Why do markets allow people to suffer?

1. Better system than capitalism would be a balanced hybrid system of capitalism and socialism controlled by people in a true democracy - as opposed to the plutocratic charade we live under now. Think Finland, Switzerland, Nordic Slavic type social democracies. These systems are infinitely better than our capitalist nightmare by any metric.

2. All the think tanks that tell you what to think are funded by deep corporate pockets. Your guru milton Friedman was chummmy with all the neocons - Reagan, Rummy and some pretty nasty dictators. David Koch was even on the libertarian ticket. Open your eyes to reality, friend.

3. Feudalism is only freedom for the wealthy elite. You don't seem to understand that you have a very subjective and limited concept of 'liberty'.

7. Free market reforms are terrible to labor, as we are seeing right now, where libertarians are calling on American labor to 'get competitive' with Chinese slaves. No fucking thank you.

8. There's no shortage of excuses for your belief system, and never any empirical data. This is why I deride your political beliefs as religious beliefs.

9. It's nice that you used 'Corporatist America' as a way of refuting my contention that European social democracies are superior.

It's amazing to me that someone with such a tenuous grasp on reality could call anyone else ignorant. Time and time again your politics are debunked on this site, only for you to redouble your efforts. I hope one day you are able to overcome your indoctrination.


In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I'm an atheist. When I attribute things to God and say things like, "Why does God allow the his devout followers to suffer?" I don't mean, "Why does the ancient fictional religious construct that you based your life around allow his devout followers to suffer?" What I do mean is, "Why does your personal god that you believe in allow his devout followers to suffer?"

Most atheists, I think, tend to use God in this way, not because they believe in the existence of a personal god, but because it's the widely held understanding of God (if not the original definition). It's irrelevant to our conversation, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. Your analogy is bad, IMO.

And you and I will continue to disagree what free markets are, and that's something I cannot change.

1. The claim was "[A free market] states that altruism and empathy are bad; greed and selfishness are good." That's what I was responding to. Still ridiculous. I've said constant that if you could find a better system than Capitalism, I'd be on board, but there IS NONE. All of this tap dancing around definitions is obfuscation.

2. Patently false. An absolutely disingenuous and false statement. What's pathetic about this comment is how you continue to twist this bastardized government legitimized entity back on free exchanges when we've covered this a billion times. Again, corporations are antithetical to free markets, because they enjoy a government created reduction of competition, government subsidies, corporate welfare, and so on. In short, they enjoy intervention in the marketplace, which is what YOU'RE touting, not me. So, it's YOUR concepts of government that have been and continues to be shaped by corporations?

3. I think people claim the free market is "self-correcting" more than "self-regulation", but that's a digression. But listen to what you wrote. "Claims of freedom, liberty" will spring forth in a free market? Yes. Yes very much. Why, you ask? One must only look to the definition of a free market: the voluntary exchange between people without coercion. That is liberty and freedom on its face. The opposite, your idea of regulated and interventionist markets, is coercive and authoritarian. The opposite of free.

5. Good for them.

7. What? No, I'm saying you're associating things like lowering taxes and "taking away power from labor" with free markets, which is ridiculous.

8. Failed states caused by the failure of statism (and the pilfering of government employed opportunists) is not the free market in action. Nice try.

9. Says you. California is a perfect example. It's struggling at the moment to pay for the huge number of government pensions for those unionized "heros" that retired at age 55 and get 90% of their income for the rest of their long lives. But then just recently the LA city council, a haven for modern liberalism and your capitalist/social-democratic utopia, cleared a 1.2 billion dollar construction project to build a fucking luxury hotel. According to this article, "overtime pay for the Los Angeles Fire Department soared 60 percent over the last decade", and "the department's top earner racked up a total of $570,276 in overtime in the last three years, including $206,685 in 2006." And that's just overtime. I could go on, but I've already been over this with NetRunner. Suffice it to say, this is your utopian hybrid in action, and it's a complete failure. And it's slowly going bankrupt. In fact, California has asked the Federal government repeatedly for a bailout.

