The Smiley Smile Message Board

http://www.parade.com/news/2012/08/26-conversation-with-the-romneys.html

GO REPUBLICANS!

I wonder what Obama thinks about the Beach Boys. I mean everybody has at least one favorite Beach Boys song, right??? Maybe his is "You Need A Mess Of Help To Stand Alone"?

If the pre-sale isn't exclusively American Express, I am prepared to shed my personal values and vote for Mittens.

Also: I would die to hear Brian Wilson's candid comments from inside the White House.

No.

Live from the white house its the Beach Boys playing a medley of their most loved hits!

Cue Summer Of Love/Hey Little Tomboy/Roller Skating Child/Wrinkles medley

 

That's the perfect selection to represent Mitt Romney.  Embarrassing and creepy (though I actually do like Roller Skating Child to be honest).

What's the over/under on BJ wearing shorts to the white house

Oh God no.

Nothing like your favorite band being assoociated with pure evil, because people aren't dismissive of them enough as is. ^_^

They've already buddied around with the Reagans and the cast of Full House, how much lower can they get?  >:D

The only thing that would make this all worthwhile is if Bruce were to have an endless supply of Pacificos in the Green Room.

BTW, Mike and Bruce played for Romney before

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruB5nVKfNVg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruB5nVKfNVg)

You can see him at 1:07

You know the guys would just totally take the gig, too.

I know that playing the White House is an honor, but I could see these guys welcoming in Romney at his inaugural, and it really flips my wig.  Sometimes, sometimes, I have these moments where I am pulled away from the art, where I just realize the total discrepancy between myself and these fellows.  Mind you, with most of the bands I love, I don't have this problem.  Ever.  Now I realize that every one of the band members live in a tax bracket I'm likely to never even sniff, and I'm sure that living one's life in abject luxury every day must have it's effect, but I honestly don't believe it's the money, per se (even with other acts as absurdly wealthy and successful as the Beach Boys that I enjoy - my beloved Beatles, for example - I don't have this issue), but man, the more I think about it, there's something that just rubs me the wrong way with some of the things I see and hear.  Though I do get a positive feeling, in this regard, from Brian and (very much) from Al, I just can't shake the feeling that the most relatable fellas in the band are the ones who are already gone.

The plus side is that the guys have been generous with thier musical output, and as far as I can tell, have taken some very positive steps over the past few years to give the fans what we want to hear (something the folks over at NIRVANA, LLC could stand to learn from), leading to things like my high hopes for Made in California. I really don't mean to bad-mouth anybody.  I know nobody's perfect.  I love the music.  I suppose I just feel that since some of the group have been millionaires for so long (with at least one never knowing finacial hard times at all), that they make it seen as though they are really out of touch with the common man.  Honestly, I'm not bitter, and I'm probably making a mountain out of a mole hill, but it just hits me sometimes.

Maybe I'm the only one.

Edit: You know what? I went and left out David.  I've never seen, felt or head anything but good things.

Would you be saying all this if they played at the White House for the 'common man' Barack Obama?

I wouldn't mind if they played for him.  Because President Obama has a health care plan, a reasonable tax solution, believes in a woman's right to choose, supports gay marriage and I can go on and on.  The Beach Boys are supposed to be America's band but I understand being irked if that America they stand for isn't the more progressive one.

EDIT: Sorry for making this political but I just feel like I need to make my case whenever somebody puts down Obama.

Myself, personally, yes, as the idea of a Romney performance only served as a jumping off-point for the rest of my statement.  I've been feeling this way about some of the things I've seen and heard for a while now (certainly since bfore I just heard about this).  I don't hold any delusions that Obama, or sadly, anybody who will become President these days as having much in common with me.

But I take your point.

I would rather they play as we take what is a mess of this government. They can even change the lyrics to Anarchin' USA just for the proper occasion.

It's not a put-down to state that he doesn't have much in common with the 'common man'. It's the truth.

Having said that, I have absolutely no use for Obama and I feel anyone who believes either of these empty suits running for President really have any idea how to fix this country's woes is dangerously naive.

The Beach Boys in their prime represented a time when "hope" and "change" could actually mean something.

Baba booey Baba booey BEACH BOYS ROCK Baba booey Baba booey

One more:  (in John McCain's words) Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran...

Romney wants more massive tax breaks for the rich, dramatic increases in military spending, and a war with Iran.  There isn't a single economist on Planet Earth who thinks his numbers come even close to adding up. 

SANDBOX COUNTDOWN 10, 9, 8, 7...

Politics and good music don't get along.

That was Vince Vance & The Valiants, actually.  :)

Don't forget that taking away disposable income from the low and middle class is of course the best way to keep and create domestic jobs  ::) I guess Mitt's education didn't teach him that one man's spending is another man's income.

Creepy guy.  Very much an empty chair.

I have little patience for Romney nor for the modern-day Republican party (as opposed to the reality-based conservatism I was raised on), but c'mon people.  If he gets elected, he's president, and it's an honor to be asked, and they should do it, because theoretically he's supposed to be the president of everybody, not just one half of the nation.  I know it hasn't worked out that way much, but there's no reason to make it worse by having artistic apartheid in symbolic things like who gets invited to play.  If THEY have a serious philosophical agreement with Romney, then fine, but since Mitt pretty much tries to be all things to all people all the time and the band's politics are fuzzy to say the least (even Bruce doesn't like Romney very much apparently), it seems like there's no real point to be made in refusing.  And to reiterate -- I am not a Romney supporter in the least.

And hell, I can think of so many more people that Romney could ask that I so do NOT want to see play at the White House...ugh.  Hey, you think he'll ask Ted Nugent?  He's pretty right wing.  Now that would be a hoot.  I'd watch that concert just to see the reaction shots.

When? Maybe when he's brought more billions into the campaign then his opponent. It's a bitter fight in a devided society with dirty media propaganda.
By the way, there is info on the net that the Mormon's church only recently admitted that black people have souls! We are warned!
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/z1c9z/i_am_barack_obama_president_of_the_united_states/ God bless

At least the man has known a life without a father, and upbringing in impoverished Jakarta and yet he still made himself into the man he is today by perseverence and academic excellence (somehow he managed to get into Harvard from nowhere). The alternative, Mitt Romney comes from a wealthy family with a strong political history.

I find it funny that people would want to put Obama down as a out of touch, when he, like Bill, cam from nowhere and did it all. The republicans are far more dynastic.

They already been namechecked as the forerunners of Animal Collective, despite no discernible similarity

Both the people who are pro-Obama and pro-Romney are idiots.  If I'm invited to the White House, I don't care if it's Nixon, I'm honored and it's still my President.  The President is the face of the people who really run the country anyway.  Relax.  Life will go on whether he wins or not.

Mods, PLEASE move this thread to the Sandbox, where it belongs!!

Please, the mods are busy with Originals stuff

Sometimes Mitt really lets his hair down, pours himself a big glass of lukewarm tapwater and blasts "The Monkey's Uncle" at a considerate volume level from his Labtec speakers.

And the only way Rummy wins?  If he has juuuuust enough money to BUY his way into the White House.
 
Romoney. Running a campaign funded by wealthy fat cats who don't want to pay their fair share of taxes.
 
Romoney. A rich SOB who made his money by laying people off and farming out jobs to other countries.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BEACH BOYS

I'd live in jungle gym
In order to be with him
I love the monkey's uncle
And I wish I were the monkey's aunt!

Hey, DEVO should cover that.

Right. So it should be in the Sandbox, huh? But the Admins have a life away from this board (as I do) and aren't reading and posting on it 24/7 like some of you are. And some of you wanna argue politics and that last post of mine was just for you!

By the way, careful of the crap when you walk into the Sandbox - you might step in it when you read it.

You really have a life away from here Mikie? 
That's alot of specialness!

I sure do, Bgas.  In fact, after this post, I'm going to get away from this computer for a day or two 'cause I have stuff to do!

How about you?  I see you're still having trouble with typing "a lot".

+1000000000

of course Black people have souls,it's gingers and midgets that don't have souls... :lol

You're such a hardass sometimes, Aegir. :'(

I am for a republican for president. But not Romney!

Absolutely. The President is the President, and whether or not you like him (or her, hopefully at some point) the person is the President and I would feel very lucky to be invited to the White House.

It's likely Romney has not heard Bruce's comments about him.

Or he has and thus says the BBs are not the group they used to be.

Mittens R. Rombama and Barry Obomney are both the same person.

Ron Paul, baby!

I would vote for Jill Stein or, as a second choice Stewart Alexander in places where it is unnecessary to vote strategically. Otherwise, Obama as a last resort.

Ron Paul's campaign really depresses me. I just want the Republican vs. Democrat hate fest to stop. Watching Paul's campaign was so heartening at times, he was the unity candidate. He was honest, and humble, and seeing the discrepancy between the reality of his campaign and its' coverage by the media play out just broke my heart. Seeing legitimately elected Ron Paul delegates arrested and attacked (physically) was just too much to bare.

The internet has lost a lot of its' appeal for me, everywhere you go people are slinging mud and histrionically attacking one another. It's like you can't even be a good person anymore, if you're not a racist you're a socialist, and no matter what you can't get out of debate without being called a hypocrite. There's no objectivity anymore, there are no nuanced arguments, there is no discourse. There are only absolute moral judgements, and anyone who doesn't concede the universal validity of those judgements is "literally evil". Democrats attack Republicans for relying on The Bible to legitimize their moral judgements. Democrats insist upon "facts", but it's all a load of malarkey. The social sciences just aren't scientific enough to ground the Democratic agenda, but Democrats are too scared to admit that. And in the end, no matter what you believe, no matter which side you take, there's someone just itching to call you "literally evil" because of it.

It makes me incredibly sad, I can't go on listening to the condescending rhetoric. All I can do is just keep my tv turned off...
I like coming to this site because politics don't matter here, and we can all enjoy the therapeutic, feel good music and get along with one another. When one of these types of threads pop up though, and I just see people frothing at the mouth and losing their minds over what false choice our corrupt leaders happen to be pushing on us this week, well, it kind makes me feel sick to my stomach actually.  :-\

back on topic:

It would be great if the surviving Beach Boys (and certainly Brian) would be invited guests at the White House. I think Obama however knows little more than their surf hits (which the surviving members always wanted to be known for anyway) and thus dismisses them as such. Romney prob knows no better, only that they are the penultimate american surf group, bu he digs it. either way it would be great for the group. They would prob do only the very best known surf and fun songs, but w/e.. I would watch it if something like that showed up online.

Apparently Wouldn't It Be Nice is a song played at one or more than one Mitt Romney rallies.

I can't think of a worse song than "Wouldn't It Be Nice" played at rallies for any politician.  I don't think any politician should play songs unless they get permission from the artists involved. I doubt most artists, especially successful ones, want to alienate fans by taking sides.  If the music artist disagrees with the views represented, it actually brings negative publicity when campaigns are asked to stop playing songs because the singer or band in question objects.

  Obama has not earned a second term; Romney does not merit a first. Tired of the same old? Consider the quixotic campaign of Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson.

If Mitt Romney becomes President, God help you all.

And I'd consider the fact that Barack Obama has been for the most part crippled by the Republicans controlling both houses recently before you lay on him too strong, but I bet every day he stalks around the White House kicking that dog for not doing more when he had majorities. He might not be the Messiah, but he's not MITT FUCKIN ROMNEY. Which would be my motivation to vote Democrat if i lived in the states.

Oh God, nooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  A few things about Gary Johnson:

 1) Started a one man fix it outfit in 1974 with self as sole employee. He employed over 1000 people when he sold the business 20 years later. THAT is a classic real job creator rather than a vulture capitalist OR a community organizer.

 2) Served two terms of Gov of New Mexico to results generally respected and acclaimed: a balanced budget achieved without tax hikes. Unlike Obama or Romney, Johnson has a record of true fiscal success. In addition, Johnson's two terms as Gov give him more exec  govt experience than Obama and Romney combined.

3) Johnson is a fiscal conservative and a relative liberal on social issues. He has the courage to take a position neither Democratic nor Republican would: legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana, then see law enforcement expenditures, crime, and the deficit all go down.

I'm not an uppercase Libertarian, rather an alienated centrist who has never voted for a third party or independent candidate before, yet I am delighted at the prospect of not voting for Obama or Romney this November. A throwaway? Maybe so, but if enough people reject the dogma and flat out garbage both parties are offering, then positive change may be the result.


  Gary Johnson in 2012 

 


 

Johnson, as far as I'm concerned, has a particularly monstrous ideology and supports shifting power from the public to private tyrannies. He opposes Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. His Libertarianism also makes him anti-child labor laws, believing it would be fine to put 10 year olds to work for a few dollars an hour. These are heinous, barbaric, and dangerous views, in my opinion.

Abso-fucking-lutely sickening. "Wouldn't It Be Nice?", Pet Sounds and basically anything Brian or the Beach Boys has ever touched are so far removed from the kind of mentality that goes into this campaign. Love, kindness, innocence - these are the things that come to mind when I think of "Wouldn't It Be Nice?" Romney and co. could not be further removed from those things outside of maybe doing something like taking to the streets with flamethrowers or something. I wouldn't put something like that past them if he ever gets into office.

That's what's so f***ed up anymore. It feels like the vast majority of people of any kind of intelligence are voting not for someone they think can do a decent job, they're just voting AGAINST the obscenely evil asshole that has a chance of winning. It's all they can do to keep things totally f***ed up and out of hand, as they are now, because they know it could be ten times worse with the other guy. That's damn scary and sad.

I hear that Gary Johnson drinks smoothies made from aborted foetuses and plans to burn all the clinically obese citizens for fuel.

You're right, 10 year olds should be paid an hourly wage.

Well, if they're working they should be paid right?

They shouldn't be working - that's what child labor laws are about, not about securing wages for children.

I don't want to tell you what to think, but wouldn't it be better if Ron Paul ran as the third candidate? With a libertarian, or constitution party member as the running mate?

Mate, its a two party system. Jesus Christ could run as an independent candidate and struggle in the US.

Funny story about HOW Obama got into Harvard:

http://www.nevilleawards.com/obama_harvard.shtml

Also interesting that EVERY SINGLE ONE of Obama's other academic records are all now sealed.
Of course John Kerry's military records are still sealed to the pubic as well...yes, even now in 2012,
EIGHT YEARS after his failed Presidential run.

Er...the Democrats have had control of The U.S. Senate since 2006 (at least on this planet). Try again.

planning on voting for barak again? he definitely deserves another spin in the oval office.  ::)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/04/national-debt-democratic-national-convention_n_1855311.html

Good. Now can you explain why the debt increased during Obama's first three years?

because obama did jack  sh*t to cut government spending.

pretty obvious if you can put 2 + 2 together.

when an entity spends more money than they bring in, it increases debt.

it's george bush's fault the obama administration spends so much money, right?  ::)

Actually, under Obama, government spending has risen at a 1.4 percent annualized pace, slower than at any time since the 1950s. In reality, he has done more than the last four Presidents to curb government spending.


No - just trust your factually incorrect instincts.

Merely out of curiosity, rockandroll: assuming you live in the US, who would you vote for (if at all)?

See page two.

In this political climate, Jesus Christ would be considered way too liberal to win.  ::)

Steve Stills: "Paranoia strikes deep..."

Mitty may as well try again in 2016, when pigs fly out of Brooce (a-hole) Johnstone's budt

hardee hardee har har har

Jesus on taxes, he would say "who's picture and name is on the $1 bill? Washington. Therefore give to Washington what is Washingtons. And give to God what is God's"

On war "Our fight is not against flesh and blood, but principalities and powers"

On the Beach Boys "Our Prayer is a good song, but Never Learn Not to Love was written by a follower of demons"

On the Beatles "Elenour Rigby was a Godly woman. But Lucy in the Sky was of the devil"

On Andrew G Doe "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased. He knows all things"

I don't think that Jesus Christ advocated increasing GOVERNMENT control over individual wealth and personal liberty. Try again. 

You forget that Stephen Stills was actually correct...the LAPD were indeed targeting 'longhairs' for harassment on the Sunset Strip.
Just because you feel paranoid doesn't mean that there isn't somebody out to do you harm.

Sure he did! Jesus Christ = Son of God. God = ultimate authority, or 'government' if you will. Throwing money lenders out of the temple = curtailing individual wealth and personal liberty (and the small businesses beloved of rightwing anti-socialist rhetoric, no less) because it is not the will of God.


Which is to say, try not taking peoples jokes too seriously. Try again  ;D

So basically children in third world countries should be condemned to death because sweatshops are "immoral"? $4 an hour is better than the usual going rates over there, you know.

First of all, I was unaware that Gary Johnson's policies on child labor would have any effect on the child labor policies of third world countries.

Putting that aside, yes, if you are a moral person, you would be opposed to sweat shops in third world countries and you would also know that there are solutions available that don't involve condemning children to death. Since current sweatshops are often a consequence of countries following strict IMF and World Bank policies, one easy solution would be to stop following them. And, in fact, it's no surprise that you ultimately see these wretched labor conditions in countries that have had the free market shoved down their throats and places where the country has had to put aside nationalizing its resources in favor of opening up their markets for foreign use. You do away with that and let people embrace their own system, you're likely to see less of a need for sweatshops throughout the world - and there indeed was less of a need for them in these countries before they started liberalizing their economic system - and people working for "the usual going rates" in these countries that have suffered dramatically as a result of Western influence. But of course, someone like Gary Johnson would never admit to this because he very much supports the kind of system that inevitably leads to these wretched labor conditions, as does any other significant figure in the US libertarian movement.

Fair enough, but I don't see Americans wanting to pay $3000 for their XBox 360s and PlayStation 3s. Maybe the Appletards will pay $3000 for their iPhone/iPad/iPod nonsense, but they're just kids who live with their parents at the age of 40 anyway...

If that's the price of not exploiting people then so be it, but keep in mind that sweatshop labor does not happen so that manufacturers can lower retail price - it happens so that profits can grow larger.

Well, you can't have it both ways. But the cost of goods will always be relative to the cost of labor. Contrary to popular belief, capitalism makes things cheaper, not more expensive. If you want expensive goods, fine. But much of the rest of the world doesn't.

Of course, the liberal community (not referring to you, R&R) has BIG PROBLEMS with ideological consistency. Case in point...Apple liberals. "We hate big corporations exploiting children in third world countries...let's plan our next bongo jam via Twitter posted from our iPhones!"

Sort of. The cost of goods is a consequence not just of labor costs but also capital costs and also the rate of profit, which depends on some kind of knowledge of the surplus value.


What would be cheapest would be to abolish capitalism and exchange commodities at a value rate rather than a price.

Absolutely.


Well, that's what capitalism is all about. The demands of the marketplace. Prices are not etched in stone. They fluctuate. Nothing is for certain. It all goes back to supply and demand. If people are going to go after businesses who make a product using cheap labor but refuse to stop patronizing those companies, there's a problem. I don't think there will ever be an instance where anyone operates a business without wanting to maximize profit. It's human nature.

But the rate of profit is crucial - it means that the price of a product can remain the same while the cost of labor can alter drastically. Ultimately, the owner wants to get away with paying for as little for labor as possible in order to maximize profits, not to keep exchange value or price low.


No, capitalism is in no way about exchanging commodities at a value rate. In fact, the existence of capitalism depends on people confusing price with value. In a capitalist framework, one is supposed to forget the fact that commodities have a value. As I have noted before, value can’t be determined based on supply and demand. Supply and demand can cause prices to fluctuate around value but what gives a product value is the necessary labor time that went into it. This confusion between price and value is a consequence of capitalism and, in fact, conceals the very nature of how we create things and why. If we truly understood what made an item valuable, we would recognize the inherent exploitative nature of the capitalist economy.


How is it human nature? Within the United States, the first sentence is correct, because privately owned businesses are in many ways forced to maximize profit. In fact, the history suggests that this kind of economic is so anti-human nature that people had to be forced either by violence, threat of violence, or by laws to adhere to the principles that have today become so standard that people can actually get away with thinking that they are part of human nature.

The threat of violence IS human nature.

I'm not sure what that means.

It's human nature to want to hurt others to get ahead. That's how I took it.

As for Gary Johnson...dude... completely misreading what he said concerning the child labor laws (back in April of 2011, mind you). He's not advocating sweat shops.

That is completely different from advocating sweat shops. This will prevent idiocy like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPKUUH7ytUo

Yeah, well, human nature is simply a term that gets thrown around a lot. As far as I'm concerned you can preface just about anything with "It's human nature to" and it would all be equally convincing.


Look back. I never suggested that he advocated sweat shops. In fact, I suggested the exact opposite. After TRBB brought up sweatshops for the first time in this discussion, I said the following: "I was unaware that Gary Johnson's policies on child labor would have any effect on the child labor policies of third world countries." In fact, what I did say about Gary Johnson's policy on child labor bears a striking resemblance to the quotation you provided. Sweat shops have nothing to do with what Gary Johnson was talking about - I outright said as much. Nevertheless, what I also said is true - Gary Johnson does advocate for the kind of economic structure under which sweatshops typically flourish, but that is apart from his ideas on child labor, which are in and of themselves astoundingly ignorant or at least depend on other people being ignorant as to why child labor laws came into existence in the first place. Remember that with his little example of the 10 year old being paid to fix computers, he is not simply talking about helping out grandpa and getting some money from grandpa for a job well done. There's nothing illegal about that scenario and child labor laws have nothing to do with that nor could law be enforced in such a scenario. Same can be said for, say, a kid mowing the lawn for allowance money and newspaper routes. These things aren't breaking laws either even though he name checks both, a firm indication that he either doesn't know what the child labor laws are, or that he is being intentionally deceptive. What he's actually ultimately talking about are children being hired for wage labor and the only reason a child would be hired for wage labor is because they are cheap and easily exploitable - which is exactly the reason why they were used before labor laws came to be and is exactly the reason why they are still being used in countries with these "looser" laws that he's advocating. Since children may already mow laws, pitch newspapers, babysit, work in many businesses owned by their parents, etc., with the current child labor laws, exactly what kind of jobs do you think they will be doing after they "loosen" these laws? Again, Johnson's view demands an enormous historical blindspot and a real confusion over the law as it stands today.


No, it wouldn't. I agree that shutting down the lemonade stand is ridiculous. And the reason why it was shut down had exactly nothing to do with child labor laws so ultimately this example is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. There is certainly no child labor law that stands in the way of kids operating a lemonade stand.

I mean, seriously, is this what Gary Johnson is leading us to believe?

I think capitalism is good. But what we have in the US right now is NOT free capitalism. Everyone should live under the same rules. Unfortunately, the wealthy class are in bed with the government. Democrats and republicans! There are billionaires that pay less taxes then I do at $30K. And the government insists on bailing out failing companies. If they fail, let them die. The market doesn't want your company anymore because it sucks. So go bankrupt and allow rising competitors flourish which the market deems worthy. Not who the government deems worthy!!

Amen

To change this from our normal handwringing of GIVE A sh*t, MAN vs. LEAVE ME ALONE....


Did anyone watch Clinton last night? That was some top shelf oratory there.

LOLOLO we have a muslim jihad conspiracy member on the board!!!!!











No, but that is fucking depressing that you even bothered commenting with such useless material T_T

That's right , soon-to-be Dhimi...nothing to see here. Horse-blinders are the hippest fashion accessory for both parties these days.

Bill hasn't lost his touch. That man could "talk the cigar right into the White House intern".

Sarah Palin/Rand Paul 2016...I'm not mocking you, I'm dead serious.

Then you have so disappeared up your own theological existence that you have lost contact with how life really is.

I agree with a lot of those sentiments but I think that real change cannot occur if one believes in some of the basic misconceptions within those sentiments. You note for example that “what we have in the US right now is NOT free capitalism.” The reality, though, is that there has never been free capitalism in the US nor has there been historically in any first world country. And the reason why is transparent – free market capitalism is typically disastrous. Part of the reason why it is disastrous is because without public intervention, the public suffers dramatically because they are far more easily exploited by the ownership class. Keep in mind that in a capitalist system, a worker sells their labor to an owner who buys their labor from them at the lowest possible price so that they can make the highest amount of profit and the only people who are in a legitimate position to decide the terms of this relationship are the owners/shareholders, while the laborer gets absolutely no say, despite the fact that the owner is appropriating the product of their labor and selling it on the market for their own personal profit. This is textbook exploitation. There are ways to make this less exploitative - so, for instance, there might be mechanisms put in place where labor has some kind of bargaining power (i.e. unions). This allows labor to play some role in deciding the terms of the relationship. However, in a true capitalist system, allowing mechanisms that give workers some say in the owner/worker relationship is considered antithetical. And so, the population at large can become easily exploted.

The other reason why free market capitalism is disastrous is because markets are inherently inefficicent because risk is typically under-priced. So for example, when we sell cars we don’t take into account the cost of things like environmental degradation, issues surrounding oil including shortages and international affairs. Those aren’t taken into account because the cost is felt by people not involved in the immediate transaction. Now this inherent market inefficiency ultimately becomes really dangerous when it is transplanted on the larger scale of financial markets. So if an investment firm takes a risk with an investment, the firm calculates the risk for themselves into the cost to cover personal losses but they don’t calculate the risk of the investment going so poorly that it crashes the entire financial system. And this is what happened in 2008. And it was only able to happen because the Clinton administration had dismantled the New Deal legislation (the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933) that de-regulated the financial institutions allowing them to self-destruct by allowing for a system that encouraged excessive risk taking – the very thing that caused the major economic crises to occur in the first place that government intervention curtailed successfully. Again this had nothing to do with companies failing because the market didn’t want them, whatever that means. In fact, these companies failed because the market itself is faulty and if a capitalist market is going to exist (and I don’t believe it should because of the reasons I’ve outlined) then it does need to be regulated or else it will inevitably destroy itself and all the people in it (which is what is really important and at stake in these discussions).

