I actually have The Quantum Thief on my kindle, and started one or two chapters, but put it down for some reason. I'll have to start it again, then.

I've been reading a couple of biographies: Mao: A Life, and Chris Matthew's new book on JFK, Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero.

At the risk of trying to be smarter than big Noam am I the only one not surprised that Obama can't control a multi-trillion dollar war machine that's been doing it's own thing since '45? The only president to ever really try was JFK..

Btw that's Jeremy Paxman interviewing, probably for BBC newsnight.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Payback:
This isn't a threat, "JFK was the last Democratic president to oppose an oil pipeline. Just sayin'." is a threat.

Don't start with me! I WILL RAIN FIRE UPON YOUR COMMENT SECTION!!!


Bring it. I got a kevlar-lined asbestos umbrella.

>> ^Payback:

This isn't a threat, "JFK was the last Democratic president to oppose an oil pipeline. Just sayin'." is a threat.


Don't start with me! I WILL RAIN FIRE UPON YOUR COMMENT SECTION!!!

This isn't a threat, "JFK was the last Democratic president to oppose an oil pipeline. Just sayin'." is a threat.

>> ^bobknight33:

Agreed.
However how could any black person vote Democrat, the party that created the KKK to keep people from voting Republican? The Vast majority of Blacks were Republican all the wall up through Dr. Martin Luther King. Then things changed. Strange that the party of lynching became the party of entitlements which in-turned re-enslaved people. >> ^therealblankman:
All good points but I still can't believe Ron Paul, as smart as that man is, allowed that hateful racist shit to be published under his name.



Well, what happened was that the southern Democrats and "Dixiecrats" abandoned the party in droves thanks to the civil rights reforms started under JFK and consummated under Lyndon Johnson with the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the later Voting Rights Act. Those same southern rednecks and racists found a warm reception in the Republican party and now form the base for that party and its radical wing, the "Tea Party". These same people are also behind the more recent gerrymandering in Texas and elsewhere, as well as the blatantly racist tactic of denying poor blacks and other minorities their franchise under the guise of "Voter Registration Reform".

Lyndon Johnson. Man, you've got to hand it to him. The man had them all fooled... they thought he was one of them, a "Good Old Boy", and would maintain the status quo of racism and segregation. He turned out to be the greatest Presidential advocate for civil rights since Lincoln. Call me a revisionist, but leaving Vietnam aside (which is impossible, I know) Johnson was truly heroic in forcing civil rights down their collective bigoted throats. A lot of heroes came out of that time, a lot of martyrs too- including Martin Luther King.

As to the video itself, I think Penn may have poorly stated the part about the unification of Christians, but he's still on to something. The different sects used to be less cooperative than they are now. Just look at the mistrust of JFK during his election. Now, clearly it wasn't too strong or he'd have lost, but you don't see that sort of thing as much now. It's still there; just look at the statements about Mormons by other Christians during the last and current election cycles; but most of the churches stand more or less together now.

The thing I really disagree with in this video is the Hitchens quote; the part about this being the death throes of religion. If anything, I see a power surge in religion since 9/11. Yes, the critics are louder now than ever and they are growing in "power", if you will, but I think religion is growing in power just as much. The balance is not shifting, we just have lots of previously neutral people picking sides.

If anything, I feel we're well on our way to a new Crusade with a not-insignificant portion of US Christians calling for the extermination of Muslims and a small but not-insignificant portion of Muslims calling for the extermination of Americans.

Depending on how things pan out, I would not rule out a major religious war in the next 50-100 years. Depending on how that goes, it could destroy or embolden religion in the US. If it's a long, hard-fought war, I could see people becoming disillusioned. If, as I suspect, the United States of Christianity simply blot out the "heathen uprisings", then I could see this being taken as an affirmation of the faith.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sngWRpzhcVU

Running the gov't is NOT the same as running a business. Why do you think that being a successful CEO means jack crap? Businesses are for profit; gov't is not. George W. Bush ran the Houston Texans, but was he an effective president? HELL NO!

I don't give a crap about the sexual harassment stuff with Cain. I care about the video above. He clearly does not understand the issues. This has nothing to do with my disagreement with his ideas.

That's the difference between you and I. You define your opponents as teleprompt reading, constitution rewriting, deficit spending, fascist, communist, socialist, marxist scumbags because you disagree with their ideas. You of course conveniently forget about a lot of those tendencies when it's a Republican. Where's your name calling with Reagan running all those deficits under his watch? I disagree with Ron Paul vehemently, but I don't call him any names. I just say he's too rigid in his ideology in my opinion to be an effective President. Cain however would be a bad president, regardless of his ideology because he clearly doesn't understand the issues.

You can call every Democratic president ever elected all the names you want, but FDR was an effective president. Ditto Truman, JFK...


>> ^quantumushroom:

I agree Perry's done, for reasons other than this.
You say, I want to hear more ideas from people who have brains, and can actually solve real world problems.
Thanks for not mentioning the Telepromptesident. Since Cain's ideas are "no threat", how about letting him get a word in edgewise before the leftmedia trots out another lying asshole who's made a litigious career out of being "sexually-harassed"?

