|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
They don't call Obama the drone king for nothing.
I actually prefer it this way. Don't put US troops in harms way to neutralize/mitigate/eliminate the enemies of the Red White and Blue.
I'd proud to have been part of drone logistical movements in my soon to be ending Air Force career.
Regardless of who takes the political backlash, it is imperative that US maintain the uncontested world military supremacy. Under US leadership there hasn't been a major war (Vietnam wasn't a war, and Korea was more of a show of power/police action) since we became a superpower.
|
On May 22 2013 06:33 Rassy wrote:
Maybe they should just stop taxing corporations completely, it is so complex to plug all holes when corporations are operating in manny different countrys and its to easy for corporations to get anny profit or loss they want by aplying creative accounting.
Make the tax structure alot more simple,maybe instead just raise the sales tax and dont allow for the sale tax to be paid by the public (as is done now) , and/or maybe some other taxes like dividend tax or even the personal income tax wich could be rasied to make up for the coporate tax on profits (corporations should then raise their wages wich they could do since they safed on corporate tax)
the current system is not working at all and only keeping lawyers at work who contribute absolutely nothing towards the real economy..
I'm down for eliminations of corporate tax rates. At least it's honest! Financial gurus wouldn't have to think up new ways to avoid them, and lobbyists wouldn't need to do so much work trying to insert them into legislation. It would also work to remove that conceit that the taxes are really born by a great, impersonal corporation. It's born by people, whether that is the employees with less pay, or the board with less net profits. Trying to stick it to the rich with corporate income tax has always been demagoguery and has led to some of the same behavior criticized.
I doubt very much if you could engineer a program where the sales tax, likewise, is not paid by those purchasing the products. If the company has to pay a tax for every unit sold, that's an additional cost to him that must be factored into his budget. If he wants to keep profits as they are and grow them, it must be recovered somehow (historically at the point of sale from the consumer rather than in terms of increased prices on those items taxed).
I'd very much like an incredibly simple income tax akin to a flat tax to save people time and money completing the numerous forms and not that giant hole sapping productivity by employing a myriad of people merely to comply with the nation's laws. You're right ... a company's money it has available to pay its employees is deeply affected by what portion of its profits it can keep rather than give away. I'm totally against a kind of minimum wage law to that effect (as I hear with the "living wage" proponents), but I'd expect to see rises in average pay in positions for even the biggest corporations should the corporate tax rates sharply decrease or be eliminated.
|
On May 22 2013 06:56 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2013 06:33 Rassy wrote:
Maybe they should just stop taxing corporations at all, it is so complex to plug all holes when corporations are operating in manny different countrys and its to easy for corporations to get anny profit or loss they want by aplying creative accounting.
Make the tax structure alot more simple,maybe instead just raise the sales tax and dont allow for the sale tax to be paid by the public (as is done now) , and maybe some other taxes like dividend tax or even the personal income tax could be rasied to make up for the coporate tax on profits (corporations should then raise their wages wich they could do since they safed on corporate tax)
the current system is not working at all and only keeping lawyers at work who contribute absolutely nothing towards the real economy.. Stopping taxation would be pretty rough for many countries. If they changed company taxation to sales taxation it would effectively change company structures and, dependong on how the new structure would look and the new law would look exactly, it could easily end up as quite a region locking mechanism (who would pay 20% sales tax to try and branch out the company when the effective corporate tax is about the same?). furthermore, there are certain high processing items that would have its prices x-doubled (anything electronic as an example) unless we end up with actual crypt-to-grave companies which is quite a problematic notion to most (ethics, long term and coexistance with other companies are what states are there to protect.).
I actually spent a while thinking about this and the tax you would raise would be the capital gains/dividend taxes.
In the current system, you could simplify it down to businesses doing 2 things with money: Spending it and giving it back to shareholders. In general, spending money on business expenses is tax deductible so taxing profits and taxing the payout of those profits should be the same thing long term.
Given that companies are generally much better at dodging taxes than individuals, this could easily end up revenue positive. The biggest problem that I thought of is that by removing corporate taxes, you can't give tax credits to encourage them to do things that you want them to do. Now while you could just pay them cash, that is harder politically.
