This is a warlike culture and your fellow Americans seem like war (until they are in it themselves). The neocon mentality permeates through both the left and the right. Except war is a serious evil and rarely does anything ever justify it. In all of US history, there have been only about 6 years in which the US has not been at war with someone somewhere. 6 years or so in over 230 years.

The economics of slavery would have ended it pretty soon, and it would have helped if the US federal government had not been enforcing "fugitive slave" laws which forced states to return escaped slaves.
Ending slavery was definitely a good thing. Just like ending the war with Japan. But the 'necessity' of the war to achieve that end is far from certain just like the 'necessity' of nuking Japan (twice!) seems rather absurd.
It's the neocon mindset. The 'necessity' to go to war, whether it's with Iraq, or with Afghanistan. With Mexico. With the British. With Spain. In Vietnam. In Korea. In Latin America. With the 'Indians'. Each of these wars were 'necessary' according to its apologists.

"War in the East. War in the West. War up North. War down South. Everywhere there's war."

War is the life of the State. This country, like all countries, was founded on slavery, and war. States do not come about peacefully and 'organically'. They are the product of coercion and war.

War apologists always have reasons why their wars are 'necessary' and only that war would have served. Ask Cheney.

But then, they also think that the situation now is 'necessary'. So I wish you luck and hope you are enjoying your wars.

no no the US just gets corporate take over of journalists, and then intimidate anyone who doesn't tow the line, and anyone who dares to be show what the government is actually responsible for gets thrown into prison, or has their car conveniently wrap around a telephone pole... unless of course, it's the government themselves doing the "whistleblowing", then its fine, and not a hostile act against a nation that values openness and transparency... so much so that more documents have been declared SECRET since Obama came into power than ever before in US history...

let alone straight face lying about spying on their own citizens

let alone a President who decides he doesn't require congress's approval for declaring war/military action, and then decides to show what a humble president that he is, he'll let congress in on what he knows... unlike the NSA programs that most of Congress wouldn't have known about unless for guys like Snowden

and social issues, important as they are, are smokes screens to deflect people's attention from what the two party system's true goal is... serving big business needs and securing personal future wealth/comfort as payment... they really don't care about those issues as anything more as misdirection, unless they are wingnuts like alot of the tea party movement were (they were the reverse, social issues jaded with personal prejudices with no economic sense/ability)... they use social issues to turn people against each other so that they don't see that Democrat and Republican within the last 30yrs have really only accomplished the exact same goals... deregulation of banks/big business, reduction in personal liberties, establishment of a police/surveillance state, the destruction of the middle class, and the fortifying of corporations

"Democratic utopia" aside, you really think 237 years of US history is making things... better? I'd love to hear you elaborate, because it sounds more and more like we're going the way of fascism.

And no small "l" libertarian believes in corporatism. That's right, here's a fun fact for you: corporations are created by government. Given special limited liability the rest of us are not. Given special government subsidies and welfare and even, at times, given eminent domain privileges.

And I love your "go to" disgusting statist answers of "don't like it then get out of my country" and "you must be a birther." Next you'll call me a racist or tell me to move to Somalia. Waiting for that one.

But the truth is you never addressed my real question here, but I'm guessing that was your point. Distraction and obfuscation tends to be the only weapon in the statist's arsenal. Your move, genius.

Are you implying I drive a Harley? Otherwise I'd prefer you call me queer, son. Virginia Tech was the most deadly shooting in US history. He used pistols with standard clip sizes. There are also these things called bombs, should we ban fertilizer?

Please define tragedy. Statistically speaking, tragedies of these sorts are prevented by doing absolutely nothing at all. Statistically speaking... they don't happen. It's a couple of sad things that happened and everything, but it doesn't compare to actual problems, you know... like accidents.

It's been a long time since I had US history in school, but I swear I remembered there something about there being a clause put in so that states could leave the union if they wanted because certain states refused to to ratify the constitution unless they could leave. Maybe it only applied to the original 13 colonies or maybe I slept through that day and dreamed it all.

>> ^bobknight33:

So you are saying that this shit would have happened back in the 50's and 60's when society was more conservative? Sure the kids might have thought the things but would have the proper respect not to say shit.
Once again ignorant fools like you shame this community.


Please refrain from name calling bobknight33, you are ironically rehearsing the same typical traits of a bully when you do that.

And as for your arguments, I agree with you that historical context may have conjured a different picture in this situation, but I disagree with your original argument about how a specific government policy is totally wrong and destructive to society. Abuse against outsiders took place throughout US history unrelated to any specific government policy. Children got bullied when they wore glasses, children got bullied when they had funny teeth, children got bullied when their family was poor.

