6Likes
November 11th, 2013, 01:10 PM
After America's foray into the Viet Nam conflict, news began appearing revealing that Lyndon Johnson owned immense holdings in the financial securities of companies making product for the "war machine". It was typically written-up as, "Every helicopter lost in Viet Nam makes Johnson an even richer man".
Can this sort of misconduct among those of the "upper echelon" still be happening today? jocular
What?
Did you expect something else?
Well there seems to be a quite a few statics about similar to the one below that suggest defence contractors are pumping more money into politicians who take more of a pro military action approach. This graph show the contributions recieved by politicians in the vote over whether to attack Syria.
But I'm sure if you look deeper you'll find also sorts of links & lobbying connections between lots of politicians and the arms manufactures, after all they had to have some way of getting rich and corruption is certainly nothing new nor neither about disappear any time soon.
The Syria thing was the dumbest fiasco to come along in the past couple years. Whoever dreamt up the USA involvement needs to go back to school and find something that(s)he is actually good at.
Thanx Chris makes me even happier that McCain didn't get elected as president.
A curious thing, most veterans I know are actually anti-war.
Hmmm... it seems to be working brilliantly so far in the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt's foreign policy about carrying a big stick-- But we'll see where Syria is with regard to chemical weapons six months from now.Originally Posted by sculptor
Looking at it another way: If I were a vet, having seen military stringency applied even without formal combat involvement, I most surely would be against the real thing, would I not? joc
True. Of course, in a similar fashion, every soldier killed makes the remaining soldiers richer (same money into the military, fewer heads to spend it on.) It would be somewhat silly, though, to use that to claim that US soldiers lived off the graft of other soldier's deaths.
You need to demonstrate that the extension and prolongation of the war by Johnson was done with the express intent of increasing the value of his shareholdings. Failing that you need to withdraw your comment on the basis that idle speculation is inappropriate in a science forum.
Or else? jocularYou need to demonstrate that the extension and prolongation of the war by Johnson was done with the express intent of increasing the value of his shareholdings. Failing that you need to withdraw your comment on the basis that idle speculation is inappropriate in a science forum.
Or else you will identify yourself as a fool or a liar.Or else? jocularYou need to demonstrate that the extension and prolongation of the war by Johnson was done with the express intent of increasing the value of his shareholdings. Failing that you need to withdraw your comment on the basis that idle speculation is inappropriate in a science forum.
The former is an already well-known condition. It is wondered how the asking of a question may be construed as lying, though. jocularOr else you will identify yourself as a fool or a liar.Or else? jocularYou need to demonstrate that the extension and prolongation of the war by Johnson was done with the express intent of increasing the value of his shareholdings. Failing that you need to withdraw your comment on the basis that idle speculation is inappropriate in a science forum.
Because the question clearly implies that Johnson's execution of the Vietnam war was designed to enrich him. That is offered as an absolute. If the poster is aware that this may not have been the case then they are lying.
In finality, how could the poster be aware AT ALL of the true facts regarding any of this? Of all folks, you no doubt are quite aware of the dubious qualities extant in most mass-media reporting. jocularBecause the question clearly implies that Johnson's execution of the Vietnam war was designed to enrich him. That is offered as an absolute. If the poster is aware that this may not have been the case then they are lying.
And it's even worse in the non mass-media "reporting" on conspiracy sites and blogs.In finality, how could the poster be aware AT ALL of the true facts regarding any of this? Of all folks, you no doubt are quite aware of the dubious qualities extant in most mass-media reporting.
Should I point out here that my search on the terms in the OP came up with mostly conspiracy oriented sites on the first page of results?
like:
?Senator : Have you stopped beating your wife?
Not surprised. Here's one, not entirely off-thread: The "grassy knoll" theory of location in front of JFK's motorcade told of the one place a sniper could have secreted himself, since the BACK of Kennedy's skull had a 3X4 inch piece blown out of it, clearly impossible if the bullet entered from the BACK, fired by Oswald. The grassy knoll had a series of storm drains beneath it of sufficient size for a man to enter at quite a distance away, and emerge to shoot at the motorcade. The system of storm drains was built many years earlier, by a contracting company owned by Lyndon Johnson, whose main occupational interests then included running the company. Therefore, he had intimate knowledge of the location's possibilities. Finally, what single individual stood to gain THE MOST from Kennedy's death? joc
Late to the party... But...
Fascinating.
I recall how you reacted when you THOUGHT I called you a liar when I actually hadn't. And I recall the result of that... I was banned for a couple weeks.
A case of the leaders not adhering to the standards they hold their underlings to, I suppose. Because apparently you can dish it right out but not take it.
Now, I'm not one for Conspiracy Claims, but in politics and in media reporting, people don't necessarily conspire as much as report with personal bias. And it is valid to point out that in media and in politics, there's little science and a lot of bias.
