| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"dapra" |
| Date: |
11 Jul 2007 01:46:46 PM |
| Object: |
How come all you Democrats don't want to win the war? |
I've heard this question on C-SPAN today. It's an important one to
reflect on.
What does it mean to win the war?
I think, for Bush, it means a puppet government in Iraq, military bases
to wage aggressive wars from, and institute a neoliberal economy for the
maximum exploitation of the Iraqi people, including controlling their
oil fields.
These are quite despicable goals by the standards of morality of the
average people supposed to live by. But as most of us know, states have
no morality, only interest.
But who's interests the Bush regime, the state serves? Not us, the
people! We pay for the war, the oil companies get the profits. We pay
for the neoliberasition of Iraq, so our jobs can be transferred there too.
It a good racket! The ruling class has always been able to pull. No one
should ask, why our education stinks. It is a required condition to rule
the unwashed ones.
.
|
|
| User: "Governor Swill" |
|
| Title: Re: How come all you Democrats don't want to win the war? |
17 Jul 2007 11:53:22 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 05:01:58 -1000, "Hertz Dount"
<somewhere@outhere.com> wrote:
Idiots like you will not wake up until Bush starts WW III.
I think the only idiot is your...attacking Switzerland.
Honu
Actually, you would be the idiot for quoting 110 lines in order to
post 1.
Swill
--
Picture of the day
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Governor Swill" |
|
| Title: Re: How come all you Democrats don't want to win the war? |
17 Jul 2007 11:52:30 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:56:21 -0400, dapra <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote:
That may come true, if Bush attacks Iran. And he will find reasons to
attack Venezuela. And he may try to go for the yellow gold too after he
got the black one, and attacks Switzerland.
We already have the gold. Best estimates are that the US has upwards
of three quarters of the world's bullion supply and controls as much
as half the world's current production.
We already have the black gold too. Oil has been traded on global
markets exclusively for dollars for decades now and even no OPEC oil
exporters not signatory to the original agreement follow it's terms.
The US has most of the gold gold and the petrodollar gives us control
over most of the black.
Swill
--
Picture of the day
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "dapra" |
|
| Title: Re: How come all you Democrats don't want to win the war? |
18 Jul 2007 08:39:37 AM |
|
|
Governor Swill wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:56:21 -0400, dapra <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote:
That may come true, if Bush attacks Iran. And he will find reasons to
attack Venezuela. And he may try to go for the yellow gold too after he
got the black one, and attacks Switzerland.
We already have the gold. Best estimates are that the US has upwards
of three quarters of the world's bullion supply and controls as much
as half the world's current production.
We already have the black gold too. Oil has been traded on global
markets exclusively for dollars for decades now and even no OPEC oil
exporters not signatory to the original agreement follow it's terms.
The US has most of the gold gold and the petrodollar gives us control
over most of the black.
Swill
Of course attacking Switzerland was tongue-in-cheek comment.
I think, the two main reasons for attacking Iraq were the (1) control of
oil, and (2) turn Iraq's economy into a neoliberal one. Bush (Cheney)
never cared about democracy. 'Spreading democracy' was a code phrase for
neoliberal exploitation and the control of oil in all of the Gulf states.
Though, the Bush administration have serious trouble achieving their
main goals, they have found, created a new enemy, terrorism to replace
communism. Comparing the two is ridiculous, but the media is doing a
good job to elevate a few thousands of jihadests and millions of
supporters into a threat posed by the Soviet Union, for the reason of
funding and drive the imperial military.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Wolf With the Red Roses" |
|
| Title: Re: How come all you Democrats don't want to win the war? |
21 Jul 2007 12:27:13 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:39:37 -0400, dapra <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote
something wonderfully witty:
Governor Swill wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:56:21 -0400, dapra <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote:
That may come true, if Bush attacks Iran. And he will find reasons to
attack Venezuela. And he may try to go for the yellow gold too after he
got the black one, and attacks Switzerland.
