“The classical example for all times,” says Junius, referring to 1793, “is the Great French Revolution.” From all this, he draws the following conclusion: “Century-old experience thus proves that it is not a state of siege, but heroic class struggle, which rouses the self-respect, the heroism and the moral strength of the masses of the people, and serves as the country’s best protection and defence against the foreign enemy.”

Junius’ practical conclusion is this:

“Yes, it is the duty of the Social-Democrats to defend their country during a great historical crisis. But the grave guilt that rests upon the Social-Democratic Reichstag group lies precisely in that, in solemnly declaring, on August 4, 1914, that ‘In the hour of danger we will not leave our fatherland unprotected,’ they at the same time belied those words. They did leave the fatherland unprotected in the hour of greatest peril. For their first duty to the fatherland in that hour was to show the fatherland what was really behind the present imperialist war; to tear down the web of patriotic and diplomatic lies with which this encroachment on the fatherland was enmeshed; to proclaim loudly and dearly that both victory and defeat in the present war are equally fatal for the German people; to resist to the last the throttling of the fatherland by declaring a state of siege; to proclaim the necessity of immediately arming the people and of allowing the people to decide the question of war and peace; resolutely to demand a permanent session of the people’s representatives for the whole duration of the war in order to guarantee vigilant central over the government by the people’s representatives, and the control over the people’s representatives by the people; to demand the immediate abolition of all restrictions on political rights, for only a free people can successfully defend its country; and, finally, to oppose the imperialist war programme, which is to preserve Austria and Turkey, i.e., perpetuate reaction in Europe and in Germany, with the old, truly national programme of the patriots and democrats of 1848, the programme of Marx, Engels and Lassalle: the slogan of a united, Great German republic. This is the banner that should have been unfurled before the country, which would have been a truly national banner of liberation, which would have been in accord with the best traditions of Germany and with the international class policy of the proletariat.... Hence, the grave dilemma—the interests of the fatherland or the international solidarity of the proletariat—the tragic conflict which prompted our parliamentarians ‘with a heavy heart’ to side with the imperialist war, is purely imaginary, it is bourgeois nationalist fiction. On the contrary, there is complete harmony between the interests of the country and the class interests of the proletarian International, both in time of war and in time of peace; both war and peace demand the most energetic development of the class struggle, the most determined fight for the Social-Democratic programme.”

This is how Junius argues. The fallacy of his argument is strikingly evident, and since the masked and avowed lackeys of tsarism, Messrs. Plekhanov and Chkhenkeli, and perhaps even Messrs. Martov and Chkheidze may gloatingly seize upon Junius’ words, not for the purpose of establishing theoretical truth, but for the purpose of wriggling, of covering up their tracks and of throwing dust in the eyes of the workers, we must in greater detail elucidate the theoretical source of Junius’ error.

He proposes to “oppose” the imperialist war with a national programme. He urges the advanced class to turn its face to the past and not to the future! In France, in Germany, and in the whole of Europe it was a bourgeois-democratic revolution that, objectively, was on the order of the day in 1793 and 1848. Corresponding to this objective historical situation was the “truly national,” i.e., the national bourgeois programme of the then existing democracy; in 1793 this programme was carried out by the most revolutionary elements of the bourgeoisie and the plebeians, and in 1848 it was proclaimed by Marx in the name of the whole of progressive democracy. Objectively, the feudal and dynastic wars were then opposed with revolutionary democratic wars, with wars for national liberation. This was the content of the historical tasks of that epoch.

At the present time the objective situation in the biggest advanced states of Europe is different. Progress, if we leave out the possibility of temporary steps backward, is possible only towards socialist society, only towards the socialist revolution. Objectively, the imperialist bourgeois war, the war of highly developed capitalism, can, from the standpoint of progress, from the standpoint of the progressive class, be opposed only with a war against the bourgeoisie, i.e., primarily civil war between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie for power; for unless such a war is waged serious progress is impossible; and after that—only under certain special conditions—a war to defend the socialist state against bourgeois stares is possible. That is why those Bolsheviks (fortunately, very few, and we quickly handed them over to the Prizyv-ists) who were ready to adapt the point of view of conditional defence, i.e., of defending the fatherland on the condition that there was a victorious revolution and the victory of a republic in Russia, were true to the letter of Bolshevism, but betrayed its spirit: 48 for being drawn into the imperialist war of the advanced European Powers, Russia, even under a republican form of government, would also be waging an imperialist war!

