>> ^quantumushroom:
Unfortunately for Dr. Paul, no matter how he explains (or fails to explain) liberal accusations of being a racist, he can't win.
Paul has said his aides told him he has to take responsibility for the newsletters' content, whether or not only "a few" statements were terrible, and whether or not he was the author (it's generally conceded he was not, but as you and others will readily point out, his name was in big letters on the top and he was the publisher).

I disagree. Sure, you're never going to satisfy 100% of the people who call themselves liberal, but Obama putting out his long form birth certificate didn't satisfy 100% of people that he was born in the U.S. either. But it did put the issue to rest for anyone who isn't a paranoiac.

Speaking for myself, Paul could change my mind if he a) admitted fault, and b) gave some sort of speech about why racism is morally wrong.

Instead he's denying any fault, and castigating people for asking him to say anything at all about it, as if he thinks that kind of racist rhetoric isn't something people should be upset about.

Ultimately that's what you yourself said with your response -- that all charges of racism are bogus. Why you think that, I can't fathom.
>> ^quantumushroom:

You say whether Obama, Wright and you (and/or me) are racist has no bearing on whether Paul is racist. Well, if we're ALL 'racist' then what does it matter?

Ad hominem tu quoque -- which I like to think of as the "I know you are but what am I?" fallacy.
>> ^quantumushroom:

I didn't go looking for Dr. Paul's writing on the moral evils of discrimination. As he is a believer in individual rights (and responsibility) I don't see how he could be either an overt or closet racist to the extent you're describing.

Easy, he says people have an inalienable right to refuse to serve or hire minorities if they like, but that minorities have no inalienable right to be treated as free and equal citizens when they participate in our society and economy.

Thanks for the promote and the facts!
In reply to this comment by RhesusMonk:
So, a couple of things. First, the domesticated chicken is almost completely flavorless when eaten immediately after slaughter and draining. The flavor we omnivores call "chicken" actually derives from the byproduct of decomposition bacteria that are ever-present in chicken flesh and only begin to grow into large enough numbers for us to taste well after the flesh is dead. This flavor phenomenon is true of many of the meats humans eat.

Second, the Eskimo-Aleut (and I mean the language group here) diet has been rigorously studied and determined to be among the most robust and healthful diets ever established by humans. I'm certainly not saying that eating fermented birds is either tasty or good for you, but the people who thought this up are way better at eating than nearly all of you are.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/40315808
http://www.livestrong.com/article/491284-traditional-inuit-aleut-diet/
http://jdr.sagepub.com/content/56/3_suppl/C79.extract
http://www.straightdope.co
m/columns/read/2374/traditionally-eskimos-ate-only-meat-and-fish-why-didnt-they-get-scurvy

P.S.--You wanna call bogus on these facts--which a few have done since the studies in the late '90s--please bring hard evidence.

*promote

So, a couple of things. First, the domesticated chicken is almost completely flavorless when eaten immediately after slaughter and draining. The flavor we omnivores call "chicken" actually derives from the byproduct of decomposition bacteria that are ever-present in chicken flesh and only begin to grow into large enough numbers for us to taste well after the flesh is dead. This flavor phenomenon is true of many of the meats humans eat.

Second, the Eskimo-Aleut (and I mean the language group here) diet has been rigorously studied and determined to be among the most robust and healthful diets ever established by humans. I'm certainly not saying that eating fermented birds is either tasty or good for you, but the people who thought this up are way better at eating than nearly all of you are.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/40315808
http://www.livestrong.com/article/491284-traditional-inuit-aleut-diet/
http://jdr.sagepub.com/content/56/3_suppl/C79.extract
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2374/traditionally-eskimos-ate-only-meat-and-fish-why-didnt-they-get-scurvy

P.S.--You wanna call bogus on these facts--which a few have done since the studies in the late '90s--please bring hard evidence.

*promote

You're right, I am making an argument about you. This has always been about you. I don't care about the whole god argument, I care about why you believe what you believe and that is what I'm talking about. I could care less about what you believe, the 'why' is far more significant.

