The Smiley Smile Message Board

x

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh flux.

Its called Google...
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Ronald+Reagan+Beach+Boys&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Nothing in there answers my question.

Actually all it does is make it more baffling to me as Reagan had banned the Beach Boys from performing in Washington.

Well, here we go.  You started it.  The Beach Boys are all Republicans.  Sorry.  They are.  Don't worry, as a liberal you've got U2 and Radiohead.  

BTW Ronald Reagan was the best president in history.  

Try reading it again

Not true. Bruce is a Republican. Mike sometimes.  The rest are/were either independent, Democrat or unaffiliated. BTW Murry and Audree were registered Democrats.

I don't mind people saying he was decent but best in history?  Seriously?  That's just ridiculous.  I can name plenty of Presidents more politically significant than Ronald Reagan.  Lincoln, Roosevelt, Adams, Kennedy, Truman... I can keep going.  Ronald Reagan was a snitch (McCarthy trials anyone?), cut taxes for the rich while raising taxes for the middle class, tripled our debt, funded terrorists, refused to acknowledge the AIDS epidemic... the guy was just as bad as Bush.

That's complete bull sh*t.  Ronnie Raygun was definitely not the best president in history. 

Others can do it better, but let me give the semi-abridged version:

A lot of this was blown waaayyyy out of proportion. Leave it to the political scholars to argue that one on the how's and why's, but the version(s) some in this thread are reading isn't 100% accurate.

Ronald Reagan didn't ban the Beach Boys from anything. They played the show in 1981 and again in 1984. That should be the end of the story. But here's the rest:

James Watt was Reagan's Secretary Of The Interior, a cabinet position. One of his duties was to oversee the national parks and facilities, including the concerts held on those grounds. In 1981, The Beach Boys played. In 1982, The Grass Roots played, and Watt's office received complaints about drug use, assaults, and an increase in people treated for drug- and alcohol-related health emergencies and injuries that day. A group of a few hundred people there staged a smoke-in supporting legalizing pot at the show.

Watt is/was an unabashed conservative - apart from hearing reports of both the usual booze-fueled idiots and intoxicated concertgoers making it hard for families to enjoy the show, his solution was to write a memo in late 1982 about "attracting families" and offering "patriotic and inspirational" entertainment at the July 4th concerts in the future, in response and reaction to the complaint and the stats he received about intoxication and assaults at the Grass Roots show. It was his response - agree or disagree, he wanted to make the concert more family friendly in response to complaints on his desk.

According to Watt, he or his staff never mentioned the Beach Boys by name, never banned them or anyone, and says when he wrote that memo, the Beach Boys had not been booked for the concert that next year (1983). What turned into a media firestorm which saw him being called out and his resignation being demanded was based on hearsay and lies, and the assumption he "meant" The Beach Boys despite not naming them because they played in 1981 - ignoring The Grass Roots concert completely. Again, Watt claims his memo (the one reported on in the news of the day) did not mention the Beach Boys, they had not been booked for the 1983 show, and he was responding to the happenings at the 1982 concert where the BB's did not play. And he was almost publicly destroyed once the rock community picked this up from the print media, I believe the Washington Post ran the initial story in print.

Now going through the how's and why's that memo got turned into headlines saying Watt "banned" the Beach Boys from the DC concerts and in this thread how Reagan "banned" the Beach Boys...that's getting into political stuff, left-versus-right, and I don't wanna go there...here.

So what happened? Watt was publicly made a scapegoat, you see footage of him accepting a "foot in the mouth" award from Reagan in the "American Band" video along with a completely phony news voiceover describing the so-called "facts" of the story, along with video of the BB's hanging out with Ron and Nancy Reagan. It was a horrible PR move to alienate a few million potential voters in the year before an election year, especially with a band as American as the BB's, and Reagan and his advisers were trying to smooth things out by becoming strong champions and friends of the Beach Boys as "America's Band". That's politics, right and left. Whether the band goes along with it is their right as a citizen to believe what they choose. If Mike liked hanging with the Reagans, if he found them nice people or whatever else, that's his business. Don't hold it against the music if you don't like Reagan.

What the Reagan White House did with the BB's is called damage control; politics is nasty and they have to protect the guys at the top by throwing underlings under the bus, making scapegoats out of names the general public barely knows.

Am I defending James Watt? Whatever one wants to think - I'm just offering up his version of the story, which I think is crucial to telling the whole story for the sake of history. Maybe Watt is covering his own a**, again judge for yourself after reading more on this.

But Reagan didn't ban anything, let's set that straight and bust the myth, and it would appear the guy who got blamed for it didn't ban anything either, despite news reports which created the firestorm.

If anyone has more insider info or can clarify any points above, please do! :)

Well you did it better than any of the responses before you so thank you for clearing that up!  :)

I wonder if ol' Ronnie ever found out that Dennis was doing his daughter....

I hate Reagan just as much as the next left-winger, but I believe it was James Watt who did the banning.

Damn, beaten to the punch, and very well done, too.

In my experience it seems to be what left-wingers do best.

I'm asking everyone with an interest in this story to re-think what they've heard about it because going way back to 1983, what was and has been reported between the BB's, Watt, and Reagan, is NOT 100% true and it should be noted in the history.

Some articles from 1983 suggest the Beach Boys played the July 4th DC show "last year"...and backed up by Andrew's concert list, they were in St. Louis July 4th 1982 playing a Freedom Fest. They were not in DC and Missouri at the same time. Again, The Grass Roots played DC July 4th in 1982, not the BB's...and the reports of the day ignored that, suggesting there were two shows in DC that day...it's really quite a mess, and simply not true. Very sloppy journalism.

An article from April 1983...April 1983, three months away from July 4th...says Al was unsure whether the Beach Boys would even be in DC on the 4th that year ('83), as issues were being worked out for them to play the 4th in Manhattan. So when Watt says the BB's had not been booked as of late 1982 when he wrote the memo, it would appear he was right: They had not been booked by April 1983 either, because Manhattan wanted them, according to Al! They ended up playing July 4th 1983 in Atlantic City, NJ, not Manhattan after all.

So the suggestion that Watt or his office banned the Beach Boys when they weren't even considered when he wrote the memo in late '82, and had another show in the works months later so they couldn't confirm the 7/4/83 date even then...it would seem to be false. So they came back in 1984.

If anyone should have been upset, it was the Grass Roots and their fans. :-D

Clearly, the whole thing was a smokescreen designed to divert attention away from James Watt's involvement in the pressing of the first Smile bootleg LP.   >:D

Well, maybe "dislike what Reagan did and what he stood for" is a little more accurate as far as my own opinions are concerned.

Iran/Contra anyone?

Rocky's question was perfectly legitimate and all he gets is someone posting a google search followed by "read it again". Yeah very helpful and friendly

Unfortunately a Google search or 99% of any searches will only produce the reported story, which isn't the true story, at least with the July 4th details.

FYI on The Beach Boys and political events around this time (late 70's, 80's):

Jan. 21, 1977 they played at a Jimmy Carter inaugural concert

March 9, 1980 they played a campaign benefit concert for George Bush Sr., running in the Republican primaries against Ronald Reagan.

Jan. 19, 1981 they played at one of the Reagan-Bush inaugural concerts

Jan. 19, 1985 they played the second Reagan-Bush inaugural

Jan. 18, 1989 they played the inauguration for George Bush Sr.

I'm directing this specifically to AGD: Do campaign appearances by Mike and Bruce count on your site's Gigs reference? If so, in searching around the net I found an interesting group of appearances by Mike and Bruce who were out campaigning for George Bush Sr. in October 1988. Some of the party organizers had promoted the stop as "The Beach Boys" appearing, when it was only Mike and Bruce. They changed the lyrics for Good Vibrations according to one paper's account: "I'm pickin' up Bush vibrations..." No mention of a backing band, sounds like it was just Mike and Bruce with microphones. Chuck Norris was the emcee.

They were touring California: Merced, Stockton, etc. October 14th to the 16th, 1988...if not more, those were just the ones I saw.

Such appearances are listed in 10452, and noted as not full BB shows. More are always welcomed, as is any new or updated info.

Yes, because the American Right is completely open to all sorts, no matter if you're gay or poor or an immigrant or the President himself.... ah yes, what a happy, inclusive bunch. Always with a smile on their face.

Come the f*ck on.

You just proved his point.

Yeah, but COME. THE. F*CK. ON. That is such a f*cking ludicrous statement. Sure, from my British perspective the American left-wing haven't got a pair of bollocks between them and are perfectly happy to play the centre of the political spectrum like unprincipled fools, but I'd rather that than Prop 8 or trying to overturn Roe Vs. Wade, or those draconian immigration laws in Arizona. Or Newt f*cking Gingrich. You dig?

TL;DR = I hate both sides of the American political spectrum because I is an poxy englishman  ;D

  I'd forget about American politics and worry more about what's going on in Europe and especially England ,from what I hear you're losing your country to Islamic immigrants. A lot of your and mine forefathers died fighting to defend a country you're giving away because of liberal politicians..... :-[   Back to music.

I am just going to step away from the laptop for that one.

There are corporations. Corporations that control the form of energy we consume, control the media (thus control the elections), control how food is grown/created, control wars that span the globe. Don't believe that there are two sides to American politics. There aren't.

I personally don't give a sh*t. I mean, I hate the wars, the spending, but there's not much we can do about it. Get outside, enjoy the planet while you can.

PS. the Beach Boys are the greatest fucking band to grace the planet. If everyone listened to those harmonies when they woke up there'd be no wars and there'd be no bullshit politics. Nuff said ;D

Hmm seems like Muslims make up 2.7% of the population so much for taking over. Whats the problem with islamic immigrants anyway?

ehm, what's so cringeworthy about their friendships with the Captain and Tennille?

Sharia law for one thing. And nothing if they assimilate .   I'm not going to debate what the English already know.

Well, you clearly know nothing about it yourself, so I think that would be for the best.

What stood out on this one was the article published the day before the rally, advertising that "The Beach Boys" were going to be there for the free show in the afternoon before the actual Bush-Quayle stump speeches. I saw that - and quick checked the gigs list, finding nothing (I assumed it was a full show like the one in 1980) - then a small blurb in other articles from a few days later reported that it was only Mike and Bruce, and they didn't even do a proper performance. They did just a few snippets of tunes or whatever, and changed the lyrics to fit the rally - according to the news report. I doubt anyone bootlegged this  ;D

I'm wondering how many people showed up expecting a Beach Boys show that weekend in October 1988 after reading the local paper, considering a very cynical political observer like me was duped almost 24 years later into thinking it was an actual BB's gig! But it's OK to stretch the truth in politics, so all was well. :)

Really don't understand the Sharia Law scare, both USA and UK have a christian majority.

The Beach Boys are America! ;D

:rock
_____

Sharia law scares the hell out of me personally. Getting my hands sawed off for some menial "sin", keeping women mostly out of society (not even allowing them to drive) (if a woman gets raped SHE is the one who pays for the crime), killing people for their different religious beliefs. Apparently this stuff actually happens in Middle Eastern countries. It's like a complete medieval way of thinking.

*but I've never actually been to a Middle Eastern country, so I have no idea.

Not denying that. What's ludicrous is that some people think that it will somehow be implemented in the UK or USA or other western countries, and therefore we should curtail immigration.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16522447

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7232661.stm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019547/Anjem-Choudary-Islamic-extremists-set-Sharia-law-zones-UK-cities.html

From your first article,

'Sharia has been operating in the UK, managed by locally-appointed councils, in parallel to the British legal system since 1982.

But the informal councils have no legal powers and they cannot impose any penalties.

They deal with civil cases alone, but many Muslims are choosing to voluntarily accept rulings made by the scholars.'

I see nothing wrong with this. For the reasons outlined by Rowan Williams.

And I would not wipe my arse with the Daily Mail and their standards of journalism.

 None are so blind as those that refuse to see....yawn

Central rule of law will always prevail.

 ::)

Indeed. I just read an article (funnily enough, I swear it was from the Daily Mail haha) that said that most American muslims DON'T want Sharia law implemented here.

Don't forget all the forefathers who themselves violently and viciously expanded all over the world and then committed what is probably the most egregious act of genocide of all time in their settlement of the "New" World. Kind of makes Sharia law "in Europe and especially England" look like a puppet show - or, maybe, just the petty and trivial issue it is compared with larger concerns of ongoing imperial domination.

Not to get too picky here, but those Forefathers were subjects of Spain and Great Britain... just sayin'. ;)

Here's some more....

Concentration camps - Great Britain

Eugenics - USA

Most countries have a dark history they'd rather forget. And apart from Germany, most allow themselves to forget it.

If Reagan were running for Republican candidate today, he wouldn't stand a chance.  He's far too liberal.  The party have sold out to religious freaks and nut jobs.

"from what I hear you're losing your country to Islamic immigrants."

Case in point.  Don't be so fucking stupid.

Admittedly off-topic, but the timing of this discussion of Sharia law lines up with a multiple murder case that was just decided in Canada last week. I've been following it online, it's about a man named Mohammed Shafia who was just convicted along with his 2nd wife Tooba Yahya and son of killing Tooba's three teenage daughters and his first wife in some form of an "honor killing" after he felt they had insulted him, the Islamic faith, and his family name by refusing to follow some of the tenets of Islamic law. According to Shafia, a polygamist himself, the daughters were straying from and insulting Islam by not wearing the traditional clothing like the Burka, dating too much, and in general taking an approach to life that was too Western. And his first wife was killed with the teenage daughters because he felt she was the one encouraging the girls.

It's an interesting case, touching on Sharia law, the assimilation of Muslim immigrants into Western societies and cultures, the battles between traditionalism and a more liberal interpretation of Islam and Sharia in North America, the roles and rights of men versus women in Islam and how it is defined in Sharia law versus the Western court systems...

Not editorializing either way, you'll find plenty of that by searching "Shafia honor killing" or any related topics, but it's worth taking a few minutes to read some of the details and debates around it.

Yes, but the incidents I'm describing are essentially what put us in a position (or place) of privilege which, in turn, can allow one to pretend to take a superior position in contrast to other cultures and societies.

 You've got to be joking?   JFK would be considered a conservative in this political climate. You either don't live in the states or your heads up your a**

Well, JFK's immediate political descendent in terms of foreign policy is probably George W. Bush so in that sense, he was fairly reactionary (I would be hesitant to use the term conservative since its traditional meaning is in opposition to just about every President in United States history). With that in mind, there has been an enormous political swing to the right in virtually every political area that began in the 70s. The Republican party itself though, under the guidance of Newt Gingrich in the 90s, swung even further to right as they made social conservatism a rich part of their platform. But really, Nixon in many areas is further to the left than say, Obama and that's fairly telling of the current political situation in the United States.

Bruce is a Republican.

Alan, I suppose is the one leaned more towards the left of the spectrum.

Brian probably doesn't care, but he had praise for Reagan at a recent interview.

Mike supported a green party of some sort and spoke openly against the Irak war; his environmental concerns and activism seems at odds with the Rep Party. Nevertheless, he is friendly with at least some Republican groups such as are seen on the Reagan Jubilee. A "conservative Repubican" treatment, such as in the WIBN book, seems inappropriate.

Carl was a liberal, I suppose.

And Dennis who knows.

Mike Love's political beliefs are definitely head scratchers... ???

This is sad guys...this is a Beach Boys forum turned into a Youtube or a CNN comments page...let's talk about the music and the band and forget all this political nonsense...come on.

Brian had once stated that The Beach Boys were "Bi partisan" and that he was uncomfortable taking sides. I had read somewhere that in the 2000 election Brian had voted for Gore and in 2004 he voted for Bush. I think it's been documented that The Wilson brothers and their parents were basically Democrats, Mike probably voted both Democrat and Republican, Bruce votes Republican and Al? well I'm not sure.

 I agree and I apologize. My  mouth is now shut.

just amazing.!

Oh wow, they admired the then-current president of the United States...positively shocking!

Seriously, who gives a squat-grunt.

"You've got to be joking?   JFK would be considered a conservative in this political climate. You either don't live in the states or your heads up your a**"

Proves my point.  Perfectly.

I thought the bigger story in this thread would have been the busted myth of James Watt banning the Beach Boys, an event which (man, I'm repeating myself again... :-D)...never happened!

Watt is/was not exactly a sympathetic figure, he had a habit of sometimes putting his foot in his mouth offending both allies and foes with things he said, yet this guy was basically ruined by words he never said directly and actions he never took. His own bosses in the Reagan administration didn't even back him up after the media version of the story became more accepted than what actually happened. They took the side of the mass media, and saw an opportunity to harvest votes, so they hung this guy out to dry...and maybe that was the plan all along, as all presidents do and have done when they have a staffer creating bad publicity around elections.

The fact that a mass media can run an incorrect and inaccurate story again and again so often that it becomes the truth instead of the actual "truth" is a sad commentary on that part of life, of course it's nothing unusual with that crowd.

Again, despite 99% of the reports and stories we have read on the case since 1983, no one banned the Beach Boys. Amazing. ::)

I agree and appreciate your posts.

My recollection is that Watt was worried that groups like the Beach Boys would "attract the wrong element".

It may be closer to the truth that the Beach Boys were the wrong element.  :)

There are a lot of shocking things that have been said in this thread.

I can't believe, with all of the research various people around here do, and with the fact that it was President Reagan who cleared the way for Dennis' body to be buried at sea, that nobody has mentioned that Dennis was the original connection to the Reagan family...
Back when Ron was merely the Governor of California, his daughter Patti Davis rented an apartment from me in Santa Monica.  This building, just about 10 blocks up the road from Brother Studios, came to have an interesting life almost of its own during the seventies.  Painted in a way that resembled The Beverly Hills Hotel up on Sunset, people often referred to it as The Beverly Hills West. And, while there were just about a dozen apartments, every one of them was inhabited by some of the most unique interesting characters of the sixties, and one of these was Reagan's daughter Patti Davis!
Patti was a great looking woman/child when she came to us; she was working in a restaurant up the street from us where all the help had to be performers.  So Patti's friends from work, (girls like Rickie Lee Jones & Katey Sagal), joined in with our little misfit gang, and Patti mingled with my friends from work, people like Dennis & Brian, and eventually Bernie Leadon, who would whisked her away from us to Topanga Canyon.  Eventually my family & I joined them up there in Topanga as the seventies drew to a close....
You can read quite a bit more about this in Patti's autobiography; I love how she describes our building, "I was finally living someplace I liked, where all the tenants were my age; everyone smoked grass and played their stereos too loud."* She goes quite a bit into her 'friendship' with Dennis, and this is an element of Ron and Nancy's connection to the Boys that shouldn't be overlooked.

