|
EnderWiggin posted:That's a big conclusion, i'm not sure I agree with it. I'm not sure I've thrown any hyperbolic rhetoric about the superpower empire ran by war criminals either lol. How old are you?
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 18:45 |
|
|
I don't think Rumsfeld was driven solely by personal profit, the US was in a recession at the time and part of the rationale for invading Iraq was perverted Keynesian economics. Just occupying Afghanistan wasn't enough stimulus. The alternative would be using the budget surplus at home to support moochers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
EnderWiggin posted:Speak for yourself. uh *looks at hands* i did. i am. that is what i am doing. i am using my own words, to mock you, for saying silly things and being really invested in silly ideas. that's what's going on right now itt McDowell posted:I don't think Rumsfeld was driven solely by personal profit, the US was in a recession at the time and part of the rationale for invading Iraq was perverted Keynesian economics. Just occupying Afghanistan wasn't enough stimulus. i honestly think they wanted to gain glory by beating up that big bully saddam hussein and war is easy, right? i mean come on, it's iraq, versus the united states military. what could go wrong free the iraqi people, be big heros, stop, uh, terrorists, from blowing things up. no sweat. second term's a lock.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i honestly think they wanted to gain glory by beating up that big bully saddam hussein and war is easy, right? i mean come on, it's iraq, versus the united states military. what could go wrong That was a factor, too. The recapitulation of the Vietnam debate at the expense of thousands of lives and billions of dollars shows how spiteful and senile America has become.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
There was definitely some dark and evil neocon ideology involved in invading Iraq after Afghanistan but, again, where's the conspiracy in the sense of what conspiracy theorists consider a conspiracy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
 Predictive Programming  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiUnoO25Qzk&t=85s Spitting Image predicted the War on Terror and the rise of ISIL. Mc Do Well fucked around with this message at 03:44 on Mar 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
McDowell posted:
Spiting Image knew. The war was a mess. Is it fair to say it has damaged the U.S economy more than it has helped?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
EnderWiggin posted:The war was a mess. Is it fair to say it has damaged the U.S economy more than it has helped? eh it's damaged america's reputation and killed/maimed american people unnecessarily (among others, but we're talking about america) but economically it was a wash keynesianism is Good, even if it's blank check handouts to the MIC
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 04:07
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:even if it's blank check handouts to the MIC Eisenhower would disagree.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Eisenhower would disagree. eisenhower said we should prevent/get rid of the MIC but since it's here and entrenched, pragmatism
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Eisenhower would disagree. I disagree, in a number of ways. First of all, Eisenhower did support Keynesian economics even if he wasn't a supporter of the MIC. But when it comes to the MIC, most of his fears never came to pass; military spending has actually been declining as a fraction of GDP, military research has brought many great benefits to non-military science and the US economy, and the MIC is at the mercy of government spending, not the other way around. He would probably be an outspoken opponent of the bloated defense budget and the Iraq War, but he would agree that a reasonable increase in military spending (in addition to increases in other public spending programs) is a positive form of stimulus during economic downturns.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
When I want to stimulate the american economy, I too give French Boeing executives all the money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
Pardon me if this has been brought up already; I figured it'd be all the rage in this thread but didn't see any talk of it in the last few pages of debate. Some of my loonier friends on FB have been talking about this, linking to articles suggesting that 'the Moon is actually hollow and contains an alien base', etc... Spaceship-Like Object with Thruster Engines Examined What's the actual scientific consensus on this 'spaceship'? It looks like a rock skipping off of Earth's atmosphere to me, which I assume happens pretty often.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
Mister Speaker posted:Pardon me if this has been brought up already; I figured it'd be all the rage in this thread but didn't see any talk of it in the last few pages of debate. Some of my loonier friends on FB have been talking about this, linking to articles suggesting that 'the Moon is actually hollow and contains an alien base', etc... haha this guy's channel is great quote:This clip looks into a new plasma field in space as well as the Van Allen plasma belts. I ask – How is it possible for metal space craft, astronauts and satellites to pass through these plasma fields? How is it possible that we have sent endless vehicles into space including the Apollo missions and never known about this “GLASS PLASMA WALL” located 7,200 miles away? How is it possible to send radio signals through plasma belts back to earth? My conclusion is that it is not possible and we have been lied to about space and our human abilities to go into space or send remote vehicles. this guy who cannot believe in the existence of non-UFO objects in space is gonna blow this van allen belt thing wide open, man yeah the object just looks like random space garbage who knows
