700 million dollar embasy in Packistan???

medicineman · May 29, 2009

What the fuck is Obama up to now? I think we've been had folks. Seems he wants to build a 700 million dollar embassy in Packistan, Wouldn't that just cement our presence in that country forever and give the Taliban the utmost reason to rage war on us? I think we've been Had. He talks some shit then comes in through the back door with the most outrageaus crap ever seen, Indefinent detainment now this. I hate to admit it, but it seems the Libertarians were right. Also his definition of universal health care is that small businesses should cover all employees, will never work. It will force most out of business or force them to 1099 people, Their employees, as independent contractors. What the fuck happened to this guy??? I'm way less worried about his socialism agenda and way more worried about his war agenda, that will put me at odds with libertarians, for sure.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS326&q=Obama'+new+embassy+in+Pakistan&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=ehogSsy8IaG-tAP7_bmNBA&sa=X&oi=news_group&resnum=1&ct=title
anti-American groups and politicians are likely to seize on the expanded diplomatic presence in Islamabad as evidence of American "imperial designs."
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/68952.html

TheBrutalTruth · May 29, 2009

medicineman said:
What the fuck is Obama up to now? I think we've been had folks. Seems he wants to build a 700 million dollar embassy in Packistan, Wouldn't that just cement our presence in that country forever and give the Taliban the utmost reason to rage war on us? I think we've been Had. He talks some shit then comes in through the back door with the most outrageaus crap ever seen, Indefinent detainment now this. I hate to admit it, but it seems the Libertarians were right. Also his definition of universal health care is that small businesses should cover all employees, will never work. It will force most out of business or force them to 1099 people, Their employees, as independent contractors. What the fuck happened to this guy??? I'm way less worried about his socialism agenda and way more worried about his war agenda, that will put me at odds with libertarians, for sure.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS326&q=Obama'+new+embassy+in+Pakistan&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=ehogSsy8IaG-tAP7_bmNBA&sa=X&oi=news_group&resnum=1&ct=title
anti-American groups and politicians are likely to seize on the expanded diplomatic presence in Islamabad as evidence of American "imperial designs."
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/68952.html

I don't think you heard the big words Med.

Subtle difference between Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Iraq is the country Obama was talking about pulling out of.

Afghanistan is the country we're raging war in.

Pakistan is a sovereign nation.

The only issue here is the fact that the cost of the Embassy is going to be $700 Million.

Do you think that the toilet seats will cost $690 Million (including bribes, kick backs, and other "misc. fees" and the Embassy only costs $10 million?

TreesOfLife · May 29, 2009

medicineman said:
What the fuck is Obama up to now? I think we've been had folks. Seems he wants to build a 700 million dollar embassy in Packistan, Wouldn't that just cement our presence in that country forever and give the Taliban the utmost reason to rage war on us? I think we've been Had. He talks some shit then comes in through the back door with the most outrageaus crap ever seen, Indefinent detainment now this. I hate to admit it, but it seems the Libertarians were right. Also his definition of universal health care is that small businesses should cover all employees, will never work. It will force most out of business or force them to 1099 people, Their employees, as independent contractors. What the fuck happened to this guy??? I'm way less worried about his socialism agenda and way more worried about his war agenda, that will put me at odds with libertarians, for sure.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS326&q=Obama'+new+embassy+in+Pakistan&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=ehogSsy8IaG-tAP7_bmNBA&sa=X&oi=news_group&resnum=1&ct=title
anti-American groups and politicians are likely to seize on the expanded diplomatic presence in Islamabad as evidence of American "imperial designs."
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/68952.html

Who are the terrorists covered by the patriot acts ect. med The American citizen or some guys with bears in caves

AKRevo47 · May 29, 2009

TheBrutalTruth said:
Pakistan is a sovereign nation.

Yes it is, but its also an area of extreme opposition to the US and Its a muslim country with no real law in and an insurrection going on. They dont want us there in the first place and this is only stirring a hornets nest.If anything they should beef up the security around the exisiting one instead.

Why should we expect anything less from obama? just cuz hes 'black, 'hip' and connected with the average american'? fuck him, hes a tool as much as the rest.

TheBrutalTruth · May 29, 2009

AKRevo47 said:
Yes it is, but its also an area of extreme opposition to the US and Its a muslim country with no real law in and an insurrection going on. They dont want us there in the first place and this is only stirring a hornets nest.If anything they should beef up the security around the exisiting one instead.

