I never said: "it's not corruption. Mr. Anslinger just needed better training"

I never said: "However, your rationale for police brutality being acceptable is based on the assumption that countries & citizenship exist."

Which means this isn't a logical conclusion: I've been attempting to challenge the basis of that rationale the entire time but you don't want to engage on that point for whatever reason.

However, if you don't think that "countries and citizenship exists" then you are correct. I do not want to engage on that point for any reason whatsoever.

We are back to where we started -- you are a passionate idealist, and I applaud your passion.

I don't want to talk about it though. Or rather, I don't want to be lectured about it. It tires me out, non-idealist that I am.

We want different things, hunny bunny. That is okay. It doesn't make either of us wrong.

Why is it so important to you that I ... what? Agree with you? Hear you? Understand you? I would love for you to agree with me, hear me, understand me but I am also willing to walk away.

We want different things. You are young and passionate with a fire in your belly about the inequities and injustices in this world. I am an old fart who is hopeful when I carve out one piece of agreement between two people, who gets excited when someone says something that helps me see the world in a different way. You want to rage, I want to build consensus.

We want different things. It's okay.

In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
Citizen United case ruling. = Bullshit

War on Drugs = Bullshit

Iunno? Defense of Marriage Act = Bullshit

Those are overwhelming evidence that governments are facades to cover self-interested motives.
[Like Harry Anslinger's fight to criminalize cannabis cause he was about to lose his job]

But when someone resists those selfish motives or points out that corruption,
you claim "oh well they're dumb for resisting" and "it's not corruption. Mr. Anslinger just needed better training"

You were harpin' about Rational Minds in the lounge, correct?

However, your rationale for police brutality being acceptable is based on the assumption that countries & citizenship exist.

I've been attempting to challenge the basis of that rationale the entire time but you don't want to engage on that point for whatever reason. =/

>> ^rottenseed:

What happened was, he beat Bill at his own game and he did this by being more prepared than Bill. Bill was prepared to take down Common and had all of the facade of evidence he needed to so. Jon came in, played his game for a couple of minutes, then went beyond what Bill was prepared to talk about and stayed relevant and on topic. To the point where Bill had absolutely nothing to say.
So while it appears that all Jon did was "speak the truth", it is so much more. He beat Bill O'Reilly at his own game which is why Bill O'Reilly has been around for so long, nobody can beat him at his game.>> ^Yogi:
I love Jon but why is he getting so much credit for going on Fox and telling them the Truth? I know it never happens but that just means we have to stop watching Fox. This is like they were denying that the sky was blue for a week and a comedian came in with some witty retorts to show that in fact the sky is actually blue as most everyone who look up can see.



Yeah I agree with that, he was definitely prepared for it. However the thing is I watched Fox for 24 hours...and I just don't know. Maybe if I watched Jon Stewart explaining what Common believes for 24 hours he would have a shot. Sadly too much information and I've been convinced because trusted Americans believe it...they told me.

What happened was, he beat Bill at his own game and he did this by being more prepared than Bill. Bill was prepared to take down Common and had all of the facade of evidence he needed to so. Jon came in, played his game for a couple of minutes, then went beyond what Bill was prepared to talk about and stayed relevant and on topic. To the point where Bill had absolutely nothing to say.

So while it appears that all Jon did was "speak the truth", it is so much more. He beat Bill O'Reilly at his own game which is why Bill O'Reilly has been around for so long, nobody can beat him at his game.>> ^Yogi:

I love Jon but why is he getting so much credit for going on Fox and telling them the Truth? I know it never happens but that just means we have to stop watching Fox. This is like they were denying that the sky was blue for a week and a comedian came in with some witty retorts to show that in fact the sky is actually blue as most everyone who look up can see.

I see what you are trying to say. I don't think you can distinguish from eyeballing, though. There is a third category to keep in mind: the brother who holds his head up in defiance in response to the attitude of some patronizing white person. The could happen across both of your hypothetical groups.