Edit: The other downside is individuals wanting to incorporate for tax purposes which may be harder to solve.
|
I think the "1946 Soviet propaganda" thing is more about the tone and moral jab at US foreign policy than a direct reference to anything I said. It's DEB though, so yea.
|
United States42656 Posts
I put some thought into this on the way home. If you didn't mind corporations reinvesting their wealth within the country you could apply 0% corporation tax and then tax dividends based on the earnings of the recipient if they are a resident in the nation the corporation operates in or at a fixed (high) rate if the money is going abroad. Dividends would, for tax purposes, be viewed as no different from any other form of income and the government could take a cut based upon the standard progressive system. You'd have to force the corporation not to give perks to its shareholders without declaring them and giving them an accurate monetary value. You'd also have to tax salaries through the same system to ensure people didn't try use whichever had the lower rate to empty the corporation coffers.
The plus side is that it becomes a tax on income of individuals which keeps it in line with the progressive taxation policies of society and also makes it a concern of the shareholders individually rather than of the corporation. People are far easier to tax than corporations. It's also quite a simple policy, if your earnings put you in a 40% bracket and you get 5k dividend then the government takes 2k from it and the remaining 3k is yours. The same principle would apply for any other system of taking money out of the corporation to the owners for those not operating a shareholder dividend model.
The down side is that it becomes possible for a corporation to pay no tax, either by accumulating liquid assets or reinvesting it. Presumably a long term strategy of reinvesting all profits and never rewarding the owners in any way would not happen because the owners would want to see a return but in the short term it's possible. Likewise is a company had a dozen great years, reinvested all the proceeds and then was run into the ground you'd have missed out on taxing the profits from those good years.
Going after the corporation for money is difficult because it's a big rich entity that often operates across multiple nations and feels no social obligation or pressure from the state. But corporations struggle to spend their profits (they can invest but that just brings them right back to square 1), they don't have families to feed or mortgages to pay, it doesn't really matter if a corporation acquires a big number in their bank account because as long as you distinguish between corporate funds and personal funds nobody can actually spend that. Sooner or later a human is going to want that money and humans are much easier to tax.
|
On May 22 2013 07:49 KwarK wrote:
The down side is that it becomes possible for a corporation to pay no tax, either by accumulating liquid assets or reinvesting it. Presumably a long term strategy of reinvesting all profits and never rewarding the owners in any way would not happen because the owners would want to see a return but in the short term it's possible. Likewise is a company had a dozen great years, reinvested all the proceeds and then was run into the ground you'd have missed out on taxing the profits from those good years.
The biggest thing that would prevent this is that by eliminating the corporate tax, you align the government's interests with those of the shareholders. A company like apple could try to just stockpile a lot of money, but eventually the shareholders would want some of it and the company could be forced to pay a dividend. You could also tax liquid assets over some very large amount (50 Billion or more) to prevent abuses.
I would also just go with a flat 35%-40% tax on dividends/capitol gains no matter the income bracket. It is still lower than the combined corporate+individual rates right now, and could help simplify things. If this was going to work your 401k (and everyone getting paid in dividends) would need to pay taxes on the dividends or else I don't see it being revenue neutral.
|
United States42656 Posts
On May 22 2013 08:31 DeltaX wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2013 07:49 KwarK wrote:
The down side is that it becomes possible for a corporation to pay no tax, either by accumulating liquid assets or reinvesting it. Presumably a long term strategy of reinvesting all profits and never rewarding the owners in any way would not happen because the owners would want to see a return but in the short term it's possible. Likewise is a company had a dozen great years, reinvested all the proceeds and then was run into the ground you'd have missed out on taxing the profits from those good years. The biggest thing that would prevent this is that by eliminating the corporate tax, you align the government's interests with those of the shareholders. A company like apple could try to just stockpile a lot of money, but eventually the shareholders would want some of it and the company could be forced to pay a dividend. You could also tax liquid assets over some very large amount (50 Billion or more) to prevent abuses. I would also just go with a flat 35%-40% tax on dividends/capitol gains no matter the income bracket. It is still lower than the combined corporate+individual rates right now, and could help simplify things. If this was going to work your 401k (and everyone getting paid in dividends) would need to pay taxes on the dividends or else I don't see it being revenue neutral.
Flat rate on capital gains will firstly mean that corporations can offer people who would normally pay more than the flat rate in tax shares/dividends etc rather than a salary as a tax scam. Furthermore it continues the distinction between income from investments and income from a regular salary which is part of the problem that leads to the Buffet situation, income is income and a separate tax rate just for the primary source of income for the rich is pretty bullshit.
