Jump to content

Colin Powell has died from covid complications


gummy
 Share

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

But if we look at our own role in these matters, what about our own media bias? The problem with our own media bias, is that we tend to listen to only the media that agrees with us. They will tell us what we want to hear, and thus we are faced with the curse of populism. And why is it so difficult to believe who is telling the truth when we hear something on the media. I'd suggest the answer is because we never learned Civics.

I agree with your observations about how we are all listening to what we want to hear from the media.  I will add to that by pointing out that it was in the 1980s that the media started to 'take sides'. At first it was certain media journalists and presenters and shows. Now it has evolved into whole media outlets - CNN versus Fox.  The deliberate taking of sides by the media has resulted in people also taking sides on many issues in an ongoing basis. People are being forced by the media to decide between left or right over mundane issues on a daily basis, and it is not easy to view each and every issue separately.  The end result of decades of that, including in the education system, is that many people are polarised in their political views. People have become so polarised that they will ignore obvious things that might 'force' them to agree with someone of the opposing view about any mundane daily issue.

The media loves it of course - they can fire up their base and generate 'activity' by pandering to the polarised views of their 'preferred audience'. The media no longer needs wars or elections to generate huge public activity - they can do it almost every day for whatever issue of the day they think will fire things up. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AussieBob said:

I agree with your observations about how we are all listening to what we want to hear from the media.  I will add to that by pointing out that it was in the 1980s that the media started to 'take sides'. At first it was certain media journalists and presenters and shows. Now it has evolved into whole media outlets - CNN versus Fox.  The deliberate taking of sides by the media has resulted in people also taking sides on many issues in an ongoing basis. People are being forced by the media to decide between left or right over mundane issues on a daily basis, and it is not easy to view each and every issue separately.  The end result of decades of that, including in the education system, is that many people are polarised in their political views. People have become so polarised that they will ignore obvious things that might 'force' them to agree with someone of the opposing view about any mundane daily issue.

The media loves it of course - they can fire up their base and generate 'activity' by pandering to the polarised views of their 'preferred audience'. The media no longer needs wars or elections to generate huge public activity - they can do it almost every day for whatever issue of the day they think will fire things up. 

That's a sad but true reflection of the current state of affairs. 

I noticed your brief reference to the education system. Relying on your comment about "CNN versus Fox", it occurs to me that if they both cover a story, and one says that a proposal by the gov of the day will be great for the US, and other says it will be a disaster, they can't both be right. In fact, the likelihood is that at least one of them is lying. But why is one half of the country unable to discern the lie. Lack of Civics classes maybe?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JohninDubin said:

That's a sad but true reflection of the current state of affairs. 

I noticed your brief reference to the education system. Relying on your comment about "CNN versus Fox", it occurs to me that if they both cover a story, and one says that a proposal by the gov of the day will be great for the US, and other says it will be a disaster, they can't both be right. In fact, the likelihood is that at least one of them is lying. But why is one half of the country unable to discern the lie. Lack of Civics classes maybe?

Exactly - the education system is often biased itself with many teachers 'preaching' their own beliefs (both sides do it), and they dont teach kids how to analyse and question what is being said in the media.  The ability to impartially reason and rationalise, has been removed in favour of diversity and inclusiveness. IMO politics should be banned in schools - all schools - because all people are biased, and teachers included. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, JohninDubin said:

I would say that this is your subjective opinion on the matter. After the way that Powell was misused to justify Iraq II, and the way that Bush's ignoring the warnings about the derivatives market caused the greatest disruption to the economy since the 1930's, I can see why he might become disillusioned with the GOP.

As you said, everyone is entitled to view the events and draw their own conclusion.  Mr. Powell knew and had good reason to do doubt the "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction.  Yet he went along with it.  Why?  Because it benefited his career.  Which is exactly what I accused him of.  Being an opportunist.  

As to Bush, and the derivatives.  Yes I fault Bush as well for doing nothing.  However lets not forget how those derivatives came into being.  The Democrats pushed for relaxed underwriting standards for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac so that "everyone could own a home"  To raise that money those agencies issued bonds which the marketplace resold into packaged Mortgage Back Securities.  Had the Democrats not pushed for the lowering of the standards to obtain a government backed loan there would never have been a financial meltdown. 

See Barney Frank and Maxine Waters defend Freddie Mac when the Republicans tried to warn of the dangers of lowering those standards.  Notice each congressman who defended the practices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was a Democrat and each person calling for regulation was a Republican.  The end of the video shows Bill Clinton himself blaming the Democrats for resisting the regulation even he tried as president to put on the loan practices. 
 


 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

As you said, everyone is entitled to view the events and draw their own conclusion.  Mr. Powell knew and had good reason to do doubt the "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction.  Yet he went along with it.  Why?  Because it benefited his career.  Which is exactly what I accused him of.  Being an opportunist.  

As to Bush, and the derivatives.  Yes I fault Bush as well for doing nothing.  However lets not forget how those derivatives came into being.  The Democrats pushed for relaxed underwriting standards for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac so that "everyone could own a home"  To raise that money those agencies issued bonds which the marketplace resold into packaged Mortgage Back Securities.  Had the Democrats not pushed for the lowering of the standards to obtain a government backed loan there would never have been a financial meltdown. 

