[pbradley]

Originally Posted by Lamont Cranston

Oh and pbradley, Ron Paul is a chump. A pusher of corporatist policies.

You don't understand.

I'm just as skeptical, if not moreso, of libertarianism.

My skepticism is total.

[phoenix]

I agree ^

To be honest, I dont really understand why anyone would WANT to see the imagery. Everyone Im sure has seen this kind of thing before, and it would only be thrown around the media in a disrespectful fashion, for the sake of what exactly? He doesn't seem to be denying what went on. He is just denying the public and media use of the images as entertainment fodder.

When was the last time people really gave a fuck about not being able to view photos of certain crime scenes anyway?

Perhaps anyone who is swayed by the media into believing that not releasing such imagery is big deal is letting themselves become too imrpessionable..

[marleypumpkin]

Originally Posted by pbradley

You don't understand.

I'm just as skeptical, if not moreso, of libertarianism.

My skepticism is total.

Okay, what about Libertarianism are you skeptical of? Freedom of choice, expression, less govt., individual rights?

Or is it because they believe in the right of self-defense?

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by marleypumpkin

Okay, what about Libertarianism are you skeptical of? Freedom of choice, expression, less govt., individual rights?

Or is it because they believe in the right of self-defense?

Please, I am not about to write a formal critique of American Libertarianism on a message board.

In short, I am skeptical that Libertarianism can deliver and protect those values anymore than the major parties can deliver on theirs. I am also skeptical that those values can insure any more peace, happiness, or efficiency for both society and the individual than a totalitarian state.

As for Libertarianism in the United States of America today, I can't see how that would manifest in anything other than corporate confederacy.

[marleypumpkin]

Originally Posted by pbradley

Please, I am not about to write a formal critique of American Libertarianism on a message board.

In short, I am skeptical that Libertarianism can deliver and protect those values anymore than the major parties can deliver on theirs. I am also skeptical that those values can insure any more peace, happiness, or efficiency for both society and the individual than a totalitarian state.

As for Libertarianism in the United States of America today, I can't see how that would manifest in anything other than corporate confederacy.

I get it, they believe in Capitalism (free market), & that's the evil political belief where a person has an unlimited right to contract. Which I admit, it has it's faults. But MOST people have the common sense not to commit fraud, insider trading, etc., which is why I'd rather have people of the local level regulating their own means of production.

In short, Libertarianism is not about a political party, it's abut an idea. Unlike Rep. / Dem. which have goals & agendas, libertarians believe in humanity enough to let individuals decide for themselves what is right & what is wrong.

If you're skeptical of that then, there's probably nothing I can say that will persuade you otherwise. To each his own, which ironically is what Libertarianism is all about.

[barnaclelapse]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

President Obama: “The publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals. In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger. Moreover, I fear the publication of these photos may only have a chilling effect on future investigations of detainee abuse.”

mother fucker.. isn't that up to us? That censorship is not to prevent further inflaming of anti-american opinion in the war zone, its to prevent it in the backyard, just like the Bush administration has done with this whole war. They don't was US to know, those fucking Iraqis and Afghans and all the other folks gaffled up by the CIA from Kazakhstan to Nigeria and put in secret CIA prisons, some EVEN IN ETHIOPIA!, tortured and hidden away, they already know.. their families and communities already know, and they are already inflamed.

Obama is AFRAID OF US PEOPLE! He is afraid that if we see these images, we might remember that he is continuing a WAR in three countries which affects millions and millions of people...

fuck you Obama, you are the same as all the rest, I said it in 2008, I say it now, I'll say it forever. Change doesn't come from the top down, its from the bottom up, fuck these fools, lets do this shit ourselves.

Wah wah wah...

[SpectralJulianIsNotDead]

Ron Paul's a douche. I can't stand him.

Personally I think we should just adopt Sweden's laws. They have it right.

[marleypumpkin]

Originally Posted by SpectralJulianIsNotDead

Personally I think we should just adopt Sweden's laws. They have it right.

Why should everyone else have to adopt Sweden's laws? How 'bout you adopt them for yr self & live by them on yr own terms. No ones stopping you. It's when you think that just because you believe it, it's the right thing to do. That's what I can't stand.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by phoenix

I agree ^

To be honest, I dont really understand why anyone would WANT to see the imagery. Everyone Im sure has seen this kind of thing before, and it would only be thrown around the media in a disrespectful fashion, for the sake of what exactly?

