@spoco2
iraq was going to happen.9/11 was just a convenient tool to get there.
see: http://www.takeoverworld.info/grandchessboard.html
or: http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/chalmers-johnsons-blowback-the-costs-and/

as for the political extortion coming from saudi arabia,and understand this is pure speculation.i would surmise it had something to do with very unsavory information that the body politic of washington would do much to keep under wraps.
when you consider the political landscape of the mid east it is an animal wholly and unequivocal in its absolute opposite of western politics,and that the US foreign policy over the past 50 years has been grossly under-reported and was rife with murder,assasinations,(economic as well as literal),coup de tats and the ruining of whole countries to rape and pillage their resources.
the open hand of the free market can never succeed without the closed fist of military might-arundhati roy
i have no doubt that certain american political factions got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
just look at how the bush years handled the iraq war and how convinced they were things were going to go in certain direction.
it probably would have in a western country but the mid east is organic as much as it is chaotic.
western politics has always and i mean ALWAYS gotten the politics of the middle east wrong.

If you ask a conservative or liberal or left libertarian or right libertarian, they will all tell you they overwhelmingly support small business. The doctrines of these respective factions are also supportive of small business. If you could force our elected officials to all take lie detector tests, I'm certain that almost all of them support small business in their hearts too.

So, if everyone supports small business, then why does government seem to be a never ending stream of corporate wars, no bid contracts, bailouts, austerity, corporate tax giveaways and subsidies? If everyone supports the little guy, then why does he always get fucked over in favor of big money?

Because multinational corporations hold our government's balls (and ovaries) in a financial vice. Because multinational corporations fund our elections and control our media.

Step out of line and you find yourself with no election funds or bad press or a sex scandal or a real estate scandal, or perhaps a faulty engine on your campaign leer jet. Any dirt you may have on you in life is sitting in a filing cabinet, waiting for the day you fuck up, at which point you are booted from office and humiliated in front of friends, family, colleagues and constituents.

Time and again we see idealistic politicians full of hope and promises become corporate lackeys after they are sworn in. Does this have to happen to Ron Paul too before market libertarians figure out that our campaign finance system is fatally flawed? It's funny to see all of these anti-democracy, anti-two party system market libertarians all of a sudden hyping on a Republican candidate for the 2012 elections. It's funny because you seem to believe we live in a democracy - which you supposedly hate.

It's not the people. it's not the ideology. It's not even the politicians. It's the system. The system is fucked. There is no hope for the kind of serious change we need in this country until we unfuck it. And for it to be unfucked, we the people need to do it for ourselves. We can't sit around waiting for political surrogates to do this work for us. We need to demand it in large numbers, and to strike and protest for as long as it takes until it gets done.

And time is running out. The deficit grows. The temperature of the globe rises. Our jobs are being shipped off to the 3rd world. Our money is being shipped off to Caribbean tax shelters. We need to act soon. At some point it will be too late.

>> ^blankfist:

The American "right" doesn't like small government. It's a talking point, yes. But never is it put into practice.

>> ^hpqp:

Am I the only ZP fan truly tired at having to frantically scroll my volume bar from one extreme to another every time because of that godawful intro/outro music?


I'm with you on that one.

I liked Red Faction Armageddon. Sure the plot was silly and all that, but it had good old fashioned blow-the-hell-out-of-everything arcade shooter gameplay that worked pretty well.

It came out at a good time for that, right in the middle of a big lull, so I don't see anyone buying it now with all sorts of whiz bang stuff like Deus Ex coming out, but when it goes on sale on Steam for $20 or less, I recommend fans of mindless action checking it out.

Your video, Zero Punctuation: Red Faction Armageddon, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^Ti_Moth:

I can't remember the last THQ game I actually enjoyed.


What about de Blob? I quite enjoyed that

Even tea party supporters, by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, declared significant cuts to Social Security "unacceptable."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704728004576176741120691736.html

Sixty-four percent [of Tea Party supporters] believe that the president has increased taxes for most Americans, despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans got a tax cut under the Obama administration. Thirty-four percent of the general public says the president has raised taxes on most Americans. (Not pertinent to this discussion, but hilarious regardless since Obama is apparently some socialist out to raise everyone's taxes.)

62 percent [of Tea Party supporters] say programs like Social Security and Medicare are worth the costs to taxpayers.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002529-503544.html

So... they're big on balancing the budget, but don't want to cut these social programs, but think we have to cut spending. *scratching head*

We should just magically pay for them and balance the budget I guess by cutting spending on other programs that don't amount to a hill of beans.

And FYI, I don't mean to pick on Tea Partiers specifically. Most supporters of any political party or faction doesn't understand the federal budget, etc. They want everything without paying for it.

