i don't think you have a grasp of the level of protest going on. Estimates have that 77 percent of the population support the protesters. This isn't a confusing WTO mess, with imported protesters with abstracted ideals on the line. The severity of the social cuts is so punitive that the force behind the protest won't cave to police enforcement as easily. That, and the Spanish populace won't tolerate the level of violence US law enforcement is used to doling out.

Republicans like to put charismatic blank slates at the top of the ticket: Reagan, Bush 2 and Romney.

They seem to run into more problems when they put thinkers at the top of the ticket: Nixon, Bush 1, Dole and John McCain.

>> ^VoodooV:

I think Bill Maher is exactly right. He wants to be the first Mormon president...that's the long and the short of it.
Governing? whatever
bipartisanship? whatever
It explains perfectly why he is able to shift positions so drastically. HE DOESNT CARE! He's not a republican, he's not a centrist, he's not a democrat. He just wants to be able to say he was the first mormon president.

Always wonderful seeing sifter meatbags hanging out in atmosphere and it looks like a rip-roaring good time. Thanks for all the photos! Feels like I was there.

I just got word from siftbot that your much sought after Meatspace badges have been doled out. Enjoy!

And, I'm guessing if they visited there tomorrow......nothing would happen beyond some protests.

Courts only have power if they can enforce their ruling, dole out punishment, and force repayment.

I'm sure you can look back through history and find lots of decisions where one side found the other side guilty of <whatever> but nothing beyond going to war happened.

Frankly if I were a US news station, I think reporting it would almost be mocking of it anyway you tried to portray it....because there's just no one way in hell they are going to get anything they demand.

Your video, Dole Banana With Pink Floyd Will Make You Feel Weird, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I think it's worth reminding you of the context here.

For one, if work is the thing we want to encourage, then why should Mitt Romney's taxes be lower than it is on people whose income actually comes from wages?

All Romney's doing is collecting interest on investments. Worse than that, he claims it's all in a blind trust, which means not only is he not exerting any control over where his money is being invested, he doesn't even know where his money has been invested.

To me, the big problem I have with the picture of the "neighbor" who "won't work" is that they don't actually exist. Nobody is living high on the government dole. Welfare queens never existed, and never will.

Instead, the real "entitlement society" is comprised of people like Paris Hilton. They don't really work, certainly they don't do hard work, or even seem to possess valuable skills. They just collect interest, and act like they're royalty, entitled to collect the vast majority of the fruits of our labor.
>> ^quantumushroom:

I salute your inspiring life story. The system worked for you, but you still did most of the work. The suggestion that you never would've made it without all the aid I do not believe. What about your neighbor who is perfectly happy living off of unemployment insurance, welfare, food banks, etc. forever? Are you willing to support those who won't--not can't--work as hard as you? Why should you have to raise his children with your taxes along with your own?

>> ^moodonia:

Theres no way you can say Bush inherited Iraq from Clinton.
Iraq was "contained" (crippled militarily, economically and in terms of civilian infrastructure through sanctions), it was being bombed every other day by "coalition" forces and they gave Saddam the means to tighten his grip on the country after the rebellion (which they helped fail by allowing Saddam use his attack helicopters to crush it) through schemes like the oil for food program which gave Saddam plenty of things to dole out to supporters to keep them on side.
As we have seen the reason for the Iraq war was bullshit. They wanted Saddam gone and a friendly client in place so they could get that sweet, sweet oil revenue.
Same shit happening today "Iran is a threat" blah blah blah. When Iran was a democracy it had to be eliminated, cant let the natives get their hands on all that oil. So they put a bloody savage in power and were surprised when the people overthrew him.
Afghanistan is run by a hopelessly corrupt former oil executive. Coincidence? Anyone fancy a pipeline?
Nothing will every change until powerful countries stop looking at other countries resources' in terms of what they can loot.
</rant>

>> ^bcglorf:
>>
So Obama inherited Iraq and Afghanistan from Bush, as Bush inherited them from Clinton, as Clinton inherited them from Bush, and so on.
Iraq was a bad situation, every time it was passed down it was still a bad situation.
Afghanistan was a bad situation, every time it was passed down it was still a bad situation.
Can we agree on that much?
I presume so, and would then ask, what step do you believe in each generation should have been taken to make the bad situation better instead of making it worse?
Would having the Taliban in power in Afghanistan today, with Al Qaeada as their guests be better or worse?
Would having Saddam in power in Iraq today be better or worse?



Bush Jr. inherited Iraq from Clinton the same way Clinton inherited Iraq from Bush Sr.