>> ^Enzoblue:
>> ^longde:
I'm curious as to how you know these people's life stories, so much so that you are sure they've never achieved anything of which to be proud? Could it be that you are making a shallow judgment about theim based on their appearance and musical choices? I have to say that I find your blatant snap-prejudice more detestable than some alleged poser's stance.
>> ^Enzoblue:
>> ^longde:
Yeah, how dare those 's have some pride and hold their heads high. Why the nerve? Don't they know their place, dammit!?!?
....Obama's the worst one, I tells ya....>> ^Enzoblue:
I think what this guy is truly objecting to, (if he had the IQ to work it out in his head), is the black man's sense of entitlement which can be over-bearing in some. I read recently about the difference between self-esteem and self-image. Self-esteem coming from good deeds that make positive changes in your world, (that a stereotypical ghetto black man doesn't have), vs self-image that the stereotypical black man is over-flowing with.
You do see this boisterous in your face self-image a lot, just walking down the street with their heads held high, daring anyone to challenge them. The mistake, however, is to lump all blacks in this category and assume that all blacks with their heads held high are doing so to compensate for low self-image, which this guy is doing.


Having pride and holding your head high when you've done nothing to be proud of except perfecting the appearance of being an original gangsta or playa or whatever is detestable. That's what I'm saying. Self-esteem comes from within and can only be obtained by good deeds and caring and empathy. Self-image is a facade, (what you think other people think of you), and is easily faked.


If you agree that holding your head high because you hold 3 jobs to put your kid brother through school and holding your head high because you have a gun in your pocket are two different things, then you'll understand what I'm saying. Those two different attitudes are visibly noticeable too.

>> ^longde:

I'm curious as to how you know these people's life stories, so much so that you are sure they've never achieved anything of which to be proud? Could it be that you are making a shallow judgment about theim based on their appearance and musical choices? I have to say that I find your blatant snap-prejudice more detestable than some alleged poser's stance.
>> ^Enzoblue:
>> ^longde:
Yeah, how dare those 's have some pride and hold their heads high. Why the nerve? Don't they know their place, dammit!?!?
....Obama's the worst one, I tells ya....>> ^Enzoblue:
I think what this guy is truly objecting to, (if he had the IQ to work it out in his head), is the black man's sense of entitlement which can be over-bearing in some. I read recently about the difference between self-esteem and self-image. Self-esteem coming from good deeds that make positive changes in your world, (that a stereotypical ghetto black man doesn't have), vs self-image that the stereotypical black man is over-flowing with.
You do see this boisterous in your face self-image a lot, just walking down the street with their heads held high, daring anyone to challenge them. The mistake, however, is to lump all blacks in this category and assume that all blacks with their heads held high are doing so to compensate for low self-image, which this guy is doing.


Having pride and holding your head high when you've done nothing to be proud of except perfecting the appearance of being an original gangsta or playa or whatever is detestable. That's what I'm saying. Self-esteem comes from within and can only be obtained by good deeds and caring and empathy. Self-image is a facade, (what you think other people think of you), and is easily faked.



If you agree that holding your head high because you hold 3 jobs to put your kid brother through school and holding your head high because you have a gun in your pocket are two different things, then you'll understand what I'm saying. Those two different attitudes are visibly noticeable too.

No, I got that part. I'm just wondering how does one distinguish a "stereotypical" black man from one who simply likes hip hop styles?


