Always good to start out with the belief in someones political philosophy. Stay classy. Just a FYI, I'm conservative-libertarian which means I'm still further to the left then most of you in the US. The fact that they have a more annoying bias then fox's opinion shows is what should be getting to people. Not only that, but they when they attack fox for something yet pull the same tricks they're called to account by no one yet receive glowing praise for it? I'm not sure how much more hypocrisy one could take on that.

But common sense which isn't so common is an amazing thing to dissect. That people have such an unmitigated hate on they can't see they're being mislead by another group in the same clothing, is what I find very interesting. Well that and they can't figure out the difference between News and Opinion. >> ^Psychologic:
^ Unfortunately not every group can be "fair and balanced".
Maybe if they put "unbiased" in their name then more conservatives would trust them.

>> ^thinker247:
While I am one to never believe anything my government tells me, I find it highly improbable that anybody but the 19 hijackers caused the events of September 11th. But to play devil's advocate, let me for a minute suspend my belief and agree with the "truthers" that my government perpetrated an act of terrorism against itself.
Why?
In order to invade Afghanistan to plunder its oil? We already had bin Laden on the FBI's Most Wanted List for the bombings of U.S. Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. We easily could have invaded under the pretense of finding and extracting bin Laden (and the Taliban and al-Qaeda), because that's exactly what we did after September 11th.
In order to invade Iraq under the banner of anti-terrorism? Hussein had already defied U.N. weapons inspectors for over a decade and Bush was never the type to ask permission, so we didn't need September 11th to justify illegally invading a sovereign nation. We did it anyway.
In order to enact greater restrictions upon the citizens by inducing their fear response? Hell, as a general populace we're lemmings. The Bush administration certainly did not need to kill 3000 people in order to take away our liberties. We gladly give them up whenever anybody in authority asks.
I have yet to hear a rational answer to the question of "Why?" But I'm all ears.


niiiice.
ask a question and then propose possible hypothesis which of course you then dismantle.
let me preface this by stating i am not a "truther" and am not as convinced as my friend rougy is concerning 9/11.
that being said,the US government has never,in my opinion,given this a proper investigation.
let me give you an example:
lewinsky and the impeachment of bill clinton =168 million dollars.
9/11 investigation=6 million dollars
and lets be clear here.the governments version of what happened on 9/11 is itself a conspiracy theory and one that does not hold up well under closer scrutiny.
who is responsible? i do not know and neither do you but i think it prudent to not only ask questions but be allowed to ask those questions.
agree?
now...
as for YOUR question thinker247.
why?
i presume you are asking for motive.
ok.
1.lusitania
2.reichsthag
3.gulf of tonkin
these are all false flag operations and all preceded war.WW!,WW2 and vietnam respectively.i could mention the oil embargo on japan but that is a lengthy conversation.
what ARE the motives for war?
they have always been unequivocally about:
1.land/labor/resources/trade
how does a government,crown or ruling entity get its poorest,least educated and therefore most expendable to go fight and die for something the ruling class wishes?
1.propaganda.
which creates a "fighting spirit".
for thousands of years religion was the impetus to create this spirit but for the last hundred years it has been nationalism but it is ALWAYS the F>E>A>R that is the true driving force.
now that we have established a basis for war let us get to the heart of your question.
since i am not privy to secret documents i must make my answer based on conjecture.i shall do my best.
why would the US government use 9/11 (by action or by proxy) to change 200 years of national defensive posturing to one of "pre-emptive" and declare a war,not on any person or nation but one against an ephemeral opponent?the "war on terror".
1.war is HUGE business and the DOD has been one of the top 10 lobbyists since 1962.
2.saddam hussein,having been bombed for over 10 years straight(fact,look it up) along with sanctions and that ridiculous "oil for food" threatened to change iraq's oil transactions from the american dollar to the euro(fact,look it up)which would have cost the US billions if not trillions.seeing that every oil transaction is done in american dollars.it is the world reserve currency (not for much longer).
3.uzbekisthan has one the last and richest oil and natural gas left in the world.a pipeline which was denied by turkey (that has since changed,but for europes benefit,not america) is being built right now...
where?
ill give ya a guess.
iraq.
and do you know where it will lead into?
want to try another guess?
afghanistan.

