------------------ for thoughts on wars past and present
A.E. Housman poem about vietnam:

Here dead we lie
Because we did not choose
To live and shame the land
From which we sprung.

Life, to be sure,
Is nothing much to lose,
But young men think it is,
And we were young.

----------------

how right on is that, chilling eh

also http://www.amazon.com/Zinn-Reader-Writings-Disobedience-Democracy/dp/1888363541

TL;DR version - my team is better than your team.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I'm sick of fan-boy politics. Do you have any ideas of your own, beyond my team is better than your team? I'm sick of liberal fan boys, conservative fan boys and libertarian fan boys. Instead of insults and distractions, why not put forth a fucking original thought for once. Behind each of these political brands are real life ideas that we can talk about. Let's shut off Glenn Beck and Air America and ReasonTV and do some thinking for ourselves. These motherfuckers do not speak for us. These motherfuckers do not work for us. These motherfuckers do not think for us.
Glenn Beck is sick in the head, and if him calling for the execution of his opponents isn't reason enough for you to abandon him, then you've got problems. What if I said bobknight should be shot in the head and skull fucked? Would you find that to be enlightening discourse? Would you consider that left wing slant? Or would you consider that the unproductive words of a sociopath?
There is nothing wrong with political slant. You have a slant. I have a slant. Anyone with any understanding of politics has a political slant, and to attempt to hide that slant just makes you deceptive. The bigger problem with the concept of 'bias' or 'slant' is that it causes people to shut off their brains if they are exposed to anything outside of their own ideology. 'Bias' serves as a default argument for people not informed enough to form their own arguments. How many times have you seen an argument dismissed entirely because of 'bias'. Arguments ARE bias. Liberals should listen to conservative and libertarian slant, conservatives should listen to liberal and libertarian slant, libertarians should listen to conservative and liberal slant, if for no other reason than to challenge their own belief systems, to make sure they aren't suffering from the echo chamber syndrome.
Do you know that if you took a more intellectual approach to political discourse, that you'd get more respect and your arguments would be much more persuasive? Flush Fox news down the toilet and pick up a book. Surely the right must have their own Howard Zinns and Noam Chomskys, right? Take back your ideology from these manipulative corporate media clowns.
Talk to Geesussfreek. I don't agree with him, but he's obviously well read, intelligent and knows how to put an argument together. I'd like you to be a more formidable political adversary and to stop wasting your breath with "Glen Beck is great. Far better that any of the slanted leftest pukes on MSnbc". I know you can do better. I know you could kick some serious liberal ass on this site if you educated yourself.
Same goes for liberals. Enough with the namecalling. If we are going to take this country back, we are going to have to do it with ideas, not with insults. I've been guilty of all of this stuff too, and I'm making efforts to change. If I engage in useless idea-free insults in the future, you should call me on it .
Note for any future reference back to this comment: insults and criticism are not the same thing


>> ^bobknight33:
Glen Beck is great. Far better that any of the slanted leftest pukes on MSnbc

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Surely the right must have their own Howard Zinns and Noam Chomskys, right?



Noam holds many conservative views actually. Most of his conservative views line up with the majority of society.

I'm sick of fan-boy politics. Do you have any ideas of your own, beyond my team is better than your team? I'm sick of liberal fan boys, conservative fan boys and libertarian fan boys. Instead of insults and distractions, why not put forth a fucking original thought for once. Behind each of these political brands are real life ideas that we can talk about. Let's shut off Glenn Beck and Air America and ReasonTV and do some thinking for ourselves. These motherfuckers do not speak for us. These motherfuckers do not work for us. These motherfuckers do not think for us.

Glenn Beck is sick in the head, and if him calling for the execution of his opponents isn't reason enough for you to abandon him, then you've got problems. What if I said bobknight should be shot in the head and skull fucked? Would you find that to be enlightening discourse? Would you consider that left wing slant? Or would you consider that the unproductive words of a sociopath?

