Did you miss the part where I said I'm against assassination by presidential fiat?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you must have.

"ring of hate and evil"? Seriously?


You insinuated that partisanship is affecting my ability to reason, then link to a video that has jack shit to do with anything I said about the hypocrisy in news coverage. I point out how way off you are, and you call me a shithead.

You're the one who down voted me, douche, and clearly without even reading what I wrote.

"I guarantee you watch more Fox News than I do"

"so stop being a judgmental douche"

Jesus Christ, do you even read what you write?

Everything you accuse me of is exactly what you're doing. You're going to guarantee how much Fox News I watch?

I don't need the fucking Nielsen ratings to your house to see what you're typing.

"Also, this is a local affiliate which has no real connection to the bullshit politics of the network"

Hey, one last defense of the hard hitting local news team!

Your side of this conversation is a parody of itself.




>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Taint:
Who are you referring to with "we"?
Since you didn't comment on the video you linked, nor did you post it, I assume by "we" you mean Arlen Spector and the republican party?
Is that the "we" you're a part of?
Since that would mean you're identifying yourself with the Republican party while accusing me of partisanship?
Is that the "we" you were referring to? You and Arlen? Or you and your fellow republicans? Or perhaps you and the organization of News Corp who you seem intent on defending for some reason.
I pointed out the obvious selective outrage of Fox News and its affiliates because it's relevant to this video in particular, and is beyond evident to anyone not under a rock during the Bush Administration.
You respond with a link from C-Span.
So you either think that my comment was directed toward you and your buddy Arlen Spector, or you have your head so far up Rupert Murdoch's ass that you don't even realize that you're defending Fox News, declaring yourself a Republican, and missing the point entirely.


>> ^blankfist:
>> ^Taint:
Smell the hypocrisy.
Don't even fool yourself and think that Fox news and its local affiliates would have said a word if this guy was assassinated by a President Bush or Romney...
Nor would they raise their voice with even a hint of protest at any previous presidential assassinations, or the lack of due process in confining any one of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay like José Padilla, another American citizen.
But now that President Obama is in charge, this douche bag Anwar Al-Awlaki becomes one of Sarah Palin's "real Americans" deserving his day in a civilian court defended by Gregory fuckin Peck.
I don't like that our president can assassinate at will either, but this selective outrage is so phony it's retarded.
The president assassinated someone and violated the constitution? Oh my god, welcome to fifty fucking years ago!

That's what you think this is about? Partisanship? Man, I'm so sick of this two party system. It's a cancer to reason. I wish both of them would rot on the vine of tyranny.
We complained about this under Bush too. http://videosift.com/video/Americans-have-no-right-to-Habeas-Corpus




No need to be a shithead. I'm anti anyone being assassinated. If you can't agree with that, then fine, go on being someone in favor of murder and assassinations, and stop looping the rest of us into your ring of hate and evil. I guarantee you watch more Fox News than I do. I watch zero of it unless it comes across the occasional internet video here and there, so stop being a judgmental douche, thanks.
Also, this is a local affiliate which has no real connection to the bullshit politics of the network.

>> ^Taint:

Who are you referring to with "we"?
Since you didn't comment on the video you linked, nor did you post it, I assume by "we" you mean Arlen Spector and the republican party?
Is that the "we" you're a part of?
Since that would mean you're identifying yourself with the Republican party while accusing me of partisanship?
Is that the "we" you were referring to? You and Arlen? Or you and your fellow republicans? Or perhaps you and the organization of News Corp who you seem intent on defending for some reason.
I pointed out the obvious selective outrage of Fox News and its affiliates because it's relevant to this video in particular, and is beyond evident to anyone not under a rock during the Bush Administration.
You respond with a link from C-Span.
So you either think that my comment was directed toward you and your buddy Arlen Spector, or you have your head so far up Rupert Murdoch's ass that you don't even realize that you're defending Fox News, declaring yourself a Republican, and missing the point entirely.


