>> ^Yogi:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
It does feel like they are trying to distance themselves from Romney's stank, but they are also playing up Romney as an underdog victim of a liberal media. I've never known FOX to throw in the towel, so this must be part of some bigger strategy. October surprise?
>> ^Yogi:
Looks like Fox is preparing for when it has to say "Look these candidates sucked, we need better ones!"
Pretty interesting how this election is going to affect the Republican party going forward.


It seems to me that Fox would play the long game. They're not gonna put too many chips anywhere, they're here for keeps.


This would imply that truth, consistency and accuracy really mattered to FOX. Romney goes into the memory hole the day he loses. Bush was president for 8 fucking years and they've manage to wipe all records of his existence at FOX.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

It does feel like they are trying to distance themselves from Romney's stank, but they are also playing up Romney as an underdog victim of a liberal media. I've never known FOX to throw in the towel, so this must be part of some bigger strategy. October surprise?
>> ^Yogi:
Looks like Fox is preparing for when it has to say "Look these candidates sucked, we need better ones!"
Pretty interesting how this election is going to affect the Republican party going forward.



It seems to me that Fox would play the long game. They're not gonna put too many chips anywhere, they're here for keeps.

It does feel like they are trying to distance themselves from Romney's stank, but they are also playing up Romney as an underdog victim of a liberal media. I've never known FOX to throw in the towel, so this must be part of some bigger strategy. October surprise?
>> ^Yogi:

Looks like Fox is preparing for when it has to say "Look these candidates sucked, we need better ones!"
Pretty interesting how this election is going to affect the Republican party going forward.

It does feel like they are trying to distance themselves from Romney's stank, but they are also playing up Romney as an underdog victim of a liberal media. I've never known FOX to throw in the towel, so this must be part of some bigger strategy. October surprise?
In reply to this comment by Yogi:
Looks like Fox is preparing for when it has to say "Look these candidates sucked, we need better ones!"

Pretty interesting how this election is going to affect the Republican party going forward.




(5 years on this site and I still hit profile reply instead of quote on a regular basis. derp.)

What anti-gay supporters seem to fail to realize is that the more situations like this get air time. The more it highlights the issue and the more people really start to think about how stupid it is to deny rights to homosexuals. When people go out of their way to impede homosexuals like that cake shop owner did. It highlights their struggle more and more people eventually sympathize with them. On top of it, everyone loves an underdog.

So please, bring it on. Are there any more anti-gay restaurant CEOs out there? any more local store owners denying service to homosexuals? Let them stand up and be heard.

It also highlights how Sarah Palin's time in the spotlight is over. She's irrelevant.

Right, so..

1.) I never said Ron Paul is some panacea for the world's troubles.

2.) I even admitted that Paul is more or less a racist homophobic religious cuke.

3.) I don't think Paul or any single person should have that much power to begin with.

The fact that we're still stuck with a two-party system in which we vote for one president "in charge of everything"..

..as opposed to 50 governors and local communities making their own decisions for their own goddamn selves is mind-numbing.

Point is:
The immediate effects and sincere discussions that would take place in the wake of such a radical candidate becoming president are the best thing that could happen for the American political process at this conjunction in our history.

For fuck's sake, YOUR AVATAR & GALAXY STAR ARE A GUY FAWKES MASK! You should support a grassroots underdog upheaval like the one Paul represents more than anyone on this site.

Ron Paul represents the chance to reclaim our Foreign Policy from Warmongers; our Economics from Speculators; our Health, Safety, Labor, and Ideas from Robber Barons.

But then again, he did stereotype blacks as fleet-footed so.. I guess you make a good counter-point.
>> ^NetRunner:

Hah. No. Of course not.

I'd liked to remain as status quo-y and entrenched in my beliefs as the Conservative Republicans I like to gripe about.

But it's okay cause I wear & cheer lead for the blue team while I do so.


>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
You got any solutions, bro?
Or just more fallacious arguments?

@NetRunner

I'm genuinely surprised you would think the left has "lost" over the decades, especially after petty tyrant FDR rewrote the US Constitution, distorting the commerce clause to mean government can do anything it wants.

Then again, Jefferson said, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground," and that's EXACTLY what's happened. If Democrats create all of this big government (e.g. like Nixon creating the EPA) and Repubs do nothing to dismantle it and in fact vote to fund it, then effectively both sides are Democrats.

Don't you see? You've WON!

We are a few beats away from becoming a socialist outhouse like Europe. It's nice to declare that everything is "free" by birthright (and great for the politicians that promise it) EXCEPT when there are no more productive souls to pay for the phantasy. GREECE is the word.

