And if that were the case, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlin
Printable View
And if that were the case, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlin
Multiple reasons:Quote:
Originally Posted by Y33TREKker
1. I enjoy intelligible banter. You have some valid points and do not resort to name calling. For the most part, your arguments include some meat to justify your position.
2. I do care what others think,one way or another. I am adult enough to admit that I could be wrong, and if someone else feels so strongly as to support the opposite side, it must mean something...
3. If there was more conversations like ours during the elections, we wouldn't have had a majority of the population voting without having any real idea what they were voting for. At work we called it MTV voting. There should be Q&A when you vote, or else your vote does not count, predisclosed questions, you gotta get 3/5 correct or something along those lines. Candidates can only spend a certain amount of money on their campaign to prevent buying the vote...you get the idea. Maybe we make it so they can only have a certain amount of money, so you know they are a Real American and representative of the majority of our nation. It should be popular vote only, to prevent the major cities from determining the entire state's vote. IIf you are a liberal in Utah, your vote doesn't count. If you are a conservative in California, might as well not even vote. It doesn't count.
4. I am not taking any classes right now, too cold to work on the VX, and I only go into work every few days for christmas stand down.:)
5. I am not really expending any effort, just a few minutes here and there on the puter, keeps me from buying stuff I don't need...lol.
That's a false dichotomy. It is entirely possible to care about both things without one interfering with the other.
Actually, based on the way propositions pass through the senate and house, they can't do both at the same time. DADT is just another 'look over here' tactic that really doesn't matter in the big picture. How many millions of dollars in man hours alone did the house/senate waste on something that affects a very TINY portion of our population. Especially since they still have to follow the rules of the UCMJ, they will not get benefits for their 'partners' or base housing privileges, commissary, medical and so on. We are actually insulting them even more. We respected women enough to spend billions of dollars to create their own berthing areas, millions to put a few on submarines, but we can't spare any money for the homosexuals. It is all a dog and pony show. I think we should make handicap accessible facilities for our armed forces. Its not fair, we are discriminating against those in wheelchairs and whatnot. I realize that is a cheeky response, but the spirit of my point remains intact.
When you try to care about everything, it loses its value. How about focusing on important things, such as social security, immigration, drug control. Per the census bureau, in 2006 there were an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, a bulk of which were mexican/south american. Lets say only 1/4 have children each year. That means we have 20 million or so in our country.
Drugs are out of control. We kick students out of the Navy every week for the abuse of legal derivatives of illegal drugs. Social security is going to be broke in the future if we keep borrowing against it. This is a program that every tax paying citizen HAS TO PAY INTO. Same concept as Obamacare, force me to pay into something that I will most likely never receive a return from.
Sorry this is longer than I had initially intended,
the point being, we know our politicians are corrupt, we know corporate america is corrupt, we know shady business goes on at all the levels of government, we don't need wikileaks to prove it. We already know these things, but nothing happens. Hillary Clinton is still in her position, all of the clowns appointed by Obama and Bush alike are still in charge, not in jail. I just want someone to tell me what they expect to happen, and what they are going to DO about it.
Oh, I should have said "we don't care enough to actually do anything about it". A representative doesn't get reelected, he still gets paid for the rest of his life and receives full benefits. That is like being suspended with pay....pick me, pick me! I want to be suspended with pay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Y33TREKker
Which is irrelevant since 99+% of the work in congress does not happen on the floor.Quote:
Actually, based on the way propositions pass through the senate and house, they can't do both at the same time.Quote:
That's a false dichotomy. It is entirely possible to care about both things without one interfering with the other.
If you were to read old newspapers you'd see that people have been complaining about similar sorts of corruption for at least 100 years now - probably more. I haven't read any older than that so I can't say how long the corruption has been rampant. And if all your ranting about things like why they haven't put entire staffs of political appointees in jail isn't a claim of failure, then I don't know what is.Quote:
Umm, a 200 year run is pretty good, and I never said we are a failure,
BTW your habit of sometimes quoting in red instead of using the system's quoting mechanism discourages people from reading and responding to what you write.
Sorry, I don't quote in red, but rather respond in red, to allow a reader to read the original and my response in order. Makes it easier to follow in a long post, or so I thought...if you look back, the original is always in black, only my additions are red.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Biko
I will try to cut and paste sections to make it easier to read if anyone else doesn't like the format.
