London Riots

[hypehat]

Also, what happened to my thread?!! 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Two words, anger management.

Anyone who is actually serious about politics should be angry about you flagrantly spreading misinformation for a start, and also about your absurdly reductive assertions that are entirely groundless.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

...in a perfect world.

Kind sir, please understand that calling someonelike myself a Christian Fascist or a Greedy White American conservative penguin who never read a book only exposes a certain kind of hatred directed to your fellow man. I'm not rich. I don't really care one way or another about who you worship, sleep with, or feel the urge to say. I care about Freedom.

When you say, "The state doesn't give a damn about you or me or anyone else beyond their own pocketbooks", I say substitute "people" for the word "state". That is how it is in our world. We should have the Freedom to help out others who we feel deserve it before the taxman decides for us, and I think we can agreeon that point.

Still, to the many of us "Christian Fascists or a Greedy White American conservatives " who bust our butts working well over 40 hours a week struggling to make ends meet we do not need to be told we are greedy and stupid as we warn people of the dangers of losing our individual freedoms those who are smarterand know better than us with what to do with our time and money.

Be thankful to the people who fought extraordinarily hard for you against both the state and the business world so that you only had to "bust your butt" for 40-60 hours a week. The fact that you have leisure time at all is thanks to labor, not to the goodness of the state or the business world. A bit more of an understanding of the history of labor and business in the US and indeed throughout the world for that matter might restore some of your faith in humanity.

[OBLiO]

Also, what happened to my thread?!! 

 

[OBLiO]

Agreed all media could do a better job at remaining neutral.

What does that even mean? How does one "remain neutral"?

Agreed the party system has become a distraction. The whole left vs. right thing takes attention away from the subject matter.

The left has been utterly disenfranchised in the United States. In fact, it is an illegitimate political position to take.

Also, Sgt Smile pointed out that free market is the natural order of things. Agreed.

So once again, explain why it has been violently forced on just about every culture that has it.

Less Government = productive happy lives.

That's interesting, because you can have less government on the far left - in fact, that's really the only place where you can have no government at all, in the usual sense.

The US government was set-up with a basic set of rules. Like a message board. You have a community. A set of basic rules to determine etiquette. Moderators to govern. The Constitution starts out with "We the People..." not sure how much more social you can get than that.

Except that even then only certain people constitued "people" in the eyes of the founding fathers.

1. just tell me the facts without bias
2. the "left' disenfranchised themselves by calling themselves "left"
3. All tribes thoughout time have engaged in trade of goods and services
4. I want Government. It is needed. Just stop meddling.
5. It was only few states that didn't want to give up their servants/slaves, whatever you want to call it. The USA was designed to make all men equal. In order to declare independence from England a compromise was made in Congress.
The founding fathers realized that the situation they were born into was unacceptable. Slavery was England's way at that time.
So they designed a government that would free everyone, but they couldn't get everything they wanted. Chipping away little by little and along comes Abraham Lincoln. I believe he even stated that it was the founding fathers who freed the slaves.

[Dunderhead]

I'm afraid we fundamentally disagree on a lot, my roundheaded chum. But you can never win an argument about politics, but what the hell.

I can't believe you can look at the sheer economic sh*thole America is barely creeping out of and tell me that not only is the free market right, it is 'the natural order of things'. It may be natural, but it is fundamentally unfair to huge swathes of the population. Bank bonuses in face of recession. Government conceding to Wall Street or The City in spite of their sheer stupidity in trading. Then they tell us normal folk to be austere (Twas the line of the British govt not so long ago). I mean, yeah that's nice. How can you say that's the point of government - bending spinelessly to monied interests who are only looking after profit lines?

(I know, I know. This is all getting a little rhetorical)

The rich are really hated right now, so I don't blame you for getting on board the blame train. But America had its chance to get rid of all the bad blood, but we didn't. Those banks that we all complain about are all still in business because of our government. When the Federal Reserve injects "liquidity", or when Congress approves bailouts, that's how the rich make their living. All those policies only increase wealth inequality, they benefit investors on the stock market the most, who enjoy free money and no-interest loans. If it wasn't for Government banks would have gone out of business and the people who made bad decisions would have lost their jobs. Instead the Government paid for their errors. That's not Capitalism I'm afraid, that's big government, that's what you get for your tax dollars. The fundamental error of many people in assessing our economic woes is that they don't realize this relationship.

