*gay

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
Upvote because I want to see you make your case like this more often, and less like the guy I normally butt heads with.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
No. This is genuine discontent boiling over. Let me explain this one final time, so you know where I'm coming from, which is contrary to how you and your best friend NR try to paint me in every discussion thread.

I see a dangerous trend with people lumping together capitalism and free markets and corporatism. All three of them are equally different constructs, and not one of them is similar. Capitalism is working from savings (capital) to produce goods and services. A free market is a mutually beneficial, voluntary exchange between people without coercion. Corporations are government legitimized entities whose only purpose is to make profit in business.

If you asked me to help paint your house and in exchange you'd offer me a lunch, and I agreed voluntarily, that would be the free market. It doesn't necessarily necessitate the exchange of money. If you pulled $1000 from your savings to pay a painter, that would be capitalism and unless you held a gun to his head that too would be a free market exchange. If the state or city says you can only hire licensed painters, then that's not a free market exchange (but still capitalism).

If you had to hire Lowe's Inc. or Home Depot Inc. because they're the only show in town (because of corporate subsidies that make their prices so low no small business painter could compete with them, because the regulations or fees are too stringent for individuals to compete financially with the large corporations, etc.) then that's corporatism and capitalism - and that's absolutely not the free market.

I know you say you think we've been over this ad nauseum, but in every single discussion you seem to revert back to painting me with the same broad brush of capitalist/free marketeer/corporatist which is incredibly disingenuous. For the record: I agree with free markets, I agree with capitalism only as far as it's necessary, and I despise vehemently corporations because they're fictitious entities legitimized by government.

I've said on many accounts that I think capitalism is imperfect. But there's not a single human created economic construct out today that works as well as capitalism. When the day comes that a new system is introduced that is better, I will be more than happy to shake off the chains of capitalism and forge ahead. But no other system is better at the present moment. Not socialism, not communism, not marxism, not anything.

I don't have a problem challenging my belief system, because that's exactly what got me to where I am today. I've transitioned from apolitical/centrist to Democratic-leaning to what I am today. I've never been spoon-fed any pro-capitalist bullshit from teachers, instructors, peers or coworkers at any point in my life; this has all been an objective study on my part. And I take no issue with reading the Shock Doctrine, obviously, because I like to learn more from different perspectives on just about everything, especially politics. And always have! But I'm not your monkey that will rush out and buy a copy today, and that doesn't mean I'm hopeless or ignoring whatever information that book may offer.

If you want capitalism to crumble and be replaced with nationalist capitalism or socialism or whatever else, that's fine by me that you have those beliefs, but understand that I'm not the enemy in your long war against that.

Upvote because I want to see you make your case like this more often, and less like the guy I normally butt heads with.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
No. This is genuine discontent boiling over. Let me explain this one final time, so you know where I'm coming from, which is contrary to how you and your best friend NR try to paint me in every discussion thread.

I see a dangerous trend with people lumping together capitalism and free markets and corporatism. All three of them are equally different constructs, and not one of them is similar. Capitalism is working from savings (capital) to produce goods and services. A free market is a mutually beneficial, voluntary exchange between people without coercion. Corporations are government legitimized entities whose only purpose is to make profit in business.

If you asked me to help paint your house and in exchange you'd offer me a lunch, and I agreed voluntarily, that would be the free market. It doesn't necessarily necessitate the exchange of money. If you pulled $1000 from your savings to pay a painter, that would be capitalism and unless you held a gun to his head that too would be a free market exchange. If the state or city says you can only hire licensed painters, then that's not a free market exchange (but still capitalism).

If you had to hire Lowe's Inc. or Home Depot Inc. because they're the only show in town (because of corporate subsidies that make their prices so low no small business painter could compete with them, because the regulations or fees are too stringent for individuals to compete financially with the large corporations, etc.) then that's corporatism and capitalism - and that's absolutely not the free market.

I know you say you think we've been over this ad nauseum, but in every single discussion you seem to revert back to painting me with the same broad brush of capitalist/free marketeer/corporatist which is incredibly disingenuous. For the record: I agree with free markets, I agree with capitalism only as far as it's necessary, and I despise vehemently corporations because they're fictitious entities legitimized by government.