As for the 99% of the work happening out of session, that makes it even worse. Even more wasted man hours on stuff that doesn't matter, then it gets stuck in congress on the floor, making it all for not.
Then what is the point of wikileaks? If we have had 100 years of the same info being put out to the common person and nothing changes, what are you expecting to come out of it now? As you pointed out, we have history of violent rebellion being unsuccessful in the longterm, the same can be said of reporting corruption?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Biko
All in all, realistically, do you deep down inside think that wikileaks released documents are going to be anything more than a brief news flash? It does give us (here on the VX forum, well at least the few of us still goin on about it) something to talk about it. Good entertainment value. I wonder how many of our little family here are lurking in this thread? I would be curious to know what others think. I know I come off as an ******* sometimes, but I do try to write coherently without name calling or anything as childish as that. I am fair and I try to be consistent. I harbor no ill will to anyone regardless of our discussions. TomDietrying has exact opposite political views as I do and we got along great at Moab!
Are we really the only ones still lookin at this thread?
Are my thoughts way over the edge and no one agrees with anything I say? (and vice versa).
For you lurkers, feel free to throw in your thoughts!!! (minus name calling and the like)
Except that its undeniable that the standard of living for the entire country has vastly improved during the time so the reformers have been successful. If corruption was as absolute as you make it out to be we'd all be subsistence farmers or working 12 hour days 7 days a week in sweatshops.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlin
People living in so called poverty today would be considered among the richest in the country when it was founded. Indoor plumbing, electricity, Tvs, cell phones, free medical care, free food of better quality than most were able to obtain unless they grew it themselves. All of this was merely imagination 200 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Biko
Use the quote button or the multi quote button at the bottom right of the post you are replying to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlin
Umm, perhaps it is the corruption that has lead to our success. "A fool and his money are soon parted." The corruption at the top has to recognize that what is good for the goose is good for the gander, if your people are happy and successful, then production will be better, and they will be less likely to start a violent revolution, the only kind of revolution that has ever been successful for any long term period of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Biko
I agree with Circmand, our conditions now are so ridiculously cushy, even 100 years ago they would have laughed at the whining that goes on today. That is part of the problem. Most people in our nation wouldn't last more than a few days without walmart and grocery stores. We have grown so accustomed to being told what we can and cannot do, we don't know what to do on our own given the chance. We have a government branch to control everything, what freedoms do you really have left? We have the illusion of freedom, but that doesn't make it real.
I think the wikileaks thing is just an excuse for the government to implement controls over internet media, much the same as 9/11 was an excuse for Homeland Defense and the monstrous TSA and the like.
What he said...unless they're watching;ooo;:supercoolQuote:
Originally Posted by Marlin
I just saw that the FCC is trying to regulate internet provider sales byt making the internet speeds the same for everyone...man did I call it! I know that the provisions in this regulation aren't what I am inferring, but this broke the ice. Pending court review, what is next? Just like TSA and removing your shoes, now look at what goes on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Harness
Internet censorship, here we come!!!!
I heard that story.They said Wi-Fi would be slower for some reason
Quote:
by Y33TREKker - "On the contrary. My answer was even specifically tailored for you; a person who has admittedly chosen to do nothing...at least in the way of supporting an entity that is trying to do something anyway."
Fortunately, you caring wasn't required for them to do what they did in the first place either.Quote:
by Marlin - "Saying that you agree with wikileaks or not agreeing is not doing something. My lack of caring about wikileaks does not weaken or strengthen their position."
Perhaps this is just a matter of degrees, because in my opinion, supporting such an entity, even if a person does just say that they agree with the actions that are being taken can count for much more than mere lip-service as you are portraying it to be...not to mention the fact that no one has to get shot.
You say that you know corruption is a given, but can you prove it? It's one thing for people to complain across their fences about what they "think" is going on, but it's something else entirely to have actual proof of those suspicions.
This is where we get to the part that doesn't make sense though, because here we have an entity that is possibly introducing tangible evidence for your suspicions, but rather than embracing said entity (that is possibly providing the proof that could be used to initiate the revolution you say is needed), your response is to dismiss that entity and anyone who suggests it should be believed, supported, etc.
It's bad enough that killing the messenger who bears bad news is too often put into practice, but is it now being suggested that should be adopted for messengers bearing potential good news too?