There is nothing wrong with political slant. You have a slant. I have a slant. Anyone with any understanding of politics has a political slant, and to attempt to hide that slant just makes you deceptive. The bigger problem with the concept of 'bias' or 'slant' is that it causes people to shut off their brains if they are exposed to anything outside of their own ideology. 'Bias' serves as a default argument for people not informed enough to form their own arguments. How many times have you seen an argument dismissed entirely because of 'bias'? Arguments ARE bias. Liberals should listen to conservative and libertarian slant, conservatives should listen to liberal and libertarian slant, libertarians should listen to conservative and liberal slant, if for no other reason than to challenge their own belief systems, to make sure they aren't suffering from the echo chamber syndrome.

Do you know that if you took a more intellectual approach to political discourse, that you'd get more respect and your arguments would be much more persuasive? Flush Fox news down the toilet and pick up a book. Surely the right must have their own Howard Zinns and Noam Chomskys, right? Take back your ideology from these manipulative corporate media clowns.

Talk to Geesussfreek. I don't agree with him, but he's obviously well read, intelligent and knows how to put an argument together. I'd like you to be a more formidable political adversary and to stop wasting your breath with "Glen Beck is great. Far better that any of the slanted leftest pukes on MSnbc". I know you can do better. I know you could kick some serious liberal ass on this site if you educated yourself.

Same goes for liberals. Enough with the namecalling. If we are going to take this country back, we are going to have to do it with ideas, not with insults. I've been guilty of all of this stuff too, and I'm making efforts to change. If I engage in useless idea-free insults in the future, you should call me on it*.

*Note for any future reference back to this comment: insults and criticism are not the same thing




>> ^bobknight33:

Glen Beck is great. Far better that any of the slanted leftest pukes on MSnbc

I actually agree, business and government certainly isn't exempt from hypocrisy and targeted ridicule. As historian Howard Zinn stated "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

More on topic with this thread..

The problem is the mass media these days is so preoccupied by issues that have little effect on the well being of the nation or the well being of society at large. Example. Such book burnings. They focus on one wacko Florida preacher. When he doesn't burn the Koran.. they portray a massive sigh of relief and a victory for civilization. Meanwhile.. on youtube.. hundreds or thousands of books are burned and videos are posted. Not even a whimper on the airwaves. Go figure.


>> ^quantumushroom:

I enjoyed reading your reply, Tonk. Well said.
I admit, I do bash religion, but there is just too much hypocrisy, inconsistency, and lack of reason in it to leave it alone.

In that statement you can also replace "religion" with "government", "the legal system", "organized sports" or "business".

I'm currently reading Mr. Zinn's book on Kindle. It is indeed an eye-opener.

Fear is a wonderful emotion. It will keep you alive. The left wants everyone to panic over water vapor and warm weather, so there's no monopoly on fear-mongering.

One of the State's legitimate functions is to defend its citizens from barbarians both inside and outside the gate.

The modern liberal doesn't have the will to lead. Whether deliberately practiced or not, s/he is incapable of taking a stand for anything and refuses to differentiate between not only good and evil, but what works (based on experience) and what doesn't (also based on experience).

The intellectual dishonesty of a zinn or chomsky helps no one.







>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

QM, you seem interested in comparing modern European style socialism to a 20th century Soviet Military dictatorship. Do you understand the difference?
Do you understand that socialism, communism and capitalism are financial -rather than political- systems?
How many people has Swedish socialism killed?
What about American socialism gasp such as the highway system, schools and national parks?
Whether you know it or not, qm, we are both on the same side of the American class war - and we are both losing. I don't doubt the sincerity of your arguments, but I have to wonder if you feel you've been properly rewarded for your loyalty to powerful elites who run this country. My guess would be no.
Do you ever wonder why they fill your head with so many things to be afraid of? Commies, "Hemophiliacs", Terrorists, 'Islamofascists', Old Europe, France, Fags, Feminists, Liberals, Socialists, Illegal Aliens, Educated people, Poor people, etc............
Your entire being on this site is most accurately summed up in a single word: Afraid.
I'm sure you don't see yourself this way, but have you ever put your personal beliefs to the test? Have you ever broken down your belief system to see why you believe the things you believe?
As I have said before, your arguments seldom stray from the cliche-conservative-bumpersticker variety. Why not dig deeper? Why don't you think it through and give me your own unique opinion, rather than dittoing decades of partisan-politico programing?
As those who are winning the class war might say: Just do it!

