In reply to this comment by schmawy:
This is how we must resolve problems on the Sift. I'm sure somebody could whip up a little flash-embed dueling sim.


Sir, I demand satisfaction!

This movie is worth seeing, but you have to get used to Kubrick's pace.

To me, the question was whether or not Barry Lyndon was a good man, and this was essentially the climax of the film.

Even then, it's hard to say one way or the other.

Wikipedia's definition does not exactly do justice to the etymology of the word "mongering". While in its usual, and chiefly British, sense it simply means "a dealer of a specific commodity" (e.g. fishmonger), its derogatory sense conveys pettiness and undesirability (e.g. warmonger). Thus "fear mongering" is not just "the use of fear in order to influence opinions and actions towards a specific end", but its use towards a petty or undesirable end. The use of fear is itself petty and sometimes undesirable/unnecessary, but the end can nevertheless be grand, as it is in this instance. But the use of fear, though acceptable in this case, cannot be generalized, as it not only desensitizes people to fear in general but makes them even more complacent towards real danger.

The Daisy Girl commercial from the Lyndon Johnson campaign in 1964 is the best example of fear mongering. Instead of using fear to pass a message of general public interest, the ad aims to sully the reputation of a political adversary while making oneself look good. It is equivalent to taking your constituents hostage while disguised as your opponent and then playing the hero by "rescuing" them.

Mike Gravel and Kucinich.

Am sorry but Ron Paul does make good points in most cases but he his economic views are counter productive. I think most people are too swayed by his strong rhetoric and don't delve deeper into specific policies.

Lyndon LaRouche? ROFLMAO.

Why not Lyndon LaRouche, Michael Steele or Sam Brownback?

Those three are just as viable as Barr.

Neocons, which is what the Republican base is now, are interventionists just like Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Clinton. And I'm not making it up when I say they are left.

[addendum] From wikipedia:
Left-wing past of neoconservatives
Author Michael Lind argues that "the organization as well as the ideology of the neoconservative movement has left-liberal origins".
The neoconservative desire to spread democracy abroad has been likened to the Trotskyist theory of permanent revolution. Lind argues that the neoconservatives are influenced by the thought of former Trotskyists such as James Burnham and Max Shachtman, who argued that "the United States and similar societies are dominated by a decadent, postbourgeois 'new class.'" He sees the neoconservative concept of "global democratic revolution" as deriving from the Trotskyist Fourth International's "vision of permanent revolution." He also points to what he sees as the Marxist origin of "the economic determinist idea that liberal democracy is an epiphenomenon of capitalism," which he describes as "Marxism with entrepreneurs substituted for proletarians as the heroic subjects of history."



From Liberal Hawk on Wikipedia:
The term liberal hawk refers to an individual generally described as politically liberal who supports a hawkish foreign policy, as opposed to a foreign policy of not using force to intervene with conflicts around the world. Past U.S. presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson have been described as liberal hawks for their roles in bringing about America's status as the world's premier military power. The Clinton Doctrine can also be considered as consistent with this vision. Modernly the term is most frequently used to describe liberals and leftists who supported or still support the decision to invade Iraq in 2003, which was authorized by the United States Congress and ordered by a conservative president, George W. Bush.

I think McCain is making *history.

Daisy's got nothing on this ad.

My favorite was "Radical education program".

BTW, did you know that "Radical education program"'s founder endorsed McCain?

Pinky's post does not deserve the surprising criticism and rebuke it seems to be getting here. No no no, it deserves outright decimation. It's quite clear pinky that you haven't given the arguments countering yours, which have appeared here and in other threads, even the most cursory perusal. The irony that you would accuse your detractors of delusion then, is simply hilarious when it is you, who is sadly and deeply deluded. In this latest post of yours, which is thoroughly saturated with the most risibly sanctimonious and patronizing piety, you trot out one ludicrous nonexistent myth after another and expect us to somehow in spite of it, take you seriously. Your blithe dismissal of the near third of non-heterosexual-male consumers of porn (women and gay men most notably) suggests these groups present a major quandry for your irrational beliefs and that your inability to explain the for example exceedingly low instance of sexual violence among gay males (who are indisputably prolific porn consumers) underscores the downright antiquated invalidity of your silly convictions.