So in other words, you have such a faith in your position that you aren't even interested in talking about it. You've just admitted that you are completely closed minded to the existence of God, and you're talking to me about confirmation bias? You are a poster child for confirmation bias.

It took you an hour to throw all of those quotes together to make a case. Based on that, do you really expect me to believe that you're not just quote mining from some general creationist website somewhere? Do you really expect me to believe that you've actually studied the subjects that you're presenting as evidence for your claims? You are by definition, cherry picking. You are not taking into account the whole of scientific findings, you are ignoring the information which dis-confirms your existing views, and you are unknowingly misrepresenting the facts. If you were well read on any of the subjects of physics or evolutionary biology then you'd completely understand where I'm coming from.

Actually, what I was doing was disputing your claim that the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to open systems. The whole of scientific findings say that the 2nd law applies everywhere at all times, and this is very widely agreed upon. Your claim of cherry picking is bogus; the facts in them are plainly stated and from witnesses hostile to my overall position, which gives them even more weight. If those facts do not match reality, feel free to point out how so. Again, you are coming from a complete lack of substance, saying I am doing this or that, without actually having any real evidence to back up your assertions. If you're not interested in talking about things that require you to demonstrate an actual knowledge of the subject matter, please stop making baseless claims about what I am doing or back them up.

That's you, you said that. Why do you believe those things? Are you willing to attempt to prove yourself wrong? Are you willing to work to subdue cognitive biases in order to be as certain as you can be that you aren't mistaken? How can you say that your god is the correct one and all of the rest are incorrect? How can you justify a jump from the idea that we don't understand entirely how a system works to, there must be agency behind it? That is exactly what you are asking everyone to do. That is a huge leap and it does not directly follow. Extraordinary claims such as a personal god, require extraordinary evidence. You can't simply suggest that because we don't understand something that there must be agency there, that is not how logic works nor science. You can say nothing about the true nature of something if it requires faith in order to have evidence.

My argument is not a God of the gaps argument. I am not suggesting because we don't understand something, God did it. I am saying that God is a better explanation for the evidence. I am saying that even if you were to explain every mechanism in the Universe, you still haven't gone any farther to say that the uniformity in nature which upholds the physical laws that causes those mechanisms to operate isn't better explained by Agency. Unless you can demonstrate a purely naturalistic origin of the Universe, you have no case against Agency. This isn't to mention things like the fine tuning of physical laws, the information in DNA, and the appearance of design in biological systems. They are all better explained by a Creator.

Further, when you talk about faith, there are many examples in science. No one has ever seen macro evolution happening, yet scientists have great faith that it occured. There is absolutely no hard evidence for it, only a just-so story based on very questionable inference from the fossil record. The major predictions of evolutionary theory have all actually been falsified by the fossil record, which would be enough to torpedo any theory, but they are committed to it regardless of what the facts say:

we take the side of evolutionary science because we have a prior commitment to materialism. it is not that the methods..of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation..on the contrary..we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.

richard lewontin

harvard professor of zoology and biology

The thing is, I am in doubt about you. I am in doubt about your sincerity for meaningful investigations into reality. I am in doubt that you have actually read any scientific material in their entirety. I am in doubt that you value critical thinking. I am in doubt that you understand what a logical fallacy is or how they work. I am in doubt that you are doing anything more than attempting to justify a belief that you already hold by attempting to give legitimacy in the face of dissonance.

That's wonderful, but until you demonstrate a knowledge of the subject matter which is not inferior to my own (ala, believing the 2nd law doesnt apply to biological systems), everything that you have said here is irrelevent. Even if everything you said here is true and I understood nothing about this, you have shown you understand even less than that. However, I am going to give you more credit than that, and I would hope, but not expect, for you to do the same, however thus far you have only worked to try to discredit me. That is a logical fallacy called an ad hominem attack. It is a sad testament to atheists that there are only a very few out there willing to engage in rational discourse and not lower themselves to mockery and ridicule. I know rational discourse is possible because I have seen it in debates, and have found it on the internet from time to time. Overall though, it is a very bad advertisement for your point of view.