Two rates is more complicated than one, even if one of them is a flat rate. With a single progressive system you can just put in your overall income amount from all sources and calculate what you owe.
|
WASHINGTON -- The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the bipartisan "gang of eight" immigration bill on Tuesday in a 13 to 5 vote after a marathon final day of markup that stretched into the evening.
All Democrats on the committee, along with Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and "gang of eight" Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), voted in favor of the bill, which will now go to the Senate floor. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who voted against the bill out of committee, said he would support allowing it to move forward for debate -- rather than joining a filibuster -- once on the Senate floor. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who was also a "no" vote, said if it had been between his vote and moving the bill to the Senate floor, he would have voted in favor.
The crowd in the room erupted into applause when the final vote tally was read, rising to their feet and chanting "Yes we can!" then "Si se puede!"
Democrats seemed equally pleased to vote the bill out of committee.
Source
|
|
|
Lol that is an interesting development, unfortunatly i absolutely hate zero hedge website and never take annything serious wich is said there. (its basicly the equivalent of fox news for financial websites)
Inflation is seen in manny mmorpgs btw and there are some similarities with the real world.
Inflation is mostly seen in discontinued and rare items, items wich have a limited suply. It is not so much seen in items wich are easily to obtain, for example items wich are gathered by bots often operated from asia.
The similarites with the real world are kinda funny, cheap production of junk items in asia is keeping inflation away in america and europe, where on the other hand rare items like gold ,(not realy rare as there is tons of gold in the ground) art (this is truly rare though new art is made every day and only old art can suffer from hyper inflation) and houses (also not realy rare but at least temporarely rare and slow to increase) have the potential to suffer from hyper inflation.
Governments make use of this verry cleaverly to just exclude the items wich might suffer from hyper inflation in their inflation statistics.
As interesting as this all is this is not realy the thread for it i think and maybe you can make a seperate thread for this and add a few comments/opinnions of yourself ?
|
It is exceedingly rare for me to agree with Austrian economists. Yet I agree with 99% of this article. But the last 3 paragraphs is where it goes wrong: it criticizes central bankers IRL and ends saying that D3 is a great game (it's not).
Of course, everyone could see this happen from a mile away. I had harshly criticized the game for it's flawed economy and inevitable hyperinflation long ago. Just as people QQed about repaired costs when the game launched, yet it was obvious that the amount of gold sinks in the game were light years away from adequate, but still Blizzard caved in to the QQ.
I completely agree that the price caps on gold is just stupid. It's basic economics that price caps are horrible, creating incentives to get around them via 3rd party sites.
The game isn't even a real game, it's a stock trading simulator. The only part of the game that matter is the RMAH. It's about making real money, not about playing for fun.
|
On May 22 2013 07:18 SayGen wrote:
They don't call Obama the drone king for nothing.
I actually prefer it this way. Don't put US troops in harms way to neutralize/mitigate/eliminate the enemies of the Red White and Blue.
I'd proud to have been part of drone logistical movements in my soon to be ending Air Force career.
Regardless of who takes the political backlash, it is imperative that US maintain the uncontested world military supremacy. Under US leadership there hasn't been a major war (Vietnam wasn't a war, and Korea was more of a show of power/police action) since we became a superpower.
I don't know, I guess I'd consider the Iraq/Iran war a pretty big one...
|
On May 22 2013 07:18 SayGen wrote:
They don't call Obama the drone king for nothing.
I actually prefer it this way. Don't put US troops in harms way to neutralize/mitigate/eliminate the enemies of the Red White and Blue.
I'd proud to have been part of drone logistical movements in my soon to be ending Air Force career.
Regardless of who takes the political backlash, it is imperative that US maintain the uncontested world military supremacy. Under US leadership there hasn't been a major war (Vietnam wasn't a war, and Korea was more of a show of power/police action) since we became a superpower.
Vietnam wasn't a war?
And when you say Korea was more of a show of power/police action, do you mean the Korean war?
If so, that's honestly one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard....
|
On May 22 2013 07:18 SayGen wrote:
Under US leadership there hasn't been a major war (Vietnam wasn't a war, and Korea was more of a show of power/police action) since we became a superpower.
The Vietnam War was a war, and so was the Korean war. Truman calling it a "police action" in 1950 doesn't make it any less of a war.
|
On May 22 2013 07:18 SayGen wrote:
They don't call Obama the drone king for nothing.
I actually prefer it this way. Don't put US troops in harms way to neutralize/mitigate/eliminate the enemies of the Red White and Blue.