And you’re right, the public pays for it but what they are paying for are the inherent failures of a de-regulated free market system that encourages corporate coups that allowed Goldman Sachs to force sub-prime mortgages on families that could not re-pay it and dice up those mortgages as assets to sell and then to bet against. And the public then ultimately pays to stabilize the very system that led to the crisis in the first place. And this is, of course, why no first world country could ever allow for a free market system because the public is crucial because they need to subsidize the failures of this system. This is also why, for the most part, it was the public that subsidized the major economic developments within the United States throughout the 20th Century and provided the social welfare net for concentrated wealth and power but not because they chose to. Had they been given a choice to either develop a sustainable economic system or to fund short-term industrial development, my hunch is they would have chosen the latter. But we’ll never know because the people are not allowed that choice – they are to be mostly kept out of the major decisions that occur in this façade of a democracy. My guess is that this choice is kept from the public because if they did choose the former – a sustainable economic system – they would be depriving major gains from the owners of the country – namely, the capitalist class of concentrated wealth and power.  And if that minority of the population self-destructs as is inevitable, and is in fear of losing the gains they made, they don't have to worry too much because the public will be there to save them in the end.

Maybe. But personally I think that breezy, unspecified references to "human nature" tell us exactly nothing about "how life really is." Its merely a tiresome cliche that people throw around as if it had some real meaning. After all, if I asked you how the threat of violence is human nature, you wouldn't be able to explain it without resorting to vague generalizations that make some pretense of understanding the world and human history as a whole.

Human nature and interaction has a lot more meaning in everyday life than throwing around statistics, theories, and numbers in order to prove some notion of "fact" over what people will offer in face-to-face, direct contact with each other in "everyday life".

This is the problem I have: There is an undercurrent of not only lessening the notion of individuality but also attempts at dehumanization within certain political and social philosophies. If collectivism is the goal, you're potentially removing not only the rights of the individual, but you're also removing the very notion of individuality.

The reasons why too many academics and intellectuals seek to dismiss the influence on human nature and human behavior in general is because, first, every human is an individual with individualized behavior, responses, and reactions. That, by nature, would make the notion of collectivism all but impossible outside of a think tank, and it would be harder to prove certain theories and "facts" using demographic and group-based data based on assumed and potential behavior within that group.

Second, facts and figures are not substitutes for a living, breathing human. I laugh whenever the role of the individual is lessened in favor of academic theory and/or fact-gathering and analysis.

The second one is possibly due to a number of academics and intellectuals not being directly exposed through human interaction to enough of the segments of society which exist through data as numbers, demographics, or anonymous test subjects.

If people are reduced to demographics and numbers, they are easier to predict and therefore easier to control (i.e. rule-govern-lead-etc). Unfortunately for too much of academia, that unpredictability is what makes people individuals, and individuals are often the ones to generate true change and innovation while being told by larger groups not to step out of line.

http://youtu.be/i5dBZDSSky0

I do in fact believe in some sort of human nature but to believe that you can enounter human nature simply by making "face-to-face direct contact" with other people is bizarrely incomprehensible. If you believe that direct contact is the best way to understand human nature, you would have to have direct contact with every human being on earth now, and every human being that has been on earth since the beginning of time. Can you please explain to me how this is possible? I mean, you certainly can't say that because you've seen several if not many examples of something that it must exist amongst everyone. After all, that's the foundation of most racist arguments.

Again, I believe in human nature. I just don't believe in throwing the term around willy-nilly as a way of justifying one's own personal beliefs.


Quite the opposite. In fact, Adam Smith was quite correct when he noted that it was the division of labor that essentially de-humanized people and made them  "ignorant and stupid" because in such a system, people are reduced to performing "a few very simple operations" and even then, those operations are basically dictated by a dominant force. By contrast, federated, de-centralized systems of free association allow people to pursue the areas that they are particularly interested in and to focus on them within the community. Unlike under capitalism, people can decide for themselves the kind of society they would like to see - the kinds of things it would focus on, the kind of work to be done, etc. If anything, collective societies foster a kind of independence and creative freedom that capitalist systems severely limit, as noted by the very framers of the economic philosophy.


Again, though, if I asked you to explain why "human nature" requires that certain political notions must not work, you wouldn't be able to explain it. Especially in light of evidence, e.g. the anarchist collectives in the Second Spanish Republic, the Italian factory occupations, the Argentina take overs, the kibuttz organizations in Israel, etc. It's not as if the facts matter when we have breezy, unspecified references to "human nature". I mean who can argue with that?


Such as? Give one example.


Groundless assumption.


You're presenting a fairly vague notion of "academia" and this allows you to make all sort of absurd and groundless claims - like they have not been "directly exposed through human interaction to enough of the segments of society which exist through data as numbers, demographics, or anonymous test subjects." How do you know this? Have you obtained the cultural-socio background of every academic? Do you honestly believe that I am to take these claims seriously based on this sweeping notion of academia?

Great video.

Why do Mittens Romney and Paul Ryan look like a couple of morticians?

Just sayin'

 >:D

I have that on VHS!  ;D  Watched that and other Carlin tapes my freshman year at college.

Pass this on to those who believe the crap coming out of the conventions when they talk about "middle class" and the notion of "creating jobs".

Carlin is a libertarian. It's funny to watch certain political factions try to claim ownership. And pathetic when folks think they'll get into Carlin's "club" by voting a certain way.

It's all on the individual, to do what you can do and ultimately find happiness in spite of politics.

And if someone thinks it's impossible, go find a group of like-minded nihilists to dine with twice a month.  :)

It's funny because he says the exact same thing about the American Dream in this video that I said, and all I got was a barrage of insults from you.

Carlin is not a libertarian in the Ayn Rand/Ron Paul individualist sense. As this video suggests, his views reflect the more traditional version of socialist libertarianism that I espouse. Here is a quotation of Carlin's from his book Napalm & Silly Putty:

Good ol' rockandroll calling plays from the same dusty and battle-scarred playbook.

I'm beginning to think you have such an elevated view of your opinions and how they were shaped that you think everyone else should just concede outright to that superiority of knowledge and accept that the theories you espouse on this forum are "the truth" - no one dare challenge it lest they and the opinions be mocked as "groundless" "absurd" or whatever adjective fits the mold.

The fact is, it's not even about the debate or the discussion - it's about the fight itself. Or proving something so incorrect that the battle to do just that becomes a personal justification for a set of beliefs. It's not even about trading ideas, or stating ideas - it's about proving another ideology that much "wrong" that the only way to delegitimize both it and the person stating that belief would be to label it "absurd" or "groundless".

I'll have a debate anytime with anyone, but debate isn't the goal here.

If my ideas and opinions will be mocked and labeled absurd, that's fine, I have a thick skin and I can return the favor anytime.  

It's comforting to know that:
1. Those expressing the most forceful anti-capitalist and anti-United States views in this forum are neither registered voters nor American citizens, so the opinions expressed are welcome but ultimately nothing but words typed on a message board. An actual vote weighs more. Nice to see the viewpoint from afar, though. Maybe I should speak up more forcefully on all the ways Europe is currently f***ed up. :)

2. Communism will never thrive in America.

Nah, Carlin is a nihilist and an absolute cynic above everything else.

I found him funny, perceptive, and very much interesting. However, the one thing he lacked especially in his political monologues was a solution, or a way to change what got him so pissed off about the current state of affairs.

I think it's easier to mock and critique than it is to actually develop an alternative plan, and it seems that Carlin is ultimately suggesting a nihilistic worldview, if you accept the system is as bad as his monologue. So what would Carlin suggest we do if we agree with him? The act of saying "yeah, he's right!" means nothing if there is no alternative.

But mark my word, you won't hear Carlin name-checked when someone in the Democratic or Republican party suggests creating jobs...because the "jobs" and the "middle class" of the 2012 elections are the very same suckers who Carlin suggests have been f***ed by the system.

Forward, indeed...

In that case, please answer the questions I posed: How do you know this? Have you obtained the cultural-socio background of every academic? If you can answer these questions, I will take back what I said about your claim that academics and intellectuals have not been "directly exposed through human interaction to enough of the segments of society which exist through data as numbers, demographics, or anonymous test subjects."


Like I said on the other thread, in a post you didn't respond to, I present ideas and solutions all the time. You don't like them, so they don't count.


Sorry, but where do you think I'm from?


And what do you think will, given that capitalism never has thrived in America. Again, you don't like the solutions proposed, so they don't count. You are right to a certain degree though - no leftist system can possibly thrive in a state that where the American Left  have been disenfranchised, marginalized, and de-legitimized to the point where it is virtually impossible for anyone on the left to seriously participate in the American political process.

Okay, this is going to seem a bit vain but I am currently having a difficult time justifying to myself my participation in these political threads anymore. On a previous thread, I justified it this way:

"I respect people enough to believe that they can make up their own minds on these issues. However, I do believe that in order to make up one’s own mind it is important to look at a variety of perspectives and I am offering one. This is why I’ve urged others on this board to contribute here if they want to because the more voices there are the better. So all I’m doing is offering my perspective and if people want to come away reading this agreeing or disagreeing with that perspective, that’s perfectly fine. If they want to investigate the things that I’ve said for themselves and make up their own minds based on those investigations, even better. But my goal is certainly not to shape opinions."

Nevertheless, what I feel is that not many people (and I'm thinking about the ones who specifically read these threads) particularly care about my perspective at this point, which is perfectly fine. But if that's the case, it's just better for me not to contribute since I try to put some effort into these posts and try to present as compelling an argument as I possibly can. I'm just curious if there is anyone left who is still interested in these posts because I've collected some of the responses that I have received over the past year or so and it seems that I have taken a fair amount of personal attacks. Here is a sample of some of the responses to my posts and my views, including stuff from this thread:

Stop playing the victim

"Rock and Roll" 's posts illustrate exactly why political discourse is impossible in this country.

I really hope "Rock and Roll" that you don't truly believe that you represent the forces of sweetness and light

That's not politics or opinion -- it's fact. It's sad that someone needs to explain this -- which speaks volumes of just how much our education system has failed you

With all due respect, that's just crazy

Please, for the love of God, think about what you're saying.

This is not semantics. It's fundamental. Understanding this will help untwist your mind.

And you don't understand a thing I'm saying!!!! Hahaha!

Maybe you just need a job.

That's looney tunes. No one's going to take you seriously saying wild stuff like that. Common sense (installed in our proverbial motherboard at the factory) will cause people to quickly understand you're either dishonest or gravely misinformed.

I'll just savor this last quote as the glittering jewel of Looney Toon Leftism that it is.

You Flat Earth'ers are totally hilarious!!

How can you make a coherent argument when you throw out such gibberish terms?

Catch up, hoss...it's 2012 now.

I was right about you being in academia, right? Perhaps you need to start occupying 'reality street'.

You're preaching hokum

Whoever dressed you this morning put your right shoe on the left foot

A total nonsense statement unsupported by reality

What surprises me is to find such a choice specimen of V. Lenin's "useful idiot" brigade on a Beach Boys site

What kind of academic bubble do you exist in?

Have you held a responsible job in the non-academic (i.e: real) world? Lived away from your parents for longer than a semester at a time?

Either you have lived in a bubble, or have not spoken to or even have seen enough people

I'll have a two word response that begins with the letter "F" and ends with the word "you”

Then you have so disappeared up your own theological existence that you have lost contact with how life really is.

--

Now, guitarfool takes issue with my use of terms "groundless" and "absurd" but it seems to me that's fairly lightweight compared to some of the ongoing personal shots. Now, I'm thick skinned as well and don't particularly care about the personal shots. But I'm simply not willing to continue this if that's the only type of response that my posts generate. My secret hope is that there are others who may agree with some of the stuff I write but don't necessarily say anything. And, I should say that some of you (I'm thinking in particular of hypehat, rab, Smile Brian, Erik H and The Real Beach Boy) have been damn complimentary at times so there is that. But I have the sneaking feeling that there is simply no audience for these posts, which is perfectly fine. But I am just curious because I should probably spend less time doing this and more time in my "bubble" since I'll be teaching a course starting next week.

rockandroll, your passion is admirable, but I think your understanding of what capitalism is, is frankly colored in an inappropriately political way. The idea of free market capitalism is not that it's some system that a country adopts or decides to have. It's not an ideology in any way shape or form. One of the real problems facing political discourse today is that capitalism has been hypostatized by the left, it's been transformed into a objective ideology in which people supposedly place their trust, it's been conflated with the institution of the stock market and the existence of corporations. Unfortunately this leads to a lot of the bitter rhetoric coming from the Democratic left, and the strawman argument that has every Republican in the country praising the "job creators".

Free market capitalism is the absence of a system, it's an organic process of change and balance. Pure free market capitalism is anarchy, to say that it doesn't or has never existed in the United States is a complete non sequitur. All forms of government, any laws of any kind limit free market capitalism because they limit choices and options available to the individual member of society. The more the government does to limit the number of options that citizens have, the less free the market is. The point of the constitution is that it explicitly states the ways in which the government can limit the choices of the individual. Pure free market capitalism is pure freedom of the individual, constitutional free market capitalism is the liberty of the individual to do whatever he or she pleases within reason. The essence of free market capitalism is adaptation, it's like water, whatever the circumstances are, whatever the ecological and social realities are, an economy that's free (i.e. one where all the participants are free) will end up taking a shape that conforms to the demands of the present.

The misconception here is that free market capitalism is being treated as some top down system imposed upon individuals when it's exactly the opposite of that, it's the understanding that the economy is made up of millions of unique individuals with non-overlapping needs, and that when those people all have the freedom to do what they think is best for themselves, the economy as a whole will adapt and provide the most efficient outcomes. Unfortunately the failure of communism is precisely this, not only in a practical sense, but also in a purely theoretical sense, communism is unable to provide efficient outcomes due to imperfect information. Communism treats the economy as a sheet of steel, which needs to be pounded into a particular shape to satisfy current needs. Free market capitalism sees the economy as flowing water made up of millions of individual drops all changing and flowing as one, perfectly changing to meet the necessities of circumstance.

The problem with our system today, is that it is an authoritarian cabal of price fixers. Corporations only have as much power as the government gives them, and the problem that Democrats all seem incapable of realizing, is that giving people money to do things destabilizes the economy by artificially disturbing the balance between supply and demand. It certainly feels all warm and fuzzy to pass some bill giving $100,000,000 for student loans, or a couple of billion bucks to poor people trying to buy homes, but these actions have dramatic and unintended consequences, they artificially inflate demand for certain goods and services and cause the price to rise in proportion. The government is then trapped in a vicious circle, the more subsidies they make, the higher price will climb, the higher price climbs, the more subsidies needed to maintain the former equilibrium. This is what creates bubbles, this is why the price of health care is so high, this is why the cost of education has been rising at something like 400% above inflation each year, and this is exactly the reason why the housing market crashed. To believe that it's simply some corporations doing evil things and not being regulated properly is naive in the extreme, the government not only tolerated but encouraged the predatory behaviour of lenders as it was the only way for the government to continue growing the housing market.

Our problem today is that the government allows itself the right to tell individual citizens what to spend money on. Regulations are used by corporations not to control their own behaviour, but to limit the influence of their competitors. The government insulates major companies (the auto-manufacturers for example) from having to answer to consumer demand. We keep companies like GM in business, we protect their market share at the expense of consumer choice. If consumers don't want to buy the products that GM sells, then GM should go bankrupt, which would create room for smaller and more innovative companies to expand into. But we reenforce GM's control and influence, and prevent the market from adapting. And I find it very insulting that Obama continuously touts his belief in alternative energy and innovation while in the same breath he extolls the government intervention in the auto industry that directly interferes with very innovation he's constantly harping on about.

The Free Market is NOT the thing that needs to be limited and controlled, the government's ability to regulate and make decisions on behalf of individual consumers is what we should be worried about. Because that's the thing that stifles innovation, progress, growth, adaptation, and balance. 

Romney and the rest of the Republicans seems like a bunch of really soulless robots... (three dots) ... What truly horrible, creepy, pathetic human beings they are.

BTW

The Electoral map is totally against Romney at this point, and he has no better than a 25% chance of winning the Electoral College.

Republicans, in 2016, nominate someone with some b@lls.  Get a grip.

"Swiss bank accounts are people too." -- Romney

JEEZ

You should tell that to the people who created the philosophy. Contrary to the current rhetorical fabrications that are being spewed out by pro-corporate idealogues, free market capitalism is not simply some notion of one person trading his goods with another person. A market needs more than two people in order to exist and a market place, which free market capitalism depends on is entirely artificially constructed and must be ultimately imposed by someone or a group of people. Furthermore, capitalism whether it is free market or anything demands private ownership and private ownership does not occur organically. What my understanding of capitalism is colored by, ultimately, is the arguments of the people who created the term capitalism in the first place and constructed the economic philosophy. It is certainly not colored by contemporary movements that have attempted to radically re-define what capitalism is, as your entire post did, in order to pass off an inherently exploitative and fundamentally babaric system as "natural" (I'm quite certain your definition of capitalism as "flowing water made up of millions of individual drops all changing and flowing as one" didn't come from John Stuart Mill...).  :lol Neither the documentary record of capitalist philosophy nor the historical record of economic systems suggest that to be the case at all. The emergence of capitalist markets was borne out of a huge struggle because it had to be forcibly and coercively imposed onto people who were engaging in a more collective way.

Notice, of course, that these claims about capitalism are very prevalent now because the major capitalist victories have been won and the collective spirit has been beaten with bloody vengeance out of people. It is only now, when capitalism has become such an inherent part of our day to day existence that we can talk about it as if it were natural in the same way that people talked about how slavery was natural before that system was largely dismantled in the industrialized world. It is only now, where the market system has imposed an environment that compels us to act in specific ways, that we can actually believe that our behavior comes from within rather than being shaped from without. We're not born with markets in our blood, we're born into a market context that shapes are behavior. And this is why it is only now that people make these arguments and why you won't find a single article before the industrial revolution that has any trace of people talking about the naturality of market systems - though, interestingly enough, you will find people advocating for communist systems pre-Marx. If the market system was natural and organic, rather than a environment that produces subjects, it would have been recognized as such before the conception of these terms. It wasn't. I would suggest that you familiarize yourself with the actual history of these terms.


It was always that, and understood that way by the central framers of the ideology who were not leftists by current standards, by any means.


That's completely false. Maybe if you were making an argument for simply "free markets" like the ones that a socialist like Proudhon supported, you might be more convincing but throwing capitalism into the mix, which demands private ownership of the means of production and you have completely lost any sense of "organic processes" and "anarchy."

Furthermore, let's look at your claim - that a free market capitalist system is organic and this system will end up taking a shape that conforms to the demands of the present. Okay - let's say the present is this: It's you, your hypothetical or real female significant other and your baby. What happens there? Well, if what you're saying is correct, naturally the baby dies because the baby cannot survive in an environment where people don't put the needs of others in front of their own and the baby cannot offer anything of value to trade for food and care. My guess is that since the species has survived to this point, it was decided at the very origins of human development that it is crucial to take care of people who are unable to take care of themselves or provide anything of equal value in return for that care. If there's anything that's organic, it's that.

Or take another situation - the demands of the present are you and your family. So, you sit down to dinner and what do you do? Well, according to you, biologically, you and your brothers and sisters and parents barter the soup. Elsewhere, you determine the relative value of things in the family by competing for them. According to you, it's all one can do now to fight the overwhelming biological urge to make dinner to sell to your family.

Complete hogwash.


And I suppose "within reason" entails controlling one's own work, being able to profit off of the fruits of one's own labor, deciding how long one should work, etc. None of those choices are available to the majority of people in a free market capitalist system.


How do we know this?



Those words are all very pretty, but also meaningless.


In reality, it's the opposite.


Suppy and demand are artificial concepts to begin with. They are derived from the belief that commodities have no fixed source. Take food, for example: there is unlimited food because food can always been grown. But supply chains are artificially created when you limit the amount of food that is available to the public, which works to artificially create more demand. If you abolish the profit motive, you would not need to withhold products to create a demand. This is what makes the free market system so inherently inefficient.


The reason why health care prices are so high is because of the amount of money invested into private companies wasting money on research and development to concoct copycat drugs to compete in the marketplace and because of the outlandishly high administrative costs of private healthcare in comparison to public healthcare systems and because the United States is the only country in the industrialized world where it is illegal for the government to use its purchasing power to negotiate drug prices. This is why countries with more socialized health care systems are far cheaper than the US system. But by your logic, they should be more expensive since the government is even more involved in those health care systems.


Do you honestly believe that the government was profiting as much as the corporate world was profiting as a result of the Clinton Administration de-regulating the financial institutions?


The government as controlled by corporate interests, yes.


No, that's not true. People aren't just waiting with X money to shift from one corporation to another. The real world does not work that way. What you're not taking into account is that desire for products is largely created and is largely a function of the imposed capitalist model. Furthermore, this sounds really inefficient - a system that because it is driven by profit, companies go bankrupt left, right, and centre because they are not producing for personal need but are instead producing a surplus value so that the owner can profit.


What we should be worried about is calling human beings "individual consumers." I agree that the government should not decide where the public spends its money, and said as much in the post you responded to. Like I said, had the public been given an option between creating a sustainably economy or funding the major industrial developments of the 20th century, they most likely would have chosen the former.

I won't take the time to respond to all of your points, because I just don't have the energy. I will make a brief comment about this though, simply because I think you're misunderstanding what it means to do the best thing for yourself. People have their own subjective values, most people value the life of their child, the fact that they are willing to make sacrifices for their child isn't some smoking gun that economics can't wrap its' head around. Doing what's best for yourself, is not just about ensuring your own immediate survival no matter what, doing what's best for yourself involves doing things that bring you happiness, and emotional peace of mind. Sacrificing your own life to save the life of your child is just a case where a parent values their child's life more than their own in a particular circumstance.
I guess we'll just have to disagree, you're clearly really invested in your opinions and there isn't anything wrong with that. Personally I think we're just talking about totally different things, and I doubt we'd even be able to agree on a definition of the free market. I may agree with you as to the points you're making within the conceptual frame your imposing, but I'd also say that I think that frame is fundamentally flawed, history seen through the lens of Marx as opposed to history seen through the lens of fact. I'm an empirical economist by education and a scholar of 18th century history and philosophy by trade, and I think that you're way off base in the way you're trying to paint the history of capitalism (a liberal idea) and modern economics.

But hey, that's cool, I don't resent you or anything because you have a different world view. You're just expressing your beliefs. I certainly don't believe that I have it all figured out or anything, and I wish I had the patience and temperament to hash it out with you, but I always regret getting into political discussions. Suffices to say, we simply don't see eye to eye on the issue, and that there's probably something useful and worthwhile in both of our arguments.

Take it easy rockandroll, you're a good poster and your presence on SS is certainly appreciated by everyone.  :)

I feel much like Fishmonk has just posted - At this time of the year it does get busy for me and I just don't have the time to post every answer to every question or request for proof, or facts, or whatever else. Such is the nature of life, I simply don't have the time but try to keep at least a few coals burning in the stove.

I will answer the first part specifically, with a question: Have you obtained the cultural-socio background of every member of the "Tea Party", of every "Republican", or of any group which you've disagreed or criticized in the past?

The knife does indeed cut both ways - I never claimed to know each and every academic-intellectual-scholar-whatever, but I was making a general statement with a bit of an ulterior motive in mind. Take it from me - not all people who would call themselves "Republicans" or "conservatives" or Tea Party members are the same, nor do they share a lock-step, group-think mentality on all issues.

Yet has that stopped folks from over-generalizing and stereotyping *those* people?

So let me get it straight - in order to make a blanket statement about academics who may put data ahead of actual people, a requirement was in place to get to know tens of thousands of academics across the US and elsewhere before making a generalization.

Is the same requirement in place the next time someone is out to bash or belittle someone who identifies themselves as part of a group like the Tea Party based on the assumptions about that group?

I like hearing all solutions, too - however in all honesty the solutions and models being proposed, I feel, would work better on paper and in theory than if actually applied to the US at any point at least in my lifetime and subsequent generations. The voters of this country have been split on ideology 50/50 for about a decade now, and in order to transform both the nation's infrastructure, system of government, and the mindset of the electorate, and short of a scorched-earth reset mode back to basic surviving off the land, the system currently in place will remain in place by default and by necessity. And, the folks who have accumulated certain levels of wealth and power are simply not going to give it up or hand over control of that wealth and power to someone else in the name of ideology, again at least in my lifetime. That's just practical, realist thinking at work.

I'd like to hear solutions or ideas more firmly rooted in realism instead of idealism, or those ideas which could actually be hashed out, debated and discussed, and applied in a real world setting where everyday people would not be expected to change radically from what they have done to live or survive everyday. And yes, that includes those who are successful capitalists, unless the expectation is that these folks will have their wealth and power seized by force for the greater good... :) That was a joke. Sort of. :lol

On a more personal note, addressing rockandroll's comments, I gathered you were a citizen of Canada from previous discussions...is this the case or am I just way off?

And I really don't wish to see anyone leave the discussions or quit voicing opinions or anything of the sort. I will be honest though and say that the tone of some of these political-ideological discussions can get a little too...stubborn? I'm defining stubborn as unwilling to acknowledge the validity of a counterpoint to a held opinion, or an opinion offered as fact. Disagreeing is expected, but the lack of acknowledgement that another side other than your own has some validity can be off-putting at best and downright frustrating at worst. At least perhaps give off something of a respectful vibe to opinions even in the midst of a heated debate, because sometimes it feels like a "my way or the highway" kind of deal at work, and it stops being an interesting debate and moves into mudslinging territory. The reactions start coming from the gut-level rather than the mind, and it feels more like a battle. If I wanted that, I can watch any number of pundits on TV, and those folks pretending to be political commentators.

I'm just asking to consider how some statements and adjectives may be perceived when read by other eyes, that's all. And I'll readily admit to being as guilty as anyone for doing the same thing.