We already have the gold. Best estimates are that the US has upwards
of three quarters of the world's bullion supply and controls as much
as half the world's current production.
We already have the black gold too. Oil has been traded on global
markets exclusively for dollars for decades now and even no OPEC oil
exporters not signatory to the original agreement follow it's terms.
The US has most of the gold gold and the petrodollar gives us control
over most of the black.
Swill
Of course attacking Switzerland was tongue-in-cheek comment.
I think, the two main reasons for attacking Iraq were the (1) control of
oil, and (2) turn Iraq's economy into a neoliberal one. Bush (Cheney)
never cared about democracy. 'Spreading democracy' was a code phrase for
neoliberal exploitation and the control of oil in all of the Gulf states.
Though, the Bush administration have serious trouble achieving their
main goals, they have found, created a new enemy, terrorism to replace
communism. Comparing the two is ridiculous, but the media is doing a
good job to elevate a few thousands of jihadests and millions of
supporters into a threat posed by the Soviet Union, for the reason of
funding and drive the imperial military.
Well isn't that so Neo-Thinking of you.
Anybody else had it with the phrases, "Neo" & "The War on"?
ÿþ-
.
|
|
|
| User: "Governor Swill" |
|
| Title: Re: How come all you Democrats don't want to win the war? |
21 Jul 2007 09:17:14 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 01:27:13 -0400, The Wolf With the Red Roses
<after-dark-arms@cox.net> wrote:
Though, the Bush administration have serious trouble achieving their
main goals, they have found, created a new enemy, terrorism to replace
communism. Comparing the two is ridiculous, but the media is doing a
good job to elevate a few thousands of jihadests and millions of
supporters into a threat posed by the Soviet Union, for the reason of
funding and drive the imperial military.
Well isn't that so Neo-Thinking of you.
Anybody else had it with the phrases, "Neo" & "The War on"?
*raises hand*
Swill
--
Picture of the day
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "dapra" |
|
| Title: Re: How come all you Democrats don't want to win the war? |
23 Jul 2007 10:29:27 AM |
|
|
The Wolf With the Red Roses wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:39:37 -0400, dapra <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote
something wonderfully witty:
Governor Swill wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:56:21 -0400, dapra <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote:
That may come true, if Bush attacks Iran. And he will find reasons to
attack Venezuela. And he may try to go for the yellow gold too after he
got the black one, and attacks Switzerland.
We already have the gold. Best estimates are that the US has upwards
of three quarters of the world's bullion supply and controls as much
as half the world's current production.
We already have the black gold too. Oil has been traded on global
markets exclusively for dollars for decades now and even no OPEC oil
exporters not signatory to the original agreement follow it's terms.
The US has most of the gold gold and the petrodollar gives us control
over most of the black.
Swill
Of course attacking Switzerland was tongue-in-cheek comment.
I think, the two main reasons for attacking Iraq were the (1) control of
oil, and (2) turn Iraq's economy into a neoliberal one. Bush (Cheney)
never cared about democracy. 'Spreading democracy' was a code phrase for
neoliberal exploitation and the control of oil in all of the Gulf states.
Though, the Bush administration have serious trouble achieving their
main goals, they have found, created a new enemy, terrorism to replace
communism. Comparing the two is ridiculous, but the media is doing a
good job to elevate a few thousands of jihadests and millions of
supporters into a threat posed by the Soviet Union, for the reason of
funding and drive the imperial military.
Well isn't that so Neo-Thinking of you.
Is that a complement, or you are using it, as in recent customary usage
of neo-, meaning the opposite like neo-conservative?
Anybody else had it with the phrases, "Neo" & "The War on"?
ÿþ-
Neo-covervative, neo-liberal are misleading terms, but they do identify
new political, economic trends. Though, they are neither conservative
nor liberal.