It's very hard for people to wrap their head around what exactly "capitalism" is, and today people just think that whenever a banker makes money that's capitalism. Capitalism is not wallstreet, we don't have capitalism today.

Am curious. What do you do for a living, Oblio? Or indeed, Sgt Smile? Myself, I'm a student, in spirit of full disclosure. Disgustingly middle class, btw.

How in the absolute hell does less of a government equate to a happier life?! Do less benefits equate to happier lives? Does your lack of a healthcare system equate to a happier life? Do less taxes- Oh wait, see your point.

I do think Americans lack a real sense of social responsibility in that regard. I'm happy to pay taxes even off my meagre wage packet (and I know the government gives me student loan - it just about covers rent and books, btw) - It pays for my grandmas rest home, my cousins jobs in education, my sisters school, my mums medication, the police (who you kinda appreciate in South London, despite it all), and benefits for those who need them. I don't think anyone of those is mooching off my hard work. It just seems really self centred and tight-fisted.

I don't agree that the government can just spend whatever money it wants and always have a good effect. Americans tolerate too much taxation, across the board people aren't just paying pennies, they're getting squeezed, state, local, federal, property taxes, fica, excise taxes, sales tax. People end up working 25%-50% of their entire year working for the government. When the income tax started out it was 1%, I don't understand how people allow themselves to be convinced of their "duty" to give so much to the government. Americans shouldn't be so complacent.
The government just blows money out of its ass. We're constantly told that our income tax is a vital contribution to our society, that its unfair and selfish to want to pay any less. Half of that tax is just going to the Defense Department. Just something like air conditioning for installations in Iraq and Afghanistan costs more than NASA's budget. The Defense Department costs more each year than all other executive departments combined. Then we waste hundreds of billions on things like the war on drugs. We just fritter away money like there's no tomorrow on thousands of subsidies and corporate handouts, and an endless parade of failed social engineering programs. we could stand to spend a lot less, and we could stand to not have an income tax.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

1. just tell me the facts without bias

Which facts? Who decides what constitutes a "newsworthy" fact and what doesn't? What order should those facts appear? How much airtime or space should a story get? These questions and many others require bias. So how would you propose overcoming that?

2. the "left' disenfranchised themselves by calling themselves "left"

And how, prey tell, did they do that? How can calling yourself "left" get you disenfranchised if it weren't already illegitimate to occupy that position on the political spectrum? And furthermore, the whole range of political beliefs on the left aren't filled with people who call themselves the left - there have been a variety of political parties and political positions on the left that have been eliminated.

3. All tribes thoughout time have engaged in trade of goods and services

Maybe, but that's not the same thing as saying that "All tribes throughout time have engaged in free market capitalism." You can have a trade of goods and services under many economic models.

4. I want Government. It is needed. Just stop meddling.

I don't want government. But I agree - the government in the US is undeniably tipped towards favoring the wealthiest citizens and anyone with the slightest concern for democracy or human rights should oppose that.

5. It was only few states that didn't want to give up their servants/slaves, whatever you want to call it. The USA was designed to make all men equal. In order to declare independence from England a compromise was made in Congress.
The founding fathers realized that the situation they were born into was unacceptable. Slavery was England's way at that time.
So they designed a government that would free everyone, but they couldn't get everything they wanted. Chipping away little by little and along comes Abraham Lincoln. I believe he even stated that it was the founding fathers who freed the slaves.

Funny you should think that I was talking about African-Americans - but either way, your explanation is absurd. The United States were stuck with slavery because it "was England's way"? If that's the case, why did the US hang on to slavery for another thirty years after England eliminated it?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

It's very hard for people to wrap their head around what exactly "capitalism" is, and today people just think that whenever a banker makes money that's capitalism. Capitalism is not wallstreet, we don't have capitalism today.

When did we "have capitalism"?

[OBLiO]

1. just tell me the facts without bias

Which facts? Who decides what constitutes a "newsworthy" fact and what doesn't? What order should those facts appear? How much airtime should a story get? These questions and many others require bias. So how would you propose overcoming that?

