USA Politics

LooseCannon said:
Romney has certainly talked tough over Iran.
Click to expand...

Yes he has. One small but potentially important segment of the U.S. election will be the Jewish vote. Traditionally Jews in the U.S. have favored Democrats, but there is a growing sentiment among people I talk to that "no true Jew can vote for Obama" because he is perceived to be weak on Iran and unwilling to have Israel's back in a crisis. Jewish votes may be important in a swing state like Florida, and campaign contributions from Jewish donors are also significant.
 
Oh, there is that. If Obama loses the Jewish vote, it'd be a sign of a shift in US politics for sure. I'm not sure he will, because I think that he's talked enough tough on Iran. It's just that Romney has talked a lot louder, probably because he's not actually the president of the United States at this moment. Even on the campaign trail, Obama talking loudly would be interpreted as official US policy in Tehran.

Now, Putin, however, has pretty much said that he doesn't want a Romney presidency, and thanked Romney for reinforcing why Russia opposes the NATO missile shield.
 
Obama did not make himself popular by telling Israel that they need to stop settling. But I am glad he did that.
Hope he sticks to his guns.
 
Romney is definitely an interventionist, but so is Obama. I put both of them at around the same chance of coming up with a reason to start another war in the Middle East. This recent event is going to get some people fired up in support of these wars, too. What needs to happen here is that, since a US ambassador was killed, the US should at least offer to help find the source of the killings, but no more than that. The film, I've heard, was discriminatory, low-life propaganda, however, that is an offense on a different level from assassinations. The killers (probably some sort of organization involved) should be found and put on trial, and the United States has the right and imperative to be involved since a US official was killed, however, they should cooperate as much as possible with local authorities.

Generally, though, I oppose foreign wars unless there is a very good reason. For example, I do not think the US should go to war with Iran unless they pose a tangible threat to the United States. Israel, as a country with nuclear weapons, can defend itself if necessary, and Iran will not make a nuclear strike against another nuclear power (if Iran even has nuclear weapons, a claim which is supported by little evidence). I think before we go off and start another war, we need to think about the blowback and let cooler heads prevail.
 
I'd say let's not start a war ever, but that's not likely with the capitalist system that has been ruling the world. Guns should be used, money should be made, leaders should be rich, knowledgable people should scream peace/reject the status and get killed/tortured/impoverished/imprisoned/censored for doing so, ignorant people should lick asses, scream the names of the system and be happy. Ignorance is bliss, you know.
 
Libya's Prime Minister has stated they have made one arrest so far in the murder of Ambassador Stevens. Likely more to come. This is extremely good news, because as Secretary Clinton noted - the people of Libya are, in generally, extremely grateful to the US and NATO for the assistance with getting rid of Qadaffi.
 
The Flash said:
I'd say let's not start a war ever, but that's not likely with the capitalist system that has been ruling the world. Guns should be used, money should be made, leaders should be rich, knowledgable people should scream peace/reject the status and get killed/tortured/impoverished/imprisoned/censored for doing so, ignorant people should lick asses, scream the names of the system and be happy. Ignorance is bliss, you know.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but where do you get the idea that capitalism causes wars? True capitalism (something that does not exist in the United States nor anywhere else in the world) is the only economic system which does not involve taking that which one does not earn. Capitalism, in its essence, is about earning what you get and getting only that which you earn. It is about respect for the property rights of all human beings. Capitalism is the only non-violent economic system, since socialism, communism, mercantilism, and corporatism (the closes approximation to what the United States is now is a mixed economy combining free market elements, without a true free market, with socialist and corporatist elements) all require an initiation of force. I'll posit right now that capitalism has never caused a war.

The capitalist system is not ruling the world. The capitalist system is taking its dying breaths as it is being replaced with the corporatist and socialist systems, usually a combination of the two. None of the world's problems can be blamed on capitalism.

"Guns should be used" - Gun policy is not closely related to economic policy, but I would imagine most capitalists would say that guns should be used only when faced with an immediate, legitimate threat

"money should be made" - Yes, money should be made. If it is made in a legitimate way, in other words, if the people making it earn it. That is the essence of capitalism. However, I'm not sure where the idea comes from that making money is so scandalous. Making money is not intrinsically good or bad, context is necessary. For example, making money working as a doctor or lawyer or entrepreneur, that would be earned money, and as long as you did nothing unethical to make that money, it is a very good thing that you did, since your productivity helps the economy. Now, making money as a freelance assassin is bad. Context is necessary, making money is not something that is, by its nature, bad.