"War on .. anything" is a long established slogan in American politics
for more than 40 years. It sounds so, so macho. The American people must
love it, otherwise politicians would not revive the slogan time after time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Governor Swill" |
|
| Title: Re: How come all you Democrats don't want to win the war? |
18 Jul 2007 11:35:19 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:39:37 -0400, dapra <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote:
I think, the two main reasons for attacking Iraq were the (1) control of
oil,
It wasn't about the oil. It was about the petrodollar.
and (2) turn Iraq's economy into a neoliberal one.
Which any idiot could have told him wouldn't work.
Bush (Cheney)
never cared about democracy. 'Spreading democracy' was a code phrase for
neoliberal exploitation and the control of oil in all of the Gulf states.
The most significant tool we have for spreading democracy is free
market economics and the petrodollar.
Though, the Bush administration have serious trouble achieving their
main goals, they have found, created a new enemy, terrorism to replace
communism. Comparing the two is ridiculous, but the media is doing a
good job to elevate a few thousands of jihadests and millions of
supporters into a threat posed by the Soviet Union, for the reason of
funding and drive the imperial military.
Much as Bush's fans kept trying (and failing) to compare the Iraq war
to WWII and Hussein to Hitler.
Swill
--
Picture of the day
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "dapra" |
|
| Title: Re: How come all you Democrats don't want to win the war? |
18 Jul 2007 01:03:19 PM |
|
|
Governor Swill wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:39:37 -0400, dapra <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote:
I think, the two main reasons for attacking Iraq were the (1) control of
oil,
It wasn't about the oil. It was about the petrodollar.
I don't get this petrodollar aspect. Yes, oil trades in dollars, that
makes it a reserve currency. If the Euro would replace it, it would be
difficult to mop up all the dollars outstanding. But isn't controlling
the actual oil is more important? What do I miss?
and (2) turn Iraq's economy into a neoliberal one.
Which any idiot could have told him wouldn't work.
The Bush administration must have had some special idiots. Bremer
privatized all state owned industry, put them up for sale for foreign
investors, and throw out all the worker to the street. This was just as
damaging to the occupation as the debaathification and dismantling of
the army. But the neoliberal disasters are forbidden to be mentioned in
the mass media.
Bush (Cheney)
never cared about democracy. 'Spreading democracy' was a code phrase for
neoliberal exploitation and the control of oil in all of the Gulf states.
The most significant tool we have for spreading democracy is free
market economics and the petrodollar.
Hmmm... or to generate more poor and hate, when they are about to go
bankrupt (South America?)?
Though, the Bush administration have serious trouble achieving their
main goals, they have found, created a new enemy, terrorism to replace
communism. Comparing the two is ridiculous, but the media is doing a
good job to elevate a few thousands of jihadests and millions of
supporters into a threat posed by the Soviet Union, for the reason of
funding and drive the imperial military.
Much as Bush's fans kept trying (and failing) to compare the Iraq war
to WWII and Hussein to Hitler.
Swill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Governor Swill" |
|
| Title: Re: How come all you Democrats don't want to win the war? |
19 Jul 2007 03:04:40 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:03:19 -0400, dapra <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote:
Governor Swill wrote:
It wasn't about the oil. It was about the petrodollar.
I don't get this petrodollar aspect. Yes, oil trades in dollars, that
makes it a reserve currency. If the Euro would replace it, it would be
difficult to mop up all the dollars outstanding. But isn't controlling
the actual oil is more important?
No.
There's oil everywhere! Alaska, Louisiana, Florida, Britain, Norway;
we import more oil from Canada than anywhere else. How do you think
they're paying down their national debt *and* funding one of the
world's better national health deals? You think Canada wants anything
but dollars when they've got a sweet deal like that?
It's important to control the oil but more important to control the
money because it's the link that makes dollars so valuable and oil so
universally tradable. The producers don't have to worry about money
markets eroding done deals or keeping tables of prices in dozens of
currencies. They only have one price to change to offset any market
issues and this conversely helps keep the dollar stable. Everybody
buys oil in dollars so it's better to keep the dollar stable than to
fight to rise against it.
US last in non fossil fuel energy production? Makes perfect sense.
