While Obama promises to simmer things down in Iraq, he has been calling for refocusing our troops towards Afghanistan... the supposed "good" war. Unfortunately, Afghanistan is only a "good" war in the sense that it is slightly less horrendous than Iraq by comparison. Slightly. Like Iraq, it is still unjustified carnage against the completely wrong target(s). Here's a piece by John Pilger I thought especially poignant.

Obama, The Prince Of Bait-And-Switch

John Pilger wrote:

On 12 July, the London Times devoted two pages to Afghanistan. It was mostly a complaint about the heat. The reporter, Magnus Linklater, described in detail his discomfort and how he had needed to be sprayed with iced water. He also described the "high drama" and "meticulously practised routine" of evacuating another overheated journalist. For her US Marine rescuers, wrote Linklater, "saving a life took precedence over [their] security". Alongside this was a report whose final paragraph offered the only mention that "47 civilians, most of them women and children, were killed when a US aircraft bombed a wedding party in eastern Afghanistan on Sunday".

Slaughters on this scale are common, and mostly unknown to the British public. I interviewed a woman who had lost eight members of her family, including six children. A 500lb US Mk82 bomb was dropped on her mud, stone and straw house. There was no "enemy" nearby. I interviewed a headmaster whose house disappeared in a fireball caused by another "precision" bomb. Inside were nine people - his wife, his four sons, his brother and his wife, and his sister and her husband. Neither of these mass murders was news. As Harold Pinter wrote of such crimes: "Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest."

A total of 64 civilians were bombed to death while The Times man was discomforted. Most were guests at the wedding party. Wedding parties are a "coalition" speciality. At least four of them have been obliterated - at Mazar and in Khost, Uruzgan and Nangarhar provinces. Many of the details, including the names of victims, have been compiled by a New Hampshire professor, Marc Herold, whose Afghan Victim Memorial Project is a meticulous work of journalism that shames those who are paid to keep the record straight and report almost everything about the Afghan War through the public relations facilities of the British and American military.

The US and its allies are dropping record numbers of bombs on Afghanistan. This is not news. In the first half of this year, 1,853 bombs were dropped: more than all the bombs of 2006 and most of 2007. "The most frequently used bombs," the Air Force Times reports, "are the 500lb and 2,000lb satellite-guided . . ." Without this one-sided onslaught, the resurgence of the Taliban, it is clear, might not have happened. Even Hamid Karzai, America's and Britain's puppet, has said so. The presence and the aggression of foreigners have all but united a resistance that now includes former warlords once on the CIA's payroll.

The scandal of this would be headline news, were it not for what George W Bush's former spokesman Scott McClellan has called "complicit enablers" - journalists who serve as little more than official amplifiers. Having declared Afghanistan a "good war", the complicit enablers are now anointing Barack Obama as he tours the bloodfests in Afghanistan and Iraq. What they never say is that Obama is a bomber.

In the New York Times on 14 July, in an article spun to appear as if he is ending the war in Iraq, Obama demanded more war in Afghanistan and, in effect, an invasion of Pakistan. He wants more combat troops, more helicopters, more bombs. Bush may be on his way out, but the Republicans have built an ideological machine that transcends the loss of electoral power - because their collaborators are, as the American writer Mike Whitney put it succinctly, "bait-and-switch" Democrats, of whom Obama is the prince.

Those who write of Obama that "when it comes to international affairs, he will be a huge improvement on Bush" demonstrate the same wilful naivety that backed the bait-and-switch of Bill Clinton - and Tony Blair. Of Blair, wrote the late Hugo Young in 1997, "ideology has surrendered entirely to 'values' . . . there are no sacred cows [and] no fossilised limits to the ground over which the mind might range in search of a better Britain . . ."

Eleven years and five wars later, at least a million people lie dead. Barack Obama is the American Blair. That he is a smooth operator and a black man is irrelevant. He is of an enduring, rampant system whose drum majors and cheer squads never see, or want to see, the consequences of 500lb bombs dropped unerringly on mud, stone and straw houses.

Who's the lesser evil?

That's the only real question one should ask oneself when choosing the new American president. If you'd like to continue the trend of the last 8 years then you know what to vote for.

Barry Obama is nothing new by any stretch of the imagination. His resume is as thin as a 2D sprite. And this worldwide photo-op tour he's doing in an attempt to appear presidential is embarrassing!! But you're right, Goliath. And if you carefully dissect his works I don't believe he has any intention of getting out of Iraq completely either. He leaves too many variables in place that can cancel his campaign promise.

BloodRayne wrote:

Who's the lesser evil?

I had asked myself that, too. When it all comes down to it, I'd rather go with the candidate who at least claims he'll get our troops out of Iraq. McCain, on the other hand, is just plain insane.

Obama will never simply "pull the troops out of Iraq". Who ever thought so is quite gullible. If he's president, he won't pull the troops until Iraq can protect itself.

He's flipped flopped on Iran too. One day its a tiny country with a tiny military budget that does not pose a threat to the mighty USA. A few days later "Iran is a grave threat" with a nuclear program and a terror sponsor.

Look, you all know when he's in office, he'll drop some bombs on somebody if only to prove he's got the guts to do it. Just as Clinton bombed an aspirin factory to deflect attention from his sex scandal.

Obama is dangerous- not simply because he's a far leftist but because he's way too green & unqualified.

Lookign at his resume: http://obamasresume.org/ it's pretty clear he's as anyone as most people running for president. All McCain has flounted is his military service. The far leftist stuff is cute but not wholly accurate either.

pbmax wrote:

Obama will never simply "pull the troops out of Iraq". Who ever thought so is quite gullible.

I certianly never believed that. I know that it will be a slow, difficult process.

If the election was based entirely on the issue of war, I would still vote for Obama. Obama may not seem sincere, but I would still choose him over McCain, who openly states his unchanging approval for invading Iran and preserving Bush's foreign policy. I'll admit that I haven't been watching either candidate's speeches, nor have I thoroughly researched each guy's stances on other issues besides war, but so far I think it would be retarded to vote for someone who wants to use same foreign policy as Bush. It's been nothing but a disaster for our economy (that plus other things, of course). This election should be a landslide, but who knows?

I honestly don't know why you're getting so worked up over Obama's insincerity. Are you afraid that he's misleading us? Wow, a politician that's insincere about his intentions! Stop the fucking presses! All politicians do that, and I wouldn't be surprised if McCain suddenly had a "change of heart" during or after the election.

In my head, Obama's in the lead, and not because of all this "change" he keeps talking about (whatever big, revolutionary plans he has for this country will just get shot down by Congress anyway).

pbmax wrote:

Obama is dangerous- not simply because he's a far leftist but because he's way too green & unqualified.

That doesn't make him any more dangerous than McCain.

efx wrote:

Lookign at his resume: http://obamasresume.org/ it's pretty clear he's as anyone as most people running for president. All McCain has flounted is his military service. The far leftist stuff is cute but not wholly accurate either.

No offense, efx but all that bull squeeze about grant limitations doesn't impress. Nor him being cycled around into different committees. I'm no fan of McCain either and I'm still scratching my head wondering how the hell did we end up with these two to choose from!
But seriously I can't just get over all the people Barrys had to throw under the bus to distance himself from all his connections. He's a product of the Daly Chicago machine and that's scary enough. :shock:

pbmax wrote:

Obama will never simply "pull the troops out of Iraq". Who ever thought so is quite gullible. If he's president, he won't pull the troops until Iraq can protect itself.

He's flipped flopped on Iran too. One day its a tiny country with a tiny military budget that does not pose a threat to the mighty USA. A few days later "Iran is a grave threat" with a nuclear program and a terror sponsor.

Look, you all know when he's in office, he'll drop some bombs on somebody if only to prove he's got the guts to do it. Just as Clinton bombed an aspirin factory to deflect attention from his sex scandal.

Obama is dangerous- not simply because he's a far leftist but because he's way too green & unqualified.

Of course he's starting to flip flop now since he has to make himself appeal to the majority of Americans. He knows and his campaign advisers know that he can't win on the extreme leftist platform he was running on during the Democratic primary, so now he's trying to move towards the center and make himself appear not so far left. That, in my opinion, says something about the political landscape of the country.

Of course, once he gets into office, he will move back to the left and screw the rest of America. Unless Congress stands in his way. However, Congress is a worthless pile of crap nowadays. Their approval rating is in the single digits.

evilartist wrote:

Wow, a politician that's insincere about his intentions! Stop the fucking presses! All politicians do that, and I wouldn't be surprised if McCain suddenly had a "change of heart" during or after the election.

I don't like McCain either.

