>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Yogi:
Umm I wouldn't call that a "dumb comment" I'd call it an uncharacteristically honest comment. It's like saying we can't stop starting wars with helpless countries, because it's too profitable.

So, the Iraq and Afghanistan missions will start turning a profit sometime soon?

It already has for the people who matter. Halliburton, Bechtel, Blackwater (Xe). Seriously are people this ignorant about who benefits from these wars?

Oh, right. I forget how simplistic the decision process for American foreign policy was. I was under the mistaken belief that there were a multitude of interdependent and complicating factors involved.

There's other factors of course but the important one is does this benefit the owners of the society. I mean doesn't that make sense?


No, the notion of a society's owners within a democratic nation doesn't make particularly strong sense to me.

Halliburton made a fortune off American government contracts, thanks to the decisions of their former VP as the American VP. Of course that is significant.

The attacks of 9/11 happened shortly before the decision to go to war in Afghanistan. Was that not just as, dare I say more, significant?

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Yogi:
Umm I wouldn't call that a "dumb comment" I'd call it an uncharacteristically honest comment. It's like saying we can't stop starting wars with helpless countries, because it's too profitable.

So, the Iraq and Afghanistan missions will start turning a profit sometime soon?

It already has for the people who matter. Halliburton, Bechtel, Blackwater (Xe). Seriously are people this ignorant about who benefits from these wars?

Oh, right. I forget how simplistic the decision process for American foreign policy was. I was under the mistaken belief that there were a multitude of interdependent and complicating factors involved.


There's other factors of course but the important one is does this benefit the owners of the society. I mean doesn't that make sense?

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Yogi:
Umm I wouldn't call that a "dumb comment" I'd call it an uncharacteristically honest comment. It's like saying we can't stop starting wars with helpless countries, because it's too profitable.

So, the Iraq and Afghanistan missions will start turning a profit sometime soon?

It already has for the people who matter. Halliburton, Bechtel, Blackwater (Xe). Seriously are people this ignorant about who benefits from these wars?


Oh, right. I forget how simplistic the decision process for American foreign policy was. I was under the mistaken belief that there were a multitude of interdependent and complicating factors involved.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Yogi:
Umm I wouldn't call that a "dumb comment" I'd call it an uncharacteristically honest comment. It's like saying we can't stop starting wars with helpless countries, because it's too profitable.

So, the Iraq and Afghanistan missions will start turning a profit sometime soon?


It already has for the people who matter. Halliburton, Bechtel, Blackwater (Xe). Seriously are people this ignorant about who benefits from these wars?

>> ^Yogi:

Umm I wouldn't call that a "dumb comment" I'd call it an uncharacteristically honest comment. It's like saying we can't stop starting wars with helpless countries, because it's too profitable.


So, the Iraq and Afghanistan missions will start turning a profit sometime soon?

Stop the war on drugs.

Umm I wouldn't call that a "dumb comment" I'd call it an uncharacteristically honest comment. It's like saying we can't stop starting wars with helpless countries, because it's too profitable.

Out of context.

Overuse of big words in inappropriate situations. You're the type that tries to throw around big words so the uneducated or undereducated assume you're right, when in this case you are completely wrong.

Stay in context.

People can and do live within their means, such as myself. Needing loans or other people to raise you in order to do so has NOTHING to do with the fact that people CAN live within their means.

You've lost, so stop digging your hole deeper with big words you have no idea how to use.

Listen to your own sentence, "Your profound ignorance of rhetorical devices is astounding", on an uneducated fool, phrases such as this sound intelligent...to the educated of us, you sound like a fool, because with all of those big words, you said exactly nothing.

