did u guys hear obama's address on the military "pared-down" forces? that was a god damn joke of an address, but what caught my guard was the talk about "being as vulnerable" as we were during WWII what is he or more importantly the pentagon, getting ready for?
"Society is, always has been and always will be a structure for the exploitation and oppression of the majority through systems of political force dictated by an elite, enforced by thugs, uniformed or not, and upheld by a willful ignorance and stupidity on the part of the very majority whom the system oppresses"
did u guys hear obama's address on the military "pared-down" forces? that was a god damn joke of an address, but what caught my guard was the talk about "being as vulnerable" as we were during WWII what is he or more importantly the pentagon, getting ready for?
I'm sorry man, but this IS the dude america needs. I DON'T GIVE A FUCK about the economy, when our freedoms are in jeopardy. I mean, look at how RIGHT he is, up to today!
I like Ron Paul, except, for everything he says that is right, he has something equally as bad. Or that's how it seems at least. For instance, he wants to eliminate Social Security completely, and I've never heard his suggest where the money I've invested will go. I don't want my $$ to just disappear.
Notman,
no i thought so too, but he just wants to give people a choice to opt out when their 25 or so. [ame="www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6Exn4Qk5Uk"]HERE[/ame] he just doesn't like mandates. but i don't wanna sound like a paulbot. just this dude keeps making more and more sense. he's the only one who brings up the NDAA.
I actually liked the idea of having it sent to a 401k (if they didn't charge maintenance fees). I just don't want to see my SS contributions disappear, because congress dipped their fingers into that pot. It should NEVER have been touched, and it's why I get so furious when they start talking about how they are going to fund it. It's like maxing out your credit card, and then asking where the money to make the payments will come from (and expect the CC company to forgive the debt).
Honestly, I wish Ron Paul would become an independent, if he doesn't win the Rep nomination (which I think Mitt will win). If he didn't win, I still think he would get the second number of votes.
I like Obama over any other option available right now. Overall, I don't like Obama, even though I voted for him. He's improved things, but there has been plenty that has bothered me and this NDAA, was the tipper. If Ron Paul becomes a voting option, I'm going to serious consider voting for him.
I'm a huge fan of ron paul idealistically, i'm very very glad he's a front and center part of the discussion for once... But the idea of a country as wealthy and powerful and america, with as much capability to help its own citizens, cutting back into a fully libertarian kind of policy is pretty horrifying. Would never vote for the man for president.
Considering how much this forum supported occupy, it's puzzling that the absolute philosophical opposite of reducing the poverty gap would get any kind of support here.
suprose i hear ya, but i like to stand for principles first. this could all be possible thru the income tax but the income tax is used to pay off the Federal Reserve and fund wars. If it were used for a social safety net the united states would be a different place. as of right now it's just a legal plundering system.
i supported OCCUPY not cause of their views but because of the bias of the Media, they should get to protest because if they don't then who will?
if you read the constitution, it's basically Classic Liberalism which is exactly what libertarianism is. Keep the government at the same level as the people and care for the most vulnerable citizen over the most privileged.
These days the language has been lost and people think liberals and progressives are the same thing. this is one of the reason people are scared and misinformed.
but the main reason i would vote for him, is to Break the trend of corruption in washington, and paul wouldn't have the support to do everything he wants. but he would have the power to end the wars, close all foreign military bases and, kill all the executive orders from the last 20 years. that's a god damn good ass start.
if you read the constitution, it's basically Classic Liberalism which is exactly what libertarianism is. Keep the government at the same level as the people and care for the most vulnerable citizen over the most privileged.
That's exactly the thing though, that's one super key part of (most) libertarianism that's a problem -- Paul does not, as far as i know, support standardized healthcare or welfare or public projects to support the poor. I'm not saying he'd personally abolish it, but his politics are philosophically against 'handouts' to the underclass that a capitalism can create. Which I think is pretty ethically shaky considering the mad money a country like the united states makes off of these people's backs.
And why in the world would closing all foreign military bases be a good idea? Sure, close some, but no more bases in Europe or Asia? That's a bad idea, because in the short-term it will be great and save loads of money, but in the long term there will be a war which would either be avoided due to our power-projection, or which could be fought more effectively with it.
The US is a military machine, and it has to stay that way to maintain it's position in the world. Maybe that sounds stupid/evil/imperialist/whatever, but military power has always been one of the best thing a nation could have, and in the current political and technological climate, that power is useless if you can't project it effectively.
