// DELVE DEEPER:
Curious? Read Andrew Lih's quick explanation of Information Theory
Even more interested? Spend an hour learning Information Theory with this Cambridge Professor
Super interested? Read "Information: a history, a theory, a flood" by James Glieck
A maths person? Read Shannon's original 1948 paper which changed the world.

This. Seriously, if a Republican was in office right now, they would be screaming the same thing everyone else was screaming, that's he a welfare rancher, refusing to pay his federally mandated dues that Regan made last forever now...

They are so obsessed with their Anti-Obama message they are missing their best chances to score with the American public at large. The individual mandate of Obamacare, is their idea, it is funded the same way they wanted to fund it. If they were smart, they should be shouting, "we could have had this back under Bush Sr, but the Democrats stopped it twice, and they stopped it again under Clinton. They couldn't pass their single payer or government option so t hey went with our plan. We told them so, and the American people had to wait all these years for them to come around to our plan." They then could explain why they oppose the changes from their versions like going from catastrophic only care to comprehensive care is bad, since apparently stopping people from getting sick is bad in their eyes... For this situation they should be noting how the Federal government got the land in 1848, before Nevada became a state in 1868 and before Bundy and his extended family was grazing cattle on the land in 1877... and ages before his family actually purchased the ranch in 1948... after the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 was passed... and even before the BLM was formed in 1946. Their hero, Reagan passed, as Stewart noted, the right to collect grazing fees forever. Bundy is just attempting to make a profit off the government's dime without compensating the government back. They should note how he threatened violence against federal officials... which if a Republican was in office now rather than a black man, they'd be screaming he's a domestic terrorist, and when he called in militia to support him, they'd be screaming how they were all terrorists against the government doing its rightful duty.

The right's hatred of Obama has blinded them to the very things they would normally be for and against, just because suddenly a man (who's probably closer to the Reagan era Republican than any of today's Tea Party members are) they oppose is in office rather than one of their Tea Party extremist...

The basic form of a social contract is the foundation for every state in the world. Every individual within the territory forfeits a set of rights and is imposed with a set of duties instead. That's a social contract as described in Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "Du contrat social".

Doesn't help much with regards to Anglo-Saxon capitalism, does it? Beyond its most basic definition, social contract means, in theory, a recalibration of metrics beyond mere profit, within a society. Whatever metrics one might think would reasonably map progress towards the ultimate goal: the pursuit of happiness.

A concrete example would be the political-economic system of Germany, 1948 onwards, the so-called "Soziale Marktwirtschaft", wherein capitalism is (or was) constrained by agreements to the benefit of the whole of society. Not any individual, not any group, all members of society. Manifestations of it would be the safety net in all its forms and shapes, the health system, the pension system, the rejection of military interventionalism, the preservation of nature, no tolerance for fascism, etc. All specific policies that have their origins in an understanding of what society agreed upon would be best for everyone. The extent is subject to constant political debate, but the underlying concept remains untouched.

So the claim that there is no such thing as a social contract strikes me as a continuation of Thatcher's insistence that there is, in fact, no society. I don't subscribe to that notion, and as far as I can tell, neither does continental Europe as a whole.

If people prefer a system without a "society" beyond the very basic neccessities of a functioning state, go ahead. Do your thing. Competition of ideas and whatnot.

But I'm going to stay a member of this society, thank you very much. And as such, I take the liberty of leaving this "discussion" again. Cheerio.