Calling a person a Liar, right out like that appears to have been a great way to Start Some Crap, without really entering into the discussion or giving any valid arguments. A scientific discussion of the topic might involve examination of evidence and claims.
After paying attention to other things... I come back and look around the forum only to wind up disgusted and annoyed at the behavior of its moderators. That's a shocker... Who watches the watchers... Given such things, it's No Wonder At All that people could possibly distrust the leaders of a nation. Given the example we see right here on the forum, corruption and lack of accountability is certainly a part of human nature.
Of course, I'll probably catch heat for Pointing This Out Here... Can't have that going on.
Kennedy was wearing a rigid back brace. That kept him near immobilised and firmly upright after the first shot hit him. Had he not been wearing it, he most likely would have slumped in his seat or might have taken protective action himself - like slipping down to one side or hunkering down between the seats.since the BACK of Kennedy's skull had a 3X4 inch piece blown out of it, clearly impossible if the bullet entered from the BACK, fired by Oswald.
If he hadn't been wearing the backbrace that kept him upright and not moving after the first shot, his head wouldn't have been held in position for the fatal shot at all. His crook back basically turned an assassination attempt into a killing.
And the investigations would have taken an entirely different turn.
Interestingly, numerous attempts were made to replicate Oswald's phenomenal performance with the Italian Carcano rifle he used. Members of the Gun Culture who were intimately familiar with that type of rifle unanimously agreed the rifle's bolt mechanism was not capable of being fired anywhere near the repetition rate the Commission claimed had occurred. See below quotes from: John F. Kennedy assassination rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia jocular
During his Marine Corps service in December 1956, Oswald scored a rating of sharpshooter (twice achieving 48 and 49 out of 50 shots during rapid fire at a stationary target 200 yards [183 m] away using a standard issue M1 Garand semi-automatic rifle), although in May 1959, he qualified as a marksman (a lower classification than that of sharpshooter). Military experts, after examining his records, characterized his firearms proficiency as "above average" and said he was, when compared to American civilian males of his age, "an excellent shot".[57]
However, Nelson Delgado, a Marine in the same unit as Oswald, used to laugh at Oswald's shooting prowess and testified that Oswald often got "Maggie's drawers"; meaning a red flag that is waved from the rifle pits to indicate a complete miss of the target during qualification firing. He also said that Oswald did not seem to care if he missed or not.[58] Delgado was first stationed with Oswald in Santa Ana, California at the beginning of 1958 meeting him for the first time there and a little more than a year after Oswald first made sharpshooter.[59]
[COLOR="#0000CD]"Skeptics have argued that expert marksmen could not duplicate Oswald's alleged feat in their first try during re-enactments by the Warren Commission (1964) and CBS (1967). In those tests the marksmen attempted to hit the target three times within 5.6 seconds. This time span has been heavily disputed. The Warren Commission itself estimated that the time span between the two shots that hit President Kennedy was 4.8 to 5.6 seconds. If the second shot missed (assuming the first and third shots hit the president), then 4.8 to 5.6 seconds was the total time span of the shots. If the first or third shot missed, that would give a minimum time of 7.1 to 7.9 seconds for the three shots.[60] Modern analysis of a digitally enhanced Zapruder film suggests that the first, second, and final shot may have taken 8.3 seconds"[/COLOR]
Between me sniping at John Galt and a side debate over the JFK sniping, this thread is spiraling quickly.
I have a question: What monetary assets did Johnson have tied up in the war effort?
maybe, there is a guilt component?Looking at it another way: If I were a vet, having seen military stringency applied even without formal combat involvement, I most surely would be against the real thing, would I not? joc
.......................
Poor Kennedy,
so much pain, addisons disease and all those drugs, deteriorating his spine, then the surgeries and infections.
If the rotten bastard hadn't died young, he'd have been in constant pain. Rather than acknowledge the addisons, his family made up the war injury story.
When in doubt, lie? Camelot? Or a fiction which gained acceptance through his assassination?
Whether a signature, or otherwise intended:maybe, there is a guilt component?Looking at it another way: If I were a vet, having seen military stringency applied even without formal combat involvement, I most surely would be against the real thing, would I not? joc
.......................
Poor Kennedy,
so much pain, addisons disease and all those drugs, deteriorating his spine, then the surgeries and infections.
If the rotten bastard hadn't died young, he'd have been in constant pain. Rather than acknowledge the addisons, his family made up the war injury story.
When in doubt, lie? Camelot? Or a fiction which gained acceptance through his assassination?
"Most people with primary Addison's have darkening (hyperpigmentation) of the skin, including areas not exposed to the sun; characteristic sites are skin creases (e.g. of the hands), nipple, and the inside of the cheek (buccal mucosa); also, old scars may darken"
But, little surprises me, anymore. Many have tried to "best" FDR's popularity......joc
I went to log in to Yahoo email and saw an interesting article pop up.
