nihil wrote:
That's some hardcore disdain for democracy and international law. The current administration would be proud of you.

Congratulations. You have wasted my time yet again. Very slowly, read and then answer this question:

How does resistance to a government that I do not elect constitute a disdain for democracy? That would seem to imply the opposite, if I understand what we are expected to receive in return for our votes.

As far as your statement that "The current administration would be proud of you" goes, do you understand the difference between:

The Bush administration making war on Iraq in defiance of reliable intelligence and the conclusions of the UN weapons inspectors.

[An example of disregard of impotent international law.]

and

The Bush administration making war on Iraq in defiance of reliable intelligence and the conclusions of the UN weapons inspectors.

[An example of compliance with genuine international law- the law dictated by the overseers of global capitalism and the industry of war.]

If I reject the war for proper reasons and Bush makes the war for improper reasons, then we are not sharing a philosophy on the validity of international law. I am saying that international law is overruled by international capital, so both should be avoided as a conjoined enemy. Bush just wants to kill people, and is in fact more in compliance with international law by doing so.

To begin an argument by stating that the US government ignores international law is simultaneous verification of the irrelevance of international law and verification of your ignorance of genuine international law.

That's all you're getting from me, nihil. You are only so amusing. Go find Andrew L. and ban some more unread books.

clocker bob wrote: A bunch of abstract shit.

Bob, we obviously have different perspectives on reality. So yeah, it's probably not worth discussion.

adios,

n

nihil wrote:

clocker bob wrote: A bunch of abstract shit.

Bob, we obviously have different perspectives on reality. So yeah, it's probably not worth discussion.

adios,

n

You mean I'll be spared any more sagaciousness from someone whose reflex reaction to cheap shot matthew disabled his ability ( or lack of ability ) to conceptualize a country where people who share thousand year old grudges are safer living apart?

Damn.

nihil wrote:

matthew wrote:
Actually, dividing up Iraq may noy be a bad idea. I'll give you that.

Actually, dividing up the U.S. may not be a bad idea. You know...white, black, yellow. That would solve a lot of problems.


Jesus Christ...


wtf?

clocker bob
jerry seinfeld



Joined: 05 Mar 2004
Posts: 911
Location: Chicago


Hey bob,

look how many post you have.

spoooky.

clocker bob wrote: Democracy can only exist without a wide gulf between richest and poorest and without corrupting influence by those who do not hold votes overpowering the will of those who do.

nihil wrote:True to some extent. But the majority has tremendous power, if well organized. This is how real change is accomplished. Organization is the answer. That is, if you believe in democracy.

My final word, for my own amusement. You seem to believe that a weak participatory democracy ( American citizens currently overpowered, undereducated and made apathetic by corporate money control over their public servants, media, and economy ) can somehow be rejuvenated into a strong counterbalancing force if it extends its reach across borders, where capital unhinged from governments and laws enjoys an even greater advantage?

That's like saying, "I batted .300 my senior year of high school baseball, so I'll probably hit .500 against Jose Contreras".

If you can't succeed against corporate money at home, what makes you think you can fare better taking on global capital?

Are you just offering groundless optimism because acknowledging the real enemy forces you to significantly reconfigure your ideology?

clocker bob wrote:

Linus Van Pelt wrote:Bullshit:

Unfortunately, they have all come to pass.

These have either not happened, or are way too obvious to really impress. A country is attacked and its people rally around its leader, agree to trade in their freedoms for increased security, and moves toward a more militaristic/fascist mindset? Boy, when has that happened before?

Can you find two or three newspaper articles published on 9/14/01 or somewhere in that first week after the attacks that were bold enough to make these warnings about moving cautiously and protecting freedoms?

If you're looking to the newspapers to say rational, sensible, useful things, you're barking up the wrong tree. And if you're looking for newspapers to give you rational sensible things on 9/14/01, you're barking up something very unlike a tree, like maybe a pencil or a receptionist or a Ming vase.

Other posters have made the claim that these were obvious and common predictions in the aftermath of 9/11- I'd like to see some evidence, because I remember this trend beginning a little later.

