@JiggaJohnson, now add another element -- Girl A (aka Fox), actually wants bad things to happen to Girl B (everyone who disagrees with conservative dogma), but doesn't want to be held accountable for it.

Now you're where a diary making the rounds at Daily Kos today is, which calls this process stochastic terrorism.

It's a bit grandiose in name, but frankly it puts a finger on exactly what I think is going on at this point. These outbursts of violence are a feature, not a bug.

Cool kids also call this Becking.

I know I'm stepping on the thrust of Jon's message (rhetoric is no more to blame than rock music, and we should all just calm down and stop being so partisan), but it hearkens back to a moment in Rachel Maddow's interview with him where he said (and I'm paraphrasing here) "even if it's technically true that Bush is a war criminal, the left shouldn't say that he's a war criminal, because that's too partisan".

That's the problem we have right now -- when the left says the truth, it sounds partisan. While on the other hand you have the right constantly lying, and it comes out sounding like incitement to violence.

And the media is all too happy to look at the above and say "they're both doing it". Never mind that one side is vindicated by the facts, and the other is just trying to gin people up to try to get political power; you can't report that, because that would be "partisan"...

Yes, it's all a neolib fantasy.

Time to get rid of the highways. And anti-child-porn-legislation. And any of these other newfangled neo-liberal shackles.>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

This vid is good at illustrating the intellectual divide in this country that has resulted in our crappy educational system. The fact that Coons, a bunch of college law students, and all of you here find what she said "crazy" illustrates how far our nation has fallen in basic civics. Sad really.
O'Donnel was absolutely right. The entire idea of "seperation of church & state" is not in the constitution. It does not exist as a phrase, or even as a concept. The phrase originated from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist group. The entirety of Jefferson's context was to assuage their fears that the Constitution would potentially be used to impose a NATIONAL FEDERAL religion on them. It was not written with the concept that Church & State were to be completely and utterly vivisected.
Hence the language of the first ammendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It is not in any way implying the neolib concept of a 'wall of separation'. It - like all the Constitution - is a LIMITING document that is telling the U.S. Government what it is not allowed to do. In this case, the federal government is not allowed to establish a religion or prevent people from exercising their faith of choice. Any of you wondering why it is only the Daily Kos & HuffPo that are pimping this? It's because they are the only ones so blatant and naked in their bias as to think they can get away with making this sound like it was an O'Donnel flub. Everyone else in the media (except maybe MadCow) still has the brains to know that she was right and it was Coons & the Law Idiots that were wrong.
It was not in any way meant to imply ALL church and ALL goverment should be completely seperate. That is a modern neolib fantasy. At the time, many of the 13 colonies had OFFICIAL STATE RELIGIONS. It was not until 1947 that the liberally packed FDR courts because to misapply the Establishment Clause in such a way as to allow them to further misapply the whole 'wall of seperation' idea.
Even Coons has to wag his finger a bit at these law students before they completely embarrassed themselves with their utter and complete ignorance of the Constitution. I really don't know why I'm surprised though. Our law schools generated such "constitutional scholars" as Barak Obama. Is it any wonder that they nothing but a bunch of brainless "social justice" twits that have not one historical fact in their heads?

This vid is good at illustrating the intellectual divide in this country that has resulted in our crappy educational system. The fact that Coons, a bunch of college law students, and all of you here find what she said "crazy" illustrates how far our nation has fallen in basic civics. Sad really.

O'Donnel was absolutely right. The entire idea of "seperation of church & state" is not in the constitution. It does not exist as a phrase, or even as a concept. The phrase originated from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist group. The entirety of Jefferson's context was to assuage their fears that the Constitution would potentially be used to impose a NATIONAL FEDERAL religion on them. It was not written with the concept that Church & State were to be completely and utterly vivisected.

Hence the language of the first ammendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It is not in any way implying the neolib concept of a 'wall of separation'. It - like all the Constitution - is a LIMITING document that is telling the U.S. Government what it is not allowed to do. In this case, the federal government is not allowed to establish a religion or prevent people from exercising their faith of choice. Any of you wondering why it is only the Daily Kos & HuffPo that are pimping this? It's because they are the only ones so blatant and naked in their bias as to think they can get away with making this sound like it was an O'Donnel flub. Everyone else in the media (except maybe MadCow) still has the brains to know that she was right and it was Coons & the Law Idiots that were wrong.

It was not in any way meant to imply ALL church and ALL goverment should be completely seperate. That is a modern neolib fantasy. At the time, many of the 13 colonies had OFFICIAL STATE RELIGIONS. It was not until 1947 that the liberally packed FDR courts because to misapply the Establishment Clause in such a way as to allow them to further misapply the whole 'wall of seperation' idea.

Even Coons has to wag his finger a bit at these law students before they completely embarrassed themselves with their utter and complete ignorance of the Constitution. I really don't know why I'm surprised though. Our law schools generated such "constitutional scholars" as Barak Obama. Is it any wonder that they nothing but a bunch of brainless "social justice" twits that have not one historical fact in their heads?

