"Marxist" questions to Biden get News Channel "cut off" from Obama camp
- Thread starter thrustbucket
- Start date
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
As for socialism, I would like to compare Palin to another notable American who professed love for Alaska, Jack London.
Palin has been handed everything in her life on a silver platter. Beautiful, popular, breezing up the political ladder without knowing much of anything beyond how to get cheap oil for Alaska. As governor she never travels, routinely works from her home office. As VP candidate she recently spent $150K of RNC campaign money on designer duds from the most exclusive clothing retailers in the country. No wonder she doesn't have a clue about the economic plight of the middle class, no wonder she's willing to sit up there and appeal to the bigots and theocrats in the crowd while selling them out to America's richest 1%.
Compare it to Jack London's life - a true rugged individualist who spent some real hard time with the low and middle class of America before forming his political beliefs. This wasn't a guy who went out to write to his diary in a cushy cabin by a Massachusetts pond, Jack went out to tackle the great outdoors on the last great American frontier with all of his worldly belongings slung over his shoulder. Little wonder he empathized with the plight of the true working class people he lived with, little wonder he advocated on their behalf.
I don't believe in socialism but I have a damn sight more respect for an honest socialist over just another bigoted puppet advocating on behalf of a theocratic oligarchy.
Palin has been handed everything in her life on a silver platter. Beautiful, popular, breezing up the political ladder without knowing much of anything beyond how to get cheap oil for Alaska. As governor she never travels, routinely works from her home office. As VP candidate she recently spent $150K of RNC campaign money on designer duds from the most exclusive clothing retailers in the country. No wonder she doesn't have a clue about the economic plight of the middle class, no wonder she's willing to sit up there and appeal to the bigots and theocrats in the crowd while selling them out to America's richest 1%.
Compare it to Jack London's life - a true rugged individualist who spent some real hard time with the low and middle class of America before forming his political beliefs. This wasn't a guy who went out to write to his diary in a cushy cabin by a Massachusetts pond, Jack went out to tackle the great outdoors on the last great American frontier with all of his worldly belongings slung over his shoulder. Little wonder he empathized with the plight of the true working class people he lived with, little wonder he advocated on their behalf.
I don't believe in socialism but I have a damn sight more respect for an honest socialist over just another bigoted puppet advocating on behalf of a theocratic oligarchy.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
How can the media be liberal when the highest rated network is Faux News? I could say they got to be number one by creating the liberal media myth. The fact of the matter is that they're the media that they keep bashing.
[quote name='depascal22']How can the media be liberal when the highest rated network is Faux News? I could say they got to be number one by creating the liberal media myth. The fact of the matter is that they're the media that they keep bashing.[/QUOTE]
Because most of their viewers perceived CNN and to a lesser degree MSNBC and the other network news outlets being liberally biased before it existed. All those viewers flocked to FOX News when it began to be perceived as a conservative network. The country is more or less split conservative/liberal, and there's only one "conservative" news station, and numerous "liberal" news stations, according to the viewers of the stations. Thus, FOX News gets more viewers because they're not splitting "their audience."
Because most of their viewers perceived CNN and to a lesser degree MSNBC and the other network news outlets being liberally biased before it existed. All those viewers flocked to FOX News when it began to be perceived as a conservative network. The country is more or less split conservative/liberal, and there's only one "conservative" news station, and numerous "liberal" news stations, according to the viewers of the stations. Thus, FOX News gets more viewers because they're not splitting "their audience."
I don't think that's true, I really think Fox News does well (ratings-wise) because they're sensationalistic. Coulter is probably the most extreme and therefore best example -- people, whether they love her or hate her, watch her. Same for everyone else. I rarely agree with O'Reilly but love watching his show, and a big part of it is because I disagree with him. Just as I enjoy watching Spurlock's crap, or Michael Moore's crap, though I consider their work deceptive and rarely agree with their conclusions. It's entertaining to watch.
Dante Devil
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
[quote name='thrustbucket']You lost me somewhere in that post.
When did Palin ever discuss "forcing kids to keep panties on", and how does her daughter getting knocked up make her a hypocrite on her stance on abortion?
You alude to flaming hypocrisy about Palin somewhere in that post but I can't see it yet. Walk me through it, please.[/QUOTE]
In defense of Sarah Palin, she had to charge Alaska to fly her kids all over the place, because if she didn't they get pregnant.
When did Palin ever discuss "forcing kids to keep panties on", and how does her daughter getting knocked up make her a hypocrite on her stance on abortion?
You alude to flaming hypocrisy about Palin somewhere in that post but I can't see it yet. Walk me through it, please.[/QUOTE]
In defense of Sarah Palin, she had to charge Alaska to fly her kids all over the place, because if she didn't they get pregnant.
Is it really being "biased" when you call someone out for being a dumbass? If Obama showed the same level of general incompetence McCain and Palin, collectively, do, then I would assume the media would be reporting about both parties' 
ups. If you don't up, people, including the media, don't have negative things to say about you. It's as simple as that. When you blatantly make stuff up, or twist words, or take phrases out of context, voila, bias.
ups. If you don't up, people, including the media, don't have negative things to say about you. It's as simple as that. When you blatantly make stuff up, or twist words, or take phrases out of context, voila, bias.