I haven't said "common." I said obvious. I'll agree with you: nobody (at least nobody with a megaphone) was interested in saying things that were sensible or rational or useful or particularly true at that time. Remember Bill Maher, fired for taking what should have been the uncontroversial position that, whatever nasty things you might have been able to say about the 9/11 hijackers, "cowardly" in the sense of "shrinking from danger" was certainly not one of them. And this was a guy with a show called "Politically Incorrect." His job was, explicitly, to say things that people might not want to hear, and he got fired for this. So yes, it was a climate of fear and of faux-(Fox-?)patriotism and 90+% approval ratings for the president and similar bullshit. This doesn't mean that certain predictions weren't obvious to thinking people at the time.

nihil wrote:True to some extent. But the majority has tremendous power, if well organized. This is how real change is accomplished. Organization is the answer. That is, if you believe in democracy.

clocker bob wrote:You seem to believe that a weak participatory democracy ( American citizens currently overpowered, undereducated and made apathetic by corporate money control over their public servants, media, and economy ) can somehow be rejuvenated into a strong counterbalancing force if it extends its reach across borders, where capital unhinged from governments and laws enjoys an even greater advantage?

I never said that. This is more accurate: "a weak participatory democracy ( American citizens currently undereducated and made apathetic by corporate money control over their public servants, media, and economy ) can somehow be rejuvenated into a strong counterbalancing force if it" is more organized. This is true in any country. Look at the amazing accomplishments recently in South America.

Are you just offering groundless optimism because acknowledging the real enemy forces you to significantly reconfigure your ideology?

The real enemy is the concentration of wealth and power. It always has been. And no, I'm not talking about five white dudes secretly meeting in the Vatican or whatever it is you conspiracy fellows believe these days.

nihil wrote: This is more accurate: "a weak participatory democracy ( American citizens currently undereducated and made apathetic by corporate money control over their public servants, media, and economy ) can somehow be rejuvenated into a strong counterbalancing force if it" is more organized. This is true in any country. Look at the amazing accomplishments recently in South America.

Our prescriptions have now matched. Venezuela and Bolivia are fine examples of the benefits of extricating a country from the US / IMF dominated monetary system, concentrating on taking on your local oppressors first, not jumping over that obstacle to go fight on the global stage. If the principle is to keep your friends close and your enemies closer, then doesn't it follow to fight your closest enemies first? Venezuela has transformed itself into a force to be reckoned with hemispherically by retaking its rulebook back from its captors.

As you say, it is true in any country, emphasis on 'in'. Baby steps before mountain climbing.

clocker bob wrote:Are you just offering groundless optimism because acknowledging the real enemy forces you to significantly reconfigure your ideology?

nihil wrote:The real enemy is the concentration of wealth and power. It always has been. And no, I'm not talking about five white dudes secretly meeting in the Vatican or whatever it is you conspiracy fellows believe these days.

If you acknowledge that there is a concentration of wealth and power and then stop without putting names and faces on that cabal, then you are abandoning your job unfinished. If you say that a monster is waiting in the woods, describe the monster, don't say, "I have heard some theories about the shape of the monster that I dislike so I won't try and provide a better description"- that's lame.

nihil wrote:The real enemy is the concentration of wealth and power. It always has been. And no, I'm not talking about five white dudes secretly meeting in the Vatican or whatever it is you conspiracy fellows believe these days.

bob wrote:If you acknowledge that there is a concentration of wealth and power and then stop without putting names and faces on that cabal, then you are abandoning your job unfinished. If you say that a monster is waiting in the woods, describe the monster, don't say, "I have heard some theories about the shape of the monster that I dislike so I won't try and provide a better description"- that's lame.

This where you and I radically differ. Putting names and faces on a "cabal" doesn't interest me because I don't believe that concentrations of wealth and power are "cabals." Concentrations of wealth and power are usually government and corporations. Oh, and Oprah.

nihil wrote: Putting names and faces on a "cabal" doesn't interest me because I don't believe that concentrations of wealth and power are "cabals." Concentrations of wealth and power are usually government and corporations. Oh, and Oprah.

Great. I'm sure the actual persons controlling all that wealth and power will enthusiastically agree with you. Corporations and governments are not these amorphous entities, you know- there is a heirarchy to every one of them. Your attitude is a sure method of diluting blame for their actions.

If somebody holds you up for your wallet on the street, be sure and tell the cops not to hunt for any specific perpetrator, because they're all interchangeable men with guns and not worth identifying. There is no actual face to crime.