to be left alone. Most estimates put the Loyalists at approx 40%, Adams is one of the lower estimates at one third. The Continental militia never fielded more than 20,000 men and if you really want to get technical, we'll double that and assume they were all married (which there weren't) resulting in a total of 40k out of 2 million people (estimated).

40,000/2,000,000= 0.02, or 2%. My bad, off by one. better than confusing Torrie for Patriot by far.

What are your sources?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2011
Give us yours first. After all, you had the primary false assertion. Let's see what you got swifty.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.