I'd proud to have been part of drone logistical movements in my soon to be ending Air Force career.
Regardless of who takes the political backlash, it is imperative that US maintain the uncontested world military supremacy. Under US leadership there hasn't been a major war (Vietnam wasn't a war, and Korea was more of a show of power/police action) since we became a superpower.
There has not been a major war, because major war requires major powers to participate. And major powers have nukes. It has nothing to do with US supremacy or whatever you like to tell yourself.
|
http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN3/
Shulman is getting fucking grilled.
Like beyond fucking grilled. This Representative from Ohio just made him completely freeze up.
They're making this guy and the entire IRS either have to be just pathetically incompetent or total liars.
|
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Wednesday defended his objection to initiating House-Senate budget negotiations unless Democrats take a debt limit increase off the table, saying he doesn't trust his party to hold the line.
"The senior senator from Arizona urged this body to trust the Republicans. Let me be clear, I don't trust the Republicans," Cruz said. "And I don't trust the Democrats."
On Tuesday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) scolded Republicans for blocking negotiations. He was backed by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME).
"Unfortunately," Cruz said, "one of the reasons we got into this mess is because a lot of Republicans were complicit in this spending spree and that's why so many Americans are disgusted with both sides of this house. ... And every Republican who stands against holding the line here is really saying, let's give the Democrats a blank check to borrow any money they want with no reforms, no leadership to fix the problem."
Source
|
On May 22 2013 19:47 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2013 07:18 SayGen wrote:
They don't call Obama the drone king for nothing.
I actually prefer it this way. Don't put US troops in harms way to neutralize/mitigate/eliminate the enemies of the Red White and Blue.
I'd proud to have been part of drone logistical movements in my soon to be ending Air Force career.
Regardless of who takes the political backlash, it is imperative that US maintain the uncontested world military supremacy. Under US leadership there hasn't been a major war (Vietnam wasn't a war, and Korea was more of a show of power/police action) since we became a superpower. I don't know, I guess I'd consider the Iraq/Iran war a pretty big one...
It's funny you mention Iran-Iraq with the U.S indirectly/directly involved with shaping the political face of both countries at the time of the conflict. It's a great comment. Double-Sarcasm :D
On a different topic. Anyone else hearing about additional whistleblowers on Benghazi? I thought the Hillary 'vagina' comment was pretty ridiculous at first, but if there is any validity to the State Dept selling AQ stingers during Libya and sending Stephens to buy em back resulting in his death. Shit. Watergate references would fade as Iran Contra part Deux takes hold. Not to mention material support for terrorism ect. Hilary would finished.
Edit: Curiosity overtook and I reviewed what the guy had to say.
|
And as a side note, if you want to respond to me and only me, don't quote me in a forum, just pm me.
That's ridiculous and the answer is no.
Just to clarify DeepElmBlues, when you said you were referring to the first part of the post as being from Cold War propaganda from 1946 you mean the bit about the 1960s? Because the post you quoted to respond to read as follows
Stop embarrassing yourself with self-serving lack of reading comprehension KwarK.
Now there are two things being referred to here. The first is what the CIA have done since the 60s, the second is the Iraq war. I suggested that it is ridiculous to imply that 1946 Soviet propaganda was referencing the Iraq war because the Iraq war happened some time after 1946. Your response to this appears to be that you didn't mean that the criticism of the Iraq war was regurgitating 1946 Soviet critiques (which would be absurd because the Iraq war happened after 1946) but rather the first part of the post, CIA intervention in and since the 60s, was a regurgitation of 1946 Soviet critiques. Unfortunately for your argument the 60s were also after 1946 and I sincerely doubt that any propaganda document written in 1946 construes a meaningful critique of events in the future. So unfortunately your defence of the "you're just repeating 1946 Soviet propaganda" claim still fails to explain how his critique of things that happened after 1946 is from 1946 as every part of his quote references events from after 1946, in the case of the 60s at least 14 years later.
Wow that's a lot of words to say something very ignorant of history.
KwarK, if you were actually well-read regarding NKVD and later KBG agitprop, you would already know that you could read a pamphlet from 1926, 1929, 1937, 1946, or 1967 and they would all be remarkably similar. Yes, an agitprop document in 1946 had a "meaningful" critique (a bad choice of words, but we'll leave it be) of future events because the critique was ideologically-determined, not fact-determined. The capitalists are coming to [country here] to ally with domestic plutocrat fifth columnists to either overthrow socialism and re-institute plutocracy or to prevent revolution by crushing the proletariat, just as they are doing in their own countries. The only thing that changed were the names.
