Clearly, you've all forgotten that on Videosift, all police brutality videos completely justify your pet political philosophy, and is an entirely appropriate time to haughtily laugh at the small mindedness of people who disagree with you, while accusing them of being pro-brutality.

Which is to say, "Ha ha, reasonable idiots."

This is what you get for not trying to capitalize on tragedy to slander political opponents: reasonable dialogue about the issue of criminal justice. The HORROR!

He's speaking a half truth, but I don't think he's calling the Tea Party people who believe in the extermination of people based on race or anything like that. He's trying to point out that the Tea Party, similar to the Nazi party, is an anti-establishment movement that has been born out of a troubled economy. That he's right about. He's also correct in observing that there doesn't seem to be any charismatic leader within the Tea Party. He's also correct in stating that there's a higher risk of radical parties coming to power during times of socio-economic upheavals.

He loses me in stating that the Tea Party is only about fear and hate, and have no proposed solutions. They are proposing a radical change in the federal budget, including massive cuts that adhere to radical conservative political philosophies, including massive cuts typically in social programs instead of defense. I vehemently disagree with that, but that's still a stated solution. I just wish politics were more about discussing rationally the pros and cons of an idea instead of loose associations with clearly horrible groups from history. You could make the case that the American progressive movement was a reaction to poor political and social environments, but that doesn't make the Progressive Movement bad.

He also is oversimplifying the Nazi rise to power. When you think about it, he contradicts himself. If Hitler simply rose to power because of exploiting popular discontent with the economy, then why did he never get the support of the majority of Germans in a free and fair election? Hitler did in fact exploit fear and malcontent in the German population caused by the Great Depression, but he never would have come to power had the conservative parties not attempted to co-op the Nazis to fight off the political left Social Democratic party and the Communist Party in Germany.

The rise of an extreme party in the US in the same way Nazis took control of Germany is very highly unlikely. While there are obvious negatives to the US two party political system, one strength is it does a very good job of preventing extremists from taking over. In Germany, the Nazi party exploited the fact there were numerous parties - the Conservative party, the Catholic Party, the Social Democratic party, the Communist party, and of course the Nazis to name some. Sure the US has other parties than the Democratic and Republican parties, but they're virtually insignificant in numbers and support. That simply wasn't the case in Weimar Germany, and in order to get a coalition government to get anything done, parties had to compromise and work together. Unfortunately, the conservative parties decided to work with the Nazis, making Hitler Chancellor, even though the Nazis were clearly anti-democratic, because they politically disagreed with the Social Democratic party. You can call the Tea Party whatever you want, but they certainly are in favor of Democracy.

Hahaha, check out this page on Scientology politics. It sounds exactly like......

"Political Spectrum by the Yard.
L. Ron Hubbard in his SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL

If you lay out a yardstick with Zero off on the Left, and 36 to the Right, you'll have a fairly accurate numerical political spectrum.

Consider this a Gradient Scale from Slavery on the Left to Freedom on the Right. Consider this also as a Gradient Scale of Emotions, more enturbulated ones on the left with freer ones on the right. Political philosophies can be identified by the chronic emotional tones they exhibit, and emotional tones follow an exact order. Consider this also as a Personal Sovereignty scale, with none at the Left and all at the Right, also as a Responsibility scale, with all in the hands of government on the Left and all in the hands of the people on the Right. Any number of gradient scales may be examined in this way, compared to the degrees of political and economic freedoms allowed by differing governing philosophies.

At Zero you'll find a form of Anarchy, a "burn down the courthouse" kind of anarchy. At 36 is another kind of Anarchy, an ethical Anarchy where people have no need for governance.

All existing forms of "self-government" lie well to the left on the scale. A monarchical government might fall anywhere on the scale, depending on the benevolence of the ruler at the moment, an undependable situation."

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/sci-politics.htm


>> ^dag:

Yeah, I'm definitely due to get my engrams tested. Pretty sure they're off the chart.>> ^blankfist:

You should look into Scientology!

I freely admit to having thought Obama was the real deal, and that it's obvious he wasn't. I think my disappointments with him aside, he was still the right person to support, given that it was only ever going to be him, Hillary, or McCain who became President. I think you're vastly overstating it when you say that Obama is "leading the charge" in Libya, but that's just how you are.

