I know blankfist is a douchebag and all, but I'm thinking he tagged it Fear because of the homophobia of gay rights opponents.

But let's not forget that he is a douchebag.>> ^bareboards2:

Channels are a bit of an ink blot test. To me, this was a Happy video. To blankfist, it is Fear.
It's both, of course. Still. It makes me VERY HAPPY.

>> ^blankfist:
fear controversy

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
American market Libertarians get hand outs as well. Their think tanks are funded by the same people who fund right wing think tanks.


Sadly, tis true. But unlike GOP, we don't believe in contradiction like taxcuts for the wealthy (I.e. kickbacks.) or bailouts (I.e. kickbacks.) There is no "women's" rights issues, or gay rights issues, or all that other crap in a libertarian (I.e. ,assive pot crackdowns!) There are severe limits to a lib, but not like the GOP.

>> ^Matthu:

>> ^Fantomas:
>> ^Golgi:
someone should really tell the authorities 4chan about this.

Are you kidding? They would find this hilarious. 4chan uses the N word like candy.

Unfair...
/b/tards also willingly call themselves fags. I'm not entirely sure how to describe what goes on with those 2 words, faggot and nigger, but it's not biggotry and racism. /b/ might be insensitive, but I'm sure the vast majority are for gay rights. Prejudice against black people is a little different and I think goes a lot deeper, but I think most of them know right from wrong.


I know what you mean, I did sift this video. But this is just a racist idiot shouting epithets. /b/ wouldn't care.

Although, they may make her life hell just for the fun of it.

>> ^Fantomas:

>> ^Golgi:
someone should really tell the authorities 4chan about this.

Are you kidding? They would find this hilarious. 4chan uses the N word like candy.


Unfair...

/b/tards also willingly call themselves fags. I'm not entirely sure how to describe what goes on with those 2 words, faggot and nigger, but it's not biggotry and racism. /b/ might be insensitive, but I'm sure the vast majority are for gay rights. Prejudice against black people is a little different and I think goes a lot deeper, but I think most of them know right from wrong.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

Okay, but the video really has nothing to do with this. Are you saying we could watch an hour-long interview with some physicist about space-time, and as long as he just mentions marrying a shoe, it should have the gay tag?
>> ^Zonbie:
promote! was going to post this also this is about money.
The last ten seconds is The Rent Is Too Damn High Parties response to it's view on Gay marriage
Priceless!



Well, feel free to change it, The questions as always with politics covered a wide area of topic and gay rights was one, so I threw it in there. If you don't think it fits, then please reassign by all means.

"When did you choose not to be a serial killer?"

"Erm... I didn't."

"So clearly being a serial killer is not a choice."


I support gay rights, but I don't think the logic espoused in this video is really worth anything. If people see homosexuality as a deficiency, then it's just one of many aberrant behaviors that people choose not to have _by default_.

>> ^HadouKen24:

I can't help but wonder ... whether his choosing to come out is part of a larger strategy to reform the Republican image on gay rights.


Yes, they want to make sure that America knows that they're too busy hating Muslims, blacks and latinos to hate gay people too much any more.

They haven't changed their position, they just know gay-bashing doesn't poll as well as it used to. They're playing to their core strengths right now -- you know, racial and religious bigotry.

I can't help but wonder, given the rather low-key Republican response to the recent court findings on Prop 8, whether his choosing to come out is part of a larger strategy to reform the Republican image on gay rights.

>> ^gwiz665:

How do you know these eagle-men are gay? They're just a bunch of guys with lots of muscles all oiled up and dancing together.. that's not gay... right?


If that's gay, then I don't wanna be straight.

How do you know these eagle-men are gay? They're just a bunch of guys with lots of muscles all oiled up and dancing together.. that's not gay... right?

The Democrats and Republicans are no longer "for the people" They are for themselves

It seems to me that the Tea Party sprung up from teh Ron Paul supporters that desired to bring back constitutional based government.

Speaking of Bob Barr. The Libertarian part are about personal choice. So if they dismantle programs / laws at the Federal level like: Abortion, Gay rights, School prayer Federal mandated school agenda,. Then it would become STATES rights, where it belongs anyway.

@quantumushroom

Really? Reagan? I see you've bought into an incorrect historical narrative, a.k.a myth, that paints Reagan as some sort of conservative/libertarian god. Allow me to type some stuff that you won't believe because you're clearly in some sort of fantasy land, but is true anyway.

The economic model put into place during the Reagan years (supply-side economics) was, to put it bluntly, a one-hit wonder. It worked in that situation, in that time, and it has "worked" pretty well until recently, though its collapse has been fairly inevitable.

Our legal tender law forces everyone to use our governmentt-issued fiat currency. This combined with our fractional reserve banking system is what allows Reaganomics to seem like a good idea. All of our money is debt. If everyone (including the government) paid back all their debt there would be no money. So, when you vastly increase the national debt (defense spending in Reagan's case), there is more money(debt) created. Banks create money(debt) from nothing when someone signs a piece of paper promising to pay the money back with interest. When there's more money(debt) in the system, it's a lot easier to get credit and therefore easier to start businesses, etc. Combine this with low taxes and corporations will invest in factories and such and create jobs.

That's the logic, anyway.

Problem is, the reality of what has actually occurred as a result of supply-side policy is vastly different. The frustrations expressed in this video are a direct result of that. Really, since legal tender law was passed under Nixon, we've had a series of boom/bust failures in our economic system that everyone's pissed about in one way or another. This includes all subsequent administrations regardless of political affiliation.