>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^longde:
I'm curious as to how you know these people's life stories, so much so that you are sure they've never achieved anything of which to be proud? Could it be that you are making a shallow judgment about theim based on their appearance and musical choices? I have to say that I find your blatant snap-prejudice more detestable than some alleged poser's stance.
>> ^Enzoblue:
>> ^longde:
Yeah, how dare those 's have some pride and hold their heads high. Why the nerve? Don't they know their place, dammit!?!?
....Obama's the worst one, I tells ya....>> ^Enzoblue:
I think what this guy is truly objecting to, (if he had the IQ to work it out in his head), is the black man's sense of entitlement which can be over-bearing in some. I read recently about the difference between self-esteem and self-image. Self-esteem coming from good deeds that make positive changes in your world, (that a stereotypical ghetto black man doesn't have), vs self-image that the stereotypical black man is over-flowing with.
You do see this boisterous in your face self-image a lot, just walking down the street with their heads held high, daring anyone to challenge them. The mistake, however, is to lump all blacks in this category and assume that all blacks with their heads held high are doing so to compensate for low self-image, which this guy is doing.


Having pride and holding your head high when you've done nothing to be proud of except perfecting the appearance of being an original gangsta or playa or whatever is detestable. That's what I'm saying. Self-esteem comes from within and can only be obtained by good deeds and caring and empathy. Self-image is a facade, (what you think other people think of you), and is easily faked.


I think you missed the part where Enzo said "stereotypical black man".

>> ^longde:

I'm curious as to how you know these people's life stories, so much so that you are sure they've never achieved anything of which to be proud? Could it be that you are making a shallow judgment about theim based on their appearance and musical choices? I have to say that I find your blatant snap-prejudice more detestable than some alleged poser's stance.
>> ^Enzoblue:
>> ^longde:
Yeah, how dare those 's have some pride and hold their heads high. Why the nerve? Don't they know their place, dammit!?!?
....Obama's the worst one, I tells ya....>> ^Enzoblue:
I think what this guy is truly objecting to, (if he had the IQ to work it out in his head), is the black man's sense of entitlement which can be over-bearing in some. I read recently about the difference between self-esteem and self-image. Self-esteem coming from good deeds that make positive changes in your world, (that a stereotypical ghetto black man doesn't have), vs self-image that the stereotypical black man is over-flowing with.
You do see this boisterous in your face self-image a lot, just walking down the street with their heads held high, daring anyone to challenge them. The mistake, however, is to lump all blacks in this category and assume that all blacks with their heads held high are doing so to compensate for low self-image, which this guy is doing.


Having pride and holding your head high when you've done nothing to be proud of except perfecting the appearance of being an original gangsta or playa or whatever is detestable. That's what I'm saying. Self-esteem comes from within and can only be obtained by good deeds and caring and empathy. Self-image is a facade, (what you think other people think of you), and is easily faked.



I think you missed the part where Enzo said "stereotypical black man".

I'm curious as to how you know these people's life stories, so much so that you are sure they've never achieved anything of which to be proud? Could it be that you are making a shallow judgment about theim based on their appearance and musical choices? I have to say that I find your blatant snap-prejudice more detestable than some alleged poser's stance.

>> ^Enzoblue:
>> ^longde:
Yeah, how dare those 's have some pride and hold their heads high. Why the nerve? Don't they know their place, dammit!?!?
....Obama's the worst one, I tells ya....>> ^Enzoblue:
I think what this guy is truly objecting to, (if he had the IQ to work it out in his head), is the black man's sense of entitlement which can be over-bearing in some. I read recently about the difference between self-esteem and self-image. Self-esteem coming from good deeds that make positive changes in your world, (that a stereotypical ghetto black man doesn't have), vs self-image that the stereotypical black man is over-flowing with.
You do see this boisterous in your face self-image a lot, just walking down the street with their heads held high, daring anyone to challenge them. The mistake, however, is to lump all blacks in this category and assume that all blacks with their heads held high are doing so to compensate for low self-image, which this guy is doing.


Having pride and holding your head high when you've done nothing to be proud of except perfecting the appearance of being an original gangsta or playa or whatever is detestable. That's what I'm saying. Self-esteem comes from within and can only be obtained by good deeds and caring and empathy. Self-image is a facade, (what you think other people think of you), and is easily faked.