2. the "left' disenfranchised themselves by calling themselves "left"

And how, prey tell, did they do that? How can calling yourself "left" get you disenfranchised if it weren't already illegitimate to occupy that position on the political spectrum? And furthermore, the whole range of political beliefs on the left aren't filled with people who call themselves the left - there have been a variety of political parties and political positions on the left that have been eliminated.

3. All tribes thoughout time have engaged in trade of goods and services

Maybe, but that's not the same thing as saying that "All tribes throughout time have engaged in free market capitalism." You can have a trade of goods and services under many economic models.

4. I want Government. It is needed. Just stop meddling.

I don't want government. But I agree - the government in the US is undeniably tipped towards favoring the wealthiest citizens and anyone with the slightest concern for democracy or human rights should oppose that.

5. It was only few states that didn't want to give up their servants/slaves, whatever you want to call it. The USA was designed to make all men equal. In order to declare independence from England a compromise was made in Congress.
The founding fathers realized that the situation they were born into was unacceptable. Slavery was England's way at that time.
So they designed a government that would free everyone, but they couldn't get everything they wanted. Chipping away little by little and along comes Abraham Lincoln. I believe he even stated that it was the founding fathers who freed the slaves.

Funny you should think that I was talking about African-Americans.

1. I do not propose to overcome it. I propose to sift.
2. Call yourself "left"... now call yourself "right" do you feel any different? now call yourself "left" again. any difference?
3. nuts and berries were the capital in ancient times before the mining began.
4. a democracy is only as good as the people in it... ice cream vs. milk in a dirty glass... pick one. Human rights does not include my right to someone else's fruit. But if I pick the fruit, chances are I would pick enough for everybody because that is my nature. It's an individual characteristic.
5. I didn't think that... slaves come in 5 colors.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

1. I do not propose to overcome it. I propose to sift.

I think you misunderstand. I mean, since you're calling for an unbiased media, I am asking how one in the media would overcome such questions that would require their bias.

2. Call yourself "left"... now call yourself "right" do you feel any different? now call yourself "left" again. any difference?

This is ridiculous and it has absolutely nothing to do with what we were talking about.

Until you are prepared to give an adult response, I will assume that you are incapable of responding to the fact that the left has been disinfranchised in the United States.

3. nuts and berries were the capital in ancient times before the mining began.

The quotation is enough to conclude that you don't have a clue about "ancient times" and I'm skeptical about your knowledge of capital.

4. a democracy is only as good as the people in it... ice cream vs. milk in a dirty glass... pick one. Human rights does not include my right to someone else's fruit. But if I pick the fruit, chances are I would pick enough for everybody because that is my nature. It's an individual characteristic.

Well...I think democracy itself is a principle to strive for. The fact that you can like what the people decide or not like what the people decide, based on your own subjective views on what makes an ideal society, does not undermine the principle. In that sense, to say that there are good democracies and bad democracies is absurd to anyone who genuinely supports democratic values.

More over, what do you mean, that sharing "is your nature"? Do you mean you were born with this characteristic that is inherent to your being? If so, what evidence do you have for that? It seems to me that individual characteristics are formed by immediate surroundings, culture, etc. This is why, for the most part, we have managed to entirely eliminate some of our most barbaric qualities - because we have the capacity to improve ourselves, not because of some inherent inner qualities.
 

5. I didn't think that... slaves come in 5 colors.

I wasn't thinking just about slaves either.

[OBLiO]

1. I do not propose to overcome it. I propose to sift.

I think you misunderstand. I mean, since you're calling for an unbiased media, I am asking how one in the media would overcome such questions that would require their bias.

2. Call yourself "left"... now call yourself "right" do you feel any different? now call yourself "left" again. any difference?

This is ridiculous and it has absolutely nothing to do with what we were talking about.

Until you are prepared to give an adult response, I will assume that you are incapable of responding to the fact that the left has been disinfranchised in the United States.

3. nuts and berries were the capital in ancient times before the mining began.

The quotation is enough to conclude that you don't have a clue about "ancient times" and I'm skeptical about your knowledge of capital.

4. a democracy is only as good as the people in it... ice cream vs. milk in a dirty glass... pick one. Human rights does not include my right to someone else's fruit. But if I pick the fruit, chances are I would pick enough for everybody because that is my nature. It's an individual characteristic.