Thank you Ed Roach + guitar Fool.. For telling  the truth..!!!.. USA has a deal where they re write F%%kin history.!Nixon + Reagan WERE FOOLS..!!! The reason there is no jobs is BECAUSE..USA is a free markett... Borders are open +  The fu%%%ers that own company's are farming out jobs to 3rd world companys..!.... WE are not Russia.. Those BS greedy.. ass%%les.have fu%% ed USA..>>!! Get with the program.. Reagen years ALL the BANKS went belly up.!! FACT ..!!.. IRAN CONTRA...LOOK at the facts + stop rewriting HISTORY.. USA can NOT save you..!! We can not save ourselves.. I have been UNEMPLOYED 3 years..!You guys need to find a way to save yourselves..USA cant save U.... WE are a sinking ship. Lets talk about BB ? BW? ALL you people that DONT have a FU###N clue whats goin on STOP this sh*t.. USA is FUC%%% because we dont manufacture S%%T anymore..! WE have been farming out jobs since 70"s..Its NOT Obama s fault or Bush "s fault.. ITB STARTED long ago..BEFORE most of U were BORN..!.. U guys dont have a clue..SAve your selves USA cant save U..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tell us more about Dennis and Rickie Lee Jones, Ed...

Despite some efforts to suggest that James Watt himself did not personally ban the BB from playing the Mall, he still gets the blame properly since he clearly said it was "rock bands" such as the BB and Grassroots who attracted the "wrong element".  Recall that he went on to say, as this article notes:

Starting in 1980, the Beach Boys and the Grass Roots headlined July 4th concerts on the National Mall, the great strip of land dotted by monuments in downtown Washington, D.C. But in a Washington Post interview published in April 1983, Secretary of the Interior James Watt let slip that the Beach Boys would not be invited back that year. In Watt’s opinion, the concerts had attracted “the wrong element.” He told the newspaper, “We’re trying to have an impact for wholesomeness. July 4th will be a [traditional ceremony] for the family and for solid, clean American lives. We’re not going to encourage drug abuse and alcoholism as was done in past years.” Instead, Watt said, that the celebration would be headlined by military bands … and Vegas crooner Wayne Newton.

The firestorm that erupted must have taken Watt, not the hippest of dudes, by surprise, particularly when two of the people rushing to the Beach Boys’ defense were First Lady Nancy Reagan and White House Chief of Staff Michael Deaver. One day after his interview appeared in the Post, Watt emerged from a White House meeting carrying a plaster foot with a hole in it — a trophy given to him personally by President Ronald Reagan — and met the press. Watt said the First Lady had told him “that the Beach Boys were fans of hers, and her children had grown up with them, and they’re fine, outstanding people, and there should be no intention to indicate that they cause problems, which I agree with.” This seems to be the opposite of what Watt had meant when he lumped the Beach Boys in with “rock bands attracting the wrong element.” About 50 arrests had been made for disorderly conduct and assault in 1982, but most were related to the annual day-long marijuana “smoke-in” on the Mall that coincided with the concert.


Read more: Rock 101: The Beach Boys vs. James Watt http://wnew.radio.com/2010/06/29/rock-101-the-beach-boys-vs-james-watt/#ixzz1ljN6EFil

The Wikipedia article on Watt confirms this too.

So maybe Watt didn't know the Beach Boys from the Beach Towels, and didn't himself issue a specific ban or disinvite to them.  But he clearly decided that someone like Wayne Newton and a parade of military bands were what he had in mind for Mall shows, and said so.  That's why he got the heat.

[PS: Now over to the Record Room and their thread entitled "Wait!  Wayne Newton Is Cooler than Bob Dylan!  That SSMB guy is a DUMBASS!"]

...

Dr. Tim, you've recapped the story adding a few more quotes but I guess I'm the one doing the suggesting:

The "firestorm" over Watt and the Beach Boys was based entirely on what people thought he "meant" or how they read into his comments. You can read between the lines all you want and try to find the hidden meaning, but if you want to take the man at his word, he never once mentioned "The Beach Boys" by name, he or those on his staff at the Interior Dept. never banned the Beach Boys or mentioned them by name.

At the time he wrote the original memo (November 1982), at the time he booked Wayne Newton and the US Army Blues Band for the 4th concert in 1983, and at the time the Washington Post printed comments from him which led to the "firestorm" - again *not* mentioning the Beach Boys in his words - the band WAS NOT BOOKED FOR THE JULY 4th SHOW! As you'll read in my earier post, Al Jardine in the middle of this, when asked if they'd do the show, said they were in talks to play the 4th in Manhattan, and they ended up booking a gig in Atlantic City that year for their 4th festivities.

The Beach Boys did not play in 1982, there is no indication, or no proof, that they were considering playing 1983 in DC, and Watt mentions this specifically.

If folks want to take the words and the story out of context, feel free but it's not accurate. And even if you dislike Watt and many do, there is something wrong about hanging a man with his own words which he *never said*. It's not accurate.

Think what you want, the facts of this are a man got publicly destroyed based on something he didn't say. His comments were on the Grass Roots show in 1982, his reaction and proposal to hire Newton was a follow-up to the complaints he received about that specific show.

That's the truth.

Agreed Ronald Reagan had nothing to do with it, contrary to what the OP stated.  With you that far.  (All along I thought he and Nancy interceded for the BB because of Mike's prior campaigning; I did not know the Patti Davis story - thanks Ed!).

And - probably - agreed that Watt may well not have had the BB in mind when he spoke - or even knew who they were.  I will also accept he wasn't doing the booking of acts himself.  But he was a blowhard, and he DID weigh in about rock groups bringing in the wrong element, though - and thus the Post, and others, figured he had to mean the BB and the Grassroots.  Certainly the White House thought so, like it or not.

PS: and this didn't get him fired.  His wisecrack about minorities and " a cripple" did that for him.

Yes, this Beach Boys incident specifically did not get him fired, and Watt was a blowhard whose comments on other matters did cause problems for the Reagan administration...it was adding fuel to the fire that was building around him. Eventually all that fuel build a big enough fire where he had to go. As I mentioned earlier, he did have a bad habit of putting his foot in his mouth.

It got to the point where his bosses didn't back him up, and that as mentioned earlier was "damage control" practiced by every White House.

The fact that the Washington Post figured he "had to mean" something is what caused the problem. It seemed like all the media ran with what he had to mean, despite him not saying it and never naming the Beach Boys. Read through the other media reports on the story from 1983 onward: They go as far as to put words in his mouth, again printing outright lies and half-truths, and creating another Beach Boys myth that the band had been "banned". It became a cause celebre among rock journalists and radio DJ's (wnew included), who called for Watt's dismissal after the Post article.

It actually worked out for The Beach Boys and Reagan himself in the 1984 election - it was a massive amount of free publicity and good vibrations for both sides, and the Boys played 1984 in DC. Reagan may have gotten untold thousands of votes out of it for the '84 election.

Watt was reacting to the fans at the Grass Roots show, the concert they played in 1982 - if Watt had specifically stated that his memo was about incidents he heard complaints about at that 1982 concert, none of this would have happened.

Again, it's about setting the record straight, whether the characters involved were blowhards or not.

Re Dennis - hard to believe he was a right-winger. The guy was so flipping open-minded he befriended Manson lest we forget. Tracks like 4th of July and Carry me Home are right-on, not right-wing. Ditto Carl.

It really doesn't matter when all is added up, does it? Some people are able to develop friendships based on people and not political leanings. And others can live a full life and interact with all manner of personalities without wearing their politics on their sleeve. Whether any of the Beach Boys lean left, right, center, or none of the above, does it change any opinions of them?

Good factual summary.  Anyway, against my own better judgment and I know I will regret saying this because it will only attract more venom from the left, but what the heck, as long as people are tossing in their opinions, Reagan is my favorite president at least of the 20th century (and favorite governor of my native state), the current "president" my least, who almost makes Carter look good. But none of that has anything to do with the Beach Boys. He and the First Lady liked their music, they liked playing it for the President.

I couldn't care less about who was left or right. There's an unhealthy obsession with that in this country.

Just be happy.

I like that part of your quote... and spoken as a true Mets fan!!  :drunks  Go Mets!!

Hey, if Tip O'Neill and Reagan, who were polar opposites politically, could get along and be friends after working hours, then The Beach Boys being friendly towards sitting presidents would and should not be an issue.

It actually wouldn't shock me to learn he was a bit right-leaning.  I know he said some offensive things about gay people, and while you might take his friendship with Manson as a sign of "openness," he must have know that this was a racist group.  There's a socially conservative streak there.

Disclaimer: Not trying to imply that all Republicans are  racist or homophobic.

Dennis, right-leaning??? I would've swore I saw a post here a while back by Stebbins, basically saying he was a member of the "'party' party". Left, right, center, up, down, sideways, fence-sitter, tree-hugger, war hawk, didn't matter...what mattered was drugs, booze, sex, cars, fun times... :rock

Honestly, I just think the boys did what they did, just acted like themselves without really being conscious of (or just didn't care about) whatever political sentiment they were representing/being associated with.

Re NHC.

Without wanting to get too political, why'd you describe Obama as 'our current "president"'? Why the inverted comma's? Please tell me we don't have a birther in our midst... (Least Obama got legitimately elected, unlike certain other recent presidents i can think of... Just saying.)

I agree 100%.  

We must not forget that the Republican party and the Democratic party were much different in the '60s and '70s than they are now.  There was much more compromise, much less polarization.  There were 'southern Democrats', who's ideology was much more fiscally conservative than 'liberal Democrats'.  Hell, there were 'Reagan Democrats' (in fact, Reagan himself was a Democrat until 1962).  There were also more moderate Republicans, although the end of the Eisenhower era could have been called the beginning of the end for the more left-leaning Republicans.  Barry Goldwater took the party much more to the right with his presidential bid in '64.  When Goldwater lost in a landslide, though, there were still signs of life for the more liberal branch of the Republican party.  You had guys like New York mayor John Lindsay, and Michigan governor George Romney (yep, Mitt's dad) who were very successful.  One could say that Richard Nixon (who was Eisenhower's VP) was much more a moderate than Republicans who came just a few years later.  Politically speaking, things weren't so black and white (no pun intended) then.  It wasn't this 'yer either with us, or yer against us' mentality, which in my opinion has really damaged this country.


I'll stop now.    

I look at this from another angle. I agree that the left vs. right debate (which I wouldn't characterize as such, since the left has been entirely disenfranchised from the political system and therefore their positions tend to not be explained in the media where this debate is most pronounced) isn't very productive. I'd say that the reason why this debate is so aggressive and vitriolic, though, is because there is, in fact, very little substantive difference between the two ruling parties in the United States. Both parties represent the same interests - they are inculcated by representatives of those interests, brought to power by those interests, and are obliged to serve those interests while in office. You will see some minor differences between Democrats and Republicans, though mostly in their social views rather than international or domestic policies where their policies are pretty much the same. I would suggest, then, that the vitriolic argument between Democrats and Republicans overcompensates for the lack of real, genuine debate at the political level.  Consequently the mainstream media, which represents the same ideological status quo interests that make up the American political system, tends to focus on the comparatively trivial social views (because that’s where the majority of the differences lie) or in the very small, insignificant differences in international and domestic policies (i.e. the difference of opinion of just when is the right time to invade a country, which country is right to invade, what circumstances allow for an invasion, etc.). What I think is required, then, is not so much more compromise (since the two parties are virtually identical in their policies) but rather a system that allows for a real, genuine political alternative and an admission that the aggressive Democratic-Republican debate is nothing more than a theatrical fiction.

Also, it might be better if this were moved to Off Topics.

I don't think it should be moved, I hope it stays "on topic". There was a legitimate question about a chapter in Beach Boys history that I (personally) feel has been mischaracterized since 1983. If Beach Boys fans want to read a few versions of the story, or read the entire saga for the first time perhaps, it's definitely an on-topic thread to remain here for reference.

Maybe the political discourse topics that are popping up should be restarted in another thread so the parts related to the Beach Boys can stay in the right place.

And just to restate my thoughts on a previous page, does it or should it matter how the Beach Boys lean politically? Is that ideology seriously, seriously(?), a basis of negative judgement or positive reinforcement on any given band member among fans? I hope not.

It doesn't necessarily matter - certainly not in terms of how I evaluate their music in this case. It always troubles me, though, when artists have a connection with a mainstream leader because, mainstream political figures tend to represent the status quo while artists, I think, should be constantly striving to avoid that. Sometimes, as in the case of The Beach Boys and also The Beatles (Harold Wilson anyone?), their relationship with the political mainstream didn't appear to be reflected in their creativity.

I don't want to suggest either that music or art shouldn't be political. Quite the contrary, it is impossible to not be political. But there is a difference between taking a political stance, and chumming it up with the current mainstream leader.

You can do both. Bob Hope was a good example of no matter his political leanings, he was able to be friendly with all of the Presidents from Roosevelt through Clinton.

Certainly, you can do both. Bob Hope is a really interesting example - mostly because I am completely and utterly infatuated with a portion of his work. As an aspiring screenwriter, I often used some of his early 40s and 50s movies (namely My Favorite Brunette, Where's There's Life, Monsieur Beaucaire, and Casanova's Big Night) as a template for my own stuff. That being said, Hope had some of the best writers in the business and while his delivery in those films at least is note perfect, the linguistic virtuosity of those films is what truly impresses me. It is Hope's more famous political-esque humor (symbolized by him in front of a large audience with a golf club) that I typically find to be really insipid, trite, and boring. To me, his slide into a kind of dull comedian was a reflection of his own connection to the political mainstream world.

How he performed in the movies and radio show were quite different to what he did as a standup comedian. That kind of material is only as good as the president he is commenting about. Notice too, that unlike today's comedians, his jokes were never mean spirited and therefore had no memorable bite to them. His standup routine was always topical as far back as the 1940s. The troops that he entertained didn't seem to mind too much that it was lightweight fare.

Bob Hope is a conundrum, what I do know and will say almost without hesitation is that there will never be another Bob Hope in the US, especially in the current climate (or the climate since he stopped being an active performer.)

My father served in World War 2, he was in the Pacific on Saipan. Anyone or anything from "home" meant a lot to those guys, as the only communication was the mail delivery, and at some point it didn't matter what the entertainers would do or say...just being there was an escape for the guys serving. There were professional athletes stationed on various Pacific islands, pro baseball players who were in the Navy - and they'd hold scrimmages on the islands. Guys like my dad can still remember watching those games, and which players were there. It meant a lot to watch a baseball game that far away from home, there is an emotional element to this we're discussing on Bob Hope that was more powerful than the quality or content of his performances.

All those guys came back from the war(s) - they'd see Bob Hope in a few years on television - he held a special place for a lot of them who got to see a USO show with Hope and his troupe of performers. If he gave a performance that was sub-par, sluggish, whatever standards we might apply, it didn't carry as much weight with those guys who Bob Hope entertained at a time when they needed a smile, or even to see a woman from back home in person. It was Bob Hope, he was there for us, we won't forget that. Powerful, powerful stuff.

It's a total generational thing at play, but mention names like Bob Hope - I seriously think he transcended the political discourse and was there for entertainment. That was his mission - to entertain, and for military servicemen he was there to give them a piece of what they were missing at home (it's cliche, but it's true). I'd suggest anyone who tries to criticize Bob Hope for not being political enough, or for leaning one way or another politically doesn't have a grasp on the era and the people who Hope entertained.

There are entertainers who transcend political discourse, and are universally popular. I'd like to think the Beach Boys are among that group for millions of listeners.

You nailed it, exactly. :)

That's not quite what I'm saying although I disagree that there was something about the era that spoke to Hope's particular political bent. After all, Hope, at his height, was working in a much more politically charged time than our own which is politically anathesized. Rather, I'm saying that Hope's own position in the mainstream status quo is probably what speaks to the overall dullness of his comedy, particular in the later years, despite the impact it had on overseas military.

Glad you clarified that.

Yes, the priority really should be making sure the extreme right doesn't feel insulted by reductivist remarks about about them.  ::)

I think someone who is under a certain age and would not have experienced Bob Hope in the 1940's would have a far different impression of him if the only Bob Hope they've known in their lifetime was either the white-haired older man who did television specials a few times each year, or the guy shown performing in old newsreel footage. The latter is the Bob Hope that we saw since, say, the mid 1970's.

What I'm suggesting is that Bob Hope was part of a "shared experience" among nearly every American of a certain age that went through World War 2. And at some point it becomes "Bob Hope" the image even more than Bob Hope the actual person, I hate to use the word but some figures in American pop culture had an aura that could have exceeded their actual creative output. We know more of those entertainers in a post-Elvis celebrity world - the names of those from the generation before Elvis and youth culture exploded are simply fading out of the public discourse, even fading from the history.

I grew up with parents who lived those years and I'd hear all kinds of names that are all but foreign in 2012, yet at a certain time had an incredible influence and popularity. Names like Arthur Godfrey, images of neighbors coming to the few houses on the block that had a television set to watch "Uncle Milty" Milton Berle on television, Jackie Gleason's show, Ted Mack's Amateur Hour, Kay Keyser's College Of Musical Knowledge...the list goes on. We can watch grainy kinescopes of Milton Berle's early Texaco-sponsored television shows and they look amateur, flat, somewhat corny and even unfunny...but at one time, he was among the kings of American entertainment and people would plan an evening around watching his program. Same with Arthur Godfrey, who in the year 2012 knows all that much about him? Yet at one time he was among the most popular and loved personalities in America.

It's hard to gauge the true impact of someone like Bob Hope without putting him into the context of his era: What makes it tough with him is how long he lived, and how the image of him that my generation saw most often isn't the same as what my parents' generation knew. I see it happening with artists I remember thinking a certain way about when I was in my teens being seen in a far different light by the next generation, and it makes me feel old! Even though I'm not, really, but still... ;D

Great points there.

If you look at my first post where I talk about Bob Hope, though, you'll note how I said that I am infatuated with some of his work. What strikes me is that his films (from the 40s and 50s) are not only some of the funniest movies ever made, but in fact, still stand up today. You can see the influence that those films in particular had on some of the funniest comedians from the 70s onward. What somewhat surprises me is how those films are so much strikingly better than Hope's stand-up comedy or even other movies he chose to do, like say the much more successful yet much less funny Road pictures with Bing Crosby. I am suggesting that it was Hope's own affiliation with the mainstream status quo that probably led him to doing a lot of work that was safe and rather lifeless, despite having the talent to carry off what was probably the most engaging, surprising comedy of his time.

Who are you  referring to as "the extreme right"?