See Barney Frank and Maxine Waters defend Freddie Mac when the Republicans tried to warn of the dangers of lowering those standards.  Notice each congressman who defended the practices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was a Democrat and each person calling for regulation was a Republican.  The end of the video shows Bill Clinton himself blaming the Democrats for resisting the regulation even he tried as president to put on the loan practices. 
 


 

Absolutely correct except for one thing.  The Democrats didnt support it so that everyone could own a home, they did it so that their main base could own a home - which was and still is Blacks and Hispanics. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RIP Colin Powell.

Lots of comments about politics, racism and ageism but a statesman has passed away. May his spirit find happiness to wherever his beliefs lead him. For or against but he was in a tough position and did his best.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Marc26 said:

Why can't you have a bit of both ideologies?

You certainly can.  However when a person represents themselves as a conservative so as to gain personally,  that person is not a "stand up" person but rather a charlatan who masquerades as someone who they are not.  If Mr. Powell was truly an ideological liberal that is fine.  He should then if he was a man of his principles would proudly wear that banner and not be someone who endeared himself to Republican leaders to further his career and then use that position to stab them in the back. 

I do not agree with Bernie Sanders on virtually anything.  However I do commend him for not backing down and he proudly labels himself what he is "A Socialist"   Too many try to conceal their real ideology by softening it using the term "progressive"  

Since Mr. Powell had ideologies that were contrary to the Republican Party he should have never joined it, nor should he have accepted a position representing a Republican President.  However, no, he wanted the power and prestige of being Secretary of State. 

A man of principles would have not done so.  He was not used but was rather complicit.  

Edited by longwood50
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, AussieBob said:

Absolutely correct except for one thing.  The Democrats didnt support it so that everyone could own a home, they did it so that their main base could own a home - which was and still is Blacks and Hispanics. 

Yes that is also true.  The Democrats feign to be for the Blacks and Hispanics to garner favor.  However the truth is that if they really wanted them to be successful they would adopt policies that fostered them to rise from the bottom of the socio economic ladder.  That however they recognize would actually injure them since once they became taxpayers rather than live off the public trough they would no longer be dependent on the Democrats for handouts.  Lyndon Johnson was the chief architect of this strategy when he started the "Great Society"  He created a permanent underclass dependent on the handouts of the federal government which created the black/hispanic voting bloc.

image.png.b37c2d9f9094b97e8c0afa9b4d30af0d.png
 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AussieBob said:

Exactly - the education system is often biased itself with many teachers 'preaching' their own beliefs (both sides do it), and they dont teach kids how to analyse and question what is being said in the media.  The ability to impartially reason and rationalise, has been removed in favour of diversity and inclusiveness. IMO politics should be banned in schools - all schools - because all people are biased, and teachers included. 

Two problems with that. The first is how do you solve the problem if you don't teach these things? The second is that I am pretty sure that any time, I mention about teaching these things in school, someone is going to suggest that biased teachers will be a problem. 

You appear to be conflicted regarding the first of these. You agree with me, that lack of education is at fault, but then you don't want to see Politics being taught in schools. Your remedy makes the solution appear insurmountable. That's just an observation and not a criticism.

Regarding the other part, I don't see that the role of these teachers will be anything other than to teach the kids how Gov, and to teach them how to do their own due diligence. The first part of the lesson would be teaching them about the administration of gov. The second would be to take a current news item where party's are accusing the other of lying. You let the kids decide what issue they want to discuss. You start out  by taking a poll seeing who believes what. Discuss the matter, and then you set the kids the task of doing their own researches using the Internet. The next week, you see how many have changed their original opinions.

So as an example, Bojo travels around on a bus suggesting that if the UK leaves the EU, it can afford to give the NHS an extra £350 Mill a week. So you get the kids to study the wording. It doesn't say they will give the NHS that money, only that they might. How many people actually thought they would? But then they also need to see how much money the UK actually gives the EU.

I believe that by the time kids have done this a few times, they will get the message that we can or can't trust politicians or the media, and their own researches will become habitual.

Another example related to Brexit. "The reason you are unemployed is because foreigners are taking your jobs, and if they were all repatriated, we would all be better off". So the kids are asked to find out how how many migrants there are, and how many unemployed there are? On the face of it, with 3 mill migrants and 1.5 mill unemployed, the original argument appears to make sense. That is until you work out that that even if you can get that UK unemployed to take those vacated jobs, you now have a labour work force that has 1.5 mill vacancies. And then of course, there is the problem that if the UK repatriate all the EU migrant workers, might not the EU retaliate in kind on UK migrant workers?

But as the thread is about Colin Powell, let's apply this to the US. How many people in the US knew about the demographics of Iraq? I was opposed to the war, not because I was sympathetic to Saddam etc, though I think the evidence is now clear, that removing him was the major contributor to the origins of ISIS, but because of the demographics.

There are three major groups in Iraq: Kurds, Sunni and Shia. The first are mainly located in the north in the area of the Turkish border. Their aspirations are for a homeland, and the Turks with a sustained history of persecuting Kurds will not consent to this. They were also persecuted by Saddam for the same reason. In the middle of the country, there are the Sunni. Though they were not the largest group, they had the power to rig the game in their favour. In the south, there are the Shia, who are religiously aligned with Iran, the regional bogeyman, and most Shia would rather be Iranian than Iraquis. That is also where most of Iraq's oil ends up for export from the port of Basra. How difficult would it have been to see that without a strong man leader, Iraq was going to descend into chaos, and Turks might renew their persecution of the Kurds (which they did). And it still might happen that the Shia in the south might form a breakaway country allying itself to Iran, and cut off all oil exports from the Sunni region that have to come through Basra.

