Woe is me (and everyother North American lover of all things Plastic and Playboy) (929 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.81 on 59 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Marginwalker (View user info) at 2007-02-09 16:58:20 EST
I'm unsettlingly bothered today, perhaps from the escalating threat of a Nuclear Holocaust in the East coming with Bush's perceived intent to strike Iran.
(www.globalresearch.ca)
What, you haven't heard? Yup - that's correct folks. It's forecasted that sometime near the end of April our beloved President Bush shall unleash a small scale nuclear attack on harmless little Iran. They don't even HAVE "Weapons of Mass Destruction".
But hey - it's readily apparent there's no justification required for obliterating foreign countries anymore - no believable ones anyway.
If you have oil you're a target by default.
Still - what do I see flashing across the front page of every media source?
"OMIGOD it's the tragedy of all tragedies! Anna Nicole is dead. DEAD! Do you believe it? This just ruins my life. This is going to change EVEREEETHING"
Spare me - really.
I mean, when your livelihood includes routine consumption of amphetamine cocktails, what the shit do you think is going to happen?
It's not Rocket Science. Hell, it's no science at all.
The only issue here vaguely related to science is how her body's biological decomposition process is going to work around all that silicone.
So forgive me for being completely UNcompassionate about the death of another Hollywood starlet. I know people PERSONALLY whom have endured situations equally deranged as hers, and still managed to come out swinging.
Interestingly enough - they didn't have the billion dollar trust fund at their disposal to pay for counseling, either
It turns my stomach. We're potentially on the road to a nuclear holocaust, our fragile environment is on the brink of destroying itself (and us along with it), and people are wrapped up in the untimely (!) death of a former playboy playmate!
Sweet Jesus. Somebody tell me something! Please. Anything.
At this point it's hard NOT to toss in arms and cry out: "I give up! I give in!! Oh, Great, Corrupt and Greed-driven Fox News - you have defeated me!!!"
Alas. It very much breaks my already-trampled spirit to know my future and the future of those I love is in the hands of the grossly misinformed voting public; 97.3% of which are merely incompetent, stunned-stupid, consumer vacuums.
(See - I believe the wealthier industrialized nations MUST take the reigns in addressing current global issues. All this techmology has got to be good for something, right?)
I think the saddest part of the whole situation is I'm not the master of my own destiny anymore.
It hardly matters what I do - I'M not going to change the world.
These issues demand collective action - a bleak thought when the majority of the "collective" are tuned INTO their televisions and OUT OF reality.
So at this point we got Corporate fucking Monsters, Neo-Conservatives, and all the red-neck, bible thumping, KKK members still gassing up Bush's war calling the shots.
After all, they got the Nukes, and golly gee they love their oil!!
Lovely.
But I guess we have created a society that both reinforces and rewards this type of behavior.
It's a tough argument though, because the bottom line is people NEED to be shepherded; they need to be told what to do - plain and simple.
It's an age old idiom, reflected in ancient philosophy (works such as Plato's theories of Law and State, specifically the "Philosopher Kings")
Unfortunately, more often than not we find the greediest, most vile and uncaring humans sitting behind the steering wheel, and no one can do a thing about it.
After all, the "land of the free, endless wealth, and opportunity" (IE most industrialized nations) reinforces and rewards this characteristic in people- thus easing these blowhards movement into positions of power.
Perhaps it's a throw back of the Capitalistic system; or an example of how badly power corrupts.
Hell - it's probably a bit of both.
It can't help the situation either when most citizens know NOTHING of current events/ politics,
BUT,
are handed a ballot and told to vote.
For Christ sakes! It's like handing me a scalpel, putting me in front of a man with a brain tumor, and telling me to go to town. OF COURSE I'M GOING TO FUCK IT UP.
Democracy is a complete and utter shit-show, and it's high time someone kicks it to the curb.
Am I suggesting a Dictatorship? No.
Autocracy? Not quite.
Oligarchy? That won't fly either - though it's pretty much what we're seeing now anyway. We're just being fed the idea of "democracy" as a smokescreen; a hallucinogen, if you will.
I think we need a system more a long the lines of an Aristocracy; equipped with various boards/committees to provide checks and crack the whip.
How can you argue it? T hose with knowledge and expertise of bureaucratic and economic systems/structures should be in charge of that aspect of functioning society - the same way that Noam Chomsky probably shouldn't fly commercial airliners, and your dentist shouldn't cut your hair.
But what the hell do I know? I'm obviously one off if I can take time out grieving for the late Anna Nicole to even consider such flagrant issues.
User Reviews
Submitted by tartpumper (user info) at 2007-02-12 09:49:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Can you believe the Anna Nicole-Smith story was front page in the Metro in Scotland.
We should forget about that bitch, she encourages woman to be greedy, money grabbing parasites. And we all know they dont need much encouragement....
