Obama is so bad, he made me realize that there is not much of a difference between a republican neocon warmonger and a "socialist" democrat.

Our establishment is starting to lose patience with SACEUR vis-á-vis Russia/Ukraine:

Breedlove's Bellicosity

They offer a small list of lies and exaggerations by Breedlove. Our previous Chairman of the NATO Military Committee has been calling out all the warmongering for months, but for SPIEGEL to run this story, in English no less, strikes me as a shot across the bow.

@enoch agree 100%. You got it.

@gwiz665 @Ashenkase @Taint Wow. Were you listening? Did we see the same video ? Harris made not one legitimate point.

Sam Harris has proven himself to be an ignorant warmongering bigot, holding one set of rules for Christianity and Judaism, whilst vilifying Islam in an utterly unreasonable way. The same acts carried out by Christianity and Judaism are excused. If a muslim had suggested the things Harris is quoted as saying there would be international outrage, water boarding or worse. As Cenk aptly put it, all religions are equally guilty.

Begging Cenk to pull the Reza Aslan video was just sad and sickening, crying that he had no chance at recourse whilst being interviewed for 3 hours.. pathetic.

I don't particularly like O'Reilly's conservatism and warmongering, but about this, Colbert is simply ignorant or worse. "OMG, mercenaries going rogue!" Because, y'know, the state's armies never go "rogue" or cause any "mayhem." Nope! Not in WW 1. Not in WW 2. Not in Korea. Not in Vietnam. Not in Latin America. Not in Iraq. Not in Afghanistan, or anywhere else!. Nope. Not ever.

The American forces never goes rogue and Bradley/Chelsea Manning is not being locked up for exposing the never-rogue nature of the American forces.

I don't think Colbert is an idiot. So I'm inclined to think that Hoppe may be correct and Colbert is just part of the "intelligensia," paid to promote stupidity among the masses. (OMG, I'm beginning to sound like "OMG Bernays!")

@lantern53
did you just compare a famous nazi warmongering propagandist (who got his playbook from an american *edward bernaise*) to a political satirist?

a political satirist who is skewering actual so-called "journalists"?

jon stewart is NOT a journalist and this segment is not about reporting on ferguson but rather pointing to the absurdity of some news outlets and how THEY propagandize.

nobody knows for certain the details of what went down,mainly in part to "news" outlets such as the daily show is revealing to be muppets rather than journalists but ALSO how the police department is handling the situation.

the news outlets are also ignoring the under lying reasons why there was rioting and looting.

or do you actually believe that people in this community just decided to blow up businesses and take to the streets.as if it were inherent to their nature and that rioting is fun!
yaaay rioting! WEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeEEEE!

but maybe...
juuuust maybe.
there had been an ongoing persecution brought on by years of flagrant abuse of authority and a disproportionate focus on this poor community?
think that could be possible?
not only is it possible but probable,because thats exactly what many of the residents have actually said.

a few decades of bad policing will have that effect on people.

who is the blame?
do we blame the residents?who after years of police stepping on their necks resorts to violence?
well,they do hold some responsibility.though we may understand,we cannot condone.

or do we blame the police?

well,several weeks ago you made the argument that it was actually those in command that set the tone for the entire force.

that was a good argument.
i agree with that argument.
being former military i understand the chain of command and how vital it is to a working and successful force that wields immense power.

so here is my basic problem with your commentary:
you chastise stewart for ignoring the violence,rioting and protesting,while at the VERY SAME TIME ignore the REASONS why that that violence erupted.

you appear to be very vocal in your support of the police,ANY police,which commendable...even noble,but you,yourself,noted that those in command could be corrupt,vicious and incompetent.

so my question is this:
why would you defend those cops?

There's some serious warmongering going on in the German press vis-à-vis Russia these days... lots of outright propaganda.

Small example? Der Spiegel runs "Stop Putin Now!" on its cover. And yes, those pictures are victims of MH17.

Just wrong huh, Ok then this is gonna be fun.

Firstly I was answering the question posed by Russell Brand "Is Fox News more dangerous than ISIS?" Which any reasonable person, especially those who have had a family member blown away in Iraq recently can say NO They are NOT.

Second Point, was it Fox that was convincing the American Public of WMDs and warmongering, or was it everyone? There wasn't a channel you could find that wasn't fully behind the government because that is what they do. In this area Fox isn't special, you could've turned on CNN and MSNBC at anytime and seen a 95% to 5% reporting in for the war and against.

Also the fact that the public was much of a factor in the run up to war, not as much as you'd think. There was simply a lot of ambivalence but support for our troops. Due to the fact that we have an all volunteer mercenary force it's just a lot easier to ignore that Johnny is being marched off to war. It's not right, it's just how it is.

In conclusion, Fox, the News Network isn't worse than ISIS. They're just not, end of.