Do go on, though. I like to watch you dig that grave a little deeper.

Ignorance is not a moral high ground.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
It's very common in arguments of religion for atheists to attribute things to "God". Why does God cause so much pain and suffering? Why doesn't God heal amputees?, etc. It rolls off the tongue a lot better than 'Why doesn't the ancient fictional religious construct that you based your life around heal amputees.?'

It's not the definition of 'free market' that I question, it's all the wide eyed, miracle elixer promises that are used to entice gullible followers. For instance, there is no evidence that free markets self-regulate. There is no evidence that living under unfettered markets would create a desirable political climate for anyone but the super rich. All that stuff about 'voting with your wallet' is naive.

Free Markets do not equal free people. This is the big lie that gives this ideology its (fake) moral center. Under a free market economy, there would be a huge power imbalance between business and labor, which is why corporations champion (if disengenuously in your eyes) the free market. Deregulation, privatization, gutting social welfare programs and other "Free Market" inspired austerity measures always result in low wages, unemployment, poverty and labor abuse. Free Dumb.

1. Friedman has praised greed. Rand has praised selfishness. You have complained about the dangers of government programs motivated by compassion. Do you dispute this?

2. My point is that corporations, regardless of how you feel about them, are the driving force behind American styled libertarianism. Doesn't it give you a moment of pause that your concept of liberty has been, and continues to be shaped by corporations?

3. Again, it's not the definition I object to, it's the wild ass claims of freedom, liberty, self-regulation and other doctrinal bullshit that is supposed to mysteriously spring forth somehow once a set of arbitrary conditions are met. When I talk about lack of evidence, I'm talking about these pie in the sky promises.

5. It is funny that liberalism and libertarianism have swapped meanings in this country. American libertarians are always so confused when Chomsky calls himself a libertarian.

7. So you are saying that deregulation, privatization and the cutting of social programs would not function as intended if they were implemented by force? Why is that? Can you understand my skepticism when individual elements of free marketism fail on their own, and then I'm told that we need even more elements of free marketism for everything to work correctly? It's like a homeopathic doctor saying "of course these homeopathic remedies are making your cancer worse, you forgot the ginseng. You can't cure cancer without ginseng, silly fool."

8. Failed states with no taxation or government should be free market wonderlands, no? It's a common swipe at free market partisans that never gets addressed. Care to give it a go?

9. The most successful states are currently capitalist/socialist hybrids. We trail behind other states (European states) with a more even balance of state and business. If I believed in utopia, I wouldn't be a liberal, because compassion and empathy would be unnecessary in a true utopia.

http://videosift.com/video/The-evolution-of-empathy

For a rugged individualist, you sure do love your little categories and boxes. Do you ever notice your need to be defined and to define others? I don't share your need for precise definition. I like to keep my options open.

"Ignorance is not a moral high ground." I like this quote, especially when you use it to defend an irrational belief system. I'm stealing this quote.

it's my favorite neocon chickenhawk: Wolfie!

>> ^bcglorf:

<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/Bombs-for-peace-UN-completely-disgraced-in-Libya?loadcomm=1#comment-1173434'>^blankfist</a>:<br />
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/bcglorf" title="member since July 23rd, 2007" class="profilelink">bcglorf</a>, I'm glad you're a fan of war and death and violence. Good for you. You're right up there with the neocons. Kudos.<br> <br> I like how Dennis Kucinich put it, "Bombing villages to save villages, we've been through that in Vietnam." <br> <br> Here's the whole video: <br> <div id="widget_119510214"><script src="http://videosift.com/widget.js?video=193991&width=540&comments=15&minimized=1" type="text/javascript"></script><div style="display: none; margin: 0pt; padding: 5px; width: 550px; height: 562px; background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(79, 179, 226); -moz-border-radius: 5px 5px 5px 5px; border: 1px solid rgb(31, 146, 199);" id="vsvid_370811317"><embed style="display: block; margin: 5px;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sjJWsbAcG_I?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&color2=0x4fb3e2&border=0&rel=0&showsearch=0&iv_load_policy=3" width="540" height="432"><div style="float: left; border: 1px solid rgb(31, 146, 199); background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(167, 217, 240); margin: 5px 5px 0pt 0pt; font-size: 14px; -moz-border-radius: 4px 4px 4px 4px; font-weight: bold; letter-spacing: -1px; font-family: Verdana,Lucida Sans,Helvetica,sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" id="vsvote_370811317"><a rel="nofollow" href="#" title="Sift this video up!" style="text-decoration: none; padding: 3px 5px; color: rgb(31, 146, 199); display: table-cell;">▲ 1</a></div><div style="padding: 3px 5px 0pt 0pt;"><a rel="nofollow" style="text-decoration: none; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; letter-spacing: -1px; font-family: Verdana,Lucida Sans,Helvetica,sans-serif; color: rgb(215, 237, 248);" title="View Full Video and Comment Listing at VideoSift" target="_blank" href="http://videosift.com/video/Kucinich-War-is-a-swamp-Obama-Libya-action-unconstitutiona">Kucinich: War is a swamp, Obama Libya action unconstitutiona</a><a rel="nofollow" style="float: right;" title="Visit VideoSift.com" target="_blank" href="http://videosift.com"> </a></div><div style="height: 0pt; font-size: 0pt; clear: both;"></div><div style="margin-top: 5px; padding: 5px; overflow: auto; width: 540px; max-height: 100px; border: 1px solid rgb(31, 146, 199); background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(167, 217, 240);"><div style="padding-bottom: 5px;"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/video/Kucinich-War-is-a-swamp-Obama-Libya-action-unconstitutiona" target="_blank" title="View Full Video and Comment Listing at VideoSift" style="font-family: tahoma,sans-serif; font-weight: bold; font-size: 10px; color: rgb(31, 146, 199); text-decoration: none;">Showing 1 of 1 Comment</a></div><div style="margin-bottom: 3px; font-size: 10px; font-family: Tahoma,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<div style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(239, 239, 239); border: 1px solid rgb(153, 153, 153); padding: 3px; font-size: 11px;">
A role model for Democrats.
</div>
<div style="font-size: 10px; text-align: right; margin-bottom: 5px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">
written by <strong style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">blankfist</strong>
</div>
</div><a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/video/Kucinich-War-is-a-swamp-Obama-Libya-action-unconstitutiona" target="_blank" title="View Full Video and Comment Listing at VideoSift" style="font-family: tahoma,sans-serif; font-weight: bold; font-size: 10px; color: rgb(31, 146, 199); text-decoration: none;">View Full Video and Comment Listing at VideoSift</a></div><div style="text-align: right; margin-top: 5px;"><div style="float: left; font-family: tahoma,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Logged in as <b><a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/bcglorf" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none; border: 0pt none;">bcglorf</a></b>!</div><a rel="nofollow" style="text-decoration: none; font-size: 11px; font-weight: bold; letter-spacing: -1px; font-family: Verdana,Lucida Sans,Helvetica,sans-serif; color: rgb(167, 217, 240);" href="#">close</a></div><script async="" src="http://videosift.com/widget.js?action=load&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvideosift.com%2Fvideo%2FBombs-for-peace-UN-completely-disgraced-in-Libya%3Floadco

mm%3D1%23comment-1173434&video=193991" type="text/javascript"></script></div><a rel="nofollow" href="#" style="display: table-cell; text-align: center; margin: 0pt; padding: 5px; background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(79, 179, 226); -moz-border-radius: 5px 5px 5px 5px; border: 1px solid rgb(31, 146, 199);" id="vsthm_370811317"> </a></div><script>s=document.createElement('script');s.type='text/javascript';s.src='http://videosift.com/widget.js?video=193991&
;width=540&comments=15
&minimized=1';document.getElementById('widget_119510214').appendChild(s);</script><br></em>
I'm as big a fan of war as you are of genocide.
Or, maybe you should be quite while the big people talk about grown up things.
Do you deny that Gadhafi was in the process of implementing the genocide he promised to commit?