Most Americans are now aware that they were tricked into a war in Iraq, but there was a huge majority in favour of this at the time. The question I would put is if they were aware of the demographics, would they have been quite so "Gung ho"? But this is the sort of thing that could have been learned in school; that invading countries have consequences, and in some cases it is impossible to see a happy ending, this being a case in point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, longwood50 said:

As you said, everyone is entitled to view the events and draw their own conclusion.  Mr. Powell knew and had good reason to do doubt the "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction.  Yet he went along with it.  Why?  Because it benefited his career.  Which is exactly what I accused him of.  Being an opportunist.  

As to Bush, and the derivatives.  Yes I fault Bush as well for doing nothing.  However lets not forget how those derivatives came into being.  The Democrats pushed for relaxed underwriting standards for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac so that "everyone could own a home"  To raise that money those agencies issued bonds which the marketplace resold into packaged Mortgage Back Securities.  Had the Democrats not pushed for the lowering of the standards to obtain a government backed loan there would never have been a financial meltdown. 

See Barney Frank and Maxine Waters defend Freddie Mac when the Republicans tried to warn of the dangers of lowering those standards.  Notice each congressman who defended the practices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was a Democrat and each person calling for regulation was a Republican.  The end of the video shows Bill Clinton himself blaming the Democrats for resisting the regulation even he tried as president to put on the loan practices. 
 


 

Regarding your first para, that does not mean that Powell was a closet Democrat all his life, and certainly does not rule out that his conversion was genuine.

Regardless of where the blame for derivatives originates, do you honestly believe that the Masters of the Universe who were running Wall St, would not have found some other way to screw things up? That's what Wall St does. In 1929, Joe Kennedy was regularly asked by journalists what he thought the market would do today? He always said it was going to rise. All that time he was busily selling off all his stock-market holdings.

The Dems pushed for ease of underwriting standards, but the idea of bundling these into securitised derivatives came from the "Masters". Due diligence came in the shape of S&P, D&B etc rating these instruments for which they earned fees. If they failed to give favourable ratings, they were not offered any more work. hence junk bonds were rated AAA+. Then when the truth started to dawn on them, just like Kennedy in 1929, they were telling their clients what great investments these were while doing their best to dump their own holdings. The problem was not so much that the Dems made it easier to obtain a mortgage (which with hindsight, does them no credit), but Wall St, thought they had found a "fool-proof" way to make money, which included a lot of toxic loans which contaminated the good ones. 

The Dems latterly fixed the problem which they contributed to, and among the first measures that Trump undertook when he came to power was to repeal most of these. Thus in my opinion, it's only a matter of time before the Masters devise a new "fool-proof" scheme. And where were the Republicans when Trump did this?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohninDubin said:

Two problems with that. The first is how do you solve the problem if you don't teach these things? The second is that I am pretty sure that any time, I mention about teaching these things in school, someone is going to suggest that biased teachers will be a problem. 

You appear to be conflicted regarding the first of these. You agree with me, that lack of education is at fault, but then you don't want to see Politics being taught in schools. Your remedy makes the solution appear insurmountable. That's just an observation and not a criticism.

Regarding the other part, I don't see that the role of these teachers will be anything other than to teach the kids how Gov, and to teach them how to do their own due diligence. The first part of the lesson would be teaching them about the administration of gov. The second would be to take a current news item where party's are accusing the other of lying. You let the kids decide what issue they want to discuss. You start out  by taking a poll seeing who believes what. Discuss the matter, and then you set the kids the task of doing their own researches using the Internet. The next week, you see how many have changed their original opinions.

So as an example, Bojo travels around on a bus suggesting that if the UK leaves the EU, it can afford to give the NHS an extra £350 Mill a week. So you get the kids to study the wording. It doesn't say they will give the NHS that money, only that they might. How many people actually thought they would? But then they also need to see how much money the UK actually gives the EU.

I believe that by the time kids have done this a few times, they will get the message that we can or can't trust politicians or the media, and their own researches will become habitual.

Another example related to Brexit. "The reason you are unemployed is because foreigners are taking your jobs, and if they were all repatriated, we would all be better off". So the kids are asked to find out how how many migrants there are, and how many unemployed there are? On the face of it, with 3 mill migrants and 1.5 mill unemployed, the original argument appears to make sense. That is until you work out that that even if you can get that UK unemployed to take those vacated jobs, you now have a labour work force that has 1.5 mill vacancies. And then of course, there is the problem that if the UK repatriate all the EU migrant workers, might not the EU retaliate in kind on UK migrant workers?

But as the thread is about Colin Powell, let's apply this to the US. How many people in the US knew about the demographics of Iraq? I was opposed to the war, not because I was sympathetic to Saddam etc, though I think the evidence is now clear, that removing him was the major contributor to the origins of ISIS, but because of the demographics.

