>> ^longde:

I agree with most of your points, except that a toothless UN resolution has any material affect on what is going on in Syria.>> ^bcglorf:
@longde:And I think that anyone from any country would be in a bad position if they went on a foreign broadcast and openly blasted their country and government. They may not be thrown in a gulag, but it wouldn't sit well with the neighbors and boss.
You can't honestly speak like the risk of being thrown in a gulag is equivalent and no different from something not sitting well with the neighbors and boss. If you say something in China that stirs up enough people and you keep on saying it, ending up in a jail is a very real possibility. Meanwhile in America that's exactly what guys like Michael Moore not only make a habit of, they make a very profitable career out of it.

On Taiwan, most mainland chinese consider it a province of China, as well as Tibet. Little real dissent there.
The right of the Taiwanese and Tibetan people to self determination though is in stark contrast to that of Iraqi's, Libyan's, Afghan's, and Syrians. Despite opposing military action in every one of those countries, when it comes to Taiwan and Tibet, it is unquestioningly accepted that all out war is the natural and just course against the people of Taiwan and Tibet if they were to declare independence. That's a stark contrast, and one that I believe would be unexpected by a westerner listener who had just heard the same people opposing military adventures and the global police.
What is the direct damage of voting against the UN measure?
First off, use the right terms. China and Russia didn't merely vote against the UN motion, if they had only done that the motion would have still carried with a majority in favor. China and Russia exercised their veto rights, to trump the will of the majority on the Security council. It's their right within the structure of the UN SC, but that they used it to protect Assad while he murders his own people is hardly something defensible.
As for the direct damage, Syria immediately stepped up it's offensive on Homs:
Speaking to Al Jazeera, Danny Abdul Dayem, a resident of Homs, said: "It has been terrible. There is non-stop bombing with rockets, mortar bombs and tank shells. There were more than 50 people injured in Bab Amr today.
"I saw with my own eyes kids with no legs, and a kid who lost his whole bottom jaw. It is terrible."



I'll quite readily agree that virtually everything the UN does is toothless and in that sense, completely worthless and meaningless. I would however argue that the Russian and Chinese vetoes absolutely do have a material affect on what is going on in Syria. The vetoes are sign of the depth of Russian and Chinese commitment to Assad's regime. That support is absolutely vital and essential to Assad's continued military campaign against his own people. Without that support, the combined efforts of the Arab League and the Syrian opposition would be seeing Assad forced to back down.

I agree with most of your points, except that a toothless UN resolution has any material affect on what is going on in Syria.>> ^bcglorf:

@longde:And I think that anyone from any country would be in a bad position if they went on a foreign broadcast and openly blasted their country and government. They may not be thrown in a gulag, but it wouldn't sit well with the neighbors and boss.
You can't honestly speak like the risk of being thrown in a gulag is equivalent and no different from something not sitting well with the neighbors and boss. If you say something in China that stirs up enough people and you keep on saying it, ending up in a jail is a very real possibility. Meanwhile in America that's exactly what guys like Michael Moore not only make a habit of, they make a very profitable career out of it.

On Taiwan, most mainland chinese consider it a province of China, as well as Tibet. Little real dissent there.
The right of the Taiwanese and Tibetan people to self determination though is in stark contrast to that of Iraqi's, Libyan's, Afghan's, and Syrians. Despite opposing military action in every one of those countries, when it comes to Taiwan and Tibet, it is unquestioningly accepted that all out war is the natural and just course against the people of Taiwan and Tibet if they were to declare independence. That's a stark contrast, and one that I believe would be unexpected by a westerner listener who had just heard the same people opposing military adventures and the global police.
What is the direct damage of voting against the UN measure?
First off, use the right terms. China and Russia didn't merely vote against the UN motion, if they had only done that the motion would have still carried with a majority in favor. China and Russia exercised their veto rights, to trump the will of the majority on the Security council. It's their right within the structure of the UN SC, but that they used it to protect Assad while he murders his own people is hardly something defensible.
As for the direct damage, Syria immediately stepped up it's offensive on Homs:
Speaking to Al Jazeera, Danny Abdul Dayem, a resident of Homs, said: "It has been terrible. There is non-stop bombing with rockets, mortar bombs and tank shells. There were more than 50 people injured in Bab Amr today.
"I saw with my own eyes kids with no legs, and a kid who lost his whole bottom jaw. It is terrible."

@longde:And I think that anyone from any country would be in a bad position if they went on a foreign broadcast and openly blasted their country and government. They may not be thrown in a gulag, but it wouldn't sit well with the neighbors and boss.

You can't honestly speak like the risk of being thrown in a gulag is equivalent and no different from something not sitting well with the neighbors and boss. If you say something in China that stirs up enough people and you keep on saying it, ending up in a jail is a very real possibility. Meanwhile in America that's exactly what guys like Michael Moore not only make a habit of, they make a very profitable career out of it.


On Taiwan, most mainland chinese consider it a province of China, as well as Tibet. Little real dissent there.