I agree, and I think that was a great point to make. Every artist who reaches that certain level of fame and success reaches a similar point in their career, I think. They have to either play to their established audience (the status quo) or go for something that risks being less of a commercial success yet would show off their talents more than the established routine. I think we can make a list of the best of the best entertainers and see where in the later parts of their careers they stopped being innovators and played the role people knew them for.

I was thinking of an extreme example this morning, the first one that crossed my mind was Johnny Carson but looking back, his example just didn't work: He never stopped being the Johnny Carson millions watched on TV. He was private and secluded almost to a fault, so the Carson we still remember is the Carson on television because that's all we got to see.

Then it hit me: Redd Foxx. It is amazing how much of a pop culture figure he became after playing the lovable old junkman Fred Sanford on "Sanford And Sons". I'd say his character was one of the most popular of the 70's, and I still see people imitating him or referencing him. Yet Redd Foxx was one of the most profane and explicit comedians working the comedy circuits prior to his television work. His records were actually banned from many shops, his image was that of a profane "blue" comedian who you wouldn't want your kids listening to, yet how many people see a photo of Redd Foxx without thinking of his Sanford And Son character? And also, as far as being banned and profane and all that, why isn't Redd mentioned in history alongside Lenny Bruce? Or is he and I'm just not reading those accounts?

It's amazing how powerful television can be when creating an image. :) I think after Sanford And Sons, Redd Foxx had to play Fred Sanford more often than Redd Foxx for the fans.

Feelflows referenced Republicans.

Yes!! Exactly. To just about every sentence in there.

So "Republicans" are "the extreme right"?  How progressive of you.

Yes they are. This isn't really all that controversial, is it? This political compass from the 2008 election may be helpful:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008 (http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008) 


I'm not a progressive in any way, shape, or form. Try another one.

Right, I was being sarcastic.  To lump an entire abstract group together as "extreme" is the opposite of progressive thought.

Actually progressivism is just about social, political, and economic reform, following in the tradition of classical liberalism. It doesn't have much or anything to do with either lumping groups or being against lumping groups.

I am referring to the Republican party and advocates of it. That the Republican party stands on the extreme right and has for years is uncontroversial.  If you're an advocate for the Republican party and not on the extreme right, then I would suggest finding another party, since the Republicans would not be the ones to represent your interests.

Progressive means favoring progress.  To say that anyone who identifies as a Republican is an extremist (racist and homophobic) is a ridiculous generalization...the sort of generalization that hinders rather than helps progress.

Clearly we can go in circles about this.  What's the point.

You are a Beach Boys fan, and so am I.  That's all that matters.

I'm sorry, but no. Progressivism has a long history and it does not mean "favoring progress" despite the similarity in name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism)


Which is why I didn't say that. First, I don't equate right-wing extremism with racism and homophobia. Where one sits on the political spectrum has often little to do with social views like those. It has mostly to do with one's economic stance and the kind of authority one believes should be accorded to a government (although if one is a strict authoritarian and a racist and a homophobe, then we run into some very serious problems). Furthermore, I also never said that "anyone who identifies as a Republican is an extremist". What I said was that if you identify as a Republican and are not a right-wing extremist (in the actual sense, not in the sense where right-wing extremism means racist and homophobic) then you should look for another party. Incidentally, the very fact that there is a political party means that we have to talk about it in generalizing terms, otherwise there is no point to having political parties. In other words, what would be the point of having a political party if those who are in it could take on a wide variety of different positions?

And then I also suggested that we shouldn't give priority to clearing up whether or not we are being reductive about the extreme right - mostly because they are not entirely deserving of fair treatment since they typically don't believe in it themselves and because it feeds into their central political strategy which involves crying foul rather than defending political positions.


Well, other things matter too. That's why we have an Off Topics section haha!

This certainly is off topic. Still worth pointing out while I'm here to any Republicans present: you aint got no chance of getting elected. Sorry.

"I don't equate right-wing extremism with racism and homophobia."

Then why did you take me to task for thanking Feelflows for his disclaimer?  Because you were in a bad mood?

If Obama wasn't so awful, I'd agree with you. 

For reasons that I stated in my previous post:

we shouldn't give priority to clearing up whether or not we are being reductive about the extreme right - mostly because they are not entirely deserving of fair treatment since they typically don't believe in it themselves and because it feeds into their central political strategy which involves crying foul rather than defending political positions.

So they aren't necessarily racist and homophobic, but they do suck, therefore they deserve to be called racists and homophobes.  I think I've got it now.  :thumbsup 

No, that's not quite it. When the political party makes it its business to be reductivist in order to push a particular platform (i.e. reducing particular Mexicans inside the U.S. to criminals, reducing legitimate marriage to one that is biologically procreative) then they are in no position to make demands that others shouldn't apply  the same standard to them that they are applying themselves to others when it suits their agenda. Certainly, they don't "deserve to be called racists and homophobes" but it shouldn't be a priority to avoid at all costs hurting a Republicans feelings based on a reduction since they themselves don't take such precautions when using their own political power - something which is much more significant and meaningful to a larger amount of people.

Such a strange argument we're having!  By "particular Mexicans inside the U.S." I assume you mean illegal immigrants?  Is it "reductivist" to point out that illegally entering the country is illegal?   

Best flux thread ever.

Arrghh!

"Rock and Roll" 's posts illustrate exactly why political discourse is impossible in this country.  According to him, if you disagree with Barack Obama's policies in any way, you are an "extreme right-winger" who is a racist, sexist homophobe.  Nice.  So instead of debating the issues, you resort to name-calling and stereotypes.

Seems to me they used to call that Fascism.  But if a non-Republican like "Rock and Roll" says it, then it becomes "Progressive!"

The graph you link to is garbage as well.  It's a nice little trick of shaping a political narrative by freezing politicians in cute little squares.  Who makes the rules on that graph?  Who determines whether a certain politician is above or below the authoritarian/libertarian line?  Why are all these Republican politicians up in the "authoritarian" quadrant, far above Barack Obama, I might add?  By what policies?  Cite them please.

Despite what you might think, the entire point of the Tea Party movement and American conservatism in general is a call for LESS Government involvement in both the economy and our daily lives.  And to the extent that any Republican would call for the use of Government to enact some sort of theology-based program, then that Republican is not a conservative, but another big-government progressive who happens to wear a Republican suit.

I really hope "Rock and Roll" that you don't truly believe that you represent the forces of sweetness and light, and that all Republicans are the epitome of darkness and evil.   Not only is that quite un-American but any ideology that would teach you to think that way probably does not have YOUR best interests in mind.

It is when it doesn't take into account that most of those "illegal immigrants" are currently residing mostly on land that was Mexican territory violently taken in US expansion. It is amusing that there probably aren't many Mexicans who would view Americans living in, say, Mexico or Arizona as illegal immigrants in Mexico, but they would have a pretty good argument on their hands. Most of all, though, the reason why there are so many Mexicans in the country is mostly a consequence of NAFTA treaties that were purposefully constructed to favor US industry at the expense of the Mexican population. I'm sorry but, in this case, the whole construction of Mexicans as "illegal immigrants" emanates from powerful imperial sectors who require a large, cheap Mexican work-base in Mexico and it is filtered to the population through scare tactics like "they are draining our economy" and "they are stealing our jobs" and so the American people who are also exploited by the powerful imperial state are often scared into adopting their positions.

  
[/quote]

No, that's not quite it. When the political party makes it its business to be reductivist in order to push a particular platform (i.e. reducing particular Mexicans inside the U.S. to criminals, reducing legitimate marriage to one that is biologically procreative) [/quote]

How is that reductivist?  If a person crosses our borders illegally, they have broken federal law.  It is a criminal offense.  A nation has the right to defend its own borders and control its own immigration policies.  I don't understand why this is such a shock to you.  If you don't like the law, then work to change it, but don't say that it is an injustice to enforce an existing law.

I don't necessarily have a problem with the State recognizing gay marriages, but I also don't have a problem with a church that refuses to recognize them.   And I don't think the government should ever make an attempt to force that church to comply.  However, I do think that if a state is going to recognize same-sex marriages, it needs to happen through the ballot box and not through a decree from a federal court judge.

I suggest you actually look back - namely nine posts above you where I state (and let me bold this for you) that "I don't equate right-wing extremism with racism and homophobia." You begin with flat out lying about what I've said and then immediately begin to mischaracterize my whole point of view by suggesting that it would mean something to me "if you disagree with Barack Obama's policies" when, in fact, I am a fierce opponent and critic of practically all of Barack Obama's policies - the reason why should be evident in the thread where I talk about the Democrat vs. Republican debate as a theatrical fiction. You may simply not understand my point. Either way, you entirely falsely represent it and mischaracterize it here. Everything else in the thread collapses because of the very false premise you have established. I would gladly though debate points that I have actually stated.

People need to do away with political parties and make up their own minds.

Now we're talking about the 1840s?  I give up.  You win. 

This is how it always is, of course. When it comes to violent territorial expansion, it's just the way things are. Nothing you can do about. "It was so far back, why should it matter?" When it comes to immigration where harm could potentially come to major business owners, it should be dealt with by law in the most stringent, authoritarian manner possible. Either way, by bringing up that example, I'm simply saying that most Americans are not much of a position to complain as they sit on what was once Mexican territory. As you'll note too by my post that this is more of a background issue.

You have a funny way of showing it.

Looks good to me.  Haven't read all of this thread but if it hasn't been mentioned yet, Reagan was a big-enough fan of the group that he allowed Dennis Wilson to be buried at sea.

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/01/03/us/reagan-helps-get-approval-for-musician-s-burial-at-sea.html

Dennis' sea-burial ends up looking like blowback from the Watt affair.  The administration seems to have been going out of their way to underline that nobody has anything against the Beach Boys, seriously!

I don't know that any Republican candidates read this board, unless you know something I don't.... Anyway yes, the Republicans are in a similar position today to the one the Democrats found themselves in, in 2004. Like Kerry, Romney is a middle of the roader who satisfies neither the base nor the "swing voter." It seems to all be set up this way - like we live in a one party system where they pass the baton to each other every eight years.

Anyway, enough of that - let's talk about Mike's political views. He is pro-censorship (or was in the 1980s, supporting the PMRC) and he is an environmentalist. Does anyone know if Mike votes Republican? He has a strange, unique melange of liberal hippy ideals and right-wing notions. Fascinating combination in his case.

I suggest you actually look back - namely nine posts above you where I state (and let me bold this for you) that "I don't equate right-wing extremism with racism and homophobia."[/quote]

You're quite right.  You don't actually state that you equate right-wing extremism with racism and homophobia.  I stand corrected.  Sorry about that.  Nevertheless, you still define being a Republican as being a right-wing extremist.  What do you see as right-wing extremism?

Well, keep in mind that the party under the influence of Newt Gingrich in the 90s consciously veered to right wing extremism once it became clear that the Democrats were establishing themselves as the centre-right business party. It became necessary for the Republicans to distinguish themselves, and this entailed quite public pronouncements of being the party of right wing social values. But their right wing extremism is a consequence of their social conservatism (which is much different than real conservatism, a philosophy that is now entirely ignored by both parties), their rampant commitment to a very rich miltary-industrial complex, staunch support of corporate welfare and corporate protectionism, which extends as far as extending more privilege to corporate personhood (which doesn't even exist) than to actual people. Again, not too different from the Democrats in policy, but their fervent support for these issues (Democrats are a bit more moderate in their corporate zeal), plus what began under the Bush Adminstration as a wilful reactionary attempts at undermining and undoing of entrenched reforms, really worked to place the Republican party on the far end of the right wing spectrum.

The supreme court case where the court ruled that a corporation is a person has to rank up with Dredd Scott case as one of the worst court decisions ever.

Pretty much agree with what you've said.  Not all laws are fair, but the law is the law.  If you want to live in another country, please respect that country's laws and enter legally. 

Again, I don't really think the United States is in much of a position to make such claims here -- particularly since its foreign policy has very much been built upon entering countries illegally. And I suppose ultimately this comes down to a value judgement - what is more important? That Mexicans are in the United States illegally causing relatively little harm or that the United States enforced NAFTA policies have led to Mexican wages being driven down, millions of Mexican farmers being driven off their land by subsidized US and Canadian agribusiness and price of goods being raised? I think only once the United States admits to its very real responsibility in the rising poverty in Mexico (which is the reason why so many try to get into the US) will they be in any credible position to actually determine whether or not Mexicans have a right to be in a land that was actually once there's until it was violently taken in an imperial expansion project.

Riiiiiiighhhttt...so that Arizona Immigration Act was simply because its citizens don't like Mexicans?  I guess you weren't aware of the sharp increase in crime that state has endured caused by...none other than those harmless illegal immigrants.

I don't claim that the U.S. has never made an unfair decision (no country has ever been perfect); but I refuse to be an apologist here.  Every country has the right to protect their borders.  I will admit that the U.S. has turned a blind eye to the illegal immigration problem for years, and we're responsible for how out of control it has become.  But the bottom line is if you're trespassing in another country by illegal means, that country has every right to deport you, regardless to whether you are friend or foe.  To let anyone pass through our borders freely is just plain stupid on incalculable levels. 

I say let's open up those borders. Enough of the petty nationalism. We're all humans. We all live on the planet Earth. National borders are an antiquated concept in this 21st century high-tech global information age.

Holy s.h.it this is one of the worst threads in the history of this board. someone please close this down. this is a Beach Boys forum! god.

Agreed. Can we at least move this out of "on-topic discussions?" This board is getting weird...

Yep, the Sandbox is a much better place for this discussion...

I'm very tired of this rhetorical trick of inventing a position out of thin air because someone is incapable of dealing with what I've actually said. Like I said to another poster earlier, I will gladly debate points that I have actually stated but I'm not interested in continually defending points that have been falsely characterized, misrepresented, and entirely made up. This is nothing more than a strawman tactic which is covered up by the "So" at the beginning and a question mark at the end, giving it the pretense of intellectual inquiry. But it's just as disingenuous and it's just as productive in a conversation (by that, I mean entirely unproductive) as any strawman. It's become quite common in this thread alone. The following are two examples of points being attributed to me that I not only never said, but in fact, entirely countered with the things I actually said, both of which use the same "So" rhetorical tactic that you've employed here, demonstrating just how much of a rhetorical device it in fact is:



Now, getting back to reality, I already explained my position very clearly on why I believe there is opposition to undocumented Mexicans and it had exactly zero to do with citizens not liking Mexicans (I assume you mean as a culture). To repeat, I noted that the whole construction of Mexicans as "illegal immigrants" emanates from powerful imperial sectors who require a large, cheap Mexican work-base in Mexico and it is filtered to the population through scare tactics like "they are draining our economy" and "they are stealing our jobs" and so the American people who are also exploited by the powerful imperial state are often scared into adopting their positions.


In fact, there has been no "sharp increase in crime" in Arizona -- this is one of those scare tactics that I mentioned earlier. A recent article from The Arizona Republic noted that despite the image concocted by people like John McCain who noted that the violence in Arizona was "the worst [he had] ever seen" the reality of the situation was in fact much different. In reality, crime rates in border towns such as Nogales, Douglas, Yuma had "remained essentially flat for the past decade" and crime rates were down statewide. This is unsurprising given some of the conclusions reached in studies throughout the last decade which showed that immigrants commit fewer crimes per capita than native-born citizens. According to the chairman of the sociology department at Harvard University, the data shows that so-called illegal immigrants are "disproportionately less likely to be involved in many acts of deviance, crime, drunk driving, any number of things that sort of imperil our well-being."

But of course what little violence there has been has been exploited significantly by the mainstream media whose interests are those of the ruling elite who, as I noted, depend on a large, cheap Mexican work-base in Mexico. It is consequently necessary to focus on crime of undocumented Mexicans in order to portray them as dangerous and a threat to the national well being. Once the public is sufficiently frightened because of myths and fairy-tales, they can be persuaded to support policies that continue to disenfranchise and exploit Mexican labor for the benefit of a very small concentration of power in the US. And, of course, the very premise that Arizona has enacted the Immigration Act for security purposes is completely fraudulent. As the Washington Post noted, US police chiefs said at the time that the immigration law would more than likely lead to an increase in crime, not a decrease. That the the law was passed despite such warnings from those who would be in a position to know, suggests quite convincingly that security was certainly not the primary drive behind the bill and that Arizona doesn't particularly care about reducing crime rates that were already stable or reducing anyway.


Again, the problem is not undocumented immigrants. As the data shows, they are relatively harmless. If the United States truly cared about really solving this problem (they don't), they would admit their responsibility in creating the very situation that has led to Mexican immigration in the first place - namely by aggressively supporting programs that have led to Mexican wages being driven down, millions of Mexican farmers being driven off their land by subsidized US and Canadian agribusiness and price of goods being raised.

I'm holding a lot more of this back, but I'd like to say a sarcastic "thank you" to those who moved this thread and those who derailed it to the point of being moved. I asked publicly a few pages ago not to move the thread because I felt there was some very on-topic "new" information *directly* related to the Beach Boys' history, not the least of which was Ed Roach revealing some information which was new and very revealing to me, at least...concerning Dennis' friendship with Reagan's daughter Patti Davis and other notable figures from that era. And being a bit selfish, I put quite a bit of time into this thread putting out some historical info which I thought would add to the discussion and perhaps present a different side of the story which has been told a certain way for over three decades, so anyone getting into the band could search, find this forum and thread, and get several sides of the story, an information resource which this board provides so well for Beach Boys fans.

The need to turn this into a political debate instead of starting a new off-topic "sandbox" thread to debate the politics is kind of frustrating...why not just start a new thread? Seriously! If the discussion is raging, but it's so far off-topic, pick it up in another thread devoted to that topic! It's an easy fix. Instead some good information DIRECTLY related to the Beach Boys and their history is relegated to the "sandbox". I'm upset by this. Thanks again. With much sarcasm. >:(

As for this:


I've had it. I don't call out individuals I don't know personally, I don't like to at all, trust me, but you should consider lightening up a bit, instead of coming on and posting this kind of stuff. I take what you said personally since I contributed a lot of time to what I wrote in this thread, and I find it to be a slap in the face after spending time (time I really didn't have) to contribute to the discussion and trying to keep the thread informative and hopefully sparking other posts which might reveal more information, taking it into a pop culture discussion and commentary as well. But I guess people writing about things they're interested in, know something about, and care to comment on, share and discuss with others is "one of the worst threads in the history of this board." Give me a fucking break. Seriously, think before posting a veiled insult or expect a strong reaction in return.