In saying that class struggle is the best means of defence against invasion, Junius applied Marxian dialectics only halfway, taking one step on the right road and immediately deviating from it. Marxian dialectics call for a concrete analysis of each specific historical situation. That class struggle is the best means of defence against invasion is true both with regard to the bourgeoisie, which is overthrowing feudalism, and with regard to the proletariat, which is overthrowing the bourgeoisie. Precisely because it is true with regard to every form of class oppression, it is too general, and therefore, inadequate in the present specific case. Civil war against the bourgeoisie is also a form of class struggle, and only this form of class struggle would have saved Europe (the whole of Europe, not only one country) from the peril of invasion. The “Great German Republic” had it existed in 1914-16, would also have waged an imperialist war.

Junius came very close to the correct solution of the problem and to the correct slogan: civil war against the bourgeoisie for socialism; but, as if afraid to speak the whole truth, he turned back to the fantasy of a “national war” in 1914, 1915 and 1916. Even if we examine the question from the purely practical and not theoretical angle, Junius’ error remains no less clear. The whole of bourgeois society, all classes in Germany, including the peasantry, were in favour of war (in all probability the same was the case in Russia—at least a majority of the well-to-do and middle peasantry and a very considerable portion of the poor peasants were evidently under the spell of bourgeois imperialism). The bourgeoisie was armed to the teeth. Under such circumstances to “proclaim” the programme of a republic, a permanent parliament, election of officers by the people (the “armed nation”), etc., would have meant, in practice, “proclaiming” a revolution (with a wrong revolutionary programme!).

In the same breath Junius quite rightly says that a revolution cannot be “made.” Revolution was on the order of the day in 1914–16, it was hidden in the depths of the war, was emerging out of the war. This should have been “proclaimed” in the name of the revolutionary class, and its programme should have been fearlessly and fully announced: socialism is impossible in time of war without civil war against the arch-reactionary, criminal bourgeoisie, which condemned the people to untold disaster. Systematic, consistent, practical measures should have been thought out, which could be carried out no matter what the rate of development of the revolutionary crisis might have been, and which would be in line with the maturing revolution. These measures are indicated in the resolution of our Party: 1) voting against war credits; 2) violation of “civil peace”; 3) creation of an illegal organisation; 4) fraternisation among the soldiers; 5) support to all the revolutionary actions of the masses.[1] The success of all these steps inevitably leads to civil war.

The promulgation of a great historical programme was undoubtedly of tremendous significance; not the old national German programme, which became obsolete in 1914-16, but the proletarian international and socialist programme. “You, the bourgeoisie, are fighting for plunder; we, the workers of all the belligerent countries, declare war upon you for socialism”—this is the sort of speech that should have been delivered in the Parliaments on August 4, 1914, by Socialists who had not betrayed the proletariat, as the Legiens, Davids, Kautskys, Plekhanovs, Guesdes, Sembats, etc. betrayed it.

Evidently Junius’ error is due to two mistakes in reasoning. There is no doubt that Junius is decidedly opposed to the imperialist war and is decidedly in favor of revolutionary tactics; and all Messrs. Plehhanovs’ gloating over Junius’ “defencism” cannot wipe out this fact. Possible and probable calumnies of this kind must be answered promptly and bluntly.

But, firstly, Junius has not completely rid himself of the “environment” of the German Social-Democrats, even the Lefts, who are afraid of a split, who are afraid to follow revolutionary slogans to their logical conclusions.[2] This is a mistaken fear, and the Left Social-Democrats of Germany must and will rid themselves of it. They will do so in the course of the struggle against the social-chauvinists. The fact is that they are fighting against their own social-chauvinists resolutely, firmly and sincerely, and this is the tremendous, the fundamental difference in principle between them and Messrs. Martovs and Chkheidzes, who, with one hand (à la Skobelev) unfurl a banner bearing the greeting, “To the Liebknechts of All Countries,” and with the other hand tenderly embrace Chkhenkeli and Potresov!