The last thing we'd want to do is lead the world off oil. And since
everybody has to have Washingtons anyway, why not use them for other
stuff too?
If we can make the dollar the accepted global currency, and then
control the supply of that currency, we stand to gain tremendous
control over global, national and regional economies.
We have demonstrated that *free* markets breed more goods and services
at lower cost and therefore happier proles. When the proles are
happy, the pols can do anything they want.
This expertise in material supply lines breeds confidence in the
petrodollar. Say what you want about us Yanks, we know how to make a
buck and as a general rule, we make sure both sides of the trade
prosper. Every good Yankee trader knows you can't do good business
with people who don't trust you.
Free trade distributes wealth dynamically. Having a unified currency
to *free*ly trade with makes that trade even *free*er. You can buy
practically anything in the world with dollars. Try passing dollars
in a market in Thailand. You'll be deluged with merchants offering
'bargains'. Then try to use rubles or even euros at the neighborhood
Kroger. You'll be laughed out of the store. If you become insistent,
they'll escort you out.
That *free* markets create economic *free*dom is a no brainer. If
there's more of everything, everybody's going to have more.
That economic *free*dom generates political *free*dom should also be a
no brainer. Free market capitalism is such an elegant solution to
totalitarianism! If people are freed from the drudgery of digging for
their next meal, they'll start thinking. And maybe they'll start
thinking they don't like the king. It's a good thing American
Presidents are limited to two four year terms. I'll bet that's saved
a lot more of them from assassination. It also explains why the
average career length of a Roman Emperor was about two weeks. :-)
And the Chinese! What a sweet seduction! Not that Henry Kissinger is
any matinee idol.
Politics, culture and economics are woven together like cloth. The
world's history of wars shows that politics is a poor way to bring
about long term change or benefit the common man. You can conquer a
nation, but how long will you keep it?
The uniqueness of the American Empire is in it's use of economic
rather than political warfare as it's primary tool of conquest. The
best part is both sides can win!
What do I miss?
Countries all over the world are collectively holding hundreds of
billions if not trillions of US dollars. They hold this money
primarily because without it, they can't buy oil. What happens when
large quantities of oil start becoming available for purchase
*without* dollars? They'd start dumping those dollars. We'd get a
flood of money in our markets, inflation would set in and our economy
would explode. And not in a good way.
Bleeding hearts cajole us daily to share our dollars with poor
nations. We do. We just have to do it in such a way that the value
of the dollar we're sharing doesn't erode to the point that it's
useless. If we just manufacture a whole bunch of dollars and 'give'
them to Africa, it won't help them. We know this because we've
already tried. It's been like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage
boys.
What we have to do is find a way for them to earn their dollars and
countries without oil have a lot of trouble doing that. This is why
spreading around the dollar is a good thing. A unified global
currency is an efficient and convenient global trade and wealth
redistribution mechanism.
Iraq goes off the petrodollar which causes a reduction in the global
demand for dollars. Scarcity begets value. With dollars in less
demand, they are less scarce and therefore less valuable. Further,
the Fed can't print as many to loan because sales are down. This
leaves the US government in a nasty pickle. They can either cut
spending or raise taxes and since when has Washington wanted to do
either?
With less money in circulation (because the Fed cut production),
prices fall, the economy weakens, people have less to spend so layoffs
are inevitable and businesses fail. Housing values go into decline so
the house you've been paying on for six years is now worth almost what
you owe. The working middle class homeowner gets hit hard.
With more money in circulation (the Fed decides to maintain or even
increase production, we could get recession. All that extra money
starts showing up at home and prices begin to rise. Consumers react
by shifting their spending patterns and trying to cut spending which
costs business profits (because their needs have gone up too) results
in layoffs and etc.. Runaway inflation eats away at the value of
savings and even real estate because it's so volatile and doesn't
inspire confidence in the future economy.
Money is an idea backed by confidence.