>> ^longde:

Yeah, how dare those 's have some pride and hold their heads high. Why the nerve? Don't they know their place, dammit!?!?
....Obama's the worst one, I tells ya....>> ^Enzoblue:
I think what this guy is truly objecting to, (if he had the IQ to work it out in his head), is the black man's sense of entitlement which can be over-bearing in some. I read recently about the difference between self-esteem and self-image. Self-esteem coming from good deeds that make positive changes in your world, (that a stereotypical ghetto black man doesn't have), vs self-image that the stereotypical black man is over-flowing with.
You do see this boisterous in your face self-image a lot, just walking down the street with their heads held high, daring anyone to challenge them. The mistake, however, is to lump all blacks in this category and assume that all blacks with their heads held high are doing so to compensate for low self-image, which this guy is doing.


Having pride and holding your head high when you've done nothing to be proud of except perfecting the appearance of being an original gangsta or playa or whatever is detestable. That's what I'm saying. Self-esteem comes from within and can only be obtained by good deeds and caring and empathy. Self-image is a facade, (what you think other people think of you), and is easily faked.

I don't recall anything about pacifism in his speeches, only non-interventionism and anti-colorization. And he has frequently said that to just abolish the safety net is also a bad idea, so hardly an extremist. That is more of a straw-man representation of his views on transitioning to a more free market based society and less regulated.

I think it is important to note the difference in being anti-war being legal and not moral. Morally, we can't all agree anyway. Was our intervention in WW2 moral? Is killing ever good? A president can't answer those questions, and shouldn't, and nor should congress. What they should preside over is if a majority of people want war, we war, regardless of its moral good or badness. Morality is the charge of the citizens, not the congress. It is also their job, the citizens, to not let their congress take that charge from them. Good and bad shouldn't be a matter of law, that is the most dangerous of all ideas.


Being skeptical is always good, but look as his company. He takes strides with people like Kucinich, whom I also respect for his integrity to what he believes. There is no doubt, though, that the president, even when his powers were considerably less, is still the "leader" of the country. Being that congress has defaulted most of their power to the executive, a good place to go to pass that power away is the executive. One could ask why any of the founding fathers, with their ideals on the congress, ran for president and I think you will find your answer there...duty. Dr. Paul has frequently said he really don't have an interest in the office, but like old hickory after the death of his wife, feels it is is obligation to the people.

Just my 2 cents, perhaps he is a greedy Napoleon under the facade, I don't know...nor do I really care. He cares about what I care about, that is about all I require for a vote.


>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Like the campaign for liberty that tours the nation? But your right, things start from the bottom down. It is always nice, though, to have hands from above as well. You can already see things slowing changing in the republican party, but it is still marginal in terms of majority. Like Dr. Paul says though, he won't consider it a success unless BOTH parties are chop full of his base ideals.
Yes, but most of those base ideals are about things that have nothing to do with pacifism, and he's not pushing to transform the rest of the Republican party into pacifists. Instead he's pushing them to become extremists who want to abolish every ounce of regulation and social safety net that exists.
I've also noticed that he makes his anti-war case primarily on budgetary/legal authority grounds, and not "killing people is wrong" grounds. That concerns me quite a bit, because if your main issue with war is that it costs too much money, or didn't get the right rubber stamp first, then you're really missing the point.
In any case, I personally see no reason why we should believe Ron Paul's campaign promises any more than any other politician. I find it a bit strange on the topic of war in particular, because according to him, the Constitution grants Congress the sole right to declare war, and certainly Congress has authority over spending money, so why does he need to be President to do anything about wars?

I have to say that I used to work at Nordstrom's. Men clothing is pretty familiar, but ALL THE TIME, everyday, we got clothes in for the womens area that was the "mirrored version" of the males department. EVERY piece of clothing that came into that department WAS sexualized. We even had a shipment of thong underwear for 12 YEAR OLDS.

Needless to say I found it to be a very disturbing trend; so did my other male co-workers. Especially with the thongs; that was disgusting.

