Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2014 20:05:10 GMT -5
I'm a normal people, and I don't hate America. At least, not yet. I am not against the American people. I am against their government. I believe that people are basically the same everywhere, regardless of religion, nationality and race. All people are fathers and mothers who have the same goal wherever they live. I am against those who spread lies and entice hatred between people. And I am against the ignorance that makes people believe the lies. I'm not a big fan of government anymore. Here, or anywhere. I attended a town hall meeting recently where our congressional representative misrepresented his job description by saying, "I was elected to lead. " I was sitting in the front row row, stood up and said, "Well, you've just identified the problem. You were elected to represent OUR concerns in Washington D.C., and you're failing miserably." E Pluribus B.S.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Mar 26, 2014 7:36:42 GMT -5
I'm not a big fan of government anymore. Here, or anywhere. I attended a town hall meeting recently where our congressional representative misrepresented his job description by saying, "I was elected to lead. " I was sitting in the front row row, stood up and said, "Well, you've just identified the problem. You were elected to represent OUR concerns in Washington D.C., and you're failing miserably." E Pluribus B.S. Thanks for standing up to the guy! I do think that government is necessary, but there must be mechanisms that ensure that they follow the people's best interest. One idea that I keep coming back to is that there should be no financial gain from being in top government positions. There are illegal and legal forms of curruption, and obviously the legal form is a much bigger problem. I'm thinking that whoever comes into a top position in government should give away all his belongings, all his businesses, in return he will be guaranteed a lifetime of financial support not much higher than the median income of the people, and he would be forbidden to earn anything more than that, he can still do whatever he wants after he leaves office, but he can't profit from it financially. A mechanism like that would ensure that this politician can't be bought, it eliminates corruption. They always argue that we must pay politicians well so that we get the most competent guys and so that they are independent of external influence by being financially independent. I disagree with this. What good is competence if at the same time the same people are also evil and corrupt? We all know that greed knows no bounds, so the "financially independent" argument is also flawed. On the other hand, we must ask ourselves, who would sacrifice his wealth and financial future for the well being of his country? Only a true partiot of course, only one who is truly interested in the future of his country and is willing to sacrifice his ego for it. On another note, Famer mentioned the Micex crash. There is a nice rumour that Russia bought back a lot of shares during the crash.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2014 9:47:47 GMT -5
I'm not a big fan of government anymore. Here, or anywhere. I attended a town hall meeting recently where our congressional representative misrepresented his job description by saying, "I was elected to lead. " I was sitting in the front row row, stood up and said, "Well, you've just identified the problem. You were elected to represent OUR concerns in Washington D.C., and you're failing miserably." E Pluribus B.S. Thanks for standing up to the guy! I do think that government is necessary, but there must be mechanisms that ensure that they follow the people's best interest. One idea that I keep coming back to is that there should be no financial gain from being in top government positions. There are illegal and legal forms of curruption, and obviously the legal form is a much bigger problem. I'm thinking that whoever comes into a top position in government should give away all his belongings, all his businesses, in return he will be guaranteed a lifetime of financial support not much higher than the median income of the people, and he would be forbidden to earn anything more than that, he can still do whatever he wants after he leaves office, but he can't profit from it financially. A mechanism like that would ensure that this politician can't be bought, it eliminates corruption. They always argue that we must pay politicians well so that we get the most competent guys and so that they are independent of external influence by being financially independent. I disagree with this. What good is competence if at the same time the same people are also evil and corrupt? We all know that greed knows no bounds, so the "financially independent" argument is also flawed. On the other hand, we must ask ourselves, who would sacrifice his wealth and financial future for the well being of his country? Only a true partiot of course, only one who is truly interested in the future of his country and is willing to sacrifice his ego for it. On another note, Famer mentioned the Micex crash. There is a nice rumour that Russia bought back a lot of shares during the crash. When I was working for the Obama campaign back in 2008, I engaged in a lot of conversations similar to what you've shared here. Our county campaign director was a Romanian born immigrant law student (Michigan State University/University of Cairo- International Law) who was energetic, and bright as a whip. We first met at an Obama house gathering (grass roots thing), where everyone expressed why they were in attendance. It was a pretty interesting evening, all rather informal, and after everyone expressed their views and vision regarding change, the gathering became more social as those in attendance started began partaking of food and beverages provided by the hostess, and engaging in conversation. I couldn't help but notice the County Campaign Director was in the living room by himself, so I walked over and struck up a conversation with him which began with an introduction, and the question, "So, hey, how come you didn't ask anyone to volunteer their time for the campaign tonight?" He smiled, reached for a clipboard he had set on a coffee table, and handed it to me. There was a form to be filled out (Name, address, telephone number), and after filling in my information I handed the clipboard back to him. He smiled, told me he liked what I had shared that