>> ^Fletch:

>> ^Yogi:

Reagan wasn't a liberal though...the last liberal president was Nixon. Yeah not exactly better.
That's why liberal was in quotes. Neocons can't say tax-and-spend without the "liberal", as if they're one and the same. What I'm saying is that when he spent money, he paid for it through taxes instead of just borrowing and spending like repugs do nowadays.


No YOU shut up!

...wait what?

>> ^Yogi:


Reagan wasn't a liberal though...the last liberal president was Nixon. Yeah not exactly better.
That's why liberal was in quotes. Neocons can't say tax-and-spend without the "liberal", as if they're one and the same. What I'm saying is that when he spent money, he paid for it through taxes instead of just borrowing and spending like repugs do nowadays.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

I said neolib, not neo liberal. I invented the word. It is a catchall word to denigratingly refer to anyone who holds any sort of leftist philosophy. It is to be used the same way as liberals use the word neocon to refer to denigratingly to anyone that is conservative, even though the actual definition of a neocon is a democrat who supports the military.


You're such a pluricratist.

I said neolib, not neo liberal. I invented the word. It is a catchall word to denigratingly refer to anyone who holds any sort of leftist philosophy. It is to be used the same way as liberals use the word neocon to refer to denigratingly to anyone that is conservative, even though the actual definition of a neocon is a democrat who supports the military.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Corporatist idiots.


Speaking of corporatists, why is it he seems to get left out of the debate when the corporate media covers the primaries? Obama gets plenty of attention from the corporate media, and so do the neocons and dominionists from the GOP.

For example, this article just came out yesterday. Ron Paul polled in 2nd place, but the headline reads: "Poll: Romney leads New Hampshire, Huntsman in third, Perry in fourth". Looks like the big corporatists are afraid of Paul yet love them some Obama. They practically pitched Obama into the White House like a softball to the voter's.

Progressives and Neocons sitting in a tree. K-I-S-S-I-N-G.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Honestly, that's kinda a pretty juvenile comeback. I expected better from you

I promise to internet to your liking next time.
>> ^ChaosEngine:
That analogy is wrong for all kinds of reasons. Firstly, the bully doesn't use your money to build services you can use.

Most of the federal government services I can't use either. War. Unilateral hegemony. Nation-building. Corporate welfare. Etc. Can you?
>> ^ChaosEngine:
You are free to not pay taxes to your government, you are just not entitled to do so while under the protection of that nation. If you do not wish to pay taxes to the US government, you are entitled to leave the nation and live somewhere else.

Emphasis mine. This is what's awesome about your comment: Isn't it always people like you (statist) that say if I don't like the system then get involved and change it? But here I'm doing that and pointing out a major flaw in "our" representational government, that the government is claiming it's spending more than it earns and spending the majority of that money on things the people no longer want, yet you tell me that I need to like it or get the hell out.
You know how many redneck neocons I've met in my life that have told me the same thing? Congratulations.
>> ^ChaosEngine:
If you don't like all the things your taxes pay for, at least stop being a hypocrite and using them. So, to start with, get off the internet (designed by DARPA and CERN, both tax funded agencies).

Translation: "If you don't like the services you're forced to pay for, you should stop using them but keep paying them!"
How about instead I could stop spending that money on... War. Hegemony. Imperialism. Corporatism. Crony capitalism. That option not good enough for you? You'd much rather I GTFO of the country?
And yet the real point of all this is you say the collection of funds is what's important, not what it's spent on. I think that's dangerous. Who cares how they collect. I care more about what this so called "representational government" spends that money on. I'm a bit disconcerted you don't.


You are more than welcome to campaign against war, imperialism, etc. I'm actually right behind you on those issues. But you don't get to just decide not to contribute at all to society.

And I never said that what it's spent on less important than how it's collected. The two are orthogonal. I said I don't have an issue with paying taxes. I have have all kinds of problems with how it's spent.

In fact I pretty much said the direct opposite of what you claimed I said. I buy into the social contract by paying taxes, voting and so on.

You're not "pointing out a major flaw", you just want to throw your toys out of the pram without contributing at all. I think you missed the "without representation" part of "no taxation without representation".

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Honestly, that's kinda a pretty juvenile comeback. I expected better from you


I promise to internet to your liking next time.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

That analogy is wrong for all kinds of reasons. Firstly, the bully doesn't use your money to build services you can use.


Most of the federal government services I can't use either. War. Unilateral hegemony. Nation-building. Corporate welfare. Etc. Can you?

>> ^ChaosEngine:

You are free to not pay taxes to your government, you are just not entitled to do so while under the protection of that nation. If you do not wish to pay taxes to the US government, you are entitled to leave the nation and live somewhere else.