>> ^heropsycho:
Dude, seriously?! One guy got tripped up explaining his point. The other guy forgot a crucial key element of his entire policy. When you're talking about completely eliminating an entire federal agency, which is a big deal, you should at least know which one you're talking about. That's just ridiculous.
Perry's done. Let's end the idiot parade and hear from Republicans who can actually remember what their ideas are in more depth, or who aren't completely off their rockers. Perry, Bachmann, Santorum shouldn't even be invited to debates at this point if they're not gonna withdraw from the race. I want to hear more ideas from people who have brains, and can actually solve real world problems.

>> ^quantumushroom:
And this is the guy that got elected. Ah ha ha ha ha ha!
2012.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-jfk


*Promote

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ponceleon:
Actually I have no problem with motive. I heard Ron Paul say at the debates that we are spending 20bil to air-condition tents for soldiers in Afghanistan... that 20bil is making SOMEONE really rich, so there is definitely a LOT of profit to be made in war.
I guess I should've been more clear. I agree that there's a full array of means, motive, and opportunity for Bushclan/Templars/Majestic 12, etc. to conspire to make the whole 9/11 attack happen in the first place.
What I don't understand is the way that suspicion has transformed into a decade-long attempt to prove that demolitions brought down the various WTC building. I simply can't fathom why anyone would do that, especially if you were a super-capable secret cabal concocting the entire scenario to manipulate people.
If it was an evil organization who could secretly wire the building with explosives, then why wouldn't they just pop the explosives and blame Al Qaeda for it? Why would they hire/manipulate Al Qaeda into flying airplanes into the building, and then demo the building Hollywood style? It seems like it'd be a huge risk (what if someone found the explosives early or evidence of them after?) for no apparent reward.
The buildings fell because of the planes that got flown into them. The real questions to be asking if you're looking for a conspiracy would be "did anyone seem to know about it in advance who shouldn't have?" or more damningly, "did anyone seem to disregard advance information about it who shouldn't have?"
You know, like someone who ignored intelligence briefings with titles like "bin Laden determined to strike in the US"...


Netrunner, what's your thoughts on Operation Northwoods?

Northwoods was a false-flag operation plan by the CIA in 1962. It called for terrorist attacks like hijacking planes, disguising US fighter jets as Cuban MIG fighters, and killing US citizens.

Journalist James Bamford summarized Operation Northwoods in his April 24, 2001 book Body of Secrets:
"Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war."


The plan was on the desk of JFK and he refused. JFK was later assassinated. The following year LBJ used the staged Gulf of Tonkin incident to go to war in Vietnam. The people that questioned that incident were called conspiracy nuts. But the truth eventually came out, and it will for 9/11 also.

The point is false-flag attacks and government manipulation of evidence is nothing new. And is certainly nothing our government hasn't done before.

>> ^alizarin:

I'd love to see this applied to some famous things like Zapruder JFK assassination film, the Patterson-Gimlin bigfoot film, etc.


Or the Blair Witch Project...

I'd love to see this applied to some famous things like Zapruder JFK assassination film, the Patterson-Gimlin bigfoot film, etc.

This was after he released hundreds of turtles on the runway. REVOLUTION!!!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Ich Bin ein Berliner, jfk, jelly donut, germany' to 'Ich bin ein Berliner, jfk, jelly donut, germany, kennedy, 1963' - edited by DerHasisttot

As I've been a little misunderstood and quoted out of context, I'll quote myself:

In general, videos that depict a person being killed just for the horror factor are not exempt from our snuff guidelines. Furthermore, there is no discussion or debate to be had; the video just says "watch this guy murder this cop!"

If this exact video was the reverse, where the cop in the firefight survived by killing the driver of the truck, it would still be considered snuff. This would just be no more than "watch this cop defend himself and kill this guy to death!" However, if it was a case of an officer abusing his power to the point that a life is lost, it has greater potential to elevate the video's significance beyond the sole act of killing.

It is typically easier for a video to fall outside our snuff guidelines when an officer is unlawfully inflicting rather than unlawfully receiving the fatality because such events are by nature more likely to be worthy of discussion/debate. (Criminals are supposed to commit crimes; cops are not.) Think "dog bites man" versus "man bites dog."

1. First no death at all was allowed. People protested that videos like JFK's assassination should be allowed. We relented, allowing historic events.
2. People protested that a news story covering a gay couple being executed in a Muslim country should be allowed. We relented, allowing "newsworthy" videos and "brief parts of lengthy news broadcasts."
3. People protested that the world needs to see police officers abusing their power and murdering innocent people. These videos are often allowed.
4. Now you're protesting that we should allow videos of civilians killing police officers because we allow police officers murdering civilians. If we allowed that, the next member would protest that we're hypocrites because we allow civilians murdering police but not civilians murdering civilians. And the slippery slope continues...