despite my feelings about alex jones' wingnut positions on the trilateral commission, bilderberg, and the cfr...

i'm upvoting because the essential message the vid infers is, as 'the who' so succinctly put it, 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss'

here are some legitimate gripes i have with obama and habeus corpus:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Guantanamo-Bagram-Is-there-much-difference
http://www.videosift.com/video/BBC-Investigation-of-Abuse-At-Bagram-Air-Base
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/11/bagram/

imho, the difference between bush and obama is black and white, literally... although obama can pronounce 'nuclear' ... i believe that his message of change wasn't much more than to convince the american people and the world that he was some sort of harry potter, who could fix all that was wrong simply with a wave of his big black wand

in reality, and from primarily an international perspective, he's the usa's global apology card, primarily to a western europe both worried and not-a-little-angry with america because 1. it gave them 8 years of gw bush, 2. was the sole remaining superpower in the vacuum left by the ussr's collapse, and was now viewed not as the cold war's 'great balancer' but as a post-cold war threat to both global security and international parity, and 3. through the burgeoning of instant mass communication afforded by the internet, the uneducated and largely impolite rabble of europe and the us were better able to ruffle each other's feathers, both innocently and maliciously

this two-way estrangement between the decades-long, erstwhile allies needed and continues to need to be smoothed over, and what better way than to present the world--at least on the surface--a polar opposite to bush and his ilk... a well-spoken, apparently sincere man of intelligence whose humble platitudes and defacto apologies at least try to serve as a soothing balm to the inflamed passions, old rivalries, petty grievances, and genuine concerns that had long lain dormant during the cold war, but were coaxed back to their previous vigor with the ill breath of the three enumerated items in the previous paragraph, which reput would be: 1. american arrogance, 2. a nascent eu's competitiveness and envy, and 3. the ignorance and polemics of the internet's unwashed masses

so... who 'won't get fooled again?'

>> ^Mashiki:
>> ^EndAll:
... because there are just way too many on a site that has such a broad range of users from different countries.

Hello, Canada calling. They seem to really hate us up here in the land of "it's not available in your country, but we broadcast it in parity on TV." Still haven't quite figured that one out, but agreed 100%


They probably haven't found advertising sponsors who want to promote to the Canadian market through web based showings, and nobody is keen on footing the bill of the bandwidth pro bono. Either that or whoever owns the distributing rights to it in Canada thinks they can juice you viewers over there for more money without an online alternative.

Actually ... wait isn't there some Canadian Comedy Central site where you can watch it already?

>> ^EndAll:
... because there are just way too many on a site that has such a broad range of users from different countries.

Hello, Canada calling. They seem to really hate us up here in the land of "it's not available in your country, but we broadcast it in parity on TV." Still haven't quite figured that one out, but agreed 100%

hmmm. i thought vietnam had plenty of problems left over from the war including lack of infrastructure, disease, poverty, etc.

wiki says:
Vietnam is still a relatively poor country with an annual GDP of US$280.2 billion at purchasing power parity (2006 estimate).[24] This translates to a purchasing power of about US$3,300 per capita (or US$726 per capita at the market exchange rate). Deep poverty, defined as a percent of the population living under $1 per day, has declined significantly and is now smaller than that of China, India, and the Philippines.[25]

k so they are poor but not *as* poor. interesante....

Should have asked when the Aus$ was at parity

Anyway, $15 coming your way.

>> ^Diogenes:
http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader$605

Interesting, so it had more to do with migration of power from the legislative branch to the executive for "national security" than anything else.

It's more directly supportive of my argument than I thought.


>> ^quantumushroom:
What's the more likely scenario, black helicopters and stormtroopers or some bureaucrat deciding you go to the back of the waiting list for a heart transplant?

In Franklin's time? Redcoats with general warrants; the black helicopter stormtroopers of the day.

Reread the 3rd amendment, and try to imagine a time when that shared parity of importance with the other amendments in the Bill of Rights.

>> ^quantumushroom:
To the contrary, I know EXACTLY what is being said here.

No, you really don't. Let me try to clarify the central misunderstanding you have about us that seems to be a running thread to all of your critiques of Democrats: we think the strategy of accusing a loyal opposition of disloyalty is a slippery slope to the end of what this country stands for.

