11/9 Self-Evident [Archive] - Kiwi Biker forums

idleidolidyll

14th November 2007, 16:11

yes,
us people are just poems
we're 90 percent metaphor
with a leanness of meaning
approaching hyper-distillation
and once upon a time
we were moonshine
rushing down the throat of a giraffe
yes, rushing down the long hallway
despite what the p.a. announcement says
yes, rushing down the long stairs
with the whiskey of eternity
fermented and distilled
to eighteen minutes
burning down our throats
down the hall
down the stairs
in a building so tall
that it will always be there
yes, it's part of a pair
there on the bow of noah's ark
the most prestigious couple
just kickin back parked
against a perfectly blue sky
on a morning beatific
in its indian summer breeze
on the day that america
fell to its knees
after strutting around for a century
without saying thank you
or please
and the shock was subsonic
and the smoke was deafening
between the setup and the punch line
cuz we were all on time for work that day
we all boarded that plane for to fly
and then while the fires were raging
we all climbed up on the windowsill
and then we all held hands
and jumped into the sky
and every borough looked up when it heard the first blast
and then every dumb action movie was summarily surpassed
and the exodus uptown by foot and motorcar
looked more like war than anything i've seen so far
so far
so far
so fierce and ingenious
a poetic specter so far gone
that every jackass newscaster was struck
dumb and stumbling
over 'oh my god' and 'this is unbelievable' and on and on
and i'll tell you what, while we're at it
you can keep the pentagon
keep the propaganda
keep each and every tv
that's been trying to convince me
to participate
in some prep school punk's plan to perpetuate retribution
perpetuate retribution
even as the blue toxic smoke of our lesson in retribution
is still hanging in the air
and there's ash on our shoes
and there's ash in our hair
and there's a fine silt on every mantle
from hell's kitchen to brooklyn
and the streets are full of stories
sudden twists and near misses
and soon every open bar is crammed to the rafters
with tales of narrowly averted disasters
and the whiskey is flowin
like never before
as all over the country
folks just shake their heads
and pour
so here's a toast to all the folks who live in palestine
Afghanistan
iraq
el salvador
here's a toast to the folks living on the pine ridge reservation
under the stone cold gaze of mt.rushmore
here's a toast to all those nurses and doctors
who daily provide women with a choice
who stand down a threat the size of oklahoma city
just to listen to a young woman's voice
here's a toast to all the folks on death row right now
awaiting the executioner's guillotine
who are shackled there with dread
and can only escape into their heads
to find peace in the form of a dream
cuz take away our playstations
and we are a third world nation
under the thumb of some blue blood royal son
who stole the oval office and that phony election
i mean
it don't take a weatherman
to look around and see the weather
jeb said he'd deliver florida folks
and boy did he ever
and we hold these truths to be self evident:
#1 george w. bush is not president
#2 america is not a true democracy
#3 the media is not fooling me
cuz i am a poem heeding hyper-distillation
i've got no room for a lie so verbose
i'm looking out over my whole human family
and i'm raising my glass in a toast
here's to our last drink of fossil fuels
let us vow to get off of this sauce
shoo away the swarms of commuter planes
and find that train ticket we lost
cuz once upon a time the line followed the river
and peeked into all the backyards
and the laundry was waving
the graffiti was teasing us
from brick walls and bridges
we were rolling over ridges
through valleys
under stars
i dream of touring like duke ellington
in my own railroad car
i dream of waiting on the tall blonde wooden benches
in a grand station aglow with grace
and then standing out on the platform
and feeling the air on my face
give back the night its distant whistle
give the darkness back its soul
give the big oil companies the finger finally
and relearn how to rock-n-roll
yes, the lessons are all around us
and a change is waiting there
so it's time to pick through the rubble, clean the streets
and clear the air
get our government to pull its big dick out of the sand
of someone else's desert
put it back in its pants
and quit the hypocritical chants of
freedom forever
cuz when one lone phone rang
in two thousand and one
at ten after nine
on nine one one
which is the number we all called
when that lone phone rang right off the wall
right off our desk and down the long hall
down the long stairs
in a building so tall
that the whole world turned
just to watch it fall
and while we're at it
remember the first time around?
the bomb?
the ryder truck?
the parking garage?
the princess that didn't even feel the pea?
remember joking around in our apartment on avenue D?
can you imagine how many paper coffee cups
would have to change their design
following a fantastical reversal of the new york skyline?!
it was a joke, of course
it was a joke
at the time
and that was just a few years ago
so let the record show
that the FBI was all over that case
that the plot was obvious and in everybody's face
and scoping that scene
religiously
the CIA
or is it KGB?
committing countless crimes against humanity
with this kind of eventuality
as its excuse
for abuse after expensive abuse
and it didn't have a clue
look, another window to see through
way up here
on the 104th floor
look
another key
another door
10% literal
90% metaphor
3000 some poems disguised as people
on an almost too perfect day
should be more than pawns
in some asshole's passion play
so now it's your job
and it's my job
to make it that way
to make sure they didn't die in vain
sshhhhhh....
baby listen
hear the train?

SELF EVIDENT
Written, performed and produced by Ani DiFranco
From the album "So much shouting, so much laughter

Paul in NZ

14th November 2007, 16:18

Jerusalem
(Steve Earle)

I woke up this mornin' and none of the news was good
And death machines were rumblin' 'cross the ground where Jesus stood
And the man on my TV told me that it had always been that way
And there was nothin' anyone could do or say

And I almost listened to him
Yeah, I almost lost my mind
Then I regained my senses again
And looked into my heart to find

That I believe that one fine day all the children of Abraham
Will lay down their swords forever in Jerusalem

Well maybe I'm only dreamin' and maybe I'm just a fool
But I don't remember learnin' how to hate in Sunday school
But somewhere along the way I strayed and I never looked back again
But I still find some comfort now and then

Then the storm comes rumblin' in
And I can't lay me down
And the drums are drummin' again
And I can't stand the sound

But I believe there'll come a day when the lion and the lamb
Will lie down in peace together in Jerusalem

And there'll be no barricades then
There'll be no wire or walls
And we can wash all this blood from our hands
And all this hatred from our souls

And I believe that on that day all the children of Abraham
Will lay down their swords forever in Jerusalem

idleidolidyll

14th November 2007, 16:20

jrandom

14th November 2007, 16:21

idleidolidyll

14th November 2007, 16:36

Unless you become more watchful in your States and check this spirit of monopoly and thirst for exclusive privileges, you will in the end find that the most important powers of Government have been given or bartered away, and the control of your dearest interests have been passed into the hands of these corporations.
-- Andrew Jackson, farewell address, 04 March 1837

idleidolidyll

14th November 2007, 16:37

"The document reads, "All men are created equal." When those words were first put to paper, of course, the literal meaning of the phrase did not match what was written. A more accurate sentence would have read, "All white land-owning men are created equal," but despite the inherent racism and misogyny buried in the original meaning, the words had magic and power enough to lay the groundwork for 200 years of progress.
The words as written became the basis for reform after reform, for the strengthening of the rights of minorities, women, and basically anyone who would be made subservient to anyone else. The struggle took a long time, and continues today with much remaining to do before that equality is truly achieved, but the strength of those words as written has been proven time and again to be more than a match for anyone who would stand on the neck of a fellow citizen.
That's what the billboard reads, anyway. That's the propaganda, the myth, the way we rock ourselves to sleep at night. The truth is significantly different, however, and is at the root of just about everything that has gone wrong with this great democratic experiment.
We are not all created equal, in fact. This inequality is not based on race, or sex, or religion, but upon the slow development of a body of laws that have created and empowered a breed of super-citizens which rule over every aspect of our lives, almost completely beyond the reach of justice. These super-citizens exist today under the familiar name "corporation."
But wait, a corporation is basically a company, right? A corporation is a non-living entity, a group of people endeavoring to make money in a business enterprise or non-profit organization, right? Wrong. A corporation is indeed a non-living entity, a group of people looking to make money. But thanks to a Supreme Court decision, corporations are also actual living entities in every legal sense of the word, with all rights and privileges of citizenship - and several more besides - intact.
A Short History of Corporations
The word "corporation" comes from the Latin "corpus," or "body." The Oxford English Dictionary defines "corporation" as "a group of people authorized to act as an individual." The history of corporations in America is intertwined with the story of the revolution that birthed this nation. British corporations in colonial America were rebelled against vigorously as representatives of the Crown, which they were.
Many of the principal actors in the American revolution, among them George Washington, wanted to throw off British rule because they felt their ability to conduct commerce freely was being disrupted. When 60 Boston residents hurled the tea into Boston Harbor in 1773, it was an attack specifically upon the economic power and supremacy of a corporation called the British East India Tea Company, which had been undercutting the profits of colonial merchants thanks to the passage of the Tea Acts.
After the revolution, and for a hundred years, the American people bore a deep distrust of the corporation, and corporations were regulated severely. Corporate charters were created by individual states, and those states had the power to revoke that charter if the corporation was deemed to be acting against the public good or had deviated from its charter. Corporations were not allowed to own other corporations, nor were they allowed to participate in the political process.
Very slowly over that 100 years, however, the power of the corporation began to grow. In the 1818 Supreme Court case "Dartmouth College v. Woodward," Daniel Webster, advocating for Dartmouth, argued passionately for the power of corporations in regards to property rights. The Court sided with Webster and corporate rights, stating: "The opinion of the Court, after mature deliberation, is that this corporate charter is a contract, the obligation of which cannot be impaired without violating the Constitution of the United States. This opinion appears to us to be equally supported by reason, and by the former decisions of this Court."

continues

MisterD

14th November 2007, 16:37

Stupid-arse country full of stupid-arse blowhards on every side of every question.

You're talking about KB now, right?

idleidolidyll

14th November 2007, 16:38

A good deal of hell was raised after this decision, with many citizens and state legislatures standing upon the right of a state to repeal or amend a corporate charter. Seven years later, however, another Supreme Court case buttressed the power of the corporation with their decision in "Society for the Preservation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. Town of Pawlet." The Society was seeking to protect its colonial-era property grants in Vermont, while Vermont was seeking to revoke those grants. The Court decided in favor of the Society, and explicitly extended the same protections to corporation-owned property as are enjoyed by property-owning natural persons.
Corporations in America began to become truly powerful with the rise of the railroads. Railroads were the lifeblood of the growing nation, carrying both agriculture and industry from one side of the country to the other. This was a highly profitable enterprise, and railroad corporations began to exert heavy influence on both state and federal leaders. Corporate attorneys boldly asserted the precedents set in the Dartmouth and Society Supreme Court decisions, demanding that corporations deserved to have at least some of the rights of natural persons. Meanwhile, attorneys loyal to the railroads began to rise through the ranks of the Judiciary, finally finding seats on the highest bench.
This process came to a final head in 1886, when the Supreme Court heard the case "Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad." Arguments over the rights of corporations as persons had been raging for decades, and Chief Justice Waite pounded home the nail: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."
"We are all of the opinion that it does."
The pertinent section of the Fourteenth Amendment reads, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Before the Santa Clara decision, this amendment applied only to living, breathing people. After Santa Clara, it applied also to massively wealthy corporations, groups of people authorized to act as individuals, but beyond the kinds of legal liabilities natural persons are subject to. The Santa Clara decision, and subsequent decisions affirming it, created the formidable distinction between the citizen and the super-citizen.
Both have purchasing power, both can give money to whomever or whatever they please, but the difference lies in the extent to which this can be done. A natural person can buy a house and give money to a politician. A wealthy corporation, on the other hand, can buy a thousand houses and give money to a thousand politicians. In other words, a corporation which enjoys the same rights as a natural person has a thousand times the power and influence of a natural person over the economics and politics of the country. That is a super-citizen.
Because these super-citizens can exert so much power, their rights have been dramatically extended over the years. In the 1950s, for example, corporations paid some 40% of the taxes in this country. They flexed their muscles and exerted their influence, and by 1980 were paying only 26% of the taxes in this country. The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 slashed that payment to 8%.
The economic boon enjoyed by these super-citizens is augmented by the fact that regular citizens' tax dollars are used by the government to purchase goods and services from corporations involved in the production of weapons, petroleum, timber and agricultural products. Corporate perks like jets, elaborate headquarters, public relations firms, and executive retreats are all tax write-offs; the regular citizen, by contrast, pays for their perks with after-tax dollars. When a corporation screws up and destroys an ecosystem with a toxic spill, corporate liability shields protect them from financial and legal punishment, and the cost of the clean-up is borne by the tax dollars of the regular citizen.
Today, corporations control almost every aspect of what we see, hear, eat, wear and live. Every television news media organization is owned by a small handful of corporations, which use these news outlets to filter out information that might be damaging to the parent company. Agriculture in America is controlled by a small group of corporations. One cannot drive a car, rent a van, buy a house or deliver goods in a business transaction without purchasing insurance from a corporation. Getting sick in America has become a ruinously expensive experience because corporations now control even the smallest functions of the medical profession, and have turned the practice of health care into a for-profit industry.
The influence these super-citizens hold over local, state and national politics is the reason why so many privileges have been afforded to them. This influence has existed to one degree or another for decades. Yet it was another Supreme Court decision, handed down in 1976, that allowed these super-citizens to establish a strangle-hold on our politics and government institutions.
The Supremacy of the Super-Citizen
In 1976, the case "Buckley v. Valeo" came before the Supreme Court. Senator James Buckley, former Senator and Presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy, and several others had filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) and the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act. Among the defendants were Francis Valeo, Secretary of the Senate and ex officio member of the newly-created Federal Election Commission, as well as the Commission itself.
The final Supreme Court decision split a number of legal hairs. The decision upheld the constitutionality of limiting political contributions to candidates, and the disclosure and record-keeping requirements established by FECA. The aspects of FECA deemed unconstitutional, however, became the basis for the supremacy of the super-citizen. In short, the Court decided that limiting the amount of money a candidate could spend was a violation of the First Amendment. In other words, the spending of campaign money was equated with the right of free speech.
On the surface, the decision makes sense. Because so much of modern political campaigning involves television and radio advertisements, direct mailing of campaign literature, extensive travel and lodging and staff payrolls, and because all these things cost money, a limitation on campaign spending necessarily restricts the ability of a candidate to practice free speech in the political realm.