We can go through all the stuff...the 1987 stock market meltdown, the S&L crisis, the creation of complex speculative financial instruments, the Financial Services Modernization Act...the list goes on. This stuff occurred under Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush again. It's not a Democrat vs. Republican thing. It's not a Right/Left thing. Until you open your mind to realizing that, you're going to be effectively asleep.

Most people don't even know how to express their problem with what's going on economically in our country, and so you have this sort of general anger that's let out in various ways. Tea party, Obama haters, Bush haters, etc. None of that matters, though...none of these (important) social issues like abortion, gun rights, gay rights, etc, really matter until our money system is reconstructed in a way that jives with reality and sustainability.

>> ^RedSky:

As it is now, I think in the vast majority of regions he is right, businesses who if given the chance would exclude black people, would be shooting themselves in the foot. Not to mention, ultimately given that most people today aren't racist, as a minority would you want to inadvertently end up working under someone who is racist?
Much of the campaigning against gay rights tries to tap into this same fear and misunderstanding. Think of that vague 'a storm is gathering' ad campaign, or the notion that legalising gay marriage will encourage homosexuality or even lead directly to bestiality or polygamy: fear mongering or patently ridiculous for anyone grounded in reality but potentially highly plausible for someone who has grown up in a very religiously fundamentalist region.


I think that's the real problem with what Rand's saying. What racism remains has been largely been driven underground by the law, and broadly speaking by public opinion, though without the law I'm sure you'd find white/black segregation creeping back in certain localized areas.

The more modern bigotry against gays, Muslims, Arabs, and Latinos would love to come out into the light of day if we got rid of the prohibition on discrimination in privately owned business.

Yes, it's a stupid thing to do, economically speaking, but that certainly doesn't mean a lot of small businesses wouldn't do it. Hell, they may even attract more business in some areas as the bigots come out of the woodwork to support the racist policy (see the "buycott" efforts from some quarters to counter the boycott of Arizona over its immigration policy for an example).

I was surprised that he didn't even manage to clearly articulate the libertarian view on this kind of thing. Did he not think it would come up?

I find it difficult to disagree or agree with him, not on the historical context he gives which I don't know much about but on the principle. I would presume in the vast majority of regions in the US, institutional racism simply doesn't exist any more. Sure, there's the crackpot here and there who's openly racist, there's the few here and there that harbor racist thoughts but on the whole it's simply not there.

I think the Civil Rights Act as it was, applying to both public and private entities served a purpose. It made people come together and realize that much of the animosity was more fear of the unknown and a lack of intercommunication between two cultures that had simply grown apart. Heck, there's a whole litany of (terrible) black/white buddy cop movies that symbolize bridging this gap. So I don't think that it was really the legislation that changed the state of society but the effect that forcing two cultures to become accustomed to each other had on perceptions. As it is now, I think in the vast majority of regions he is right, businesses who if given the chance would exclude black people, would be shooting themselves in the foot. Not to mention, ultimately given that most people today aren't racist, as a minority would you want to inadvertently end up working under someone who is racist?

Much of the campaigning against gay rights tries to tap into this same fear and misunderstanding. Think of that vague 'a storm is gathering' ad campaign, or the notion that legalising gay marriage will encourage homosexuality or even lead directly to bestiality or polygamy: fear mongering or patently ridiculous for anyone grounded in reality but potentially highly plausible for someone who has grown up in a very religiously fundamentalist region.

I totally disagree with you. I get being pissed that things haven't changed enough but I think it's just that America is a slow turning ship, not that Obama has left things on Bush's same shitty course.

Specifically:

1) Obama is just as bad in military spending?

   If you're handed 2 wars your first day in office you think you can cut spending within the first year?

2) Obama is just as bad in staying in Iraq?

   Obama gave an exit deadline and plan 2 months into office. Bush just promised we'd leave over and over but refuse to gave a date because it would "embolden the insurgents". wiki. What the hell do you expect from the guy?

3) Obama is just as bad in number of dead soldiers?

   No. I'm not even going to look up stats.

4) Obama is just as bad in doing things in the name of empire?

   Bush's rhetoric was all about empire and if you looked under the surface he and Cheney's motives were allot worse. You can make a case that America has done nasty things in the name of empire from Manifest Destiny through the banana wars to the dirty wars and into the present but I've never heard the case that Obama agrees with that path much less that he could be considered in the same galaxy as Bush/Cheney in that regard.

5) Obama is just as bad in terms of don't ask don't tell?

   I doubt Bush would want to change don't ask don't tell. Obama said he will but didn't give a date. I'd assume he doesn't want to do it before midterm elections because homophobia might lose some democratic seats in congress doing gay rights no overall favors.

6) Obama is just as bad in terms of Gitmo?

   He started closing Gitmo right away: wikipedia - but Bush left a bigger mess than he thought (no records).


>> ^joedirt:

>> ^alizarin:
Great speech, whoever edited the video went a little cuckoo though - How you could hear that speech and think pictures of "Obama" instead of pictures of "Bush" is beyond me.

Because Obama is just as bad in terms of miliary spending and staying in Iraq and Gitmo and the number of soldiers dead in the name of Empire.
Go ahead and tell me how Obama did anything in Iraq different from what Bush had planned. Including Dont Ask Dont Tell. Name one timeline that Obama accelerated.


All this is way way too slow but I think this is just as fast as it gets until you convince the rest of the country to agree faster.