>> ^Engels:

i don't think you have a grasp of the level of protest going on. Estimates have that 77 percent of the population support the protesters. This isn't a confusing WTO mess, with imported protesters with abstracted ideals on the line. The severity of the social cuts is so punitive that the force behind the protest won't cave to police enforcement as easily. That, and the Spanish populace won't tolerate the level of violence US law enforcement is used to doling out.


This because BY DESIGN, the people who run the show want a dick-less, purposeless, exhausted and discourage bunch of sheepies that are unable to bitch while being ass-fucked, IMLTHO

>> ^bmacs27:

You call those riot police? I don't even think they're strapped!


Thats probably why nothing crazy happened. Plus those people had raging bulls on the street a month ago so how they going to compete with that?

A people united can never be defeated!!!

Sing it in the streets!
>> ^messenger:

El pueblo unido jamás será vencido!!

>> ^nomino:

fear. Put yourself in the cops' shoes. Holy shit batman. Adrenaline overload.


I think adrenaline was probably only one of the bodily substances involved in this exchange. Would have loved to see a closeup of the first cop's face when his behind touched the line of cars. Relief probably doesn't cut it.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^criticalthud:
government really only reflects the mindset of the people.
we're stupid, so we have a stupid government.
but the older generations are REALLY stupid, and they're dying off. so there is reason to be optimistic.

Really? I'm not so sure. I think they were less enlightened, certainly, but what are we doing to prove we're less stupid?>> ^petpeeved:
I may be a simpleton but there really does seem to be a silver bullet to the mess we're in: remove the money incentive from national politics completely, starting with evicting all the lobbyists from Washington, and gutting the amount of money that flows into the political campaign warchests every election.
While I think that's a great idea, I'm very wary of the term "silver bullet". Fact is, that life is complex, and rarely has simple solutions. Economics and politics are an intricate interlocked system. Pulling on one thread alone never works.


there positives and negatives to be sure.
but overall for the species, the introduction of the internet allows a greater flow of information. This both increases overall awareness and allows for new associations to be drawn between bits of information. The overall effect is a palpable positive for intelligence, which despite our misplaced reliance on standardized testing, is heavily dependent on both awareness and the ability to create information associations based on logical connections.

The over 60 crowd is from a different era of both energy availability and access to information.
so i say, be a little patient. our timeline is much more instant - we demand instant change without necessarily being aware of how the tendencies of the species is changing . but in terms of evolution, we are changing rapidly, and the greatest catalyst, global/planet change, is just starting to take hold.

>> ^criticalthud:

government really only reflects the mindset of the people.
we're stupid, so we have a stupid government.
but the older generations are REALLY stupid, and they're dying off. so there is reason to be optimistic.


Really? I'm not so sure. I think they were less enlightened, certainly, but what are we doing to prove we're less stupid?>> ^petpeeved:

I may be a simpleton but there really does seem to be a silver bullet to the mess we're in: remove the money incentive from national politics completely, starting with evicting all the lobbyists from Washington, and gutting the amount of money that flows into the political campaign warchests every election.

While I think that's a great idea, I'm very wary of the term "silver bullet". Fact is, that life is complex, and rarely has simple solutions. Economics and politics are an intricate interlocked system. Pulling on one thread alone never works.

These people aren't "participating in the system" because said participation requires great wealth. Those with great wealth have no interest in such an agenda.

Conversely, the Tea Party was an inadvertently pro-corporate movement quietly backed by millions of corporate dollars. That is why it worked. Ever seen footage of police quelling a Tea Party rally? There is no equivalency between the Tea Party and the Occupy movement.


>> ^Darkhand:

I don't disagree with anything that you've said. I think you are misunderstanding my point.
The problem is from what I have seen the people trying to enact change don't actually participate in the system. So other than marching, and banging on drums, and protesting they aren't actually accomplishing anything.
The Tea Party might not be the most successful group but it sure as hell worked in a lot of their endeavors. I haven't seen the Liberal Version of the tea party yet and I don't think I will.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^Darkhand:
>> ^petpeeved:
The revolution will not have a permit.

There will never be a revolution because the only people who seem to be upset about anything are hippies and hippies are non-violent.
Occupy Wall Street was the biggest let down because when asked if they planned on sponsoring any political parties they said "we don't recognize the system so we don't sponsor anyone" or some shit like that.
Unless this "revolution" is going to burn our current system to the ground, or actually get involved in politics nothing will happen.
Feel free to shout and bang your drums if it makes you feel better. But that's not a revolution it's just a mosquito buzzing in the ear of our capitalist government.

You seem to think that only violence can change the system at this point? I honestly don't know if there is any hope of reforming the government via policy and procedure but I doubt violence would change anything for the better either.
I may be a simpleton but there really does seem to be a silver bullet to the mess we're in: remove the money incentive from national politics completely, starting with evicting all the lobbyists from Washington, and gutting the amount of money that flows into the political campaign warchests every election.
If there is one thing we should socialize, it's the political process itself. We have spending caps on pro sports teams; we should have spending caps on political campaigns as well. Give all the major candidates free television and media coverage during the election season. Eliminate corporate contributions entirely etc.
We just need to turn politics into a job that attracts people for the right reason: public service, as opposed to the reason most seem to get involved these days: personal aggrandizement.
Romney's fundraisers are aiming to raise a billion dollars to win this election. I'm sure Obama's are aiming for as close to that figure as possible too.
This is the root of all the problems we face as a nation, imo. It's all about the money needed to buy an election.