This was always about you. Your belief is based on quotes taken out of context and stitched together to weave a picture that conforms to what you already believe in while ignoring all of the information that doesn't agree with you. This is called a confirmation bias. You wont know how unconvincing your statements and claims are until you get past that kind of bias and seek to prove what you believe wrong to see if it actually holds water.

Again, this is the pot calling the kettle black. Your confirmation bias meter reads at 100 percent. My claims stand on their own and so do the quotations which flatly refute your claim. Feel free to show me scientific literature which supports your case at any time.

>> ^IAmTheBlurr

I honestly know nothing about quantum levitation. I'm a complete scientific layman. I click on a cool looking video, vote it up not knowing any better, feeling that some kind of levitation like this might be possible. I read the comments, see more knowledgeable people tell me why it's bogus and my opinion is thus influenced. I'd say my temporary belief would be better described as ignorance than faith. If it were faith, I'd continue to believe in spite of the evidence presented.

I think the whole notion that Iowa gets invalidated if Paul wins is bogus.

That said, Paul is not a threat at all to Obama in the general. He has too many fringe views on domestic and foreign policy. Even aside from my pet peeve (civil rights), most Americans, despite their lip service otherwise, are for big federal government programs, departments, and institutions that Paul would abolish or severely cut.

It would also be easy to portray Paul as a lame duck president on day one, one that would have problems rallying his own caucus in congress to enact his policies.>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^quantumushroom:
taxocrats are hoping Paul will get the nomination (he won't) so the marxist could run easy, deceptive ads about what a kook Paul is.
I would be greatly surprised if any significant number of Obama supporters would be pulling for Ron Paul because they think he'd be an easy opponent.
I feel like Paul and Romney are the only candidates that can pose a threat. Paul has a loyal anti-war following that crosses party lines and Romney is probably far more popular among independents than any of the other Republicans and maybe even Obama. The biggest hurdle for either of these guys is to win over their own party. Actually, I think Huntsman would have a good chance in the general election as well. He just can't seem to get anyone to pay attention to him now.
But the point is, Paul is not the "easy win" for Obama. Bachmann is. Cain probably would have been. Santorum is, too.
I'd vote for Paul next year as well, if he's there. Especially if we get Gary Johnson on the card with him. Normally I don't care that much about the VP, but at Paul's age we need a good backup plan.

That 2nd quote from Hutson is nonsense - America chose to pursue this 'war', America's politicians did this to their country, it has nothing to do with Al-Qaeda forcing them to do anything. While the law demonstrates complete cowardice by the house/senate you guys have been locking up pretty much anyone you deem a 'terrorist' for a while now, it's a little unfair to give lesser rights to others, that's the same sort of decision process that leads to slavery, apartheid etc.

I think the essence of the problem is that America is not actually fighting any wars, they are simply involved in aggressive behavior to allow extraction of various countries resources - people think these laws are necessary because they think the country is 'at war' but they are being lied to and fed propaganda. Because the country is not truly at war, this continuing destruction of your Constitution is bogus to begin with.

"In the last few years the atheist movement has moved into overdrive. "We" have become much more visible, much more vocal, much more activist, much better organized and much less apologetic.

And here you have a call to convert people to your way of thinking. It is sounding an awful lot like a religion to me.

And no, I am not defending religion. Jesus hated religion. Christianity is a relationship with God, not attending church and saying grace.

>> ^offsetSammy:
The claim that atheism is a religion shows not only a lack of knowledge (or willful ignorance) about the subject of atheism, but also a lack of knowledge about the English language and roots of words.
By the way, have you considered the irony in the fact that as an attack against atheism, you try to demote it by calling it a religion? Isn't religion the very thing you're trying to defend? Oh, that's right, all religions are actually bogus, EXCEPT YOURS! Now it makes sense.

The claim that atheism is a religion shows not only a lack of knowledge (or willful ignorance) about the subject of atheism, but also a lack of knowledge about the English language and roots of words.