>> ^blankfist:
>> ^Taint:
Smell the hypocrisy.
Don't even fool yourself and think that Fox news and its local affiliates would have said a word if this guy was assassinated by a President Bush or Romney...
Nor would they raise their voice with even a hint of protest at any previous presidential assassinations, or the lack of due process in confining any one of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay like José Padilla, another American citizen.
But now that President Obama is in charge, this douche bag Anwar Al-Awlaki becomes one of Sarah Palin's "real Americans" deserving his day in a civilian court defended by Gregory fuckin Peck.
I don't like that our president can assassinate at will either, but this selective outrage is so phony it's retarded.
The president assassinated someone and violated the constitution? Oh my god, welcome to fifty fucking years ago!

That's what you think this is about? Partisanship? Man, I'm so sick of this two party system. It's a cancer to reason. I wish both of them would rot on the vine of tyranny.
We complained about this under Bush too. http://videosift.com/video/Americans-have-no-right-to-Habeas-Corpus





No need to be a shithead. I'm anti anyone being assassinated. If you can't agree with that, then fine, go on being someone in favor of murder and assassinations, and stop looping the rest of us into your ring of hate and evil. I guarantee you watch more Fox News than I do. I watch zero of it unless it comes across the occasional internet video here and there, so stop being a judgmental douche, thanks.

Also, this is a local affiliate which has no real connection to the bullshit politics of the network.

Who are you referring to with "we"?

Since you didn't comment on the video you linked, nor did you post it, I assume by "we" you mean Arlen Spector and the republican party?

Is that the "we" you're a part of?

Since that would mean you're identifying yourself with the Republican party while accusing me of partisanship?

Is that the "we" you were referring to? You and Arlen? Or you and your fellow republicans? Or perhaps you and the organization of News Corp who you seem intent on defending for some reason.

I pointed out the obvious selective outrage of Fox News and its affiliates because it's relevant to this video in particular, and is beyond evident to anyone not under a rock during the Bush Administration.

You respond with a link from C-Span.

So you either think that my comment was directed toward you and your buddy Arlen Spector, or you've ironically managed to not even realize that you're defending Fox News, declaring yourself a Republican, and missing the point entirely.




>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Taint:
Smell the hypocrisy.
Don't even fool yourself and think that Fox news and its local affiliates would have said a word if this guy was assassinated by a President Bush or Romney...
Nor would they raise their voice with even a hint of protest at any previous presidential assassinations, or the lack of due process in confining any one of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay like José Padilla, another American citizen.
But now that President Obama is in charge, this douche bag Anwar Al-Awlaki becomes one of Sarah Palin's "real Americans" deserving his day in a civilian court defended by Gregory fuckin Peck.
I don't like that our president can assassinate at will either, but this selective outrage is so phony it's retarded.
The president assassinated someone and violated the constitution? Oh my god, welcome to fifty fucking years ago!

That's what you think this is about? Partisanship? Man, I'm so sick of this two party system. It's a cancer to reason. I wish both of them would rot on the vine of tyranny.
We complained about this under Bush too. http://videosift.com/video/Americans-have-no-right-to-Habeas-Corpus

>> ^Taint:

Smell the hypocrisy.
Don't even fool yourself and think that Fox news and its local affiliates would have said a word if this guy was assassinated by a President Bush or Romney...
Nor would they raise their voice with even a hint of protest at any previous presidential assassinations, or the lack of due process in confining any one of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay like José Padilla, another American citizen.
But now that President Obama is in charge, this douche bag Anwar Al-Awlaki becomes one of Sarah Palin's "real Americans" deserving his day in a civilian court defended by Gregory fuckin Peck.
I don't like that our president can assassinate at will either, but this selective outrage is so phony it's retarded.
The president assassinated someone and violated the constitution? Oh my god, welcome to fifty fucking years ago!


That's what you think this is about? Partisanship? Man, I'm so sick of this two party system. It's a cancer to reason. I wish both of them would rot on the vine of tyranny.