It's what's galvanized our side against people like you.

We think this country is as much about ideals as it is about the land and people. By dismantling the ideas in the misguided attempt to safeguard the land and people you are destroying the country.

When you disregard the values set forth in the Constitution, like habeas corpus, and protections from illegal search and seizure (which covers both torture and wiretapping), we object, strongly.

When you then question our patriotism for speaking out against your destruction of our country, you are just shredding one more of our ideals we hold sacred (that whole 1st amendment thing), while trying to justify the shredding of others.

I will gladly say that your ideas and goals will destroy the country; but I won't accuse you of hating the country and attempting to intentionally destroy it the way you do of me.

>> ^srd:
According to wikipedia:
"The development of the Buran began in the early 1970s as a response to the U.S. Space Shuttle program. While the Soviet engineers favoured a smaller, lighter lifting body vehicle, the military leadership pushed for a direct, full scale copy of the double-delta wing Space Shuttle, in an effort to maintain the strategic parity between the superpowers."


Thanks!

According to wikipedia:
"The development of the Buran began in the early 1970s as a response to the U.S. Space Shuttle program. While the Soviet engineers favoured a smaller, lighter lifting body vehicle, the military leadership pushed for a direct, full scale copy of the double-delta wing Space Shuttle, in an effort to maintain the strategic parity between the superpowers."

found this in wiki article:

The development of the Buran began in the early 1970s as a response to the U.S. Space Shuttle program. While the Soviet engineers favoured a smaller, lighter lifting body vehicle, the military leadership pushed for a direct, full scale copy of the double-delta wing Space Shuttle, in an effort to maintain the strategic parity between the superpowers.

I try to have an open mind about these things, but aside from the accusation of "shadow government" which you could level at any one of these so-called "think tanks", I'm not sure what's so wrong about participating in an international governmental body.

I'm also curious, is Bush part of CFR?

How about European nations, are they?

Are the U.N., WTO, ICC, all hotbeds of CFR activity?

My problem with this whole line of thinking is that while Bill Clinton and Bush agree on the necessity of NAFTA, they disagree on the way they respond to the UN, WTO, and ICC. Bill Clinton, and Bush 41 liked 'em, Bush 43 despises them. McCain talks pie in the sky about replacing them with new organizations with more limited membership, and a more NATO-like bent. Long story short, if all these guys are all marching to CFR's orders, why have their policies toward international governing bodies differed?

Personally, I see changing NAFTA into NAU as a good thing, since it'd temper some of that capitalistic exploitation with a regulatory body that would make the playing field equal between all three countries, like with the EU. I wouldn't mind changing from the dollar to an "Amero" if it's a strong currency, especially if the dollar is gonna keep racing for parity with the Yen.

I hear Hillary Clinton and Obama making minor noises about "renegotiating" NAFTA to move slightly in this direction (and that's probably an exaggeration at that), but McCain says it's fine as is, and should just be expanded to Central America, too.

I may be a fire-breathing liberal, but free trade should be the policy, so long as there are protections for consumers, workers, and the environment. Protectionism ultimately stifles the economy to everyone's detriment, even if in the short term it can be beneficial.

Rage against the machine music notwithstanding, I don't see anything sinister about a group that sees a global governing body as being a necessity for globalization to work properly. I think we're being hit now by the problems of not doing that while still happily globalizing away (e.g. lead paint in toys, jobs moving overseas, stagnant/shrinking wages, etc.).

AIPAC or PNAC on the other hand, those guys are just out to screw with us.

Exposure to some atoms of soluble mercury from amalgam fillings is thermodynamically inevitable. It's just a question of
1. Calculating the dose
2. Determining the long-term effect of that dose, if any.

I won't argue with their calculation of (1), but the studies on (2) are weak in methodology, since all of them that I have seen are too short, non-human, non-randomized, not double-blind, or fail to consider effects on intelligence.
The NCAHF is a little private hobby-job, not an authority. Try the National Academy of *Sciences.

And I have both kinds of fillings. Polymer fillings are commonly used on front teeth because of cosmetic concerns (color) and are deemed safe by the medical establishment. So why not also use them on back teeth? The NCAHF has nothing to support the claim that polymers are inferior. Those concerned with cosmetics would be getting polymer fillings in both places regardless. The difference in cost is small and will likely get smaller when patents on the newer technology expire. Cost parity would make this issue moot, as then no one would have any reason to get an amalgam filling.

