The level of irony astounds me.

That, and to your first few sentences: I grew up. I stopped being 14 a long time ago. I treat people as people, not some overdressed piece of meat that only deserves my unwanted self-aggrandizing sexual advances. But hey, wouldn't want to "make" you think anything because that'd just be unbearable. Shame on me for, you know, forcing myself upon you.

But hey, if you got it, flaunt it, whip out those penises and let people stare!

Serious crackhead, Fuck-tard gimp of the highest order. Oh. Wait.....was talking about the spokesfuck who could only blink with the one eye with whats left of his motor skills after hitting the pipe so hard.

All of the NBA should distance themselves from these people-like people.

hmm.. crazy!
It's as though he saying that one's own choices, and not those of the corporations, are what have the more profound impacts on one's life... But who, then, am I supposed to blame who isn't me?

Or, "Fries don't make people fat.. People make people fat."

Sometimes being heinously dumb is the correct response. I defy you to find a more adequate response to sports news.

Seriously.

The validity of a pastime requires only itself as fulfillment, which is entirely subjective. Whether you mechanically understand statistics to marvel your peers or get shit faced and punish your public image on live television for the amusement of your peers, I don't see any moral implications that don't already implicate the entirety of sporting events and human society as a whole.

People lead.
People follow.

People like to revel in their intelligence.
People like to revel in their stupidity.

> "you are sounding more and more like an anarchist.
> you didnt click the link i shared did you?
> it explained in basic form the type of anarchy i subscribe to. "

The link is about libertarian socialism, not strictly anarchism. I consider libertarian socialism, not left-libertarianism, but rather a contradiction. Coherent left-libertarianism, like that of Roderick Long, is for free market, not the traditional definitions of socialism. Different people define these differently. I use libertarianism to mean adhering to the non-aggression principle, as defined by Rothbard. But whatever it means, socialism, communism, syndicalism, and similar non-voluntary systems of communal ownership of "property" cannot but interfere with individual property rights, and by extension, self-ownership rights. These also need rulers/administrators/archons to manage any so-called "communal" property, so it cannot fit the definition of anarchy. If you don't have a bureaucracy, how do you determine how resources get allocated and used? What if I disagree from how you think "communal" resources should be distributed? Who determines who gets to use your car? It is a version of the problem of economic calculation. That wikipedia article conflates several different "libertarian socialist" positions, so which one does he adhere to?

> "i agree with your position.
> i may word mine differently but our views are in alignment for the most part."

This may be true, at least once we do away with any notions that socialism, or non-voluntary "communal" property can be sustainable without a free market and the notion that you can have any such thing as "communal" property, owned by everyone, and not have ruler/administrators/government to make decisions about it. that shirt you are wearing, should we take a vote to see who gets to wear it tomorrow? How about if there is disagreement about this? Anarcho-socialism is unworkable.

> "what i do find interesting is how a person with a more right leaning ideology will
> point to the government and say "there..thats the problem" while someone from a
> more left leaning will point to corporations as the main culprit."

Governments exist without corporations. Corporations cannot exist without government. Governments bomb, kill, imprison, confiscate, torture, tell you what you can and cannot do. Apple, Microsoft, Walmart do not and cannot. Government produces nothing. Corporations produce things I can buy or not voluntarily and pay or not for them. There is no comparison in the level of suffering governments have caused compared to say Target.

If you disobey the government, what can happen? If you disobey Google or Amazon, then what?

> "in my humble opinion most people all want the same things in regards to a
> civilized society. fairness,justice and truth."

Yes, but some want to impose (through violence) their views on how to achieve these on everyone else and some (libertarians) don't.

> "i agree the federal government should have limited powers but i recognize
> government DOES play a role.i believe in the inherent moral goodness of
> people.that if pressed,most people will do the right thing."

If people are inherently good and will do the right thing, then why do we need government/ruler?

Why not just let everyone do the right thing?

> "this is why i think that governments should be more localized.we could use the
> "states rights" argument but i would take it further into townships,local
> communities and municipalities."

I agree. And from there we can go down to neighborhoods, and then households. And of course, logically, all the way to individuals. And any government a voluntary one where everyone unanimously agree to it. But this is not longer government per se, but rather contracts between voluntary participants.

> "for this to even have a chance this country would have to shake off its induced
> apathetic coma and participate and become informed.
> no easy task.
> in fact,what both you and i are suggesting is no easy task.
> but worthy..so very very worthy."

Ok.

> "when we consider the utter failures of:
> our political class.
> the outright betrayal of our intellectual class who have decided to serve privilege
> and power at the neglect of justice and truth for their own personal advancement,
> and the venal corporate class."

So if people are basically good and do the right thing, why has this happened? Then again, when have politician not been self serving kleptocrats?
few exceptions

> "we,as citizens,have to demand a better way.
> not through a political system that is dysfunctional and broken and only serves the
> corporate state while giving meaningless and vapid rhetoric to the people."

True.

> "nor can this be achieved by violent uprising,which would only serve to give the
> state the reason to perpetrate even greater violence."

True.