I don't disagree with anything that you've said. I think you are misunderstanding my point.

The problem is from what I have seen the people trying to enact change don't actually participate in the system. So other than marching, and banging on drums, and protesting they aren't actually accomplishing anything.

The Tea Party might not be the most successful group but it sure as hell worked in a lot of their endeavors. I haven't seen the Liberal Version of the tea party yet and I don't think I will.

>> ^petpeeved:

>> ^Darkhand:
>> ^petpeeved:
The revolution will not have a permit.

There will never be a revolution because the only people who seem to be upset about anything are hippies and hippies are non-violent.
Occupy Wall Street was the biggest let down because when asked if they planned on sponsoring any political parties they said "we don't recognize the system so we don't sponsor anyone" or some shit like that.
Unless this "revolution" is going to burn our current system to the ground, or actually get involved in politics nothing will happen.
Feel free to shout and bang your drums if it makes you feel better. But that's not a revolution it's just a mosquito buzzing in the ear of our capitalist government.

You seem to think that only violence can change the system at this point? I honestly don't know if there is any hope of reforming the government via policy and procedure but I doubt violence would change anything for the better either.
I may be a simpleton but there really does seem to be a silver bullet to the mess we're in: remove the money incentive from national politics completely, starting with evicting all the lobbyists from Washington, and gutting the amount of money that flows into the political campaign warchests every election.
If there is one thing we should socialize, it's the political process itself. We have spending caps on pro sports teams; we should have spending caps on political campaigns as well. Give all the major candidates free television and media coverage during the election season. Eliminate corporate contributions entirely etc.
We just need to turn politics into a job that attracts people for the right reason: public service, as opposed to the reason most seem to get involved these days: personal aggrandizement.
Romney's fundraisers are aiming to raise a billion dollars to win this election. I'm sure Obama's are aiming for as close to that figure as possible too.
This is the root of all the problems we face as a nation, imo. It's all about the money needed to buy an election.

>> ^Darkhand:

>> ^petpeeved:
The revolution will not have a permit.

There will never be a revolution because the only people who seem to be upset about anything are hippies and hippies are non-violent.
Occupy Wall Street was the biggest let down because when asked if they planned on sponsoring any political parties they said "we don't recognize the system so we don't sponsor anyone" or some shit like that.
Unless this "revolution" is going to burn our current system to the ground, or actually get involved in politics nothing will happen.
Feel free to shout and bang your drums if it makes you feel better. But that's not a revolution it's just a mosquito buzzing in the ear of our capitalist government.


You seem to think that only violence can change the system at this point? I honestly don't know if there is any hope of reforming the government via policy and procedure but I doubt violence would change anything for the better either.

I may be a simpleton but there really does seem to be a silver bullet to the mess we're in: remove the money incentive from national politics completely, starting with evicting all the lobbyists from Washington, and gutting the amount of money that flows into the political campaign warchests every election.

If there is one thing we should socialize, it's the political process itself. We have spending caps on pro sports teams; we should have spending caps on political campaigns as well. Give all the major candidates free television and media coverage during the election season. Eliminate corporate contributions entirely etc.

We just need to turn politics into a job that attracts people for the right reason: public service, as opposed to the reason most seem to get involved these days: personal aggrandizement.

Romney's fundraisers are aiming to raise a billion dollars to win this election. I'm sure Obama's are aiming for as close to that figure as possible too.

This is the root of all the problems we face as a nation, imo. It's all about the money needed to buy an election.

mmmmmmm pizza. i just built one of those a few minutes ago. what kind of mobile do you has?

In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
Cool. A normal dictionary would have some other meanings too... But it's not in /usr/share/dict/words which is only a little list even though it's got some weird ones.

Shame lounge doesn't go on my phone, coz I got evicted from the computer.

It's almost pizza time anyway :
In reply to this comment by lurgee:
yo check this \^\^

Cool. A normal dictionary would have some other meanings too... But it's not in /usr/share/dict/words which is only a little list even though it's got some weird ones.

Shame lounge doesn't go on my phone, coz I got evicted from the computer.

It's almost pizza time anyway
In reply to this comment by lurgee:
yo check this \^\^

And a lot of the debt relief stuff in the US is designed to help a very small percentage of people. Plus you know..the whole false mortgage defaults and illegal evictions taking place more or less unchecked. Using the government to facilitate their business when it's often not legal to do so. But no one says wait a minute....maybe this shouldn't be happening. Like so many things in the finance industry and economy overall. I don't think either presidential possibility will do this, but I highly doubt R-Money is going to balk at more of it happening.

Reminds me of eviction day at Zuccati park.