But it seems to me that you were suggesting that we naturally behave in a free market system, which you described as an "organic process of change and balance." You also seem to be saying something different, that people naturally act according to "what they think is best for themselves" and that can be not in accordance with the free market system - in fact, it seems to be that our most important human relationships don't act in accordance with this "organic process". You also say a third thing which is that people can act against their own best interests - indeed sacrificing your life for another simply isn't doing what is best for yourself, especially in the case that you are referring to, it's doing what's best for someone else - though how they can do that with the other two suppositions is entirely unclear.

Seems to me, too, that this ultimately leads to a lot of awkward wrenching to try and demonstrate that general good deeds (making dinner for the family, driving people home from parties) are done in the name of self-interest rather than for the interests of others. Usually it involves coming up with hypothetical scenarios that could possibly (but wouldn't definitely) result from those good deeds that would favor the person who did them.


Well, but that's an issue that's not really up for debate. I think too, as I alluded to above, that it is crucial to not conflate free markets in general with free market capitalism, especially in light of the fact that in the 19th century, you have anarcho-socialists like Proudhon advocating for mutualism which takes free markets into account, but also is virulently anti-capitalism because it is against an antagonistic relationship between owners and labor.


Fair enough - I'd be curious to know how you think it's off base though. And are you referring specifically to my point that environment produces subjects? I suppose that's something that Marx and I might slightly agree on.


Thanks! Same goes for you.

Same here!  :)


Well, I would certainly avoid making presumptions that generalized about every member of the Tea Party and every member of the Republican party, yes. When I refer to the Tea Party or the Republican party, or, let's say, the Bolsheviks or the Spanish anarchists, I refer to the guiding ideology that is at the very heart of these groups. And it does become easier to make generalizations about the groups as a whole because they are ideological groups. Meaning those who enter into those groups more than likely agree with the prevailing central ideologies behind them to a certain degree. In your examples, this is more true of the TP than the Republican party because in the case of the latter, the party has been around for a long time and has shifted ideologies in that span of time so that there are those within the party now who hold ideological viewpoints that once pinned the party together but no longer do, which is why Ron Paul does not share the views of Mitt Romney. So the examples you bring up are kind of special examples and can't fully compare to say, something like academia, which is not an ideological group. In the same sense, Italians are not an ideological group. In other words, you don't have to hold certain kinds of belief in order to legitimize yourself as an Italian. Therefore to make sweeping statements about Italians makes no sense.


I think that generalizations are usually a pretty bad idea no matter what.


OK..but why?


I feel compelled to always make this case with everyone and perhaps it is unnecessary but I don't think the voters are split on ideology because they are basically presented with one ideology. You don't see a mainstream left wing party in the United States, for example, like you see in many other industrialized countries.


Sometimes I feel that's the case but mostly I feel like that's how everyone within a long-running system that eventually changed has felt.


I dig.


Well, I think we're talking about a few things there. First of all, I don't particularly think that the solutions I offer are "idealism" since they've worked in reality, typically much better than the systems they've replaced. So as far as I can tell, the solutions that I propose are realistic. And I agree that these solutions should "be hashed out, debated and discussed" before being implemented, which is why the solutions I am proposing would take a lot of time. Regarding everyday people being "expected to change radically from what they have done to live or survive everyday" is not framed correctly, I don't think. It's not what should be expected of people, but what people want from their society - and that should be a decision made by them not for them. And my hunch is that if you talk to people about the possibilities of a society in which they get to control their own resources, have control over the work they do, etc. that they would want that. The problem is is that those ideas not only aren't options for people, they aren't even presented as options to people, since that point of view is not represented at the political level. And I think the reason it's not represented is because if it was, it would be very popular. But you can't have that in a capitalist society. So again, you don't force it on people, but you do communicate with people and hopefully begin to consider the kind of society that those people would like to see.

No, you're correct. And by the way, you can feel absolutely free to criticize Canadian politics - chances are more than likely that I'll agree. Remember that there isn't a state in the world that can foster the kind of system that I would agree with, since states are inherently power centres.


I'm sorry that I came off that way. I guess that part of my training has led me to do two things: speak my point of view with conviction but also, that you agree that the other point is valid the moment you engage with it. I don't want to speak ill of anyone here so I will encourage you to look back on some of the posts from previous threads. You will notice that there are some posts (not of yours) that I just don't touch with a ten-foot poll and the reason why is because I don't think they're doing anything other than hurling invective or simply not saying anything that actually encourages or wants a response. In my mind, it seems that if I am responding to you, it means that I am taking what you say seriously, even if I am arguing against it. But I will try to have more control over my tone.

Bingo! I nailed it right out of the box: rockandroll = Canadian citizen/academic worker/doctrinaire Marxist. That explains everything.

Does it explain the massive stick up your arse?

so the tree that he got it on with was a little kinky. what of it?

How did Mittens serve his country?  Bicycling in France, the little ponce.

He's an amiable doofus, a well meaning bumbler and a useful idiot for the Koch Brothers.

You know...I don't think anyone has disagreed more with rockandroll's points than I have, yet I have not felt the need to personally attack him for his views like others have. I think there could be a bit more tact here.

How can you tell that you're arguing with a Leftist imbecile?
1) They open with the race card.
2) They follow with comparisons of their opponents to Hitler/Nazis.
3) The Koch Brothers are EVER MENTIONED in any context.

I'm not a big Romney fan myself, but I'm not a statist tool either.

I must admit that I love the fact that Democrats bitch about "greedy corporations" and "greedy banks" when Goldman Sachs is both Obama AND Romney's number one donor and the fact that BOTH parties have been in the hands of the corporations and the military industrial complex since the 1950s.

That's true, but really, the population at large is meant to be kept away from the political world and for the most part supporters of either party do not know what policies they are voting for. In fact, a few years ago, a poll found that the majority of Republican voters thought that George Bush supported the Kyoto program because they themselves supported it. Ultimately, the public is not given the information they need to make informed decisions, and I think that's quite on purpose. Elections are personality contests not policy contests, or they are typically about trivial minor subjects (religion, scandal, etc.) and the mainstream media as a whole works to reinforce this notion.

As long as Americans have their bread and circus they'll be fine in their opinions. sh*t, most of them don't even know that their benevolent dictator, Dear Leader Obama, signed legislation that made the United States a battleground and allowed for assassination and indefinite detention without trial of American citizens. Oh, but he said he won't do it. He said we can trust him.

I am NOT a fan of Bush 2.0 at all, but if this happened under his regime, there would have been blood in the streets.

Apart from your use of the term "dictator", I agree with all of that wholeheartedly. Democrats get away with much worse because they are branded as being the progressive party. The American protests against the Iraq war were monumental and a great achievement but they could have been carried out a decade earlier when Clinton was pushing policies that led to more deaths in Iraq than anything Bush ever did, which was heinous enough. And more up to date, Obama has done little more but expand the war on the Middle East, and there has been much less direct dissident action under that. That being said, the Occupy Wall Street movement is pointed squarely at the policies carried out by both political parties.

I stand by my use of the term dictator, since the NDAA FY 2012 grants those powers to the President of the United States. Yes, they are dictatorial powers. Same as Executive Orders.

Occupy Wall Street should be coordinated between both Wall Street AND Washington, D.C. Remember, if it wasn't for Washington bailing out those companies, they wouldn't have been able to get away with what they did. Keep in mind, it was a legion of Democrats who voted to bail out Wall Street.

There is no such thing as "dictatorial powers." A dicator has sole and absolute authority over every decision in the country - that is not the function of the President. Not only is that authority curbed structurally in the United States, but the President is now also beholden to the central ruling authority in the country, namely concentrated wealth and power and they have far more power than the President in the major decision-making process of the country. To call any President a dictator is to do a genuine disservice to people who have truly suffered under real dictatorship and it misses the point as to where power emanates from in the country.


Ultimately the bailouts were outrageous because the public had to once again provide the safety net for the ruling elite but, I believe, that they were necessary (though not in the way they were implemented) because there were real lives at stake. It's all well and good to say that we should just let these companies destroy themselves but the fact is that real ordinary working people would be affected by it on a mass scale, and they shouldn't be affected like that just because the system had become de-regulated, which was far outside of their control. The Occupy Wall Street movement places it focus where it matters  - the central power structure of our society, which does not emanate out of Washington. As you pointed out above (in your discussion regarding Goldman Sachs and their partial ownership of the government), the government has simply become representatives for the small class of powerful elites. The only people who can be elected are those who reflect the positions of the people who really own the country. It would be nothing short of a monumental waste of time to direct attention away from the real problem in order to focus simply on the people who carry out the policies for the central power sector of society.

You know what Iceland did to the entities that threatened the stability of their citizens and their economy? THEY SENT THEM TO JAIL. That is what should have been done with the banks in 2008. But nope. The Democrats wrote them a $700 billion check.

And the crash wasn't due to deregulation, it was due to overregulation. The housing bubble was created by the Clinton regime, because Bubba in all of his infinite wisdom decreed that everyone has a "right" to a house and FORCED banks under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to give out loans at 0% interest to the special interest groups of the day, those being blacks, Hispanics, and Asians or face criminal prosecution. Now, when you give out loans to people who have no means to pay them back, what happens? A bubble. The banks had to become flush with cash in order to hedge the huge losses and guess what? The bubble BURST. What happened next? The government, instead of admitting fault, gave those banks a $700 billion check to keep doing what they were doing.

Sorry, but big money and big government are hand in hand. If greedy banks and greedy corporations control the state, increasing the state will not off-balance the equation.

I agree that the primary figures behind the crisis were criminals and should have been treated as such, no question. Nevertheless, there is no principle that compellingly suggests that people should face starvation and mass poverty because of the criminal activities of others.


I don’t think that bears up to any serious investigation on the matter, to be honest and in fact flies in the face of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission which cited “Widespread failures in financial regulation” as a leading factor in the crisis. The housing bubble was already under way well before Clinton, as interest rates for everyone had been declining since the early 1980s. This is why no serious analysis of the crisis begins with Clinton. Moreover, the US government had been deregulating the financial institutions on a wide scale in the 1970s, including the Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act which led directly to the Savings and Loan crisis in the late 80s. These regulations which separated commercial and investment banks and placed limitations on interest rates and loans by banks would have outright prevented financial institutions from using off-balance sheet securitization and derivatives and creating shadow banking systems to mask the excessive risks being taken with mortgage lending which is precisely what caused the crisis. These institutions were not forced to do this by Clinton - they were allowed to make these riskier loans precisely because of looser regulations that would have prevented them from occurring in the first place. It had nothing to do with Asians being unable to pay back loans – that’s a complete falsehood that is not backed up by any serious study.


It certainly does off-balance the equation if “increasing the state” really just means decreasing the control of corporations.

But the government just put that debt on the people, and therefore the recession became even worse. Sorry, but I would have let the banks and corporations go under. No bailouts. Better luck next time. Instead that debt was just dumped on the people. Ron Paul talked about this in 2009 and people thought he was nuts because at that time Dear Leader Obama was the guy who "saved American manufacturing". Americans are so stupid, they have no idea how much the government they love oh, so much has sold them down the river repeatedly.


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2009/05/bill_clintons_classy_moment.html
https://informthepundits.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/recession-2008-clintons-contribution/
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/02/22/democrats-caused-the-recession-and-republicans-tried-to-stop-it/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Alleged_relation_to_2008_financial_crisis

Those links explain it better than I.


Increasing the state merely increases the reach and control of corporations. Remove the state, the corporations have no leg to stand on.

Again, I agree with that to a large degree – like I said, the people should not have been paying for the usual and predictable catastrophes of the de-regulated system. The bailouts should have been directed primarily towards working people and families facing foreclosure. That being said, it’s not simply “banks and corporations” going under, it’s also the many, many people employed there and you only exacerbate matters by refusing to provide them assistance. Ultimately I agree with you that you prosecute the people responsible for the crisis, but you don’t force regular working people who had nothing to do with it to deal with poverty and starvation on principle.


This article virtually says what I’ve said, reinforcing my point that “opposition to regulation of derivatives” was very much responsible for the crisis, along with other de-regulatory acts. It says precisely the opposite of what you have argued.


This article likewise places the blame on deregulation – noting the “repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act” as a fundamental reason for the crisis and devotes the lion’s share of space to this reason, which is my exact argument on page 5 of this thread. Again, this is precisely the opposite of what you have argued.


This article blames the Democrats for causing the crisis because they “opposed” regulation unlike Bush who was “the first to recommend” regulation. The article again reinforces my point and opposes yours – it simply makes a more ardent case against the Democrats but it does so on the grounds that the Democrats opposed regulation and concludes that that is what caused the crash.


Well, you’ll notice that what that article does is explain how the Community Reinvestment Act was not responsible for the financial crisis, despite Ron Paul’s quotation which is then undermined by the voluminous evidence that is given in the following paragraph, which includes this relevant bit of information: institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps one in four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight." Again, the article confirms that it is de-regulatory programs that led to the crisis.

I’m sorry but all of these articles oppose your position on this issue, as does just about any solid investigation on the matter.


Again, not if increasing the state really means decreasing the power of corporations.


Quite the opposite: public power is one of the only things that can limit corporate power. If you really want to undermine corporate power, though, then you would actively support letting the people take over but that doesn't come so easily and is certainly more manageable in a society that doesn't allow for an overwhelming corporate tyranny.

After reading all this (mostly) leftist counter-culture tripe, I wonder why any of you even love the Beach Boys.

Oh, that's right. You don't.

Rockandroll, I love your political posts here, and tend to mostly agree with you. I love reading the political threads...the only reason I don't contribute a lot is because my posts would most likely be nothing more than empty sloganeering which wouldn't really add much to the dialogue.



Umm...Smiley Smile through Holland??????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? :hat :hat :hat :hat :hat :hat :hat

 Romney may be many things, but "bumbler" probably isn't one of them. Few if any "amiably bumble" their way to a quarter of a billion $ fortune.

Haven't you slithered under a rock and decomposed in your own filth yet?

Thanks for the kind words, Alex! I'm sure your comments would be valuable.

True that. That's precisely why we need Mittens as POTUS to start running the Executive Branch like a business instead of an odd combination of union hall, law school faculty lounge and gay bath house.

Wow! How insightful! So, let's have a look.... what makes money for the government.... spend a lot on education, we can't  have any of that.... medicare? ooh, those people will die anyway. Cut that.... War? We spend how much on defence? Cut it back, that's so wasteful..... I guess we could toll everybody for roads... Oh! You know what makes money! We totally could get the Beach Boys to play the White House!

You can't run a government with any degree of humanity if you choose to be a 'business man' about it. Then again, I reckon that doesn't concern you right-wing intellectual types. So long as man is free (to starve...)

A free man will never starve in this Country. He'll still have his gun to hunt with.

Guns cost money iirc.

Also, GOOD LUCK HUNTING FOR FOOD IN THE CITY WITH A LOADED WEAPON

So what if you lost all yr money and yr home, would you be totally chill with strapping on yr bandanna and going Rambo through the streets of IDK Des Moines, Iowa or wherever the hell you live hunting down foxes because hey, at  least no goverrnment is holding you down (until a cop who doesn't understand your civil rights is literally holding you down for firing an automatic weapon in a suburban neighbourhood) and you and your family are free if so very cold #romney2012

What's the weather like on your planet today?

I would expect a post like that from someone who lives in a country where criminals have more access to guns than law-abiding citizens. But I'll give you credit for not using the "Wild Wild West" analogy that so many other leftists use.

By the way, Romney is an enemy of gun rights.

But Paul Ryan is a champion of compound bow rights:

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=4578504593705234&id=5f2d2a5fe11afef01c49d8c1329f5b49

When will Republicans end their "war on deer"?

By the way, Noam Chomsky is a wealthy, America-hating douche-bag who doesn't listen to the Beach Boys.

Paul Ryan is a liberal, just like Romney. Chomsky is a classic capitalist and many of his hardcore followers don't get it.

 :lol

Nor does Chomsky himself, apparently.

Tbf, it would be quicker to list the rights of 21st century human beings that Romney Ryan don't oppose. It's a bitter, spiteful ticket. f*** them. At least Barack Obama does not have any contempt for gays and women.

Also, the only people I have ever seen with guns EVER are the police here. Knives are pretty popular, though. But I would expect that kind of response from someone who lives in America and has formed a well organised militia lately.  ;) but my beef is not with you, you and rockandroll are bringing it itt. It's this jackass here who says poor people should hunt for their food in a western superpower.

I love the tough talk about no man starving as long as he has his gun to hunt with.

Oh yeah? You actually aren't even free to starve in this country. It all costs you money and punishment. So, if you're already poor but have a gun: do you have a hunting license? If not and you're poor, how do you get one? Oh, and that gun had better be registered and you better have a concealed weapons permit as well. And how are you going to get from the city out into the woods if you're poor? Do you have bus fair? Cab fair? If you're homeless, do you have any friends who'll give you a ride out into the woods? And if you do have a car: where will you park it while you go live in the woods? And when it gets towed away, how will you pay to get it out? Or will you just try and hunt IN the city? What will you kill and eat? Rats? Squirrels? What: you'll be shooting squirrels in the park? You'll likely be arrested within minutes and since you're poor, good luck making bail. Or will you be hunting people's pet cats and dogs? Same problem there.... And if you do make it out into the woods, you'd better have stocked up on camping/survival gear ahead of time. Oh, but you're poor and you have no car to haul it in. Hmmmmm, so you're out there hunting like Rambo and the game warden comes and checks for your hunting license, which of course you have, right? You'll likely be arrested/fined in this situation as well.... All in all, you'll be spending a lot of money you don't even have being free to starve.....  

Barack Obama's sudden "evolution" on gay marriage was such a calculated attempt to get the LGBT vote it's a wonder the LGBT community took him that seriously. I say that as someone who spoke out in favor of gay marriage more than a decade ago, much to the chagrin and strange looks from my friends and family. This is not a defense of Romney/Ryan. Romney and Obama are both liberals and they're both warmongers.

He'll never admit it but the proof is in the pudding.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6222

It is very unfortunate the power people have given these two stupid words: "Liberals" and "Conservatives" .... A linguist like Mr. Chomsky might himself be amused up in his ivory tower.

How about we from now on call Liberals "Child Rapists" and Conservatives "Child Molesters"?

I'm sure it would catch on quick and we'd get the same pathetic arguments and with each side being proud to be present themselves as either term.

Can't we all just get along and see that we're just being played like fiddles?

Are you eligible to vote in the 2012 U.S. elections? You sound like you are located in a foreign land. I spend most of my time in the U.S. and Mexico an I see LOTS AND LOTS of criminals with guns around all the time. I'm not happy about it, but at least self-defense hasn't
been outlawed here yet (except in New York City, Washington, D.C., Maryland, Chicago and most of California.

I'll choose my words carefully and address this question to "those who are not conservatives", specifically those members outside the US. I'm not out to trap or mock anyone, but I'm genuinely curious, and I want to follow it up with an observation and question as well, in the best debate style.

Where did you or where do "those who are not conservatives" get their impression or image of Americans who identify themselves as "conservative"? Is it from the mass media, is it from films like those from Michael Moore, is it from American television such as Jon Stewart or Bill Maher, or other sources?

My comment: It looks a lot like stereotyping, and quite frankly it's not only amateurish from a political standpoint but it's a bit childish as well. In some of the viewpoints I've seen in this thread, anyone other than "those who are not conservative" is part of the same sub-group of citizens, who are a combination of stereotypical characteristics cobbled together into one ready-made image. And that image...do we need to list the hallmarks of that all-encompassing description? Some of the traits were mentioned on the last few pages.

I think it does a disservice to anyone holding a discussion or debate to rely on those points, because in my opinion it does nothing except play into whatever stereotype someone has formed in their mind if a person says "I'm a conservative".

Are we really at the point in political discourse where there is an assumption that individuals on either side are somehow homogenous and unable to be independent individual thinkers capable of taking their views from whichever side most agrees with their own? Or how about whichever side makes a stronger case and on a base level "makes more sense" than the opponent?

After all that, seriously, where are these stereotypes being formed and promoted so folks outside the US have such a crystal-clear image in mind of an American conservative...mind you, one which totally dismisses individuality in favor of lockstep group-think and stereotypes?

He did repeal DADT. That's fairly major, even you have to admit. Limited to the military, yes, but with something like LGBT rights in a country like America there isn't going to be a big snap, it's going to have to come in tiny steps. I already admitted he's no saint, but, y'know he ain't Mittens. If both candidates suck the same corporate dick yadda yadda, isn't it better to still vote for the party whose few principles still remaining would do that? McCain would never have repealed DADT, there would be no reason to listen to LGBT minorities because THE GOP, BITCHES.

(Also, it's nice to see you won't try and defend the GOP stance on women because, JESUS... i wasn't aware it was the 30's, y'know)

Guitarfool, I get my American news from the Beeb, The Guardian (Brit paper), and the internet (another forum I frequent has more in-depth election discussion than here). BTW, all three reported on the fact that GOP con delegates threw peanuts at a (black) CNN camerawoman saying 'this is how we feed animals', so if I wasn't lacking for a reason to hate on modern Republican politics, there it is. That's discourse for ya.

Essentially, anyone who thinks that everyone having a gun somehow makes them safer is in some way delusional. (IMO)

What else? Ah yes,  GUP, you're a fool. I was satirising the point that you made by so calmly suggesting that man should have no qualm with hunting for his food in the United States of America in the year 2012 (in an election year, for gods sake). That is foolish. This is the 21st century, goddamit, and  I would like to think that we have evolved somewhat. In case you have missed my point, you are a fool*.



*Please note this is different in all other ways, except spelling, to a 'guitarfool', the 2002 model being another rather astute and valued commentator to these threads. Unlike you, you fool.

He repealed a law signed by a Democratic president (Bill Clinton) in 1993. It was a law that never should have been on the books to begin with. So no, the Democrats have no more love for gays than the Republicans do. It's too much of a wedge issue.

As far as the "war on women", I think it's half-true, half-hogwash. For one, no one has a right to birth control or abortions...that's not a "war on women", that's called "go out and pay for it yourself if you want it." However, I will fully agree with the stance that it's ridiculous that insurance companies cover Viagra but not birth control. I think both should be covered or neither should be covered.

I'm only taking these excerpts in the quote because that's the part relative to my question. First, thanks for the reply and the kind words!

Second, I would ask that you reconsider your views in light of a few points which I'll make.

That incident at the GOP convention - are there not idiots in every group, at every gathering, at every opportunity, in essence? I don't think it is a good idea to take what were a bunch of idiots, less than perhaps even a miniscule percentage of the total number of attendees at that event, and use that to suggest the entire crowd is that same way.

Do we need to go as far as this very board from the previous summers' tour in the US, to find those eyewitness accounts of a few concert goers acting rude, being obnoxious, or in general acting like a bunch of asses? Do those accounts of a few choice fans who are assholes and acted up at the concerts in any way represent the majority of fans who went to see the Beach Boys this year and enjoyed the show without acting the fool?

In that case, you can take the negative experiences of one concert and either dismiss it as an isolated incident of someone acting like a jerk, or take it to suggest that the actions of a few jackasses defined the experience of that particular Beach Boys concert.

Would it be ok, then, to define any event where someone gets out of line by that incident rather than the overall actions of the larger group?

Take it to the recent conventions where various Occupy groups had shown up to protest outside the venues: Some of these folks took the opportunity to dangle donuts on fishing poles in front of police assigned to patrol the streets outside the event, and there are reports of others who were making deliberate attempts to clog the emergency services in the area by phoning in fake reports and calls to bog down the ambulance and fire response by sending them on wild goose chases and worse. The donuts on fishing rods is to be expected - the emergency services bit is not only illegal but dangerous. I haven't heard a follow-up on the sum of all those activities, other than a certain Occupy group asking the same police officers who they were taunting with donuts for directions to their next protest location when they couldn't find it.

Is everyone identified with the Occupy movement that inconsiderate and that ignorant to think it was in any way beneficial to delay or distract emergency services in the name of politics, or to suggest they agreed with or participated in that tactic? Is it fair to suggest anyone who walks under the "Occupy" banner is of the same selfish and irresponsible mindset as those few idiots?

Is it - I won't use the word "fair" - is it right to take the actions of a few idiots and irresponsible jerks to somehow define the sum of others in their particular group?

If it were right to do that, it would justify many a stereotype for those who would seek to use stereotypes for whatever reason...and I'd ask that the actions of a few idiots at the RNC convention not be applied the same way to everyone identifying themselves as a Republican, because it simply is not the truth any more than it would be to tag all Democrats based on the questionable behavior of some of their members.

It does work both ways, I'd just ask for a little bit more consideration before lumping all people together with those peanut-throwing folks.

And if that were the standard, I could say without hesitation that the average Mets or Red Sox fan is a bloated, drunken, loudmouthed jerk based on the games I've seen them play against the Phillies.  :-D  But I know to assume that based on the jerks I've encountered is not correct or not even logical.

"He repealed a law signed by a Democratic president (Bill Clinton) in 1993. It was a law that never should have been on the books to begin with. So no, the Democrats have no more love for gays than the Republicans do. It's too much of a wedge issue.

As far as the "war on women", I think it's half-true, half-hogwash. For one, no one has a right to birth control or abortions...that's not a "war on women", that's called "go out and pay for it yourself if you want it." However, I will fully agree with the stance that it's ridiculous that insurance companies cover Viagra but not birth control. I think both should be covered or neither should be covered."



Well, that's one of the defining characteristics of a Republican stereotype: that no one has the right to anything (other than to bear arms, that is) .... Yeah, I get it: no one should have the right to something like preventing a pregnancy (I won't even get into abortion) that might create more poor people for stereotypical conservatives and conservative politicians to hate and cut all programs for while raping the kid's parents through taxes. It's all a vicious cycle of hateful stupidity. OK, would you feel better if condoms and safe sex info was SOLD to kids in schools? Or covered via health insurance with a special extra co-pay?