Emphasis mine. This is what's awesome about your comment: Isn't it always people like you (statist) that say if I don't like the system then get involved and change it? But here I'm doing that and pointing out a major flaw in "our" representational government, that the government is claiming it's spending more than it earns and spending the majority of that money on things the people no longer want, yet you tell me that I need to like it or get the hell out.

You know how many redneck neocons I've met in my life that have told me the same thing? Congratulations.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

If you don't like all the things your taxes pay for, at least stop being a hypocrite and using them. So, to start with, get off the internet (designed by DARPA and CERN, both tax funded agencies).


Translation: "If you don't like the services you're forced to pay for, you should stop using them but keep paying them!"

How about instead I could stop spending that money on... War. Hegemony. Imperialism. Corporatism. Crony capitalism. That option not good enough for you? You'd much rather I GTFO of the country?

And yet the real point of all this is you say the collection of funds is what's important, not what it's spent on. I think that's dangerous. Who cares how they collect. I care more about what this so called "representational government" spends that money on. I'm a bit disconcerted you don't.

>> ^hpqp:

@marbles
You really are an "either/or" kind of person aren't you. Either we adhere to your paranoid conspiracy theories or we are the brainwashed mouthpieces of the guv'mint propaganda and fully support the violence and death caused by America's wars.
Sure there are Al Qaeda elements amongst the Lybian rebels, geopolitics is a messy thing. But to go from there to saying that the Arab Spring uprisings is some mass conspiracy takes the kind of singleminded ignorance that conspiracy theorists and religious fanatics have in common.
"You're either with us or against us" may be good enough for Jesus, W. Bush and conspiracy nuts, but the rest of us like to have a nuanced view of things.
As for Tapley: "The notion of anthropogenic global warming is a fraud." ( The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off 2009). Sounds very much like denialism to me.


No, I just try to see the world for what it is. Cut through the bullshit, and find the truth. Regurgitating talking points from sources that over and over lie to me just seems like a fool's errand, but you find solace in being a dis-info/government apologist.

I guess that makes you an "I know, but" kind of person: I know Obama said he was going to end the wars, but we've got finish what Bush started. I know we've killed millions of people, but we're trying to spread democracy. I know we armed and supported Al-qaeda rebels in Libya (remnants of the same ones attacking US troops in Iraq), but "geopolitics is a messy thing". The list is endless.

And "you're either with us or against us" is the same motto used by "progressive" war-mongers like Obama, Hillary, and Reid, not just neocons. I think the real problem is you're just hostile toward the truth whenever it exposes your false reality, whenever it bursts your blissful ignorance of illusion.

And for Tarpley, of course it sounds like "denialism" to you. Narrow-minded government sycophants would equate the two as the same.

>> ^MrFisk: But you can't seriously mean that "the rest are usually more subtle and inconsistent" and that that suggests some sort of ulterior bias in favor of the Democratic party.



Why can't I? The same networks that for 24/7 attacked Bush and the neocon agenda now defend nearly the same policies by Obama. So were they blindly attacking Bush then, or blindly defending Obama now? Or maybe it's both and they just serve a bigger purpose: To divide the populace.


>> ^MrFisk: What, exactly, do you mean by "mouthpiece of the state" and "centrally planned news coverage?"


I said mouthpiece for the state. And I mean their main functions are to be apologists and propagandists for the government/oligarchy.

"centrally planned news coverage" is explained at around 2:30 in this video. That's the way all mainstream networks operate.

I'm quite proud of my home state this weekend; or at least I was until I saw them chanting "USA! USA! USA!" like a bunch of neocon warmongers. That was a bit embarrassing.

I kid, though. Great day for NY. If they can ever get their cost of living under control, maybe I'll move back.

This was mine... http://videosift.com/video/GTV-Empire-Republic-The-Neocons-Part-1

>> ^jmd:

petpeeved, your argument is fairly hollow. This incident may have been drug related, but the firefight itself was allowed to happen because the cities security is no where near the level as ours. With our level of police work we could have mexico cleaned up pretty damn tidy. I mean we are by no means clean as a whistle, but you really don't see acres of hemp and weed being grown in the US. US's drug problems is that of importing, not production. Mexico has corrupt gov, officials, and a lacking police force to police their land and thus the drug cartels have made it their home.


It's their own damn fault for being too poor to pay for proper policing! We shouldn't feel bad at all for our massive demand that we are preventing ourselves from fulfilling.

Echoes of neocon elitism.

You're easy to confuse with a racist neocon fuckstick. Just say'n.
>> ^quantumushroom:

Well, they're easy to confuse. Both attended muslim schools. Both hate the USA. Both damaged the US economy, and both want(ed) the US out of the Middle East.

Normally rationalizing people's rights away is a neocon tactic. Glad to see you adopting it, @NetRunner. Telling.