And if this happens again, please consider starting the political discussion in another thread so the historical stuff can stand on its own. And yes, this is one grain of sand on a large beach, but it touched a nerve and since this is the sandbox, I had to get it out.

I must admit that I love the political "left-right" discourse in this thread; as if anyone here doesn't truly know that the so-called "left and right" serve one entity and only one entity.

"Respect the law and enter the country legally." Yeahhhhhh, that certainly has been a hallmark of the foreign policy of the United States. And that foreign policy has been the policy of both Democrats and Republicans. And then the United States has the nerve to label nations that may disagree with them as "terrorist states" or "state sponsors of terrorism". A bitter irony and a glaring hypocrisy from a country that has grown by leaps and bounds to become the leading terrorist state in the world. Of course, many Americans are vapid, stupid, and ignorant to the point that they'll blindly support any kind of violation of their rights or the rights of others as long as it's under their favorite president.

I agree with Mr. Wilson above. The United States is a sinking ship. Germany lost the Second World War; fascism won. Read the NDAA for FY 2012. If you still support Obama (and indeed, the members of Congress who voted for it) after that, you need your head examined. There's some spooky sh*t in that legislation. Almost to the point of "thoughtcrime" and "doublethink".

You know what other countries had policies to commit terrorism against their own people, right? Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The United States has now joined their ranks. Enjoy. Americans were so willing to trade away their liberty for the illusion of safety.

Don't forget Rick santorum and his plans for an American theocracy.

A good 99% of the clowns in the Republican Party are liberals in Republican suits who want more war, more taxes, more spending, more government, more intrusions. Rick Santorum is certainly among them.

The only man who works within and builds upon the actual credentials that the Republican Party was founded upon, like it or not, is Ron Paul. And he scares the living hell out of the establishment. As great as it would be to see him win the election (and he's the only member of the GOP who stands a snowball's chance in hell against Obama), the man has so many people against him, ranging from the media, the Mittens/Newt the Reptile/Tricky Ricky fanboys, and guilty white liberals who are allegedly so anti-racist (but will cry "n*****" if pushed hard enough). And even if he were to be elected, I'd half-expect him to be assassinated by some radical member of AIPAC or the Mossad.

Ron Paul 2012! :hat

Wrote him in back in '08 and am more than ready to do it again. A vote for any other candidate is a vote for furthering the terrorist state. :hat

voting for him no matter what happens.

I'm writing him in too.

The Real Beach Boy is right: The "left" and "right" are the EXACT same thing in this country....anyone who believes differently needs to turn off CNN or Fox news for a few days.

I have absolutely no problem with the Beach Boys content of this thread. in fact, I appreciate the knowledge I gained from it. even the other stuff you wrote about in this thread (Bob Hope, etc) were great posts. but then it turned into a generic angry political debate. I didn't have a problem with anything before that and I'm sorry you were offended by my statement.

Well, here I might be particularly at odds with some of the people on this thread that I would otherwise agree with. First, I don't quite agree with the assessment that left and right are the same thing in the United States. Rather, the left has been entirely disenfranchised at the political level. That is not to say there aren't plenty of Americans who hold leftist views and represent leftist positions. In fact, most polls shows that the public is typically to the left of both political parties on many issues. The world of the political elite though is typically represented by two very close positions - the centre-right (Democrats) and the extreme right (Republicans). There is some room for minor difference there but for the most part one will find mostly agreement amongst the parties on the major issues. So I would say that if anything is the same it's Democrats and Republicans (though there are differences that are crucial) rather than left and right. Part of the problem is confusing the Democratic Party with the left, since they as the centre-right party are as left as one can acceptably be at the political level in the United States at this point. But I think that whether one is in favor of the status quo or stridently against it, it is important to understand that and make clear that the Democrats and the left should not be conflated because in both cases it ignores the fact that there was once a very vibrant left in the United States (both politically and culturally) and there can be again - though saying that the left is the same as the right seemingly would make that very difficult.

On that line, and here is where we differ, I don't find Ron Paul to be particularly good alternative. He is somewhat differernt but his economic proposals are, in my view, draconian and can only have really negative consequences to the extent that I would rather have Obama's policies than Paul's -- even though Obama's policies are horrible. That should give you an idea less of my support for Obama (there is none) than my genuine fear of Paul. Ultimately, he's not quite the stand-out figure that he and many of his followers purport him to be. Again, look at this political compass which was critiqued earlier for really no good reason - it uses one of the most sensical methodologies to establish one's political position than anything I have encountered thus far:

http://politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008 (http://politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008)

As you'll see Paul is less authoritarian than every other Republican on the right, but in terms of economics he is about as far to the right as it gets. Paul still occupies a pretty firm place in the legitimate US political sphere. His very agreeable position on free market capitalism mixed with his somewhat disagreeable position on foreign policy (much of which I agree with, though mostly for different reasons) has led him to being certainly not a media darling but fairly nicely tolerated. Put it this way, he has probably had twice the amount of media coverage and interviews in the last four years than Noam Chomsky has had his entire life. And there's a pretty good reason for that. Now, why do I think his policies are so dangerous? Ron Paul supports a system of pure, unadulterated corporate tyranny thanks significantly to what would ultimately be reducing and neutering the most crucial instrument of public power - namely the government. And while it is currently difficult to exert public power given the power that concentrated wealth wields over government, there is at the very least the possibility of that exertion that exists now. That possibility will be gone under Paul's policies. Paul's supporters will tell you that no government intervention means no corporate subsidies, no pro special interest-loaded bills, no power to control the country's monetary system in complete secrecy and no bailouts. But that presupposes that you'd be starting from scratch when Paul comes into power - that the kind of enormous welfare state that corporations have always had would not serve them well for decades even if it were suddenly taken away. You take away government control in all areas, you'd still have an enormous disparity in power between owners and workers. Given the US history, you could never really have anything resembling a free market. So you'd then have an enormous working class depending on the corporate world to be benevolent with the power that has been left them, since labor wouldn't have the government to step in and make sure that workers rights were being attended to, and so on. Cutting off someone who already has billions of dollars is not exactly going to close any gaps anytime soon - not for generations and only then if you pretended that the capitalist system didn't work the way it did. Free market capitalism is supposed to generate enormous wealth with or without government intervention and, if it functions right, should exploit workers and create a disparity between those who are wealthy and those who are working for wealth. The only thing that has lessened the severity of exploitation of the dominated class by the ruling elite historically has been public power - and, really, that's the power Ron Paul wants to do away with. Here I find that, in fact, Paul is not in line with traditional Republicans at all, though he never stops saying he is. Traditional Republicans based their policies on traditional conservatism held by people like Adam Smith who held that capitalism will lead to the destruction of humanity (that's the part of Adam Smith you're supposed to ignore while you're praising him for inventing capitalism). This is why Lincoln's Republicans abhored wage slavery or what is currently understood as "just the way things are" by most Democrats and Republicans. Paul though supports such a system and, in that respect, stands in opposition to both traditional conservatism and traditional Republicans. Ultimately, I really believe that Paul's policies would lead to a kind of Dark Ages.

Government intervention in economic matters does nothing but make booms disappear and busts worse. Traditionally, both Democrats and Republicans have invested heavily into the notion that government-subsidized programs designed to "strengthen the economy"; as we all know, this is a hallmark of Keynesian economics. The Great Depression was made even worse by government intervention, the 1971 "Nixon shock" was made even worse by government intervention (including the final abolishing of the gold standard), and the late-2000s recession was made even worse by government intervention. The problem is (and this is where a lot of Americans have come out in praise of a misguided socialism) that Americans have been led to believe that the current system is capitalism. It is anything but capitalism.

In 2008, when the recession hit full swing, there was bipartisan support for bailing out the same companies that were going to go under after the housing bubble burst. I was one of the few people saying "let them go bankrupt". When debt becomes unbearable you cannot keep propping it up. You have to liquidate debt by declaring bankruptcy and reorganizing/restructuring. You don't bail out the companies that are bankrupt and then dump the debt on the people. That $700 billion TARP bailout went into the American public debt. That's not capitalism; that's socialism. Who lost out? Not the government. Not the banks. Not the corporations. The PEOPLE lost out.

This same housing bubble was created by the government and by the Federal Reserve under the watchful eye of the Clinton administration; they rationalized it by saying to the banks that if they did not make housing loans for minorities, they would be sued for "discrimination". Never mind the fact that these loans were given out at 0% interest to people who had no form of credit whatsoever and who could not possibly pay it back. It basically created money out of thin air, which the Federal Reserve has no trouble doing at the beck and call of big business. Printing money out of thin air dilutes the value of the dollar; we're currently at 96.2% towards complete isolation. This is why you need a gold standard; this is instituted to keep government spending in a constant check. The Federal Reserve, alongside the military-industrial complex, is the single greatest threat to liberty. Inflation is the most ghastly and criminal tax of all. Government intervention in the economy DOES NOT WORK. A privately-owned, unaccountable central bank DOES NOT WORK. It creates debt and malinvestment; it creates more wealth for the rich and more poverty for the poor. It has completely destroyed the middle class. It has allowed people to make the most radical of financial calls with little consequence for them, since they know full well that the debt will just be dumped on the people to begin with. That is not capitalism. That is cronyism, it is socialism, and it DOES NOT WORK. People have the right to keep 100% of what they make. Taxation is theft.

Government-subsidized healthcare is a bad idea, too. The United States government can't even balance their f*cking checkbook; why the hell would people want the GOVERNMENT involved in healthcare? Healthcare should be between two people and two people only - the PATIENT and his DOCTOR. Period. Subsidies on the part of government drive up the price of healthcare as well as the price of insurance. Market delivery of healthcare, due to the abundance available, would be done at a tiny fraction of the cost that is currently burdening the consumer. And for all of you who think you have a right to healthcare, you don't. You have no right to the fruits of other peoples' labor. Get the government out of the medical business. They're there to do one job and one job only - follow the Constitution.

As far as unaccountable corporations go, in a free market, companies that do not respect their work force will crumble and fall. Sure, companies are run by people, but there will always be more people in the free market than in corporations. These people want to work, they want to make money, and they may even wish to start their own business. A free market will inevitably grant the worker a greater value to employers, and if employers wish to build their business with that worker, then they will pay the wage required to make that happen. A government-mandated minimum wage DOES NOT WORK. Now, you might say that if there's no minimum wage in a free market, companies will make their employees work for pennies or even for free. No, it doesn't work like that. A company that thinks they will pay next to nothing for their labor force will NEVER survive in a free market. However, if you don't like the wages you make in your current profession, and indeed what you might make under a free market, no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to work.

The position taken by rockandroll (and I do agree with him on a few points) maintains that people are generally stupid and naive (I'd generally agree) and somehow unable to take matters into their own hands without the benevolent, caring hand of government nearby. People are individuals. They know what's best for themselves more than anyone else does. The government is completely unaccountable and needs to be made accountable for its actions. Why people put so much faith in government is beyond my comprehension and indeed the comprehension of libertarians, including Ron Paul.

This is the position Ron Paul runs on and has run on for over thirty years. And if it's a position that is so dangerous and if he's the nut people claim he is, why is the media so afraid of him? Normally the media would just want to expose the danger of such a situation, correct? Wrong. The establishment is afraid of Ron Paul because they know that limited government means that once sh*t hits the fan (and it will for them, too) they're finished. Done. Bankrupt. Adios. By "the establishment", I mean the government, the media, the corporatist system, the banking system, the Federal Reserve, and the Israel lobby. At the end of the day, the American establishment is the greatest and most diabolical terrorist entity of all.

The thing about arguing about politics?

You're never going to convert the other person.

Jus' sayin'.

I think we have to be careful about generalizing here. First, it is impossible to say that "Government intervention in economic matters does nothing but make booms disappear and busts worse." For one, it's impossible to judge because we don't really know how a truly free market capitalist system might operate in a first world country since there has never been anything close to free market capitalism in the first world. So what would happen without any government intervention is impossible to judge in any rational way since we've never had it here to judge. In the case of the United States, the country was founded on protectionist economic principles - namely tariffs and subsidies imposed by Alexander Hamilton. It was these protective measures that were primarily responsible for establishing the stability of the country. After that there were periods that were more protectionist than others, but the security of the country's economic stability has always come down to government intervention - same as in any first world nation. In that respect, I don't think we can quite come to the conclusion that you have that government intervention makes "booms disappear and busts worse". Take a recent example - the economic boom that the United States experienced in the 90s. According to the New York Times, it was "one of the longest and healthiest in American history." What was responsible? According to Alan Greenspan, mostly the internet but also computers in general, transistors, lasers, etc. Now all of these were products of public funding, not private innovation. The internet, probably the biggest economic powerhouse of the last thirty years, was funded by the public via the Pentagon for three decades through the crucial risk period. Only once it was deemed profitable was it put into private hands - the public pays for the risk but is denied the profits. Now that's one of the longest economic booms in American history and it is specifically a testament to the public sector.

Now again, how a truly free market system would work in the United States is difficult to say but the examples that we have aren't very promising. Take two cases of the past 50 years where there was something resembling an unfettered free market, namely Haiti and Nicaragua, the two leading targets of US intervention in the hemisphere. Both had free-market systems shoved down their throats by the United States and unlike in powerful and wealthy nations like the United States and England which have historically relied on crucial intervention for their prosperity, they as third world countries had to accept an unfettered market system with no intervention. The result was that by the end of the 20th Century, Haiti and Nicaragua had become the poorest countries in the hemisphere.


No, it's not socialism. If socialism means anything, it means the workers controlling the means of production. Period. In fact, if one were to properly read Marx, they would see that in a properly functioning socialist society, there wouldn't be what Marx called any "political power" - meaning, people are not organized by states, which by nature require an oppressive ruling class and an establishment of hierarchies. Rather individuals organize themselves into what might be called workers' councils or revolutionary councils. Socialism is then an organization of worker associations in a stateless society with no political power in which each worker has equal control over the means of production and can each meaningfully participate and contribute to what happens in their organization. Governments bailing out corporations is, in fact, the very antithesis of socialism since socialism is, by defintion, about undermining and destroying the corporate structure and certainly wouldn't allow the kind political power that is presupposed by the act of a government bailing out a corporation. People who consider themselves free market enthusiasts (though are usually just private corporation enthusiasts without knowing it) often like to equate government intervention with socialism because they don't like government intervention and socialism has a buzz effect in the United States, wherein if you associated it with anything, it should be instantly understood to be a bad thing.


Well, the fact is that the people do historically want the government involved in healthcare and the reasons why are probably because it's the only way that the people can have some control over it, and also because it is widely known that the United States healthcare system is the most inefficient in the industrialized world precisely because it is privately operated. It was recognized by the central framers of the  current healthcare system in 1973 that this "free enterprise" system works because "the less care they give...the more money they make."


Completely untrue. In fact, it's embedded in the very structure of capitalism that workers must be exploited in order for the system to function properly. The system functions to privilege the controllers and the owners at the expense of the laborers. The cost of labor plus the cost of the means of productions, in a functioning capitalist system without intervention is supposed to produce more value than their cost. That surplus that is produced is where profit comes from and that profit goes to the owners - meaning in order for the system to function properly it must be necessarily exploitative and it depends on a disparity of wealth and power between the ownership class and the labor class. So any capitalist system whether it is mixed or "free" is, by virtue of the system, tipped to advantage the ruling, ownership class. In such a system, the corporation that can get away best with exploiting their workers will be the most successful ones.


That's true - a laborer can always ultimately choose starvation and death rather than exploitation by the ruling class. In that respect, slaves had a relative degree of autonomy too.


Quite the opposite. For one, I don't believe "that people are generally stupid and naive" and ultimately as a social liberatarian, I believe that an ideal society is stateless. In that case, both positions attributed to me are entirely false. What I am doing though is recognizing that a democratic government if it functions properly is meant to represent the will of the people. A corporation, if it functions properly is tyrannical, and the will of the people must be subordinated to a ruling elite. If you have any real respect for the intelligence and creativity of people, you could certainly never support the kind of de-regulated tyranny that Paul ultimately endorses. I recognize precisely what Marx recognized when he called for a stateless society in which individuals have genuine control over their lives and the work they do, which is that it is through the State where people can effectively take the kind of control that could lead to such a society, a control which is entirely prohibited by capitalist institutions like business and corporations. The State (if it is functioning democratically) opens up the possibility of direct public power, whilst capitalist institutions (if they function properly) close those possibilities in the name of private concentrated power.


Ron Paul isn't a libertarian. He's a bastardized, Americanized re-writing of libertarianism, which in reality emerges from socialist-anarchist principles. What Ron Paul represents is precisely the opposite of what real libertarians stand for.


The simple answer to that is, they're not. As I mentioned in my last post, Ron Paul gets a fair amount of media coverage. He's not completely in line with the status quo to be a media darling, but he's in line enough to get a decent amount of media coverage - certainly more than people who are actually disenfranchised from political power (you know, the ones that don't get a full hour on Piers Morgan, a regular slot on Fox News Sunday, etc.).


Incorrect. They certainly had no problem not exposing the danger of George W. Bush who was probably the most dangerous President in the history of the country. And the reason why they had no problem is simple: for the most part, Bush represented the same interests that produce mainstream media. And to a certain degree, Ron Paul does too. Why would the mainstream media, owned by major corporations, have any real, serious problems with his notion of an unfettered free market system? Where they would have problems with him would be in his non-interventionist policies. This is why Paul isn't as favored by the media as, say, Obama or Romney but he certainly gets more airtime than, say, Mike Gravel or Bob Barr ever did.

I'm really sorry, Aegir, I misread and misunderstood your comments and overreacted. It was one of those times where I hit the "send" button way too soon before thinking it out, and again I apologize, I took your words the wrong way. I was upset at the way the thread disappeared and wasn't seeing things clear. Again, I'm sorry for that.

No worries, we're all cool on this end.  8)

 




All from the initial post.  This thread was never on the rails to begin with.

By the way, I'd be willing to bet that roughly half of BBs fans are conservatives.  :o  Hope this doesn't throw anyone into an existential panic.

Depends how you define conservatism.

I identify as a classical liberal, socially liberal and fiscally conservative. That is more in line with true conservatism than any modern-day conservatism, which is just the center-right trying to be the new radicals.

It's certainly not free-market capitalism, but I wouldn't call it socialism. "State capitalism" would be a somewhat more appropriate term. "Socialism" is when the proletariat/working class/99% rise up and seize control of the means of production from the bourgeois/capitalist class/1%. True socialism is a bottom-up phenomenon, and in theory would only work properly if the entire world went socialist. And I doubt that will be happening any time soon. (Cue the good ol' "What is human nature?" debate.) The USSR and "Red" China were/are socialist in name only.

