JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
NATO clashes with Serbs
in northern Kosovo
Deutsche Presse-Agentur, by Timothy Jones & Spencer Kimball

Original Article

Posted By:photoonist, 11/25/2011 8:37:54 PM

NATO peacekeepers have clashed with Serbs manning a roadblock in northern Kosovo. It's the latest in a series of incidents as Serbs in the region continue to resist the country's ethnic Albanian administration. NATO claims that 21 of its soldiers suffered injuries during clashes with ethnic Serbs in northern Kosovo amid an ongoing dispute over border management. The incidents occurred around midnight local time on Thursday when dozens of troops from NATO's Kosovo Force (KFOR) attempted to dismantle a Serb-manned roadblock at Dudin Krs, near the town of Zvecan.

REMIND ME: Who are the bad guys in this 3-way?
 
Kenno, thanks for posting those links. You beat me to it. Funny how when A.I.P. started this thread stating that in a few weeks that Greece and Europe fall, people mocked him. Three weeks later they're about to fall. It's amazing that some people on this board didn't see that coming. Hopefully people open their eyes because the kind of choas that Europe is facing is coming to a town near you.
 
Well according to a friend,who seems to listen to "dooms day radio" the talk this morning was will need to speak German soon, as they are the only ones left with enough money to bail anybody out.

They could control more of Europe than Hitler did.......without bombs
 
Well according to a friend,who seems to listen to "dooms day radio" the talk this morning was will need to speak German soon, as they are the only ones left with enough money to bail anybody out.

They could control more of Europe than Hitler did.......without bombs

The Germans don't have the money for the bail out approach. However, check this BBC interview out for a possible actual solution that might just work:

Steve Keen On Parasitic Bankers, Deluded Economists, and Why
 
Kenno, thanks for posting those links. You beat me to it. Funny how when A.I.P. started this thread stating that in a few weeks that Greece and Europe fall, people mocked him. Three weeks later they're about to fall. It's amazing that some people on this board didn't see that coming. Hopefully people open their eyes because the kind of choas that Europe is facing is coming to a town near you.

There are several types of PPL on the net vis-a-vis the enginered global collapse:
Those who see what is happening and Why it is happening and are willing to talk about it.
Those who see what is happening and are in abject denial.
Those who do not see what is happening.
Those who want global collapse and are willing to talk about it
Those who want global collapse and want to denegrate everyone who is against the collapse and resulting New World Order (Global Communisim).
I do what I can, with what I have, acceptance or rejection is not on my list of concerns. I've been subject to extremely hateful attacks and called every name in the book and even had PPl tell me to kill myself (on this site).
I've experienced enough attacks to be able to classify what kind of personality produces them, what level of maturity the attacker posesses, thier political persuasion. I take little notice and am not disheartened. If history turns back towards Liberty I'll be the happiest man on earth, but that moment for reversing course may well have passed.
 
International Socialism then?

I see this term socialism bantered about but have never seen anyone put forth an exact definition of what it is and why it is bad. I am not talking hyperbolic jingoism, I am talking exact definitions. Could you do this so I can better understand your view point? I am asking in an honest and sincere way.

Here's why I ask: I think we can all agree that the Scandinavian countries have socialist programs. Yet they have very high standards of living, excellent educational systems, and are among the healthiest people (life spans) of first world nations. I sincerely ask, how is socialism failing them?
 
I see this term socialism bantered about but have never seen anyone put forth an exact definition of what it is and why it is bad. I am not talking hyperbolic jingoism, I am talking exact definitions. Could you do this so I can better understand your view point? I am asking in an honest and sincere way.

Here's why I ask: I think we can all agree that the Scandinavian countries have socialist programs. Yet they have very high standards of living, excellent educational systems, and are among the healthiest people (life spans) of first world nations. I sincerely ask, how is socialism failing them?

Socialism is an economic or governmental system in which the public, or the state, owns or runs important industries via edict. Its goal is to have the industries make money which can be used for the benefit of everyone. It (who's IT and why does IT want to benifit the masses?) wants to give workers some control over their work places. When economic planning is applied extensively, it is referred to as "communism", although communism as used by Karl Marx had a different meaning originally.