This is exactly the kind of thing I don't like about Ron Paul. For all the good things he says, he throws in some disastrous policies. "So the US is nosediving. Lets close our bases, abandon our allies and hand Asia to China, and just hope we can all hug that shit out when it comes to inevitable conflict in 10-20 years!" Bullshit.
And our absurdly enormous defense budget has prevented countless wars (ethical value debatable, though, since they've also created western oppression of certain factions) and led to numerous tremendously beneficial civilian technologies. Ever looked at the stuff DARPA funds? They funded this thing called ARPANET which you might have heard of once or twice.
The US is a military machine, and it has to stay that way to maintain it's position in the world. Maybe that sounds stupid/evil/imperialist/whatever, but military power has always been one of the best thing a nation could have, and in the current political and technological climate
dfacto, i don't know dude, look at Switzerland, they basically have none. and they have been neutral forever, and world war 2 was happening around it. Why can't we be neutral? depending on bullying the world is wrong and foreign countries loose their sovereignty. meaning they will always be arms races. look at what we did to argentina with our power and petrodollar. it's evil. I respect your opinion tho.
suprose, i think this is where most people get him wrong, what he talks about is the FEDERAL gov, not the state level gov. all of what you mentioned can be done at the state level. within the constitution. the states are the democracies the fed is the republic.
but what paul argues is that the federal gov should ONLY look out for our rights, institute a sound currency, and uphold contracts and laws.
dfacto, i don't know dude, look at Switzerland, they basically have none. and they have been neutral forever, and world war 2 was happening around it. Why can't we be neutral? depending on bullying the world is wrong and foreign countries loose their sovereignty. meaning they will always be arms races. look at what we did to argentina with our power and petrodollar. it's evil. I respect your opinion tho.
1) Better to be the right hand of the devil than in his path, as the saying goes. Yeah it's evil, but that's the way it's always been and will be. And all things considered the US has a benign world footprint. With this much power things could be much much worse, and if we allow another nation to supersede us, things might get much much worse. Then we'll be high and dry because some genius decided to gut the one institution which separates empires from vassal states.
2) No way we're going neutral after all the shit we've done. If we divest ourselves of power only nuclear deterrence will keep us safe. And that's just somewhere I'd rather the world not go again.
i understand, but i just wouldn't go as far as to say this.
And all things considered the US has a benign world footprint.
um, vietnam, korean war, chile (pinochet), Iran (1953, the shah), argentina, iraq, yemen, afghanistan, pakistan, libya, egypt, now syria. it won't stop.
now, if you accumulate the civilain deaths in all these wars... it's even worse than anything hitler did. I mean, this type of empire is hitler's wet dream.
i think our biggest threat is our economic and industry. 70% of the united states economy is consumerism. if this thing collapses it would take decades to get back to where we were in 2000.
With the power the US holds and it's track record you could make a decent argument for it being one of the least evil empires in history. Not to say it's sunshine and lollipops, but it's no Roman empire. Under the auspices of US military might the West has seen prosperity and peace, and Russia and Asia in general weren't oppressed and also saw growth and prosperity.
Sucks to be Africa, South America and the middle east, but that's just par for the course at this point. Maybe they should consider not being horribly corrupt.
And why in the world would closing all foreign military bases be a good idea? Sure, close some, but no more bases in Europe or Asia? That's a bad idea, because in the short-term it will be great and save loads of money, but in the long term there will be a war which would either be avoided due to our power-projection, or which could be fought more effectively with it.
So would you be cool with the UK, or France, having military bases here?
Sucks to be Africa, South America and the middle east, but that's just par for the course at this point. Maybe they should consider not being horribly corrupt.
But see that was The United States Agenda that suppressed South America, just read the Monroe Doctrine. that's what really established the empire.
With the power the US holds and it's track record you could make a decent argument for it being one of the least evil empires in history. Not to say it's sunshine and lollipops, but it's no Roman empire. Under the auspices of US military might the West has seen prosperity and peace, and Russia and Asia in general weren't oppressed and also saw growth and prosperity.
Sucks to be Africa, South America and the middle east, but that's just par for the course at this point. Maybe they should consider not being horribly corrupt.
I could quote evidence that suggest the US and its puppet the IMF policies has directed resulted in massive disorder and poverty around the world.