There are three major groups in Iraq: Kurds, Sunni and Shia. The first are mainly located in the north in the area of the Turkish border. Their aspirations are for a homeland, and the Turks with a sustained history of persecuting Kurds will not consent to this. They were also persecuted by Saddam for the same reason. In the middle of the country, there are the Sunni. Though they were not the largest group, they had the power to rig the game in their favour. In the south, there are the Shia, who are religiously aligned with Iran, the regional bogeyman, and most Shia would rather be Iranian than Iraquis. That is also where most of Iraq's oil ends up for export from the port of Basra. How difficult would it have been to see that without a strong man leader, Iraq was going to descend into chaos, and Turks might renew their persecution of the Kurds (which they did). And it still might happen that the Shia in the south might form a breakaway country allying itself to Iran, and cut off all oil exports from the Sunni region that have to come through Basra.

Most Americans are now aware that they were tricked into a war in Iraq, but there was a huge majority in favour of this at the time. The question I would put is if they were aware of the demographics, would they have been quite so "Gung ho"? But this is the sort of thing that could have been learned in school; that invading countries have consequences, and in some cases it is impossible to see a happy ending, this being a case in point.

Frankly I get lost in your dialog.  It would be better to clearly make your point, then offer support. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, longwood50 said:

Yes that is also true.  The Democrats feign to be for the Blacks and Hispanics to garner favor.  However the truth is that if they really wanted them to be successful they would adopt policies that fostered them to rise from the bottom of the socio economic ladder.  That however they recognize would actually injure them since once they became taxpayers rather than live off the public trough they would no longer be dependent on the Democrats for handouts.  Lyndon Johnson was the chief architect of this strategy when he started the "Great Society"  He created a permanent underclass dependent on the handouts of the federal government which created the black/hispanic voting bloc.

image.png.b37c2d9f9094b97e8c0afa9b4d30af0d.png
 

Interesting that this latter quote did not surface until the 90's. Johnson died in 1973.

http://seraphimre.blogspot.com/2018/03/president-b-lyndon-johnson-once-said.html

Extract: 

ORIGIN

A viral quote circulating since the 1990s attributes the following statement to Lyndon Baines Johnson, the 36th President of the United States: “I’ll have those niggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years.”

But regardless, how that does square with the voter suppression engaged in by so many Red states? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, LoongFred said:

Frankly I get lost in your dialog.  It would be better to clearly make your point, then offer support. 

Perhaps you should go to a bar, have a beer and clear your mind.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, longwood50 said:

Yes that is also true.  The Democrats feign to be for the Blacks and Hispanics to garner favor.  However the truth is that if they really wanted them to be successful they would adopt policies that fostered them to rise from the bottom of the socio economic ladder.  That however they recognize would actually injure them since once they became taxpayers rather than live off the public trough they would no longer be dependent on the Democrats for handouts.  Lyndon Johnson was the chief architect of this strategy when he started the "Great Society"  He created a permanent underclass dependent on the handouts of the federal government which created the black/hispanic voting bloc.

image.png.b37c2d9f9094b97e8c0afa9b4d30af0d.png
 

One of biggest gripes with modern day left wing politics. In uniting his supporters he kept dividing a nation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/19/2021 at 8:31 AM, JerseyBKK said:

Most of those elected POTUS in the last 30 years and almost all members of Congress could be classified as "enemy of the state".

Look at the last gaggle of dimmocommies that have been there. You think they have had the good of the country at heart? Now you have a puppet that is not even aware his strings are being pulled

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mickkotlarski said:

One of biggest gripes with modern day left wing politics. In uniting his supporters he kept dividing a nation.

I am not sure I understand your post. Are left-wing policies the only ones that are divisive? 

Wouldn't it be nice if the US in particular grasped the concept of democracy, that those who win the vote, get to run the country until voted out of office. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

I am not sure I understand your post. Are left-wing policies the only ones that are divisive? 

Wouldn't it be nice if the US in particular grasped the concept of democracy, that those who win the vote, get to run the country until voted out of office. 

Agreed. Not the only ones and agreed also about the attitudes in the US. Barack Obama won a second election yet many came up with the quote "he's not my president". Fast forward four years later and the same words were employed when Donald Trump became president. Trying to explain this to party ticket voters is a task in itself.

Like them, dislike them or just don't care but this nonsense quote truly does get old.

I've wondered at times if an independent that truly does listen to all wouldn't be a better option at times. After all we in the 21st century have the resources but unfortunately with big business involved its about as likely as PNG winning the T20 world cup.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, JohninDubin said:

Two problems with that. The first is how do you solve the problem if you don't teach these things? The second is that I am pretty sure that any time, I mention about teaching these things in school, someone is going to suggest that biased teachers will be a problem. 

You appear to be conflicted regarding the first of these. You agree with me, that lack of education is at fault, but then you don't want to see Politics being taught in schools. Your remedy makes the solution appear insurmountable. That's just an observation and not a criticism.

Regarding the other part, I don't see that the role of these teachers will be anything other than to teach the kids how Gov, and to teach them how to do their own due diligence. The first part of the lesson would be teaching them about the administration of gov. The second would be to take a current news item where party's are accusing the other of lying. You let the kids decide what issue they want to discuss. You start out  by taking a poll seeing who believes what. Discuss the matter, and then you set the kids the task of doing their own researches using the Internet. The next week, you see how many have changed their original opinions.

So as an example, Bojo travels around on a bus suggesting that if the UK leaves the EU, it can afford to give the NHS an extra £350 Mill a week. So you get the kids to study the wording. It doesn't say they will give the NHS that money, only that they might. How many people actually thought they would? But then they also need to see how much money the UK actually gives the EU.

