@Doc_M, I noticed you didn't take on my central point about loyalty. What you're talking about is actually something I have always believed -- there aren't really independents who are truly independent in any large number in America. Left-leaning independents vote for Democrats as often as self-identified Democrats, and right-leaning independents vote for Republicans as often as self-identified Republicans, and true independents make up a very small share of the electorate. There's actually data to back that up.

But I'm talking about something much deeper than voting patterns -- I'm talking about "epistemic closure." I'm referring to the way conservatives get all their "facts" these days only from a select number of outlets that distort, misrepresent, or outright fabricate facts to vindicate their ideology, and treat all sources with different views as "liberal", and therefore "ideological", and therefore equivalent enough to say "opinions on the shape of earth differ," when in truth the "facts" cooked up by the right-wing media empire often have little or no connection to reality.

My example was "tax cuts increase tax revenue." That has zero basis in fact. Zero. It's not "that's too complicated an issue for us to know who's really right and wrong", it's just plainly, demonstrably false. If you cut taxes, it adds to the deficit. It can produce a small stimulative effect on the economy as a whole, which makes them slightly less expensive than a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation would indicate, but it never raises growth so much that the net effect is an increase in revenue.

Not to cross too much into your back & forth with rougy, but I would definitely say that there is no left wing equivalent of the "far right" -- at best, there is an actual American Socialist party, but they don't really have a voice in the mainstream liberal movement, and they certainly don't have 1-hour opinion shows on cable news networks, and hundreds of radio shows across the country. The real problem the left has is that 90% of the Democratic party seems to be to the right of their base. People who're in line with the Democratic base (e.g. Sherrod Brown, Anthony Weiner) are perpetually labeled "far left", not just by Republicans, but by Democratic leadership.

As for the 9/11 thing, again, it's a big difference. You don't have Democratic politicians saying "9/11 was an inside job", you don't have left-wing columnists continuing to speculate publicly that 9/11 was an inside job, and certainly you don't see left-wing people who say that getting invited on Sunday talk shows to talk about foreign policy.

Our conspiracy theorists get systematically frozen out, while the Republicans are happy to repeat every crackpot conspiracy theory on the floor of Congress, including trivially disproven stuff like "Obama was really born in Kenya."

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
So, not saying I know much about our government because I don't completely understand our silly nonsensical law structure that changes weekly anyways, but Obama is able to do so much---yet Republicans can just say no on the issue of Gitmo and boom! Obama stopped. Not to mention the issue of the constitution being on his side...
I get the filibuster, or other motions that shelve actions forever... but I understand also there is a way to get things done in office regardless of any roadblocks and their, uhem, "size." If not, well then that is your failure as a politician. It is your job to get shit done…
I am not saying Obama has not succeeded on issues important to Americans. I am saying failure cannot be acceptable because your opponent was smarter or stronger than you...

I guess I would say that to start with you should read up a bit on what's been happening on this front:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Media/obama-plan-close-guantanamo-stuck-political-legal-limbo/story?id=10752684
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/177/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/
http://washingtonindependent.com/85355/house-panel-deals-gitmo-closure-a-major-setback
http://washingtonindependent.com/75832/civil-libertarians-reject-obamas-guantanamo-closure-plan
The key element in there was a bill Congress passed with a veto-proof majority that prevents funding going to "transfer, release, or incarcerate" Guantanamo detainees in the United States. That expires this year, but congress is still making it very difficult to just start moving detainees to the US and give them trials in federal court.
To the rest of your comments I would say there's a huge moral difference between someone who tries to stop an immoral act and fails, and someone who wholeheartedly endorses the immoral act. I guess your presumption is that all failure is intentional, because all Presidents always get what they want, no matter what...I think even the briefest glances at history would disabuse you of that notion.
As for Congressional Democrats, they definitely deserve a share of the blame for acquiescing so easily to Republican political posturing over terrorism, but I think it's a big stretch to say there's some sort of moral equivalence between the two parties, especially on the topic of Guantanamo. One party created it and is loudly and openly opposed to closing it, the other is trying to close it, if more cautiously than I think is warranted.