When does the idiocy ever end? When is ugly ugly enough?

Why do I have to pay for someone else's abortion or birth control? I have no moral or legal obligation to do so. If you can't afford birth control, here's a tip. DON'T f***. And if you get pregnant from CONSENSUAL SEX and can't afford an abortion, live with the consequences or take out a loan to pay for it.

This isn't the United States of False Entitlement.

You have the right to your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Your right ends where another's begins. But a government mandate that tells me I have to pay taxes to provide for birth control and abortions for "underprivileged women" (let's be real, many of these 'underprivileged women" are the Sandra Fluke types in universities)...no. Never. This is another reason why I will defend the right to bear arms - to keep people who THINK they have a right to my life and my liberty from unlawfully depriving ME of it...by any means necessary.

Whoo, now THIS is going to get interesting....

Bring it on. I already had two folks on Facebook unfriend me because I called the striking Chicago teacher's union a group of welfare whores.

My point is simple. Pay for your own bloody birth control and stop trying to sponge off others.

Guitarfool, I have no reason to believe that anyone at the 70+ dates of the Beach Boy tour debased a member of the press with racial slurs and abuse. It's clearly something the attendee thought was appropriate at their parties national convention. Not quite the same as getting drunk and singing along off key at a gig (if something worse happened at a gig, sure, but I haven't heard it). The OWS stuff is crappy, yes - not the donuts thing, because, hey it's protest and irreverence and mockery towards authorities is kinda the point. The line should be drawn at emergency services, though, you're quite right. I don't think our Occupy did those things (they did smash up Tory HQ though, which didn't help much on the PR sidee  ;))

Amazingly, not a lot of the Occupy stuff made it across the pond after the first couple of weeks. What a strange year of quasi-protest we have both had.

RE: There's also Todd Akin, 'Corporations are people, my friend', the socialist as four letter word and birther 'scandal' following Obama around (Mitt even mentioned it two weeks  ago!).... It's easier to get unfiltered, or aat least, differently filtered stuff nowadays. I have seen literally nothing of the Republican tickets that have said 'that man/woman/robot is sane and I am happy for that person to b Leader Of The Free  World'. Call it a hunch!

Also, no sweat on the kind words - you guys argue all the time, but they're nice and respectful arguments. What I don't dig is some other posters going 'nice try LOL' and demeaning the discussion. I can do that plenty myself  ;D

I agree that the personal attacks against people for their views are a bit much. As I've stated before, I've disagreed with rockandroll more than anyone here but I never personally attacked him. I respect his viewpoints and his willingness to be open about them, mainly because my own viewpoints are similarly "controversial".

Questionable rhetoric aside - why use whores? Could it be you are saying questionable things to stoke attention on the internet in lieu of real substance to your outlook?

People should have readily accessible birth control because a) sh*t happens to everyone b) no-one deserves unwanted pregnancy c) it's cheaper than benefits to single mums or unemployed parents. If the government provides the options (like condoms, seeing as you are conveniently forgetting men in this thing - condoms burst, mate, but i bet it's the 'whore's' fault) i see literally no reason to get offended when there are probably millions of other things that government spends money on you could be (rightfully) getting pissed off at.

And saying WHORE on facebook is a pretty bad look imo

So, a 13, 14, 15 year old is supposed to go buy condoms? REALLY? Do I need to even open up THIS discussion? Just how much ignorance and selfishness are you willing to openly display?

So, I'm assuming you must also take issue with your tax $$$ going into building churches? Huge, expensive rooms especially set aside for deity worship and why????? ....... Because it's a right to worship!

How about this: if you fall and crack your head open, please do not call 911 because someone else is paying for that 911 operator and someone else is paying for that ambulance. And please stop using streetlights, or crosswalks, or electricity: or the internet and please take your guns and go live in the woods and let's see how many rights the animals give you at night. We live in a sovereign nation, where people go and die en masse for freedoms and rights that you seem to have a lot of anger about.

Do you REALLY care if a cent of your tax dollars goes toward sex education of safe sex options for teens and women (and men)? Really? Do you take the same issue with that money going toward carpet bombs that kill men, women, and children in far off places? Somehow I think you're just fine with that.

As you well know I am not one for subtlety. It was not an attack on women. It was an objective conclusion based on the evidence I had at hand.

I do agree that people should have the easiest access to birth control; I've never disputed that. I think it should be EASIER and CHEAPER to acquire birth control...condoms, contraceptive pills, IUD, depo shot, you name it. I want it all on the free market, to be purchased at your local corner store, supermarket, pharmacy (chemist for those of you in the UK), you name it. But with this availability will come the need for personal responsibility. I think EVERYONE (men and women) needs to take on this responsibility. It is the responsibility of parents to teach this responsibility to their children; it is not the responsibility of the government. And yes, in the case of unwanted pregnancies I am not saying "thou shalt bear the fruit of thine unwed coitus". I am saying if they want or need to get an abortion to go ahead and do it...but they have to shoulder that responsibility.

Here's a hypothetical situation RealBeachBoy:

Let's forget all these "whores" and shoulda-known-better 13 year old girls who got knocked up by a wise and considerate 25 year old neighbor: how about...... now please TRY and imagine...... that you, a smart and personally responsible man........ meets a member of the opposite sex and...... has sex....... Wonderful! Now, ...... a few weeks later, it seems like it's starting to burn when you take a leak..... Hmmmmmm, did you use a condom or were you too embarrassed to ask if she had one? Or did you assume that any woman willing to have sex out of wedlock is a whore and just must have been handed her own file of condoms from ..... wait... our of YOUR pocket??? So, it's her responsibility to have them and if she doesn't?.... Well, of course you'll demand that she keeps the baby, right? But first things first: it burns when you pee, and who knows what else you might have contracted.... Soooooo, do you have health insurance? If so, you try and get an appointment, but it's Friday and they can't even see you until next week and it's REALLY starting to burn and you're freaking out, so......... Ah, there's a Planned Parenthood clinic nearby! What??? You can just show up and they'll test you up and down and advise you on how to prevent such a panic in the future! Yup, it will be a nice experience! Oh, and they'll also give you a little something to take care of that burning piss problem.... Oh, but wait..... WTF????? A infinitesimal portion of your tax $$$ went to..... what..... THIS????

Surely you'd refuse treatment (and the free condoms that you might now be wise enough to keep around) and walk out that door a proud "personally responsible" Conservative!

Good riddance....

I would hope parents teach their 13-15 year old kids personal responsibility. If that means buying condoms, so be it. And you're damned right I take issue with taxes being used for building churches. You're talking to an atheist. You'd think with all the money the church takes in daily that they'd never need outside assistance, but God must have a really butterfingered accountant up there in heaven.

I already pay taxes to support the upkeep of roads, crosswalks, streetlights, and 911 operators. I pay electric bills. I pay for the internet. The roads, crosswalks, streetlights, and emergency services would be better if privatized and provided as needed.

I have no issue with sex education or safe sex options for people. But it's not my responsibility to deal with their issues or assist in paying for them. It's my responsibility to deal with my issues and those of my children, if I ever have them. And I don't like having my tax dollars spent on sex education or safe sex options. And I especially don't like having my tax dollars spent on warmongering.

I would have hoped you actually have read my previous political postings here, as I've spoken out constantly against war.

You assume that I just walk up to random women and bareback it with them. Every time I've ever ended up at a party I've kept condoms on me. I also refrain from drinking at parties.

See, I was TAUGHT personal responsibility. I didn't learn it in school. I learned it from my parents. My heart cries out for those who weren't taught the same...but it's not my responsibility. I am not going to be penalized to provide for those who did not prepare. Planned Parenthood should be funded by donations, not by taxes.

Yeah, well it would be great if humanity would practice personal responsibility by and large, but we don't have great volumes of history books that would demonstrate even a slight grasp on the concept. Unfortunately too many parents are incapacitated by religion, addiction, plain ole stupidity, as well as too many hours at that damn corporate job worshiping spread sheets and stock portfolios to pay any attention to their kids. So, should the kids be punished for this? GWB had a rich daddy to take care of however many arrests DUIs and unwanted pregnancies as the young buck could ever hope to stumble into. Not all kids are as fortunate. There SHOULD be some public apparatus in place to deal with the cracks that open up in the street sucking down the vulnerable. And I'd sure as hell rather my taxes money go toward this than far off wars and the military industrial nightmare....

and yeah, well condoms break....... What then?

I also practice personal responsibly and sh*t never happens, right? ...... Well, only until it does....

I never said sh*t never happens. Normally I'd refrain from sexual encounters with random women at a party. And if it's the slightest bit fishy, I won't do it. I have to look out for myself.

I agree that there SHOULD be safety nets for those who slip through the cracks. But there are charities for that. Churches have helped out.

Ha! Yeah, and NO man or women has ever contracted anything nasty while in the supposedly safe confines of a committed relationship. Of course not. NEVER!

Did I say that? Of course not.

No, but it's this "it's not my responsibility" thing that indicates things......

Ya see, it IS your responsibility as it is mine and everyone else s!

How about this: YOU were taught responsibility, and I"m sure you'll teach your kids the same. Good!!! That just makes you smart and forward thinking. But what about the first young lady your son decides to mess around with? Or his first serious girlfriend? Or his wife? What if their folks weren't as astute as you? Wouldn't you want her/them to have the full and complete access to birth control and condoms EVEN if she's from a home full of ignorant layabouts?? Wouldn't you breath a sigh of relief if you found out your son lost his virginity to a young lady who had a condom with her when the first one your son brought either broke, or was expired or he was just too nervous to remember when he headed out that night?

Here's another thing: going to buy condoms or birth control from, say, the corner drug store can be embarrassing and humiliating depending where you're from. If a young woman in some backward  bible thumping little puritan town is seen by the local pastor buying condoms at the general store..... think about the nightmare she might be in for when her drunk/closeted religious freak of a father finds out.... Just think....

But if there were a planned parenthood clinic a short bus ride away, perhaps: she would be a lot more comfortable going there and would have access to advice/counseling that would be obviously lacking at home....

Once again: I have NO problem contributing tax-wise for such programs.... I mean, street lights are great n all, but we need living people to use them.... right?

I already answered your questions earlier in the thread. Rewording them will not change my responses.

Peter Schweizer is a well known liar about precisely this issue - fabricating information about "liberals" (of which Chomsky is not one) to illustrate their hypocrisy. He was outed as a complete fraud once someone bothered to check the validity of his statements. His very similar comments made about Gore at the same time and RFK Jr. later were investigated and proven false. I have no reason to believe he is being honest about the same claims he is making about Chomsky. After all, he gives no real evidence and then suggests we should trust his e-mail correspondence.  ::)

Do you really believe this is a significant issue?


In other words, government gets to decide who gets to f*** and who doesn't - f***ing is a privilege for people who can afford to take care of themselves.


And you only have those rights (among many others that you take for granted because you don't mention them) because other people fought for them. If not for people fighting for their rights, you have nothing and you have no more rights than what people had under Feudalism. Being born with the privilege of having rights that other people fought for for you comes with a certain obligation to recognize that other people happen to be still fighting for what they consider to be crucial rights.

By the same token, your general daily life couldn't exist without a history of massive public funding to make that life possible. This discussion for example wouldn't be happening because there would be no internet. In fact, the chances that most people would have the kind of time and opportunity to have these conversations most likely wouldn't exist since leisure time in general in the United States is a consequence of the economic boom that came as a result of publicly subsidized industrial development and New Deal policies, which is no small part led to a much more vibrant and well educated middle class, in fact practically created the middle class as a significant class position in the United States. The history of public subsidies in the United States in the 20th Century meant that American citizens were born into a life that granted them possibilites that other countries with a less regulated system quite simply didn't have. It's frankly outlandish that people born with this privilege speak out against taxation because they happen to believe their own social position to be "natural."


Evidence?


Since taxation deprives you of neither, I would consider this a moot point.

  At the heart of it all - he must have one after all - Romney is neither liberal nor conservative. Is he a Republican? Sure, but ideology really isn't one of his true priorities, thus his obvious insincerity when pandering to whatever base in whatever election. (1994, 2002, 2008, 2012)

  Ryan a liberal? Not in the modern or classical sense of the term IMO. 

I agree with the vast majority of posts made by The Real Beach Boy.

It's all one big guilt trip, we aren't allowed to cut any money for any program that benefits anyone because doing so would be "cruel". That's your own personal moral judgement, and I hate when democrats try and prop it up as if it represented an absolutely justified position.
If I want to cut social security or government funded sex education, then I am evil because people would suffer. But why is that my problem? I'm not afraid to admit it, and I think more people need to have the courage to just stand up and say that they don't care if people "slip through the cracks". People slip through the cracks all the time, they slip through the cracks with trillions of dollars of entitlement spending just as easily as they do without it. In economics and social science it's very difficult to empirically or scientifically justify these programs, social security doesn't just make our society unquestionable better off, it may save the lives of some people, but it has negative outcomes in the aggregate, and it helps those people at the expense of those who do not receive social security while distorting the economy and causing price inflation in the sectors where beneficiaries  usually spend their incomes (health care).

There's this idea that the 99% pays their taxes, and that if the 1% did so as well everything would be bought and paid for easily. We, as a society, are very incredulous that Mitt Romney pays ONLY 15% in taxes. But taxation is out of control for everyone, nobody should be paying that much. Think about the effective tax rate, payroll taxes, fica, medicare, federal income tax, state income tax, sales tax, property tax, not to mention administrative fees, estate taxes, capital gain taxes etc etc etc. Americans are absolutely taxed out the ass at every level of government. Why do families need two incomes today when 50 years ago they needed only 1? Maybe it's due to the simple fact that the effective tax rate eats up 50% of the nation's wealth. Could it be that simple? Is it really so insane to think that as the government raises taxes, debases the currency, and borrows more money, that the financial security of individuals' decreases in proportion to that?

Think about some low income family, living pay check to pay check, struggling to make end's meet on a day by day basis. Those families have so few options that they take on credit card debt and turn to payday loan sharks in order to make it through the month, and end up locked in a vicious circle of high interest debt payments. So few people seem to consider how social security affects families like that, imagine what 15% represents to a household budget like that. That's gas in the car, that's back to school supplies, that's a trip to the grocery store. It's not a negligible amount, it's not a small contribution for the sake of roads and highways. Children go without, families are bankrupted by overwhelming interest payments because of that 15%. At the end of the day, how can you justify taking money from a family like that to provide welfare for strangers whom they've never met? What right does the government have to make that decision on the household's behalf? It's not fair, and it's a devastating burden for millions of Americans. But social security is untouchable, it's not an issue, it's existence is totally taken for granted and people are conditioned to just see that money as having never existed in the first place.

The worst part about it is then we turn around and give those families food stamps. Doesn't that strike anyone else as just being, well, completely insane? We're creating the poverty which these welfare programs are supposed to alleviate in the first place! We just take from some people and give to others, and then when the people who gave have given so much that they can't survive anymore, we take from someone else to replace the money we took in the first place. It's just a neverending cycle, a house of cards, a patchwork of programs all designed to repair problems caused by other programs that were themselves designed to repair problems caused by other programs and on and on and on. It doesn't work, it will never work, no matter how much you tax, no matter how much you spend, all you'll ever be doing is arbitrarily juggling tax dollars around different special interest groups in a futile effort to achieve some perfect outcome. If you want regular middle class hard working people to be better off, you need to stop buying into this bullshit logic of it being cruel to not want to pay taxes. Taxes are killing this country, even with the Buffet rule it won't make a difference, a few months of debt will be financed at best and nothing more.


The debate can no longer be about whether or not the rich pay enough in taxes. Everyone rich and poor pays too much in taxes, period. Spending and taxation are completely out of control, debt is verging towards unstoppable exponential growth, and even with a 3 trillion dollar a year budget, none of it is doing anything to get us out of this depression. Our whole public spending paradigm just doesn't work anymore. Our current predicament is not anyone's fault but our own.

Considering that everyone who has said the same is called a "sexist", a "racist", a "bigot", a "homophobe" or whatever the liberal code word is...I'd say it is because you're telling falsely entitled people they are falsely entitled. They don't like it.


No, people decide for themselves and take their own necessary precautions. That includes birth control and abortions.


My rights are inalienable. Those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. My rights end where yours begin. I have no right to tell you to pay for my condoms or my health care. All of what you described could have just as easily been provided voluntarily by the private sector...who knows, maybe the internet would have been around in the public's hands long before the 1990s.


I generally do not see people who aren't college-age females demanding their "human right" to birth control.


But it DOES deprive me of my liberty - the liberty to keep 100% of the money I worked hard to EARN.

Everyone, consider taking a few steps back from all this and consider how this entire discussion/debate on contraception and abortion has been a result of the US federal government getting involved in issues it had no business getting involved with.

All this serves to do is distract from what is usually a much larger and much more important issue, depending on the election cycle. The abortion issue and all related issues has remained a major distraction which continues to bog down candidates who otherwise appear to be qualified and capable people, and in this case BOTH sides are at fault - and equally as annoying.

I'm actually sick of hearing about it, and it is a bigger part of my disillusionment with many Republican candidates who continue to press this issue for whatever reasons they have to want to sink their own campaigns, although the callous way a good number of Democrats think abortion is the #1 issue on the minds of the "average woman" gets obnoxious in the same way being over-pious on the "social issues" gets annoying on the other side.

At this point, this week, this day...I'd say there are more pressing things guiding American women and their opinions than the abortion issue - things such as the rising cost of living with both gas and everyday grocery prices rising every week, not to mention that little problem of unemployment and underemployment.

But hey, let's listen to the pundits and the media instead and make the abortion debate the hot topic every election!

I'd honestly think the general public would have said "Enough already!", though I think they have and no one cares to listen.

Please have a look at this: I'm not one for blindly trusting poll results or relying on them too heavily, but this recent Gallup poll showed the major concern in the 2012 elections as of a few weeks ago was...wait for it...*The Economy*. The biggest non-economic concern was...drum roll, please...*Dissatisfaction with government*, followed by *healthcare*.

The abortion/abortion rights issue polled so low it didn't chart as a percentage point. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx)

Economy 2012, period.

I think the problem is our whole idea of what morality even means anymore. The whole existence of Hitler has made it really difficult to even talk about what distinguishes good from evil anymore. Are our political leaders "evil"? Yes, absolutely, they are corrupt, delusional people. Ethics is not just about the law, but as Kant emphasized, the very concept of Law. Ethical, good people obey the unbreakable moral law of reason. Our politicians are not literally Hitler, they all believe that they are helping people and that their actions are justified.

The problem is that all of our leaders are compromised, and because Ethics are a study totally outside the realm of normal education today, we can only hold our leaders up and see how closely they resemble Hitler's model. "Hmmm, suspended habeas corpus? Well that's not that bad, he wasn't responsible for the Holocaust so I guess I'll give him a pass". These people are very strange, small, and insecure. They make "the hard decisions", and say things like "it had to be done", "there was no other option". They compromise the moral law, and "make sacrifices" on behalf of the country, they are unethical and very dangerous.

In America everyone thinks there is something very wrong with Hollywood culture, we all see the problem, the madness that fame secures for posterity. But are we really so blind as to not see Washington as having the exact same effect? Obama and Romney both, are narcissistic, and repressed, Machiavellian schemers and histrionic reality television celebrities. Michelle Bachman is really just case-in-point, a dullard with delusions of grandeur who projects an idealized fantasy of a personality which has slowly replaced her own soul.

These people are not like George Washington, or Thomas Jefferson, or even Abraham Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt. Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, George W Bush, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachman, President Obama. These people, have each lived through their own personal Breaking Bad, they have done and said things in private that would horrify every American. They have ruined everyone and everything around them and climbed over bloodied heaps to the highest offices in our nation, and none of them probably feel the slightest bit of regret or have the self awareness to admit to themselves all that they've done. This is one of the seeds that we've all helped to cultivate, a germ that's flowered in the nightmare that is contemporary America. All of us normal, average voters, are taken along for the ride and each of us casts a ballot of our own personal Walter White each election. A man we know to be evil, but are desperate to excuse, because the pain of life, and the tragedy lived out by millions each and every day compel us to hope.
We are the meek, the good people who are taken advantage of by the immoral. Until the democrats pressure Obama, and the republicans pressure Romney it will just stay the same. Until we stop excusing unethical behavior in all its' degrees, we're doomed as a nation and as a culture.

This is where we differ - I don't see it that way at all. Moreover, I'm happy to pay the pittance it costs to put easily accessible condoms in schools because the alternative is a bunch of teenagers getting pregnant, or no teenagers having sex because condoms and the pill are expensive (that's your beloved private sector for you). And lets face it, if I wasn't able to have sex when I was that age, it wouldn't have been much of a life at all. To not have to worry about forking out £6 for condoms when I could get them free from my school, if anything happened my girl could get the pill for free down the chemist was rather.... liberating.  ;) I mean, there's a theoretical 'liberty' which you can feel pissed off about paying for someone's medical bills which could feel rather hollow if you suddenly got cancer and couldn't afford the bills.

The thing is, do you seriously not care if someone couldn't afford treatment for something that wasn't their fault? Like, picking one example out of nowhere, did Levon Helm having to throw concerts and parties to fund his treatment for throat cancer not strike you as a little skew-whiff?

I think we've argued about taxation before, TRBB. The way I see it, everyone has an obligation to pay taxes to provide a certain standard of life in a country. Your philosophy seems to boil down to 'I don't care about others and they shouldn't care about me'.  But then I'm a leftist hippie backpedalling communist, so we'll probably never agree  ;D

I find abortion personally repugnant, but I am 100% willing to let some of my tax dollars support abortions and contraceptives for those people who believe that they are entitled to free healthcare and reproductive control at the expense of society/the taxpayers. At least that way I am reassured that we are 'thinning the herd' of these non-productive leeches in the long run...since hopefully our present day 'takers' will not be reproducing quite as much. The ultimate goal here being to decrease the size of the next generation of spoiled, non-productive gimmie-gimmies who would further siphon off future tax revenues that could be used for far nobler purposes. I would consider this expense a wise investment in our ultimate success as a sovereign nation.

Shouldn't this issue be decided on a state-by-state level and taken directly to the voters to make the choices at the polls rather than having the federal government make any kind of ruling, mandate, or overreaching law covering these social issues? I can't help but think more and more as I get older that the real answers will be found when centralized government is weakened and its power lessened except in certain issues and concerns, and localized (state-by-state) government becomes the power which is directly responsible to and for the voters of those given states. Politics and political power, especially in certain social issues, becomes more accountable to the public when it becomes closer to that same public.

Feel free to keep lobbing the talking points back and forth about an issue which shouldn't even be in the federal government's hands, that's exactly the kind of distraction certain elements of the political machine would want.

Keep in mind the economy, and also the events which unfolded yesterday at the US embassy in both Egypt and Libya. The late breaking news this morning is that the US envoy to Libya and three US diplomats, apart from the American worker killed yesterday, were killed in the mob violence and protests surrounding a movie which the mobs found offensive to Islam.

I'll say again, not to undermine anyone's viewpoints, but there are serious issues with the economy and with diplomats being killed by angry, religion-fueled mobs over the content of a film, and yet the burning issue is who is supposed to pay for a pack of rubbers.

I wasn't talking to you.

Well yeah. I did say that, but it kinda got lost in a wider point about taxation etc. The US Ambassador thing is insane.

I was kinda hoping to get some thought and chat about the day-to-day of the election really, seeing as it's close and it's a ideological minefield and MITT FUCKING ROMNEY, y'all. Are we all shut-off ideologues, or aren't you the least bit worried about what would happen if Mitt does it? Or, to appease TRBB, what if Barack does it?  ;)

I'm giving this post a thumbs up, because the intent was right on the money and what happened as a result could be, in the language of too many of our US politicians, "a teachable moment".

I'm just asking those reading and participating here to consider the way the focus and therefore the energy and anger shifted from the bigger issues to one about birth control and abortion. That topic is a hot-button, but ultimately a very minor concern in context of the bigger picture.

The divert and distract tactic is one that plays out all the time in political debates, and it is not only a tactic but it is also a technique which can be taught and which is in fact taught at various seminars, etc. It's in the same category as sales seminars where coaches are brought in to demonstrate new sales methods for various industries and salesmen of all kinds - there are ways to influence conversations and through using certain methods and techniques, these methods are taught. Politics is no different than selling cars or insurance policies, after all - it's about trying to sell ideas and politicians rather than goods or services.

When a touchy topic is brought up, or a point is made which one side or the other knows is an Achilles Heel of sorts for their side, try to notice that side's spokesperson attempts to micro-manage the debate from a larger issue to a much smaller point-within-a-point, and the result is all of the passion and energy shifts from where that side was vulnerable (the bigger picture) to a much smaller issue within that big picture which ultimately becomes the focus and which ultimately means little or nothing to the original topic.

Consider that this technique is taught, it is coached and practiced, and it gets put into play regularly by those political pros who are paid very well to do it in public. It happened in this very thread and we're not even highly paid political hacks! I'm just saying, look for it and know it when you see it. Then put the conversation back on track so the original points aren't lost.

I'm not really sure what you mean by this. All I can say is this issue seems like a giant distraction to me.


You're forgetting the fact that problems with birth control typically occur more regularly is less educated and poorer communities. I think this is ultimately an easy thing to say when you're part of a more educated class - that it is all simply people "deciding for themselves." Ultimately though when people are not adequately given the tools to make informed decisions (like a good education often does) then the consequences of that are usually obvious. The kind of system you're describing is making people pay doubly because they have come up on the down side in a system that functions to be always already tipped against them.


But those were not always inalienable rights, they only became that over time because they were fought for. Those are concepts that came about as a result of the Enlightenment era. Before that time, it was unheard of to talk about those ideas in terms of being rights that can't be taken away or given.


By the same token, the British Empire believed that their subjects had no right to tell them that they had the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." What makes those rights more legitimate? Because revolutionaries wrote down that they came from a Creator? Because, after all, that was the justification given then.