I have to agree with The Real Beach Boy's response on this. The fact is that the term "conservative" has been hijacked by the current wave of the Republican party. In reality, Republicans do not represent true conservative values. Many of these values date back to figures like Adam Smith. As I noted Adam Smith is often credited as the creator of free market capitalism but, much like 20th Century Russian communists who were supposed to revere Marx but not read him, contemporary capitalist-enthusiasts are likewise not meant to read Smith. If they did, they would see one of the most important conservative points being articulated. Namely, Smith concludes that capitalist division of labor would lead man to become "as stupid and ignorant as it is possible to become for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life." For Smith, and most conservatives of his day, the primary importance was liberty and freedom - the ability to control your own life. What Smith ultimately recognized in The Wealth of Nations was that capitalism would reduce those possibilities leading man to lose control, becoming "stupid and ignorant" because, as he said, " those who live by labour, that is, ...the great body of people, comes to be confined to a few very simple operations, frequently to one or two" - namely, serving the interests of the owners, meaning a total lack of real freedom and liberty. This is why, ultimately, the first Republicans such as Abraham Lincoln who, in fact, did represent true conservative values deplored what they called wage slavery - or what is now otherwise known as the capitalist system that is fiercely protected by people who claim to be conservatives.

In this regard, I would say that I am far more able to say that I base a lot of my views on conservatism than most people who name themselves Republicans since the party is about as far from conservatism as one could possibly be.

Exactly, check out my post on the previous page.

Kim Fowley claims that President Reagan actually liked The Beach Boys...and that Ron & Nancy also liked the band 'Sparks' enough to attend one of their Southern California concerts in the 80s.

I've already forgotten him.

I like his son Rand Paul better. He's got his daddy's Constitutional values but isn't a senile, anti-Semetic old coot.

Explain how Ron Paul is an antisemite. And don't say it's because he wants to cut aid to Israel, because he wants to cut all foreign aid.

Hard to say for sure whether he's antisemitic but he certainly seems homophobic and racist. He also believes that if somebody dies because they don't have health insurance that it's a tribute to American freedom. He is a conspiracy theorist when it comes to climate change. He doesn't believe in evolution. And that little bit about cutting "all foreign aid" sounds good and dandy when you take account of the US history of supporting dictatorships and totalitarian regimes but it also means that the most privileged and wealthy country in the world would have no responsibility in, say, helping to reduce the AIDS pandemic in other parts of the world. All this coupled with his stance of simply letting corporations do whatever they want to do, including paying people however much they want to (which historically translates to as little as they can get away with), and removing any means of public power, means that he's a dangerous charlatan.

But, yeah, constitutional values. Whoopee!

I love the liberal thought process. He actually has the most "progressive" (to use a term you liberals adore) views on LGBT and race relations, that being "keep the government out of all of it", which is more than fair enough. Just go to the church or notary or whomever and marry who you want. Keep the government out of it. End the drug wars and ridiculous welfare state measures which have done nothing but contribute to (read: they INCREASE) poverty and crime.

People who die because they don't have health insurance are not a tribute to American freedom; they're a tribute to how f***ed up the health care situation is in the United States. And, like it or not, Dr. Paul's plan for health care reform is very simple and will prove to be the most cost-effective...it's called free market health care. One vendor is too expensive, you go to another. No one has a right to someone else's labor, and that includes health care.

His views on climate change and evolution are his own and do not impact his policies. I don't agree with him on those topics either, but it's no reason to discredit the man.

Corporations already control the state, so therefore we must INCREASE the state?

I've already stated amply on this thread that I'm neither a progressive nor a liberal. If a "liberal" like me adores the term "progressive" then why is that two pages ago I stated that "I'm not a progressive in any way, shape, or form", noting in my subsequent post that "progressivism is just about social, political, and economic reform, following in the tradition of classical liberalism."

Tell you what, I'll deal with the substance of your post when you stop talking to the fictional construction of me that you made up, since you seem to only be able to deal with what I say when you place me in a category that I have already adamently shown my opposition to in this thread alone.

Poor choice of words on my part. Truth be told, that "he's a racist/an antisemite/homophobic" thought process is not specifically a liberal one, although liberals predominantly are quick to bring it up. Apologies all around.

Well, in terms of race, this isn't progressive at all. It ignores the basic fact that certain races remain marginalized and ghettoized after years of policies tipped against them - that the ruling white class became the ruling white class because of enormous protectionist measures. Naturally, it makes perfect sense to middle class to upper class enfranchised people to say, "Well, just take the government away" now that they've had the luxury of being granted a position of social privilege and authority precisely because of a history of protectionism and state-sanctioned exploitation. It's a good way of ensuring that the relations of power basically remain the same, while at the same time works to reinforce that age-old myth that anyone can make it if they work hard enough.


I agree with you about the drug wars and to an extent about the welfare state measures. To that extent that I agree with you, it's because in the United States the welfare state has been historically for the wealthy elite, and naturally this would contribute to poverty. Whether or not this would change with Paul is hard to say. A few years ago, Paul was praising Bill Gates, without acknowledging that Gates's enormous wealth from the internet is a consequence of three decades worth of public subsidies. The fact that Paul did not acknowledge this suggests one of two things: either he is in favor of welfare for the rich or he is simply unaware of how capitalism ultimately works.


Tell that to Ron Paul who said exactly that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMHY21VA8WE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMHY21VA8WE)


Free market health care is not cost-effective but it is profit-making. In fact, the framers of the HMO policy acknowledged that a free market health care is the best policy for the United States because it really works - namely, you provide less care, and profits go up. Yeah, that is simple - it's also murderous and Draconian. Not only do I not like it, I think Ron Paul shows utter contempt for humanity in general for even proposing it, but unsurprising for a man who believes that a society that lets a 30 year old man without health insurance die is a society we should be aiming for.


First of all, his views on climate change absolutely do impact his policies. Anybody who understood the reality of climate change wouldn't let corporations get away with contributing to the destruction of the human species.


It depends what you mean by state. If you mean, we should increase public power and the public voice rather than eliminate it entirely in the name of unadulterated, unfettered, and unchecked concentrated wealth and power, then yes.

double post

But it does exclude almost all of labor in the capitalist model that Paul supports, since labor is in fact exploited, owned, and controlled by an ownership class. In a properly functioning capitalist model, no one has a right to have any control over their own labor.

Certain races DO remain marginalized and ghettoized after years of policies tipped against them - namely the drug wars, ridiculous amounts of illegal activities that are victimless activities, the WELFARE STATE. Sheesh, if there was anything that was designed to keep people down, it's the welfare system. And yes, the white race in the United States HAS benefited from enormous protectionist measures. But if you approach it under the principles of liberty by repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which only allows for exploitation), the 16th Amendment, all of the drug laws, have a free market incentive for all products and services (which will mean lower prices), there will be an equality in this country that has never been seen before. Free markets lead to perfect equality.

You're adding two and two and getting twenty-two in your beliefs on Ron Paul's policy on health care. He's not saying that people without insurance should just die. He's saying that people need to take responsibility for themselves. What's so wrong with that? No hospital will turn away someone in need of treatment, but once you've been treated, guess what? YOU SHOULD GET A BILL. Personal responsibility. I know Americans are so deathly afraid of being their own masters, but try it on for size. You might find health care a lot more affordable after that. Ending the Medicare/caid programs and repealing Obamacare would work wonders as well. For the record, the rest of Dr. Paul's response is a great argument for free market health care. (Personal addendum - Wolf Blitzer is a despicable shill)

As far as climate change and corporations go, even the ridiculous regulations in place haven't done much to curb climate change, have they? No. Because you have the government (who is in the pocket of the corporations) working really slow under the pretext of "we're getting things done". So the same government policies and status quo rhetoric you're trying to defend with regards to climate change are much more diabolical.

As far as public voice and public power, of course, it should be increased. Everyone should be out in the streets when injustice occurs. A Ron Paul presidency would be more than willing to accommodate the public opinion - more than you can say for most administrations since the 1960s. Corporations can behave as they wish as long as their behavior does not infringe upon the rights of others. That is a clearly stated objective.

Free market capitalism if it functions properly, is dependent on inequality - the very system is structured unequally. It demands an ownership ruling class, and a subordinate labor class, whose work is necessarily exploited by the ruling elite. That is simply what free market capitalism is. In no world does it have anything to do with "perfect equality." And that's putting aside whether it is to function well. If it is to function both properly and well, in which there is a maximization of profits, there needs to necessarily be a maximization of exploitation and domination over another.

If there is social welfare for the marginalized in the U.S. (and I should repeat there is very little, in comparison to the enormous social welfare safety net established for the wealthy) then it should be supported and vigorously since it's the only thing that could possibly help restore some balance in an inherently unfair and exploitative economic system such as capitalism which demands social and economic inequality in order to function properly.

Let's be clear about this: Ron Paul is not opposed to the Civil Rights Act because it "only allows for exploitation." Rather, in his congressional speech of 2004, he noted that the problem with the Civil Rights Act was that it "forced integration" and diminished the liberty, not of the racial groups who were long oppressed, but rather of "every business of the country." Forgetting about the liberties it brought to racial minority groups, Paul lamented that the Act violated "the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society." Paul's concern, naturally, was for private power to operate unfettered - that if a private company wants to be segregated, have thoroughly racist policies, that that is a consequence of a free society. It has been long acknowledged that the Civil Rights Act worked to redress what was and continues to be systemic oppression - it worked to make the system a little less unequal than it would have been without intervention. And, of course, there was opposition to it and the reasoning was transparently racist. So you had figures like Barry Goldwater who, like Paul, opposed the Act on the grounds that it decreased freedom for private tyrannies to operate unfettered. But of course, as it was pointed out, Goldwater did not oppose segregation laws that seemingly constrained liberty and freedom as well.  


You mean putting aside the fact that it is utterly irresponsible to let someone die because they don't have health insurance? Personally, Paul is in no position to comment on "responsibility" since he clearly shows contempt for the term. Putting that aside, this may come down to differences. Personally, I think that a civilized society is one that finds that we are responsible for each other not simply ourselves - that is, if we are to assume that we have progressed beyond a cave man mentality. It could possibly be that - but ultimately, I think that if this is what Paul believes then he has a warped view of what "responsibility" actually means.


But, of course, this isn't the society that Paul has in mind. Rather, his policies lead to the strengthening of the masters. His policies mean that private tyrannies should be unrestricted and that the public should lose whatever power they have. That's not a call for people "being their own masters", it's a call for totalitarian rule and further marginalization of the public.


That is, of course, specualtive and, as far as I'm concerned, improbable. What's undebatable is that socialized medicare would be a lot more affordable and we know that since the United States has the most expensive health care system in the indusrialized world and the one that most resembles a "free market" system.


Again, you're making up  my position. I am not trying to defend government policies and status quo rhetoric. Rather, I am fully aware of what Paul's policies mean. If the problem with environmental solution is that the government "is in the pocket of the corporations" then clearly it would be only madness to strengthen the power of corporations and diminish the power of the government. It seems like you can only envision two possibilities: a government controlled by corprorations, and a society controlled by corporations. There are other possibilities and they are much less frightening than silencing the public voice.


In that case, you oppose Ron Paul.


Is it a right of others to have control over the work they do? To have say over what they do, when they work, how much they work, etc.? Obviously not. These are major questions - and central concerns in not only genuine libertarian movements (not the bastardized extreme-right wing non-libertarian movement that Paul means when he uses the term) but conservative movements, workers movements, and so on. Under Paul's system it would be quite difficult for a private corporation to "infringe upon the rights of others" since people will have virtually no rights at all.

Barry Goldwater was a non social issues guy and couldn't stand the religious conservatives of the 1980s, which I like. He also didn't like the John Birch society and worked with William F. Buckley Jr. to remove them from the Republicans.

No, he's right -- you're wrong.  It's not speculative at all.  We know what happens to prices in a free market -- they fall.  We have tons of examples of this.  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.  Education -- another government-run, socialized institution leaving people behind.

If your horrifying socialist "business" model were applied to grocery stores -- milk would probably cost $120 a gallon, or more.  You would probably have to submit a request and wait six weeks to hear back from some agency to know if you were even eligible to purchase it.  And have to travel an hour to find the Government run grocery store nearest you.  How's that for speculation!?   :-D

Thank GOD the government does not run food.  I've got three huge grocery stores in my little small town.  Three!! The shelves are over-flowing with an abundance of affordable, fresh foods.  And that's not speculative at all.  It's reallity!  Beautiful, miraculous reality!!

Here's the rub.  Free markets provide for people INFINITELY better than ANY government EVER could.  And that drives big-gov't leftists crazy -- I know it does.


Where you go astray in your statement above is assuming that our current health care system is a "free market."  It is not.  The government has it's greasy hands all over it.  I don't "buy" doctor's services.  I go through an insurance company.  And I don't even buy my insurance company -- it's paid through my employer.  WTF?  Explain that!  The government's all twisted up in the process.  By design.  The Real Beach Boy is absolutely correct -- if we went to a true free market solution, health care would be so cheap.  Going your way will only seal our doom.

With all due respect, that's just crazy.  You're saying that no one has a right to control their own labor in a true free market?  What are you thinking?

First of all -- the term "right."  You have all the rights that God gave us.  No more, no less.  Under no circumstance should anyone have control over your own labor or the fruits thereof.  If they do -- your enslaved.  That is the definition of slavery.  Under no circumstance should that ever be the case.  And I have never, ever heard anyone ascribe that definition to free market capitalism.

I am aware of governments illegally stealing the fruits of our labor (taxes) and "deeming" people's labor a right for other to take (ObamaCare or a "right" to health care).  Both of those are slavery.  Think about it.  Please, for the love of God, think about what you're saying.

 :'(

Very well said, Bean Bag. Now can we all please return to the subject of this thread? I think my post about Ron & Nancy going to see Ron & Russ (Sparks) live is 'megawatts' more interesting than tired old Leftist arguments about "evil" capitalism and health care.

I should say that I am hesitant to get involved in this discussion further, not merely because of the rather childish nature of the rhetoric employed above, but more importantly because I am in the final month of preparing for a major exam in the completion of my doctorate, and I have already left another political thread dangling for that reason (hopefully I can get back to that one eventually, since it is a far more civilized debate).

So with hesitation, I will respond to the above though I will not address the shameful rhetorical trick suggesting  “how much our education system has” failed me, since that speaks for itself.


I’m sure it would be nice to imagine an abstract world where this is a possibility but unfortunately the reality of the situation does not correspond to your description. Again, I will repeat that the US health care system is the most expensive in the industrialized world – about twice the per capita cost of most industrialized countries - and it is the one that most closely follows a so-called free-market capitalist model. The studies have shown, in fact, that it is precisely because the health care system is run on this capitalist model that it is so expensive to the American public. In fact, if you look at the socialized aspect of the US health care system, you find that the administrative costs there are a fraction of the cost of privatized health. So in that case publicly subsidized health care in the US have kept prices lower than privately controlled health care. This, incidentally, isn’t too surprising when you look at US economic history. So, for example, if you look at the economic boom of the 90s, what was referred to as one of the most successful economic periods in US history, you’ll find that the products most responsible for the boom were heavily subsidized by the public. And, really, since WWII, modern high-tech products have had an enormous amount of support by the state.

Now part and parcel to this is the question of why drug prices are so high in the States. Again, we can put this down to the capitalist model. In a capitalist system, the main impetus of a drug company is to make profits. This is why companies have been shown to spend an overwhelming majority of its research and development on copycat drugs to stay competitive in the market. Just doing a quick search, the most recent figures I could pull are from 2004 (though I assume not much has changed too drastically since then) when 27 billion of 41 billion dollars of drug company research spending went into the development of copycat drugs.  This de-mystifies two great prevailing free-market myths at once: one, that a free market system would reduce costs and two, that a free-market system spurs innovation.

Furthermore, unlike other countries with a socialized health care system, the US is by law, prohibited from negotiating drug prices and a consequence of this is that the prices are much higher in the States than any other industrialized country.

So my conclusion from this would be that not only is it not “a fact” that a free-market system would be less expensive, the facts we do have suggest the opposite.


Since all there is is speculation, I’m afraid you’ve answered your own question.


I’m curious which free markets you are referring to. After all, there has never been anything close to a free market system in the first world. Take, the United States for example. In the US, the economy from the beginning was stabilized by a variety of protectionist policies (trade tariffs, subsidies, etc.) enacted by Alexander Hamilton. And while there have been some periods that are less protectionist than others, it is only because the country could take the risk after a period of substantial protectionism. And the same holds for every other first world country. The only countries that have something resembling an unfettered free market is in the third world where capitalism has been violently shoved down their throats. These countries, like Nicaragua and Haiti, don’t have the luxury of protectionism because they are the third world, typically producing for the interests of the first world and therefore have little say about how their economy operates. Consequently countries like Nicaragua and Haiti have become the poorest countries in the hemisphere. Fortunately other countries like South Korea pulled themselves from the brink of economic disaster by rejecting IMF and World Bank advice, incorporating instead a state-oriented Japan-inspired model which led to the creation of their highly efficient and successful steel industry.


The conflation of “big government” with “leftists” is a bit of an oxymoron. After all, it is really only on the left where the government can disappear entirely with socialism, libertarianism, anarchism, etc.


Explain how insurance companies are “The government”? I agree that the current Obama-proposed medicare system is a big gift to the insurance industry but that’s something radically different than a socialized health care system.


I’m merely stating the elementary principles of capitalism which demands that an owner controls and owns labor. The laborer does not have any control over their own work, what they do, how they do it, when they do it, for how long they do it, and what they receive for doing it. So what I said was exactly true.


God does not give any rights. Rights are hard-won and fought for in any societies with a power structure, which is why people have different rights now than they had during the feudal period.


In that case, you need to be more familiar with conservative philosophy. The term “wage slavery” (i.e. a capitalist model of labor) and comparisons between labor and slavery have been around since the days of Cicero. This view of the capitalist model of owners and laborers as wage slavery was one typically held by conservatives in the conservative tradition which is why Abraham Lincoln and the Republican party believed “that those who spend their entire lives as wage laborers were comparable to slaves.”


The comparison between taxation and slavery is not quite correct, since wealth is a social product not an individual one. But what you suggest speaks to a deeper problem – that is, the malfunctioning democracy in the United States. If the US was a truly democratic state that people wouldn’t have a problem with taxation. So, there is a substantial argument that one could make, but you’re not quite making it, because you haven’t quite considered the complex nature of how wealth is created and made.

