Politics 2017 part 4

[Zoraptor]

Let's see if this brings us any closer to WW3. But yeah, this is probably how Russians respond to a terrorist attack on their soil.

 

Eh, they'd just drop conventional bombs if they wanted to randomly kill lots of people, same as anyone else would. If you don't have an air force you go to some village and shoot it up semi randomly as our SAS did when the Taleban killed an NZ soldier; plus it'd be a weird way to strike back at an ISIS inspired Kyrgyz with no other apparent link to Syria anyway. Mostly though, the rebels say that the chemical bomb/ missile was dropped by a Su22 which Russia hasn't operated for years and nobody suggests they have in Syria. If the rebel story is accurate it was definitely Syria rather than Russia.

 

I'd be reticent about assigning blame at this point anyway, apart from it being pretty stupid to potentially provoke intervention and utterly pointless militarily, MSF have said that two chemical agents were present with the second probably being chlorine or a similar derivative. That definitely means that there was either more than the one chemical bomb claimed by witnesses or a secondary source on the ground.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

The Feds Already Have Your Face in a Database.

 

That is why I'm learning make up and special effects. One day I will commit all my crimes with impunity just by being someone else.

Just convert to Judaism and you'll get a free pass.

[Katphood]

 

Let's see if this brings us any closer to WW3. But yeah, this is probably how Russians respond to a terrorist attack on their soil.

 

Eh, they'd just drop conventional bombs if they wanted to randomly kill lots of people, same as anyone else would. If you don't have an air force you go to some village and shoot it up semi randomly as our SAS did when the Taleban killed an NZ soldier; plus it'd be a weird way to strike back at an ISIS inspired Kyrgyz with no other apparent link to Syria anyway. Mostly though, the rebels say that the chemical bomb/ missile was dropped by a Su22 which Russia hasn't operated for years and nobody suggests they have in Syria. If the rebel story is accurate it was definitely Syria rather than Russia.

 

I'd be reticent about assigning blame at this point anyway, apart from it being pretty stupid to potentially provoke intervention and utterly pointless militarily, MSF have said that two chemical agents were present with the second probably being chlorine or a similar derivative. That definitely means that there was either more than the one chemical bomb claimed by witnesses or a secondary source on the ground.

 

 

 

Well, here is what the Russian side claims:

 

"According to Russia’s Defense Ministry, the Syrian Air Force destroyed a warehouse in Idlib province where chemical weapons were being produced and stockpiled by rebels before being shipped to Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) in Iraq."~RT

 

Why would the rebels support the IS? If they do support the IS then why are NATO and half of the world supporting rebels/terrorists?! 

 

All I know is that one side should seriously be blamed, I'm tired of global powers taking a dump in a certain region where it doesn't belong to them and then proceed to claim that no side is responsible. "Nothing happened here, move along!"

[Zoraptor]

Pretty sure everyone is sick of global powers taking dumps in regions except said global powers.

 

In the mess that is the SCW it's not actually impossible that the rebels manufacture chemical weapons for ISIS, especially in the specific regional context. Liwa (formerly Jund) al Aqsa was the group that previously held Khan Sheiktoun, and they've (literally) joined ISIS having previously and temporarily joined Al Qaeda/ Al Nusra (Hayat Tahrir al Sham, formally). There are still extensive links between LAA and HTS and LAA has, despite having a thousand or so members, disappeared completely so far as anyone can tell. Plus HTS apart from literally being Al Qaeda was also literally ISIS up until Feb 2014. So rebels supplying ISIS with CW is probably bollocks, but not certainly so especially if they were meant to supply LAA.

 

HTS/ AQ also gets a lot of 'Friends of Syria' (NATO/ Gulf States) sourced supplies as they control the supply routes, and whether NATO acknowledges it or not. They're the best supplied rebel force in Syria- by a fair margin- despite theoretically being embargoed by everyone.

 

There has been at least one occasion in which the rebels very likely used sarin in an attack- on government held Khan al Assal in 2013. In an interesting reversal, the official western position is that it was the government gassing people on their own side that time. That was primarily on a military target though and killed more soldiers than civilians, for what that's worth.