Yahoo is being sued for allegedly intercepting personal information in users emails and using it to turn a profit. Now, I don't know the 'facts' of the case... nor is the media all that reliable (Remember the Wal_mart beating and subsequent death of a alleged shoplifter? How about the George Zimmerman ordeal in which it was simply, "Black child shot dead by white man"?) in figuring out what's going on. Especially considering the finances Yahoo has at stake.
So, first and foremost- a person or entity in a position of power will often use that position for personal gain- even to the point of really pushing the envelope until they get caught. Corporations are notorious for doing whatever they can, even to the point of almost madness, hoping they won't get caught. Some even profit enough from crooked activities that the fines are significantly less than the profit and just considered to be an acceptable risk.
So what's it take for a conspiracy to be involved? See, that's the real clincher... a 'conspiracy' can happen without people conspiring, simply because a large group of people are motivated by Personal Gains.
There need not be an actual conspiracy... Just enough people that unwittingly create one by trying to fill their pockets or cover their butts.
This will be my last post on the forum for a while. Perhaps quite a while. Go fuck yourself, just maybe it will improve your reading comprehension and ability to perceive the texture of reality.Late to the party... But...
Fascinating.
I recall how you reacted when you THOUGHT I called you a liar when I actually hadn't. And I recall the result of that... I was banned for a couple weeks.
A case of the leaders not adhering to the standards they hold their underlings to, I suppose. Because apparently you can dish it right out but not take it.
Now, I'm not one for Conspiracy Claims, but in politics and in media reporting, people don't necessarily conspire as much as report with personal bias. And it is valid to point out that in media and in politics, there's little science and a lot of bias.
Calling a person a Liar, right out like that appears to have been a great way to Start Some Crap, without really entering into the discussion or giving any valid arguments. A scientific discussion of the topic might involve examination of evidence and claims.
After paying attention to other things... I come back and look around the forum only to wind up disgusted and annoyed at the behavior of its moderators. That's a shocker... Who watches the watchers... Given such things, it's No Wonder At All that people could possibly distrust the leaders of a nation. Given the example we see right here on the forum, corruption and lack of accountability is certainly a part of human nature.
Of course, I'll probably catch heat for Pointing This Out Here... Can't have that going on.
You have no idea how often I've wanted to say that to you...
A bit like your reading comprehension in the above example?
You see, John Galt, you're not a bad person or a bad member. You get angry like anyone else. You have opinions, like everyone else.
In the end, you might be a great member. You might be a great guy.
But you're a bad moderator.
You set a poor example and the massive indignation that follows is the lack of balance in that equation. A good man, a good member- a bad mod. It happens to most- I would probably be a terrible moderator which is why I never will be one.
I'm sorry that you feel picked on, believe it or not. You're not a monster- you're a person that speaks his mind. The only difficulty stems from others being unable to speak to you on the same level.
At one time, I felt pretty bad about the possibility that I may have weighed in on your absence from this board.
I messaged you about it and you assured me I played no part in it. You returned shortly thereafter.
I regretted PM'ing you.
I don't feel bad, this time. Enjoy the time you take for yourself.
Not imo, one only need to demonstrate that there is a conflict of interest, once the conflict of interest is there, it doesnt matter anymore, its not reasonable to prove the intent one way or another, the conflict of interest in itself should not be acceptable in the fist place imo."You need to demonstrate that the extension and prolongation of the war by Johnson was done with the express intent of increasing the value of his shareholdings."
This being said, since we talk about war and war profiteering, WAR IS A RACKET here a book that is still as interesting in this century as it was it the previous, and its accessible for free.
BTW, I would not be a good Moderator, because I find it hard to be moderate although I am trying, and this position requires a great deal of composure and tact, sometimes I could fill the opposite position of Exaggerator.
This is a good point. The way I see it, for the accusation to be validated in any way, strong evidence is required.Not imo, one only need to demonstrate that there is a conflict of interest, once the conflict of interest is there, it doesnt matter anymore, its not reasonable to prove the intent one way or another, the conflict of interest in itself should not be acceptable in the fist place imo."You need to demonstrate that the extension and prolongation of the war by Johnson was done with the express intent of increasing the value of his shareholdings."
This being said, since we talk about war and war profiteering, WAR IS A RACKET here a book that is still as interesting in this century as it was it the previous, and its accessible for free.
But to entertain the notion... less is required..
Additionally, in politics, a Conflict of Interest is a valid cause to raise doubts as to a persons involvement. For example, a cop whose family member was molested or assaulted by a perp won't be placed on his guard duty shift...
I hadn't thought of it.
| « Whoever you vote for the goverment gets in? | Massive arachnid and bug emporium. » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