"leaders should be rich" - This does not at all reflect capitalism. In the presence of capitalism, "leaders" in the sense that Ahmadenijad or Kim Jong or Putin are leaders, would not exist. Just government would not pay a high salary, since there is little productive value in legislating. If you mean "leaders" as "entrepreneurs," then why shouldn't they be wealthy if they earned their wealth? They put in the work, they took the risks, they planned their business. They earned their wealth, didn't they?

"knowledgable people should scream peace/reject the status and get killed/tortured/impoverished/imprisoned/censored for doing so, ignorant people should lick asses, scream the names of the system and be happy" - Once again, this isn't capitalism. Capitalism is a free-market system, and most capitalists probably encourage free thought and intelligence, which is of higher economic and societal benefit than ignorance. In the ideal system of most capitalists, no one would be harmed by a government or government sponsored corporation for engaging in free speech. This sounds like corporatism or fascism, not capitalism.

Watch out for anyone who says it is wrong to make money, or to be a capitalist, or to keep money once you've made it. Chances are, these people know what you should do with your money: give it to them.

When did "capitalism" become a dirty word? Why is it being blamed for the world's problems when it hardly exists anymore, a fact which is likely one of the biggest problems? When did "profit" become something to be ashamed of? Why is "selfish" now an insult, while "selfless," a term which often very accurately describes those who worship it as lacking an identity or a self, is held up as the highest praise? What is the world coming to?
 
I guess I just think most of the Western world looks at what forms of capitalism exist, and they say, hmm. And in general, they then tend towards socialist tendencies, yes, even in the USA. I don't think "pure" capitalism could work, just like I don't think "pure" communism could work. Both of them rely on people doing what the system thinks they should do, even when it is against their own best interest.
 
Perun said:
I just watched the movie that provoked it all. Better said: I tried to. I normally don't pay attention to user comments anywhere, but there was one which summed it up perfectly: "I have seen amateur porn with better continuity and production value than this piece of shit." Seriously. What the fuck is this? I have no idea what it is trying to tell me, I don't even know who half the characters are supposed to be. What I could make of it however is that it portrays Muslims as bloodthirsty and savage, and it openly states that Muhammad was a child molester. I really don't know what purpose this movie was made for other than actually provoke Muslims. The reactions coming from it were very obviously provoked, anticipated and desired, for the sole purpose of being able to say, "we told you so, Muslims are bimbos". Disgusting.
Click to expand...


Yesterday I saw on TV that one of the actors told she thought the film was about something else (can't remember what, but rather just some epic film instead of islam or the prophet). And indeed, when you hear someone saying Muhammad you can see that the persons says a different name.

Check the fragment starting at 0:45 in the vid, following this link:
http://nos.nl/video/418466-wie-maakte-de-amerikaanse-antiislamfilm.html

So the maker of the film (or at least someone who had the recordings) changed the audio.
At this point, I must say I have not seen the whole film, but I saw that fragment where (at least) the name was changed.

edit:
check also this:

An actress who starred in an anti-Muslim film that stirred extremists to protest across the Middle East claims she was tricked by the filmmaker, who she says lied to the cast about his own name and the true intentions of the movie.

"They put words in my mouth that were not in the script and I never said," said Cindy Lee Garcia, who told ABC News that after she and the other actors had finished shooting their scenes their dialogue was crudely dubbed over with incendiary attacks on Islam and the prophet Mohammed that were not in the script.

"Now, I'm sick that people died over this. I'm exhausted and really hurt and angry," she said of the riots that have roiled the Middle East.
 
Well, I can tell you it's very, very obvious in numerous places that it was overdubbed. Even if you don't look at the lip movements.
 
Together with the British one, apparently. I wonder what's going to happen next.
 
Seems like a reasonable reaction for some shit movie no one ever saw or heard of before they brough attention to it
 
The people who did the attack are violent, oh yes. But keep in mind that there are people in all these countries who are trying to stop the attacks too.

Still, though...people wonder why I'm an atheist.
 