While Clinton was in office, Iraq was still a major problem. You are very right about Clinton inheriting a mess from Bush Sr., and you hit the biggest point in how Bush Sr. failed to push into Baghdad the first time and instead allowed Saddam's gunships to gun down the Shia rebellion. Let's remember though it was the likes of Chomsky that were demanding that Bush Sr. stop short of Baghdad. In fact, if Chomsky's crowd had their way, Bush Sr. would've left Saddam in control of Kuwait as well. Under Clinton's administration, Saddam was still actively refusing to allow inspectors to ensure his compliance with not pursuing WMD programs. Under Clinton's administration, Saddam was routinely violating the no-fly zone over northern Iraq, and actively firing on the aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone. Clinton ignored the problem of Saddam, and largely hoped that sanctions would just make the problem go away. The same sanctions you rightly condemn. But what alternative do you propose? I prefer removing Saddam to maintaining sanctions that are crushing Iraqi's and if anythings, strengthening Saddam's local control. Chomsky seems to think just removing the sanctions and trying to be friends with Saddam was a better idea, I disagree. Clinton tried that with Kim Jong-Il, and tried to dissuade his nuclear ambitions by gifting him a pair of nuclear reactors if he'd just be nicer and not continue pursuing a nuclear program. That went just peachy.

Nothing will every change until powerful countries stop looking at other countries resources' in terms of what they can loot.

It's not just powerful countries, it is all countries, and history teaches that this never has happened so you need to consider that it likely never will happen. With that reality, I'm content to settle for encouraging the special times when nation's selfish interests actually happen to coincide with the better interests of the local people as well. I think it very hard to argue that the absence of Saddam and the Taliban has not been such a gain. I think it even harder to argue that Libyan's haven't seen a similar gain. At the very least, I find those actions plainly and blatantly better than Clinton's era of doing nothing being in his national interest, while watching 800,000 Rwandans butchered while America had the resources to easily cut that death toll to almost nothing. Of course, if he had acted and only 200,000 Rwandans had died, Chomsky would be here today telling us why the blood of 200,000 Rwandans was on Clinton's hands...

Theres no way you can say Bush inherited Iraq from Clinton.

Iraq was "contained" (crippled militarily, economically and in terms of civilian infrastructure through sanctions), it was being bombed every other day by "coalition" forces and they gave Saddam the means to tighten his grip on the country after the rebellion (which they helped fail by allowing Saddam use his attack helicopters to crush it) through schemes like the oil for food program which gave Saddam plenty of things to dole out to supporters to keep them on side.

As we have seen the reason for the Iraq war was bullshit. They wanted Saddam gone and a friendly client in place so they could get that sweet, sweet oil revenue.

Same shit happening today "Iran is a threat" blah blah blah. When Iran was a democracy it had to be eliminated, cant let the natives get their hands on all that oil. So they put a bloody savage in power and were surprised when the people overthrew him.

Afghanistan is run by a hopelessly corrupt former oil executive. Coincidence? Anyone fancy a pipeline?

Nothing will every change until powerful countries stop looking at other countries resources' in terms of what they can loot.

</rant>


>> ^bcglorf:

>>
So Obama inherited Iraq and Afghanistan from Bush, as Bush inherited them from Clinton, as Clinton inherited them from Bush, and so on.
Iraq was a bad situation, every time it was passed down it was still a bad situation.
Afghanistan was a bad situation, every time it was passed down it was still a bad situation.
Can we agree on that much?
I presume so, and would then ask, what step do you believe in each generation should have been taken to make the bad situation better instead of making it worse?
Would having the Taliban in power in Afghanistan today, with Al Qaeada as their guests be better or worse?
Would having Saddam in power in Iraq today be better or worse?

>> ^quantumushroom:

It's against the "the law" to force professional welfare parasites to take birth control for as long as they're on the dole. But it's not against "the law" to make everyone else in society pay for these parasites. This is called "insanity".

>> ^00Scud00:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Step 1) Pay her 10 grand to tie those tubes.

Pay her? screw that, getting her tubes tied would be a condition for allowing her to continue seeing and raising her kids. It boggles my mind as to how anyone can just wind up with 15 kids.


I actually agree with QM on something, I feel dirty.

It's against the "the law" to force professional welfare parasites to take birth control for as long as they're on the dole. But it's not against "the law" to make everyone else in society pay for these parasites. This is called "insanity".


>> ^00Scud00:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Step 1) Pay her 10 grand to tie those tubes.

Pay her? screw that, getting her tubes tied would be a condition for allowing her to continue seeing and raising her kids. It boggles my mind as to how anyone can just wind up with 15 kids.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Top Amazon review:
To Train Up A Child
527 of 565 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars Thoughts of someone whose mother used this book, November 15, 2010
By
M. Gray - See all my reviews
This review is from: To Train Up A Child (Paperback)
My mother was given this book while I was a child. Wanting to raise a well-behaved child, she would spank me with a belt. She is proud of me. I am a senior at Princeton University and practicing Catholic. However, today my mother would tell you that I am these things in spite of the teachings of "To Train Up a Child," in spite of the self-loathing and insecurity caused by whippings which would not end until I could pretend to be content. Pretend to embrace the necessity for my own torture.
I was abused. Please do not look to this book for guidance.