And for the record, I never once mentioned self-sufficiency, as I think this is completely and utterly impossible in every way in the modern world. Stop putting words in my mouth in an attempt to make your pointless statements valid. You're the ONLY one here that mentioned self-sufficiency, because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand -- and that remains fiscal responsibility. Though I do commend you on your attempt to completely change the applied subject matter, you failed to do so. Again, the subject at hand is if fiscal responsibility is reality, and it is. It does not mean you have to be liquid, nor does it mean you didn't need other people to get where you are, these are unrelated to the discussion. My original response was in response to a person that said on the subject of fiscal responsibility, and I quote, "it's a vague-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness slogan". That's the context in which I replied too, and it's the only context in which you are allowed to apply my statement too.

Being self-sufficient has nothing to do with being fiscally responsible.

Stay in the context of the discussion next time. We are discussing fiscal responsibility, NOT self-sufficiency, not Ayn Rand, and not people such as yourself that feel the overuse of big words make you sound intelligent.

>> ^jwray:

Your profound ignorance of rhetorical devices is astounding, but somewhat less so in light of your poor choice of words to describe your beliefs:
I do not live beyond my means. I do not spend more now expecting everything to work out later, as sometimes it doesn't work out as we expect.
That precludes important investments, such as going to college.
You seem like the kind of guy who got a major hard-on for self-sufficiecy from reading Ayn Rand, without much thought about the interconnectedness of all things and how self-sufficiency is only illusory. That is what I was getting at with references to childhood. Everybody has relied on spending other people's money for the food, clothing, & education of their childhood. You weren't the one bringing home the bacon when you were two. Is it too much of a stretch from that to letting the government provide some services, which taken together are just as important, by spending other people's money? All they have to do to balance the budget is stop bailing out wall street, stop the wars, and raise taxes on people who make >$1 million/year by a few percent.

It hurt so badly, too. Only it didn't.

He doesn't know me, yet he believes everything I said to him comes from Ayn Rand, someone I've never read. That shows his complete arrogance and ignorance, and it's why I try to ignore his subsequent -- and once again amazingly ignorant -- post.

He refuses to listen to logic/reason, so he keeps on rambling in an attempt to associate anything I say to whatever he feels like associating it with, in this case Ayn Rand. Call this a weak swing and a miss on his/her part, as they have no understanding of who they're even speaking with, meanwhile, they're taking my post completely out of context.

Note how he takes everything I said about fiscal responsibility and living within your means out of context and applies it to an interdependent society, which is off subject. He turned a discussion into an argument, lost that argument, and therefore begins to remove context and add new context to the discussion in an attempt to make his invalid point more valid.

Point remains, people can and do live within their means (fiscal responsibility), which was the original context of my point/of this discussion. I never spoke on the fact that we are interdependent as a society and rely on others, or the fact that we were raised by others who assisted us to get where we are, as it had nothing to do with the point of fiscal responsibility being a real thing.

>> ^Mcboinkens:

>> ^jwray:
Your profound ignorance of rhetorical devices is astounding, but somewhat less so in light of your poor choice of words to describe your beliefs:
I do not live beyond my means. I do not spend more now expecting everything to work out later, as sometimes it doesn't work out as we expect.
That precludes important investments, such as going to college.
You seem like the kind of guy who got a major hard-on for self-sufficiecy from reading Ayn Rand, without much thought about the interconnectedness of all things and how self-sufficiency is only illusory. That is what I was getting at with references to childhood. Everybody has relied on spending other people's money for the food, clothing, & education of their childhood. You weren't the one bringing home the bacon when you were two. Is it too much of a stretch from that to letting the government provide some services, which taken together are just as important, by spending other people's money? All they have to do to balance the budget is stop bailing out wall street, stop the wars, and raise taxes on people who make >$1 million/year by a few percent.


Oh snap, he just Ayn Randed you ass.

[redacted]

Your profound ignorance of rhetorical devices is astounding, but somewhat less so in light of your poor choice of words to describe your beliefs:

I do not live beyond my means. I do not spend more now expecting everything to work out later, as sometimes it doesn't work out as we expect.

That precludes important investments, such as going to college.