But is it too much to ask our elected officials to actually stand for something and not flip flop on a whim depending on who they are speaking to? I don't think so. Maybe I'm just an idealist...

Quote:

Obama

courtesy of somethingawful

sorry guys to jump ship, but we ze germans may don't gonna help ya out here...wish you best luck though!

pbmax wrote:

...is it too much to ask our elected officials to actually stand for something and not flip flop on a whim depending on who they are speaking to?

In a mostly-perfect world, perhaps. I, too, would like it if our candidates would just stay put in their views. Even I have my doubts about Obama now that you pointed out his flip-flopping (didn't know about that). Still, I feel Obama is the lesser of two evils. However, my views may or may not change depending on what I learn about both parties' stances on other issues.

it's not allways about the "spokesman" but more about what "stands" behind him

pbmax wrote:

But is it too much to ask our elected officials to actually stand for something and not flip flop on a whim depending on who they are speaking to?

I'd like to see some candidates with a backbone too. But the problem isn't the politicians. It's the public at large. Case in point you recognize the problem, but come November, will you still vote for McCain or Obama despite it all?

What people should be doing is asking themselves why they put up with it. We crave change but when it comes time to put up or shut up we do the same thing every election. We vote for the guy we think can win.

And how does that make us any different from the two-faced politicians we despise? They're doing the same thing. They pander to the groups who can hand them a victory.

We need to grow a backbone. Enough with the "Lesser of two evils" nonsense. Recognize that damage to some is progress to others and so long as we continue to vote for the guy who will do the least, nothing will get done.

well said

I'm not entirely sure problem lays with the candidates of (any) the position, but with the voters. In times of almost unlimited access to information most candidates do not stick to a general core competence or political direction. They get dissected for each and every word they say, let alone the necessity to look good on every picture.

Democratic elections should be about core competencies and general directions. If the crowd expects a candidate to please everyone, then voting becomes irrelevant and turns into a pure popularity race. For popularity you don't need a core competence or a clear direction. You just tell everyone enough of what they want to hear, poll the crowd and adjust accordingly.

You can even make outright false claims as long as it settles well over the extreme short term and suits a sensible matter (like McCain claiming to brought down Oil prices with his vote pro offshore drilling - totally unrelated, but spot on in terms of short term crowd pleasing and riding on the "relief" wave).

A base definition of a good politician should be someone who makes decisions based on superior availability of information (read: looking ahead based on media-undistorted data) even if such a decision goes against the short term popularity polls.

There will be plenty of such decisions to be made in the US soon. To name a few: raise interest rates moderately despite a slowing down economy, ensure decoupling of wages and inflation rate, adjust the tax system to allow the small and small-medium guy to do well, provide a soft landing for under-collateralized home owners (this is going to be very heavy for the tax payers).

I do not expect any of these inevitable decisions to come as a free lunch. The Iraq war was and is a very costly experience (please note: I'm only talking about cost and will not start or participate in the 1000th tread about important or unimportant the war on terror is). Backing up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac wont be cheap either.

Oil prices will come down automatically in the next 6 -9 months (guesstimate), give or take some extreme short term volatility. The political impact of what will happen in this field is negligible if any (IMHO), however everyone and their mum will claim it as his victory.

I have no position in MacCain or Obama, but I do care a lot about the general way democracy is getting executed nowadays. If there is something I would want to change than it's short term polling the crowd on whether they like good weather more than bad weather.

rich_is_bored wrote:

Case in point you recognize the problem, but come November, will you still vote for McCain or Obama despite it all?

i'm considering voting for a 3rd party as long as there is one i like on the ballot in wisconsin.

part of me actually wants obama to win becasue i think he could be disasterous for the country (not unlike jimmy carter).

we need something to shake up the system. a political revolution. the rise of a new type of candidate that's not a career politician. the rise of a viable 3rd and 4th party. or a massive shake up of the current two.

pbmax wrote:

we need something to shake up the system. a political revolution. the rise of a new type of candidate that's not a career politician. the rise of a viable 3rd and 4th party. or a massive shake up of the current two.

Fully agreed.

rich_is_bored wrote:

Enough with the "Lesser of two evils" nonsense. Recognize that damage to some is progress to others and so long as we continue to vote for the guy who will do the least, nothing will get done.

A wise man once said, that if you vote for the lesser of two evils, you're still voting for evil.

BloodRayne wrote:

Who's the lesser evil?

I hate that philosophy. I always thought it was about voting for something you believed in. I guess the joke's on me than.

rich_is_bored wrote:

We need to grow a backbone. Enough with the "Lesser of two evils" nonsense. Recognize that damage to some is progress to others and so long as we continue to vote for the guy who will do the least, nothing will get done.

Oh thank God, someone finally said it.

As far as I'm concerned about Obama and McCain, I'm not voting for either of them for reasons stated above.

Things always go like this: you were super sweet at home, imagining your welcomed all over the earth. Ok maybe not, but at least most of them. Ok maybe not most of them, but at least the good ones among them.
Then two planes crashed into the twin tower, you feel someone shower 800 tons of ice all over you. Then you adopted another extremism: get super super sad and super super pissed off. Then there we go the "why the world h8 us" stuff. Then there goes the WMD. Hey, it doesn't matter about the WMD. You jus feel really wierd and really complicated. So either those who got left or right after this concussion agreed on one thing: we better start ta kick some ass.

Hell, after 1 or 2 years, like things always go, someone's heart start bleeding. Then here we go the "wrong war" thingy. Here we go with the "I got tricked, they told us there was the WMD, but there wasn't" thing. So everyone can drop bombs on someone else and just forget their own, very involvement. Hey, where were you in the first place?

And we can count on this, US would aid Iraq, and babysitting it like US did to Germany and Japan after WWII. Then Iraq, expectingly, would sing quite loud as an aftermath. Then the whole policing around the world stuff, will rise it's head again.

I hope you guys can read the diary wrote by soldiers in Iraq, and find out if the Iraqi ppl really want them out or not.

So my point: If you think it's wrong, don't start it at all, if it has been started, don't leave it half done.

Oh and, not the first time I hear Obama fans say , but this time after a speech in Germany: "I just like him, though I don't know why."

DoV_Tomas wrote:

Unfortunately, gentlemen, the system will never change - at least not in any of our lifetimes.

Corporations ha....

1.Start reading.
2.Stop make ppl laughing.

goliathvt wrote:

I find i...

It is insulting to start thinking any "liberals" are liberal these days.

Triple posts?
That's almost like... A rap song. They keep coming out with more, yet none of them seem to make any sense or be any different than the thousands of others being released everyday by either the same "rappers", or the wannabe ones. So, when I get the chance, I'll make a rap song about police and doughnuts.

Feed, feed, feed tha police.

See that? I can take the lyrics of another song and change it and then call myself a gangster square above the rest down on Kentucky Drive over in Caleeforneya. You know... Los Angelina Jolie.

Quote:

1.Start reading.
2.Stop make ppl laughing.

With an incredibly well thought out and articulated argument like that I don't really know where to start.

You must be one of the proud and few (like the 24%) of people who support Bush and the war in Iraq. Perhaps you could explain to me how stealing Iraq's oil and installing yet another American puppet government there is protecting freedom. I'm sure your children's grandchildren will feel just as proud as their earnings are sucked to pay the debt created by the war, while the board at Halaburton celebrates their million dollar bonuses. And as you lay your proud war-mongering head to rest at night, gently rubbing your M-16 carbine bedmate for comfort, you can dream sweet dreams of saving the world and forcing American style democracy down everybody's throat while staring down the barrel of a gun.

I suggest you do a bit of traveling sometime, but make sure to put a great big American flag on your backpack. Shouldn't take long until someone walks up to you to show their appreciation for what America is (and has been) doing.

DoV_Tomas wrote:

Quote:

1.Start reading.
2.Stop make ppl laughing.

With an incredibly well thought out and articulated argument like that I don't really know where to start.

You must be one of the proud and few (like the 24%) of people who support Bush and the war in Iraq. Perhaps you could explain to me how stealing Iraq's oil and installing yet another American puppet government there is protecting freedom. I'm sure your children's grandchildren will feel just as proud as their earnings are sucked to pay the debt created by the war, while the board at Halaburton celebrates their million dollar bonuses. And as you lay your proud war-mongering head to rest at night, gently rubbing your M-16 carbine bedmate for comfort, you can dream sweet dreams of saving the world and forcing American style democracy down everybody's throat while staring down the barrel of a gun.

I suggest you do a bit of traveling sometime, but make sure to put a great big American flag on your backpack. Shouldn't take long until someone walks up to you to show their appreciation for what America is (and has been) doing.