This was disturbing. It was like I was watching the same clip of the other couple months back. You can tell their is a strange mindset at play here.

Usually, the definition of psychology for someone will be doled out with complexes, traits, disorders, bi-polar, psychopathy, sociopath, etc... This is reserved for a single person of one mind, of course. But this shows that there is an undeniable new entry for a couples and groups; a couple that has many children and are highly religious. With just the right catalysts, like that evil book you linked and which was talked about, it becomes something else. Their co-habitual drug of fun was given a test drive: the book or simply, their "rod". But, they wanted to fly; to take it farther. So they took that book and made each answer stronger, more correct. ...And how could they be wrong when God made them feel so good...

Scary stuff. I'm sorry for what happened to you @dystopianfuturetoday . Parents have a tough job, but punishing your child with full on physical force is not an answer. There are atleast 100 better books on parenting than these idiotic "Christian's Force Rod!" type books.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

I heretofore pronounce that no right-wing person knows anything about freedom or liberty. Only the left understands these concepts.
Lol...
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/29/2430644/nc-gov-perdues-r
emark-strikes.html
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/94940/peter-orszag-democ
racy
Now - this is just the tip of the iceberg of course. Leftists and neolibs everywhere are very comfortable with the idea of limiting freedoms, reducing choice, and otherwise stomping on personal liberty in the name of thier so-called 'progressive' beliefs. Netrunner - imma callin' you out on this one. You've got it 100% backwards. The people who don't know jack-squat about freedom or liberty are LEFTISTS. They hate freedom. They hate liberty. They want everyone to live under their benevolent heel with freedoms appropriately doled out by themselves. I'm saying it loud and I'm saying it proud. No true neolib understands a thing about freedom. They only want freedom as THEY define it - which means people are free to obey leftist dogma but arrested, insulted, or killed if they dare to believe anything else. Hyperbole? Nope. The worst massacres and genocides in all history were by leftist regimes. Deal with it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy


I expect you to write a 500 word - abstract on each of these concepts. There need to be at least 2 academic sources used per paper. Hmm.

Come to think of it, you should first write an abstract on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Scholarly_peer_review just to make sure you understand what is expected of you.

I heretofore pronounce that no right-wing person knows anything about freedom or liberty. Only the left understands these concepts.

Lol...

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/29/2430644/nc-gov-perdues-remark-strikes.html

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/94940/peter-orszag-democracy

Now - this is just the tip of the iceberg of course. Leftists and neolibs everywhere are very comfortable with the idea of limiting freedoms, reducing choice, and otherwise stomping on personal liberty in the name of thier so-called 'progressive' beliefs. Netrunner - imma callin' you out on this one. You've got it 100% backwards. The people who don't know jack-squat about freedom or liberty are LEFTISTS. They hate freedom. They hate liberty. They want everyone to live under their benevolent heel with freedoms appropriately doled out by themselves. I'm saying it loud and I'm saying it proud. No true neolib understands a thing about freedom. They only want freedom as THEY define it - which means people are free to obey leftist dogma but arrested, insulted, or killed if they dare to believe anything else. Hyperbole? Nope. The worst massacres and genocides in all history were by leftist regimes. Deal with it.

To give a response to the video at large, I think it's intentionally trying to get people to misplace blame.

Why doesn't inflation cause wages to go up? Why do corporations get to raise prices, but labor never gets to raise the price of their labor? Is it because labor is in a weaker bargaining position?

Why is that? Could it have anything with decreased union membership?

Also, it sorta ignores the fact that the worst decade for the middle class in our lifetimes was 2000-2010, which also was a period of the lowest average inflation we've had since WWII.

Now let's get real about cui bono from inflation. If the bulk of your wealth is in assets like houses, stocks, commodities, etc, inflation doesn't hurt the real value of your holdings. Hell, in straight dollar terms, it makes your bottom line go up.

But what if you're an investment bank, and most of your wealth is comprised of debt owed to you? In this case, inflation is bad, very bad. Debts are issued in fixed dollar amounts for a fixed interest rate. Inflation means the dollars coming back into you are worth less than the dollars you doled out at the start of the loan. If inflation exceeds the interest rate you issued, you might actually lose money on the loan!

So it turns out that the bankers very seriously want hard money. If they could get away with it, they'd prefer to see deflation all the time, because that means the money coming into them is worth more than the dollars they paid out!

The only logical reason to think fiat currency might be helping redistribute wealth upwards is if you believe capitalism is a rigged game from the get go. But the answer to that isn't to get people mad at the government, it's to get people mad at the founding building block of capitalism -- banks.