Either way, American markets stop being such a great place to do
business. The Japanese sell fewer cars, Taiwan fewer computers and
even China has to deal with toy sales dropping. International
investors start wanting to get out and this erodes the dollar's value
further again forcing the Fed to find ways to shrink supply to fend
off catastrophic inflation. Economies are disrupted all over the
planet as factories shut down, deprived of cash flow from Washington
and unable to easily switch currencies. At the very least you'd get a
pretty deep economic shock.
Americans aren't going to like it when the costs of our fine highway
and military systems start coming out of our own pockets instead of
the printing press. We also aren't going to be too keen on having our
shopping choices limited or losing our homes because the average
family goes from two jobs to one and a half while a loaf of bread
doubles.
And the world is going to be even less keen to lose their shares of
that lucrative American market. Even our enemies watch our economy
carefully.
Dollars have value because the world agrees that they do and because
they are useful. Anything that disrupts the value of the dollar
affects economies around the planet. Nations who invest heavily in
dollars aren't likely to be happy to watch the value of their
investments drain away because some tinpot dictator in a shithole
country wants to sell his oil for something other than dollars. Every
nation that pegs it's currency value to the dollar, and there are a
lot of them, loses value on their own currency when the dollar drops.
When the dollar drops, everything the US imports gets more expensive.
In other countries, imports from the US get cheaper so the dropping
dollar is good for American manufacturing.
When the dollar goes up, American goods rise in price on international
markets while foreign goods sold here get cheaper.
The difference is oil. When the value of a dollar goes up against
your own currency, oil gets more expensive, when the dollar goes down,
your oil gets cheaper. Which is to say that oil prices are more
stable to US consumers because the price we pay for it is less
affected by money markets.
Swill
--
Picture of the day
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Governor Swill" |
|
| Title: Re: How come all you Democrats don't want to win the war? |
19 Jul 2007 01:38:28 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:03:19 -0400, dapra <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote:
Governor Swill wrote:
The most significant tool we have for spreading democracy is free
market economics and the petrodollar.
Hmmm... or to generate more poor and hate, when they are about to go
bankrupt (South America?)?
Brazil isn't going bankrupt. Neither is Venezuela. And while their
income might be greatly contributed to by the illegal drug trade, I
haven't heard that Colombia is going broke either.
IMO, most of the world's poor and struggling nations are like that
because their elites continue to find it fashionable to exist in a
vacuum.
America's elites have learned, as did the Romans, that they can only
be elites if the masses are well fed and thoroughly entertained.
America has the best fed and most effectively entertained people the
world has ever seen. American elites realize that a smaller piece of
the pie is better than a larger one if the sacrifice is thought of as
an investment and yields a much larger pie. Would you rather have
half of twenty dollars every week or a fourth of a hundred? How long
would you be willing to give up five a week in order to end up with a
twenty five a week salary if your only other option was twenty a week
for life?
I suspect that many third world elites are still so close to
starvation that they find it more important to claw there way as far
as they can get from their starving masses than to grab a few and
bring them along for a shorter ride.
One aspect of this is property. In poor countries you tend to see a
few holding a great deal of property each. In rich countries you see
many, many more people owning land, but relatively fewer who hold a
lot.
Nothing provides more plenty for more people than free markets. So
why are so many nations determined not to enrage in them?
I suspect the petrodollar is feared by people who don't fully
understand it. Hell, it scares the bejesus out of me!
But it's possible, very possible that it's use could truly lead to a
world without (major) war. A world where the bad things like poverty
and disease are virtually eradicated. What kind of problems will we
have then?
The checks and balances and accounting tricks, the combination of
central currency control by international commission and free money
markets help minimize abuse and risk to the system. The US doesn't
want to stop the spread of the dollar any more than the countries who
are heavily invested in it. We're the first country to successfully
run a mint that really is just a printing press.
Which countries are the richest and most powerful in the world? The
participants in WW II (on _both_ sides) and the Arabs.
The United States won that war. Not alone, couldn't have done that,
though without us the Axis might have won. Either way, humans would
have ended that war with The Bomb.