>> ^qbert:

Zinn's a fool. He means well, but so did Stalin.
"expanding not our military power but our humanity"; This sort of insipid, simplistic idealism is the stuff of Bush.
It's amazing what the Iraq war and two terms of the Bush administration has done to people. Many of these comments are shockingly stupid.


Out of all of the comments in here, most of which I didn't read, this one stood out.

What the fuck are you talking about? This comment is so non-sequitur that I get the feeling your world view is war is peace; which it is clearly not. Did you support the Iraq war? What is so shockingly stupid? Are you implying that people are stupid because they do not support war? Or the spending of tax dollars on military expansion?

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

Wars, the war on drugs, the war on terrorism and other wars are the biggest reason for government expansion and the destruction of civil liberties.

Don't get me started on unemployment in the private sector, and the public sector gaining employment. That is another box of spiders.

@blankfist It's hard to put ideologies into nifty compartments. But their is a long history of social democratic anarchists. Like Howard Zinn and 70's feminist movement. Emma Goldman might have been more of your type, and peggedbea's for that matter as the true pioneer for non-interference in women's right's for self determination.

Throughout history, the only blood to be spilled has been done at the hands of the religious? Does that make sense?

In public, there should be caps on speech. In the US, the principle of shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater is on well known restriction on free speech. The line is also drawn on public hate speech that incites immediate violence. I think that we should also restrict speech that leads to violence, as many countries do. I don't care too much about what a person does or says in their home, if it doesn't harm me.

Run that buy me again? Hang on, one more time I didn't quiet believe my eyes! I, wait I can't say anything because of the new caps on freedom of expression. Oh wait, this website is now gone because of the new international laws that stop us from free speech. Guess what Longde, your speech on this website would be capped just as everyone else would be.

Welcome to the world were no one can speak without being beheaded because "someone might get offended." Hang on, while we're at it lets go ahead and hang:

• George Carlin Posthumously


• Howard Zinn Posthumously


• Noam Chomsky


• Theo van Gogh (film director)- Oh wait, they got him already.


• Frank Zappa


• Saad Eddin Ibrahim

Wait, here is a whole list you can start with; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_speech_activists.

Hell while we are being politically correct lets go ahead and enact a law that will make mandatory executions for all independent investigative journalists. I mean while we are going all out here, why don't we go ahead and make it a crime to be anything independent.

I think someone said this before me, "There can be no freedom without free speech."Free Press. You know what they say? If you don't like it don't read it! If you don't like it don't watch it! If you don't like it don't eat it! If you don't like it go back to your protective bubble!

Hypberbole aside where I come from it is an inalienable right to speak your mind even if it offends someone. It is that offended persons right to think you are a douche bag. But as soon as there is violence both parties are in the wrong. Justice is properly blind but in most cases she is not stupid; she doth not tread across that line to become a tyrant.

Quotes from one John Stuart Mill speaking on the Harm Principle.

If the arguments of the present chapter are of any validity, there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered. (1978, 15)

John Stuart Mill quote on the Harm Principle, again:

In "On Liberty" (1859) John Stuart Mill argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered."[28] Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.[28]

What do these quotes mean to you and I? Well they mean simply; that a person can speak their mind so long as the argument presented is valid even if it is embarrassingly immoral. That means, as it is already a statute the US, that hate crime is not free speech. But the prosecuting party has the burden of proof. They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person had the intention of causing harm with said speech. Then we enter the realm of Libel and Slander. A person has to proven knowingly lieing about someone in order to be charged with Libel or Slander.

I have for you, sir or mam a quote from Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, this quote is often confused with Samuel Johnson's "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Hell is paved with good intentions." Even earlier than that, it's been attributed to Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153)

zinn the anarchist of course had his own little tax shelters and such. estimated worth: 2 million dollars. good riddance to another phony.

Fixed.>> ^shuac:
Apparently, the word 'speech' is some mystical, magical thing that causes people to spell it like it was a fruit. I've seen others get similarly mystified and this is the conclusion I shall draw.

>> ^ponceleon:
Inconceivable!


You keep using that word.I do not think it means what you think it means.

Thanks!
In reply to this comment by RhesusMonk:
*quality

This deserves a much more vast audience than I presume it will probably achieve.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Another anti-American marxist, dead and buried. It remains true that everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts; every time facts meet Zinn rhetoric, the latter loses.


kinda like your comment QM...