continues

idleidolidyll

14th November 2007, 16:39

The danger, of course, was that corporations would take advantage of the new spending freedoms enjoyed by politicians and flood them with influence-creating cash. The Court attempted to address this concern by upholding the limits on contribution amounts, stating that these limitations were the "primary weapons against the reality or appearance of improper influence stemming from the dependence of candidates on large campaign contributions."
The Court's attempt to address this concern failed, in no small part because of the existence of so-called "soft money." Soft money was supposed to be cash given to political parties for "party-building activities" rather than for the direct support of candidates and campaigns. Soft money contributions were not subjected to limitations, allowing super-citizens to flood outrageous amounts of money into the process. Because the soft-money rules were so vague, and because soft money contributions were so huge, the money was invariably directed towards the support of individual candidates. The politicians became corporate entities, commodities bought and sold by the super-citizens.
The passage in 2002 of the Campaign Reform Act did little to cut into the massive influence in politics enjoyed by the super-citizens. The Campaign Reform Act made most soft money contributions illegal but created a loophole large enough to sail a British tea ship through, with the enshrinement of 527 groups as political entities. 527s are tax-exempt organizations created to influence the nomination, election, appointment or defeat of political candidates.
The soft money previously given to political parties goes now to these groups, and these groups enjoy umbilical connections to the parties and candidates they work in favor of. In other words, nothing really changed, and the influence of the super-citizens was undiminished. The Campaign Reform Act also raised the hard money contribution limit from $1,000 to $2,000, thus doubling the ability of super-citizens to exert direct financial influence upon candidates and office-holders.
Today, virtually every politician holding national office is financially beholden to a corporation. Beyond the favorable tax status for corporations established by these owned politicians, the effects of this ownership are felt by average citizens every day.
Foreign policy is all too often decided by corporate considerations, and these decisions often lead to war. The air we breathe, the food we eat and the water we drink is contaminated by pollutants that corporations are legally allowed to spew, thanks to the legislative protections created by corporate-owned politicians. Draconian sentencing rules created by legislators that incarcerate millions of Americans - think "The War on Drugs" specifically - have as much to do with the influence of the corporate-controlled prison industry as with anything else.
This list goes on and on. Super-citizens define our reality by controlling the information we receive via television, newspaper and radio. Super-citizens make sure that information casts them in a favorable light. Super-citizens pound us with advertising and thus maintain the fiction that spending money on products defines the nature of a person.
The best and brightest are drafted out of law school to work for corporate defense firms for six-figure salaries, thus ensuring that super-citizens enjoy a level of legal defense not available to anyone else. Many of these corporate attorneys graduate to the bench, where they extend the influence of super-citizens across all levels of the judicial branch.
More than anything else, however, super-citizens control the ways and means of government at every level. They bought it, they own it, and they make sure it does their bidding. The needs, requirements and best interests of the average citizen do not enter into the equation.
Created Equal
Arguments can be made that corporations are good for the economy and the country. They can get things done with a speed and efficiency not often found in the bureaucracies of government. When the country had to get itself ready to fight World War II, for one example, it was the industrial and manufacturing corporations that produced the means to achieve victory beyond anyone's expectations.
In the final analysis, however, the influence held by these entities is antithetical to the fundamental ideals of the nation. We are not all created equal, and within that inequality lies the potential for enormous evil. Consider the case of I.G. Farben, the industrial giant that was the financial core of the Nazi regime. Farben produced the gas used in the concentration camps, and made lucrative use of slave labor in the camps. Before the war, Farben worked hand-in-hand with a number of powerful American corporations, the most prominent of which was Standard Oil.
In the aftermath of World War II, the crimes committed by Farben were considered so enormous that many wanted the corporation to be utterly destroyed. Instead, Farben was split into several smaller entities, several of which still exist. Millions of Americans purchase aspirin from Bayer, a company that was once part of Farben. Commercials for BASF tell us that company makes the products we buy better, but do not tell us that BASF was once part of Farben. It speaks to the power enjoyed by corporations that Farben, the company that forced concentration camp laborers to manufacture the Zyklon-B used to exterminate them, and which was the backbone of Nazi financial power, was not destroyed out of hand once the war was over. Farben is still with us. Its charter has merely been changed.
Are all corporations on the moral level of I.G. Farben? Certainly not. Many corporations work for the public good, and many that work for their own enrichment do not necessarily undermine the country and its principles. But some do, and exist beyond punishment or account.
The potential for evil is certainly there when super-citizens exist above the law. When the New York Times reviewed the book The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben, it observed that the story of Farben "Forces one to consider the possibility that when corporate evil reaches a certain status, it simply cannot be defeated."
In the end, the existence of incredibly powerful entities that enjoy the status of citizens demote the vast majority of average citizens to second-class status. If the ideals we hold sacred have any truth to them, if the myths we sleep by have any basis in reality, such a division is intolerable and must be changed. "All men are created equal" once excluded vast swaths of Americans from their basic rights. Battles were fought to change that. Today, a battle to realign the balance of power between the citizen and the super-citizen must also be fought. It must be won."

from: The Supremacy of the Super-Citizen
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Thursday 30 June 2005

idleidolidyll

14th November 2007, 16:42

You know what's funny?

The Americans perpetuating the evil think that their shit is all that matters.

The Americans ranting against the evil think that their shit is all that matters.

Who gives a fuck?

Stupid-arse country full of stupid-arse blowhards on every side of every question.

The most ridiculous illusion of all in the US is that they have 'free choice'.

When it comes to politics, both major parties are bought and paid for by corporations and the will of the people is only considered if it happens to coincide with some corporate desire.

The idea that the Democrats represent the 'left' is ridiculous. The US has no valid left wing party outside Ralph Naders and any vote for the two main parties is a vote for continued fascism.

Grahameeboy

14th November 2007, 16:44

Noooooooooooooooo.....not another one of these threads...still at least they do not count in post counts.

Waylander

14th November 2007, 16:45

Ever heard of glass houses mate?
Your country is so perfect you feel you have the right to judge what the States are like?

idleidolidyll

14th November 2007, 16:53

Ever heard of glass houses mate?
Your country is so perfect you feel you have the right to judge what the States are like?

Fuck yes!

NZ may not be perfect but we are in a perfect position to judge the abuse of the US.

What's Amerikkka all about? Greed by any means regardless of the death and misery that might cause.

To ignore that massive and continuing abuse and say nothing is a real crime.

MSTRS

14th November 2007, 16:53

Unless NZ has suddenly been annexed and declared the 51st State (goodbye Heilen), then what the hell is the point of all this...

onearmedbandit

14th November 2007, 16:54

No our counry isn't perfect, but then our country doesn't have such an imapct on the world that America does. And they open themselves up for comment.

idleidolidyll

14th November 2007, 16:55

American Militarism: Is The <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1>USA</st1></st1:country-region> Addicted To War?

First Consider The Evidence, Then Draw Your Own Conclusions
By: Evan Augustine Peterson III, J.D. (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0505/S00327.htm#a)
Published by Coalition For Free Thought In Media (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTMGroup/) on 5/23/04

Let us consider the possibility that the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1>USA</st1></st1:country-region> has become addicted, in an economic sense, to war. While the evidence offered below is by no means exhaustive, it is directly relevant and highly probative. Therefore, the reader should consider ALL of the evidence in Exhibits A through D before judging whether or not a prima facie case has been made that <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1>America</st1></st1:country-region> is economically addicted to war.
EXHIBIT A: US Military Budget Will Equal Rest Of World's Combined "Within 12 Months."
A new study by the PriceWaterhouseCooper corporate-finance group concluded that the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1>USA</st1></st1:country-region>'s military "defense" budget:
(A) reached $417.4 billion in 2003;
(B) equaled nearly half - 46% - of the rest of world's ("ROW") combined military expenditures in 2003; and
(C) is growing so fast that it will equal the ROW combined "within 12 months." [1] (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0505/S00327.htm#ftnote)
Hence, the American military-industrial complex is poised to monopolize the global armaments industry. And yet the War Party's leaders and the Pentagon's brass deem these astronomical expenditures so inadequate that they're requesting considerably larger expenditures to sustain - or expand - their romanesque Pax Americana Imperium. [2] (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0505/S00327.htm#ftnote)
Americans should be asking themselves WHY they're being advised that they cannot feel safe after they've made grossly disproportionate investments, by global standards, in what is by far the world's largest military? What do these exorbitantly expensive forces exist to do? Could it be that war's tangible rewards are so much greater for militarists than they are for the average citizen that the militarists are exaggerating the need for a "Global War On Terror" merely to justify their empire?

idleidolidyll

14th November 2007, 16:57

EXHIBIT B: The Far-Flung Global Empire Of American Militarism.

What's all that money buying, aside from endless overkill through the defense contractors' cornucopia of hi-tech weaponry? It's buying a far-flung empire of 1,700 bases upon which the sun never sets! Unbeknownst to most Americans, the Department of Defense ("DOD") currently lists 725 official <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1>US</st1></st1:country-region> military bases outside of the country, and another 969 inside the 50 states (not to mention numerous secret bases).

According to UCSD Emeritus Professor of International Relations Chalmers Johnson, this vast military empire constitutes proof that the "Unites States prefers to deal with other nations through the use or the threat of force rather than through negotiations, commerce, or cultural interaction." [3]

Dr. Johnson correctly concludes that American power has shifted from the people to the Pentagon with such dramatic finality that "a revolution would be required to bring the Pentagon back under democratic control."

Eight factors have caused this anti-democratic power shift:

1. the culture of American ultranationalist militarism is deeply entrenched;

2. the enormous military budget has been used for gross over investment in offensive - not defensive - war making capabilities under the pretext of "national security";

3. the worldwide archipelago of military bases is being misused to expand the neocolonialist Pax Americana Imperium;

4. Byzantine layers of bureaucracy and secrecy inside the government-military-industrial complex allow it to perpetrate illegalities and evade public scrutiny with impunity;

5. the DOD commands a large private army of mercenaries to conduct secret black-ops actions that remain ethically and legally unaccountable;

6. the DOD has successfully manipulated "national-security crises" as a pretext for centralizing the independent intelligence services under its propaganda-spewing control;

7. the State Department's statesmen have been replaced by career soldiers, oil barons, and arms barons, who think the militarization of US foreign policy is desirable;

8. the federal government's lax ethical code unwisely permits extremely close ties between high-level politicians and arms-industry executives. [4]
<o></o>
EXHIBIT C: The Carlyle Group, The Bush Family, The War Party, And World Leaders.

For at least the last twelve years, George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush have been engaging in war-profiteering through the CARLYLE GROUP ("CG"). CG is a consortium of wealthy conservatives who operate worldwide as a merchant banking firm. CG is also a major player in the defense and telecommunications industries. CG has been averaging a whopping 34% return for its investors over the past 15 years, and its current estimated worth is $18 billion. Largely through war-profiteering, CG's worth soared from $12 billion to $18 billion between 2000 and 2005.

Toaster

14th November 2007, 16:57

This country is only perfect for those that make a living off everyone else.... the hand out brigade. Get a job losers. The rest of us are sick of paying for ourselves and for everyone else that freeloads.

idleidolidyll

14th November 2007, 16:58

So who's involved in the Carlyle Group? Among many others: former President George H.W. Bush (CG's adviser from 1993 to October 2003, and current investor); Bush I Secretary of State James Baker (CG's $180 million partner); General Colin Powell before he was Bush II's SOS; Reagan Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci (CG's chairman); Bush I National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft; former conservative British Prime Minister John Major (head of CG's European operations); and the former right-wing presidents of the Philippines and South Korea.

In the typical revolving-door style that has made postmodern <st1></st1> an ethics-free zone, the Carlyle Group is managed and staffed by former Republican employees of the CIA, the State Department, and the DOD. The Saudi royal family also is - and the Bin Laden family recently was - a major investor in CG. Additionally, many prominent international bankers are CG investors.

But wait! What about George W. Bush? He was a director in the Carlyle Group's subsidiary, Caterair, before he managed the Texas Rangers baseball team. Then, as Governor of Texas, he induced the board of the <st1></st1> teachers' pension fund - the members of which he appointed - to invest $100 million in CG.
Finally, GWB stands to inherit a multimillion dollar portion of whatever his father reaps through his consultations with, and investments in, CG. That might explain why GWB was so adamant both that his illegal elective war against Iraq MUST commence in March 2003, and that the estate tax MUST be repealed (which his party did in April 2005). Now when Poppy Bush dies, he can receive 100% of that blood-soaked windfall inheritance. [5] EXHIBIT D: The War-Profiteering Leviathans Bechtel And Halliburton.