We complained about this under Bush too. http://videosift.com/video/Americans-have-no-right-to-Habeas-Corpus

*headdesk* As long as they don't get a two-party system and call themselves the chai-party, everything should turn out ok and they vanish.

>> ^NetRunner:

1. Paul isn't honest.
2. Paul makes it pretty clear that he thinks "honesty" is in direct conflict with being liberal, or supporting Democrats.

[...]

I saw this one got downvotes, but I seriously think he (Netrunner) has a point.

R.P. is not a democrat. That is something people should not forget.

His idea of liberalism is also "not" quite the same idea that some other people have.
It gets interesting once you actually get to that definition with him and the more philosophical themes.
He is aware of it (not assuming that would be naive) and that is why it is not exactly easy to find videos with him talking about the fine points on social media sites like this.
To follow through with his ideology in a way people expect would (necessarily) open a huge pot of questions, one which would probably eat up his whole "potential" term of presidency and then some (and hence his chances as candidate).

He is not some young "upstart with radical ideas" (Weiner as an odd recent democrat (mis-)example of riding similar "media-waves"), but a seasoned politician who has done this for years without many people listening and who now seizes the moment (good for him).

That is ironically his only chance at this. And also probably his biggest obstacle.

One could say RP is a clear victim of America's two party system. It is something he could actually campaign on (tea-party effect).

>> ^artician:

Campaign manager for his first presidential election? In 1988? 2008 was Paul's second run for the whitehouse.


He ran as a libertarian. But since we have a two-party system, he went electable yet principled (To his own ideas of course.)

If you ask a conservative or liberal or left libertarian or right libertarian, they will all tell you they overwhelmingly support small business. The doctrines of these respective factions are also supportive of small business. If you could force our elected officials to all take lie detector tests, I'm certain that almost all of them support small business in their hearts too.

So, if everyone supports small business, then why does government seem to be a never ending stream of corporate wars, no bid contracts, bailouts, austerity, corporate tax giveaways and subsidies? If everyone supports the little guy, then why does he always get fucked over in favor of big money?

Because multinational corporations hold our government's balls (and ovaries) in a financial vice. Because multinational corporations fund our elections and control our media.

Step out of line and you find yourself with no election funds or bad press or a sex scandal or a real estate scandal, or perhaps a faulty engine on your campaign leer jet. Any dirt you may have on you in life is sitting in a filing cabinet, waiting for the day you fuck up, at which point you are booted from office and humiliated in front of friends, family, colleagues and constituents.

Time and again we see idealistic politicians full of hope and promises become corporate lackeys after they are sworn in. Does this have to happen to Ron Paul too before market libertarians figure out that our campaign finance system is fatally flawed? It's funny to see all of these anti-democracy, anti-two party system market libertarians all of a sudden hyping on a Republican candidate for the 2012 elections. It's funny because you seem to believe we live in a democracy - which you supposedly hate.

It's not the people. it's not the ideology. It's not even the politicians. It's the system. The system is fucked. There is no hope for the kind of serious change we need in this country until we unfuck it. And for it to be unfucked, we the people need to do it for ourselves. We can't sit around waiting for political surrogates to do this work for us. We need to demand it in large numbers, and to strike and protest for as long as it takes until it gets done.

And time is running out. The deficit grows. The temperature of the globe rises. Our jobs are being shipped off to the 3rd world. Our money is being shipped off to Caribbean tax shelters. We need to act soon. At some point it will be too late.

>> ^blankfist:

The American "right" doesn't like small government. It's a talking point, yes. But never is it put into practice.

New Zealand changed their system from the 2-party system to the multi-party-system. The U.S. can too. These workarounds are stupid and dangerous, imho. Also, it would obviously cause fewer old people to vote and more younger, tech-savvy poeple to vote. I smell libertarians hehehe

You don't buy into that line of reasoning because it's inaccurate. The oppression is ongoing, though it has in many ways become less blatant and more systematic. The reason that you might "pay" for it, is because by virtue of being born into the world a white male (I assume), you benefit from a substantial amount of privilege compared to minority groups. The privilege you (and I, and all of us on the sift in different ways) enjoy is not due to any particular virtue or hard-work of our own, but because we were luck enough to be born into a certain group. When looked at that way, one sees that the whole point of minority rights groups IS equality, which is why they fight to bring their societal status UP to where you already benefit from being. And, yes, sometimes it means disadvantaging those who are at the top, in the name of an equal playing field.

