|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:34 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Leon wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
One of the very few positive things to come out of the debt deal was putting defense expenditures up for discussion. That tells me the Tea Party doesn't care about it much. The military-industrial complex does and it is rolling in money so the push-back from their lobbyists will be strong--and will find an open ear in every congressional district with a contract. Cutting won't be easy.
I would further say that just mandating cuts is a poor way to go about things. A much better approach would be to look at the over-all defense picture, design a strategy to meet the needs, then allot expenditures to meet that strategy. That however, does not look likely. We are probably trapped in a crappy approach to the problem.
If we do succeed in cutting back, a positive side benefit will be releasing those brilliant minds from searching for 'better' ways to kill people and putting that creativity to work improving life, in alternative energy for example. The whole world would gain by that kind of innovation. |
All this worthless spin and it doesn't mean a thing. President Obama, as commander-in-chief, has the power to end the wars. The fact of the matter is that he is just as evil, just as mendacious, and just as culpable as any of the neo-Cons who took us illegally into Iraq.
Obama could end the trillion dollar wars overnight. He has the power. But he won't do it, because everything he stands for is a lie. Simple as that. |
I'm tired of seeing this idea and phrase of ending wars overnight. Logistically and politically that's impossible, not to mention it having disastrous results on the country where the troops are. If my memory is correct if the president did the unthinkable and announced without warning that the war was over and Americans had to all get out that it would take at least 6 months for that to happen due to the logistics of moving everyone and everything, etc. etc. |
This is just such crap. Declare the war over, and then move the troops out. If it takes 6 months to complete the task, the so be it (more likely it would take a couple weeks, tops). Quit making excuses. It's exceedingly obvious that Obama never had any intention whatsoever of stopping the wars, and has no intention of doing anything except start new ones. He is a complete and utter liar (as expected). Period.
| Quote: |
| I hope that the wars will end soon. I feel the solution, at least as far as I can tell, is to re calibrate much of the military for small scale surgical solutions. The team that carried out the Osama raid is more useful than spending lots of money on new tanks or sending large numbers of grunts over and building huge bases. Our army, most armies, suck at nation building and police work against insurgents. A leaner, cheaper, military has the potential to be more effective. The war on terrorism should end. The defense cuts that are coming will hopefully help this situation. |
More half-baked nonsense. The US spends obscenely more money than all the world combined, and it's obviously meant for empire building. There is no threat that could justify even a fraction of the amount we spend (not to mention the CIA train nearly all the terrorists and ships the drugs in etc etc.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| NohopeSeriously wrote: |
RIP United States of America (1776-2011)
 |
It took a couple centuries (at least) for the Roman Empire to fall apart. Even if the USA is on the decline, it still has a long way to go. At least that's what I keep telling myself.  |
You're quite right. And they left their language and legal concepts that still influence the world.
It's also useful to remember the Spanish Empire. It's generally thought that Spain hit the wall in 1588 but didn't expire until 1898. She was a potent second-class power for about 300 of those years, then it got worse. However, civilizational decisions were made elsewhere during her decline--Europe and the world did not dance to a Spanish tune (outside the boundaries of her empire.) Except for a handful of terrific painters, what Spaniard influenced the world during her decline?
On the other hand, it only took the British Empire about two decades to dissolve.
It's also helpful to keep the Persian Empire in mind. It only took Alexander about 5 years to wipe it out.
Care to guess what cultural legacy we'll leave behind? My guess: our Second Amendment obsession with guns.  Oh, and cartoon characters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| If Obama doesn't have the balls to make tough decisions that have near term political consequences for him but long term benefits to the country, he's in the wrong line of work. |
|
The mistake is to think that Obama is on the people's side. The only difference between him and the party of the wealthy is he doesn't want to cut social spending quite as much or quite as fast.
All the liberals and progressives are complaining that Obama isn't fighting hard enough for them. Sooner or later they're going to have to wake up to the fact that he's for the other side. All the anti-Obama hate and paranoia from the right merely serves to distract, to redirect popular discontent, and to narrow the parameters of debate still further.
| Adventurer wrote: |
| I actually find it scary that America is spending billions in Iraq and Afghanistan and getting nothing economically in return. All that treasure has been sunk. Who benefited in Iraq? The Kurds and Shiites. Who lost? The Ba'athists and the American people. I am sort of glad Saddam Hussein is gone for the Iraqi people, but I don't want a bankrupt America. America needs that money spent in America. A 3.8 trillion dollar budget is too insane for words. |
Good question. And we know the answer: Halliburton (and pals). That's what the war was for. As for Saddam, we subverted their democracy and we gave them Saddam in the first place; and now we took him away, which is a good thing, but at the price of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and of devastating their country. Iraq has been plundered and razed and is a trainwreck now.