Oh "rockandroll." :afro

I really enjoyed reading your thoughts.  God bless you!  You write well.  Your thoughts are clear.  You will do fine on your exam.  I know it.  I wish you the best on getting that amazing milestone accomplished.  Please continue to accept challenge to the ideas you have expressed.  You have the capacity to go further on this.

In the book she mentions how Dennis once emotionally tried to talk her out of having an abortion.

Thanks. Always happy to accept a challenge!  :)

Me too!  An open mind craves information and perspective.

When I say that God gives rights, that means they're there from birth.  It exists with or without you.  You have them.  Just like we have hands and feet.  And gravity.  It's all natural.  But unlike the obvious gravity, people often deny them.

Almost.  Remember, I'm saying "Rights are natural."  Therefore, what is hard fought is not the Right -- but accepting them.  That is what is denied.

And I have proof (and you're not gonna like it!)

By definition (and as exemplified by their actions) the powerful, who denied people of their Rights during the Feudal years, must have believed that Rights must be fought for -- as do you.  By virture of them only acknowledging people's Rights with the defeat of their own ideology they could not have believed what I believe, which is -- everybody has these Rights by virtue of existing.

Therefore, perception of the origin of our Rights should become paramount to this discussion.  And my perception is superior.  Because I believe that our Rights come from God, they are a product of our creation -- you can't add to them -- you can't take them away.  The only other option is denial.

Yes, People were denied of Rights during the Feudal period.  These rulers (deniers), like you, believed that the serfs were not born with any Rights.  Reality dictates... they must have believed what you believe -- that Rights are only to be fought for.  If they believed otherwise they would not have demanded a fight!  They would have accepted the Rights as natural and moved on.  Any other option is illogical and wrong.

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

I think, perhaps, you misunderstand me and maybe I misunderstood you too.

I believe that there are such things as basic, fundamental human rights. With that in mind though, I'm opposed to your use of the term "God given" not just because of the "God" part but also because of the "given" part because it seems to me that rights are never given. If one happens to be born into a world where there is no slavery, it's not because they are born with that right but because they are born into a world where that right was fought for. And I say this because if you look at history what you'll see is what I said - in the majority of societies with political power, whatever rights people had, had to be fought for. That is, rights are rarely ever granted magnanimously by the dominant, empowered elite.

In the Feudal period, people in fact truly believed that rights were God-given. That is, people were born into positions of power, or non-power because they were meant to - it was by design. You are correct when you said that Feudal leaders "believed that Serfs were not born with any Rights" but that was because they believed that they themselves had all the rights and that was precisely because God determined their place in the social hierarchy, hence the notion of Divine Right. People who believe they have a Divine Right to rule certainly don't believe that rights are to be fought for - believing so would negate the very meaning of the term. So, no, Feudal lords did not believe as you suggest that "Rights are only to be fought for" because it was assumed that the social hierarchy was part of the natural order of things and therefore fighting for rights wouldn't do much good anyway.

Many did accept the Rights as natural just as people today accept their own subordination and domination as natural. That's how systems of repression perpetuate themselves. It's only because people realized that they had to fight for their rights, rather than assume that rights were accorded by Divine will, that we live in a different kind of world today.

Hence what they actually believed in were not Rights, at all.  It was actually a perverted (and therefore demonic) version of Rights.  Either way, whether it was:  "Rights are only to be fought for/must be won," or "Right are evidenced by the 'social hierarchy'" -- doesn't matter.  Both demonic.  One in the same.  But it made sense to everyone, as you suggest.  Absent the correct definition or the Divine reality (that Rights actually applied to everyone - given to us, as a gift from God) people will remain hopelessly subjected to a demonic interpretation and interruption of Rights and the oppression that lies therein.

To suggest that any Right is man-made -- is wrong.  I have the right to free speech.  To say whatever I want.  I have that.  I didn't win it.  I didn't create it.  It just happened.  I was born screaming, as they say.  Sure, if I exercise it, someone may slap me.  But that's their fault.  Sometimes the slapping was allowed by law.  And sometimes it wasn't slapping.

So, "God given" or Divine is important.  It's powerful.  Therefore -- the understanding of what God given or Divine actually means must present in our leaders.  How could I be wrong?  These are not terms to use lightly.  Yes, misuse is prevalent -- as our President Obama has exampled by championing a demonic concept of Salvation called:  "Collective Salvation".  Scarey stuff, Collective Salvation is.  Run away.  It's guiding his every move. 

I digress...

Thankfully our founders had this discussion.  Great men, flawed as you and I, but they were great.  If you think you can arrive at a better conclusion, be it a system or government -- one more logical and scientific -- don't bother (I've already read your thoughts pertaining to Capitalism).  As well, if leaving Divinity out of it you are, by definition, you'll just be playing the role of the Divine.

"Tonight, the role of God will be played by..."   :3d  Fill in the blank.  Doesn't matter.  Hoax.  Not Divine.  Demonic.

We should be thankful that the founders did not listen solely to folks of your opinion on these matters.  They decided to identify the source of our Rights -- God given.  Our Rights come from God.  Not man.  Yes, people continually (always?) oppose this and as a result the realization of divinity gets stunted.  That's why slavery lasted for a few more generations.  They couldn't get all the founders to see the divinity of it all.

So, no -- We do not have a Right to Health Care if that's what you're wondering.  That would be a man-made Right (demonic) to someone's services (Doctor's, Nurses, etc.).  You do not have that Right -- cause it's not a Right.  A Right to someone's services does not exist.  We call that slavery -- and slavery is very much not a Right.  It is Demonic.  A Doctor has the Right to treat you and you have the Right to allow the Doctor to do so.  God wants the Doctor to choose to do the right thing and do so -- and the good Doctor does so.  Anything forced in this agreement is demonic.  Ah...Collective salvation...we meet again...

...and that's what happened with the Beach Boys and Ronald Reagan!   :lol

As this conversation plays out, I sense that we are reaching what are probably going to be insurmountable roadblocks. The reason for that is because I don’t believe in God, nor am I prepared to engage in a discussion on the matter. Since much of what you have to say here is dependent on the presupposition that there is a God, there is simply not much that I can really say.


Agreed.


It was neither of those and my post doesn’t suggest anything of the sort. Rather, the Feudal period was marked by a belief that Rights were accorded by Divine will. Rights are not “evidenced by the social hierarchy” rather the social hierarchy and the rights or non-rights that come with it, are part of a larger design. Again, it was understood in the Feudal period that rights were God given.


If this is the case, then “our Founders” whom you praise as “great men” further in your post were equally guilty of a “demonic interpretation and interruption of Rights” since they certainly did not believe that the right to liberty extended to black people, nor did they believe that the right to participate in the political process extended to women.


That is genuinely insulting to the people who indeed fought, sometimes with their lives, for the free speech that you claim “just happened” that you are taking for granted when you make such a claim.


Having the ability to speak and having the right to free speech are two entirely different things, and while this distinction is something easily forgotten in a country where free speech rights have been fought for and won, it is a distinction well known in places where there are less free speech rights. Even in the darkest days of Soviet repression, people could speak to their heart’s content, as long as it was reinforcing particular ideological viewpoints. Assuming that because we have vocal cords, and a brain that is hard-wired for language, does not logically follow that we have been given the right to free speech, it simply means that we have the ability to speak coherently and understand others who are speaking. What happens as a consequence of these abilities is entirely up to us. Incidentally, your definition is really questionable. Not only is a baby screaming not exercising his or her right to free speech, the baby is not even using speech at all, as far as any definition of the term that I am aware of.


I agree – the notion of God given rights is so powerful that it worked to subordinate the serfs under Feudal rule for hundreds of years. What God really wants or what God really means is always subject to the dominant ideological viewpoints of a given society at a given time.  


No, it isn’t. Obama is a right-wing, pro-business, ultra-capitalist who only serves the elite interests of concentrated power. It is that ideological mindset that is not only guiding his administration but also every administration for decades. But both parties have turned sharply more to the right since the early 90s, which is why Nixon would have been to the left of Obama on certain issues. In the real world, there is nothing remotely close to anything resembling “collectivity” in Obama’s policies though those on the extreme right would have you believe that because anything short of totalitarian corporate rule must be characterized as socialism since it works as a nice buzzword to get people afraid.


You mean founders like Thomas Jefferson who said that he could not find “one redeeming feature” in “orthodox Christianity”? Or John Adams who referred to Christianity as “the most bloody religion that ever existed”? Or Benjamin Franklin who said that “The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason”? Or James Madison, who saw in ecclesiastical establishments, “a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority”?

So I don’t think the Founding Father’s notion of rights had much to do with God, and moreover, I certainly don’t believe that the Founding Fathers of the U.S. have the market cornered on Rights. In other words, what I consider to be basic, fundamental human rights often has little to do with what they considered to be rights. And that’s because they came from a particular time period and had the values of that time period. Those who framed the constitution and the laws at the outset of the country did not believe that certain rights applied to everyone – namely women, blacks, and Natives. The belief was that a particular class of people were entitled to particular rights, and everyone else would be subservient to those people. This was recognized by the key players in the drafting of the American constitution. So, for example, James Madison made the extraordinarily anti-democratic statement that the constitutional system should work to “protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.” The world that the framers of the U.S. constitution envisioned was not all that different from the Feudal society we have been talking about.


And your point is, what exactly? Since you have provided no quotations from “my thoughts” nor provide any critique for anything I’ve said on the matter, I ultimately fail to see the relevance of you bringing it up.


I’m afraid I’m not sure what you’re getting at here either. Please elaborate.


I agree with you if you are suggesting that we are living in a society that is completely uncivilized. In a civilized society, one would be able to say something along the lines of, “I have medical expertise and I will gladly use my expertise to save your life.” Or, “I grow potatoes and I will gladly give you some of my potatoes.” Or, “I build houses and I will gladly build a house for you with other people who can build houses.” But, of course, we don’t live in a civilized society like that. Rather, someone who builds houses cannot offer their services because they have no control over their services. Again, under a capitalist model, no laborer has control over their labor. They have absolutely zero rights when it comes to what they do, how they do it, when they do it, how long they do it, who they produce for, etc. If your concern is that no one at all has the right “to someone’s services” then you are calling for the end of capitalism because if capitalism is anything it is exactly controlling and owning someone’s else’s work. This is why it has been a long tradition in conservative philosophy to equate the capitalist model with slavery.

Furthermore, you need to brush up a bit on economics. The reason is that your objection to socialized medicine seems to rest on the assumption that laborers get paid by customers for their labor. But that’s not what happens in a capitalist system. In a capitalist system, laborers don’t get paid by customers at all – they get paid by owners. The people who own and control the work that other people do are the people who get paid by customers. So the idea that you shouldn’t have a right to someone services is not only hypocritical, as you indeed very much support a system wherein someone’s services are owned and controlled by others, but is also misguided since you, as a member of the consuming public are not paying people for their labor in the first place.

The Founders knew their imperfections.  Thankfully, they recognized Rights come from the man upstairs, not men, who partook in slavery.

By penning and signing the documents they did...they, in effect, put the stake in the heart of your religion -- the "Rights come from Man/must be earned from tyrants" religion.  Your monster was dead.  In this country, within these borders -- it was over for you guys.  Sure, that ghoul has died a slow death.  You got lawyers.  We got lawyers.  But the die was cast.  To resurrect your feudal system of man-made perfection, you must destroy the founders and their documents.  I understand that.  You gotta burn them documents!

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

Good. Well, since I am clearly intellectually incapable of comprehending your points, then we can just call this a day.

See ya later on the road to serfdom...

What's that supposed to mean?

It's a reference to the book The Road To Serfdom by the liberal economist Friedrich Hayek, who argued that Nazism and Communism were both direct results of state control of the economy, and therefore *any* state intervention in the economy, however slight, would lead to tyranny. I think the poster there is saying that your views will lead you to be enslaved, as Hayek predicted.

(Personally, I think the other great Liberal economist of that time, John Maynard Keynes, was much closer to the truth, and even Milton Friedman though that Hayek was a little extreme...)

The problem with free markets, absent government intervention, is that they work in much the same way that gravity works -- gravity works to make things go lower, just as free markets work to make things more efficient, but in both cases they can get trapped in local maxima rather than global ones. Also, while there is government-enforced ownership of natural resources such as land, there is not even the possibility of a free market in the sense in which an economist would use the term. As long as there are any government-granted economic rights at all (such as the ownership of land, the printing of currency, and so on) then market forces serve to magnify those inefficiencies, rather than to minimise them.

Government provided healthcare might not be cheaper than a true 'free market' solution, but there will be no free market in healthcare as long as there are any regulations on who can practice as a doctor, who can sell medicine, and so on. While such government regulations (which pretty much everyone is agreed are a good thing) exist -- while I'm prevented from setting up shop as a brain surgeon unless and until I have actually got a medical degree and been properly certified -- then talk of free market efficiency is a nonsense. And I, for one, am all in favour of surgeons being forced to have the proper training before they operate...

Perhaps though I would have liked to see the poster explain exactly why.


Again, though, it's impossible to really say for sure whether or not "free markets work to make things more efficient" because, like you say, there's just never been anything like it for us to judge with any certainty, in the first world at least. I might agree that in some abstract world we could discuss the possibilities of it (and even then I would be skeptical that it would be more efficicent than other economic systems) but I think it is impossible to make that judgement given the evidence we have. Ultimately though, with the evidence that we do have, I agree with World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz who noted that "unfettered markets are not efficient and can be characterized by persistent unemployment."

I avoid such conclusions.  On the basis of emotion people form solid convictions, around which our intellect wraps itself as added protection.  So, quite often, overcoming the mere intellect simply exposes nothing more than an even less penetrable defense.

In other words, just because you don't understand what I was saying does not reflect the measurement of your intellect.  I was basically agreeing with your earlier statement that we've reached an impasse -- or as I call "the beginning."  (Yes, I also recognize that you were being sarcastic -- but I happen to also accept sarcasm dollars, even though they're worth less than honesty dollars).

In the end...what needs to be understood is "wisdom," for the lack of a better term.  Wisdom implies knowledge through experience.  Outside the lab, if you will.  Much of the ideology espoused by socialists, liberals, communists and the dastardly Progressives lack wisdom.  It works only in the lab.  It's brilliant except that it doesn't work.  Therefore it's not that brilliant -- but rather elitism.  It leaves out one humungous factor -- human nature.  Or all things organic.  Human spirit.  People.  God.  All the things that defy science.  What the founders recognized as the "pursuit of happiness."

So, you are correct -- we could spend hours debating.  I could go through line by line and impugn with authority the fallacy of your old, 19th century failed thinking.  Progressivism and Marxism IS feudalism.  Socialism and Communism are a hoax.  They don't work.  But that's really boring.  I prefer to get past all that.  I tend to jab just a little bit deeper.  Less of the "maybe if we let people keep 27.6% of their income, rather than 76.2% -- we'll be a more perfect society" -- and more of the "why do you mistrust your fellow man so much that you feel you get to decide what they keep?"

So far only one of us has claimed a particularly special knowledge that the other doesn't have. If anyone here is taking on the position of the elitist, it's you, since claiming to have a wisdom that others with their mindset can't possibly have is precisely a textbook definition of elitism.


And you get to define what constitutes "experience"? Is experience only experience if it leads one to come to the same conclusions as you? It's impossible for any human being to avoid experience, whether they are in a lab or not. Don't pretend that "socalists, liberals, communists and Progressives" don't have experience and if you are going to pretend that, don't expect me to go along with such a farcical charade. You're simply privileging a particular kind of experience over another in order justify your ideologically-driven beliefs. It's nothing more than a rhetorical trick.


What the "founders recognized as the 'pursuit of happiness'" was purely an echo or reverberation of the European philosophical movement of the Enlightenment and that movement was the result of a reaction against Catholic counter-reformation. The "founders" notion of what happiness was (along with liberty, freedom, etc.) was one that was defined by those philosophers. In other words, the liberal and sovereign nation-state could have only come about as a concept at that time because it was a product of Enlightenment thinking. All the values that went along with the nation-state were likewise part and parcel to the ideas that were in the air at that time. The notion that people suddenly started understanding what was God-given is simply a fabrication of historical reality. People came to believe in concepts of happiness, liberty and freedom in particular ways because of socio-historical conditions, and for no other reason.

I agree that there is such a thing as a human nature but, if anything, science has been reaffirming that for years.


Making up false equivalences and distorting the historical record is not doing anything "with authority."


Only because, according to you, they are relying on man-made rules rather than God-made rules. But here's the unfortunate reality: every rule, every law, every right, every concept is man-made. Whether you're talking about the revolution of the proletariat, the Divine Right of Kings, the right to free speech, the ten commandments, etc. they all have one thing in common - man came up with all of them. The fact that you can claim some special insight as to what God really wants is, I'm afraid, unconvincing. After all, that's what the Feudal lords believed too and they were as equally convincing.

But establishing this false premise as you have done has allowed you to make these false correlations. In reality, progressivism isn't anything like Marxism and neither are anything like Feudalism. Marxism for example couldn't have ever happened in the Feudal period. The idea simply couldn't have occurred to anyone because there wasn't a proletariat in the Feudal system. The socialist revolution could only come after a capitalist revolution.


Really? And prey tell, what are your examples of that, then? As far as I know the only truly socialist society that has ever existed without interruption for a lengthy period of time was in Catalonia and Aragon, Spain in the 1930s and they were working extremely well until the Soviets destroyed them.


In that case, you hate the capitalist system. In capitalism it is precisely the owner who feels they get to decide how much a laborer gets to earn from his or her labor. So, I take it you're calling for an end to the capitalist system?

I'm sensing some hostility...so I'll continue.   :-D

The "experience" and "wisdom" lacking in socialist/progressives/ or which ever "ism" they're hiding behind today, is common sense.  The only other possibility is, not a lacking, but rather a denial thereof.

So at the very least, they're denying reality.  These systems deny that human beings want to pursue happiness and be rewarded for their hard work.  They deny the desire to climb out of the mud -- out of serfdom -- and make a better life for themselves.  They deny that they're human beings!

Basic human rights cannot coexist with these dated forms of government.  Because they're not human systems -- they're class systems.  You're not working to better yourself...your f.u.c -- k.e.d.  Is it any wonder which political side is totally obsessed with class structure?  The middle class drives these elitist-types absolutely crazy!  To an elitist there are only supposed to be "ranchers" and "cattle."  Royals and serfs.

--- As an aside --- I have to ask you...do you and your liberal friends enjoy scoffing at middle class folk enjoying their RVs and expensive toys? ---

Capitalism, however, allows people to pursue and prosper.  It's all natural because it better models human nature.   Works with it -- doesn't deny it.  You're working for yourself.  And it creates sharing of wealth, it requires it.  It produces it.  (eh-hmm, middle class?).