[Pidesco]

http://verysmartbrothas.com/the-national-park-service-guys-face-when-getting-that-bull****-check-from-trump-is-the-blackest-thing/

 

 

The face Harpers Ferry National Historical Park superintendent Tyrone Brandyburg made yesterday when presented a $78,333 check from Donald Trump — the same Donald Trump who plans to cut funding from the National Park Service — is a face we all recognize. Because its a face of recognition. It’s the “This ****…” face. Which is also sometimes known as the “This **** here” face and the “This **** right here” face.

[Azdeus]

Can any Swedish citizen formally request the government to destroy their DNA sample, or did you just get hooked up by a buddy?

Anyone can, you download/order a form to fill out where you decide if you want it destroyed or anonomized. My buddy probably wouldn't risk her job for me ^^ 

It seems that USA only demands such thing from foreign passports and even though US Passports also now have biometric chip where such data could be saved and read from distance it isn't used.

 

Clearly we need to take visa free travelling from people travelling with US Passports as they clearly have insecure passports 

 

Hey, it's to protect you from identity theft! 

For a while it was volountary here, and now it's mandatory.

 

That is why I'm learning make up and special effects. One day I will commit all my crimes with impunity just by being someone else.

That won't help you, they can identify you on your gait!

[Ben No.3]

 

There is a massive amount of wiggle room between 'making people dependent on the government' and 'improving social inequalities'. We live in a time of rather obscene wealth division.

Do we really live in that type of division, what would be an example of this?

 

Before you consider answering this remember you have to ask yourself what the person who lives in obscene wealth does for a living and how they achieved this

The real question is wether most wealthy people actually worked so much more and harder than a common worker to justify this huge gap. And let's be honest, no. In fact, I'd argue their wealth is based either on exploitation (I'm not gonna repeat the full argument again) or on gambling (and it is nothing more than that) on Wall Street. Most likely both.

 

But to pretend that the rich are rich because they deserve it is, indeed, moronic.

[Ben No.3]

<p>

 

 

 

There is a massive amount of wiggle room between 'making people dependent on the government' and 'improving social inequalities'. We live in a time of rather obscene wealth division.

Do we really live in that type of division, what would be an example of this?

 

Before you consider answering this remember you have to ask yourself what the person who lives in obscene wealth does for a living and how they achieved this

They are probably bankers. I'm on to you Bruce!

Its not quite what you thinking but its not far off

 

You see I have this particular debate probably every 2 weeks with different people all over the world and even though the question or the criticism may appear completely different to your question the expected answer is often similar

 

People ask questions like

 

[*]why do we have such an unequal economic society

This is inherent to capitalism. It is also inherent that inequality will grow and grow and grow... r>g and so on.

[*]how do we end the monopoly and collusion of the banks

Within capitalism? We don't. The creation of mono/oligopolies is another mechanism inherent to any form of capitalism after the industrial revolution. Changing this requires fundamental changes that would shift the economy considerably to the way of public ownership/common property.

[*]why is the West trying to control our economy

Because capitalist systems have to expand to gain new profits. Taking control over your economy means profit for the capitalists, thus this justifies almost every measure to do so.

[*]why does our government pander to the financial sector or allow foreign countries to dictate to us

 

Many probably because of corruption; but in the long run, it can not really be stopped without fundamental changes. The profit incentive is huge, and it allows and requires capitalism to expand over the world. And since very few countries posses the means and the will to resist this, there's nothing to stop it. Unless of course you finally get fed up with being dictated by a small elite that is driven by nothing but profit and sees you as nothing but an exploitable recourse. Maybe you will feel the need to change something. Do call me when that happens.

 

And the expected answer or outcome is suppose to be something like

[*]the banks control the economies of the world and surreptitiously manipulate events to control a certain narrative

[*]the banks are products of the West and should never be trusted

 

Well... yes

[BruceVC]

 

 

There is a massive amount of wiggle room between 'making people dependent on the government' and 'improving social inequalities'. We live in a time of rather obscene wealth division.

Do we really live in that type of division, what would be an example of this?

 

Before you consider answering this remember you have to ask yourself what the person who lives in obscene wealth does for a living and how they achieved this

The real question is wether most wealthy people actually worked so much more and harder than a common worker to justify this huge gap. And let's be honest, no. In fact, I'd argue their wealth is based either on exploitation (I'm not gonna repeat the full argument again) or on gambling (and it is nothing more than that) on Wall Street. Most likely both.