Well...I think democracy itself is a principle to strive for. The fact that you can like what the people decide or not like what the people decide, based on your own subjective views on what makes an ideal society, does not undermine the principle. In that sense, to say that there are good democracies and bad democracies is absurd to anyone who genuinely supports democratic values.

More over, what do you mean, that sharing "is your nature"? Do you mean you were born with this characteristic that is inherent to your being? If so, what evidence do you have for that? It seems to me that individual characteristics are formed by immediate surroundings, culture, etc. This is why, for the most part, we have managed to entirely eliminate some of our most barbaric qualities - because we have the capacity to improve ourselves, not because of some inherent inner qualities.
 

5. I didn't think that... slaves come in 5 colors.

I wasn't thinking just about slaves either.

1. If you are biased, you should get out of the news business.
2. It has everything to do with it. You have to join the camp before you are concerned about it's state.
3. I'll trade you some nuts and berries for a drink at the well.
4. Democracy is a mechanism used to decide an outcome. I have no idea why I am the way I am, I just know that I am.
5. what else could you mean? explain, please.

[OBLiO]

Funny you should think that I was talking about African-Americans - but either way, your explanation is absurd. The United States were stuck with slavery because it "was England's way"? If that's the case, why did the US hang on to slavery for another thirty years after England eliminated it?

The US wasn't the US until it broke free from England. England didn't eliminate it.

[hypehat]

The rich are really hated right now, so I don't blame you for getting on board the blame train. But America had its chance to get rid of all the bad blood, but we didn't. Those banks that we all complain about are all still in business because of our government. When the Federal Reserve injects "liquidity", or when Congress approves bailouts, that's how the rich make their living. All those policies only increase wealth inequality, they benefit investors on the stock market the most, who enjoy free money and no-interest loans. If it wasn't for Government banks would have gone out of business and the people who made bad decisions would have lost their jobs. Instead the Government paid for their errors. That's not Capitalism I'm afraid, that's big government, that's what you get for your tax dollars. The fundamental error of many people in assessing our economic woes is that they don't realize this relationship.

It's very hard for people to wrap their head around what exactly "capitalism" is, and today people just think that whenever a banker makes money that's capitalism. Capitalism is not wallstreet, we don't have capitalism today.

I don't agree that the government can just spend whatever money it wants and always have a good effect. Americans tolerate too much taxation, across the board people aren't just paying pennies, they're getting squeezed, state, local, federal, property taxes, fica, excise taxes, sales tax. People end up working 25%-50% of their entire year working for the government. When the income tax started out it was 1%, I don't understand how people allow themselves to be convinced of their "duty" to give so much to the government. Americans shouldn't be so complacent.
The government just blows money out of its ass. We're constantly told that our income tax is a vital contribution to our society, that its unfair and selfish to want to pay any less. Half of that tax is just going to the Defense Department. Just something like air conditioning for installations in Iraq and Afghanistan costs more than NASA's budget. The Defense Department costs more each year than all other executive departments combined. Then we waste hundreds of billions on things like the war on drugs. We just fritter away money like there's no tomorrow on thousands of subsidies and corporate handouts, and an endless parade of failed social engineering programs. we could stand to spend a lot less, and we could stand to not have an income tax.

That's understandable, and I think our differences in opinion are v dependent on where we live. My taxes pay for different things than yours, such as the NHS. If the defense budget was slashed, would you be happy to pay more tax? Do you pay any tax atm? Which is why I wanted to know what you did, if anything, for a living.... I'm being nosy, aren't I. But people's life experiences do tend to be the root of political leanings, no matter how much of a theorist you wanna be. It's so subjective.

Wrt to banks and bailouts, we absolutely made the wrong decision - Both sides of the Atlantic. But shutting down the banks would have caused bedlam in countries as large and as financially complex as ours, so whilst it was the wrong decision it's completely understandable for that decision to be made on a political, will-we-be-popular?l basis. When I have my thinking hat on (and some time) I'll read into Iceland, and how that did it 'right' - It let the banks collapse and is now more stable than most, if i do recall?

The way it appears in Britain is that certain interests whose owner rhymes with Burdock have undue sway via the Tabloid Press, and if i cast my mind to the heady days of the recession the government followed their advice as whoever has the backing of a certain paper wins Elections. I would not call that sway 'big government', i'd call that something else. Extortion, if i was being crude.

