America Shows Many Signs of Impending, Catastrophic Collapse - a Pulitzer Prize Winner Explains

I think they are hard to understand and they do dress strangely.. but after the first five years you do get that they are very much like us.

 

"Relinquish" in the sense of how the British Empire dealt with its changed, diminished role in the world. That wasn't a "surrender" but rather more of a sensible and orderly transition of power to the new emerging world power.

No. I'm not a socialist. I don't favour any political party or ideology. I've never read a political manifesto of of any persuasion. With a few notable exceptions, I regard them all as being largely bought and paid for crooks imo, who largely represent the interests of the tiny elite.

Well, the examples you presented were either or. That why I mentioned it. I appreciate that on forum's we all tend to post in short-hand, but even so you really needed to make that clearer. But okay.

The other part of your post is about markets not about politics --- where politics is defined as governance, and markets are defined as being about the purchase and sale of commodities.

The real problem today, as I see it anyway, is that the tail (markets) now wags the dog (politics), whereas it once was the other way around and to my mind worked better that way. I am no fan of the Chicago school nor excessive deregulation. The latter simply gives a permit to the worst aspects of human nature to emerge - which is what we've seen in the 2007/8 crash. Markets do not "regulate themselves", as Thatcher once proclaimed.

Economists are largely a waste of time. In my experience. In recent decades it became fashionable to treat economists as guru's, deferring to their inexplicable expertise. The fact is that I used to speak to senior economists from leading City banks on a daily basis for years, and formed an opinion about them. You call them explainers. Yes, they can "explain" and explain until the cows come home. I used to listen to their waffling, fence-sitting analysis until I was cross-eyed. Guru's they ain't.

 

How would you have stopped the Arab Spring? How would you have kept Gadaffi in power? That's what I mean by control as long as you are blaming Obama.

 

Yes ... the sharia police are among us

 

My take is that one doesn't need to adhere to a political ideology in order to be able to accurately observe the designer destruction going on around us. Hedges "observes" and then writes on his obervatiuons exceptionally well in my view

 

Why should I have stopped the uprisings?

I don't know if it would have made any difference in Libya, but maybe we shouldn't have worked to take down Gadaffi.

 

Talk about spinning facts. By some magical transformative method activated in the gloopy depths of your psyche you've translated all that backwards. Probably for ego preservation. The word delusional seems most appropriate to describe your state of mind.

On 4, repeat 4, disagreements in past discussions, you've never did back your assertions once (the Gough Whitlam overthrow, Assange, Sarkozy - who's now been arrested for corruption - plus one other subject). Despite repeated requests from me asking you to post supporting evidence for your assertions, you didn't once do that. You simply repeated, ad naseum, your usual unpleasant ad hom laced rhetoric. Whereas I posted dozens and dozens of links supporting my arguments.

That's when I gave up on you as being anything other than an old, grumpy, self-indulgent, bitching complainer who thinks he knows but doesn't. And put you on ignore.

But that you feel misunderstood on this forum, besides being a massive self deceit, was really too damned funny to pass unmentioned. It was just too sweet to ignore.

You're now back to being on ignore.

Have a nice day.

 

Agreed.

 

I figured that would be all you'd get out of that article.

 

The debate still goes on. It is not a settled issue. Many still consider Roe vs. Wade as bad case law. Roe vs. Wade allows a unrestricted right to an abortion at anytime during the pregnancy. I always am fascinated by the term "Pro- Choice" and "Family Planning" as somehow these are used to make people feel like they are a positive thing. Sort of like "assisted suicide" is being compassionate.

 

And we had no welfare state to take care of them either.

 

Many Muslim countries use to be Roman. I think it has more to be with tribal thinking. Tribal societies are more fractured and are more loyal to their tribal leaders than to the state.

 

Just to be clear, you posted a series of assertions, most of them completely without factual basis. Then you play the classic internet troll game of 'prove my untrue assertion incorrect'. Links are meaningless if what is at the other end is trash.

I pulled apart the claims of your 'respected academic' on Sarkozy (where does that guy teach again? What are his credentials?) by showing that his entire claim about Sarkozy being a 'US agent' was based on the marriage of his estranged father's ex wife to an ex-CIA guy six or more years after she divorced the estranged father. This is apparently what qualifies as 'proof' to you. And froma guy with a history of just making things up. Typical of the people you treat as 'trusted sources'.

I then showed that an alleged quote by one of the Rothschilds you were passing off as real was almost certainly a fraud, and certainly not capable of being treated as accurate. Then you stormed off and sulked. I see you are doing that again. No surprises there. Incapable of dealing with contradiction and unable to produce credible sources to back up your fantasies.

In post after post you put up complete and utter tripe and treat it as fact for no other reason than that it suits your prejudices and your addiction to anti-Western conspiracy theories. I am not 'misunderstood' and neither are you. Anyone with the slightest ability to think critically knows what you are about.

Hopefully someone will quote this post so that you actually get to read it rather than hiding behind the ignore list.

 

It seems to me to be the best of all options and one that will endure...

 

Absolutely CLASSIC. You expect someone else to do it.

Well, you go ahead and post it then. Why wait for others to do it for you? Do a forum search. It's not that hard. Even for you. Simply post a link to the page/s in question and others can judge for themselves which of us is the honest one here.

Or is that, as usual, you're too damned lazy and prefer to "hide" behind your usual rhetoric and ever-green assertions so as to avoid your posts being contaminated by facts.

Go ahead and post one of those 4 subject that we debated at length - three of which I named earlier.

 

Did they participate in the Roman government?

 

We didn't.. We didn't kill Gadaffi. Libyan militias did that.

NATO acted to stop the slaughter and stop the flood of Libyan refugees pouring into Italy.

 

There is always hope.

 

https://www.africaresource.com/rast...-emperor-caracalla-kara-kalla/comment-page-3/

I know locals headed provincial governments a lot of times.

 

They weren't in the Roman Senate.

 

The Roman senate had no power for most of the time during the empire. Pretty much rubber stamped what the emperor wanted.

 

Yes it does. The president’s function is to execute the law, not to “help common folks”.

 

I'm not defending Gaddafi.

We didn't kill him.

What we did was stop him from killing the people who eventually killed him.

Like I said, I don't know if things would have turned out differently, but the funny thing about conflicts is: if an outside force impedes one side, their chances of winning are reduced.

 

All non Muslims are unbelievers according to the Koran.

 

Quite the opposite.. Jews, Christians, Zorastrians are all believers.. people of the book.