 

But to pretend that the rich are rich because they deserve it is, indeed, moronic.

 

 

You raise a common strawman argument that is inconsistent and impossible to substantiate. Firstly you are creating the actual false narrative when you say " The real question is wether most wealthy people actually worked so much more and harder than a common worker to justify this huge gap " 

 

When did that point ever translate to something that is relevant? You have no idea how hard so called " rich " people work or how we should or shouldn't define there wealth and is it justified. 

 

So ironically the word " moronic  " is your word and has no significance to the debate except being applicable to your assessment

[BruceVC]

 

<p>

 

 

There is a massive amount of wiggle room between 'making people dependent on the government' and 'improving social inequalities'. We live in a time of rather obscene wealth division.

Do we really live in that type of division, what would be an example of this?

 

Before you consider answering this remember you have to ask yourself what the person who lives in obscene wealth does for a living and how they achieved this

They are probably bankers. I'm on to you Bruce!

Its not quite what you thinking but its not far off

 

You see I have this particular debate probably every 2 weeks with different people all over the world and even though the question or the criticism may appear completely different to your question the expected answer is often similar

 

People ask questions like

 

[*]why do we have such an unequal economic society

This is inherent to capitalism. It is also inherent that inequality will grow and grow and grow... r>g and so on.

[*]how do we end the monopoly and collusion of the banks

Within capitalism? We don't. The creation of mono/oligopolies is another mechanism inherent to any form of capitalism after the industrial revolution. Changing this requires fundamental changes that would shift the economy considerably to the way of public ownership/common property.

[*]why is the West trying to control our economy

Because capitalist systems have to expand to gain new profits. Taking control over your economy means profit for the capitalists, thus this justifies almost every measure to do so.

[*]why does our government pander to the financial sector or allow foreign countries to dictate to us

Many probably because of corruption; but in the long run, it can not really be stopped without fundamental changes. The profit incentive is huge, and it allows and requires capitalism to expand over the world. And since very few countries posses the means and the will to resist this, there's nothing to stop it. Unless of course you finally get fed up with being dictated by a small elite that is driven by nothing but profit and sees you as nothing but an exploitable recourse. Maybe you will feel the need to change something. Do call me when that happens.

 

And the expected answer or outcome is suppose to be something like

[*]the banks control the economies of the world and surreptitiously manipulate events to control a certain narrative

[*]the banks are products of the West and should never be trusted

Well... yes

 

 Yes I am well aware and expected you to comment on  these questions because I have these debates all the time with analysts  who share your view on Capitalism and also misunderstand and generalize about what is good about the banks and or financial sector. I am glad you responded so please dont think I am dismissing your post or the effort you made to comment 

 

 

To be honest all your responses are cliches and common examples of how some people still dont understand how Capitalism has changed and how we now have sustainable systems like responsible or regulated Capitalism 

[Ben No.3]

Let me get this straight Bruce... everyone tells you the exact same things, and you think you're the one who is right?

[Raithe]

On the mild diversion from the current argu.. discussion.

 

Best snarky quote for the day I saw was in reference to how Trump needed half a dozen people with him to help "clarify" his statements during a recent interview with the New York Times.

"He has more handlers than a bear in a Russian circus."

[Guard Dog]

So, I'm sitting here at my kitchen counter drinking a cup of coffee and reading USA Today on my iPad. And a thought hit me like a bolt of lightning. And not for the first time. Donald Trump is the President of the United States? How the F--K did this happen???

 

Still better than Hillary Clinton though.

[Gfted1]

It seems that USA only demands such thing from foreign passports and even though US Passports also now have biometric chip where such data could be saved and read from distance it isn't used.

 

Clearly we need to take visa free travelling from people travelling with US Passports as they clearly have insecure passports 

We are ambassadors of Freedom and we don't need no stinkin' badges.

[Chilloutman]

350M people and best you could come up was these two freaks sad right?

[Raithe]

Amidst other world politics...

 

 

 

Hi Spain. Only me. I just google-mapped Gibraltar as I didn't really know where you kept it. And I couldn't help notice this little place just over the water called Ceuta. I think it's yours but you've actually left it in someone else's country and Wikipedia tell me that Morocco rather want it back. I'm not being funny, Spain, but is this the pot calling the kettle Moorish? Anyways, send my love to Portugal. Toodleoo.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

In my case, because I personally knew one working there, otherwise you're right, you don't actually 'know' they've destroyed it, but if you want to go down the rabbit hole that far you will soon be institutionalized anyway

Can any Swedish citizen formally request the government to destroy their DNA sample, or did you just get hooked up by a buddy?