I don't have the time to contribute a fully thought, coherent response to this thread - Pub beckons! - but we're in agreement in a lot. But the whole free-market thing works better in theory than in practice, I'l surmise at that.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

1. If you are biased, you should get out of the news business.

In that case, what you are calling for is the abolishment of the "news business" since, as you yourself have demonstrated, it is impossible to not be biased when presenting news. Since being biased is inevitable, I suppose the only answer for you is no news at all.

The above was my attempt of getting us out of the circle you got us into.

2. It has everything to do with it. You have to join the camp before you are concerned about it's state.

Honestly, what are you talking about? Do YOU even know, at this point? The left is not a "camp". It is a space on the political spectrum that is made up of a variety of political points of view, none of which are tolerated at the political level in the United States, and none of which are articulated in mainstream discourse. Can you explain to me what on God's green earth does this have to do with joining the camp before being concerned about its state - aside from it being a boring deviation that has little to nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

3. I'll trade you some nuts and berries for a drink at the well.

Phewf - thank God! Because it is damn near impossible for anyone but you to find the nuts and berries around here in ancient times.

Seriously, please stop embarrassing yourself with this obscenely reductive description of previous economies.

4. Democracy is a mechanism used to decide an outcome.

No. Democracy is a system of government that is run as a consequence of universal equality and universal access to political decision. Again, this is fundamentally a value and a principle.

I have no idea why I am the way I am, I just now that I am.

And I just know that you're not that way because of inherent, essential qualities.

5. what else could you mean? explain, please.

Maybe the culture that was entirely displaced and then treated to a terror campaign as a result of America's call for independence?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

The US wasn't the US until it broke free from England. England didn't eliminate it.

England didn't eliminate slavery? That's surprising - maybe some slave owners from England could speak about it on this message board.

[OBLiO]

The US wasn't the US until it broke free from England. England didn't eliminate it.

England didn't eliminate slavery? That's surprising - maybe some slave owners from England could speak about it on this message board.

  The US declared all men equal when it broke free from England. That better?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

The US wasn't the US until it broke free from England. England didn't eliminate it.

England didn't eliminate slavery? That's surprising - maybe some slave owners from England could speak about it on this message board.

  The US declared all men equal when it broke free from England. That better?

What did I say to give you any indication that I didn't know that?

[OBLiO]

1. If you are biased, you should get out of the news business.

In that case, what you are calling for is the abolishment of the "news business" since, as you yourself have demonstrated, it is impossible to not be biased when presenting news. Since being biased is inevitable, I suppose the only answer for you is no news at all.

The above was my attempt of getting us out of the circle you got us into.

2. It has everything to do with it. You have to join the camp before you are concerned about it's state.

Honestly, what are you talking about? Do YOU even know, at this point? The left is not a "camp". It is a space on the political spectrum that is made up of a variety of political points of view, none of which are tolerated at the political level in the United States, and none of which are articulated in mainstream discourse. Can you explain to me what on God's green earth does this have to do with joining the camp before being concerned about its state - aside from it being a boring deviation that has little to nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

3. I'll trade you some nuts and berries for a drink at the well.

Phewf - thank God! Because it is damn near impossible for anyone but you to find the nuts and berries around here in ancient times.

Seriously, please stop embarrassing yourself with this obscenely reductive description of previous economies.

4. Democracy is a mechanism used to decide an outcome.

No. Democracy is a system of government that is run as a consequence of universal equality and universal access to political decision. Again, this is fundamentally a value and a principle.

I have no idea why I am the way I am, I just now that I am.

And I just know that you're not that way because of inherent, essential qualities.

5. what else could you mean? explain, please.

Maybe the culture that was entirely displaced and then treated to a terror campaign as a result of America's call for independence?

1. Um, when did I exhibit bias while delivering news? I am not in the news business. Circle?
2. Do you consider yourself on the "left" of the political spectrum?
3. It's all I had room for in my pouch. I'll find someone else to trade with.
4. The US is a republic.
5. Ah you mean manifest destiny! gotcha... yeah bad stuff that there.. agreed. It didn't just happen to the Native Americans.
But I didn't make that decision. I know it's wiki, but what the heck. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson
His followers created the modern Democratic Party.