History tells us otherwise because societies that are run entirely "by the private sector" are disasters. There's a reason why first world countries don't allow totally free market systems because they know that those systems don't work. If you look at the major economic booms of the 20th century, they were largely created as a result of public investment. On the flip side, countries that were forced to adhere to free market principles saw enormous amounts of poverty. The reason why the public ends up subsidizing concentrated wealth in the United States is because the periods that are less regulated typically usher in an age of crisis and it is understood that the only thing that can possibly re-generate the economy is public welfare. Your point about the internet is flat out false. The private sector didn't want to touch the internet until it had passed the crucial risk period. Bill Gates, for example, was publicly shunning the validity of the internet until a year before it was privatized. It was only when he realized that it could be profitable that he decided to take it over. And this is generally how the economy works in the United States. It is understood in the private industry that the public should subsidize the risk and, therefore, provide a cushy welfare net for corporations who don't have to worry about making bad investments. Once the product has sufficiently passed the test that it can actually turn a profit, it is then placed into private hands. This is true of the major advancements of both the 19th and 20th century: the railroads, the automotive industry, aviation, weapons, computers, satellites, etc. What this tells us, then, is that private industry understands quite clearly something that these free market enthusiasts deny - that they simply cannot function without crucial public welfare. And they can't and we know they can't because we see what happens when they don't: it's a disaster.


Fortunately, people who are in college have easier access to get their voice heard. You're not going to see people of a lower class making these arguments because they are completely disenfranchised and marginalized and have no significant voice.


Yes, well, people justified slavery on the same grounds. Do you believe you would have EARNED the same money had you been born in sub-Saharan Africa?

 :rock :rock :rock :rock :woot

If this isn't an open forum, use private messaging comrade.

You're ultimately living in a society which is set up so that income and weath are unequally distributed towards the upper echelons of concentrated wealth and power. In this society, anybody who does not belong to the ownership class (the vast majority) are always and already at a disadvantage. Given the inherent unfairness of this system, taxation works to make things slightly fairer. If one really cares about solving problems, they wouldn't look at taxation as the crux of the problem but rather the construction of the society as a whole that makes social welfare necessary. And unfortunately, in the United States, social welfare is far more necessary than it is in other countries because it is structurally built to not care about people - to put profits for the ownership class ahead of people's lives and then to make people think that putting profits ahead of people's lives is ultimately best for people's lives despite the fact that that entirely flies in the face of reality. This incidentally is everyone's problem - not just your own though if the long-running state-oriented system in the United States has worked to your advantage than it is certainly your obligation to not deny others from benefiting from the same system.

 ;D   

Well said, RocknRoll, but the problem is not people's political beliefs. It's rather transparent to think one's basic selfish, narcissistic, socially ignorant, mean spirited nature, is not taken at face value even while under the guise of political discussion. At some point it's either nature or nurture and one's political beliefs ultimately speak to their character as people. Thankfully in this country, selfish, angry, mean spirited folk are allowed to thrive off the work and sacrifices of others (and their own, yes) just as more well meaning folk can too. It's useless. People just really LOVE to be conservatives and that simple word means more to them than the details. Same for the other side too. But I'll always throw in with the side that actually cares about people..... I mean, do I REALLY want the guy flipping my burgers or flying my plane to be working 7 jobs just to stay off the street and not getting any sleep for weeks on end? ......... Social issues affect us all no matter how we might try and deny it.

I am zinged, Mikie. Wretched Poet, adieu.
You that look pale and tremble at this chance,
that are but mutes and audience to this act,
had I but time - as this fell sergeant, Zing,
is strict in his arrest - O, I could tell you -
But let it be. Mikie, I am zinged,
Thou livest. Report me and my cause aright
to the unsatisfied.

Et tu, Brute? ;D

Forward To The Socialist Empire, Comrades!!!!

(joking)

 >:D

PS.

The Electoral College map is dead set against Romney at this point.  He'd have a lot of ground to make up in 55 days.

Obama can lose Ohio, and still win.  If Romney loses Ohio, he's toast.

You read it here first!

Hypehat, remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate. And whether you are a citizen of America or a citizen of the United Kingdom, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.

Ask not what America can do for you — ask what you can do for America.

Good faith Mikie, this same young
sober-blooded boy doth not love me, nor a man cannot
make him laugh; but that's no marvel, he drinks no
wine. There's never none of these demure boys come
to any proof, for thin drink doth so over-cool their
blood, and making many fish meals, that they fall into a
kind of male green-sickness, and then when they
marry they get wenches. They are generally fools and
cowards - which some of us should be too, but for
inflammation. A good sherris-sack have a twofold
operation in it. It ascends me into the brain, dries me there
all the foolish and dull and cruddy vapours which
environ it, makes it apprehensive, quick, forgetive, full
of nimble, fiery, and delectable shapes, which
delivered o'er to the voice, the tongue, which is the
birth, becomes excellent wit. The second property of
your excellent sherris is the warming of the blood,
which before, cold and settled, left the liver white
and pale, which is the badge of pusillianimity and
cowardice; but the sherris warms it, and makes it
course from the inwards to the parts' extremes.
It illumineth the face, which, as a beacon, gives warning
to all the rest of this little kingdom, man, to arm, and then
the vital commoners, and the inland petty spirits, muster
me all to their captain, the heart; who, great and puffed up
in this retinue, doth any deed of courage;
and this valour comes of sherris.
So that skill in the weapon is nothing without sack, for that
it sets it a-work, and learning a mere hoard of gold kept by
a devil, til sack commences it and sets it in act and use.
Hereof comes it that Prince Harry is valiant; for the cold blood
he did naturally inherit of his father he hath lean, sterile and bare land
manured, husbanded and tilled, with excellent endeavour  of
drinking good and good store of fertile sherris, that he is become very
hot and valiant.
If I had a thousand sons, the first human principle I would teach them
should be to forswear thin potations,
and to addict themselves to sack.

Some men see things as they are and ask, "Why?"   I dream things that never were and ask, "Why not?"

Bobby Kennedy all the way!

I think the greatest sin mankind can do is to never ask why? or why not?

Erik, it's actually George Bernard Shaw, but RFK liked to quote the best.  And that quote very much fit his ideology.

And another one he liked from Bob Frost:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one less traveled by.  And that has made all the difference.

Well, looks like my overquoting The Bard destroyed this thread. I knew that cup of coffee at 10pm was a bad idea. What next?

Although I do need to read me some Robert Frost....

OR it put the thread out of it's misery....... Therefore, a thanks might be in order :)

heh heh, you got that right!

Seriously, tho', I'm enjoying the discussion/rants by TRBB, Hypehat, and everyone.  Keep 'em coming!

I'd argue that in cases of rape, incest, or medical necessity, and etc., a poor woman ought to have access to abortion, paid by The State.
Why ration health care?

I look at it this way:

If Romney and His Friends (the Kochs) ACTUALLY PAID THEIR FAIR SHARE OF TAXES, the rest of us would be paying a LOT LESS, and The State would not be running a deficit.
We could afford the Public Payer option.

Hmmm!

With respect, of course, Romney has made billions, fired thousands, paid little in taxes, but his comments after the Egypt embassy riot show he's totally TOTALLY unfit to be POTUS.

I'd argue, when the rich pay only 10% or 13% in taxes, less than I do by the way, then, EFF YES they are paying WAY TOO LITTLE!

Don't ya think?

Agreed. The man has no tact, sensitivity and seemingly no comprehension of the situation.

Can I just ask what your reaction would be if someone were to suggest you personally are currently paying too little in federal income taxes and that your rate effective retroactively to cover 2012 will be 50% higher than what it is now? Would you accept someone else's rationale that you are being undertaxed compared to those around you in your area and would willingly pay more?

I'm talking income taxes, federal income taxes to be exact. But the above scenario is close to reality for many homeowners of all income levels having to deal with local property taxes and school taxes through assessed value of their home, who can see a board of assessments declare their tax rate too low and randomly increase your rate, and that usually leads to foreclosures and forced sales from people who may have lived in that home for decades.

So, what if?

It's a safe bet that Obama has never even listened to the Beach Boys...

Yes, I agree that neither candidate is proving worthy of my vote.  But I'm sick of listening to the Obama Kool-Aid drinkers ejaculate over a man so unworthy of praise.  Guess what?  His stance on gay marriage ain't gonna fix sh_t over our sinking economy.  But you know what will bury us even deeper?  His completely impractical universal health care plan.  

And while Romney may be as charismatic as sandpaper, I will admit I'd prefer him to win the election.  But it's kind of like rooting for getting kicked in the face over getting shot in the junk.  

I think I'll be voting for Jill Stein (who won the Green Party nomination over Rosanne Barr, of all people), even though I was holding out hope that Ralph Nader would make another run at the White House.

Ralph Nader's a has-been.  He couldn't hold Obama's jock.  Hell, bring back Ross Perot.  If he wasn't so old, he'd give deep pockets Romoney a run for his money.

I can't believe that anyone would give ANY credit at all to President Obama regarding his stance on gay marriage when he does not have
the courage or character to come out of the closet himself...rather than constantly pimping his own sham marriage to Michelle Robinson.

Wow, you really some kind of genius. You opened my eyes. Really.

Obama's "evolution" on gay marriage was so calculated and disingenuous. He obviously thinks the LGBT community is comprised of stupid people.

IDK, if you think about it like that it becomes 'How dare he enfranchise me and enhance my civil rights, he doesn't mean it!' and well, where does that get you? The '64 Civil Rights Act was 'Kennedy's Act' rather than a massive sea change on the part of the Legislature/LBJ/whoever wrt to African-American rights and I don't think anyone worth listening to has said it wasn't welcome because 'they didn't mean it'.


And, of course, Obama's a raging queer anyway so the point is moot - cheers for the information, GreatUrduPoet. You fucking nutter.

I would push for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, too.

In 10 or even 5 years, or less, the "LGBT marriage thingy" simply will no longer be an issue.

"Move along people, nothing to see here."

-- Sgt. Lt. Frank Drebin

I'd really like to hear why. Especially since I know you just hate just saying controversial things for the sake of it....


Does it involve the nasty government getting in the way of the bigotry of decent, hard working whiteAmericans who just want their constitutional right to be free live in a segregated society, perchance?

Seriously, I am happy that one politician, just one (who happens to be Prez), came out and finally did the right thing.  Can't we all be happy with that?

 :hat

It would appear not.  ::)

It's amazing how the people who brag the loudest about loving this country and being patriots are the most negative and hateful people around. They don't love this country or even like it. They hate it with a passion. They might like the 2nd amendment perhaps, but that's about it. They scream and cry about their rights like big overfed babies while bitching and complaining about everyone else's. They really need to go off and find some uncharted land and create their own Dodge City.

Either that or they simply like to say things for the effect..... in which case, I can't certainly appreciate the entertainment value.

TRBB, ya know I love your "out there" posts TRBB.... but........... in this case............

I suggest you read up on convict leasing and debtor's peonage in The South, in the 100 years AFTER the Civil War, and perhaps that would give you a better context for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and why it was/is needed.

Not trying to be snarky here either (for once).

He could (and probably has) read any damn thing you could toss at him and it wouldn't make a difference. People like this just love to piss other people off and get everyone all full of steam. I think that's about all it boils down to, other than the basic "nature or nurture" question.

Title II is the problem with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If you can't get rid of the whole thing (I doubt the whole thing would ever be repealed), Title II is a great place to start. It's more overstepping of the boundaries of the Commerce Clause in the Constitution...a big no-no. I'm not saying that people should just go hardcore racist on others, but no amount of lawmaking will end racism. However, freedom of association is the big issue here. People should have the right to associate with whom they please and should not have to provide a reason as to why they may not wish to associate with a certain individual.

If I run a convenience store and a customer causes a problem that leads to an uneasy atmosphere for the other customers, I should have the right to ask that individual to leave. However, Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 allows for people of "special interest groups" to possibly take legal action against me because in their minds, my refusing their business might somehow equal discrimination. I am not the bigoted type; my like or dislike of people has nothing to do with race, religion, sexual orientation, and so on. Title II just removes "beyond a reasonable doubt" from the equation. And considering how many people believe "all oppression nowadays is at the hands of white, heterosexual males", Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not do anything to improve civil rights but everything to muddy the waters and make people walk on too many eggshells. No thanks.

If that makes me a bigot (and no doubt I'll have a few hecklers in this thread), so be it. I prefer to associate with whom I wish.

You're only further illuminating the NEED for the law to step in here. Outright racism is not a good thing and it is not OK to go hardcore racist on anyone, but people will and DO do so and when they do someone usually gets hurt. It is not illegal to not like this person or people or that person or people for whatever the hell reason you wish, but the moment it crosses the line into prohibitive discrimination for no other apparent (or arguable) reason, then it damn well should be illegal.

My folks live in Idaho and I see rampant hardcore, ugly, and violent racism whenever I'm up there. It damn well exists and if there weren't certain laws, it would be practiced in the most atrocious way possible....

People fought hard for the right to simply not have to hang from trees. It is serious business whether you feel so or not.

No one cares if you or anyone else wants to hang out with white people only or Jewish people only or Asian people only. No one cares, so quit crying about it..... and IF you own a liquor store in a neighborhood where black people happen to live, you should damn well expect a black customer or two, duh! If you don't like black people and don't want them in your store, then, sure, you can yell out or pull your guns on any black kid who even remotely resembles a thug. That's your right and who gives a damn anyway? We all know overt racism when we see it, and if you're guilty of that yourself: no one cares either. Quit crying. No one's going to take away your guns or make you associate with whatever race you'd rather not. No one's going to make you buy boxes of condoms to pass out free to the kids, and no one's going to force you to have an abortion.... Clean your guns and stop crying.

I wouldn't exactly say I "hate" this country but I'm by no means some fist-pumping, "USA! USA! USA!" drone, either. Patriotism is a waste of time and energy. I don't believe in a "pledge of allegiance"; my allegiance is to myself. I wouldn't say I bitch and complain about the rights of others. I've defended freedom of speech, the right to assembly, free exercise of religion, and the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't rag on the rights of others. Those rights are the same as mine.

I never said outright racism was a good thing, nor did I say it was good for people to go hardcore racist on others. I have no time for people who have nothing better to do than air their inflammatory racial remarks. However...I would defend the right of someone to say they don't wish to serve a certain "group" of people and I'll tell you why - let the market place deal with that individual. Bad news travels fast. A business owner who only allows, say, "white Christians" to patronize his business will be hurt much more quickly by the customer base than by any legal system.

I agree that there should be some kind of base regulatory system in place for racism when it comes to criminal cases like murder, rape, or pedophilia...but the other stuff can very easily be sorted out by the market place.

 let the market place deal with that individual

????

OK, there is no point in bothering with you anymore...... You can happily not see a single post of mine in this thread from this moment on..... I'll let the market place deal with you....

Actually, RealBeachBoy: I re-read the "let the market place deal with that individual" part of your reply again and it does indeed make sense and was well put. For that I apologize.

But I'm still out of this discussion......

"Let the market place deal with that individual" means that the morons whose racism colors how they run their businesses will end up OUT of business because, by and large, most folks are against racism and will NOT patronize those businesses.

Indeed!

Funny that when I was a kid, the liquor store around the corner was run by this old Korean guy and he was constantly throwing people out! He'd call me "Mexican trash" (I'm Mexican/Italian/German/Irish) and he'd call black kids the N word. But he REALLY had it in for the heavy metal kids! One time, my friend's heavy metal brother was playing Galaga in the front of the store and he had just managed to turn the game over and he was yelling and cheering super loud and the old guy came up and slapped him across the face!!!

I wonder if this guy's still in business. This was a different time and I have to think if it was an old white guy, his store would have been burned down by a mob of angry villagers. Dunno what this says....

I would hope he isn't still in business. Korean racism is frightening. The Galaga dude should have filed assault charges against him...that's a slap in the face, sure, but still assault.

Yes, it is! I was engaged to a half Korean and her father was absolutely terrifying (he didn't approve of me, of course)! She wasn't "allowed" to have Chinese friends of Japanese friends, or Thai friends (especially Thai)! And if she insisted on a white boyfriend, he HAD to be either a doctor or a lawyer!

Funny thing about the heavy metal dude, is, yeah, he could have filed a report, and even though he was white, he was a metal head, a stoner, and a troublemaker, so he would have fallen victim to a whole different sort of discrimination....

Most Asian societies are like that. They're all very homogeneous societies; some more than others. I remember watching a documentary film about the Democratic People's Republic of Korea...those people are brainwashed to distrust and hate anyone who isn't a North Korean. They're even told to hate South Koreans. It's scary. I don't think that's productive at all.

You didn't answer my main point before going off on the Civil Rights tangent (up the top of the page), but OK.

Yes, no amount of law-making will end racism. What the law can provide is a path for those discriminated against to get compensation or justice for acts of racism perpetrated against them. I would like to think you're not against the law providing that for people. The free-market simply can't do that. Boycotting your racist supermarket isn't going to work if it's the only supermarket in town. The law needs to be there.

People did refuse business to people purely for discriminatory reasons before the Civil Rights act. There are so many things wrong with your argument that it should be repealed that I don't quite know where to begin. Clearly, they would only have a case if you, hypothetical business owner, did something like used racial epithets or got on your KKK robes or something whilst ejecting them from the shop. The law is there to ensure that. Besides, I'd also hope you'd agree that 'Whites Only' signs are a pretty fucking major step beyond 'the management reserve the right to refuse service to anyone', but sometimes I'm not so sure.


Irreverent posting aside, I'm not heckling you - but you kinda deserve it for saying 'The Civil Rights Act should be repealed' when what you mean is 'I disagree with one section of what is otherwise a decent piece of legislation that chimes with my beliefs on Life, Liberty, etc'. I mean, come on man.

You are not owed any compensation because a private individual or business discriminated against you. The law doesn't need to be there, being discriminated against by a shop owner does not entitle you to anything, it is not an encroachment upon your rights. That may sound cruel to say, but we should really be focused on protecting the rights we actually have instead of trying to legislate nebulous conceptions of "fairness". You have a right to your life, liberty, and property, nothing more. Regardless of how reprehensible some store owner's ideas may be, you do not have the right to demand service from him. Doing so deprives him of his liberty, his constitutionally protected right to free association. It's as simple as that, you never, ever have to justify the way in which you exercise your rights. Racism is such a cop out in modern political discourse, racism is absolutely immaterial to the debate at hand. It doesn't matter what a person believes, he isn't required to justify himself when it comes to his rights, otherwise they wouldn't even be rights to begin with! You are not allowed to question him or his motives, anymore than a prosecutor can question an accused man's reasons for invoking the 5th amendment. You are not required to justify yourself when denying a police officer's search request. You are not required to justify yourself when you mark down Muslim on the census form.

There's nothing cruel, or wrong, or revolting about anything I've just said. Your rights are your rights, period, end of story. Your rights are written down, in black and white on a piece of paper on public display in Washington DC. You do not have any extra rights, your rights are not determined by what anyone feels is right, or what may or may not be common sense. Rights are universal and unalienable, I don't care who the person is, or what he believes, or what he says, or who he associates or conducts business with. It is absolutely, in no way shape or form, my right to deny him his unconditioned ability to determine those things for himself.

I don't care if the civil rights act was the greatest thing ever in the history of mankind, I don't care if it helped millions of people, I don't care if it was necessary, I don't care if disagreeing with it makes me evil, at the end of the day it took away the rights of certain individuals due to those individual's political and social outlook. That's tyranny, no matter how shitty those people are, no matter how evil they may be, no matter how wrong they are or how much I'm expected to hate them, it is an act of tyranny to take away their rights. There's nothing more to it.

Your rights are written down?


Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness iirc

But hey, I guess only certain people deserve those rights. Or racial minorities were not having their rights denied in any way whatsoever? You have to be a certain kind of person to insist that racism is fine under basic human rights, seeing as in my clearly minority view, Racism/persecution of any stripe is about denying basic human rights for people.

Get some compassion, for f***s sake. That's unbelievable. I wasn't aware committing human rights violations was in fact an inalienable human right.

Wow, there are bona fide racists on this board.  Pretty sickening.

Where? Name them.

I would have respected his position on gay marriage if he actually ran on it in 2008, but no. Now it's just a calculated attempt to gain votes in an election year when his campaign and presidency have proven a catastrophic failure...much like his illustrious predecessor.

Not what I'm saying - does the act of repealing DADT or putting the gay marriage debate on the table somehow become worthless if only done for votes? Does it somehow not become a big step in LGBT rights? Is every gay solider just shaking their head and going 'well, he doesn't mean it, so I guess nothing's changed'?


Eagerly waiting for Fishmonk's response, btw. The unalienable human right to be racist to people.... Jesus.

I wouldn't say it's worthless but I would definitely say it's calculated and disingenuous. Don't Ask, Don't Tell never should have been an issue to begin with...it never should have been passed. But we have the Clinton regime to thank for that, or did the liberal community forget that little detail?

Keep in mind, you're talking to someone who was for gay marriage long before it was the issue it is nowadays. Government should either recognize all marriages and civil unions or none at all; frankly, I'd prefer if they recognized none because marriage and civil unions are private or religious contracts between individuals and should remain as such.

I really don't see how  important it is to what extent a politician is disingenuous or politically motivated IF the do something good/usefull/helpful to society/mankind. I mean, what does it matter? No a single damn progressive step we've taken as a life form has been out of pure love for one another. I mean, we all do things for all variety of reasons. The least important is generally what we scream and yell the loudest about..... GWB was a disingenuous bastard and he got all kinds of people killed due to it. If Obama goes home and goes on cussing tirades about gays BUT comes out in favor of gay marriage: what do I care?

And does anyone realize just how easy it is to yell and scream and cry about how nothing is a right or an entitlement from the safety of a computer screen in a country where you're free and clear to bitch and moan about things that people fought and died for, while at the same time taking full advantage of the very things you're bitching and screaming against? I mean, c'mon! Seriously!!!!!!

[/color]

Can't argue with this however!

My problem is that people want the government to take a stand on everything. Why do we need permission from the government to marry whomever we wish, regardless of sexual orientation or even the amount of people involved? We don't need MORE government in the bedroom. We don't need LESS government in the bedroom. We need ZERO government in the bedroom. What consenting adults do voluntarily is THEIR OWN BUSINESS. I don't care if you're straight, gay, up, down, left or right...no one should be prohibited by any governmental body from associating with whom they wish and marrying whom they wish. This goes far beyond civil rights...this is just common fucking sense. Or at least it should be.

We need permission from our government. You want your 13 yo daughter marrying Jerry Lee Lewis? You want her marrying her first cousin? You want her marrying some guy she meets on Omegle who wants into this country?

If her parents approve of it that should be fine for the parties involved. I would hope that her parents have a bit more restraint when it comes to issues like this. Keep in mind, it's HER PARENTS' job to raise her, not the government's.

Restraint? Sounds like you might mean restraints. How else would those things be prevented?

I would think that responsible parents wouldn't just allow a 13 year old to marry someone. The only way to possibly control this to the extent you seem to be pushing for is to have a complete police state with a government employee living in every house...hey, since we're throwing away the Bill of Rights, let's get rid of the 3rd Amendment while we're at it.

I'm tempted not to respond because of the smugness you're showing here. You've shut down the debate before it even began, so what's the point?

Anyway, it actually is your right to be racist. As I stressed in my previous post, though it's a point wasted on some people apparently, is that you can use your rights however you so choose. It does not matter if you're using your rights in a racist way, like I said that's immaterial to the debate, you have a right to be racist in the same way you have a right to be gay. You don't want people to control you, you don't have a right to control other people. You don't like their opinions, you think they're morally terrible people? Tough, they have their rights just as you have yours.

And don't you dare call me a racist hypehat, I've been around here for a good long while, you know me and know that I'm an ok guy. I won't be posting anymore if you act like a dick about this.

I just curious, BTW just WHO some of us are talking about when they go on and on about this person thinks they're entitled to this that, health care, food, (Jeez, I'm quoting Mitt Romney here) etc etc.... Are we talking about the dirt poor? Are we talking about those who sit around not attempting to do a damn thing and who expect welfare and food stamps to keep coming? If so, these people are NOT the majority. We should be thankful that we are not in their situation (extreme poverty doesn't just happen. There are heartbreaking reasons usually for such a state: reasons that no one really cares to know about) and have a little humility. Who complains that GWB can get DUI after DUI and f*** up left and right, be an alcoholic and a failure at everything he's ever attempted yet still reap the rewards that his daddy and his daddy's daddy worked for? I mean does anyone feel that  GWB shouldn't be entitled to a fine mean and 1 billion thread count sheets when he didn't do a damn thing to earn any of it? .... Of course not, so maybe we shouldn't bitch about poor people feeling that they are entitled........ to not starve to death. BTW, we're not even talking about THEM are we? We're talking about people who were not born into money or power and who work hard yet can't keep up with the rising cost of everything and have to choose between eating and paying their ever increasing rent.... In the meantime, these people's paychecks are being raped through taxes. They are PAYING INTO THE SYSTEM, is it really fair to use the word entitlement in reference to their need to have access to health care? Really? They think they're entitled to it? Really?

I think we need to stop using the right-wing (marketing team arrived-at) catchphrase for starters....

I offered a few questions; no push involved. Anyway, we have many protections in place as it is and we are nowhere near a police state. I'm not throwing out the baby, OK?

Until your parents deem you ready to make your own decisions, then the parents have the final say. Once you're "legal", all bets are off. You make your own decisions.

Yes, and wouldn't it be a legal issue far before a church date is set regarding a 13 year old marrying some 46 year old pedo?

And don't most couplings have to get around/past or approved of by parental units well before wedding bells are even ringing off in the far distance?

I didn't mean that. I wasn't clear. Sorry. I meant, when our society tries to solve issues and problems, you could say that sometimes we try to throw out the bathwater, without throwing out the baby. In this case the baby is the 3rd ammendment. That's probably still oblique. It's the best I can do; I'm over caffeinated.