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-02-12 09:36:47 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
that's your answer to all of what i said?
you clearly have nothing of value to add except jumping on already overloaded bandwagons.
Submitted by marginwalker (user info) at 2007-02-12 04:55:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
It has nothing to do with the "path I've chosen", Caul, and I'm not saying speaking out against it is my brainchild.
My point is it's pretty hard to find anything legimate about the "War on Terror" or the (few) people still gassing it.
That's not my "chosen path", it's common sense.
The proof is in the numbers. You'll see.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-02-12 00:46:00 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by marginwalker (user info) at 2007-02-11 07:17:35 (#)
Ranking: 0
The fact that I am NOT American - as you heatedly pointed out - and THIS disgruntled about the state of YOUR country (who's which actions, in essence, effect the rest of the planet) - should, if nothing else, clarify to YOU - as the voting population - how BADLY you need to do your civic duty and change the crash course your country is on.
===
so because a nobody like you is angry with big bad Americans, something so typical of canadians, it is a messianic sign indicating that all american citizen should take a path you've chosen?
Could you be any more condescending?
I believe not.
GTFO!
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-02-12 00:20:41 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
i bet that if i researched any one of those things i put forward, i'd probably contradict myself a million times and could argue with myself on details forever.
i have no problem admitting this. my comments, right or wrong, were merely to nuance complicated problems that no one here can claim to fully understand. especially not in a couple of paragraphs and misguiding slogans.
that's what i have a problem with. people who fall into the traps of simplification and propaganda from every fucking side because they'd rather go to sleep thinking they got the whole thing figured out than make an effort and admit that they are clueless like everyone else.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-02-11 23:55:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-02-09 19:13:39 (#)
Ranking: 0
Please - fill me in on this "plethora of reasons". I mean yeah, we had the pretense of WMD, which was proven a fallacy."""
Of course oil is a factor, but Bush told his personal biographer before his presidency that he wished to be a war president because war = approval. And he does seem to be a firm believer that he's fighting this fundementalist 'threat' on the great scheme of things - don't underestimate people's beliefs. Also, as Arcanis pointed out, he is subjected to his contributors and lobbyists which are largely military. I'm not saying that this encapsulates what led to this war, but I'm chipping in probable factors because I'm certain that this is a multi-dimsensional problem and should be treated as such. Not boiling it down to protester's t-shirts with No War For Oil and Bush depicted as a vampire.
And if this is such a big issue - why are we seeing growing interest in Iran as opposed to a country like North Korea who is shamelessly flaunting it (though obviously not a serious threat)?'"""
You may have noticed that North Korea is completly rotting from the inside and is bound to collapse. You may also have noticed that it is not going around the world, calling for the destruction of a particular state. It is on the defensive as opposed to Iran which is repeating threats and trying to expand broader influence on an already volatile region. I think exercising diplomatic pressure on an actively belligerent country like Iran, who has significant and growing domestic dissent, is not entirely stupid. As it is not stupid to simply contain North Korea, the most isolated state in the world, and leave it decaying as it is. One can be dealt with immediate active measures, the other status quo. These are not arguments but merely contextual elements to demonstrate that these are two entirely DIFFERENT problems which requires different approcahes. I don't see how Oil necesarrily link them, especially since Iran is still sovereign as we speak and that your 'interests' is speculative.
Oh yes - and there was all that BS about the threat of Osama, which shifted to Sadam at some point in this big kerfuffle. Another solid one. """
You'll remember that the american public opinion was pretty gung-ho for another war and that Bush approval rocketed back above 80% when he started talking shit on Iraq. Why look incompetent when you can look like a hero again?
If you tell it had anything to do with "liberating" the people of the East from these brutal dictatorships I'll laugh at you."""
I doubt it had anything to do with this. They were selling the war to a country which enjoys congatuling itself.
You've seen what the American army does to civilians. We all have."""
I've seen what Iraqis do to each others. And I've seen that most aberrations by US soldiers were duly reported and prosecuted. If the American army was so hostile, how can you explain the transperancy?
>Correct - they most definitely DO NOT have the ground forces to invade and occupy it. Hence the growing interest in small scale nuclear missiles. It doesn't take much to hold steady an area devoid of everything living."""
You didn't address what I said. Why launch a nuclear attack and destroy any shred of respect the US has left abroad when this crisis could be resolved diplomatically - with European allies in tune and reforms boiling within Iran itself.
>It has been predicted, repeatedly. Now we're seeing movement. Of course there's nothing for Iran to gain. But there's a lot for them to lose. THe US has tons to gain - control of %60 of the world's oil supply. You don't consider that significant reason? Me neither. But apparently some do."""
What movement? More muscle flexing. The US has been surrounding Iran for quite some time now. If the US intended to launch a nuclear attack, why not then instead of now? While all this shit-talking and political brouhaha when the red button is ready to be pushed?
>Bush is the public figure-head representative of a whole shit-load of ill-will and conspiring against common people by politicians and mass corporations alike."""