[quote name='Poor2More']Here is my take, if we are electing a president to run this country, and place our faith in their hands as citizens, then all doors should not just be open but kicked the open. Rather we know the truth now, then 2 years from now after they are elected?[/QUOTE]
I don't know about you but one can easily find out pretty much every single thing there is to know about Obama except for his bloodtype, favorite gelato flavor and sperm count.
He has written two books and spent the last two years basically selling himself to the public, anything left to find out is not going to be dug up by whacky west the walking sea cow who just happens to be married to a GOP media consultant.
open. Rather we know the truth now, then 2 years from now after they are elected?[/QUOTE]I don't know about you but one can easily find out pretty much every single thing there is to know about Obama except for his bloodtype, favorite gelato flavor and sperm count.
He has written two books and spent the last two years basically selling himself to the public, anything left to find out is not going to be dug up by whacky west the walking sea cow who just happens to be married to a GOP media consultant.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
I can only speak for myself.
But I admit I do kind of use socialism as a 4 letter word. In a nutshell, I throw that word out to address my feelings on any policy or ideal dealing with empowering the government in almost any way. I tend to attribute any growth of government, any money grab from us by government, or any legislation that increases reliance on government as a "socialist" ideal.
It's very much like how people on the left throw out the word "fascist" about any source of authority or right-wing piece of propaganda, when really the definition has been skewed to them by influences like too much punk music.
I fully realize that when I use the word "socialist" it is not in the context of it's fully correct definition. Just like when most people use the word "fascist" it isn't either. And like fascism, socialism by its core definition is not inherently evil or vile. Both are just methods of wide control over a populace, to attempt to take care of everyone in a fair and caring way. On the surface, that's fine, and the intent is good.
Camoor, thanks for the kind words and mostly accurate assessment of me. I do feel, however, the need to point out that any warming up to the Republican party that I might appear to do, would only be because of my curse of liking to argue sometimes, and taking the Republican side is the quickest way to do so around here.
But I admit I do kind of use socialism as a 4 letter word. In a nutshell, I throw that word out to address my feelings on any policy or ideal dealing with empowering the government in almost any way. I tend to attribute any growth of government, any money grab from us by government, or any legislation that increases reliance on government as a "socialist" ideal.
It's very much like how people on the left throw out the word "fascist" about any source of authority or right-wing piece of propaganda, when really the definition has been skewed to them by influences like too much punk music.
I fully realize that when I use the word "socialist" it is not in the context of it's fully correct definition. Just like when most people use the word "fascist" it isn't either. And like fascism, socialism by its core definition is not inherently evil or vile. Both are just methods of wide control over a populace, to attempt to take care of everyone in a fair and caring way. On the surface, that's fine, and the intent is good.
Camoor, thanks for the kind words and mostly accurate assessment of me. I do feel, however, the need to point out that any warming up to the Republican party that I might appear to do, would only be because of my curse of liking to argue sometimes, and taking the Republican side is the quickest way to do so around here.
[quote name='thrustbucket']I fully realize that when I use the word "socialist" it is not in the context of it's fully correct definition. Just like when most people use the word "fascist" it isn't either. And like fascism, socialism by its core definition is not inherently evil or vile. Both are just methods of wide control over a populace, to attempt to take care of everyone in a fair and caring way. On the surface, that's fine, and the intent is good.[/quote]
What, you're just going to end it like that? Boy, after that explanation, I don't know why you aren't a socialist.
I consider myself part socialist. I like a lot of the ideas (however unpopular with the selfish they may be), based on how I've grown up and how involved I've become with health care and general community service. However I realize how wrong socialism has gone in the past, so I'm not really sure how to espouse the ideals without it basically beinged up by people in the past. I imagine my idea of socialism doesn't take into account human selfishness, which is why it seems so great but practically rarely works.
Of course, the level of selfishness itself is pretty hard to define, I mean I'm sitting here wasting my time arguing on a video game forum when I could be out volunteering or something.. but I also tip 30%+ for good service among other things, so take it how you will.
I'm just sick of how people spit the word socialist.
What, you're just going to end it like that? Boy, after that explanation, I don't know why you aren't a socialist.
I consider myself part socialist. I like a lot of the ideas (however unpopular with the selfish they may be), based on how I've grown up and how involved I've become with health care and general community service. However I realize how wrong socialism has gone in the past, so I'm not really sure how to espouse the ideals without it basically being
ed up by people in the past. I imagine my idea of socialism doesn't take into account human selfishness, which is why it seems so great but practically rarely works.Of course, the level of selfishness itself is pretty hard to define, I mean I'm sitting here wasting my time arguing on a video game forum when I could be out volunteering or something.. but I also tip 30%+ for good service among other things, so take it how you will.
I'm just sick of how people spit the word socialist.
Dead of Knight
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='Hex']What, you're just going to end it like that? Boy, after that explanation, I don't know why you aren't a socialist.