Again, the liberal mistake is to think this is an accident.
| Adventurer wrote: |
| I voted for Obama, because I thought he would reverse some of the policies of George Bush and invest in America, maybe invest in alternative fuels, industry, and maybe health care, though it's not my number one priority. Too much is going into these wars. I really hope less and less goes into Iraq. They have oil. I know America invaded Iraq and all, but enough has been spent there. When are their oil revenues going to come into play? |
Certainly too much has been spent there but not on helping the country. The money spent has gone into the pockets of military contractors (Halliburton &c). Also, Iraq has oil, but America has control of the oil.
Obama has scaled down the military in Iraq to a slight extent, but overall it's clear that, so far from reversing Bush's policies, he's pursuing them even more aggressively.
| Adventurer wrote: |
Voting for McCain wouldn't have really made much of a difference.
I can't imagine McCain would have done a better job. How would he have done so as a president who was trying to cater to the extreme right? |
I agree. Neither party represents the popular will and that has to be changed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| On the other hand, it only took the British Empire about two decades to dissolve. |
Actually, in the figurative sense the British Empire is still very much alive and well today as the financial oligarchy that runs the world. The modern central banking warfare model of imperialism was a British invention (mainly the Rothschilds, who also controlled the banking in other European countries). They used it to conquer the world (a matter of public record, and mainline history). The British imperialist banking system also took over the United States covertly when the Federal Reserve was enacted in 1913. Many of the major American financiers of the time (including the Warburgs, Jacob Schiff of Kuhn Loeb and Co., and even JP Morgan) represented the Rothschild financial interests of Europe. The same elite families who created that system are still around and continue to control it to this day.
Today it is not limited to the British of course (such distinctions based on nationality are obsolete for the truly rich and powerful today), although they remain the apex of the power structure, along with the American elite and that of other European countries. They are multi-national. It is basically a breakaway civilization of super elite financial oligarchs that controls the whole world through debt-based banking, and uses the US military as its muscle. It all traces its roots to the original British Empire, however. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
represented the Rothschild financial interests of Europe. The same elite families who created that system are still around and continue to control it to this day.
|
Ahhhh....the international Jewish conspiracy raises its ugly little head. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 3:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
represented the Rothschild financial interests of Europe. The same elite families who created that system are still around and continue to control it to this day.
|
Ahhhh....the international Jewish conspiracy raises its ugly little head. |
Ah, the inevitable race pimping pseudo-liberal injection of a non-issue into the discussion to overshadow all other relevant points. How original.
Where did I even mention the word Jew? The Rothschilds are a very real family, and known in mainline history to be the wealthiest banking family in history. The fact that they happen to be Jews is neither here nor there. I could not care less about such things as that, nor would I even bring it up on my own accord (since it's the most desperate, hollow shell of an argument you could possibly make).
Of course you can always count on the true racists (like Ya-ta) to inject race into every discussion, regardless of relevance. It's an obsession of theirs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
^
| Quote: |
| nor would I even bring it up on my own accord |
But you did, dog whistle and all. To adapt Mary McCarthy, "Every word she writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the'.
I'm just waiting for you to bring up the lizards living in the caves under Roswell, New Mexico. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
^
| Quote: |
| nor would I even bring it up on my own accord |
But you did, dog whistle and all. |
Actually I didn't. Not at all. That is just you projecting your racism onto me. I made no mention of race whatsoever (and honestly hadn't even considered in "racial" terms at all). It was simply YOU who felt the need to inject it into the discussion. This is very plain for all to see.
Calling criticism of the Rothschilds in any way anti-Semitic is like saying criticism of Bush is "racist" towards white people. Only a complete and utter fool (or a pseudo-liberal, race-baiter like yourself) would draw such an idiotic connection. How about the Rockefellers or Al Gore? Is it anti-Semitic to criticize them too?
| Quote: |
| I'm just waiting for you to bring up the lizards living in the caves under Roswell, New Mexico. |
Oh snap. What, did you run out of jokes and smarmy remarks to rip off from the Rachel Maddow show? Is "lizard men" really the best you can come up with at this point? Very sad effort. I'm disappointed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Menino80
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Location: Hodor?
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| European Bankers is a very commonly known and used dog whistle term for Jews. It's either anti-Semitic or just ignorant to use that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 5:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Actually I didn't. Not at all. |
Yes, you did. Everyone knows you did.
You either did it out of racist bigotry of your own or out of ignorance of the historical meaning of the common usage. Either way... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 6:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
One of the very few positive things to come out of the debt deal was putting defense expenditures up for discussion. That tells me the Tea Party doesn't care about it much. The military-industrial complex does and it is rolling in money so the push-back from their lobbyists will be strong--and will find an open ear in every congressional district with a contract. Cutting won't be easy.
I would further say that just mandating cuts is a poor way to go about things. A much better approach would be to look at the over-all defense picture, design a strategy to meet the needs, then allot expenditures to meet that strategy. That however, does not look likely. We are probably trapped in a crappy approach to the problem.