Originally Posted by swa(y)

unlike our last prezzy, i dont hate obama. personally, i have no interest in seeing these pics myself. the shit that goes on has already been well documented.

Its not about wanting to see the images, its about being able to see the evidence. Let the media put these images all over the fucking place and remind lazy, apathetic americans that this is the work of their government, supposedly torturing these people for the safety of good ol americans..

I don't want to see these images either, but the reality of american mass media in particular is that images create controversy and hype, and in regards to the government torturing people in secret prisons, I think it is CRUCIALLY important that americans both know and if they refuse to acknowledge, be forced to see the truth, even if its just once. That is the only way any of this shit will stop, is if the people on the street have an image of it in their mind.

The President should not have censor its activities to begin with, and if it results to such censorship, then you have a problem. The point of this thread was to point out that the police-state atmosphere of the United States has not changed with Obama, it is all the same, carrying on as ever..

[canabero]

don't vote, don't be stupid.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

The golden image has a little tarnish on it......

 

was an apology for

 

but how will an apology apologize for

 

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

There is no appropriate apology for necessary actions taking place during war......nor should their be!

ouch.. war itself requires an impossible apology, let alone war crimes.

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

There is no appropriate apology for necessary actions taking place during war......nor should their be!

Infinite political currency.

See: Israel.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by davenotdead

hispanics get all the free-passes they can chew.

hot damn man, i showed your post to a friend and he sent me a text to post for you:

"Hey, pendejo, the only free pass we want is to your mama's sweet butthole. Let her do all the chewing. We hear she charges a lot but then refuses to receive the Dirty Sánchez. So the free pass is just like a test drive before we buy. Sí? Órale!"

i hereby wash my hands of all fecal matter... sheesh...

--

ps- apparently, a salvadorean gang might or might not be after you now. i'd suggest refraining from posting pictures on the internet for the time being.

[Lamont Cranston]

Originally Posted by Kylerobert

Ron Paul is far from a chump..do your homework.

Well I forgot to mention his preference for intelligent design, but I prefer to focus on policy not the "issues" side show. So corporatist it is.

[Lamont Cranston]

Originally Posted by wellcharge

i'm still waiting for america to recognize the armenian genocide, like obama said he would. the censorship of history is one of the worst sorts. past american presidents didn't care about what other countries thought of them but now obama is scared that the turkish government will get mad at him?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6045165.ece

Barack Obama found his diplomatic skills tested to the limit today when he was forced to address the Turkish slaughter of Armenians during the dying days of the Ottoman Empire without using the word "genocide".
Historians estimate that up to 1.5 million Armenians were killed in a systematic campaign of extermination during the First World War, and during his campaign for the presidency Mr Obama declared that "America deserves a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian genocide".
Today, during a joint press conference in Ankara with his Turkish counterpart Abdullah Gul, President Obama said that his views had not changed but he took extreme care not to use the word "genocide" so as not to inflame his hosts, who have always denied the claims.
Instead, he expressed the hope that talks between Turkey and Armenia could "bear fruit very soon" and he wanted to support that process.




“Well, my views are on the record and I have not changed views,” Mr Obama said in response to a question about the genocide and his stance on it.
"I want to focus not on my views right now, but on the views of the Turkish and Armenian people. If they can move forward and deal with a difficult and tragic history, then I think the entire world should encourage that.”
Responding to the same question, Mr Gul appeared to back Mr Obama by declaring that it was "not a legal or political issue, but an historical issue" which was being addressed by a joint commission of historians.
Even though he took a swipe at members of the Armenian diaspora who use the issue to "cling to their identity", he also appeared to suggest that a breakthrough was near.
"Our view is that we should let the historians, the experts, sit down," Mr Gul said.
"We are ready to face the reality, the facts. I cannot be the politicians who decide what happened when, who lost the most lives and who is right and who is wrong."

Same guy who didn't see a problem with Israels newest offensive against the Palestinian people during the American election, so I dunno why you're surprised.

[Lamont Cranston]

Originally Posted by marleypumpkin

Okay, what about Libertarianism are you skeptical of? Freedom of choice, expression, less govt., individual rights?

Or is it because they believe in the right of self-defense?