Social Democracy is a form of socialism that attempts to mix parts of socialism with capitalism . Oftentimes the people, when social democracy is practiced as a form of government, collectively contribute money or other goods for the benefit of the entire community (TAXES). An example of this would be America's fire departments, which rely on taxes paid by the people to maintain equipment and staff for the betterment of the community, should something catch on fire. Some (?) social democratic countries have a higher income tax for people with high incomes, called a "progressive tax". This tax, and other measures, helps to reduce the gap between rich and poor (producers and non-producers)within a nation.

In many countries that practice social democracy, industries are subsidized and/or partially controlled by the government with TAXES. For example, education, health care or public transportation are some industries that might be owned/maintained by the government or people in a socialist system. For the most part, people working in these industries are paid by the government, with money(Taxes) paid by the people as taxes. America's education system is a socialist system.

Another kind of Socialism is "Collectivization." In this system, money and goods are shared more equally among the people, with the government in control. In theory, this system results in the divide between classes shrinking, with the poorest of a nation's people getting better looked after while the richest make sacrifices in terms of higher taxes and regulation of business. Of course, socialism as it is commonly practiced differs in many ways from communism but in general it is a great system if your a wolf or happy being a sheep.
Today, many democratic socialists, especially in Western Europe, want industries to be guided jointly by representatives of shareholders as well as the workers working together in what is known as an industrial democracy because both groups have interests in the success of the enterprise. This would be a more direct democratic way of organizing rather than control by central government. Trade unions and/or workers councils would represent the interests of the employees. The US Postal Service is an excelant example.

Many countries view Socialism in different ways. Social Democracy, for example, a Democratic form of Socialism, is the most common kind of government in the world. Socialist International is an organization dedicated to the cause of promoting socialist ideals, and has ties with many Socialist parties, especially Social Democratic ones, Communists and Marxists.

So in other words under Socialism the individual's labor does not benifit him, his wages are predetermined as is his tax burden, which never goes down. His wealth is taken and given to others he does not know and by definition the wealth is always given to the Non-Productive portion of society. Only those at the TOP have control of wealth and they manipulate the system so that most of the "nation's wealth" stays at the TOP.
Socialism starts with the concept that politicians can run a business better than the people that own the business, Soviet Russia is a perfect example of where that ALWAYS leads. Businesses are ruined, bankrupted then run using tax dollars to support an increasingly non-productive system ruled by crony beurocrats, the concept of Justice and Personal Responsiability are seen as a joke.
I've lived iunder 3 Socialist Systems they are both abject failures far closer to Serfdom than Liberation.
Scandinavian countries, like Iceland started borrowing to prop-up thier Entitlement Culture. They are weak and dieing states and are soon to be overwhelmed by thier debts and by Islamo-Facism.
The Problem with Socialism is that eventually the Power Elite run out of people to rob.
Socialism is a fraud, a theft, a parasite who's end stage in it's life cycle is to kill it's host, that is why Soviet Russia died, Europe is dieing, America is in Critica Condition and China is switching from Communism to National Socialism, then to Capitalism.
Obama is sending 7 Triilon Tax Dollars, borrowed on the backs of generations of Americans, to europe to prop up thier failed Socialst Systems and you think that is an endorsement!
 
A.I.P. I owe you a beer/coffee for taking the time to help me understand things. Very nice write up, and it is truly appreciated. I I wish everyone could be so clear.

BTW Iceland had to close thier McDonalds because thier exchange rate is so poor they can no longer afford US beef pattys.
I drink coffee but not that stuff they sell at Starbucks.
Besides the 7 trillion Obama Dollars that may go to europe
the IMF wants to give 608 Billion US Tax Dollars (borrowed from China) away as a means of BUYING Europe (like Greece). bankers would end-up owning europe, running it with appointed Administrators or selling it to a consortium of "Investors". The US will be bankruptedfor generations in the process
 
"This Is What Socialism Looks Like!"
World Headlines

EU Threatens Tiny Switzerland Over Low Taxes | Print |
Written by Alex Newman
Monday, 28 November 2011 17:00
Despite not being a member of the European Union, Switzerland is under intense pressure from Brussels to raise taxes as companies flee high-tax EU welfare states in favor of more business-friendly Swiss cantons. And if the nation refuses to bow down soon, so-called "eurocrats" are threatening retaliation.
The Swiss government has been in discussions with EU bosses for over a year regarding Switzerland's non-compliance with the "EU Code of Conduct for Business Taxation." The EU's goal, according to the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation, is to eliminate what the supranational regime in Brussels calls "harmful tax practices" — low taxes which attract capital, businesses, jobs, and workers away from the crumbling European super-state.