Then we invested heavily in our enemies' economies (with paper dollars
that everybody knew were only paper), formed NATO in Paris and
headquartered the UN in New York, the center of capitalism in America.
And all the war participants got rich except the one player that
refused to adopt American model free market systems. Russia. But now
that they've turned capitalist, they're getting rich too. Putin loves
pumping that oil and lining Russia's pockets with, well, you know
what.
Everybody wants dollars because they need oil or have oil.
Nixon scores!
Swill
--
Picture of the day
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Governor Swill" |
|
| Title: Re: How come all you Democrats don't want to win the war? |
19 Jul 2007 03:06:30 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:03:19 -0400, dapra <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote:
Governor Swill wrote:
and (2) turn Iraq's economy into a neoliberal one.
Which any idiot could have told him wouldn't work.
The Bush administration must have had some special idiots. Bremer
privatized all state owned industry, put them up for sale for foreign
investors, and throw out all the worker to the street. This was just as
damaging to the occupation as the debaathification and dismantling of
the army. But the neoliberal disasters are forbidden to be mentioned in
the mass media.
I don't get where you link such things to any sort of liberalism.
Liberalism has for centuries fought private ownership and struggled to
increase government power over business and the elites. Your
paragraph seems to indicate just the opposite has happened.
Swill
--
Picture of the day
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "dapra" |
|
| Title: Re: How come all you Democrats don't want to win the war? |
20 Jul 2007 11:49:48 AM |
|
|
Governor Swill wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:03:19 -0400, dapra <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote:
Governor Swill wrote:
and (2) turn Iraq's economy into a neoliberal one.
Which any idiot could have told him wouldn't work.
The Bush administration must have had some special idiots. Bremer
privatized all state owned industry, put them up for sale for foreign
investors, and throw out all the worker to the street. This was just as
damaging to the occupation as the debaathification and dismantling of
the army. But the neoliberal disasters are forbidden to be mentioned in
the mass media.
I don't get where you link such things to any sort of liberalism.
Liberalism has for centuries fought private ownership and struggled to
increase government power over business and the elites. Your
paragraph seems to indicate just the opposite has happened.
Swill
We, you and I have a different interpretation of the meaning of neoliberal.
Putting a neo- in front of a root word generally means a slight
modification of the original word, adapted to new conditions. But in
many cases it can take an almost opposite meaning.
Take the word 'neo-conservative' (neocon). There is very little
similarity of the neocons and classical conservatives ideas. (deficit
spending, debt, increase of government, nation building are not
conservative ideas)
Neoliberalism is mostly used as an economic term. It is camouflaged as a
laissez faire capitalist system. But it is actually a lot worse. It is a
system that the captured 'democratic' industrial governments by the
corporate oligarchy, doing the oligarchies bidding. It is in order not
only to subjugate the undeveloped nations and their people, but to
impovish their own population to establish a global international super
rich ruling class. It is as far from liberalism as it can be, or as you
described.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Governor Swill" |
|
| Title: Re: How come all you Democrats don't want to win the war? |
20 Jul 2007 07:29:18 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:49:48 -0400, dapra <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote:
Neoliberalism is mostly used as an economic term. It is camouflaged as a
laissez faire capitalist system. But it is actually a lot worse. It is a
system that the captured 'democratic' industrial governments by the
corporate oligarchy, doing the oligarchies bidding. It is in order not
only to subjugate the undeveloped nations and their people, but to
impovish their own population to establish a global international super
rich ruling class. It is as far from liberalism as it can be, or as you
described.
IOW, dealing with a trouble spot.
Swill
--
Picture of the day
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "dapra" |
|
| Title: Re: How come all you Democrats don't want to win the war? |
20 Jul 2007 08:43:53 PM |
|
|
Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:49:48 -0400, dapra <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote:
Neoliberalism is mostly used as an economic term. It is camouflaged as a
laissez faire capitalist system. But it is actually a lot worse. It is a
system that the captured 'democratic' industrial governments by the
corporate oligarchy, doing the oligarchies bidding. It is in order not
only to subjugate the undeveloped nations and their people, but to
impovish their own population to establish a global international super
rich ruling class. It is as far from liberalism as it can be, or as you
described.