Why should we expect anything less from obama? just cuz hes 'black, 'hip' and connected with the average american'? fuck him, hes a tool as much as the rest.

Well if they don't want us there, then why the hell are we there?

Bring our soldiers back from wherever the hell, secure our borders and protect ourselves. We can then extend the hand of friendship to the rest of the world through trade and commerce, as the founders intended.

AKRevo47 · May 29, 2009

TheBrutalTruth said:
Well if they don't want us there, then why the hell are we there?

Bring our soldiers back from wherever the hell, secure our borders and protect ourselves. We can then extend the hand of friendship to the rest of the world through trade and commerce, as the founders intended.

We do need embassies for some good purposes (diplomacy) but its not the wisest idea to be building a 700 million dollar embassy and showing that the US is 'building up a presence' in pakistan now. Probably to house more spies....I could think of 700 million different reasons to spend that money on

TheBrutalTruth · May 29, 2009

AKRevo47 said:
We do need embassies for some good purposes (diplomacy) but its not the wisest idea to be building a 700 million dollar embassy and showing that the US is 'building up a presence' in pakistan now. Probably to house more spies....I could think of 700 million different reasons to spend that money on

I can't, but maybe it'd be possible out tax cuts working from the bottom of those that pay taxes towards the top until it is gone.

Microdizzey · May 29, 2009

Starting to wake up Med?

This is what American citizens need to do right now. Wake up and get angry, cause we are quite literally being raped by our own government. These crooks prance around the cameras with big loving smiles and claim they do no wrong, it's really disgusting and somewhat frightening. They have very bold and determined looks on their faces, full steam ahead.

You ain't seen nothin' yet. :lol:

Rob Roy · May 30, 2009

That's a pretty expensive police station....America World Police fuck yeah!!

medicineman · May 30, 2009

Microdizzey said:
Starting to wake up Med?

This is what American citizens need to do right now. Wake up and get angry, cause we are quite literally being raped by our own government. These crooks prance around the cameras with big loving smiles and claim they do no wrong, it's really disgusting and somewhat frightening. They have very bold and determined looks on their faces, full steam ahead.

You ain't seen nothin' yet.

This flies in the face of everything I thought Obama was about. Talk about a 180. I really hate it when a politician just flat out lies to get elected. I thought Obama was different. I must admit, the con job was pretty smooth. I guess no politician can really change the way things are run, the militaty-industrial complex has gotten way out of hand. Now it seems there is only one solution, Take care of your family and fuck the rest of society, not my choice, but necessity beckons. Between this, the indefinent detention, and the sell-out to big medical, Obama has just about burnt all his bridges to his campaign promises. I wonder if Ron Paul would heve had any better luck butting heads with the Power? BTW, gloating is a charcter flaw.

NoDrama · May 30, 2009

I think if Ron Paul had somehow become the Comm in Chief he would have already been assassinated. Thats why if you are going to pick a Libertarian/constitutionalist (even if he did run on the Repub ticket) you had better make damn sure the VP is up to the Job when the pres gets it from a high power rifle. Don't want it to end like Kennedy/Johnson where LBJ was as much a puppet as Obama is now.

Kudos to you Medman, it takes a big man to admit his flaws and swallow his pride and come out and say his pick was the wrong one. I doubt McCain would have been any better, if he was like Bush then it could have been worse. I say any incumbent on any ticket needs to be voted out, once Congress and the House have been cleaned up then the healing can begin.

The gubbermint needs to lay off about 50% of its employees, pull all troops out of all countries, close up all the embassies and overseas bases. Reduce the total military force by 70% and stop the war mongering. Next we need to stop helping the corrupt banksters from stealing any more money, no more bailouts, if you made bad business decisions then you have to pay the piper. If you go out of Business there will be 100 others ready to take your spot and they will do a better job of it. Next the gov't needs to go back to the constitution and actually read it a few times and then start repealing all those amendemnts and laws that are against human nature. If we could do these things within a short couple years I think the whole US of A would be back on its feet again and livin the good life. Most likely we will do the exact opposite and the troubles will only get worse as time goes on.

AKRevo47 · May 30, 2009

NoDrama said:
The gubbermint needs to lay off about 50% of its employees, pull all troops out of all countries, close up all the embassies and overseas bases. Reduce the total military force by 70% and stop the war mongering. Next we need to stop helping the corrupt banksters from stealing any more money, no more bailouts, if you made bad business decisions then you have to pay the piper. If you go out of Business there will be 100 others ready to take your spot and they will do a better job of it. Next the gov't needs to go back to the constitution and actually read it a few times and then start repealing all those amendemnts and laws that are against human nature. If we could do these things within a short couple years I think the whole US of A would be back on its feet again and livin the good life. Most likely we will do the exact opposite and the troubles will only get worse as time goes on.