evening, responded with a- thank you, and mentioned he would get in touch with me. We exchanged pleasantries, and I milled about for 20 or so minutes more engaging in conversation, thanked the hostess for a nice evening, and returned home. The next day the campaign director, much to my surprise, showed up at our home around 9am. It was a pleasant morning, and after introductions with my family we went out on the deck with a pot of fresh brewed coffee, and he started opening up about background, and his vision for the campaign in our county. Needless to say, I was pretty impressed with this young fella. Which quickly transitioned into stunned when he asked me to become his liason/field director for the campaign. I was still in a state of shock when I accepted the challenge. Our first order of business was to open up the Hall owned by the County Democratic Party, and ready it for a campaign. We spent a lot of time together from that moment on. He became a part of our family for the next four months. To make a long story short, one night after closing the Hall we had a long conversation over a couple of beers that lasted well into the night. I had asked him about his law school experiences, and he began describing a dissertation he had to submit before taking on the bar exam in January of '09. The dissertation was very similar to what you've shared here. In it he described a two year term for congressional representatives which would not entail legislative duties. Instead, their focus would be on fair elections, researching unfair election practices, election laws that were outdated- then chartering a course to get them off the books, and researching new legislative guidelines with regard to fair elections that could be introduced into law within the framework of the Constitution. At the end of their two year term they had the option of running for a Senate seat, or returning home. The Senate representative would have a maximum of two terms (12 years) working with the legislative process. No pension, and no lifetime health care plan paid for by the taxpayers. A thank you for your public service to our country. We debated it well into the wee hours of the morning, with quite a bit of focus on lobbying. I learned a lot that night about unfair election practices, and how the mess we're in was created. He was very well versed on the problems in this country. We gotta start somewhere... (BTW, he passed his bar exam)
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Mar 26, 2014 10:40:06 GMT -5
Interesting story, thanks.
Did you guys win? What happened to the Romanian guy, what is he doing now? What is his opinion on Obama now?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2014 11:06:32 GMT -5
link or giraffe
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2014 11:12:00 GMT -5
Interesting story, thanks. Did you guys win? What happened to the Romanian guy, what is he doing now? What is his opinion on Obama now? We won in the state election, but, no, we didn't win the county (very conservative here). But the numbers were way up from the Kerry campaign four years prior to that. He was sent down to Indiana by the National Campaign during the campaign in mid-October. Obama was down by 7 points in the polls at that time, and they pulled out in the last three weeks. Obama won Indiana. He called me that night, too. Exhausted elation. The last time I heard from him was about 2 1/2 years ago. He was leaving for, Washington D.C., where he was going to research, of all things, unfair election practices and laws. We had a helluva laugh on the phone about that. We discussed Obama a few months before he left. The conversation was mostly about single-payer health care, and why he didn't drop the hammer on it with a Democrat super majority elected to congress. I expressed my disappointment. He said the cupboard was just too bare after the meltdown, and he had no choice but to compromise. I disagreed with that, too. I'm happy he got a job out of it. He was a dedicated, hard working young man.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2014 11:13:22 GMT -5
link or giraffe Good one!
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Mar 26, 2014 11:30:02 GMT -5
I sometimes comtemplated about going into politics myself, to join the Left party here. But it would never work I'm afraid, I'm too aggro and impatient and I would damage the party by telling the straight truth without regard to official narratives, the media would quickly attack people like me as a conspiracy retard, commie and whatnot.
Meanwhile Russia is going to increase gas prices by 50%. The pensions for old people in Ukr will be halved, while in Crimea they will be doubled. Imagine how Ukrainians must feel, let's say before the coup they were getting 100 munies everywhere, and now they get 50 munies in Ukr and 200 munies in Crimea, plus they have to pay 50% more for gas.
Counterrevolution is probably just a matter of time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2014 12:07:03 GMT -5
I sometimes comtemplated about going into politics myself, to join the Left party here. But it would never work I'm afraid, I'm too aggro and impatient and I would damage the party by telling the straight truth without regard to official narratives, the media would quickly attack people like me as a conspiracy retard, commie and whatnot. Meanwhile Russia is going to increase gas prices by 50%. The pensions for old people in Ukr will be halved, while in Crimea they will be doubled. Imagine how Ukrainians must feel, let's say before the coup they were getting 100 munies everywhere, and now they get 50 munies in Ukr and 200 munies in Crimea, plus they have to pay 50% more for gas. Counterrevolution is probably just a matter of time. I dunno if politics is worth it anymore. Change is a very slow process. That's a sad state of affairs with regard to senior pensions being halved in one place, and doubled in another. I can't grasp what the intention behind that might be. A 50% rise in gas prices is ludicrous, especially for those on a pension. It sounds like a real mess is unfolding over there. It's happening here, too, but not on the same scale. The people of Michigan elected a billionaire Governor. He's taxing pensions, took away the earned income tax credit for low income people, increased tax breaks for the wealthy, prices are rising, wages are stagnant, unemployment is still around 8% (above the national avg.), economic growth is non-existent, etc. Somebody is reshuffling the deck. Again...