Thats basically whats going to happen in the USA if Ron Paul or whomever else of the Republicans get into power. Massive poverty and an even larger increase in the divide between richer and poor.
Its very scary what the US are doing with BlackWater and Haliburton.
Yes. It would make zero sense, but I don't see that as any sort of threat.
My point is, there are countries that no longer want us occupying a base in their country, but we bully them (or pay them off) to letting us stay there, for our strategic advantages. Most places, we no longer need to occupy, and we shouldn't waste the money on them anymore.
Also, what if you did perceive them as a threat, would it then be ok? Because, again, there are people who feel we are a threat, yet we occupy bases in their country.
calabi, yeah. it is true one of my friends from maine signed up to blackwater, they pay very very good. so i heard. My biggest fear is that with the new NDAA someday they'll just use these forces to suppress the people, a little extreme but god damn. we already have an army wtf?
That's Israel's style. They're ruthless with the car-bombings, and have done it many times. It's also small change compared to what they're going to pull soon. Not looking forward to another war, this time with a nation in possession of nuclear material.
I could quote evidence that suggest the US and its puppet the IMF policies has directed resulted in massive disorder and poverty around the world.
And I said:
With the power the US holds and it's track record you could make a decent argument for it being one of the least evil empires in history. Not to say it's sunshine and lollipops, but it's no Roman empire.
There are obvious transgressions, but third world strife is just the price we pay for what is now joint Western and Eastern peace and prosperity, in part due to America's role in the world during the last 50 years. If this was the USSR or China at the forefront do you think the past 20 years as a sole superpower would have seen them act in such a relatively peaceful fashion? Things haven't been great, but they have been OK when you consider the stakes. It's gong to get worse, maybe very quickly, but that's another discussion.
But see that was The United States Agenda that suppressed South America, just read the Monroe Doctrine. that's what really established the empire.
The Monroe Doctrine is not inherently destructive. Yes, it establishes a hegemony, but there's no reason why Latin America couldn't flourish under it. It hasn't flourished for other reasons (some of them very much US related, ie: drug money).
edit: Looks like they've been renamed to Xe, and exactly what you expect would happen, happened.
Yeah, pretty sure that was sarcasm. I saw that story on TYT today too.
But I don't know, something seems fishy about it. There's basically zero coverage of the point of view of the other side, which I'd love to hear. And they keep throwing in there that she's not only a muslim, but a black muslim. As if what? That makes it worse or something. Really seems like they're trying to play up the sympathy card.
I would love to hear what the other side has to say about this.
Even the prosecution says things like the guy made "graphic offensive comments about wanting to have sex with her", which really, could be anything. It could be as harmful as straight-up sexual harassment, to as innocent as a generic "boys will be boys" type behavior.
Doesn't seem as clear-cut as they present it. I'm just saying I'd really love to hear what the other side has to say.
Didn't say you got it from TYT, just that I saw it there this morning.
And that's the thing about the whole FBI thing. We're assuming the other dude must have called the FBI. But we don't know that. I'm not saying he didn't, just that the stories don't cover at all the other side of it. I don't see anyone interviewing the school, or the student that complained, about what happened. This is all conjecture. And there's a layer of sensationalism here too, adding and emphasizing that she wasn't only muslim, but black as well, where that was never an issue.
And really what happened? Oh no, the FBI actually did its job for once. Sounds like they were nice about it too. Just knocked on the door and asked a couple of questions. Even left a business card, just in case. Isn't that their job? The Federal Bureau of Investigations? To investigate shit? That's why we pay them.
That she gets harassed for months, that her complaint gets ignored, that she is threatened, intimidated, that's all conjecture, and all just opinion. And the opinion of the alleged victim too, no less.
Again, not saying she wasn't wronged. Simply that I would love to hear the other side of the story. 90% chance that it's exactly as presented, that she really did suffer through all this. But it does sound like it could be innocent enough, and just blown out of proportion. Or maybe not... who knows...
So you're saying, because it's always been that way, we shouldn't try to change it? I think people have always been aware of it, but haven't done much about it, because things weren't so badly out of control. The rich have always been able to influence politicians, but in the last decade, politicians have stopped being 'influenced' and have flat out become puppets.
As for the NDAA, I'll give you a very recent scenario, where I can see it getting applied/abused, had this law existed a few months back. There were people calling the OWS people terrorists (google "OWS are terrorists"). Many of the protesters could have been detained until the whole moment died down. You have to be pretty naive if you don't think they would have done that.