 

Isn't that bit old news, because now its been at least for 11 years that order to get passport one needs to give clear picture of your face and fingerprints to government who will share them with other governments.

Interesting. I don't remember providing my fingerprints for my passport, but its been a while so maybe I did?

 

No fingerprints, just a picture.

 

 

 

 

Isn't that bit old news, because now its been at least for 11 years that order to get passport one needs to give clear picture of your face and fingerprints to government who will share them with other governments.

Interesting. I don't remember providing my fingerprints for my passport, but its been a while so maybe I did?

 

 

It seems that USA only demands such thing from foreign passports and even though US Passports also now have biometric chip where such data could be saved and read from distance it isn't used.

 

Clearly we need to take visa free travelling from people travelling with US Passports as they clearly have insecure passports 

 

I don't think we demand anything from foreign passports except that they identify the person and not be fake.

 

 

So, I'm sitting here at my kitchen counter drinking a cup of coffee and reading USA Today on my iPad. And a thought hit me like a bolt of lightning. And not for the first time. Donald Trump is the President of the United States? How the F--K did this happen???

 

Still better than Hillary Clinton though.

That's how.

 

 

There is a massive amount of wiggle room between 'making people dependent on the government' and 'improving social inequalities'. We live in a time of rather obscene wealth division.

Yes, so may be you should stop supporting importing vast amounts of cheap labor.

[Ben No.3]

So, I'm sitting here at my kitchen counter drinking a cup of coffee and reading USA Today on my iPad. And a thought hit me like a bolt of lightning. And not for the first time. Donald Trump is the President of the United States? How the F--K did this happen???

 

Still better than Hillary Clinton though.

How? "My" working theory is decades of neo liberal politics causing a resurgence of high inequality levels. This means fear among the diminishing middle class and an even stronger sense of abandonment for the lower class. Thus populism, and that it is Trump specifically... well, the right wing is particularly strong in the US, and I think Trump is somewhat representative of the very specific US type of nationalism. But of course, there's always an element of simply coincidence. Edited April 6, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Guard Dog]

Ben I'm going to take your point off on a tangent here if you'll indulge me. You (and many others) express a lot of concern over the lack of equality. I am more concerned about a loss of freedom. To quote the great Milton Friedman "A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both."

 

Let me tell you a story. About five years ago I had an idea for a business along with another engineer I worked with. We formulated a business plan and recruited four investors. We all agreed on a one sixth split of the start up costs. It was a lot of money. Far more cash than I had lying around. So I mortgaged my house and committed most of my life savings to the venture. I went "all in". Our first contract was designing and installing wi-fi networks at colleges in Mexico. We were the low bid because my original partner and I agreed to pay our own travel costs. After eight hard months and many sleepless nights we completed our contact ahead of schedule and under budget. More work, bigger jobs followed. After four years we had 12 employees and 14 contractors. That was when we decided to sell the business. The six original investors made a lot of money on it. The venture was thriving at that point. The employees all received six months pay as a bonus/severance.

 

My question to you is do you think the employees were treated fairly. After all they were a big part of our success. Should the split have been 12 ways? No. It should not have been. If the business failed they would have lost their jobs true. But my partners and I would have lost our seed capital and every dollar invested after. For me that would have meant losing my home and my entire life savings. The employees were not working around the clock trying to the the work of a 5 man staff with just two. We were. While they slept in their homes I was killing rats with a hammer while running CAT6 cable through the attic at the Universidad de Sonora in Hermosillo.  Disproportionate risk, disproportionate work leads to disproportionate rewards.

 

You see where I'm coming from here? If there was no reward for creating that venture we would not have bothered to do it and for the years we worked those 12 jobs would not have existed at all.

[Gfted1]

Are you fully retired now, GD?

 

EDIT: Derp, I see from another post that you are not retired.

