Liberal free for all coming to an end

[randolph]

Originally Posted by transjen

Well today Paul Ryan of the GOP gave his verson of the 2012 budget and i give him credit as he seems very serious about doing away with the red ink but thats where the credit ends as this budget is another GOP FU TO THE COMMON PERSON as once agian the GOP are showing who they really care about cutting trillions of dollars but cuting medicare and medicade and planed parents but giveing the top tax bracket another tax cut going with the GOP'S ideals that the rich shall not pay any of the national debit nor shall they sufer from any planed cuts and corpate welfare will also not sufer so the oil companies can rest easy and will recive billions from the goverment and the working poor will get to pay the tab and sufer from the cuts
looks like the 2012 budget is another big from the GOP as the continue to only be looking out for the rich and big bussiness and give the rest of us the BS about trickle down
Jerseygirl Jen

Don't worry Jen, the money saved is going to a good cause, the military. It will enable the military to bomb more countries with multimillion dollar bombs. You see, we are trying to protect the world from suicide bombers that kill themselves and other people. Our bombs are good bombs, they usually just kill bad guys. That's why they are so expensive.

[Enoch Root]

It all makes me think of the nobility of the past. They did everything they could not to pay taxes. And in places they paid none at all. All the burden was on the working people they exploited. Does this sound familiar?

That the financial burden is largely on the backs of the working people as opposed to the rich contributing a fair share appears--emphasis on appears--to be largely lost on the population. Or maybe it isn't lost but the news elides this. The news organizations in the US are mostly pathetic what with Fox News and their psycho newspeople and CNN and their ridiculous use of Twitter, Facebook, News Roulette, etc etc. It's quite embarrassing. And I don't see how they would air meaningful information regarding the financial troubles. This is what you get with corporate media. The people responsible for all these things are never held responsible because all that precious ad revenue would dry up.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

It all makes me think of the nobility of the past. They did everything they could not to pay taxes. And in places they paid none at all. All the burden was on the working people they exploited. Does this sound familiar?

That the financial burden is largely on the backs of the working people as opposed to the rich contributing a fair share appears--emphasis on appears--to be largely lost on the population. Or maybe it isn't lost but the news elides this. The news organizations in the US are mostly pathetic what with Fox News and their psycho newspeople and CNN and their ridiculous use of Twitter, Facebook, News Roulette, etc etc. It's quite embarrassing. And I don't see how they would air meaningful information regarding the financial troubles. This is what you get with corporate media. The people responsible for all these things are never held responsible because all that precious ad revenue would dry up.

Check out the English version of Aljazerra. Some real news there.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by randolph

Check out the English version of Aljazerra. Some real news there.

Are you sure about that? Isn't Aljazeera (how do you write this?) ex-BBC people?

[ila]

Originally Posted by randolph

Check out the English version of Aljazerra. Some real news there.

You won't find any unbiased news reporting there.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by ila

You won't find any unbiased news reporting there.

Is that sarcasm?

[smc]

Originally Posted by ila

You won't find any unbiased news reporting there.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Is that sarcasm?

Enoch Root, is yours a rhetorical question?

I think it behooves Westerners to watch the English-language broadcasts of al-Jazeera. Forget what the reporters say (and, by the way, they are very highly regarded by their peers in the Western press). What al-Jazeera offers that is next to impossible to find in the United States and, to only a somewhat lesser extent, Canadian press is the perspective of regular people in the countries of the Middle East, unfiltered by American talking heads on the left and right. For instance, if you watch al-Jazeera, you will learn that the only people who thought the Egyptian uprising was aptly called a "Twitter and Facebook revolution" are American journalists and pundits who love (even if subconsciously) to find a way for America to take credit for everything, even if it's just via inventions by Americans.

Still, in that there is hardly any unbiased reporting anywhere in the world, ila is correct.

[randolph]

The news and especially TV news is filtered through the owners of the TV station. TV stations are very sensitive to the corporations that provide TV advertising. Fox news is in my opinion the worst news station in the US. Murdock is only interested in making money by appealing to the lowest denominator of the US public. For non TV news, NPR is very good.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by smc

Enoch Root, is yours a rhetorical question?