I don't really see it as "chickens coming home to roost". Obama has failed to rise to the occasion on several issues, but he hasn't gone and done anything all his own that creates new problems to be undone. Maybe this no-fly zone in Libya will become that, but this doesn't strike me as some sort of imperialist impulse from Obama, so much as him going along with the world community.

If you told me that in 2008, after Bush put together an Iraq withdrawal plan, I would've said that I pretty much expect him to follow the Bush withdrawal plan to the letter...which he has, with no sign of extending our stay there. On Afghanistan, I would've said that Obama openly campaigned on escalating the conflict in Afhganistan, and I didn't like it much, but that that did seem to be the one place in the world we had any reason to be involved in. On Libya I would've said "why Libya?" If you said "to defend pro-democratic rebels who wanted to overthrow Gaddafi", I would've said "hmm, if the UN supports that action, and the mission remains limited in scope, I would oppose it, but I would understand it".

As for Gitmo and PATRIOT, if you told me that he'd be stopped from doing either by a bipartisan coalition in Congress, I would've found that completely believable. That he's passively let the topic fade from the public stage is probably my biggest disappointment with him.

On taxes, which taxes went up? Income tax rates below $250K (and above!) are the same as they've been, and payroll taxes just got cut a bit. My federal taxes definitely went down, while my state & local have increased slightly, but Obama has nothing to do with those. The only tax increases I know of are on cigarettes, and maybe the expiration of tax cuts that began with the stimulus.

As for the democratic process, all it proved is that it takes more work than voting for President once every 4 years. I was too carried away in 2008 about how much one election would do, but it did seem like a sea change at the time.

Part of what's wrong is that people here are too complacent. Tunisia, Egypt, etc. all just managed to topple dictatorships with peaceful protests. I think if we did the same here, we could topple our oligarchy. But first we need to stop letting fear of loss make us keep our heads down...

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Oh, you're such a victim, aren't you? *raises hand* "Oh, teacher, blankfist is picking on me!"

Stop deflecting. You and DFT claimed Obama was the real deal; that he'd enact some real change. He hasn't. He received a Nobel Peace prize, yet has extended the war effort. It makes no sense to people like me, and now that he's leading the charge in Libya, your chickens have come home to roost, and you don't like it.

I know you don't regret a second campaigning or voting for a warmonger and a liar. It's all too common for people to defend their vote, and the dissonance is alarming. My father used to defend his vote for Bush saying he's better than Clinton or something irrelevant like that.

If I could go back to 2008 and make wild claims that Obama would not end the war in Iraq, he would instead extend the war into Afghanistan, and before 2012 he'd go into Libya, I wonder what you'd say. Or that he'd never close Guantanamo or repeal the Patriot Act, I wonder what you'd say. You'd probably disagree and beat the "Democrats. Party of peace." drum.

I bet you still have an Obama/Biden 2008 bumper sticker on the back of your Prius, don't you? How typical if you do.

And by the way, I made less this year because of the economy, yet my taxes went up (as did the cost of living). I thought those of us who made less than $250,000 would not have our taxes raised. Looks like that too was a lie. I'm glad we still have idiots out there who think we can change the system with the democratic process, because singlehandedly Obama has proven that to be false in his first four years.

Seeing you, I think I now understand why the entire nation of Germany gave into Nazism and thought it was a good thing.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
So what you're saying is...what? That harassing me is somehow going to reverse a UN resolution against Libya?

I do think that if you don't like something, you should get involved and change it. In this case, part of that would be trying to get like minded people to join you in some sort of petition or protest. You don't seem to have any interest in doing that.

Do you have a bumper sticker with "Don't blame me, I voted for <insert losing candidate here>!" on your car? I mean if you don't, you really should get one. It might be too on the nose though, because it's not just some humorous witticism to you; instead it's a statement of your entire political philosophy, such as it is.

Oh, and by the way, I don't regret for a second having voted for and campaigned for Obama.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Wait, I thought you said if you didn't like something, then you should get involved and change it. Wasn't voting for Obama that change? How's that working out for you?

And I'm a liberal. The original liberal.

Oh, you're such a victim, aren't you? *raises hand* "Oh, teacher, blankfist is picking on me!"

Stop deflecting. You and DFT claimed Obama was the real deal; that he'd enact some real change. He hasn't. He received a Nobel Peace prize, yet has extended the war effort. It makes no sense to people like me, and now that he's leading the charge in Libya, your chickens have come home to roost, and you don't like it.