Those old conservative morals held many beliefs that were just as harmful to their society as all the ironies and misguided policies of our contemporary society holds today. Christians bullied other other Christians in the name of loyalty, women were seen as lower class beings, musicians were seen as indecent and cast out from society. In fact bullying was more prevalent and consequences were often much more brutal in those days. Bullying against people of different race often led to physical violence, and even death during the 50s.


If you just focus on children's respect for adults throughout US history, then you could make the argument that liberalism downplayed authority of adults over children. But certainly conservative societies of the 50s weren't any better in terms of bullying. I will reserve the topic of 'changes in social dynamic between adult and children relations in coordination with changes in governmental policies' for you since I think this was actually your specific idea from the beginning.

I'll have to check when I get back to Beijing, but I don't think it would be too hard to "baidu" (the chinese equivalent of google; hardly anyone uses google in china) tianamen square. After all, it is a major tourist destination, maybe the most visited place in the country! While many foriegners get a VPN to view content like youtube and facebook, I don't use them, so I'm guessing I see what everyone else sees on the internet (not that chinese couldn't get a VPN).

I can access the NYT, and wikipedia, linkedin, and other popular sites. I have never looked up democracy, or liberty or Tianamen square, though. I can access videosift, but I can only see liveleak or comedy central videos.

However, even if the internet isn't blocked, to really buy access to the internet (via a SIM card or cable access) one has to register with the government. It's part of the service application process, but it's still there. So, you know even if you have access, someone is watching. Even internet cafe monitoring has been enhanced recently.

I talked to a friend about knowledge of TS. She pointed out that even US history books don't chronicle recent history (the last 40 or 50 years) that thoroughly. I'm in my late 30s, and mine certainly didn't. She also said, even if it came up, older people would be reluctant to discuss such a topic.>> ^shoany:

Speaking of "google-ing Tienanmen Square", isn't there a giant, nationwide block against those keywords, as well as a billion others? I thought I read something to that effect a while ago, wherein the average Chinese internet user had extremely limited access to anything that might possibly be deemed anti-government or pro-free speech.
If that's the case, it wouldn't be so simple to Google Tienanmen Square. I imagine the story gets passed on, but probably in hushed voices and hidden books, as it's certainly not a publicly welcome topic of discussion.

Interesting. I had a typical, shitty American public school education. Slavery was definitely the predominant theme of that entire segment of US history, in the tone of "Rah! Rah! Look at how good we were to free all those people from the evil south!" (I grew up in California).
It wasn't until years later in college did I learn about all the other issues surrounding that war, and reflecting on that history it's very easy to spot the same tropes used today in politics. If the US could it would probably be telling the tale of the Iraq war 20-50 years from now as the gallant charge the US lead to free the people from the tyranny of Saddam.

As an aside, I have to say Pauls sounding remarkably hypocritical here when talking about legislation to abolish slavery, when he rails against legislation for civil rights so fervently. He seems very set on allowing States to decide what laws they follow in their local governments, but I wonder if that goes for something like slavery in his mind as well? Maybe I'm misunderstanding him.

Beg to differ: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HRzl-vRkM8

>> ^marinara:

michelle bachman has never said anything nearly that stupid. not in the same ballpark

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

He was a senile, clueless, puppet president who advanced some of the most damaging and costly policy in US history, he was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, he introduced free market economic reforms that have ravaged our economy, middle class and labor sector, he cravenly targeted the weakest and most powerless people in the country, and he sold weapons to Iran and drugs in inner cities to fund death squads in South America.....
...but, he sure new how to deliver a joke.
Blasphemy.

He was a senile, clueless, puppet president who advanced some of the most damaging and costly policy in US history, he was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, he introduced free market economic reforms that have ravaged our economy, middle class and labor sector, he cravenly targeted the weakest and most powerless people in the country, and he sold weapons to Iran and drugs in inner cities to fund death squads in South America.....

...but, he sure new how to deliver a joke.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Props. A well composed joke.

Yep his writers were pretty good...can't let him go off on his own because he was known for saying some really insane things.

In response to Ghark's intelligent breakdown, of course it is infeasible and impractical to expect a complete evacuation of Americans from the continent and I'm sure you do not condone such action.

I believe in your last option, that Western society as a whole is more developed morally and philosophically today than hundreds of years ago. Structures to prevent such decimation such as the United Nations and hundreds of NGOs that exist today would act against such extermination today. Granted, the UN is not perfect, but it is better than what previously existed and it certainly would've changed the course of US history if globalization and world pressure existed as it does today.