Furthermore, my confusion as to which part of the quote which you selectively chose from his text you were referring to would be perhaps avoided if you narrowed it down to the bit you were actually referring to. When you copy a fragment of text in isolation to respond to the assumption that you were responding to that bit of text is normally a given. Given you chose to quote that fragment and respond to it in isolation I find it much more compelling that you genuinely did mean it as you presented it, that the critique of the Iraq war is based on 1946 Soviet propaganda. Obviously this is a silly argument which is why I called you out on it which is why you then retracted it for another argument which somehow made the exact same chronological mistake.
I didn't quote a fragment of text, I quoted the whole text. You're still bitching because I didn't quote or respond to you! Get over it Kwark. I already acknowledged your point re: being more clear in a single sentence yet for some reason I'm reading a wall of text about it. I guess I'm just better at being concise than you as well. I never retracted my argument either, I had to explain to you where and when my argument began and ended because you are the king of the strawman.
How about you actually read my posts Kwark and then respond to them instead of what you made up in your head that I wrote, try that for once.
Now that we're done with the (il)literacy short preceding today's film, let's get back to actual US politics:
The claim that the IRS scandal was limited to rogue low-level employees is "falling apart."
"Insiders" say special prosecutor is inevitable in IRS scandal.
IRS official Lois Lerner, head of the Tax-Exempt division: I will answer no questions. I have done nothing wrong. I have committed no crime. I plead the Fifth.
What a fun day for asfhashafh's rather impressive-looking molehills.
|
United States42656 Posts
I'm going to explain this slowly and carefully for you because you seem to not be understanding.
Okay, firstly my issue with this.
+ Show Spoiler +On May 22 2013 04:36 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 21:46 aksfjh wrote:
And boo-fucking-hoo about him being in jail because of a campaign pursued by the executive branch. You must have missed what the CIA has been doing since the 1960s. Our country has likely caused genocide in some cases, and we have thrown an entire country into war within the past decade. I'm certain journalists have been shot and killed with all the crap going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. God the never-ending regurgitation of stale NKVD agitprop never ends does it asgshsdh? Put down books written by Russians in 1946 please.
In this you dismiss his point as being the meaningless because it was an idea implanted in his head by other people for a reason and not the result of his own intellectual efforts. It's basically an equivalent of saying
+ Show Spoiler +Your point about Avatar basically having the same plot as Dances With Wolves was already made by South Park so nobody cares and you can shut up
Assholeish, but not necessarily wrong.
However given that what you are referring to is
A) what the CIA has been doing since the 1960s
and (seeing as you included both)
B) thrown an entire country into war within the past decade
then what you said is pretty much the same as going
+ Show Spoiler +Your point about the antagonist in Star Trek into Darkness being undeveloped was already made in the South Park episode Dances with Smurfs (November 11, 2009)
Not only is at an assholeish dismissal of his point as meaningless, it also makes some obvious mistakes such as referring to something completely different and being logically impossible.
So that is why I felt the need to call you out on it. Because you were being dismissive (and also a massive cockbag) towards another forum poster for literally no reason other than because you ideologically disagreed with him and couldn't or wouldn't actually address what he was saying. That gets us to this bit
On May 22 2013 05:26 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Please, don't ever again try to dissect what I write like this; it is embarrassing. I know precisely what he was referencing. I was replying to the first half of his post, regarding genocide and the CIA.
In which you claim that when you reduced this post
+ Show Spoiler [full post] +On May 21 2013 21:46 aksfjh wrote:
What are the biggest obstacles in trying a journalist in America? Citizenship, proving guilt, and American public opinion. This guy has none of these. He wasn't even working for a big syndicated news organization (like Al-Jazeera). Yemen is the country with the initial beef with him, and while they had him captive and tried, Obama took the "safe" route to ask to keep him locked up.
And boo-fucking-hoo about him being in jail because of a campaign pursued by the executive branch. You must have missed what the CIA has been doing since the 1960s. Our country has likely caused genocide in some cases, and we have thrown an entire country into war within the past decade. I'm certain journalists have been shot and killed with all the crap going on in Iraq and Afghanistan.