I've said on many accounts that I think capitalism is imperfect. But there's not a single human created economic construct out today that works as well as capitalism. When the day comes that a new system is introduced that is better, I will be more than happy to shake off the chains of capitalism and forge ahead. But no other system is better at the present moment. Not socialism, not communism, not marxism, not anything.

I don't have a problem challenging my belief system, because that's exactly what got me to where I am today. I've transitioned from apolitical/centrist to Democratic-leaning to what I am today. I've never been spoon-fed any pro-capitalist bullshit from teachers, instructors, peers or coworkers at any point in my life; this has all been an objective study on my part. And I take no issue with reading the Shock Doctrine, obviously, because I like to learn more from different perspectives on just about everything, especially politics. And always have! But I'm not your monkey that will rush out and buy a copy today, and that doesn't mean I'm hopeless or ignoring whatever information that book may offer.

If you want capitalism to crumble and be replaced with nationalist capitalism or socialism or whatever else, that's fine by me that you have those beliefs, but understand that I'm not the enemy in your long war against that.

(self post for archival reasons)

You confuse free markets with free people. Where free market reforms have been put into place in Chile, Argentina, Russia, Bolivia and here at home in the states, you see a pattern of hyper-inflation, massive unemployment, low wages, massive income inequality, the gutting of the middle class, labor exploitation, abuse and attacks (physical or economic) on unions and the diminishing of civil rights. I know that your free market intentions are pure, but as Milton Friedman himself said "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results."

Free markets provide liberty to employers at the expense of employee liberty; they provide liberty to the wealthy at the expense of the poor. It's the Soviet communism of the rich.

I know you draw a big distinction between free markets and corporatism in your mind, but historically, free markets always lead to corporatism and generally require violence and authoritarianism to implement and sustain.

Corporations latched on to Milton Friedman, because he was able to make a persuasive moral argument in favor plutocracy that could be embraced by people who do not benefit from corporatism (like you). Rather than say the rich should be free to dominate, he makes it an issue of 'individual liberty'. If "individual liberty" just so happens to lead plutocracy, it's not Uncle Miltie's fault, because "Freedom is dangerous" as you have said many times.

I know I sound like a broken record, but you need to read that book. Friedman and his Chicago school of economics cronies repeatedly worked closely with despotic governments (including our own) and despotic businesses. You'll be "shocked". He and his colleagues hijacked the IMF and World Bank and have been using those institutions to beat down poor nations and force them to sell of their natural resources to multinational corporations.

I don't have a problem with capitalism, just so long as it does not have a monopoly over the system. I think capitalism has many good traits, but that it is not capable of performing tasks in which value cannot be measured in dollars, like health, education, infrastructure and other social programs. I want a system where government is free to do what it does best, and where business if free to do what it does best. Balance > Ideological monopolies.

Top ten clues that the Free Market movement is a racket.

1. It states that altruism and empathy are bad; greed and selfishness are good.
2. It claims to be anti-corporate, yet is completely funded by corporations from the ground up.
3. It claims to be about liberty, volunteerism and non-aggression, but can only be implemented through force and terror.
4. It promotes irrational/anti-scientific thinking when science gets in the way of business. (read: Global Climate Change).
5. It is largely embraced by Republicans, whom are easily manipulated into believing corporatist falsehoods on a regular basis.
6. It is obsessed with keeping people from organizing, under the guise of 'individualism'. Corporatists know that we are much easier to dominate as separate individuals.
7. In cases where free market reforms have been implemented by a government, it has resulted in plutocracy.
8. In failed states where no government or taxes exist, chaos reigns. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vmn9asN-8AE
9. There is no empirical evidence to prove the merit of Free Market doctrine, and plenty of evidence against.
10. It is embraced by the biggest propagandists of our times, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Ayn Rand, etc.

http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0805079831>> ^blankfist:

No. This is genuine discontent boiling over. Let me explain this one final time, so you know where I'm coming from, which is contrary to how you and your best friend NR try to paint me in every discussion thread.
I see a dangerous trend with people lumping together capitalism and free markets and corporatism. All three of them are equally different constructs, and not one of them is similar. Capitalism is working from savings (capital) to produce goods and services. A free market is a mutually beneficial, voluntary exchange between people without coercion. Corporations are government legitimized entities whose only purpose is to make profit in business.
If you asked me to help paint your house and in exchange you'd offer me a lunch, and I agreed voluntarily, that would be the free market. It doesn't necessarily necessitate the exchange of money. If you pulled $1000 from your savings to pay a painter, that would be capitalism and unless you held a gun to his head that too would be a free market exchange. If the state or city says you can only hire licensed painters, then that's not a free market exchange (but still capitalism).
If you had to hire Lowe's Inc. or Home Depot Inc. because they're the only show in town (because of corporate subsidies that make their prices so low no small business painter could compete with them, because the regulations or fees are too stringent for individuals to compete financially with the large corporations, etc.) then that's corporatism and capitalism - and that's absolutely not the free market.
I know you say you think we've been over this ad nauseum, but in every single discussion you seem to revert back to painting me with the same broad brush of capitalist/free marketeer/corporatist which is incredibly disingenuous. For the record: I agree with free markets, I agree with capitalism only as far as it's necessary, and I despise vehemently corporations because they're fictitious entities legitimized by government.
I've said on many accounts that I think capitalism is imperfect. But there's not a single human created economic construct out today that works as well as capitalism. When the day comes that a new system is introduced that is better, I will be more than happy to shake off the chains of capitalism and forge ahead. But no other system is better at the present moment. Not socialism, not communism, not marxism, not anything.
I don't have a problem challenging my belief system, because that's exactly what got me to where I am today. I've transitioned from apolitical/centrist to Democratic-leaning to what I am today. I've never been spoon-fed any pro-capitalist bullshit from teachers, instructors, peers or coworkers at any point in my life; this has all been an objective study on my part. And I take no issue with reading the Shock Doctrine, obviously, because I like to learn more from different perspectives on just about everything, especially politics. And always have! But I'm not your monkey that will rush out and buy a copy today, and that doesn't mean I'm hopeless or ignoring whatever information that book may offer.
If you want capitalism to crumble and be replaced with nationalist capitalism or socialism or whatever else, that's fine by me that you have those beliefs, but understand that I'm not the enemy in your long war against that.
In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Are you flirting with me?
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
You know how we look back on the dark ages and laugh at how stupid and primitive all the knuckleheads were back then? In a few hundred more years, people are going to laugh at us for the same way, and deservedly so.

The prophet hath spoken! Go readth the Shock Doctrine and cleanse thyselves!

No. This is genuine discontent boiling over. Let me explain this one final time, so you know where I'm coming from, which is contrary to how you and your best friend NR try to paint me in every discussion thread.

I see a dangerous trend with people lumping together capitalism and free markets and corporatism. All three of them are equally different constructs, and not one of them is similar. Capitalism is working from savings (capital) to produce goods and services. A free market is a mutually beneficial, voluntary exchange between people without coercion. Corporations are government legitimized entities whose only purpose is to make profit in business.

If you asked me to help paint your house and in exchange you'd offer me a lunch, and I agreed voluntarily, that would be the free market. It doesn't necessarily necessitate the exchange of money. If you pulled $1000 from your savings to pay a painter, that would be capitalism and unless you held a gun to his head that too would be a free market exchange. If the state or city says you can only hire licensed painters, then that's not a free market exchange (but still capitalism).

If you had to hire Lowe's Inc. or Home Depot Inc. because they're the only show in town (because of corporate subsidies that make their prices so low no small business painter could compete with them, because the regulations or fees are too stringent for individuals to compete financially with the large corporations, etc.) then that's corporatism and capitalism - and that's absolutely not the free market.

I know you say you think we've been over this ad nauseum, but in every single discussion you seem to revert back to painting me with the same broad brush of capitalist/free marketeer/corporatist which is incredibly disingenuous. For the record: I agree with free markets, I agree with capitalism only as far as it's necessary, and I despise vehemently corporations because they're fictitious entities legitimized by government.