those are just a few off the top of my head.i could take the time to be more concise and specific but this is a comment section.
maybe we have differing political philosophies thinker247.i do not trust government nor power because that power historically has ALWAYS attempted to garner more power for itself at the expense of liberty,freedom and the common good of society.
so while i dont think the US government attacked the twin towers,i believe they ALLOWED it.
what evidence do i have? none.and any evidence we could have gotten has been destroyed.
but i was military for a number of years and unless they have gotten lazy and stupid there is no way that would have happened.
could i be wrong?you betcha.
but unlike you i do not trust government and neither should you because historically,governments will abuse whatever powers they have and take your rights away as fast as they are allowed to.
might i recommend:
1.bryzinski "the grand chessboard"
2.naomi klein "the shock doctrine"
3.chalmers johnson "blowback"
hell...just go the PNAC website they practically lay it out for you and that minority controlled the government for 8 years.
history is the greatest teacher and it is your friend.
i have enjoyed this conversation thinker247.

that being said,understand that what i say here is in no way an attempt not to change your viewpoint but rather to give historical context.

I am not one who is threatened by hearing other points of view. Have no fears concerning my mental status. I recommend that you yourself also do not have any need to feel threatened when I point out that some of what you call 'historical context' is - in fact - personal opinion and interpretation.

a governments role concerning business should be fraud protection

No argument. That's government's only real role in this matter.

when a corporation can buy legislators to enact laws that benefit their own bottom line in the form of lobbyists we move closer to a plutocracy rather than a people run government.

I will argue again that the real issue here is not 'corporations buying legislators'. The problem is corrupt legislators. Companies can't 'buy' what isn't 'for sale'. Again - your argument when you strip away the rhetoric is not against companies. Your argument is one that calls for greater limits on government.

you state that you are immune to such manipulations and indoctrinations

Specifically, I have claimed that no company controls my life. And they don't.

if this is true then why do you constantly use terms like "lib" or "leftie

To accurately (though informally) describe persons of a specific political philosophy.

it was only 20% "stupid borrowing" while 80% fraudulent,predatory and deceitful lending practices.

Please supply your sourcing for this claim. If 80% of lending was 'fraudulent' as you claim, there would be massive prosecutions going on. There are no such prosecutions, because the lending agencies were (in fact) operating within the law. In harsh reality, many of the so-called 'predatory' lending tactics were encouraged by the federal government for the express purpose of increasing the number of people with homes (see repeal of Glass-Steagal).

when the government and our representatives are in bed with the very same companies that can create/destroy on such a huge scale we should all sit up and take notice

Yes - by changing the political system so that politicians are held accountable for their actions. By not allowing politicians to pass laws without full disclosure, 75% full congressional majority votes, and tons of other restrictions that would prevent them from being able to influence the system. The problem is not companies. The problem is politicians who are never held accountable.

All political offices should have a single term limit, and then the candidate is banned for life from all political activity except voting in congresional & presidential elections. Politicians should not be elected. They shoudl be randomly drawn up for service akin to jury duty. All laws should require a 75% majority vote of the entire congress before passing. Only one law should be allowed per bill - no 'omnibus' bills. If some 'bad event' happens that is tied to the passage of a specific law, then all the politicians who voted for that law should be the ones held responsible. And on and on...

I've literally got a BILLION great ideas along these lines of "How to stop corporations from influencing the political system by imposing limits on politicians."

Only in America! Where absolute stupidity can be considered a political philosophy!

How far we have come.



May her and her ilk die of a benevolent disease.

"She and I have different political philosophies"

Yes, you have one, and she doesn't know what the words "politics" or "philosophy" mean.

You strike me as a person that has never really considered these questions, and whether perhaps the answers you were told in grade school might be mistaken in some way.

Meh - your perceptions - like your political philosophy - are inaccurate. I've pondered these issues long and deep, and arrived at conclusions as opposed to opinions. Goods & services have real costs in time & resources. It is fair & necessary for such things to have requisite prices affixed.

What if the thing that motivates people has more to do with a sense of accomplishment and personal fulfillment than actual remuneration?

Such persons still need food, shelter, clothing, transportation, and dozens of other necessities to survive & prosper. Feeling accomplished or fulfilled does not create goods & services. Work & resources do, and both of those require $$$ on Planet Earth.

