I'm not sure how these should be fixed. They're all pretty close to each other, but not identical. The two on the "Military Industrial Complex" are probably identical, I'd guess, but one is dead now.

no offense to anyone meant
but on subjects not directly related to the economy or money, its not important, or an indication of the republic working

its just smoke and mirrors, what the "two" parties use to differentiate themselves

the really important stuff, like economics, war, military industrial complex, etc... both parties are exactly the same on the issue... and stuff like this is allowed to happen to make people think they actually have some impact in a society where government is the lackey of corporate interest and greed

i'm sure this is important to alot of people, but don't lose sight of the fact that if your master was willing to throw you that bone, they probably weren't that attached to it in the first place

look over here, but not over here

@NordlichReiter it sounded to me like you just agreed with all my points.

Republicans need to go, period. The SCOTUS is in the hands of right-wing activist judges. The influence of the military-industrial complex would wane if we stopped engaging in wars and cut defense spending. Hell, you even said that killing the F-22 and C-17 (which only happened due to Obama's veto threats) was a good thing.

You didn't mount any kind of argument that Democrats would indeed continue the war if the Republican party and their media cheerleaders disappeared.

If I were Stephen Colbert, I'd be saying "I accept your apology" right about now.

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.

Military-industrial complex, FUCK YEAH!!!!!!

Kinda starting to look that way.

I have no doubt the military-industrial complex is working hard to ensure this happens. So are American oil companies, wall street, and other uber-rich folks. Obama promised change - changing the the country you invade doesn't count. If I were Iran, I would be building nukes.

It'll be interesting to see what other Dem's have to say about this (if any).>> ^blankfist:

Obama = Bush?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^rougy:
There is little correlation between what Obama says and what Obama does.

It's not even that, so much as what Candidate Obama said pre-2008 vs. what President Obama says now.
That's what's grating on me at this point. I expected him to be merely center-left in policy, but I figured he'd at least make an eloquent case for progressive ideals on a regular basis.
Instead, he seems to want to avoid any and all political or ideological confrontation.
We don't need unity, we need for the left to beat the right so thoroughly they can't win an election for dog-catcher until they tilt way back to the left themselves.


You mean campaign promises, and actually keeping them?

Huh, seems like we've been down that road. The big ones for me are Extraordinary Rendition, and Habeus Corpus. Demoralized Idealist. Same shit, different day. The people need to educate themselves about what really matters, false wars, bailouts, Military Industrial Complex, Militarization of the Police, Prohibition, Equal Rights for all types of sexuality, and lastly this idea that Transparency is good in speeches but in practice it's a dangerous thing.

As brother kulpims already ^pointed out, that's a V-22 Osprey, and they have been surrounded by controversy ever since they were in testing phase. Even Dick Cheney tried to kill it when he was Secretary of Defense (bottom of page 1), if you can believe that. Alas, the military-industrial complex scores another victory.

>> ^ajkido:

I wonder what motivation the cops have to do this. Do they actually take direct orders from politicians (who I could see having some motivation)?


Policing has changed into a multi billion dollar business. Some police agencies have taken it upon themselves to claim bigger paces of the government pie by creating situations. It is a combination of misguided idealism and self satisfaction. You could quickly summarize it as part of the Eisenhower military industrial complex. It is a feed back loop.

But in order to achieve that, DFT, I think we have to get away from the Republicans and Democrats because as a large unit they've routinely propped up the military industrial complex. Nonpartisan, baby! Nonpartisan!

>> ^NordlichReiter:
Every one in here is missing the fucking point. There are three evils that influence the government; Bankers, the Military Industrial Complex, and the Big fucking Business.

Partisan politics. Keep fucking that chicken.


It's true, BF, NR and I fill up threads with a partisan back and forth that - while fun - goes nowhere. I'm never going to convince blanco that taxes are not theft, and blankfist is never going to convince me that the free market has anything to do with liberty. But, we do have common enemies: banks, the military industrial complex, big oil and big business in general.

What if we joined forces? Why don't we 4 little fleas start a movement? We could do it right here.

I guess it's time for every one to have that bar-code and government issued cars now. I mean, shit, since free market failed.

I suppose it's time we just let the government decide every, fucking, thing. I mean look at the "cracker-jack job" they did with Iraq, the bailout and, fuck, the oil spill too.

Fuck it let 'em own the markets, they'd love the power to go to war at a whim; wait they already do.

Every one in here is missing the fucking point. There are three evils that influence the government; Bankers, the Military Industrial Complex, and the Big fucking Business. There comes a point in time when an organization becomes so big that it fails to see the negative effects it is causing, I'm looking at you British Petroleum or better known as the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and you Wall Street. The previous list can go on and on.

This whole; party, free market, regulated market, class warfare and the rest are all things that keep the people from seeing the real problem; lobbyists, and corrupt officials. The whole culture of government needs to change.

Partisan politics, keep fucking that chicken.

Dwight Eisenhower warned of the military/industrial complex nearly 50 years ago, but nobody in government is going to cut spending and force thousands of workers out of their jobs to save the rest of us. It'll look bad when old people and teabaggers go to vote.

Enjoy your fireworks show when another country has something we want.

People, people, it's so obviously a joint NSA-KGB plot to infiltrate Poland using Elvis, armed with hijacked alien artifacts. THINK ABOUT IT! There were *no* cameras around when the plane allegedly "crashed". Coincidence? They're covering up the fact that there was no plane crash, but an ancient mayan temple disguised as a plane crash to fool the sheepish population! Cloning the Polish president was easy enough, and detonating a combined EMP- and time compression bomb in orbit around the earth diverted attention from the military industrial complex trying to create another cold war buildup in the region. The new world order organisation controlling the media will see to it that the population buys into these lies, but luckily I was able to research the truth!