By the way, have you considered the irony in the fact that as an attack against atheism, you try to demote it by calling it a religion? Isn't religion the very thing you're trying to defend? Oh, that's right, all religions are actually bogus, EXCEPT YOURS! Now it makes sense.

Well, at least you're honest.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I'm very upset that I chose profit and performance-rewards when it came to my own employment path. I didn't choose to be a social worker, because everyone knows that's a shit job with shit pay. But now that all my free market bullshit is blowing up in my face, because I'm at the bottom of the pyramid that I bought into, I'm going to do the most pathetic cowardly thing that I can:

I'm going to advocate that anyone who chose to help their fellow man, and take the slow, plodding, mediocre route to success be publicly exposed for their shameful weakness. Then my friends and I are going to steal our future from them instead of working for it ourselves like we always said we were going to do. Here's the thing, I could have joined the public sector and sacrificed some pay for more security. But those people all smelled, and worked in dingy offices with people who had real problems. How was I supposed to know they were making the wise decision!?!?

Well not anymore. Even though social programs fix more problems than they cause, it's time for them to go. Sure, I could work against the culture that pays their elite 500 times more than the average person makes, but that would actually take innovation and intelligence. Besides, I'm willing to overlook those people, because they share my greedy, corporate, business-reptile mentality.

No, it's the people with master's degrees who make thirty-thousand dollars a year that I'm after. Anyone who's willing to accept punishment like that has already made themselves easy prey. And how! All we have to do is present enough "evidence" accumulated by bogus, business advocacy groups to convince the rest of the tired and desperate people out there that there's a really really easy solution to their problems that involves no hard work whatsoever! We just cut all the funding to anything that involves helping people besides ourselves and all of our problems will simply go away! Well... except for the hippies.

Dude, stimulus does not immediately kick in. It takes time to take effect.

Yes - so far it has taken over 2 years and STILL hasn't 'taken effect'. (rimshot)

And considering the economic data that suggests that this was the worst economic downturn in since the Great Depression, where unemployment reached 25%, how is it "balderdash" unemployment would have climbed into the teens?

Where is the evidence that 'proves' unemployment WOULD HAVE reached 13% or 17% or 25%? Depends on who you are talking to of course. There are indicators that US unemployement is indeed more along the lines of 17% when you take away 'book cooking' techniques such as not counting people who aren't looking for jobs anymore, and so forth. Regardless, there is no substantive economic evidence that unemployment as traditionally measured was going to keep increasing beyond the plateau it reached.

You also failed in your economic analysis.

It isn't my economic analysis. It is the economic analysis of economists. Argue with them. Just because you disagree with them doesn't make you right. It just makes you one of millions of people with an uninformed opinion.

"...the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report in August that said the stimulus bill has '[l]owered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points' and '[i]ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million.'"

I already talked about the CBO report - which is one of the most 'generous' interpretations possible and is based on fuzzy facts and a bunch of imagination. Other analysis is far more critical, and has a lot more concrete data to back it up.

"most economists believe"

Nope - you don't get to pull an Obama tactic here. When Obama says bullcrap like this he skates away because the media doesn't call him out. I'm different. I'm calling you out. Define your claim. "Most economists"... What economists? Name names. Name the organizations. Name the time. Name the place. Name the report. Name the data. Supply your proof to your claim that 'most economists' say the bill wasn't successful because it wasn't big enough. The only economnists who say that kind off garbage are prog-lib Keneysians - who aren't worth the powder to blow them up. There are HOSTS of economists who completely, unequivocally, and thoroughly disagree with that highly questionable position.

Again, I challenge you to show me a recession in modern times that was not ended after a period of deficit spending. You can't name one, can you?

Your position is spurious because for the past 70 years the US government has been on a constant deficit spending binge. I can with equal validity claim the following...

"I challenge you to show a recession in modern times that was not PRECEEDED by a period of deficit spending. You can't name one, can you?"