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, @marinara
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
Liberalism is libertarianism (with a small "L"). It's always meant the same.

Where on that page does it say classical liberalism and libertarianism are one and the same forever and always? Why is there a separate page for libertarianism?

Have you read the Classical Liberalism wikipedia page you just linked? How about just the first paragraph? Clicked on some of the links? Click on the link for utilitarianism, does that sound like libertarianism, or something a little more like what you don't like about liberalism?

>> ^blankfist:
I'm not making this shit up. Now, because the term 'liberal' has been coopted by both Dems and Repubs, liberalism is now known as classic liberalism, and progressives are now known as modern liberals.

The only thing true here is that you, personally, aren't making this up. It's because there's disagreement between modern liberals about who's staying more true to "classical liberalism" that makes us have to develop separate nomenclature. Personally, I'm not too worried about whether the philosophy I believe in exactly matches what someone came up with in the 17th century. I don't think philosophers conclusively settled all modern arguments about morality and the proper role of the state over 300 years ago.

For example, to really burnish my nerd-cred, the specific thing this not-DeLancie Q is talking about is wanting to commit suicide. John Locke, classical liberal, says that's not his right to do because John Locke doesn't believe in self-ownership, and thinks in fact that people's bodies, minds, and souls are the property of God, so we shouldn't do things like kill ourselves.

>> ^blankfist:
[Liberals] tend to believe in the greater good comes before the individual which is classic collectivism vs. individualism.

Now you're showing your ignorance of classical liberalism. Click the link for utilitarianism. Read John Stuart Mill. Hell, even just read the links from my previous post.

Just educate yourself for once, rather than lashing out at us like we're monsters.

>> ^blankfist:
This is all history. This isn't some Daily Kos, Glenn Beck or whatever else partisan talking point.

Yes, it is history, and you're the one preaching a Glenn Beck vision of liberalism at me. Stop being partisan and listen to what I'm trying to tell you for once.

I'm trying to explain to you what liberalism really is, not what Mises, Reason, and CATO want you to think liberalism is.

@NetRunner, @marinara

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

Liberalism is libertarianism (with a small "L"). It's always meant the same. I'm not making this shit up. Now, because the term 'liberal' has been coopted by both Dems and Repubs, liberalism is now known as classic liberalism, and progressives are now known as modern liberals.

Liberalism used to mean a belief in individual freedom, and it was a term that arose during the 17th Century Age of Reason, which influenced some of the important early founders of the US. Modern liberals, such as progressives, decidedly do not believe in individual freedom. They believe in civil rights and personal choice for the most part, but they believe the individual's labor should be owned by the state (or at least whatever the state requires), and they tend to believe in the greater good comes before the individual which is classic collectivism vs. individualism.

This is all history. This isn't some Daily Kos, Glenn Beck or whatever else partisan talking point. Hell, the root word of liberal is liber which means free.

NetRunner knows all this, so I'm a bit shocked to see him debating it still.

>> ^kymbos:

It is possible that they are not talking about America. This may shock, but sometimes people are not talking about America when they talk.
>> ^rougy:
"Socialism is NOT the problem, not even on the radar. Socialism is what rich people scream if anything threatens their profit." (from the Daily KOS)
How true.
There is no socialism in America.
And the only thing that corporatists fear most about socialism is its success, not its failure.
The notion that nothing in the world will work unless a handful of people profit handsomely at the expense of everybody else...has to be one of the most perverted concepts ever devised.



Who said he was? Me? Where did I say that?

What he's saying is that socialism doesn't work, period.

He's saying that nothing can work unless there is a profit motive.

The profits in capitalist countries are--to a large degree--controlled by, and funneled to, a small percentage of the population.

To claim that nothing can get done unless those people make a profit is just...not realistic.

It's dogmatic.

EDIT: All right, it did sound like I was just talking about America, but I meant it in a bigger sense. Why, I may have even meant places as grandiose and wonderful as say, Australia.

Nah....

It is possible that they are not talking about America. This may shock, but sometimes people are not talking about America when they talk.

>> ^rougy:

"Socialism is NOT the problem, not even on the radar. Socialism is what rich people scream if anything threatens their profit." (from the Daily KOS)
How true.
There is no socialism in America.
And the only thing that corporatists fear most about socialism is its success, not its failure.
The notion that nothing in the world will work unless a handful of people profit handsomely at the expense of everybody else...has to be one of the most perverted concepts ever devised.

"Socialism is NOT the problem, not even on the radar. Socialism is what rich people scream if anything threatens their profit." (from the Daily KOS)

How true.

There is no socialism in America.

And the only thing that corporatists fear most about socialism is its success, not its failure.

The notion that nothing in the world will work unless a handful of people profit handsomely at the expense of everybody else...has to be one of the most perverted concepts ever devised.

Look at all these pro-corporate, statist-apologist Daily Kos talking points in here.

There's also the poll Research 2000 did for DailyKos asking basic questions to self-identified Republicans, which is awesome.