LULZ

looks like no Beach Boys in the White House for another 4 years, unless Obama invites them ofc.....  ;D

It currently is a legal issue, yes.

What makes you think Obama wouldn't, necessarily? Unless you're one of those types who think black people only listen to hip-hop and R&B! RACIST!  :lol

I'd certainly tune in for an NWA reunion at The White House with Obama filling in for Eazy-E!

Just keep Bubba from waltzing on in on sax!

Nah, leave him in.  And, behind the band on the Tribute Screen, put up Nixon & Truman tickling the ivories. Let it all hang out! It's all gansta.

Dick Cheney can play the defibrillator!

And Bush 2.0 can play the fool.

If you're referring to the 'it takes a certain type of person' part in my initial response, that wasn't meant to label you as a racist. Honestly. I'm sorry if I caused offence with that. I posted in a hurry and your post did floor me somewhat as yeah, you are a decent poster and smart dude.

It's more of a difference of opinion we have, in that I'm not so devoted as you or TRBB in viewing these things purely as a issue of  Rights and from a theoretical point of view when we're talking about, if not very recent history such as the Civil Rights Movement, issues that affect me indirectly or directly such as gaining equality for other minorities, the problems you guys have with a welfare state, etc. We come at these things very differently, maybe it's my British perspective (I had a very nasty injury lately that I'm sure glad I had my NHS for, but that would make Ayn Rand cry), maybe it's the fact I'm a soft old hippy at heart and went to a politicised Uni. Who knows.

I just cannot find the theoretical disconnect to say 'you are within your rights to abuse other people's human rights' in me. I am not that sort of person, and that's what I meant by that. I cannot look at this sort of thing and say 'well, they're totally within their rights to force them to drink out of different fountains' or whatever on a theoretical level.

Again, I'm sorry if I caused offence. As a good man once said to me, 'there needs to be no beef'. Peace?  ;D

Make sure there is one  big X on the stage floor for him. And, just to be sure, have some one lead him to his spot.

No! I say, force him into the most unrestrained 70's Mike Love outfit and hand him a tambourine!

Now we're getting somewhere. A little fun goes a long way.

I'll state again, TRBB, that for 100 years AFTER the Civil War ended, The South continued Slavery by Another Name.  This is widely known, by anyone who studies this period.  And the "marketplace" could do nothing about it.  In fact, the "marketplace" was part of the "racket".

Surely, you must be aware of the common practices of debtors' peonage and convict labor, which provided the Southern "marketplace" with BLACK labor at absolutely NO COST!  These practices were not exceptions either -- but were common throughout The South.

And by the way, I don't think the Federal Government should be stepping in EVERYWHERE, but in cases such as civil rights, there was no other redress.

TRBB, people in favor of gay marriage are not asking for "permission" from they government.  They/we simply want SUCH marriages to to be legal, same as "straight" marriages.  We are talking about rights with respect to survivor's benefits, wills, end of life decisions by a surviving spouse, etc.  This is serious business.  We are talking about basic human dignity.

And, where your "marketplace" TRAMPLES all over that basic human dignity, and TRAMPLES over it TIME and TIME again, then, eff yeah, I have no problem with Big Government coming in to force people PLAY NICE!

For the record, a free market involves voluntary transactions. Debtors' peonage and convict labor is not exactly "voluntary"; the fact that the government didn't do much about it doesn't seem to paint the big, bad, benevolent government in the best light, now does it?

The fact that they're not legal in most jurisdictions to begin with seems to imply the need for an official sanction, also known as "permission". And to that I say government should either recognize all marriages or civil unions or none at all. I'd prefer if government recognized none.

Well, y'know, until they did in 1964.

No.  Because for starters, it is very apparent he is simply pandering to a group of people to win votes.  Second, not everyone likes the idea of redefining an institution to support a cause they might not necessarily agree with.  For various reasons, not everyone wishes to umbrella "heterosexuality" and "homosexuality" as the same thing under the same roof.   Personally, I don't blame same-sex couples for wanting their relationships legally recognized, but I think their approach in being accepted has, more often than not, been a misfire.  Just as I care not for bible-thumpers trying to force religion down my throat, I'm not exactly seeing the winning formula in antagonizing your beliefs on others.  Don't like Chick-fil-a's stance on gay marriage?  Well why not organize same-sex makeout sessions at their various restaurants?  'Cuz that'll really win those mean nay-sayers over!  Nothing really persuades a person to change their opinion more than being told they're hateful and evil for not agreeing with a different lifestyle!  The nerve of people having their own opinions and beliefs that differ from yours!

Obviously this is an issue that is not going to disappear and ultimately neither side is going to get exactly what they want out of it.  Which is why I think the idea of "civil unions" should be persued.  That way the "marriage traditionalists" can keep their marriages and same-sex couples could get their relationships legally recognized, and have an institution that is more applicable to them.  

I agree, although if a gay couple wants a church wedding, let them go for it as long as the church is not otherwise forced or coerced into performing the marriage. There was some news in Denmark a few months ago about how the government there is now requiring churches to perform same-sex marriages, even if the church owners don't want to perform them. While I can certainly appreciate the step taken, I cannot support it like that because it's coercion. It's force. That's not life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness because you're forcing someone to do something against their personal beliefs, which is an infringement upon liberty.

Has anything positive Guv'ment/law-wise in this country ever been accomplished without pandering????

BTW, how about we turn this thread back around to the subject of "When Mitt Romney becomes president" .....

Does anyone still think there's even the most remote possibility of this happening???

If Romney were to be elected president, nothing really would change. Both Romney and Obama are warmongers, both love corporations at the expense of everyone else, and both are just more of the same old, same old status quo.

this.

And I do believe there is a high possibility of Romney becoming president.

"meet the new boss, same as the old."

YEAAAH! :rock :rock :rock :rock

Ron Paul's message still stands. I believe we need to get behind Gary Johnson. Sure, he's not as big on foreign policy as Ron Paul is, but he's more easily convinced than the other two dodos.

Gary Johnson is going to be my choice.

For all of you folks hung up on gay marriage, Gary Johnson actually had the nerve to run on a pro-gay marriage position as part of his campaign, not as a cry for votes six months before an election...

Well, yeah, yeah, sure, maybe.....

Then again, ONE good thing about Democrats/being a Democrat/liberal: you are allowed to change your mind for the better on a subject. You welcome information knowledge that can illuminate and inform one's views.... This Republican hard-ass vision of unwavering stubbornness in the face of fact/science/social tides is quite pathetic.... Who cares if Obama is pandering if he's actually supporting a cause???
If you're in a plane that's in a nosedive because the pilot is suicidal, do you care if he pulls out of the dive because someone convinces him he'll get a medal when the plane lands or do you insist that he convinces you he REALLY cares about the lives of everyone on board first?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeMGqTwWA6U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeMGqTwWA6U)

"Politics is the entertainment division of the Military Industrial Complex"

  - Frank Zappa

No love for Jill Stein? Or anyone wishing Ralph Nader would run?  ???

Anyone can change their mind or viewpoint on just about anything.  Doesn't matter which political party you may be a sheep to.  Let's not make ridiculous over-generalizations. 

IDK people, Mitt Romney's campaign atm is kinda reminding me of this

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a3/Rake_Joke.png)

But I guess there are a lot of goons out there prepared to vote for the MittBot.

Obama is pulling away from him in some crucial swing states iirc, but we've got the debates to come. Where the Mittbot will um and ahh until Barack solemnly introduces 47% of America into the hall to laugh at him or something.

I'm just saying, from my outsider perspective, Mitt Romney is conducting himself like intelligence, foresight, politically savvy and clear rational thought are Democratic principles only.



Btw, you guys,
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mai9k0TeW91rvl74fo1_500.jpg)

http://romcom2012.tumblr.com/

(https://secure.assets.bostatic.com/For%20all.jpg)

Go to the Obama campaign website, and you too can "pledge allegiance" to whatever it is this image is asking you to pledge allegiance to. Then post a picture of it, hand over heart with a slogan written in pen on that hand, and you too can join the ranks of celebrities Jessica, Scarlett, and whoever the lesser-known people in these photos are pledging their allegiance.

I hope the nature of American politics hasn't gone as far as to suggest people pledge allegiance to any person, no matter who he/she is, what party he/she represents, or what office he/she holds. Because that, to me, is far beyond what politics or loyalty to any single person should be. It's a little too bizarre, but if that's what people want from any candidate of any political persuasion, the polls will be open in a few short weeks.

I'm not saying they CAN'T, I'm saying (through my personal experience and observations) they simply DON'T!

So Mitt Romney saying he could give a flying one about 47% of his nation, he has no interest in finding a resolution between Israel and Palestine and that he would stand a better chance of being President if his parents were Mexican passes without comment on this board, and this does? I don't get you guys.

Well, a lot of Republicans kept their goshdarn mouths shut and sat on their hands during 8 year of Bush horror and might, just might be venting a lot of misplaced rage at Obama because he's, well, ya know, it's OK to bash him. Dick Cheney won't send goons to blow your house up in the dead of night if you do so....

Honestly, I absolutely can not understand what the big deal about Romney's "47%" is. It seems like it's verging on being a campaign ending thing, but I just don't see what everyone else seems to be seeing.
I should qualify myself by saying that I hate Mitt Romney as much as the next guy, but his statement felt sort of brutally honest to me, and not in a entirely bad way. For the most part it felt like something he would have said at anyone of his rallies. It sort of baffles me that it's being blown up into such a big deal, it feels really dishonest, like the actual content of his statement doesn't matter. I feel like people just heard "Mitt Romney gaffe" and "leaked video" and have lost their minds because they so desperately want Mitt Romney to suffer.
Obama has said some pretty moronic things too, but the media/internet has been more willing to forgive that stuff, even when it was arguably worse than Romney's most recent mistake. I just don't get it, I really don't.

It's only brutally honest if you don't care about the fact that the majority of people who don't pay income tax are pensioners, veterans, the unemployed (in a major recession, the lazy sh*ts AYN RAND 4 LYF) and Mitt Romney.


Plus, are u aware that writing off 47% of the electorate as freeloading scum who you don't wish to represent is not really a good look for a Presidential Candidate or are we ignoring that.

You're just projecting onto him though. It's a very prejudicial reading of that he said to see it in such a negative light. He has a valid point, wages are down and more people are below the minimum threshold for paying income tax. I don't see how just pointing that out is so bad, because it's true, why deny it? How is the Republican position so much worse than the Democratic one? I feel like everyone wants the same thing, they want to see more people paying income tax. When The Republicans say it though it's because they're the evil Sheriff of Nottingham who wants to wring every last dollar our of the bottom class. When the Democrats say it, they're the virtuous heroes that want to put people back to work and see everyone make more money. But it's exactly the same. When the economy gets better and more jobs are created more taxpayers will fall into a higher bracket and less entitlement spending will be necessary, the distinction that people try and draw between the Democratic version of this and the Republican version strikes me as incredibly dishonest.

You're pretending that Mitt Romney in that video is making certain judgements about people that he just isn't making. You're reading between the lines, hearing what *you* want to hear instead of what he actually said. You're taking his comment very personally and acting unnecessary histrionic about the whole thing. Republicans and Democrats can see the same comments in completely opposite ways, and the problem is that many just absolutely refuse to even acknowledge that the alternate interpretation even exists. It's one big strawman that reduces everything Romney says to an absurdity, and then arrogantly criticizes that fictitious argument from some undeserved moral highground.

I just can't sympathize with the Democrats anymore because of sh*t like this. It completely undermines every iota of liberal rhetoric espousing the ideals of tolerance,  acceptance, objectivity, understanding, compromise. Objectivity means standing back and taking a critical view, seeing both sides of an argument, recognizing the equality of multiple interpretations and mitigating between them to everyone's satisfaction. The Democrats talk a big talk, but they don't even make a token attempt to back any of it up, there's nothing objective about it, it's prejudiced, you've made up your mind about everything Mitt Romney has to say before he's even said it! What is there to respect in that? What's honorable about that? Why should anything the Democrats say or do be taken seriously by anyone, when every virtue they advocate is abandoned by the party proper a the very first opportunity.

Put up or shut up. If the Democrats want to lead the country and unite people, actually being objective would do more towards that end than any piece of legislation passed in the last 4 years. The Democrats simply don't have the moral high ground which they are so desperate to pretend to. If you want the moral high ground, you have to earn it, you don't just get it because of rhetoric or the fact that more minorities vote for your candidates.

If Mitt Romney was so adamant about paying taxes, he would pay what he owed. He admitted to doctoring his taxes yesterday. And lots of people pay less tax due to tax cuts (a baffling concept to me) and the like, which were a staple of Dubya (not exclusively, I dig).

The Democratic position (apart from 'he said what?') appears to be taking the burden of taxation off the lower and middle classes. Tax the rich? But they are the makers! How dare we tax the rich?!

What's to read between the lines of 'I don't represent them'?

As we well know, we're coming at this from very different points of view. Tax the fucking rich imo. Taxes are an integral part of how a society and a government functions in the real world, and  abolishing them is some libertarian wet dream.

(Again, I haven't a lot of time right now so am being brash)

That's a red herring. You can raise taxes on the rich, it doesn't make any substantial difference to our long term financial solvency. Our debt rating was downgraded because of long term entitlement shortfalls, The "Buffet Rule" will shore up maybe 1-2% of our yearly deficit, it's like putting a band-aid on ruptured spleen, to even pretend like it's a responsible plan is political hot air at best. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/04/obama-and-the-buffett-rule/

So I don't get it, why is taxing the rich the integral loadstone of the entire liberal plan for the economy? 

The United States has a progressive income tax, meaning people get their income tax (and only their income tax, not their social security tax) back each year after filing IF those people make below a certain level of income. This is equally true of everyone in the economy, meaning that on income between $35,351 – $85,650 each year, someone making $100,000 a year and someone making $1m a year pay the same rate on that chunk of income.

Wages are so depressed right now, and jobs are so scarce that more and more people are falling into the bottom, untaxed income bracket. Fewer people are paying taxes because they simply don't make enough, the top brackets actually account for a larger portion of total federal revenue than democrats seem willing to admit. The top 10% of earners pay 71% of all income taxes, and make only 43% of all income. The bottom 50% (!) of earners actually pay only 2% of all income taxes each year.

You can raise taxes on the rich, go ahead I guess, it doesn't solve the problem. It's not even so effective as to qualify as a stop gap.

The problem is growth. In real, inflation-adjusted terms US GDP has gone *down* since 2008. Technically the recession is still with us, but the CBO and BLS are notoriously dishonest about reporting data (in fact there have been a few real life, very serious accusations made against those agencies by whistleblowers recently). The way the government gets us out of a recession is to drive GDP growth by any means possible. The growth isn't organic, and is undermined by the inflation that government spending actually leads to. The government just pumps money into certain areas of the economy in order to artificially repair the holes in the nation's GDP.

The way GDP is calculated means that financial savings are excluded from the final number. A recession is defined as so many quarters of negative GDP growth. In order to get the country out of a recession the government sets policy to discourage savings. We want our GDP to grow in the present, so people cannot save their income, they have to spend it right now, this quarter.

Price of money is a euphemism for the interest rate. Interest is literally the price that you pay for money, when borrowing that money from a lender. The Federal Reserve, in the US, is a central bank that fixes the price of money, that artificially sets the interest rate. For the foreseeable future, the Fed will continue their policy of keeping interest rates extremely low. This means that saving money has less of a payoff, if you make 0% interest on $X you loan out, there's not much point in lending that money out in the first place. You might as well spend it instead, which is exactly what the Fed wants, they don't want you to save, they want you to spend.

This whole policy has caused our money markets to collapse into ruins. Money just isn't going where it needs to go in order for the economy to grow. It's all sitting around going to waste. Savings drive growth, not the other way around. If you want the economy to grow you need to raise interest rates so people can save the money they make.

Until this happens job growth will be stagnant, and wages will remain depressed. The Velocity of Money is a metric which measures how often each dollar in our total money supply changes hands, and right now this statistic is at historic lows. The Fed has put too much new cash into the money supply, and that money isn't circulating through our economy. The people which receive that money directly from the Fed's printing press (i.e. the biggest banks in the world), keep that money on a tight leash, and because they have no real reason to save it, they tend to simply use it as leverage in large, algorithmically determined purchases of financial instruments.

As the money which the banks receive from the Fed slowly trickles through the greater economy, prices increase in certain areas which the banks are most keen to speculate in. OIL being one of the key things which banks love to speculate on. But this type of speculation also drives the rise of stock prices (Apple...Facebook...). By the time the money makes it all the way down from the federal reserve through the banks to the common people, prices have risen in proportion.

The government is trapped in a never ending, vicious cycle. They need to inject cash into our economy and keep interest rates low in order for GDP to grow. The more they do this though, the more people will find themselves without sufficient sources of income, without savings, without any money at all to spend on goods and services with highly inflated price points. Because those people are then forced to spend less, and contribute less to overall GDP through their yearly purchases, the government will be forced to pick up more of the slack each successive year. The whole while, the individuals driven out of the economy by government policy are contributing less in taxes each year, and the government has to borrow more and print more in order to keep financing a deficit that grows ever more substantial. This leads to more inflation, and higher interest payments on the federal debt (which increases the overall budget). The inflation increases the need for entitlement spending and welfare programs and increases the debt to even higher levels. If the government raises interest rates, then GDP will crash and another recession will occur, so interest rates are kept perpetually low but the longer they're kept low the more money is needed each subsequent year to keep GDP growing at "normal" levels.

Do you see the logic here? It just goes on and on, around and around. The medicine is the disease. It's a spiral of debt and inflation. It's not a purely linear increase, it's exponential. Taxes aren't a solution, they just aren't. The more debt we have, the more inflation we cause, the more debt we'll need next year in order to sustain things. The pace isn't X this year, X next year, X the year after. It's X this year, X^n next year, X^n+1 the year after that. Prices and debt will rise at a faster and faster rate all the way towards infinity. Once you get to a certain point it doesn't matter how much you tax people, when you have infinite debt there simply won't be enough money in the world to finance that debt no matter how lofty your rhetoric may be.

This. Great post Fishmonk.

I know this thread is already being overwhelmed by statists, but no amount of taxation will fix a debt problem.

Nice essay. BTW, I wasn't suggesting taxing the rich would suddenly make gold grow on trees and save the economy, only that it's fair and right. I have no problem paying my taxes and I work hard for my money. What makes those people think they don't need to do it?

And yeah, I'm a statist. Fuckin' A. I love my schools, my NHS and my infrastructure. The free-market is a blight on British society and anything it lays its hands on is cackhanded and incompetent.

But yes, the economy is f***ed. Thanks for the reminder.

BTW, as even the Republicans are distancing themselves from Mitt on the whole video thing and the only defence or reasonable POV that they've tried to put on it is 'ah, he was off the cuff' (y'know, Mitt relaxed and said as President he doesn't represent 47% of his nation, loljks), I don't actually believe there is a 'good' or critical view - a spade is a spade. You saying he's right is fairly odd, to say the least. Do you seriously think every Democrat voter is on welfare? Do you quite understand the crippling stupidity of that statement?

Just remember that your schools, NHS, and infrastructure are supported by stealing from people. You know what happens to those who refuse to pay their taxes, right? They're physically threatened. Yup...utopian statist SOCIALIST society. Love it. You guys should just become the United Socialist Kingdom, just like the United States should become the United States of Socialist America.

You're mixing the free market up with the state.

YOU MEAN I LIVE IN A SOCIETY WHERE CRIMES ARE PUNISHED? HOLY sh*t DUDE PASS THE BONG.

A society where crimes that have no bearing on the state are punished. :)

I'm with RealBeachBoy on this one! The national debt is exactly what all this abortion/gay marriage/poor people bashing has been designed to distract us from.

And while I am no Rand follower, I do think we pay way too much in taxes. If even a slight bit more went into infrastructure instead of endless wars and the prostitute/cocaine/rent-boy/private yacht/campaign till for our politicians, I'd be a bit happier with the situation...... And prisons do not count as infrastructure.

Fairness is just an empty word being used here to distract from the more important issues. Like I said, Democrats do not have the moral high ground where they can just unequivocally say that 71% is objectively not a "fair" share of the burden. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but it's not like that judgement is unquestionable. We should be focused on entitlement reform and action on the debt instead of quibbling over a few billion dollars which the rich could maybe pay. You can say that it's more fair all day long, until you're blue in the face, but it just doesn't matter. People shouldn't place any emphasis on it, it's a non-issue.

It's hard for people to think economically, economics requires logic and scientific reasoning. You have to learn to think about the economy in a special way which most people aren't used to.

"Infrastructure" is one good example. We absolutely love infrastructure here in America. It's such a feel good concept, we can't help but get all warm and ooey-gooey inside just thinking about our wonderful, extraordinary, magical highways.
Anyone would concede that highways have dramatically altered the US economy, Liberals would not concede the fact that many of the consequences of our state-funded highway programs were actually negative.

Liberals hate chain retailers like Walmart. How is the Walmart business model possible exactly? Interstate shipping by semi-truck along that beloved infrastructure.

The retail take over was only exasperated by our highway system. In a network of 4 or 5 rural cities, without highways each of those cities would have their own grocery stores and movie theatres and what not. With highways walmart can build one store and capture the market in an entire county, putting grocery stores out of business in multiple cities in one fell-swoop.

The highways provide an extra value for people who own vehicles. The mere existence of the highways is a fact that helps the auto-industry. The highways are part of the reason why American families sometimes own 3 or 4 separate cars. The highways are part of the reason why Americans consume so much in gasoline each year. The auto-industry was one of the major lobbyists in favor or building the highways back in the 50s and 60s.

The highways have led to increased congestion, urban sprawl, and air pollution that most Americans are probably all too familiar with.

The highways have created unnatural "food deserts". Communities have sprung up in places they otherwise wouldn't have because of the highways. These communities are supported mainly by overland shipping of junk food to gas stations and minimarkets.

Our entire attitude about food, the way it's distributed in America, the control that corporations have over it is a product of the highway system. Without the highways completely centralized factory farms each shipping millions of pounds of meat and produce across the entire US would not be nearly as effective. Because of the highways Americans feed themselves in a way that's unsustainable, local, decentralized farming just isn't profitable. Not only that, but these centralized factory farms are also the ones that PETA is always complaining about, the ones where thousands of cows are stuffed shoulder to shoulder in dingy stalls.



I mean, when you actually stop and think about all the profound ways that the "infrastructure" has changed our economy, it's important not to get carried away with the good things. I think, unquestionably, highways have done just as much harm as good.  

Fishmonk: I did not specifically mean highways when I wrote "Infrastructure" ..... But you are right, however, all things have their downside as well as their upside (even The Beach Boys) ... I mean, planes crash sometimes: killing hundreds at a time, yet they still take off and land safely en mass each day. What can you do? I happen to think the implementation high speed rail and street cars is an absolute necessity in order to ween ourselves off foreign oil and perhaps transform the automobile industry into something more productive... The again there's plastic and rubber: important things that don't grow on trees either..... And highways also provide transportation via bus, motorcycle, bicycle, horse  & buggy (Amish folk at least use the side of the highway) and transport necessary goods and services via long haul trucking which also provides/creates jobs etc.... I'd rather there were more rail lines than highways, but SOMETHING would have been invented to transport goods/commerce if it hadn't been highways and cars. We can only learn and move forward from where we are now. We can't go back.

And I was taken to task (probably correctly) earlier in this thread for making a generalization about Republicans, so please stop referring to basically anyone who disagrees with your views as a "liberal"..... Can we all try it? This merda that anyone who is not a hard right winger is a "liberal" is pathetic nonsense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GbOWiJ94Xvg#!

He's in charge of trillions of dollars.

Idiots with money is nothing new

You're above this kind of reply and a deeper thinker than this, I know that from previous posts.  :)

If you'd like a fully realized list of all of Obama's faults and all of Romney's faults, would anyone here have time to do that? Of course not.

It's called a discussion, where we discuss issues that we *choose* to discuss.

There should not be a standard as far as which issues to comment on, any more than someone posting criticisms about, say, the new Beach Boys album has to be questioned why they didn't post criticisms of "Still Cruisin" or similar. It's not productive at all.

Of course, I could also repost my thoughts on "Big College" and how and why college needs to be that expensive, however when I posted it the first time no one bothered to say a goshdarned thing about it. I felt like I hit the "third rail" where there just may not be a defense for the practices of "Big College" essentially putting young people into debt way beyond their means before they're 24...so no one bothered to go near the issue for fear of not having a good defense. Or something else...who knows.

But I didn't go around bashing people as to why no one brought it up in favor of other issues. And I'm sure there are more than a few participants in these debates who are paying off college debt and perhaps not working in the profession of their choice or within their major, yet still paying off the debt every month while administrators, professors, book companies, etc take all of it to the bank.

And above all, I posted the pledge thing because the notion of pledging allegiance to a man, especially in America, is batsh*t crazy and I find it more disappointing than anything. America does not pledge loyalty to politicians, since ultimately...raising my voice here to make the ultimate point...

THE POLITICIANS WORK FOR US, WE DON'T WORK FOR THEM
 

I'm just curious as to how you took that poster for being a suggestion that we pledge our allegiance TO Obama?

It's a democratic poster with a bunch of "celebrities" and other folk pledging their allegiance to The United States Of America with specific issues written on their hands as if to say: we pledge our allegiance to the flag of, blah blah, .......  and liberty and justice FOR ALL, and not just some......

At least this is how it appears to me.

This, this, this, this...oh, and THIS. Perfectly said.

Well, doesn't some of this boil down to personal responsibility?