>> ^NetRunner:

>>.

To me the worst part about a lot of right-wing assumptions about the left is that they assume we're their mirror image, and project their hostility, dishonesty, ruthlessness, and groupthink onto us.
The truth is, as a group we're too nice, too honest, too forgiving, and too independent, which is why the right ends up eating our lunch so often.
Oh yeah, and they deny that they've ever eaten our lunch. They insist on pretending to be some sort of oppressed underdog, even though they've been effectively running the show for as long as I've been alive.

Granted, I think the radicals in the GOP are definitely bigger douches than radicals in the left, but there's more of a mirror than you're suggesting. The left isn't susceptible to group think?! You're kidding me, right?

Where I do agree with you is the moderate branches on the right have gotten squeezed out of their own party more so than the left. But the radicals on both sides? They're both pretty bad.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Yogi:
You continue to attribute the Left Wing to anything you disagree with and that's simply not the case.

To me the worst part about a lot of right-wing assumptions about the left is that they assume we're their mirror image, and project their hostility, dishonesty, ruthlessness, and groupthink onto us.
The truth is, as a group we're too nice, too honest, too forgiving, and too independent, which is why the right ends up eating our lunch so often.
Oh yeah, and they deny that they've ever eaten our lunch. They insist on pretending to be some sort of oppressed underdog, even though they've been effectively running the show for as long as I've been alive.

Thanks!

Would you believe I felt guilty about saying such mean things after I wrote it?

In reply to this comment by zombieater:
One of the best comments I've read in a long while. Absolutely.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
>> ^Yogi:

You continue to attribute the Left Wing to anything you disagree with and that's simply not the case.


To me the worst part about a lot of right-wing assumptions about the left is that they assume we're their mirror image, and project their hostility, dishonesty, ruthlessness, and groupthink onto us.

The truth is, as a group we're too nice, too honest, too forgiving, and too independent, which is why the right ends up eating our lunch so often.

Oh yeah, and they deny that they've ever eaten our lunch. They insist on pretending to be some sort of oppressed underdog, even though they've been effectively running the show for as long as I've been alive.

One of the best comments I've read in a long while. Absolutely.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
>> ^Yogi:

You continue to attribute the Left Wing to anything you disagree with and that's simply not the case.


To me the worst part about a lot of right-wing assumptions about the left is that they assume we're their mirror image, and project their hostility, dishonesty, ruthlessness, and groupthink onto us.

The truth is, as a group we're too nice, too honest, too forgiving, and too independent, which is why the right ends up eating our lunch so often.

Oh yeah, and they deny that they've ever eaten our lunch. They insist on pretending to be some sort of oppressed underdog, even though they've been effectively running the show for as long as I've been alive.

>> ^Yogi:

You continue to attribute the Left Wing to anything you disagree with and that's simply not the case.


To me the worst part about a lot of right-wing assumptions about the left is that they assume we're their mirror image, and project their hostility, dishonesty, ruthlessness, and groupthink onto us.

The truth is, as a group we're too nice, too honest, too forgiving, and too independent, which is why the right ends up eating our lunch so often.

Oh yeah, and they deny that they've ever eaten our lunch. They insist on pretending to be some sort of oppressed underdog, even though they've been effectively running the show for as long as I've been alive.

http://videosift.com/video/Herman-Cains-9-9-9-plan-Occupy-Wall-Street

@~1:15 "If you take a look at a wealthy person, ALL of the money that is earned... is ultimately going to be spent."

This trickles down how? Be either spending/investing in consumer goods or publicly traded ventures/securities? That's such a weak correlation and yet he makes it sound like it's a foregone conclusion. What about overseas tax shelters and foreign investments? What about the knee-jerk reaction of Wall Street investors to see stock and hold onto cash when the market dips? He does not provide a complete explanation.

. . .


@~2:30 "That money is used to grow the economy, to produce goods, to provide services, to create jobs... they're not using it to benefit themselves, they're using it to benefit society."

Sarcasm -> So when rich people buy things, they aren't doing enjoying it. That's why we say "money can't buy happiness." When they buy that 12th sports car, they're taking on that hardship for their country. Weep. <- end sarcasm. The rest of us need to buy stuff too, and as wages for the middle and lower income majority stagnate or worse, the top tier has enjoyed a boom.
. . .

@~4:10 "Any money that is diverted from savings [read as equities and bond investments in the domestic market] to government is money that would have been used to produce private sector jobs and grow the economy and instead the money goes to the government."