Sorry, I have a hard time understanding the grown ups when they leave comments like this. Or maybe I should just be quite.

blankfist said:
bcglorf, I'm glad you're a fan of war and death and violence. Good for you. You're right up there with the neocons. Kudos.

I'm as big a fan of war as you are of genocide.

Or, maybe you should be quite while the big people talk about grown up things.

Do you deny that Gadhafi was in the process of implementing the genocide he promised to commit?

@bcglorf, I'm glad you're a fan of war and death and violence. Good for you. You're right up there with the neocons. Kudos.

I like how Dennis Kucinich put it, "Bombing villages to save villages, we've been through that in Vietnam."

Here's the whole video:

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
The Libyans are attempting to liberate themselves. By taking air combat out of the equation, the UN is evening the odds. The French gave us assistance in our own American revolution. Why do you oppose liberty in Egypt? Is liberty just for white people? >> ^blankfist:
We pick and choose which civilians we "liberate" these days, and somehow the UN apologists are okay with that.


Because we pick and choose who we "liberate". The comment was rather clear, I thought. I don't oppose liberty anywhere. You're trying to justify your party's warlust. Why did you oppose liberty in Iraq when apparently we were liberating the Iraqis? See how stupid that sounds? This is warmongering and more neocon/Democratic interventionism, dystopianBUSHtoday.
"Is liberty just for white people?"
Yes, liberty is only for Aryan Neo-Nazis in the South. Sigh. Come on, you're smarter and bigger than a comment like that.


Yes, we DO pick and choose who we "liberate". You are right about that. I must say I find it strange you are OPPOSED to the idea of liberating people from living under a dictator that had publicly declared his intent to commit genocide against his own people.

Yes there are plenty of other places in terrible shape that we aren't helping out. Yes, nations are choosing to help in Libya for selfish reasons. Mostly concerns over caring for refugees though, oil is a secondary concern to that cost. It remains that actions in Libya are averting a dictator from committing a genocide he had publicly declared he was going to commit, and was hours from regaining the control needed to get it under way.

Do all you people really oppose stopping a genocide and helping a people oppose a vicious dictator all because those helping are in it for themselves?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The Libyans are attempting to liberate themselves. By taking air combat out of the equation, the UN is evening the odds. The French gave us assistance in our own American revolution. Why do you oppose liberty in Egypt? Is liberty just for white people? >> ^blankfist:
We pick and choose which civilians we "liberate" these days, and somehow the UN apologists are okay with that.



Because we pick and choose who we "liberate". The comment was rather clear, I thought. I don't oppose liberty anywhere. You're trying to justify your party's warlust. Why did you oppose liberty in Iraq when apparently we were liberating the Iraqis? See how stupid that sounds? This is warmongering and more neocon/Democratic interventionism, dystopianBUSHtoday.

"Is liberty just for white people?"

Yes, liberty is only for Aryan Neo-Nazis in the South. Sigh. Come on, you're smarter and bigger than a comment like that.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

@dystopianfuturetoday @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/quantumushroom" title="member since June 22nd, 2006" class="profilelink">quantumushroom
Anyone else can feel free to jump on this question, too, of course.
Why ally yourselves with any party?
I have come to believe that political parties stifle ideas the same way monopolies stifle innovation and competition.
Labeling yourself means a large number of people automatically dismiss anything you have to say. It's why media personalities are so anxious to label people. If someone is a Marxist, a Nazi, a Communist, or a Fascist, there's no need to spend any time arguing against them because very few people will even hear them out, let alone consider what they say. Being labeled Democrat or Republican is not as dramatic, but has a similar effect on some people.
Politicians should be supported on a case-by-case, issue-by-issue basis and under no circumstances should you ever show loyalty to them. They are our servants, not our kings. They should be loyal to us.


This.

Labeling yourself either side makes you an lemming idiot, and therefore dismissible. There is NO possible way that a sane, thinking person, be it man or woman, could agree with everything one side or the other side says or does. It's simply NOT possible. Therefore, labeling yourself either says you're fooling yourself, and thus are a fool.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

Liberals are idiots, as are far right Neocons. They're the bastardization of what our democracy was meant to be, where there can be no in-between.