I had a serious illness a few years ago... YOU ARE NOT COMPASSIONATE...!

It is a hallmark of liberalism to brainlessly demonize those who have valid but politically different points of view. I reject such foolishness. I also reject big government as a solution. Just because you may believe big government is 'more compassionate' does not make it true. There are many approaches that work just fine and DON'T involve government. Only a small percentage of people need real help. Everyone else merely needs to budget properly and plan. Those who need help can easily obtain it without a 1.3 trillion government program.

Nice anecdote though. I've got one too. I had medical costs over $250K. With my privately purchased insurance and wisely planned cafeteria plan my total out of pocket was $5K - all which was tax free. No government. Catastrophic medical is easily affordable & widely available with family plans for less than $100 a month & individual plans for less than $40. It works just fine, and that's why over 86% of all Americans (and over 70% of the NON-INSURED) are 'satisfied' with their current medical care. "But some can't afford it...!" True. Such persons can be assisted by state, municipal, and private aid. This tiny percentage does not require a 1.3 trillion national plan to address its needs.

What healthcare shold not do, however, is to be exploited for profit.

Without profit, there is no reason to provide the good or service. Let's say health care is now 'free'. Manufacturers of medical supplies, health care workers, administrators, hospitals, & clinics are still not going to be working for nothing. Therefore people are going to be earning profit under a so-called 'non-profit' public system (otherwise it wouldn't cost 1.3 trillion dollars).

Liberals are merely taking the profit they malign so much and transferring it to government - an entity that needs it the LEAST and will abuse it the MOST. Medicare alone loses over 30% of its revenue every year in fraud, abuse, and waste. That'll happen with Obamacare X10. Evil, rich insurance fatcats can be dealt with if they commit real abuses (as opposed to your personal objections over their profits). You can also go with any number of competitors if you don't like a company. Good luck trying once government is in charge.

The US government spends more money, yes MORE TAXPAYER's MONEY (hear that, republicans?) today then every single country that provides free, universal healthcare

Aaand so that means we should increase the federal budget by a further 1.3 trillion? Specious reasoning, especially when you consider that with medicare/medicaid the government is already spending hundreds of billions on medical care.

Conservatives give lip service to freedom and such, but they have been taken over by corporatists who do nothing but take money and spread lies.

I think you're confusing "Conservative" with "Republian Party" here. The Republican party stopped being 'conservative' a long time ago. If you're talking about Republicans, then I agree with you. However, if you are talking about 'conservatives' then I think you're totally off base. Conservatives stand for principles of small government, personal responsibility, and individual freedom. Republicans do not.

liberals...at least their policies have some honest compassion as a foundation

Liberalism as a POLITICAL philosophy focuses only on one thing - the increase in the size and scope of centralized government at the expense of personal freedom. The end results are as compassionate as a sack of hammers. No one who uses Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or the myriad other so-called liberal social programs and comes away feeling like they dealt with a 'compassionate' entity. Liberalism is not compassionate. It is an excuse for people to NOT be compassionate.

I long ago pegged liberalism. People are attracted to liberalsm because they feel like 'someone should do SOMETHING' about the world's problems. But the problems don't ever go away, and they don't feel like people are 'doing enough'. Hence, they want to create massive federal programs to address these issues. Then the liberal guy can ignore the problems because "government is taking care if it for them. When you get right down to it, liberalism is the attempt to offload compassion to 'government' via legislation, taxation, & social engineering - thereby absolving individuals from personal action. It doesn't matter how horrible a job government does, or how many freedoms it annihilates, as long as a liberal guy can walk down the street and ignore the sick & needy - resting assured that 'government' will take care of the problem instead of him having to help.

Human misery and injustice exist. Nothing can be done to eliminate them. The best solution is to have a people that believe in a philosophy of compassion that will minimize the negatives. That is best accomplished by teaching, service, and kindness at the individual level. In short - it is best accomplished by teaching people to be 'good' (inherently a religious function). But liberals reject 'religion' out of hand. Therefore they use 'Government' as a substitute and attempt to force everyone to be good by law. All efforts by government along these lines have been spectacular failures, because legislating morality without acknowledging a moral imperitive is idiotic.

