Fahrenheit 9/11

Re: Wars

What is Keynesian spending? AFAIK I have heard of Keynesian economics, but not spending. What gives?

 

$$$$$

Keynesian spending is the gov't spendng designed to employ people and help the economy, even if it is deficit spending. Since Reagan, we have spent billions on the military, including billions on the asisnine Star Wars program. These help the economy by putting money into the pockets of military industrial complex employees, but they do not help the economy otherwise. Gov't spending on schools, public lands, parks, infrastructure, housing, etc. employs people AND improves lives of other Americans. The sad thing is that conservatives have hijacked the politics of this country to the point that we really spend less than the bare minimum on these things.

 

Iraqi opinion poll post war

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3514504.stm

An opinion poll suggests most Iraqis feel their lives have improved since the war in Iraq began about a year ago.

 

Re: Iraqi opinion poll post war

Holy shit! You actually did some research! Now find me one of those altruistic wars, home slice.

 

Re: Iraqi opinion poll post war

MAXIMUM.. you are a fucking moron.

 

Re: Iraqi opinion poll post war

[ QUOTE ]
Shang said:

MAXIMUM.. you are a fucking moron.

[/ QUOTE ]


Ha ha, coming from you I’ll take that as a compliment. At least I have an opinion, and if people happen to disagree then that’s fine. Of course being the insecure cocksucker that you are, your idea of a debate is clearly siding up with the popular majority, which is what you do in every single flame you blunder onto. Now kindly piss-off.

To Shaolin_Hopper: Do you really think reading and distributing media articles research? I think that’s a problem today…the general public “think†they can get concrete information on any political subject from the fucking Internet. If you really want to educate yourself on foreign affairs I think you ultimately have to be in power. The government is privy to far more information and data than us – most intelligence is never made public domain.

 

Re: Iraqi opinion poll post war

Well, Maximum, the only problem with that poll is that it is most likely being used as justification for us to stay in Iraq.

Their lives have gotten better since we ousted Saddam. BUT, they still have a distrust and dislike of America, and the longer we stay in their land, the more they're going to dislike us. Even if their quality of living improves, our presence there will only piss them off.

So we can feel good about making their lives better. We should salvage what's left of the respect we can get from them by leaving them alone.

 

What the....?

[ QUOTE ]
MAXIMUM said:

I think that’s a problem today…the general public “think†they can get concrete information on any political subject from the fucking Internet. If you really want to educate yourself on foreign affairs I think you ultimately have to be in power. The government is privy to far more information and data than us – most intelligence is never made public domain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus MAXIPAD, you post a lot of dumb shit, but this is just frightening and fascist. So much troublesome shit is implied in this statement, I don't know where to begin.

For one thing you seem to fancy yourself a champion of democracy. But democracy is based on the idea that people can and must inform themselves and make decisions regarding political affairs.

Also implicit in your fucked up statement is acquiescence to leaders when they do they things that seem to be contrary to citizens' values. For example, "Gosh, I don't like the idea of bombing the shit out a tiny SE Asian country populated by poor farmers and it doesn't seem necessary to put a shitload of landmines in Cambodia thereby creating a nation of amputees, but if Henry Kissinger says it needs to be done, who am I to argue?"

By your stupid-ass logic the most informed man on planet Earth would have to be.....George.....W.......Fucking.......Bush!

 

Re: What the....?

Sorry but you've just jumped to a load of silly conclusions from a basic point.......the internet isn't a reliable source for balanced political information. Do you disagree?

 

Re: Iraqi opinion poll post war

[ QUOTE ]
MAXIMUM said:
At least I have an opinion, and if people happen to disagree then that’s fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

people are not questioning your opinion, they are questioning your intelligence. you seem to think having an unique perspective is cool, well I hate to break it to you dumbass you are just a stupid idiot. Go watch the movie before you mouth off anymore of you filth.

 

Re: What the....?

I disagree.

 

Re: What the....?

And the print and television media is?

 

Re: What the....?

I'd say the majority of souces on the internet are unreliable, especially for niche data. The internet isn't legislated so while there's more freedome to express views, information is rarely verified except on a minority of sites.

I think there's far too many arm-chair politicians around, armed with facts and figures from google searches. Can ordinary people weilding such information really claim to fully understand something as complex as a decision to go to war? How can they when they're not privy to many of the facts that are classified intelligence?

That's not to say an opinion can not be formed...after all a president/PM is voted into power with very little knowlege of his/her character.

Politics is not an exact science and if an individual chooses to support a war based on an abstract basis such as "I think the people of Iraq will benefit", then this should be respected

To Shang: Don't you ever tire of playing the brown-nosed clown?

 

Re: What the....?

[ QUOTE ]
MAXIMUM said:

Sorry but you've just jumped to a load of silly conclusions from a basic point.......the internet isn't a reliable source for balanced political information. Do you disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

You said more than that MAXIPAD. Remember, you also said "If you really want to educate yourself on foreign affairs I think you ultimately have to be in power." That's pretty fucked up and I think I covered it in my other post where I blew you to smithereens.