Secondly, Junius apparently wanted to achieve something in the nature of the Menshevik “theory of stages,” of sad memory; he wanted to begin to carry out the revolutionary programme from the end that is “more suitable,” “more popular” and more acceptable to the petty-bourgeoisie. It is something like the plan “to outwit history,” to outwit the philistines. He seems to say: surely, nobody would oppose a better way of defending the real fatherland; that real fatherland is the Great German Republic, and the best defence is a militia, a permanent parliament, etc. Once it was accepted, that programme would automatically lead to the next stage-to the socialist revolution.

Probably, it was reasoning of this kind that consciously or semi-consciously determined Junius’ tactics. Needless to say, such reasoning is fallacious, Junius’ pamphlet conjures up in our mind the picture of a lone man who has no comrades in an illegal organisation accustomed to thinking out revolutionary slogans to their conclusion and systematically educating the masses in their spirit. But this shortcoming—it would be a grave error to forget this-is not Junius’ personal failing, but the result of the weakness of all the German Lefts, who have become entangled in the vile net of Kautskyist hypocrisy, pedantry and “friendliness” towards the opportunists. Junius’ adherents have managed in spite of their isolation to begin the publication of illegal leaflets and to start the war against Kautskyism. They will succeed in going further along the right road.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
What exactly does it violate?


It violates the Establishment Clause and the Lemon Test, which I mentioned in the comment right before yours. Congress spends tax money to hire clergy for these things. Exclusively, Christian clergy. This serves no secular purpose, has the primary effect of promoting Christianity, and results in government entanglement with religion. Nearly every meeting of Congress or of the Supreme Court is punctuated with prayers by official chaplains employed by the state, which give the appearance that the USA is officially Christian. Congress does not have the right under the constitution to spend my tax money on a chaplain.

Entanglement with civilizations too primitive to fend for them selves leads to imperialism. That's what the prime directive is guarding against.

Two completely crazy things happened here:

- Dr.P didn't once utter the term "gold standard"
- Someone finally asked him what he'd do if he were in charge.

Unfortunately, he only mentioned ending foreign entanglements to balance the budget. He didn't mention anything about tax policy or corporate welfare.

>> ^jwray:
The United States federal government is not paying for its deficit spending by printing excessive amounts of money. It is borrowing instead. Inflation is at 3.66% and falling. It peaked at 5.6% in July, before the economic upheaval.


Oh really, is that why it takes 3x as many dollars to buy an ounce of gold today than it did ten years ago? Of course the government is printing obscene amounts of money. Stop picking and choosing little short term windows of time where the trend is not apparent, nothing goes in a straight line. Do you even know what monetization of debt means? If foreigners are no longer interested in buying our government debt (bonds) that the treasury issues every year, the Fed has to raise interest rates to lure them in, because that's the yield on their loan to us. But they're LOWERING THEM. Yields are NEGATIVE. You loan money to us, you will be paid back in depreciated dollars that buy less than what you had before you loaned. So now that foreigners aren't doing that, guess who has to step in and buy those bonds? The Federal Reserve. Except that money isn't someone's savings, it isn't backed by a product in the world. It's pure inflation, pure funny money. That's what's coming, their balance sheet is going into the TRILLIONS.

This is the symbiosis that enabled government excess. A tax is an honest appropriation, people see it and are far more likely to resist it. Inflation is arbitrary money creation in a back room that siphons value from existing dollars. You can pull a curtain over that, lie about how much you're doing it, and watch as people see prices go up 10% in health care, food, per annum with absolutely no idea what hit them. After all, the government weatherman says that prices only went up 3%.

http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/2005/0624.html

The calculations are a joke, after we left the gold standard in the 70s, they kept changing them to understate real inflation and welfare obligations so they could spend more and more without it being easily noticed. They no longer include homes, energy, or food. Also, they introduced a subjective concept called hedonics adjustment, which negates price increases as inflation by discounting an assumed increase in quality.