I consider myself part socialist. I like a lot of the ideas (however unpopular with the selfish they may be), based on how I've grown up and how involved I've become with health care and general community service. However I realize how wrong socialism has gone in the past, so I'm not really sure how to espouse the ideals without it basically beinged up by people in the past. I imagine my idea of socialism doesn't take into account human selfishness, which is why it seems so great but practically rarely works.
Of course, the level of selfishness itself is pretty hard to define, I mean I'm sitting here wasting my time arguing on a video game forum when I could be out volunteering or something.. but I also tip 30%+ for good service among other things, so take it how you will.
I'm just sick of how people spit the word socialist.[/QUOTE]
I hear you. You deserve to be sick of it. I'm sick of hearing the word "fascist" spit out every other word by some people I know.
This might make an interesting discussion for another thread, but to expand a little:
I actually agree with the concept of socialism, as long as every single participant agrees with it and the way it's being run. That'sincredibly hard impossible to accomplish on a federal government level. I feel it works much better at a church level, or any other organization that's voluntary. Many churches are very successfully socialist. For example - they take really good care of their own, as long as everyone is paying tithing, etc. But anyone can quit at any time if they disagree with how it's run.
It's also potentially possible to run state or county governments more socialist in a fair way. That way if someone dislikes it, they can easily move.
That being said, I feel strongly that it's morally wrong to dictate to others through force of law that they somehow "owe" society more than others based on some bureaucratic slick accounting and an arbitrary pay range. That defies my concept of individual freedom and liberty.
I consider myself part socialist. I like a lot of the ideas (however unpopular with the selfish they may be), based on how I've grown up and how involved I've become with health care and general community service. However I realize how wrong socialism has gone in the past, so I'm not really sure how to espouse the ideals without it basically being
ed up by people in the past. I imagine my idea of socialism doesn't take into account human selfishness, which is why it seems so great but practically rarely works.Of course, the level of selfishness itself is pretty hard to define, I mean I'm sitting here wasting my time arguing on a video game forum when I could be out volunteering or something.. but I also tip 30%+ for good service among other things, so take it how you will.
I'm just sick of how people spit the word socialist.[/QUOTE]
I hear you. You deserve to be sick of it. I'm sick of hearing the word "fascist" spit out every other word by some people I know.
This might make an interesting discussion for another thread, but to expand a little:
I actually agree with the concept of socialism, as long as every single participant agrees with it and the way it's being run. That's
It's also potentially possible to run state or county governments more socialist in a fair way. That way if someone dislikes it, they can easily move.
That being said, I feel strongly that it's morally wrong to dictate to others through force of law that they somehow "owe" society more than others based on some bureaucratic slick accounting and an arbitrary pay range. That defies my concept of individual freedom and liberty.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='thrustbucket']I actually agree with the concept of socialism, as long as every single participant agrees with it and the way it's being run. That's incredibly hard impossible to accomplish on a federal government level.[/QUOTE]
I feel this way about free-market capitalism.
I feel this way about free-market capitalism.
[quote name='thrustbucket']I can only speak for myself.
But I admit I do kind of use socialism as a 4 letter word. In a nutshell, I throw that word out to address my feelings on any policy or ideal dealing with empowering the government in almost any way. I tend to attribute any growth of government, any money grab from us by government, or any legislation that increases reliance on government as a "socialist" ideal.
It's very much like how people on the left throw out the word "fascist" about any source of authority or right-wing piece of propaganda, when really the definition has been skewed to them by influences like too much punk music.
I fully realize that when I use the word "socialist" it is not in the context of it's fully correct definition. Just like when most people use the word "fascist" it isn't either. And like fascism, socialism by its core definition is not inherently evil or vile. Both are just methods of wide control over a populace, to attempt to take care of everyone in a fair and caring way. On the surface, that's fine, and the intent is good...
[/QUOTE]
There's a huge difference between social programs and being a Socialist. I do not use the term flippantly, I use it to underline the inherently flawed philosophy of the intended target, who usually doesn't bother to think beyond their own ego in their zeal to purport altruism. I think it would be hard to argue against the institution of government. But the argument as to what are the responsibilities of government determines whether or not you are a socialist. Usually that argument can be summed up in whether or not you believe in private property.
Property rights begin with your own life. Do you have a right to your own life, or do the needs of the government and your fellow citizens take precedence over the individual? Here's where the modern leftist and conservative philosophy falls apart. Leftists here claim autonomy and are against the draft. Rightists usually believe in the right to one's own life but give in to socialist policies like the draft.
Do you believe that your thoughts and ideas are your own, or do you believe society has a right to them for the common good?
Here the leftists believe the public good takes precedence over individual profit. If it's good for society, society can take your idea and decide not to compensate you for it because the need of society takes precedence over the individual. Righties believe, of course, in individual profit. And if an idea is taken, it's owner must be compensated.
Do you have a right to keep what you have earned through your own efforts, or do you believe society has a claim on them? Righties love to think of their house as their castle. Lefties, however, believe that no property can be owned outright. That any goods acquired must have been through some sort of social assistance because ....becuase, well, they were the ones to implement those social programs. Therefore all property is really owned by the state, or by "the people." The people can always make a claim on that property for the greater good when property isn't private.
