Sharron Angle explains the plot to the book "1984" Explains the Republican Party Press Strategy, Originally Published in the Novel 1984

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by NetRunner.

>> ^NetRunner:

Sharron Angle explains the plot to the book "1984" Explains the Republican Party Press Strategy, Originally Published in the Novel 1984
quality

Correction: Sharron Angle explains statism. You Dems are just as guilty as those Repubs.

^Maybe I can believe that both are promoting statism but "just as guilty" isn't really fitting.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
Sharron Angle explains the plot to the book "1984" Explains the Republican Party Press Strategy, Originally Published in the Novel 1984
quality

Correction: Sharron Angle explains statism. You Dems are just as guilty as those Repubs.


Hey, sounds exactly like what media apologists for the Republicans and Fox are gearing up to say about this.

I think she's just being honest. Obviously they want to look good. Most politicians would love nothing more than to get lots of softball questions so they can launch into pre-planned talking points. And not have to risk saying something stupid on the spot, or be dragged into talking about an uncomfortable issue.

The pitch for donations was a over the top. But it's the interviewer's job to keep politicians from doing nothing but campaigning during an interview. I think she understands that adversarial relationship, and is joking with him that he should just roll over and stop trying to be a journalist. It almost comes off as good natured ribbing.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

^Maybe I can believe that both are promoting statism but "just as guilty" isn't really fitting.

I rarely find much difference between Democrat and Republican politicians. Both lie about what they're selling you for your vote. Both ultimately increase war spending and increase US imperialism. Both increase spending and give corporations a hand job.


Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for an evil.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^JiggaJonson:
^Maybe I can believe that both are promoting statism but "just as guilty" isn't really fitting.

I rarely find much difference between Democrat and Republican politicians. Both lie about what they're selling you for your vote. Both ultimately increase war spending and increase US imperialism. Both increase spending and give corporations a hand job.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for an evil.


Truth.

i'm really starting to think that there is something pathological about a teabagger's world view. the other day, one of my dads told me the solution to poverty was to make kids born into families that need to accept any government assistance whatsoever "work off the debt" as adults... either by joining the military or as sanitation workers. in other words, indentured servitude.

oh and then (i now work with severely disabled adults and special needs kids) the same dad told me that i'm going to have find another line work because obama is going to have all the disabled children aborted/murdered. and he added that it's such a shame too because working with "special people" is my "god calling".

fucking creepy.

Bullshit. You voted for Bob motherfucking Barr, who was hands down the most evil person on the ballot next to Lyndon LaRouche.


>> ^blankfist:

>> ^JiggaJonson:
^Maybe I can believe that both are promoting statism but "just as guilty" isn't really fitting.

I rarely find much difference between Democrat and Republican politicians. Both lie about what they're selling you for your vote. Both ultimately increase war spending and increase US imperialism. Both increase spending and give corporations a hand job.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for an evil.

@dystopianfuturetoday, what's bullshit exactly? Everything I said was true and in no way miraculously invalidated because I chose to vote for a third party candidate. Bob Barr is a recent convert from Republican to Libertarian. I hope they all see the light and make the switch to non-aggression/non-interventionist policies like he has.

[edit]: I just fell for your straw man, didn't I? You're tricky!

I'll just leave this here...

http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/somalia-1.jpg

@blankfist
You're so full of shit. Libertarians might want to promote individual's rights but the only way they can do that is through government policy in some form. Saying that voting Democrat is simply voting for the lesser of two evils is nonsense because every government uses statism in some capacity (even a Libertarian one).

So go ahead, vote for Bob Barr. He's the lesser of three evils if we follow your 'statism @ any level = evil' logic.

The Democrats and Republicans are no longer "for the people" They are for themselves

It seems to me that the Tea Party sprung up from teh Ron Paul supporters that desired to bring back constitutional based government.

Speaking of Bob Barr. The Libertarian part are about personal choice. So if they dismantle programs / laws at the Federal level like: Abortion, Gay rights, School prayer Federal mandated school agenda,. Then it would become STATES rights, where it belongs anyway.

@JiggaJonson. I'll tell you about full of shit. Full of shit is a party that claims to be the party of peace, yet increases US hegemony and military spending. The Democrats should call themselves the party of wars and lies, but then they'd have to fight the Republicans for that title.

People like me, the Libertarians, are sick of paying for your two parties' wars.

Down with parties! Up with toga parties!

>> ^peggedbea:

i'm really starting to think that there is something pathological about a teabagger's world view.

I've felt this way for a long time. There's definitely something really fundamentally different about the ways liberals and conservatives view the world.

The short version of my current working theory is this:

Conservatives, even the atheist ones, believe in karma. Good things happen to good people, bad things happen to bad people, and if only liberals and government would get out of the way, the righteous will all be rewarded, while the wicked will be made to suffer. Evidence that shows that bad things do happen to good people is all interpreted in one of three ways: the "bad thing" is declared a good thing; the "good people" are declared deserving of the bad outcome; or blame for the situation is shifted to government, no matter how uninvolved it was in the situation.

Liberals, in my experience, tend to believe that no one really deserves suffering. There's a basic dignity of existence that everyone, no matter how they choose to behave, is entitled to.

Neither group adheres to their ideology perfectly, but they both seem to hold up those ideals.

Conservatives still donate to charities that provide aid to the poor, even though they make arguments about how "welfare" saps people's incentive to be productive members of society, and liberals still wish death on conservatives who say things like hunger can be a great motivator when they're trying to kill a school lunch program.

>> ^blankfist:
I'll tell you about full of shit. Full of shit is a party that claims to be the party of peace, yet increases US hegemony and military spending. The Democrats should call themselves the party of wars and lies, but then they'd have to fight the Republicans for that title.
People like me, the Libertarians, are sick of paying for your two parties' wars.


Why do you think the Libertarian party is more likely to end the war than the Democratic party?

Do they have some sort of track record of honesty and commitment to principle that supersedes all other politicians?

Do they have a track record of being able to effectively enact policy at the national level?

Have they been tireless advocates against the war, and putting together PACs that spend money on anti-war ads throughout the years we've been at war?

Have their high-profile, influential voices in the media been using their megaphone to try to build a popular consensus for ending the war?

Or has everything they've ever said about the war been couched as an attack on the Democratic party, equating them to Republicans?

Just curious, because my two most frequent contacts have been you and Ron Paul, and it's all been some formation like "you Democrats would vote Libertarian if you really cared about the war, you warmongering hypocrites."

That's not commitment to ending the war, it's a commitment to use the topic of war as a wedge issue, Karl Rove style.

Bullshit call #1
There are huge obvious differences between the Democrats and Republicans. I believe you are familiar with them. If you'd like me to spell them out for you, I can. Bush agenda: Tax cuts for the rich and war. Obama agenda: Healthcare and withdrawal from Bush's wars. Also see: abortion, taxes, the death penalty, labor, health, military, drugs, economy, etc.

Bullshit call #2
The free market libertarian party and movement is corporatist, supported by people like Richard Mellon Scaife and Koch Industries. David Koch was actually on the ballot in 1980. They are every bit as 'evil' (in your words) as the Republican party from an economic standpoint.


>> ^blankfist:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/dystopianfuturetoday" title="member since January 9th, 2007" class="profilelink"><strong style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">dystopianfuturetoday, what's bullshit exactly? Everything I said was true and in no way miraculously invalidated because I chose to vote for a third party candidate. Bob Barr is a recent convert from Republican to Libertarian. I hope they all see the light and make the switch to non-aggression/non-interventionist policies like he has.
[edit]: I just fell for your straw man, didn't I? You're tricky!