When the baseline of government is constant debt spending, for anyone you to claim that all 'positive' events are the result of deficit spending is nonsense. The chart proves nothing expect that the government has been debt spending 95% of its existence. It sort of also proves that that the recessions in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and this recession were preceeded by deficit spending.

there's no other way to explain it

Yes there is and I just showed it to you. Only people who are mired in a narrow, biased, bigoted, and blinkered Keneysian world-view can say there is 'only' one explanation. Reality and facts prove otherwise.

we've ALWAYS ended recessions with deficit spending

And this is why you are proven to be narrow-minded, biased, bigoted, and blinkered. Private sector growth is what ends recessions - not deficit spending. If deficit spending 'ended' recessions, then why are we still in a recession? Obama Jerkface the First has engaged in more deficit spending than any president in US history in raw terms. Why aren't we in an economic boom right now after 3 years on his debt steroids? If debt got rid of recessions, then we'd never go INTO a recession because we've been debt spending 95% of the time. Your analysis is so simplistic, so flawed, and so moronic that it begs the question whether you even think about what you write, or if you are just so steeped in leftist propoganda that you have abandoned free-thinking completely.

So what was WWII?! What were the 1980's?!

WW2 was a world war that was followed by a post-war private sector boom of increased private spending and greatly decreased government debt spending. The 1980s was a period of time when private businesses grew as a result of decreased government taxation - caused by a conservative president forcing a liberal congress to cut entitlements somewhat.

Explain how in the world deficits prolonged the Great Depression!

Like many prog-libs, you lack historical knowledge. FDR engaged in massive debt spending and public works long before WW2. The creation of public works based on deficits created an environment where government was a 'job creator', not the private sector. When the government is actively involved in setting wages, being the 'job creator', and otherwise setting a baseline of economic activity, then the private sector holds back its capital, jobs, and other activities. The reason is simple - the private sector cannot compete when the public sector is artificially manipulating costs and prices. It creates an atmosphere of massive economic uncertainty, and the private sector is unwilling to take risks, make bold moves, or otherwise do anything that might be jeopardized by a sudden decision by government to move in that direction.

So when government is subsidizing construction workers (such as with public make-work crap), it interferes with the private constriction industry. They are not going to hire workers at $20 an hour when government workers are getting tax-subsidized $30 jobs. They can't compete with that. So they don't hire anyone, and they fire people they already have, and they also have people quit because government is hiring at higher than market value wages. Then in a year when those jobs dry up, the private sector is flooded with workers who expect a 30 an hour job, but the job environment is full of employers who only pay 25 (or less), and who are scared to hire anyone because they have no idea if government is going to go on another bogus debt binge or not. The only time the private sector steps up in in periods of time when they know the government is NOT going to be rocking the boat with arbitrary decisions for a while. This is why there was a big boom AFTER the war (when government activity decreased) and in the 80s. Recessions are ended when the private sector has CONFIDENCE - and that only happens when government is NOT doing anything.

I could go on a long time, but I doubt you care to hear it. Prog-libs who believe only the Keneysian model don't care to hear how thier precious philosophy screws up the world market, prolongs economic downturns, and basically is the major cause of suffering, poverty, and economic unrest.

I don't for the life of me understand why people like you will literally argue the sky isn't blue if it fits your ideological narrative.

Pot - meet kettle. Your world view is 100% backwards. You are the one calling the sky green. You are the one saying the moon is made of cheese. We in the real world await your arrival some day when you're ready for it.

It's actually more fair as a generalization. This is internets and this is VS. The main demographic here seems to be 18-34, pro-gay, anti-religion (or anti-organized religion) liberal atheists.

VS demographics do not reflect the majority of Americans' viewpoints on these issues. 85% of Americans identify with Christianity, just over half are conservative, and wherever gay issues are put to a vote instead of being snuck past, they lose.

Tymbrwulf is right, the negative publicity from taking "atheist money" may very well affect the bottom line for the charity.