This is the true Socialist, the one who maintains that no one person can ever be autonomous; that his life, ideas, and property are wards of the State, and the State determines what is best for society. This is all done cleverly under the guise of "the people", or the falsehood of "the common good".
Government itself is a "social" experiment. But it does not mean it is by nature Socialist. Only when we believe that government's purpose is to drive society, and that individual humans are only validated by the whole of society, and not the other way around, do we become socialists. Camoor may also remember from his studies that our Founding Fathers knew well that every government is inherently flawed because it wields power over individuals' freedom, and will naturally degrade, if unchecked.
There is no perfect government. Constitutionally protected, representative republic is a good option. Socialism, in and of itself, is tyranny of the people, aka Democracy.
But I admit I do kind of use socialism as a 4 letter word. In a nutshell, I throw that word out to address my feelings on any policy or ideal dealing with empowering the government in almost any way. I tend to attribute any growth of government, any money grab from us by government, or any legislation that increases reliance on government as a "socialist" ideal.
It's very much like how people on the left throw out the word "fascist" about any source of authority or right-wing piece of propaganda, when really the definition has been skewed to them by influences like too much punk music.
I fully realize that when I use the word "socialist" it is not in the context of it's fully correct definition. Just like when most people use the word "fascist" it isn't either. And like fascism, socialism by its core definition is not inherently evil or vile. Both are just methods of wide control over a populace, to attempt to take care of everyone in a fair and caring way. On the surface, that's fine, and the intent is good...
[/QUOTE]
There's a huge difference between social programs and being a Socialist. I do not use the term flippantly, I use it to underline the inherently flawed philosophy of the intended target, who usually doesn't bother to think beyond their own ego in their zeal to purport altruism. I think it would be hard to argue against the institution of government. But the argument as to what are the responsibilities of government determines whether or not you are a socialist. Usually that argument can be summed up in whether or not you believe in private property.
Property rights begin with your own life. Do you have a right to your own life, or do the needs of the government and your fellow citizens take precedence over the individual? Here's where the modern leftist and conservative philosophy falls apart. Leftists here claim autonomy and are against the draft. Rightists usually believe in the right to one's own life but give in to socialist policies like the draft.
Do you believe that your thoughts and ideas are your own, or do you believe society has a right to them for the common good?
Here the leftists believe the public good takes precedence over individual profit. If it's good for society, society can take your idea and decide not to compensate you for it because the need of society takes precedence over the individual. Righties believe, of course, in individual profit. And if an idea is taken, it's owner must be compensated.
Do you have a right to keep what you have earned through your own efforts, or do you believe society has a claim on them? Righties love to think of their house as their castle. Lefties, however, believe that no property can be owned outright. That any goods acquired must have been through some sort of social assistance because ....becuase, well, they were the ones to implement those social programs. Therefore all property is really owned by the state, or by "the people." The people can always make a claim on that property for the greater good when property isn't private.
This is the true Socialist, the one who maintains that no one person can ever be autonomous; that his life, ideas, and property are wards of the State, and the State determines what is best for society. This is all done cleverly under the guise of "the people", or the falsehood of "the common good".
Government itself is a "social" experiment. But it does not mean it is by nature Socialist. Only when we believe that government's purpose is to drive society, and that individual humans are only validated by the whole of society, and not the other way around, do we become socialists. Camoor may also remember from his studies that our Founding Fathers knew well that every government is inherently flawed because it wields power over individuals' freedom, and will naturally degrade, if unchecked.
There is no perfect government. Constitutionally protected, representative republic is a good option. Socialism, in and of itself, is tyranny of the people, aka Democracy.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_of_Aveyron = autonomous
You? You're a product of your environment. Which includes your social environment.
Sorry, charlie. You want autonomy? Better hand back your education before you leave. And probably certain elements of your health. The flouridated water society provided means that you have about 40% more adult teeth than you would on your own, so we'll need those as well. So if you're wiling to give up literacy, knowledge, and the ability to wipe your own ass, you have have all the "This man is an island!" you want. Your failure to recognize how society has helped make you who you are, for all that is good and all that is bad about it, exposes the true narcissist.
You? You're a product of your environment. Which includes your social environment.
Sorry, charlie. You want autonomy? Better hand back your education before you leave. And probably certain elements of your health. The flouridated water society provided means that you have about 40% more adult teeth than you would on your own, so we'll need those as well. So if you're wiling to give up literacy, knowledge, and the ability to wipe your own ass, you have have all the "This man is an island!" you want. Your failure to recognize how society has helped make you who you are, for all that is good and all that is bad about it, exposes the true narcissist.
[quote name='Dead of Knight']Hahahhahahaha:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/26/133722/20/1016/642755[/QUOTE]
sniff...sniff....
This crybaby unfairness doctrine doesn't validate your candidates' philosophy simply because MCain hasn't been faced with a similarly dubious line of questioning. None of her questions were out of line, although Biden did his best to play the victim of a lynching.
Letterman seems to be the only one to have breached this taboo with McCain recently. And he didn't even touch the Keating Five debacle. And, you people soon forget about the Gibson-Palin interview. And, I daresay any of you watched Brokaw questioning mcCain on Meet the Press - an equally, but more eloquently enacted ambush.