But the EU tax regime does not apply to Switzerland, Swiss authorities insist. The nation has a long history of avoiding foreign entanglements, and despite immense pressure, it has steadily resisted calls to submit to regional authorities and continental "integration" schemes.

In Switzerland, cantonal governments close to voters set their own tax policies. The resulting competition between the more than two dozen cantons fosters a business-friendly environment of low taxes, minimal government interference, and widespread prosperity. That is one important reason why international businesses flock to Switzerland in droves.

The Swiss model works so well that even as the EU and its single euro currency face a crisis of monumental proportions and possible economic implosion, Switzerland's economy is doing just fine. Its GDP per capita is about double the EU's, while its unemployment rate is around half.

The Swiss government also consistently posts budget surpluses as its bloated EU neighbors drown in debt and seek bailouts. In fact, Switzerland is even helping to fund the handouts for profligate European regimes. And its economy is the most competitive in the world, according to the global competitiveness index.

With a heavily armed population of less than eight million, Switzerland has maintained its sovereignty and independence through two world wars raging on all sides and the more recent erection of the EU, which now completely surrounds the tiny alpine nation. With a decentralized system of government, the Swiss have also been able to largely preserve their liberty despite constant European pressure.

But Brussels — ruling over half of a billion people so far — is not giving up yet. A recent EU report threatened that if "satisfactory" progress is not made on ending Switzerland's low tax rates within the next six months, unspecified "alternative measures" will have to be considered. And according to EU diplomats cited by the Swiss News Agency, "retaliation measures" might be in the cards.

"Just who do these unelected oiks think they are? Bullying a sovereign state outside of the EU to comply with ‘their' greedy tax practices. What they really mean is, as a centrally planned soviet-style economy, the EU cannot cope with competition," said Ian Parker-Joseph, the former leader of the UK Libertarian Party. "This is what happens when democracy meets an authoritarian dictatorship, and all the more reason to resist such unreasonable demands.... But something tells me that the oiks in Brussels won't be around for too much longer to put pressure on anyone."

Incredibly, EU bosses claim to consider low corporate tax rates a form of subsidies. And if the Swiss refuse to comply with European demands, the punishment could be devastating — especially because Switzerland depends so heavily on international trade.

"One day Brussels will certainly make Bern give in. Switzerland will either have to implement the code of conduct or make concessions," Geneva University political scientist René Schwok told the Swiss Info news agency. "It will be forced to find a solution. For example, it might lower taxation for Swiss firms and raise it for foreign companies."

Indeed, Switzerland has been working to maintain friendly relations with European governments. It recently signed treaties with the UK and Germany promising to hand over tax revenues purportedly owed to the two governments — but not the names of clients.

But the European Commission reacted with outrage at the treaties. Because the two governments negotiated without the EU and sidestepped several of its demands, the supranational regime is threatening to sue them in the European "Court of Justice."

National rulers are adding to the pressure on Switzerland. French President Nicolas Sarkozy, for example, viciously railed against Switzerland recently for refusing to help France track down alleged tax evaders, threatening to make the tiny country into an international pariah if it did not cooperate.

"We do not want any more tax havens," Sarkozy roared at reporters earlier this month, citing Switzerland and Lichtenstein. "The message is very clear: countries which persist in being tax havens will be ostracized by the international community."

And tax-funded pro-tax lobbyists and propagandists joined in the condemnation, too. "It may be a welcome step for the EU if France is prepared to use its political muscle against Switzerland," said Markus Meinzer of the taxpayer-financed "Tax Justice Network," which opposes financial privacy.

The EU has also repeatedly demanded that Switzerland automatically accept the growing avalanche of European "laws" promulgated from Brussels in exchange for being able to trade freely with the bloc. So far, however, the Swiss have not given in to the bullying.