No, not all failures are intentional---but thank you for not accusing and raging about it here (I take no offense to questioning.)

All failures have two members responsible--the ones who win and the ones who lose. All failures come with consequences to everyday mortals. It is important that the other side "tried" but it is also important that the loser never receive a trophy (In this case, being viewed in a manner that the effort was almost or equal to victory.) (Unimportant Exception in this particular matter; if the event specifically denotes they give trophies then the second and third runner up can get one (Olympics for ex.) In politics, they do not provide trophies to perceived losers (I.e. re-election.)

Remember, I am not blaming Obama for this insomuch as his effort of trying. Great for him and those who supported him. I am just not handing him anything but the moral high ground. And, sadly, for some of those in Gitmo, they could give a rat’s ass less about the moral high ground.

And no, I was not sarcastic. His and those supporting him are appreciated in this area.

All presidents will fail as you mentioned. And hell, a president isn't even the leader of the free world--nor the people or judges. It is really congress, but then even they are balanced a bit...

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

So, not saying I know much about our government because I don't completely understand our silly nonsensical law structure that changes weekly anyways, but Obama is able to do so much---yet Republicans can just say no on the issue of Gitmo and boom! Obama stopped. Not to mention the issue of the constitution being on his side...
I get the filibuster, or other motions that shelve actions forever... but I understand also there is a way to get things done in office regardless of any roadblocks and their, uhem, "size." If not, well then that is your failure as a politician. It is your job to get shit done…
I am not saying Obama has not succeeded on issues important to Americans. I am saying failure cannot be acceptable because your opponent was smarter or stronger than you...


I guess I would say that to start with you should read up a bit on what's been happening on this front:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Media/obama-plan-close-guantanamo-stuck-political-legal-limbo/story?id=10752684
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/177/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/
http://washingtonindependent.com/85355/house-panel-deals-gitmo-closure-a-major-setback
http://washingtonindependent.com/75832/civil-libertarians-reject-obamas-guantanamo-closure-plan

The key element in there was a bill Congress passed with a veto-proof majority that prevents funding going to "transfer, release, or incarcerate" Guantanamo detainees in the United States. That expires this year, but congress is still making it very difficult to just start moving detainees to the US and give them trials in federal court.

To the rest of your comments I would say there's a huge moral difference between someone who tries to stop an immoral act and fails, and someone who wholeheartedly endorses the immoral act. I guess your presumption is that all failure is intentional, because all Presidents always get what they want, no matter what...I think even the briefest glances at history would disabuse you of that notion.

As for Congressional Democrats, they definitely deserve a share of the blame for acquiescing so easily to Republican political posturing over terrorism, but I think it's a big stretch to say there's some sort of moral equivalence between the two parties, especially on the topic of Guantanamo. One party created it and is loudly and openly opposed to closing it, the other is trying to close it, if more cautiously than I think is warranted.

no misunderstanding - i understood what your comment to rougy meant and that it wasn't related to me personally. i used it to close my comment in an attempt at solidarity and closure. in other words, you and rougy are both nice people who i'd rather get along with than argue endlessly (which is the only direction i see any further discussion on the topic heading, and thus my reluctance to continue).

In reply to this comment by enoch:
In reply to this comment by berticus:
I've done plenty in the past, rougy, and found the concepts were largely peddled by charlatans and fools. I'm sorry that my skepticism clearly offends you.

If you think I don't go against the 'common consensus' - you really don't know much about me at all. That's understandable, you have limited interaction with me here on VS, and it's usually over something you clearly believe in and I don't.

I considered offering a reply to both you and enoch (who left a charming message on my profile), but really—what's the point? It's obvious that your minds are, somewhat ironically, set. Clearly you both find this man's views insightful and truthful. I think they are not only untrue, they are dangerous—and these are topics I am academically invested in.

I suggest we leave it at that.

As enoch says, "right on, brother".