I think it behooves Westerners to watch the English-language broadcasts of al-Jazeera. Forget what the reporters say (and, by the way, they are very highly regarded by their peers in the Western press). What al-Jazeera offers that is next to impossible to find in the United States and, to only a somewhat lesser extent, Canadian press is the perspective of regular people in the countries of the Middle East, unfiltered by American talking heads on the left and right. For instance, if you watch al-Jazeera, you will learn that the only people who thought the Egyptian uprising was aptly called a "Twitter and Facebook revolution" are American journalists and pundits who love (even if subconsciously) to find a way for America to take credit for everything, even if it's just via inventions by Americans.

Still, in that there is hardly any unbiased reporting anywhere in the world, ila is correct.

No it was not rhetorical question. I have trouble with sarcasm when speaking to people and in cyberspace there is no inflection which makes it more difficult.

How accurate is the accusation that pundits always try to find a way to give credit to America for everything? Either way it seems like an odd thing for them to say or think--didn't the US support Mubarak for decades?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

It will enable the military to bomb more countries with multimillion dollar bombs. You see, we are trying to protect the world from suicide bombers that kill themselves and other people. Our bombs are good bombs, they usually just kill bad guys. That's why they are so expensive.

I'm trying to figure out what exactly you're saying. Yes, our bombs are better, in that they are much more targeted. Yes it therefore costs more money, but are you saying that's a bad thing? Isn't it worth it not to blow up just whatever happens to be nearby and to target your attacks?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I'm trying to figure out what exactly you're saying. Yes, our bombs are better, in that they are much more targeted. Yes it therefore costs more money, but are you saying that's a bad thing? Isn't it worth it not to blow up just whatever happens to be nearby and to target your attacks?

I am being sarcastic. The Republicans hate taking care of people who need help and love bombing people who don't cooperate with us.
The military/ industrial complex is alive and well and fully supported by Republicans and Democrats alike.
When are we going to get serious about our future energy supply? Is building more and more sophisticated weaponry that is mind boggling expensive going to solve anything?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

When are we going to get serious about our future energy supply? Is building more and more sophisticated weaponry that is mind boggling expensive going to solve anything?

We'll get serious about future energy once we have a viable alternative. Mr Fusion would be nice. I also hear the engineers are having problems with hydrogen powered cars, but then I think I heard Norway is already running them? Either way, our energy supplier goes from the MidEast to Russia since they seem to have most of the hydrogen resources.

And of course sophisticated weaponry will solve things. Haven't you seen Iron Man? Seriously though, it's worked ever since our ancestors threw rocks.

[randolph]

Tracy

And of course sophisticated weaponry will solve things. Haven't you seen Iron Man? Seriously though, it's worked ever since our ancestors threw rocks.

Well, We lobbed $500,000,000 dollars worth of missals into Libya. We wiped out Quaddafi's airforce (which probably wasn't worth shit) which was supposed to force him to capitulate, but he fights on. Now NATO is bombing the rebels tanks, what a fuck up!

Oh! for the glory days of Teddy Roosevelt and his great white fleet sailing around the world letting every one know how great we are.

[Enoch Root]

Good old Tracy, I can always depend on you for a loaf of halfbaked bullshit and imperialist entitlement. I find it amazing how you vacillate from pro-business bullshit to trying to sound like a reasonable person about GE's business and their tax debacle but it does implicate Obama so I guess it's easier for you to do that. And I love how you portray the victimizers (ie, the rich) as the poor victims of government policies, never mind that it is the rich who make laws to suit their own selfish ends, never mind that there is no real delineation between government and the private sector, never mind that it is deregulation that is to blame for so many problems, never mind that the economic system you love so much is a slave system.

Criminals should pay for their crimes. But I guess I'm just a parasite so what do I know?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Tracy

Well, We lobbed $500,000,000 dollars worth of missals into Libya. We wiped out Quaddafi's airforce (which probably wasn't worth shit) which was supposed to force him to capitulate, but he fights on. Now NATO is bombing the rebels tanks, what a fuck up!

Oh! for the glory days of Teddy Roosevelt and his great white fleet sailing around the world letting every one know how great we are.

