Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Mon Jan 20, 2020 9:43 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19785 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134 ... 792  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 12:41 pm
Posts: 17495
Location: City Of Tiny Lites
Yeah, you see Huck, that is what they want to do, to scare you...

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 6:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:48 pm
Posts: 35432
Location: Somewhere in time
I'm going with the planet is rebelling against the human infestation that is killing it and it is using it's biological and climatwe defenses to defeat us before we inflict more damage... :smoke:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 2:41 pm
Posts: 16744
Plook wrote:
I'm going with the planet is rebelling against the human infestation that is killing it and it is using it's biological and climatwe defenses to defeat us before we inflict more damage... :smoke:


Sounds good!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:56 pm
Posts: 4716
Mr_Green_Genes wrote:
Yeah, you see Huck, that is what they want to do, to scare you...



You have a good point there! Also what is the big deal about all the Palin e-mails and stupid stories yet we have people getting shot at from helicopters and a global economy teetering at the edge.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 7896
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Speaking of creepy weirdo flasher's who like to show their junk online......

Weiner seeks treatment, leave of absence from House

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43365868/ns ... pitol_hill

WASHINGTON — Under fierce pressure from fellow Democrats to resign in a sexting scandal, Rep. Anthony Weiner announced Saturday he was entering professional treatment at an undisclosed location and requested a leave of absence from Congress.

An aide for the embattled New York lawmaker made the disclosure in a statement shortly after several Democratic party leaders demanded he quit for exchanging messages and photos ranging from sexually suggestive to explicit with several women online.

"This sordid affair has become an unacceptable distraction for Representative Weiner, his family, his constituents and the House," Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the party chairwoman, said in a written statement calling for the 46-year-old married lawmaker to step down.

The House Democratic leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, said Weiner "has the love of his family, the confidence of his constituents and the recognition that he needs help. I urge Congressman Weiner to seek that help without the pressures of being a member of Congress."

Aides said later that Pelosi had been aware of Weiner's plan to enter treatment when she issued her statement, and her call for a resignation had not changed because of it.

Weiner's spokeswoman, Risa Heller, said in the statement that the congressman departed during the morning "to seek professional treatment to focus on becoming a better husband and healthier person. In light of that, he will request a short leave of absence from the House of Representatives so that he can get evaluated and map out a course of treatment to make himself well."

The statement did not say where he would receive treatment, or what type was involved. Others familiar with his plans said he had left New York by air.

Also joining in calls for Weiner to quit was New York Democratic Rep. Steve Israel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and a member of the party's leadership.

In an interview, Israel said he had told Weiner in a phone call during the day "that I was going to call on him to resign and he absorbed that. Obviously he had much more personal and pressing issues that he was addressing.

"He didn't give me any indication of whether he was going to resign or not," Israel said.

Pelosi, the former House Speaker, also spoke with Weiner during the day to let him know that she, too, would be joining the calls for his resignation.

Scandal

The developments occurred one day after Weiner acknowledged he had exchanged online messages with a 17-year-old girl in the state of Delaware. He said nothing improper had passed between the two of them.

Nor was there even an allegation that Weiner had a physical relationship with any of the women with whom he maintained virtual relationships. That made his case a departure from the norm, a sex scandal without sex, a phenomenon of the age of Facebook, Twitter and other social media.

Democrats said the concerted call for Weiner's resignation had been brewing for days, as senior party officials concluded the scandal was interfering with their attempts to gain political momentum in advance of the 2012 elections. Democrats hope to rebound from a devastating election defeat last November in which the Republicans gained control of the House.

"We had decided we were not going to have one more week of Anthony Weinergate," said one official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

This official added that Pelosi and Israel had spoken numerous times in the past several days with Weiner, hoping to persuade him to step down for the good of the party, telling him that because of the media focus on his predicament, their attacks on a Republican Medicare proposal were largely unnoticed. The Republicans have proposed major cuts in the government-run Medicare program providing health care coverage to the elderly.

Publicly, Pelosi, Wasserman Schultz and others had been notably reticent in the days since Weiner held a news conference on Monday to announce he had exchanged lewd photos, and more, with a handful of women.

On Thursday, an X-rated photo surfaced on a website, and in response, Weiner's office issued a statement that did not deny it had been taken of him.

Leave of absence

The Democratic National Committee was so eager to downplay the controversy that earlier in the week, spokesman Brad Woodhouse referred calls to Wasserman Schultz's House office, saying Weiner's predicament was a congressional matter.

Her statement demanding a resignation, five days later, was issued by the DNC.

The White House declined comment on the matter, and New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, the state's dominant Democrat, maintained a public silence after an initial statement issued on Monday.

The statement by Weiner's aide did not specify how long a leave of absence the congressman would seek. According to one Democratic aide, leaves are granted automatically once a lawmaker requests one, and no vote or other type of acquiescence by the House is required. It is not known whether any other lawmakers are currently on leave.

Until disclosing he was seeking treatment, Weiner had given no indication he was considering anything other than returning to the Capitol on Monday when the House returns from a week-long break — raising the prospect of a circus-like atmosphere when the news media attempted to track his whereabouts.

He ran some personal errands near his home in the New York City borough of Queens during the morning, and said he was looking forward to getting back to work quickly.

"I've made some mistakes. I've acknowledged it. I'm trying to make it up to my wife and my family," he said. "I'm working hard to get back to normal."

'A remarkable woman'

As he walked to a neighborhood dry cleaner with a load of shirts over one arm he wore an anguished look on his face, but fielded questions politely and paused several times to accept well wishes from neighbors and constituents.

Asked how his wife was taking the scandal, Weiner said, "She's doing well. She's a remarkable woman."

Weiner is married to Huma Abedin, a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Abedin, who is pregnant with the couple's first child, is traveling with Clinton in Africa until the middle of next week.