You seem like the kind of guy who got a major hard-on for self-sufficiecy from reading Ayn Rand, without much thought about the interconnectedness of all things and how self-sufficiency is only illusory. That is what I was getting at with references to childhood. Everybody has relied on spending other people's money for the food, clothing, & education of their childhood. You weren't the one bringing home the bacon when you were two. Is it too much of a stretch from that to letting the government provide some services, which taken together are just as important, by spending other people's money? All they have to do to balance the budget is stop bailing out wall street, stop the wars, and raise taxes on people who make >$1 million/year by a few percent.

Who's lying to themself? You think Obama would extend the war indefinitely to enrich military contractors? The ones he's been constantly pissing off by killing their pet projects like the F-22 and C-17?

I'm suggesting that it's quite possible that Obama actually thinks America's national security interests demand that we try to address the continued existence of Al Qaeda.

I'm personally in total agreement with Zakaria that the war seems wrongly disproportionate, but I refuse to categorically declare that there is no possible sense in doing anything to go after Al Qaeda, and that therefore Obama is only interested in enriching future campaign donors.
-@NetRunner

Read the history of my comments and you may find that I harbor no love for the enrichment of the Military Industrial Complex. I find the creation of the F-22, and C-17 a little like creating weapons platforms just so money can be wasted. In reality, is it really necessary to have a F-22 when there are Nuclear devices?

I guess it's fine to violate a nations sovereignty in the pursuit of justice, but to use military force is another thing completely. - Sarcasm. I point to the US and its relation ship with South America.

Okay, so what are Republicans arguing we should do with the war? End it, or ramp it up and keep it going as long as it takes?

Aside from Ron Paul, is there anyone in Congress speaking against the war who isn't a Democrat? Hell, what's Rand Paul saying? More war, or less war? I also have a hard time believing that Ron Paul is the saint that he's made out to be.
-@NetRunner

It is quite clear that the Republican party is pro war. I can't argue that and to do so would betray my opinion of a corrupt party so bathed in neo-conservative foolishness.

You sorta point out the problem with your own logic here. If the whole reason for the war is because the military-industrial complex demands a war, and the conservative majority of the Supreme Court wants to systematically eliminate limits on corporate money being used to influence elections, then having more or even just new parties won't fix a damn thing.

People who refuse to get partisan about what's going are the ones who are deluding themselves.
-@NetRunner

EDIT: I shouldn't have to remind you of my stance on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Corporations are not people, they are conglomerations of people. But that's the problem with this country isn't it? The root of the problem, is that this country's policies are dictated by the almighty dollar, and who has the most; corporations.

What is clear to me about the Supreme Court is that it is divided by partisan ideology. They are not impartial, and pragmatic about laws. They constantly make decisions based on political ideology. For example, the 2nd ammendment. I wonder if anyone from the Judicial Branch has taken a good look at unbiased statistics (I'm not concerned with how the statistics point now, for gun or against gun). If arguments could be put in a more emotionally independent fashion, perhaps that would make a difference. To often is politics a game of ideology and emotion. Although I wonder if this solution is simply evil arbitrarily.

The military industrial complex does not demand war. Supply and Demand. The Military Industrial Complex exists out of a need to meet supply, and make a profit on it. For this I point you to Germany, a Documentary called "Bullet Proof Salesman". How do you stop supply and demand? Stop the wars, no war at all. Cut military spending. I think that would have been the best way to deal with Terrorism with good police work and diplomacy. The military is, by design, not for police work; they exist to fuck shit up.

I never think of the Democrats as perfect -- they're most certainly flawed in all kinds of ways -- but the story always comes out the same, no matter the issue.

Democrats may be split on whether to do the right thing or the expedient thing, but the Republicans all scream and howl for the wrong thing to be done and done immediately.
-@NetRunner

The elimination of one party would leave only the other party. A situation rife for Majority Rule, which is counter to a Democratic Republic, or a Republic at all.

But know this, I agree with you that it's time for a change of scenery; republicans need the boot.