As I alluded to before, it's almost become a chicken-and-the-egg scenario, with people trying to condemn wikileaks to distract from the fact that the contents/actions contained in the leaks happened first.
Money talks, by your own words above, opinions do not matter either way. Besides, if folks never got shot, we wouldn't be here right now.Quote:
Perhaps this is just a matter of degrees, because in my opinion, supporting such an entity, even if a person does just say that they agree with the actions that are being taken can count for much more than mere lip-service as you are portraying it to be...not to mention the fact that no one has to get shot.
Yes, we have 100 years of newspaper reports saying so. Those have just as much value as the unconfirmed wikileaks reports. I have said more than once THE FED GAVE 9 TRILLION IN LOANS TO THE BANKS AT <1% INTEREST!!! HOW DO YOU THINK THEY PAID THEIR STIMULUS LOANS BACK SO QUICK!!!! IF THAT IS NOT CORRUPTION, I AM NOT SURE WHAT IS.Quote:
You say that you know corruption is a given, but can you prove it? It's one thing for people to complain across their fences about what they "think" is going on, but it's something else entirely to have actual proof of those suspicions.
Quote:
This is where we get to the part that doesn't make sense though, because here we have an entity that is possibly introducing tangible evidence for your suspicions, but rather than embracing said entity
wiki (?w?k?)
— n
a. a web application that allows anyone visiting a website to edit content on it
By the owners assigned name, it implies that it could be wrong. Wikileaks is no more credible than CNN, Fox News, New York Times and so on. There is nothing tangible about it. I could start a site tomorrow and release whatever secret documents I want. What makes them any more or less credible than Julian's releases?
Are you saying that if you had access to billions of dollars and could get away with funneling some of that to your own personal use, if even only a few hundred thousand, and not suffer any real consequences, you wouldn't? Day after day, temptation of virtually unlimited funding, others pushing you to do things in their own best interests, or else you suffer job failure that you might not be tempted to do the wrong thing? If you really believe you wouldn't, you are the next savior. The problems are inherent in the system, be it Bush, Obama, whoever, our government and their funding are just too big. Hence the inevitable collapse. Much the same as the Romans, we have begun voting our coffers back into our own pockets. This is a tell tale sign of things to come. As Biko pointed out, history will repeat itself, and the bloated empires always fail eventually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Y33TREKker
You have no idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Y33TREKker
Slightly off topic...Gill and I were watching a documentary on Outlaw Bikers and how they were "taken down". It was trying to be biased toward the feds, but did a terrible job. Most of the outlaw bikers are normal people and aren't trying to start any trouble. The undercover feds push them and push them for years to by illegal guns, and when the club get a hold on some legal guns, the undercovers say that's not good enough... the feds push more and more and finally the club caves and gets the undercovers what they want and takes down the outlaw bikers for illegal activities...
It's a great documentary series on National Geographic if you ever want to watch it. It's called Outlaw Bikers.
It's proves how sad our government operates.
You mean brother from another mother???Quote:
Originally Posted by tom4bren
This repeated concept is really starting to frustrate me. THERE ARE NO ACTIONS BEING TAKEN. You keep saying that something is being done about what comes out on wikileaks, but what is being done? Not a DAMNED thing. Its been weeks, nothing. Not even a news blip. the investigations can't be secret, it would do no good. Think of ENRON.Quote:
Originally Posted by Y33TREKker
You can't even tell me what you are going to do in the worst case scenario, you are willing to sit back and wait for someone else to do it. At least I admit that I am going to do nothing but prepare for the worst. At least I am doing something. That is far better than doing nothing but waiting for someone else to take care of it for you...thus proving my point that America is full of folks just waiting to be told what to do.
Along the lines of being told what to do:
I just read an article yesterday that 31 of 35 major cities tested for chromium in tap water were well above the limits. Takes years for the government to enact any kind of controls. That means you need to filter your own water, especially for children. I did this 3 years ago. Our entire house has better than bottled water out of every tap in the house. As a matter of fact, by the little computer on my filtration system, it has filtered out 186lbs of solids in the last 835 days. (apparently power was out long enough to lose memory a few years ago).