I believe that by the time kids have done this a few times, they will get the message that we can or can't trust politicians or the media, and their own researches will become habitual.

Another example related to Brexit. "The reason you are unemployed is because foreigners are taking your jobs, and if they were all repatriated, we would all be better off". So the kids are asked to find out how how many migrants there are, and how many unemployed there are? On the face of it, with 3 mill migrants and 1.5 mill unemployed, the original argument appears to make sense. That is until you work out that that even if you can get that UK unemployed to take those vacated jobs, you now have a labour work force that has 1.5 mill vacancies. And then of course, there is the problem that if the UK repatriate all the EU migrant workers, might not the EU retaliate in kind on UK migrant workers?

But as the thread is about Colin Powell, let's apply this to the US. How many people in the US knew about the demographics of Iraq? I was opposed to the war, not because I was sympathetic to Saddam etc, though I think the evidence is now clear, that removing him was the major contributor to the origins of ISIS, but because of the demographics.

There are three major groups in Iraq: Kurds, Sunni and Shia. The first are mainly located in the north in the area of the Turkish border. Their aspirations are for a homeland, and the Turks with a sustained history of persecuting Kurds will not consent to this. They were also persecuted by Saddam for the same reason. In the middle of the country, there are the Sunni. Though they were not the largest group, they had the power to rig the game in their favour. In the south, there are the Shia, who are religiously aligned with Iran, the regional bogeyman, and most Shia would rather be Iranian than Iraquis. That is also where most of Iraq's oil ends up for export from the port of Basra. How difficult would it have been to see that without a strong man leader, Iraq was going to descend into chaos, and Turks might renew their persecution of the Kurds (which they did). And it still might happen that the Shia in the south might form a breakaway country allying itself to Iran, and cut off all oil exports from the Sunni region that have to come through Basra.

Most Americans are now aware that they were tricked into a war in Iraq, but there was a huge majority in favour of this at the time. The question I would put is if they were aware of the demographics, would they have been quite so "Gung ho"? But this is the sort of thing that could have been learned in school; that invading countries have consequences, and in some cases it is impossible to see a happy ending, this being a case in point.

Very good overview mate.  I agree about what you say about teaching politics - that is what is needed - learning how the system operates and how politics works.  But my issue is the deliberate discussion of politics with a biased leaning - like your example about migrants. At a school here in Aust there was an uproar when everyone learned that all the students were forced to publicly apologise to Aboriginees for past wrongs, and then all the male students were forced to publicly apologise to all the female students and teachers for past wrongs.  Whilst there was apologies and all that, no one lost their job or were charged with any offence. That should be banned and made illegal - that stops radicals taking over public schools and forcing their political and social agenda onto children. Those that go to left schools learn one view, and those that go to right/military schools learn the right view. There is not enough 'learning' about both sides views. Just like forced religion was banned, so should forced politics be banned. 

No - Americans know very little about Iraq - in fact they know very little about most other countries. They know a lot more about their own country than most in the world, but they know far less than others about other places.  yet again that is an issue of education - western society is not teaching children the right lessons anymore - they are being more indoctrinated than taught.

I am not in agreement that Americans were 'tricked' into supporting the Iraq war - which is where some in this Colin Powell thread are going. The 'tricking' was done by the US Administration to other countries and  the UN when seeking support for invading Iraq - there were many reasons - not just the WMD issue.  But Americans were not advised that invading Iraq (or Afghanistan) would lead to decades of ongoing occupation and misery.  Invading and attacking and then leaving - like WW2 and many other campaigns - was something that Americans did and still do support when it is deemed necessary.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, mickkotlarski said:

One of biggest gripes with modern day left wing politics. In uniting his supporters he kept dividing a nation.

Yes exactly.  It is called " Grievance Politics"  You divide the nation pitting one group against another.  Old vs Young, Taxpayers vs Welfare Recipients, Gay vs Straight, Black vs. White etc.  The party then feigns to support the side of a particular issue hoping to build a constituency of voters from a single issue.  Instead of focusing on common values, common goals, and pursue an agenda that benefits everyone, they focus on areas that create division and hatred. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, JohninDubin said:

But regardless, how that does square with the voter suppression engaged in by so many Red states? 

Yes, it is true the quote surfaced later.  The same is true with Johnson's stuffing of ballot boxes in Texas and JFK's connection with the Mafia that swung the vote in Illinois.  The stories of Eisenhower and LBJ affairs with their staffers did not surface until years later. The same is true of JFK and his brother Robert having an affair with Marilyn Monroe. 


As to the term "voter suppression"  What exactly does that mean?  

I have to show my passport here in Thailand to get a hotel room.  I am being suppressed by having to show ID as to who I am? 

If I open a bank account, I have to show my passport and visa to open it.  Am I being suppressed? 

If I board an airplane, I am required to show a pictured identification. Am I being suppressed? 

If I attend the convention of the Democratic Party, in order to enter, I have to show pictured identification.  Am I being suppressed. 

If I mail an envelope here in Thailand, I have to show identification, Am I being suppressed? 

If I pick up tickets at for a sporting event, or show, I have to show ID.  Am I being suppressed? 

If I pick up a prescription from the pharmacy, I have to show ID.  Am I being suppressed. 