[OBLiO]

The US wasn't the US until it broke free from England. England didn't eliminate it.

England didn't eliminate slavery? That's surprising - maybe some slave owners from England could speak about it on this message board.

  The US declared all men equal when it broke free from England. That better?

What did I say to give you any indication that I didn't know that?

when you said supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.... kind of gave it away.  I think you are taking your anger out on the wrong target. I just wanted to understand where Real Beach Boy was coming from and make sense of why so many people think that a stinkin' news station is brainwashing everybody.  Change the channel!

[Chocolate Shake Man]

You are truly incapable of following a simple thread of discussion and it is becoming increasiningly infuriating having any sort of discussion with someone who refuses to actually read what I'm writing. Here's a simple task: try actually responding to what I write. Once you do that, you'll find that this conversation will be a bit more productive. With that in mind:

1. Um, when did I exhibit bias while delivering news? I am not in the news business.

I asked you to explain how someone in the news might overcome bias (Which facts? Who decides what constitutes a "newsworthy" fact and what doesn't? What order should those facts appear? How much airtime or space should a story get? These questions and many others require bias. So how would you propose overcoming that?). You proved immediately that you couldn't, since when I provided a series of questions of problems that a journalist would be faced with when attempting to eliminate bias, you chose not to answer it. You still haven't. Even when I cleared up the question the first time around, you didn't answer it. Consequently, I take your consistent refusal or inability to answer the questions I posed roughly ten posts back as a demonstration that bias cannot be overcome.

2. Do you consider yourself on the "left" of the political spectrum?

Yes. I can't wait to see where you're going with this one.

3. It's all I had room for in my pouch. I'll find someone else to trade with.

Good luck. Nuts and berries are pretty easily accessible.

4. The US is a republic.

It's also a democracy. These terms are not mutually exclusive. Regardless, so what?

5. Ah you mean manifest destiny! gotcha... yeah bad stuff that there.. agreed. It didn't just happen to the Native Americans.
But I didn't make that decision. I know it's wiki, but what the heck. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson
His followers created the modern Democratic Party.

Thanks - that took a long time.

Furthermore, to say that the modern Democratic Party as it exists now is the same one created at the beginning of the 19th Century is so laughably ridiculous, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

[OBLiO]

You are truly incapable of following a simple thread of discussion and it is becoming increasiningly infuriating having any sort of discussion with someone who refuses to actually read what I'm writing. Here's a simple task: try actually responding to what I write. Once you do that, you'll find that this conversation will be a bit more productive. With that in mind:

1. Um, when did I exhibit bias while delivering news? I am not in the news business.

I asked you to explain how someone in the news might overcome bias (Which facts? Who decides what constitutes a "newsworthy" fact and what doesn't? What order should those facts appear? How much airtime or space should a story get? These questions and many others require bias. So how would you propose overcoming that?). You proved immediately that you couldn't, since when I provided a series of questions of problems that a journalist would be faced with when attempting to eliminate bias, you chose not to answer it. You still haven't. Even when I cleared up the question the first time around, you didn't answer it. Consequently, I take your consistent refusal or inability to answer the questions I posed roughly ten posts back as a demonstration that bias cannot be overcome.

2. Do you consider yourself on the "left" of the political spectrum?

Yes. I can't wait to see where you're going with this one.

3. It's all I had room for in my pouch. I'll find someone else to trade with.

Good luck. Nuts and berries are pretty easily accessible.

4. The US is a republic.

It's also a democracy. These terms are not mutally exclusive. Regardless, so what?

5. Ah you mean manifest destiny! gotcha... yeah bad stuff that there.. agreed. It didn't just happen to the Native Americans.
But I didn't make that decision. I know it's wiki, but what the heck. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson
His followers created the modern Democratic Party.

Thanks - that took a long time.

Furthermore, to say that the modern Democratic Party as it exists now is the same one created at the beginning of the 19th Century is so laughably ridiculous, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

1. I did answer it the first time. It doesn't matter how it is delivered, only how it is received. Key word: SIFT
2. That is why you care about it. If you are on the left you will oppose the right. if you are on the right you will oppose the left. It's a set-up. Already laid out for you. I recommend trying the middle and focus more on problem solving instead of towing a party line.
3. And crunchy, too.
4. It is a republic using democratic mechanisms to decide outcomes. I never liked gangs even when my family lived on a street with two rival gangs. We moved, eventually.
5. That is because you are smarter and better than me.

