Net Neutrality - The End is the Beginning

[TheMastersSon]

I was going to start a new thread for this but decided to tack it on here. As you read this story, keep in mind that history has already recorded Mr. Comey was the only semblance of defense our Constitution had in both the Trump and GWB administrations. To my ears it reads like something directly from 1938 Germany:

 

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/7801023-181/fbis-embattled-deputy-director-expected?ref=TSM

Edited December 24, 2017 by TheMastersSon

[HeyYou]

I was going to start a new thread for this but decided to tack it on here. As you read this story, keep in mind that history has already recorded Mr. Comey was the only semblance of defense our Constitution had in both the Trump and GWB administrations. To my ears it reads like something directly from 1938 Germany:

 

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/7801023-181/fbis-embattled-deputy-director-expected?ref=TSM

Now THAT is FUNNY. Comey was the only semblance of DEFENSE of the constitution? Seriously? You must be of the school of thought that Hilary violating several policies, not to mention laws.... by having classified material on a private server, (which, it's mere existence was ALSO a violation of several policies, and various laws......) was "OK"?????

 

Comey was a dem schill. That's it.

[twowolves80]

http://oi68.tinypic.com/6p0wug.jpg

 

I'm coming to believe this more and more, especially since socialism seems to be so en vogue. I love the one quote from a professor which basically said that the mere fact that socialism is so popular is a sign that the education system failed.

[TheMastersSon]

I'm coming to believe this more and more, especially since socialism seems to be so en vogue. I love the one quote from a professor which basically said that the mere fact that socialism is so popular is a sign that the education system failed.

There's a substantial probability this professor was employed at a public university. That's not to say I'm a fan of socialism, but the awful truth is that our truest socialists today are now called borrow-and-spend Republicans. "Too big to fail" and all that hogwash. In our country it's socialism now for the rich and capitalism for the other 95% of us. Or in other words, if you mismanage your business and it fails, please don't look for anyone in our government to bail you out. That privilege is reserved for our banks, savings and loans, car manufacturers, real estate industry and anyone else who is "too big to fail" (i.e. contributes enough money to the election campaigns of our government reps). The current example with our internet and last century's cable TV/media/entertainment establishment is no different. The latter is not just the primary force behind this attempt to destroy net neutrality, from my reading they're the ONLY force behind it. This FCC decision benefits nobody else in our entire country, the truth is it doesn't even benefit them. I can't imagine anyone selling out the internet's future, their own protected rights and those of their own families simply to keep Comcast in business artificially. And even more outrageously, to repay Donald Trump's campaign debts to Comcast/NBC, Disney/ABC and Rupert Murdoch/FNC. But that's exactly what our paid employees at the FCC just did, and their action was specifically enabled by our current claimed president. Such a thoughtful gift to the American people this Holiday Season. I guess he found a minute from all his travel bans, refugee bans, wall building and forcibly sending our country to its final and nuclear demise. I wonder how many readers even know that our Secretary of State had negotiated settlement talks with North Korea and these talks were nixed entirely by Mr. Trump. So once again abject treason and collapse have been redefined in our history books. Edited December 25, 2017 by TheMastersSon

[HeyYou]

 

I'm coming to believe this more and more, especially since socialism seems to be so en vogue. I love the one quote from a professor which basically said that the mere fact that socialism is so popular is a sign that the education system failed.