The Democrats call this voter suppression

1. Not being able to go to old age homes to "assist people" in ordering and filling out their ballots.
2. Not being able to go into predominately Democratic neighborhoods and "harvest" ballots to be turned in in bulk. 
3. Requiring some identification for ordering a ballot, and establishing identification verification when it is returned. 


If you trust the mail so much, why don't you test the theory.  Put $10,000 in cash in an envelope and mail it to yourself. 

A large and increasing number of countries require  "biometric voter id" Are they being suppressed? 

If everything is "so honest" with handling via the mail, why don't we just send alcohol and cigarettes by mail and have the person check the box that they are of legal age.  After all, they are attesting to their vote without being verified. 



 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, JohninDubin said:

Regarding your first para, that does not mean that Powell was a closet Democrat all his life, and certainly does not rule out that his conversion was genuine.

Yes I guess Powell was just like Obama "he evolved" in his position. 

As to the "Masters of the Universe"  Anytime the government manipulates the system they set into motion those that would take advantage of it.  

Now consider, many blame the banks and the insurance companies for the meltdown with derivatives.  Consider, you are the head of a major bank and you see the government through guaranteeing mortgages is removing all risk from you.  The government is telling you, that you can loan money to anyone no matter how poor the risk and they will purchase that mortgage from you.  As the head of the bank you know you can make millions in loan origination and servicing fees. WHAT DO YOU DO?  You do what the government is encouraging you to do, you make lousy loans. 

Now you have Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac raising billions through bonds to fund those lousy mortgages.  Those bonds have to be sold to investors.  You are now the head of a major brokerage firm and have the opportunity to sell those bonds to investors.  Investors favor diversification and not putting their money into a single bond.  So you find you can package loans together much like a mutual fund and create a derivative called a Mortgage Backed Security where instead of an investor owning a single bond, they own a small  fractional percentage of thousands of bonds.  What do you do.  You do what the government is asking you to do.  You securitize the bonds Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has for sale and you sell them. 

Consider, who were the main architects of the mortgage backed securities.  The banks and brokerage houses.  Who failed as a result of buying them, the banks, insurance companies, and brokerage houses who purchased them believing they were "government backed" and therefore of very low risk.   They used those mortgage backed securities as their capital and reserves and when the securities became next to worthless they were undercapitalized and failed. 

This is really no different than in the 1980's when to respond to the deregulation of interest rates, the governments answer was to raise the FDIC/FSLIC guarantee from $10,000 to $100,000.  Failing banks and S&L's now had a way to gather billions in new deposits from investors because those deposits were covered by FDIC or FSLIC insurance.  Those institutions being underwater already had to put those dollars into investments that were risky to gain high returns.   The real estate market crashed, those investments proved worthless and the bank and S&L crisis of the 1980's resulted. 

Lesson, let the marketplace function.  If banks and brokerage houses had to assume the risk for the loans they make, they would be far more prudent in who they loan money to knowing that they are the ones who take the loss if they make a mistake.  Whenever government steps in to remove the underwriting risk, they distort the market and create a bubble which eventually will burst. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, mickkotlarski said:

Agreed. Not the only ones and agreed also about the attitudes in the US. Barack Obama won a second election yet many came up with the quote "he's not my president". Fast forward four years later and the same words were employed when Donald Trump became president. Trying to explain this to party ticket voters is a task in itself.

Like them, dislike them or just don't care but this nonsense quote truly does get old.

I've wondered at times if an independent that truly does listen to all wouldn't be a better option at times. After all we in the 21st century have the resources but unfortunately with big business involved its about as likely as PNG winning the T20 world cup.

Very true - trying to run for President has become all about partisan politics - both sides want someone they can control and who will approve the 'right' policies and initiatives.  Trump was as independent as any candidate since Kennedy - 'they' got rid of both of them. 

  • Cool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, AussieBob said:

Very good overview mate.  I agree about what you say about teaching politics - that is what is needed - learning how the system operates and how politics works.  But my issue is the deliberate discussion of politics with a biased leaning - like your example about migrants. At a school here in Aust there was an uproar when everyone learned that all the students were forced to publicly apologise to Aboriginees for past wrongs, and then all the male students were forced to publicly apologise to all the female students and teachers for past wrongs.  Whilst there was apologies and all that, no one lost their job or were charged with any offence. That should be banned and made illegal - that stops radicals taking over public schools and forcing their political and social agenda onto children. Those that go to left schools learn one view, and those that go to right/military schools learn the right view. There is not enough 'learning' about both sides views. Just like forced religion was banned, so should forced politics be banned. 

No - Americans know very little about Iraq - in fact they know very little about most other countries. They know a lot more about their own country than most in the world, but they know far less than others about other places.  yet again that is an issue of education - western society is not teaching children the right lessons anymore - they are being more indoctrinated than taught.

I am not in agreement that Americans were 'tricked' into supporting the Iraq war - which is where some in this Colin Powell thread are going. The 'tricking' was done by the US Administration to other countries and  the UN when seeking support for invading Iraq - there were many reasons - not just the WMD issue.  But Americans were not advised that invading Iraq (or Afghanistan) would lead to decades of ongoing occupation and misery.  Invading and attacking and then leaving - like WW2 and many other campaigns - was something that Americans did and still do support when it is deemed necessary.  

Thanks for the kind words.