She was not in attendance on Monday when Weiner held his news conference, choosing to avoid the stand-by-your-man-moment that has become standard in other sex scandals in recent years.

Before Saturday's developments, at least nine Democratic House members and three senators said Weiner should resign.


..................................................................................

People who do this kind of stuff deserve a lifetime of ridicule.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:14 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 7735
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
"Republican 2012 hopefuls open debate in New Hampshire"

"Which do you choose?"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13751433

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 7:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:48 pm
Posts: 35432
Location: Somewhere in time
Caputh wrote:
"Republican 2012 hopefuls open debate in New Hampshire"

"Which do you choose?"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13751433



Newt should go down in flames after the scandal broke today that his charitable organization was a front to develop a campaign donor list... :smoke:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 6:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 10:19 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Eastern CT coast
Too busy at school to post much but SPACEBROTHER's "Greatest President" in history rolls on...I guess they figure the bombs will bring peace, and they're sure enough of that to condem a lot of innocents to deaths. Too bad, but they had to die to make us safer.

GO OBOMBA!
GO BLUE TEAM!
REPUBLICAN BOMBS ARE BAD
DEMOCRAT BOMBS ARE GOOD!

...what's another ilegal war, we have three already, what's a fourth...in for a penny-in for a pound...

Image

Yemeni Deputy Governor: 130 Killed by US Drones This Month
by Jason Ditz, June 14, 2011

"Officials with Yemen’s Defense Ministry have confirmed that the US has been launching drone strikes on a daily basis against the nation in June, with more than 15 confirmed strikes already this month. The deputy governor of Abyan Province reports at least 130 killed in those attacks.

So far it is unclear who was killed in the strikes, but the deputy government said a number of innocent civilians were among the dead. Abyan Province has seen fighting over several towns between government forces and militant fighters, and it seems the US is using this fighting as cover for the drone campaign.

The announcement comes in the wake of several reports that the Obama Administration is looking to dramatically escalate its drone presence in the country, launching attacks against targets in the nation’s tribal dominated regions. It appears, however, that those strikes had already begun.

And may get worse yet. The Associated Press has a report that the US is building a secret CIA air base from which to launch drone attacks across the region. The site of the base was unclear, but reports that officials are concerned that the Yemeni regime may full suggest it may be outside of Yemen.
__________________

Obama and the Pursuit of Endless War
June 13, 2011

FULL STORY HERE



When historians sit down decades from now to address the events of the early 21st century, they will have no trouble explaining why Americans elected Barack Obama president. They elected him out of a firm conviction that the United States was not involved in enough wars.

Problem solved. Today, American forces are fighting in four different countries.

No. 4 is Yemen, where we learn the administration is carrying out an intense covert campaign against anti-government militants, using fighter aircraft and drone missiles.

Feel safer? Probably not. Most of what presidents do with the U.S. military is not aimed at enhancing the security or welfare of the American people. It serves mainly to advance our domination of the world, even—or maybe especially—in places irrelevant to any tangible interests. Like Yemen.

Or Libya—also known as War No. 3. Since March, the administration has been immersed in a grand humanitarian mission requiring us to deliver bombs on a regular basis. Obama's stated goal was to prevent a mass slaughter he accused Moammar Gadhafi of plotting. But that pretext has given way to the real purpose: killing the dictator, pounding his regime into submission, or both.

No end is yet in sight, but an optimistic Defense Department official told the Times, "We are steadily but surely eroding his capacity." If that statement is false, we have burned through $700 million on a futile offensive in a country that posed no threat.

Or consider our record in trying to transform Afghanistan. The U.S. has 100,000 troops there, triple the number when Obama took office. Civilian officials and generals invariably assure us that our efforts are succeeding, but never quite well enough to allow our departure.

The president doesn't plan for us to be out of Afghanistan until 2014—13 years after we went in. He promised to start withdrawing this summer, but the Pentagon is resisting anything more than a minimal drawdown.

Likewise, despite our alleged success in Iraq, the administration is prepared to keep troops there as well, if the Baghdad government will agree. No worries: Leon Panetta, Obama's incoming defense secretary, says he has "every confidence" that it will.

____________________________________

Sne in other news..I was wncouraged to see this from Medea Benjaman of Code Pink, it was sade beforew to see this ex-democrat putting her faith in Kerry and Obomba...it's nice to see she's seenthe light, (Bill Clinton did it for me after he duped me into voting for his first term which resulted in the reaths of 500, 000 Iraqi civillians...which most people still don't know about...his second term (by which I had already smartened up and rejected him), resulted in the deaths of another 700, 000 Iraqi civillians).

Anyways...We're turning again, (well, some of us are, some can't turn, can we SB.)...

Needed: An Antiwar Movement That Puts Peace Over Politicians
by Medea Benjamin and Charles Davis, June 15, 2011

After campaigning as the candidate of change, the man awarded a Nobel Prize for peace has given the world nothing but more war. Yet despite Barack Obama’s continuation—nay, escalation—of the worst aspects of George W. Bush’s foreign policy, including his very own illegal war in Libya, you’d be hard-pressed to find the large-scale protests and outrage from the liberal establishment that characterized his predecessor’s reign (and only seems to pop up when a Republican’s the one dropping the bombs. {Unfortunately, we still see this here on our forum.})

That’s not for a lack of things to protest. Since taking office, Obama has doubled the number of troops in Afghanistan{three times Medea, 33, 000 to 100, 000 is three times} and now looks set to break his pledge to begin a significant withdrawal in July. He has unilaterally committed the nation to an unapologetically illegal war in Libya and in two years has authorized more drone strikes in Pakistan than his predecessor authorized in two terms, with one in three of the victims reportedly civilians. In Yemen, he has targeted a U.S. citizen for assassination and approved a cluster-bomb strike that, according to Amnesty International, killed 35 innocent women and children.

