@newtboy
i agree with you but consider a few things:
1.for the first time bob is actually engaging and revealing where his perspective originates.(which came as no shock,to anyone).now we can disagree on his position but understanding how he got to that position gives an opportunity to disseminate the particulars.

this is a good thing.

2.while bob's breakdown of the political spectrum is extremely,overly simplified and his understanding of socialism vs corporatism is staggeringly..wrong..it begs the question ..why does bob have it so wrong?

which he answers by where he gets the majority of his information.i dont necessarily blame bob for this but rather the institutions and media outlets he gives authority.

bob is not the exception but rather the rule.people tend to congregate and gravitate towards those who speak in the language they,themselves,can relate to.this is why FOX is so successful and why every other 24 hr news channel has tried to copy their success.

FOX appeals to the emotional rather than the rational.they pound a message for entire news cycles with little or no actual analysis of very complicated issues.there IS actual news hidden in there but it gets drowned out by the screaming apologists who just seek to perpetuate their own agenda and/or popularity.the hyper-partisanship alone is reason enough to never watch FOX.

most americans do not have the time to do a research paper every night,and the majority never made it past 9th grade civics.so they tune in to 5 minute soundbites that appeal to their own emotionally triggered prejudices.presented by vapid pretty people who are the exact opposite of a journalist.

they ALL do it.every 24hr news channel does it,FOX just does it better.

3.the fact that bob frequents a predominantly secular-left site should be an indicator that he is not as partisan as he appears in many of his comments.he comes here to see what the "lefties" find important and their take on current events.

the problem always arises when people assume that if given all the information,everybody will all come to same conclusion.

which is untrue.

but to come to a rational and reasonable conclusion we must have the information ...all of it...we may still disagree in the end but at least the discussion is founded on even ground and not polluted by propaganda and politics.

the hyper partisanship has got to stop.it only serves those who wish to divide and conquer.

4.the tea party in the beginning was pretty amazing and,ironically,had a very similar message that occupy wall street had.remember what was going on when the tea partiers first exploded on the scene?

the wall street bailout.

now they were eventually co-opted by the very power structure that they originally protested against..ironical..but if you look at the history of mass movements the powered elite were using an old playbook in that regard.

ugh..you got me writing a damn lecture newt!

let me just conclude that i am glad bob is engaging on much more personal level and i hope he continues.
will bob and i still disagree? most likely

As you wrote " As has been mentioned above, you must simply have no idea what socialism is if you think America is even headed in that direction, we're headed the other way buddy" shows your lack of understanding of political systems.

You can 100% government control on 1 side and 0 government power at the other end

At the 100% you would have labels such as Communism
Socialism,Fascism and such. At 0 would be Anarchy


Our government is in the middle but sliding towards more and more government control and morphing into some for of Oligarchy by buying votes via socialist programs promised by the left.
Then the pudendum swing back and the republicans buy votes by promising to "undue" what the left has done.

Either way the people loose because nothing get totally undone. More and more government control ensues.



1 Yes I would like there to be ZERO dollars donations by corporations and people. Since the government owns public airways and grants them via FCC, hence ABC, CBS, NBC etc let these station allot public time for equal debate for ALL parties and persons. TAKE the money out of politics.

2 I do agree what you indicated by the Republicans and did this week was reprehensible. A passing a trillion + bill and and worse the extra "shit" to help banks and such. But to be fair to republicans , Democrats over screw corporations and republicans attempt to unscrew them.

3 school lunches - Government should not be in regulating school lunch- it should be a local thing. Republicans are just undoing Michelle Obama failed school lunch program. Just more finger pointing points for bloggers to use.

4 Federal government controls the laws in DC Its their little kingdom. They can re ban pot all day long.

Generally speaking there are 5 types of government:
Monarchy - rule by one - never truly exits
Oligarchy - ruled by few - most governments today
Democracy- rule by majority - Majority rule is a failed system.
Republic- rule by law - Law limits Government powers
Anarchy - every man for himself- Always short lived due to power vacuum.