I've said on many accounts that I think capitalism is imperfect. But there's not a single human created economic construct out today that works as well as capitalism. When the day comes that a new system is introduced that is better, I will be more than happy to shake off the chains of capitalism and forge ahead. But no other system is better at the present moment. Not socialism, not communism, not marxism, not anything.

I don't have a problem challenging my belief system, because that's exactly what got me to where I am today. I've transitioned from apolitical/centrist to Democratic-leaning to what I am today. I've never been spoon-fed any pro-capitalist bullshit from teachers, instructors, peers or coworkers at any point in my life; this has all been an objective study on my part. And I take no issue with reading the Shock Doctrine, obviously, because I like to learn more from different perspectives on just about everything, especially politics. And always have! But I'm not your monkey that will rush out and buy a copy today, and that doesn't mean I'm hopeless or ignoring whatever information that book may offer.

If you want capitalism to crumble and be replaced with nationalist capitalism or socialism or whatever else, that's fine by me that you have those beliefs, but understand that I'm not the enemy in your long war against that.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Are you flirting with me?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

You know how we look back on the dark ages and laugh at how stupid and primitive all the knuckleheads were back then? In a few hundred more years, people are going to laugh at us for the same way, and deservedly so.


The prophet hath spoken! Go readth the Shock Doctrine and cleanse thyselves!

>> ^Sarzy:

Steve Coogan's response.


"Richard has his tongue so far down the back of Jeremy's trousers he could forge a career as the back end of a pantomime horse."

haha

You will have to excuse my very strong opinion on the matter. I can not change my feeling on it and for that reason you can damn well expect me never to be on a jury for this type of crime. I grew up in a military family. I have friends and family overseas that will have deal with the direct fallout of this and I do expect it to not only make their job more difficult but has even put them at even more risk. I do not expect them to pick and choose what laws to follow and what not to. On the other hand I do not believe he is being treated differently then anyone else in the prison. With the amount of press that is on this case I do not believe that he is being treated wrongly and that most of what has been said is bullshit in an attempt at sympathy.
I also find it insulting that a Russian Propaganda group is being treated as news. A year ago I had never even heard of Russian Times but now when ever I do its some BS negative story on the U.S. or the EU. Everyone is giving the U.S. Crap in treating of one person but Not one thing is ever said about the thousands in prison in Russia, China, Argentina, Turkey, Syria, Yemen, Uzbekistan, Myanmar, Laos, Malaysia, the list goes on and on and on. People keep saying Innocent until proven guilty for Manning but condemn the U.S. on Hearsay.
Sorry the BS meter is off the scale on this.



>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^skinnydaddy1:
Good thing he's not in Russia. If he had been RT would of never said a damn thing and he never would of been heard from again. As for his treatment, sorry he is a traitor to his country. He is not a hero, He is not an activist. He was a solder who took an oath that he betrayed. He should be spending the rest of his life behind bars. He has put people at great risk that may even get someone killed. It does not matter if names were removed. With enough information people can connect the dots and figure out who or what happened.

I won't argue the point of traitor versus not, or the arguments others have made about 'innocent until proven guilty.' That argument falls short with my bullshit radar, just like yours-- BUT, technically, many dumbass conservative voters, and liberal voters, and elected officals betray America every day by assulating and ignoring the constitution. Take the War Powers act? Wtf? Gitmo? Since when the fuck did the Founding Fathers write that the constitution applies only to citizens? Did the fathers put that in there? Fuck no. And did it exclude actions across the seas? Fuck no again. And because the constitution is a form of law for government, if something is not written, it does not apply.
So, the constitution applies to everyone. I assume so, since the Fathers were not retards and just forgot...
Futher--Manning will go to jail for life. Question is if you think this General who is okaying cruel and unusal treatment should join him? And if you argue it is not cruel and unusal, I would like your proof. I assume YOU would have spent years confined inside a box, all alone and naked for years... That would be proof, not speculation, because you can say, "I didn't mind it one bit." Somehow, I doubt you would volunteer though...
The prison itself is violating America's sacred document, and all who accept responsibility over Manning is a traitor... So what is your opinion on this matter? Do you support the constitution--or the rhetoric? Are you pro-freedom? Or pro-hypocrite?
I assume you are pro-freedom. So while you and I think Manning should be in jail for breaking legitament laws within constitutional authority, there are a lot of traitors in this. Of course Asange is protected, among others. Because we can't be cherry picking laws that forged our country's backbone, can we? Am I right?