Regimes supported

Juan Vicente Gomez, Venezuela, 1908-1935.
Jorge Ubico, Guatemala, 1931-1944.
Fulgencio Batista, Republic of Cuba 1952-1959.
Syngman Rhee, Republic of Korea (South Korea), 1948-1960.
Rafael Trujillo, Dominican Republic, 1930-1961.[citation needed]
Ngo Dinh Diem, Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam), 1955-1963.
Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Iran, 1953-1979.
Anastasio Somoza Garcia, Nicaragua, 1967-1979.
Military Junta in Guatemala, 1954-1982.
Military Junta in Bolivia, 1964-1982.[citation needed]
Military Junta in Argentina, 1976-1983.
Brazilian military government, 1964-1985.
François Duvalier and Jean-Claude Duvalier, Republic of Haiti, 1957-1971; 1971-1986.[citation needed]
Alfredo Stroessner, Paraguay, 1954-1989.[citation needed]
Ferdinand Marcos, Philippines, 1965-1986.[8][9]
General Manuel Noriega, Republic of Panama, 1983-1989.
General Augusto Pinochet, Chile, 1973-1990.
Saddam Hussein, Republic of Iraq, 1982-1990.
General (military), Suharto Republic of Indonesia, 1975-1995.
Mobutu Sese Seko, Zaire/Congo, 1965-1997.
Hosni Mubarak, Egypt, 1981-2011.
Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, Kingdom of Bahrain, 2012.
Saudi royal family, 2012.
Islam Karimov, Uzbekistan, 1991-2012.[10]
Meles Zenawi, Ethiopia, 1995-2012.[11]
Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, Equatorial Guinea, 2006-2012.[12]

I don't disagree about the snooping since 2001. As far as the koch brothers and the Tea Party, you don't know what the fuck your talking about.

They just want the Constitution follow or at least print current laws back towards it.

Instead of watching biased Democratic sucking media, go to an actual event .

They are not raciest, or the desire to go back to slavery as the media puts forth. . That's Bullshit. B.W.Y. the slavery shit and the KKK was the Democrat south doing its thing, not Republicans. MLK was Republican.


Today the Republican party is nothing more than a cheap intimation of the Democrat party. They will never win fighting that way. The Tea Party is they way to go.


FYI a little history ... Since you had a public education and hence only learned skewed left leaning revised history...


http://www.humanevents.com/2006/08/16/why-martin-luther-king-was-republican/

"
It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.

During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman’s issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act... And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican.

The Democrats were loosing the slavery battle and civil rights were breaking through and JFK/Johnson the

Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon’s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation’s fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.

Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans."


Democrats are still in the slavery business. They just use the welfare system to keep the poor poor and use the shallow promise of If you vote Democrat we will keep giving you a little cheese.

The Democrat party has been the most destructive political party to date.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Tex Avery - Lucky Ducky (1948). Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

I do believe that Israel started that particular war.

1948 - Arabs
1957 - Israel, Britain and France
1967 - Israel
1973 - Arabs
1982 - Israel

Correct me where I am wrong please.

Grace Jones born May 19, 1948. Not bad for a 64 year old.


Else that is an automatic hula hoop.

my favorite was the Left Behind series by Tim Lahaye and Jerry Jenkins... Great fucking series!

If things start happening like is in Left Behind series and some singular person gets israel and palestine to sign a peace treaty, then I will believe 100% that shit is about to hit the fan and prophecy will be fulfilled, since israel and palestine 7 year peace treaty is supposed to be the first act of the antichrist since the antichrist comes as the perfect peace and globalization politician and unites the world in peace... but that peace only supposed to last 3 and half years before christian persecution begins.

course agnostic, but one of the signs have already started since the 90's atheists openly attacking, belittling and hating christians more and more is a sign and 1948 israel becoming a nation is the first. Which is why lot believe IF things follow a path, then 1948 is what kicked things off.

But regardless it is very interesting times, if we don't kill ourselves first or rise up and slay our politicians we'll soon be in full blown persecution of a police state.

hell right now places like Sweden and Iceland enjoy way more freedoms than USA does, USA has lost it's freedom, political correctness has ruined USA

>> ^Boise_Lib:

Israel was founded in 1948, not 1918.


It looks like the British might of been doing their own Zionist stuff before the war resolved.

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~samuel/feisal1.html

just a quick search, might need to do some more reading when I get home...though, tbh...that whole area of violence tends to irritate me instead of enlighten me, usually don't touch it.

Israel was founded in 1948, not 1918.