Thank you for helping me with proof that the government is corrupt. Not so much as the shady entrapment, but the fact the bikers started out as normal folks, and with temptation and pressure, gave in and became corrupted. The same as every politician. Tis human nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by VXIRONwoMAN
Really? That's what you took away from me saying that no armed revolution has succeeded in eliminating corruption? You make a big deal about people not calling names but you really test the line by arguing in bad faith - that's worse than simply calling names because its so banal that its easy to simply accept.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlin
If that were true then North Korea would be an economic power-house. Corruption, practically by definition, is a restraint on broad economic development. Your proposed theory of "benign corruption" is not corruption at all - it is the system working.Quote:
Umm, perhaps it is the corruption that has lead to our success.
When you define both success of the system and failure of the system as failure that's simply arguing in bad faith.
You have a double-standard for proof - on one hand you are preparing for the total collapse of society, yet no western democracy has ever even come close to, much less actually collapsed. On the other hand you demand that wikileaks be practically omnipotent - that if corruption doesn't immediately melt away under their trillions of candlepower then they are totally irrelevant. When it does happen in other much smaller countries, that doesn't count, but the inertia of the largest economy in the world is required to be no problem for omnipotent wikileaks.Quote:
This repeated concept is really starting to frustrate me. THERE ARE NO ACTIONS BEING TAKEN. You keep saying that something is being done about what comes out on wikileaks, but what is being done? Not a DAMNED thing.
Society does not work that way. Exposure of corruption causes slow change - people vote differently, legislation gets rewritten over the course of years, others still in the shadows aren't so bold with their conspiracies going forward. Spectacular implosions like Enron and Madoff are the very rare exception. They make great fodder for 24-hour news and faux-outrage pundits - but it's the slow inexorable plod of progress that does the most to improve the world. Corruption is a drag on that progress, exposure reduces that drag.
How is that worse than name calling or arguing in bad faith? You flat out said that no armed revolution has ever been successful, you even went so far as to throw down the gauntlet and dare me to name one that is. You opened that doorway, not me.Quote:
Really? That's what you took away from me saying that no armed revolution has succeeded in eliminating corruption? You make a big deal about people not calling names but you really test the line by arguing in bad faith - that's worse than simply calling names because its so banal that its easy to simply accept.
Nor sure where you got your definition, I just used dictionary.com. Didn't see anything about economics, except via a stretch to bribery which could be for anything. Corruption is:Quote:
If that were true then North Korea would be an economic power-house. Corruption, practically by definition, is a restraint on broad economic development. Your proposed theory of "benign corruption" is not corruption at all - it is the system working.
moral perversion; depravity
dishonesty, esp bribery
So is Julian releasing info and proof of corruption or is he confirming that the system is working? I don't get your point there? We have established that most people are happy with the status quo, the system is working for the majority, so why is he trying to fix something that isn't broke?
The Romans said the same thing...strangely enough, western democracies haven't been around very long. Lets see if it lasts 2000 years...lol.Quote:
You have a double-standard for proof - on one hand you are preparing for the total collapse of society, yet no western democracy has ever even come close to, much less actually collapsed.
You're right, I am preparing. It hurts no one.
Oh, and a fitting cliche, "There is a first time for everything".
I never made Julian out to be a hero, therefore I do not have to defend him.Quote:
On the other hand you demand that wikileaks be practically omnipotent - that if corruption doesn't immediately melt away under their trillions of candlepower then they are totally irrelevant. When it does happen in other much smaller countries, that doesn't count, but the inertia of the largest economy in the world is required to be no problem for omnipotent wikileaks.
I said that I don't care what he does and that I think it's all a setup.
Why would the powers that be be any less than bold than they were before? We will stick to Hillary Clinton. In black and white, plain to see, she ordered the violation of UN policy. Did she suffer any repercussions? No, not even an apology from the president for not adequately supervising her. Hell, if anything, the results of wikileaks will encourage them to more corruption because they have seen that they will not be held accountable!!!!Quote:
Society does not work that way. Exposure of corruption causes slow change - people vote differently, legislation gets rewritten over the course of years, others still in the shadows aren't so bold with their conspiracies going forward. Spectacular implosions like Enron and Madoff are the very rare exception. They make great fodder for 24-hour news and faux-outrage pundits - but it's the slow inexorable plod of progress that does the most to improve the world. Corruption is a drag on that progress, exposure reduces that drag.