There's a substantial probability this professor was employed at a public university. That's not to say I'm a fan of socialism, but the awful truth is that our truest socialists today are now called borrow-and-spend Republicans. "Too big to fail" and all that hogwash. In our country it's socialism now for the rich and capitalism for the other 95% of us. Or in other words, if you mismanage your business and it fails, please don't look for anyone in our government to bail you out. That privilege is reserved for our banks, savings and loans, car manufacturers, real estate industry and anyone else who is "too big to fail" (i.e. contributes enough money to the election campaigns of our government reps). The current example with our internet and last century's cable TV/media/entertainment establishment is no different. The latter is not just the primary force behind this attempt to destroy net neutrality, from my reading they're the ONLY force behind it. This FCC decision benefits nobody else in our entire country, the truth is it doesn't even benefit them. I can't imagine anyone selling out the internet's future, their own protected rights and those of their own families simply to keep Comcast in business artificially. And even more outrageously, to repay Donald Trump's campaign debts to Comcast/NBC, Disney/ABC and Rupert Murdoch/FNC. But that's exactly what our paid employees at the FCC just did, and their action was specifically enabled by our current claimed president. Such a thoughtful gift to the American people this Holiday Season. I guess he found a minute from all his travel bans, refugee bans, wall building and forcibly sending our country to its final and nuclear demise. I wonder how many readers even know that our Secretary of State had negotiated settlement talks with North Korea and these talks were nixed entirely by Mr. Trump. So once again abject treason and collapse have been redefined in our history books.

 

Right. Previous talks with N Korea were always so productive, that's why they have nuclear weapons now. Oh, wait...... That's right. Not a single agreement we made with N Korea lasted more than two years. Each and every agreement was broken, sometimes before the ink on the paper was even dry. Concessions/negotiations/agreements only gave NK more time to develop their nuclear and missile programs. But here we are, and magically Rex has hammered out an agreement that will 'solve' the issue? Not bloody likely. The US does NOT want a nuclear armed NK, NK has flatly stated they are not going to give up their nukes. Where is there even room for negotiation there? Why would we negotiate with a country that we KNOW FOR A FACT will not honor the agreement? Why would we continue doing the same thing that we already know doesn't work?

 

Obama's policy of 'Strategic Patience' gave them another 8 years to move their programs along. With great success. But then, it's Obama...... and his 'junior varsity' terrorists that ended up taking over a substantial portion of the middle east.....

[twowolves80]

Well, first, let's back up the bus. It's not in the US's global strategic interests to have peace in the Middle East. Why? Simple: Oil. With all the muslim countries at each other's throats over ideological differences (usually, the kind that involve infidels and jihad), the US can sit in the middle of it and soak oil at cheap prices compared to what the rest of the world pays. The US has fostered the internecine warfare there for oil and heroin, and so that they don't have to deal with a single, united muslim force because if that muslim force (nation) decided to follow certain haddiths of mohammad that say kill the infidel, jihad, yadda yadda, that means they'd have an entire hostile nation to contend with (shades of Iran all over again) in control of oil (which means no more cheap prices and our military power and ability to project said power is hampered), and heroin (no more dirty wars funded by drug money for the CIA, no more population control, no more nation-destabilizing capabilities, less dope here at home to cause crime and poverty and keep the Americans with their head in the sand while the plutocrats rape the nation).

So when it comes to NK, you have to ask yourself one question. Who stands to profit? Where is the money flowing? Who profits off of NK continuing to ignore the UN? Someone is making a profit off this, believe that, either in money or in geo-political power.

 

Frankly, NK should have been turned into a peninsula of glass decades ago. If the US was serious about keeping nukes out of the hands of NK, they would have done so. As it stands right now, you have Iran supplying the NKs with stolen fissile material, war materiel, weapons, technology, and who knows what else, and then turning around and blaming Russia, who in turn blamed the Ukraine.

If they really wanted to end it, the US, China and Japan would have simply concentrated their military power to that peninsula, and then engaged in a 10-hour war, because that's about how long it would take to wipe Little Rocket Man and his paper tiger army off the face of the planet. Without a single nuke being fired. The problem is the aftermath: Who gets to put someone in power once that vacuum is achieved? China? Or the US? And therein lies the real crux of the problem. China doesn't want a US-puppet on its front porch, and we don't want another commie state to deal with.

[HeyYou]

Trouble is, the Kim regime loves their artillery. If any of the western powers were to start something there, it is S. Korea that would get to pay the price. There are literally thousands of artillery tubes pointed right at Seoul..... a city with a population north of 10 million..... NK doesn't have to be accurate to cause some serious hate and discontent there...... and there is no way we could stop it. (not even with nukes.....) We could look forward to thousands dead in a few short minutes of the beginning of hostilities.