BECHTEL is a gargantuan multinational construction firm. The US-based Bechtel's war-profiteering activities are so prodigious that they're the stuff of legends. Knowledgeable defense experts have characterized Bechtel as "more powerful than the US Army." After 9/11, George Schultz, the Bechtel CEO and former Secretary of State, lobbied vigorously for the invasion of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1>Iraq</st1></st1:country-region>. The Bush administration rewarded Schultz by granting Bechtel exclusive no-bid, gold-plated contracts for the reconstruction of <st1:country-region w:st="on">Iraq</st1:country-region>, before it reduced <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1>Iraq</st1></st1:country-region>'s infrastructure to rubble during its "shock and awe" blitzkrieg.

These Iraq War contracts enabled Bechtel to reap record profits of $17 billion in 2003, and $17.4 billion in 2004.

The firm was founded by the San Francisco-based Bechtel family, who are old friends with the Saudi-based Bin Laden family. These two families have worked together on many construction projects in the <st1>Mideast</st1>. Indeed, they're currently collaborating on a $20 billion deal with the Saudi government to excavate two new ports. Furthermore, the Bin Laden family owns a $10 million stake in Bechtel Corporation's investment subsidiary, The Fremont Group. Of course, the Bin Laden's are also old friends with the Bush family. It's a small world, after all. [6]

Grahameeboy

14th November 2007, 17:00

“The September 11 attacks were a monstrous calling card from a world gone horribly wrong. The message may have been written by Osama bin Laden (who knows?) and delivered by his couriers, but it could well have been signed by the ghosts of the victims of America’s old wars.

So the world has only gone horribly wrong in the last 10 years then?

For centuries the people on this planet have participated in horrible events. We are animals and in the animal kingdom there is always conflict.

If we interfere where we where we should not simply because of self interest then we should expect some interest back so we should not complain.

The sad thing is that apart from the obvious, this tragedy could have been avoided if the Yanks had taken things more seriously. The Brits seem to, as much as is possible, to have a tighter reign on security which us why they have not had a tragedy comparable with 9/11.

This is the world we live in and nothing essentially has changed for centuries, probably BC, other than progress.

idleidolidyll

14th November 2007, 17:00

HALLIBURTON has vaulted to the forefront as the <st1><st1:country-region w:st="on">USA</st1:country-region></st1>'s premier - and most corrupt - war profiteer. Before revolving-door gamesman Dick Cheney became Bush II's running mate in 2000, he was receiving a multimillion dollar salary as Halliburton's CEO. Upon becoming Vice President Cheney, he oversold the invasion of <st1:country-region w:st="on">Iraq</st1:country-region> by falsely alleging that an imminent threat was posed by <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1>>Iraq</st1></st1:country-region>'s nonexistent WMD arsenal. Since the invasion, his cronies at Halliburton have reaped profits of at least $18 billion from their Iraq War contracts. And Halliburton's revenues increased by 80% between 2003 and 2004.

Meanwhile, Halliburton was perpetrating countless acts of fraud, stealing multimillions through overbilling, and taking millions in kickbacks to its executives. For instance, the Defense Contract Audit Agency recently concluded that Halliburton overbilled US taxpayers by $212.3 million for fuel transportation in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1>Iraq</st1></st1:country-region>. And Halliburton is currently under investigation by both the FBI and the Securities Exchange Commission for numerous illegalities. Nevertheless, Halliburton and its subsidiary KBR continue to receive lucrative no-bid, gold-plated defense contracts from the Pentagon.

Noting this blatant cronyism, CorpWatch disgustedly concludes that "Halliburton's agenda is so merged with that of the Bush administration that questions raised by auditors, inspectors-general, and other independent agencies - not to mention corporate accountability groups - languish silently in Congress and the White House." [7]
Furthermore, these same major defense contractors - the Carlyle Group, Bechtel, Halliburton, and their subsidiaries - have donated millions to the Republican Party and the Bush-Cheney campaign. Additionally, they paid for extravagant parties at the 2004 political conventions and the 2005 presidential inauguration. In short, war is a lucrative business that pays the elite war-profiteers and the <st1:state w:st="on"><st1>Washington</st1></st1:state> bribe-ocrats handsomely, while it impoverishes the taxpayers, drains the federal coffers, decimates the target nations, and kills the combatants and their innocent victims hideously.

Overarching Conclusions: 21st-Century <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1>America</st1></st1:country-region> Is Repeating Militarism's Historical Pattern Of Economic Addiction To War.

Warlust eventually ravages nations just like a highly-addictive narcotic ravages people. Warfare's savagery inflicts destruction on prey nations immediately, whereas it destroys predator nations mediately. War initially produces a stimulative "high" for the predator's domestic economy. Leaders in predator nations ignore this opiate-like economic addiction to war because it serves to enrich their upper classes. Warfare is instantaneously lucrative for the military-industrial complex's depraved war-profiteers, but can cause an entire region's economy to become depraved war-addicts over time.

For instance, the Pentagon's Base Realignment and Closure Commission ("BRAC" ) recently issued its report on military base closings. In response, <st1:country-region w:st="on">US</st1:country-region> Senators insisted that they CANNOT close any military bases in their states, because bases provide jobs and generate income for local economies (e.g., $42 billion annually for <st1:state w:st="on"><st1>California</st1></st1:state>'s economy). And US Representatives like House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) insisted that their districts CANNOT survive without the income generated by military bases (e.g., $18 billion annually for <st1:city w:st="on"><st1>San Diego</st1></st1:city>'s economy).

idleidolidyll

14th November 2007, 17:02

In other words, most states and large cities cannot survive without taxpayer-funded monetary injections from military bases, and this vast archipelago of bases cannot be justified without an endless succession of wars, so our regional economies are addicted to war. Hence, BRAC proposed closing only 33 out of 1,700 bases. Of course, no bases will be closed in Chairman Hunter's militarily-dependent district, <st1:city w:st="on"><st1>San Diego</st1></st1:city>.

That's about 1,000 less base closures than is necessary to provide adequate funding for <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1>America</st1></st1:country-region>'s indispensable social safety-net programs. Moreover, a reduction to 700 bases would still allow the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1>USA</st1></st1:country-region> to have three bases in each of the 50 states, and at least one in every nation in the world. Folks, that's more than enough! [8]
<o></o>
Consider that the economic "high" from an addiction to war is always a Faustian bargain. It compels the addicted nation to start an endless succession of destructive wars in order to avoid severe withdrawal symptoms, which otherwise would appear in the form of recessions and depressions. Penultimately, it forces the working class to pay the highest price in blood and treasure. Their children become cannon fodder and their taxes are squandered to finance military adventures. Ultimately, war destroys empires as well as it does people. [9] Militaristic nations always collapse because their criminal acts of aggression are not only morally indefensible but also economically unsustainable.

Maybe progressive journalists who "speak truth to power" should bestow a more accurate name on the DOD: the "Department of Aggression" ("DOA").

The Bottom Line: Might As Well Face It, We're Addicted To War.

One certainly need not be a pacifist to recognize that the Exhibits A-D provide powerful evidence that the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1>USA</st1></st1:country-region> is economically addicted to war. If so, this would explain why our political system is dominated by the ultra-militarist War Party and the crypto-fascist Bush family (i.e., the pushers), while our economic system is dominated by the military-industrial complex and its mafiosiesque war-profiteers (i.e., the kingpins).

Finally, if the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1>USA</st1></st1:country-region> is economically addicted to war, that raises some important moral questions. Readers of good conscience should be asking themselves: "Am I willing to engage in loving acts of nonviolent noncooperation with evil in order to stop my nation's wars of aggression? Or will I watch in craven silence as this nation descends - like the Bush family's multigenerational war-profiteers - into a vampiric career of bloodthirsty murderousness? If it's the latter, won't I be sending <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1>America</st1></st1:country-region>'s children the depraved message that it's permissible to murder people, so long as it's profitable? Which destiny am I going to choose -- nonviolent redemption or militaristic perdition?" [10]

In short, we've proved in <st1><st1:country-region w:st="on">Iraq</st1:country-region></st1> that violence only begets more violence, and war more wars. It's time to show the world the force of our example, not the example of our force.

Waylander

14th November 2007, 17:03

Fuck yes!

NZ may not be perfect but we are in a perfect position to judge the abuse of the US.

What's Amerikkka all about? Greed by any means regardless of the death and misery that might cause.

To ignore that massive and continuing abuse and say nothing is a real crime.
Honestly mate, I don't think that a country that barely rates above the third world and has nothing whatsoever to offer the world has the right to judge ANY other country.

America might be fucked but it's a damn sight better than here.
I'll give you an example. I've been here nearly 4 years now and the exact same parts of the motorway in Auckland are under construction that were when I first arrived. How many new taxes did uncle hellen put forth to pay just for that?

Dallas built a new 6 lane high way going around the full Dallas/ft. Worth metroplex (Approx. the distance from Wellsford to Hamilton) in 2 years and didn't charge any extra taxes for that.

Bitch and moan about America all you want but untill you ditch that 'holier than thou' attitude you wont be anything more than a moron with his head up his ass.

idleidolidyll

14th November 2007, 17:04

ENDNOTES
[1] Guy Anderson's 5-4-05 Janes Defence Industry article, "US Defence Budget Will Equal Rest Of World's Combined Within 12 Months": http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdi/jdi050504_1_n.shtml
[2] Siobhan McDonough's 5-15-05 GU article, "Senate Panel OK's Defense Spending Boost" <st1><st1:country-region w:st="on">USA</st1:country-region></st1>'s "defense" budget will be at least $500 billion in FY 2006.]: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5006745,00.html
[3] UCSD Professor Emeritus Chalmers Johnson's book, The Sorrows Of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, And The End Of The Republic (Metropolitan Books, 2004).
[4] Ibid. Also see these essays about militarism and nationalism: A. Norman Solomon's 5-16-05 CD essay, "News Media And The 'Madness of Militarism'": http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0516-21.htm
B. Howard Zinn's 5-16-05 CD/TP essay, "The Scourge Of Nationalism": http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0516-29.htm
[5] These articles provide the factual details about the Carlyle Group.
A. HereInReality's article, "The Carlyle Group: Former World Leaders And War-Profiteering" [Articles and videos about CG.]: http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html
B. AngelFire's "Meet The Carlyle Group" [Similar to 5A, but better organized.]: http://www.angelfire.com/indie/pearly/htmls/bush-carlyle.html
C. Naomi Klein's 10-13-04 GU article, "Why War? Bush Special Envoy And Carlyle Group In Scandal Over Iraq Debt Relief" [ In 2004, former SOS and current Carlyle Group partner James Baker III was unethically involved in a classic conflict of interest, because he functioned publicly as the USA's debt-envoy to negotiate relief from Iraq's international debts, and secretly as CG's representative to collect billions from Iraq for debts it owed to CG's client, Kuwait.]": http://www.why-war.com/news/2004/10/13/bushspec.html
D. William Thomas' must-read 2004 WT article, "Inside The Bush-Carlyle Group Empire": http://www.willthomas.net/Convergence/Weekly/Bush_Carlyle_Group.htm
E. Jamie Doward's 3-25-03 Rense/TO article, "Bush Sr's Carlyle Group Gets Fat On War And Conflict" [Backs up his title with probative facts from Dan Briody's book, Iron Triangle: Inside The Secret World Of The Carlyle Group.]: http://www.rense.com/general36/FAT.HTM
F. Christopher Bollyn's 11-3-01 PP/AFP article, "War Is Sell: Washington's Power Elite Are The Beneficiaries of War" [Reports that the Bush family is getting financially fat off of Dubya's "War on Terror," because 30% of CG's investments are in defense-related companies, while two-thirds of CG's investments are in defense and war-related telecommunications.]: http://prisonplanet.com/washingtons_power_elite_are_the_beneficiaries_of_w ar .html
G. LinkThing has collected the "Carlyle Group Articles," ranging from 2001 to mid-2004: http://linkthing.com/screed/carlyle_group_cluster.html
[6] Jeffrey St. Clair's 5-9-05 CP essay, "Straight to Bechtel: More Powerful Than The US Army" [Excerpted from his forthcoming book, Grand Theft Pentagon: How War Contractors Rip Off America And Threaten The World (Common Courage Press, July 2005).]: http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair05092005.html
[7] These articles address Halliburton's sleazy cronyism and war-profiteering.
A. Andrea Buffa and Pratap Chatterjee's 5-17-05 CD/CW essay, "Houston, We Still Have A Problem": http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0517-33.htm
B. Scott Parkin's 5-10-05 CP essay, "Pride Cometh Before A Fall: Taking Direct Action Against Halliburton": http://www.counterpunch.org/parkin05102005.html
C. The Committee on Government Reform Minority Office's 5-2-05 article, "Halliburton Asked To Explain Discrepancies Between Testimony And Indictment http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/story.asp?ID=3D839&Issue=3DIraq=3DRe co nstruction
D. The Committee on Government Reform Minority Office's 4-11-05 article, "DOD Audit Reports On Halliburton" [Government auditors find that Halliburton over billed <st1:country-region w:st="on">US</st1:country-region> taxpayers by $212.3 million on its <st1><st1:country-region w:st="on">Iraq</st1:country-region></st1> oil contract.]: http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/story.asp?ID=3D846&Issue=3DIraq=3DRe co nstruction
[8] These essays address the politics and economics of military base closings.
A. Barbara Starr's 5-13-05 CNN article, "Lawmakers Scramble To Save Bases": http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/13/base.closings/
B. Associated Press' 4-25-05 CNN article, "Base Closings Have Enormous Political Ramifications: Republicans Have as Much To Lose As Democrats": http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/25/base.closings.ap/index.html
[9] The following two essays have been excerpted from BU Professor of International Relations Andrew Bacevich's outstanding book, The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced By War (Oxford U. Press, 2005).
A. Andrew Bacevich's must-read 4-21-05 CD/TD essay, "The Normalization of War" [Correctly describes the symptoms, and diagnoses the causes, of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1>America</st1></st1:country-region>'s descent into militarism and perpetual war.]: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0421-25.htm
B. Andrew Bacevich's 4-22-05 CD/TD essay, "New Boys In Town" [Explains the neocons' disastrous role in ratcheting up <st1><st1:country-region w:st="on">America</st1:country-region></st1>'s addiction to war. They're the warmongering public-relations division of the military-industrial complex.]: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0422-34.htm
[10] In addition to son George W. Bush and father GHWB, GWB's paternal uncle, "Bucky" Bush, is a war profiteer, as were his paternal grandfather, Prescott Bush, and his maternal great-grandfather, George Herbert Walker. Is this <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1>America</st1></st1:country-region>'s destiny too?
A. Evan Augustine Peterson III's 2-28-05 TPV essay, "On Bush Nepotism And American War-Profiteering" [Reports that: (1) the American war machine feeds big business, as illustrated by the fact that entire military-industrial complex is profiting mightily from its wars; and (2) certain relatives within Bush Family -- including Dubya's uncle, William "Bucky" Bush -- are making substantial windfall earnings off of Mr. Bush's elective wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In short, war is business as usual for the Bush family war-profiteers specifically and the <st1><st1:country-region w:st="on">US</st1:country-region></st1> military-industrial complex generally.]: http://liberty.hypermart.net/voices/2005/print/On_Bush_Nepotism_And_Americ an _War-Profiteering .htm
B. Evan Augustine Peterson III's 2-6-05 NFPNZ essay, "Of Militarism, Fascism, War And National Consciousness: Any Authentic Pilgrimage Toward A Nonviolent Society Requires A Clearer Understanding Of The Beast Within" [Concisely explains from a social sciences perspective the genesis of American militarism, the possibility that we are devolving into fascism, and the alternative possibility of becoming an authentically nonviolent society.]: http://nuclearfree.lynx.co.nz/of.htm

