actually i have a video where ron paul touches on progressives. "the progressives today, taht argue for less constitiution and less warmongering, don't have a place to go"

I suppose if he bashes maddow into nonexistence that is actually a step towards consensus against washington. Allow me to take away the comment just above.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH-UjDrYRqg&feature=youtu.be

@Drax, if someone re-aired Babylon 5 three years ago, it'd be accused of having a horrible left-wing message about Bush the evil warmongering President.

Re-air it today, and conservatives would take it as supporting their view that Obama is entirely held aloft by a fraudulent media arm.

And of course, even when it aired in the 90's, everyone was trying to argue over which middle-eastern country the Narn were supposed to represent, and which western power was supposed to be the Centauri.

@blankfist, as far as kid's stuff, most of what I remember was as much individualistic as anything else (e.g. lots of "don't be afraid of bullies", "be yourself", "speak up when you see someone doing something wrong", "if your friends all jumped off a bridge..."). Virtually all of history is taught with the "great man" theory, where single individuals change the worlds by simply standing up for what they believe in (e.g. Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, and presumably there's someone from the individualistic right who did something individualistic too).

I know it's terrible for you to think it blankfist, but a balance of collectivism and individualism is really necessary for modern life. Yes, you should be able to be who you are, and do what you want, but you shouldn't get everyone killed by waking up a dragon, or poisoning the planet. Expectations of social behavior, including things like respect for property rights, are collectivist ideas.

Personally, I think it's perfectly fair to teach kids that what they think isn't always right, and that sometimes it's wise to listen to other people. I agree, it'd be bad if the lesson was "thou shalt always subvert thine will to that of others", but you have to be able to strike a balance between individualistic conceit and deference to others.

In the example given above, "If all your friends want to go get pizza and you want a burger, you should bow to the will of the majority and go get pizza with them," it seems to me that this is less about indoctrinating people to always bow to the will of the majority, but that sometimes it's better to compromise with other people for the sake of establishing relationships. Put in selfishist language, that it's sometimes better to pass up some of your immediate desires to make an investment towards earning something much more worthwhile.

Think of it as teaching the value of savings, or the value of human relationships.

Even obammy, the world's current biggest warmonger, admits he hasn't done a damn thing to deserve this award. Now he gets to disappoint the entire world having already failed America with his lies. And, in another diplomatic blunder, he does the "smash and grab" and pisses of the Norwegians. Hahaha...

blankfist, you're nuts. He's not a warmonger, he's very aware of the military industrial complex and only acknowledges that the federal government's top priority should be national defense. It used to be the only reason we actually needed a federal government.

Foreign terrorists don't deserve the protection of our Constitution because they're not american citizens, they're prisoners, it doesn't apply to them. Doesn't that make any sense to you?

Like his father, he realizes that US military interventionism was the reason 9/11 happened. Ron Paul was also in favor of going into Afghanistan (and voted likewise). The problem is that it turned into occupation, instead of the military just going after Al Qaeda and those responsible for the attacks.

He also looks like a typical warmongering Republican. http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/h-p/national-defense/

Here are the assertions Beck ascribed to "liberals":

1. If you're against health care you hate the poor.
   
2. If you oppose their "climate change bill", you hate the planet, or are flat-earth moon landing denier.
   
3. If you oppose illegal immigration you're anti-hispanic.
   
4. If you oppose the stimulus, it's just because Obama is black.
   
5. If you oppose Obama's budget deficits, you must have been okay with Bush's (and are a hypocrite).
   
6. If you "support the troops", you're a warmonger.
   
7. If you attend a tea party, you're crazy.
   
8. If you "support traditional marriage", you're a homophobe.
   
9. If you oppose abortion, you're against women.
   
10. If you oppose the fairness doctrine, you hate diversity.
    
11. If you oppose "strong-arm" unions, you're against the workers.
    

He then characterizes the sum total of all those arguments to be a form of discriminatory hate speech.

As someone who spends a lot of time wallowing in liberal swill, let me correct Beck's assertions:

1. If you're against universal health care, you don't care if the poor live or die.
   
2. If you refuse to believe that human activity has been changing the climate in ways that will cause humankind harm, you are a flat-earth moon landing denier.
   
3. If your only solution to illegal immigration is to engage in massive police action against those who've immigrated illegally, you're anti-hispanic, anti-muslim, and generally a bigoted xenophobic moron who doesn't believe in individual human rights.
   
4. If you oppose the stimulus, it's because you are either a) a moron who thinks government spending can't help a sagging economy, or b) a partisan who's more interested in scoring political points than helping the country.
   
5. If you're going to go out into the streets and protest deficits in 2009, you should have been doing it ever since Bush's tax cuts turned a budget surplus into a deficit. Also, there should have been a large contingent of the so-called conservative base against continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the cost. But there wasn't, so there are lots of people who only believe in keeping spending in check when it's a Democratic administration doing the spending, and that destroys your credibility on the subject. (Shorter alternative: The left protests spending tax money to kill people, while the right protests spending tax money to save people.)
   
6. If you think the only way to "support the troops" is to keep them in harm's way indefinitely without clear goals, then you're a warmonger, and definitely not supporting the troops!
   