EDIT: Also it doesn't seem like I should have to point this out to people but I guess I do. Russell Brand is a funny comedian, he is not fucking Noam Chomsky. He isn't around to provide cogent analysis and if I met him I would agree with some things he says and destroy him on his ridiculous hyperbole. He's not meant to report to us in an honest way, that's not what he does that's not what he's known for. Look for people like this to inject insight into the discussion and you get exactly what you deserve.

Calling something bullshit does not constitute a counter-argument.

Also, saying that being anti-war is "white libertarian bullshit" is kind of insulting to non-whites.

However, being anti-war is certainly libertarian.

But saying that it's bullshit simply says more about you than it does about being anti-war.
Still, as we've seen with the likes of John McCain or Dick Cheney, there's no arguing with warmongers like you

"As I see it, there is a finite amount of money"

This is only true if cryptocurrencies like BitCoin have their way. According to the Fed, by contrast, an infinite amount of money is but just one click away...

Cronyism aside, this is not true at all:
"When one minimally productive person gets 50% of the capital in a project, it's impossible for anyone else to be compensated fairly."

No minimally productive person would get 50% in a free market. And "minimally productive" according to whom? Are you going by the Labor Theory of value? Because the Subjective Theory of Value posits otherwise. It shows that this could not happen (providing an absence of cronyism which, at the moment, is baked into the system). In other words, no one would voluntarily pay 50% of anything to someone they consider to be minimally productive. Would you?

Money is just a medium of exchange whose value is determined by the market. There are some scarce resources (as well as some non-scarce ones). Having limited money/medium of exchange makes prices go down. Wouldn't you want to pay less for gas, food, etc.? When the central banks inflate the currency (i.e., increase the money supply), there is potentially "unlimited" money to buy scarce goods. The market then makes prices rise as a result, making people effectively poorer.

"To say "much of the world is coming out of poverty" ignores reality. Perhaps the ruling class of much of the world is coming out of poverty"

Flat wrong: Look at the statistics. Millions in India, China, Southeast Asia, and other places throughout the world have come out of poverty in the last couple of decades. This is a fact.

The ruling class is never among the poor so I don't know what you mean by, "perhaps the ruling class of much of the world is coming out of poverty." What?

"This is usually not in spite of governments, but rather because of them."

Sure, it is mostly because of governments that such poverty takes so long to be eradicated. Corruption and stupid ideas like the "war on poverty," along with cronyism, currency inflation, commercial regulations, taxes, "intellectual property" laws, and more all contribute to this stupidity which keeps people poor. Throughout the history of civilization, only innovation and free commerce has brought people out of poverty on a larger scale.

I won't argue, however, against the idea that governments are always corrupt, since I completely agree. Nothing good comes out of government that could not come to us, more efficiently, more cheaply, and more effectively from private free commerce.

"Praxeology only shows what human behavior is like"

More or less, it shows the logic and the logical consequences of the fact that humans act.

"it is not an accurate predictor of behavior in an environmental hypothesis."

It depends on what you mean to predict. It is not prediction. It deals in apodictic certainties. Humans act and employ chosen means to achieve desired goals. These are certainties, not predictions. Other things are unknowns, like time preference, the means chosen, the goals desired, etc. and those you need to either predict (thymology) or wait and see (history).

"History is better, and when wealth inequality becomes so outrageous that the populace can't survive on what's left for them, they revolt."

So far yes, history would indicate this is a likely outcome or consequence, although you may need to look more closely at which sector of "the populace" has historically revolted or instigated revolt.

"I hope that this asshat (even if he's just pretending to be an asshat) is among the first ones hung, quartered, and force fed to his own family (like they did in France)"

What has he done to deserve being tortured and murdered? I am unclear about that. The revolution in France, of course, was a disaster that amounted to little good for all involved. But things like that have happened before, and could certainly happen again. Same with the Russian Revolution. Or the Nazi takeover of bankrupt Weimar Republic.

Human behavior cannot be predicted mathematically. Only econometricians seem to think so. Certainly not praxeologists! In fact, that's the basis of Misean praxeology: that you cannot predict human behavior and so economics differs from the natural sciences and requires a different method of analysis.

"that placates the Right Wing, right?"

I have no idea what would "placate the Right wing" or not. Let's not conflate right-wing statists with anarchists. Two completely different things. I also don't care what would "placate" the right wing.


If you really care about inequality, do what you can to oppose government policy, especially warmongering and central banking. They are the biggest contributors to the class divide, regardless of how you parse the data. (Of course, you may find that you can do very little.)

If you think you should be paid as much as the CEO of Apple, then by all means you should try applying to that job. I am not saying you are not worth it, but it's not me you have to convince...

OMFG... the threads... First Bob calls liberals two faced, but Conservatives were upset at the Dixie Chicks when they spoke out against Bush and his wars. Many conservatives demanded the Dixie Chips sponsors drop them and had large CD burning events, all over the fact they spoke their mind and their beliefs. Now these same people are upset at A&E for suspending a guy (a rather worthless suspension since the upcoming season is already filmed and he's already in it, and it is making free publicity for a stupid show about rich people).

