No This time it is revenue that has declined, curbing the election war chest

Krudd has become the ten dollar man asking voters to support him by sending ten dollars. How absoluntely pathetic. Whining that voters had seen his best and his worst he capped his election announcement by asking for a handout like any cadger in the street. Well we have seen his worst and some of it in the last week so come September 7 Kevin07 will not be Kevin on September 7

Day 1 subsidies to the car industry
Day 2 after hours school care
Polls show lower support for Labor

I await the next spending promise meanwhile even the international media wants to get in on the act, although what they can contribute is mote or is that mute

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/05/wo...html?hpt=hp_c1

Border and tax and spend... seems there is less difference in our issues than you imagine.

No I don't imagine there are differences excepting in our approach. The whole civilised world has similar problems today, displaced people seeking something, climate change and the stupidity of the solutions and internal problems requiring a solution. On top of this we have the stupidity of the war on terror, a war than can never be won by military means

We have here a nation that from the outside looks like utopia, employment, health care, money, clean streets and yes it is a shinking light in a world of mediocracy but only for a small group of people, too many people and it all sinks into the third world

A very stupid american initiated the war on terror and as a result he destabilised a part of the world that was crap anyway, but we here are facing the consequences of rhe refugee problem and we can only accommodate a few, the rest are your problem and you do nothing where is your call to give you the masses now, MUTE !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

No I don't imagine there are differences excepting in our approach. The whole civilised world has similiar problems today, displaced people seeking something, climate change and the stupidity of the solutions and internal problems requiring a solution. on top of this we have the stupidity of the war on terror, a war than can never be won by military means

We have here a nation that from the outside looks like utopia, employment, health care, money, clean streets and yes it is a shinking light in a world of mediocracy but only for a small group of people, too many people and it all sinks into the third world

A very stupid american initiated the war on terror and as a result he destabilised a part of the world that was crap anyway, but we here are facing the consequences of rhe refugee problem and we can only accommodate a few, the rest are your problem and you do nothing where is your call to give you the masses now, MUTE !

---

You see how wrong you are?! The so called war on terrorism is a war against jihadistan and initiated by them.. This is a war that began long before there was a United States ,and no... unfortunately a military solution may be the ONLY one.

How big of a military would that take, and how long would it take to wipe out those jihadist?

Got me Tal.. in 1939 we never anticipated that we would need a massive military build up to counter an existential threat.

A military solution is not the solution Tom and you know it. How do you find a jihadist, only when he strikes, this recent fiasco where you are closing your embassies at a threat, the terrorists succeeded without a shot, without a bomb, demonstrates that a military solution isn't the answer. The solution lies in lifting the poverty and the disadvantage, in spending that money you waste on your over blown military budget in making a real difference in these centres of jihadism. Pakistan, Egypt. Your military didn't prevent 9/11 in fact it may have been part of the reason. You see you have the same thinking as Bush and he was wrong, the war hasn't been won, what was centred in Afghanistan is now all over the world

And Tom don't think that your support of Israel isn't a big part in this also

Quote:

---

the solution lies in lifting the poverty and the disadvantage

---

more liberal . Clichés . The jihadists on 9-11-01 were college educated . The Boston Marathon bombers were not poor or disadvantaged... neither was Major Hassan . The problem is the political ideology spawned by the life and acts of the "Prophet " .

Yes Tom I agree that it ideology, ideology that thrives in disadvantage and poverty. If you see what happens when islamic peoples get into a better society you see the Militantism disappears and moderation takes over. It is not liberal ideology that tells you this it is observation and real life experience. What do you think the people of Pakistan want? I can assure you it isn't war. Do you think the people of Iran want war? The last one they fought devistated a generation.

Yes the jihadists can be educated people but people who are still from marginalised societies. Do you think Egypt a modern state or Pakistan or Libya. Do you think the muslims in Dergestan who fight the Russians live in a modern state? All you have proven is there are hot beds of discontent even among educated people. The prophet lived fourteen hundred years ago but one greater than him gave us the answers two thousand years ago and still we will not heed them. He didn't use weapons and the might of the state, he demonstrated a better way but you think armies will achieve your goals, so did your founding fathers, or did they?

Quote:

---

when islamic peoples get into a better society you see the Militantism disappears and moderation takes over

---

sometimes yes sometimes no.

Quote:

---

What do you think the people of Pakistan want? I can assure you it isn't war. Do you think the people of Iran want war? The last one they fought devistated a generation

---

.
Having been to Iran I can attest that the people do not want war. Little say do they have in the matter ,and that is the point. There is indoctrination that goes on in any radical totalitarian ideology .