Yeah thats NOT the greatest idea. Lay off 50%??? Do you even know how many people work for the government? Have you ever dealt with something like the VA? If anything the govt should be hiring MORE people. What the hell would all those people do if they got walking papers? The Army is tiny as it is, I dont think we need to add troops but we should cut funding to all these BS projects (which they havestarted doing already) and theiradventures.

Im all for not giving business money. I think the govt should step in and take em over rather than letting them go out of business. You act like these are just small businesses that can easily be replaced. These corporations are HUGE and extend into many parts of the world and our lives. You can let em just get swept away. Its time for a govt takeover of alot of business or some serious regualtion.

So what are the laws in the constitution that are against human nature?

TheBrutalTruth · May 30, 2009

AKRevo47 said:
Yeah thats NOT the greatest idea. Lay off 50%??? Do you even know how many people work for the government? Have you ever dealt with something like the VA? If anything the govt should be hiring MORE people. What the hell would all those people do if they got walking papers? The Army is tiny as it is, I dont think we need to add troops but we should cut funding to all these BS projects (which they havestarted doing already) and theiradventures.

Im all for not giving business money. I think the govt should step in and take em over rather than letting them go out of business. You act like these are just small businesses that can easily be replaced. These corporations are HUGE and extend into many parts of the world and our lives. You can let em just get swept away. Its time for a govt takeover of alot of business or some serious regualtion.

So what are the laws in the constitution that are against human nature?

And what happens when the government mismanages them (as this entire CF is a result of government interference in the markets?)

The government of course will lie, deny, and misdirect any attempts to examine the books of their corporations that are being propped up by the government despite their mismanagement.

More government is the last thing this country needs. The problem we have is that we have too much government, maybe we can auction off some bureaucrats to Europe, it seems to me that they always want more bureaucrats...

AKRevo47 · May 30, 2009

TheBrutalTruth said:
And what happens when the government mismanages them (as this entire CF is a result of government interference in the markets?)

The government of course will lie, deny, and misdirect any attempts to examine the books of their corporations that are being propped up by the government despite their mismanagement.

More government is the last thing this country needs. The problem we have is that we have too much government, maybe we can auction off some bureaucrats to Europe, it seems to me that they always want more bureaucrats...

By CF im gonna assume you mean cluster fuck? This 'CF' is the result of not enough oversite, not because theres too much government...id like some examples of what youre trying to say because it makes no sense to me.

The govt will lie about books and whatnot? Isnt that whats already happening? Enron, tyco, do i need to go on? Theres some perfect examples of some areas where we need more govt regulation. How is govt stepping into all the fucked up areas of the economy that had free reign (such as credit cards) such a bad thing?

Freedom of Information Act is a great thing

TheBrutalTruth · May 30, 2009

AKRevo47 said:
By CF im gonna assume you mean cluster fuck? This 'CF' is the result of not enough oversite, not because theres too much government...id like some examples of what youre trying to say because it makes no sense to me.

The govt will lie about books and whatnot? Isnt that whats already happening? Enron, tyco, do i need to go on? Theres some perfect examples of some areas where we need more govt regulation. How is govt stepping into all the fucked up areas of the economy that had free reign (such as credit cards) such a bad thing?

Freedom of Information Act is a great thing

The more regulation there is the more holes there are in it, and the harder it is to find those holes, and who puts the holes in there?

Government officials, either deliberately (because they were given campaign contributions (BRIBES) to do so) or through ommission (lack of effort to ensure that everything is covered.)

The answer isn't more fine tuned regulation that answer is to simplify regulation and stop trying to carve out niches for every company, and every person.

FairTAX
Simplified Legal Code
Simplified Commercial Law
Simplified Criminal Law

Instead of thousands upon thousands of pages and millions upon millions of words of regulations, rules, laws, requirements, definitions for made up words (bureaucratese) and so and and so forth the laws need to be simplified down to maybe 20,000 words.

The ultimate regulation can be found in something like the Wiccan Reed
"And it harm none do as ye will." (I may have misquoted it, but I believe that's fairly close to it.)

Nice, simple, and there's no giant gaping loopholes of technicalities like that which can be found in the millions upon millions of words of dense bureaucratese that liberals want to use.

Though another item or two need to be added on to it.

