>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The problem with Ron Paul is that his economic policy contradicts his foreign policy. He wants to further deregulate and cut taxes for the corporations that took us to war in the first place. It's like trying to extinguish a fire with gasoline.


You see contradicts, I see consistency. A position against against war is a position against meddling, same to regulating businesses. And not all corporations profit from war, that is a bold hyperbole. Would an entire internet of do-gooders regulate food imports better than a government agency? Who knows, I for one, would like to see it tried. A failure will precipitate more participation in solution finding then the flawed FDA's and its inadequacies. The same advances that advance all our modern technology are ignored when mired in the miasma of politics. Important things that have no real answers should be left in our hands, 300 million hands make light work of problems, but only if that problem is left for them to solve. The illusion of law and safety is worse than no law at all. I consider myself a caring person, so I don't advocate liberty as an excuse to do harm, but do good in the way and on the things I want to do good on. Outsourcing caring, justice, goodness to other people; to government people I believe is the cause of much of our selfish american culture. And as such, I don't think upping the ante of other people caring for us is the answer. Freedom is harder, its evil more plain and boldfaced. But boldfaced enemies are easier foes than powerful men hiding behind good sounding legislation. Basically, I am against all forms of force, be it forces of good or evil. The only force I believe in is personal force of will, and my ability to convince you without force. It would be evil for me to demand you give your time, money, and energy to habitat for humanity...even though what they do is an arguable good thing. I don't see how the case for any of the other social legislation is any different.


Edit some autocorrect typos

>> ^Taint:
Also, and probably more importantly, if building seven can only be explained by controlled demolition then where are all the engineers on this topic? Why does it only seem to be people without a professional background in such things the ones saying it couldn't have happened when the boilers exploded or whatever the official claim states.

Here you go

http://videosift.com/video/9-11-Blueprint-for-Truth-Compelling-Presentation

Thought you might enjoy this rant

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Joe Rogan, The American War Machine' to 'Joe Rogan, The American War Machine, Operation Northwoods, industrial war complex' - edited by eric3579

An epic and incredible documentary - possibly the best political/historical one I've seen:

Is American foreign policy dominated by the idea of military supremacy? Has the military become too important in American life? Jarecki's shrewd and intelligent polemic would seem to give an affirmative answer to each of these questions

The American Documentary Grand Jury Prize was given to WHY WE FIGHT, written and directed by Eugene Jarecki. http://festival.sundance.org/2005/docs/05Awards.pdf

What are the forces that shape and propel American militarism? This award-winning film provides an inside look at the anatomy of the American war machine.

He may have been the ultimate icon of 1950s conformity and postwar complacency, but Dwight D. Eisenhower was an iconoclast, visionary, and the Cassandra of the New World Order. Upon departing his presidency, Eisenhower issued a stern, cogent warning about the burgeoning "military industrial complex," foretelling with ominous clarity the state of the world in 2004 with its incestuous entanglement of political, corporate, and Defense Department interests.

Deploying the general's farewell address as his strategic ground zero, Eugene Jarecki launches a full-frontal autopsy of how the will of a people has become an accessory to the Pentagon. Surveying the scorched landscape of a half-century's military misadventures and misguided missions, Jarecki asks how--and tells why--a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people has become the savings-and-loan of a system whose survival depends on a state of constant war.

Jarecki, whose previous film, The Trials of Henry Kissinger, took such an unblinking look at our ex-secretary of state, might have delivered his film in time for the last presidential election, but its timing is also its point: It does not matter who is in charge as long as the system remains immune from the checks and balances of a peace-seeking electorate. Brisk, intelligent, and often very, very human, Why We Fight is one of the more powerful films in this year's Festival, and certainly among the most shattering.— Diane Weyermann