ZzzzzzZZZZzzzz
Submitted by marginwalker (user info) at 2007-02-11 07:17:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Acarnis - at no point did I feign expertise in economics nor politics. This is a post on a website - where I'm at liberty to freely express my distaste regarding the filth I see around me - I'm not drawing up the American economic policy.
I am no more than another extremely disgruntled citizen.
The fact that I am NOT American - as you heatedly pointed out - and THIS disgruntled about the state of YOUR country (who's which actions, in essence, effect the rest of the planet) - should, if nothing else, clarify to YOU - as the voting population - how BADLY you need to do your civic duty and change the crash course your country is on.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-02-11 06:42:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
again.
I'm not sure why.
Submitted by locksly (user info) at 2007-02-11 03:22:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
But that's not all.
You keep saying Americans are so ill-formed, despite not living in the US? Americans probably wouldn't be all that surpised if the government DID attack Iran. Evenmoreso, Caul is correct in that the alarmist websites have been predicting a US attack on Iran every few months since 2005.
_______
2005? Wow that was like almost 18 months ago!
And the war in Iraq ended in 2003
Submitted by ooQueso (user info) at 2007-02-10 17:41:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Solution to the worlds problems? The cobalt bomb. It ignites the atmosphere.
Submitted by Acarnis (user info) at 2007-02-10 16:21:59 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
A few more comments....The load of BS that's on this post alternates from ridiculous to almost correct.
You don't really understand politics and economics. Your drivel is almost right, but you contradict yourself several times.
You start off mentioning that people are incapable themselves. This is true, but it's an old idea. As you stated, ancient philosophers realized this.
You then do a bold move by opposing most liberals in actually decrying democary, which is ridiculous. The truth is, though, we do NOT have a democracy. The US is a REPUBLIC; the same notion has been thought through by the Founding Fathers, namely Thomas Jefferson. In his first election, George W. was not elected by popular vote.
You then kinda save yourself by admitting that we're really in an oligarchy, which is true. But that's not enough, because you then suggest an aristocracy. Honestly, just the shut the hell up. The whole idea of government is to attain an aristocracy, IDEALLY. REALISTICALLY, however, everyone 'feels' they're the best. The whole idea is finding out who is the 'best.'
If you're going to suggest some super-ideal form of government, then please delineate how the hell do you propose to put it into action. How do you select the best? It wouldn't be by intellectual debate and voting, would it?
Even if you personally selected the 'best in their fields,' what goes to say that they would not be as corrupt as any other form of government?
Our current government system already consist of several boards, checks and balances. The bigger this beaucracy causes effects in other parts of the system. Importantly, they cause a strain in how efficient the economy runs. But hey.. you keep contradicting yourself--- in that you ARE NOT AN ECONOMIST or even a political scientist, so why the hell are you suggesting things you don't even UNDERSTAND?!
Go back to college. Go to a library and read up history, government, economy, business. You contradict yourself in saying that non-experts shouldn't contribute, but you ARE a non-expert. You lack the brains for this.
You want the truth? If we were to begin revoking voting rights today from people who lacked understanding... you'd lose your right.
Submitted by Acarnis (user info) at 2007-02-10 15:49:16 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
But that's not all.
You keep saying Americans are so ill-formed, despite not living in the US? Americans probably wouldn't be all that surpised if the government DID attack Iran. Evenmoreso, Caul is correct in that the alarmist websites have been predicting a US attack on Iran every few months since 2005.
At this time last year, Iran had also announced to switch the currency of its oil trading to the Euro, like what Iraq did. This immediately made all your alarmist websites predict the US attack around March, 2006. Well, there has been no US attack. To be honest, the Iran still hasn't switched; but that doesn't give an excuse to bad predictions.
The problem I have with your website is the proposed srategy. The strategy of increasing chaos and instability in the area is what sets it off as propaganda. That wouldn't be in line with the strategy of the military-industrial complex. The idea is to bring stability in the area, to maximize the return on the investments made of the infrastructure. To build all that, and then purposely destroy it, is counter-productive.
But you know what? Since you gave your full faith of "being informed" to your obscure internet source, that article will be accountable for my respect of you and your kind. April 2007? That's like 2 months. If the US doesn't unleash a nuclear attack on Iran by April 2007, I will forever ridicule your type whenever I see you...without any respect.
Submitted by Acarnis (user info) at 2007-02-10 15:28:24 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Yeah, you may sound like you have the spirit/will to be a difference in the world, but you really do lack any of the brains for it. Caul has it right down there. You don't even understand the very things you're arguing for.
Let's take marginwalker quote #1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by marginwalker (user info) at 2007-02-09 18:47:14 (#)
Ranking: 0
The most ridiculous part of the US's military complex is that there is nothing complex about it at all. It's oil my friend. Simple
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and marginwalker quote #2:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by marginwalker (user info) at 2007-02-09 20:15:39 (#)
Ranking: 0
>And you charge ME with being over-simplistic?