To address another point you made, I'm sure the Native Americans would've done the same to us had they not been Native Americans and had been another group of settlers landing in America with advanced weaponry and systems of government. Of course, they wouldn't be Native Americans anymore would they? They would have a completely different way of life because they would've developed in a different environment.

Historically, Native American tribes did war with each other, but they hardly ever wiped each other out. Almost all Native American wars were small spats, some of which were over ritualistic and others were over things such as honor and rights.

Sorry for rambling, but it's a complicated issue and you've brought up some complicated questions.

Dude, stimulus does not immediately kick in. It takes time to take effect.

Yes - so far it has taken over 2 years and STILL hasn't 'taken effect'. (rimshot)

And considering the economic data that suggests that this was the worst economic downturn in since the Great Depression, where unemployment reached 25%, how is it "balderdash" unemployment would have climbed into the teens?

Where is the evidence that 'proves' unemployment WOULD HAVE reached 13% or 17% or 25%? Depends on who you are talking to of course. There are indicators that US unemployement is indeed more along the lines of 17% when you take away 'book cooking' techniques such as not counting people who aren't looking for jobs anymore, and so forth. Regardless, there is no substantive economic evidence that unemployment as traditionally measured was going to keep increasing beyond the plateau it reached.

You also failed in your economic analysis.

It isn't my economic analysis. It is the economic analysis of economists. Argue with them. Just because you disagree with them doesn't make you right. It just makes you one of millions of people with an uninformed opinion.

"...the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report in August that said the stimulus bill has '[l]owered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points' and '[i]ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million.'"

I already talked about the CBO report - which is one of the most 'generous' interpretations possible and is based on fuzzy facts and a bunch of imagination. Other analysis is far more critical, and has a lot more concrete data to back it up.

"most economists believe"

Nope - you don't get to pull an Obama tactic here. When Obama says bullcrap like this he skates away because the media doesn't call him out. I'm different. I'm calling you out. Define your claim. "Most economists"... What economists? Name names. Name the organizations. Name the time. Name the place. Name the report. Name the data. Supply your proof to your claim that 'most economists' say the bill wasn't successful because it wasn't big enough. The only economnists who say that kind off garbage are prog-lib Keneysians - who aren't worth the powder to blow them up. There are HOSTS of economists who completely, unequivocally, and thoroughly disagree with that highly questionable position.

Again, I challenge you to show me a recession in modern times that was not ended after a period of deficit spending. You can't name one, can you?

Your position is spurious because for the past 70 years the US government has been on a constant deficit spending binge. I can with equal validity claim the following...

"I challenge you to show a recession in modern times that was not PRECEEDED by a period of deficit spending. You can't name one, can you?"

When the baseline of government is constant debt spending, for anyone you to claim that all 'positive' events are the result of deficit spending is nonsense. The chart proves nothing expect that the government has been debt spending 95% of its existence. It sort of also proves that that the recessions in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and this recession were preceeded by deficit spending.

there's no other way to explain it

Yes there is and I just showed it to you. Only people who are mired in a narrow, biased, bigoted, and blinkered Keneysian world-view can say there is 'only' one explanation. Reality and facts prove otherwise.

we've ALWAYS ended recessions with deficit spending

And this is why you are proven to be narrow-minded, biased, bigoted, and blinkered. Private sector growth is what ends recessions - not deficit spending. If deficit spending 'ended' recessions, then why are we still in a recession? Obama Jerkface the First has engaged in more deficit spending than any president in US history in raw terms. Why aren't we in an economic boom right now after 3 years on his debt steroids? If debt got rid of recessions, then we'd never go INTO a recession because we've been debt spending 95% of the time. Your analysis is so simplistic, so flawed, and so moronic that it begs the question whether you even think about what you write, or if you are just so steeped in leftist propoganda that you have abandoned free-thinking completely.

So what was WWII?! What were the 1980's?!

WW2 was a world war that was followed by a post-war private sector boom of increased private spending and greatly decreased government debt spending. The 1980s was a period of time when private businesses grew as a result of decreased government taxation - caused by a conservative president forcing a liberal congress to cut entitlements somewhat.

Explain how in the world deficits prolonged the Great Depression!