>> ^rougy:

>> ^berticus:
jesus fuck this is some grade A bullshit
sorry enoch

You haven't done much self exploration, have you Berti?
You don't go against the common consensus very often, either, do you?
What part of that video was "grade A bullshit" in your learned opinion?


i was sincere in my comment on your page.
maybe my comment on rougy's page made what i said to you seem insincere..i guess i can understand that but that is not how i meant it.
what i wrote to rougy was for rougy and had nothing to do with you.
i applaud his ability to speak his mind hence the "right on brother".
it was meant in that context and not in any way to disparage you.

maybe i read to much into what you posted but i do not like when there may be a misunderstanding based solely on comments.
as you so stated to rougy "you dont know me"..
you are right..i do not know you and the only thing i do know is that we disagree on some things.
while i do find some of the things this man proposes insightful,i would not go so far as call them truthful but rather seeking a different avenue to deal with a specific problem.

i would like to ask you where you got the idea that i would not be receptive to anything you have to say on this matter though,because i do not believe i have ever given you any indication that my ideas/philosophies are written in concrete and impervious to scrutiny.

yes..i am metaphysical but have i ever tried to convert you?or make you feel/believe/be anything than who you are at this point in your life?
i accept you for who you are,or at least who you portray here on VS and as i have already stated:i respect your keen mind and sharp wit and i truly..with all humbleness and sincerity..would like to hear your thoughts concerning this video and the dangers you see inherent within.

i think we could both find many and as i have stated in my previous comment to you..i found only one aspect of the video intriguing and for what reasons.
i would like to hear your thoughts though because i do not know everything and anecdotal evidence only goes so far.
i welcome your thoughts on this matter.
maybe you can get me to view this in a different light and perspective.

i shall leave this comment public.
i forgot how you dislike private messages and for that i apologize.
but my previous comment was sincere,
as is this one.
namaste.

Thanks for the links longde, though, I still fail to see any point in which the President is supposed to be involved. I found some of the provisions interesting!

§4301(a) and (c) The fine for failing to notify the appropriate Federal agency of a discharge is increased from a maximum of $10,000 to a maximum of $250,000 for an individual or $500,000 for an organization. The maximum prison term is also increased from one year to five years. The penalties for violations have a maximum of $250,000 and 15 years in prison.

§4301(b) Civil penalties are authorized at $25,000 for each day of violation or $1,000 per barrel of oil discharged. Failure to comply with a Federal removal order can result in civil penalties of up to $25,000 for each day of violation.

Jail time!!! That would rock, but I not to hopeful .

The sad part is how convoluted this all is. There are no less than 5 government bubbles this falls under. All with their own set of rules and regs, and punishments and liabilities. When this country finally burns down, we have to make a new one that is easier to follow! Either way, I am all for these guys getting the sharp end of a pointy stick. I just don't want to create our destructor ( "It's the stay puffed marshmallow man!"). While it is good that Obama is trying to take some leadership on this, I wish it was on the closure of the hole

Oil should be looping around to us in the next month or so, sigh.

@blankfist I suppose one interpretation is that the authors of the Island is the people on oceanic 815, and they fill in elements they need until they could get some closure and move on.

My interpretation is that what happened on the Island during the whole show was real in the same sense as when Dumbledore talks to Harry after he's dead:

"Tell me one last thing," said Harry. "Is this real? Or has this been happening inside my head?"
"Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?"

I think everything that happened on the Island was "invented" by the "survivors", who for their own reasons could not move on, on their own. They got caught in a limbo of their own creation. The different people who actually popped up once in a while like libby, ana-lucia etc. might have been on the plane, but actually moved on already, explaining why they weren't in the church at the end.

I still have unanswered questions about Jacob, MIB and stuff like that, but many of the smaller things like the hatch, which was portrayed as a "Big Thing" might not have been all that important, it was what locke needed at the time, so it sorta popped up. (yeah, it's a bit of a cop-out solution, but it works.)

whats with the buckshot ? its animate apparently, stops thinks, reasons, they all act like a school of fish say, so what happens when the scene is done with them after the skunk ? do the buckshot just go on to lead lives being factory workers, raise little buckshot children and have farms ? there is no closure to the buckshot, if it has no target it is considered dead ?

the things I think about.

I barely made it through Bioshock one. The story could not maintain the relationship between plot and waves and waves of bad guys and cheesy puzzles. The only thing that kept me going was that this was the "spiritual successor" to System Shock, of which I never played. I had to see it through to at least experience what I could. Now, some oddball story after the closure of the first tiresome run through? Yeah...not gonna bother.