 

Now, it seems Trump is looking for a way to give Lil' Kim a 'bloody nose', but, at the same time, NOT start a wider-scale war. It's anyone guess if that is possible. On one hand, if WE fire first, NK can look forward to China and Russia backing them up....... (should general hostilities break out) On the other hand, Lil' Kim knows that HIS country is going to take the bulk of the punishment. Question becomes, does he even care???? Will it be enough to prevent him from waging an all-out war? Or will political pressure from inside NK force him to react...... After all, he paints himself the victim here..... should we have the gall to blow something up, is he going to HAVE to go to war to save face?????

[TheMastersSon]

So when it comes to NK, you have to ask yourself one question. Who stands to profit? Where is the money flowing? Who profits off of NK continuing to ignore the UN? Someone is making a profit off this, believe that, either in money or in geo-political power.

 

If they really wanted to end it, the US, China and Japan would have simply concentrated their military power to that peninsula, and then engaged in a 10-hour war, because that's about how long it would take to wipe Little Rocket Man and his paper tiger army off the face of the planet. Without a single nuke being fired. The problem is the aftermath: Who gets to put someone in power once that vacuum is achieved? China? Or the US? And therein lies the real crux of the problem. China doesn't want a US-puppet on its front porch, and we don't want another commie state to deal with.

We just learned this lesson in Vietnam. Our Pentagon budgets require routine brainwashing of all their previous memories.

 

Decades of interference and 57,000 American lives flushed directly down the toilet. We finally gave up and within a few years of leaving, Vietnam reverted to its natural state of stupidity and we've been doing business with them without issue since 1995. Or to put it more succinctly, you can't fix stupid and we've spent a half century trying to around the world, simply and only to keep a machine alive that should have logically and rightfully been disassembled at the end of WWII. And it wasn't just our machine that was artificially and tragically saved, e.g. read Gorbachev's books. It was a colluded effort between two ingrained military establishments, not one, eventual bankruptcy and collapse of both federal governments was sealed with this decision. Somewhere around 150,000 American deaths and $100 trillion spent since 1945, and what we have to show for it are countless rusting tanks, permanent WMD arsenals, that are btw responsible for most of our planet's problem with them, one stalemate and countless failures and catastrophes. Oh and one example of artificial nation building that took the form of a theocratic ethnic cleansing experiment and has resulted in equally stupid and non-existent even in theory oxymorons called "Islamic Republics".

 

This is about what the Korean people want for themselves, not what anyone else wants for them, or thinks they should have. This has been the underlying problem since Korea was absurdly, arbitrarily and completely split in two at the end of WWII, by three people who were neither Korean nor even Asian. And now the same country responsible for one-third of this absurdity is preventing this same country from reuniting after a half century of guards standing useless at Korea's artificial borders. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter whether North Korea can be trusted, as long as we are the ones occupying and interfering with their country and not vice-versa.

Edited December 25, 2017 by TheMastersSon

[HeyYou]

 

So when it comes to NK, you have to ask yourself one question. Who stands to profit? Where is the money flowing? Who profits off of NK continuing to ignore the UN? Someone is making a profit off this, believe that, either in money or in geo-political power.

 

If they really wanted to end it, the US, China and Japan would have simply concentrated their military power to that peninsula, and then engaged in a 10-hour war, because that's about how long it would take to wipe Little Rocket Man and his paper tiger army off the face of the planet. Without a single nuke being fired. The problem is the aftermath: Who gets to put someone in power once that vacuum is achieved? China? Or the US? And therein lies the real crux of the problem. China doesn't want a US-puppet on its front porch, and we don't want another commie state to deal with.

We just learned this lesson in Vietnam. Our Pentagon budgets require routine brainwashing of all their previous memories.

 

Decades of interference and 57,000 American lives flushed directly down the toilet. We finally gave up and within a few years of leaving, Vietnam reverted to its natural state of stupidity and we've been doing business with them without issue since 1995. Or to put it more succinctly, you can't fix stupid and we've spent a half century trying to around the world, simply and only to keep a machine alive that should have rightfully been disassembled at the end of WWII. And it wasn't just our machine that was artificially and tragically saved, e.g. read Gorbachev's books. It was a colluded effort between two ingrained military establishments, not one.