"There's a plethora of reasons why Bush went to war yet people boil them down to Oil or Freedom. "
>Please - fill me in on this "plethora of reasons". I mean yeah, we had the pretense of WMD, which was proven a fallacy. And if this is such a big issue - why are we seeing growing interest in Iran as opposed to a country like North Korea who is shamelessly flaunting it (though obviously not a serious threat)?
Oh yes - and there was all that BS about the threat of Osama, which shifted to Sadam at some point in this big kerfuffle. Another solid one.
If you tell it had anything to do with "liberating" the people of the East from these brutal dictatorships I'll laugh at you. You've seen what the American army does to civilians. We all have.
The "plethora of reasons" that Caulaincourt is alluring to is neither of those. Didn't you read the article on your propaganda website? The US is a military-INDUSTRIAL complex. The sad thing is that you can't even simplify the real reason for the war. It's not "oil"; the reason is far more broad than that. If you were going to simplify the war for the most significant reason, the war would boil down to just Money. Almost all wars are fought over money.
The "industrial" portion of the military-industrial complex is the part of the economy that benefits from the war. The government hands out contracts to businesses to do several things in the war effort. This isn't just limited to the oil companies. Defense companies and technology corporations benefit directly by the army. But think a little outside of your small box. The numerous businesses that are contracted by the government to go in and rebuild Iraq. Keep thinking outside the box: war is a general stimulus for the economy. Still thinking? Best case scenario would bring stability and peace in the pro-Western Iraqi government which would mean additional investment venues and markets for American corporations.
But that's not all. There's more reasons for why the war was about money. At the time of the war, Iraq had recently switched the currency of its oil trading to the Euro. For the past few years, the American dollar has been devalued severely. With Iraq trading in Euros, this would have further declined the value of the dollar. Although Iraq alone wasn't going to threaten the stability of the dollar, it was speculated that the last recession was correlated with Hussein's decision.
The War in Iraq was about money. And corporations--not just in the US--have been pushing the military-industrial complex since before the world wars.
Submitted by scum101 (user info) at 2007-02-10 10:58:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
until america stops denying global warming, whilst being the biggest contributor, stops stamping all over countries for things like oil or even fruit (see guatemala) and stops fundametlist extremist christianity (see george w bush and the entire south) i say fuck america, i hope those islamic extremists reduce everything to dust.
why should anyone give a fuck what happens to america when america doesn't give a fuck about anyone else?
Submitted by Snark (user info) at 2007-02-10 05:18:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Snarky Snarkman drunken birthday auto +2.
One beer left then its time to eat my neighbours cat.
Or die tryin.
Submitted by marginwalker (user info) at 2007-02-09 23:00:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by chaemiisda (user info) at 2007-02-09 22:05:45 (#)
Ranking: 1
Yup, this war is ALL about oil. Just look at the statistics and you can see it for yourself! Here's the website:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/rankings/crudebycountry.htm
Or, if you're too busy to check it out, here's the top five list:
Barrels/day
Canada 1,616,000
Mexico 1,598,000
Saudi Arabia 1,495,000
Venezuela 1,297,000
Nigeria 1,078,000
Wait, there's only ONE country from the middle east on the list? Iraq isn't even top 5...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Obviously not! Why would Iraq supply fuel to a country ravishing their very own country?
I'm aware of the leading suppliers of Oil to the US - I'm from Alberta - the BIGGEST Supplier of Oil in this "War on Terrorism".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why the war in the first place? Obviously, "WMD" was indeed a fallacy, as you stated before. Biggest reason? 9/11. Bush needed to take some sort of action, and Iraq was the obvious target, even though the terrorists were largely Saudi. But we couldn't attack Saudi, they're our FRIENDS! So where in the middle east could we attack, look good for doing it, and wipe out some terrorism at the same time? Iraq... Plus, I'd say the desire to succeed where his father failed was a motivator as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>If you buy into the whole idea that "9/11" was indeed the brainchild of Muslim Terrorists, your statement is indeed a plausible one. But personally, I'm somewhat of a skeptic. Though I do agree Bush Junior probably wanted some justice where his father failed - obviously working to motivate action - I think that's a very minute part of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you truly think we will use nukes against Iran, I really pity you. With all the success we've had in Iraq and all the funding we're getting for the war, that's exactly what we're looking for, another success to wave in the faces of those tree-hugging liberal hippies!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Success in Iraq? You have a odd definition of success my friend. You have a country chalk full of increasingly disgruntled citizen, a national debt larger than the country's ever scene, increasing levels of poverty and homelessness, and a a growing number of countries ready call the BUsh Administration on it's haphazard and unpopular methods of governing a country.