If we do succeed in cutting back, a positive side benefit will be releasing those brilliant minds from searching for 'better' ways to kill people and putting that creativity to work improving life, in alternative energy for example. The whole world would gain by that kind of innovation. |
All this worthless spin and it doesn't mean a thing. President Obama, as commander-in-chief, has the power to end the wars. The fact of the matter is that he is just as evil, just as mendacious, and just as culpable as any of the neo-Cons who took us illegally into Iraq.
Obama could end the trillion dollar wars overnight. He has the power. But he won't do it, because everything he stands for is a lie. Simple as that. |
I'm tired of seeing this idea and phrase of ending wars overnight. Logistically and politically that's impossible, not to mention it having disastrous results on the country where the troops are. If my memory is correct if the president did the unthinkable and announced without warning that the war was over and Americans had to all get out that it would take at least 6 months for that to happen due to the logistics of moving everyone and everything, etc. etc. |
This is just such crap. Declare the war over, and then move the troops out. If it takes 6 months to complete the task, the so be it (more likely it would take a couple weeks, tops). Quit making excuses. It's exceedingly obvious that Obama never had any intention whatsoever of stopping the wars, and has no intention of doing anything except start new ones. He is a complete and utter liar (as expected). Period.
| Quote: |
| I hope that the wars will end soon. I feel the solution, at least as far as I can tell, is to re calibrate much of the military for small scale surgical solutions. The team that carried out the Osama raid is more useful than spending lots of money on new tanks or sending large numbers of grunts over and building huge bases. Our army, most armies, suck at nation building and police work against insurgents. A leaner, cheaper, military has the potential to be more effective. The war on terrorism should end. The defense cuts that are coming will hopefully help this situation. |
More half-baked nonsense. The US spends obscenely more money than all the world combined, and it's obviously meant for empire building. There is no threat that could justify even a fraction of the amount we spend (not to mention the CIA train nearly all the terrorists and ships the drugs in etc etc.) |
Did you miss the part where I was mostly agreeing with your positions? I want the U.S. out of the Middle East. 6 weeks, that's crazy. Do you have any idea how much stuff we have over there in terms of logistics and bases and people. Moving that stuff is a major logistical challenge. Anyways while I want them out, Afghanistan is a coalition mission therefore it would be irresponsible, and a political non-starter, to just declare over night that you are leaving. Not to mention the Afghanistan government needs time to plan how to fill the vacuum left by the troops. Time tables is the proper way to do it, I am for quicker moving ones, and ones that stick and don't get pushed back.
As to the other point, again, I'm mostly in agreement with you, as hard as it might be for you to believe. I'm against American Imperialism and want the military to be cut, a lot. I'm sure you probably want it to be cut more than me, but I'm less ideological then you so go figure. As for the idea that the C.I.A. trains all the terrorists, that's not even close to being true. Some, maybe, but all is a huge stretch. As for the drugs, again there is some history, but to think that they are a major player in that is giving them more credit than they deserve, I think that maybe you think that they are more competent than they actually are. If you said the ISI then I'd be more inclined to agree. In theory the money that we give to Pakistan that goes to the ISI could be said to fund terrorists, but that is a bit tenuous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 6:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Actually I didn't. Not at all. |
Yes, you did. Everyone knows you did.
You either did it out of racist bigotry of your own or out of ignorance of the historical meaning of the common usage. Either way... |
Yeah, and I'm saying you're full of crap. Full stop.
The "historical meaning of the common usage" (whatever that garbled statement is supposed to mean) of the name Rothschild = Jewish?? Um, could you be any more completely full of it? I don't think so.
Anyway, I'll go out on a limb and say that yes there have been several elite Jewish families in the world, including the Rothschilds and the Warburgs. There are also even more non-Jewish elite families like the Rockefellers, the Harrimans, the Bushes, and the royal families in Britain and the Netherlands. The Rothschilds are probably the most powerful of them all, followed by the Rockefellers.
I also openly state that the vast, vast majority of Jews are just regular folk who have nothing to do with the corrupt elite, anymore than the average American has anything to do with the Rockefellers. So go ahead and stick that in your despicable race-baiting pipe and smoke it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm impressed. You got through a whole post without mentioning the ROOSENFELTS. You are clearly not a bigot. Good on you.
But everyone knows who has connected the dots that the slimey lizards from Wherever who live under the mountains of New Mexico are the real controllers of the world economy. You just haven't dug deeply enough. You are such a sheeple! (Sheople?) How do you wingers write the singular of that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
I'm impressed. You got through a whole post without mentioning the ROOSENFELTS. You are clearly not a bigot. Good on you.
But everyone knows who has connected the dots that the slimey lizards from Wherever who live under the mountains of New Mexico are the real controllers of the world economy. You just haven't dug deeply enough. You are such a sheeple! (Sheople?) How do you wingers write the singular of that? |
I honestly have no idea what you're blabbering on about. Only in Ya-ta Land (perhaps if a person took enough hits of acid over several decades) could such certifiable twaddle hope to make any sense to anyone... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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 vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