"You are responsible for yourself, and as long as your actions harm none do as ye will, but treat everyone equally regardless of ethnicity, sex, and age."

Of course that doesn't prohibit businesses from reserving the right to refuse business.

The only thing that requiring more and more verbage on regulation and thus more and more regulation shows is that there are too many laws for people to actually be aware of all of them, which means that the system of laws is broken.

Besides, I don't need the government babysitting me, I'm no longer 8 years old, and am most assuredly capable of taking care of myself.

More importantly is the fact that any one that thinks we need more regulation obviously has no idea just how much regulation there is.

AKRevo47 · May 30, 2009

Govt officials dont write those regulations. the only people who are writing policy are special interest groups or people that were/are connected to that industry. Its a huge business, you should read about it! but then i guess you are right. but those officials always have ties to business.They write these laws to sound PC but they create the loop holes for themselves. After nice and packaged they hand it over and then 'our' lovely elected officials approve it.

How much regualtion is there then? Obviously its not enough when corporations can pick up and move to some 3rd world country and pay 1.00 a day if there lucky so us fat americans can satisfy are unending need for bargains! Why can these companies have off shore tax haven? Where the fuck is the regualtion on that? If you dont see how much control the business community has on the US governmnet you are a complete idiot. im no anarchist/socialist or whatever bs label there is otu there. this is as plain as day and night. look at our ranking in the world on education, health, schools, hey but what does that matter we have the greatest military.

TheBrutalTruth · May 30, 2009

AKRevo47 said:
Govt officials dont write those regulations. the only people who are writing policy are special interest groups or people that were/are connected to that industry. Its a huge business, you should read about it! but then i guess you are right. but those officials always have ties to business.They write these laws to sound PC but they create the loop holes for themselves. After nice and packaged they hand it over and then 'our' lovely elected officials approve it.

How much regualtion is there then? Obviously its not enough when corporations can pick up and move to some 3rd world country and pay 1.00 a day if there lucky so us fat americans can satisfy are unending need for bargains! Why can these companies have off shore tax haven? Where the fuck is the regualtion on that? If you dont see how much control the business community has on the US governmnet you are a complete idiot. im no anarchist/socialist or whatever bs label there is otu there. this is as plain as day and night. look at our ranking in the world on education, health, schools, hey but what does that matter we have the greatest military.

Well then ultimately wouldn't the solution be to strip government of its power over people so that it is possible for corporations to be regulated at a local/state level.

As far as the off-shore tax havens, that's not a lack of regulation, that is a result of over regulation. And it isn't really a tax haven. The corporations still pay taxes on their domestic profits (well at least most of them.) They just hold money from foreign subsidiaries offshore to prevent it from being taxed, and to also avoid running up against Federal Laws that require any corporation that has more than such and such amount in retained earnings to have a business reason for having such and such amount in retained earnings.

Totally absurd, in the absence of these laws I would imagine that the banking corporations would have been able to save up for the inevitable storm of mortgage failures that they could likely see coming.

The fact that they were incapable of retaining sufficient earnings to prepare for a rainy day and thus end up being given trillions of dollars in bail outs is proof that they are over-regulated.

Though one can only wonder if the government felt guilty about the fact that it was a result of bad regulation (Community Re-Investment Act) and government sponsorship of two of the corporations at the center of the entire mortgage mess (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that lead them to bailing out the banks. After all, had the government allowed the free market to work there would have been no attempts made to force banks to make subprime mortgages, nor would have there been support for local and state governments that allowed groups like ACORN to force banks into making subprime mortgages.

At the root of this mess are good intentions backed by the use of force, which have been proven to pave the road to Hell.

AKRevo47 · May 30, 2009

TheBrutalTruth said:
Well then ultimately wouldn't the solution be to strip government of its power over people so that it is possible for corporations to be regulated at a local/state level.

As far as the off-shore tax havens, that's not a lack of regulation, that is a result of over regulation. And it isn't really a tax haven. The corporations still pay taxes on their domestic profits (well at least most of them.) They just hold money from foreign subsidiaries offshore to prevent it from being taxed, and to also avoid running up against Federal Laws that require any corporation that has more than such and such amount in retained earnings to have a business reason for having such and such amount in retained earnings.

Totally absurd, in the absence of these laws I would imagine that the banking corporations would have been able to save up for the inevitable storm of mortgage failures that they could likely see coming.

The fact that they were incapable of retaining sufficient earnings to prepare for a rainy day and thus end up being given trillions of dollars in bail outs is proof that they are over-regulated.