>> ^skinnydaddy1:
Good thing he's not in Russia. If he had been RT would of never said a damn thing and he never would of been heard from again. As for his treatment, sorry he is a traitor to his country. He is not a hero, He is not an activist. He was a solder who took an oath that he betrayed. He should be spending the rest of his life behind bars. He has put people at great risk that may even get someone killed. It does not matter if names were removed. With enough information people can connect the dots and figure out who or what happened.


I won't argue the point of traitor versus not, or the arguments others have made about 'innocent until proven guilty.' That argument falls short with my bullshit radar, just like yours--***BUT, technically, many dumbass conservative voters, and liberal voters, and elected officals betray America every day by assulating and ignoring the constitution. Take the War Powers act? Wtf? Gitmo? Since when the fuck did the Founding Fathers write that the constitution applies only to citizens? Did the fathers put that in there? Fuck no. And did it exclude actions across the seas? Fuck no again. And because the constitution is a form of law for government, if something is not written, it does not apply.

So, the constitution applies to everyone. I assume so, since the Fathers were not retards and just forgot...

Futher--Manning will go to jail for life. Question is if you think this General who is okaying cruel and unusal treatment should join him? And if you argue it is not cruel and unusal, I would like your proof. I assume YOU would have spent years confined inside a box, all alone and naked for years... That would be proof, not speculation, because you can say, "I didn't mind it one bit." Somehow, I doubt you would volunteer though...

The prison itself is violating America's sacred document, and all who accept responsibility over Manning is a traitor... So what is your opinion on this matter? Do you support the constitution--or the rhetoric? Are you pro-freedom? Or pro-hypocrite?

I assume you are pro-freedom. So while you and I think Manning should be in jail for breaking legitament laws within constitutional authority, there are a lot of traitors in this. Of course Asange is protected, among others. Because we can't be cherry picking laws that forged our country's backbone, can we? Am I right?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

...
I see the buzzards have already started repeating talking points from KOS & HuffPO without even waiting for the body to get cold before trying to wrest a tragedy so it fits into the political fetters forged by years of personal bias. There's little evidence of anything so far except a lone gunman and a sad, tragic attack where 6 human beings died.
Quite honestly, to try and make this about Palin or anybody else shows a similar sort of hate-driven mental outlook to what was motivated the waste of skin pulling the trigger. Those of you guilty of such hate-driven bias really need to take a good long hard look in the mirror. When the first thing that you think of is not, "What an awful human tragedy" but instead "How can I squish this event into my political worldview?" then you have truly lost an important part of yourself. Those of this ilk need to take some time off from hating the 'other guy' and try to piece back together whatever scraps of humanity are left in you.


Fuck You.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
...
I see the buzzards have already started repeating talking points from KOS & HuffPO without even waiting for the body to get cold before trying to wrest a tragedy so it fits into the political fetters forged by years of personal bias. There's little evidence of anything so far except a lone gunman and a sad, tragic attack where 6 human beings died.
Quite honestly, to try and make this about Palin or anybody else shows a similar sort of hate-driven mental outlook to what was motivated the waste of skin pulling the trigger. Those of you guilty of such hate-driven bias really need to take a good long hard look in the mirror. When the first thing that you think of is not, "What an awful human tragedy" but instead "How can I squish this event into my political worldview?" then you have truly lost an important part of yourself. Those of this ilk need to take some time off from hating the 'other guy' and try to piece back together whatever scraps of humanity are left in you.


I don't blame Palin, she is a self-serving money whore. I blame the rhetoric. I hear tyranny over taxes. Well, a tyranny rapes its people, mutilates opposers, burns chuches... Yet, the talk is that America is headed there. What else are sheeple to do but pull out guns? And reload?

I blame wealth and the hate it causes.

...

