Damn, I miss George. R.I.P.

not quite as politically focused, but equally as aware, check out comedian bill burr

Like Bill Hicks, George Carlin: another dead hero

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

Like Bill Hicks, George Carlin: another dead hero


He speaks truth in a creative and funny way but "Hero"? I don't think so.

DRAMATIC MUSIC IS DRAMATIC

God how I hate over-edited video clips. Now that EVERYBODY ON THE PLANET is a video-editor that means from now until the end of time there will be no shortage of poorly edited videos, all employing the same cliches and cheesy manipulations, whether it's music, sound effects, clips of social unrest, rapid jumpcuts, etc. When will people learn that less is more? (look ma, I discovered the video effects palette! look what i can do!) Save this cheesy manipulative horseshit for the political scare ads.

I'm sure George Carlin would have agreed.

The Illusion Of Choice. How true.

Who is the suite at Maher's daring to talk down on the George?

*military *nsfw

This video has been flagged as being Not Suitable For Work - declared nsfw by ant.

Adding video to channels (Military) - requested by ant.

Some people would label George as an idiot conspiracy theorist after hearing the quotes in these clips...

Upvote for Carlin, but I must agree with ulysses that Carlin's work stands on it's own and needs no help from amateur video editors.

Voting: the slave's suggestion box.

How deluded must you be to believe that punching a couple holes in a piece of paper once every two to four years has any significant effect or meaning in your life? He's right, as the politicians sell you that grand illusion of democratic choice you lose your real freedom to choose.

>> ^NetRunner:

Which is why you support for Ron Paul for President!
>> ^blankfist:
Voting: the slave's suggestion box.
How deluded must you be to believe that punching a couple holes in a piece of paper once every two to four years has any significant effect or meaning in your life? He's right, as the politicians sell you that grand illusion of democratic choice you lose your real freedom to choose.



And...? Until we no longer have a system where the majority can vote my rights away I will continue to vote. Doesn't mean people who think it's a fundamentally good system aren't deluded.

I wanted to laugh but the Inception soundtrack kept telling me to F**k off..

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
Which is why you support for Ron Paul for President!
>> ^blankfist:
Voting: the slave's suggestion box.
How deluded must you be to believe that punching a couple holes in a piece of paper once every two to four years has any significant effect or meaning in your life? He's right, as the politicians sell you that grand illusion of democratic choice you lose your real freedom to choose.


And...? Until we no longer have a system where the majority can vote my rights away I will continue to vote. Doesn't mean people who think it's a fundamentally good system aren't deluded.


You're so Manichean about things. I'm with Churchill -- democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.

In any case, the platonic ideal of democracy is that all citizens get an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. What you're describing, by definition, isn't democracy. If people's choices are being usurped, or made meaningless, it's ceased to be democracy.

What we need is more democracy, not less.

>> ^NetRunner:
You're so Manichean about things. I'm with Churchill -- democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.
In any case, the platonic ideal of democracy is that all citizens get an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. What you're describing, by definition, isn't democracy. If people's choices are being usurped, or made meaningless, it's ceased to be democracy.
What we need is more democracy, not less.


Not so much "Manichean" as I am just reacting to the cards dealt me in this compulsory system. I haven't a choice to NOT being affected by human government outside of leaving the planet, so I have to actively play a role.

What it sounds like you want is more direct democracy. I shudder to think. I think we should've learned the lessons of majority rule when the US broke the treaties with the Native Americans. But I guess old tyranny dies hard.

>> ^blankfist:

Not so much "Manichean" as I am just reacting to the cards dealt me in this compulsory system. I haven't a choice to NOT being affected by human government outside of leaving the planet, so I have to actively play a role.
What it sounds like you want is more direct democracy. I shudder to think. I think we should've learned the lessons of majority rule when the US broke the treaties with the Native Americans. But I guess old tyranny dies hard.


You make a lot of pronouncements about things being tyranny or some other absolute evil, and cast a lot of aspersions on people like me that we have some sort of absolutist ideal of what is good that we're trying to impose.

Like the comment I've quoted, for example.