Hell - even the Administration ITSELF is admitting failure. That's when you know it's time to review your policies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll give you that Iran is probably a bigger threat than Iraq ever was, but we have not the resources or the national morale and support to take on Iran. And if we use nukes on ANYONE, we will be ostracized by the entire international community. Even if Bush were that stupid, Congress wouldn't LET him drop the bomb.
--------------------------------------------------------
>No NO NO. You got me wrong. I dont thing Iran is a major concern at all. I think North Korea is MORE of a threat than Iran - but they don't oil!
And it's readily apparent the LAST thing Bush is concerned about is public image. Come on, that's not even an reasonable statement. There's government officials left, right, and center calling him down - not to mention the members of his OWN PARTY that have begun to openly question him.
If you basing the probability of America deploying Nuclear Missiles in Iran on Bush's concern about his public popularity, don't hold your breath!
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reasons why we are concentrating on Iran rather than North Korea:
-Iran has a much more capable military
-Iran still has friends
-We've been failing in negotiations with NK for fifty years; there's still some semblance of a chance with Iran
-We have the entire US Eighth Army in South Korea to keep an eye on the North, plus plenty of reinforcements just waiting in Japan (who would also be more than happy to bitch-slap any country that happens to be named "Korea")
Yes, this is a bit simplified, for much the same reasons you stated earlier.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Oil. You forgot Oil. You admit the war is all about oil, and then seemingly downplay it's being enough reason to move into Iran. What fuels the economy? What enables consumers to keep consuming? What is (probably) the most important element on the market today (albeit volatile in light of global relations)? OIL!!!
It's the nectar of the gods!
You cannot deny that the power and control that comes with possessing the world's largest supply of it is NOT enough to inspire warfare.
Since the ground support is NOT available, would it not seem reasonable to completely wipe-out areas with high concentrations of (potentially troublesome)citizens, and move in with your large oil companies and start producing?
Submitted by chaemiisda (user info) at 2007-02-09 22:05:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Yup, this war is ALL about oil. Just look at the statistics and you can see it for yourself! Here's the website:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/rankings/crudebycountry.htm
Or, if you're too busy to check it out, here's the top five list:
Barrels/day
Canada 1,616,000
Mexico 1,598,000
Saudi Arabia 1,495,000
Venezuela 1,297,000
Nigeria 1,078,000
Wait, there's only ONE country from the middle east on the list? Iraq isn't even top 5...
Seriously, Iraq (655,000) only gives us 60% of what NIGERIA gives us! Kinda strange, if you ask me. Let's not forget that we produce 5,178,000 barrels per day for ourselves...
Okay, there are lots of oil reserves in the middle east, but it would've been better in the beginning to pull a "North Korea" with Saddam and coerce oil from him that way. I'd say our international relations with NK are currently better than with Iraq...
So why the war in the first place? Obviously, "WMD" was indeed a fallacy, as you stated before. Biggest reason? 9/11. Bush needed to take some sort of action, and Iraq was the obvious target, even though the terrorists were largely Saudi. But we couldn't attack Saudi, they're our FRIENDS! So where in the middle east could we attack, look good for doing it, and wipe out some terrorism at the same time? Iraq... Plus, I'd say the desire to succeed where his father failed was a motivator as well.
--------------------------
If you truly think we will use nukes against Iran, I really pity you. With all the success we've had in Iraq and all the funding we're getting for the war, that's exactly what we're looking for, another success to wave in the faces of those tree-hugging liberal hippies!
I'll give you that Iran is probably a bigger threat than Iraq ever was, but we have not the resources or the national morale and support to take on Iran. And if we use nukes on ANYONE, we will be ostracized by the entire international community. Even if Bush were that stupid, Congress wouldn't LET him drop the bomb.
Reasons why we are concentrating on Iran rather than North Korea:
-Iran has a much more capable military
-Iran still has friends
-We've been failing in negotiations with NK for fifty years; there's still some semblance of a chance with Iran
-We have the entire US Eighth Army in South Korea to keep an eye on the North, plus plenty of reinforcements just waiting in Japan (who would also be more than happy to bitch-slap any country that happens to be named "Korea")
Yes, this is a bit simplified, for much the same reasons you stated earlier.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-02-09 22:02:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm not Canadian.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2007-02-09 21:53:57 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Go fuck yourself you dumb Canuck.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-02-09 21:29:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I wish more people would rate some of the shit below so my names not so ubiquitous. It's a bit embarrassing.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-02-09 21:28:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I wish I were playing poker. I just taught my kid "go fish."
<frowny face>
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-02-09 21:26:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
atta boy. I'll be swillin' some fine Canadian Whiskey this evening while trying my best to win a few hands o' poker.
neee-haw!
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-02-09 21:19:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
It's the beer and whiskey (I didn't mention the whiskey) on an empty stomach talking. I purposely did not eat today so I could moreso enjoy my buzz. It's working.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-02-09 21:12:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
FREAK?!?