My uncle lives in Castro Valley and he (as well as myself, though I may be presenting a conflicting view via devil's advocate) feels much the same as you, Fishmonk, and his neighbors and him have set up a sort of local co-op food exchange program. One family grows this vegetable, this family specializes in another, this guy grows this, and this guy grows that, this guy is a fisherman, this family has a little farm behind their house, ect ect.... they all exchange these good with no dollar currency or credit..... All well and good, but now the local general store/market would certainly suffer if this caught on, so what  do you do????

If they agree to it, what's the problem? Who said you couldn't trade in a free market?

Do you see a flag anywhere in that panel? Is the word America anywhere in that panel? The focal point is the Obama logo, which is an O with a flag-like graphic, but not the flag.

If they were pledging the flag in that ad campaign, I'd be fine with them showing the common hand-over-heart American gesture made when pledging the flag or standing as the anthem is played at sports events and whatnot.

Remember this is a campaign that has something called the "Obama Event Registry", which asked his supporters to consider donating their birthday gifts to Obama, as well as including him on your wedding registry so your wedding "gifts" can help his campaign. Article here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8334-503544_162-57459110-503544/obama-campaign-soliciting-birthday-wedding-gifts-in-fundraising-ploy/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/8334-503544_162-57459110-503544/obama-campaign-soliciting-birthday-wedding-gifts-in-fundraising-ploy/)

For me, the pledge, the Event Registry, the children singing songs, it all adds up to a cult of personality scenario bordering on idolatry which I don't think any US politician should have around him or her, no matter the party.

And I just don't care for seeing Americans, with hand-over-heart, pledging *anything* to something or someone other than the flag. It's disturbing, but that's just me. Again, where is the flag?

I mean that if you're going to knock the infrastructure because it allows junk food to be transported to every inch of the country, I'm just pointing out that no one is ordered by law to consume this junk food nor are they ordered to shop at Wal-Mart.

I don't pledge allegiance to ANYONE. That includes the flag. The flag is just a symbol. I don't pledge allegiance to a flag. I pledge allegiance to myself.

By the way, the Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist in the 1920s and amended in the 1950s to add "under God". And the original Pledge was not said with hand over the heart, but rather with a Nazi salute.

Well, it's a free market-right? Obama is free to commission any sort of campaign swag as he wants. And, though it is an expression of pledging one's allegiance to the flag (itself just a symbol) , it is indeed also an Obama campaign ad! Big Deal! Obama is not mentioned in the pledge of allegiance anyway.

This was how many neighborhoods existed in my Dad's youth, and how many families supported each other through the 30's and the real depression. Local farms, local food, if someone hungry needed a meal people like my grandmother would offer them something like a bowl of potato soup, no questions asked, and a lot of the food came from either family gardens or local farms, and that included meat too. It was both sold by merchants and butchers and farmers, and shared by residents when gardening was far more common in smaller towns. And a lot of my dad's generation of men grew up hunting and fishing with their dads and their brothers, so they'd prepare and eat what they would hunt and fish for, no need to buy anything from a supermarket if you get it all yourself.

It was a pretty good deal.

I agree. The current laws, however, dissuade people from purchasing from local vendors or farmers because "their food does not meet USDA or FDA regulations". Well, what the f*** is that?!?! It's called the state picking winners and losers. Who wins? Big business, big corporations, big pharma, and the state. Who loses? Everyone else.

sh*t, here in Pennsylvania just a few months ago, a man was arrested by FEDERAL officials for selling raw, unpasteurized milk. And the reaction was not friendly.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/13/feds-shut-down-amish-farm-selling-fresh-milk/?page=all

Well, put... I also blame the hard-systematically indoctrinated fear of any good/product/item that does not feature a corporate logo.

To each his own. It's your choice to pledge or not to pledge to anything, but do you at least find the ad campaign of those folks pledging to whatever it is they're pledging to as disturbing as the "Pledge Of Allegiance" itself? How about those flags some folks were selling that featured Obama's face instead of the stars? I guess a flag is just a flag, however the symbol does mean a lot, to a lot of people.

And most people have that problem.

Whose fault is that?

If it were a Romney ad (or McCain in 2008) I'm sure the sentiments wouldn't be anywhere near the same. Yes, I'm sure of that. Of course only one party in US politics can regularly hold $50,000 per guest fundraisers and not be roundly criticized for it, such is the double standard.

I think it reeks of a personality cult. Please note that throughout history, personality cults have been based around communist or socialist dictators. Granted, the average lightweight, low-rent, double-digit IQ, triple-digit income Obama supporter most likely doesn't know that little bit of history as the only sh*t they can be bothered to read is what's in Cosmopolitan and People magazines. And the ones who do just deny it. I have a word for Obama supporters...it's also a term I've used to describe Brian Wilson. Sociopaths. The lot of them. Every single last one of them. No personal responsibility. Lots of blame for others.

It's their own fault! They may not be stupid but they certainly are ignorant.

Hmmmm, that's a tough one but not so simple. Go to almost any grammar school/junior high/high school and there are brand-name soda machines in the halls and Macdonald's sponsored this or that.... When I was in like 3rd grade my school made a big huge deal that we had a free "Macdonald's lunch" one time... When the Coca Cola company got going back in the, what, 1930's(?) they would send coca cola carts/trucks out into the streets and rural areas where they would give kids free samples in order to get them hooked basically. You have to cut young and impressionable minds a bit of slack on the stupidity front. The parents who buckle under the pressure of their kids to buy them this bit of junk and that bit of junk might want to assume full responsibility, then again are any of us parents? I hear it can be quite tough.

And whether Obama is mentioned in the original pledge or not (irrelevant point...) or not, those people in the ads are NOT saying the standard "Pledge Of Allegiance" anyway! If they were, it wouldn't be a big deal at all, just another case of a politician flag-waving a bit for political gain. In this case, they're going through the motions, pledging to something, holding hands over the hearts, yet the only other image in the ad is that Obama logo. It makes you think they're pledging to something related to Obama if not the Obama campaign itself, unless you can play "Where's Waldo" and spot a flag somewhere in the ads.

It all goes back to the state picking winners. I bet there are some lovely people who make great soda on their own but can't sell it because it doesn't meet FDA regulations.

Has anyone ever forced you to eat McDonald's food, or drink a Coca-Cola?  :)  And at some point, where are those kids' parents anyway? If they don't want their kids drinking Cokes, tell them the reasons why, tell them "no", then don't buy Coke and don't give them money to buy Coke! Simple as that. If the kid seeks it out on his own, that's a blast of human nature and decision-making coming early in life, just wait until cigarettes, joints, bottles of booze, etc are being passed around rather than Coca-Cola or McDonalds and that kid has to make those choices and live with the results, good or bad.

Yes, you are absolutely right..... I'm just presenting another factor in the reality we are faced with. I'm not making an absolute statement on anything. And it requires a bit of diligence in always making the right decision..... I know for a fact due to waiting tables years ago (and through friends that still do) many restaurants maintain a hard-enforced "H20 NO" policy, meaning wait staff is required to attempt to dissuade customers from simply ordering ice water with their meals. They're supposed to do stupid things like say "So, soft drinks for all"? and if someone tries to order water, they'll go on a rap about soft drink specials etc..... I'm just saying it can be taxing trying to avoid the wolves.

There's no excuse for laziness. Either avoid the wolves or sit back and enjoy being someone's meal.

Laziness or not: you got to admit the free market stacks the numbers pretty unfairly against better judgement in the face of all kinds of people/money/power that really really REALLY want you to exercise bad judgement. There is something to be said here. Food for thought at least. I mean: "That's just the way it is" would seem to be something of a cop-out. Goes back to the need for SOME form of Government/enforcement otherwise someone would be shilling rat poison on a stick with a bit of sugar on top if someone was dumb enough to buy it, and I don't think humans should be able to prey on the dumb without consequence...... But this is just me....

How is selling a product "preying upon the dumb"? If I was holding a gun to a retarded guy's head and saying "buy my sh*t or else", I'd say there's a problem. But no. They do it of their own free will.

One thing lost in the anti-corporate jargon is that the left is rather...selective about what companies they're against. You never hear a leftist claim that Apple is "preying upon the dumb", for example. :)

Oh, don't get me started on Apple!!!!  >:D

And I'm not saying the free market/corporations shouldn't exist! Not at all!!! Teams of highly paid psychologists are utilized to help coerce people into buying all sorts of sh*te of all manner. Is this wrong? No! Can it go too far? Should it be regulated in some way? I think, certainly. As someone else put it earlier: I have no problem with laws existing and being enforced to make everyone play fair. There are murderous psychopaths out there and they don't just kill with knives, clubs, their bare hands, or (gulp) guns! Just because someone CAN do something awful, doesn't mean we should just roll over and accept it.... This everyman for himself bit, I get, I really do, and I tend to lean that way myself, but there is a whole other side to reality as well and that is we are all part of a human community regardless of how we feel about that fact..... Let me ask you: if someone hired a hit man to kill someone you know and care about, would you want the hitman punished as well as whoever hired them, or would you just view the hitman as someone simply utilizing the free-market? I'm just trying to suss out any possible limits here.....

People need to regulate their own behaviors, hobbies, actions, and tastes.

If someone hired a hit man to kill someone I know and care about, I would hope the targeted individual would have some means to defend him or herself. Of course I would want the hit man and his/her employer punished...but it would be up to the individual's next of kin to determine how they are punished.

The free market stops when tactics infringe upon the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of others. Hit men are not venture capitalists or entrepreneurs...they're criminals.

That was a ridiculous question on my part, but good answer!

But I ask this: how is a child supposed to regulate their own tastes when they are bombarded from the first glimmer of cognizance by ads for this sugary/teeth rotting goop and that? It's all tied in with cartoons and movies to convince them to buy the toys, fast food tie-ins, etc..... And how are parents supposed to be above all this when they, themselves were indoctrinated as well (it doesn't work with everyone, but it does with a damn lot)? It's worth it to ask why anyone WANTS Macdonalds, or Coffee, or beer/booze/cigarettes,but the answer is easy enough in part: heavy advertizing, peer pressure, laziness, and yes, human psychology which is a tricky and complex thing. And there is a big money out there invested in finding it's loopholes and weak spots.... In fact, that we even exist in a world where people take economics and free markets/capitalism as naturally occurring laws of nature is pretty insane in itself if you think about it.

Once again: I am not bashing the free market's mere existence, nor am I suggesting we do away with it, but I will not deify it in the face all it's negative points nor will I ignore them or call a kid stupid because he wants a whopper because he loves Indiana Jones and sees this big huge "Get the triple "Indy Whopper" sign in the Burger King window with Harrison Ford's mug.

It all goes back to self-control. In the case of a child, the parent has final say. Period. Anything otherwise and you're going to have the state raising children, educating them, feeding and clothing them, and employing them. But the left wants that, so...

Wait, wait wait! That's a bit extreme. Enforcing/regulating the junk food industry's lack of conscience somehow means the state raises children? I guess you'd rather the junk food industry raise them? I tell you it's damn near impossible to completely and effectively regulate your child's wants and desires. They are hit by marketed temptation from all sides. Not all parents can afford to have someone at home to home-school their kids. C'mon, man. You must know this or you live in a cave ..... ......... with wifi and equipment to play your Beach Boys albums on......

It is not up to the government to regulate the behavior and desires of a child. If the parent is going to be lazy then the child will suffer. It is not the responsibility of society to save that child.

But where does the paranoid fantasy of enforced responsibility end and just doing the right thing begin?

Nor have you addressed or attempted to explain how a child having desires and wants for things he/she does not need and will be perhaps harmful for them is the result of a lazy parent. I'm not talking about a parent who gives in, I'm talking about the desire/want itself....

I also take it you do not have kids? (I don't either before you attempt to call me a lazy parent)

And I don't know what you're worried about. The government does not enforce anything I'm babbling about. In fact, in a large part, the folks who create these junk food/crap products ARE the government basically.

But nevermind anyway. This is starting to feel like trying to convince a bee not to kill itself by needlessly stinging me, or trying to convince a shark not to eat a puppy that fell in the water... If ya just don't give a damn...... you just don't...

Sorry for this thread.  :)

Enforced responsibility ends exactly where doing the right thing begins. It means people take control of their lives. A child's desires and wants for things he or she doesn't need and will be perhaps harmful for them is and isn't the result of a lazy parent. I would think most parents would have the decency to not have the television and the internet as a babysitter. But nowadays it's considered "dangerous" for kids to go outside and play, make friends...sh*t, kids can't even play with a fucking stick anymore because they don't even know what the hell a stick is anymore. Do you even see sticks anymore? I think they might have been outsourced to China! Or maybe it's those pesky terrorists that the penguins in the expensive suits keep talking about on television...

I understand that children need to have a childhood. But it is the responsibility of parents to make sure that their children are grounded and kept in line. It is not the government's responsibility and certainly not that of the television or the internet.

I don't have kids and don't want them.

Egad!

I don't have kids but have worked with kids and have nephews etc etc and you're correct if this were a perfect world, but alas it is not, and I promise you, it is impossible to keep kids away from the clutches of the junk food industry. It's not impossible to protect them from it but basic exposure is going to happen regardless. If you did any amount of shoe leather research, you'd see. Kids are THE target market practically. And do you really a household where both parents work full time is really fertile ground for a child to be completely shielded/protected from exposure? And I'm not defending idiot glutton parents, but there are those who try and it is not easy, so don't sit here acting like it's simple. But I'm trying to get at what this hard-ass attitude of yours is really about.... How about this: is it JUST government doing ANYTHING that you have a problem with, no matter good or bad? Do you consider a government/tax payer funded health class in a grammar school or junior high/high school that might try and educate kids on good eating habits and to avoid junk food, blah blah  as an example of "the government raising our children"? Do they have no right or business teaching such matters because one less kid will buy a can of coke that day, thus harming the free market?

That's crap. You can talk about taking 'control of their lives,' which is a cop-out. It's simplistic and ham-fisted and dumb.  What about the elderly, in addition to the child. Seniors are taken advantage of and even abused, not only by companiies who prey on them, but also by their beloved children. As a society, we need to protect everybody. And try not to unreasonably intrude on things. At least your kids won't rob you blind, you've seen to that.

The government has a weird way of just opening up and creating the very problems we're discussing. We worry about junk food in public schools, why is that a problem? I don't mean to say there's nothing wrong with that, I mean, why has that even become a problem in the first place. The problem is the level of control that the government has over the education system to begin with. The centralized model of compulsory education is a complete failure, and mismanagement has made public schools so ineffectual that a massive increase in spending is seen as the only way to improve the quality of public schools. In such a centralized system it's much harder for individual schools to adapt to the singular needs of the communities they service. Because centralization makes it harder for schools to be efficient, money becomes more important than it otherwise would have been. Public schools are strapped for funds, they need to save/make money when it comes to things like cafeteria food. Because they're an arm of the government, and because the government and corporations enjoy such an incestuous relationship, these schools end up being supplied with sh*t on the cheap to feed their students with. And the schools that still can't make ends meet are driven into corporate sponsorships.
Meanwhile, the parents who are unhappy with the failures of the public schools have no other option. Education is so centralized that the government effectively has a monopoly on primary and tertiary education in The United States. Home schooling is actively stigmatized, political rhetoric downplays the "education" aspect of schooling and emphasizes the "socialization" which happens when you put hundreds of kids together in a building with little supervision. This is coupled with an intense opposition to all private models or education, such as tax credits and vouchers, which teachers' unions relentlessly attempt to undermine. Kids end up being stuck in sucky schools, which the parents pay property taxes in order to finance despite the general sentiment that the current model isn't working. Individual students, families and communities are the losers, corporations and unions are the winners.

And that's just one particular aspect of the junk food problem. We could also just as easily look at the government's management of agriculture as playing an undeniable part in the destruction of dietary nutrition. When the government lords over corn production to the point where high fructose corn syrup finds its' way into every food product, you really have to wonder, maybe it's the regulation of everything in this country by the government and the activity of the FDA and other agencies that's really to blame for some of these issues we currently face.

I can't help but be sceptical when the solution we're presented with is, regulate and tax junk food as the regulation of agriculture, education, infrastructure, and food by the government was what created the junk food problem in the first place. Sure we can add in new regulations now to cover up the problems we've created for ourselves, but can it really be doubted that those regulations will inevitably create additional unforeseen consequences which, in turn, will require even more regulations to cover up a decade or two down the line?

I absolutely agree but RealBeachBoy seems to be suggesting that anything positive that the government tries to do is socialism or the government ruling our lives, while all the negative things they might already be doing or allowing or being paid off to allow  is just the free-market being free......

Don't get me started on schools.....

No coincidence that the modern school day as we know it was designed to fragment kid's minds and make them good soldiers.

Industries just do what they do best, they do what we want them to do, they expand, explore ways to increase their market share, buy advertising and promote their products, create jobs, make money and generate wealth.

There is no way to stop them from doing this, it's a process natural to every business and is the foundation for healthy growth. The problem is our societal cognitive dissonance about this type of thing. We expect the government to make regulations that prevent corporations from overstepping their bounds, when our best regulations fail, we blame the corporations for doing something unscrupulous. In reality corporations use the regulatory apparatus as a back door to monopoly. Obama (or a hypothetical republican) will promise that no lobbyists will be part of his administration, and then immediately install an ex-Monsanto chief as the head of the FDA. 

The problem isn't the corporations, it's the powers which we the people tolerate the government exercising on our behalf. Corporations will just do what their inclination commands, they'll aim for complete domination of a market by all means available. We've gifted the federal government so many regulatory powers that it would be stupid for corporations to not try and use those powers to their own advantage. It's the fact that the government even has these powers in the first place that causes so many of our current woes. When the bureaucrats own everything, when they're able to seize all private property, when they're able to mandate the purchase of certain goods and services and approve and certify official corporate vendors, the corporations will spare no expense in getting a piece of that control. The government has, in this way, become little more than an auction. But if we simply reasserted the constitution's prohibition on the government possessing these powers, the incentive for corporations to own the federal government would evaporate. If the government is unable to give anything to corporations, then corporations won't bother spending money trying to get a piece of that nothing.

Gee, I think I just found the most qualified man on the internet to lay down the law on children's rights, then! Please, talk more about how you should control children.

I don't follow you. Earlier, you said government can't control the economy because of how you perceive the debt crisis. Ergo, a free-market approach, corporations are people my friend etc is what is needed. Deregulation/increased spending, you dig.


But now you're telling me corporations want to take my money?!

Say it ain't so!

And that they don't care about people who give them their money??

Smack my arse and call me Shirley.

C'mon Fishmonk, make up your mind, would you? If you want to abolish government, cut it out and say so plainly. But I guess there's no red tape, bureaucracy, or any kind of limitation in BUSINESS. No no. We can trust businessmen and the financial sector. They'd never abuse any lenience in fiscal regulation, because business clearly loves people. Stop me if I'm wrong.

Let's get down to brass tacks, Fishmonk. What has the government done to you to make you hate it so?

No no no, there is clearly a pithy one liner that will prove that you should vote for Ron Paul in 2012 in the pipeline right after TRBB gets back from his street corner in Des Moines, where he is brandishing a semen-stained copy of The Fountainhead and asking passers by where the free-market is. If anyone stops, he simply says 'the free market is here' before punching the nearest person who looks like they might not be at work right now straight in the spleen and giggling like a private (not public, good fucking god) school girl. 

You excel at taking my points and skewing them to make me sound like a neoconservative.

Because the government does both the so-called "positive" AND "negative" things by stealing money from citizens who have worked hard to earn it. I say stealing because if you do not provide the government with their interest-free loan every April 15th, the government comes knocking on your door with guns pointed, threatening your life. That is an infringement upon life and upon liberty; it's an infringement upon life because if you resist you'll probably end up dead and upon liberty because you have the right to decide how you spend your money.

There is no free market to speak of in the United States. It's impossible to have one, since government picks winners and losers. We have a planned market...I'd even go as far as saying it's autarkic.

The contradiction is your own making. The government can't effectively control the economy, it can't fix the economy or make it better, it's toolkit doesn't provide access to that level of micromanagement. Think of the uncertainty principle, in the same way a scientist can't observe an electron without affecting the results, the government can't achieve an ideal (or anywhere near ideal) economy through anything it's able to do, because in the process of trying to realize the ideal through central planning, the outcome will always be affected in an unpredictable and unintended way.

Despite this the government will continuously try to manage the economy to achieve some pareto optimal end, and as point of fact, we encourage them to try again and again despite overwhelming historical evidence suggesting that it does more harm than good. As the united states has had a decaying of Republicanism (as in the form of government called republicanism) and has gradually moved towards mass democracy (popular election of senators, perceived obsolescence of the electoral college...) we've put additional pressure on government to undertake ever grander programs of central planning far beyond the scope of anything conceived of in the US constitution.

Corporations only further subvert this process. We demand the government extend it's powers in an unconstitutional way to gain a greater measure of control over prices and industry, the corporations use that sentiment to their own advantage. The people perceive regulations as anti-corporate, and the corporations encourage that perception in order to prime the public for massive regulatory activity in the critical sectors of the us economy.

Believe it or not corporations do things like focus group the rhetoric they intend their shills in the government to use when advocating for some bill written by lobbyists. Health care reform was designed and marketed to the American people, and supported by the pharmaceutical manufacturers and insurance companies, just as the highways were favored by the major auto-manufacturers decades previously.

I don't see what the contradiction here is.

1. Voters give the government more power.
2. Corporations see that the government has more power.
3. Corporations attempt to buy privileged use of that power.
4. Government double crosses the voters, abuses its' new power in favor of special interest.
5. Unintended consequences occur.
6. Public is outraged, demands the government assume further powers to curtail the destructive activity that led up to (5.)
7. Corporations see that the government has more power...

As I said in my previous post, this cycle continues endlessly and worsens exponentially. Regulation, deficit spending, large debts, insolvent entitlements, manipulation of interest rates, inflation all go hand in hand. They're all strange bedfellows with one another, they follow and precede one another in an accelerating death spiral of economic catastrophe.

If we want to fix things, we need to go back to step 1 and start there. If we don't give the government that power, we won't be burned by corporate wheeling and dealing like we are now. Currently popular logic dictates that when we get to step 5 that we're then obligated to go directly to step 6 and begin the cycle anew. But if we just stopped, if we stopped ourselves from following that pattern, if we removed regulatory monopolies granted to corporations, competition would return and the market share of Merck, Monsanto, Merrill Lynch, ExxonMobil, and GM would no longer be guaranteed by government manipulation of the economy.

The bailouts were the most devious of the regulations. An overregulated market led to companies collapsing left and right...and instead of letting them go bankrupt so new, cheaper competition could arise, the government gave them a free pass to do whatever they wish.

You have the Clinton regime to thank for that initial overregulation.

The economy is an ecosystem. There's a delicate balance that develops organically. Humans have to tread very carefully, a useful plant or animal species can become invasive and destroy the balance of nature. Ships at sea make noise damaging to whales and marine habitats. A species that humans hunt to extinction can no longer provide a critical service needed in that environment.

Even well intentioned environmental programmes can have severe, and unexpected repercussions.

Central planning, the activities of the federal reserve are like clear cutting rainforest, or strip mining the earth of minerals. It's a sledgehammer on the balance between buyers and sellers, producers and consumers, borrowers and lenders. Prices are a sort of natural signal, telling everyone in the economy where they should be putting their resources. Government manipulation is equivalent to damming up a river during the salmon's migration season. It blocks the flow of resources, it destroys the balance of things. Signalling breaks down, competition collapses, the environment is destroyed.

I'm the last person who's going to defend a Democrat just because they're a Democrat......

Otherwise...... has anybody taken notice of how we all seem to be actually agreeing: even if in the most roundabout way??

The Liberty Movement was designed to be cooperative and to bring people together. I'd say the fact that this thread hasn't become a bunch of mudslinging is testament to that.

It's very inclusive isn't it. When your philosophy is just "everyone has equal rights and is allowed to pursue happiness however they will" it brings people together in a weird way. There was something very refreshing about his campaign that haggard old white men gun-nuts and young socially conscious minorities could attend a rally together and cheer for the same politician.

Absolutely. Granted, I'm much more abrasive than many in the movement are, but I'm abrasive in general. I yam who I yam.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/201292083623946701.html

Not me, I think y'all crazy...

Fishmonk, whilst you state your views pretty well in the face of my irreverent banter, your solution seems to be giving the corporations power in spite of the fact that it would be an absolutely terrible idea. I think anyone who believes that any company operating on a corporate level has any kind of conscience or notion of social responsibility on it's own (as opposed to doing something terrible, being publically shamed and atoning for it) is incredibly naive. They have absolutely no interest in maintaining things like a minimum wage, or insurance or pension plans, or any kind of social contract so long as they can exploit you for greater profit. I figure you don't give a flying toss about people poorer than you because you are a libertarian and you don't want to interfere with their rights (nice one, bro), but there's nothing to stop them fucking over the middle class either. You're nothing to them. That's libertarianism for you - why would they want to protect your rights to a decent standard of living so long as you have the loosely defined big three TRBB trots out as a ready made argument and they can make tonnes of money? The fact you have decades of government intervention to thank for that standard of living escapes you, and everyone else, clearly.


This is what I'm getting at. You people don't quite seem to understand how this goes down. The corporate scheming you state as being bad is mostly designed to f*** over workers and guarantee profits in spite of you. They have none of the social obligations that a government does, and again, to suggest that they would gain one if no-one was looking after them is hilarious. Don't say that the marketplace would sort them out - if there's a monopoly, you can't boycott them! Your rights as an individual are destroyed.

At least a government is accountable at the ballot box. (The republicans best efforts be damned) A corporate society (especially if you removed monopoly laws) would have no such accountability.

I think that people who resort constantly to moral outrage and personal insult are oftentimes the most insecure about their beliefs. It's ok to agree with other people, it's ok to allow your world view to adapt and take on more information. You won't become a devil just because you're no longer a democrat. I think that you're out of your depth, and I don't mean that as an insult, only as a criticism. You throw around words without much care or accuracy. "Monopoly" this, "human rights" that. I get the impression however that you haven't really, truly thought deeply about those ideas, and that when it comes to the concepts of economic theory and science, you're very much out of your element. You have a good heart, and it's clear that you want to care about people, but sometimes the best way to care for people is to let them be free...