But these war crimes, which ought to shock the consciences of the president’s liberal supporters, haven’t spurred the sort of popular protest we witnessed under Bush the Lesser. At a recent congressional hearing on the bloated war budget, a handful of CODEPINK activists were the sole dissenters. Thousands poured into the streets to cheer Osama bin Laden’s death, but no Americans were in the streets decrying the drone attack that killed dozens of Pakistani civilians weeks earlier.

While die-hard grassroots peace activists continue to bravely protest U.S. militarism, with 52 people arrested last month protesting outside a nuclear weapons factory in Kansas City—if they’d been Tea Partiers protesting Obamacare, you may have heard of them—there’s no denying that the peace movement has taken a beating.

a recent study suggests that a major reason why the antiwar movement has withered even as the warfare state has grown is simply that the party in charge has changed.

After surveying 5,398 demonstrators between 2007 to 2009, the University of Michigan’s Michael T. Heaney and Indiana University’s Fabio Rojas found that prior to Obama’s election, up to 54 percent of antiwar protesters were self-described Democrats. After his inauguration, that number fell to less than a quarter.

“Democratic activists left the antiwar movement as the Democratic Party achieved electoral success, if not policy success,” the researchers write. That is, Democrats successfully “exploit[ed] the antiwar movement for their own electoral success,”

many Democrats have rejected their rhetorical support for peace just as thoroughly as their once-upon-a-time opposition to the PATRIOT Act. When Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich offered a measure condemning Obama’s illegal, undeclared war in Libya and demanding a withdrawal of all U.S. forces within two weeks, he was joined by more Republicans than fellow Democrats.

MORE HERE

___________________________________

Along the same lines...

Image

In 2012, Don’t Get Fooled Again
by John V. Walsh, June 13, 2011

A few weeks back, the opening shots of Obama’s presidential campaign slammed through the thorax and right frontal lobe of Osama bin Laden, an electoral milestone astutely noted at the time by Alexander Cockburn. The second volley was discharged with the media equivalent of a silencer, as Obama signed into law an extension of the PATRIOT Act in France with a remote pen at one minute to midnight on the Friday before the long Memorial Day weekend.{What Was I saying about holiday weekends like Thanksgiving 4-dayer's that scare me? You can count on bad news while Anerican's are distracted by their Turkeys.} Thus Obama muted yet another betrayal of the voters to whom he had pledged the early demise of the heinous PATRIOT Act.

Obama promised change, but he gave us more of the same. He intimated an era of peace, but he gave us war. He promised to respect the right of Congress to declare war, but he dropped bombs on Libya in a brazen assault on the Constitution, not even bothering to lie to Congress as did Bush. Obama promised “transparency,” but Sen. Ron Wyden tells us the president has put in place a secret interpretation that expands the reach of the PATRIOT Act. Let us not forget that Obama was, is and will be the candidate of the “left” wing of the Democratic establishment, the candidate of Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) and of The Nation magazine. But this “antiwar” candidate of the establishment turned out to be just another agent of Empire. Glenn Ford of Black Agenda Report has said that Obama has out-Bushed Bush, that Obama’s not a “lesser evil” but a “more effective evil,” since he has pursued the same policies while disarming opposition to them.

It is no wonder that all but the most die-hard devotees of Obama, a vastly shrunken contingent, have at long last found the Messiah wanting {...or "one of the greatest presidents in history" as some militant democrats have put it).. But should they have expected anything else? In the superb book Washington Rules, Andrew Bacevich makes his most important point in a single word: continuity. It is a theme that Noam Chomsky and many historians have long stressed about U.S. foreign policy, but it seems to perpetually elude the antiwar movement.

So what is a serious antiwarrior to do? The only antidote to the empire in which we are trapped is a movement independent of the imperial elite of Wall Street and Washington. As Eisenhower said, “only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry” can keep those who would wage war in check.

The answer, then, is simple. It is easy to spot worthy campaigns: The anointed pundits are sure to ridicule them, dismissing them as “marginal,” a “wasted vote.” There should be two criteria for an antiwarrior’s support once such a campaign is thus identified. First, the candidate must put principle above party and run on a strictly anti-interventionist platform. No humanitarian imperialism, if you please. Second, the candidate must seek to build a base with its own structure and personnel, designed to live on after election day. This makes the campaign part of a movement. And without such an independent base, as George McGovern discovered decades ago, a major-party candidacy is doomed. The elite “leaders” of the War Parties abandon genuine antiwar candidates.

Ralph Nader in his 2000 campaign met these standards, running as the candidate of the Association of State Green Parties, later to turn into the Green Party of the U.S., only to self-destruct with a bit of help from Democratic operatives. Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign met the same standards, giving birth to the antiwar wing of the Tea Party and such organizations as the state Liberty Preservation Associations. These were worthwhile electoral efforts; anything less is a waste of time.

_______________________________

Impeach Barack Obama
A Challenge to Tea Partiers and Antiwar Liberals

The time has come for those who claim high regard for the U.S. Constitution to show that they mean what they say. The time has come to begin impeachment proceedings against President Barack H. Obama for high crimes and misdemeanors.


The United States has initiated a war against Libya, as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has conceded. When one country bombs another, which has not attacked it nor posed any immediate threat to it, that is an act of war. No "humanitarian" rationale justifies such an act. Only an act of Congress suffices according to the United States Constitution. Barack Obama has violated that provision of the United States Constitution, which he swore, falsely it is now apparent, to defend and protect. Barack Obama has committed this greatest of impeachable offenses. Other offenses related to torture and violation of the civil liberties of U. S. citizens may emerge as articles of impeachment are drawn up.

MORE HERE


______________________

And finally...a look at soem of the slime that educates the militant "antiwar" Democrats...

Image

June 13, 2011

The Media Distract the Public From War
Americans Are Not Being Leveled With

By SHELDON RICHMAN

If one is to judge by the tone of the television commentators, America must be deep in a crisis. Long stretches of cable time are devoted to the breaking news. Each detail is presented as more grave and consequential for the republic than the last. The fate of the country surely hangs in the balance.

