Thread: The New Neo-Con Reality

Originally Posted by Bluegrass

Why is the term, "conspiracy theory" stigmatized and written off? What should be written off is groupthink that assumes all conspiracy theories have no basis.

Because of the impossbility of this possibility! There are far too many things that you have to present hard evidence on. Like the old UFO affair, even when the History channel showed one of it's rare 1970s footage of one of the tests by the US Air Force of a hovering (actually hovering) circular shaped aircraft, we still go on and on about such 'alien' crafts.

These theories have no basis because they do not have hard evidence or references for anyone. They are just possibilities that rely on far too many improbables. Any undertaking that employs the situation where one element is unaware of his own role will never work, it's bound to crash. And here we're talking about billions.

Originally Posted by Bluegrass

What kind of political differences would break the deal?

The all-powerful have somehow not managed to get China to give Aksai Chin back to India after their border war in the 60s, get it to free Tibet or consider the legitimate independence demands of Taiwan. It's still occupying territory. The all-powerful have not managed to instill economic collaboration spirit in Asia. India supporting the US, China supporting Pakistan, South Korea supporting US, China supporting North Korea - Asean's economic obscurity coupled with limited FDIs will never have such centralized ideals realise, it's impossible. Too many differences, political, social, cultural, legal etc.

Asian union is an impossible dream - anyone who has ever even visited the region will know.

Originally Posted by 2lane

Nonsqtr Tick is from the neocon side of the Republican party which has finally been rejected by the east coast elite intellictual side (conservative) of the Rebpublican party. They've had enough too, is it too late?

Well, I'm aware that the "internal power struggle" within the Republican Party, has now gotten serious. My take though - change is a long process. Institutional change, takes ten years, five if you're an expert AND you get lucky. And that's just the "attitude" part - the works follow LATER.

So, no, I don't think it's too late. I kinda see a long process that's gone on within the Republican Party, and Ron Paul wasn't the beginning of it, he was kinda the first "node of culmination". It was goin' on for at least a year before that. And, it's still goin' on.

Bushie's coalition was so BIZARRE, relative to the usual spectrum of Republicans, and I mean, all those people, are still there. Ralph Reed, for example. He's still there. And, he's a very powerful figure in the Republican Party. And, he has Neo-Con leanings.

But yeah, I hear you, Kristol was one of the first notables, Krauthammer followed, and basically everyone now is FORCED to admit (grin ) that Bushie is/was no good.

I'm still shocked that he actually got people to consider that TORTURE is acceptable behavior for a President of the United States, or an acceptable instrument of US foreign policy. (Foreign? Who am I kidding.... )

I'm more interested in THAT part, really. And, why 60% of the American People CLAIM they've never read the entire text of the Constitution, even though, it's required reading to graduate from High School!

Well, here's also my take - Bushie mentality, is a CORPORATE mentality. That's the way business is done, by the CEO's of this world. That's EXACTLY how they do things - they know from the git-go that their tenure is short-lived, 'cause after three or four years everyone hates their guts and it's time to move on, and that's WHY they have the golden parachutes, 'cause they usually end up not gettin' another job for a while.

So, the task is, to please the stockholders and thereby collect your bonus, and as long as you meet payroll that's your ONLY responsibility to your employees, other than that screw 'em. And of course, the CEO's do what they want and the rest of the company shall follow. And then, who cares what happens after you leave, everyone knows people hate ex-CEO's so you can always use that as an excuse.

And I mean, that DISEASE I was speaking of, is rampant in American business as well. It's probably related to what Ausinus calls "capitalisme sans coeur". Or whatever.

Maybe we oughta start protesting in front of the CEO's OFFICES TOO.

You know, pull an Al Sharpton-Imus thing, on all the scumbag CEO's (and there's plenty of 'em, trust me).

Do you realize, that these weasel corporations have more rights than the government does? When they want to remove protesters, all they have to do is call the cops. The gov actually has to ASK, the corporations don't.

I say, there is WISDOM in the Constitution of the United States - and if you look there, you will find, that corporations have NO RIGHTS!!! NONE!!!

The "legal strawman" is a FICTION, it's something some scumbag judge pulled out of his butt in the mid-1800's, to deal with a corporation trying to recover damages for an injury. That was a CLEAR case of LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH. Not the first such case, but definitely a very noteworthy and important one. And of course, it's now precedent.

I say, the Constitution of the United States is VERY SPECIFIC - it says, that in order to be considered a Person and therefore eligible for Rights according to the contract, YOU MUST BE BORN.

Now TELL me People - is this not the SAME argument they use in Roe v Wade? okebrain:

So now, you TELL me, why the rights of a corporation, matter more than the rights of a HUMAN BEING.

People - READ your Constitution. Corporations have NO rights. The only ones with Rights around here, are you and me. And, I'd like to keep it that way.