And so long as you agree with everything they say, they'll consider you open minded...when there isn't a open mind amongst them.

My list

1: Pharmaceutical Industry
2: Textile Industry
3. Religion Industry
4. Psychiatry Industry
5. Tobacco Industry
6. Alcohol Industry
7. Private Prison Industry
8. Gangs/Blackmarket drug industry
9. Military Industry/Neocons - by denying revenue to Anti-American forces in South America and The Middle East

Is ScaifeTV's list similar?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Hey butterbean, thought you might enjoy this from those corporatist scalawags at reason.tv:

http://videosift.com/video/Judge-Jim-Gray-Six-Groups-Who-Profit-From-Drug-Prohibition

Isn't "butterbean" just terribly southern sounding?

But her concept of individualism is so narrow and exclusive. It's neocon, FOX news, classist, selfish individualism. Selfish individualism is nothing to strive for. All the great tyrants of history were selfish individualists. Define individualism for yourself. Ayn Rand is dead. >> ^chilaxe:

People who like being self-starting contributors to humankind will like any individualist movie, and people who hope society will someday better their lives instead of doing it themselves are going to find countless arguments against such movies.

I think things will get worse before they get better. Some of the poorer countries in South America and now the middle east are starting to reject the influence of the US and its puppets. I think this will spread to Europe and when it hits critical mass, we will be forced to change our ways. If some huge crisis (economic collapse, nuclear explosion, resource shortage, global warming related crisis) comes along before that, I think it will go one of two ways. 1) The people will take back their government 2) The powers that be will use the crisis to transform our country into a fascist nightmare, like 911 on steroids.

You and I taking a stand for what we believe in is important, despite the fact that it will probably have little or no effect on the big picture. There are very few in our society willing to speak up about the things we speak up about, and a comment or video on this site might get a few hundred views, which isn't too shabby. If a couple of those hundred people find wisdom in something we say and pass it along, then I think we've done something worthwhile. Also, I don't know about you, but my conscience forces me to speak out. My rants on this site serve as a pressure release valve, keeping me from going insane.

It's also important that we balance positive and happy experiences with our political frustrations. Living in mental misery all of the time is no way to live, but a little sturm and drang is healthy and human, if only because they make the happy days happier by contrast.

As far as our back and forth, we'd probably be better off just stating our position once and then moving on. You are never going to convince me that unfettered markets will self regulate, and I'm never going to convince you that democracy is a force for good. Then again, arguing with you is fun and challenging. It's probably good for the brain. We could also probably stand to be more intellectual and less insulting. We've both grown up in a country where we've been taught by the media that proper political discourse involves shouting and name calling. I'm trying to take a more zen approach to argument. More substance, less ego.

Chris Hedges says there is great virtue in fighting a fight you know you can't win. I agree.


In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Sometimes I think we're arguing different sides to an argument that cannot pan out in either of our favors. If energy is a finite resource, which it has to be, and oil is passing or has passed its peak, then we could be facing the most amazing transformation in human civilization, and all this talk of who builds the roads will be pointless.

Why did the Bush Administration take us into Iraq? Could it be because the neocons know that the world's oil reserve is entering a decline, which means the supply will not meet demand of the industrialized world.
What'll happen when the decline is truly known and felt and understood and accepted? For sure oil prices will skyrocket. $5 a gal. $10 a gal. $150 a gal. More? Maybe way more? Then what happens? Less energy will need to be used, so planes will stop flying, and maintenance will stop, and infrastructure will fail, and soon nations will go bankrupt, including the US.

Then what? Riots. People frustrated with the collapse of the system, and they'll riot. The world will turn dangerous. Peaceful neighborhoods will be places of despair and destruction. A great many people will die around the world. We'll no longer be 7 billion. Then what? Will it matter that I'm arguing against statism? Will socialism still work? Will captialism work? Of course not. Maybe all of this energy we spend arguing and debating will be lost as well.