Liberalism 'compassionate'? Ha! It is the antithesis of compassion. But liberalism doesn't mind killing compassion, skinning it, and wrapping the tattered ghost of compassion around itself to advance its political aims.

>> ^quantumushroom:
A troll types to hear his keyboard clatter and relishes the attention nonsense brings. My contributions are often unpopular and thus a minority opinion at VS, but troll-poop they are not.
If your ideas have merit, they'll bear the weight of inquiry. 99 out of 100 new ideas will fail, that is the way of things. Unfortunately, the safeguarding processes by which society challenged new ideas have broken down.
The word "extremist" no longer has meaning. 50 years ago a man gets in his huge, heavy car with his family and drives to a restaurant. He might buckle up, he might not. His kids in the back do not sit in car seats. At dinner he eats a huge steak and then smokes a cigar. His kids eat pie with ice cream. Once upon a time, that was a free man. By today's warped eco-nanny-health state standards he'd be considered a mass murderer.
One of the charges against the religious is they stay in their own bubble and reinforce one another's beliefs. Do you really think liberals or any other "enlightened" group don't so the same?


Obviously missed the point. You may not post to troll, but your beliefs, however sincerely held, are certainly far from mainstream. I'd go with extremist, racist, reactionary, childish, intellectually unsophisticated and dishonest, and rude. If that's mainstream, well I don't wanna be part of it.

[edit]: I'm always in favor of a little hard-hitting intellectual debate between political philosophies, but the hit-and-run tactics, smearing, racism, lies, half-truths, and all-round inflammatory bullshit that you've used in the past and continue to use have got to go.

Minarchist? lol - Never heard of that term before.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I'm a minarchist. I believe in a government, albeit small. Anarchist tend to believe in an abolition of State.

From wiki:
In civics, minarchism (sometimes called minimal statism,[1] small government, or limited-government libertarianism[2]) refers to a political ideology which maintains that the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression.[2][3] Minarchists defend the existence of the state as a necessary evil,[1][4] but assert that it may only act to protect the life, liberty, and property of each individual.



In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
PS: Are you anarcho-capitalist? You tell me....

from wiki:
"Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist anarchist[1] political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state and the elevation of the sovereign individual in a free market. In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services are provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through compulsory taxation, and money is privately produced in an open market. Because personal and economic activities are regulated by the natural laws of the market through private law rather than through politics, victimless crimes, and crimes against the state are rendered moot."

I'm a minarchist. I believe in a government, albeit small. Anarchist tend to believe in an abolition of State.

From wiki:
In civics, minarchism (sometimes called minimal statism,[1] small government, or limited-government libertarianism[2]) refers to a political ideology which maintains that the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression.[2][3] Minarchists defend the existence of the state as a necessary evil,[1][4] but assert that it may only act to protect the life, liberty, and property of each individual.



In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
PS: Are you anarcho-capitalist? You tell me....

from wiki:
"Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist anarchist[1] political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state and the elevation of the sovereign individual in a free market. In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services are provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through compulsory taxation, and money is privately produced in an open market. Because personal and economic activities are regulated by the natural laws of the market through private law rather than through politics, victimless crimes, and crimes against the state are rendered moot."

PS: Are you anarcho-capitalist? You tell me....

from wiki:
"Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist anarchist[1] political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state and the elevation of the sovereign individual in a free market. In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services are provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through compulsory taxation, and money is privately produced in an open market. Because personal and economic activities are regulated by the natural laws of the market through private law rather than through politics, victimless crimes, and crimes against the state are rendered moot."

Embarrassed by history.

Here is a link to the full text and English translation of "The Road to Resurgence" written by Hitler, at the request of wealthy far right industrialist Emil Kirdorf.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1878145

It costs. (I had a print copy stashed away somewhere. Can't seem to find it, sry.)

------


http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERkirdorf.htm

Kirdorf, who held extreme right-wing political views, first heard Adolf Hitler speak in 1927. He was so impressed that he arranged to meet Hitler at the home of Elsa Buckmann in Munich. Although Kirdorf supported most of Hitler's beliefs he was concerned about some of the policies of the Nazi Party. He was particularly worried about the views of some people in the party such as Gregor Strasser who talked about the need to redistribute wealth in Germany.