To clarify, Obama is most likely responsible for him STAYING in jail, but he didn't put him there.
to this post
+ Show Spoiler [fragment you used] +On May 22 2013 04:36 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 21:46 aksfjh wrote:
And boo-fucking-hoo about him being in jail because of a campaign pursued by the executive branch. You must have missed what the CIA has been doing since the 1960s. Our country has likely caused genocide in some cases, and we have thrown an entire country into war within the past decade. I'm certain journalists have been shot and killed with all the crap going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. God the never-ending regurgitation of stale NKVD agitprop never ends does it asgshsdh? Put down books written by Russians in 1946 please.
the bit you were referring to was actually
+ Show Spoiler [this one sentence] +On May 22 2013 04:36 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 21:46 aksfjh wrote:
And boo-fucking-hoo about him being in jail because of a campaign pursued by the executive branch. You must have missed what the CIA has been doing since the 1960s. God the never-ending regurgitation of stale NKVD agitprop never ends does it asgshsdh? Put down books written by Russians in 1946 please.
Now, oddly enough, as I explained, this sentence also describes something which happened after 1946 so, as I explained, you are still making the same mistake you would make if you made the equally stupid dismissal
+ Show Spoiler +Your point about the final Twilight movie being a heap of shit was already made in the South Park episode Dances with Smurfs (November 11, 2009)
Now, your most recent rebuttal has two strands. The first is an interesting one. In this fragment here
On May 23 2013 04:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:
I didn't quote a fragment of text, I quoted the whole text.
you claim that this
+ Show Spoiler [full post] +On May 21 2013 21:46 aksfjh wrote:
What are the biggest obstacles in trying a journalist in America? Citizenship, proving guilt, and American public opinion. This guy has none of these. He wasn't even working for a big syndicated news organization (like Al-Jazeera). Yemen is the country with the initial beef with him, and while they had him captive and tried, Obama took the "safe" route to ask to keep him locked up.
And boo-fucking-hoo about him being in jail because of a campaign pursued by the executive branch. You must have missed what the CIA has been doing since the 1960s. Our country has likely caused genocide in some cases, and we have thrown an entire country into war within the past decade. I'm certain journalists have been shot and killed with all the crap going on in Iraq and Afghanistan.
To clarify, Obama is most likely responsible for him STAYING in jail, but he didn't put him there.
is the same as this
+ Show Spoiler [fragment you used] +On May 22 2013 04:36 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 21:46 aksfjh wrote:
And boo-fucking-hoo about him being in jail because of a campaign pursued by the executive branch. You must have missed what the CIA has been doing since the 1960s. Our country has likely caused genocide in some cases, and we have thrown an entire country into war within the past decade. I'm certain journalists have been shot and killed with all the crap going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. God the never-ending regurgitation of stale NKVD agitprop never ends does it asgshsdh? Put down books written by Russians in 1946 please.
Now, this is what we call a lie. In other news, are you literally fucking delusional? I mean really?
In the second strand you claim that Soviet propaganda regarding the US has always been uniform through history and therefore given that there was relevant propaganda regarding the CIA activities since the 60s then, as it has always been the same, anything written at any time by the Soviets must be relevant to CIA activities since the 60s. On May 23 2013 04:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:
KwarK, if you were actually well-read regarding NKVD and later KBG agitprop, you would already know that you could read a pamphlet from 1926, 1929, 1937, 1946, or 1967 and they would all be remarkably similar.
After all, your original point was that his critique of CIA activies since the 60s wasn't actually a real point produced by intellectual labour but instead just the parroting of propaganda made by the Soviets in 1946. When I pointed out that 1946 propaganda was probably not relevant to CIA activies since the 60s you claimed the Soviet propaganda was a constant and happened to come into relevance since the 60s.
For this to be true then you would need a pamplet in 1926 (your date, not mine) to be complaining about US imperialism and oppression in South America. Now, 1926 was pretty much at the height of American isolationism, the US wasn't in the League of Nations, held no mandates and maintained a strict non interventionist policy globally. So, either in 1926 the Soviets were bitching about CIA intervention globally (note the CIA was founded on September 18, 1947) or in 1967 the Soviets were bitching about US isolationism. Pick your truth.
Again, this is your case. That although you dismissed his criticism as just regurgitating propaganda that couldn't possibly refer to the events in question because the events in question happened after the propaganda you claim he was regurgitating that actually doesn't matter because the propaganda applies equally across all dates from 1926 to 1967 and also forms the heart of his criticism of the CIA, even in the 21 years before the CIA was founded.
You are full of shit. Seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