Sometimes I think we're arguing different sides to an argument that cannot pan out in either of our favors. If energy is a finite resource, which it has to be, and oil is passing or has passed its peak, then we could be facing the most amazing transformation in human civilization, and all this talk of who builds the roads will be pointless.

Why did the Bush Administration take us into Iraq? Could it be because the neocons know that the world's oil reserve is entering a decline, which means the supply will not meet demand of the industrialized world.
What'll happen when the decline is truly known and felt and understood and accepted? For sure oil prices will skyrocket. $5 a gal. $10 a gal. $150 a gal. More? Maybe way more? Then what happens? Less energy will need to be used, so planes will stop flying, and maintenance will stop, and infrastructure will fail, and soon nations will go bankrupt, including the US.

Then what? Riots. People frustrated with the collapse of the system, and they'll riot. The world will turn dangerous. Peaceful neighborhoods will be places of despair and destruction. A great many people will die around the world. We'll no longer be 7 billion. Then what? Will it matter that I'm arguing against statism? Will socialism still work? Will captialism work? Of course not. Maybe all of this energy we spend arguing and debating will be lost as well.

Interesting related wikileak about the use of the 'Muslim Brotherhood" as a Mubarack/NeoCon scapegoat.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/46311

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

How is what these guys said any different than what the 'other guy' says (and gets a pass)?

What I think is different about things like what Angle and Bachmann said is that are incitement of violence.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Politicians since times ancient have grossly extrapolated the actions/policies of their opponents.
[snip]
Bachman wanted people 'armed and dangerous'. Barak Obama wanted people "angry, get in their face, hit back twice as hard, bring a gun". I see no difference.

First, you need to source your Obama quote. I only found this as context:

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

Kinda sounds like it's a metaphor, does it not?

Secondly, that never became any sort of Democratic talking point or campaign slogan. You didn't hear it coming out of the mouths of everyone on the left every 10 seconds for the better part of a year, the way you heard "death panels".

Thirdly, have you followed the link on Bachmann's full quote, and read it in context? If not, here's more:

I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us ‘having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,’ and the people – we the people – are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.

I see the word revolution being used literally. I see talk of losing the country, of losing freedom, in the context of saying "I want people armed and dangerous".

Fourth, have I mentioned that this is in the larger context of falsely accusing Democrats of making up global warming?

So, the Obama quote isn't well sourced, doesn't involve a lie, was pretty transparently a metaphor for traditional electioneering activities, and I suspect if Obama was asked about it today he'd say it was a poor word choice. Bachmann's quote we have audio recordings of, involves a big lie, was pretty clearly about armed insurrection against the legitimate government of the United States, and while I suspect she would say "I didn't mean that", she probably wouldn't confess to any kind of issue with her word choice.

I don't see any equivalence.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Palin's death panel is an exaggeration of the rationed care that IS a part of Obamacare. Similarly, Democrats accuse the GOP of starving people when they want to cut a social program.

Really? Neither statement is true.

First, medical care is a scarce resource, and any system by which we choose to distribute it is by definition "rationing", whether it's a market, or something else, so saying "Obamacare" has "rationing" is a meaningless statement. Even if I grant some special meaning of the word "rationing", there still isn't anything even remotely like Palin's "death panel" in the bill anywhere.

Second, when have Democrats accused Republicans of starving people? To be frank, I wish they would, especially since it's true more often than not. The closest I've seen is Alan Grayson saying that the Republican health care plan is "#1 Don't get sick. #2 If you do get sick, die quickly."

For that one to be true you need to wrap some caveats around it, but basically if you can't afford insurance, or have a preexisting condition, that was totally accurate.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Do I like the overblown rhetoric? No, but it is part and parcel of any vigorous debate.
No normal person takes these statements literally though. And trying to pander to the NOT normal people seems to me an exercise in futility. Moreover, trying to be "PC" using the outliers of society as a standard is an impossible moving target, and rather subject to opinion.