<smiley face thing right back atcha>
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-02-09 21:09:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-02-09 21:08:28 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-02-09 20:45:37 (#)
Ranking: 2
Have a sincere +2. You seem decent.
---
She most certainly is. And so are you. Enjoy your beer(s), hippy.
____________
I am, freak!!
<smiley-face thing>
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-02-09 21:08:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-02-09 20:45:37 (#)
Ranking: 2
Have a sincere +2. You seem decent.
---
She most certainly is. And so are you. Enjoy your beer(s), hippy.
Submitted by Ducky (user info) at 2007-02-09 21:06:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
word.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-02-09 20:45:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Have a sincere +2. You seem decent.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-02-09 20:25:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
My sister just sent me the Orson Welles version of "Othello." I love my sister. And I just opened my first beer of the weekend. +2 for all.
Submitted by marginwalker (user info) at 2007-02-09 20:15:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-02-09 19:38:41 (#)
Ranking: 0
yes, it's a good thing russians didn't have the internet back in the Cuban Missile Crisis.
"Sir, the American will bomb us in five minutes"
"What's your source Popov?"
"The Internet, sir."
"ATTACK! ATTACK!"
*Humanity = pwn3d*
---------------------------------------
>And you charge ME with being over-simplistic?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-02-09 19:13:39 (#)
Ranking: 0
"There's a plethora of reasons why Bush went to war yet people boil them down to Oil or Freedom. "
>Please - fill me in on this "plethora of reasons". I mean yeah, we had the pretense of WMD, which was proven a fallacy. And if this is such a big issue - why are we seeing growing interest in Iran as opposed to a country like North Korea who is shamelessly flaunting it (though obviously not a serious threat)?
Oh yes - and there was all that BS about the threat of Osama, which shifted to Sadam at some point in this big kerfuffle. Another solid one.
If you tell it had anything to do with "liberating" the people of the East from these brutal dictatorships I'll laugh at you. You've seen what the American army does to civilians. We all have.
"As for Iran, the US doesn't have the military capacity to invade and occupy it. Period. Nuking it would only worsen their butchered image. So why wouldn't they wait for the current to change in Iran itself while keeping the pressure with European allies? "
>Correct - they most definitely DO NOT have the ground forces to invade and occupy it. Hence the growing interest in small scale nuclear missiles. It doesn't take much to hold steady an area devoid of everything living.
"Perhaps I'm wrong. But a war with Iran has been predicted before and so far, except muscle flexing from both sides we haven't seen anything indicating that those two countries would benefit from a military confrontation."
>It has been predicted, repeatedly. Now we're seeing movement. Of course there's nothing for Iran to gain. But there's a lot for them to lose. THe US has tons to gain - control of %60 of the world's oil supply. You don't consider that significant reason? Me neither. But apparently some do.
"And please stop saying Bush this, Bush that. You give way too much credit to an incompetent poltician."
>Bush is the public figure-head representative of a whole shit-load of ill-will and conspiring against common people by politicians and mass corporations alike. I'll tell you what. Next time I talk about it, I'll try and get my hands on the names of all parties involved, and provide a comprehensive list for you. In alphabetical order, if it's to your preference.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-02-09 19:38:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-02-09 19:33:45 (#)
Ranking: 0
because some shitty website says so?
===
yes, it's a good thing russians didn't have the internet back in the Cuban Missile Crisis.
"Sir, the American will bomb us in five minutes"
"What's your source Popov?"
"The Internet, sir."
"ATTACK! ATTACK!"
*Humanity = pwn3d*
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-02-09 19:33:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
because some shitty website says so?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-02-09 19:14:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
well, he's a very competent politician, but terrible administrator.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-02-09 19:13:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
There's a plethora of reasons why Bush went to war yet people boil them down to Oil or Freedom.
As for Iran, the US doesn't have the military capacity to invade and occupy it. Period. Nuking it would only worsen their butchered image. So why wouldn't they wait for the current to change in Iran itself while keeping the pressure with European allies?
Perhaps I'm wrong. But a war with Iran has been predicted before and so far, except muscle flexing from both sides we haven't seen anything indicating that those two countries would benefit from a military confrontation.
And please stop saying Bush this, Bush that. You give way too much credit to an incompetent poltician.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-02-09 19:08:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"war on Terrorismism"
---
love it.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-02-09 18:59:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-02-09 18:45:19 (#)
Ranking: -2
i am bored with over simplification.
---
On that I couldn't agree more.
Unfortunately ALL of the details are overwhelming. Simplification is a necessary (abused) evil.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-02-09 18:57:30 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
#1 tactic of the simpleton: repeat simplistic conclusion without argument and discredit interlocutor.
ex1: "war is for oil. you are desillusioned"
ex2: "9/11 was an inside job. you are all retards" - Brad Linzy.
ZzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZzzz
Submitted by marginwalker (user info) at 2007-02-09 18:47:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Caul - if you deny increasing activity in Iran, with what appears to be military intentions, then I'm sorry you're so severly disillusioned.