There are ways to express this in a way which hits the point but doesn't ride on someone's back.

DoV_Tomas wrote:

Quote:

1.Start reading.
2.Stop make ppl laughing.

With an incredibly...

DoV_Tomas wrote:

With an incredibly well thought out and articulated argument like that I don't really know where to start.

Thats what I'd like to call "a mind flashbang" should do.

DoV_Tomas wrote:

You must be one of the proud and few (like the 24%) of people who support Bush and the war in Iraq.

Even if I do, I really don't think thats gonna make any sense cause why the hell those bigots would care what a 3rd world citizen's thoughts?

DoV_Tomas wrote:

Perhaps you could explain to me how stealing Iraq's oil and installing yet another American puppet government there is protecting freedom.

If you call send tons of muscles in there and extract something out, I have no idea how a dictionary would define robbery. I don know how to explain cause I don make the plan.

DoV_Tomas wrote:

I'm sure your children's grandchildren will feel just as proud as their earnings are sucked to pay the debt created by the war, while the board at Halaburton celebrates their million dollar bonuses.

Well US also own my country a great deal. And we are trying our best to get rid of such ownership. Because I believe no one like to pay for other countries' debt. So before we get out of such ownership completely, we might have to be sucked to pay those debt for quite a moment.

DoV_Tomas wrote:

And as you lay your proud war-mongering head to rest at night, gently rubbing your M-16 carbine bedmate for comfort, you can dream sweet dreams of saving the world and forcing American style democracy down everybody's throat while staring down the barrel of a gun.

Um, m16 is an assault rifle, not a carbine. And my bedmate is a FEMALE. America has only 200 years of history, and as for as I know, they are all trigger happy idiots (you got agree with me on this one, eh?) So how the hell they would be able to design their own democracy? I don't even think greek can brag about it.
Aslo I have no idea how canadian army (correct me if you do not have one at all

thanks in advance) train their soldier, but down here, a 3 year kid know the golden rule that thou shall never stare down the barrel of a gun, even it's a toy.

DoV_Tomas wrote:

I suggest you do a bit of traveling sometime, but make sure to put a great big American flag on your backpack. Shouldn't take long until someone walks up to you to show their appreciation for what America is (and has been) doing.

Well, around here ppl show their appreciation for different country, including canada. But if they fool up, then we know what to do. Sometimes they got send into slammer, sometimes they got shipped back home. I'm pretty proud that my country makes pretty fair rules and everyone stick to them, and they all proudly spell the word: LAW.

So the custom may be different in canada, my be they try to express themselves in a different, rather distinguished way? Like, send them into hospital? Just my guess.

BNA! wrote:

DoV_Tomas wrote:

Quote:

1.Start reading.
2.Stop make ppl laughing.

With an incredibly well thoug..
You must be one of the proud and few (like the 24%) of peopleg.

There are ways to express this in a way which hits the point but doesn't ride on someone's back.

Sure sure. As long as your not stupid and obtrusive enough to assume other ppl's geographical location, culture background, political orientation, status of arm bearing, pattern of national flag at the same time.

Do'h!hmm... wrote:

Sure sure. As long as your not stupid and obtrusive enough to assume other ppl's geographical location, culture background, political orientation, status of arm bearing, pattern of national flag at the same time.

A point to make should be on a factual and as well researched as possible basis (which excludes all internet chatter). Therefore a point wont change regardless the target audience. If a statement changes with the target audience, then it must get considered manipulative noise.

Do'h!hmm... wrote:

America has only 200 years of history, and as for as I know, they are all trigger happy idiots (you got agree with me on this one, eh?) So how the hell they would be able to design their own democracy? I don't even think greek can brag about it.

No, I do not agree with you. In fact, I resent when some uninformed foreigner states things like "All Americans are violent, gun-toting jack-asses." I even emphasized the "all" in your quote. You clearly aren't paying attention, otherwise you'd see that not all of the people here are for the war in the middle-east; I'm 100% against this war. So stop making biased, offensive remarks about all Americans. I am not a war-lover, nor do I think violence solves anything. Granted, war is a good last resort if another country is backing us into a corner (like full-scale assaults, etc.); otherwise, violence should only exist in games and movies.

I know you're trying to make a good point, do'h, but I have a general response to any and all people who put Americans like me on the same level as those "war-loving idiots":

"Fuck you."

Please pardon my unsophisticated language; I won't ever resort to it again. You just simply struck a nerve. My anger is now vented.

Oh, hippies and anti-violence groups make me warm and clown-like on the inside. "Can I get a ride?" Ha-ha! Ho ho! Tee-hee, hah-hah NO! "Come on *****, why?" Cause you's a ho, ho!
If a clown-hating Red Light District pimp took offense in that, violence would've sparked up in a heartbeat. By the way, I'm not a racist, but if I went on about violence in America, some of the reasons could get me shot straight to the moon. Just for the hippies, it'll be... The Dark Side. *Lightsaber activation noises.*

Violence is there for a reason, and it's hypocritical to say violence shouldn't exist.
Heh-heh! How would you settle those disputes with your neighbors? Stealing your garden tools? Huh huh, that doesn't make any sense! Infact, I'll go and skin them alive, wear it, dig a giant hole, fill it with water (or make it very muddy), and squirm around inside of it. It's those reasons that violence exists and why it'll remain there. Do we need it? Yes, actually. Is it necessary in most cases? Ask drug dealers and gang bangers. They'll tell you.

Everywhere you look, everything owes its existence (be it good or bad, of course) to violence. Were we not violent, we'd be living in the same place with less casinos in the world, or we'd live in giant, air-conditioned and Fires-of-Hell-proof Tipi. Or, we'd be way back in Eden around the time where Adam and Eve played a test similar to those in the movie Saw. "Hello, Adam and Eve. I'd like to play a game. Before you is a tree with fruit - Fruit to end the vex you suffer: Hunger. If you eat the delicious, juicy fruit from this tree, you will doom the future of you and your children, but be free to live. The rest of the trees in this room you are in are poisonous and full of needles and barbs, but will promise a comforting future for your children while you suffer in pain and agony. Make your choice."

Though, come to think of it, we'd all be going to Hell when we die if it weren't for Jesus dying on the cross, wouldn't we? Afterall, Lucifer didn't technically commit a "violent" act, and had Jesus not died for our sins in such a violent manner, we'd all be faced with unspeakable pain and horror, because Satan doesn't follow the rules. See, God is like a genie. Only, he offers one wish - one chance. Make exceptions to the "there's no need for violence" rule and you sort of break the whole point in the arguements that violence shouldn't be there. (I'm not an Atheist, but I don't believe in any of this. Huh huh. I've got no future.)

On that note, I don't know what I'm talking about, but I think you do?
Stop hissing about violence. We need it. Plus, it makes good entertainment and keeps us all from being equal. Equilibrium is what you should really be afraid of. Imagine a dull, crappy world where everyone wears a cheesy, tucked-in button up blue shirt and tan pants with shiny black shoes going to work, going home, eat, sleep, and repeating the process over and over (although, in different colors), just to be like a self-replicating machine. Nuh-uh.

KoRnScythe wrote:

Stop hissing about violence. We need it.

As a race, we have blood-thirsty tendencies (including myself), but generally we should be smarter than that. And my "hissing" about violence is aimed towards this current war. If this were like World War II, where Japan is bombing our pacific coast, and Nazis are "purging" all the non-believers of the world, I would certainly like to see them stopped. But the Iraq war is supposedly about finding dangerous weapons of mass-destruction, which haven't even been proven to exist there.

I supported the notion of catching al Qaeda for what they did on 9/11, but there is no good reason why Iraq was invaded. It won't stop terrorism in general, and there were no WMDs. Violence should be saved for more important things, like defending us from people who actually threaten our way of life. Al Qaeda certainly didn't do that; all they did was piss us off, then they ran and hid like the chickenshits they are. Terrorists aren't a threat to the American way. They're just pussies, and we shouldn't waste our time going so far out of our way to invade a country that has nothing to do with them.

KoRnScythe wrote:

it makes good entertainment and keeps us all from being equal.

There is nothing entertaining about real-life killing.

KoRnScythe wrote:

Equilibrium is what you should really be afraid of. Imagine a dull, crappy world where everyone wears a cheesy, tucked-in button up blue shirt and tan pants with shiny black shoes going to work, going home, eat, sleep, and repeating the process over and over (although, in different colors), just to be like a self-replicating machine. Nuh-uh.

I sort of see where you're getting at, but it seems you're not taking this topic very seriously, almost like you're making fun of it.