It is your beliefs madam, about porn being a promoter of rape and other forms of sexual violence and supposed "objectification" that are myths. You purport to want to "play the science game" (a ridiculous statement which in and of itself reveals a gross misunderstanding of how science actually works) in your post yet provide nary a single shred of empirically derived evidence to support your case, only endless Andrea Dworkinesque, misandristic babble. Well here's a few actual scientific studies for you.

1.) Commission appointed by U. S. President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1970 in attempt to prove a correlation between porn and rape or other sexual assault finds NO CORRELATION

2.) A study in Japan http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/DIAM/japan.htm entitled "Pornography, Rape and Sex Crimes in Japan" finds a strong INVERSE correlation between sexual violence rates and the availability of pornographic materials. That is to say, after porn was legalized, rape etc. rates plummeted.

3.) A highly controlled study by Todd Kendall at Clemson U "pornography, rape and the internet" found that "liberalization of porn access may lead to a DECLINE in sexual victimization" http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/events_media/Kendall%20cover%20+%20paper.pdf

In another post on here you told us that you were raped (an unspeakably awful crime to which you are rightly owed an abundance of sympathy for having suffered as a victim) and that afterward during psychiatric treatment, you were told of the supposed "connection" between porn and rape and then you presumably ran with that as a nice neat little explanation that put everything into place. I submit that you were twice gravely wronged, the second time by your pseudoscientific psychologist eager to give you simple explanations and demons to slay no matter the veracity of the claim.

It is not the porn that is dangerous, rather, ironically, it is falsely moralizing people like you who are causing harm. I freely admit that I love porn. In fact, it may have saved my life. When I was in my late teens about a decade ago, I was struggling with the realization that I was gay and felt ashamed and suicidally depressed about it. Going online and seeing gay porn changed all of that. Seeing that sex between males was perfectly natural and indeed in many cases affectionate and loving and yes, harmlessly fun, allowed me to discard the shame and self-pity I once felt and leave my depression behind. Your implicit dismissal of experiences like mine and others which undoubtedly must similarly occur among lesbians and perhaps even the rare heterosexual woman are contemptible, and your eagerness to portray women in particular as brainless dolts incapable of making reasonable decisions for themselves about whether or not to participate in the sex industry is downright demeaning and misogynistic. Shame on you madam.

@blankfist, I got my math wrong, I should have said 40 years.

Notice that your most recent example is from the 1960's. I'm not that old.

You're right about earlier Democrats with interventionist policies, but both the Democratic and Republican parties were pretty different back before the 80's.

If you look at the history of the Democratic party, the whole Vietnam debacle, and the fight with Dixiecrats over civil rights triggered a transformation in the Democratic party. The south went for Nixon, and the anti-war movement took hold in the Democratic party by 1972. By the time of Carter, it was a different party from the one that produced Lyndon Johnson.

That Wikipedia page is actually pretty good; the 2005-Present section pretty well explains how big a shift the Democratic party has had just in the years since Kerry.

@MarineGunrock, I don't know much about state-level politics, but here in Ohio neither party has done much about debt, having roughly tripled since Republicans gained control in the early 90's. To be fair, as far as these things go that's only modest growth, considering Ohio's economy has taken a beating over those years.

At the national level, if you look at the chart of national debt, you'll notice how every Republican since Reagan made it go up, while the last two Demorcats (Carter and Clinton), both made the debt go down.

Raising taxes to cover spending programs is fiscal responsibility. You can certainly take the stance that you'd prefer the spending programs get cut to balance the budget instead, but at a national level the Republican MO has been to raise spending, while lowering taxes, which is far from fiscally responsible.

Whoa, simmer down there boiling water. Fiscal irresponsibility and nation-building are Democratic "things", too. Democrats have proven to be interventionists. Have we forgotten about Wilsonian interventionism? Woodrow Wilson believed every man had the right to self-determination and further believed it was America's duty to protect democracy throughout the world. Wilson sent troops to Mexico to proclaim martial law during a revolution. He was quoted saying his efforts were to "teach Latin Americans to elect good men." And, let us not forget his interventionist role in Europe which aided in the Versailles Treaty. We know how that ended for us.