To be clear, I think the women on the show are being cruel and insulting, but the idea that the actions of a few women, whether they call themselves feminists or not, are enough to damn all of feminism is RIDICULOUS. Do you think none of the civil rights movement have any validity because you disagree with the methods of Malcolm X?


>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Sarzy:
Women are allowed to be playfully sexist towards men for the same reason black people are allowed to be racist towards whites -- to make up for hundreds of years of oppression (that is still going on to some extent). It seems like a fair enough deal to me.

Hundreds of years of oppression by dead men. And now every future generation of white people must pay. I never bought into that line of reasoning. I hear it a lot, too.


Feminists do differentiate themselves. There are many different schools of thought within feminism.

And I think the political example is a bad one. The United States is a two party-system, where if you aren't an identified Democrat or Republican, you have little chance of being part of the next government. The parties encompass a highly diverse field, and sometimes, if you want to be in a position to make a difference, you have to associate with a few undesirables.

Furthermore, the Republican's outright endorsement of Tea Partiers is a far cry from feminists failing to condemn every single instance of "misandry".

Now that I think about it, why are we even asking feminists to differentiate themselves? There's already a differentiation. Feminism =/= Misandry.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

@hpqp
Would you consider the Tea Party Republicans actual republicans? I would--even if they are a psychotic division of the branch. Because the Tea Party Hijacked its way into the republican party and republicans are not doing enough to kick them out. Instead, they are catering more and more to them. They are speaking up less and less. Does that make me prejudice? It is exactly the same reasoning I am using in this argument so you have to say, "yes." And to that I ask, why?
And if you say, "No, it's different," then your applying wishy-washy standards...
But even if I am "wrong" in my belief, calling me "prejudice" was a bit low for you, and I think you lost that argument simply for that insult.
In other words, I look at Gwiz's comments and that's exactly what I am saying. I just used different words. They (feminists) need to call themselves something different to differentiate themselves from all the assholes. Exactly the same thing. So point out to him what an analogy fail he made please and the fact that he is prejudiced too, since he thinks the definition of feminist is close to what I think it is...

I don't know anything about this person other than what is in the video, but your critique doesn't seem to address anything he says. Ad hominem?

Personally I find what he says about democracy being presented as only one political choice quite interesting, especially when one looks at the two-party system in the US, which is veering dangerously towards "theocracy" vs. "democracy".

edit: the language of Pakistan is Urdu, not Arabic.

(p.s.: the second link you provide doesn't work)

>> ^marinara:

http://www.khudipakistan.com/faq/
spreading democracy and western culture into pakistan.
this guy runs a crappy little political organization that purports to save globalism from islamists. Why the hell would you want to save globalism?

At Khudi, we tend to prefer the latter. That’s why we organize conferences and workshops around the country, inviting people from disparate backgrounds to foster a culture of healthy discussion and debate
....
Khudi also runs an inter-university campus magazine, distributed at universities across Pakistan, providing students with a chance to air their views without fear of reprisal.

what an idiot. I read this http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2459969.ece
about Maajid's polarizing youth, but apparently his big solution are free magazines and communications workshops.
this is an english man mucking about at politics in pakistan.
he'd do better to spend his time to learn arabic than to convince some rich pakistanis that they should love the west

He is the best candidate of the Republican candidates.

What's his stance on the introduction of a proportional representational multi-party system?

@marbles

-Yes, Ron Paul is naive when it comes to economics, by putting his faith in neo-liberal doctrinal scripture that has no evidence to support it, nor any basis in the reality of a modern economy. The fact that he believes capitalism to be the embodiment of liberty is the root of this naivety.