Quote:

---

The prophet lived fourteen hundred years ago but one greater than him gave us the answers two thousand years ago and still we will not heed them. He didn't use weapons and the might of the state, he demonstrated a better way but you think armies will achieve your goals, so did your founding fathers, or did they?

---

Nice try ;but as you well know ,Jesus taught us how to achieve personal salvation. He did not given answers to how a nation state should protect it's people from an existential threat... unless you think we should all be martyrs . As for the founders ,they made it clear that the nation has a right and obligation to defend itself .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Nice try ;but as you well know ,Jesus taught us how to achieve personal salvation. He did not given answers to how a nation state should protect it's people from an existential threat...unless you think we should all be martyrs ..

---

I think he gave us ample example, he lived under an oppressive regime yet he didn't start a revolt. He was a popular figure in his society and could easily have rallied the mob but he didn't. He could have used the scriptures to justify such a position but he didn't and that contrasts with the Muslim approach. Martyrs, no, but aggressors, no. Lawlessness needs to be dealt with but you avoid the issue regarding what gives rise too much of this lawlessness. States are aggressive, particularly in gaining the benefit of resources without passing the benefits to the population. We have great economic oppression today and it gets worse as multinationals pursue profit and nowhere is this more obvious than in the 10-40 window where the Muslim peoples live

Quote:

---

As for the founders ,they made it clear that the nation has a right and obligation to defend itself .

---

We battle ourselves more than we battle others as no army has invaded us. Yet we send our armies to defend the business interest of our multi nations corporation for their profit, at our expense, and justify it with the BS of helping them. Sure a garment factory in India is welcome income, or a sweat shop in Asia, where they have nothing, sold cheap to working poor here, and across the world, but investors make billion in profits off poor people, and cheap labor.

So let's call it what it is, profits before people and the few marking value for the many. So forget trying to attach nobility to economic hoarding. You have replaced bluebloods for green ones, and taken it to a higher level, but its still the same old world BS!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

We battle ourselves more than we battle others as no army has invaded us. Yet we send our armies to defend the business interest of our multi nations corporation for their profit, at our expense, and justify it with the BS of helping them. Sure a garment factory in India is welcome income, or a sweat shop in Asia, where they have nothing, sold cheap to working poor here, and across the world, but investors make billion in profits off poor people, and cheap labor.

So let's call it what it is, profits before people and the few marking value for the many. So forget trying to attach nobility to economic hoarding. You have replaced bluebloods for green ones, and taken it to a higher level, but its still the same old world BS!

---

Yes a sweat shop deathtrap in Bangladesh profits who? The slave labour or the multinationals who reap the profit for their first world stockholders, we know who the real exploiters are, the 1% who hoard their money and don't give back what they take. This whole rotten system is going to fall over and whan it does there will be a shout of freedom. We are bigger people than this but people like Tom want the profits for their pension funds so they can live high on the hog while doing nothing

Quote:

---

as no army has invaded us.

---

Armies don't have to be clothed in uniform . Invasion forces don't have to be either numerous or in an open set battle formation.
The rest of your rant is the same old tied tirade against our economic system.
'We have overthrown capitalism... "We have seized power. We have built up a mighty socialist industry. We have transferred the middle peasants on to the path of socialism. We have already accomplished what is most important from the point of view of construction.
"Not much is left to do; to gain technique, to master science. And when this is achieved, our pace shall become such as we dare not even dream of at present."
(Stalin February 1931 speech to the First All-Union Conference of Leading Personnel of Socialist Industry. )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Armies don't have to be clothed in uniform . Invasion forces don't have to be either numerous or in an open set battle formation.
The rest of your rant is the same old tied tirade against our economic system.
'We have overthrown capitalism....."We have seized power. We have built up a mighty socialist industry. We have transferred the middle peasants on to the path of socialism. We have already accomplished what is most important from the point of view of construction.
"Not much is left to do; to gain technique, to master science. And when this is achieved, our pace shall become such as we dare not even dream of at present."
(Stalin February 1931 speech to the First All-Union Conference of Leading Personnel of Socialist Industry. )

---

Tom there was no real industry in Russia during this time. It was still largely a peasant dependent society. The speech is a reflection of historicism that existed within that particular period.

Yes Marxism is loaded with historicism. You also correctly note that Communism takes root in agrarian societies and not developed industrial ones .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

yes Marxism is loaded with historicism. You also correctly note that Communism takes root in agrarian societies and not developed industrial ones .

---

So you are safe.

Quote:

---

So you are safe.

---

Touché.