The US hasn't declared war since 1944. Congress has simply authorized the use of force. "War does not decide who is right, only who is left" - George Bernard

>> ^NordlichReiter:

Who has extended the predator strikes into Pakistan? Don't lie to yourself. Democrats are not as clean as you imagine them to be, they are politicians; with a healthy taxpayer income. Not to mention the proceeds they incur from your plutocratic partners.

Who's lying to themself? You think Obama would extend the war indefinitely to enrich military contractors? The ones he's been constantly pissing off by killing their pet projects like the F-22 and C-17?

I'm suggesting that it's quite possible that Obama actually thinks America's national security interests demand that we try to address the continued existence of Al Qaeda.

I'm personally in total agreement with Zakaria that the war seems wrongly disproportionate, but I refuse to categorically declare that there is no possible sense in doing anything to go after Al Qaeda, and that therefore Obama is only interested in enriching future campaign donors.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
I have a hard time respecting your arguments when they come from absurdity, eliminating republicans would stop the wars? I've got a hard time believing that especially when there is no empirical evidence to prove it; just speculation.

Okay, so what are Republicans arguing we should do with the war? End it, or ramp it up and keep it going as long as it takes?

Aside from Ron Paul, is there anyone in Congress speaking against the war who isn't a Democrat? Hell, what's Rand Paul saying? More war, or less war?

>> ^NordlichReiter:
Given that defense contractors can contribute as much as they like now, to anyone's campaign. Although I would like a literate third, fourth, fifth party to come in and marginalize the republicans.


You sorta point out the problem with your own logic here. If the whole reason for the war is because the military-industrial complex demands a war, and the conservative majority of the Supreme Court wants to systematically eliminate limits on corporate money being used to influence elections, then having more or even just new parties won't fix a damn thing.

People who refuse to get partisan about what's going are the ones who are deluding themselves.

I never think of the Democrats as perfect -- they're most certainly flawed in all kinds of ways -- but the story always comes out the same, no matter the issue.

Democrats may be split on whether to do the right thing or the expedient thing, but the Republicans all scream and howl for the wrong thing to be done and done immediately.

@NetRunner - You're quoted comment went haywire, so I removed it.

Who has extended the predator strikes into Pakistan? Don't lie to yourself. Democrats are not as clean as you imagine them to be, they are politicians; with a healthy taxpayer income. Not to mention the proceeds they incur from your plutocratic partners.

I have a hard time respecting your arguments when they come from absurdity, eliminating republicans would stop the wars? I've got a hard time believing that especially when there is no empirical evidence to prove it; just speculation. Given that defense contractors can contribute as much as they like now, to anyone's campaign.

Although I would like a literate third, fourth, fifth party to come in and marginalize the republicans.

This is me advocating targeting civilians:
>> ^xxovercastxx:

You combat terrorism by providing aide to the people who need it or, at the very least, minding your business and not making their lives worse.

That's the only place in my post where I advocated anything, so I guess that must be it.

It's entirely clear from my post that I am against the continuation of the war in Afghanistan. What I did say is that, in a normal war, against an opposing military, you have to accept that you will kill civilians when attacking some military targets. If you think I'm advocating killing civilians then you really ought to have a look at this because you seem to think "advocate" means "to discuss or mention".

Assuming for argument that I was advocating killing civilians, your argument/tantrum still falls apart because advocating a war crime is not in itself a war crime.

In conclusion: Fuck me? No, no, no, my friend, fuck you.

>> ^rougy:


Fuck you. He advocated targeting civilian populations. That is a war crime.
And you advocated the same thing. You think it's a good idea to kill innocent Afghanis, people who have not attacked the USA, nor will they ever, and that is a war crime as well.
You're both a couple of cunt war criminals and you should be hanged.
Grip on that.
You should both be killed.
Hey, I'm just doing what you're doing, same philosophy, exactly, but from the side of sanity.
See, in order to stop this war, we'll have to kill its supporters.