The most galling result of this Keynesian nonsense is it blinds people to where inflation is going. Keynesian economics is the equivalent of teaching astrology instead of astronomy. First, they change the definition of inflation to mean prices instead of money supply. The correct definition of inflation is an increase of the money supply with the common RESULT being higher prices. After doing this, they then categorize inflation (to them: prices) into "asset-based" and "goods-based," and tell us that they don't fight asset-based. But asset-based inflation is what causes bubbles in assets like homes and stocks. We want things we own to go up and things we consume to go down, of course, but we don't want our assets to go up from artificial demand created by inflation. That's an illusion. So when inflation goes into tech stocks or homes, nobody sees it as inflation. Not the Keynesian Fed Chairmen, not the Keynesian financial managers, almost anyone with a degree in economics was less reliable than A COIN FLIP. That's when you know when your "science" has a problem. And then boom, when it starts going into commodities futures after the implosion, it exposes the inflation at all once that people were previously blind to.

And then here's a guy like Schiff, Ron Paul's economic advisor and Austrian economist, who was warning the whole god damned time since 2000, telling people to get into gold when it was $275 and getting laughed at by every confused Keynesian educated retard on television.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucDkoqwflF4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

>> ^dtmike07:
Austrian economics has about as much credibility as scientology. They don't even believe in empirical evidence, for crissakes. Mainstream economics does't have a much better theory - essentially its an extended and mathematized version of Austrian economics. But at least mainstream economists know what the data says and use statistical techniques to analyze it. You know, like real scientists. And regarding the Austrian "theory" of the Great Depression - they pretty much pulled it out of their asses. Its just an attempt to blame the whole thing on the government, and exempt the free market. Austrian economics is a religion - the free market is God and government is the Devil.

You are 100% dead wrong on this. Keynesian "empirical data" is bogus, I've only scratched the surface on how they try to complicate simple concepts into a symbiotic swindle by redefining inflation, making up new terms, and it keeps blowing up in their face no matter who's in charge because that's the whole point. For you or Stukafox to even compare this problem to the firecrackers of banking panics (from fractional reserve lending, a legalized form of fraud that persists to this day with government backstops, an entirely different debate) is unbelievable, there's no proportion to a decade long depression and a bunch of shitty banks going under to remind people not to carelessly deposit all their money in banks.

Second of all, economics is a study of human behavior. Keynes was an idiot whose theories arose from a complete misunderstanding of what caused the great depression. He basically threw classical knowledge out the window and decided that economies needed central direction and stimulation by government. See, like the dumbfucks in this video, most people thought letting the banks fail was what caused the depression. It wasn't. It was what came before and after it. The inflation of the 20s was what caused the crash in the first place, you don't have a crash without a Fed-created bubble. You don't have withdrawal without being high on drugs.

But while withdrawal symptoms suck, they're actually the solution to the disease of the high. Hoover and Roosevelt saw the hangover as the disease, and began administering shock therapy. Over the course of many years, they raised tariffs, raised taxrates, and nationalized industry. The economy would have recovered, capital and jobs would have reallocated on its own. Instead, anyone who had any money after that crash had no incentive to invest or employ anyone, because now government was promising to take 90% of your profits if you made any. So unemployment got worse. The tax revenue the government did manage to appropriate, it used to pay for new government jobs that were extremely inefficient (being immune to bankruptcy, financed by theft, and having no competition tends to be an unproductive business model, ask the soviets). FDR also ordered livestock slaughtered and fields plowed under because he believed falling food prices were bad for farmers. No, I'm not making this up. Deflation being bad is another Keynesian myth, they think more efficient production lowering prices makes people sit on their money rather than invest it. Which is totally untrue if you look at the computer sector where prices fall IN SPITE of inflation and have never had problems raising capital or selling well despite falling prices and obsolescence. FDR is the same asshole who allowed Pearl Harbor to be a massacre and issued unconstitutional orders to confiscate gold from the poor, hungry citizens who had just seen the banks absolved for destroying their savings. The man was a fucking monster, it took four terms to get rid of him.

What got us out of the depression was a just war and FDR's death. WWII had the entire country up in arms because we were attacked by another country. People were willing to sacrifice their wants and contribute to the war effort, this was no pushover on a third world country, it took everything we had. People were buying warbonds based on patriotic fervor alone. Massive amounts of infrastructure was built to produce wartime materials. That manufacturing base remained after the war for private industry, taxes came down, trade resumed, and we emerged as a leading producer of wealth in the world. By default. Because the rest of world was in shambles, only the Soviets were left to compete and their socialist economy eventually crumbled. We didn't plan it that way, it just happened. We were also still on a semi-gold standard, we still had a savings rate, and we became the largest creditor nation. We've lost ALL OF THAT. It's all gone, we're the direct opposite now. No gold standard, negative savings rate, largest debtor nation in the WORLD.