Obviously, violence can never truly be removed from Humanity. It's our natural instinct to kill and fight for our own benefits. But we, as a race, should have evolved to a point by now where we know when it is and is not necessary to resort to these urges. And right now, killing Iraqis over oil and supposed "weapons of mass destruction" is not a good reason.

While Obama promises to simmer things down in Iraq, he has been calling for refocusing our troops towards Afghanistan... the supposed "good" war. Unfortunately, Afghanistan is only a "good" war in the sense that it is slightly less horrendous than Iraq by comparison. Slightly. Like Iraq, it is still unjustified carnage against the completely wrong target(s). Here's a piece by John Pilger I thought especially poignant.

Obama, The Prince Of Bait-And-Switch

John Pilger wrote:

On 12 July, the London Times devoted two pages to Afghanistan. It was mostly a complaint about the heat. The reporter, Magnus Linklater, described in detail his discomfort and how he had needed to be sprayed with iced water. He also described the "high drama" and "meticulously practised routine" of evacuating another overheated journalist. For her US Marine rescuers, wrote Linklater, "saving a life took precedence over [their] security". Alongside this was a report whose final paragraph offered the only mention that "47 civilians, most of them women and children, were killed when a US aircraft bombed a wedding party in eastern Afghanistan on Sunday".

Slaughters on this scale are common, and mostly unknown to the British public. I interviewed a woman who had lost eight members of her family, including six children. A 500lb US Mk82 bomb was dropped on her mud, stone and straw house. There was no "enemy" nearby. I interviewed a headmaster whose house disappeared in a fireball caused by another "precision" bomb. Inside were nine people - his wife, his four sons, his brother and his wife, and his sister and her husband. Neither of these mass murders was news. As Harold Pinter wrote of such crimes: "Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest."

A total of 64 civilians were bombed to death while The Times man was discomforted. Most were guests at the wedding party. Wedding parties are a "coalition" speciality. At least four of them have been obliterated - at Mazar and in Khost, Uruzgan and Nangarhar provinces. Many of the details, including the names of victims, have been compiled by a New Hampshire professor, Marc Herold, whose Afghan Victim Memorial Project is a meticulous work of journalism that shames those who are paid to keep the record straight and report almost everything about the Afghan War through the public relations facilities of the British and American military.

The US and its allies are dropping record numbers of bombs on Afghanistan. This is not news. In the first half of this year, 1,853 bombs were dropped: more than all the bombs of 2006 and most of 2007. "The most frequently used bombs," the Air Force Times reports, "are the 500lb and 2,000lb satellite-guided . . ." Without this one-sided onslaught, the resurgence of the Taliban, it is clear, might not have happened. Even Hamid Karzai, America's and Britain's puppet, has said so. The presence and the aggression of foreigners have all but united a resistance that now includes former warlords once on the CIA's payroll.

The scandal of this would be headline news, were it not for what George W Bush's former spokesman Scott McClellan has called "complicit enablers" - journalists who serve as little more than official amplifiers. Having declared Afghanistan a "good war", the complicit enablers are now anointing Barack Obama as he tours the bloodfests in Afghanistan and Iraq. What they never say is that Obama is a bomber.

In the New York Times on 14 July, in an article spun to appear as if he is ending the war in Iraq, Obama demanded more war in Afghanistan and, in effect, an invasion of Pakistan. He wants more combat troops, more helicopters, more bombs. Bush may be on his way out, but the Republicans have built an ideological machine that transcends the loss of electoral power - because their collaborators are, as the American writer Mike Whitney put it succinctly, "bait-and-switch" Democrats, of whom Obama is the prince.

Those who write of Obama that "when it comes to international affairs, he will be a huge improvement on Bush" demonstrate the same wilful naivety that backed the bait-and-switch of Bill Clinton - and Tony Blair. Of Blair, wrote the late Hugo Young in 1997, "ideology has surrendered entirely to 'values' . . . there are no sacred cows [and] no fossilised limits to the ground over which the mind might range in search of a better Britain . . ."

Eleven years and five wars later, at least a million people lie dead. Barack Obama is the American Blair. That he is a smooth operator and a black man is irrelevant. He is of an enduring, rampant system whose drum majors and cheer squads never see, or want to see, the consequences of 500lb bombs dropped unerringly on mud, stone and straw houses.

Who's the lesser evil?

That's the only real question one should ask oneself when choosing the new American president. If you'd like to continue the trend of the last 8 years then you know what to vote for.

Barry Obama is nothing new by any stretch of the imagination. His resume is as thin as a 2D sprite. And this worldwide photo-op tour he's doing in an attempt to appear presidential is embarrassing!! But you're right, Goliath. And if you carefully dissect his works I don't believe he has any intention of getting out of Iraq completely either. He leaves too many variables in place that can cancel his campaign promise.

BloodRayne wrote:

Who's the lesser evil?

I had asked myself that, too. When it all comes down to it, I'd rather go with the candidate who at least claims he'll get our troops out of Iraq. McCain, on the other hand, is just plain insane.

Obama will never simply "pull the troops out of Iraq". Who ever thought so is quite gullible. If he's president, he won't pull the troops until Iraq can protect itself.

He's flipped flopped on Iran too. One day its a tiny country with a tiny military budget that does not pose a threat to the mighty USA. A few days later "Iran is a grave threat" with a nuclear program and a terror sponsor.

Look, you all know when he's in office, he'll drop some bombs on somebody if only to prove he's got the guts to do it. Just as Clinton bombed an aspirin factory to deflect attention from his sex scandal.

Obama is dangerous- not simply because he's a far leftist but because he's way too green & unqualified.

Lookign at his resume: http://obamasresume.org/ it's pretty clear he's as anyone as most people running for president. All McCain has flounted is his military service. The far leftist stuff is cute but not wholly accurate either.

pbmax wrote:

Obama will never simply "pull the troops out of Iraq". Who ever thought so is quite gullible.

I certianly never believed that. I know that it will be a slow, difficult process.

If the election was based entirely on the issue of war, I would still vote for Obama. Obama may not seem sincere, but I would still choose him over McCain, who openly states his unchanging approval for invading Iran and preserving Bush's foreign policy. I'll admit that I haven't been watching either candidate's speeches, nor have I thoroughly researched each guy's stances on other issues besides war, but so far I think it would be retarded to vote for someone who wants to use same foreign policy as Bush. It's been nothing but a disaster for our economy (that plus other things, of course). This election should be a landslide, but who knows?

I honestly don't know why you're getting so worked up over Obama's insincerity. Are you afraid that he's misleading us? Wow, a politician that's insincere about his intentions! Stop the fucking presses! All politicians do that, and I wouldn't be surprised if McCain suddenly had a "change of heart" during or after the election.

In my head, Obama's in the lead, and not because of all this "change" he keeps talking about (whatever big, revolutionary plans he has for this country will just get shot down by Congress anyway).

pbmax wrote:

Obama is dangerous- not simply because he's a far leftist but because he's way too green & unqualified.

That doesn't make him any more dangerous than McCain.

efx wrote:

Lookign at his resume: http://obamasresume.org/ it's pretty clear he's as anyone as most people running for president. All McCain has flounted is his military service. The far leftist stuff is cute but not wholly accurate either.

No offense, efx but all that bull squeeze about grant limitations doesn't impress. Nor him being cycled around into different committees. I'm no fan of McCain either and I'm still scratching my head wondering how the hell did we end up with these two to choose from!
But seriously I can't just get over all the people Barrys had to throw under the bus to distance himself from all his connections. He's a product of the Daly Chicago machine and that's scary enough. :shock:

pbmax wrote:

Obama will never simply "pull the troops out of Iraq". Who ever thought so is quite gullible. If he's president, he won't pull the troops until Iraq can protect itself.

He's flipped flopped on Iran too. One day its a tiny country with a tiny military budget that does not pose a threat to the mighty USA. A few days later "Iran is a grave threat" with a nuclear program and a terror sponsor.

Look, you all know when he's in office, he'll drop some bombs on somebody if only to prove he's got the guts to do it. Just as Clinton bombed an aspirin factory to deflect attention from his sex scandal.

Obama is dangerous- not simply because he's a far leftist but because he's way too green & unqualified.

Of course he's starting to flip flop now since he has to make himself appeal to the majority of Americans. He knows and his campaign advisers know that he can't win on the extreme leftist platform he was running on during the Democratic primary, so now he's trying to move towards the center and make himself appear not so far left. That, in my opinion, says something about the political landscape of the country.