My idea of democracy is that if you're going to have laws, it's best for everyone who will be bound by those laws get a say in what they are. Your primary argument against it, if I phrase it charitably, is that democracy alone isn't sufficient for bringing about a utopia where we have perfect moral justice for all. I agree. I'm just saying I think it's a necessary component of a free society, not that it's the only thing necessary for a perfect one.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
Not so much "Manichean" as I am just reacting to the cards dealt me in this compulsory system. I haven't a choice to NOT being affected by human government outside of leaving the planet, so I have to actively play a role.
What it sounds like you want is more direct democracy. I shudder to think. I think we should've learned the lessons of majority rule when the US broke the treaties with the Native Americans. But I guess old tyranny dies hard.

You make a lot of pronouncements about things being tyranny or some other absolute evil, and cast a lot of aspersions on people like me that we have some sort of absolutist ideal of what is good that we're trying to impose.
Like the comment I've quoted, for example.
My idea of democracy is that if you're going to have laws, it's best for everyone who will be bound by those laws get a say in what they are. Your primary argument against it, if I phrase it charitably, is that democracy alone isn't sufficient for bringing about a utopia where we have perfect moral justice for all. I agree. I'm just saying I think it's a necessary component of a free society, not that it's the only thing necessary for a perfect one.


Keyword being "impose". That's where our disagreements begin.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:

You ... cast a lot of aspersions on people like me that we have some sort of absolutist ideal of what is good that we're trying to impose.
Like the comment I've quoted, for example.
My idea of democracy is that if you're going to have laws, it's best for everyone who will be bound by those laws get a say in what they are. Your primary argument against it, if I phrase it charitably, is that democracy alone isn't sufficient for bringing about a utopia where we have perfect moral justice for all. I agree. I'm just saying I think it's a necessary component of a free society, not that it's the only thing necessary for a perfect one.

Keyword being "impose". That's where our disagreements begin.


Actual keywords. That's where most of our disagreements are these days. You say things that aren't true about me, I say what I really think, you just repeat the lies.

If you want to debate me, or argue against what I believe, then you need to actually respond to what I say, and not just constantly insist I'm some evil monster.

What I said was "if you're going to have laws, it's best for everyone who will be bound by those laws get a say in what they are."

Do you have a response, or is it just going to be all slander all the time?

^sarcasm is a great way to be a dick. Thanks for adding that, Lucky and dag.

George Carlin, my one and only hero.

@blankfist - Let's be honest, buddy, you are smart, but you aren't anywhere near as smart as Netrunner. Perhaps you should put down the stones until you can find a dwelling that isn't made of glass.

Alternately: Don't be a dick to others and I won't be a dick to you.

^Translation: "I agree with NetRunner so you're dumb."

Meh. I ticked the sarcasm box. Not good enough for you two lovers?

Black and White thinking is an effective way to guard irrational belief systems from critique. If your beliefs can't stand on their own, then it's most beneficial to cloak them in the armor of a lofty ideal that is beyond critique. It's much easier to dehumanize than empathize.

-The religious cloak their irrational beliefs in the authority of an all-powerful, all-good, supernatural creator of the universe. Disagree with irrational religious beliefs and you are a heretic, bound for hell upon death.

-Ayn Rand cloaked her irrational beliefs in the armor of objectivity. Disagree with her irrational beliefs and you are disagreeing with objective truth, which makes you wrong before you open your mouth.

-George W. Bush cloaked his irrational beliefs in the armor of freedom. Disagree with his irrational conservative beliefs and you disagree with freedom. "You are either with us or against us", he said.

-Capitalist Libertarians cloak their irrational beliefs in the armor of liberty. Disagree with irrational market beliefs and you disagree with liberty. You are a tyrant and a statist.

For those who believe in democracy, the belief system and the ideal are one in the same, for better or worse. There is no armor needed, because critique is an essential part of democracy.

I think it's important to always draw a distinction between the bible and morality; between selfishness and virtue; between nationalism and freedom; and between fundamentalist capitalism and liberty; so that we can deny this craven tactic from taking more hostages.

>> ^NetRunner:
You make a lot of pronouncements about things being tyranny or some other absolute evil, and cast a lot of aspersions on people like me that we have some sort of absolutist ideal of what is good that we're trying to impose.

The Cherokee Natives cloaked their irrational belief in sovereignty when they stood up against the first Democratic President, Andrew Jackson. Their armor was the US Supreme Court, the law of the land, but Democracy shown brighter that day and demonstrated to the uppity Engines they have no rights when the majority are whites.

Two wolves. One sheep. Democratically voting the menu of the day.

+1 for George...if you have never listened to something of his ....go buy an album.