What is it? War? Fiscal crisis? Mass unemployment? A double-dip recession?

No. A congressman was caught sending lewd photographs of himself to women over the Internet.

This is what now consumes so much of the news media's attention. This is what outranks in news value continuing occupations of foreign countries, three overt and an undetermined number of covert wars, and a looming fiscal crisis. As America's imperial elite seeks to hold on to and extend its global power in defiance of economic reality, the spectacle of a congressman, Anthony Weiner of New York, appparently sharing pictures of his private parts with female strangers has taken center stage. {And this elite comes complete with it's own set of devoted cheerleaders, doesn't it SB}.

During the more than weeklong scandal, some indisputably more important things have been going on. For example, just a few days ago five U.S. military personnel were killed in Iraq. Remember Iraq? That's the country the U.S. government invaded in 2003 on the basis of cynical lies about weapons of mass destruction and al Qaeda collusion, and has occupied ever since. Last year President Obama triumphantly announced to the American people that the war there was over as he withdrew all but about 47,000 troops. (As though that is an insignificant force.) MSNBC's Obama cheerleading section was on the scene to record the historic event. Wikipedia gives opening and closing dates for the war: March 20, 2003 – August 31, 2010. So it must be over, right?

Tell it to the families of the five soldiers. They were killed in a rocket attack from Shiite-controlled east Baghdad. That sounds like combat. That sounds like war. The American people are not being leveled with.

Under the Status of Forces Agreement between the Bush administration and the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the U.S. military is to leave Iraq by the end of the year. Iraq's Iran-backed government and the most powerful figure outside the government, Muqtada al Sadr, have said they want U.S. forces out. But despite President Obama's reassurances, American military leaders aren't so certain it's time to leave. As the Christian Science Monitor reported, "[T]he attack could provide a new impetus for the Pentagon to push for an extension of the US military presence in the country." It quotes the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen: "[T]here is still much work to be done and still plenty of extremists aided by states and organizations who are bent on pulling Iraq back into violence." Defense Secretary Robert Gates said last month that staying on would send "a powerful signal to the region that we're not leaving, that we will continue to play a part. I think it would not be reassuring to Iran, and that's a good thing."

So the "non-war" rages on and may continue past the promised termination point. Of course Iraq is not the only serious matter being overshadowed. Afghanistan, Libya, and Yemen are still deadly playgrounds for the ruling elite, and an attack on Iran cannot be ruled out. But Rep. Weiner's online sexual activities outrank all of this. Perhaps keeping the American people distracted is the mainstream media's idea of serving the country.

_________________
Lesser-evilism is war.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 7:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 10:19 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Eastern CT coast
In that SPACEBROTHER's undying support for "The Messiah" (as described above or "One of the Greatest President's in history" as SB before described him), cannot escape the cold logic of the above...one can only wonder as to the content or extent of the spam that the above post will generate to distract away from it's cold logic that we cannot support bombing our way to peace, (war is peace, not)....

...or perhaps SPACEBROTHER will be ready to exit the militant (Bush bombs=bad, Obomba bombs = good), crowd and join the antiwar movement who hates bombs from elitists regardless of which party commands them.

Heck, I freely admitted that I was duped by Bill clinton before his first term, and thereafter totally rejected and dissed him ...Perhaps SB can admit he's had enough of these illegal bombing campaigns (as I really believe he believes inside, in his heart of hearts)...and totally reject Obomba and his 4 illegal bombing campaigns that are killing so many.

Can you join us SB?

It would also bring peace to the forum.

You have to admit, you were wrong about this, even if Obamba does throw his once progressive supporters a bone and pulls 3000 out of the 100, 000 troops there, (and turns over those duties to contractors and more civillian harsh drones)....even gates said he "wants to leave the shooters there."

The war ain't over as you once trusted Obomba's word on SB, and he's started bombing in two more countries since...can you reject the militant democtrats who still support him in light of this new information?

The war ain't gonna be over by July as you once believed, in fact Karzi is now asking for troops PAST 2014, (he needs the US to prop him up).

SPACEBROTHER wrote:
Look on the bright side, when Obama ends the war in Afghanistan next July, baddy will have nothing else to complain about. Right?

Looks like the war won't be over in two more weeks ...and I'll have something to complain about...past 2014, (we can't "fix" Afghanastan with violence propping up Karzi).

_________________
Lesser-evilism is war.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 7896
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Though there are area's where I can find to criticise Obama, considering the disaster he inherited from Bush and the Republican party, it will take decades to repair the massive amount of damage done. Expecting instant gratification in a mere 2 and a half year period is not only unrealistic, but considering these alternatives.......

Defense costs loom as issue for GOP contenders
'Candidates aren’t eager to bring up unpleasant subjects with the electorate'

In their debate Monday, the seven Republican presidential contenders showed that they haven’t quite yet focused on a question that will be hard to avoid: how to resolve the irrepressible conflict between America’s overseas military commitments and its debt burden.

It was a questioner in the audience Monday night, truck driver Greg Salts from Manchester, N.H., who framed the issue sharply: “I support the U.S. military. But frankly, we're in debt up to our eyeballs. We have nation building going on around the world ... We still have military bases all over Europe, all over Asia.”

In his own way, Salts was saying some of what another Republican, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, has been saying in recent days, as he prepares to retire, 45 years after entering government service.

To the NATO meeting on Friday in Brussels and in earlier speeches on his farewell tour, Gates has bluntly said what Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and the other GOP presidential hopefuls have only begun to grapple with: “The United States faces a serious fiscal predicament that could turn into a crisis — of credit, of confidence, of our position in the world — if not addressed soon.”

The looming fiscal crunch will not spare military spending.