The other point is that the internet is perfectly fine way of becoming informed. In fact it is probably the best tool ever for dispensing information affordably. People in this thread have been cyber-spanking you with stories from unquestionably righteous news outlets like the NY Times, Washington Post, Salon.com, the BBC, the Guardian, etc. You yourself linked to a BBC story when it suited your purpose. Don't be a silly hypocrite.

By the way, I am usually oppossed to name calling and mean-spirited disses, but my job requires me to deal with politics all day, so writing here serves as a cathartic forum for me, even though I know it is not nice to glibly point out how stupid your political views are. Nor is it polite to call you MAXIPAD.

xoxoxo

 

Re: What the....?

Well news reports on the net from TV media groups are going to be nearly identical to television, but independent reporting and comment made on the tens of thousadnds of websites out there can be like throwing darts in terms of accuracy.

Btw, nobody has cyber-spanked me as you put it. Allot of people responding to this thread seem to think that posting a link or piece of data followed by a personal insult means they've won an argument.

 

Re: What the....?

I haven't insulted you yet. I am still waiting for the war I challenged you to list.

Here's another question for you. Try to dismiss this one as bullshit.

Your nation has just been wracked by the worst terrorist incident. You've just toppled down the nation that you feel is most responsible for the incident. Now, your people are still bloodthirsty, and you find it politically feasible to launch an invasion of another country in your 'War on Terrorism." You have the choice of these two targets:

(Nation A): This nation has launched an attack at one of your military vessels. It's led by a man with known relations to terrorism. He's openly made threats against the US in the past, and threatens a massive terrorist attack upon the US if we continue to maintain a presence in the Middle East. A retaliatory strike is launched against him, and he backs down from his stance, but still continues to fund terrorist groups. He's known to have oppressed and killed several thousands of his own people. It has been directly linked to a terrorist attack in your country in the past ten years. Its economy is suffering under UN economic sanctions. . It's a country, with not many natural resouces outside of a fairly large oil trade. Right now it's in pretty much the same shape it's been in for the past twenty years. This nation is known to have attempted to construct a chemical weapons plant in the past, and has been forced to release a rich northern territory back to its southern neighbor.

(Nation B) This nation is also known to have oppressed and killed several thousand of his people. It is led by a man you helped to place in power. There are no hard links to tie this nation to the terrorists that launched an attack against your country, nor any ties to link this nation to a terrorist attack against your country in the past ten years. Its economy is also suffering under the strain of UN sanctions placed against it, which hurt since its main resource is oil, just like nation A. Currently, it's struggling with internal problems caused by economic mismanagement and UN sanctions.

Which nation do you invade? A or B?

More on the political situation?

(Nation A) Withdrew from an invasion of its southern neighbor in the 1990s. After this, there have not been in any noteworthy skirmishes with its neighbors. There are several elements within the nation that you can count on to aid your revolt.

(Nation B) Was also forced to withdraw from its southern neighbor's territory in the 1990s, and has not been involved in any military incidents since then. Again, internally, there are plenty of dissadents you can count on to aid you in setting up an alternate government.

Smart people don't invade off of those facts alone. I'll put up the following details for you:

(Nation A) A rather unnoteworthy military, but this nation has congenial relations with several of its neighbors. Since this is a rich region, aid to Nation A can be expected in various forms.

(Nation B) An exceptional military, but this nation is hated by all of its neighbors, and cannot count on aid either economically, diplomatically, or financially.

Which nation do you invade? Answer that before you read any further.

If you're an altruistic nation and truly concerned about your national defense, you invade nation A. We didn't. We invaded nation B.

Nation A is Libya. Nation B is Iraq.

Try to bullshit around that.

 

Re: What the....?

you seem not to realize every poster replying to you are disagreeing with you and think you are an idiot. I'm simply amplifying their opinions of you in hope that you realize you are a retard and your opinion is that of a 2 year old. But it's obvious you are too stupid to understand what was just said. dumbass.

 

Re: What the....?

I bet my left Nut that MaxiBoy won't directly answer any of those questions. /versus/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

 

Re: What the....?

Interesting question. I couldn’t hope to fully answer it but I know something of Libya due to the Lockerbie incident. As I understand it Libya have been trying to rejoin the international community for the past 10 years. They’ve appologised for Lockerbie and payed compensation to the families of victims, they’ve also admitted liability for the French airliner they bombed over the Sudan. I’m not saying Libya isn’t a dangerous state but Gaddafi has at least tried to improve relations with the west in a bid to remove UN sanctions. He has come to the debating table and opened dialog with the west again.

Iraq on the other hand has never attempted to reach a diplomatic settlement with the West. It continually breached UN resolution through the 90s and the only reason weapons inspectors were permitted to enter again was because half the US army were parked on its border.

Also., many middle-east experts believe that Giddafi’s disarming of his WMD programme is directly linked to the tough stance taken against Iraq.

Shang: Ok, you’re right. Can you piss-off now thanks?

 

Re: What the....?

[ QUOTE ]
MAXIMUM said:

Shang: Ok, you’re right. Can you piss-off now thanks?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are a fucking moron.. face the reality. no one cares even if you actually made a valid point right now. please stfu. moron