The right of the Taiwanese and Tibetan people to self determination though is in stark contrast to that of Iraqi's, Libyan's, Afghan's, and Syrians. Despite opposing military action in every one of those countries, when it comes to Taiwan and Tibet, it is unquestioningly accepted that all out war is the natural and just course against the people of Taiwan and Tibet if they were to declare independence. That's a stark contrast, and one that I believe would be unexpected by a westerner listener who had just heard the same people opposing military adventures and the global police.

What is the direct damage of voting against the UN measure?

First off, use the right terms. China and Russia didn't merely vote against the UN motion, if they had only done that the motion would have still carried with a majority in favor. China and Russia exercised their veto rights, to trump the will of the majority on the Security council. It's their right within the structure of the UN SC, but that they used it to protect Assad while he murders his own people is hardly something defensible.

As for the direct damage, Syria immediately stepped up it's offensive on Homs:
Speaking to Al Jazeera, Danny Abdul Dayem, a resident of Homs, said: "It has been terrible. There is non-stop bombing with rockets, mortar bombs and tank shells. There were more than 50 people injured in Bab Amr today.

"I saw with my own eyes kids with no legs, and a kid who lost his whole bottom jaw. It is terrible."

yes, the system is broken and needs fixing, but...

citizens united was the logical outcome of michael moore's (inc) release of the anti-bush film "farenheit 9/11" in an election year, and its rushed dvd and tv releases within 30 days of the 2004 election

how could the fec state that it wasn't a form of corporate political advertising? how could they then turn around in 2008 and block the release of citizens united's film "hillary: the movie" prior to the election?

this scotus decision leaves me worried... but i'm also flabbergasted that "the left" didn't rail against moore's blatant "corporate advertising" in an election year, yet now their feathers are all ruffled

iirc, that 'what a wonderful world' clip is from one of michael moore's films

there's some 'truth' in there, but also a lot of untruth...

for example, the mossadegh and shah segments, and the whole bin laden / cia angles

there IS blowback, and rp is correct in stating that obl referenced some previous us actions as the basis for aq's attacks

but as a whole--and in virtually everything--if you overstate your argument, well, you're already on your way to losing it

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Truckchase:
So what would you recommend to fix the problem? The Dems are'nt helping, and while some stand for a significantly slower societal regression than the 're-pubbies they're most definitely not a solution.
I'm not asking that question rhetorically. What do you want be done to fix this? I'll club a baby seal if it'll make you guys stop being apologists for apologists. Let's get this show on the road because we're running short on time.

Well, the short answer is that unless you're going to start stockpiling weapons for a revolution, you need to ultimately come up with a way to get what you want from political system through the mechanisms laid out in the Constitution. Namely, voting, and calling your congressman/senator/mayor/governor/President, etc.
As Michael Moore said, the 1% may have 40% of the wealth, but only 1% of the vote. Money doesn't actually buy elections, at least not yet.
Let's pretend for a minute that the Tea Party was some authentic grassroots movement. Look at how they went after their political objectives:

1. They were solely interested in getting conservatives elected
   
2. They were willing to put up primary challenges to Republicans who'd been disloyal to The Cause (and were very successful in winning those primaries!)
   
3. They were committed to showing up and voting for the most conservative person on the ballot in the general (aka, they supported the Republican, even if the Tea Bag favorite lost).
   

The net result was that they got a shitload of Republicans into Congress, as well as further increasing the ideological purity of the Republican party. Distilled insanity, and lots of it!
On the other hand, the left seems to be deciding that their big hat trick is to eschew voting, badmouth Democrats (as if none are good, and as if the party has never done anything good), and camp out in public parks all winter.
Again, don't get me wrong, I totally agree with the general idea of protesting wealth inequality, but at a certain point you've got to have some answer to "what do you want done, and who do you want to do it?"
I'm good if the answer is "End the War, Tax the Rich", but then the next point is Obama's in favor of those things, all his Republican challengers aren't, and the only people in Congress who want to do both are Democrats, and there's a national election next year...


1st: The tea-party comparison.
The tea-party was a bunch of blowhards who want to destroy government. They have seized well on misdirected rage. Destroying something is a hell of a lot easier than fixing something that is almost terminally broken. We can't expect results as quickly as those folks because we're constructive, not destructive.

2nd: The real issue. (money in politics)
I think you're missing my point. Why trash a movement that could very well be the beginning of a societal awakening? It took many years for most major causes to gain traction. (see: prohibition repeal, civil rights, suffrage, etc.) I never said don't vote and I never said don't take action. I do all of those AND actively back OWS. I haven't missed a caucus since I was 18. We're active; don't think otherwise. The OWS movement isn't perfect, but nothing we humans do is. It's a step in the right direction. Will this movement bring the all-encompassing triumph? Doubtful. Will the next? Increasingly less doubtful...


Why don't you come out here and help, or at the very least don't throw stones at those putting their neck on the line for you. When is the last time you personally got news coverage because you towed the party line? We need to get out of our armchairs. We need to make a difference!

>> ^Truckchase:

So what would you recommend to fix the problem? The Dems are'nt helping, and while some stand for a significantly slower societal regression than the 're-pubbies they're most definitely not a solution.
I'm not asking that question rhetorically. What do you want be done to fix this? I'll club a baby seal if it'll make you guys stop being apologists for apologists. Let's get this show on the road because we're running short on time.