You say " America is sliding away from socialism, and into corporatism" Well they are basically neighbors in the political spectrum which would be some form of Oligarchy. Neither necessary serve the people freely.


Both Democrats and Republicans are sliding headlong towards Oligarchy. One party is just trying to get there quicker than the other party.


Both parities have utterly failed its people. There is only 1 party that desires to steer this country back towards a Republic and that is the TEA party. They get stronger and stronger every time their party fail its constituents. Were not all right wing lynching nuts. That's just a myth promoted by left wing media to color you thinking to stay on the Democrat plantation.
Truth of the matter is that four in 10 Tea Party members are either Democrats or Independents. Go to a rally and see for you self.

Has Rage Man ever considered running for office? I think he could really fire up a Tea Party rally!

Well, OK....if you live(d) there you DO know it better than I. I have family near by, and have driven through many times. It always seemed far more 'conservative' than you say, but again, I never lived there, I'm just going by fleeting impressions and second hand info.
What set me off was 2 part...first that you didn't bother to watch the video but still commented on it as if you had (not so bad a thing, but odd), and second the implication that anti-homeless laws were a 'LIBERAL' thing and not a 'CONSERVATIVE' thing, because the videos shown/seen have clearly shown the opposite. Apologies if I went overboard.
The one's on film saying 'feeding them is keeping them homeless' or 'we don't want homeless people here, period, and anything that removes them or makes them uncomfortable is what we want' have all been republican/tea party elderly white people. It may be they're the outliers and it really IS a 'liberal' plan, but I ask you, which 'party' does the chairman of the Miami-Dade County Homeless Trust belong to (I honestly don't know)? (I must admit I was really surprised to see the mayor is a Democrat).
So, while you seem to be at least partially correct (maybe totally), I hope you understand why I was (apparently) mistaken, since all the vocal people out there promoting starving the homeless are conservatives.
Where I live, it's a 'liberal' bastion, and we DO feed the homeless here along with other services they're offered, and we have a very vocal 'conservative' population that wants to do exactly what Ft Lauderdale did, make feeding them or offering ANY service illegal, including police and medical services. They're pretty hard core about it.

Yes, I think it was about 'starve the poor' as a method of removing them from sight, either by death or (more likely) displacement. It's not so much they want them dead, it's just they don't care if that's what it takes to remove them. That in itself SEEMS to be a 'conservative' mindset, not 'liberal'.
...but perhaps a Florida 'liberal democrat' is more right wing than a West coast 'conservative republican'?

Ahh, and we all live in a cesspool of retards and liars. Never forget! ;-)

Teabaggers are not 'affiliated' with the Libertarian Party? WOW! That's not what I see. When I see 'Libertarian' rallies on TV or at my local court house, they are filled with idiots in tri corner hats with tea bags attached and with poorly spelled signs saying things like 'keep your guverment hands of my medicare' and 'get the fed away from my soshial security' and "No Moar Regulashuns". Perhaps the "Tea Party" party has technically 'joined' the Republicans, but many Teabaggers are Libertarian, and nearly all are libertarian.
Actually I think you asked if I heard the idiot in the video say it...but I get your point, you obviously believe as he does. At the same time, you complained that:
" Is it the limited liability, wherein BP was able to cause billions of dollars in damage, but because US law protects corporate liability, they only had to pay in the hundred of millions? Or the corporate tax loopholes? Or the corporate welfare they receive in taxpayer subsidies? Or how too-big-to-fail corps have their loses socialized by us, and their wins privatized?"...seeming to call for better regulations that would stop those issues. IF that's what you were saying, I could agree with you, but you are now backing away from that interpretation of what you said...so what DID you mean by all that...that those things are terrible, and will be solved by removing government regulation and enforcement? If THAT'S what you mean, please explain how that works.

EDIT: I see, the issue here is you've swallowed the 'corporate power/irresponsibility comes solely from the government, and will only be solved by removing government' idea hook line and sinker. I have not. I do not see the problem of corporate misconduct being solved, or even helped by less regulation/oversight. The very idea flies in the face of logic, just like the 'self regulation' fallacy.
Never happened, never will. Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha!