Get over your victim mentality.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/26/133722/20/1016/642755[/QUOTE]
sniff...sniff....
This crybaby unfairness doctrine doesn't validate your candidates' philosophy simply because MCain hasn't been faced with a similarly dubious line of questioning. None of her questions were out of line, although Biden did his best to play the victim of a lynching.
Letterman seems to be the only one to have breached this taboo with McCain recently. And he didn't even touch the Keating Five debacle. And, you people soon forget about the Gibson-Palin interview. And, I daresay any of you watched Brokaw questioning mcCain on Meet the Press - an equally, but more eloquently enacted ambush.
Get over your victim mentality.
Let us dissect the mountain of fail in thrusts most recent failtacular flailing.
1. He admits to not only not knowing what socialism is but fascism as well.
2. He admits to misusing socialism in general and specifically to counteract the fact that lets face it W et al. have fascist tendencies and occasionally get called on it.
3. He does not mind socialism as long as some thing he admits is impossible happens, the times being when he likes socialism is when he benefits such as his long stints on the dole.
Stay tuned for part 2 later.
1. He admits to not only not knowing what socialism is but fascism as well.
2. He admits to misusing socialism in general and specifically to counteract the fact that lets face it W et al. have fascist tendencies and occasionally get called on it.
3. He does not mind socialism as long as some thing he admits is impossible happens, the times being when he likes socialism is when he benefits such as his long stints on the dole.
Stay tuned for part 2 later.
[quote name='mykevermin']http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_of_Aveyron = autonomous
You? You're a product of your environment. Which includes your social environment.
Sorry, charlie. You want autonomy? Better hand back your education before you leave. And probably certain elements of your health. The flouridated water society provided means that you have about 40% more adult teeth than you would on your own, so we'll need those as well. So if you're wiling to give up literacy, knowledge, and the ability to wipe your own ass, you have have all the "This man is an island!" you want. Your failure to recognize how society has helped make you who you are, for all that is good and all that is bad about it, exposes the true narcissist.[/QUOTE]
There's no doubt that Myke is a Socialist, but we already know this from previous self-admission. At least he wears his badge with honor, and doesn't hide from it like Obama, Biden, and all of their apologists.
Respect ! We can both take pride in our narcissism, unlike those who vacillate between worlds.
You? You're a product of your environment. Which includes your social environment.
Sorry, charlie. You want autonomy? Better hand back your education before you leave. And probably certain elements of your health. The flouridated water society provided means that you have about 40% more adult teeth than you would on your own, so we'll need those as well. So if you're wiling to give up literacy, knowledge, and the ability to wipe your own ass, you have have all the "This man is an island!" you want. Your failure to recognize how society has helped make you who you are, for all that is good and all that is bad about it, exposes the true narcissist.[/QUOTE]
There's no doubt that Myke is a Socialist, but we already know this from previous self-admission. At least he wears his badge with honor, and doesn't hide from it like Obama, Biden, and all of their apologists.
Respect ! We can both take pride in our narcissism, unlike those who vacillate between worlds.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='bmulligan']There's no doubt that Myke is a Sociologist, but we already know this from previous self-admission. At least he wears his badge with honor, and doesn't hide from it like Obama, Biden, and all of their apologists.
Respect ! We can both take pride in our narcissism, unlike those who vacillate between worlds.[/QUOTE]
Fixed, but I don't think that Obama and Biden are in my field, man. Thanks for the shout-out!
Again, the ol' Wild Boy of Aveyron is autonomous. Meanwhile, you are not.
Respect ! We can both take pride in our narcissism, unlike those who vacillate between worlds.[/QUOTE]
Fixed, but I don't think that Obama and Biden are in my field, man. Thanks for the shout-out!
Again, the ol' Wild Boy of Aveyron is autonomous. Meanwhile, you are not.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_of_Aveyron = autonomous
You? You're a product of your environment. Which includes your social environment.
Sorry, charlie. You want autonomy? Better hand back your education before you leave. And probably certain elements of your health. The flouridated water society provided means that you have about 40% more adult teeth than you would on your own, so we'll need those as well. So if you're wiling to give up literacy, knowledge, and the ability to wipe your own ass, you have have all the "This man is an island!" you want. Your failure to recognize how society has helped make you who you are, for all that is good and all that is bad about it, exposes the true narcissist.[/quote]
Yeah, I used to buy into Horatio Alger rags-to-riches mythology about the self-made man when I was younger. I still think "The Great Gatsby" is a great book. But I now believe the point you make above is a very valid analysis of society, and once the meaning sunk into my head I found it impossible to argue against it (while maintaining intellectual honesty that is).
You? You're a product of your environment. Which includes your social environment.
Sorry, charlie. You want autonomy? Better hand back your education before you leave. And probably certain elements of your health. The flouridated water society provided means that you have about 40% more adult teeth than you would on your own, so we'll need those as well. So if you're wiling to give up literacy, knowledge, and the ability to wipe your own ass, you have have all the "This man is an island!" you want. Your failure to recognize how society has helped make you who you are, for all that is good and all that is bad about it, exposes the true narcissist.[/quote]
Yeah, I used to buy into Horatio Alger rags-to-riches mythology about the self-made man when I was younger. I still think "The Great Gatsby" is a great book. But I now believe the point you make above is a very valid analysis of society, and once the meaning sunk into my head I found it impossible to argue against it (while maintaining intellectual honesty that is).
