How they silence the opposition

7 posts / 0 new
Last post
pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
How they silence the opposition

I often wondered why, when they deflect opposition to their premise, you are unable to engage Progressives in debate. This week I found out how. Previously I have been able to engage people like John McDonald on issues but as soon as I try to explain why the issue is even relevant or controversial they, like good politicians deflect or change the subject.

Yesterday, I called the talk show that comes on after McDonald and when I said what I wanted to talk about, the ridiculous premise of the host, the screener hung up. The issue was Rex Tillerson's opinion that we may have to take preemptive military action against North Korea.

We are in Korea to protect the South Koreans. North Korea, like the Sunnis (ISIS) in Syria and the Shiites in Iran are not a threat to the United States and never will be. Wars are fought over land and to win you must annihilate the opposition that holds it and as far as we know, the Iranians and ISIS are not building any landing craft to attack us or anyone else and neither are the Russians or Chinese. We are the only ones and according to our politicians we want to live in peace and not make war on anyone and anytime we did, except for the native American Indians, we were never after the land we were fighting on.

As I have said on many occasions, the United States government must protect the military, in particular its supplier, and to do that it must create mayhem or perpetuate it somewhere else, otherwise several million workers will be out of a job and create a tremendous welfare burden on the remainder. There was never a threat from Russia, even after the end of WWII when they were at their weakest and we allowed Stalin to subjugate millions behind his Iron Curtain. Did Russian money rebuild any of the nations that were scorched during the war. No. I was in East Berlin in the mid-1970s and it was as if the war ended just the day before. Buildings still showed pock marks from rifle and artillery fire and people were escaping to the west as fast as they could get out.

We should have seen it and most people did when we ended the Korean War in a stalemate and we actually lost in Viet Nam and our military had the lowest reputation in history and the returning vets were actually demeaned. A new threat had to be created to rebuild the image, but primarily to protect the industry and its profits that help politicians get reelected. Why not the Soviet Union and start a cold war no one was ever going to fight but develop more weaponry that would never be used.

Being the richest country in the World it was inevitable that a leader in Russia would see what he was doing to his country and put a stop to it. Enter Gorbachov and couple it with Reagan who also saw its futility and the military industry had to conjure yet another demon to justify its existence.

The strategy now is not to win, because if you win, the wars will stop or abate to where they are fought not with aircraft carriers and submarines that cost billions of dollars but with small arms that is all the subjugated can afford. That will never end so long as a portion of the people are being oppressed by their own government. That however doesn't generate money for the builders of fighter planes and bombers, aircraft carriers and submarines.

Looking at it from a different perspective we have lost about 4000 dead and perhaps another 2000 wounded or suffering mental distress from having to fight in constant fear of death or injury because they have to play by a different set of rules than the opposition. In the course of these 10 years or so we have been engaged in the Middle East the nation has spent over $5 trillion dollars in sending these casualties into battle. At the same time we may have killed or wounded a like number but in the process created millions of refugees that the opposition is happy to be rid of. Even if the number is 20,000 on both sides, that is $250,000,000 each.

Every Mexican or Latino that enters this country illegally is actually a refugee from the land from which he came. Mexico should be pleased that we have gladly welcomed, now counting well over 20 million that its government could not support. Take a look at the population growth of Mexico over the past 50 years and then the previous 50 and you can estimate pretty closely where the projected increase went. And we want more of it. I say we because the government needs them and we are supposed to be the government.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 23 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
If only the rest of us had

If only the rest of us had your way with others, such as radio talk show screeners, imagine how much we could contribute to the common good.

And we could eliminate the cost of law enforcement, because as we all know, police cause crime. Just like, as another AMG'er used to say, flies cause garbage.

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
You do but only as much as

You do but only as much as THEY will let you. You are one of THEM and there are so few of us and our number is dwindling until their will be no more of us and when we are reduced to begging in the streets you will sweep us up and take you into your fold or just let us die.

I ask again. What part of my hypothesis is wrong?

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 23 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
For starters, the premise

For starters, the premise that we wouldn't fund national defense if not for the dreaded MIC.

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
I didn't say we would not

I didn't say we would not fund national defense. If you read anything about the debates over the Constitution the limitation imposed on a national defense force was an appropriation of two years, that coincided with the term of the House of Representatives so that one could bind spending to two years only. From identification of "NEED", it takes nearly 8 years to produce an aircraft carrier that hasn't prevented the invasion of one of Latin American let alone the millions who come here and never return. The reason as so aptly stated by nearly all of the framers was a fear of a force so large it could work its will on the people it was supposed to protect. The States had their militias that could be called upon to defend their own citizens and then be assembled to repel an invasion force that one State could not handle on its own.

Machiavelli predicted what would happen to the Prince should he protect himself with mercenaries and the framers followed the lead of the their English predecessors when they took this power from the King with the Magna Carta.

As the country expanded it was a permanent military force that was called upon and established to invade Indian territory until by the late 1890s this was no longer necessary. When the Latin American countries wanted their independence from Spain and Portugal in the early 1800s it was James Monroe who, with only a threat of retaliation, got Spain and Portugal to cede their claims. They were more than willing because once they had milked them of their gold they became a burden anyway. It is the reason the British crown let the colonists take away the United States. The only gold we had at the time was in North Carolina and it wasn't discovered until the 1790s and was a pittance then.

We are all victims of the system because it is all we have known and been taught. It is only when you stop and ask yourself why, will you recognize it is a system that has failed, time and time again. Yet, we keep repeating it because we have lost the ability to think for ourselves and let others trapped in the system think for us. I've shaken off the mind control but it does me no good because I am one of a few and can do nothing about it except to try and convince people the system is doomed to fail and try to tell them why and how to fix it for their posterity. We've all been had, some more than others and its not reassuring to know how they did it and that you can't stop it.

The irony is that the beggar in the street doesn't know that if he needs anything and no one will give it to him all he has to do is commit a crime and government will see to it he gets a roof over his head, clothes on his back, food in his belly and medical care when he needs it. They will even train you to do a job that no one will hire you for so you will either have to return to begging or commit another crime. There is something wrong with that kind of system but we bury our heads in the sand and do nothing to fix it because too many benefit from it. The problem is the system is not sustainable and the civil wars going on in increasing numbers is living proof that cannot be denied.

taxfoe
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 14 min ago
Joined: 03/22/2000 - 1:01am
How they silence the

How they silence the opposition; Part 2 . .

Anne Frank Center Blasts Tim Allen for ‘Deeply Offensive’ Nazi Germany Comment: ‘Have You Lost Your Mind?’

SOURCE

. . . after he compared life for Hollywood conservatives to living in "'30s Germany."

On "Jimmy Kimmel Live" Friday, Allen told Kimmel that being a Republican in Hollywood today is "like 1930s Germany. You gotta be real careful around here, you know. You'll get beat up if you don't believe what everybody believes."
________________________________________________________________

Another news outlet reported Allen's comments, minus the ensuing outrage that had escaped me. I heard 'Gestapo vs it's own citizens'.

Others heard 'Nazis and lost minds', apparently, and MSN crafted a story and a headline just for them.

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 15 min ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
Godwin's law, Tim

Godwin's law, Tim

Log in to post comments