*************

About The Author: Evan Augustine Peterson III, J.D., is the Executive Director of the <st1><st1>American</st1> <st1>Center</st1></st1> for International Law ("ACIL").

Waylander

14th November 2007, 17:05

Do you have any original arguments or are you just gonna cut and paste the whole time?

idleidolidyll

14th November 2007, 17:07

Honestly mate, I don't think that a country that barely rates above the third world and has nothing whatsoever to offer the world has the right to judge ANY other country.

America might be fucked but it's a damn sight better than here.
I'll give you an example. I've been here nearly 4 years now and the exact same parts of the motorway in Auckland are under construction that were when I first arrived. How many new taxes did uncle hellen put forth to pay just for that?

Dallas built a new 6 lane high way going around the full Dallas/ft. Worth metroplex (Approx. the distance from Wellsford to Hamilton) in 2 years and didn't charge any extra taxes for that.

Bitch and moan about America all you want but untill you ditch that 'holier than thou' attitude you wont be anything more than a moron with his head up his ass.

Nope, Amerika is a damn sight WORSE than here. We may not have the rich poor gap amerika has, we may not have 40 million unable to afford health care, we may not send our poor off to fight wars for the rich but.........hey, that's the point! We DON'T slaughter, abuse and terrorise for blood money as Amerikkka does.

None of Amerika's internal successes mean shit when it is understood that it was built on blood and continues to live off the blood and misery of others.

idleidolidyll

14th November 2007, 17:07

Do you have any original arguments or are you just gonna cut and paste the whole time?

why? is it all too hard for you?

care to debate any of the facts offered?

I didn't think so.

idleidolidyll

14th November 2007, 17:11

So the world has only gone horribly wrong in the last 10 years then?

For centuries the people on this planet have participated in horrible events. We are animals and in the animal kingdom there is always conflict.

If we interfere where we where we should not simply because of self interest then we should expect some interest back so we should not complain.

The sad thing is that apart from the obvious, this tragedy could have been avoided if the Yanks had taken things more seriously. The Brits seem to, as much as is possible, to have a tighter reign on security which us why they have not had a tragedy comparable with 9/11.

This is the world we live in and nothing essentially has changed for centuries, probably BC, other than progress.

The world has aleways had problems but the significance of Sept 11 is that the nett abuser finally got attacked on it's home soil; something that has never happened to it before.
The US continues to abuse and it is important to point that out continually. To sit back and say nothing when you know what is going on is to be a part of the abuse.

Grahameeboy

14th November 2007, 17:12

Waylander

14th November 2007, 17:14

Nope, Amerika is a damn sight WORSE than here. We may not have the rich poor gap amerika has, we may not have 40 million unable to afford health care, we may not send our poor off to fight wars for the rich but.........hey, that's the point! We DON'T slaughter, abuse and terrorise for blood money as Amerikkka does.

None of Amerika's internal successes mean shit when it is understood that it was built on blood and continues to live off the blood and misery of others.
We may have a large rich/poor gap but the majority of those with heaps of money actually worked for it. We may have heaps not able to afford welfare but atleast those that can don't have to pay for those that are just too lazy or stupid to work to be able to pay for it.
Last time I checked there has not been a Draft since the Korean war so everyone fighting now singed up of their own accord. Also I believe that most of the wars America has been involved in we were either asked to help out or attacked directly. So think again about who we're doing the fighting for.
As for living off the blood of others, name one civilization in history that hasn't.

I don't see you going after England the same way. France, Germany, China, Russia....

Grahameeboy

14th November 2007, 17:17

The world has aleways had problems but the significance of Sept 11 is that the nett abuser finally got attacked on it's home soil; something that has never happened to it before.
The US continues to abuse and it is important to point that out continually. To sit back and say nothing when you know what is going on is to be a part of the abuse.

Rubbish................you sound like Bush when after 9/11 he said "if you are not with us you are with the terriorists"..........

Now you are saying we don't have a freedom of choice which is contrary to other threads you have started.

Just because some may chose to say nothing, does not mean that are part of the abuse and that we don't care. We just chose to be quiet in our own thoughts.

Waylander

14th November 2007, 17:17

why? is it all too hard for you?

care to debate any of the facts offered?

I didn't think so.
I'm not even gonna pretend to be smart enough to understand whatever that crap was saying. I didn't even bother to read it.
I have no respect for people who prattle off what they've heard from others.

The world has aleways had problems but the significance of Sept 11 is that the nett abuser finally got attacked on it's home soil; something that has never happened to it before.
The US continues to abuse and it is important to point that out continually. To sit back and say nothing when you know what is going on is to be a part of the abuse.
Guess again. We booted England out because of unfair treatment to people on our soil and we devastated Japan for attacking us.

So we are worse than America because we take too long to build roads??
That was one example. And it's not that you take too long to build roads it was that people here are being taxed for shit that isn't happening.

Grahameeboy

14th November 2007, 17:20

That was one example. And it's not that you take too long to build roads it was that people here are being taxed for shit that isn't happening.

Not a good example I guess..............

SPman

14th November 2007, 17:21

You haven't mentioned the infiltration of the Religious Bible belt fundamentalists through the military and higher echelons of government.
A good essay here - http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/110807B.shtml

Also - civic leaders are starting to speak out - a statement from the Mayor of Salt Lake City, of all places:-

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/110907E.shtml

The USA heirachy is rampant, but, not all of the citizens are unaware of what is going on - the worry is, can they do anything about it - while they still can!

Bets on Bush, declaring Martial law before the next election??

idleidolidyll

14th November 2007, 17:22

We may have a large rich/poor gap but the majority of those with heaps of money actually worked for it.

Bullshit! The richest people in the US got that way through family wealth mainly from old acts of corruption and the trend continues.

We may have heaps not able to afford welfare but atleast those that can don't have to pay for those that are just too lazy or stupid to work to be able to pay for it.

That's amerikkka for ya, they don't give a shit about people destroyed by their culture of greed and abuse..........

Last time I checked there has not been a Draft since the Korean war so everyone fighting now singed up of their own accord.

oH SURE THEY DID. hOW MANY OF THEM ARE THE SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF THE WEALTHY? hOW MANY ARE THE CHILDREN OF POLITICIANS? fUCK ALL. aMERIKA RELIES ON BRIBING THE POOR AND MINORITIES WITH THE PROMISE OF WEALTH IF THEY WILL SLAUGHTER ON BEHALF OF CAPITALISM AND MAKING cHENEY AND bUSH (and their cronies) RICHER.

Also I believe that most of the wars America has been involved in we were either asked to help out or attacked directly. So think again about who we're doing the fighting for.

Bullshit again. Most of Amerikas wars were contrived by amerika for profit motives.
Amerika fights to make the military, the politicians and the wealthy corporates even richer and they don't give a rats arse who they kill and terrorise in the process. Shall I post some of the millions of peoiples who are innocent victims of amerikan terrorism? I'm more than happy to do so. Perhaps an article on the School of the Americas would be a good place to start: a school run by the Yanks that trained terrorists for Sth America.

As for living off the blood of others, name one civilization in history that hasn't.

hardly an excuse to perpetuate amerikan terrorism and lie about it in such a cynical way but New Zealand is a relatively benign example in the last 30 years since the last time amerika conned us into one of it's wars of abuse (Vietnam)

I don't see you going after England the same way. France, Germany, China, Russia....

Oh England has much to answer for too but that can wait for another day. I'm not about to be diverted by your denial and fallacy.

idleidolidyll

14th November 2007, 17:25

I'm not even gonna pretend to be smart enough to understand whatever that crap was saying. I didn't even bother to read it.
I have no respect for people who prattle off what they've heard from others.

the ignorance defence? i'm not impressed

Guess again. We booted England out because of unfair treatment to people on our soil and we devastated Japan for attacking us.

Nope, the rich Yanks contrived to kick out the Brits so they could own the economy instead and it's been that way ever since. Amerika was born in corruption and continues on that path.

That was one example. And it's not that you take too long to build roads it was that people here are being taxed for shit that isn't happening.

Tuff shit. Better to have taxes than have the huge rich poor gap that amerikkka has and have to pay close to a grand a month just for insurance to rip off corporates because the government has sold the people to the lowest bidder.

idleidolidyll

14th November 2007, 17:26

idleidolidyll

14th November 2007, 17:28

Rubbish................you sound like Bush when after 9/11 he said "if you are not with us you are with the terriorists"..........

Now you are saying we don't have a freedom of choice which is contrary to other threads you have started.

Just because some may chose to say nothing, does not mean that are part of the abuse and that we don't care. We just chose to be quiet in our own thoughts.

Yes it does. If you know of the issues and the abuse and you say nothing, you are effectively giving moral support to the abusers and state terrorists

idleidolidyll

14th November 2007, 17:30

Guess again. We booted England out because of unfair treatment to people on our soil and we devastated Japan for attacking us.

foolish stuff!

Amerikkka didn't exist when the Brits were in control. It was created after they left. Japan attacked Hawaii, a nation anexed by Amerika and it's own people abused. Hawaii is not the Amerikan homeland.

idleidolidyll

14th November 2007, 17:31

Too fucking funny!

I post the words of Amerikans with morality and a yank gets all upset and wants me to shut the fuck up!

ROTFLMFAO!

steveb64

14th November 2007, 17:32

Unless NZ has suddenly been annexed and declared the 51st State (goodbye Heilen), then what the hell is the point of all this...

Naah - I reckon it's Iraq that'll be the 51st State! Unless we find a whole lot more oil...

SPman

14th November 2007, 17:33

Guess again. We booted England out because of unfair treatment to people on our soil .......

You threw out the Brits to get rid of the Monarchy - George the 3rd - and all that it stood for. The leaders knew what could happen in the years after so drafted the Constitution to try and avoid the inevitable slide into decadence, power and corruption that can follow and, by and large it was successful. The ruling elite in the US have now dismembered the constitution and what is left, they ignore. They have put common law back to pre 12th century Britain by removing Habeus Corpus and Bush can now, effectively rule by decree - he can bypass Congress and the Senate (who are weak as piss at the moment, anyway).
The oath sworn by all military and government personel, is to uphold THE CONSTITUTION of the United States, - not the government, not the President, not Congress, - the Constitution! And they are all failing abysmally in their sworn oaths, which makes them liars and traitors to the USA!
The US ruling elite is virtually a monarchy, now, in all but name - the USA is right back to King George in charge!

idleidolidyll

14th November 2007, 17:36

idleidolidyll

14th November 2007, 17:38

the USA is right back to King George in charge!