@newtboy: "I WAS libertarian before the Teabaggers insanity infected them and they became the party of NO government."

Hmmmmmm. Seems specious. Are you talking about the Libertarian Party? Or the Republican Party, which is where the Tea Party's political affiliations are aligned? Because you do realize there's a different between small "l" libertarians, which is the political philosophy, and big "L" Libertarians, which is the party... and Tea Partiers, which are Republicans.


"The owners of corporations may derive some legal shielding thanks to their relationship with government and/or the law regarding who/what is legally responsible for who/what's actions, they are not creations of it in the way he insists."

Some legal shielding? Which of these corporate protections offered and legitimized by the government is "some" of the shielding? Is it the limited liability, wherein BP was able to cause billions of dollars in damage, but because US law protects corporate liability, they only had to pay in the hundred of millions? Or the corporate tax loopholes? Or the corporate welfare they receive in taxpayer subsidies? Or how too-big-to-fail corps have their loses socialized by us, and their wins privatized?

Because that seems more than just "some legal shielding."

Same Harris' response to the whole affair: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/can-liberalism-be-saved-from-itself

I do think that it's important while pointing out these things, one also needs to point out that here in the US at least, over half the Christians claim to be pro-life while supporting the death penalty, encouraging war, and being against programs that help the needy and the poor, or at least that's how they vote. And here perhaps Maher and Harris fail...I think it's fairly obvious all religion is bad. Christianity spread by the sword, forcing Europe to convert from their Pagan ways, eventually offering to integrate aspects of Pagan holidays into Christian ones to make it more enticing. Convert or die may not be practiced in Christianity much now, but public shaming if you leave Christianity and bigotry to those of other religions or lack of faith is very real. Several polls have shown that most Christians would prefer to elect a Muslim over an Atheist even if they are otherwise the same. And many still seem to believe in that religion should be pushed, not just something tolerated and allowed... of course I admit I'm a bit colored and biased by the fact I'm surrounded by the Tea Party/Fox News type Christians pretty much everywhere I go, home, a bit at work... Were I to escape being around them so much, I'd probably soften my view a bit.

Objectivism doesn't ally very well with the current GOP party, actually. Objectivism is very much against gov't cronyism. Also, Objectivism is extremely liberal on social issues.

It is true that Objectivism is very closely aligned with libertarianism, but that ain't the Tea Party socially.

" @ Ant and everybody else;

Hello, Grammar Warrior! It doesn't matter! I'm eleven, [yeah, yeah.] At least they aren't typing like this;
lol u so stupid if ur a grammar nazi sooo stupid I mean like omg smh!
Text slang sucks, I know.
But these are simple typos. Newtboy made a mistake by typing it's instead of its? Hey, let's start a war!
Shut up, and thank you...

... TEA PARTY ANYONE? " .


Now that you are Eleven you can learn to read the terms of service/usage agreement.

Section Ch.0.g.g.I of the act

Personal Use

The Service is made available to you for your personal use only. Due to the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (which is available at http://www.ftc.gov/ogc/coppa1.htm), you must be at least thirteen (13) years of age to use this Service. You must provide current, accurate identification, contact, and other information that may be required as part of the registration process and/or continued use of the Service. You are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of your Service password and account, and are responsible for all activities that occur thereunder. VideoSift reserves the right to refuse service to anyone at any time without notice for any reason.

@ Ant and everybody else;

Hello, Grammar Warrior! It doesn't matter! I'm eleven, [yeah, yeah.] At least they aren't typing like this;
lol u so stupid if ur a grammar nazi sooo stupid I mean like omg smh!
Text slang sucks, I know.
But these are simple typos. Newtboy made a mistake by typing it's instead of its? Hey, let's start a war!
Shut up, and thank you...

... TEA PARTY ANYONE?