I know you don't regret a second campaigning or voting for a warmonger and a liar. It's all too common for people to defend their vote, and the dissonance is alarming. My father used to defend his vote for Bush saying he's better than Clinton or something irrelevant like that.

If I could go back to 2008 and make wild claims that Obama would not end the war in Iraq, he would instead extend the war into Afghanistan, and before 2012 he'd go into Libya, I wonder what you'd say. Or that he'd never close Guantanamo or repeal the Patriot Act, I wonder what you'd say. You'd probably disagree and beat the "Democrats. Party of peace." drum.

I bet you still have an Obama/Biden 2008 bumper sticker on the back of your Prius, don't you? How typical if you do.

And by the way, I made less this year because of the economy, yet my taxes went up (as did the cost of living). I thought those of us who made less than $250,000 would not have our taxes raised. Looks like that too was a lie. I'm glad we still have idiots out there who think we can change the system with the democratic process, because singlehandedly Obama has proven that to be false in his first four years.

Seeing you, I think I now understand why the entire nation of Germany gave into Nazism and thought it was a good thing.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
So what you're saying is...what? That harassing me is somehow going to reverse a UN resolution against Libya?

I do think that if you don't like something, you should get involved and change it. In this case, part of that would be trying to get like minded people to join you in some sort of petition or protest. You don't seem to have any interest in doing that.

Do you have a bumper sticker with "Don't blame me, I voted for <insert losing candidate here>!" on your car? I mean if you don't, you really should get one. It might be too on the nose though, because it's not just some humorous witticism to you; instead it's a statement of your entire political philosophy, such as it is.

Oh, and by the way, I don't regret for a second having voted for and campaigned for Obama.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Wait, I thought you said if you didn't like something, then you should get involved and change it. Wasn't voting for Obama that change? How's that working out for you?

And I'm a liberal. The original liberal.

So what you're saying is...what? That harassing me is somehow going to reverse a UN resolution against Libya?

I do think that if you don't like something, you should get involved and change it. In this case, part of that would be trying to get like minded people to join you in some sort of petition or protest. You don't seem to have any interest in doing that.

Do you have a bumper sticker with "Don't blame me, I voted for <insert losing candidate here>!" on your car? I mean if you don't, you really should get one. It might be too on the nose though, because it's not just some humorous witticism to you; instead it's a statement of your entire political philosophy, such as it is.

Oh, and by the way, I don't regret for a second having voted for and campaigned for Obama.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Wait, I thought you said if you didn't like something, then you should get involved and change it. Wasn't voting for Obama that change? How's that working out for you?

And I'm a liberal. The original liberal.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, I have no desire to support them or fight for their right to exist, for three reasons. 1. I don't know enough about what's happening in Wisconsin and why. 2. In the end, I'd be supporting a group that uses legislation to support protectionism. 3. Their salary is paid by theft.

Ahh, so your commitment to basic human rights only extends to a) things you care about enough to read about (and apparently you don't care enough about human rights to read up on a major news story that happens to be centered on human rights), b) groups of people who share your political philosophy, and c) don't work on Wall Street.

>> ^blankfist:
If it's by forcing them to give under threat of violence (threat of police intervention, threat of imprisonment, etc.), then I'm afraid I will never support that.
You cannot legislate morality. Because your morality may not be my own, and coercing me into funding something I disagree with morally is universally evil.


Fine then. I plan on helping myself to your car here in a few minutes. I assume you'll defend me against the people who've "legislated morality" and are threatening police intervention and the threat of imprisonment against my doing so, seeing how that's universally evil.

Oh wait, I already forgot that first half -- I only get my rights defended by blankfist if I don't support a group whose politics you disagree with. Guess my rights are forfeit!

Wow I always assumed that the sift was like, fifty years old or something. In this case, I'm honored to be a three-year member, the discussions, the videos and the level-headed people here on the sift really have had a huge impact on my life in more ways than one. Ofcourse, anyone outside the community reading this might think I'm laying it on a bit thick, I mean honestly, can a couple of youtube videos and comments really change a person's life?

Three years ago, I had only just graduated highschool and was still very much woefully ignorant in terms of politics, philosophy, science, you name it (for the record, not much has changed) And whats more I found myself within a great deal of spiritual/emotional turmoil. I was trying to reconcile the biblical teachings and practices I learned in the Church (I went to a Catholic high school) the teachings of the longhouse, the 7 grandfathers, as well as this deep cerebral yearning for more.