Like many prog-libs, you lack historical knowledge. FDR engaged in massive debt spending and public works long before WW2. The creation of public works based on deficits created an environment where government was a 'job creator', not the private sector. When the government is actively involved in setting wages, being the 'job creator', and otherwise setting a baseline of economic activity, then the private sector holds back its capital, jobs, and other activities. The reason is simple - the private sector cannot compete when the public sector is artificially manipulating costs and prices. It creates an atmosphere of massive economic uncertainty, and the private sector is unwilling to take risks, make bold moves, or otherwise do anything that might be jeopardized by a sudden decision by government to move in that direction.

So when government is subsidizing construction workers (such as with public make-work crap), it interferes with the private constriction industry. They are not going to hire workers at $20 an hour when government workers are getting tax-subsidized $30 jobs. They can't compete with that. So they don't hire anyone, and they fire people they already have, and they also have people quit because government is hiring at higher than market value wages. Then in a year when those jobs dry up, the private sector is flooded with workers who expect a 30 an hour job, but the job environment is full of employers who only pay 25 (or less), and who are scared to hire anyone because they have no idea if government is going to go on another bogus debt binge or not. The only time the private sector steps up in in periods of time when they know the government is NOT going to be rocking the boat with arbitrary decisions for a while. This is why there was a big boom AFTER the war (when government activity decreased) and in the 80s. Recessions are ended when the private sector has CONFIDENCE - and that only happens when government is NOT doing anything.

I could go on a long time, but I doubt you care to hear it. Prog-libs who believe only the Keneysian model don't care to hear how thier precious philosophy screws up the world market, prolongs economic downturns, and basically is the major cause of suffering, poverty, and economic unrest.

I don't for the life of me understand why people like you will literally argue the sky isn't blue if it fits your ideological narrative.

Pot - meet kettle. Your world view is 100% backwards. You are the one calling the sky green. You are the one saying the moon is made of cheese. We in the real world await your arrival some day when you're ready for it.

You can't say it didn't work before because unemployment was skyrocketing and then stopped when the stimulus kicked in.

Show me a US recession/depression in the 20th/21st century that didn't end after large doses of economic stimulus in the form of deficits. That's the part I just don't for the life of me understand how anyone can argue against a deficit when every previous recession in modern US history was ended after significant, sometimes massive, deficit spending. This recession wasn't caused by deficit spending during times of recession. It was partly caused by massive record deficit spending during boom times. Stop the idiotic labeling of stuff. You don't prove anybody or any idea wrong by attempting to use the label "prog-lib". I don't care if the idea is liberal, progressive, capitalist, or conservative. If it works, freakin' use it!

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Objection isn't to creating jobs. Objection is to raising taxes, which is all Obummer's 'job bill' really is.
1. He's already done this before. He did a 1 trillion dollar bill designed to create jobs for (get ready for it) construction workers, teachers, firemen, policemen, and so forth. What happened to that trillion dollars? Well, about half of it was given to the states, which they used to shore up thier own budget shortfalls. The other half-trillion? "What half-trillion?" says Obama. How about before we give him another half trillion, he accounts for every penny of the first trillion?
2. His previous efforts have not done jack squat - so why would we want to lather-rinse-repeat them?
3. How are a bunch of TEMPORARY 1-year construction jobs supposed to be a 'job bill' that puts America to work? No disrespect to teachers & temporary construction guys - but they aren't the jobs America needs. We need companies hiring scientists, computer programmers, MBAs, and other actual working professionals - not a bunch of temporary construction guys. Obama's bill is a joke because it hires a bunch of temps, and then a year later puts the burden of KEEPING them employed back on the states.
Obama's bill isn't designed to be passed. Even the Democrats rejected it in the Senate. Yeah - the Senate. Democrats. Rejected. Obama's STUPID bill. Not Republicans. DEMOCRATS. His bill isn't designed to pass. It is designed to get stupid idiots like Cunk a platform to say Republicans "hate teachers and jobs". That's all. And it also appears to be useful at getting stupid prog-libs to clap their hands like so many trained seals. Wake up.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ghark:
Enjoyed the vid, but I have to say I really stopped watching most of Maddow's stuff lately, she seems to try to perpetuate the myth that there is actually a divide between Republicans and Democrats.
I think there's a myth that it's a myth there's a divide between Democrats and Republicans.
Like, where's all the Democratic legislation that's trying to disenfranchise Republican voter demographics?
Are Democrats going out and saying that taxing the rich is "class warfare" and therefore a taboo topic for discussion?
Are Democrats trying to destroy Social Security and Medicare?
Are the Democrats saying national healthcare is a secret plot to commit genocide?
I'm all for trying to rearrange American politics so it doesn't have this huge right-wing corporatist tilt, but spreading this myth that there's no difference between the parties doesn't help.
Part of convincing more politicians to move to the left and stand up to corporations would be to reward the ones who take a stand with your support. Withdrawing it (and encouraging others to do the same) because you're disappointed with their ability to deliver doesn't help tilt things back to the left. On the contrary, it helps ensure that the tilt to the right continues.
As an aside, I haven't seen Cenk promote that bogus myth. He's a lot harder on Democrats than Maddow (or Olbermann), but I've never seen him promote the "voting is meaningless" lie. I hope what he's been saying is some form of "voting against Republicans isn't enough -- we need to pressure the Democrats to move left too!"


