How much do you know about mergers and acquisitions as it relates to political agendas? This really isn't about Obama trusting anyone. It wasn't ever about Bush either. Both these guys have done some pretty ridiculous things, far too ridiculous to be accepted as the normal process of a 'freedom' march.
Are you aware of what conglomerates do in order to acquire whatever it is they want to acquire? More to the point we're not necessarily looking at land acquisition here or even oil. Resource management can be done by subsidiaries. So they wouldn't ever even consider putting themselves on that stage since it would obviate their position. No, subsidiaries can handle that.
I don't know if you recall many of Obama's pre-election speeches and the promises he made regarding dealing with, well let's call them maniacs for lack of a better term and really the term is exactly what this conglomerate wants you to call them. It creates an acceptable public opinion for taking them out. Obama promised talk and dialogue then and he promised to get your assess out of Iraq and soon.
Guess what. What Obama wanted doesn't mean squat to these people. He is not only acting out of character, he is acting irrational and if that is not enough to make you wonder who is really pulling the strings, then I don't know what is.
Someone in the EU? I suspect there are puppets there too. The EU itself was a "merger". The acquisition was control over a much broader area.
We can keep watching the dog and pony show here, thats the point of it all for them. Keep the public thinking this is all about Libyans vs Americans, democrats versus repubs, yeahs versus nays.
"United we stand, divided we fall" .. and if you don't see the overt attempt at public divisiveness you are indeed falling for the oldest political trick in the books.
I get all that Tom. I see the politics, very very obvious. And all of it beyond ridiculous. That in itself is reason enough to ask yourself what the hell is really going on. Who profits or gains? And I don't mean monetarily only. Certainly not Americans already mired in debt and a diminishing dollar, not to mention what China is doing to you. All very very ridiculous.
Really, better than a magic act.
I thought there was hope for you TT. Obama is not running things, in the US or anywhere else for that matter. Probably not even in the bedroom
Errr maybe he's just emptying old weapons stock. You know the turn over thing.
Without getting the H out of Iraq like Obama promised in his campaign speeches, you are into another war.
It's all so irresponsible. To be economically strangled and still into another war. How much of the ridiculous does one need to see before he begins to look past it.
You don't seriously think Obama actually has any real control in this do you? No more than Bush had even though he had that good ole repub 'fire em up boys' attitude, he like Obama is following a higher directive, puppets for another cause.
And I think you and I both know that congress, shmongress has even less influence over what will happen.
Ya, I think you're more on the lines of lawlessness versus one who might buck the system because it discriminates or mistreats. A self discipline that would be seen by some as pushing the limits of freedom and others as complete disregard for law and order. Egypt's recent developments might be a case in point.
My friend and worthy but sometimes goofy opponent. I went looking for the sticky wiki link you posted the other day, since therein lies the answer to your question. Did you delete that thread oh great master of major conspiracies?
It is an interesting vision yes? Very often you look around and ask yourself, err I should say I do... what would this place be like if there weren't leaders and law around to keep them from totally spinning out of control.
And .. then perhaps it's that lack of self discipline that raises the bar of freedom? In any event an interesting way to look at things.
The emboldened phrase is one I would take issue with.It is unnatural, not natural as you say. Why and for what means does this exist as you say, save the desire of some self appointed elites to create hierarchy in their favor.
This is a major issue for me, that stems from the spiritual displacement of what we tend to call god.
As far back as 5600 yrs ago, leaders first pretended to be gods themselves. When that didn't work, they pretended they were the only ones who had access to the gods in order to keep their ruse and power going. It still works to this day in subjugating humans as lesser beings and accepting a 'lord' hierarchy.
In fact the vestiges of that still continue in our vocabulary and are rampant in our law books. I am not arguing that indeed things are now this way; but that it ought not to be, except by choice.
Granted some people don't choose this way and sometimes they do revolt and those revolutions generally speaking result in somewhat of an upgrade in humanity as whole. The process is slow though.
And I would argue that achievement is in the eyes of the beholder. I couldn't care how well someone kicks a socker ball. It gets a low achievement award from me. Now the person who spends a couple hours of his/her day in a care center, there's achievement that I rate highly. This is oddly called 'volunteering' and is not rewarded at all, yet it acknowledges humanity.
The real question then becomes, do I have a right to create hierarchy based on my rating? Nope. No one does and there in lies my point. Equality acknowledges humanity and life as a whole, not achievement. The pitfalls of blessing 'achievement' are subject to bias and all manner of self interest.
Brad Pitt is not a better human than you or I, or a disabled person for that matter. A quadriplegic who cannot achieve? We can't even call 'opportunity' equal because some are not made for all opportunities. What is equal is that we are human.
I would however agree that there are situations of mutual benefit that function best under hierarchy, again done by choice. I would list them but at the risk of creating a whole new topic in this thread, so I won't.
I couldn't argue with your words on self discipline, as a matter of dealing with life. We make our own realties and that makes us singularly responsible for what happens to and around us.
My favorite line in this regard is that you can't get it done. There is always better places, better things to experience.
Except for the Conquistadors who brought that Christianity with them.
It's not so easy to move about... or even stay where one wants. You can of course shut up and not cause waves and that will ensure your stay in most places.
A bit of a stretch but ok. I think your 'way of life' is altered somewhat by the richness in cultural exchange, whether one considers them submitters or whatever.
Perhaps more aware of the reality that the rich have by any means necessary gotten richer and that the gap between upper class and its lower classes has widened exponentially. What they allow to trickle down to the peasants is mere fodder, to keep the masses from rebelling.
As for being spoiled I think you might want to consider those who fall below the poverty line through no fault of their own. It is one thing to see yourself as doing ok, quite another to ignore one's fellow man in their plight. Those people live on the streets of your country and mine. IMO, not enough humans are spoiled to use your word.
I am not against wealth; but a fairer distribution of it. All men being equal falls on deaf ears in this regard. One person paid millions to kick a soccer ball, where the man cleaning up after him and putting in more hours is paid a pittance. This is not equality, but hierarchy, not unlike this world has experienced in it's many revolutions against the Nobles and or Elites, whatever term you prefer when you think of the favored rich.
Agreed. A politician would use more political/legal terms in most cases, though the laws are set to establish those considered to be 'subversive' as deport-able. Lawyers don't argue guilt, they argue their clients interests which falls all too short of justice.
Things can be better than they are. If you are satisfied, I applaud you, If you are merely appeased, I would question you. If you are aware I would say .. welcome to wanting things to be better for all.
Where I live an how I feel about my gov's involvement in national affairs are not inextricable. What sort of reasoning is this? Do you move when you don't like your neighbors opinion? Get real.
Being Canadian doesn't mean I have to approve of, much less buy into the emotional guilt of psycho-patriotism, especially when it means people are being pushed around and killed in that dubious patriotic nonsense.
I am not my government (a distinction you'd do well to consider in forums instead of taking things personally) and if moving is your question why is your government and mine moving into all kinds of places on this planet that they don't own, much less have any rights to occupy? Are you going to move their because it's US?Canadian/French?Coalition occupied? Good luck with that.
Is it that our gov's don't want to be in America or Canada? Is that why they're moving in on the world, where ever the hell they want? You see the irrational assumption you are making?
RE: West moves towards Libya action
Yes I know and Obama has asked the Saudi's to furnish weapons to the rebs. And still they would be US weapons.Gives Arms Length a whole new meaning.