Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
POG Politics Thread POG Politics Thread

06-23-2009 , 08:34 PM
http://www.voltairenet.org/article160636.html

9/11 FEMA videographer goes public

guy lives in argentina where he receives around the clock police protection. definitely worth a read
06-29-2009 , 05:13 PM
I was reading Huxley's preface to Brave New World and I was really just stunned at the casually brutal and concise language which I will make more brutal and concise by extraction.

Quote:
Government by clubs and firing squads, by artificial famine, mass imprisonment and mass deportation...is demonstrably inefficient...
Quote:
A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned...newspaper editors and schoolteachers.
Quote:
The most important Manhattan Projects of the future will be vast government-sponsored inquiries into what the politicians...will call "the problem of happiness" - in other words, the problem of making people love their servitude.
06-29-2009 , 05:53 PM
i thought the shocking stuff in that book was 10 year olds raping each other (caveat: I've never read it). I guess certain people are more desensitized to certain things than others.
06-29-2009 , 05:57 PM
i failed to notice rape in the preface
06-29-2009 , 05:59 PM
but i find it interesting that your response to my post is to insinuate that i endorse prepubescent rape
06-29-2009 , 06:12 PM
i find it intriguing that you don't deny my insinuations
07-03-2009 , 09:15 PM
good news for amp et al., it appears ron paul may win the 2012 gop nomination by default
07-03-2009 , 09:16 PM
i don't give a tinker's damn who wins the gop nomination
07-03-2009 , 09:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by amplify
i don't give a tinker's damn who wins the gop nomination
i thought you were a ron paul supporter, am i mixing you up with someone else?
07-03-2009 , 09:20 PM
but it's still palin's to lose unless the rumors about her quitting because of some scandal are true
07-03-2009 , 09:21 PM
I may just lack a solid grasp on reality but even before she quit I would have thought palin was a bit of an underdog to win the GOP nomination. Or maybe that's just wishful thinking.
07-03-2009 , 09:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madtown
i thought you were a ron paul supporter, am i mixing you up with someone else?
i like ron paul and everything, but i have no interest in the political process.
07-03-2009 , 09:32 PM
ok, little interest. i can imagine the gop bigwigs scampering like mice - hey! we gotta protect our phoney baloney jobs! this guy makes us sound like we dont do anything! - relax boys, there is no possibility of him getting the reins unless his own leash is taut.
07-03-2009 , 09:33 PM
can you tell it was hash cookie day today at the collective?
07-04-2009 , 12:09 AM
GOP right now is like dems back in 2000 except that the Dems have a popular president. I'll bet GOP shoots themselves in the foot in 2012 just like the dems did in 2004, and nominates the worst candidate to run (which could very well be Palin).
07-04-2009 , 05:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by amplify
but it's still palin's to lose unless her obvious lack of any of the skills necessary to do the job holds her back. Nah, probably not.
i'm not sure i really buy the GOP09=Demo00 line, beyond the trivial aspect of just losing the presedency. Plus, the economy and 9/11 make it pretty hard to imagine the arc of the 08 presedency will be the same as bush's.

there was no real clinton ideology beyond looking out for clinton and getting poon, but the question for the GOP is whether the conservative-christian axis of <offensive statement redacted> is done or not.
07-04-2009 , 12:32 PM
skills necessary to be president of the united states:

raise money
waive
smile
read speeches out loud

she only has trouble with the last one
07-04-2009 , 02:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokiri
i'm not sure i really buy the GOP09=Demo00 line, beyond the trivial aspect of just losing the presedency.
i'd say comparison to the gop post-hoover and the democrats post-lbj would be more accurate.
07-05-2009 , 12:02 AM
Isnt Ron Paul going to be 76yo by 2012?
07-05-2009 , 12:07 AM
To me there are two kinda goverments the one that dont let u whine and the ones that let u whine, of course they are shades of grey.
I cant really complain in Chile I can do lots of whining.
07-05-2009 , 12:32 PM
I've gotta say Obama is doing a fine job of making people belive he's doing cool stuff (at least he seems pretty proactive eventhough any sane person knows it's proactive that is actually worse than idleing) so it's going to be hard for him to lose the next one (especially if he just so happens to impregnate his wife around that time).
His Napoleonistic tactics are pretty nice (i.e. switch mode of attack to Afghanistan, troops out of Iraq).

As an aside: I'm not well versed in how the US military operates and how military "careers" work but how many soldiers moving out of Iraq are we talking about and would they simply be cut from the force or need to be assigned somewhere else? (clearly tinfoil alar "oh noes soldierz need new targetz")
07-05-2009 , 01:00 PM
plenty of reserves were sent in that would rather be home clown, so they theoretically would not have to be reassigned
07-05-2009 , 01:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by amplify
i just started this book by jim marrs called rule by secrecy and so far it is a blast, like every historical conspiracy within 400 pages. my reading lately has been kind of weird, i read 2012 by Daniel Pinchbeck and enjoyed that a lot, he takes a bunch of hallucinogens and talks about crop circles and mayan cosmology. i just finished cosmic trigger 1, Robert Anton Wilson's fascinating investigation and subsequent contact with alien intellegence from Sirius. Yeah and a biography of aleister crowley, so i'll probably be sacrificing goats in the streets pretty soon.
I read Rule By Secrecy.

It's pretty interesting.
07-05-2009 , 01:43 PM
Quote:
plenty of reserves were sent in that would rather be home clown, so they theoretically would not have to be reassigned
Ah thx, I kinda forgot about that. So rough ballpark, small overlay of troops with no immediate assignments coming back, medium or bigish after accounting for the reserves (tl;dr: I dunno what the reserves to nonreserves ratio is like).
07-05-2009 , 01:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by clowntable
Ah thx, I kinda forgot about that. So rough ballpark, small overlay of troops with no immediate assignments coming back, medium or bigish after accounting for the reserves (tl;dr: I dunno what the reserves to nonreserves ratio is like).
reserves will be deactivated and go back to their civilian jobs. We do have a standing army so the professional soldiers coming home will go back to they way it was before they got shipped off (training, doing **** on military bases, etc). Its incredibly unlikely that any troops will go from Iraq straight to Afghanistan without a year or so back in the states first.

      
m