With all these protesters burning the American flag and chanting down with the U.S.A. I really wish our government would have the balls to cut off all the financial aid we send to these fuckers. I mean right now hold a press conference and say that as of this moment they wouldn't get another fuckin dime of aid from us. Hey you don't like our country or our way of life so why would you want our money? If I don't like sombeody I don't want a fucking thing or anything to do with tem. Sure some innocent people would suffer due to the lack of aid but that's their fault. They should've done more and/or be doing more to keep their radicals under control
 
@ 425

The positive capitalism, the positive socialism or the positive x doesn't exist in this world. Because positivity doesn't exist in this world. It's all about selfishness.

I don't know why you bothered to write such a long comment about my post, the part "Guns should be used, money should be made, leaders should be rich, knowledgable people should scream peace/reject the status and get killed/tortured/impoverished/imprisoned/censored for doing so, ignorant people should lick asses, scream the names of the system and be happy. Ignorance is bliss, you know." wasn't about capitalism. It was about oligarchy. You misunderstood my whole post, I feel sorry for you since it must have taken some time to write your comment.

The oligarchy today uses capitalism. The oligarchy back in the day used socialism. The oligarchy will always use force therefore capitalism uses force nowadays. The oligarchy has been in force on almost every country (not almost, every country) in the world for a while. Oligarchy doesn't mean the leaders themselves in this case. The term "leader" is not the so called leader of the country. The leader of United States is not Barack Obama. It's money.

Every country worships money. Noone cares about anything other than money. Why would they give money away to "normal" people while they have the chance to keep them for themselves ? That's the way it goes. Nowadays the big money goes on the wars. Arms dealers make the most of this situation. Billion dollar energy agreements are made against wars. War = Money. Peace = No Money. And that's why we have wars and that's why we will have wars. Remember how US got themselves out of the Great Depression.

Until oligarchy is destroyed, it'll be the same again and again.

(oh and by the way, religion will always work for the oligarchy. it was designed to be used by oligarchy, anyway.)
 
You seem to misunderstand a large amount of my post. I was stating, in no uncertain terms, that what we have is in no way capitalism. There is no system in the world today that bears more than a passing resemblance to capitalism. The US is one of the closest, but all of its problems stem from movement away from capitalism.

Capitalism cannot be "used by an oligarchy," whatever that means, because the term capitalism exclude the existence of an oligarchy. If there is an oligarchy, there is no capitalism, because oligarchy is opposed to the very definition of capitalism. If there is capitalism, there cannot be oligarchy.

I agree with you up to the point where the current world system closely resembles an oligarchy. Beyond that, you completely missed the mark.

What does "the leader is money" mean? Money is not sentient. Money is not intrinsically bad. I bet you would like money. I bet if you had a chance to make more money than you do now, you would take it. But what you and so many other people try to do is portray like this to be a bad thing. All that money is, is a vehicle of trade. That's all. It's not some malicious force that's out to get you, or out to rule the world. Money is blind, it is not good or evil in nature. Therefore, people can use it for bad reasons. People can also use it for good reasons.

Every country worships money. Noone cares about anything other than money. Why would they give money away to "normal" people while they have the chance to keep them for themselves ? That's the way it goes. Nowadays the big money goes on the wars. Arms dealers make the most of this situation. Billion dollar energy agreements are made against wars. War = Money. Peace = No Money. And that's why we have wars and that's why we will have wars. Remember how US got themselves out of the Great Depression.
Click to expand...

I would be very interested to see you prove that "noone cares about anything other than money." Becausd this is completely untrue. I would say that very few people care primarily about money, and almost no one cares totally about money. Why should people who earned their money give money to "normal people"? In a capitalist system, the only people who have money are those who earn it. It is only in a mixed system, when we move away from the "evil" capitalism, when people who didn't earn their money start cropping up. These are the people who, as you put it, put the "big money...on the wars." I don't like these people any more than you do. In fact, I probably hate them more than you do, because they give capitalism a bad name and confuse people to move away from capitalism, which only makes them more powerful. See, these people use their money for malicious purposes. Many of them probably didn't earn it. More importantly, they would have no power in a true capitalist system. But many, probably most people, do not use their money in a bad way. So to say money is evil, or the primary problem with the world is ludicrous. Money is a vehicle of trade, blind to good or evil. Capitalism is a free system which is opposed to unprovoked warfare. It is opposed to oligarchy and any other type of tyranny. I can tell that you are aware of many of the world's problems, and I agree that there are many, I just am pointing out that you are completely wrong on the source of them.

Edit: Also, the "positivity doesn't exist" bit is quite a bleak outlook, and one that is completely unsupported by reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top