 

This is about what the Korean people want for themselves, not what anyone else wants for them, or thinks they should have. This has been the underlying problem since Korea was absurdly, arbitrarily and completely split in two at the end of WWII, by three people who were neither Korean nor even Asian. And now the same country responsible for one-third of this absurdity is preventing this same country from reuniting after a half century of guards standing useless at Korea's artificial borders. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter whether North Korea can be trusted, as long as we are the ones occupying and interfering with their country and not vice-versa.

 

S. Korea doesn't want a Nuclear North Korea. S. Korea doesn't want re-unification under the kim regime. S. Korea doesn't want a war. They don't want Seoul bombarded to rubble. N. Korea wants to continue to exist. The Kim regime does NOT want to give up its power. China doesn't want a western allied, re-unified Korea. Neither does Russia. The rest of the world doesn't want a nuclear armed N. Korea.......

 

There is no happy solution to the situation. No matter how it all shakes out, someone is going to be unhappy. Unfortunately, at least one of those someones has nuclear weapons, and would likely be willing to use them, if it looked like he was on the losing end of any negotiations/war.......

 

We can't go back in time, and change the current situation. It is what it is. So, what do you propose we do? Continue on a course of action we already know doesn't work? What?

[twowolves80]

Regardless of their morality (or immorality), all human beings are still driven by the same basic needs: Shelter, protection, community, food, and identity. The entire reason we're even having to deal with NK right now is because there were too many armchair strategists who'd read books and thought they therefore knew something running the show in D.C. instead of letting the military do what it does and end the war quickly and decisively. "Oh, we can't violate their human rights!" IN times of war, the only rights you have are what you are willing to fight for. The Geneva Convention can take a flying leap--if nuking Little Rocket Man with a precision nuclear strike (preferably with a neutron bomb to minimize damage) will prevent another 500,000 from dying within ten years due to starvation and disease that is running rampant through NK right now, then I have one thing to say.

 

The launch button is the red flashing one.

 

Not only that, to understand why the Korean Peninsula is the way it is, you must look at the history of warfare conducted there, not by Koreans, but by the Chinese and Japanese. Every time that Japan would go to war with China, they'd run right up the middle of the Korean peninsula, straight into China, and then carve their way back out and head back to Japan. During this, the Koreans had a very feudal system in place with absolutely no middle class. You were either filthy rich, or you were filthy poor. And if you were filthy poor, then you were getting conscripted to fight against the invading Japanese, who really were invading China--Korea just happened to be in the way. Japan had no ocean-going vessels until after the arrival of the Portuguese--they had only small fishing boats which is why they had to invade China through the Korean Peninsula. Their fishing boats wouldn't have survived an ocean crossing.

 

And yeah, "what the Korean people want" is an anachronism because right now, the only thing that matters are what the NKs want, and what the US wants because the US doesn't want to give up its foothold there, and has a bad habit of always wanting a puppet in charge that can be controlled by CIA handlers.

 

The reason you won't see wide-scale devastation is because the US will never relinquish their base in South Korea, and they may possibly never relinquish their base in Okinawa. They need to protect their geo-political interests in Asia, and that includes the poppy fields in the golden triangle that the French screwed up back in the 50s. Heroin is useful not just to criminals, but to governments with the wherewithal to use sinister methods of political control. It is no coincidence that after the Vietnam war, suddenly, destabilizing countries by importing illegal narcotics was in vogue. We may never know the true tally of how much money the CIA/NSA has made off of illegal narcotics sales, and how much influence that dope has had on the world itself.

 

Remember, 4000 tons. Heroin production jumped from 180 tons to 4,000 tons in Afghanistan after the CIA showed up, within one growing season. Systematic institutionalization indeed.

 

Beginning to seem more and more like A Brave New World, only, instead of Soma, it's methadone and prozac.