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I disagree, in a number of ways. First of all, Eisenhower did support Keynesian economics even if he wasn't a supporter of the MIC. But when it comes to the MIC, most of his fears never came to pass; military spending has actually been declining as a fraction of GDP, military research has brought many great benefits to non-military science and the US economy, and the MIC is at the mercy of government spending, not the other way around. He would probably be an outspoken opponent of the bloated defense budget and the Iraq War, but he would agree that a reasonable increase in military spending (in addition to increases in other public spending programs) is a positive form of stimulus during economic downturns. Yeah that's what I was trying to say. Eisenhower wouldn't have any problem with Keynesian stimulus, just how it was done. Money spent domestically has a greater economic effect then giving a loan to Baghdad so they could buy Humvees that wound up in the hands of ISIL.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 12:23
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:When I want to stimulate the american economy, I too give French Boeing executives all the money. You're thinking of Airbus. Like most defense contractors, Boeing is headquartered in the US
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:haha this guy's channel is great "I don't understand space travel or even physics that well, therefore the government is lying about our space travel capabilities! "
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 14:16
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I disagree, in a number of ways. First of all, Eisenhower did support Keynesian economics even if he wasn't a supporter of the MIC. But when it comes to the MIC, most of his fears never came to pass; military spending has actually been declining as a fraction of GDP, military research has brought many great benefits to non-military science and the US economy, and the MIC is at the mercy of government spending, not the other way around. He would probably be an outspoken opponent of the bloated defense budget and the Iraq War, but he would agree that a reasonable increase in military spending (in addition to increases in other public spending programs) is a positive form of stimulus during economic downturns. MIC spending is an incredibly inefficient form of stimulus, though. You'd be better off just literally gifting the money to poor people. I mean, yeah, it's better than just burning the money, but it's certainly not one of the better places to allocate government spending.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
EnderWiggin posted:isn't profiting from war illegal? War profiteering, which is usually illegal, refers to companies that attempt to overcharge the civilian population or government acquisitions in time of war. It has nothing to do with mere making profits.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:MIC spending is an incredibly inefficient form of stimulus, though. You'd be better off just literally gifting the money to poor people. I mean, yeah, it's better than just burning the money, but it's certainly not one of the better places to allocate government spending. I agree, to an extent. I believe that a good economic stimulus is a combination of A) giving money to people who will spend it in the short-term and B) setting aside long-term funding boosts for science, education, and infrastructure programs, which will help to maintain strong economic growth. Defense spending can be a part of that, insofar as a lot of really good scientific research is done with defense dollars As an example, I'm a fan of reducing our production of military ships, tanks, and missiles. At the same time, I would support an increase in funding for near earth asteroid detection/deflection projects, space debris monitoring, and space debris removal (which isn't even being done yet, but needs to be and would inevitably be considered defense spending). There's also a lot of cool defense spending on alternative fuels and alternative energy; I'd certainly support continued efforts in those areas. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Mar 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
I kinda think the JFK assassination has more to it than the official line. I think Oswald was a lone shooter, and he had the skill to do it by himself. Mostly I find the circumstances and associations of Oswald and Ruby to be too coincidental. Did either Oswald have more motivation than being crazy? Did Ruby have more motivation than an outpouring of patriotism? I think probably at least the answer to one of those questions is yes. The CIA, Ussr, Cuba, mafia, Boy Scouts? Idunno maybe, maybe not. This slight doubt doesn't actually take up any of my time or mental energy other than me thinking 'hmm' when someone mentions it, so am I crazy?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
Moose-Alini posted:This slight doubt doesn't actually take up any of my time or mental energy other than me thinking 'hmm' when someone mentions it, so am I crazy? eh skepticism is healthy so long as you don't dwell on it or become obsessive like if someone challenges you when you say "i think the jfk assassination goes deeper than the official story" and you dig in and it becomes an argument, that's not healthy but otherwise whatever, you're not obligated to have an opinion about historic events