Yep, Mad King George the 2nd in fact. The reign of the Bush abusers continues: Prescott Bush would be so proud his progeny have continued to bleed the poor on behalf of the rich and he would have known that his son and grandson too would have traded with Hitler as he did

Waylander

14th November 2007, 17:47

Bullshit! The richest people in the US got that way through family wealth mainly from old acts of corruption and the trend continues.
You don't think it's fair for a child to receive their parents wealth when the parents die? And there are only a few corrupt people that are making themselves rich. I'm not saying they don't exist but certainly not as many as your wish-full thinking leads you to believe. You don't think the government cronies here are doing the same thing? In fact if you looked at it per capita there would likely be fewer corrupt people in the States than here.

That's amerikkka for ya, they don't give a shit about people destroyed by their culture of greed and abuse..........
I may be missing something but how is NZ different? Those misuseing the dole don't seem to care much about how they are abusing the system paid for by others hard work. And Maori activist really care about how they are destroying other cultures. If I have kids here should they really be forced to learn Maori just cause a few of them refuse to learn English?

oH SURE THEY DID. hOW MANY OF THEM ARE THE SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF THE WEALTHY? hOW MANY ARE THE CHILDREN OF POLITICIANS? fUCK ALL. aMERIKA RELIES ON BRIBING THE POOR AND MINORITIES WITH THE PROMISE OF WEALTH IF THEY WILL SLAUGHTER ON BEHALF OF CAPITALISM AND MAKING cHENEY AND bUSH (and their cronies) RICHER.
If they don't want to fight they can always try getting a normal job. Unless your in it for career the military doesn't pay anymore than a standard 9-5 job.

Bullshit again. Most of Amerikas wars were contrived by amerika for profit motives.
Amerika fights to make the military, the politicians and the wealthy corporates even richer and they don't give a rats arse who they kill and terrorise in the process. Shall I post some of the millions of peoiples who are innocent victims of amerikan terrorism? I'm more than happy to do so. Perhaps an article on the School of the Americas would be a good place to start: a school run by the Yanks that trained terrorists for Sth America.
Only wars I know of that benefited the states are the more recent ones in the middle east. I never saw any reason to go to Iraq and still don't know why we are there other than for oil. so I agree with you on that one. But Korea? Vietnam where we got our ass kicked? The World Wars? No war is justified but some have legitimate reasons other than just to make money.
As for that school thing and you posting info about it, read my earlier post about those that just regurgitate the opinions of others.

hardly an excuse to perpetuate amerikan terrorism and lie about it in such a cynical way but New Zealand is a relatively benign example in the last 30 years since the last time amerika conned us into one of it's wars of abuse (Vietnam)
Yes New Zealand is benign because it can't afford to be otherwise. Don't think for a second that Helen wouldn't send troops to the middle east in a bid to suck up to the states if she had any. Your military is a joke. Poorly trained and even more poorly equipped and if any country were to try and invade you'de be fucked. But Don't worry America will come help because you are our allies.

Oh England has much to answer for too but that can wait for another day. I'm not about to be diverted by your denial and fallacy.
Why must it wait? Hell why not attack all the countries that have done wrong to others. Should give you plenty to do since you seem to have so much free time to search for facts to suit your case.

idleidolidyll

14th November 2007, 17:48

tis dinner time

food calls and it smells better than yank bullshit..................

idleidolidyll

14th November 2007, 17:48

Why must it wait? Hell why not attack all the countries that have done wrong to others. Should give you plenty to do since you seem to have so much free time to search for facts to suit your case.

best to expose and attack the worst abusers and biggest hypocrites first: AMERIKKKA!

Grahameeboy

14th November 2007, 17:49

Yes it does. If you know of the issues and the abuse and you say nothing, you are effectively giving moral support to the abusers and state terrorists

No you are not..................oddly with America, it was ironic that Bush said that when America did not assist (and actually supported) with deporting wanted IRA guys.

If I say nothing, does not mean I do not have my own non-verbal thoughts so what you are saying that I can think to myself that the abusers etc are wrong but because I just omit to say anything verbally I am giving them moral support..........plus I doubt the abusers actually take moral encouragement from the 'say nothing' brigade because they were already motivated, ironically by those who said something because if we had not meddled in others affairs for our own gains ie kept quiet, it is possible that 9/11 would not have happened..........you see sometimes it does pay to keep ones mouth shut...........something I learnt when growing up in the rough streets on London.............

idleidolidyll

14th November 2007, 17:50

Oh dear, I see you live in ignorance of Amerikkka's abuse of the world. I'm not surprised; most yanks suffer the same convenient memory issues.

just for you:

http://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html

Grahameeboy

14th November 2007, 17:51

best to expose and attack the worst abusers and biggest hypocrites first: AMERIKKKA!

Abusers are abusers........what's the difference?

It's okay they are good abusers so we will not attack them first.............

idleidolidyll

14th November 2007, 17:51

No you are not..................oddly with America, it was ironic that Bush said that when America did not assist (and actually supported) with deporting wanted IRA guys.

If I say nothing, does not mean I do not have my own non-verbal thoughts so what you are saying that I can think to myself that the abusers etc are wrong but because I just omit to say anything verbally I am giving them moral support..........plus I doubt the abusers actually take moral encouragement from the 'say nothing' brigade because they were already motivated, ironically by those who said something because if we had not meddled in others affairs for our own gains ie kept quiet, it is possible that 9/11 would not have happened..........you see sometimes it does pay to keep ones mouth shut...........something I learnt when growing up in the rough streets on London.............

Nope. Keeping your mouth shut in the face of state terrorism ensures it will continue and for that you are a part of the problem.

idleidolidyll

14th November 2007, 17:52

Abusers are abusers........what's the difference?

It's okay they are good abusers so we will not attack them first.............

'good abusers'?

i see drool!

Waylander

14th November 2007, 17:58

Tuff shit. Better to have taxes than have the huge rich poor gap that amerikkka has and have to pay close to a grand a month just for insurance to rip off corporates because the government has sold the people to the lowest bidder.
Over a grand a month? Where are you getting that figure?
It cost me about $500 a year for health insurance (Medical/dental everything) which is usually paid for by your employer.
Hell man to insure my two bikes there only cost me $25 a year. Compare that to the grand a year just for one bike here.

Too fucking funny!

I post the words of Amerikans with morality and a yank gets all upset and wants me to shut the fuck up!

ROTFLMFAO!

Did I say I didn't agree that America is fucked up? My argument is that you are bitching about another country when you come from a country that is fucked as well.
Put your own house in order before worrying about others.

Grahameeboy

14th November 2007, 17:59

Nope. Keeping your mouth shut in the face of state terrorism ensures it will continue and for that you are a part of the problem.

Have you often wondered that perhaps the State terriorist feed on open mouths?

I know I am not part of the problem, not because I am uncaring but because I know how I feel........I actually think it is people with your view of things are more of a worry (not meant to be a personal attack)..................

BIGBOSSMAN

14th November 2007, 18:01

Ha ha! He's been a bit quiet lately researching his latest diatribe, but III has definitely come back with a vengeance...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkOpnND7980

Hitcher

14th November 2007, 18:08

Original thought once again replaced by another cut and paste thread. Sigh.

Waylander

14th November 2007, 18:10

Yes Onearmbandit, everyone is entitled to an opinion but to constantly attack something like this goes a bit beyond opinion.
And stop hiding in the shadows of rep. Say it in here if you have something to say.

Hitcher

14th November 2007, 18:13

Much more of this ill-informed, judgmental nonsense and I shall reform and become pro-American. Where's Sarge when he's really needed?

Waylander

14th November 2007, 18:16

Much more of this ill-informed, judgmental nonsense and I shall reform and become pro-American. Where's Sarge when he's really needed?
Does this mean you'll finally leave me alone about my use of the word 'Ass'?

laRIKin

14th November 2007, 18:18

Sorry but my eye's just kept on glazing over.

NighthawkNZ

14th November 2007, 18:20

:yawn::yawn::yawn::yawn:

Romeo

14th November 2007, 18:22

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods">Operation Northwoods</a>

Hitcher

14th November 2007, 18:23

Does this mean you'll finally leave me alone about my use of the word 'Ass'?

I think I said pro-American, not pro-Canadian...

steveb64

14th November 2007, 18:40

You threw out the Brits to get rid of the Monarchy - George the 3rd - and all that it stood for. The leaders knew what could happen in the years after so drafted the Constitution to try and avoid the inevitable slide into decadence, power and corruption that can follow and, by and large it was successful. The ruling elite in the US have now dismembered the constitution and what is left, they ignore. They have put common law back to pre 12th century Britain by removing Habeus Corpus and Bush can now, effectively rule by decree - he can bypass Congress and the Senate (who are weak as piss at the moment, anyway).
The oath sworn by all military and government personel, is to uphold THE CONSTITUTION of the United States, - not the government, not the President, not Congress, - the Constitution! And they are all failing abysmally in their sworn oaths, which makes them liars and traitors to the USA!
The US ruling elite is virtually a monarchy, now, in all but name - the USA is right back to King George in charge!

Thought you might be interested in this article, re the selection of the Bush administration 'Inspector General', and auditors...

A snippet:

Just as he politicized every other facet of government from FEMA to the Farm Bureau, President Bush has ignored the law and stocked the inspector general posts with inexperienced cronies. According to a study by the House Oversight Committee, more than a third of Bush's inspectors previously held a political post in the White House, compared to none of Bill Clinton's appointees. Judging from their résumés — deputy counsel to the Bush-Cheney transition team, special assistant to Trent Lott, senior counsel to Fred Thompson, daughter to Chief Justice William Rehnquist — Bush's appointees seem more qualified to be partisans at a neoconservative think tank than America's last line of defense against fraud and abuse. What's more, fewer than one-fifth of the inspectors appointed by Bush had previous experience as auditors, compared to two-thirds of Clinton's appointees. "The IGs have been politicized and dumbed down," said Rep. Brad Miller, oversight chair of the House science committee.

And the link to the whole article... http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/17138667/bushs_lap_dogs

...and yeah, it's from Rolling Stone - but do ya reckon Fox would have published it?

SPman

14th November 2007, 19:00

Yep - read that article - not really a surprise I guess.
The only people who can get the US out of the moral mire it is in, is the population and with a 40% voting rate and falling, those who do care seem doomed to drown in a morass of apathy.
Hmmm......sounds familiar..........

Winston001

14th November 2007, 19:03

I didn't read the lot but get the point. I agree. Some corporations are amoral without loyalty to any sovereign state. As such they can act above the law by transferring activity to more corrupt, less well governed locations.

There is much sci-fi writing on the future societies where Earth and space are governed by competing corporations. I have no reason to think that can't happen.

Against that today however is arrayed the military and political power of governments. No government wants to be undermined by corporations. Thus we see anti-trust (anti-monopoly) laws which are likely to only become stronger as politicians fear loss of authority and power.

I don't think the future is as bleak as Super-Citizens would postulate despite the size of Coca cola, Microsoft, Nike etc.

pete376403

14th November 2007, 19:09

William Pitt has some really good essays on truthout.org

idleidolidyll

15th November 2007, 13:03

Operation Northwoods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods)


Yep, false flags ops are not only possible they're likely.

Some say Pearl Harbour was 'allowed' to happen.

The US used a false flag op to restart the Vietnam war (The Tonkin incident), also in the Philippines.

Others say 9/11 itself was either planned or 'allowed' by those in power in the US. Certainly the investigation into it was bullshit.

The US has used flase flag ops many times and its sheeple remain in the dark battered by compliant media.

idleidolidyll

15th November 2007, 13:04

Did I say I didn't agree that America is fucked up? My argument is that you are bitching about another country when you come from a country that is fucked as well.
Put your own house in order before worrying about others.

Nope, NZ isn't even close to being as fucked up as the US. We don't make a policy of slaughtering people for profit.

idleidolidyll

15th November 2007, 13:06

Have you often wondered that perhaps the State terriorist feed on open mouths?

I know I am not part of the problem, not because I am uncaring but because I know how I feel........I actually think it is people with your view of things are more of a worry (not meant to be a personal attack)..................

No, they thrive on silence. They rely on people to be afraid to speak out about their abuse and because of that silence, it will continue.

If your neighbor screams rape, do you ignore that too? The US issue is far worse

Finn

15th November 2007, 13:16

I might be moving to the US in a year or two. Really looking forward to it.

MisterD

15th November 2007, 13:25

Getting away from the rhetoric and cut-and-paste (if at all possible) and speaking from actual real experience - I'm currently working for my second big US corporation and I can safely say that in terms of the way they treat their employees and the way they support stuff in their own local communities (all well above and beyond the requirements of any legislation) they piss from a great height all over any of the other companies I've worked for, be they British, Scandinavian, French or Kiwi...

MisterD

15th November 2007, 13:26

I might be moving to the US in a year or two. Really looking forward to it.

Just don't buy an American car, that's one field where they really do suck!

Finn

15th November 2007, 13:27

Just don't buy an American car, that's one field where they really do suck!

Don't worry I won't. You can blame the unions for that.

Grahameeboy

15th November 2007, 13:33

No, they thrive on silence. They rely on people to be afraid to speak out about their abuse and because of that silence, it will continue.

If your neighbor screams rape, do you ignore that too? The US issue is far worse

Oh dear................if I heard someone scream rape I would not ignore that.

Abuse continues regardless of those who speak out or those who remain silent because it does not concern them as they do what they do.