To a large degree, this is a response to an argument I'm not making. I actually really like overblown rhetoric. What I don't like is the way the right imputes sinister motives to the left. It's not just "they're corrupt and beholden to special interests (and sometimes mansluts)", these days it's "they're coming to take your guns, kill your family, make your kids into gay drug addicts, take your house, your job, and piss on the American flag while surrendering to every other nation in the world".

The left is getting pretty coarse about the right, but most of our insults are that Republicans are corrupt and beholden to special interests...and dumb, heartless liars.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
There is no nice way to say this, but you are wrong. They were not, and you know it. There is no GOP candidate who would have survived 5 seconds if they'd been calling for armed rebellion if they lost. That is hyperbole.

I'd love to be wrong about this. I am not. Scroll back up to my first comment here, there are two videos of Republicans calling for armed insurrection if they lose. These two were small potatoes, but Michele Bachmann and Sharron Angle both were saying the same thing, just a little less directly. Rick Perry has been a bit more overt, but also a lot less graphic (talk of secession rather than revolution). Not to bring the Tea Party into this, but they kept showing up with signs talking about "Watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants"

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I put it to you kindly that this opinion is another symptom of perception bias. Would you not agree that from Glenn Beck's perspective his infamous 'chalkboard histories' are an attempt to educate and outreach? And quite frankly, I feel very little sense of 'outreach' or 'education' when liberals call conservatives hateful, angry, evil, nazis, corporate shills, mind numbed robots, neocons, teabaggers, racist, sexist, and bigoted.

No, Beck's not trying outreach with his blackboards. He's painting a false picture of history in which liberalism is about violence and domination, and entirely overrun by a conspiracy of nefarious interests. That's not outreach, that's poisoning the well so that it's impossible for people who think he's illuminating some sort of truth (and to be clear, he is not), to talk to the people who haven't subscribed to Beck's belief that liberalism progressivism is just the new mask the fascists have put on to insinuate themselves into modern society so they can subvert it from within.

It's true that the left isn't engaging in outreach when they're calling you names. I suspect you haven't seen much outreach, given the way you personally tend to approach topics around here. You don't seem like the kind of person who's open to outreach.

That said, if I thought there was a way to show you what I think is good about liberalism, I would do so. I'd be happy to give you my take on what liberals believe and why, if you're genuinely interested in trying to understand the way we think.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Sure - just be sure to allow that both ways. Criticize conservative pundits all you want. But don't get all testy if conservatives criticize liberal ones. And if you try to pin accessory to murder on conservatives, don't be surprised when they get their back up.

Yeah, I didn't. See, the right's been calling us murderers and tyrants quite a bit lately. They've been making the case in countless different ways that government run by Democrats, and especially by Obama is fundamentally illegitimate. Not "something we strongly disagree with" but a total break with the fundamental principles of our government that present a direct threat to people.

Here I personally went one click further and suggested that perhaps this is an intentional strategy to rile up the crazies, so they'll physically intimidate liberals.

Again, I'd love to see someone prove me wrong about that. Ad hominem tu quoque arguments won't really do the job.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
That is because I'm bearding the lion in its metaphorical den, so to speak. The sift is liberally slanted. I'm not. So even when dare to challenge the consensus groupthink - even when done respectfully - I get blowback. I would say that I am incredibly patient, respectful, and moderate in my tone. I rarely (if ever) make things personal. Even when I'm on the receiving end of some rather nasty abuse I tend to keep it civil.

I think then there may be room for me to maybe help understand the kinds of reactions you get.

Part of the issue is a lot of your comments are of the formation "What liberals are saying is utterly, demonstrably, and obviously false, and in fact, they're more guilty of it than the right". You then support your argument with a litany of asserted facts...that you don't source, and are in direct contravention of what was said elsewhere (regardless of whether it'd been sourced or not).

Part of the issue with making an argument purely on challenging facts is that you run headlong into questions about the legitimacy of the source, and those can be some of the ugliest arguments of all, especially if the only source cited is yourself.

I'd recommend trying to make philosophical or moral arguments that don't hinge on the specific circumstances, especially when we're talking about events we only know about from news stories. I find it helps move conversations from heat to light when you shift the discussion to the underlying philosophical disagreement like that.