My mind was exposed to so many intellectually stimulating figures here on the sift. Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Bertrand Russel, Christopher Hitchens, the list goes on and on. Whats more, aside from the occasional bursts of hysteria, I found myself much more politically aware and far more comfortable with all those little skepticisms haunting the back of my mind all those years in highschool. Never before had I encountered so many learned and witty, like-minded individuals.

Happy Anniversary Dag, awesome work. Let's keep the good times rolling.

@dystopianfuturetoday

From Wikipedia: Individualism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that stresses "the moral worth of the individual". Individualists promote the exercise of one's goals and desires and so independence and self-reliance while opposing most external interference upon one's own interests, whether by society, family or any other group or institution.

This is not the philosophy of Hitler, Stalin, or Manson. They were people who wanted control over others, while Individualists believe that everyone should have control over themselves. They are polar opposites, in terms of philosophy. And while it might make for a good joke ("Individualists unite!") there is nothing ironic about people sharing a philosophy of self-reliance.

In terms of selfishness, I believe you are misinterpreting her message. Though I may be wrong, I interpret it to mean "Take care of yourself first, then take care of your loved ones, then help your community if you have the means." Like they say in pre-flight safety instructions, put on your own oxygen mask first, then help others to put on theirs. You aren't doing anyone any good if you give everything you have to others (money, energy, or time). You will just find yourself wiped out and then depending on others to give to you. But if you fulfill your own needs and find you have resources to spare, then you can assist others in finding their own self-sufficiency. Indeed, if you value your family and community, helping them to be prosperous is by definition serving your own self-interests.

Again, I may be projecting some of my own morality onto Rand, because I have never seen her articulate this point clearly. But that is what I would argue on the topic of selfishness.

Personally, I am not a Rand devotee. I think anyone trying to implement her ideas literally would cause chaos and mob-rule. But she made some interesting points, and though her utopia may not be possible, there are valuable lessons to be learned in her books if you look for them.

All I'm saying is that for the last ten or so years, the republican political philosophy seems to be to lie and repeat so often that people eventually believe it, and it seems to be working on a lot of Americans. So in short, I'm not really saying that republicans are like Nazis. Just that their political philosophy of late has seems to resemble that of Hitler's propaganda minister.

Well - OK - fair enough I suppose. However, this particular charge is true of both political parties. It can hardly be said that the GOP's political message machine is something that just appeared out of nowhere. If anything, they are doing nothing more than aping what the Democrats have done since Vietnam and Nixon. When it was learned that hyperbolic television news commentary could bring down political figures, the political world has been dominated by a methodology that "resembles" a propoganda machine.

So calling only the GOPs media methods naziesque is an incomplete picture that implies guilt only exists in one corner - which is hardly correct. The Democrats mastered the politics of personal destruction long before the GOP ever got there. Obama's entire political career has been built on the premise of "lie and repeat so often that people eventually just believe it". Everything Obama ever said about 'stimulus' and 'transparency' and 'economic experts' and yadda yadda yadda is fundamentally rooted in the principle of telling a bunch of complete bullcrap and just expecting everyone to believe it.

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker I think I'm just about ready to write you off as someone worth replying to.

I asked how you thought what Beck said compared to blood libel, and you said:
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

The use of propoganda by a totalitarian government to inspire hatred and justify violence towards a genetic race is not comparable to a private citizen's non-violent opinions being presented in a public forum as opposition to a differing political philosophy that others accepted independantly. There is no equivalency.

When I challenge you on your assertion, you deny the assertion:

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

No - I described what Glenn Beck said, which was necessary because of the inaccurate, incomplete citation and the subsequent misinterpretations of others. I made no statement about it being 'violent, or non-violent'. If we are to talk of making assertions, I will kindly request that you cease making inaccurate assertions about what I say.

(emphasis in both is mine)

This is the fundamental problem I have with you. Whatever fact someone uses as the basis of a conclusion, you accuse the speaker of fabricating that fact, even if it's trivially and incontrovertibly validated.

It's just not conducive to civil discourse to casually accuse people of lying. Assume I misunderstood, and just try making your point more explicitly.

What did you mean by "non-violent opinion"? Were you talking about Glenn Beck there? After all, that was what I had asked you about.

No. Comparing republicans to Nazi's because they have some right-leaning policies not only doesn't make much sense, but it's also rude and cheap. Just like comparing those who have left leaning policies to socialists. If everyone who wanted to vote on policies that would use tax-payer money for the betterment of the country as a whole could be compared to a socialist, then we've been living in a socialist country since 1776.