Adolf Hitler tried to reassure Kirdorf that these policies were just an attempt to gain the support of the working-class in Germany and would not be implemented once he gained power. Kirdorf suggested that Hitler should write a pamphlet for private distribution amongst Germany's leading industrialists that clearly expressed his views on economic policy.

Hitler agreed and The Road to Resurgence was published in the summer of 1927. In the pamphlet distributed by Kirdorf to Germany's leading industrialists, Hitler tried to reassure his readers that he was a supporter of private enterprise and was opposed to any real transformation of Germany's economic and social structure.

Kirdorf was particularly attracted to Hitler's idea of winning the working class away from left-wing political parties such as the Social Democratic Party and the Communist Party. Kirdorf and other business leaders were also impressed with the news that Hitler planned to suppress the trade union movement once he gained power. Kirdorf joined the Nazi Party and immediately began to try and persuade other leading industrialists to supply Hitler with the necessary funds to win control of the Reichstag.

------



------

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERhitler.htm

It was not until May, 1919 that the German Army entered Munich and overthrew the Bavarian Socialist Republic. Hitler was arrested with other soldiers in Munich and was accused of being a socialist. Hundreds of socialists were executed without trial but Hitler was able to convince them that he had been an opponent of the regime. To prove this he volunteered to help to identify soldiers who had supported the Socialist Republic. The authorities agreed to this proposal and Hitler was transferred to the commission investigating the revolution.

Information supplied by Hitler helped to track down several soldiers involved in the uprising. His officers were impressed by his hostility to left-wing ideas and he was recruited as a political officer. Hitler's new job was to lecture soldiers on politics. The main aim was to promote his political philosophy favoured by the army and help to combat the influence of the Russian Revolution on the German soldiers.

...

Hitler's reputation as an orator grew and it soon became clear that he was the main reason why people were joining the party. This gave Hitler tremendous power within the organization as they knew they could not afford to lose him. One change suggested by Hitler concerned adding "Socialist" to the name of the party. Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.

Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had "German blood". Jews and other "aliens" would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end.

In February 1920, the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) published its first programme which became known as the "25 Points". In the programme the party refused to accept the terms of the Versailles Treaty and called for the reunification of all German people. To reinforce their ideas on nationalism, equal rights were only to be given to German citizens. "Foreigners" and "aliens" would be denied these rights.

To appeal to the working class and socialists, the programme included several measures that would redistribute income and war profits, profit-sharing in large industries, nationalization of trusts, increases in old-age pensions and free education.

-------

It's like Howard Beale meets a Shepard Fairey poster meets protest.

It's subversively delicious.

*british
*politics
*philosophy
*quality

I know what the word neolib means because I'm the one who invented it, so your accusation that I am misapplying it is erroneous. And I'm very certain that neolibs such as yourself can find any number of excuses to justify knee-jerk opposition to every conservative policies.

But you know what? As far as I'm concerned, you don't need to bother justifying your opposition. You come from an opposing political philosophy. That's perfectly OK with me. What makes America great is that people can oppose their government freely for whatever reason they wish. I support and applaud your particular brand of mindless, propoganda inspired reactionism.

Sadly, this kind of generosity is not mutual on your side. Pelosi, Reed, all the liberal pundits, Obama, his advisors, Gibbs, and just about everyone who opens their mouth on the neolib side of the aisle... They all have suddenly had a change of heart on the issue of freedom of speech and expression since the election. Now, conservative opposition is 'obstructionist', and is even referred to as 'dangerous' and 'counter-productive' to the country. Basically, now that they run the show the neolibs want to kneecap freedom of speech & thought whenever it slows down their agenda, or make 'their guy' look bad.

Pretty sad really. I didn't agree with the tactic when conservatives tried to shut up opposition under the guise of 'patriotism'. I sure as shooting don't agree with it when snooty neolibs are doing it for no reason except to grease the skids of an unpopular political agenda.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

No one said Hitler was a liberal; he was leftist and his party was left. You act as if leftists cannot be militant and violent. History is riddled with leftist governments that were violent and authoritarian. Mao. Stalin.

Being left or right isn't a state of mind. It's a political philosophy of governance. Both are equally capable of despicable horrors.