Keynes main problem is, politicians have no precise idea what all needs to be produced and created to please everyone in a PEACETIME economy, it's impossible. The free market is millions of individuals with diverse wants and needs, there's no way in hell you can centrally manage that. But they think they can and want to spend, that's why they picked Keynes as a replacement for old models, because his theories completely justified what socialist academics had been wanting to do all along. They honestly believed they could spend money more efficiently than its earner. That's impossible, the earner has a stake in the money. If he throws it away, he loses the labor he spent to obtain it, so he has a natural incentive to be thrifty. A politician spending it loses nothing, they have no incentive to be thrifty. They're people motivated by self-interest, just like you and me, their only legitimate job in the economy was to make sure force and deception is not used when we are out here transacting with one another. That's what graphs and "empirical data" doesn't explain, and it's why history will show Keynes to be a failure.

Far from our free market roots, we centrally fix interest rates, we declare lending standards discriminatory with goofy programs like the community reinvestment act, we redistribute capital from good businesses to failed ones, savers to speculators, and pass all kinds of anti-competitive laws. That's what Ron Paul understood and was going to put a stop to. He was going to end the monopoly on currency that forced us all into accepting the bill for government excess. He was going to end the useless military expenditures overseas. He was going to eliminate the income tax and cripple the ability of politicians to engage in collusive campaign dealings, or "engineer" society by issuing special credits to certain types of marriages, incomes, families, or investments. He knew the enablements, he understood how seemingly innocuous program could change human behavior. Politicians are just lawyers spending and accepting millions of dollars to get a low-paying position of controlling other people's money. That's it. And if you think they should be controlling 50% of our money in life, you deserve everything that's coming to you. Your employers are all going to close up shop to avoid the tax, your education is going to suck, your welfare dollars' value is going to be pissed away on foreign entanglements and overpaid execs, your gold is going to get confiscated (again). It's all coming, comrades.

>> ^zombieater:
>> ^JiggaJonson:
yes of course people have a right to their own beliefs but but but your beliefs have a HUGE impact on the decisions you make. She would and will make decisions based on her belief system which right now does not fall in line with what our government is. We are maybe the only secular country in the world right now and it's a damned good thing we are. I think all too often people forget that the first amendment is not just freedom of religion it's freedom FROM religion. Religious interests should have no role in politics today.

I'm pretty sure many European countries are much more secular than we are. President Bush states that god helps him in his policy decisions. When your highest government official takes advice from an imaginary being, I'd be hesitant to call that government secular. The horrible truth is that compared to Europe, we're in a fucking theocracy.


The irony is that ON PAPER, the United States Constitution forbids government entanglement with religion, while the UK and Sweden have tax-supported official state churches of which most of the population are lapsed members, despite having a majority of nonbelievers. In practice US policy is much more influenced by religious fundamentalism.

Obama has plans to slash federal spending to the bone, and decrease government size and complexity. Im not seeing how you can equate that to a creation of a socialist state.

If what you say is true, Obama would be upfront about it. He's not, because he's either lying or delusional. In no way will this guy shrink government down...not saying McCain will either, but McCain won't expand it the way Barry will.

Colin Powell says it well, a re-evaluation of the taxation system is not socialism, its responsible governing. Lest you apply those same metrics to bush when he got in power and changed the way the tax system worked, then Obama is not a socialist.

Powell is a well-fed traitor to those to helped raise him up (all Republicans). The man was a mediocre general and knows nothing about economics, except he demands his speaking fees up front. He's a minor disappointment with a minor impact on the election.

Face it QM, the republicans have bought the nation on the brink of collapse, both economically and militarily by committing the nations forces to an ilegal, unjust, vague war, and de-regulating the economy and allowing greed to be the controlling factor in the market.