What about Franklin Roosevelt? Hey, tell me which right-wing mouthpiece publication is responsible for this quote: "Franklin Roosevelt relished his nation-building" Fox News? Nope. The New York Times did in regards to his interventionist policies in Haiti. FDR even said "I wrote Haiti's Constitution myself, and if I do say it, it was a pretty good little Constitution."

What about Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam? The Vietnam War has been categorized as LBJ's war. But, our involvement with Vietnam started during the cold war, which started to be realized when Harry S. Truman tried to contain communism in Southeast Asia in the 50s. And, hell, JFK was guilty of increasing financial aid and advisory assistance in South Vietnam. He fully adopted the National Security Action Memorandum 52 which was left over from the Eisenhower Administration that read in regards to South Vietnam: "The U.S. objective and concept of operations stated in the report are approved: to prevent communist domination of South Vietnam; to create in that country a viable and increasingly democratic society, and to initiate, on an accelerated basis, a series of mutually supporting actions of a military, political, economic, psychological and covert character designed to achieve this objective."

Will that do or should I continue?

Actually, that lens was something that he got from Nasa when he helped them film the fake moon landings!


In reply to this comment by youdiejoe:
Love this movie, that f/0.7 lens was something the boys at NASA showed Kubrick when he was shooting "2001" and the rest is history.

great find. not paying attention to our history will be one of our many downfalls

thanks for your post.

Q

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
James Fellows on Martin Luther King winning the Nobel in 1964, and its similarities to criticisms leveled at Al Gore by the right wing:

"The reaction was, of course, racial at its root. This was a majority-white, minority-Hispanic small town with very few black residents, which went for Barry Goldwater over Lyndon Johnson in the presidential election that same fall.

But the stated form of the objection concerned not King's race but his obnoxiousness as a man. He was a windbag. He was pompous and self-dramatizing, He was holier than thou. Plus, he had started getting involved where he didn't belong, in raising questions about the Vietnam War."

Mmm sound familiar?

James Fellows on Martin Luther King winning the Nobel in 1964, and its similarities to criticisms leveled at Al Gore by the right wing:

"The reaction was, of course, racial at its root. This was a majority-white, minority-Hispanic small town with very few black residents, which went for Barry Goldwater over Lyndon Johnson in the presidential election that same fall.

But the stated form of the objection concerned not King's race but his obnoxiousness as a man. He was a windbag. He was pompous and self-dramatizing, He was holier than thou. Plus, he had started getting involved where he didn't belong, in raising questions about the Vietnam War."

Mmm sound familiar?

Let's impeach Bush for the war and killing soldiers. Hell lets go back in time into our impeachment time traveling devices and impeach Lyndon B Johnson, and John Kennedy for Vietnam. Or lets impeach Clinton for what happen in Mogadishu. Even though that all the presidents I mentioned before were acting on the ideal to make it a better place for that country. Vietnam was tearing itself apart. Iraq had a dictator killing millions. And in Mogadishu we had people starving. You know those presidents that even though it wasn't our war we were trying to make a difference because we were the only ones who could. We should stand back and let a country tear itself apart. We should never help those in need. Let's listen to all the actors especially the genius of Sean Penn to tell us what to believe and follow. Because and I quote from Team America World Police, Sean Penn said "Last year I went to Iraq. Before Team America showed up, it was a happy place. They had flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles."

Yeah that is all. Here is how you make an angry American, by showing bullshit. This happened in the 30s,40s,50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and now, and guess what, it's probably going to keep happening as long as war exist. America is full of idealist and was founded by idealist. But whatever I guess we all forgot about American History. I mean QM did mention hippies. The hippies did say and act the same way against Johnson because of the Vietnam war. Just saying is all.

A classic! "Daisy, sometimes known as Daisy Girl or Peace Little Girl, is an infamous campaign television advertisement. Though aired only once (by the campaign), during a September 7, 1964 telecast of David and Bathsheba on The NBC Monday Movie, it was a factor in Lyndon B. Johnson's defeat of Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election and an important turning point in political and advertising history. Its creator was Tony Schwartz of Doyle Dane Bernbach. It remains one of the most controversial political advertisements ever made." from wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisy_%28television_commercial%29