I see the buzzards have already started repeating talking points from KOS & HuffPO without even waiting for the body to get cold before trying to wrest a tragedy so it fits into the political fetters forged by years of personal bias. There's little evidence of anything so far except a lone gunman and a sad, tragic attack where 6 human beings died.

Quite honestly, to try and make this about Palin or anybody else shows a similar sort of hate-driven mental outlook to what was motivated the waste of skin pulling the trigger. Those of you guilty of such hate-driven bias really need to take a good long hard look in the mirror. When the first thing that you think of is not, "What an awful human tragedy" but instead "How can I squish this event into my political worldview?" then you have truly lost an important part of yourself. Those of this ilk need to take some time off from hating the 'other guy' and try to piece back together whatever scraps of humanity are left in you.

LYRICS:

Only rapper to be called a thief without stealing
Download an MP3 for free, these people hit the ceiling
I'm just a citizen that's teaching you a lesson
for restricting my freedom of expression
How can ideas be possessions when they're freely replicable?
Hence unapplicable property laws are reprehensible
Didn't Jefferson express his opinion on the matter
when he said inventions shouldn't be given a patent
What happened to that thinking, we're stuck in a pattern
where the people with everything are keeping everything from us who haven't
We want it back, look, fed up of adverts, left and right
begging me to buy til there's nothing left of mine
to spend, never mind, who's next in line to testify
that we need laws like these to protect our rights?
Medicine has never been something I'd ever deprive
especially when a life depends on it to survive
Yeah, it takes an incredible effort to develop them right
but putting wealth over health, I said it's never been right

I'm just a citizen that's teaching you a lesson
for restricting my freedom of expression, and I reckon
if old blues themes hadn't been used by Led Zeppelin
we wouldn't ever have any heavy metal then
the history of music would have never even happened
and amusingly there wouldn't even be a Metallica
to tell us that we should hang on the gallows of law
so we wouldn't even need to have a Gallo Report
Oh and by the way the fricking Gallo's support
is made of signatures which have been apparently forged
This shit is sinister, and cannot be allowed to enforce
so tell your ministers and MEPs of how it's been brought about
Although you'll probably get a shallow retort
because the lobbyists have got a grip around all their balls
If I was boss, I'd tell them get the Hell out the door
because I've had enough of corrupt crooks ramming through laws

I'm just a citizen that's teaching you a lesson
for restricting my freedom of expression
Yes, and deep packet inspection? squeeze that up your rectum
If your postman did that to you you'd be having him sectioned
arrested for meddling in your private affairs
But it's only online, right? so why should we care?
Because digital rights should be applicable right
here in real life, and we're not criminals, right?
So this is just why we'll never give up the fight
to be considered innocent until we kick up and die
Giving internet providers responsibility
for the whims of their subscribers infringes privacy
Before the internet, media was a rarity
but how do you expect it to keep its value without scarcity
And that's what scares me, seeing their cons and schemes
to stop their creaking business model being obsolete
What a robbery they pull off so obviously
Don't give a fuck who it affects as long as it's not me
Well I'll keep making copies, see if they can stop me
They'll have to confiscate my PC and take it off me
See there's no problem with taking my property
for creating some lines of binary, blatant hypocrisy
Afraid to face the controversy relating to what we need
Making a profit off it or breaking monopolies

1. Tower in Barrens being toppled.
2. Statue at Booty Bay about to eat a giant wave.
3. More Barrens destruction with a chasm opening.
4. Blimp crash in Durotar.
5. Thousand Needles (which is below sea level) having the ocean flow in between the pillars of rock.
6. Unknown Mountain Range... could be near Iron Forge.
7. Docks in Darkshore at Auberdine.
8. The Dam above the Wetlands at Loch Modan.
9. Stormwind.

Your argument doesn't undermine my statement. Yes, God-Kings and such ruled by divine right, and for much of history this worked, to the point even the Devil-Kings got sh!t done. Yet unlike the Statist oppressors of recent history, the God-King could not easily change traditions like s/he did mere laws.

These "atheist" countries of late are an historical eyeblink, typically small with homogeneous populations and cultural values forged by religion. When they forget their god(s) completely they'll be ripe for conquest.