@NetRunner. We don't know if he's right or wrong or lying or telling the truth, because to make that assumption is simply speculation. Never was my point to speculate, it was only to present as I read it the facts. I'm not giving evidence that pro-social messages are good or bad in nature, because you cannot prove that by evidence, NR. Those remain political ideas not provable fact.

The facts, however, are as I simply stated multiple times over: this is the writer of the cartoon and he claims he was forced by special interest groups to inject pro-social messages into D&D. That's all I'm asserting. You are trying to build a straw man from that because you disagree that pro-social messages are bad so you're grasping for any available tactic you can invent to win some sort of pro-Democratic battle.

That shit may work on the Daily Kos, but it won't fly here, pal.

Silly

Silly? Well, if by silly you mean "dead on accurate" then, sure.

I thought you thought he was a socialist

Obama wouldn't call himself a socialist. He'd call himself a progressive, or a moderate, or some other leftist term. He is a person who almost exclusively pushes large government, big spending solutions to issues. If that's a socialist, then he's a socialist - but all such political labels are muddled these days.

And - I reiterate - the survey is bunk. I'll illustrate... Swap the polarity of this study and turn back the clock a few years. It is 2008 and Rush Limbaugh sponsors a random poll of Democrat voters. Here are his questions...

1. Do you believe GWB lied on purpose to start the Iraq War so he could make his Father happy?
2. Do you agree that Cheney & Bush conspired with Halliburton to intentionally profit from the war?
3. Do you believe GWB is so unintelligent that he can't even speak properly?
4. Do you agree that it was actually the Bush Administration that blew up the Twin Towers on 9/11?
5. Was Bush a draft dodger?
6. Is it your opinion that Bush stole the 2000 election by cheating and manipulating the Supreme Court?

Now - if that exact poll was run I would lay you odds that the answers would be 75% to 90% in the range of "Yeah he lied, yeah he's stupid, yeah he blew up the towers, yeah he cheated..." Would the results be legitimate? No - they'd be absolute pure bunk.

Survey design is all about removing bias from the questions. It is impossible to get good data when you are using a bad instrument. GIGO. The Daily Kos questions are leading and biased. Therefore the results are complete crap. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant of proper and effective survey design. These questions were designed to get a specific response - and they got it. It means nothing.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Gee - a poll written by the Daily Kos. I wonder how it will turn out...? (eyeroll)
Pure bunk. I've done survey design for over 13 years and the instrument is total garbage designed to elicit results oriented towards sensationalism. Results are worthless when you use such a worthless instrument. Well - worthless in the sense of actually being a realistic measurement of a population. I suppose Kos got what they wanted though - a bunch of bogus crap to fax to breathlessly waiting media puppets.
Oh - and equally stupid internet surfers.


You're quite silly.

Gee - a poll written by the Daily Kos. I wonder how it will turn out...? (eyeroll)

Pure bunk. I've done survey design for over 13 years and the instrument is total garbage designed to elicit results oriented towards sensationalism. Results are worthless when you use such a worthless instrument. Well - worthless in the sense of actually being a realistic measurement of a population. I suppose Kos got what they wanted though - a bunch of bogus crap to fax to breathlessly waiting media puppets.

Oh - and equally stupid internet surfers.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Ask the same question over at Daily Kos and Huff Post. More perfect terms speed along the message in today's ADD environment. For example, by using "Taxocrat" instead of "Democrat" I don't have to explain every time that the Democratic solution for all problems is to raise taxes.

If I gave a shit about Kos or Huff Post I would. I don't, though. I asked you because your voice, your opposition, is needed here and you undercut all your own arguments by talking like a 4th grader. Acting like a child because some of your opposition acts like children doesn't change the fact that you're acting like a child.

It's not the flavor you're upset with, it's that I'm serving you something that's not on the menu. Unlike your unionized teachers, kollij proffs, goofball gangstaz, hollywood and enter-stainers like Colbertowitz, I have nothing to gain by lying to you about life and consequences, and as I like to point out from time to time, if you can present facts that prove liberal policies do anything but make life harder for a much wider swath of the population than they claim to help, I'm all ears.

I don't believe I've ever accused you of lying; I'm certainly not now. It's not the flavor or the dish that I'm upset with or I'd have said so. My "approval rating" around here may fluctuate but I don't think anyone could seriously accuse me of not saying what I mean. Unions, schools/colleges/universities, gangsters and Hollywood have nothing to do with my questions. You're making my point for me with your misdirection attempt. The Democrats could literally turn into the Communist party you like to claim they are right now and it wouldn't validate your inability to formulate a mature argument.

Dobbs--not a favorite of liberals, a proponent of lawful borders and therefore a "racist"--isn't making stuff up here like some Olbermann, he's reading off an actual proposed bill. That's what's truly frightening.

I mean to actually take a look at the bill when I have the time. As is typical with any "news reporter", Dobbs doesn't actually quote anything from the bill, he just tells us what he (or the Heritage Foundation) wants us to believe it says. He may be telling the truth, but I'd be surprised. If the bill really said any of these things, why not just read/show us the text?

I don't want the opinions of any reporter; I'll form my own when I see the bill. This is why I don't watch the news.