> "we cannot rely on our academic class which has sold itself for the betterment of
> its own hubris and self-aggrandizing."

True.
Nothing a libertarian anarchist would not say.

> "even the fourth estate,which has been hamstrung so completely due to its desire
> for access to power,it has been enslaved by the very power it was meant to
> watchdog."

I have not gone into this, but you can thank "democracy" for all this.

> "when we look at american history.the ACTUAL history we find that never,not
> ONCE,did the american government EVER give something to the people."

Yeah, governments are generally no-good.
Let me interject to say that I agree that plutocrats cause problems. I certainly agree that kleptocrat cause even more problems. But I am not ready to exclude the mob from these sources of problems. As Carlin said, "where do these politicians come from?

> "it is the social movements which put pressure,by way of fear,on the political
> class."

The mob can and does often get out of control.

> "we have seen the tea party rise and get consumed by the republican political
> class."
> "we saw occupy rise up to be crushed in a coordinated effort by the state.this was
> obama that did this yet little was ever spoken about it."
> "power is petrified of peoples movements."

I don't disagree. But people's movements are not necessarily always benign. And they have a tendency to fall in line with demagogues. Plutocrats bribe kleptocrats. Kleptocrats buy the mob. They are all guilty. I know, you say, they people need to be educated. Sure, like they need to be educated abut economics? How is that going to happen? If everyone was educated as an Austrian libertarian economist, sure, great. Is that the case? Can it be? Just asking.

I do support any popular movement that advocates free markets and non-aggression. Count me in.

> "power is petrified of peoples movements."

People's movements are often scary. And not always benign. But non-aggressive, free market ones, like Gandhi's, sure, these are great!

> "because that is the only way to combat the power structures we are being
> subjected to today. civil disobedience. and i aim to misbehave."

Maybe. This is a question of strategical preference. Civil disobedience. Ron Paul says he thinks that maybe that's the only option left or it may become the only option left sometime in the future. But, like you said, secession to and nullification by smaller jurisdictions is also a strategy, although you may consider it a "legal" form of civil disobedience. You seem on board.

I see great potential for you (writer), once you straighten out some economic issues in your mind.

> "there will be another movement.
> i do not know when or how it will manifest.
> i just hope it will not be violent."

If it is violent, it is not libertarian in the most meaningful way, adhering to non-aggression.

> "this starts exactly how you and i are talking.
> it is the conversation which sparks the idea which ignites a passion which turns
> into a burning flame.
> i am a radical. a dissident. but radical times call for radical thinking."

If you want something not only radical, but also coherent and true, here you have libertarian anarchy.

> "you and i both want fairness,justice and truth. everybody does."

Yep.

> "some of our philosophy overlaps,other parts do not.
> we discuss the parts that do not overlap to better understand each other."

Yes, good. Keep listening, and you will see for yourself.

> "this forms a bond of empathy and understanding.
> which makes it far more harder to demonize each other in terms of the political
> class and propaganda corporate tv."

And for clarity, I don't say the corporate is made up of saints. I only point out that their power to abuse comes from government privilege that they can control. Whether corporations control this power or the mob does, either way, it is a threat to individual liberties. Break the government monopoly, and let the market provide for what we need, and they will have little power to abuse, or as little as possible, but both more power and incentive to do good.

> "I don't say the corporate world is made up of saints"

As long as government and not the market distributes the spoils, abusive plutocrats will arise.

As long as government and not the market distributes the spoils, kleptocrats will seek office to enrich themselves and cronies, as well as for the power trip.
As long as government and not the market distributes the spoils, kleptocrats will bribe the mob (the so-called people) with stolen goods taken from their legitimate owners through force.

The only real positive democracy, is market democracy, the one much harder to exploit and abuse. the one that is not a weapon used to benefit some at the expense of others.

> "the power elite do not want me to understand you,nor you to empathize with me."

But I do empathize with you! And you are making an effort to understand me.
And remember, many not in the "power elite" have been bribed/conditioned also to turn on you and prevent you from understanding/empathizing.

> "fear and division serve their interests.
> hyper-nationalistic xenophobia serves their interests.
> i aim to disappoint them."

Good for you! And for everyone else.

> "maybe it will help if i share the people i admire.
> chomsky,zinn,hedges,watts,harvey,roy,
> just some of the people who have influenced me greatly."

I know them well. Now perhaps you can take a look at things from a different angle, one that I think corrects some of their inconsistencies.

> "nowhere near as polite and awesome as you."

Thanks, man. You too

Yeah, I think if HBO opened HBO Go to people beyond people who have cable and HBO, and if they kept the fee reasonable, their subscriptions to HBO Go would go through the roof, piracy would go way down on their shows, and I don't think there would be any real long term impact on Blu-ray/DVD set sales. The combo pack at Walmart is $35 or something like that a season, not a bad deal, but the normal price elsewhere is a bit high.

@Procrastinatron

I love that name by the way. Procrastination is my middle name!