[Hurlshort]

Again, there is a tremendous amount of wiggle room here. Very few people are going to dispute that a person that risks everything to start a new business doesn't deserve the fruits of such a labor. But that is really not what we are talking about when we discuss the terrible inequality of wealth in the country. That .1 percent of the country that controls 90% of the wealth is an issue. It isn't trickling down, instead it has been escalating at the top and slowing in the middle.

[Guard Dog]

Are you fully retired now, GD?

No I work for the Tennessee Dept of Environment & Conservation now. I have been for two years now. Don't ask me how I backed into this job because nothing in my education or professional life even remotely qualified me for it. I sent in a resume for the heck of it, got interviewed twice and here I am. But I must admit I do enjoy it immensely. I used the proceeds of the sale of our business to pay off my house, buy my truck, buy my investment property (the townhouse) and a few other investments.

[Hurlshort]

Also, before you think I'm lobbying for more government taxes on the rich, that couldn't be farther form the truth. My problem is the government is basically serving corporate interests most of the time. Corporations don't invest tremendous amounts of money into lobbying for no good reason. They do it because it allows them to maintain the upper hand on the American workers.

[Guard Dog]

Again, there is a tremendous amount of wiggle room here. Very few people are going to dispute that a person that risks everything to start a new business doesn't deserve the fruits of such a labor. But that is really not what we are talking about when we discuss the terrible inequality of wealth in the country. That .1 percent of the country that controls 90% of the wealth is an issue. It isn't trickling down, instead it has been escalating at the top and slowing in the middle.

When someone has money they can do one of three things with it. Spend it. Invest it. Save it. The former two has benefits that stretch beyond the act. If they buy a new swimming pool it means money for pool company who pay the wages of the pool guy, etc. If they invest it in Nabisco (example) Nabisco uses it to make a new strawberry flavored graham cracker that the hire people to bake, deliver, and sell and that I buy and spread lots of peanut butter on. If they save it no one benefits really. Not even them because that is the lowest return on it. For the past 10 years or more we have lived in an economy where investment is riskier and the penalties for success are higher. And failure even higher still. It's a saver's economy which means fewer dollars circulate. Add to that the value hits the dollar has taken do to foolhardy economic ideas from Bush & Obama and the general lack of confidence in things and you have an economy that might be growing but is not conducive to "trickle down" working as it should.

 

Oh I get what you are saying. And yes corporations do spend a hell of a lot lobbying the government to do for them. That is both good and bad and neither good or bad. It just is. It's not new. The biggest thing we an do to fix our economy is to understand what it is and stop trying to manage it. Or regulate the absolute hell out of it and stop pretending it's free. A free market will experience swings. Booms and recessions That cannot and should not be "managed". Just endured. The cycle will always auto correct. A managed economy won't have these swings but it won't be robust. For twenty years now we have been trying to have it both ways. That does not work.

Edited April 6, 2017 by Guard Dog

[Ben No.3]

I am humbled you ask my opinions.

 

Now, here is the thing. I hold entrepreneurship high, because I realise that it can be a great source of joy, as well as a catalyst for human endeavour. And thus, I have sympathy for people like you.

 

See, answering your question "were the employees treated unfairly" isn't a simple yes or no one. Hardline Marxists will disagree with me, but then again, no single ideology will fix anything.

 

What I'd like to see is the nationalisation of big industries (and the banking sector?). Now a great example of why I see the necessity for this is the pharma industrie: if it is under private ownership, it's Motive is profit. This means that a) it has an interest that there are sick people and b) it has an interest in producing cheap medicine and selling it expensively. A national Industrie on the other hand produces for use. This means, that instead of expensively selling cheap pills that would treat you symptomatically (as a private company would likely do), a nationalised company might give you vaccines. Now I am in no way qualified to judge at which companies should or should not be run by the state, but I think you get the notion.

 

Now I also believe that there should be an unconditional basic income. And I believe in what my friend called "backyard capitalism" when I explained it to him what I imagined. I have nothing against people building up their small private businesses, as long as I can ensure that everyone is well of. So free healthcare, education, and the unconditional basic income. And assuming this, you go ahead a day build up your private business. Expect to be taxed

 

I don't want pure socialism, I realise this won't work. Heck, Lenin himself had to admit this and thus introduced NEP. I would like to see socialism with certain capitalist elements that rule out the weak spots of it. Does that make sense?

Edited April 6, 2017 by Ben No.3