We WON the war in Iraq, which has a stable government. While it's true that Republicans became fat and lazy the past 8 years (spending like liberals on the back of 9-11) it was not "deregulation" that caused market collapses but shifting government force to other things, like Democrats forcing Fan/Fred to give loans to unqualified applicants. You can't blame the free market, because people are wisely frugal when it's their money being spent, but when Big Government backs up any losses, then people become like drunk gamblers in Vegas...with other peoples' money.

When the history pages are written, the past 8 years will doubtfully look kind on Bush and his administration, for their failed economic policy, their failed foreign policy, their failure to address katrina, their failure to be diplomatic with rogue-leaning nations, their failure to maintain basic infrastructure, their failure to keep some modicum of peace in the middle east, their failure to govern responsibly and impartially for EVERY american (and not just the rich republicans), their failure to address global warming, their failure on promoting good science.....on literally every level, the cons have failed to deliver progressing the nation, and the world over the past 8 years.

I have no doubt marxist professors at liberal-run universities (along with the MSM) will write all of the above, but they've never been right about anything, that's why they and their "theories" hide in universities instead of cutting their teeth in the real world. Slouching towards socialism isn't "progressive" to the rest of us. I know you can't believe me, you'll have to wait another 50 years when global warming has done nothing new.

Entanglement with churches, guns, gay rights, the annihilation of basic civil liberties...the list gos on.

A mantra that has little to back it up. I see no decrease in civil liberties for any American. Gays have more phony "rights" than ever. Liberals hate religion but guess what?--it's here to stay. Gun ownership was just confirmed as an individual right.

I dont understand how you can consistantly sit there and keep pushing the line that anyone not republican, is a terrorist / communist / socialist / generic-bad-guy, given the history of the past 8 years...just astounding how partisan you are.

The reality of the situation is this: you cannot have one-half of the population trying to go at it their own way, making mistakes and poor choices that are an inherent part of freedom and hopefully learning from them, and then have another half expecting the government to take care of them like they were children, and getting the monies to do so off the first group. Whether you know it or not, America is in the midst of a civil war of values. Republicans range in opinion from Ron Paul to Pat Buchanan, so "partisan" doesn't describe things so accurately.

And lets not even get me started on the topic of republican socialism with the bailout...seriously man, get a grip.

Of course it's wrong, but it's an aberration, and unfortunately, is mostly clean-up of Democrat-created messes. There will be blood in the Republican Party, but first, Marx must be defeated.

>> ^Aemaeth:
I used to have the deepest respect for Powell until he played the role in the Bush administration that he did. If he hadn't been in his cabinet and was now in McCain's position I would be voting for him, but I've lost faith in him. Either he blatantly lied or (worse?) he made claims that he did not verify. Oh well, doesn't matter now. He's not in a position of authority.
Obama appointing him would be a mistake. He'd be a reminder of the past (not change) and still represents the GOP for most people.


Powell wasnt in the building when the decision was made by the President, the joint chiefs, and rummy to go to war. They specifically excluded him from that meeting because they knew he would of said no from day one without some serious planning (which the cons did not want, they wanted a rush to iraq).

Colin Powell resigned his commission when he found a replacement, what bush and co. did to that man is unfortunate, but its not his fault, and it certainly wasnt his decision to go to war against Iraq.


>> ^quantumushroom:
If Failin' Powell doesn't see the federal government is already a tyrannical leviathan, then there's no hope for him.
Ultimately you peeps voting for Socialist Barry (not a "characterization" it's right there in his voting record) are still going to be screwed. Whenever government takes one dollar to help your 'cause' it keeps 80 cents for its own bureaucracy, a bureaucracy which depends on expanding the very 'cause' it's supposed to address.
The Constitution limits government power and says nothing about establishing a socialist state or government to provide for citizens' every need (and want). So if that's what you're voting for, have the huevos to admit what you're endorsing is a radical reinterpretation of the Founding Fathers' intent.


Obama has plans to slash federal spending to the bone, and decrease government size and complexity. Im not seeing how you can equate that to a creation of a socialist state.

Colin Powell says it well, a re-evaluation of the taxation system is not socialism, its responsible governing. Lest you apply those same metrics to bush when he got in power and changed the way the tax system worked, then Obama is not a socialist.

Face it QM, the republicans have bought the nation on the brink of collapse, both economically and militarily by committing the nations forces to an ilegal, unjust, vague war, and de-regulating the economy and allowing greed to be the controlling factor in the market.