As a female I of course deplore sexism in any form, but I do feel that a lot of it is perceived sexism and I can't be doing with anyone who takes political correctness to the extreme. Of course it exists and women need to fight against what can still be a man's world... but I truly believe that for the most part, men get it. Well I say get it... they are probably even more confused as to what is and isn't acceptable to think and say than ever before.

My son asked me the other day why women say that men don't understand them. He's 10. God knows where he's heard it, but it was a very amusing question and one that is difficult to respond to a young boy. I told him that essentially men and women work on very different emotions and while neither is wrong or right, that difference can be very confusing to guys because women are often driven by their emotions and men are often more logical in their approach.

I also told him that women find men just as hard to understand because they assume that guys don't get them because they don't care enough and that this isn't necessarily the case. We're just very different creatures. People are people, sometimes men are crap and sometimes women are crap, don't ever listen to "All women are/all men are..." He said, "Oh I understand." The poor kid lives with just me and his raging hormonal 14 year old sister, haha.

Interesting about Swedish women in your experience. Sounds like Assange is hiding out for very good reason. Wonder what that was all about, eh?

Motherfuckers still believing we're morally superior to the rest of the shitty governments of the world. Recognize you're human. Recognize your country has committed crimes against humanity since it's inception. We killed many of the natives of this land, rounded them up, and said, "Here's where you can live."

People. American people, rather -- come on! How many human rights violations does it take before you recognize your own government as the real, honest to gosh hypocrites?

We don't need any more elite anything. Join the goddamn human race.

Yeah, the "they hate us because of our freedom" line was the sort insultingly stupid pandering thing that George Bush favored. It didn't surprise me that he said it, what was disappointing was that the media was spineless enough to just go along with it.

What never got expressed is that our actions against other nations were still atrocious, even if the aggrieved peoples include a small number of suicidal zealots. We pissed off entire nations; good people, bad people, all of them had an adequate reason to hate us.

"Stupid people, these people have power." - Noam Chomsky

"Craaaaab people, craaaaab people!"

I don't know of any country or organization in world history who doesn't say they want peace. Hitler marched under the banner of Peace, it's just peace within certain parameters. Same with Defense, I don't know of a country that attacks another without invoking their right to defend themselves. It's bullshit. It doesn't matter what books Islamic people read or Christian people read. People are going to justify the actions they want to take any way possible.

This is sort of like the argument that lays a Billion peoples deaths at the feet of Communism. It doesn't much matter what the "Communists" actually believe, only what they say they believe and what they do.

This is sort of a completely pointless argument anyway, the West has been waging horrific wars against the Islamic world for the past century, and we blame them? When you attack a country and destroy it you are responsible for all the carnage that follows even when not committed by you, because you created the conditions in which they could happen. That's called waging a War of Aggression. It's the crime that the Nazis were guilty of in the Nuremburg Trials and is considered the supreme international crime.

OK WELL... GOVERNMENT IS PEOPLE AND PEOPLE ARE THE PROBLEM SO I AGREE... that doesnt mean we cant be the solution.. in fact, it means we have to be.

This is what i've been saying for years: general health care can not be for-profit, it's immoral to gain from peoples misfortunes. People can pay private clinics all they want if there is a good quality FREE healthcare that could do the same procedures, then it's a choice.

Your ideals, his politics, WTF? What you are saying is that you chose an extreme example (like this news organization did) as your offering, inserting through the filter of your experiences in your society as described, what? You obviously have no desire to see anyone with guns, or any society in which this could possibly happen, and you'd be interested in selling a wondrous adjustment or replacement based upon what? Your personal experiences and world view?? Your own country's model for how to get along?? It's sounds just as pontificous any passionate nut job, right left or center.

Now focus on some lobbies wanting to make money, describe their motivations using crude imagery to make what point ??(knowing fuck-all about the gun lobbies in the U.S. I'd hasten to guess you are pulling shit out of your own ass??)?

A point everyone seems to miss is lost in endless banter over this gun issue in a country whose real problems dwarf how many and what type of boomsticks people have.

The people who control policy, who have worked hard to bankrupt this country and rape her human resources, drug them, offer them more laws to create an illusion of safety and fairness? Fuck you.

Problem isn't guns, mine or yours, or the ones you poor fucks in countries who have decided for you that guns are bad for you. The problem is that the world is full of the most part, of ineffectual, programmable, inept automotons when it comes to exercising their rights under natural laws, AS evidenced for me, in the up-voting of grinter's little passionate episode here...

My country is full of broken people, desperate people, seasoned with an inordinate amount of total fuck-ups, and I have to watch the shit in slow-motion while it gets even more fun...with guns, with a political system totally fucking retarded holding her citizens an economic hostage to special interests dwarfing any gun lobby's.

Is YOUR country broken grinter, or have you decided that you are satisfied with elected officials. we don;t have elected officials anymore. We have criminals.

WORLDWIDE, we're headed for a radical democracy or some comfortable, tolerable, illusory freedoms under a Nuevo-Fascist Global Cuntfest at this point.
Fuuuuck! Get a clue!? all I have to do is watch how utterly retarded these hearings are(kangaroo-court-style) to gauge the breakdown of this motherfucker...