You're not an idiot WP. I know that you know the quote he's referring to in the video. I'm not going to insult you by pasting it here. A person like you would have memorized that quote a long time ago. All I'm saying is that for the last ten or so years, the republican political philosophy seems to be to lie and repeat so often that people eventually believe it, and it seems to be working on a lot of Americans.

So in short, I'm not really saying that republicans are like Nazis. Just that their political philosophy of late has seems to resemble that of Hitler's propaganda minister. And that it's not anywhere near as much of a stretch as calling democrats socialists.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

This is America where the 1st Ammendment says anybody can criticize anyone they want about anything and it does not constitute a crime.

Not really. Incitement to violence is illegal.

Hell, even libel and slander are still technically illegal.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
The use of propoganda by a totalitarian government to inspire hatred and justify violence towards a genetic race is not comparable to a private citizen's non-violent opinions being presented in a public forum as opposition to a differing political philosophy that others accepted independantly. There is no equivalency.

Sorry, but you're doing it again -- asserting conclusions without making an argument. You're saying Glenn beck talking about needing to shoot people in the head before they shoot us in the head is non-violent, while blood libel, which is just a made-up story about Jews using the blood of Christian children in religious rituals, is violent.

Beck's is more explicitly violent than actual blood libel (though perhaps quite a bit less visceral and imaginative) because he's talking about shooting people in the head.

Here's your own paraphrase of Beck:
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

[H]e gives them a warning that - like conservatives - you're going to have to shoot them in the head before the stop fighting for what they believe in - or they just might turn on their former allies and shoot them when 'the revolution' comes as the radicals define it.

What's the moral difference between this, and "the liberal Jews are stealing the blood of Christian babies for their rituals, and they're such total zealots for their religion that the only way you, Nancy Pelosi, can stop them from doing this is to put a bullet in their head. And you better do that before they put a knife in your children"?

All I'm really changing is adding a gratuitous mention of Jews, and changing "violent communist revolution" into "uses the blood of Christian babies for rituals", which I think are close substitutes in terms of the kind of effect on their audience.

Propaganda is propaganda, no matter who's distributing it. Lies that dehumanize people, and make them sound like a direct threat to your safety are at best laying groundwork for justifying violence, and at worst are an explicit incitement to violent acts.

If the idea of blood libel bothers you, so should Beck libel.

Is this kind of rhetoric a defensible use of speech, something he deserves to be criticized for, or something that possibly constitutes a crime?

This is America where the 1st Ammendment says anybody can criticize anyone they want about anything and it does not constitute a crime. I believe in freedom. I would never dare to try to make it a crime for a person to speak their mind on an issue. Such censorship is repulsive to me, and antithetical to a free society. Do I think he 'deserves' criticism? Only in the same sense that anyone 'deserves' to be criticized in a free society for having an opinion.

By comparison, what's your opinion of the historical use of blood libel against Jews? In your opinion, was that a defensible use of speech, something to be merely criticized, or something serious enough to consider a criminal act?

The use of propoganda by a totalitarian government to inspire hatred and justify violence towards a genetic race is not comparable to a private citizen's non-violent opinions being presented in a public forum as opposition to a differing political philosophy that others accepted independantly. There is no equivalency.

All I can hope for is that the right wakes up with a movement that actually cares about the people of America and not the 1% who own 60+% of all capital in the US who would continue to screw everyone over.

I suggest you locate the closest chapter of the Tea Party movement.

Seriously though - what government plan (Democrat OR Republican) has ever resulted in moving that "1% richest" needle? People who get rich get rich, and by definition that means they have tons more money than the average guy. Rich liberals don't give 95% of their wealth to the poor, or gift it to the government for 'fair redistribution' (which means government gets it and the people don't) any more than rich Republicans do. So it is meaningless to blame wealth inequity on 'the right'. Wealth inequality is a factor of the human condition - not any particular political philosophy.

Fucking shit-
When are these morons going to stop talking about the founders of this country and putting them up on a pedestal? Sure, they created a government that was designed to work very well for the 1700s, but the idea behind it that's really carried the USA to where it is is adaptation. Idolizing the founders in, dare i say, a religious way only stagnates the processes that they held to be valuable.

Wait wait, shit, you got me Sarah! I'm talking about political philosophy when I should just be saying "Awww, look how hard you're trying to be relevant. That's cute."

Damn she's good!