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Horatio Alger = Tijuana Bible for Capitalists.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
How so, Heavy Hitter?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Heavy Hitter']Back on topic, why isn't anyone discussing the fact that Biden lied his ass off in his answers?[/QUOTE]
Back on topic, why hasn't any of y'all found me some reporters aping DNC talking points when interviewing McCain or Palin?
Back on topic, why hasn't any of y'all found me some reporters aping DNC talking points when interviewing McCain or Palin?
[quote name='mykevermin']Back on topic, why hasn't any of y'all found me some reporters aping DNC talking points when interviewing McCain or Palin?[/QUOTE]
Because the DNC talking points are false on their premise. So blatantly false, in fact, that the leftist media won't even touch them. And I've already given you Gibson and Brokaw who are much more prominent than some no-name reporter in Podunkville USA.
When Leftists get grilled on their hypocrisy it's an unfair attack and outrageous. When Republican's get grilled, it's fair and balanced.
Because the DNC talking points are false on their premise. So blatantly false, in fact, that the leftist media won't even touch them. And I've already given you Gibson and Brokaw who are much more prominent than some no-name reporter in Podunkville USA.
When Leftists get grilled on their hypocrisy it's an unfair attack and outrageous. When Republican's get grilled, it's fair and balanced.
[quote name='Heavy Hitter']Back on topic, why isn't anyone discussing the fact that Biden lied his ass off in his answers?[/QUOTE]
You mean because Obama WAS a lawyer representing ACORN, has sat on boards that contributed to ACORN, was hired as a leadership trainer for Madeline Talbot at ACORN, and the obama campaign DID donate money to ACORN's get out the vote campaign ?
Those weren't lies, Joe, say it ain't so.
You mean because Obama WAS a lawyer representing ACORN, has sat on boards that contributed to ACORN, was hired as a leadership trainer for Madeline Talbot at ACORN, and the obama campaign DID donate money to ACORN's get out the vote campaign ?
Those weren't lies, Joe, say it ain't so.
HowStern
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Heavy Hitter']Back on topic, why isn't anyone discussing the fact that Biden lied his ass off in his answers?[/quote]
Uhh, because he didn't.
It's called progressive tax...not socialism. And here is a video of John McCain from 2000 supporting it. This video probably deserves it's own topic but I think most people have seen it, maybe?
[youtube]WLLf_dkJEXU[/youtube]
Make sure you watch the whole 3 min.
Uhh, because he didn't.
It's called progressive tax...not socialism. And here is a video of John McCain from 2000 supporting it. This video probably deserves it's own topic but I think most people have seen it, maybe?
[youtube]WLLf_dkJEXU[/youtube]
Make sure you watch the whole 3 min.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
That's why John is a "maverick" and why we are pretty ed either direction.
I think I'm goona start holding people up on the street for their wallets and justify it by calling it a "progressive" extended unemployment program.
ed either direction.I think I'm goona start holding people up on the street for their wallets and justify it by calling it a "progressive" extended unemployment program.
[quote name='thrustbucket']That's why John is a "maverick" and why we are pretty ed either direction.
I think I'm goona start holding people up on the street for their wallets and justify it by calling it a "progressive" extended unemployment program.[/QUOTE]
You can only do that if you are from the government and are here to help.
ed either direction.I think I'm goona start holding people up on the street for their wallets and justify it by calling it a "progressive" extended unemployment program.[/QUOTE]
You can only do that if you are from the government and are here to help.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='bmulligan']You mean because Obama WAS a lawyer representing ACORN, has sat on boards that contributed to ACORN, was hired as a leadership trainer for Madeline Talbot at ACORN, and the obama campaign DID donate money to ACORN's get out the vote campaign ?
Those weren't lies, Joe, say it ain't so.[/quote]
Yes, Obama was a lawyer that represented ACORN. It's called doing his job. You might not agree with everyone that comes into your door asking for help but you do your job to the best of your ability and move on.
Also, ACORN biggest problems stem from volunteers and not from the management. Obama's link to a couple of lazy guys on the street is unsubstantiated at best.
We can all agree that some people saw that they could get paid to do little to no work. The took advantage of the system and I still don't see how Obama ties in with that. You fail to mention that ACORN can't just throw out registration forms even if they suspect they're fraudulent. They have to submit them for review and then the government agency in charge makes the decision.
Also, if ACORN has been such a blight on democracy for so long, why hasn't anyone said anything until now? ACORN has been operating since 1970 and now there's a big to do about all of this. Where were you the last two elections? Oh, I forgot. Bush won those.
Those weren't lies, Joe, say it ain't so.[/quote]
Yes, Obama was a lawyer that represented ACORN. It's called doing his job. You might not agree with everyone that comes into your door asking for help but you do your job to the best of your ability and move on.
Also, ACORN biggest problems stem from volunteers and not from the management. Obama's link to a couple of lazy guys on the street is unsubstantiated at best.