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Moose-Alini posted:I kinda think the JFK assassination has more to it than the official line. I think Oswald was a lone shooter, and he had the skill to do it by himself. Mostly I find the circumstances and associations of Oswald and Ruby to be too coincidental. Did either Oswald have more motivation than being crazy? Did Ruby have more motivation than an outpouring of patriotism? I think probably at least the answer to one of those questions is yes. There were undoubtedly some weird things going on, but the whole story was populated by weird people. Read up on Ruby. After you're done, you'll be surprised that all he did was shoot Oswald; if he'd dropped his pants and jacked off on Oswald's corpse while singing Yankee Doodle Dandy, it wouldn't have been that far out of character. Dude was about four notches past batshit crazy. Oswald was odd but less of a mystery. He had a violent past including an attempted assassination of a local right wing political figure. The problem isn't that the mob or the CIA lacked the ability or motive to do it, it's that once you involve them you necessarily add untold numbers of people to the conspiracy, and the more people you add, the less likely it is that the silence will hold. And the evidence makes it unnecessary to involve them in the first place. It also doesn't make sense that the CIA/mafia would entrust the assassination itself to a loser wannabe using a lovely military surplus rifle, nor the silencing of the assassin to someone as goofy and unpredictable as Ruby. Remember, Ruby made it to the police basement with seconds to spare. Only minutes before he shot Oswald, he was in a Western Union waiting in line to wire some money. If Oswald hadn't been late getting to the car for the transfer, Ruby would have missed his chance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Sure 9/11 thermite theories would necessarily need maybe even thousands of people colluding in secret, and everything else talked about in here even more over a crazy timeline so of course it's unreasonable to expect it to be secret. But let's just say Ruby was ordered to kill Oswald by the mafia, or a small/rogue group in the CIA. Wouldn't it really only need collusion by a dozen people at the most? "Too keep a secret between two people, kill one of them" and all, but either organization has a decent history or taking things to the grave. I'm not trying to argue this is what happened, but it seems on a small and close knit enough group, it's not that far fetched to keep something like that secret, plus apparently 'related people' claim it was a conspiracy a few times. Yeah usually recant or deny having said it but, eh. On a related question, how accurate is Oliver Stone's JFK? Obviously not the conclusions put forward, or 'magic bullet' nonsense, but all the stuff about Oswald saying he's a Marxist, and hanging out with Cuban revolutionaries, and Rubys mafia gunrunners, and Anti-Castro ties?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Oswald's politics were . . . complicated. He did defect to the USSR and was repatriated because he was heartbroken when a girl dumped him. But he was pretty crazy. The Soviets kept asking him, "Really? You sure you want to defect? Why?" When he came back to the US, he hung out with a bunch of Russians (who were, naturally, all staunchly anti-Communist). That probably influenced his views a lot and he tried to hang out with some Cuban anti-Communists but they didn't really want much to do with him. Basically, dude was constantly rejected through life so he decided that he was gonna go from that nobody that nobody wanted to a somebody everybody would remember. Which is a pretty typical mental state for assassins of heads of state, unless the assassination is explicitly political (and even then, the assassins tend to be a little unhinged).
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Moose-Alini posted:On a related question, how accurate is Oliver Stone's JFK? Obviously not the conclusions put forward, or 'magic bullet' nonsense, but all the stuff about Oswald saying he's a Marxist, and hanging out with Cuban revolutionaries, and Rubys mafia gunrunners, and Anti-Castro ties? JFK is seen as horseshit by conspiracy believers. Stone literally picked and chose stuff from multiple theories, many of them the goofiest in existence. The fact that he lionized Garrison is a travesty. Garrison was a rat son of a bitch who ruined an innocent man's life (what little there was left of it). Garrison's own people knew he was a whack job. Would the mafia have entrusted that important a job to an unstable idiot like Ruby? And then trusted him not to blab?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I agree, to an extent. I believe that a good economic stimulus is a combination of A) giving money to people who will spend it in the short-term and B) setting aside long-term funding boosts for science, education, and infrastructure programs, which will help to maintain strong economic growth. Defense spending can be a part of that, insofar as a lot of really good scientific research is done with defense dollars This technocratic mindset was oddly wedded to the vestiges of ideology in 2000 - Bush with his promises of 'freedom' (for whom? To do what?) and Tony Blair with his performance charts. Some movie recommendations for the thread for any who have not seen them: Naked Lunch - one of Cronenberg's weirdest movies Network (1976) - An exposition heavy film that is very 70's - but quite relevant in our world of video. There was a really good interview with the director at a promotional talkshow, but it got taken down and I've never seen it again 
