Dragon Ball Z Uncensored

L Ron Butterfly · (Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:47 am)

Wall Street Journal (US)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122654051563123143.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The Independent (UK)

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-obamas-chance-to-end-the--fantasy-that-is-star-wars-1015509.html

Fagzilla · (Thu Nov 13, 2008 3:11 am)

Great thread.

johnbuisthegreat · (Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:21 am)

Star Whores more like it

Derek Payne · (Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:17 am)

Missile Defense is usually just a clever workaround to improve defense spending overall.

Magic Juan · (Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:22 am)

Missile Defense is when Derek is lying on his back and ten men are standing all around him and he tries impotently to swat their dicks away as they try to fuck his fatty folds.

Derek Payne · (Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:24 am)

NANI?!?!?!?!?!

johnbuisthegreat · (Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:55 am)

I would like to see an economic growth

johnbuisthegreat · (Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:56 am)

War used to make money when it was just jobs and shit not scientists getting budgets to flourish around in their 2008 Camaro's

Vinny · (Thu Nov 13, 2008 12:25 pm)

War has changed.
_________________

Derek Payne · (Thu Nov 13, 2008 12:35 pm)

War...
War never changes.

YES · (Thu Nov 13, 2008 1:45 pm)

I like how no one here understand how US economic policy has worked

*puts military budget and low taxes on credit*

*claims military stimulates economy through magic*

L Ron Butterfly · (Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:38 pm)

I think war is supposed to stimulate the economy by reducing unemployment in two major ways:

shipping people to another country so that there are fewer people in the job market, and therefor more available jobs, and

creating jobs by manufacturing weapons and stuff.

However, none of this actually puts more money into the equation, and the production of weapons probably is funded by credit.

It is interesting how the Wall Street Journal is so against the impending administration's actions with regards to Poland and Russia and missile defense, whereas the Independent sees it as ending a costly, dangerous bluff that has been going on for more than twenty years.

The Wall Street Journal article tries so hard to speak above your head that there are times when it technically does not even make grammatical sense. It is obviously FEAR-MONGERING, and accuses Obama's administration of "showing weakness" when he was elected largely on the grounds that he will favor diplomacy over millitary force. While the Independent article is easier to understand
understand, it is arrogant and condescending. Its arguably immature tone could be construed as reflecting an oversimplification of the issue.

Which take on the story do you agree with? I personally agree with the Independent. I think the Wall Street Journal is looking out for the interests of stockholders in companies that profit off defense and millitary spending. If the people who hire lobbyists to whisper in the president's ear to start a war with somebody so they can afford a new private jet all go completely broke, it will be the best thing that's ever happened to this country / the world.

8 bit orgy · (Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:01 pm)

There isn't single piece of economic literature that seriously proposed the concept of war actually HELPING the economic health of any nation. I have no idea where people are getting this idea from.

It's either guns or butter.

Big Fagot · (Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:08 pm)

It's the broken window fallacy. People think of war as a time of employment and therefore prosperity, like how everybody would be employed if we all had jobs folding paper cranes and then burning them.

L Ron Butterfly · (Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:17 pm)

Well, if we were actually succesful enough in the Middle East to steal all their oil and sell it back to them, then THAT would help our economy.

Anyway, new subject:

UNIVERSAL COMPULSORY SERVICE IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kerry-picket/2008/11/11/ben-smith-interview-rahm-emanuel-compulsory-service-plan-will-media-ig

A circle of love???

I didn't know I was voting for this!!

Seriously, though, does anybody believe this could actually happen?

Username · (Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:26 pm)

Universal service would be one of the best things to happen to this country in a long time.

Big Fagot · (Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:30 pm)

Yeah, I was going to say that that would be A++++ would vote again, if it could actually be pulled off.

Fagzilla · (Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:42 pm)

I don't understand why this is good.

If the fucking government forced me do anything like this, I would personally overthrow it.

L Ron Butterfly · (Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:45 pm)

I don't understand how this is LIBERAL. It's like the draft, only worse.

I guess the only way it's liberal is that it favors more government intervention in the lives of citizens.

I'm totally against this, and I think Rahm Emanuel is KIND OF AN ASSHOLE, though probably a necessary asshole for a somewhat passive guy like Obama.

Does anybody else think that Emanuel's ties to Israel will continue the demonization of Islam and the WAR ON TERROR? Does anybody care?

Speaking of the War on Terror, OH NO, NOT ANOTHER 9/11!!!!!!

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/us-stocks-close-crazed-session/story.aspx?guid=AB949F4F-AFDB-44A0-82D2-8BE73FB6B2F2&dist=SecEditorsPicks

Username · (Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:06 pm)

If we had an active draft, Iraq would have never happened, and Disneistan would be set to open up in 2010. This would especially be true if there were no exemptions.