Though one can only wonder if the government felt guilty about the fact that it was a result of bad regulation (Community Re-Investment Act) and government sponsorship of two of the corporations at the center of the entire mortgage mess (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that lead them to bailing out the banks. After all, had the government allowed the free market to work there would have been no attempts made to force banks to make subprime mortgages, nor would have there been support for local and state governments that allowed groups like ACORN to force banks into making subprime mortgages.

At the root of this mess are good intentions backed by the use of force, which have been proven to pave the road to Hell.

"The fact that they were incapable of retaining sufficient earnings to prepare for a rainy day and thus end up being given trillions of dollars in bail outs is proof that they are over-regulated."

Hmmm, If the govt had regulated a set amount that they HAVE to have for a rainy then this wouldnt have happened. Instead the govt let them run unregulated and now here we are...Is this oppostie world or are you just sounding like bill o reilly?

"As far as the off-shore tax havens, that's not a lack of regulation, that is a result of over regulation"

Hahaha, good one. Let companies fire american workers so they can move overseas and send their money to offshore accounts. Seems like a lot of regualtion going on there

"Well then ultimately wouldn't the solution be to strip government of its power over people so that it is possible for corporations to be regulated at a local/state level."

No, ultimately its to quit treating a corporation like a citizen and rein those fuckers in

TheBrutalTruth · May 30, 2009

AKRevo47 said:
"The fact that they were incapable of retaining sufficient earnings to prepare for a rainy day and thus end up being given trillions of dollars in bail outs is proof that they are over-regulated."

Hmmm, If the govt had regulated a set amount that they HAVE to have for a rainy then this wouldnt have happened. Instead the govt let them run unregulated and now here we are...Is this oppostie world or are you just sounding like bill o reilly?

"As far as the off-shore tax havens, that's not a lack of regulation, that is a result of over regulation"

Hahaha, good one. Let companies fire american workers so they can move overseas and send their money to offshore accounts. Seems like a lot of regualtion going on there

"Well then ultimately wouldn't the solution be to strip government of its power over people so that it is possible for corporations to be regulated at a local/state level."

No, ultimately its to quit treating a corporation like a citizen and rein those fuckers in

I like my idea of getting the government out of our lives better, I can take care of myself, and I think that you are probably able to take care of yourself (and would have an easier time of it if the government wasn't taking part of your income.)

I don't want to run your life, and I don't want you to run my life, and I don't think the corporations really want to run our lives, they just want to be able to sell us stuff (typically stuff that we don't really need, but that's beside the point.) so they can pay their employees to produce the stuff, because with out all the pointless stuff we manufacture and sell there would be no way for any one to actually earn any money (which represents food) and thus everyone but the farmers would starve. So the only entity really interested in running our lives is the government. I don't think it should be allowed to, I have a hard enough time trying make sure I keep my job, I don't need the government giving me additional crap to deal with, like stupid laws that create victimless crimes.

AKRevo47 · May 30, 2009

TheBrutalTruth said:
I like my idea of getting the government out of our lives better, I can take care of myself, and I think that you are probably able to take care of yourself (and would have an easier time of it if the government wasn't taking part of your income.)

I don't want to run your life, and I don't want you to run my life, and I don't think the corporations really want to run our lives, they just want to be able to sell us stuff (typically stuff that we don't really need, but that's beside the point.) so they can pay their employees to produce the stuff, because with out all the pointless stuff we manufacture and sell there would be no way for any one to actually earn any money (which represents food) and thus everyone but the farmers would starve. So the only entity really interested in running our lives is the government. I don't think it should be allowed to, I have a hard enough time trying make sure I keep my job, I don't need the government giving me additional crap to deal with, like stupid laws that create victimless crimes.

Hey i am all about getting them off my back too. Im not saying government should regulate regular citizens rights, if anything they should butt out completely, especially in personal matters. But we do need them, "as bad as they are" because they do protect some time. Comparing ourselves to these industrialized countries, again, we are doing very poorly. The facts are out there. They need to be giving more and taking more from the companies. I think Scandinavian countries have it right.

In the end its not about government running our lives, its about getting power back into the hands of the people. What this country was originally about! We dont need 'richards' making policy that effect millions of peoples of lives and mostly in a negative way. If you think the WTO, IMF, G8 or whatever are good things, id love to know why and what your getting from it besides seeing your local walmart roll back those prices even further! yee haw!

700 million dollar embasy in Packistan???

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member