IOW, dealing with a trouble spot.
Swill
No. It's more than dealing with trouble spots. It's the imperial design
of the corporate oligarchy. They, the oligarchy may use the nation
states for their advantages, use the taxpayers to finance their imperial
wars. But the corporate oligarchies final goal is to destroy the nation
states, assuming after all the 'rogue' states had been destroyed by the
captured nations, financed by taxpayers money.
Eventually, private, mercenary armies are supposed to control the world.
A praetorian guard of the the world wide oligarchy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Governor Swill" |
|
| Title: Re: How come all you Democrats don't want to win the war? |
21 Jul 2007 09:16:36 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 21:43:53 -0400, dapra <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote:
IOW, dealing with a trouble spot.
No. It's more than dealing with trouble spots.
I know. I was being flip.
It's the imperial design
of the corporate oligarchy. They, the oligarchy may use the nation
states for their advantages, use the taxpayers to finance their imperial
wars. But the corporate oligarchies final goal is to destroy the nation
states, assuming after all the 'rogue' states had been destroyed by the
captured nations, financed by taxpayers money.
That didn't make any sense. Why would the corporations destroy the
nation states upon with they are dependent.?
Eventually, private, mercenary armies are supposed to control the world.
A praetorian guard of the the world wide oligarchy.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Good one, Centurion!
Swill
--
Picture of the day
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "dapra" |
|
| Title: Re: How come all you Democrats don't want to win the war? |
21 Jul 2007 09:01:15 PM |
|
|
Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 21:43:53 -0400, dapra <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote:
IOW, dealing with a trouble spot.
No. It's more than dealing with trouble spots.
I know. I was being flip.
It's the imperial design
of the corporate oligarchy. They, the oligarchy may use the nation
states for their advantages, use the taxpayers to finance their imperial
wars. But the corporate oligarchies final goal is to destroy the nation
states, assuming after all the 'rogue' states had been destroyed by the
captured nations, financed by taxpayers money.
That didn't make any sense. Why would the corporations destroy the
nation states upon with they are dependent.?
Depending on them, using them and destroying them have no
contradictions. Microorganisms, bacteria's, viruses, parasites have been
doing it all the time.
I wouldn't grant more sense to any corporate CEO, than millions of years
of evolution has given to our small fellow travelers.
Eventually, private, mercenary armies are supposed to control the world.
A praetorian guard of the the world wide oligarchy.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Good one, Centurion!
Swill
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
You're Weak (and you don't even know it)
Re: Something you don't see every day
WA LOST 19,000 Jobs In July! Than You Bush! (No, We REALLY REALLY REALLY Turned the Corner. Don't Pay Attention To Karl Rove Behind the Curtain!)
OT: If at First You Don't Succeed, Believe Harder
Unisys Lays Off 1,400. Thank You AWOL! (We Turned The Corner and Don't Forget Poland!)
You Don't Think the Draft Is Possible? Insurgents Blow Up Greenzone With Impunity
Re: To All You Bush-Backers!!!!!!! Don't Let The Dirt Hit Your Son's Coffin As He Is Buried!!!!!!!!!
Re: Hmong, why don't you people leave America?
| Re: GOP Congress Targets MORE Program Cuts for Poor & Middle Class; Cut Taxes for Rich - "People will feel some real pain," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., "but I don't know how you get a deficit down without people taking some medicine."
Dudes I Don't Understand Why You Don't Like Me
"Don't take the car! You'll KILL yourself!"
It's not homo if you don't kiss
Sourceforge has enabled Subversion support for all projects. Now you don't need CVS anymore, Subversion really has become "a compelling replacement for CVS".
THE GOSPEL OF JUDAS -- Don't Say We Didn't Tell You..
Now you see it, now you don't: cloaking device is not just sci-fi
|
|
|