That's absolutely NOT what i'm saying. I'm saying that since it's always been that way, and only getting worse, that peaceful protesting isnt going to change anything especially since they've branded protestors as terrorists or will soon enough. I'm saying, in short, that the american people are going to need to act, non-peacefully to get the changes we want.
I know what OWS is. You must not understand where i stand in all of this. I am 100% against NDAA for that exact reason. Because they will claim protestors to be terrorists and do away with them which i am against wholeheartedly. They will brand anyone who steps out of line to be a terrorist and do away with them.
We seriously keep jumping from political savior to political savior. We need to act now as our so called "freedoms" continue to be ripped from us.
I never said they wouldnt use the NDAA against us. I know they will, that's what it was designed to do.
Actually, they didn't. They reach basically the same conclusion you do, and were just as harsh on this case, which I actually tend to agree with. It's just that when I saw it originally, and when I saw it here, it kept bugging me that I'd like to hear what the other side has to say. That's all.
Aaaaaand now SOPA. This is rediculous people. I can't believe that the government is killing off every right we have left. They trying to put a tight clamp on the internet and how we send/receive news. It's our only source for true news, not ratings driven news but actual news.
Every single portal to which we found out about OWS through they're starting to try to close off. I've never in my life even thought about going out and physically protesting, but i'm about one more article away from doing it. I love my job, i love where i live and what i do......but this is getting incredibly and increasingly bad for everyone one of us and our children.
Brief aside: Why does nobody have a 'shades of grey' view on any of these issues?
The Israeli car bombing is a big one -- I support israel in general, but they've ALWAYS been involved in terrorism, assassinations, and a bunch of evil shit. As has every powerful, militarized government. Their ultimate goals are just a hell of a lot less horrifying than the goals of their opponents, so if I had to pick sides, it'd definitely be israel.
I would argue that INFORMATION is protected by the first amendment "freedom of press" that means ANY american you don't need a special pass. But this is the rhetoric these days, they destroy the language or just out right step all over the constitution.
but back on subject.
but rather imprison the most vulnerable(religious/ethnic minorities, and the poor)
this is super true, look at the war on drugs, how disproportionate it has become. Hispanics and Blacks are becoming prison slaves, making privately owned prisons RICH!
But, i think is country is far gone, FAR.
it's closer to china than to a free nation. this may sound sickening but war with Iran would be a good thing. In the sense that people would reach a boiling point, because Iran is not a push over. So the usual US military strategy would not work. Bomb them to hell and invade. This would be a real painful conflict for the US military which is currently pretty weak.
just listen to what the general says when asked if we could take out iran's nuclear capability. It's around 2:54.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQWSVZD89pM"]Face The Nation with Bob Schieffer - Panetta: Sanctions against Iran are working - YouTube[/ame]
Hey now, I think another war in the middle east would be horrible, but the west has never really had trouble with limited scope conflicts in the region. Iraq circa 90 was a much, much bigger threat than iran is now -- they had the fourth largest military in the world, iirc. And for political reasons, Israel could not get involved.
The notion that it's morally appalling to fight them is a very sound argument, the notion that they're too big of a threat seems silly.
Replies
I thought AUMF was for military, and could not be applied toward US Citizens, which is what they changed in NDAA (I'm no expert though).
[ame="
Uh, a re-election campaign.
unbelievable. Petrodollars are killing us all
[ame="
no i thought so too, but he just wants to give people a choice to opt out when their 25 or so. [ame="www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6Exn4Qk5Uk"]HERE[/ame] he just doesn't like mandates. but i don't wanna sound like a paulbot. just this dude keeps making more and more sense. he's the only one who brings up the NDAA.
Honestly, I wish Ron Paul would become an independent, if he doesn't win the Rep nomination (which I think Mitt will win). If he didn't win, I still think he would get the second number of votes.
I like Obama over any other option available right now. Overall, I don't like Obama, even though I voted for him. He's improved things, but there has been plenty that has bothered me and this NDAA, was the tipper. If Ron Paul becomes a voting option, I'm going to serious consider voting for him.
Considering how much this forum supported occupy, it's puzzling that the absolute philosophical opposite of reducing the poverty gap would get any kind of support here.
i supported OCCUPY not cause of their views but because of the bias of the Media, they should get to protest because if they don't then who will?
if you read the constitution, it's basically Classic Liberalism which is exactly what libertarianism is. Keep the government at the same level as the people and care for the most vulnerable citizen over the most privileged.