Switzerland's strongest political party, the center-right Swiss People's Party (SVP), continues to take a hard line against the perpetually growing EU apparatus and its efforts to infringe on the small nation's sovereignty. The population overwhelmingly opposes foreign entanglements as well.

The EU defines terrorism as offenses that may "seriously damage a country or an international organization where committed with the aim of: seriously intimidating a population; or unduly compelling a Government or international organization to perform or abstain from performing any act; or seriously destabilizing or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organization." EU critics have pointed out that the supranational regime's bullying tactics fit several elements of the definition almost exactly.

Of course, the EU is not the only ailing powerhouse to bully the Swiss. Last year, the U.S. government was terrorizing the nation about its banking and tax laws, too. And the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) — which has essentially become a "cartel" for bloated welfare regimes — also consistently targets Switzerland's economic liberty.

Some critics said the EU was using Switzerland as a scapegoat for its own self-made economic crisis. Others lambasted European leaders for terrorizing the tiny country instead of fixing the EU's own problems — possibly by using the Swiss model that seems to work so well for Switzerlan
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Qui Bono Euro Currency Defection?

Pundits and skeptics the world over have bandied the possible breakup of the euro zone since before the single currency existed. The collapse of Iceland (remember that), austerity in Ireland, the present default in Greece (permitted into the EU despite Goldman Sachs aiding their falsification of financial records), the rising cost of sovereign debt in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, and the fear of that debt's failure impacting French and German banks all beg the question, "Can the economic problems of the participating member states be significantly ameliorated by abandoning the Euro currency?" What is astonishing to this writer is not that the said same question is at issue, but that it absolutely seems to evade the mainstream media. Instead, the mainstream media and much of the blogosphere seems focused on, "Will the euro zone splinter?" Obviously they are NOT the same question.

The economic challenges of a Germany are far distinct from those of an Italy. Germany maintains a healthy manufacturing-based economy while maintaining a serviceable sovereign debt load. While Italy is facing slow economic growth (if even existent this year) with an exploding public debt. The possible defection of a Germany would arise from politicization of ECB policy and fears over inflationary bias while an Italian defection would arise from the need to inflate away sovereign debt in a novo Lira currency as tax increases will not cover their debt. Some have floated the notion of a Eurobond to address the weak state debt problems. But the phantom Eurobond rewards profligate states and punishes thrifty states. The risks and the rewards for defection differ from state to state and hence a single solution, such as a Eurobond, is a difficult sale (notice I did not say impossible). Now back to the question, "Can the economic problems of the participating member states be significantly ameliorated by abandoning the Euro currency?"

If Germany were to abandon the Euro currency, the ECB would promote an inflationary policy to deal with the debt problems of remaining member states. The Euro denominated debt held by German banks would shrink in relative terms, but reconstituting internal debt into novo Marks would present little impact. Germany would continue to thrive, albeit with some purchasing power loss from external debt denominated in Euros. If Italy were to abandon the Euro currency (which doesn't mean they have to leave the EU), they could swap sovereign Euro-denominated debt for novo Lira-debt, devalue the debt by printing it away. Italy would continue its profligacy while European and US banks would hold paper currency that meant far less than what it meant before the swap. Ultimately Italian debt would become a difficult sale and austerity would be forced upon Italy because the market would not purchase their debt.

Qui bono? It's simple really...Central Banks and Central Governments. Somehow some way the central bank and central government for the EU are going to gain more power. You have heard of the Laws of Physics and the Rule of Law, now learn the Laws of Rulers: Control by Central Powers is Ever Increasing So Long as Enforceable. Profligate states will have to reign in their social spending. Some big banks are going to suffer or fail as sovereign states try to kick the can by any means necessary. A Eurobond will exist because central banks and central governments love control. And ultimately the people are going to be stuck with all the debt with the interest going into the pockets of the elite. But isn't that the way it has always been? Have a nice day.
__________________
 
So in other words, all of europe will be forced into poverty and decend into 3rd world status and will be dominated by a single, non-elected, financial governing body with, given time, limitless powers. And Goldman -Sachs played a signifigant role.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top