It doesn't matter whether you or I support or condemn religion, that's how it's always been.


>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:
This is how it's been my friend.
Don't bother mentioning those cases in history where Emperors/Kings were godheads by divine right and worshiped as the human embodiments of God on Earth, because that would like, totally undermine your argument and stuff.
"Remove Zeus---fictional or not---from the equation and you make the State a god by proxy, an evil god that kills whomever opposes it." - Quantomos Mushromolis, 400 BC

I agree with a lot of what you say, and like I said in my reply -- it's common for the extremists on either side to be the loudest voices -- despite the fact that they're a vast minority.

There is no true "news" anymore, no matter which channel (or website) you visit, there is an ever present slant, being it right or left leaning, and some sort of agenda in play. The only TRUE method of absorbing news today is to listen to what both sides have to say, and coming to the middle ground on our own (which I try to do). For example, many sifters, diggers, or reddits will either love one opinion maker -- or hate them -- there is [almost] no middle ground. Example: Bill O'Riley is a XXXXX (you can fill in the blank), or the opposite occurs: Bill O'Riley is awesome! Same applies to Maddow, or Olbermann, etc. Fact is, Bill O'Riley is neither a XXXXX or awesome, he's just a person giving HIS opinion, some of which people will disagree with. But like anyone, there ARE things [people] will agree with him on, whether [they] like it or not. In either case, the truth lies somewhere between what Olbermann says and what O'Riley says for the sane people, as both have an agenda, clear or not. These tea-partiers are no different. Instead of getting annoyed by them, or hating them, or calling them all morons, you have to listen to what they have to say, and pick out the rational thoughts they have, not the ones infected by fear or hate. There ARE some things the tea-partiers say that makes sense, whether we like it making sense or not doesn't matter.

Oh, and I tend to ramble, too. Mostly because I like intelligent conversation.

The problem with the media, and the government today (either side), is that you will often see this, and I use this example because it's at the forefront of politics right now.

Republicans are often (almost always) accused of being an elite class of rich people protecting an elite class of rich people. You will often hear democrats regurgitate this, as if they're the voice of the middle class/under class people, which is what they market themselves as.

The problem I have with that is simple: Everyone in Washington (and I mean EVERYONE) and everyone that has a TV show (like Olbermann/Maddow), are VERY rich people. These very people ARE the elite they are supposedly protecting us from. So it's very insulting to me when they try to talk as if they're one of [us] (middle class). I've been to a few political events in my life that are non-party events (both Democrats/Republicans in attendance). It's quite amazing how much hate they spew at each other in the spotlight/on television, and now friendly they all are behind closed doors.

The republicans and democrats almost all universally care about one thing -- votes. And why wouldn't they when they're all paid hundreds of thousands of dollars per year to "fix" all the nations problems when all they end up doing is breaking it more with every change they make [for our sake]. Not to mention the back end 1 million plus dollar book deals they all end up having when they do get voted out and/or leave.



Sorry for rambling.

>> ^peggedbea:

hmmmm, i realize it's a geographic phenomenon and an example of a very vocal minority. but this phenomenon is having an impact on everything else (see the recent texas state board of education decisions), and i believe, a detrimental one at that.
and sure the only exposure to the media i have is through the internet, but it's also very sporadic and i'm generally pretty good at realizing hyped up bullshit when i see it.
let me clarify this last bit. i don't think they're misguided because they fear, hate, distrust the government. honestly, i think most of the time not trusting politicians is warranted and wise. BUT the trust they put in sources that intentionally misguide them("they" being the dozens of people that claim tea party affiliation that i have every day exposure to) is what i think is "misguided fear and distrust".
and yes, "authority" was just a device to emphasize that i speak to dozens of people with tea party affiliation every day, my family get-togethers are dominated by political conversations with tea baggers weekly, i hear loads of first hand "tea bagging nonsense" daily. i'm very curious, very friendly, and work a job where i go into peoples homes and a side effect is forging relatively intimate relationships with the whole household, so when my families are having these discussions (daily), i listen, and ask questions respectfully and try to seem unbiased. my experience is not from sensational news sources, but from the mouths of a movement i find misguided and threatening. my friends and family and neighbors and clients are scared. they tell me they're scared. and they're being scared by sources they trust and shouldn't and that makes me sad.
i think the most damning evidence that this far right, very vocal minority, is actually something to worry about is the texas state board of education. it was slowly infiltrated over the last decade or so by young earth creationists and the christian right. they planned it this way intentionally. the sources that fund the political campaigns of far right christian groups intentionally set their sites on the texas board of education because of the impact decisions in texas have on the rest of the country. the board of education votes every 10 years on new textbooks and new curriculum standards. because of how huge texas is, textbook publishers usually just sell whatever books texas orders to most of the other states in the country. this year the vote came up and and extreme far right political/religious agenda won. now, they have dictated the educational standards of an entire generation, very nearly nation wide.
also, another thing that makes me shudder is my city recently did a multimillion dollar renovation to the science museum. millions of those dollars came directly from oil and gas companies (that also silently fund the tea party movement). we now have a science museum in a major city that is largely dedicated to energy with zero mention of conservation, pollution or climate change. and almost zero mention of alternative sources of energy production in the future.
so my overall points being that, 1. i know,literally, dozens of people that claim tea party affiliation and i don't think any of them stupid or crazy. (but i think the movement as a whole is very stupid and very crazy and very deceptively steered, not individual people) 2. i don't think just because nationwide news outlets sensationalize things, that we can discount the very very real impact this extremely far right, mostly religious, and extremely loud minority is having.
but.. i ramble too.

hmmmm, i realize it's a geographic phenomenon and an example of a very vocal minority. but this phenomenon is having an impact on everything else (see the recent texas state board of education decisions), and i believe, a detrimental one at that.

and sure the only exposure to the media i have is through the internet, but it's also very sporadic and i'm generally pretty good at realizing hyped up bullshit when i see it.

let me clarify this last bit. i don't think they're misguided because they fear, hate, distrust the government. honestly, i think most of the time not trusting politicians is warranted and wise. BUT the trust they put in sources that intentionally misguide them("they" being the dozens of people that claim tea party affiliation that i have every day exposure to) is what i think is "misguided fear and distrust".
and yes, "authority" was just a device to emphasize that i speak to dozens of people with tea party affiliation every day, my family get-togethers are dominated by political conversations with tea baggers weekly, i hear loads of first hand "tea bagging nonsense" daily. i'm very curious, very friendly, and work a job where i go into peoples homes and a side effect is forging relatively intimate relationships with the whole household, so when my families are having these discussions (daily), i listen, and ask questions respectfully and try to seem unbiased. my experience is not from sensational news sources, but from the mouths of a movement i find misguided and threatening. my friends and family and neighbors and clients are scared. they tell me they're scared. and they're being scared by sources they trust and shouldn't and that makes me sad.

i think the most damning evidence that this far right, very vocal minority, is actually something to worry about is the texas state board of education. it was slowly infiltrated over the last decade or so by young earth creationists and the christian right. they planned it this way intentionally. the sources that fund the political campaigns of far right christian groups intentionally set their sites on the texas board of education because of the impact decisions in texas have on the rest of the country. the board of education votes every 10 years on new textbooks and new curriculum standards. because of how huge texas is, textbook publishers usually just sell whatever books texas orders to most of the other states in the country. this year the vote came up and and extreme far right political/religious agenda won. now, they have dictated the educational standards of an entire generation, very nearly nation wide.

also, another thing that makes me shudder is my city recently did a multimillion dollar renovation to the science museum. millions of those dollars came directly from oil and gas companies (that also silently fund the tea party movement). we now have a science museum in a major city that is largely dedicated to energy with zero mention of conservation, pollution or climate change. and almost zero mention of alternative sources of energy production in the future.

so my overall points being that, 1. i know,literally, dozens of people that claim tea party affiliation and i don't think any of them stupid or crazy. (but i think the movement as a whole is very stupid and very crazy and very deceptively steered, not individual people) 2. i don't think just because nationwide news outlets sensationalize things, that we can discount the very very real impact this extremely far right, mostly religious, and extremely loud minority is having.

but.. i ramble too.