He states that liberals miss the bigger picture when they argue that the top should pay more taxes. He goes on here to describe the government is a black hole, where all taxes are simply wasted. What about social security, medicare and the damn debt? Honestly, it astounds me that he doesn't make the connection between the generally accepted idea that the debt needs to be paid but instead of taxing from more from the most successful individuals, he seems to side with the Republican fiscal policy of accomplishing this through budget cuts alone. This is a contributing factor to global perception America's quality of life: it doesn't even make the top 10 anymore in the Nation Ranking Quality of Life Index.

. . .

@~10:30 "The protesters [OWS] should be protesting the White House. Capital Hill... That's what's failed them. It's not Captialism, but the lack of Capitalism."

So the government is too big, and we need to cut spending and stop over regulating so Capitalism can frolic freely in the forest. Sounds so me like hasty Obama blaming. I think the mortgage-backed securities practices and resulting global crisis are a perfect example of unfettered Capitalism at work. Republicans can't have it both ways, no matter how matter-of-fact you say it. This fallacy is a major sticking point for me and a major contributor to my personal ideological opposition to the Republican viewpoint. All allegations of racism aside, ignoring the shocking gun toting and violent rhetoric of hard-line Tea Party demonstrators, saving all the ridiculous comments made by the GOP candidates recently, I just see the party trying to hide their allegiance to corporations. They do this by forming ludicrous allusions to "the State-run death camps" and distracting people from the real issue of wealth disparity by talking about inflammatory topics like "Don't Ask Don't Tell."

I don't even blindly follow the Democratic dogma. They can't come out of this squeaky clean either. I'd wager they're just about as pampered and subsequently influenced by lobbyists as their Republican counterparts, although they seem to maintain their "just and true, pro-underdog" image to a large extent. I hope OWS results in the end of this corporate crony-ism.

Maybe if Mac's tell themselves they are better enough times it will come true. That seems to be the hope anyway. Then we can be treated to another heroic underdog movie. Joy.

>> ^jmzero:

scumbag academic: "Best theory that Al Quada did 9/11" (doesn't present a shred of evidence)

Meh - he clearly presented the strongest argument against the "conspiracy theory": that it doesn't make any sense. As he explains, it requires tremendous risk, is far from foolproof, requires magical execution, and there's much, much simpler ways to get to the same place. These are the same simple objections that should come up in anyone's mind when presented with this theory.
Why don't you tell us what you think happened and who did what? Don't be a coward and say "well, I don't know what happened, but I know what didn't because of these X things that I don't accept the explanation of". How about you just tell us what happened and why you think that it makes any sense whatsoever? Or, and this is a much bigger task, provide an explanation that makes more sense and fits better with evidence than the official explanation?
Chomsky would love to be able to get behind this kind of conspiracy (or even leave open the possibility) - heaven knows he loves the underdog, and obviously he had no love for Bush - but he's a rational, smart guy.
Now, if you were calling him a scumbag for defending some dictator in the 70s, then whatever - but calling him a scumbag because even he's not willing to get on this crazy bus? You don't know him, or you're nuts. When Chomsky won't even entertain an idea like this, it says something about the idea, not about Chomsky.


What I liked in particular about his reply was the observation that in many scientific experiments you will observe events that perhaps don't make sense or cannot be easily explained. That perhaps is simply a limitation of our current knowledge and in the real world doesn't necessarily imply a vast, rather complex conspiracy that is far more plausible in a comic book.

Maybe it's more about what was allowed to happen, and less about who did what. Ever think of that?

In reply to this comment by jmzero:
scumbag academic: "Best theory that Al Quada did 9/11" (doesn't present a shred of evidence)


Meh - he clearly presented the strongest argument against the "conspiracy theory": that it doesn't make any sense. As he explains, it requires tremendous risk, is far from foolproof, requires magical execution, and there's much, much simpler ways to get to the same place. These are the same simple objections that should come up in anyone's mind when presented with this theory.

Why don't you tell us what you think happened and who did what? Don't be a coward and say "well, I don't know what happened, but I know what didn't because of these X things that I don't accept the explanation of". How about you just tell us what happened and why you think that it makes any sense whatsoever? Or, and this is a much bigger task, provide an explanation that makes more sense and fits better with evidence than the official explanation?

Chomsky would love to be able to get behind this kind of conspiracy (or even leave open the possibility) - heaven knows he loves the underdog, and obviously he had no love for Bush - but he's a rational, smart guy.

Now, if you were calling him a scumbag for defending some dictator in the 70s, then whatever - but calling him a scumbag because even he's not willing to get on this crazy bus? You don't know him, or you're nuts. When Chomsky won't even entertain an idea like this, it says something about the idea, not about Chomsky.