Of course, once he gets into office, he will move back to the left and screw the rest of America. Unless Congress stands in his way. However, Congress is a worthless pile of crap nowadays. Their approval rating is in the single digits.

evilartist wrote:

Wow, a politician that's insincere about his intentions! Stop the fucking presses! All politicians do that, and I wouldn't be surprised if McCain suddenly had a "change of heart" during or after the election.

I don't like McCain either.

But is it too much to ask our elected officials to actually stand for something and not flip flop on a whim depending on who they are speaking to? I don't think so. Maybe I'm just an idealist...

Quote:

Obama

courtesy of somethingawful

sorry guys to jump ship, but we ze germans may don't gonna help ya out here...wish you best luck though!

pbmax wrote:

...is it too much to ask our elected officials to actually stand for something and not flip flop on a whim depending on who they are speaking to?

In a mostly-perfect world, perhaps. I, too, would like it if our candidates would just stay put in their views. Even I have my doubts about Obama now that you pointed out his flip-flopping (didn't know about that). Still, I feel Obama is the lesser of two evils. However, my views may or may not change depending on what I learn about both parties' stances on other issues.

it's not allways about the "spokesman" but more about what "stands" behind him

pbmax wrote:

But is it too much to ask our elected officials to actually stand for something and not flip flop on a whim depending on who they are speaking to?

I'd like to see some candidates with a backbone too. But the problem isn't the politicians. It's the public at large. Case in point you recognize the problem, but come November, will you still vote for McCain or Obama despite it all?

What people should be doing is asking themselves why they put up with it. We crave change but when it comes time to put up or shut up we do the same thing every election. We vote for the guy we think can win.

And how does that make us any different from the two-faced politicians we despise? They're doing the same thing. They pander to the groups who can hand them a victory.

We need to grow a backbone. Enough with the "Lesser of two evils" nonsense. Recognize that damage to some is progress to others and so long as we continue to vote for the guy who will do the least, nothing will get done.

well said

I'm not entirely sure problem lays with the candidates of (any) the position, but with the voters. In times of almost unlimited access to information most candidates do not stick to a general core competence or political direction. They get dissected for each and every word they say, let alone the necessity to look good on every picture.

Democratic elections should be about core competencies and general directions. If the crowd expects a candidate to please everyone, then voting becomes irrelevant and turns into a pure popularity race. For popularity you don't need a core competence or a clear direction. You just tell everyone enough of what they want to hear, poll the crowd and adjust accordingly.

You can even make outright false claims as long as it settles well over the extreme short term and suits a sensible matter (like McCain claiming to brought down Oil prices with his vote pro offshore drilling - totally unrelated, but spot on in terms of short term crowd pleasing and riding on the "relief" wave).

A base definition of a good politician should be someone who makes decisions based on superior availability of information (read: looking ahead based on media-undistorted data) even if such a decision goes against the short term popularity polls.

There will be plenty of such decisions to be made in the US soon. To name a few: raise interest rates moderately despite a slowing down economy, ensure decoupling of wages and inflation rate, adjust the tax system to allow the small and small-medium guy to do well, provide a soft landing for under-collateralized home owners (this is going to be very heavy for the tax payers).

I do not expect any of these inevitable decisions to come as a free lunch. The Iraq war was and is a very costly experience (please note: I'm only talking about cost and will not start or participate in the 1000th tread about important or unimportant the war on terror is). Backing up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac wont be cheap either.

Oil prices will come down automatically in the next 6 -9 months (guesstimate), give or take some extreme short term volatility. The political impact of what will happen in this field is negligible if any (IMHO), however everyone and their mum will claim it as his victory.

I have no position in MacCain or Obama, but I do care a lot about the general way democracy is getting executed nowadays. If there is something I would want to change than it's short term polling the crowd on whether they like good weather more than bad weather.

rich_is_bored wrote:

Case in point you recognize the problem, but come November, will you still vote for McCain or Obama despite it all?

i'm considering voting for a 3rd party as long as there is one i like on the ballot in wisconsin.

part of me actually wants obama to win becasue i think he could be disasterous for the country (not unlike jimmy carter).

we need something to shake up the system. a political revolution. the rise of a new type of candidate that's not a career politician. the rise of a viable 3rd and 4th party. or a massive shake up of the current two.

pbmax wrote:

we need something to shake up the system. a political revolution. the rise of a new type of candidate that's not a career politician. the rise of a viable 3rd and 4th party. or a massive shake up of the current two.

Fully agreed.

rich_is_bored wrote:

Enough with the "Lesser of two evils" nonsense. Recognize that damage to some is progress to others and so long as we continue to vote for the guy who will do the least, nothing will get done.

A wise man once said, that if you vote for the lesser of two evils, you're still voting for evil.

BloodRayne wrote:

Who's the lesser evil?

I hate that philosophy. I always thought it was about voting for something you believed in. I guess the joke's on me than.

rich_is_bored wrote:

We need to grow a backbone. Enough with the "Lesser of two evils" nonsense. Recognize that damage to some is progress to others and so long as we continue to vote for the guy who will do the least, nothing will get done.

Oh thank God, someone finally said it.

As far as I'm concerned about Obama and McCain, I'm not voting for either of them for reasons stated above.

Darkr0nin wrote:

As far as I'm concerned about Obama and McCain, I'm not voting for either of them for reasons stated above.

So, will you vote for another (third party) candidate? Or, are you not voting at all?

Unfortunately, gentlemen, the system will never change - at least not in any of our lifetimes.

Corporations have the money and own the media, their money drives politics and their media gets their candidates elected. The system will never do what's right for the people since this runs contrary to the interests of the elites. They don't want to share the wealth, the land or freedom with the rest of us, so men and rules are installed to insure the balance of power never tips towards the people.

When America tinkers and drives the direction of other country's politics by executing and facilitating the overthrowing of governments, it's not done to protect America's freedom or safety, its to line the pockets of a very few global bankers so they can add another billion to their personal wealth. To hell with the people who are dying, whose homes are bombed, whose land is expropriated while their nation's wealth is stolen into the accounts of a few rich men.

I agree it will take a revolution, either an armed one or an intellectual one. People would have to, en mass, refuse to vote or withhold their taxes, and demand change and a shift of control to an establishment that genuinely represents them, and will do the right thing on their bahalf. But what are the chances of that happening? I think a majority of the population is so ignorant, so enamored with entertainment, materialism and other inane past times that they're too blind to notice that Rome is burning. Frankly it's insane that the public is fooled every four years by fake speeches, pretty smiling photographs, and a bunch of lies.

evilartist wrote:

Darkr0nin wrote:

As far as I'm concerned about Obama and McCain, I'm not voting for either of them for reasons stated above.

So, will you vote for another (third party) candidate? Or, are you not voting at all?

I dunno. I don't really know of any third party candidates.

I find it hilarious that people consider Obama (over the entire stretch of his campaign) "left" or liberal. He's so far to the center center-right, it's actually kinda insulting to think he's what counts as "liberal" these days.

@Darkr0nin:

http://www.votenader.org/
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/

And there are others I'm sure (more links anyone?). Of course, you'll need to verify that the canidate you want to vote for is on your state's ballot.

@DoV_Tomas:

Every revolution starts with a single person. Choosing to do nothing on the basis that you'll never live to see the benefits is no less materialistic than the ignorant masses you're trying to distance yourself from.

@Dov_Tomas: Being you're Canadian, what's your opinion of how things are going here in Canada? So many Canadians have an opinion of what happens in the US and have no idea what's happening in their own country, it's downright criminal. Here's the start of the Canadian revolution: Stop reading, watching and listening to American newscasts. Start paying attention to what's happening here in our own country and maybe it won't be sold and rented out from under us, as is happening right now while we Canuckleheads all debate who will make the next great American President. Canadians simply have to ensure that whoever WE put in power is capable and willing to accordingly deal with whoever THEY put in power. There's a reason we are not fighting in Iraq and it's because we don't have to because we are not governed by American policy. The system that is in place (be it local, national, or international) is not THE system, it is A system, and it IS subject to review and change. The people in political power are hardly the threat to our autonomy, it is the business dealings we undertake with other countries that must be held in check. Turn off MSN and turn on CBC. It's not as flashy and entertaining, but it's us and we need you. Remember, the only news that affects everyone 100% of the time is the business news. The rest is just filler entertainment.

@Rich

It is erroneous to think I do nothing based on the fact that I know nothing will change in my lifetime. A few years back I joined a political party and attended every meeting. I eventually went on to become the constituency president and perhaps the highlight was when the party asked me to run as a candidate for the 2000 general election. Being of modest means and living in the inner city of Winnipeg meant I didn't have the resources to run. Although I managed the campaign for that year and we accomplished many constituency milestones: raised more money, signed up more members and received the most shares of the popular vote than the constituency had seen in all its history. It was a tremendous amount of work and sacrifice so you could say I make an effort.