>> ^bamdrew:

I see where you're coming from, but I think this is just as unfair a generalization as the other-way-around. I'm not religious, don't believe in God, and don't really think its something interesting to talk about... that said, I appreciate aspects (mostly the community), and go to church sometimes with friends. In other words I'm open to the concepts... and I don't wear these thoughts on my sleeve.
If your point is going from 'non-believer to believer' being a bigger jump than 'believer to non-believer', I can get behind that. My parent's didn't really push a certain religion on me, so I've always had the 'dubious outsider' perspective. I won't likely go from this position to a particular faith (which people are typically raised in) because they all look similarly bogus from my vantage point.
>> ^quantumushroom:
...
In other words, religious people's certainty varies, while almost every atheist is a 'fundamentalist'.

I see where you're coming from, but I think this is just as unfair a generalization as the other-way-around. I'm not religious, don't believe in God, and don't really think its something interesting to talk about... that said, I appreciate aspects (mostly the community), and go to church sometimes with friends. In other words I'm open to the concepts... and I don't wear these thoughts on my sleeve.

If your point is going from 'non-believer to believer' being a bigger jump than 'believer to non-believer', I can get behind that. My parent's didn't really push a certain religion on me, so I've always had the 'dubious outsider' perspective. I won't likely go from this position to a particular faith (which people are typically raised in) because they all look similarly bogus from my vantage point.
>> ^quantumushroom:

...
In other words, religious people's certainty varies, while almost every atheist is a 'fundamentalist'.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ghark:
Enjoyed the vid, but I have to say I really stopped watching most of Maddow's stuff lately, she seems to try to perpetuate the myth that there is actually a divide between Republicans and Democrats.
I think there's a myth that it's a myth there's a divide between Democrats and Republicans.
Like, where's all the Democratic legislation that's trying to disenfranchise Republican voter demographics?
Are Democrats going out and saying that taxing the rich is "class warfare" and therefore a taboo topic for discussion?
Are Democrats trying to destroy Social Security and Medicare?
Are the Democrats saying national healthcare is a secret plot to commit genocide?
I'm all for trying to rearrange American politics so it doesn't have this huge right-wing corporatist tilt, but spreading this myth that there's no difference between the parties doesn't help.
Part of convincing more politicians to move to the left and stand up to corporations would be to reward the ones who take a stand with your support. Withdrawing it (and encouraging others to do the same) because you're disappointed with their ability to deliver doesn't help tilt things back to the left. On the contrary, it helps ensure that the tilt to the right continues.
As an aside, I haven't seen Cenk promote that bogus myth. He's a lot harder on Democrats than Maddow (or Olbermann), but I've never seen him promote the "voting is meaningless" lie. I hope what he's been saying is some form of "voting against Republicans isn't enough -- we need to pressure the Democrats to move left too!"


In terms of Democratic legislation that disenfranchises Republican voter demographics, I think that's really the point, it isn't there.

In terms of public remonstration that taxation is 'class warfare' I think they've made their public opinion clear, they think taxes on the rich should be raised (so they appear to be on the other side of the fence to the GOP), however what they say and what they do are two different things, I think this is a good example of them playing a pretty standard political game. There is plenty of public voice (even here! See QM) saying the 'taxocrats' are all about raising taxes - but in reality the complete opposite is true, the wealthy are enjoying some of the lowest tax rates in US history. So I would say no, they are not trying to stifle discussion on raising taxes, rather that their words become rather meaningless when looking at their results. Did the Dems not enjoy a filibuster-proof 60 seat senate majority after the elections, I would love to know if they achieved anything meaningful during that period, I really honestly would.

In terms of social security, I give you this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story.html
In terms of Medicare, the debt ceiling negotiations results in the reduction of physicians medicare reimbursements, and further reductions may happen down the road once the super committee has finished their work. But in those 'negotiations' they ended the tax break on the wealthy right? Unfortunately not.

In terms of genocide plots etc, their role is to keep a voter base so that wouldn't be smart, however once again, what matters are results.