Up until I saw my fellow countrymen (including many I respected) fawning like chimps at a tea party during that whole "jubilee" thing I might have agreed. There seems to be a huge cognitive dissonance for most people when it comes to the royals.

On the one hand most don't really take it very seriously, on the other many (maybe even most) appear to have a sub-conscious desire/need to submit to their natural betters. Our whole national identity is built on the myths of Kings and failed rebellions and I fear for many the Monarchy represents a kind of bizarre political security blanket. We claim to not really care but deep down I think many of us secretly fear loosing our mythical matriarch.

One might liken it to celebrity worship backed by 100's & 1000's of years of religious mythology. The Royal's aren't really human to us, they are more like some closely related parent species born to a life we could only dream of. I realise that when asked directly most people would consciously acknowledge that was silly, but most would also respond the same to say Christian sexual repression. They know sex and nakedness when considered rationally are nothing to be ashamed of, but they still continue to treat their own urges as somehow sinful when they do not fall within rigidly defined social parameters.

We still haven't gotten over such Judeo-Christian self policing because the social structures built up around it are still with us (even if we fool ourselves into thinking we are beyond the reach of such sub-conscious influences). I don't think we will ever get over our master-slave culture while class and unearned privilege are still built into the fabric of our society. Having a Royal family, no matter how symbolic, is the very living embodiment of this kind of backwards ideology.

It's like trying to quit heroin while locked in a room with a big bag of the stuff.

It's true to say most don't take the whole thing very seriously but that to me is almost as concerning. Most people when asked don't believe advertising has a significant effect on their psyche but Coke-a-cola still feels like spending about 3 billion a year on it is worthwhile. One of them is clearly mistaken!

Our royal family here, is to me working in the same way as coke's advertising. It's a focal point for a lot of sub-conscious concepts we are bombarded with our whole lives. Naturally there are many sides to this and it wouldn't work without heavy media manipulation, state indoctrination etc. but it's an intrinsic part of the coercive myth none the less. Monarch's, Emperors and wealthy Dynasties are all poisons to me. No matter the pragmatic details, the sub-conscious effect seems significant and cumulative.

"Dead" symbolisms IMHO can often be the most dangerous. At least one is consciously aware of the devils we see. No one is watching the one's we have forgotten.....

The above is reason enough for me but I have bog all better to do this aft so I'll dive into the rabbithole a bit.....

(We do very quickly start getting into conspiracy theory territory hare so I'll try to keep it as uncontroversial as I can.)

A. The UK is truly ruled by financial elites not political ones IMHO. "The city" says jump, Whitehall says how high. The Royal family being among the wealthiest landowners and investors in the world (let alone UK) presumably can exert the same kind of influence. Naturally this occurs behind closed doors, but when the ownership class puts it's foot down the government ignores them to their extreme detriment. (It's hard to argue with people who own your economy de-facto and can make or break your career)

B. The queen herself sits on the council on foreign relations & Bilderberg group and she was actually the chairwoman of the "committee of 300" for several years. (and that's not even starting on club of Rome, shares in Goldman Sachs etc.)

C. SIS the uk's intelligence services (MI5/6 etc.), which have been proven to on occasion operate without civilian oversight in the past, are sworn to the crown. This is always going to be a most contentious point as it's incredibly difficult to prove wrongdoings, but I have very strong suspicions based on various incidents (David Kelly, James Andanson, Jill Dando etc.), that if they wanted/needed you dead/threatened that would not be especially difficult to arrange.

D. Jimmy Saville. This one really is tin foil hat territory, but it's no secret he was close to the Royal family. I am of the opinion this is because he was a top level procurer of "things", for which I feel there is a great deal of evidence, but I can't expect people to just go along with that idea. However given the latest "paedogeddon" scandal involving a extremely high level abuse ring (cabinet members, mi5/6, bankers etc.) it certainly would come as little surprise to find royal family members involved.

Points A&B I would stand behind firmly. C&D are drifting into conjecture but still potentially relevant I feel.