'Libertarian' as defined in the USA is an extreme rightwing ideology of Randian Amoralism, 'corporate-feudalism' is the best term I can come up with for any resulting society structured on its principles - presuming it didn't destroy it in the first week attempting to convert to it.
It champions the unequel distribution of wealth, class stratification and control of society by private tyranies.
So as usual in American political discourse a word has been taken and its meaning turned inside out - from its coining in the 19th century and still today in the rest of the world the word 'Libertarian' has always meant the the branch of socialism opposed to state authority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Originally Posted by marleypumpkin

I get it, they believe in Capitalism (free market), & that's the evil political belief where a person has an unlimited right to contract. Which I admit, it has it's faults. But MOST people have the common sense not to commit fraud, insider trading, etc., which is why I'd rather have people of the local level regulating their own means of production.

In short, Libertarianism is not about a political party, it's abut an idea. Unlike Rep. / Dem. which have goals & agendas, libertarians believe in humanity enough to let individuals decide for themselves what is right & what is wrong.

If you're skeptical of that then, there's probably nothing I can say that will persuade you otherwise. To each his own, which ironically is what Libertarianism is all about.

Except we're not talking about a living breathing human being, we're talking about an immortal psychopathic being which is legally obliged to have no other goal except the accumulation of wealth.

Now notice you nor anyone else pushing this deviant belief ever addresses this little issue, except maybe to smugly assert that its the fault of the state - apparenty it forces at gunpoint a corporation to take control of water utilities* or public transport & then cut services to poor areas.
How can this blinkered argument exist?
Well could it have anything to do with these policies being favourable to the position of Elites?
Do we dare suggest rich and powerful people want greater wealth and power by pushing an ideology that further reduces the states (and through it the population-a state can be compelled to be democratic) constraints over them? Madness!

 

(*an act that Bolivian people have violently opposed, and now that they have a government they participate in are correcting along with a great many other ills forced upon them by a narrow minority of the local Elites and foreign investors. American-style Libertarians must be horrified that the rights of Bechtel are being overriden by the meddling of peasents)

[marleypumpkin]

Originally Posted by Lamont Cranston

'Libertarian' as defined in the USA is an extreme rightwing corporatist ideology of Randian Amoralism, 'corporate-feudalism' is the best term I can come up with for any resulting society structured on its principles - presuming it didn't destroy it in the first week any society attempting to convert to it.
It champions the unequel distribution of wealth, class stratification and control of society by private tyranies.
So as usual in American political discourse a word has been taken and its meaning turned inside out - from its coining in the 19th century and still today in the rest of the world the word 'Libertarian' has always meant the the branch of socialism opposed to state authority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

How can teaching freedom of choice, expression, less govt., & private property of the local level be corporate? Is not Corporatism a collectivist concept, then how can libertarianism's main idea be individual rights & be corporate at the same time? All you ever hear a libertarian say is, get rid of govt. spending, get rid of private banks, get rid of big business.

You wanna dislike that concept, that's yr choice, but I'm not buying into yr thought process.

[Lamont Cranston]

Anyway I'd prefer the photos not coming out - it'd just see another roud of the buck being passed down to whatever poor bastards were doing it (do you suppose one of them will be mentally retarded like last time?), a big frenzy about rotten apples out of the norm, and no attention on the schmucks in Washington and in the Pentagon that set the policy.
marley reread revised post.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

Its not about wanting to see the images, its about being able to see the evidence. Let the media put these images all over the fucking place and remind lazy, apathetic americans that this is the work of their government, supposedly torturing these people for the safety of good ol americans..

I don't want to see these images either, but the reality of american mass media in particular is that images create controversy and hype, and in regards to the government torturing people in secret prisons, I think it is CRUCIALLY important that americans both know and if they refuse to acknowledge, be forced to see the truth, even if its just once. That is the only way any of this shit will stop, is if the people on the street have an image of it in their mind.

The President should not have censor its activities to begin with, and if it results to such censorship, then you have a problem. The point of this thread was to point out that the police-state atmosphere of the United States has not changed with Obama, it is all the same, carrying on as ever..

What yr saying is true but... I dont think any amount of 'evidence' is going to make someone believe the US government could ever do any thing wrong... if they are that way inclined in their views. People who can't think for themselves won't be swayed by a few photographs.