When the history pages are written, the past 8 years will doubtfully look kind on Bush and his administration, for their failed economic policy, their failed foreign policy, their failure to address katrina, their failure to be diplomatic with rogue-leaning nations, their failure to maintain basic infrastructure, their failure to keep some modicum of peace in the middle east, their failure to govern responsibly and impartially for EVERY american (and not just the rich republicans), their failure to address global warming, their failure on promoting good science.....on literally every level, the cons have failed to deliver progressing the nation, and the world over the past 8 years.

Entanglement with churches, guns, gay rights, the annihilation of basic civil liberties...the list gos on.

I dont understand how you can consistantly sit there and keep pushing the line that anyone not republican, is a terrorist / communist / socialist / generic-bad-guy, given the history of the past 8 years...just astounding how partisan you are.

And lets not even get me started on the topic of republican socialism with the bailout...seriously man, get a grip.

I think that "going right" is a perversion of the reality, just as "going left" is, and does neither the left nor the right political spectrum justice by associating their political ideals with what the republican party has morphed into over the past 8 years.

They've gone full retard.

God, Gays, Guns, Government-entangled-corporation, global-warming-denying, science dissenting, full blown retards.

How in the fuck did this happen ?

Its like they live and govern for a totally different reality, where any of that shit actually works to progress society in any meaningful way.

Interesting. Do you have a video of the pro-net neutrality presentation, or better still, did they have a direct debate on the topic?

My take on this is that there are three aspects of net-neutrality that should be dealt with separately:

1. Protections against censorship (filtering traffic based on the subject matter of its content).
2. Protections against central control of application usage (prioritizing traffic based on the application generating the traffic).
3. Protections against monopolization of bandwidth (prioritizing traffic based on an artificial fee-based schedule).

I see #1 as being an obvious right drawn from the 1st amendment, and I'm glad to see at least some recognition from this opposing view that recognizes that.

I see #2 as being a less obvious right drawn from the 1st amendment, but that there are many practical caveats that make it likely we should not give this right an absolute protection. Specifically, some applications need to be low-latency (such as video games), and should get priority over others, while other applications such as bittorrent downloads can be high-latency, but should be able to achieve high-bandwidth. I think this should be legal, though I do think it needs to be regulated to only allow prioritization, not bandwidth-capping, such as what Comcast has/had been doing with Bittorrent.

#3 I think should be absolutely resisted at every turn, and attempts to entangle it with #1 and #2 are deceptive (and done by the speaker in this video). His analogy with priority mail is incorrect -- we already have tiering of available bandwidth (there are 5 different "tiers" from my cable modem provider, for instance). What telecomm companies want to do is be able to sell a service that will allow one customer's traffic to get higher priority at the giant network hubs -- equivalent to power companies letting some customers "prioritize" their electrical service, so that if there's a shortage, lower-tier customers lose power first.

It's not a healthy way to structure things, and somehow we've built electrical distribution systems, and water distribution systems without the need for that type of tiering. I don't see any value added by allowing it for internet bandwidth, beyond the ability for NBC, CBS, ABC, and FOX (or other equivalent types of entities) to buy up all the bandwidth to monopolize the ability to distribute information, to keep the same top-down media hierarchy we've had during the 20th century.

I'm all for modifying net neutrality to allow for #2, as long as it's truly of benefit to the customer, and not being used as an end-runs around #1 or #3.

Banning it entirely though, is something we obviously shouldn't be considering.

>> ^jwray:
>> ^nosro:
Great stuff, but the poster's title does not represent the views of the lecturer. The lecture is about conservatives vs. liberals, not Republicans vs. Democrats.
"What's the difference, I thought Democrats were liberal and Republicans were conservative?" you might ask. On social issues, this is mostly true. But as current events with regard to Wall Street bailouts illustrate, both parties are liberal on economic issues. They just cater to different groups.


Compared to Europe, both US parties favor more government entanglement in business, but less welfare. It's hard to place that on a liberal-conservative scale. I would prefer less government entanglement in business, but more welfare. Downsize the military-industrial complex, cut subsidies and tariffs, and promote alternative fuel with a pollution tax instead of pork barrel spending on pet projects.
QM: Cite some statistics to back up your stereotypes. I'm still waiting.