@Brian

I don't watch TV Brian so I can't really see what's on CBC. And don't worry I am suspicious of corporations, that's why I earned a Master's degree in business, to learn and understand how this establishment has grown to rule our lives. I don't own a car or any one of a thousand useless frivolous pieces of crap that we're suppose to own to keep up with the Jones.
I've never set foot in an Walmart, I own no jewelry, I borrow books from the library and I ride a 15 year-old-bike. Unfortunately all I can do is shake my head when I pass by all the malls with their parking lots full to capacity with merry shoppers.

But you've probably heard the phrase, "when America sneezes, Canada gets a cold". Unfortunately the close proximity of America means we are smothered by American culture and politics, and it is our war-mongering cousin down south that keeps getting us - and the civilized world - into trouble. It was America that (and the then USSR) that perpetuated the Cold War (and the tremendous amount of money it took to sustain it), and it was this dynamic duo that brought the world to the brink of nuclear inhalation with the Cuban crisis. Whether its Vietnam, Korea, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Panama, or perhaps another dozen hot spots, who do we find embroiled in the thick of it? Since we're pretty much going to sink or swim based on the decisions made by the American voters, of course Canadians are curious to know what's going on. I'm reminded of America's influence every time I have to travel.

Ultimately the general public is to blame, and my hats off to the elites for understanding how to manipulate the masses. It blows me away how easily and readily people will blindly follow based on some airy fairy notion of executive privilege. Just 308 boobs run this country federally while the other 35M of us are on an extended nap.

DoV_Tomas wrote:

All above

Pretty interesting post which I enjoyed to read.

The green party has chosen Cynthia McKinney for their ticket: http://www.runcynthiarun.org/
Brian Moore is running on the SP-USA ticket which may translate to the Natural Law Party depending on the state. http://www.votesocialist2008.org/

I think there may be a someone running on the fascist ticket and another on the libertarian national socialist green party, if you like fascists or nazis.

I'm rather partial to Vermin Supreme, his stance on dental hygiene is the best of all the candidates for any party: http://www.zerohits.com/vermin/v1Emaifesto.html

asmodeus wrote:

libertarian national socialist green party

I'm terribly confused

.

DoV_Tomas wrote:

I don't watch TV Brian so I can't really see what's on CBC.

You're on a computer posting on the internet, it's readily available.

DoV_Tomas wrote:

And don't worry I am suspicious of corporations, that's why I earned a Master's degree in business, to learn and understand how this establishment has grown to rule our lives.

If that is why you earned your Master's, you're hardly a threat to the system or much use to anyone at all. What are your plans for your education? Perpetual paranoia?

DoV_Tomas wrote:

I don't own a car or any one of a thousand useless frivolous pieces of crap that we're suppose to own to keep up with the Jones.

Again, you're on a computer posting on the internet using a system most likely run by the American Corporation Microsoft's excellent OS called "Windows". Without these advances in technology and human endeavours, I would never have read your opinion about anything.

DoV_Tomas wrote:

I've never set foot in an Walmart, I own no jewelry, I borrow books from the library and I ride a 15 year-old-bike. Unfortunately all I can do is shake my head when I pass by all the malls with their parking lots full to capacity with merry shoppers.

I've never drank a bottle of beer, a cup of coffee or shot my arm with heroin, but I don't see how that matters. This ideology you carry has been tried and proven to fail. The hippies of the 60's failed, the punks of the 80's failed. Use your education and get into the system. "From within" is the only place change will happen.

DoV_Tomas wrote:

But you've probably heard the phrase, "when America sneezes, Canada gets a cold". Unfortunately the close proximity of America means we are smothered by American culture and politics, and it is our war-mongering cousin down south that keeps getting us - and the civilized world - into trouble. It was America that (and the then USSR) that perpetuated the Cold War (and the tremendous amount of money it took to sustain it), and it was this dynamic duo that brought the world to the brink of nuclear inhalation with the Cuban crisis. Whether its Vietnam, Korea, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Panama, or perhaps another dozen hot spots, who do we find embroiled in the thick of it? Since we're pretty much going to sink or swim based on the decisions made by the American voters, of course Canadians are curious to know what's going on. I'm reminded of America's influence every time I have to travel.

I am curious as to why you "have to" travel. (Also, "nuclear inhalation" made me LOL.)

DoV_Tomas wrote:

Ultimately the general public is to blame,

We are the general public, and I'm sure you know that.

DoV_Tomas wrote:

and my hats off to the elites for understanding how to manipulate the masses.

Why would that impress you? It seems to counter your personal views otherwise.

DoV_Tomas wrote:

It blows me away how easily and readily people will blindly follow based on some airy fairy notion of executive privilege. Just 308 boobs run this country federally while the other 35M of us are on an extended nap.

Use your education to help the masses (them asses), they need it, and they're mostly all good people deserving it. Bill Gates is an excellent example of someone helping others with his business-found wealth. I can only think of the horror show that would be upon this planet if he was a dick who didn't like people and funded death and destruction instead.

Dov-Tomas, my points are purely off the cuff based on immediate reactions to your post, which was well-written but, IMO, outdated.

Brain Trepaning wrote:

Bill Gates is an excellent example of someone helping others with his business-found wealth. I can only think of the horror show that would be upon this planet if he was a dick who didn't like people and funded death and destruction instead.

You might also want to look into the various Warren Buffett interviews. He donated his much of his wealth (37bn) to the Bill and Melinda Gatest foundation which makes it the largest foundation of its sort on earth.

rich_is_bored wrote:

@Darkr0nin:

http://www.votenader.org/

No way. I can't stand Nader. I'll look into that Barr guy though.

Can you vote for people who have lost the nomination? If so, I might just end up voting for Ron Paul. I've found that a lot of his views are, not exactly the same, but close to my own.

iceheart wrote:

asmodeus wrote:

libertarian national socialist green party

I'm terribly confused

.

It's the full name of a very minor, ultra-right wing, white supremacist political party. They claim not to be, and their website doesn't host any white supremacist literature, but all of their links are to known white supremacist hate groups.

Thanks for the nice reply BNA.

As for Brian.....

Quote:

(Also, "nuclear inhalation" made me LOL.)

LOL, I'll give you that one, forgot to check the checker. But I would add that if there was more inhalation the world would probably be a more peaceful place.

Quote:

If that is why you earned your Master's, you're hardly a threat to the system or much use to anyone at all. What are your plans for your education? Perpetual paranoia?

The capacity for the human mind to fill in the blanks when it's short on facts always amazes me. I re-read my post and I just can't find the part about it being the only reason I got the degree. Although I feel compelled to dredge up my thesis on corporate governance and community responsibility and email it to you since I think you'd find the cases I studied to be rather interesting. You call it paranoia, I call it trying to come to grips with the world around me and my place in it. Forgive me for free thought and for questioning the status quo.

Quote:

Without these advances in technology and human endeavors, I would never have read your opinion about anything.

How do you know that if the computer wasn't invented that some other technology wouldn't have replaced it? Hard to believe, but people have been sharing ideas and opinions without the computer for a hundred thousand years. And even more incredible, people thrived without cell phones, 500 channels of TV, credit cards and Walmart - amazing isn't it? My point isn't that I'm not against technology, but I'm against consumerism and excess. Really, do people need four TVs, a new cell phone every year that whitens their teeth and all the other junk that they accumulate? In 2003 the average Canadian saved just 1.4 per cent of their pay,there were over 84,000 personal bankruptcies (up 52 per cent from 1993), and people aren't saving for their retirements anymore. In that same year there were over 50.4M credit cards in circulation in Canada or more than two cards per adult. We also held over $517B in mortgages, however, trends indicate housing is starting to constitute less and less of total consumer debt, and more people are turning to high interest instruments such as credit cards and lines of credit to meet their consumer spending habits. Seems people are more worried about the colour of the next car they're going to buy instead of being concerned about our country - and world around us - which seems to be crumbling.

Quote:

"From within" is the only place change will happen.

I fail to see how becoming a Walmart shopping, jewelry wearing, credit card warrior is going to change anything. I suppose if I bought everything in the store that that may deter others from buying that stuff - but Walmart's amazing supply chain will have that fixed in a jiffy. And if you attribute the hippies of the 60's and punks of the 80's to be the prime movers of social change then I think you're missing part of the picture. All I can do is practice what I believe in and keep expressing my concerns to anyone that'll listen.