>> ^bobknight33:

Get you head out of the sand. your so wrong its embarrassing.
>> ^longde:
Bullshit. Here's what really happens:
Democrats: Borrow, but raise taxes to pay off debt
Republicans: Borrow, lower taxes, pass costly entitlements, start huge costly wars
Teabaggers: Refuse to pay debts; refuse to borrow; OK with spending on costly entitlements; cut entitlement for "less deserving" groups to save cost
>> ^bobknight33:
Democrats say We should keep borrowing money and create more debt.
Republicans say We should keep borrowing money and create more debt.
Tea Party say Stop borrowing and stop spending.
Which group has the right answer?

The US is not in jeopardy of keeping up with interest payments on the debt, fiscally anyway. We have a faction in one party who has threatened to do it to make a political point.

>> ^srd:

>> ^heropsycho:
Ugh... let's take the example of the typical American. Is someone in horrible financial shape if they owe more than they earn in a year? No.
Hate this crap...

Someone is in horrible financial shape if he can't keep up with the interest on his loan (3:45 onwards).

That is not what the S&P said. They said the fact that politicians were willing to risk default to get their ideologies made into policies triggered the downgrade.

And all parties wanted the US economy to not plummet, which necessitates the debt ceiling raise. The difference with this debt ceiling raise is one faction of one party was willing to have the US default to get their way. The GOP ran the deficit up from 2000-2006 with tax cuts and unfunded mandates, entered the US into two wars, and then stuck a Democratic president with the bill, and then said, "you cut your programs to fix this, or we'll force the US to default" after the economy tanked.

Don't sit there and say the GOP compromised by raising the debt ceiling. They did in fact hold the US economy hostage by suddenly becoming worried about the debt to score political points. The Tea Party is a small faction of the GOP. The GOP willfully attempted to aggregate political will from Tea Party sympathizers.

The problem with all this is the vast majority of Americans, on both sides, do not understand the ramifications of default, large deficits, a growing national debt, etc. On this very site, guys like you for example swear up and down that deficits are never good, when a cursory look at our history shows that deficits have actually been at times wildly beneficial to our economy. Others insist on paying for social security indefinitely from 65 to death without looking at what it would cost to make that happen, or ignoring that people live longer today than they did before, so maybe it's time we raise the retirement age.

Both parties are concentrating on scoring cheap political points, throwing out platitudes about how to fix the economy instead of using actual information and determining a policies moving forward to fix this economy. Sometimes it's on purpose; sometimes it's because they're just as ignorant of economics as the general population. Idiotic things like:

"The government must always spend less than they earn!"
"US citizens should always be entitled to <insert blank without providing a realistic means to pay for it>"
"Providing <insert gov't program> is socialist, and it can never work because the gov't can't do anything right!"
"Corporations are always evil, and always screw the people!"

You know what will fix the economy? Competent policy makers not married to any ideology, willing to make policy based on facts instead of talking points. Unfortunately, the American people, combined with our political system, don't seem to select such people to positions of power.



>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

How was I off? I said that the US debt was 17 Trillion. With the 2.4 trillion 'deal' Congress just made, that is correct (16.9 trillion, but I'm rounding up). I also said that the government spends 28% more than it takes in. I was using GOA numbers, but if you want to use "the wiki" then I will have to correct myself. According to Wikipedia, the US 2010 tax revenue was 2.1 trillion and its expenses were 3.4 trillion. Happy? According to Wiki, the US spends !!61.9%!! more than it takes in. It only furthers my argument - but whatever. I also said the US is in total debt to 571% of its income. This is also correct. Income? 2.1 trillion. Debt? 16.9 trillion. We're in hock over 700% of our income, and it is getting worse YOY.
You lose. I win. Facts and reality tend to do that.
And S&P said cut, cap & balance would have prevented the downgrade - therefore it is not "only the tea party" that liked it. Democrats voted for it. Independants voted for it. Libertarians voted for it. RINOs voted for it. It passed the House. But Obama refused to compromise and sign it. Hint for you neolibs - "compromise" means you compromise YOUR position. The GOP compromised by allowing the debt to go up. That was the compromise. Obama just didn't like it because it didn't give him 2.4 trillion more of his walkin' round money to trowel out past the 2012 election.

If you read the report, the debt situation was part of it. It should be addressed. But the major indisputable catalyst for the downgrade was the wholely irresponsible use of default as a political weapon. And having a powerful faction of the House actually want a default to happen. That is the sign of a banana republic.

I said above that ability to pay is a major factor in a credit rating. We had several teabag and republican house members and presidential candidates loudly yell that we shouldn't even be willing to pay our debt, even if we were able. Almost every proposal was rejected by the house faction, many of whom apparently pledged not to raise taxes or even raise the debt ceiling. WTF? Finally we have people who didn't want to raise the ceiling because the default would be a "loss" for Obama. I think every one of these reasons is irrational.