This isn't a free speech issue. He isn't in jail for espousing anti-gay and racist remarks. He was suspended for saying something that made his part time employer look bad. Food Network fired Paula Dean. There was a PR lady who was going to Africa on a business trip that got fired after she tweeted she hopes she doesn't get AIDS, but no problem since she's white. You represent your company, officially or not, and make them look bad, your employer can fire you. You can say what you want, but sometimes that speech has consequences. A&E created the Duck Dynasty image, he made their network look bad, they have the right to suspend him... suspend, they didn't even fully fire him. Were they really outraged they would have pulled the show or edited him out of the upcoming season, but they didn't do any of that. They made a publicity grabbing move to suspend him.

This video also highlights the one key point I've been saying the whole time. That Jesus Himself said it is impossible for a rich man to get into heaven, doesn't matter if they want to or do follow Him, they have their reward here, and won't have one in Heaven. So Phil goes off on how gays are "full of murder" and how they won't inherit the Kingdom of God, but ignores that part where Jesus Himself said that people like Phil won't go to Heaven.

Then high, blaming it on some Atheist agenda. The same thing would have happened regardless of what religion or lack there of he had. This has nothing to do with Atheist wanting to make Christians look bad, as there is plenty of outrage over what he said in many Christian circles... you do know most liberals are Christian as well. Yes, most Atheist tend to be liberal, but the largest voting block of Democrats and Greens are Christian. People who take the Bible as the literal word of God, and believe Jesus was serious when He said to help the needy and poor, that the rich won't go to Heaven, that blessed are the peacemaker and not the warmongering Republicans, that when you pray, to pray in secret and not make a show of it the way modern Conservatives do, that know the reason for the destruction of Sodom according to the Bible was that "she was a land of plenty and did nothing to help the needy and poor", basically full of modern Conservatives, that the thing with the Angels happened after the city was condemned to be destroyed and they were there to rescue Lot's family, before Lot pulled the father of the year by offering his young daughters (think Olson Twins) over the angelic warriors of God (think Conan the Barbarian and Rambo) with magical powers, rather than just a simple "no". Anyhow, plenty of Christians are upset at what Phil said, because it makes Christians look bad, he not only bashed gays, but thought blacks were fine under the old Jim Crow era laws, thought Nazis were Jesus free, though Jesus and the Bible was their main defense for all they did... He basically made the Conservative Christians look like they ignore the main teaching of Jesus which was to Love one another. Jesus hung out with the sinners and tax collectors and told them of the love of God, not how God is going to condemn them all to Hell. If Jesus was alive in modern day America, he'd be hanging out in San Francisco talking about the love of God, not fighting to deny them equal rights under the law.

And of course Shiny... The controversy with Chick-fil-a isn't so much what some stupid old rich man says, he also made it clear that was the position of the company as a whole. And that anti-gay money was going to organizations that actively campaign not only to make being gay illegal in the US, in other countries where it is gay and punishable by death, they campaign to keep the death penalty attached to it. That said, at least Siny agrees that A&E had no choice... though, based on past posts, I don't think Shiny sees that the whole modern day Conservative movement is driven by the greed factor, that modern Christian Conservatives are willing to toss out every government program to help the needy and the poor so that they can give tax breaks to the rich...

It's all a free publicity stunt. I'm sure A&E will cave in, or Phil will issue some semi apology, "like I still believe it is a sin, but I'm sorry I likened them to murderers and I'm sorry about offending any blacks, I was just noting my personal observations growing up" type thing and he'll continue to rake in millions, going against the very Jesus he claims to follow... and he'll be right back on.

YouTube Comment: "This is called 'Iran Facts' but leaves one of the most important one out. And that is the US and the UK staged a coup in Iran because it was going to nationalise the oil and then a more hard line leader came in after the revolution. This is also a propaganda video by AIPAC, the warmongering Israeli lobby that gets the US to go to war on their behalf."

It seems as if Ed Miliband and his jolly horde actually managed to postpone the strike by a few days. Who'd have thought that there might be substantial opposition in Britain's parliament...

I did not see this coming, to be honest. They're still going to strike, but at least their warmongering will be on the fucking record.

The picture is golden, by the way. Protective gear for the foreigners, a pack of smokes for the locals.

Has anyone checked the source of the translation, MEMRI?

Never heard of 'em, but Wiki has some basic info that makes it appear to me like a bloody propaganda outfit. Look at the names listed: Michael Hayden (NSA/CIA), Paul Bremmer and John Bolten (Bush's warmongers), Ehud Barak (fmr. Israeli Minister of Defence) and running the show is Yigal Carmon, who is listed as an Israeli spook.

Call me cynical, but I smell a touch of manipulative propaganda. Not saying the story is false, just that it might have been picked, pushed and hyped for a political purpose other than the suffering of Yemeni girls/women.

Is that Melanie Philips on the other end of the table? Did she excrete more of her warmongering dribble on Iran again?