Living in a culture that is racist, and making a spectacle of race/racism, is not the same as discussing race, which is something Americans do very rarely.

Well, you won't find any peoples on earth that aren't racist to some degree. And the Spectacle Award goes to our leftist friends, everyone else is working toward a colorblind society. Conservatives would like more Black votes but don't need them. Liberals need Black votes but don't want them.

When an honest black man has a better chance of landing a job then an otherwise equally qualified white convicted felon, then you might be able to make such a claim. Until then your claim is full of shit.

How about this: an honest man has a better chance of landing a job than a convicted felon, even one who's been forthright.

Immigrants self select, so using them as the control sample is absurd. Historically oppressed non-immigrant communities recover very slowly, though it is happening.

Excuses. And most American Blacks are middle class and do well. You just never hear about them because only crises buy votes.

Take a look at native people on reservations, or poor rural whites in the Appalachians (pejoratively called hillbillies). These groups gain social/economic parity very slowly. We can argue about why that is, but to claim that the dominant culture is not at all at fault, when they were clearly the cause of the disparity to begin with, will require some evidence beyond your hyperbole.

The "evidence" is those who are literate, work hard, don't have children before marriage, and have a consistent set of values harmonious with the larger society usually are no longer "poor" after 10 years. And half of America's "poor" own their own homes, 2 cars and 3 tvs.

Dr. Wright is a preacher who believes that a man who never existed has saved his soul, and will greet him in heaven after he dies, your statement is trivially true OF ALL CHRISTIAN PREACHERS.

Oh boy, another atheist, who can't see into the infrared spectrum with naked eye or hear the same high notes as dogs, is going to lecture about how, "There's nothing out there."

Accusing a Christian preacher of being Marxist suggests you have no idea what you are talking about.

Oh, I get the irony, since atheists, communists and marxists don't believe in God. Maoist China, Stalinist Russia and other fruitful utopian societies don't need God or religion.

>> ^quantumushroom:
I think you're confusing "discomfort" with "sick-to-death" of discussions of race.

Living in a culture that is racist, and making a spectacle of race/racism, is not the same as discussing race, which is something Americans do very rarely.

They have also been offered more second-chances, breaks, excuses for failure and opportunities than any other minority on earth.

When an honest black man has a better chance of landing a job then an otherwise equally qualified white convicted felon, then you might be able to make such a claim. Until then your claim is full of shit.

Group after ethnic group, including Caribbean Blacks, who arrive in America and were never taught Victimhood 101 are up and running in 2 generations. What a difference a little optimism and effort makes.

Immigrants self select, so using them as the control sample is absurd. Historically oppressed non-immigrant communities recover very slowly, though it is happening.

Take a look at native people on reservations, or poor rural whites in the Appalachians (pejoratively called hillbillies). These groups gain social/economic parity very slowly. We can argue about why that is, but to claim that the dominant culture is not at all at fault, when they were clearly the cause of the disparity to begin with, will require some evidence beyond your hyperbole.

Wright is a crackpot but it doesn't matter, he's not serving up rationality.

Dr. Wright is a preacher who believes that a man who never existed has saved his soul, and will greet him in heaven after he dies, your statement is trivially true OF ALL CHRISTIAN PREACHERS.

that a would-be President shares his marxist philosophy is the cause for alarm.

Accusing a Christian preacher of being Marxist suggests you have no idea what you are talking about.

Shocking over simplification of world GNP figures. If it used Purchasing power parity it would make more sense.

dude. please at least attack my argument instead of throwing insults.

i am saying there is a fine line between a disgusting insult and sexism.

i am not defending choggie as some shining light of parity. i am just saying he wasn't attacking her femininity, he was attacking her appalling record. so there's a difference.

it seems all you would be satisfied with is if i accept YOUR overly broad definition of sexism. well i don't, because it's overly broad. Hillary is a stupid disgusting manipulative pathetic power hungry bitch. Shove your sexism up your arse.

my girl doesn't think i am sexist. she doesn't feel degraded by choggie's comments, she's stronger than that. so get over it.