And yet you didn't name one. Instead you made up some other random BS and attributed it to me, just like your goofy sig. The point of a discussion like this is to develop a better understanding of the topic but when you make up BS out of whole cloth like that it just obscures the truth. It is not worse than arguing in bad faith it is arguing in bad faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlin
More arguing in bad faith. Using the "its not in the dictionary, gotcha!" fallacy does not add to anyone's understanding. Oooh, dictiornary.com doesn't address the topic in depth, surfreakingprise. Is it really too much to expect that if you want to discuss corruption you have a working knowledge of how it affects society?Quote:
Nor sure where you got your definition, I just used dictionary.com.
Because the situation is not black and white. Because there is always room for improvement. It doesn't take an armed revolution for incremental improvement just like it doesn't take the end of society for there to be incremental loss.Quote:
So is Julian releasing info and proof of corruption or is he confirming that the system is working? I don't get your point there? We have established that most people are happy with the status quo, the system is working for the majority, so why is he trying to fix something that isn't broke?
Do you really find that convincing? Why aren't you worried about 2012? Or what about all of those other people constantly predicting the end of the world for centuries? First time for everything after all. Or maybe you realize that such predictions have been so consistently wrong that its not worth paying attention, but this other essentially identical prediction you buy into. When you don't require the same standard of evidence for something you disagree with as you do for something you agree with, that's arguing in bad faith.Quote:
The Romans said the same thing...strangely enough, western democracies haven't been around very long. Lets see if it lasts 2000 years...lol.
Oh, and a fitting cliche, "There is a first time for everything".
And I never said you did. What you have consistently done is require far higher standards of proof in support of wikileaks than for your own personal dislike of wikileaks. That is arguing in bad faith.Quote:
I never made Julian out to be a hero, therefore I do not have to defend him.
She's suffered diminished credibility in her profession. You insist that results must be a spectacle or they don't count. My point, which you ignore over and over, is that spectacle is only a small part of the process - it's incremental change that ultimately matters.Quote:
We will stick to Hillary Clinton. In black and white, plain to see, she ordered the violation of UN policy. Did she suffer any repercussions?
If she ever stands for elected office again her chances of winning have been reduced - some fervent supporters will be less fervent, some fence sitters are now on the other side of the fence. Even as a political appointee her career has been affected - she is just that much more of a liability which reduces her clout. Some other event that she could have weathered may now be enough to get her tossed out.
Well, there's one thing we seem to agree on anyway, and that's the sensation of being in a rut. What's worse is, the rut you are in seems to be two ruts that you jump back and forth from because it gets more and more difficult to decipher exactly what side you are arguing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlin
Earlier you said that, in your opinion, "it was more like the majority" of people who had given up because there seemed to realistically be nothing that could be done. But now you are arguing that the majority is comprised of people who are satisfied with the status quo, and thus, do nothing.
You can't know that for sure, just as you can't know at this time what the end result will be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlin
And you maintaining the position that, just because you personally believe that what wikileaks IS DOING can't possibly make a difference their efforts should be equated with nothing being done, could in no way be considered frustrating for anyone else?
Actions are being taken and have been taken (otherwise_we_wouldn't_be_having_this_conversation_ right_now), the question remains as to why you are simply refusing to acknowledge them.
One possibility - You do nothing because you believe no one can, but now someone is doing something, and that calls into question your own path of choice or limited abilities. Well no one said you had to be a savior either, so why not give yourself a break.
As far as your apparent impatience and need for immediate action, have you never heard the saying that some things are worth the wait?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlin
Fortunately, not everyone in the government resorts to such tactics. Sadly though, some things are done for probably nothing more than a perceived need for some good PR, which takes us back to that movie quote from before.Quote:
Originally Posted by VXIRONwoMAN
"It isn't what it is, Tommy. It is never what it is. It is what it can be made to look like."
At least in cases where n'er-do-wells are in the picture.
OUTLAW BIKERS the government wouldnt be looking at them as outlaws. Who by definition break the law.
This just in:
CIA creates a Wikileaks Task Force. The WTF.. srsly.. WTF? yes... srsly..
http://gizmodo.com/5715956/cia-creat...aks-task-force
Lookout Anons.... its the WTF!??
wiki wiki wiki can't you see...
VXR, I just shot my hot cocoa out of my nose. Thanks a lot.
twiki twiki twikiQuote:
Originally Posted by VXR