But even if we ignore all of them, our culture is built from the ground up upon the idea of privilege of birth. That there are some people born better or more deserving than the rest of us. When I refer to symbolism this is what I mean. Obviously the buck does not stop with the monarchy, England is hopelessly stratified by class all the way through, but the royal family exemplify this to absurd extremes.

At best I feel this hopelessly distorts and corrupts our collective sense of identity on a sub-conscious level. At worst....Well you must have some idea now how paranoid I'm capable of being about the way the world is run. (Not that I necessarily believe it all wholeheartedly, but I'm open to the possibility and inclined to suggest it more likely than the mainstream narrative)


On a pragmatic note: Tourism would be fine without them I think, we still have the history and the castles and the soldiers with silly hats etc. And I think the palaces would make great hotels and museums. They make great zoo exhibits I agree, just maybe not let them continue to own half the zoo and bribe the zoo keepers?


Anyway much love as always. You responded with considered points which is always worthy of respect, regardless of whether I agree with it all.

yeah I had to google her, which that alone is a point again Lantern's argument. Just based on wikipedia, it sounds like her biggest crime is that she's a black woman in Texas. Apparently her staff has a high turnover rate, and that she's apparently *gasp* "mean". but I'm sure that wouldn't be criticized if she was a white male conservative.

Looks like she also had the audacity to ask the Dept of Justice to investigate whether the Tea Party was intimidating black and hispanics from voting.

And apparently she passed a safety ordinance requiring parents keep guns away from kids,

<sarcasm> that bitch </sarcasm>

Well, in a same political system, the Republicans would basically cease to exist. Right now, they're trying to be two things, a "sensible" centre right party and extreme social conservative nut jobs. But the US already has a conservative centre right party, they're the Democrats.

The tea party should just be honest and form the American Taliban or whatever, the moderate republicans can go to the dems and people who actually want real social change can start a full on godless liberal commie Labour Party, cos god knows they couldn't fuck it up worse than it already has been.

I've made similar statements to my family. I was raised Republican and think that a lot of the core values are great. Unfortunately, you've got the koch brother tea party nutjobs and previously the neocon PNAC SOB's that have co-opted the party. I do think there is a large portion of the Tea Party that have legitimate beefs and that they actually align in many ways with the Occupy movement. I would like to see the U.S. have many more legitimate parties, but it seems like the system is too rigged for this to happen.

This. Seriously, if a Republican was in office right now, they would be screaming the same thing everyone else was screaming, that's he a welfare rancher, refusing to pay his federally mandated dues that Regan made last forever now...

They are so obsessed with their Anti-Obama message they are missing their best chances to score with the American public at large. The individual mandate of Obamacare, is their idea, it is funded the same way they wanted to fund it. If they were smart, they should be shouting, "we could have had this back under Bush Sr, but the Democrats stopped it twice, and they stopped it again under Clinton. They couldn't pass their single payer or government option so t hey went with our plan. We told them so, and the American people had to wait all these years for them to come around to our plan." They then could explain why they oppose the changes from their versions like going from catastrophic only care to comprehensive care is bad, since apparently stopping people from getting sick is bad in their eyes... For this situation they should be noting how the Federal government got the land in 1848, before Nevada became a state in 1868 and before Bundy and his extended family was grazing cattle on the land in 1877... and ages before his family actually purchased the ranch in 1948... after the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 was passed... and even before the BLM was formed in 1946. Their hero, Reagan passed, as Stewart noted, the right to collect grazing fees forever. Bundy is just attempting to make a profit off the government's dime without compensating the government back. They should note how he threatened violence against federal officials... which if a Republican was in office now rather than a black man, they'd be screaming he's a domestic terrorist, and when he called in militia to support him, they'd be screaming how they were all terrorists against the government doing its rightful duty.

The right's hatred of Obama has blinded them to the very things they would normally be for and against, just because suddenly a man (who's probably closer to the Reagan era Republican than any of today's Tea Party members are) they oppose is in office rather than one of their Tea Party extremist...