What reinforces your disillusionment even MORE is that you fault me for pinning Bush's war on anything more than the desire to control the majority of the oil on this planet.
Did you know that area (Iran/Iraq/Syria) posses about %60 of the worlds oil reserves? Whereas the US is at a measly 2% in that regard?
The most ridiculous part of the US's military complex is that there is nothing complex about it at all. It's oil my friend. Simple.
I think it pains most people to believe this - to think that the loss of all these innocent civilians, not to mention soldiers, and devastation of these countries can be based on something so trivial. Though it largely is.
It's pretty hard to justify, and still try and sleep at night.
Do you argue the fragility of our ecosystem right now? Do you know the level of CO2 in the atmosphere right now surpasses any levels seen AFTER the last Ice age?
And my statement about NOT being the Masters of our Own destiny anymore pertains ONLY to the idea that we have allowed ignorance and utter gluttony persist for so long that we're reaching breaking point, and it's going to take large efforts on the parts of billions to correct it. These issues effect everyone, afterall.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-02-09 18:45:19 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
i do not mean to. i am bored with over simplification. it's so 2003.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-02-09 18:43:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
haha
Caul, you are a pest.
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2007-02-09 18:36:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Yes...
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-02-09 18:31:51 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I responded to what I read...
1)I am by no means a fatalist (this post has a rather sarcastic undertone);"""
'I think the saddest part of the whole situation is I'm not the master of my own destiny anymore.'
'We're potentially on the road to a nuclear holocaust'
2) I most definetely do NOT take everything I read on the internet as a fundamental truth."""
'What, you haven't heard? Yup - that's correct folks. It's forecasted that sometime near the end of April our beloved President Bush shall unleash a small scale nuclear attack on harmless little Iran '
3) I DO NOT boil complex, seemingly unresolvable issues down to three paragraphs."""
'If you have oil you're a target by default.
4) "Cerebral Faineance", "Cognitive schemas" - whatever you want to call it. You need not explain the functioning of the human brain to me, I'm well aware.
is that why you elaborated more on Anna Nicole Smith than anyone of your clichés about war, environment and politics?
5)Never once did I pull the "omigod the sky is falling" ploy with the environment. Like you said though, it's time to address the issue."""
'fragile environment is on the brink of destroying itself (and us along with it)'
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-02-09 18:24:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"I think the saddest part of the whole situation is I'm not the master of my own destiny anymore."
---
BULLSHIT.
Of all the people I have met in this fucked up delusional world - you rise to the top of that list for self-determination. Your spirit is clearly alive and I find your awareness both refreshing and encouraging. As long as you maintain your sense of self you ARE the master of your destiny - and will be one of the few actively shaping it.
As you well know, I fully echo your thoughts and musings here. Thank you for putting this kind of content out into the ether - it may fall upon blind eyes and deafened souls - but you speak the kind of truth that people need to be exposed to.
God bless you o' walker of margins! You make this world a better place just by being you.
Submitted by marginwalker (user info) at 2007-02-09 18:20:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-02-09 18:06:42 (#)
Ranking: -2
--------------------------------------------------
WHOOO Caul - don't be so quick to judge! A few things:
1)I am by no means a fatalist (this post has a rather sarcastic undertone);
2) I most definetely do NOT take everything I read on the internet as a fundamental truth. If I did - I'd still be pushing the "war on Terrorismism", actually;
3) I DO NOT boil complex, seemingly unresolvable issues down to three paragraphs. This is UBERSITE - not the actual layout of my neurological networks. Christ - would you sit through a post on Government/Politics/Economics the length of an encyclopedia volume? Didn't think so. This is a flash glance of a thought that took up a small percent of my time;
4) "Cerebral Faineance", "Cognitive schemas" - whatever you want to call it. You need not explain the functioning of the human brain to me, I'm well aware.
5)Never once did I pull the "omigod the sky is falling" ploy with the environment. Like you said though, it's time to address the issue.
Submitted by marginwalker (user info) at 2007-02-09 18:11:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by St_Jimmy (user info) at 2007-02-09 17:57:17 (#)
Ranking: 2
You gain a lot of freedom when you stop trying to change things. Focus on getting yours. Invest heavily in defense contractors so you can profit off the war with Iran. Let the idiots watch Fox News and complain to their congressmen that their credit card debt is too high. It's all about priorities.
------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent point - and eloquently spoken.
But my point is that is a form of complacency in itself - especially when we have (nearly) reached the point where the actions of these half-wit somnambulists are crossing lines that could quite potentially ruin it for everybody.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-02-09 18:06:42 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
everything you read on the Internet is true.
People have been predicting war with Iran or Syria as soon as 2005.