In terms of Democratic legislation that disenfranchises Republican voter demographics, I think that's really the point, it isn't there.

In terms of public remonstration that taxation is 'class warfare' I think they've made their public opinion clear, they think taxes on the rich should be raised (so they appear to be on the other side of the fence to the GOP), however what they say and what they do are two different things, I think this is a good example of them playing a pretty standard political game. There is plenty of public voice (even here! See QM) saying the 'taxocrats' are all about raising taxes - but in reality the complete opposite is true, the wealthy are enjoying some of the lowest tax rates in US history. So I would say no, they are not trying to stifle discussion on raising taxes, rather that their words become rather meaningless when looking at their results. Did the Dems not enjoy a filibuster-proof 60 seat senate majority after the elections, I would love to know if they achieved anything meaningful during that period, I really honestly would.

In terms of social security, I give you this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story.html
In terms of Medicare, the debt ceiling negotiations results in the reduction of physicians medicare reimbursements, and further reductions may happen down the road once the super committee has finished their work. But in those 'negotiations' they ended the tax break on the wealthy right? Unfortunately not.

In terms of genocide plots etc, their role is to keep a voter base so that wouldn't be smart, however once again, what matters are results.

As far as convincing politicians to move left, I really wish that were possible, but in 2010 three and a half billion dollars was spent by lobbyists alone, there's just no way you can get your voice to make a difference when you're up against that - and lobbyist money is just the tip of the iceberg, many politicians receive far more money in contributions from other sources, take a look at Harry Reid for example:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00009922
There's a video that's just been posted on the sift of Dick Durbin decrying BoA's new credit/debit card fee's, however this 'voice of reason' has taken over 9 million in contributions in the past 4 years from all manner of sources (including pro-israel). What does this mean? It means he votes yes for bills like H.R. 3080 and H.R. 3079 that will ship US jobs overseas and reduce working conditions in those countries affected (Korea, Panama and Columbia), in addition to supporting a government that is involved in the active killing of journalists that try to expose the brutality of the regime in place (in Columbia).

You just.... can't compete with the influence that that amount of money brings, I'm sorry.

Cenk changed on MSNBC, that was quite clear, and he even explained why that was in his interview after he left - he was being pressured to fall in line and not go too heavy on the Democrats. in fact I think the video you posted 7 months ago is the best demonstration of that, and ironically I commented on it back then too:
http://videosift.com/video/Cenk-to-Wisconsin-Progressives-No-Compromise

Some of his quotes from the clip:
"the war that the Republicans want to start"
"they are coming after you" (referring to the GOP)
"I have a bold proposal tonight, that we fight back" (the 'we' meaning we Democrats)
"Thank god so far the Democrats aren't going to give in to his threats"
"They always reject the word compromise" (GOP again)

and the Pièce de résistance comes at 4:10,
"I have this crazy new idea, how about two can play at that game, how about WE don't compromise either" (this is clearly setup to mean the Dem's)

Did he not just try to get people to buy into the idea that it's us (the Dem's!) vs the GOP (them!).

He had the balls to reject a nice offer from MSNBC and go back to his show where he can speak his mind rather than try to persuade people it's us vs them on the mainstream media.

If you listen to him since he's left, he's gone back to his old, relatively unbiased nature, for example in his recent interview with Al Gore, when Al says that he still has hope in Obama to make 'change' Cenk goes out of his way to say that he is quite clearly 'less hopeful' than Al that Obama will bring about change, i.e. he's pretty much back to his old pre-MSNBC self.

So I think it's safe to draw the conclusion that the mainstream media (MSNBC) used Cenk to try to perpetuate the myth that it's 'us vs. them', because since leaving he has been far more candid. This is the exact same type of thing I see In Rachel unfortunately, and that's why I wish I could see her with her own independent show, she would be awesome on the RNN for example.

Anyway, you already know all this, you're the one posting some of the video's that bought me to the conclusion I did, so I would be interested to hear why you disagree with my position.