Elitist systems don't share.  They take.  They deceive and keep people down.  They tell people what they're good for.  Those who do not accept this are eliminated.  If they're lucky they escape and come here (America).  This is reality.  This is common sense.

I'm sure you're aware that part of having common sense means being able to exhibit sound judgement. I'm sure you're likewise aware that making the kind of sweeping generalizations that you have made in this quotation without providing a single example from reality is the opposite of sound judgement and therefore the exact opposite of common sense. Now, it's not as if I don't understand that the term "common sense" has been hijacked by the American extreme right and emptied of its actual meaning so that it could be evoked in order to indoctrinate people into supporting the status quo, but that's not the actual meaning of the term. In fact, the term common sense, as is usually understood outside of the ideologically-warped misunderstanding of the term, is rooted in the long philosophical and scientific tradition of empiricism - meaning that theories must be tested against observations. In other words, anyone who truly had common sense would know that you can't simply make absurd reductive statements about large groups of people and rest their case based on such a reduction.


Quite the contrary. So take Marxism, for example. In Marx's theory, genuine human happiness can only come when the working man breaks free from the shackles that he is enslaved by by the inherently exploitative capitalist system and begins to have real control over the work they do. And when one has control over the work they do instead of being a wage slave and beholden to their owner and beholden to the power structure, only then can one be happy. And furthermore, only then can can a worker actually be rewarded for their work, because it is only then where they can actually prosper directly from what they do. Remember, as I've already said, in a capitalist system, no one is rewarded for hard work. No consumer ever pays a laborer for producing a product. Under capitalist system, a worker gets paid for their labor time not for the work they do (and this includes the caliber of their work). This is why it is impossible to work as a wage laborer and get a fair wage. The fact that you’re getting a wage at all means it’s already unfair because it means, exactly, that you are not being rewarded for your work but rather for being the X that fills the space that has been alloted amongst the expenditures for the owner. Again, this is why the current capitalist model is a system of wage slavery and that's why it has been recognized as such, mostly from conservative philosophical movement for hundreds of years.

From my own perspective, as an anarchist, it seems to me that the kind of society that would bring the greatest amount of happiness to the most amount of people is the one that is fully liberated - liberated from the control of tyrannical forces that shape day-to-day existence. It seems to me that people would ultimately be happiest if they were able to participate to the full in their society, helping to shape the major decisions, doing the kind of work that they want to do, on their terms, and having a real responsibility for the way the society operated.
  

This is incorrect. In actual leftist political models, it is precisely the working class who have control of things and in particularly left wing societies, the working class is everyone. I suggest you actually familiarize yourself with these political models rather than come to these erroneous conclusions that have absolutely nothing to do with these political systems whatsoever.


In my view, basic human rights will only be fully realized once the tyranny of power can be overcome, and this is simply impossible in a capitalist society.


As an aside, I'm not a liberal or anything close to one. I've said that countless times in this thread alone.


In what sense? In the United States, real prosperity typically comes as a result of massive government intervention - a system wherein the risks of research and development are subsidized by the public until a product is deemed profitable, at which time the profits are privitized as the product is placed under some kind of corporate ownership. This is the story of economic prosperity in the United States. The story in fact goes back as far as the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in England and Germany, but takes its real roots in the United States in the 19th century wherein the U.S. Army, typically under the pretext of defense, took on the lion's share of managing the more complex industrial systems, one of which was the railroad, for example. This crucial intervention of the state into technological and industrial development in the 19th century was what, in effect, set the stage for and allowed for some of the major achievements of the early 20th century, like the automotive industry which itself relied heavily on years of publicly subsidized research and development. After WWII this system of state intervention was ramped up even further and what resulted was one of the most powerful periods of economic growth but it was very much a state sponsored growth: computers, electronics, telecommunication, aviation, all of these came under the domain of the State at one point of another - again, during the crucial risk period. Once a product was deemed profitable, it would be placed into private hands. The public pays for the development of the product and is then prohibited from sharing in the profits for that which wouldn't have existed without their crucial support. And this is a familiar story throughout the first world. Yes, there has been a tremendous amount of prosperity in first world countries but it is a consequence of a heavily publicly subsidized economic system of state intervention.

Where you see a different story, in fact, is where capitalism has been violently shoved down the throats of the third world. There, those countries don't have the luxury of state intervention because they are not meant to be prosperous for themselves but rather for the country who has shoved this economic system down their throats. So, Haiti and Nicaragua which had a more genuine capitalist system, ended up being the poorest countries in the hemisphere wherein the only people who could pursue and prosper were the small number of powerful owners.


Which is why capitalism is typically forced on people, violently.

The fact is, while there may be a human nature it is really impossible to say what it is for sure at this point, and while I do believe the humans inherently have a desire for some kind of shared moral code, a desire for liberation, freedom, independence, survival, I also believe that human nature is subordinate to the human mind (which is why we grow out of most of our instinctual behavior within the first eight months of life) and the human mind, clearly, has been capable of civilizing even the most base instincts. What would be ultimately appealing to humans then is not simply something that would feed into human nature but, rather, some kind of rational system that is thought out and preferably thought out with as large amount of people as possible. If history tells us anything, it's that humans have a fantastic capacity for self-improvement and that is specifically a consequnce of the human mind.

 
In a capitalist system, you are not. You are working for the profits of your owners.


That's as about as good of a description of capitalism as I could write myself.


Of course people escape to go to America. If I were in a country that had been terrorized by America or American-sponsored terrorists and held under their thumb, I'd much rather live with the oppressor rather than risk continuing to be oppressed. Of course, one of the many American myths is that people come to America because they revere their freedom but that demands a great deal of ignorance of America's role as a leading terrorist state and the central repressive force of freedom in the world.

That's funny right there.

We'll give it back...but show me the money first -- and no funny business!  Or the "common sense" gets it!

Yes, I remember.  And it's still delusional.  But still funny!  Remember what I said though?  Something about real world experiences?  Ah...nevermind...

Kind of like we can do now?  Free market system?  I have a choice of where I spend my money.  Representative Republic?  I choose my Representatives.

Sure they do.  The good peoples of Cuba have all the control.  Yeah...that's sane.  I do agree that everyone is "working class" though...well...if there's jobs.  But that's a minor detail...

Isn't there enough pain and suffering?!  I need to familiarize myself?!  You know, your allegiance to the Dark Side is cute and everything -- but to paraphrase something you said of me earlier -- that is so incredibly offensive to all the people risking their lives to get the hell out of your "political models." At some point, I suggest, YOU need to familiarize YOURSELF with your beloved political models.

Put down the commie pamphlets and textbooks.  Walk outside and familiarize yourself with reality.  Go slow, the air is rich.

Maybe you just need a job.  You know, it's not that bad.

That's fine.  But give me some credit -- I've made allowances for that, when I said "whatever you're calling yourselves today..."  Basically, to liberty-loving free peoples -- there's what works and what doesn't.  Whether you're a European Socialist or a Progressive -- it's all the same murky depths.  And I mean that, I'm not being flippant.  That's an important distinction many have come to accept.  All these systems result in failure and suffering.  Liberalism, Progressivism.  Socialism, Communism, Nazism.  I know there are differences between Hitler and Stalin and Mao and Sangor...I just don't care.  The body count is just too staggering -- the results are too macabre to spend time mulling over the finer points of these dreadful human catastrophes.

Yeah, you see...right there.  You need to nip that in the bud.  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.  Neither are to your benefit.

Like we ultimately did to Japan?  Or like Japan when bombing Pearl Harbor?

Hey man...don't go bringing religion into this!   :lol

And therein lies the foundation of Leftist religions.  Because there's always somebody smarter, etc...

...and those who don't outgrow and self-improve, typically go to camps.  To git thur minds right!

What's this paycheck they keep sending me for?  Again, a job might help clear this up.  As well, becoming an owner -- starting your own venture -- would really clear this up.  Plus it's so rewarding.  I have my own business on the side.  It's great.  I have no employees, it's just me, so that way I'm not oppressing anyone.   :-D

:o

Ok.  Ok.  I'm a ... ok.  So...by your logic...I should prefer to live with the Taliban -- because they aim to be America's oppressor?

You know what, forget about it.  I'll just savor this last quote as the glittering jewel of Looney Toon Leftism that it is.  I can't make this stuff up.  In fact, if I had said Leftist's believe everything you just said -- they attack me.  I know because it's happened to me before!  Just like how back in the 80's I realized the Left were just a bunch of Commies (or Commie sympathizers).  People scoffed and told me I was the one who was nuts.

Who's laughing now?!  I am.  I'm laughing now.  You Flat Earth'ers are totally hilarious!!

The term "hijacked" is entirely appropriate for how the term has been used by the right and deprived of its meaning. Now what counts as "common sense" are simply the tacit assumptions made by a given society that are determined by the people who exercise power and domination. Appeals to common sense, then, are typically appeals to reinforce the status quo, the beliefs that are not necessarily true, but are widely accepted as 'true' and function as 'true.' This, of course, has nothing to do with actual common sense, but is instead merely a tactic of ideological control.


In fact, it is an exact description of what capitalism is - how it operates and how it functions. I'm not particularly interested in making a case for or against the version of capitalism that you have made up, which has no bearing on the reality of the system. My interest is purely in discussing the real system. And in the real system, a laborer is not paid for the work they do, they are paid for their labor time. This is why two people who work doing the same thing for the same company typically earn the same pay, as long as they work the same hours. People are not paid for their work, a wage is set for a particular job before someone even does any work. A worker simply fills that particular space. This is elementary Economics 101. If you don't understand the basics of capitalism then you are really not in any position to discuss the matter.


Yes, and what I said in response holds just as true now - you're merely drawing an arbitrary line in the sand in order to privilege one form of "real world experiences" over others. Like I said, it is impossible for a human to avoid real world experiences - you're simply placing yourself in a position where you can determine what counts as real world experiences and what doesn't. Of course, it's a completely fraudulent exercise because there is no such thing as "non-experience" or "non-real world experience" and so the only real reason to pretend like some line exists is to play a rhetorical game to make it appear as if certainly beliefs are legitimate while others aren't.


No, you don't really have "a choice of where" you spend you money. And if you think you do, try buying out Big Oil or General Electric or Goldman Sachs. Unless you're actually a multi-billionaire you won't be able to do it. So from the start, you choices are always deeply constrained by your position in the economic hierarchy. Furthermore, especially in the United States, brands are typically controlled by a select few companies. Those few companies (like, say, Johnson & Johnson, Kraft, Coca-Cola) own and control countless products that have been given other brand names, concealing their ownership and creating the illusion of choice. So, for example, Ruffles Chips, Lays Chips, Doritos, Fritos, Tostitos, Sun Chips, Rold Gold Pretzels, Cheetos, Miss Vickie's, and so on, are all in fact Pepsi. You are not choosing one over the other - in each case, you choose to pay the same company. Typically, while it seems like you are choosing from a multiplicity of options, you're really only choosing from a very select group of elite corporations.

You're also evoking the fraud of democracy in the United States too. Yes, you get to pull a lever or something every couple of years and this is the extent of your involvement in the political organization of your life. Like I noted earlier with the quote from James Madison, the system was designed this way, to protect the interests the slim minority of wealth from a large majority of democratic interests of the population. What I'm talking about is actual participation - being able to decide what really happens in your society, rather than leaving it in the hands of the small percentage of concentrated wealth and power who make most of the day-to-day decisions in the country. I'm also talking about having actual control over the work you do, rather having your work controlled in a top-down system of owners and subordinates.


The good people of Cuba have been the victims of a 50 year long terrorist campaign carried out by the United States in a program of economic strangulation, specifically targeted at the population because they or their forebears made the wrong democratic decision a half-century ago. I would say that it is quite difficult to run a successful society when the most powrful country in the world has had its boot on your throat for decades.


So far you haven't exhibited that you have much of an understanding of the economic systems we're talking about. And I would prefer to talk about reality rather than the assumptions you have made up in your head.


Again, where are you talking about? Cuba is a good case for precisely what I talked about above. If I were a Cuban, I would rather be on the side of the oppressor (the US) than the oppressed (Cuba).


You mean that I should accept the egregious distortions that you keep maintaining?


Are you seriously going to go with that out-dated chestnut?


In that case, you're not making any sense since liberalism and anarchism are entirely opposing political systems and philosophies born out of entirely different traditions. Nobody who calls themselves a liberal would ever call themselves an anarchist, nor would they have ever done that, and vice versa. This demands an elementary understanding of these systems and these traditions, though.


In that case, I assume you oppose capitalism too since it has ranked up a staggering body count as well.


Especially when you ignore the very real historical facts that proved that statement. It is telling that you have chosen to ignore those facts. Since you have chosen to overlook them, I am forced to re-paste them here:

The story in fact goes back as far as the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in England and Germany, but takes its real roots in the United States in the 19th century wherein the U.S. Army, typically under the pretext of defense, took on the lion's share of managing the more complex industrial systems, one of which was the railroad, for example. This crucial intervention of the state into technological and industrial development in the 19th century was what, in effect, set the stage for and allowed for some of the major achievements of the early 20th century, like the automotive industry which itself relied heavily on years of publicly subsidized research and development. After WWII this system of state intervention was ramped up even further and what resulted was one of the most powerful periods of economic growth but it was very much a state sponsored growth: computers, electronics, telecommunication, aviation, all of these came under the domain of the State at one point of another - again, during the crucial risk period. Once a product was deemed profitable, it would be placed into private hands. The public pays for the development of the product and is then prohibited from sharing in the profits for that which wouldn't have existed without their crucial support. And this is a familiar story throughout the first world. Yes, there has been a tremendous amount of prosperity in first world countries but it is a consequence of a heavily publicly subsidized economic system of state intervention.

Now, you can either like the fact that the story of economic prosperity in the United States is the result of an aggressively protectionist and interventionist economic system based mostly on the public subsidizing the risks and developments of some of the most instrumental products of commercial development, or you can not like it, but ignoring the facts doesn't change them.


Well, I've provided the facts, so please feel to find some that prove otherwise. Until then, the factual evidence and historical record that I have given will stand.


I was thinking more along the lines of the anti-communist US-supported Indonesian coup of 1965-66 which resulted in a bloodbath of 750,000 murders under Suharto in what was ultimately a successful attempt at bringing Western-style economic policy to the region. Suharto, again with crucial US support, tried to carry out the same policy in expanding into East Timor, ushering in an age of genocide and resulting in the murder of 1/3rd of the East Timorese in efforts to impose Western-style capitalism in the region. Or, how about in Nicaragua where the United States committed to a terrorist campaign for which they were condemned by the World Court for unlawful use of force. You can also take the support of pro-capitalist guerrillas in El Salvador, responsible for about 60,000 deaths, or the "Scorched Earth" campaign in Guatemala which led to 100,000 deaths. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Ultimately we can go back to the post-WWII Grand Area plans where the United States reconstituted much of the world so that it was now under US control. This involved, in many cases re-installing old, repressive regimes, blocking the anti-fascist resistance movement in Greece, crushing labor unions and independent media outlets in Europe and Japan, etc. Yes, the history of capitalist imposition is a brutal, violent and forceful one.


I'm not. Morality is not the exclusive providence of religion.


I'm not talking about religions - again, I'm assuming you are adopting the logical fallacy of the false equivalent again. And no, there isn't "always somebody smarter" - I think we're pretty much at the point now where we can safely say that they are all born with the same innate capacity for the same kind of intelligence.


Did people "typically go to camps" when we grew out of enslaving people? Did people "go to camps" when women got the vote? Did people "go to camps" when the socialist movement got the 5-day work week? Did people "go to camps" when we created free speech laws? Shall I go on?


I made this perfectly clear in the last thread and for your sake I repeated it in this thread above and I'll repeat it here again: you are being paid for your labor time. Again, if you were being paid for your "hard work" as you implied, you wouldn't be getting "sent a paycheck", you would be paid directly by the people who buy the object that you worked on. But that's not what happens. All the money goes to the owner and the owner has already decided how much he'll spend on his instruments (in this case, labor). In the same regard, how much money a worker makes comes down to the same factor as how much money your company decides to pay for, say, computers or telephones or cell phones, etc. It has nothing to do with how hard you work, the caliber you work, and so on. Again, this is elementary economics.


I haven't not had a job since I was 15 - that's 16 years in a row with a job, and all sorts of jobs too - working minimum wage customer service jobs, working in accounts for a high-end corporation, teaching, etc. But even if I didn't, it wouldn't matter since the way a capitalist system works is a matter of fact and easily accessible knowledge to anyone - it doesn't require you having to work a day in your life to understand it. Economic systems are economic systems. This is why I don't pull the same petty, absurd rhetorical trick of demanding that you have to work in a communist system before you can understand it. I simply ask that you do understand it before you talk about it, which is hardly an unfair demand.


That's fine, it's good to know you have a socialist system you've worked out for yourself, but nevertheless, if capitalism is going to function properly, it requires a majority of an exploitable work force whose labor is to be exploited by ownership. The system wouldn't work if everyone could be an owner - because if everyone was an owner, that would be socialism.


The Taliban don't aim to be American's oppressor. Their aims are ridiculous, to be sure, but those aren't them. But putting reality aside, aiming to be an oppressor and being an oppressor or two different things. Consequently, your analogy is nonsense - I didn't say people wanted to live in America because America "aimed" to oppress other nations. Rather, they want to live in America because America is very much the oppressor in many places of the world. Americans are not oppressed by any outside force - they are the world's leading oppressors. Consequently, why would anyone, given this current paradigm want to live outside of the United States.


That's probably because, like I said, the extreme right uses the word "communist" and "socialist" for anyone who is not on board with total, unfetted corporate tyranny. Anyone to the left of the extreme right (including, mostly those on the Right) are called "Leftists" (like liberals [hence your misguided conflation above] and Democrats) and thus, "Commies (or Commie sympathizers)". Certainly, not everyone to the left of the extreme right are communists which may account for the reaction against your smear tactic. And in fact, I am neither a Communist nor a "Commie sympathizer" myself, but again, that is a consequence of understanding what communism actually is, and basing my critiques on the system on the system itself rather than the imaginary construction of the system that I dreamed up.


It's funny. My most long-lasting debates have been with defenders of capitalism and conspiracy theorists and at some point one group always lumps me in with the other. I hope you don't mind, but the conspiracy theorists believe me to be a gatekeeper of capitalist power just as much as you believe me to be a conspiracy theorist.  :lol

I don't think you're as a conspiracy theorist.  Because, unless you're the dark lord himself, I don't believe these theories to be yours.   :lol  I'm not even sure I'd call'em theories. 