This is a marketing/sexism/foundation. Everybody "gets" their role by the end of high school and it persists. Males continue with the sins of their fathers and anyone saying women have an ultimate choice to this simply doesn't understand the psychology involved: some WILL see through the facade, but just as many don't. The same is exactly true for the men that perpetuate their part.

The clothing is just an aspect of psychology that shows us that manufacturers fall for their own tripe; and the perpetrator can easily be a women as a man.

Democracy gives a voice to all the citizens, but not control. Democracy simply gives the impression of control to the citizens, that aspect of it is just a facade.

People will eventually become dissatisfied and disillusioned, even if a government fulfills all of their needs. It is just natural.

The value that voting and democracy brings is that it incorporates peaceful means of "revolting", this eliminates the high cost of restructuring that comes after revolutions, as we know them.

@rychan - I see what you're talking about, but I think it might be an optical illusion of the facade popping out. Watch it again and look at a different part of the building, like the very corner. I don't see the skip when I'm watching the edge.

Democracy is rule by consensus of the populace. Fascism is rule by a single party state.

Just because the U.S. is some weird two party fascist hybrid dipped in a liberal, "Democratic Republic", white chocolaty shell.. doesn't mean the two are the same.

And just because our "democracy" is corrupt and broken doesn't mean automatically that "democracy = facade for crime."

~~~
Also, who exactly are the victims and who are the aggressors?

You're saying that stupid bigoted [hah] tribalistic commoners are the evil oppressor running the show?

Because.. that's sorta like arguing that U.S. Troops decided to invade Iraq for their own political and economic reasons.

The Pentagon, Defense Depart, Cheney and the CIA were just lowly goons waitin' for a kickback.

~~~
Lastly, I'll say:

Governments exist to organize a group. [tribe if you will]
Individuals within the group express how they wish to be organized thru voting.

If everyone agrees. You have consensus and the tribe's power is consolidated.
If some disagree. You have factions and the tribe's power is split.

Anything that forces one half to remain linked to the other [in order to exploit that power] after such a split is "fascist", in the sense i think you meant.

Both you and Aristotle are keen to note how fuck up it is that the Majority would give up their Power [time & energy] to a State in order to control the power of the Minority.

Tho, scapegoating the commoner when a relative few Power Elite are to blame for your problems is missing the forest for the trees.

>> ^gorillaman:

Democracy is fascism. Every democratic state is a fascist state.
'Normal, rational people' is a contradiction in terms. Pre-WW2 Germany was filled with fascists, as every country today is filled with fascists. They didn't just rationalise. They wholeheartedly embraced and perpetuated the evils of their state, as every population would today. As every population does today.
Democracy exists for one reason only, which is to legitimise crime. Want your neighbour's wealth? You can't just steal it, that would be wrong. Get your government to do it for you, after they've taken their cut. Suddenly it's fair. Want to tell him how to live his life? Want to throw him in prison?
When the victims complain, their aggressors can say, "Hey, it's the will of the people. You had your chance to vote."
Tribalism, wilful ignorance, escalating bigotry, absolute selfishness, perfect stupidity; these are the characteristics of the typical voter, that's democracy. These are the people you want in charge?

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Ha, right. Condescend to the female ninja with ENORMOUS throwing knives.
Your bold logic puts me in awe sometimes. =P
>> ^rottenseed:
Why don't you do something constructive with those knives and use them to spread mayonnaise on my sandwich



She needs to be knocked down a few notches. Not physically, but mentally. My guess is she was an ugly duckling. Possibly a kung fu movie nerd with glasses, asthma and bad acne — looking for a way to escape. She got older, her face cleared, she got contacts and gained some martial arts skills through years of training to protect against bullies. Beneath that tough facade though, there is still that insecure nerd looking for acceptance. She needs to be broken down and built back up into the sandwich making machine she is.


...and that's how you build a plausible story with absolutely no information at all