We can all agree that some people saw that they could get paid to do little to no work. The took advantage of the system and I still don't see how Obama ties in with that. You fail to mention that ACORN can't just throw out registration forms even if they suspect they're fraudulent. They have to submit them for review and then the government agency in charge makes the decision.
Also, if ACORN has been such a blight on democracy for so long, why hasn't anyone said anything until now? ACORN has been operating since 1970 and now there's a big to do about all of this. Where were you the last two elections? Oh, I forgot. Bush won those.
[quote name='bmulligan']You mean because Obama WAS a lawyer representing ACORN, has sat on boards that contributed to ACORN, was hired as a leadership trainer for Madeline Talbot at ACORN, and the obama campaign DID donate money to ACORN's get out the vote campaign ?
Those weren't lies, Joe, say it ain't so.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much!
Those weren't lies, Joe, say it ain't so.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much!
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='bmulligan']You mean because Obama WAS a lawyer representing ACORN, has sat on boards that contributed to ACORN, was hired as a leadership trainer for Madeline Talbot at ACORN, and the obama campaign DID donate money to ACORN's get out the vote campaign ?
Those weren't lies, Joe, say it ain't so.[/QUOTE]
Joe didn't say they were lies. Moreover, the phrasing of them by West shows the inherent bias, because it treats ACRN's malfeasance as intentional, deliberate FACT. Now, I know YOU think that they are, but you know what? You can't prove aing thing about it, and you can't prove a single erroneous vote occurred because of ACRN. So, when West says "Aren't you embarrassed by the blatant attempts to register phony voters by ACRN and other organizations that Barack Obama has been tied to in the past?" it's music to your biased ears. You see nothing wrong with it because you can't see anything wrong with it. It's your own blinders, hombre.
That's not even getting into the bias/testing inherent in the "Aren't you embarrassed" part of the question. ACRN hasn't deliberately done anything wrong, unless you want to circumvent due process (and piss on your precious constitution in the process!) and declare them guilty despite no evidence and no conviction. So you see nothing wrong with this, but let me propose a hypothetical question that our liberal media should have asked by now - at least, that is, if they were to keep up with liberal scrutiny.
"Governor Palin, aren't you embarrassed by your affiliation with the Alaskan Independence Party?"
See? You see now? Of course you don't.
[quote name='bmulligan']Because the DNC talking points are false on their premise. So blatantly false, in fact, that the leftist media won't even touch them. And I've already given you Gibson and Brokaw who are much more prominent than some no-name reporter in Podunkville USA.
When Leftists get grilled on their hypocrisy it's an unfair attack and outrageous. When Republican's get grilled, it's fair and balanced.[/QUOTE]
You'rein' lazy. You wouldn't last a second in a real meritocracy.
Those weren't lies, Joe, say it ain't so.[/QUOTE]
Joe didn't say they were lies. Moreover, the phrasing of them by West shows the inherent bias, because it treats ACRN's malfeasance as intentional, deliberate FACT. Now, I know YOU think that they are, but you know what? You can't prove a
ing thing about it, and you can't prove a single erroneous vote occurred because of ACRN. So, when West says "Aren't you embarrassed by the blatant attempts to register phony voters by ACRN and other organizations that Barack Obama has been tied to in the past?" it's music to your biased ears. You see nothing wrong with it because you can't see anything wrong with it. It's your own blinders, hombre.That's not even getting into the bias/testing inherent in the "Aren't you embarrassed" part of the question. ACRN hasn't deliberately done anything wrong, unless you want to circumvent due process (and piss on your precious constitution in the process!) and declare them guilty despite no evidence and no conviction. So you see nothing wrong with this, but let me propose a hypothetical question that our liberal media should have asked by now - at least, that is, if they were to keep up with liberal scrutiny.
"Governor Palin, aren't you embarrassed by your affiliation with the Alaskan Independence Party?"
See? You see now? Of course you don't.
[quote name='bmulligan']Because the DNC talking points are false on their premise. So blatantly false, in fact, that the leftist media won't even touch them. And I've already given you Gibson and Brokaw who are much more prominent than some no-name reporter in Podunkville USA.
When Leftists get grilled on their hypocrisy it's an unfair attack and outrageous. When Republican's get grilled, it's fair and balanced.[/QUOTE]
You're
in' lazy. You wouldn't last a second in a real meritocracy.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
Doesn't the RNC pay several groups to register voters?
Dr Mario Kart
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
[quote name='depascal22']Doesn't the RNC pay several groups to register voters?[/quote]
The head of such a group in California was just recently arrested for allegedly lying about his address.
ACORN is a good group, as McCain recognized in 2006 when he spoke at a rally co-sponsored by them. Affiliations with the group are not a problem, so list away.
Something that the CORPORATE media doesnt like to mention is that voter registration fraud is NOT vote fraud. Mickey Mouse has to show up to vote on election day for there to be vote fraud.
The head of such a group in California was just recently arrested for allegedly lying about his address.
ACORN is a good group, as McCain recognized in 2006 when he spoke at a rally co-sponsored by them. Affiliations with the group are not a problem, so list away.