Biggles41

15th November 2007, 16:33

Novus Ordo Seclorem

Waylander

15th November 2007, 17:26

Nope, NZ isn't even close to being as fucked up as the US. We don't make a policy of slaughtering people for profit.
No you just rip off the hard working people to support the lazy and stupid.

Tell you what dude, come meet me face to face then say America sucks and see what happens.

NighthawkNZ

15th November 2007, 17:31

If your not going blab on about NZ policies shuddup already.... (its bad enough when you do... ) At the end of the day... who the fuck cares about all that crap... cause I can't frecking be bothered to reading all that shit... If you don't like NZ move.. If you don't wont to live in the states don't live there... simple... move to Fiji, Aussie, Russia, or Iran I we don't care where...

davereid

15th November 2007, 17:43

Nope, NZ isn't even close to being as fucked up as the US. We don't make a policy of slaughtering people for profit.

Maybe we do. We claimed the war in Timor was to help the locals against the terrible Indonesians. Some say it was to secure the oil & gas in the Timor sea for Australia. Me, I don't know, but we havent gone to war to help in Rhodesia, or even Fiji.

And Helen loves her two-hundred mile limit for fisheries resources. Strange thing though, its not really that legal. Seems all the countries that COULD claim a two-hundred mile limit without bumping into someone else just did it. The rest just stayed with the status quo. Hmm... seems we are just as quick to through our weight around as anyone else. Lucky we arent that heavy..

idleidolidyll

1st December 2007, 10:00

Why am I posting this?
Because I have a boring stalker from fascist Amerikkka who is disrupting topical threads to pursue his agenda. This is a place for him to vent his spleen instead of fucking up topical bike discussions.

So, just HOW did Amerika become a fascist state? William Pitt has written a well researched and referenced piece:

The Supremacy of the Super-Citizen
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective Thursday 30 June 2005
Unless you become more watchful in your States and check this spirit of monopoly and thirst for exclusive privileges, you will in the end find that the most important powers of Government have been given or bartered away, and the control of your dearest interests have been passed into the hands of these corporations.
-- Andrew Jackson, farewell address, 04 March 1837 The document reads, "All men are created equal." When those words were first put to paper, of course, the literal meaning of the phrase did not match what was written. A more accurate sentence would have read, "All white land-owning men are created equal," but despite the inherent racism and misogyny buried in the original meaning, the words had magic and power enough to lay the groundwork for 200 years of progress.
The words as written became the basis for reform after reform, for the strengthening of the rights of minorities, women, and basically anyone who would be made subservient to anyone else. The struggle took a long time, and continues today with much remaining to do before that equality is truly achieved, but the strength of those words as written has been proven time and again to be more than a match for anyone who would stand on the neck of a fellow citizen.
That's what the billboard reads, anyway. That's the propaganda, the myth, the way we rock ourselves to sleep at night. The truth is significantly different, however, and is at the root of just about everything that has gone wrong with this great democratic experiment.
We are not all created equal, in fact. This inequality is not based on race, or sex, or religion, but upon the slow development of a body of laws that have created and empowered a breed of super-citizens which rule over every aspect of our lives, almost completely beyond the reach of justice. These super-citizens exist today under the familiar name "corporation."
But wait, a corporation is basically a company, right? A corporation is a non-living entity, a group of people endeavoring to make money in a business enterprise or non-profit organization, right? Wrong. A corporation is indeed a non-living entity, a group of people looking to make money. But thanks to a Supreme Court decision, corporations are also actual living entities in every legal sense of the word, with all rights and privileges of citizenship - and several more besides - intact.
A Short History of Corporations
The word "corporation" comes from the Latin "corpus," or "body." The Oxford English Dictionary defines "corporation" as "a group of people authorized to act as an individual." The history of corporations in America is intertwined with the story of the revolution that birthed this nation. British corporations in colonial America were rebelled against vigorously as representatives of the Crown, which they were.
Many of the principal actors in the American revolution, among them George Washington, wanted to throw off British rule because they felt their ability to conduct commerce freely was being disrupted. When 60 Boston residents hurled the tea into Boston Harbor in 1773, it was an attack specifically upon the economic power and supremacy of a corporation called the British East India Tea Company, which had been undercutting the profits of colonial merchants thanks to the passage of the Tea Acts.
After the revolution, and for a hundred years, the American people bore a deep distrust of the corporation, and corporations were regulated severely. Corporate charters were created by individual states, and those states had the power to revoke that charter if the corporation was deemed to be acting against the public good or had deviated from its charter. Corporations were not allowed to own other corporations, nor were they allowed to participate in the political process.
Very slowly over that 100 years, however, the power of the corporation began to grow. In the 1818 Supreme Court case "Dartmouth College v. Woodward," Daniel Webster, advocating for Dartmouth, argued passionately for the power of corporations in regards to property rights. The Court sided with Webster and corporate rights, stating: "The opinion of the Court, after mature deliberation, is that this corporate charter is a contract, the obligation of which cannot be impaired without violating the Constitution of the United States. This opinion appears to us to be equally supported by reason, and by the former decisions of this Court."
A good deal of hell was raised after this decision, with many citizens and state legislatures standing upon the right of a state to repeal or amend a corporate charter. Seven years later, however, another Supreme Court case buttressed the power of the corporation with their decision in "Society for the Preservation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. Town of Pawlet." The Society was seeking to protect its colonial-era property grants in Vermont, while Vermont was seeking to revoke those grants. The Court decided in favor of the Society, and explicitly extended the same protections to corporation-owned property as are enjoyed by property-owning natural persons.
Corporations in America began to become truly powerful with the rise of the railroads. Railroads were the lifeblood of the growing nation, carrying both agriculture and industry from one side of the country to the other. This was a highly profitable enterprise, and railroad corporations began to exert heavy influence on both state and federal leaders. Corporate attorneys boldly asserted the precedents set in the Dartmouth and Society Supreme Court decisions, demanding that corporations deserved to have at least some of the rights of natural persons. Meanwhile, attorneys loyal to the railroads began to rise through the ranks of the Judiciary, finally finding seats on the highest bench.
This process came to a final head in 1886, when the Supreme Court heard the case "Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad." Arguments over the rights of corporations as persons had been raging for decades, and Chief Justice Waite pounded home the nail: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."

continues to part 2

idleidolidyll

1st December 2007, 10:00

"We are all of the opinion that it does."
The pertinent section of the Fourteenth Amendment reads, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Before the Santa Clara decision, this amendment applied only to living, breathing people. After Santa Clara, it applied also to massively wealthy corporations, groups of people authorized to act as individuals, but beyond the kinds of legal liabilities natural persons are subject to. The Santa Clara decision, and subsequent decisions affirming it, created the formidable distinction between the citizen and the super-citizen.
Both have purchasing power, both can give money to whomever or whatever they please, but the difference lies in the extent to which this can be done. A natural person can buy a house and give money to a politician. A wealthy corporation, on the other hand, can buy a thousand houses and give money to a thousand politicians. In other words, a corporation which enjoys the same rights as a natural person has a thousand times the power and influence of a natural person over the economics and politics of the country. That is a super-citizen.
Because these super-citizens can exert so much power, their rights have been dramatically extended over the years. In the 1950s, for example, corporations paid some 40% of the taxes in this country. They flexed their muscles and exerted their influence, and by 1980 were paying only 26% of the taxes in this country. The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 slashed that payment to 8%.
The economic boon enjoyed by these super-citizens is augmented by the fact that regular citizens' tax dollars are used by the government to purchase goods and services from corporations involved in the production of weapons, petroleum, timber and agricultural products. Corporate perks like jets, elaborate headquarters, public relations firms, and executive retreats are all tax write-offs; the regular citizen, by contrast, pays for their perks with after-tax dollars. When a corporation screws up and destroys an ecosystem with a toxic spill, corporate liability shields protect them from financial and legal punishment, and the cost of the clean-up is borne by the tax dollars of the regular citizen.
Today, corporations control almost every aspect of what we see, hear, eat, wear and live. Every television news media organization is owned by a small handful of corporations, which use these news outlets to filter out information that might be damaging to the parent company. Agriculture in America is controlled by a small group of corporations. One cannot drive a car, rent a van, buy a house or deliver goods in a business transaction without purchasing insurance from a corporation. Getting sick in America has become a ruinously expensive experience because corporations now control even the smallest functions of the medical profession, and have turned the practice of health care into a for-profit industry.
The influence these super-citizens hold over local, state and national politics is the reason why so many privileges have been afforded to them. This influence has existed to one degree or another for decades. Yet it was another Supreme Court decision, handed down in 1976, that allowed these super-citizens to establish a strangle-hold on our politics and government institutions.

continues to part 3

idleidolidyll

1st December 2007, 10:01

The Supremacy of the Super-Citizen
In 1976, the case "Buckley v. Valeo" came before the Supreme Court. Senator James Buckley, former Senator and Presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy, and several others had filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) and the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act. Among the defendants were Francis Valeo, Secretary of the Senate and ex officio member of the newly-created Federal Election Commission, as well as the Commission itself.
The final Supreme Court decision split a number of legal hairs. The decision upheld the constitutionality of limiting political contributions to candidates, and the disclosure and record-keeping requirements established by FECA. The aspects of FECA deemed unconstitutional, however, became the basis for the supremacy of the super-citizen. In short, the Court decided that limiting the amount of money a candidate could spend was a violation of the First Amendment. In other words, the spending of campaign money was equated with the right of free speech.
On the surface, the decision makes sense. Because so much of modern political campaigning involves television and radio advertisements, direct mailing of campaign literature, extensive travel and lodging and staff payrolls, and because all these things cost money, a limitation on campaign spending necessarily restricts the ability of a candidate to practice free speech in the political realm.
The danger, of course, was that corporations would take advantage of the new spending freedoms enjoyed by politicians and flood them with influence-creating cash. The Court attempted to address this concern by upholding the limits on contribution amounts, stating that these limitations were the "primary weapons against the reality or appearance of improper influence stemming from the dependence of candidates on large campaign contributions."
The Court's attempt to address this concern failed, in no small part because of the existence of so-called "soft money." Soft money was supposed to be cash given to political parties for "party-building activities" rather than for the direct support of candidates and campaigns. Soft money contributions were not subjected to limitations, allowing super-citizens to flood outrageous amounts of money into the process. Because the soft-money rules were so vague, and because soft money contributions were so huge, the money was invariably directed towards the support of individual candidates. The politicians became corporate entities, commodities bought and sold by the super-citizens.
The passage in 2002 of the Campaign Reform Act did little to cut into the massive influence in politics enjoyed by the super-citizens. The Campaign Reform Act made most soft money contributions illegal but created a loophole large enough to sail a British tea ship through, with the enshrinement of 527 groups as political entities. 527s are tax-exempt organizations created to influence the nomination, election, appointment or defeat of political candidates.
The soft money previously given to political parties goes now to these groups, and these groups enjoy umbilical connections to the parties and candidates they work in favor of. In other words, nothing really changed, and the influence of the super-citizens was undiminished. The Campaign Reform Act also raised the hard money contribution limit from $1,000 to $2,000, thus doubling the ability of super-citizens to exert direct financial influence upon candidates and office-holders.
Today, virtually every politician holding national office is financially beholden to a corporation. Beyond the favorable tax status for corporations established by these owned politicians, the effects of this ownership are felt by average citizens every day.
Foreign policy is all too often decided by corporate considerations, and these decisions often lead to war. The air we breathe, the food we eat and the water we drink is contaminated by pollutants that corporations are legally allowed to spew, thanks to the legislative protections created by corporate-owned politicians. Draconian sentencing rules created by legislators that incarcerate millions of Americans - think "The War on Drugs" specifically - have as much to do with the influence of the corporate-controlled prison industry as with anything else.
This list goes on and on. Super-citizens define our reality by controlling the information we receive via television, newspaper and radio. Super-citizens make sure that information casts them in a favorable light. Super-citizens pound us with advertising and thus maintain the fiction that spending money on products defines the nature of a person.
The best and brightest are drafted out of law school to work for corporate defense firms for six-figure salaries, thus ensuring that super-citizens enjoy a level of legal defense not available to anyone else. Many of these corporate attorneys graduate to the bench, where they extend the influence of super-citizens across all levels of the judicial branch.
More than anything else, however, super-citizens control the ways and means of government at every level. They bought it, they own it, and they make sure it does their bidding. The needs, requirements and best interests of the average citizen do not enter into the equation.

continues to part 4

idleidolidyll

1st December 2007, 10:02

Created Equal
Arguments can be made that corporations are good for the economy and the country. They can get things done with a speed and efficiency not often found in the bureaucracies of government. When the country had to get itself ready to fight World War II, for one example, it was the industrial and manufacturing corporations that produced the means to achieve victory beyond anyone's expectations.
In the final analysis, however, the influence held by these entities is antithetical to the fundamental ideals of the nation. We are not all created equal, and within that inequality lies the potential for enormous evil. Consider the case of I.G. Farben, the industrial giant that was the financial core of the Nazi regime. Farben produced the gas used in the concentration camps, and made lucrative use of slave labor in the camps. Before the war, Farben worked hand-in-hand with a number of powerful American corporations, the most prominent of which was Standard Oil.
In the aftermath of World War II, the crimes committed by Farben were considered so enormous that many wanted the corporation to be utterly destroyed. Instead, Farben was split into several smaller entities, several of which still exist. Millions of Americans purchase aspirin from Bayer, a company that was once part of Farben. Commercials for BASF tell us that company makes the products we buy better, but do not tell us that BASF was once part of Farben. It speaks to the power enjoyed by corporations that Farben, the company that forced concentration camp laborers to manufacture the Zyklon-B used to exterminate them, and which was the backbone of Nazi financial power, was not destroyed out of hand once the war was over. Farben is still with us. Its charter has merely been changed.
Are all corporations on the moral level of I.G. Farben? Certainly not. Many corporations work for the public good, and many that work for their own enrichment do not necessarily undermine the country and its principles. But some do, and exist beyond punishment or account.
The potential for evil is certainly there when super-citizens exist above the law. When the New York Times reviewed the book The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben, it observed that the story of Farben "Forces one to consider the possibility that when corporate evil reaches a certain status, it simply cannot be defeated."
In the end, the existence of incredibly powerful entities that enjoy the status of citizens demote the vast majority of average citizens to second-class status. If the ideals we hold sacred have any truth to them, if the myths we sleep by have any basis in reality, such a division is intolerable and must be changed. "All men are created equal" once excluded vast swaths of Americans from their basic rights. Battles were fought to change that. Today, a battle to realign the balance of power between the citizen and the super-citizen must also be fought. It must be won.