If I didn't think they were retarded, I would call their actions treasonous. They want to see the president fail so badly, they are willing to wreck my money (401k, buying power, etc) to do it. Well, mission accomplished, guys.

Obama is the president, but budgets and the (stupid but encoded) debt ceiling vote must come out of the House.

Bottom line: If the republicans really want to reduce the debt, they should pass an appropriate budget next time. Don't default (or even threaten to default) on our existing obligations!

>> ^quantumushroom:
Now I could be wrong, but as I understand it, FOUR trillion in cuts was required to keep the ratings degradation at bay--not to fix anything, just to keep it from happening right away.
Well, the Right failed.
TWO trillion in cuts later, the socialists, who are still the majority party, allowed this farce to proceed. So how is the Right "victorious" by failing to reach even a bare minimum in cuts? If anything, the Righties are idiots for allowing themselves to be lumped in with the Hawaiian Dunce & Friends, who spent 3 trillion in 3 years to no effect.
No, I really don't want to believe Odumbo is this sinister or ignorant, but what choice do I have? If he's dumb he should just say so and let smarter people decide what to do.
The markets will sh1t the bed on his watch tomorrow. At least he will have sealed his fate for 2012. Too bad the rest of us get to sink with him.
>> ^lampishthing:
Let me get this straight... Events of the past week:
Republicans get their way with the debt ceiling negotiations
Immediately following this S&P downgrades the US's credit rating
You claim it's the "liberals'" fault?
Action-reaction, man. The economists at S&P see the result of the debt ceiling talks as a bad plan and thus they drop the credit rating. If the democrats' policies had been followed this wouldn't have happened.>> ^bobknight33:
They all should have listen to the Tea Party.
The Liberals and RHINOs got what they wanted now we are in a bigger mess.
You cant spend your way out of debt. Fools

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=03l1n5rh


As we can currently observe, the richest persons/companies in the USA sit on their money and do not create new jobs.

Imho, "middle class" should represent the largest bracket in lieu of a population's makeup, driving culture, education, job creation and comfortable wealth. This is the most desirable realistic state (way of being) most persons would want to be in.

Democratically, from the bottom up, a society can thrive most, imho. This does not exclude anyone: A secure "low" society lifts the quality of living for the top gainers as well. The two-party system is highly detrimental for lasting change and sensible reforms. It is unlikely the two partys would part with the old system in favour of a more democratic coalition-based system, but a girl can dream.

I like Keynes, but Keynesian politics are hard to come by when the economy gets better. One big factor in the USA is the gaining economic libertarianism, which is on a utopian level of ideology on par with Reagonomics. Personally I prefer the soft ideology of reasonable adjustments orienting themsleves not along the lines of a factional party-framework, but along the lines of the realistically most beneficial proposal for the entire population. This sounds utopian as well, because it is: It is only possible in a multiple-party state, which the USA is unlikely to become.

What to do? Political "extremists" (left and right) should be shunned and kicked back to the margins where they belong, at least for a functioning two-party system.


This is all just my opinion, and it is in flux. If you spot a "mistake" in my reasonings or views, please tell me, I'm happy to learn and adjust my opinions, if reasonable. --> Tea-Partyers, fascists, communists and Libertarians can try, but they will probably just waste my time and theirs. --> Hard ideologies are all utopian in one way or another, secular religions all.

He was essentially building his faction's defensive cannons INSIDE (what he thought was) the opponent's base. This is extremely irritating, as the cannons are very strong, and once you've built enough of them along with the pylons they need to run, there's little chance the troops his opponent had amassed by this point could have taken them out. And after that, it's just a matter of advancing your cannon wall step by step into his buildings, until you're taking out his core buildings.

It's extremely cheesy, but a huge gamble as well. All his money was sunk into it, and once he realized his opponent wasn't even there, he left. You even see in the video, he had nothing else in his base to fight back with, when the marines eventually got around to attacking him.

>> ^marinara:

i doubt a group of atheists would have started beating on christians. islam is factional and agressive and will always be so.


Ah hahahaha. No, Christians are peace lovers duh, like the shit bag Christian who runs Black Water (the gun for hire mercenary killers), aka Erik Prince. On another 'crusade' to slaughter the bible into 'heathens'. The whole US army is fanatical Christians, who think the bible = make wars, make money, fuck everything else. Yeah, Jesus wants you to have guns and drive your SUV past homeless people. Yeah, Jesus would be totally be against health care. What about the bat shit crazy Evangelicals that love a good disaster, one day closer to seeing the man in the sky. Christians, hypocritical douche bags of the world.

i doubt a group of atheists would have started beating on christians. islam is factional and agressive and will always be so.

>> ^Asmo:

Looks better than that last boring ass "roam around Africa faction grinding" BS that FC2 was.


agreed