These days the language has been lost and people think liberals and progressives are the same thing. this is one of the reason people are scared and misinformed.
but the main reason i would vote for him, is to Break the trend of corruption in washington, and paul wouldn't have the support to do everything he wants. but he would have the power to end the wars, close all foreign military bases and, kill all the executive orders from the last 20 years. that's a god damn good ass start.
That's exactly the thing though, that's one super key part of (most) libertarianism that's a problem -- Paul does not, as far as i know, support standardized healthcare or welfare or public projects to support the poor. I'm not saying he'd personally abolish it, but his politics are philosophically against 'handouts' to the underclass that a capitalism can create. Which I think is pretty ethically shaky considering the mad money a country like the united states makes off of these people's backs.
The US is a military machine, and it has to stay that way to maintain it's position in the world. Maybe that sounds stupid/evil/imperialist/whatever, but military power has always been one of the best thing a nation could have, and in the current political and technological climate, that power is useless if you can't project it effectively.
This is exactly the kind of thing I don't like about Ron Paul. For all the good things he says, he throws in some disastrous policies. "So the US is nosediving. Lets close our bases, abandon our allies and hand Asia to China, and just hope we can all hug that shit out when it comes to inevitable conflict in 10-20 years!" Bullshit.
dfacto, i don't know dude, look at Switzerland, they basically have none. and they have been neutral forever, and world war 2 was happening around it. Why can't we be neutral? depending on bullying the world is wrong and foreign countries loose their sovereignty. meaning they will always be arms races. look at what we did to argentina with our power and petrodollar. it's evil. I respect your opinion tho.
suprose, i think this is where most people get him wrong, what he talks about is the FEDERAL gov, not the state level gov. all of what you mentioned can be done at the state level. within the constitution. the states are the democracies the fed is the republic.
but what paul argues is that the federal gov should ONLY look out for our rights, institute a sound currency, and uphold contracts and laws.
[ame="
1) Better to be the right hand of the devil than in his path, as the saying goes. Yeah it's evil, but that's the way it's always been and will be. And all things considered the US has a benign world footprint. With this much power things could be much much worse, and if we allow another nation to supersede us, things might get much much worse. Then we'll be high and dry because some genius decided to gut the one institution which separates empires from vassal states.
2) No way we're going neutral after all the shit we've done. If we divest ourselves of power only nuclear deterrence will keep us safe. And that's just somewhere I'd rather the world not go again.
um, vietnam, korean war, chile (pinochet), Iran (1953, the shah), argentina, iraq, yemen, afghanistan, pakistan, libya, egypt, now syria. it won't stop.
now, if you accumulate the civilain deaths in all these wars... it's even worse than anything hitler did. I mean, this type of empire is hitler's wet dream.
i think our biggest threat is our economic and industry. 70% of the united states economy is consumerism. if this thing collapses it would take decades to get back to where we were in 2000.
Sucks to be Africa, South America and the middle east, but that's just par for the course at this point. Maybe they should consider not being horribly corrupt.
I think of course he would. I definitely would. Cars, telephones, planes, and the internet all happened -- Britain and France are my neighbors.
Yes. It would make zero sense, but I don't see that as any sort of threat.
But see that was The United States Agenda that suppressed South America, just read the Monroe Doctrine. that's what really established the empire.
I could quote evidence that suggest the US and its puppet the IMF policies has directed resulted in massive disorder and poverty around the world.
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=5366
Thats basically whats going to happen in the USA if Ron Paul or whomever else of the Republicans get into power. Massive poverty and an even larger increase in the divide between richer and poor.
Its very scary what the US are doing with BlackWater and Haliburton.
[ame="
It'd be absurd if it wasnt actually true.
edit: Looks like they've been renamed to Xe, and exactly what you expect would happen, happened.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7000645.stm
My point is, there are countries that no longer want us occupying a base in their country, but we bully them (or pay them off) to letting us stay there, for our strategic advantages. Most places, we no longer need to occupy, and we shouldn't waste the money on them anymore.
Also, what if you did perceive them as a threat, would it then be ok? Because, again, there are people who feel we are a threat, yet we occupy bases in their country.