Quote:

I am curious as to why you "have to" travel.

I have occasion to travel on business - yes even computer-hating, hippy punk luddites like myself have to leave the house now and again.

Quote:

We are the general public, and I'm sure you know that. Why would that impress you? It seems to counter your personal views otherwise.

Just that people often blame the evil government, and more and more people (see last election's turn-out) are shirking their civil obligations as responsible citizens since their heads are buried up the consumerism beast's ass, plunging it in and out to the throbbing beat of "Don't worry, be happy". And unfortunately we all share the same leaky boat and I really hate the notion of going down with the ship since my boat-mates don't see the geysers that are springing up all around. I only admire their skills to the extent that I wish I could learn them to compel people to take charge. IMO a little check mark every four years and picketing the legislature during lunch and after work just doesn't cut it. But I try to give back. I volunteer twice a week, one day visiting elderly shut-ins and getting my ass kicked at chess, and one day as a teacher's aid for single mothers on welfare who are preparing for the GED. I also regularly contribute to a couple of charities every year.

And don't write so much, my hands get sore responding to everything. But I do appreciate the debate.

DoV_Tomas wrote:

How do you know that if the computer wasn't invented that some other technology wouldn't have replaced it? Hard to believe, but people have been sharing ideas and opinions without the computer for a hundred thousand years. And even more incredible, people thrived without cell phones, 500 channels of TV, credit cards and Walmart - amazing isn't it? My point isn't that I'm not against technology, but I'm against consumerism and excess. Really, do people need four TVs, a new cell phone every year that whitens their teeth and all the other junk that they accumulate? In 2003 the average Canadian saved just 1.4 per cent of their pay,there were over 84,000 personal bankruptcies (up 52 per cent from 1993), and people aren't saving for their retirements anymore. In that same year there were over 50.4M credit cards in circulation in Canada or more than two cards per adult. We also held over $517B in mortgages, however, trends indicate housing is starting to constitute less and less of total consumer debt, and more people are turning to high interest instruments such as credit cards and lines of credit to meet their consumer spending habits. Seems people are more worried about the colour of the next car they're going to buy instead of being concerned about our country - and world around us - which seems to be crumbling.

That is a very interesting part. Recent studies have shown people prefer cleaning the bathroom over thinking about their retirement fund. I think my saving quote after tax is about 90% (due to a healthy income), but even with an average German income for my age group I'd save at least 40%.
Living off credit (even on longer term loans, fully collateralized with real estate up to 70% of a realistic appraisal value) or even worse credit cards with 18% annual interest is a sure path to poverty. If the general public still believes by "feeling richer" due to house price appreciation (temporarily out of fashion) or similar distortion effects on real personal net worth I foresee a strongly growing dependency on state intervention not unlike the bailout of Fannie Mae or Freddy Mac as currently seen in the US.

Consumer spending is fine with me, but I don't see much sense in buying consumer goods on credit. Get a house with a downpayment is mighty fine when looked at in longer terms, but chewing away hypothetical house price on-paper appreciation with junior ranked mortgages to pay for cars and flat screen TVs is stupid on multiple levels. Especially if one pays back these unnecessary mortgages with credit cards. See the magic of compounding interest working against you.

Schools should offer financial education right from the start and teach people to understand(!) that it's more important to zig while the market zags rather than watch educational hip hop videos on MTV for inspiration on new bling bling spending.

True wealth, in terms of the origination "well being", is independence which is best reached by financial independence and insured private risk (health insurance, inability to work and so on). A truly independent mind is hard to manipulate whereas a person knee deep in consumer debt will vote for about anyone who promises them a bailout.

Israeli analyst suggests turning nuclear Iran against Egypt.
He argues that Shia dominance is prefereable to the Sunni's.
See this: http://samsonblinded.org/blog/use-iran- ... -egypt.htm

tranquill wrote:

Israeli analyst suggests turning nuclear Iran against Egypt.
He argues that Shia dominance is prefereable to the Sunni's.
See this: http://samsonblinded.org/blog/use-iran- ... -egypt.htm

You mean "self promoting book selling blog banned from GoogleAds and trying to project Machiavellian strategies over the Middle East suggests to turn Iran against Egypt" - don't you?

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

pbmax wrote:

we need something to shake up the system. a political revolution. the rise of a new type of candidate that's not a career politician. the rise of a viable 3rd and 4th party. or a massive shake up of the current two.

well said sir and due to respect my little attachment; BNA will laugh for sure

* it's beuys...

/and maybe i have no clue whats WORLDPOLITIC but mabye i dont care though

Things always go like this: you were super sweet at home, imagining your welcomed all over the earth. Ok maybe not, but at least most of them. Ok maybe not most of them, but at least the good ones among them.
Then two planes crashed into the twin tower, you feel someone shower 800 tons of ice all over you. Then you adopted another extremism: get super super sad and super super pissed off. Then there we go the "why the world h8 us" stuff. Then there goes the WMD. Hey, it doesn't matter about the WMD. You jus feel really wierd and really complicated. So either those who got left or right after this concussion agreed on one thing: we better start ta kick some ass.

Hell, after 1 or 2 years, like things always go, someone's heart start bleeding. Then here we go the "wrong war" thingy. Here we go with the "I got tricked, they told us there was the WMD, but there wasn't" thing. So everyone can drop bombs on someone else and just forget their own, very involvement. Hey, where were you in the first place?

And we can count on this, US would aid Iraq, and babysitting it like US did to Germany and Japan after WWII. Then Iraq, expectingly, would sing quite loud as an aftermath. Then the whole policing around the world stuff, will rise it's head again.

I hope you guys can read the diary wrote by soldiers in Iraq, and find out if the Iraqi ppl really want them out or not.

So my point: If you think it's wrong, don't start it at all, if it has been started, don't leave it half done.

Oh and, not the first time I hear Obama fans say , but this time after a speech in Germany: "I just like him, though I don't know why."

DoV_Tomas wrote:

Unfortunately, gentlemen, the system will never change - at least not in any of our lifetimes.

Corporations ha....

1.Start reading.
2.Stop make ppl laughing.

goliathvt wrote:

I find i...

It is insulting to start thinking any "liberals" are liberal these days.

Triple posts?
That's almost like... A rap song. They keep coming out with more, yet none of them seem to make any sense or be any different than the thousands of others being released everyday by either the same "rappers", or the wannabe ones. So, when I get the chance, I'll make a rap song about police and doughnuts.

Feed, feed, feed tha police.

See that? I can take the lyrics of another song and change it and then call myself a gangster square above the rest down on Kentucky Drive over in Caleeforneya. You know... Los Angelina Jolie.

Quote:

1.Start reading.
2.Stop make ppl laughing.

With an incredibly well thought out and articulated argument like that I don't really know where to start.

You must be one of the proud and few (like the 24%) of people who support Bush and the war in Iraq. Perhaps you could explain to me how stealing Iraq's oil and installing yet another American puppet government there is protecting freedom. I'm sure your children's grandchildren will feel just as proud as their earnings are sucked to pay the debt created by the war, while the board at Halaburton celebrates their million dollar bonuses. And as you lay your proud war-mongering head to rest at night, gently rubbing your M-16 carbine bedmate for comfort, you can dream sweet dreams of saving the world and forcing American style democracy down everybody's throat while staring down the barrel of a gun.

I suggest you do a bit of traveling sometime, but make sure to put a great big American flag on your backpack. Shouldn't take long until someone walks up to you to show their appreciation for what America is (and has been) doing.

DoV_Tomas wrote:

Quote:

1.Start reading.
2.Stop make ppl laughing.

With an incredibly well thought out and articulated argument like that I don't really know where to start.

You must be one of the proud and few (like the 24%) of people who support Bush and the war in Iraq. Perhaps you could explain to me how stealing Iraq's oil and installing yet another American puppet government there is protecting freedom. I'm sure your children's grandchildren will feel just as proud as their earnings are sucked to pay the debt created by the war, while the board at Halaburton celebrates their million dollar bonuses. And as you lay your proud war-mongering head to rest at night, gently rubbing your M-16 carbine bedmate for comfort, you can dream sweet dreams of saving the world and forcing American style democracy down everybody's throat while staring down the barrel of a gun.

I suggest you do a bit of traveling sometime, but make sure to put a great big American flag on your backpack. Shouldn't take long until someone walks up to you to show their appreciation for what America is (and has been) doing.

There are ways to express this in a way which hits the point but doesn't ride on someone's back.

DoV_Tomas wrote:

Quote:

1.Start reading.
2.Stop make ppl laughing.

With an incredibly...