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Mar 27, 2014 7:12:05 GMT -5
You know, there is a narrative in the media that Russia broke international law. I'm not convinced that this is true, but let's for argument's sake suppose that that this is true. Then the pro-Russians say "but the western powers also broke international law on many occasions". And then the russophobes reply "but one wrong doesn't justify another".
I'll explain what imo is wrong with this back-and-forth argument. Laws will be broken one way or another sooner or later, even internaitonal laws will be broken. In a functioning system when laws are broken then the violator must experience consequences. It is indeed true that one wrong doesn't justify another, otherwise a thief can be justified in his act just because there exist other thiefs, which is of course nonsense. The point is a much different one. The problem is not that the international law has already been broken on other occasions, the problem is that it was broken again and again without any consequences for a select group of countries who claim to follow and uphold the international law. When this happens then those who follow the law are at a significant disadvantage to those western powers who break the law and find ways to avoid consequences.
Laws lose effect not when they are broken. Laws lose effect when they are broken and no punishment follows. I think this should be the true argument when people reply to the russophobes by pointing out that US itself evidently doesn't respect international law.
We have a similar story when people compare Kosovo's declaration of independence to the Crimean declaration of independence. The critics say that obviously the circumstances were much different in both cases - there was a humanitarian crisis in Kosovo and there wasn't one in Crimea. And this is true. But again, the point of the argument is a much different one. The point is that for Kosovo an exception was made. But if one exception was made, then why can't there be a second exception, and a third, etc?
I would be interested in hearing where there is a mistake in my analysis.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2014 7:51:35 GMT -5
You know, there is a narrative in the media that Russia broke international law. I'm not convinced that this is true, but let's for argument's sake suppose that that this is true. Then the pro-Russians say "but the western powers also broke international law on many occasions". And then the russophobes reply "but one wrong doesn't justify another". I'll explain what imo is wrong with this back-and-forth argument. Laws will be broken one way or another sooner or later, even internaitonal laws will be broken. In a functioning system when laws are broken then the violator must experience consequences. It is indeed true that one wrong doesn't justify another, otherwise a thief can be justified in his act just because there exist other thiefs, which is of course nonsense. The point is a much different one. The problem is not that the international law has already been broken on other occasions, the problem is that it was broken again and again without any consequences for a select group of countries who claim to follow and uphold the international law. When this happens then those who follow the law are at a significant disadvantage to those western powers who break the law and find ways to avoid consequences. Laws lose effect not when they are broken. Laws lose effect when they are broken and no punishment follows. I think this should be the true argument when people reply to the russophobes by pointing out that US itself evidently doesn't respect international law. We have a similar story when people compare Kosovo's declaration of independence to the Crimean declaration of independence. The critics say that obviously the circumstances were much different in both cases - there was a humanitarian crisis in Kosovo and there wasn't one in Crimea. And this is true. But again, the point of the argument is a much different one. The point is that for Kosovo an exception was made. But if one exception was made, then why can't there be a second exception, and a third, etc? I would be interested in hearing where there is a mistake in my analysis. That's what I think too. The US doesn't have a leg to stand on until they wholeheartedly prosecute and take responsibility for their own criminals. This is politically unfeasible in this country right now.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Mar 27, 2014 12:28:26 GMT -5
Oh man, this is total insanity... www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-27/here-youtube-false-flag-attack-syria-clip-erdogan-wanted-bannedI think Erdogan is finished. This weekend there will be local elections in Turkey. I wish I could understand Turkey better, I wish I had the time. It's an extremely interesting country, it's secret intelligence service is highly cooperative with CIA and they had (have?) an important Gladio program, which is a NATO program. Sibel Edmonds has a lot to say about it. And btw, for to fully appreciate the consequences, Turkey is a NATO member.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Mar 30, 2014 6:37:48 GMT -5
And nothing about it in MSM. Unbelievable. So now the right sector is threatening to storm the parliament if the Avakov (interior minister) doesn't resign, because police killed Sashko Belyi, one of the main nazi guys. And what does Baroness Ashton say? - "I strongly condemn the pressure by activists of the Right Sector who have surrounded the building of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. Such an intimidation of the parliament is against the democratic principles and rule of law." Right sector are the same guys without who Yanukovich would still be in power, and back then the Baroness didn't complain about undemocrating elements. This is incredible, they think we are complete morons. And the award for most shameless propaganda goes to Turchinov, illegal Ukraine interim president, he calles the right sector siege and threats against the parliament: "an attempt to destabilise the situation in Ukraine, in the very heart of Ukraine - Kiev. That is precisely the task that the Russian Federation's political leadership is giving to its special services" You can't make this up. Absolute insanity.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Apr 3, 2014 5:38:31 GMT -5
Now even NASA has been ordered to stop cooperation with Russia. I know that US scientists have common sense, I hope that they will speak out against this idiocy.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Apr 3, 2014 15:06:51 GMT -5
Best part is Medvedev imho. Okay that's it for me today. Imma go eat now and then watch p.
|
|