Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:10 am
Pfft, is 40 million really that much money nowadays?Heyoka wrote:QUOTE (Heyoka @ Oct 1 2011, 01:05 AM) You don't spend 40million to kill a guy unless he poses a significant threat.
Page 3 of 14
Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:10 am
who knows
thing is, arguing about @#(! like this on moral grounds one way or the other is always a dead-end street
i'd rather talk about these things in more practical terms
thing is, arguing about @#(! like this on moral grounds one way or the other is always a dead-end street
i'd rather talk about these things in more practical terms
Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:15 am
In practical terms, I'm guessing this is an attempt by the Obama administration to look tougher on national security, which will probably backfire because it still won't get right-wingers to vote for him, but may alienate left-wingers. But that's just my guess from an armchair. 
Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:17 am
as long as you admit you are guessing.girlyboy wrote:QUOTE (girlyboy @ Oct 1 2011, 01:15 AM) In practical terms, I'm guessing this is an attempt by the Obama administration to look tougher on national security, which will probably backfire because it still won't get right-wingers to vote for him, but may alienate left-wingers. But that's just my guess from an armchair.
pretty much anyone who claims to "know" anything about this is full of @#(!
Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:22 am
Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:47 am
I was mostly referring to alleg people...NightRychune wrote:QUOTE (NightRychune @ Oct 1 2011, 12:22 AM) except mister scahill here!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmYcVJyg-O4
Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 6:01 am
I wish I could afford to quit my job and protest all day. I'd probably start with protesting the 500-700 (who really knows how much) Billion dollar bail out of our supposed neoliberal based market system... but those people just got maced..girlyboy wrote:QUOTE (girlyboy @ Sep 30 2011, 09:32 PM) Most importantly, why aren't taxpayers out in force protesting Big Government using tens of millions of dollars of their money just to kill one dude?
Going back to my original point: Being a homeless/jobless protester doesn't really inspire a lot of sympathy or support. Currently there aren't enough people willing to protest because they are either caught up in trying to survive, or are living well off enough to not give a @#(!.
And activists are seemingly way too unorganized to get the attention they deserve. A singular cause for protest gets lost in the myriad other things that are worth protesting.
Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 6:16 am
Reading some of these posts made me remember this post i stumbled upon a while back, so i googled it and posted it here. It talks about who was right, Aldous Huxley (A brave new world) or George Orwell (1984) in their portrayal of likely elements of a dystopian future
QUOTE What George Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Aldous Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. (TV?) Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. (Google?) Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. (Twitter? Facebook? “Breaking news”?)[/quote]
QUOTE As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.[/quote]\
....infinite appetite for distraction. thats what i think about when i hear about these protests which are popular but probably wont achieve anything precisely because of that reason.
QUOTE What George Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Aldous Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. (TV?) Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. (Google?) Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. (Twitter? Facebook? “Breaking news”?)[/quote]
QUOTE As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.[/quote]\
....infinite appetite for distraction. thats what i think about when i hear about these protests which are popular but probably wont achieve anything precisely because of that reason.
Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 6:20 am
good post! i'd say there's elements of truth to both of their lines of thoughtgermloucks wrote:QUOTE (germloucks @ Oct 1 2011, 02:16 AM) Reading some of these posts made me remember this post i stumbled upon a while back, so i googled it and posted it here. It talks about who was right, Aldous Huxley (A brave new world) or George Orwell (1984) in their portrayal of likely elements of a dystopian future
Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 6:21 am
but you cut down your post in the time that it took for me to reply... I guess you are advocating orwells side?