DoV_Tomas wrote:

With an incredibly well thought out and articulated argument like that I don't really know where to start.

Thats what I'd like to call "a mind flashbang" should do.

DoV_Tomas wrote:

You must be one of the proud and few (like the 24%) of people who support Bush and the war in Iraq.

Even if I do, I really don't think thats gonna make any sense cause why the hell those bigots would care what a 3rd world citizen's thoughts?

DoV_Tomas wrote:

Perhaps you could explain to me how stealing Iraq's oil and installing yet another American puppet government there is protecting freedom.

If you call send tons of muscles in there and extract something out, I have no idea how a dictionary would define robbery. I don know how to explain cause I don make the plan.

DoV_Tomas wrote:

I'm sure your children's grandchildren will feel just as proud as their earnings are sucked to pay the debt created by the war, while the board at Halaburton celebrates their million dollar bonuses.

Well US also own my country a great deal. And we are trying our best to get rid of such ownership. Because I believe no one like to pay for other countries' debt. So before we get out of such ownership completely, we might have to be sucked to pay those debt for quite a moment.

DoV_Tomas wrote:

And as you lay your proud war-mongering head to rest at night, gently rubbing your M-16 carbine bedmate for comfort, you can dream sweet dreams of saving the world and forcing American style democracy down everybody's throat while staring down the barrel of a gun.

Um, m16 is an assault rifle, not a carbine. And my bedmate is a FEMALE. America has only 200 years of history, and as for as I know, they are all trigger happy idiots (you got agree with me on this one, eh?) So how the hell they would be able to design their own democracy? I don't even think greek can brag about it.
Aslo I have no idea how canadian army (correct me if you do not have one at all

thanks in advance) train their soldier, but down here, a 3 year kid know the golden rule that thou shall never stare down the barrel of a gun, even it's a toy.

DoV_Tomas wrote:

I suggest you do a bit of traveling sometime, but make sure to put a great big American flag on your backpack. Shouldn't take long until someone walks up to you to show their appreciation for what America is (and has been) doing.

Well, around here ppl show their appreciation for different country, including canada. But if they fool up, then we know what to do. Sometimes they got send into slammer, sometimes they got shipped back home. I'm pretty proud that my country makes pretty fair rules and everyone stick to them, and they all proudly spell the word: LAW.

So the custom may be different in canada, my be they try to express themselves in a different, rather distinguished way? Like, send them into hospital? Just my guess.

BNA! wrote:

DoV_Tomas wrote:

Quote:

1.Start reading.
2.Stop make ppl laughing.

With an incredibly well thoug..
You must be one of the proud and few (like the 24%) of peopleg.

There are ways to express this in a way which hits the point but doesn't ride on someone's back.

Sure sure. As long as your not stupid and obtrusive enough to assume other ppl's geographical location, culture background, political orientation, status of arm bearing, pattern of national flag at the same time.

Do'h!hmm... wrote:

Sure sure. As long as your not stupid and obtrusive enough to assume other ppl's geographical location, culture background, political orientation, status of arm bearing, pattern of national flag at the same time.

A point to make should be on a factual and as well researched as possible basis (which excludes all internet chatter). Therefore a point wont change regardless the target audience. If a statement changes with the target audience, then it must get considered manipulative noise.

Do'h!hmm... wrote:

America has only 200 years of history, and as for as I know, they are all trigger happy idiots (you got agree with me on this one, eh?) So how the hell they would be able to design their own democracy? I don't even think greek can brag about it.

No, I do not agree with you. In fact, I resent when some uninformed foreigner states things like "All Americans are violent, gun-toting jack-asses." I even emphasized the "all" in your quote. You clearly aren't paying attention, otherwise you'd see that not all of the people here are for the war in the middle-east; I'm 100% against this war. So stop making biased, offensive remarks about all Americans. I am not a war-lover, nor do I think violence solves anything. Granted, war is a good last resort if another country is backing us into a corner (like full-scale assaults, etc.); otherwise, violence should only exist in games and movies.

I know you're trying to make a good point, do'h, but I have a general response to any and all people who put Americans like me on the same level as those "war-loving idiots":

"Fuck you."

Please pardon my unsophisticated language; I won't ever resort to it again. You just simply struck a nerve. My anger is now vented.

Oh, hippies and anti-violence groups make me warm and clown-like on the inside. "Can I get a ride?" Ha-ha! Ho ho! Tee-hee, hah-hah NO! "Come on *****, why?" Cause you's a ho, ho!
If a clown-hating Red Light District pimp took offense in that, violence would've sparked up in a heartbeat. By the way, I'm not a racist, but if I went on about violence in America, some of the reasons could get me shot straight to the moon. Just for the hippies, it'll be... The Dark Side. *Lightsaber activation noises.*

Violence is there for a reason, and it's hypocritical to say violence shouldn't exist.
Heh-heh! How would you settle those disputes with your neighbors? Stealing your garden tools? Huh huh, that doesn't make any sense! Infact, I'll go and skin them alive, wear it, dig a giant hole, fill it with water (or make it very muddy), and squirm around inside of it. It's those reasons that violence exists and why it'll remain there. Do we need it? Yes, actually. Is it necessary in most cases? Ask drug dealers and gang bangers. They'll tell you.

Everywhere you look, everything owes its existence (be it good or bad, of course) to violence. Were we not violent, we'd be living in the same place with less casinos in the world, or we'd live in giant, air-conditioned and Fires-of-Hell-proof Tipi. Or, we'd be way back in Eden around the time where Adam and Eve played a test similar to those in the movie Saw. "Hello, Adam and Eve. I'd like to play a game. Before you is a tree with fruit - Fruit to end the vex you suffer: Hunger. If you eat the delicious, juicy fruit from this tree, you will doom the future of you and your children, but be free to live. The rest of the trees in this room you are in are poisonous and full of needles and barbs, but will promise a comforting future for your children while you suffer in pain and agony. Make your choice."

Though, come to think of it, we'd all be going to Hell when we die if it weren't for Jesus dying on the cross, wouldn't we? Afterall, Lucifer didn't technically commit a "violent" act, and had Jesus not died for our sins in such a violent manner, we'd all be faced with unspeakable pain and horror, because Satan doesn't follow the rules. See, God is like a genie. Only, he offers one wish - one chance. Make exceptions to the "there's no need for violence" rule and you sort of break the whole point in the arguements that violence shouldn't be there. (I'm not an Atheist, but I don't believe in any of this. Huh huh. I've got no future.)

On that note, I don't know what I'm talking about, but I think you do?
Stop hissing about violence. We need it. Plus, it makes good entertainment and keeps us all from being equal. Equilibrium is what you should really be afraid of. Imagine a dull, crappy world where everyone wears a cheesy, tucked-in button up blue shirt and tan pants with shiny black shoes going to work, going home, eat, sleep, and repeating the process over and over (although, in different colors), just to be like a self-replicating machine. Nuh-uh.

KoRnScythe wrote:

Stop hissing about violence. We need it.

As a race, we have blood-thirsty tendencies (including myself), but generally we should be smarter than that. And my "hissing" about violence is aimed towards this current war. If this were like World War II, where Japan is bombing our pacific coast, and Nazis are "purging" all the non-believers of the world, I would certainly like to see them stopped. But the Iraq war is supposedly about finding dangerous weapons of mass-destruction, which haven't even been proven to exist there.

I supported the notion of catching al Qaeda for what they did on 9/11, but there is no good reason why Iraq was invaded. It won't stop terrorism in general, and there were no WMDs. Violence should be saved for more important things, like defending us from people who actually threaten our way of life. Al Qaeda certainly didn't do that; all they did was piss us off, then they ran and hid like the chickenshits they are. Terrorists aren't a threat to the American way. They're just pussies, and we shouldn't waste our time going so far out of our way to invade a country that has nothing to do with them.

KoRnScythe wrote:

it makes good entertainment and keeps us all from being equal.

There is nothing entertaining about real-life killing.

KoRnScythe wrote:

Equilibrium is what you should really be afraid of. Imagine a dull, crappy world where everyone wears a cheesy, tucked-in button up blue shirt and tan pants with shiny black shoes going to work, going home, eat, sleep, and repeating the process over and over (although, in different colors), just to be like a self-replicating machine. Nuh-uh.

I sort of see where you're getting at, but it seems you're not taking this topic very seriously, almost like you're making fun of it.

Obviously, violence can never truly be removed from Humanity. It's our natural instinct to kill and fight for our own benefits. But we, as a race, should have evolved to a point by now where we know when it is and is not necessary to resort to these urges. And right now, killing Iraqis over oil and supposed "weapons of mass destruction" is not a good reason.