On Wednesday in his farewell testimony to the Senate Appropriations Committee, Gates said “we need to be honest” about the consequences of a smaller military which will “be able to go fewer places and be able to do fewer things.”

Spending cuts must be done in an open and candid way so that the nation “consciously acknowledges and accepts additional risk in exchange for reduced investment in the military.”

He warned the Senate against the kind of across-the-board cuts that Congress made in the 1970s — “a disastrous period for our military” — resulting in “a hollowing out of the force.”

He also gave one last reminder that defense costs are increasingly a matter of rising health care spending.

“Sharply rising health care costs are consuming an ever larger share of this department’s budget — growing from $19 billion in 2001 to $52.2 billion” in the Obama administration's Fiscal Year 2012 budget request, he told the senators, asking that military retirees be required to pay increased fees for their health care coverage.

In a similarly somber warning last week, Gates told his NATO peers that “there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress — and in the American body politic writ large — to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources… to be serious and capable partners in their own defense.”

Running out of ammo
The immediate clash is over NATO’s mission in Libya, where “only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime” as Gates pointed out, many allies “are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference.”

Boehner asks Obama to justify legal grounds for Libya mission
But the larger context is the whole array of military commitments and promises to military retirees that collide with growing entitlement programs such as Medicare — and tax revenues that are utterly inadequate to pay for all this.

Using the standard Congressional Budget Office measure, publicly held debt is nearly 70 percent of gross domestic product, more than double what it was in 2003.

Under CBO’s “alternative fiscal scenario,” which is its euphemism for not cutting payments to doctors serving Medicare patients and not allowing taxes to be increased, debt soars to about 150 percent of GDP soon after 2030.

One of the GOP presidential hopefuls, Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota said during Monday’s debate that in order to win next year, “We need the peace through strength Republicans, we need the fiscal conservatives, we need the social conservatives.”

But the collision of defense spending and debt could bring one branch of the party “the peace through strength Republicans” into conflict with the fiscal conservatives.

Loren Thompson, a military analyst who heads the non-partisan Lexington Institute, said, “It’s clear the Republican candidates aren’t eager to bring up unpleasant subjects with the electorate. For example, the possibility that we may not be able to continue spending nearly half of all global military outlays is not something that they are willing to address.”

Thompson said the United States accounts for about 23 percent of global economic output, yet “is generating nearly half of all global military expenditures.”

During Monday’s event, there were two opposing poles and some GOP contenders in the middle.

Paul: Cut defense and withdraw the troops
The “cut debt and cut defense” pole was represented by Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.

“We should think about protecting our borders, rather than the borders between Iraq and Afghanistan. That doesn't make any sense to me,” he said, to applause from the audience, when immigration came up as a topic.

When Romney said he wanted the U.S. troops in Afghanistan “to come home… based upon the conditions on the ground determined by the generals,” Paul shot back, “I wouldn't wait for my generals. I'm the commander in chief ... I tell the generals what to do. I'd bring them home as quickly as possible. And I would get them out of Iraq as well."

And he added, "I wouldn't start a war in Libya. I'd quit bombing Yemen. And I'd quit bombing Pakistan.”

He said, “I'd start taking care of people here at home because we could save hundreds of billions of dollars.”

Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty represented the hawkish, or “peace through strength” side of the party.

“We have Iraq being probably one of the shining examples of success in the Middle East,” he contended.

And he invoked the image of the Sept. 11 attackers, who would have killed “30 million if they could have. If they had the capability to do that in their hands — and as soon as they get it, they'll try.”

Rebuffing Paul, Pawlenty said, “If there are individuals I have intelligence on, or groups in Yemen that present a threat to our security interests in that region or the United States of America, you can bet they will hear from me and we'll continue the bombings.”

Between those two poles was the apparent frontrunner in the GOP race, Romney, who while opposing a precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan, also said, “We've learned that our troops shouldn't go off and try and fight a war of independence for another nation.”

One GOP contender who wasn’t at the debate, former Utah governor and China envoy Jon Huntsman has begun to raise the issue of defense spending, asking last weekend, “When you look at Afghanistan, can we hang out until 2014 and beyond?”

He said, “You can if you're willing to pay another quarter of a trillion dollars to do so. But if it isn't in our direct national security interest and if there isn't a logical exit strategy and if we don't know what the cost is going to be in terms of money and human lives, then I think you have to say it's probably time we reevaluate this ... ”

[size=120]Entitlements vs. armaments[size]
But it's a Republican non-candidate, Gates, who has spoken most eloquently about the fiscal dilemma.

Because most of America’s NATO allies have more generous welfare states than the United States does, they do not nearly spend as much on the hardware of war as the United States does.

“For all but a handful of allies, defense budgets in absolute terms, as a share of economic output, have been chronically starved for adequate funding for a long time," Gates said last week in Brussels. "Just five of 28 allies — the U.S., U.K., France, Greece, along with Albania — exceed the agreed (level of) 2 percent of GDP spending on defense.”

The United States now spends about 4 percent of GDP on defense, compared to about 9 percent of GDP when John F. Kennedy was president.

If NATO wants to engage in operations such as imposing a no-fly zone on Libya, the lagging NATO members will need to spend more on weapons and on “intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets,” Gates told the NATO ministers.

But he said, “fiscal, political and demographic realities make this unlikely to happen anytime soon.”

What Gates didn’t say, but is quite clear in reports from CBO and others: very similar "demographic realities" are inevitably pushing the United States toward the European model.

CBO projects that the ratio of entitlement spending to defense spending, currently two to one, will grow to three to one by 2020. Beyond that, an aging population and health care cost growth that outstrips income growth will make the mismatch ever bigger.

.........................