Mc Do Well fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Mar 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
It's not really technocratic. It's pragmatic: investments in education and scientific research pay huge economic dividends.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
Larry_Mullet posted:Who benefited from 9/11? Not Muslims, that's for loving sure Radical Islamic extremists are hypocritical self serving opportunists who primarily cause suffering to other innocent Muslims in the Middle East?  Next you'll tell me there's a whole new State of these people publicly executing Muslims to exercise fear and terror and calling it Islamic! But who would benefit from that? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv6w_ys5sJo Predictive Programming
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
I think the accepted conspiracy theorist idea of the above example is that its purpose is to immediately discredit critics of the trilateral commission as crackpots. Thus ensuring the average Joe doesn't even talk about the trilateral commission or investigate the possibility that it's gathering and exerting undue influence to achieve private agendas. Predictive programming is like how Johnny Bravo predicted the 9/11 attacks. EnderWiggin fucked around with this message at 12:53 on Mar 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 12:46
|
|
|
This seems like the right thread to ask: does anyone have any reliable info on the Plutonomy Memos? I saw them mentioned in a different thread. They're supposedly a series of memos by Citigroup to wealthy clients about rising income inequality and the "new managerial aristocracy" that will result. It's almost textbook in its cartoonishness, but then again so are all the real leaked internal memos from big banks. It seems purpose-built to bypass the skepticism of leftists by playing to our preconceptions, and it's almost impossible to find info on it from reputable sources. Allegedly that's because Citi issues legal threats and takedown notices every time it pops up, but being the Shocking Truth They Don't Want You to Know About isn't exactly a mark of veracity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:This seems like the right thread to ask: does anyone have any reliable info on the Plutonomy Memos? I saw them mentioned in a different thread. They're supposedly a series of memos by Citigroup to wealthy clients about rising income inequality and the "new managerial aristocracy" that will result. It's almost textbook in its cartoonishness, but then again so are all the real leaked internal memos from big banks. It seems purpose-built to bypass the skepticism of leftists by playing to our preconceptions, and it's almost impossible to find info on it from reputable sources. Allegedly that's because Citi issues legal threats and takedown notices every time it pops up, but being the Shocking Truth They Don't Want You to Know About isn't exactly a mark of veracity. They're most likely real, but so what? It's not like rising inequality and the class divides this creates are a big hidden hush hush conspiracy driven by the Bilderbergs. Of course Citi issues takedowns to websites that publish confidential internal documents - they're confidential. This is an example of leftist conspiracy mongering - you have a bank publishing their analysis on economic trends, i.e. "poo poo's hosed for the poor and here's the impact this has on the economy", but the heady combination of big banks + secret memos + vague whiffs of corporate malfeasance and all of a sudden it becomes "THEY'RE driving income inequality to gently caress the poor and they don't want us to know about it!" I guess this is big in Occupy circles because the kind of people who get real fired up about Occupy are also the kind of people who need someone else to tell them about basic trends in the economy re: stagnant wages, wealth concentration, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
They don't like people seeing what they do in the dark. Also scary: they're right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
It's not impossible to find reputable information, I mean Matt Yglesias's article was on the second page of Google results. You just have to skip past the cloud of obscure hyperventilating blogs. http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2011/11/21/the_economics_of_plutonomy.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Bad news guys. Lego? The Lego Movie? All part of the Illuminati's satanic conspiracy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zimqnZtqAlQ
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Tercio posted:Bad news guys. Lego? The Lego Movie? All part of the Illuminati's satanic conspiracy These are my favorite. Tens of thousands of hours of some jackoff on YouTube explaining how the super bowl or every movie is a secret illuminati plot. I'll admit when iv been bored of wasted a few hours on these insane ramblings. Did you know that light, or eye symbolism ALWAYS means illuminati antichrist shenanigans?!
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Tercio posted:Bad news guys. Lego? The Lego Movie? All part of the Illuminati's satanic conspiracy. Doubly ironic considering the messages of that movie too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Dude, one of the minor stars of the Fast & Furious series was onto the Illuminati and they killed him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 18:45 |
|
|
Don't compare 9/11 Truthers to holocaust deniers, or the Danish court system will get you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_KFyW9LPRA
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 02:23
|
|