This idea of "a wall of seperation" of church and state came from a letter that Jefferson wrote to a baptist association while he was in France. It has been misinterpreted in recent times as a principle of exclusion of religion from government, but is this really what Jefferson intended? If he did, you might want to ask yourself why Jefferson attended church every sunday..in the house of representitives. You might want to ask why Jefferson closed presidential documents with "In the year of our Lord Jesus Christ", or why he negotiated treaties that used federal funding to pay for Christian missionaries to evangelize the indians. You also might want to ask why public education was teaching the scripture in schools, and why nearly every state had its own church..and why many states wouldn't allow non-christians to be elected to public office.

This idea of "freedom from religion" has no basis in history, or in the intentions of our founders. The secular community apparently feels that they can move in to this house that Christianity built and evict the ones who built it. It would be a bit like you inviting me to stay at your house and then I tell you that I am going to redecorate it the way I please and would you please stay in your room and never come out again.

Consider the words of William Rehnquist in a supreme court ruling about this issue:

It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

But the greatest injury of the "wall" notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. The "crucible of litigation," ante, at 2487, is well adapted to adjudicating factual disputes on the basis of testimony presented in court, but no amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The "wall of separation between church and State" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971381/posts


>> ^jonny:
>> ^quantumushroom:
There is no legal anything found anywhere guaranteeing "freedom from religion". The State is not allowed to establish a religion or promote one religion above others. That's it.
The statements are plainly contradictory. The 1st amendment guarantees freedom from a government religion or any promotion of religion by the government. Also, as Boise_Lib notes above, it's impossible to have true freedom of religion without also having freedom from any other religion being imposed upon you. Intelligent people may disagree over whether certains actions constitute imposition of religious principles or doctrine, but the idea that the Constitution does not guarantee a level of freedom from religion is patently false.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^artician:
I'm so curious to why people reject that notion. Is it purely fear of other religions and cultures? Are that many americans actually for invading other countries? I've never encountered that state of mind before, at all. From my experience most people are pretty quick to equate War with Evil.

I have a theory that most Americans know pretty much what we're doing. The fight between the indoctrinated (both the right and the left) is actually a fight about how we should go about doing what we're doing in the world. Indoctrinated Democrats have no problem with bossing other countries around and getting our way, we just have to be nicer about it and do it carefully so that we at least LOOK like we're good. Whereas the indoctrinated Republicans believe we are "Special" and should not only do it but do it with complete disregard for what ANY else thinks or says.
This is just a theory based on what I've seen from what our presidents do. Democratic presidents aren't any better on war crimes than Republican presidents. They just seem to be in the business of trying to tell everyone they're being nice and when they have to do something awful it's all the other countries fault.
I mean look at Bush and Obama...Bush locked up people indefinitely and said they deserved it and he does it because they're they enemy. Obama doesn't bother he just assassinates them. If Bush assassinated more like Obama he'd come out and take full credit and say it was AWESOME that he was doing it...Obama not so much, more hand wringing and deflection.
This is also helped along by the media who play their role well. It's just a theory but I like it.


Wow Yogi, we agree on something .

I think your view is pretty much bang on. The only difference between Dem. and Rep. presidents is the reasons they give for acting purely in their own self interests(which very often coincides with making decisions that are in America's self interests).

Where I disagree with Ron Paul's conclusion is about what the answer to all this should be. I don't for a second believe Ron Paul would be any different than all those before him. Instead of selfish wars he'd maybe follow the course of selfish isolationism. Take the recent example in Libya. America had two selfish options, go in or don't. Not going in would mean keeping the President's hands clean and money in America's pocket, and Ron Paul insists that what he'd have done. It also would have meant leaving thousands of Libyan civilians to Gaddafi's death squads. It would mean a Libya still ruled today by Gaddafi, with a newly subdued and less numerous population.

I don't see a clearly white/black obvious ethical choice in most geopolitical decisions, it's always messy. The Iraqi's that hate America the most(the Sadrists) don't hate them for all the things that America did to them, but for America's failures to act. The hate America for it's failure to push into Baghdad in the first Gulf War. In lieu of that they want revenge on the Sunnis. They want to commit their own eviction of all Sunni's from Iraq, or in it's stead to kill them for what Saddam had done with their aid. Was America wrong to stick around in Iraq after evicting Saddam and trying to stand in the middle, stopping a civil war driven by revenge against the Sunnis?

Ron Paul and Chomsky are generally agreed on minding our own business is the only ethical choice. It's hard to make that argument for Libya. It's impossible to make that argument for Rwanda. There are situations in our world were the ethical choice IS to go to war and stop something even more evil than war inherently is. What Ron Paul and Chomsky understand though is that no matter how grave the evil you oppose, your actions will create people who hate you for interfering. War makes it inevitable that your own forces will commit crimes against innocents, and their families will hate you. Ron and Chomsky conclude that means never get involved, I call that cowardice and insist there are situations that demand paying that price and coming to the aid of our fellow man when faced with terrible evils like genocide. In theory, every signatory nation to the convention on genocide agrees with me on this point too.