The democratic party is not the same and it changes depending on who is in it.

[Dunderhead]

He's right the democratic party today is much different, you have FDR to thank for that, to quote Mencken:

"Nevertheless, and despite all Hell's angels, I shall vote for the Hon. Mr. Landon tomorrow. To a lifelong Democrat, of course, it will be something of a wrench. But it seems to me that the choice is one that genuine Democrats are almost bound to make. On the one side are all the basic principles of their party, handed down from its first days and tried over and over again in the fires of experience; on the other side is a gallimaufry of transparent quackeries, puerile in theory and dangerous in practice. To vote Democratic this year it is necessary, by an unhappy irony, to vote for a Republican. But to vote with the party is to vote for a gang of mountebanks who are no more Democrats than a turkey buzzard is an archangel."

Basically the republicans became the de-facto democrats because of FDR.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

1. I did answer it the first time. It doesn't matter how it is delivered, only how it is received. Key word: SIFT

I read that. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you weren't contradicting yourself. If you are saying that it doesn't matter how news is delivered, why are you so stridently opposing bias? If it didn't matter how news was delivered, clearly it wouldn't matter if there was bias.

2. That is why you care about it. If you are on the left you will oppose the right. if you are on the right you will oppose the left. It's a set-up. Already laid out for you. I recommend trying the middle and focus more on problem solving instead of towing a party line.

You have just wasted a substantial amount of my time deviating entirely from the subject. I stated that the left was disenfranchised at the political level in the United States. Instead of responding to that (either agree, or disagreeing with facts) you have spent the better part of the last ten posts trying to convince me that I only see that way because I'm on the left. I trust then that you are entirely incapable of responding to my claim?

More over, by ineloquently dodging my point, you made a staggering amount of ridiculous assertions. Such as:

That is why you care about it.

My guess is that by tangling up this discussion as much as you have, you don't even know what "it" even means anymore. Do I care that one half of the entire political spectrum has been eliminated from political legitimacy in the United States? Yes, and so should anybody with the slightest concern for democratic values. This has absolutely ZERO to do with where I stand politically. If I stood against the disenfranchisement of black Americans, would that have automatically made me black? Would I have to be? According to your mangled logic, yes. But since history is full of people who have stood in favor of marginalized groups whether they belong to that group or not, I fail to see how your suggestion regarding my political leaning as being anything other than entirely groundless.

If you are on the left you will oppose the right. if you are on the right you will oppose the left.

Or, if you live in reality, if you are on the left, you hold particular view points that are in keeping with some of the views held on the left.

It's a set-up. Already laid out for you. I recommend trying the middle and focus more on problem solving instead of towing a party line.

You don't understand the political spectrum. I highly doubt you really mean "try the middle" - which would mean, going a bit more to the left of the Democratic party, embracing the political and economic positions of social democracy. Since trying the middle would still mean "towing a party line" particularly in societies that have a vibrant social democratic political party, I can only assume that this is not what you mean. What I think you mean is embrace the status quo - which is typically what is meant when people who don't quite understand economics suggest when they say that one should try the middle. Unfortunately, I understand enough to know that the status quo is not something I am at all interesting in maintaining or preserving. If this is the middle, no thank you. And by the way, the status quo is just about the most set up, already laid out for you, position you could ever take.

4. It is a republic using democratic mechanisms to decide outcomes. I never liked gangs even when my family lived on a street with two rival gangs. We moved, eventually.

What does this have to do with democracy?

The democratic party is not the same and it changes depending on who is in it.

The democratic party is now almost entirely controlled by corporate interests. It doesn't really matter who is in it - apart from some minor variations, it mostly expresses the interests of big business.

[OBLiO]

1. I did answer it the first time. It doesn't matter how it is delivered, only how it is received. Key word: SIFT

I read that. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you weren't contradicting yourself. If you are saying that it doesn't matter how news is delivered, why are you so stridently opposing bias? If it didn't matter how news was delivered, clearly it wouldn't matter if there was bias.