Well, the short answer is that unless you're going to start stockpiling weapons for a revolution, you need to ultimately come up with a way to get what you want from political system through the mechanisms laid out in the Constitution. Namely, voting, and calling your congressman/senator/mayor/governor/President, etc.

As Michael Moore said, the 1% may have 40% of the wealth, but only 1% of the vote. Money doesn't actually buy elections, at least not yet.

Let's pretend for a minute that the Tea Party was some authentic grassroots movement. Look at how they went after their political objectives:

1. They were solely interested in getting conservatives elected
   
2. They were willing to put up primary challenges to Republicans who'd been disloyal to The Cause (and were very successful in winning those primaries!)
   
3. They were committed to showing up and voting for the most conservative person on the ballot in the general (aka, they supported the Republican, even if the Tea Bag favorite lost).
   

The net result was that they got a shitload of Republicans into Congress, as well as further increasing the ideological purity of the Republican party. Distilled insanity, and lots of it!

On the other hand, the left seems to be deciding that their big hat trick is to eschew voting, badmouth Democrats (as if none are good, and as if the party has never done anything good), and camp out in public parks all winter.

Again, don't get me wrong, I totally agree with the general idea of protesting wealth inequality, but at a certain point you've got to have some answer to "what do you want done, and who do you want to do it?"

I'm good if the answer is "End the War, Tax the Rich", but then the next point is Obama's in favor of those things, all his Republican challengers aren't, and the only people in Congress who want to do both are Democrats, and there's a national election next year...

Thanks!

>> ^Boise_Lib:

@TheJehosephat
The Wonkette has a story that quotes Rick Ellis of the Minneapolis edition of Examiner.com.
From the Examiner:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

A person who spends a good deal of his time taking care of his body may find it slightly repulsive to pay for the care of someone whom has not taken care of himself, and perhaps rightly so.

But what's the real root of that objection? Is it that they think it'd be more helpful overall if there was also money going into programs designed to encourage people to take better care of themselves? Or is it just a fundamental rejection of the idea that they should bear any responsibility for other people?

The former I'm sympathetic to, the latter not so much.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
For instance, if I were mad about jobs, the last thing I would do is OWS, I would instead seek to create a job fair.

Right, but job fairs don't fix anything if the problem is that you have more people who want a job than there are openings. It's not that we have 10 million job openings, and 10 million unemployed people, and all we need to do is help them find each other. The problem is that we've got 10 million unemployed, and barely 1 million openings (or maybe the ratio is even worse).

I suppose the unemployed could try giving each other jobs, but they don't really have any money to hire people -- that's why they're looking for jobs in the first place. And the people who do have money have been laying people off rather than hiring more people -- that's why we have so many unemployed people. And the people with money are doing that because their sales are down, and their sales are down because people don't have any money because they lost their jobs...

The people who're suffering need help from the people who aren't. And the people who aren't suffering are saying "don't blame us, blame yourselves," and generally lashing out at anyone who implies they have a moral obligation to help.

So of course there are protests. Hell, in the grand sweep of history, this kind of protest has rarely ended peacefully.

These people aren't just whining about having to pay taxes, they're incensed about having worked all their lives to get a modest amount of prosperity, and lost it all for reasons that were beyond their control. They're mad as hell and they're not gonna take it anymore.

>> ^bobknight33:

WTF?
You must be one of those uneducated 18 - 29 year olds.
Do the world a favor, never vote.
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
>> ^bobknight33:
The 18 - 29 year are not knowledgeable enough to vote and got fooled is some hope and change hype.

The 29-50 not are get hope and is hype change vote won't will knowledge are not with get hope hype word salad


Wrong.

WTF?
You must be one of those uneducated 18 - 29 year olds.
Do the world a favor, never vote.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

>> ^bobknight33:
The 18 - 29 year are not knowledgeable enough to vote and got fooled is some hope and change hype.

The 29-50 not are get hope and is hype change vote won't will knowledge are not with get hope hype word salad

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Looking to someone else to fix things will never avail, be it Republican, Democrat, President, Senator, Mother, Father. Outsourcing positive change to another might be the main sickness with the current understanding of our role in government.


I guess I see it differently. The real problem is that people seem to think so highly of themselves that they think they don't need help from anyone, think they've never gotten help from anyone, and therefore resent the idea that they might have to help someone themselves.

We all have to rely on other people, almost constantly. It's not too much to ask the people we rely on to do the things we expect them to do, especially if they ask us to give them a really important responsibility in our society.

There's a reason why we have a government. If it's not working, we need to fix it. We can't just stiffen our upper lips and pretend like we never needed a functional government in the first place.

>> ^bobknight33:

The 18 - 29 year are not knowledgeable enough to vote and got fooled is some hope and change hype.


The 29-50 not are get hope and is hype change vote won't will knowledge are not with get hope hype word salad

that hasn't been the reason for not-a-duping in the past.

it's a redundancy on the sift.>> ^BoneyD:

notadupe (is that correct?) The other video doesn't contain the second segment of the interview.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Trancecoach. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.