I do agree with BO on one thing. Militarily, we are spread thin. So yes, we should have had command at the beginning like we did. NATO should have the capability of carrying on from there. What I don't like is that it hardly seemed planned. No one could agree on what exactly the goal was. Also, BO was barely committed to seeing it through. And they took their time getting it going. You don't commit our troops to battle if you don't really give a shit one way or another what happens.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

never mind that it is the rich who make laws to suit their own selfish ends, never mind that there is no real delineation between government and the private sector, never mind that it is deregulation that is to blame for so many problems, never mind that the economic system you love so much is a slave system.

mmmm hmmm. If you say so.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I'm just a parasite so what do I know?

Who said you're a parasite?

[TracyCoxx]

Boner fucked up last night. He seemed to have forgotten two of his pledges: Defund Obamacare, and cut spending $100 billion. I'm tired of republicans who put pleasing democrats over pleasing their own constituents.

[ila]

Originally Posted by randolph

Tracy

Well, We lobbed $500,000,000 dollars worth of missals into Libya. We wiped out Quaddafi's airforce (which probably wasn't worth shit) which was supposed to force him to capitulate, but he fights on. Now NATO is bombing the rebels tanks, what a fuck up!

Actually the current cost, to the US is 500,000,000. That would include the cost of the missiles as well as the all other operational costs such as fuel for the aircraft, parts replacements, all munitions, and the cost of operating the ships involved.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I do agree with BO on one thing. Militarily, we are spread thin. So yes, we should have had command at the beginning like we did. NATO should have the capability of carrying on from there. What I don't like is that it hardly seemed planned. No one could agree on what exactly the goal was. Also, BO was barely committed to seeing it through. And they took their time getting it going. You don't commit our troops to battle if you don't really give a shit one way or another what happens.

The US is a signatory to NATO so why do the two of you try to make it look like NATO and the US are separate entities when it comes to military alliances and actions.

I disagree that the US should have retained command. Other countries are more than capable of taking command of military operations.

I do agree that no politician thought about what goal is to be achieved. It seems that the only thought was to destroy Libya's military capability and maybe hope that Qadhafi would leave of his own accord or maybe be overthrown. Beyond that the politicians don't have a clue as to what to do because no plan was ever made.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

mmmm hmmm. If you say so.

When you've nothing to say I guess you can always resort to onomatopoeia and condescension.

The briefest glance at the world shows it to be shackled by the American empire: sweatshops to make Nike shoes and garden-variety exploited workers in South America making your Cocacola--who are sometimes murdered by their government, a government that is in cahoots with the US to provide them cheap slave labor. Chinese workers are exploited every day to make all manner of crap that is summarily bought by Americans in thrall by your greedy, materialistic consumerist culture. The list goes on and on. And let us not forget this is because these American companies believe it natural to exploit people, just like the aristocracy of old. Let us not forget either that the use of slave labor is the real reason why jobs have been "offshored." You have to put the hoi polloi in their place after all. You have to put them to work, make them useful, show them who's boss. This is what I mean by slaves.

The point about parasites should be well known to you. Libertarians love that word don't they? "Burden us not with your chaff" and other such authoritarian garbage. These exploited workers are the "parasites" and so am I since I'm Puertorican. I'm just a moocher, a freeloader and so are the Indonesians in sweatshops and so are Mexican immigrants and so are the average US workers. It's what authoritarians always do: they exploit people and then they scapegoat them. That should sound familiar: teachers and unions are blamed for the financial troubles even though they were caused by tax cuts for the rich and two wars which have yet to end.

This issue of "parasite" or some other similar labeling of victims is at the heart of your absurd sociopolitical beliefs--you look down on the smallfolk, but pander to the rich and powerful.

[ila]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

We'll get serious about future energy once we have a viable alternative. Mr Fusion would be nice. I also hear the engineers are having problems with hydrogen powered cars, but then I think I heard Norway is already running them? Either way, our energy supplier goes from the MidEast to Russia since they seem to have most of the hydrogen resources.

You should get your facts straight. The majority of oil imported by the US comes from Canada. The second most imports by the US are from Mexico.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by ila

You should get your facts straight. The majority of oil imported by the US comes from Canada. The second most imports by the US are from Mexico.

My apologies to Canada. But are you sure the US gets more oil from Mexico than the Mid East?

[ila]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

My apologies to Canada. But are you sure the US gets more oil from Mexico than the Mid East?

I'm not sure about the total quantities coming from Mexico and the Middle East. I do know that Mexico is ranked second as the country that supplies the US with oil, however all the countries of the Middle East combined may supply more oil than Mexico.