Regarding your first para, I am not sure much of that comes within the ambit of Civics. It seems to me that is mainly about the bizarre concept of political correctness. To give you some idea of my views on that issue, I agree with most people that slavery was an abomination and was rightly abolished. But regardless of the fact that AFAIK, none of my ancestors were involved in that, I don't see why I need to apologise for something I had no control over. OTOH, I am delighted to see how many people will openly condemn the use of racial epithets. But at the same time, I also think that when someone uses such terms, it says a lot more about them than they really want us to know about them. Then of course, there are the non-malicious uses of these words. One example of which I used to be guilty of, was the word "Chinky", which was a reference to a Chinese meal or resto. I'm married to a Japanese and I can assure I stopped using that word when I met her. But should I be PC and pull people up over their use of the word, when there was no offence intended. But coming back to slavery my view is that "it was of it's time" when people did not know any better. 

At the same time as slavery was being practised, we were sending children up chimneys, and if they got stuck, it was not unknown for the sweep to light a fire to get them to move. Incidentally, that is the origins of the phrase of "Lighting a fire under them" to get someone to act. But if you take the idea that we all need to personally apologise to someone for the misdeeds of our ancestors to a logical conclusion, whether they suffered as a result of it or not, shouldn't all of us be apologising to all children?

But where I would take issue with you on that opening para, is that teachers of civics do not have to be biased. Their role should not be about which system is better, but about the difference between what the core principles of what each belief is about. So on one end of the spectrum, you have staunch free market conservatives who believe that all problems should be left to the market, and at the other end, there is communism, which believes that if everything is publicly owned, then the state can fix the problem. Then you get the kids to do their Internet researches so that they can decide for themselves, how likely it is that either of the extremes can fix all the problems. I think the bulk of kids would decide that neither system is perfect,

But again, that not would be my main objective in teaching Civics. It would be to create a nation of informed voters. Using Brexit as a reference point, just before the vote, there was the Brexit claim that Turkey was about to join the EU and there were little comments like, "There are 90 million of them (muslims) and they are coming your way". The truth was that Turkey applied to join in 1986, and they were given about 30 tasks to perform before they would be considered for membership. In the following 30 years, they had only performed on of these tasks. Then of course there was the problem over the Veto. To be accepted, it had to be a unanimous vote of all the member states. The Turks had invaded and were occupying part of another member state, Cyprus, which is closely aligned with Greece, another member state. Anybody  who knows anything about Greek and Turkish relations will know that they hate each other, and that it was a matter of Turkish pride that they had invaded and occupied Cyprus because of it's connections to Greece. More to the point, many Turks would be hostile to their own gov if they pulled out of Cyprus, so effectively it is not politically expedient for Turkey to end the occupation which has been going on since 1974. But how many of those who voted in the 2016 referendum were influenced by the claims that Turkish membership was imminent and nothing to check the facts. 

Put simply, my hope would be that in teaching civics, we would have an electorate that whenever they see a story or a claim by a political party or in the media, they will have become so used to doing their own due diligence, that they will not be so easily fooled.

Regarding the Invasion of Iraq, I disagree that the US people were not tricked into going into that war. Quite apart from the false claims of WMD, there were multiple claims by the administration that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and the general US public wanted payback. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3689022

Extract

"We suggest that the 2003 war in Iraq received high levels of public support because the Bush administration successfully framed the conflict as an extension of the war on terror, which was a response to the September 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Our analysis of Bush's speeches reveals that the administration consistently connected Iraq with 9/11. New York Times coverage of the president's speeches featured almost no debate over the framing of the Iraq conflict as part of the war on terror. This assertion had tremendous influence on public attitudes, as indicated by polling data from several sources."

The truth of the matter that Saddam was connected to AQ because a senior member of AQ transited overnight through Iraq on his way to another country. All he did was spend one night in an hotel in Baghdad . That was what Powell offered as proof of the link. I don't know you if you are aware of it, but Prince Charles once hosted a dinner where among the guests, was Bin Laden's brother. Surely on that basis, this was all the proof that was needed to connect the Queen to AQ? There was no AQ in Iraq when this kicked off, but suddenly AQ saw a chance to fight US soldiers when they came thousands of miles to Iraq. With months, there 1000's of AQ in Iraq. But 70% + Americans believed what they were told about Saddam, 9/11 and AQ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, longwood50 said:

Yes, it is true the quote surfaced later.  The same is true with Johnson's stuffing of ballot boxes in Texas and JFK's connection with the Mafia that swung the vote in Illinois.  The stories of Eisenhower and LBJ affairs with their staffers did not surface until years later. The same is true of JFK and his brother Robert having an affair with Marilyn Monroe. 


As to the term "voter suppression"  What exactly does that mean?  

I have to show my passport here in Thailand to get a hotel room.  I am being suppressed by having to show ID as to who I am? 

If I open a bank account, I have to show my passport and visa to open it.  Am I being suppressed? 

If I board an airplane, I am required to show a pictured identification. Am I being suppressed? 

If I attend the convention of the Democratic Party, in order to enter, I have to show pictured identification.  Am I being suppressed. 

If I mail an envelope here in Thailand, I have to show identification, Am I being suppressed? 

If I pick up tickets at for a sporting event, or show, I have to show ID.  Am I being suppressed? 

If I pick up a prescription from the pharmacy, I have to show ID.  Am I being suppressed. 