And I said:
There are obvious transgressions, but third world strife is just the price we pay for what is now joint Western and Eastern peace and prosperity, in part due to America's role in the world during the last 50 years. If this was the USSR or China at the forefront do you think the past 20 years as a sole superpower would have seen them act in such a relatively peaceful fashion? Things haven't been great, but they have been OK when you consider the stakes. It's gong to get worse, maybe very quickly, but that's another discussion.
The Monroe Doctrine is not inherently destructive. Yes, it establishes a hegemony, but there's no reason why Latin America couldn't flourish under it. It hasn't flourished for other reasons (some of them very much US related, ie: drug money).
Actually now they're ACADEMI
But I don't know, something seems fishy about it. There's basically zero coverage of the point of view of the other side, which I'd love to hear. And they keep throwing in there that she's not only a muslim, but a black muslim. As if what? That makes it worse or something. Really seems like they're trying to play up the sympathy card.
I would love to hear what the other side has to say about this.
Even the prosecution says things like the guy made "graphic offensive comments about wanting to have sex with her", which really, could be anything. It could be as harmful as straight-up sexual harassment, to as innocent as a generic "boys will be boys" type behavior.
Doesn't seem as clear-cut as they present it. I'm just saying I'd really love to hear what the other side has to say.
And that's the thing about the whole FBI thing. We're assuming the other dude must have called the FBI. But we don't know that. I'm not saying he didn't, just that the stories don't cover at all the other side of it. I don't see anyone interviewing the school, or the student that complained, about what happened. This is all conjecture. And there's a layer of sensationalism here too, adding and emphasizing that she wasn't only muslim, but black as well, where that was never an issue.
And really what happened? Oh no, the FBI actually did its job for once. Sounds like they were nice about it too. Just knocked on the door and asked a couple of questions. Even left a business card, just in case. Isn't that their job? The Federal Bureau of Investigations? To investigate shit? That's why we pay them.
That she gets harassed for months, that her complaint gets ignored, that she is threatened, intimidated, that's all conjecture, and all just opinion. And the opinion of the alleged victim too, no less.
Again, not saying she wasn't wronged. Simply that I would love to hear the other side of the story. 90% chance that it's exactly as presented, that she really did suffer through all this. But it does sound like it could be innocent enough, and just blown out of proportion. Or maybe not... who knows...
That's absolutely NOT what i'm saying. I'm saying that since it's always been that way, and only getting worse, that peaceful protesting isnt going to change anything especially since they've branded protestors as terrorists or will soon enough. I'm saying, in short, that the american people are going to need to act, non-peacefully to get the changes we want.
I know what OWS is. You must not understand where i stand in all of this. I am 100% against NDAA for that exact reason. Because they will claim protestors to be terrorists and do away with them which i am against wholeheartedly. They will brand anyone who steps out of line to be a terrorist and do away with them.
We seriously keep jumping from political savior to political savior. We need to act now as our so called "freedoms" continue to be ripped from us.
I never said they wouldnt use the NDAA against us. I know they will, that's what it was designed to do.
Every single portal to which we found out about OWS through they're starting to try to close off. I've never in my life even thought about going out and physically protesting, but i'm about one more article away from doing it. I love my job, i love where i live and what i do......but this is getting incredibly and increasingly bad for everyone one of us and our children.
I love LOVE that Red 5 is taking some action here.
http://www.shacknews.com/article/71965/firefall-dev-shutting-down-beta-site-in-protest-of-sopa
The Israeli car bombing is a big one -- I support israel in general, but they've ALWAYS been involved in terrorism, assassinations, and a bunch of evil shit. As has every powerful, militarized government. Their ultimate goals are just a hell of a lot less horrifying than the goals of their opponents, so if I had to pick sides, it'd definitely be israel.
but back on subject.
this is super true, look at the war on drugs, how disproportionate it has become. Hispanics and Blacks are becoming prison slaves, making privately owned prisons RICH!
But, i think is country is far gone, FAR.
it's closer to china than to a free nation. this may sound sickening but war with Iran would be a good thing. In the sense that people would reach a boiling point, because Iran is not a push over. So the usual US military strategy would not work. Bomb them to hell and invade. This would be a real painful conflict for the US military which is currently pretty weak.
just listen to what the general says when asked if we could take out iran's nuclear capability. It's around 2:54.
[ame="
The notion that it's morally appalling to fight them is a very sound argument, the notion that they're too big of a threat seems silly.
That was pretty cool, but the Day 14 kind of ruined it.