7. Most of the people attending the tea parties were crazy, or crazy-tolerant. A lot of people were protesting against conspiracy theories (e.g. death panels). A lot of people were threatening violence. A lot of people were using racial imagery or language. No one seemed to mind their presence at the rally, or asked them to leave. If there were reasonable people there, they let the crazies usurp their message, and that reflects poorly on them.
   
8. If you oppose civil unions with equal legal benefits for gay couples, you're a homophobe. (As an aside, if Beck's objecting to being called a homophobe, it's more proof we've already won this fight, since even the right believes that word has a negative connotation that they're uncomfortable with)
   
9. If you support criminalizing abortion, you fundamentally don't trust women to be able to make important decisions about their health and life, and that's sexist.
   
10. We're pretty divided about the fairness doctrine, actually. Our smear against opposition to it would be about conservative elites wanting to preserve their for-profit propaganda enterprises though, not about "diversity".
    
11. If you oppose making it easier for workers unionize (which is what the Employee Free Choice Act would do), you're against the workers.
    

If "liberals" are to be demonized for what they say, let's at least start with what they're actually saying.

I would also point out that the language I used is often more harsh than what any real Democratic representative would use in public. The Republican party leadership has no problem talking about death panels, birth certificates, baby-murder, yelling "You lie!" at the president in a formal address, or any other extremist language.

Alan Grayson came dangerously close to saying #1, and everyone was completely shocked that a Democratic freshman congressman would say such a thing.

>> ^chilaxe:
"Hitchens is just a fat, rich, pompous, warmongering git from the states. quite unlikeable."
Thanks for bringing such sophisticated intellectualism to the conversation.
BTW, I hate to rain on the parade of bigots, but you know he's not from the states, right?


So was that the only thing about Hitchens I got wrong? He's still a fat, rich, pompous git who advocates war against Iran right?

Anyway, just trying to inject some debate into the comments section. Looks like it worked.

"Hitchens is just a fat, rich, pompous, warmongering git from the states. quite unlikeable."

Thanks for bringing such sophisticated intellectualism to the conversation.

BTW, I hate to rain on the parade of bigots, but you know he's not from the states, right?

Funny how BreakstheEarth calls the other guy, whoever he is, a fundamentalist apologist when his vid is of Hitchens standing there excusing western abuses of power.

Hitchens's arrogance is mind blowing.
Yeah, we gave the Indonesians weapons knowing full well what they were intended for but thats ok because thirty years later we stopped the killing. THIRTY FUCKING YEARS!!?

He admits that history yet still feels like the west has some sort of moral superiority over a human surplus of young, poor, uneducated, jobless fundamentalists.

We should know better is my point.

The first guy had it right. Islamic "terrorism" is a predictable outcome of the west fucking with the autonomy of other nations. In fact military and political strategists are planning for an increase in such attacks as the engine of globalisation warms up and the great un-washed, un-moneyed masses of the world become increasingly marginalised from society.

Hitchens is just a fat, rich, pompous, warmongering git from the states. quite unlikeable

It's been obvious for months that neocons have been praying to their imaginary god nightly for another terrorist attack (re: Cheney) in order to justify their warmongering, profiteering, and attacks on civil liberties, but I never thought anyone would be stupid enough to blatantly state it flat out - on national TV no less...

Enter Beck and friends.

Wow, that was heavy handed. They made some articulate points about the value of individuality in the beginning. But then portrayed all "normal" people as cruel, intolerant, unimaginative, misanthropic warmongers.

For a video that pretends to preach love and understanding it seems bizarrely filled with hate for humanity. Except of course upside down people, presumably those are the surrogate for hippies, they're alright. But everyone else - total fucking sucm.

Yes, it's a crap title. If you could help me come up with something better, I'm listening.

In reply to this comment by MaxWilder:
Title is inappropriate. It's not about forcing children to conform, but forcing people who want the world to be a better place into people who accept the cesspool that the world currently is. As shown by the dedication to Martin Luther King Jr., this is about people who reject hatred and warmongers.

>> ^MaxWilder:
Title is inappropriate. It's not about forcing children to conform, but forcing people who want the world to be a better place into people who accept the cesspool that the world currently is. As shown by the dedication to Martin Luther King Jr., this is about people who reject hatred and warmongers.



If anyone can come up with a better title Id be happy to change it.

Title is inappropriate. It's not about forcing children to conform, but forcing people who want the world to be a better place into people who accept the cesspool that the world currently is. As shown by the dedication to Martin Luther King Jr., this is about people who reject hatred and warmongers.

>> ^quantumushroom:
When America doesn't care, we're callous White people.
When America cares and does something, we're "imperialists".
Solution: laugh at liberal nonsense.


The world loves us when we step in appropriately. There are obviously a few dogmatic fascist regimes that will call us names, but that's only because they fear us.

Of course, that all changed when Bush invaded Iraq, because that was completely inappropriate. We can get our respect back, but it's gonna take a while.

I'm not sure what you mean about the liberal nonsense. Certainly there is plenty of nonsense coming out of the left, just as there is plenty coming from the right. But it's the conservatives who flip-flopped from non-interventionists to preemptive warmongers.