I also think you'll get farther with making a positive statement about what you believe, than a negative statement about what you believe liberals believe. (i.e. instead of "Liberals just want to boss people around with their nanny state", try "Conservatives are trying to give people more freedom to choose how to run their own lives")

People will likely still disagree with you, but at least there's a chance they'll respond to what you said, rather than just hurl invectives at you.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I don't apologize for being a rare conservative voice in a chorus of liberals, but that doesn't mean that "I" am responsible for 'increased vitriol'. The vitriol comes when people other than myself. I simply present a different point of view.

I don't think you should apologize. However, I also think you have to be willing to accept some responsibility for how people react to what you say. I'm self-aware enough to know that what I say is going to sound inflammatory to some people, and I certainly don't feel like criticism of my own inflammatory speech is somehow an assault on my free speech.

If you're getting a lot of vitriol (and I know you are), and that's not what you want, I think you should examine the way you're presenting yourself rather than assuming it's all the result of some sort of universal liberal intolerance.

This place has a bunch of really thoughtful people who enjoy civil discussion with people who they disagree with. If that's what you want, I gotta say I think you're just pushing the wrong buttons.

Palin - Bachman - et al.

I'm trying to avoid the typical back & forth on this thread. So I'll phrase it like this... How is what these guys said any different than what the 'other guy' says (and gets a pass)? Politicians since times ancient have grossly extrapolated the actions/policies of their opponents. Palin's death panel is an exaggeration of the rationed care that IS a part of Obamacare. Similarly, Democrats accuse the GOP of starving people when they want to cut a social program. Bachman wanted people 'armed and dangerous'. Barak Obama wanted people "angry, get in their face, hit back twice as hard, bring a gun". I see no difference. Do I like the overblown rhetoric? No, but it is part and parcel of any vigorous debate.

No normal person takes these statements literally though. And trying to pander to the NOT normal people seems to me an exercise in futility. Moreover, trying to be "PC" using the outliers of society as a standard is an impossible moving target, and rather subject to opinion.

The right-wing elected officials and candidates were talking about armed rebellion if they lose the election

There is no nice way to say this, but you are wrong. They were not, and you know it. There is no GOP candidate who would have survived 5 seconds if they'd been calling for armed rebellion if they lost. That is hyperbole.

I don't get the same sense of desire for outreach/reformation of liberals. I also don't get the sense of compatibility from them.

I put it to you kindly that this opinion is another symptom of perception bias. Would you not agree that from Glenn Beck's perspective his infamous 'chalkboard histories' are an attempt to educate and outreach? And quite frankly, I feel very little sense of 'outreach' or 'education' when liberals call conservatives hateful, angry, evil, nazis, corporate shills, mind numbed robots, neocons, teabaggers, racist, sexist, and bigoted.

I can condemn anything I want because I have free speech. I also think that there's a lot of validity to the idea that our national discourse has been poisoned with over the top rhetoric.

Sure - just be sure to allow that both ways. Criticize conservative pundits all you want. But don't get all testy if conservatives criticize liberal ones. And if you try to pin accessory to murder on conservatives, don't be surprised when they get their back up.

You...increase vitriol

That is because I'm bearding the lion in its metaphorical den, so to speak. The sift is liberally slanted. I'm not. So even when dare to challenge the consensus groupthink - even when done respectfully - I get blowback. I would say that I am incredibly patient, respectful, and moderate in my tone. I rarely (if ever) make things personal. Even when I'm on the receiving end of some rather nasty abuse I tend to keep it civil. I don't apologize for being a rare conservative voice in a chorus of liberals, but that doesn't mean that "I" am responsible for 'increased vitriol'. The vitriol comes when people other than myself. I simply present a different point of view.

I really think that's what is happening in the 'national discourse' too. Two sides collide. They don't like each other. If they dare (DAARE!) to present their perspective, they get jumped on like black on a bowling ball. The media in particular is hypersensitive to this, because it gives them ratings. Politicians love it too, because 'going negative' gets votes.