The Democrats call this voter suppression

1. Not being able to go to old age homes to "assist people" in ordering and filling out their ballots.
2. Not being able to go into predominately Democratic neighborhoods and "harvest" ballots to be turned in in bulk. 
3. Requiring some identification for ordering a ballot, and establishing identification verification when it is returned. 


If you trust the mail so much, why don't you test the theory.  Put $10,000 in cash in an envelope and mail it to yourself. 

A large and increasing number of countries require  "biometric voter id" Are they being suppressed? 

If everything is "so honest" with handling via the mail, why don't we just send alcohol and cigarettes by mail and have the person check the box that they are of legal age.  After all, they are attesting to their vote without being verified. 



 

I have to say that a lot of that post was beyond disingenuous. 

I've voted in both the UK and Ireland, In the latter photo ID is required and I don't have any problems with that. It may soon come to the UK too. What I've never had to do is queue for hours to cast my vote. I doubt that I've ever spent more than 10 minutes casting my vote and that is only because in Ireland voting is by 1st, 2nd, 3rd preference etc  and with maybe 18 candidates on a form, preference voting takes a bot longer.

I've never had to wait 5 hours in a line o vote. I've never had local gov ask me if I have a felony conviction to stop me voting in an election that is nothing to do with that local gov. I was never asked to pass an intelligence test to see if I had the mental capacity to vote, and then faced with the question, "How many bubbles in a bar of soap"?

Following the loss of Trump last year, by Mar 24th this year, there had been the introduction of no less than 361 bills introduced into state legislatures restricting voting access.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States

The bulk of these measures are designed by Republicans to restrict access to the vote by those who are most likely to vote against them. There is a well established pattern of people saying, "What do these people do that that our own people don't, and how can we make it harder". So one example is Blacks in Georgia like to vote after Church on Sunday. Surprise! Surprise! a bill is is passed in Georgia outlawing Sunday Voting. 

Then there is the disparity in ease of voting. In wealthy areas, poll stations are well staffed and those entitled to vote can usually be in and out in a few minutes. The poorer areas can have to wait in line for hours to vote. One state recently passed a law that made it illegal to offer a drink of water to someone standing in line to vote. Now who is that going to affect most? The rich man who can be in and out in a few minutes, or the person from the poor area with understaffed polling stations?

I could go on, but I think the Wiki link I cited says most of what I need to say in response to your post most of which did you no credit.

Regarding your comments on "ballot harvesting", I think that it fails on the basis that you take the view that because Republicans see little to be gained personally from such actions, they want to see those who would benefit from it, stopped. 

Not that I ever raised the issue, but your point about the $10k in the mail, was also ludicrous. There are 5 US states that vote entirely or almost entirely by mail, and there has been no significant reports of it being a disadvantage to democracy.

The more I look at your post here, the more I think you should feel flattered to have it described as "ludicrous".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, longwood50 said:

Yes I guess Powell was just like Obama "he evolved" in his position. 

As to the "Masters of the Universe"  Anytime the government manipulates the system they set into motion those that would take advantage of it.  

Now consider, many blame the banks and the insurance companies for the meltdown with derivatives.  Consider, you are the head of a major bank and you see the government through guaranteeing mortgages is removing all risk from you.  The government is telling you, that you can loan money to anyone no matter how poor the risk and they will purchase that mortgage from you.  As the head of the bank you know you can make millions in loan origination and servicing fees. WHAT DO YOU DO?  You do what the government is encouraging you to do, you make lousy loans. 

Now you have Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac raising billions through bonds to fund those lousy mortgages.  Those bonds have to be sold to investors.  You are now the head of a major brokerage firm and have the opportunity to sell those bonds to investors.  Investors favor diversification and not putting their money into a single bond.  So you find you can package loans together much like a mutual fund and create a derivative called a Mortgage Backed Security where instead of an investor owning a single bond, they own a small  fractional percentage of thousands of bonds.  What do you do.  You do what the government is asking you to do.  You securitize the bonds Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has for sale and you sell them. 

Consider, who were the main architects of the mortgage backed securities.  The banks and brokerage houses.  Who failed as a result of buying them, the banks, insurance companies, and brokerage houses who purchased them believing they were "government backed" and therefore of very low risk.   They used those mortgage backed securities as their capital and reserves and when the securities became next to worthless they were undercapitalized and failed. 

This is really no different than in the 1980's when to respond to the deregulation of interest rates, the governments answer was to raise the FDIC/FSLIC guarantee from $10,000 to $100,000.  Failing banks and S&L's now had a way to gather billions in new deposits from investors because those deposits were covered by FDIC or FSLIC insurance.  Those institutions being underwater already had to put those dollars into investments that were risky to gain high returns.   The real estate market crashed, those investments proved worthless and the bank and S&L crisis of the 1980's resulted. 

Lesson, let the marketplace function.  If banks and brokerage houses had to assume the risk for the loans they make, they would be far more prudent in who they loan money to knowing that they are the ones who take the loss if they make a mistake.  Whenever government steps in to remove the underwriting risk, they distort the market and create a bubble which eventually will burst. 

"Let the market place function"? Wow. 

Gordon Gecko may have been a character in a film. but the market-place is full of Gordon Gecko's. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Smithydog locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By posting on Thaiger Talk you agree to the Terms of Use