"Your solution is not my solution, therefore it is a terrible idea"


I think anyone who believes that any politician operating on the level of government has any kind of conscience or notion of social responsibility is incredibly naive.


There are plenty average people who actually would prefer to opt out of a mandatory 15% payroll tax, so why should they care about your outrage. You're holding up these things, the minimum wage, and social insurance program as if they just have to exist no matter what. This next point may be a difficult one for you to hear, and I suspect that your inclination will simply be to ignore it, but I think it's important that you hear it from somebody: there are valid, empirically supported, scientific arguments made by distinguished, professional economists that simply do not agree that these social programs provide a net-benefit to society.

Your premise is faulty, you start out by asserting the absolute necessity of social insurance. You take it for granted that the minimum wage is actually objectively good for workers. Some economists (more on the political/social science/theory side of economics than the scientific/empirical side) will tell you how important social insurance is all day long. Other, equally respected, economists will tell you the exact opposite. You've said that corporations are against these things, and you've concluded that because these things are good, corporations must be bad. You have not earned your conclusion.


You have not explained exactly how less regulation will allow corporations to f*** over the middle class, you simply take it for granted that they somehow will. It's disappointing that you can't go one post in this debate without saying something obnoxiously condescending (nice one, bro). The United Kingdom is very different from The United States. The United States has one, very brief, written document that expressly lays out what rights people have. This is our constitution, and it represents the unquestionable law of the land above the normal statutes and laws passed by congress. I'm of the opinion that these rights are to be defended unconditionally. That if you strip away a few rights here or there, or say that this right applies more to these people and that right applies more those people, you'll inevitably undermine the entire concept of right.

So, corporations use regulations to f*** over the middle class, and your argument as to why we should never even consider repealing any regulation is that, if we do, corporations will f*** over the middle class. Ok...
I think you have a somewhat naive idea of what regulations are and what they actually say. There are tens of thousands of pages of inane regulations on the books, no single person could even come close to knowing what they all say. Congress passes new regulatory packages constantly and completely indiscriminately. It's not a measured, thorough, well considered process, in fact I would bet that most members of congress have absolutely no idea what the new regulations are even designed to do. You've reduced the argument down to a point where you're blinding yourself to the truth of things. For you "regulation" is just a word that you think noone is allowed to question. If I advocate that we radically reduce the number of regulations, you jump the gun, you get so giddy that you leap over the moon to tell me "corporations are evil, we HAVE to regulate them". Maybe that's true, we could have that argument, but I think your wilfully denying the fact that the overwhelming majority of regulations of pointless wastes of money written by the very corporations that you despise and approved by the very politicians you want us to trust...


Why should I expect that complete strangers go out of their way to help me? There is no moral obligation here. It's ironic that you get upset at the idea that corporations don't care about "your" rights, when at the very same time you're arguing against the rights of every group you dislike. Racists don't deserve free speech, the rich don't deserve to own the things that they do. You have a very wishy-washy idea of rights that will only lead to the destruction of right as a concept. When you want to take away the rights of others, you have no problem discovering social justifications for doing so, when people want to take away your rights you get upset. Read your Fichte. I'm serious. You can't expect moral behavior in any case, unless you insist upon moral behavior in every case.



That makes two of us...


Yes alright, I'll concede as much, as long as you concede that the primary tool by which corporations hope to accomplish their ends is regulation and government interference in the economy.



Nobody has suggested that. Where have you seen that suggested? The only thing that's hilarious is how bitter and arrogant your post has been. You ignore the simplest of points and then construct ludicrous strawmen to take our your resentment on. Corporations do not absolutely have to have some social obligation. Social obligation is arbitrary, it changes constantly and is only a perfectly nebulous intuition that's completely unquantifiable. The "social obligation" of government in the pre-Civil Rights era was to preserve the superiority of white people. But in 100 years I'm sure that all of the bullsh*t "social obligations" we have today will still be unchallenged....


I studied monopolies extensively as part of my degree program, and I question how much you actually know about monopolies. There's good reason to be sceptical about the very possibility of natural monopolies. The theory just doesn't support you here, because the theory says that government itself is the thing that creates monopolies. Certainly game theory dictates that oligopoly type situations are untenable and will always naturally collapse, and actual monopolies are more things like a single company controlling the entire market for a drug which they own the patent for.
Some economists have even made the point that anti-trust laws are actually a tool used by corporations to attain monopolies for themselves, and that anti-trust laws are counterproductive for that very reason. You act like the natural state of things is just monopolies everywhere all the time. That's an unfounded premise, historically monopolies are created, given to specific companies, and enforced by the government itself.


The post immediately preceding yours contains a link challenging exactly that supposition...
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/201292083623946701.html

Too long to quote and I'm at work giving other people my money, so again, brevity.

You're right, maybe I'm out of my depth. I can't deeply consider everything I'm posting and am throwing these terms out as I understand them. However, I do wonder whether you are too far down the rabbit hole. A lot of this theorising strikes me as too dense for it's own good - ie, it always strikes me as odd that in the ideals you claim people would feel better off. Abolishing the minimum wage is one such thing that would instantly destroy the qualities of lots of peoples lives on the dodgy promise that they will either work harder or the marketplace will set a new one. Which, seeing as I have deep-seated concerns about the actual reality of how companies on a grand operate, I don't trust that.

The way I see it is, if your textbook says a persoon isn't 'free' but government gives them a basic standard of living, are they happier? Yes. A person without money cannot feed or cloth themselves with social liberty. I don't care for that.

Ok, convince me how a minimum wage DOESN'T guarantee a basic standard of living and should be abolished. Educate me.

Like I said, you can vote out a politician. Doesn't matter if they're corrupt as f***, there are channels and methods. You would have no recourse in a free-market society besides a boycott, and that's not feasible. 

I also completely and utterly don't believe that corporations would only do good if it wasn't for that pesky Government. That's nuts.

Your 'political/empirical' split says wonders. Devoid of all context, the power of money, and human fallibility/simple assholism, yes - you could let corporations run amok, and they would love the people who give them the money. Everything would be done fairly and above board as they would not be trying to squeeze through government loopholes to maximise their profits. But that would never happen. It's human nature.

In the UK, it's lovely because our Constitution changes on the regular with the times and from a variety of different sources. It's not one old old document. But why wouldn't corporations, who's only motivation is money, not want to f*** anybody over, that's my point. You have money, they can get your money. Or your labour. What else would they care about? But then, I view things like the minimum wage as essential for a standard of living. More fool me.

Social insurance is necessary for people not in your cosy libertarian bubble. Your standard of living nowadays comes from massive Government intervention during the 30's, and it has been eroded ever since. Again, this is the sort of thing I took for granted in the real world (and on other places online, this board is somewhat of an anomaly) but here we are.

Re: racists don't deserve free speech: Racism is about denying human rights. It is about denying other people's lives, liberties and their pursuit of happiness, if you will. If you want to defend it, go ahead.

Don't get me wrong, a lot of things suck about government. I just think you're looking at the wrong things because you think corporations somehow have your best interest at heart. What's their motivation?


Right, outta time. Gotta go make some money pay my taxes to Comrade Cameron.

BTW, this is why y'all is f***ed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/09/24/romney-calls-emergency-room-a-health-care-option-for-uninsured/

Dude, it's been like that for years.

That doesn't make it ok.

So if the emergency room doesn't treat the uninsured...they should just die? You sound like the type that people accuse me of being.

Sigh. It's not 'universal healthcare', is it? Which was Mittens' point. I mean, it is in one sense, but it's an extremely simplified sense. And they still have to pay (exorbitantly) so... again, not 'universal healthcare'. Or, to make things simpler for you, Obamacare  ;D

'Uninsured people have healthcare - it's called Emergency Rooms' is absurd!

Medical professionals are bound by something known as the Hippocratic Oath. They're not going to just let someone die. Even before this hullabaloo about "YOU'LL JUST LET THEM DIE!!!!111", hospitals didn't turn people away for being unable to pay in full or at all. They worked at discounted rates or for free. Government programs have made it worse for medical professionals because more often than not they're not being paid, even by people who have the insurance...all because the government loopholes and regulations and reforms make the situation a mess.

I always ask the Obamacare crowd why this country didn't have Medicare until 1965. They don't know why. They think Medicare has been around since the days of George Washington (that is, if they even know who George Washington is). Before that time, the United States had a health care system that was envied by the global community. Private insurance was a rarity; people paid with cash for most medical services. Doctors were willing to negotiate.

It's not absurd, it's a reality and it may seem like an easy flaming arrow to shoot at Romney, but in many areas it's absolutely, 100% correct: For as many people who go to emergency rooms for emergencies, a problem for years was people showing up for treatments and diagnosis of common things like colds or ankle sprains where a family doctor should be the first visit. And there was no "payment" required", if they had an emergency or even had a child with a bad cough, they'd be seen by a doctor.

I'll tell you about that one personally, sometime, if there is any doubt.

Oh, and also keep in mind that when there are cities such as Philadelphia and Chicago where drug and gang related violence are a part of everyday life, multiple times each day, who do you think pays for the various folks that wind up in the emergency rooms after being shot, stabbed, or beaten? Unless the gangs carry a group health plan or HMO as I pay out of my own profits from working every month, it leaves someone with a whopper of a bill, for emergency room care, intensive care, operations/surgery, post-op recovers, transport to and from the hospital including Advanced Life Support (ALS) or even Med-Evac by helicopter for the serious cases...all very costly services.

Who pays for that? Don't think too hard for the answer...

The question becomes who should pay for that?

Why, a properly implemented healthcare system funded by taxpayers should pay for it, like in most civilized societies! Or, insurance should be so easily accessible and affordable that people don't have to go to the emergency room for minor ailments. Like in the other civilized societies. There's a big gap people are falling inbetween. I don't doubt that it happens, but like you say it's massive drain on resources easily fixed. And when someone tries to fix it one way, the American right (memories hazy, but probably people who should know better too and big pharma etc) goes batsh*t crazy and calls him a socialist who wants to set up death camps where bureaucrats decide whether you live or die. That was perhaps a wee bit overdramatic, no?


I'm not saying ill people should die rather than go to an emergency room- why would you get that idea given everything I've ever said in this thread? I'm just saying the very system  is rotten on a very basic level for that to be his argument against any centralised healthcare... See where I'm coming from?

I do think most medical services could be offered outside of insurance. I think most drugs required to be prescribed could be freed of that regulation. I also think there should be more competition in health insurance. There shouldn't be a "few" companies, there should be hundreds. Thousands. More competition equals less chance for monopoly equals lower prices. There's no excuse. Corporatism, bureaucrats, lobbyists, and the welfare state are destroying health care. By welfare state, I mean the corporate welfare state.

Again I ask who is already paying for those who require immediate emergency care due to violence and daily drug and gang bullshit in major US cities which requires people going to the emergency room? Because unlike me, and those millions of able-bodied folks who actually earn a living through working rather than illegal means, I doubt the local gangs are tapping into an HMO group coverage, yet if they have a shoot-em-up in the streets and end up getting hurt, the medical care is covered and they have no obligation to pay.

Whereas I have to pay not only the insurance costs every month, but also co-pays and any other related costs if I need medical treatment far less serious than repairing a gunshot wound. And I work to pay for what I receive.

Fair or unfair?

It's unfair.

A government controlled health care system is socialism whether anyone likes it or not. And just acting like universal health care is basic and that all "civilized" nations have it is ridiculous. If you haven't been following the news for a few year, the "civilized" countries, EU members, Australia, Japan are in perpetual economic collapse. When a country has 30+% unemployment, maybe you shouldn't hold them up as a model...

Supply and Demand is king, you have to be able to think about economic problems in terms of supply and demand. When the government subsidies health care the very basic effect of that is to raise demand for health care believe it or not. In fact payroll taxes funnel 15% of the nations wealth, mostly, into healthcare. When demand goes up, price goes up. On the other side of the coin government regulation has created barriers to entry and prevented the industry from growing to accommodate the bulk of that new demand. Price goes up, and what solution do so many people advocate, "well, um, I dunno like redistribute more money into the health care system? that's what civilized countries do right?"  ::)

No, but I'm sure health care must suck because of the rich or something or whoever we're supposed to be blaming. If only we were like other civilized countries like Greece Spain or Italy!!! Now they have things figured out!

Wow Fishmonk, and I thought I had the drop on overreactionary hyperbole itt  ;D

I did say 'Or, insurance should be so easily accessible and affordable that people don't have to go to the emergency room for minor ailments. Like in the other civilized societies.' As I also said, there's an unacceptable gap that the people in Guitarfools' posts are falling through somewhere in America's healthcare system (gang health insurance doesn't seem too bad an idea for yr enterprising mobster, mind  :lol), and under America's system, yeah, he shouldn't be picking up the tab. On that level, and in that context, yeah it's unfair. This is the problem. TRBB's model doesn't offend my sensibilities beyond my usual misgivings about corporate yadda yadda. But that's the model America is going on and, well, it's not going far enough. I suppose you don't care because you've got health insurance.


The world's economy is f***ed, you jackass. That means

(http://www.worldpress.org/images/maps/world_600w.jpg)

Of course, I expect a full reading list of dead political thinkers in return.

Yeah, wouldn't want to read any books now would ya, then you might actually learn something. Better to just randomly guess how things work. Or better yet, to just parrot whatever Obama says, he seems like an honest guy...

Sigh. The one time I actually agree with TRBB on something and now all this. I knew it was too good to be true....

This is getting absolutely pathetic and you're all just going around in circles. One guy points out how awful and unfair things are, another guy tries his best to offend due to some ego/self image merda he's trying to project/cultivate, and another guy just shrugs and explains how it has to be this way because of things that don't actually even exist (economics) but are merely ideas that have been put into practice and that could be replaced by other ideas.... It's like monkey on an island with an unplugged TV set. How many years might it take for the monkey to figure out what the strange object is for, or would he just forget about it because it is of no use to him to begin with?. There is no forward or creative thinking here. Just complaints, name calling and the smug blatherings of armchair economists.....

Hey man, you're the one being a jerk. It's hard to talk to you when you freak out in every post and insult me, I've just lost patience with you. I was being completely reasonable for most of this thread, but you kept acting like a haughty jerk and I just really don't know why you expect me to just grin my teeth and bare it. If you can't take it don't dish it out. You've also not really effectively responded to the points I've been trying to make, your last post came across as incoherent to me, you're not listening to what others are saying, you're just spouting some tired rhetoric that we've all heard a million times before.

The world is f***ed because of government spending and debt. The world is f***ed because there are literally more debts than corresponding assets. The world is f***ed because civilized countries are caught in a death spiral of 100%+ deficit to GDP spending. There's no ground, we're off floating around in a universe of valueless money. Hell, read your Goethe, it's Mephistopheles who advocates for this type of inflationary spending, because it's bullshit, and everyone knows it except the people who are too arrogant or too impotent to admit it.

Ok, man. I'm out.

But no hard feelings, seriously. It's just chatting politics on the internet and I'm not exactly taking it seriously. It's nowhere near the reason why I post here!

I don't know why people would be offended by my model...I mean, I just said that corporate control and welfare state measures in health care have made it more expensive. If universal health care happens, when there's only one buyer, it means that the price will go up. Lots of demand and little supply = higher prices. Little demand and little supply = lower prices.

I meant 'there should be 1000's of providers' part, which is AOK in the American model. I was trying to suggest I wasn't instantly reacting to your post (as has been my usual OTT form in the thread) by going 'KILL THE LIBERTARIAN SELGISHFVHJZD' or something - I agree with it! An anomaly, I'm sure. :)

Dammit, I'm out! I'm out!

I don't get what's so difficult about this concept. Price is determined by two things, so I find it baffling when people lack the critical skills necessary to see how different actions affect price. It's not too hard to reason it out.

Dude, I WANT market anarchy in health care. I want bargain basement prices for health care. More health care providers means more competition means lower prices. I'm not the bad guy. I'm just saying that there is a way to do it WITHOUT the government and make it not only less expensive, but cheap. Besides, the government is already all over and has been all over the American system since 1965 to begin with, and look how that's turning out. Prices are up, quality is down. What kind of system is that? It's telling that people don't want to become doctors anymore...tort laws are out of control and there's a corporate/lobbyist/bureaucratic STRANGLEHOLD on health care. Big government at its abso-bloody-lute worst.

Free market anarchy is an intriguing idea but I can assume it all goes back to your beloved "personal responsibility" line. What would prevent such a thing from being an absolute predatory disaster? Why would it not be 1000 times worse than Mexico where anyone over eighteen can go and get a prescription for any drug they want, while also getting serious procedures done by quacks with no qualifications whatsoever and dying as a result (yes, many are elective procedures such as breast implants, therefore I can't argue against your logic on that end) .... Once again, we'd be having the economically disadvantaged being preyed upon by quacks and maniacs with white coats while the real health care would be sought out by those with the means....I mean, is a poor woman with breast cancer gonna have to go see some guy in a back alley for consultation??

what are people still talking here for? It looks like the end game will be very one sided and another 4 years for Obama. Hopefully BB's will be in White House soon (given that they are finally together again)!!!

what might be more interesting than the election itself at this stage is not the result but the consequences. Will GOP split up? will GOP moderates reclaim the ball from the crazies? for the sake of their party and fiscal conservative politics, I hope they do. Romney was simply the best of the worst. All his adversaries were nobodies. When Reagan won his primary he beat a future president, Bob Dole and other signficants. Romney beat some religious anti-abortion zealots, a Texas gov who couldn't remember his 3 departments, a minor yet disgruntled Libertarian, a disgraced former House Speaker and a foreign dignitary appointed by the Obama administration. Hopefully this rediculous rivalry will result in both Democrats and GOP breaking into smaller parties will resulting coalition politics rather than the rediculous beast two party politics currently in place.

No one here more than myself would love to see the illusory two-party system implode, crumble, and splinter. To be fair, the Ron Paul campaign was the most moderate campaign within the GOP since probably the Robert Taft days; along with Gary Johnson's campaign it brought more people together than any of the other GOP campaigns AND Obama's campaign combined. It brought people of all ages and walks of life together - disgruntled former Obama supporters and all manner of civil and economic libertarians. To say that the man behind the movement was "disgruntled" is indicative of an astounding lack of knowledge amplified by pure ignorance. I'd say the man's been vindicated after thirty-some odd years and the rest of the political landscape is trying to play catch-up.

The rest of the GOP candidates were just liberals who go to church.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-president-speaks-un-about-youtube-video-posted-june

Is anyone else as offended by Obama's disgusting "defense" of freedom of speech as I am? I don't know where the hell to begin.

These are the empty, feel-good words from a president whose presidency has been a grand scale of a charade of nothing but empty, feel-good broken promises that has come to include a kill list, assassinations of American citizens without due process or trial, indefinite detention of American citizens without due process or trial, almost a half-dozen new wars, and drone strikes that have killed more innocent people and ruined more families that would have sickened his illustrious predecessor's regime.

Like his offensive "evolution" on gay marriage (a calculated attempt to gain votes in an election year no less, unlike Gary Johnson and Ron Paul, both of whom who actually RAN on the position), this is just more disingenuous pandering designed to make his small-brained and simple-minded supporters feel good about themselves and their Organizer/Redistributor-in-Chief.

I see he's still blaming that YouTube video for all the rioting and murders that took place in the Middle East, despite all intel pointing to the chaos as planned and calculated.  Tells you just how soft a candidate Romney is; he should be mopping the floor with Obama in the polls. 

He won't. A choice between Romney and Obama is basically a choice between more of the same and more of the same. Whichever one wins, we're all f***ed.

Man, love those Beach Boys, eh?

Best damned band in the world! But we're all in FLUX here...

you got me wrong there. Personally I considered Ron Paul the only real candidate there. Mitt was the only other moderate there (though he is corporation material). However as much as I liked Ron outspoken stance, he made himself completely inelectable by preaching doom for the US. Whether he is right or not is a different matter, but voters (especially the more nationalistic sort found on the right) don't want to hear that their country is going to sh*t, so they all ignored Ron, marginalising him completely from the nomination process. That may say more about the GOP voters than anything. Might alos be why GOP voters watch Fox, people love to hear their opinions confirmed in one format or the other. For the Right, that can infringe on facts, but they won't mind as long as they are told they are right about an issue.

It needs to be restated that it is by no means exclusive to Fox. Substitute "the Left" and "Democrat voters" and "MSNBC" in this statement and we'll cover that side of the aisle too, deservedly so. It's one in the same as far as slanting the news to appeal to a demographic, the only difference is the ideology being represented.

The much larger issue is where can we turn to get a legitimate reporting of any given news event? It's not difficult to see on which candidate the major networks, the big-city newspapers, and even the non-news media heaps more of the "positive" attention and "pro-" rather than "con-" coverage. It's not difficult to see in light of the recent anti-American violence in the Middle East how and why certain "mainstream" news outlets continue to focus on the YouTube video as the thing most responsible for the violence rather than the radical Islamists who are the ones who actually carried out the violent acts. At least we finally got at least a half-hearted admission from the Administration that indeed it was a pre-planned military style attack and not a spontaneous public reaction to a film that got out of hand.

I'd recommend anyone participating in these discussions to search for and read the "farewell" column written by New York Times public editor Arthur Brisbane. It caused a whole sh*t-storm of anger among certain folks, yet he managed to confirm what a growing number of people have been saying about the Times for decades. To sum up (hopefully doing the column justice in doing so...), Brisbane says that yes, indeed, within the Times' newsrooms and among reporters and other employees there is indeed a culture which exists at the paper that includes a strong left-leaning political and philosophical bias, what appears to be almost a group-think mentality where certain opinions are just naturally taken to be correct over others...and the "factual" part of reporting the news is directly affected by this, to the point that news stories are deliberately presented in a pro- or -con opinion column fashion rather than reported as hard facts.

Again, please read Brisbane in his own words for the full story, don't take my summary of it.

Whenever the reaction is as strong as it was among certain circles to Brisbane's column (revelations from within?), you know it touched a nerve. For me it was like telling me that 2+2=4, a classic "no sh*t!" moment, because I had given up on the Times years ago and will ignore most or all of what comes from it for a variety of reasons. In no way do I accept the Times as "The Paper Of Record" any more than I accepted Walter Cronkite as "The Most Trusted Man In America". It's all pure hogwash.

Ultimately the news should be just that - the news. Fox and MSNBC serve a purpose, they both belong and in many ways we should watch both networks and take notes from each side.

But it is pretty strong evidence to have a New York Times public editor pull back the curtain on the Wizard Of Oz and come right out saying that yes, his newspaper was slanted and biased in its reporting, and some of that comes from the very culture within the newsrooms and among employees of that newspaper. That, to me, equals an admission that we as readers cannot trust The Times for a fair reporting of any story.

It also tells me that The Times is far from alone in that fashion, so a lot of people seeking out solid news coverage need to ask "Where do we go for our news?". I'd say the answer lies somewhere within a comparison to a dinner buffet, where you pay a flat fee to get your plate and utensils and whatever food you are most hungry for is what goes on your plate. I don't think there can be a trusted source for solid information at this point, especially witnessing the type of reporting that passes for "journalism" on the 2012 campaign trail. Very sad.

That'll be news to a lot of Australians! You might want to brush up on world economics.

So, who are you guys going to vote for? The giant douche or turd sandwich?

(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ3qhb-snX1t5OUptQchkmXAbLh_0XhuLfihJDNvQSSMxTVV5bI)

Gary Johnson. :)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/world/middleeast/netanyahu-warns-that-iran-bombmaking-ability-is-nearer.html?_r=0

I'm starting to think that Benjamin Netanyahu is the worst war criminal on this planet...and DAMN, there's tight competition. There is no nation on this planet more terrifying than Israel.

George Washington was right to warn about entangling alliances.

You sure aren't kidding...

That bomb picture is absurd.

I immediately thought "it's like Wile E. Coyote's blueprints to get that pesky Road Runner."

You guys probably hate The Onion, but this sprang to mind...

http://www.theonion.com/articles/glowing-ahmadinejad-i-am-the-nuclear-weapon-weve-b,29698/

Uh...were you the guy that I saw chanting "Seig Heil" at the Westboro Baptist Church demonstartion on the news?

What has that nation ever done for us? Look up the Jonathan Pollard spy case and the USS liberty attack.

Godwin's law, argument over.

Would accepting that idiot from Iran's "New World Order" which he expressed at the UN be a better option? Or how about a world ruled under Sharia law...a better option?

So the idea of using religion or using an organized religion to govern, dominate, or strike militarily is disgusting for every religion except those nations and societies using Islam in an extreme way to justify these behaviors, and not even trying to hide it?

If that's the kind of "New World Order" we want, well then yes, Israel and the US are dangerous and "the most terrifying" to those terrorist groups like the PLO.

Selective outrage, it's easy to spot, and it's on full display here. Israel, the most terrifying nation? Nonsense. Unless you want your wife, girlfriend, daughter, granddaughter, whatever wearing a scarf and covering up in public, then walking a few steps behind "her man" to show submission, and not enjoying the basic right to be who they are rather than be submissive to a man. f*** that uncivilized sh*t, but if that's appealing there are several societies ruled under radical Islamic beliefs where that kind of life is the norm - I'm sure they'll welcome a new resident with open arms.

Personally, there isn't much to suggest a "war" of any kind would solve anything, but this embrace of Iran, Palestine and the PLO, etc. from some folks is disturbing and maddening. No nation is perfect, far from that, but if there is support for nations which actively support terrorism and finance and conduct terrorist activities around the globe...Israel is far from the most "terrifying" nation.

Israel can fight this war if they need to with their cutting edge arsenal (made in USA). Iran would never attack Israel head on because of the huge Nuclear Arsenal Israel has.