As far as convincing politicians to move left, I really wish that were possible, but in 2010 three and a half billion dollars was spent by lobbyists alone, there's just no way you can get your voice to make a difference when you're up against that - and lobbyist money is just the tip of the iceberg, many politicians receive far more money in contributions from other sources, take a look at Harry Reid for example:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00009922
There's a video that's just been posted on the sift of Dick Durbin decrying BoA's new credit/debit card fee's, however this 'voice of reason' has taken over 9 million in contributions in the past 4 years from all manner of sources (including pro-israel). What does this mean? It means he votes yes for bills like H.R. 3080 and H.R. 3079 that will ship US jobs overseas and reduce working conditions in those countries affected (Korea, Panama and Columbia), in addition to supporting a government that is involved in the active killing of journalists that try to expose the brutality of the regime in place (in Columbia).

You just.... can't compete with the influence that that amount of money brings, I'm sorry.

Cenk changed on MSNBC, that was quite clear, and he even explained why that was in his interview after he left - he was being pressured to fall in line and not go too heavy on the Democrats. in fact I think the video you posted 7 months ago is the best demonstration of that, and ironically I commented on it back then too:
http://videosift.com/video/Cenk-to-Wisconsin-Progressives-No-Compromise

Some of his quotes from the clip:
"the war that the Republicans want to start"
"they are coming after you" (referring to the GOP)
"I have a bold proposal tonight, that we fight back" (the 'we' meaning we Democrats)
"Thank god so far the Democrats aren't going to give in to his threats"
"They always reject the word compromise" (GOP again)

and the Pièce de résistance comes at 4:10,
"I have this crazy new idea, how about two can play at that game, how about WE don't compromise either" (this is clearly setup to mean the Dem's)

Did he not just try to get people to buy into the idea that it's us (the Dem's!) vs the GOP (them!).

He had the balls to reject a nice offer from MSNBC and go back to his show where he can speak his mind rather than try to persuade people it's us vs them on the mainstream media.

If you listen to him since he's left, he's gone back to his old, relatively unbiased nature, for example in his recent interview with Al Gore, when Al says that he still has hope in Obama to make 'change' Cenk goes out of his way to say that he is quite clearly 'less hopeful' than Al that Obama will bring about change, i.e. he's pretty much back to his old pre-MSNBC self.

So I think it's safe to draw the conclusion that the mainstream media (MSNBC) used Cenk to try to perpetuate the myth that it's 'us vs. them', because since leaving he has been far more candid. This is the exact same type of thing I see In Rachel unfortunately, and that's why I wish I could see her with her own independent show, she would be awesome on the RNN for example.

Anyway, you already know all this, you're the one posting some of the video's that bought me to the conclusion I did, so I would be interested to hear why you disagree with my position.

>> ^ghark:

Enjoyed the vid, but I have to say I really stopped watching most of Maddow's stuff lately, she seems to try to perpetuate the myth that there is actually a divide between Republicans and Democrats.

I think there's a myth that it's a myth there's a divide between Democrats and Republicans.

Like, where's all the Democratic legislation that's trying to disenfranchise Republican voter demographics?

Are Democrats going out and saying that taxing the rich is "class warfare" and therefore a taboo topic for discussion?

Are Democrats trying to destroy Social Security and Medicare?

Are the Democrats saying national healthcare is a secret plot to commit genocide?

I'm all for trying to rearrange American politics so it doesn't have this huge right-wing corporatist tilt, but spreading this myth that there's no difference between the parties doesn't help.

Part of convincing more politicians to move to the left and stand up to corporations would be to reward the ones who take a stand with your support. Withdrawing it (and encouraging others to do the same) because you're disappointed with their ability to deliver doesn't help tilt things back to the left. On the contrary, it helps ensure that the tilt to the right continues.

As an aside, I haven't seen Cenk promote that bogus myth. He's a lot harder on Democrats than Maddow (or Olbermann), but I've never seen him promote the "voting is meaningless" lie. I hope what he's been saying is some form of "voting against Republicans isn't enough -- we need to pressure the Democrats to move left too!"