Iran's population is growingly pushing for reforms and the hardliners are losing support. Everyone knows this and this issue has a lot of potential to be solved diplomatically, especially when you consider that Europeans are on tune with the US on this (perhaps evidence that it is not so harmless)
And please stop saying the environment will destroy us. Climate has changed before and cave men survived it. I'm not saying we should keep our heads in the sand, but humans won't catch on fire overnight. I'm sure will witness drastic changes but I'm sure we'll adjust. Even the evil free market is getting greener.
As for bible thumpers still calling the shot, Bush doesn't have to answer to his political base anymore and we just might see more centrist governing from him. His recent push for stem cell reseach is an example.
Anyways...
Honestly, it's not Anna Nicole Smith news that bother me. You can watch E! and read The Enquirer and still do something worthy. What bothers me is how people are bunching up complex events and boil them down to the simplistic diatribe respective to their political 'team'. In your case it's all because of 'neo-cons kkk bible thumping corporative nazi rednecks' Someone else would say it's all because of the 'lefty baby killing islamist terror-loving liberals'.
People will discuss for hours to agree on a small scale project and will probably fail to meet their best-case scenario yet morons like yourself manage to sum up WORLD problems into 3 paragraphs.
This incapacity to nuance issues is pure laziness, what we call cerebral faineance. THAT fucking irritates me. This fatalism that everything is going down the shitter or childish naivety that we are perect.
So how about you read into things and take them one at the time. If that wears you down, you can always read about Anna Nicole Smith to relax. Which would be preferable to being knowingly stupid all year long.
Submitted by St_Jimmy (user info) at 2007-02-09 17:57:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"I think the saddest part of the whole situation is I'm not the master of my own destiny anymore. It hardly matters what I do - I'M not going to change the world."
Good for you. That's the first step. I used to get all bummed out watching the idiot majority support/push policies that would only fuck things up even worse. But then I learned to let go and realized that I didn't matter. Stupid people are running around in staggering numbers and they're out-breeding thinking people, so it will only be worse in the future.
"Raise the minimum wage, poor people need more money." You can shout yourself blue in the face trying to convince these people that raising the minimum wage will give them more money, but won't give them any more buying power. If the minimum wage is raised, costs increase for businesses with minimum wage employees. These businesses then pass those costs along to the consumer, thus no increased buying power. For that, you need to do "hard" stuff that takes time, like learning a trade or getting an education. But they don't (or can't) understand.
You gain a lot of freedom when you stop trying to change things. Focus on getting yours. Invest heavily in defense contractors so you can profit off the war with Iran. Let the idiots watch Fox News and complain to their congressmen that their credit card debt is too high. It's all about priorities.
Submitted by The_Drake (user info) at 2007-02-09 17:54:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Fuck George Bush.
and fuck you.
fuck
Give me Perot any day.
Submitted by marginwalker (user info) at 2007-02-09 17:46:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2007-02-09 17:30:34 (#)
Ranking: -2
Why not hold a staple gun to your head and shoot yourself a few times, in order to let some intelligence come in?
-------------------------------
Is that how you got so damn S-M-R-T Jonny?
Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2007-02-09 17:42:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2007-02-09 17:34:09 (#)
Ranking: 2
you're smart AND hot. I will pay 8 million turkish lira to impregnate you.
Let me know - uberscourge.at.gmail.com
hahaha, dork
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2007-02-09 17:34:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
you're smart AND hot. I will pay 8 million turkish lira to impregnate you.
Let me know - uberscourge.at.gmail.com
Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2007-02-09 17:30:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
good luck.
while i agree with a lot of what you have to say, i think this forum doesn't welcome the discussion you want to have. even if i'm correct, i'd still like to see you trying to start the discussion here if for nothing else than to see thoughtless people fall all over themselves to berate you.
they're really quite cute in their own stupid way.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2007-02-09 17:30:34 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
harmless little Iran
---------
they are neither harmless, or little.
Why not hold a staple gun to your head and shoot yourself a few times, in order to let some intelligence come in?
Submitted by chaemiisda (user info) at 2007-02-09 17:20:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Well, if the public had the initiative to go out and learn more than what we are spoon-fed by alarmist, liberal media... maybe something would get done. But after all...
"The public have an insatiable curiosity to know everything. Except what is worth knowing. Journalism, conscious of this, and having tradesman-like habits, supplies their demands."- Oscar Wilde
As for political systems, my vote's on Welfare Liberalism... or something of the sort.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_liberalism
They had me at "legalized prostitution."
Submitted by SkullBiter (user info) at 2007-02-09 17:17:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Awesome !
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2007-02-09 17:10:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
show me your slot
Submitted by sicosemen (user info) at 2007-02-09 17:06:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
No Comment
Submitted by marginwalker (user info) at 2007-02-09 17:04:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
In other news, I just drooled on myself.
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2007-02-09 17:04:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I smell a red commie bastard.
"Hey everyone, let's share!"
Fuck you. The only thing I'll share is the lead in my guns.