......considering these choices, and add Rick Perry and Sarah Palin to the other cast of GOP clowns, all of whom are responsible for creating virtually all of the problems facing our country/the world, and or profiteering (*cough Ron Paul is a wolf in sheeps clothing cough*) from them, I'll easily and gladly vote for Obama again. And it's not just because he actually got Bin Laden, lowered taxes and stopped the losses of 750,000 jobs per month he inherited from Bush and the Republicans and turned them back around to gains.


As far as baddy accusing me of being a murderer, well, I'm sure everybody knows by now where I stand on that. I'm sure baddy will continue to be an assface and keep bringing me up in almost every one of his posts as a byproduct of his OCD derived idiocy. Here it comes........


-edit- at least he hasn't posted a picture of him playing with his Weiner online, as far as I know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 9:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 10:19 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Eastern CT coast
Oh well, I guess we're gonna go with SB's "spam for cover route" again....

And of the alternative's you listed above, I would prefer Ron Pauls immediate commanding his generals to bring our troops (and drones), home...that seems like a MUCH better alternative to Obomba's bombing and starting NEW illegal wars every other month.

...apparantly a lot of antiwarriors in the audience agreed...

SPACEBROTHER wrote:
Expecting instant gratification in a mere 2 and a half year period is not only unrealistic, but considering these alternatives.......
During Monday’s event, there were two opposing poles and some GOP contenders in the middle.

Paul: Cut defense and withdraw the troops
The “cut debt and cut defense” pole was represented by Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.

“We should think about protecting our borders, rather than the borders between Iraq and Afghanistan. That doesn't make any sense to me,” he said, to applause from the audience, when immigration came up as a topic.

When Romney said he wanted the U.S. troops in Afghanistan “to come home… based upon the conditions on the ground determined by the generals,” Paul shot back, “I wouldn't wait for my generals. I'm the commander in chief ... I tell the generals what to do. I'd bring them home as quickly as possible. And I would get them out of Iraq as well."

And he added, "I wouldn't start a war in Libya. I'd quit bombing Yemen. And I'd quit bombing Pakistan.”
He said, “I'd start taking care of people here at home because we could save hundreds of billions of dollars.”

Ohhh the horrors...ending Obamawars and all their futile killing...what a HORRIBLE alternative to more obombawars.

_________________
Lesser-evilism is war.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 9:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 10:19 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Eastern CT coast
Just got the call...Job interview at HP tomorrow morning. I don't know who I'm up against; I'm just hoping I get it! :lol:

_________________
Lesser-evilism is war.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 1:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 10:19 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Eastern CT coast
Here's where SB and I might agree..I think we'd BOTH vote for Kucinich for Prez...

Image

You go Dennnis (et al), sue the bastard!

Kucinich, other House members file lawsuit against Obama on Libya military mission
Posted at 12:42 PM ET, 06/15/2011
By Felicia Sonmez

"Ten House members led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) are filing a complaint in federal court against President Obama for taking military action in Libya without first seeking congressional approval.

Kucinich and Reps. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), Howard Coble (R-N.C.), John Duncan (R-Tenn.), Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), John Conyers (D-Mich.) Ron Paul (R-Texas), Michael Capuano (D-Mass.), Tim Johnson (R-Ill.) and Dan Burton (R-Ind.) filed the complaint Wednesday at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

“With regard to the war in Libya, we believe that the law was violated,” Kucinich said in a statement. “We have asked the courts to move to protect the American people from the results of these illegal policies.”

The House members argue that the Obama administration overstepped its constitutional authority by authorizing the use of U.S. military force abroad without first receiving approval from Congress. U.S. forces have been involved in the campaign against Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi for 88 days.

Critics argue that Obama violated the 1973 War Powers Resolution by failing to seek congressional approval for the mission."

MORE HERE

_________________
Lesser-evilism is war.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 2:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:40 am
Posts: 3493
Location: The Blue Light
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/markets/markets-blog/pandora-debut-fizzles/article2062143/

Too bad. I used to enjoy setting up my own radio stations on Pandora. Can't do it in Canada. Probably won't make it here, now.

_________________
Country music + Black music = Rock and Roll


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 7:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 7929
Location: exile
well, as far as I'm concerned, baddy and spacebrother can argue all they want.
to me, they're both two super patriotic americans.

the usa decided it had to be the strongest nation on this poor planet, both financially and military, at the end of world war ii.
and that has been the main goal ever since. forget peace talks and all that shit. israel and the usa are the best buddies ever.
and, the goal is to keep those dirty muslims away. and to steal their oil.

it doesn't matter who the president is.
the usa has killed innocent people all over the world for decades (not only in iraq and afghanistan).
and, the usa will continue to kill innocent people, as long as the usa feel this need to be the most powerful nation in the world.

obama won't be able to stop this, and baddy's ridiculous presidential candidates, won't be able to stop it.

when did an american president last end a war?

_________________
"bit of nostalgia for the old folks."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 1:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 7896
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
baddy just saved humanity from ourselves...... :| Anyone got some extra windowpaynes?

Maybe a Kumbaya and three extra hits of windowpaynes will make the Nader go down a little smoother. choppy choppy, chop a line line now baddy.... :P :oops:

Lets argue about the obvious.....

Nader Decisions..... you got a Ron Paul & Kucinich job........You're such a dumbass gotta go job....

...and the murder accusations that you fling around....... makes you look like such a dumbass, cause you're a big fucking clown........

and the Kucinich decisions that you spew about, takes all of your money, cause you're such a broke ass cashless dummy......





Lets all rewrite Zappa lyrics..... whee.....


Am I hired? :mrgreen: We're all voting for Nader eh? :lol:



In a perfect world, we'd all live in peace, everybody would be bazillionaires, and beautiful hot Dutch girls would buy us all beer...... :mrgreen:

Thats it, I'm moving to Europe. Anyone looking for roomates? I'm not kidding........