<hr align="left" width="15%"> William Rivers Pitt (william.pitt@truthout.org) is a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of two books: War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1893956385/qid=1055796595/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-8359763-1225605?v=glance&s=books) and The Greatest Sedition Is Silence (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0745320104/qid=1055796595/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-8359763-1225605?v=glance&s=books).

ManDownUnder

1st December 2007, 10:14

Fuck yes!

NZ may not be perfect but we are in a perfect position to judge the abuse of the US.

What's Amerikkka all about? Greed by any means regardless of the death and misery that might cause.

To ignore that massive and continuing abuse and say nothing is a real crime.

Judging an entire population by the statements and actions of it's leadership has always been a foolhardy thing to do. Let's start generalising about kiwis based on Labour Party policy shall we?

What about our historic willingness to defend Queen and country (Queen first of course)... does that mean all kiwis are willing left wing cannon fodder volunteering for the slaughter next time Her Majesty's realm goes to war?

... coz if that is the case I must be the odd one out.

I have the privilege of knowing people from all over the world in my daily work, and real Americans are as guilty of believeing what's in the press just as much citizens of any other nation. They're no different from Kiwis in that respect and in many respects we (kiwis) have a lot to learn from them - just as they do from us.

Taking 1 big brush and liberally applying tar from the Pacific to the Atlantic is a tad xenophobic .

idleidolidyll

1st December 2007, 10:17

No you just rip off the hard working people to support the lazy and stupid.

Tell you what dude, come meet me face to face then say America sucks and see what happens.

I already know: nothing at all

idleidolidyll

1st December 2007, 10:19

Judging an entire population by the statements and actions of it's leadership has always been a foolhardy thing to do.

Judging an entire nation on the terrorism it has allowed its governments to project onto others for more than a hundred years is totally valid.

If the US is a democracy, they have a choice whether or not to support State Terrorism against tens of millions of foreigners. That they have supported this for over a hundred years condemns them absolutely.

idleidolidyll

1st December 2007, 10:21

http://www.spiritone.com/%7Egdy52150/fascism.html

idleidolidyll

1st December 2007, 10:26

You can't fight a war against a tactic and the whole thing is merely another part of Amerikkka's move to outright fascism.

In fact the worst atrocities under the term 'terrorism' have always been committed by States and their governments, not by small groups like Hamas etc.

Hamas and AQ commit retail terrorism and that is a bad thing yes. States however, commit wholesale terrorism and that is a MUCH worse thing because far more people die and are abused.
AQ has killed a few thousand people but the USA has slaughtered tens of millions.
AQ, Hamas, the IRA etc commit those acts for a cause or to free themselves from historical oppression. The USA (and Britain etc) largely commits terrorism to support their economies: ie., for money.

Virago

1st December 2007, 10:40

If anyone disagrees with you, will you click "Report Post"?

(Yeah, go on, report this post...)

Joni

1st December 2007, 10:50

If anyone disagrees with you, will you click "Report Post"?Yup, thats the modus operadi! The difference between disagreement and abuse....

Then when there is real abuse and the report post is hit, people wonder why no one is there for support....

"cry wolf"

Sorry, back on topic, before this post is reported too :blink:

idleidolidyll

1st December 2007, 10:55

If anyone disagrees with you, will you click "Report Post"?

(Yeah, go on, report this post...)

Nope, only if the post is off topic, threatening or abusive.

After all, others have done exactly that to me and I carry a number of points from moderators for what they consider wrongful posts. Tell me why I shouldn't act similarly since the mods tactics are pretty much worthless................

imdying

1st December 2007, 10:57

idleidolidyll

1st December 2007, 10:58

Yup, thats the modus operadi! The difference between disagreement and abuse....

Then when there is real abuse and the report post is hit, people wonder why no one is there for support....

"cry wolf"

Sorry, back on topic, before this post is reported too :blink:

bullshit Joni and your post is an abuse of moderator privilege. If you are going to attack me for reporting abuse I suggest you come clean and do the same for all those who have reported abuse for similar posts.
To act as you have just done is totally dishonest and identifies you as a moderator not worthy of trust or respect.

and yes, given your connection with KB, this post WILL be reported

ManDownUnder

1st December 2007, 11:05

Judging an entire nation on the terrorism it has allowed its governments to project onto others for more than a hundred years is totally valid.

If the US is a democracy, they have a choice whether or not to support State Terrorism against tens of millions of foreigners. That they have supported this for over a hundred years condemns them absolutely.

The US is a democracy yes, but like New Zealand it's not 100% of the popluation supporting the govt or it's policies. Far from it in fact.

In NZ the least unpopular party has firsrt option on forming a govt with anyone it so chooses - unfettered by the "mere" wants of the voting public after the voting closes.

Far from ideal.

Then layer in the financial support of the various interest groups enabling and influencing policy. Why would an arms manufacturer not support a Govt whose domestic or foreign wages war on others... The French sold HW used to Gas the kurds but stood to gain through oil coming out of Iraq. Blood for oil ain't just a US thing. And to point and blame an individual nation is foolhardy.

Start focussing on the elite/rich/wealthy - those shareholders of Arms Manufacturers, Energy companies and the like who make serious dollars on the back of death and misery no matter where it raises it's ugly head.

idleidolidyll

1st December 2007, 11:05

Wah, too much to read! Basically, the yanks got all they deserved... they've been sticking their nose into Arab business for too long, and eventually it got bitten off. Shame for them that the Arabs don't have the same sort of messed up ideals about how to run a war... which is another one of their problems... if you're going to go to war, do it properly... band the media, take all the big guns, and turn the place into glass. It's either worth having a decent war over or it's not.

Yes, it is a lot to read but it details just how a nation like the USA has morphed into a fascist state. Given the crap often posted here about corporations and the way they act, it is useful to see exactly why the MIC (Military Industrial Complex) has so much power as an indicator to why the War in Iraq exists and who is profiting from it.

The USA and Britain have fucked the Middle East, Arabia and Persia over for more than a century. Of course those abused peoples would eventually bite back BECAUSE of the terrorism that the US and Britain inflicted on the people of the region.

As for your ideas of war; I hope human beings are over that kind of thinking within my lifetime.

idleidolidyll

1st December 2007, 11:17

The US is a democracy yes, but like New Zealand it's not 100% of the popluation supporting the govt or it's policies. Far from it in fact.

Actually I disagree. It's a shamocracy where electoral fraud is rampant, where money buys presidents and where the population is not represented by their governments unless that representation just happens to coincide with the desires of the moneyed.

In NZ the least unpopular party has firsrt option on forming a govt with anyone it so chooses - unfettered by the "mere" wants of the voting public after the voting closes.

Nothing is 'ideal' but coalitions at least represent the majority rather than systems like we had in the past with few choices and the likelihood of minority government. NZ has had governments where the 'winning' party got LESS votes than the beaten party.

Far from ideal.

Then layer in the financial support of the various interest groups enabling and influencing policy. Why would an arms manufacturer not support a Govt whose domestic or foreign wages war on others... The French sold HW used to Gas the kurds but stood to gain through oil coming out of Iraq. Blood for oil ain't just a US thing. And to point and blame an individual nation is foolhardy.

Yep, financial issues are one of the biggest issues and that's why I support Labours electoral reform bill even though it is flawed. National's hidden funding is likely to come from foreign and corporate interests and it is important for New Zealanders to know exactly who they are indebted to.
BTW: This thread is about the USA. I don't for a second think that the US is the only abuser but it is CERTAINLY one of the worst and because of that it is absolutely vital that it is exposed and the issues discussed. That is multiplied when we factor in the US veto in the Security Council and its ability to fuck up UN attempts to censure or punish abusive nations (The US has prevented the UN punishing Israel for its abuse of Palestinians for 60 years for example).
It is vital that we start to discuss all this openly and point out who the abusers are; particularly those abusers with massive military and political power.

Start focussing on the elite/rich/wealthy - those shareholders of Arms Manufacturers, Energy companies and the like who make serious dollars on the back of death and misery no matter where it raises it's ugly head.

I DO focus on the rich and wealthy. That is who pull the strings of the US Govt. Anyone who thinks that they have free choice in Yank elections has rocks in their head: they are presented with a number of acceptable choices that the powerful behind the scenes will allow to represent them (not the people).

So my point is this: Either the USA is a fascist oligarchy where the people are fucked over by successive abusive governments, or the people of the USA are ignorant, callous, inhuman people who don't deserve to be part of the human race because they allow mass slaughter in their names.

Joni

1st December 2007, 11:27

bullshit Joni and your post is an abuse of moderator privilege. If you are going to attack me for reporting abuse I suggest you come clean and do the same for all those who have reported abuse for similar posts.
To act as you have just done is totally dishonest and identifies you as a moderator not worthy of trust or respect.

and yes, given your connection with KB, this post WILL be reportedI genuinely think you need to stop taking yourself so seriously....

Would you mind explaining to me why my words are dishonest and and not trustworthy... I thought (read hoped) you would read into that... maybe if you only reported real abuse, the mods would actually start actually getting a grasp on the problems you seem to feel you have on KB.

However your paranoia makes you think you are always right and everyone is always out to get you or undermine you... I have said this before and I will say it again... I dont really care about you in the least, I would not bother undermining you... so maybe you should stop thinking I would...

And NO - for the record, this is not a post as a mod, Im talking to you as a person.... however I know you wont accept that as no one is allowed a personal opinion on here but you.

Fuck God bless the ignore function....

PS, top right, triangle with the exclamation mark.... go on, you know you want to!

idleidolidyll

1st December 2007, 11:29

The man demonised by the US is seeking the ability to be re-elected under a modified constitution.

Chavez has been democratically elected 5 times (i think) and was forced out of power in a coup by the rich elite of his country, Venezuela. The US supported the coup and the elite and have always attacked Chavez calling him a dictator etc.

That's incredibly ironic given that it is not clear whether Bush was even elected in the USA. The first time he was appointed by the Supreme Court and it seems erroneously because of electoral fraud. The second time vote rigging, digital election fraud and other crimes indicate that he was NOT elected by the majority but manipulated the electoral system to hold power. He has even called his own nations constitution "a goddamn piece of paper" in a signal that he is prepared to take power as an outright dictator if he thinks that is his best alternative. His stacked judiciary even agreed that he was the 'Unitary Leader' of the USA: Dictator by another name.

The USA is NOT a true democracy; it is a dictatorship controlled by the MIC, an oligarchy; the people of the US are ineffectual pawns. I hope they grow some balls in the near future and create a democracy in the US for the first time in more than 150 years.

idleidolidyll

1st December 2007, 11:38

I genuinely think you need to stop taking yourself so seriously....

Some people think certain issues are SERIOUS and those who abuse them just for posting those opinions are the issue not the originators.

Would you mind explaining to me why my words are dishonest and and not trustworthy... I thought (read hoped) you would read into that... maybe if you only reported real abuse, the mods would actually start actually getting a grasp on the problems you seem to feel you have on KB.

I already did. You attack me in public but you also know I have been penalised by yourself and other moderators for exactly the reasons I have reported others. That makes you a hypocrite and untrustworthy as a moderator IMO.
I've explained what the issues are with KB IMO. The secrecy is the main problem. It allows people to hide behind biased decisions and allows abusers to continue to abuse because until they get a certain number of points; nothing is seen to be done to them for their abuse.
These are not just MY problems as many pm's to me have indicated; they are emdemic

However your paranoia makes you think you are always right and everyone is always out to get you or undermine you... I have said this before and I will say it again... I dont really care about you in the least, I would not bother undermining you... so maybe you should stop thinking I would...

paranoia? more abuse? how childish.
It aint paranoid when it's a fact Joni.
I don't believe 'everyone is always out to get you or undermine you', that's your bullshit manipulation. What I see is continued abuse here BECAUSE the rules are ridiculous and invisible.

And NO - for the record, this is not a post as a mod, Im talking to you as a person.... however I know you wont accept that as no one is allowed a personal opinion on here but you.