2. That is why you care about it. If you are on the left you will oppose the right. if you are on the right you will oppose the left. It's a set-up. Already laid out for you. I recommend trying the middle and focus more on problem solving instead of towing a party line.

You have just wasted a substantial amount of my time deviating entirely from the subject. I stated that the left was disenfranchised at the political level in the United States. Instead of responding to that (either agree, or disagreeing with facts) you have spent the better part of the last ten posts trying to convince me that I only see that way because I'm on the left. I trust then that you are entirely incapable of responding to my claim?

More over, by ineloquently dodging my point, you made a staggering amount of ridiculous assertions. Such as:

That is why you care about it.

My guess is that by tangling up this discussion as much as you have, you don't even know what "it" even means anymore. Do I care that one half of the entire political spectrum has been eliminated from political legitimacy in the United States? Yes, and so should anybody with the slightest concern for democratic values. This has absolutely ZERO to do with where I stand politically. If I stood against the disenfranchisement of black Americans, would that have automatically made me black? Would I have to be? According to your mangled logic, yes. But since history is full of people who have stood in favor of marginalized groups whether they belong to that group or not, I fail to see how your suggestion regarding my political leaning as being anything other than entirely groundless.

If you are on the left you will oppose the right. if you are on the right you will oppose the left.

Or, if you live in reality, if you are on the left, you hold particular view points that are in keeping with some of the views held on the left.

It's a set-up. Already laid out for you. I recommend trying the middle and focus more on problem solving instead of towing a party line.

You don't understand the political spectrum. I highly doubt you really mean "try the middle" - which would mean, try going a bit more to the left of the Democratic party, embracing the political and economic positions of social democracy. Since trying the middle would still mean "towing a party line" particularly in societies that have a vibrant social democratic political party, I can only assume that this is not what you mean. What I think you mean is embrace the status quo - which is typically what is meant when people who don't quite understand economics suggest that one should try the middle. Unfortunately, I know enough to know that the status quo is not something I am at all interesting in maintaining or preserving. If this is the middle, no thank you.

4. It is a republic using democratic mechanisms to decide outcomes. I never liked gangs even when my family lived on a street with two rival gangs. We moved, eventually.

What does this have to do with democracy?

The democratic party is not the same and it changes depending on who is in it.

The democratic party is now almost entirely controlled by corporate interests. It doesn't really matter who is in it - apart from some minor variations, it mostly expresses the interests of big business.

1. I only stated what I wanted. I want unbiased neutrality in the news that is delivered. I know that doesn't happen in reality, therefore I sift. In my opinion if you are biased and you deliver news and use your bias to influence public opinion, you shouldn't be in the news business. I am talking about news, not opinion.
2. What facts? You haven't presented one fact. You are not specific about anything actually. You play guessing games and hurl personal attacks like I am responsible for your victim status. You say you are on left and the left is completely disenfranchised. Stop playing the victim and get out of the left so you can get to the middle and see the big picture. Why do you want to be on the left if you feel you are being held down? Why put a label on yourself? It's such a general description isn't it? Same thing if you called yourself right. Isn't disenfranchised a term a capitalist would use anyway? From my perspective left and right are words only. Hence... by calling yourself left, or right, you have taken yourself out of the whole. I know there is a mystery full of meaning here. Find it. I can't do it for you.
3. I guess someone else will get the nuts and berries if you don't want them. I'll just give them to Real Beach Boy for free. Are you sure you don't want some?
4. rule of man vs. rule of law
5. the government has become a business, agreed... and they need customers. one problem... they also make the laws. we are all screwed, it isn't just you.

[Mahalo]

In the USA the original intent and main purpose of our Gov't is to protect our freedom's, not to provide us with "benefits".

While the rest of the world was rioting in frustrations over cuts in Gov't "benefit's", the people of the the USA protested peacefully while asking for less Gov't.

It all boils down to freedom.

When the Gov't provides everything, one's freedom of choice is automatically diminshed or lost.

If you feel that the Gov't of your country can provide health benefits, education, and senior care better than private enterprise then by all means vote for those that will give you that.

However, if you feel those same benefits can be recieved at a lower cost and better quality with more options by the Gov't staying out of the market and letting entrepeneurs and consumers take care of themselves, then by all means vote for those who you feel will ensure that.