Ok so I take it people are not so hot about this idea, fair enough. It would however be good to find a solution to the squabbles between users that surround dupeofs and the like. There's currently a discussion going on that's pretty much leading nowhere. This would be something where a clear ruling has to be made, otherwise we just have users giving their opinions, but nothing to provide closure for the parties involved. Moderators would be one way to deal with this, though apparently not a popular one.

>> ^shuac:
That's the way people are these days. Here's my working theory...
Any admission of guilt or wrongdoing, in their minds, tags them weak and ineffectual, to the point that they'll spite themselves. You can observe this behavior amongst politicians and police, in fact, any positions of power seem to come with this childish baggage.
I've always thought that it demonstrates superior character when someone admits they're wrong. They don't even need to buckle right away, it might be a protracted battle with namecalling and the like. But when the evidence reveals beyond any doubt as to the onus of blame, nothing brings closure like a simple, "I goofed."
Of course, I could be wrong.


Yeah, word.

>> ^shuac:
That's the way people are these days. Here's my working theory...
Any admission of guilt or wrongdoing, in their minds, tags them weak and ineffectual, to the point that they'll spite themselves. You can observe this behavior amongst politicians and police, in fact, any positions of power seem to come with this childish baggage.
I've always thought that it demonstrates superior character when someone admits they're wrong. They don't even need to buckle right away, it might be a protracted battle with namecalling and the like. But when the evidence reveals beyond any doubt as to the onus of blame, nothing brings closure like a simple, "I goofed."
Of course, I could be wrong.


Word.

That's the way people are these days. Here's my working theory...

Any admission of guilt or wrongdoing, in their minds, tags them weak and ineffectual, to the point that they'll spite themselves. You can observe this behavior amongst politicians and police, in fact, any positions of power seem to come with this childish baggage.

I've always thought that it demonstrates superior character when someone admits they're wrong. They don't even need to buckle right away, it might be a protracted battle with namecalling and the like. But when the evidence reveals beyond any doubt as to the onus of blame, nothing brings closure like a simple, "I goofed."

Of course, I could be wrong.

>> ^miaoux:
Wtf. Surely you killed my father prepare to die would be more entertaining.
Dead is dead, just because the killer returns the photo of your father (who he killed, let's not forget that) doesn't make it better.
I'm not necessarily anti-war - or should we say, anti-politics/corporate-gain - but in this particular case, wouldn't re-opening a wound she'd presumably closed, and moved on from count as being excessively cruel? I'm not a psychiatrist either. Would this give her the same closure he's been seeking for, what, 33 years?


Actually it does make it better. It just happens I've spoke with several councilors and psychologists about this issue. I'm the curious sort.

It is worse if the person has been killed and the daughter has the impression that the killer doesn't care... doesn't think of that person or action at all. In fact this is exactly what the daughter probably thought before being contacted. The man carried the photo around for decades. Obviously the event is something that he places importance on and was greatly affected. This adds great weight to the apology and lets the daughter know this was important to this man.

Closure... it's not just for movies.

Wtf. Surely you killed my father prepare to die would be more entertaining.

Dead is dead, just because the killer returns the photo of your father (who he killed, let's not forget that) doesn't make it better.

I'm not necessarily anti-war - or should we say, anti-politics/corporate-gain - but in this particular case, wouldn't re-opening a wound she'd presumably closed, and moved on from count as being excessively cruel? I'm not a psychiatrist either. Would this give her the same closure he's been seeking for, what, 33 years?

A moratorium on everything imported from China made of plastic.

A collective nationwide act of financial civil disobedience-pay no credit card bills.

Mandatory closures of all corporate fast-food chains.

No health insurance for those who do not complete holistic nutrition education programs.

Outlaw product advertisements which train human cattle to consume and purchase.

Outlaw Billboards-tear them all down.

Simple deprogramming steps to turning a nation of self-destructive idiots programmed by corporations, institutions, and their advertising armies, into humans being.

You go, Reverend Billy....The world has embraced Babylon.