I do defend Capitalism.  I cannot defend all the people and actions within in a free society (for example Liberals) -- but Capitalism I defend.  Crony-Capitalism is not Capitalism.

I believe in liberty, freedom and small government.  People can and will always do bad things.  Bad deeds are not the fault of not enough government, too much liberty or unchained freedom.  Bad deeds are the result of individuals doing bad deeds.  A grounding in an Almighty, is an understanding that we are allowed a choice -- because we are.  I choose to believe, you choose to NOT believe, do you not?  Am I wrong?  A free society and system of gov't that best mimics that basic reality is best and most natural.  (This of course assumes you want a system to begin with.  Total anarchy does not ensure a five day work week).  :lol

By definition -- In a free society, you are free to setup a Leftist utopia in a town, county or state (if you can convince enough sorry sacks with no dreams of their own).  I however cannot setup a free society within a controlled Leftist society.  Interesting, eh?  This proves my system is closer to the Almighty -- more divine, or simply just closer to reality.

You are free to disagree (in my system).

In that case, why did you call me a Flat Earther?


They're not theories. I'm using factual evidence to reinforce my claims.


I'm not really talking about crony capitalism though I have mentioned in passing the special relationship between corporate power, concentrated wealth, and government which has existed in the US since its inception and has been the primary factor in the way that wealth has been created in the country and the way its been distributed. Mostly, though, I'm talking about the inherently unfair and exploitative nature of the capitalist system, as described by capitalist economic philosophers. The capitalism that you have been talking about often has very little to do with actual capitalism, as I understand it. Case in point, you appear to be conflating capitalism with democracy here by evoking the term "free society." In fact, capitalism and democracy are two very separate concepts and in my view, capitalism when functioning properly serves to thwart the democratic process from functioning properly. Only a society that is not dependent on hierarchal force relations (as does capitalism) could ever actually really be democratic and free.


Fair enough. Unfortunately, those beliefs are not echoed in the world of concentrated wealth. For what it's worth, I desire a system of liberty, freedom, and no government, at least not as it is traditionally understood.


I think you are, yes. I also believe that "we are allowed a choice" and that our choices are severely limited and constrained in a capitalist system. In this respect, I agree with Adam Smith who we are supposed to revere for being the Godfather of the free market but not actually read since he believed that the divsion of labor makes people "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. So yes, I believe that we should support a system that supports freedom of choice which to me, means opposing capitalism and I don't need "an Almighty" to tell me that.


No, in fact, it means that people could work more than five days a week, if they want.


In a free society you could yes, which is why in the United States, by no means a glowing symbol of a "free society", leftists have been systematically disenfranchised, marginalized, targeted with political oppression, and leftist movements have been destroyed by political force.


Not just interesting but flat out wrong.

Leftist societies, particularly socialist libertarian ones are by their nature free, since they function to abolish political power, and hierarchal structures, unlike capitalist systems which depends on a forceful system of power relations. Furthermore, in a leftist political system, you would be much freer to establish your own society. Anarchist societies are meant to be federated, decentralized, and worked by means of free associations. In other words, in order for them to function properly they must allow for the construction of endless amounts of societies wherein people can either choose to participate or create their own community.

  
That depends on two things - one, that I accept your definition of what constitutes "human nature" which is grounded in absolutely no verifiable evidence. You've simply concocted a definition of human nature that jives nicely with capitalism. It's completely and utterly fallacious and unconvincing as a result. Second, it depends on your gross micharacterization of how leftist political systems function. Since your characterization has zero bearing on the actual political systems, it should be taken for the nonsense that it is.

What in heaven's name is a "socialist libertarian"? Do they come from the same universe as the 'vegetarian carnivores' and the 'atheist fundamentalists'? How can you make a coherent argument when you throw out such gibberish terms? ALL 'real-world' Leftist/Socialist systems MUST be coercive on some level primarily because they involve human beings. Actual 'large L' Libertarians are on the far Right of the political spectrum, as are the true Anarchists (as opposed to the Leftists/Socialists like Emma Goldman who erroneously referred to themselves as "Anarchists"). If you characterize Anarchists as 'Left wing' and Fascists as 'Right wing', you are being duped by an old Stalinist canard that dates back to the disillusion of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in 1941. Catch up, hoss...it's 2012 now.

Because I'm using the actual term "libertarian" rather than the perverted and bastardized version of the term that is en vogue in the US right now. The term itself  dates to the mid-19th century and comes from Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his form of anarcho-communism from Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a fellow anarchist. The two philosophical positions were similar but Déjacque felt that his form of anarchism was different enough that it needed a new name. Anarchism itself is a kind of variation on the socialist and communist models without the dicatorship of the proletariat.

In the US, the term started being used in the 1950s but at that point in the US it was simply inconceivable to imagine the possibilities of that kind of a society - the ideology had already been shaped radically by the business-led ruling class. So the term meant something else - namely to let the business class do whatever it needs to do without the interference of government. Well, that of course, is nothing like what actual libertarianism is but it picked up enough steam that libertarian candidates started running on this bastardized interpretation in the 70s and this mischaracterization of real libertarianism has been sort of consistent like that ever since but only within the confines of the United States. Outside of the US, libertarianism is still understood for what it actually is - namely a sort of shade of of anarcho-socialism.

This wikipedia article is a pretty good summary of what I'm referring to, if only for this nugget: "The association of socialism with libertarianism predates that of capitalism, and many anti-authoritarians still decry what they see as a mistaken association of capitalism with libertarianism in the United States".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism)



I really don't know what that's supposed to mean.


Actually, the meaning of the terms I'm using date back well before Stalinism. Emma Goldman, who you mention, was a noted anarchist well before Stalin came along, and was herself extremely critical of the Leninist Soviet revolution for being exactly what it was - a right-wing deviation of Marxism. The facts are that both anarchism and libertarianism were indeed both born out of a left wing tradition, and continued with a left wing tradition. The central figures behind these movements (the aforementioned Dejacque, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin) all developed the philosophies of libertarianism and anarchism in the 19th century based on the principles of socialism and/or mutalism. This is the tradition of these movements, it is the tradition as it was understood by those who adopted the cause of these movements (like Goldman, and her associates, who were perfectly correct in using the term anarchism in its actual sense) and it is only a matter of fantasy to pretend as if these movements had anything to do with the right. As far as I know, they never had any associations of the sort and only after the principles behind these philosophies became grossly mischaracterized and distorted within the US, did you start to see the Right start to falsely claim some sort of association with them, but that was only well after the terms had been emptied of their real meanings and their traditional understanding. In much the same way, the Bolsheviks hijacked terms like socialism and Marxism to conceal their drive for authoritarian state power. So if catching up means to accept these gross mischarcterizations and perversions, I'm afraid I am not on board.

Ah, this seems like the place for this link  :lol

http://www.tmz.com/2012/05/11/beach-boys-singer-bruce-johnston-barack-obama-socialist-ahole/

To be fair, he thinks both parties have schmucks running around. I think the kids today call that "real talk  :-D

HA! I was just gonna post this.

Good for him. Though I don't think this will shed too positive a light on the reunion ;D

Sorry, redundant post. sb

Right on Bruce!!  See, rockandroll...Bruce Johnston gets it!   :angel:

Bruce just shot up tremendously, in my book.  I'll be cranking Disney Girls, The Nearest Faraway Place and Tear in the Morning tonight!

Yeah, it's a shame he bases his opinion on flat-out false information. He calls an ultra-capitalist like Obama a socialist and in the same breath praises Reagan who was deeply committed to an enormous welfare state for the wealthy. I guess rigorous government intervention is okay for Bruce as long as the public is providing a safety net for concentrated wealth and power. But, of course, Bruce probably hasn't a clue as to how the economy actually works and he certainly demonstrates he doesn't know what socialism is.

Is this kind of ignorance what really constitutes "getting it" for you?

You have been effectively indoctrinated if you actually believe that ANY form of authoritarian state power is right wing.

Communists, socialists, European social democrats, fascist dictatorships, Nazis (who WERE socialists, by the way), religious fundamentalists (of all denominations), welfare state liberals (most of the current U.S. Democrat Party membership), Bush/Cheney "patriot Act" neo-cons, Rick Santorum-type social issues "conservatives" (ha ha!) Obama/Bush-style crony capitalist enablers, even the so-called "religious right" AND the so-called "religious left" (from Pat Robertson to Father Pfleger...and both the Medieval Catholic Church and the Ottoman Muslim Caliphate...were/are ALL supportive of some physical form of authoritarian state/church power over the individual...hence they are all philosophically left-wing. I really don't care how Emma Goldman, Stalin, etc. have defined themselves. Their words cloud your thinking.

My new favorite Beach Boy...

I gotta say, RockandRoll, you and The Real Beach Boy really changed my outlook on politics. It's bullshit to say that debating politics on a message board is a waste of time (as some have said here): for someone like me who was incredibly ignorant to the workings of the economic/political structures of the world it was a real eye-opener to read a lot of what you all have been talking about.

I still can't understand much of it, but I'm far more keen to listen now rather than blabber off about something I know nothing about ;D

That being said, I'm happy that Bruce opened his mouth against the government....even when done in ignorance I'm happy when someone in the entertainment industry lashes out at the guy on top.

What you don't care for, plainly, are the facts, which is probably why you ignored every single point that I raised, including the ample documentary and historical evidence that I gave in order to interrogate your claims about libertarianism - claims that you have now, apparently, dropped in order shift the goal posts and have some discussion about authoritarian state power.

Now, let's actually get to the facts. There can be authoritarian state power on the left, but, for the most part if it does exist then it's not a genuine reflection of leftist principles. After all, the Marxist political system, which constitutes a large part of the left, suggests that a properly functioning socialist society is one that has no political power. In other words, in a socialist system, if it is a genuine socialist system, there should not be any state power - whether authoritarian or minimal. Anarchism draws on socialist values and, in fact, takes them a step further. Marx suggested that there should be a dictatorship of the proletariat, which ultimately meant, rule by roughly 90% of the population, since that was about the number that made up the proletariat in Germany at the time. One of the key differences between anarchism and socialism is this notion of the dictatorship of the proletariat. In other words, a much more genuine reflection of a non-hierarchal system in a society with no political power.

This has nothing to with how Emma Goldman or Stalin or whoever defines themselves. Rather it has to do with understanding what these terms mean - what are the political philosophies saying, what were the central tenets of the philosophers or economists who established the philosophy or economic system? These questions are crucial if we are going to talk about the subject with any kind of clarity or seriousness. Once we understand the answer to these questions, then we can then judge whether people appropriately or inappropriately use the term.

And just to clear up another misconception - the Nazis were not socialists. For one, they most definitely believed not only in political power, but overt political power. They had no interest in putting the means of production solely into the hands of the workers. Hitler hated the socialists so much that he had the German socialist party purged in 1934, ultimately executing the leader of the left wing movement Ernst Rohm, because of Rohm's desire to "redistribute wealth" and impose a socialist platform.

Thanks, Rab! I encourage you to participate as well. I feel like we all learn more, the more points of view we have.

So the American Left, as it were, most publicly represented by the Democratic Party for right or wrong reasons, should be criticized here as well. Yet I see more of the criticism throughout this thread which I have followed and contributed several long posts to, relegated to criticizing Ron Paul, the Republican Party, capitalism, etc. I'm all for exposing the problems, and criticizing them where necessary - I have no allegiance or no love lost with either Ron Paul or the GOP, but doesn't it feel like the criticism is being directed away from the Democratic Party when some of their most prominent and public members are equally responsible for doing the same things which are being called out in this thread?

Again, I say fair is fair, and in the case of American politics, I don't have too many positives about any of the lot, the D's, the R's, or the I's because they have all disappointed me...but for a fair assessment of the issues, that criticism should at least be directed somewhat in both political directions, shouldn't it?

Not if one side is more responsible for the problems than the other side.

This is a piece authored by both a liberal and a conservative: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html

The Democratic Party is not the "American Left". Plus there is no such thing as an "American" left. That's like saying, the "American blue" or the "American biology" or the "American Christianity". The left is the left. Now there has been historically an American left, and historically, they 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. The Democratic party often are given the distinction of being "on the left" because they are as left as you can legitimately go and still hold office or speak with any authority about political issues. This is the farce that is American politics - the only country in the industrialized world without a mainstream party representing labor.

Right, so I ask why does the Democratic Party get the distinction of being the party of labor, or the party of the working man, if it isn't true as you describe and define it? Labor leadership is beholden to the Democratic party, at least publicly, and the overwhelming majority of their contributions go to Democratic candidates. Yet the assertion in the last sentence is that no mainstream party represents labor? That memo should go to the various labor groups before they spend tens of millions again this year on funding the DNC.

The flawed notion that "one side" is more responsible than another is exactly the problem, and that is exactly what certain politicians depend on voters to think and accept when they go to the polls. The hidden message would appear to be this: One side is more responsible for our problems, therefore vote for the other side. Then who do we blame when things are *still* problematic, even after putting another side in power?

Because the American system can only function through ideological indoctrination. We've been through this before - it's the same reason why we are supposed to condemn socialism because of Stalin but not condemn capitalism because of Suharto. Remember that the media has a very crucial role in shaping public opinion and the media represent the interests of concentrated wealth and power and naturally to them, the Democrats are the party of labor because they show slightly more interest in labor than the Republican party does (and it is this slight, marginal difference, incidentally, that also accounts for the Democrats getting labor support -- after all, who else are they going to support?). Surely, the Democrats themselves probably quite laughably consider themselves to be an emblem of labor rights.  But this is a consequence of a very heavily indoctrinated society. In reality, the Democrats have always represented the interests of big business and concentrated wealth - in fact, they have a much longer history of doing this than the Republicans!

He sounds drunk to me, anyone agree?

Thank God for small blessings. The last thing in the world we need is ANOTHER special interest political party! Just out of curiosity, are you a Canadian citizen, a public-employee union member or a currently enrolled student at a University? I don't hear your kind of argument coming from any other segment of the American (working) population these days. I am an employed registered Democrat in a Blue State.

Of course, the only two mainstream parties we have are both special interest parties for the wealthy. What we need is a party that represents the special interests of the population, not just the small percentage of concentrated power and wealth.

You must have slept through the rise of the Tea Party movement and the (early) Occupy Wall Street protests.

The Tea Party movement from the beginning has been under control of concentrated power and wealth. The Occupy Wall Street movement is grassroots but it's not a political party you can vote for. It is however a real step in the right direction if any real change is going to happen in the U.S.

This is incorrect on both sides, and we've been over it previously.

What we went over were precisely the facts that proved my point. To repeat, in the weeks before the first Tea Party Tax Day protests, the David Koch-run Americans for Prosperity was hosting a website for offering talking points to protestors. This is at the very beginning of 2009. And, in fact, according to a New Yorker investigation from 2010, a Republican campaign consultant noted of the Tea Party that "The Koch brothers gave the money that founded it."

On the other hand, I have yet to find a shred of evidence to suggest that Occupy was controlled by any corporate interests.

You've got it ass-backwards (unless for some reason you consider American small business owners the evil "power & wealth" cabal). Both movements have authentic grassroots credibility, but OWS was co-opted early on by the labor unions and Trotskyite leftist groups. Most teabaggers couldn't even tell you who the Koch brothers are, and did not have all their expenses paid by outsiders like the larger OWS encampments did. I doubt that you've been "on the ground" talking to people participating in the events held by these groups like I have, or you would not parrot the Left's pathetic "talking points" so glibly. I was right about you being in academia, right? Perhaps you need to start occupying 'reality street'.

Then I'd suggest re-reading that thread where I listed not only the names but also the corporate interests and companies connected to the ad man who coined the "Occupy Wall Street" phrase as well as the man who was the first to send that phrase on Twitter. To say that man is a political activist would be an understatement, and to say he is grassroots or somehow disconnected from a larger political machine is an outright lie.

My memory is sharp on those things, I'll gladly repost to remind anyone who may have forgotten in the past month.

[/quote]

Two reasons.

1.  You're preaching hokum.  Don't hold your breath, expecting to sail off the edge of the map, into Utopia.  You'll be endlessly circumnavigating the globe with that flat map of yours.  ;D It is also telling that you associate "Flat Earth" with conspiracy theories.  I associate Flat Earthin' with holding onto an idea that just ain't so.  Hold on to principles, if fine -- but leave the fairytales to poets.

2.  Secondly, it's import to use a Leftist's own language against them.  I can't stress this enough.  In the case of Global Warming, why would they call a skeptic a flat earther?  That's illogical.  Skeptics proved the world was round not flat.  By calling people flat earthers -- they were hoping to end debate.  Without even knowing it, the Global Warming Nazis showed their cards.  They were simply attempting to deceive the whole time.  If they weren't, they'd welcome challenge. 

Pretty basic stuff. 

I remember what you wrote. Neither Ad Busters nor The Tides Foundation are funding or controlling OWS. That was a media fabrication. Yes, some figures in Ad Busters suggested some actions like Occupy, but they really had no control over it. And even if they did, Ad Busters is not a corporation, nor is it run by anyone from the corporate elite. At any rate, Occupy decisions are ultimately made in participatory meetings which are open to everyone.

In that case, demonstrate it. Don't just tell me I'm "preaching hokum", show me. Anyone could just say "You're preaching hokum" - that's simple. But that's not proving anything. If this is what you believe, then provide a quotation of mine and demonstrate with evidence how I'm wrong. Until you do that, you are in no position to make these cheap shots.



In that case, please demonstrate where I used the term before you did. Or is this just another groundless generalization?

You know how when you're facing somebody -- their right hand is on your left?  I think that's what going on here.  Whoever dressed you this morning put your right shoe on the left foot.  And the left shoe, on the right foot.  ;D

Interested in hearing your thoughts. I'm afraid I can't answer though since you haven't addressed any of my points nor have you made any of your own.

That's impossible.  I'm ahead of you.

Then we are at a stalemate because those statements about AdBusters, Tides, Occupy, etc. are not factual, but rather interpretations of evidence. It's all about the funding, and if a name like George Soros is not mentioned as swiftly as the name Koch, it is not 100% factually correct or honest in presenting the facts from either side.

Yes, but one can interpret evidence correctly or incorrectly. In reality, there is zero connection between George Soros and the Occupy movement. That was uncontroversially a fabrication:

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/10/13/on-george-soros-occupy-wall-street-and-reuters/ (http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/10/13/on-george-soros-occupy-wall-street-and-reuters/)

You do work for Media Matters, right? If not, you're missing a payday.