Privatization, deregulation, international 'free' trade agreements and austerity -all principles of neo-liberal thought- have caused the lion share of our current economic woes: massive income disparity, high unemployment, wage slavery, inflation, labor abuse, war profiteering, eroding of civil rights, the death of many a small business, massive corruption, environmental harm, etc. Think of all the major economic scandals of the last few decades - The Saving and Loan Scandal, The Foreclosure scandal, Enron, the oil spills, Katrina (the aftermath, not the weather event), etc. All of them are the result of deregulation. I know that government interference is a big boogey man to the capitalist libertarian set, but every single one of these scandals could have been prevented with proper regulation and/or proper oversight.

-Yes, I'm sorry to say it, but Ron Paul does play the game, and he is a part of the two party system.
Check out the damage control here: http://videosift.com/search?q=ron+paul+earmarks

-If you remember 4 years ago, people were saying the same things about Obama that you are saying about Ron Paul today - that he is the answer to all our problems - but then he moved into the White House and was forced to abandon or compromise nearly all of his promises. I warn you against political hero worship. No matter how much you like the guy, no matter how much grandfatherly charm he exudes, he is still a politician who must play by the rules of the broken system.

I could be wrong, and these comments will be here next year to rub in my face in the off chance that America is transformed into Galt Island.

As Sammy Hagar once said in his infinite wisdom, "Only time will tell if we can stand the test of time."

Debt Political Theater Diverts Attention While Americans’ Wealth is Stolen

Kucinich:

We have to realize what this country's economy has become. Our monetary policy, through the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, privatized the money supply, gathers the wealth, puts it in the hands of the few while the Federal Reserve can create money out of nothing, give it to banks to park at the Fed while our small businesses are starving for capital.

Mark my words -- Wall Street cashes in whether we have a default or not. And the same type of thinking that created billions in bailouts for Wall Street and more than $1 trillion in giveaways by the Federal Reserve today leaves 26 million Americans either underemployed or unemployed. And nine out of ten Americans over the age of 65 are facing cuts in their Social Security in order to pay for a debt which grew from tax cuts for the rich and for endless wars.

There is a massive transfer of wealth from the American people to the hands of a few and it's going on right now as America’s eyes are misdirected to the political theater of these histrionic debt negotiations, threats to shut down the government, and willingness to make the most Americans pay dearly for debts they did not create.

These are symptoms of a government which has lost its way, and they are a challenge to the legitimacy of the two-party system.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=03l1n5rh


As we can currently observe, the richest persons/companies in the USA sit on their money and do not create new jobs.

Imho, "middle class" should represent the largest bracket in lieu of a population's makeup, driving culture, education, job creation and comfortable wealth. This is the most desirable realistic state (way of being) most persons would want to be in.

Democratically, from the bottom up, a society can thrive most, imho. This does not exclude anyone: A secure "low" society lifts the quality of living for the top gainers as well. The two-party system is highly detrimental for lasting change and sensible reforms. It is unlikely the two partys would part with the old system in favour of a more democratic coalition-based system, but a girl can dream.

I like Keynes, but Keynesian politics are hard to come by when the economy gets better. One big factor in the USA is the gaining economic libertarianism, which is on a utopian level of ideology on par with Reagonomics. Personally I prefer the soft ideology of reasonable adjustments orienting themsleves not along the lines of a factional party-framework, but along the lines of the realistically most beneficial proposal for the entire population. This sounds utopian as well, because it is: It is only possible in a multiple-party state, which the USA is unlikely to become.

What to do? Political "extremists" (left and right) should be shunned and kicked back to the margins where they belong, at least for a functioning two-party system.


This is all just my opinion, and it is in flux. If you spot a "mistake" in my reasonings or views, please tell me, I'm happy to learn and adjust my opinions, if reasonable. --> Tea-Partyers, fascists, communists and Libertarians can try, but they will probably just waste my time and theirs. --> Hard ideologies are all utopian in one way or another, secular religions all.