So, since 1948, how is this working out for you?

you seem to be advocating a theocracy based on biblical principles to establish a religious based government.
the idea of something like that frightens me more than dealing with any single despot or tyrant and history has shown that theocratic rule is anything but righteous,fair or benevolent.
see:
dark ages.
the inquisition.
the crusades.
even as recent as ireland in the 70's and 80's.
when the church dominated the politics of europe,before the reformation,there was more :murder,rape,torture,oppression under an iron-fisted authoritarian rule than any despot could even HOPE to match.
all in the name of god.

I am advocating a theocratic kingdom, headed by Jesus as King, and nothing else. No government run by human beings is trustworthy. I prefer a capitalist democracy to a dictatorship any day. Unfortunately, that is where we are headed with the one world government.

freedom of religion is one the best and all encompassing tenants of american society because not only does it give you the RIGHT to worship how you choose but gives your neighbor the RIGHT to either worship under a different doctrine,or not at all.
the LAW is the great equalizer (and one of the things that is being corrupted and a main reason for OWS).

I agree, everyone should have a right to choose what they believe. That is a God given right, which the founders supported. We also have the right to deal with the consequences of those beliefs. I agree this is being corrupted in modern society (mostly because the moral framework provided by the bible is being pulled out from under us)

what about me?
you already know that i would considered an apostate to the christian church.
would you watch them burn me?
would you watch in horror as my flesh fell of me like melted ice cream and made yourself feel better by reminding yourself that it was gods will and if only i had accepted the "right" way to be a christian? why did i have to be so stubborn and not see god the way that you did.read the gospel the way you did? believe in the way you did?
would you watch?

Of course not. If they were murdering you, I would be the first one to jump in and try to save you from that madness. We are not judges of one another. Only God is the judge of our lives

and i have to say that i dont fully believe your sincerity when you say jesus would not choose sides,because you know full well that christ walked,talked and ministered to the underbelly of his society at the time.he broke bread with pagans,oracles,the diseased and unwanted.he railed with a savagery against the dominance of the church in his time,the aristocracy and the money makers.
he offered a hope and a freedom.a salvation from those who oppressed.
he pointed to the hill of those in power and told the disenfranchised "my father does NOT reside on that hill.you are NOT forsaken.it is THEY who pretend to hold the key that are lost...but YOU can be found.but not through them but rather through me".(paraphrasing of course).he was the way and the light.

I agree with everything you say here, and it is well put, but that was His first coming, where He came to live on Earth as one of us, and to ultimately suffer and die for our sins. On His second coming, He is returning with power and great glory as sovereign King over this world and as judge of the living and the dead. This is the equation He left us with:

Matthew 12:30

Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

And this is the question on His mind:

Luke 18:8

I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of
Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"

what makes jesus even more intriguing is that,contrary to a common misconception perpetrated by the church (of course).jesus came from an affluent family.
yes..he did.dont argue.
a carpenter now may be seen as common labor but back in jesus's day a carpenter was a craftsman.the ability to build things not only was held in high regard but was usually someone of affluence,wealth and influence.
how humbling is that?
jesus walked away from wealth,power and influence to bring truth to the poor,oppressed and enslaved and started a movement of his own 2000 yrs ago that slowly and totally underground became one of the most powerful messages even to this day.

I'm not sure about His material wealth, but Jesus certainly was rich..and it humbles me that he gave it up to take on the lowly status of a human being:

Hebrews 2:9: “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.”

Philippians 2:7-9 Jesus “made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name” that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,to the glory of God the Father

now of course over the years those who sought power and influence saw the potential of jesus's message and took it over,perverted it and sold it as somehow being divine. so not only do i think jesus would stand with those at OWS (and all over the world for that matter) i think he would rebuke the church as well.

I think He would rebuke both. However, this conspiracy theory of yours doesn't make any sense. If you think the bible has been altered since the 1st/2nd century, that isn't true. We have the early manuscipts and they all match up. If you're talking about the disciples, all but one were all martyred for the gospel. This is very good evidence for the facts of the gospel, because they certainly wouldn't all willingly die for something they knew to be a lie, especially when they could have recanted at any time. The gospels were also written in the memory of living witnesses. So, I'm not sure how you fit your conspiracy in there..because the early church is filled with martyrs who were direct witnesses and felt the evidence was good enough to die for.