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 4859
Lumpy Gravy wrote:
well, as far as I'm concerned, baddy and spacebrother can argue all they want.
to me, they're both two super patriotic americans.

the usa decided it had to be the strongest nation on this poor planet, both financially and military, at the end of world war ii.
and that has been the main goal ever since. forget peace talks and all that shit. israel and the usa are the best buddies ever.
and, the goal is to keep those dirty muslims away. and to steal their oil.

it doesn't matter who the president is.
the usa has killed innocent people all over the world for decades (not only in iraq and afghanistan).
and, the usa will continue to kill innocent people, as long as the usa feel this need to be the most powerful nation in the world.

obama won't be able to stop this, and baddy's ridiculous presidential candidates, won't be able to stop it.

when did an american president last end a war?





You are kinda correct, but the USA is not stealing the oil, have you seen the price@ barrel and they set the price, the largest transfer of money in the history of the planet is the USA to it's oil suppliers, so not stealing. Not to mention they need our technology to drill and claim the shit. Life changed after the industrial revolution, if you hadn't noticed, for Christ sake England took a run at us in 1812, as well as all the others through time and now with nukes, ( good thing the German physicists defected to the USA or we would all be goose stepping), yes we back Israel they are the only country over there between us and the nut jobs. I seem to remember a few other countries killing mass groups of people for no reason other than dominance.

_________________
"I'm interested in the capitalistic way of life, and the reason I like it better than anything else I've seen so far is because competition produces results."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:48 pm
Posts: 35432
Location: Somewhere in time
Lumpy Gravy wrote:
well, as far as I'm concerned, baddy and spacebrother can argue all they want.
to me, they're both two super patriotic americans.

the usa decided it had to be the strongest nation on this poor planet, both financially and military, at the end of world war ii.
and that has been the main goal ever since. forget peace talks and all that shit. israel and the usa are the best buddies ever.
and, the goal is to keep those dirty muslims away. and to steal their oil.

it doesn't matter who the president is.
the usa has killed innocent people all over the world for decades (not only in iraq and afghanistan).
and, the usa will continue to kill innocent people, as long as the usa feel this need to be the most powerful nation in the world.

obama won't be able to stop this, and baddy's ridiculous presidential candidates, won't be able to stop it.

when did an american president last end a war?



When Lumpy is the voice of reason from the wilderness, it must be a sign of the Apocalypse... :wink: ... :mrgreen: ... :smoke:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 7896
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Lumpy Gravy wrote:
well, as far as I'm concerned, baddy and spacebrother can argue all they want.
to me, they're both two super patriotic americans.

the usa decided it had to be the strongest nation on this poor planet, both financially and military, at the end of world war ii.
and that has been the main goal ever since. forget peace talks and all that shit. israel and the usa are the best buddies ever.
and, the goal is to keep those dirty muslims away. and to steal their oil.

it doesn't matter who the president is.
the usa has killed innocent people all over the world for decades (not only in iraq and afghanistan).
and, the usa will continue to kill innocent people, as long as the usa feel this need to be the most powerful nation in the world.

obama won't be able to stop this, and baddy's ridiculous presidential candidates, won't be able to stop it.

when did an american president last end a war?



baddy's waaay more patriotic than I. :P



In all seriousness, it has always been my contention that all conflict is driven by greed, regardless if it's Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush, or Ron Pauls & Naders corporate stock share holdings. For some reason, whenever I mention that, certain people tell me I'm "fucking lame" for pointing out what to me seems an obvious distinction. It's always been that way and unfortunately always will. Even the alleged "anti-war" candidates profit from the egg McMushroom clouds. How dare I expose that truth?.... :mrgreen: Must be fucking lame....Perhaps the next time I criticise someone else for ordering an shamrock shake, they too will accuse me of being a murderer.

Conceptual continuity from a 110 pages ago.


On the other hand, almost all of the nations who are a part of NATO, and those who are not, are all equally involved in the equation in regards to oil greed. Not just North America & Israel. It's also Asia, Russia, the UK, Northern Europe, Eastern Europe, South America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Indonesia, and well, every nation that uses fossil fuels for transportation and industry. Basically, if you drive a car or ride public transportation that runs on gasoline/oil, you are a part of the problem, not the solution. In that regards, you can't place all of the blame on the USA. Even Sweden uses oil that originated from the Mid-East. Perhaps in 15 years, they can be truly independant - http://www.ww4report.com/node/1578 - but until then, yep, they too benefit from wars. On the other hand with Sweden - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-2 ... iance.html - there are plenty of skeletons in everybody's closets to go around. It ain't just America, though we make an easy target.

As an answer to "when did an American president last end a war?"....I'll take it a step further. What country on the planet doesn't benefit from resources, like oil, that has been aquired from a war torn country? Antarctica doesn't count.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 7929
Location: exile
Lumpy Gravy wrote:
well, as far as I'm concerned, baddy and spacebrother can argue all they want.
to me, they're both two super patriotic americans.

the usa decided it had to be the strongest nation on this poor planet, both financially and military, at the end of world war ii.
and that has been the main goal ever since. forget peace talks and all that shit. israel and the usa are the best buddies ever.
and, the goal is to keep those dirty muslims away. and to steal their oil.

it doesn't matter who the president is.
the usa has killed innocent people all over the world for decades (not only in iraq and afghanistan).
and, the usa will continue to kill innocent people, as long as the usa feel this need to be the most powerful nation in the world.

obama won't be able to stop this, and baddy's ridiculous presidential candidates, won't be able to stop it.

when did an american president last end a war?
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
You are kinda correct, but the USA is not stealing the oil, have you seen the price@ barrel and they set the price, the largest transfer of money in the history of the planet is the USA to it's oil suppliers, so not stealing. Not to mention they need our technology to drill and claim the shit. Life changed after the industrial revolution, if you hadn't noticed, for Christ sake England took a run at us in 1812, as well as all the others through time and now with nukes, ( good thing the German physicists defected to the USA or we would all be goose stepping), yes we back Israel they are the only country over there between us and the nut jobs. I seem to remember a few other countries killing mass groups of people for no reason other than dominance.
SPACEBROTHER wrote:
baddy's waaay more patriotic than I. :P
In all seriousness, it has always been my contention that all conflict is driven by greed, regardless if it's Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush, or Ron Pauls & Naders corporate stock share holdings. For some reason, whenever I mention that, certain people tell me I'm "fucking lame" for pointing out what to me seems an obvious distinction. It's always been that way and unfortunately always will. Even the alleged "anti-war" candidates profit from the egg McMushroom clouds. How dare I expose that truth?.... :mrgreen: Must be fucking lame....Perhaps the next time I criticise someone else for ordering an shamrock shake, they too will accuse me of being a murderer.