They say Europeans distrust business (e.g. GMO), and Americans distrust government (e.g. wiretapping is controversial here, but in Europe it's done regularly).

The American parties' more relaxed approach to regulation of minimum wage and "quality of life" issues like the length of the work week seems to be a big part of US parties favoring less, not more, government entanglement in business relative to European parties.

>> ^nosro:
Great stuff, but the poster's title does not represent the views of the lecturer. The lecture is about conservatives vs. liberals, not Republicans vs. Democrats.
"What's the difference, I thought Democrats were liberal and Republicans were conservative?" you might ask. On social issues, this is mostly true. But as current events with regard to Wall Street bailouts illustrate, both parties are liberal on economic issues. They just cater to different groups.



Compared to Europe, both US parties favor more government entanglement in business, but less welfare. It's hard to place that on a liberal-conservative scale. I would prefer less government entanglement in business, but more welfare. Downsize the military-industrial complex, cut subsidies and tariffs, and promote alternative fuel with a pollution tax instead of pork barrel spending on pet projects.

QM: Cite some statistics to back up your stereotypes. I'm still waiting.

Both hero and villain, purveyor of pornography and tireless civil rights advocate, the always controversial publisher of Hustler magazine Larry Flynt is the subject of Joan Brooker-Marks new tell-all documentary Larry Flynt: The Right to be Left Alone.

In a timely response to a current political situation where the fundamental civil rights of Americans are being challenged, the film offers an eye-opening and authoritative overview of Flynt’s long-standing struggles to expand the parameters of free speech and expose the hypocrisy of this country’s elected leaders. Featuring rarely seen documentary and television footage, as well as in-depth interviews with Flynt himself, the documentary focuses on the self-confessed smut peddler’s usually contentious entanglements with politics – from his precedent-setting Supreme Court case against evangelist and adulterer Jerry Falwell, to his prison sentence for refusing to name his source for the tapes documenting the FBI’s entrapment of John DeLorean, to his campaign runs for both California governor and President.

Brooker-Marks also profiles Flynt’s confrontation of the current administration of George W. Bush on the issues of civil liberties and government transparency. Flynt exposed the administration’s staged rescue of Army Private Jessica Lynch – choosing not to publish naked photographs taken of the 19-year-old, which Flynt felt, would add to her victimization. Additionally, he successfully sued Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon for press access to the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Delving beyond Flynt’s political career, the documentary offers an intimate glimpse of the publisher’s personal life, including the assassination attempt that left him paralyzed and his first wife’s battle with AIDS. Ultimately, Brooker-Marks delivers the full, unvarnished story of one of America’s most unlikely defenders of civil liberties.

[Contains mature content. Viewer discretion advised.]

In reply to this comment by NordlichReiter:
Do you have any more info on the Larry Flynt video?

I learn and teach proper gun safety. Just as any one else needs to learn how to drive a car safely. Yes I agree with common sense gun laws, but like copyright laws, FISA, and Patriot Act (Espionage Act)I do not agree with the amendments of very well written laws that already do their jobs.

He struck down Illinois gun rights, Chicago anti gun laws(supports them), and the right to own a Semi Auto in certain states. When there are bans on Semi Auto, Full Auto pistols, then there is a ban on the majority of handguns by proxy. Pump guns and Revolvers are unwieldy, I'm not talking about the right to defense I'm talking about the right to own and bear weapons that are formidable to the weapons that the good guys have.

They dont want the people to have these weapons because as is said: it impedes the right of them to enforce laws. No, it scares the shit out of authority, which is exactly what is needed. Criminals could care less what gun laws you put out there. Again I agree with common sense laws, but I do not agree with radical expansion of said laws.

On another note: Mcain is bush, Obama is a Fake Idol, Nader is a conspiracy theorist, and Lobbyist are money grubbing ass hats. The choice is? Gotdamn that's a tough choice.


Eisenhower said "Beware the Military Industrial Complex." http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

Washington said "Beware of foreign entanglements."
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/farewell/text.html
To choggie, many presidents have warned us and yet we still continue to follow the lead lemming.

Why.... Why did it have to be five freaking minutes long?!

And, oddly enough, that's how I look when I'm thinking about Quantum Entanglement.