The claims of Jesus are unequivocal..He said he was the Messiah who was from Heaven, Gods very Son, and that He was there to take away the worlds sin, and after His resurrection, to take a position at the right hand of power..and to return as King and judge over the whole world. You can't really get great teacher or hero for social justice out of any of that. He was all of those things, but foremost He is Gods Son.

oh the delicious irony if that ever really happened.it tickles me to no end.
in any case.
i always appreciate when you respond my friend.

Anytime bro. It's always enjoyable to engage with you. And it *will* happen, so you need to be ready for it..the signs are all there, especially with the reformation of Israel in 1948.


>> ^enoch:
@shinyblurry
BR>
oh the delicious irony if that ever really happened.it tickles me to no end.
in any case.
i always appreciate when you respond my friend.

@GenjiKilpatrick: You're conflating a dysfunctional democracy with the douchebags who're making it dysfunctional.

Obama is not Bush. Give me a fucking break.

Click through this giant list and tell me one thing that Bush would ever even consider:
http://obamaachievements.org/list

You can't.

The system we've tried to setup can work, if only evil douchebags would stop trying to get rich, kill people, take a dump on mother nature, and fuck over everyone else in the process. So no, I'm not giving up on it.

It's that old theory of Republicans claiming the system doesn't work, then once in office, they prove it.

So far, the 112th congress--which is GOP/Tea Party--is the least productive congress in history. Worse than the "do-nothing" congress of 1948. These assholes won't even debate an unbelievably important right fucking now jobs bill, but keep shoving horseshit bills about abortion, school lunches, PBS, obamas birth certificate, and combined with the stalling tactics, secret holds, massive fillibusters and so much nonsense it makes people want to throw a chair through their television.

Approval:
Obama: 48%
Congress: 13%

I wonder what that's all about? Could Obama's low numbers mean people are mad he isn't fixing this shit, and Congresses because they're a fucking corrupt, pathetic and evil bunch of grifters that everyone hates? Hmmmmmm....

Oh and check this out: The Republicans created Bin Laden, the Democrats took him out. Talk about cleaning up someone else's mess, sheesh!


@Quantummushroom is dead-on about Clinton and glass-steagal. I point my finger directly at that motherfucker for knowingly signing off the collapse of the international finance world.

I agree with a lot of what blankfist is saying. It's time to starve the Federal government of its funds. Enough of its actions are immoral and evil, and I don't like having even a cent of my money furthering these actions.

I like Kucinich and Ron Paul too. Kucinich because if we are going to be taxed heavily by the government, the money should be spent well and in morally correct ways. But he's not running for President anymore and even if he was, most of what he supports would not get passed by Congress. So it's pointless to keep funding the Feds and hope that a Kucinich will some day become President and that hundreds of Kucinichs will some day take over Congress too.

So Ron Paul is all that's left, even though there's quite a bit of crazy stuff connected to him. At least with Paul's ideology, I can choose to support different causes with my money, and I can stop giving money to causes that start acting evil or immoral.

I don't think it's right to force people to help each other. If we are saying that we need to put a gun to the heads of the rich and force them to help the poor, sick, and elderly, that seems wrong to me. And that's what a lot of people seem to want. They want to use the force of law, backed by the threats of punishment and violence, to force rich people to help other people.

When I was in high school in 1999, I read a book on the Rwandan genocide of 1994 and how the world ignored the Genocide Convention of 1948, which required them to act when genocide occurs in the world. I was pretty pissed off that 400,000-1.2 million people were killed in Rwanda for genocidal reasons, and everyone ignored the Convention and did little about the genocide. But looking back, I don't think anyone should've signed the Genocide Convention. You shouldn't force people to help someone or some other country. It's wrong.