If you are a moderator, all your posts must be viewed in that light. You moderators punish others for their indiscretions but seem able to get away with whatever bullshit you want.

Everyone is allowed a personal opinion and that's just more of your bullshit. What has been clear as indicated directly by a moderator pm to me, is that a number of mods WERE 'out to get me'. Those were the moderators words not mine.

Fuck God bless the ignore function....

Ignorance is bliss I guess, I prewfer the light.

PS, top right, triangle with the exclamation mark.... go on, you know you want to!

Yes, you have posted off topic abuse AGAIN and I WILL report it. Why the fuck should a moderator be able to do so when ordinary members are punished?

Joni

1st December 2007, 11:48

Re your comment about all I say being seen as a Mod and not as a person, let me quote another post you seem to have over looked:

Moderators are also site members with the same rights and privileges as all other members and will often post in a personal capacity. Moderators will generally make it clear when their posted comments are made in an official capacity and when they are not. If in doubt, members should assume that a Moderator has posted as a member, rather than as a Moderator. So once again, this is being said in my PERSONAL capacity

Grahameeboy

1st December 2007, 12:13

Grahameeboy

1st December 2007, 12:14

Re your comment about all I say being seen as a Mod and not as a person, let me quote another post you seem to have over looked:

So once again, this is being said in my PERSONAL capacity

That says it how it is...........Idle only seems to read and listen to what he wants............he neeeds a megga chill pill sometimes.

terbang

1st December 2007, 12:32

Sums it up well I reckon...

Jantar

1st December 2007, 12:33

idleidolidyll

1st December 2007, 15:50

Re your comment about all I say being seen as a Mod and not as a person, let me quote another post you seem to have over looked:

So once again, this is being said in my PERSONAL capacity

so what?

as i suggested to a senior mod some time ago: moderators, as the people who enforce the rules, should be held to a higher standard.

he agreed

I'm carrying a number of points right now for 'taking the thread off topic'; you should be punished twice as hard given that you're a moderator. You should also receive higher points for the personal attack within the post.

that you commit these offences as a moderator makes you a hypocrite.

were you infracted?
we'll never know; the silly rules don't allow us to know if justice is being done.

idleidolidyll

1st December 2007, 15:52

This topic is supposedly about 11/9 (or 9/11) being self evident. So far there is very little on this topic in the whole thread. Plenty of anti-american hysteria, but almost nothing concerning 11/9. Please keep on topic or the whole thread goes to PD.

So why did the moderators move my post about US fascism to this thread? There was nothing in it about 9/11.
I started a NEW thread knowing that US fascism was NOT specifically 9/11 but a much longer ongoing political problem.

please be consistent

idleidolidyll

1st December 2007, 15:56

In one sense I agree that if the Yanks want to mess with the Arabs then they deserve some feedback, but what is forgotten (and by the Yanks) is that this was an attack on the World Trade Centre so from memory the significant proportion were not Yanks.

History shows that if you mess in the Middle East it will eventually bite you.

who attacked the WTC and Pentagon?

after the US published a list of those who committed the attack, about half were discovered alive and well.
they've never made any statement correcting or qualifying the original.

BTW: The list they gave contained no Iraqis at all but 9/11 was one of the reasons used to justify that piece of US terrorism in the ME.............and then it changed, and changed again, and changed again, and changed again

How many times should you trust a liar?

idleidolidyll

1st December 2007, 15:57

Sums it up well I reckon...

indeed it does

was that from the link I posted? I've seen the US fascism flag before

idleidolidyll

1st December 2007, 16:05

This topic is supposedly about 11/9 (or 9/11) being self evident. So far there is very little on this topic in the whole thread. Plenty of anti-american hysteria, but almost nothing concerning 11/9. Please keep on topic or the whole thread goes to PD.

actually jantar, as i started this thread and the original post was the lyrics of a piece of anti Bush/MIC music with that music's title as the thread title; i'd say this was about that piece of music, it's author and the entire contents of the song which INCLUDES amerikan fascism outside of 11/9.

Go back and read the original post and tell me if it didn't also mention the phoney elections, Palestine, Afghanistan, El Salvador, Iraq, US abuse of Native Americans, fake US democracy, wars for fuel, oil companies, previous attacks on US assets, retribution for past amerikan atrocities comitted etc etc etc

Tell ya what, I'll save you the trouble: ALL those issues are mentioned in the first post.

Daffyd

1st December 2007, 16:07

idleidolidyll

1st December 2007, 16:14

so why trust the US?

I see little reason to do so and the latest news from thew UN emphasises this; who pulls the strings?

"
UNITED NATIONS - The United States suddenly withdrew a UN resolution endorsing this week's agreement by Israeli and Palestinian leaders to try to reach a Mideast peace settlement because of Israeli objections even though it had overwhelming support in the Security Council.
The US about-face in less than 24 hours on Friday surprised many UN diplomats and highlighted Israel's difficult relations with the United Nations, which it contends is anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian. But what surprised UN diplomats most was that the US did not consult Israel, one of its closest allies, before introducing the draft resolution on Thursday afternoon.
With virtually every other Mideast resolution, the United States had consulted Israel in advance, but on Thursday US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad first presented it at a closed council meeting.
As he left, he welcomed the "very positive" response from council members but told reporters he needed to consult with the Israelis and Palestinians on the text to ensure that the resolution was what they wanted.

It clearly was not what Israel wanted as a first step to support the agreement reached this week at the US-sponsored Mideast conference in Annapolis, Maryland, by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to try to reach a peace settlement by the end of 2008.
Well-informed diplomats said Israel did not want a resolution because it would bring the Security Council, which it distrusts, into the fledgling negotiations with the Palestinians. The diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said Khalilzad introduced the draft resolution not only without consulting the Israelis and Palestinians but without getting broad support from President George W. Bush's administration."

more: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10479491

pzkpfw

1st December 2007, 16:17

And there is growing evidence that the WTC attack was home grown.

Mould grows too.

Have you been watching "Loose Change" or something?

Daffyd

1st December 2007, 16:25

Mould grows too.

Have you been watching "Loose Change" or something?

"Let's Roll 911".... Compelling viewing!

Grahameeboy

1st December 2007, 19:10

who attacked the WTC and Pentagon?

after the US published a list of those who committed the attack, about half were discovered alive and well.
they've never made any statement correcting or qualifying the original.

BTW: The list they gave contained no Iraqis at all but 9/11 was one of the reasons used to justify that piece of US terrorism in the ME.............and then it changed, and changed again, and changed again, and changed again

How many times should you trust a liar?

I'm sorry but not sure that your post bears any relationship to what I said...........

Grahameeboy

1st December 2007, 19:13

And there is growing evidence that the WTC attack was home grown.

and that the US Govt knew what was going to happen and did not stop it so they would have an excuse to invade Iraq.

Home grown Muslim's and supporters given the resources so still originates from Middle East

Daffyd

1st December 2007, 19:20

and that the US Govt knew what was going to happen and did not stop it so they would have an excuse to invade Iraq.

Home grown Muslim's and supporters given the resources so still originates from Middle East

Nah, much, MUCH closer to home than that, IMHO.

Street Gerbil

1st December 2007, 21:48

UNITED NATIONS - The United States suddenly withdrew a UN resolution [...]even though it had overwhelming support in the Security Council.

The diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said [US Ambassador Zalmay] Khalilzad introduced the draft resolution [...] without getting broad support from President George W. Bush's administration.
In other words, a diplomat who went out of line and started playing his little games behind the back of the government, got publicly bitchslapped :spanking:. Sounds like a mild case of cancelled Christmas :niceone:

Waylander

1st December 2007, 22:07

so what?

as i suggested to a senior mod some time ago: moderators, as the people who enforce the rules, should be held to a higher standard.

he agreed

I'm carrying a number of points right now for 'taking the thread off topic'; you should be punished twice as hard given that you're a moderator. You should also receive higher points for the personal attack within the post.

that you commit these offences as a moderator makes you a hypocrite.

were you infracted?
we'll never know; the silly rules don't allow us to know if justice is being done.
Don't like the rules? Get the fuck out then. No one is holding a gun to your head making you post.

So why did the moderators move my post about US fascism to this thread? There was nothing in it about 9/11.
I started a NEW thread knowing that US fascism was NOT specifically 9/11 but a much longer ongoing political problem.

please be consistent
Two threads same self righteous bullshit. Be glad it hasn't been PDed yet like other threads far more worthwhile than this one.

EDIT: Oh and I've already reported this post for you thirdie. One less thing you have to do thanks to an American.

Hitcher

2nd December 2007, 17:08

Can anybody else taste the difference between Kronenbourg and Carlsberg? Is it the hops? Or is the water that much different between France and Denmark?

Jantar

2nd December 2007, 17:54

The water in Denmark is much better than in France. That's why SPEIGHTS is best ... South Island water is the best in the world.

Hitcher

2nd December 2007, 18:14

That's why SPEIGHTS is best ... South Island water is the best in the world.

So James Speight built a pipeline to Europe then? How ingenious!

Winston001

2nd December 2007, 19:52

Fuck God bless the ignore function....

PS, top right, triangle with the exclamation mark.... go on, you know you want to!

Actually Joni I can't see a triangle anywhere, but I did eventually find a way to access the buddy/ignore system. Certainly made this thread a lot shorter :bleh:

Ixion

2nd December 2007, 20:54

This topic is supposedly about 11/9 (or 9/11) being self evident. So far there is very little on this topic in the whole thread. Plenty of anti-american hysteria, but almost nothing concerning 11/9. Please keep on topic or the whole thread goes to PD.

Can anybody else taste the difference between Kronenbourg and Carlsberg? Is it the hops? Or is the water that much different between France and Denmark?

The water in Denmark is much better than in France. That's why SPEIGHTS is best

Nope, nothing about beer in the original topic. Do your duty, Mr Jantar, two infractions there methinks.[[/QUOTE]

Virago

2nd December 2007, 21:07

Nope, nothing about beer in the original topic. Do your duty, Mr Jantar, two infractions there methinks...

There's nothing about petty jibes in the original topic either...

Hitcher

2nd December 2007, 21:29

Nope, nothing about beer in the original topic.
I disagree. Beer is self-evident. Always.

Virago

2nd December 2007, 21:31

I disagree. Beer is self-evident. Always.

...24/7...

Ixion

2nd December 2007, 21:35

I shall note that as an official response, for future reference.

imdying

3rd December 2007, 07:47

As for your ideas of war; I hope human beings are over that kind of thinking within my lifetime.That can never happen.

In one sense I agree that if the Yanks want to mess with the Arabs then they deserve some feedback, but what is forgotten (and by the Yanks) is that this was an attack on the World Trade Centre so from memory the significant proportion were not Yanks.The yanks were pissing off the towel heads a loooong time before even the first WTC attack... that's why they were even attacked in the first place..

Hitcher

3rd December 2007, 16:21

Do "towel heads" drink beer? Maybe that would help.

MisterD

3rd December 2007, 16:39

Do "towel heads" drink beer? Maybe that would help.

Interesting question. The septics have definitely improved since all those micro-breweries started up.

Ixion

3rd December 2007, 16:41

Do "towel heads" drink beer? Maybe that would help.

No, they are generally Muslims and alcohol is forbidden by their religion. Which is not to say that some don't break the rule. But one would expect the more religiously fervent to be more strict in its observance. I hope that answers your question ?

Hitcher

3rd December 2007, 16:45

I hope that answers your question?

Partly. I guess one can only speculate as to the "helpfulness" of beer consumption in this regard. A population of the abstemious could be a useful control group for a scientific study.

Ixion

3rd December 2007, 16:55

Partly. I guess one can only speculate as to the "helpfulness" of beer consumption in this regard. A population of the abstemious could be a useful control group for a scientific study.

Quakers ?

SPman

3rd December 2007, 17:05

Back to 11/9......this event marked the first time in history, steel framed concrete buildings have collapsed after a relatively short time, ever!
WTC 7, the 42 story building, not touched by the attack, collapsed from the top story penthouse (it collapsed 4 secs before the main building) into its own footprint in a perfect controlled demolition scenario!. The 2 main buildings (designed to take the force of a fully laden 707 flying into them), collapsed at free fall rates, with no deviation from vertical, after a short period of fire at temperatures far below that required to weaken the steel core. A controlled demolition expert couldn't have done better if he tried - on all buildings!
But, the seriously damaged other small WTC ? building, which was pummeled by flying debris remained upright!

Carefully watch the videos of the "collapses". There are heaps out there. Collapsed because of the damage - bullshit!

Osama Bin Laden - an intelligent engineer on a mission - one of the Bin Laden boys from one of Saudi Arabias biggest construction firms, with substantive links to US firms linked to the likes of Haliburton, etc. Worth billions. Contacts throughout the Neo con hierachy of US government. If anyone could ensure buildings could come down, they could, while the government looked the other way. How come , with all the resources supposedly at their disposal, and Osama with a severe kidney condition, the US hasn't been able to track him down and catch him - they don't want to - he's of more value as a bogey man, which they can trot out to scare more people and enforce yet more restrictions in their "War of terror".

Greg Palast summed it up rather neatly, when talking about the theft of the 2004 elections by Bush and co. "..Despite everything, there still remains the fact that 52 million Americans voted for Bush! I get the feeling that it was actually an intelligence test and, we've just failed!"