Conceptual continuity from a 110 pages ago.


On the other hand, almost all of the nations who are a part of NATO, and those who are not, are all equally involved in the equation in regards to oil greed. Not just North America & Israel. It's also Asia, Russia, the UK, Northern Europe, Eastern Europe, South America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Indonesia, and well, every nation that uses fossil fuels for transportation and industry. Basically, if you drive a car or ride public transportation that runs on gasoline/oil, you are a part of the problem, not the solution. In that regards, you can't place all of the blame on the USA. Even Sweden uses oil that originated from the Mid-East. Perhaps in 15 years, they can be truly independant - http://www.ww4report.com/node/1578 - but until then, yep, they too benefit from wars. On the other hand with Sweden - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-2 ... iance.html - there are plenty of skeletons in everybody's closets to go around. It ain't just America, though we make an easy target.

As an answer to "when did an American president last end a war?"....I'll take it a step further. What country on the planet doesn't benefit from resources, like oil, that has been aquired from a war torn country? Antarctica doesn't count.

good points. I agree that not only the usa is suffering from "oil greed" and the ambition to rule the world. remember the soviet union?
and, sure, spacebrother, sweden has a lot of skeltons in the closet. I am not defending my home country. not one bit.
patriot? me? no way.

of course, all countries benefit from resources and the usa is not the only bad boy in using imperialistic methods to get what they want.
but, I'm sure that behind the curtains, the multi-national oil companies are all great buddies with the oil producing countries.
the competition, and gas prices going up and down, is just a fucking game.

I just wanted to try to get the discussion away from baddy's ridiculuos "bad conscience"-attacks.
innocent people get killed everyday all over the world.

and, yeah, spacebrother, I'm sure baddy is more patriotic than you. 8)

_________________
"bit of nostalgia for the old folks."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 4859
I believe it was Nixon that last stopped a war, also fuel is only part of what oil is used for, you would not have many things you use without oil, the plastic polymers batteries use are made of oil, not to mention the computer you are using and the Cd's you use and well check it out.

_________________
"I'm interested in the capitalistic way of life, and the reason I like it better than anything else I've seen so far is because competition produces results."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: nixon & oil
PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 7929
Location: exile
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
I believe it was Nixon that last stopped a war
well, yeah, he sort of stopped the vietnam war... he didn't have much choice, did he?
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
also fuel is only part of what oil is used for, you would not have many things you use without oil, the plastic polymers batteries use are made of oil, not to mention the computer you are using and the Cd's you use and well check it out.
yeah, sure. we all know that. but, the struggle for world domination (which I referred to earlier) has to do with so much more than control over oil. I only used it as one example.

_________________
"bit of nostalgia for the old folks."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:50 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 7735
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
...fuel is only part of what oil is used for, you would not have many things you use without oil, the plastic polymers batteries use are made of oil, not to mention the computer you are using and the Cd's you use...


This guy agrees with you and I love the video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-matW8YfjBI

and here the explanation...

Quote:
ABOUT THIS SONG:

In 1990, after years of walking, bumming rides, and being a member of the Los Angles’s bus set, I purchased my first car: a 1968 Ford Thunderbird. I was overjoyed.

Unfortunately, soon after, The First Gulf War began. So, while my peers and spiritual betters suddenly marched off screaming ‘no blood for oil’, I found myself cruising in a 2 1/2 ton car that got 8 miles to the gallon.

My guilt was relentless until it dawned on me that most of my peers had driven to the anti war demonstrations and were driving back. It was also a safe bet that, en route, their ideals had been inflamed by anti-war-no-blood-for-oil anthems on petroleum based plastic CD’s and cassettes. In fact, every American I knew was dipped like a Monte Christo Sandwich in a bath of bloodied oil. And yet, most had never thought to complain until war was declared.

That was understandable, of course : No performer stands on a stage and wonders about the beams and struts that are keeping it up. This sudden war, however, brought the truth into a cruel focus that few could endure. As Caesar might have put it: Vivo amo a Romanorum, iuguolo amo a Romanorum. To live like a Roman, you must kill like a Roman.*

Thus, my horrified peers clung to an illusion that pacifist rhetoric, combined with really cool haircuts and bitchin’ tunes, somehow absolved them of their constant participation in an oil based economy.

Rather than dwell in the half light of hypocrisy, I embraced my selfish crimes and wrote an ode to unrepentant consumption. In other words: Vos es non caedes pro Bush’s pinguis; es caedes pro mei. You are not killing for Bush’s oil; you are killing for mine. *

* Julius Caesar might have said this provided he used an on-line English to Latin translator.



I think he's got a point.

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 4:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 4859
Amusing but an immature take on life in general....tell me when there was no war....................he could always try life in afghanistan now or any time.

_________________
"I'm interested in the capitalistic way of life, and the reason I like it better than anything else I've seen so far is because competition produces results."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: no war
PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 7929
Location: exile
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
tell me when there was no war
yeah. interesting. I've tried google to find out if there has ever been any periods in the history of the world without any war going on somewhere.
haven't been able to find a good answer. maybe I'm using the wrong search words...

_________________
"bit of nostalgia for the old folks."


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19785 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134 ... 792  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group