Something that the CORPORATE media doesnt like to mention is that voter registration fraud is NOT vote fraud. Mickey Mouse has to show up to vote on election day for there to be vote fraud.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Well, election day is only 4 days after Halloween, and I don't think the late fee on costumes is THAT expensive.
:lol:
Of course registration fraud isn't vote fraud. Then again, this controversy wouldn't even exist if ACRN didn't flag the registration forms THEY deemed to be questionable, and submitted, as required by law (the submission, not the marking). But our resident conservatives would rather deal with only the facts that support their case, which are vague, chock full of logical leaps of 6-million-dollar-man proportions, and selective. But hey, par for the course for those folks.
:lol:
Of course registration fraud isn't vote fraud. Then again, this controversy wouldn't even exist if ACRN didn't flag the registration forms THEY deemed to be questionable, and submitted, as required by law (the submission, not the marking). But our resident conservatives would rather deal with only the facts that support their case, which are vague, chock full of logical leaps of 6-million-dollar-man proportions, and selective. But hey, par for the course for those folks.
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='bmulligan']Only when we believe that government's purpose is to drive society[/quote]
Which has been virtually the whole of human experience.
Libertarians (or whatever flavor they fashion themselves today) will explain for days the magical perfection of the market as a physical manifestation of the satisfaction of needs. And yet, somehow that logic hits the dustbin when the magical perfection of man's ability to subjugate and corrupt the market as a natural satisfaction of political power rises to the top like cream. Which it does. Every single time.
Socialism is not tyranny. Tyranny is appealing to the implicit human impulses that drive extreme behavior, getting fat on the surplus of others, all the while congratulating one's self on a moral life. They'll tell you you have no respect for the individual and the sanctity of the human experience as they change the channel because they don't want to see starving people in Africa.
Someone else's problem.
But don't you ever forget. No one loves you more than a capitalist. It is because he loves you that he will let you starve to death.
Which has been virtually the whole of human experience.
Which has been virtually the whole of human experience.
And so while we admit that anarchy is not a realistic option, we also recognize that government is inherently a corrupt enterprise (the fairy dust encrusted Constitution that makes America unapproachable notwithstanding). What's an ideological warrior to do?
Libertarians (or whatever flavor they fashion themselves today) will explain for days the magical perfection of the market as a physical manifestation of the satisfaction of needs. And yet, somehow that logic hits the dustbin when the magical perfection of man's ability to subjugate and corrupt the market as a natural satisfaction of political power rises to the top like cream. Which it does. Every single time.
Socialism is not tyranny. Tyranny is appealing to the implicit human impulses that drive extreme behavior, getting fat on the surplus of others, all the while congratulating one's self on a moral life. They'll tell you you have no respect for the individual and the sanctity of the human experience as they change the channel because they don't want to see starving people in Africa.
Someone else's problem.
But don't you ever forget. No one loves you more than a capitalist. It is because he loves you that he will let you starve to death.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
speedracer, do you consider yourself a socialist then?
crunchb3rry
CAGiversary!
People should not be paid to register voters. Maybe if Obama wins he can make that one of the community service things kids do to get that college credit he proposes. And if not paying them means they'll be lazy and not register more people, then so be it. Way I see it is if someone can't register on their own they are probably too ing dumb to deserve the right to cast a vote for anything but which color M&Ms try out next.
ing dumb to deserve the right to cast a vote for anything but which color M&Ms try out next.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
It's not that people are lazy to vote. It's just a damn pain to go to the DMV and do it. Whose idea was it to tie the two together?
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='thrustbucket']speedracer, do you consider yourself a socialist then?[/QUOTE]
In a philosophical vacuum, no. The critiques are correct and it is not ideal.
In reality, yes absolutely 100%. It was probably 90% until our current issue. Capitalists are crushing whole economies so they can cash in their CDS's. It is the perfection of capitalism, knowing nothing but its own benefit. This is the best that can ever be under capitalism.
I think we can do better.
In a philosophical vacuum, no. The critiques are correct and it is not ideal.
In reality, yes absolutely 100%. It was probably 90% until our current issue. Capitalists are crushing whole economies so they can cash in their CDS's. It is the perfection of capitalism, knowing nothing but its own benefit. This is the best that can ever be under capitalism.
I think we can do better.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='crunchb3rry']People should not be paid to register voters. Maybe if Obama wins he can make that one of the community service things kids do to get that college credit he proposes. And if not paying them means they'll be lazy and not register more people, then so be it. Way I see it is if someone can't register on their own they are probably too ing dumb to deserve the right to cast a vote for anything but which color M&Ms try out next.[/quote]
Why are you advocating for a purely anachronistic registration process? Do you fear all progress? When restaurants put up drive-throughs did you have similar objections? I can just see it now - "People should be forced to walk into a restaurant instead of just using a drive-through. If you're using a drive-through, you're not hungry enough"
ing dumb to deserve the right to cast a vote for anything but which color M&Ms try out next.[/quote]Why are you advocating for a purely anachronistic registration process? Do you fear all progress? When restaurants put up drive-throughs did you have similar objections? I can just see it now - "People should be forced to walk into a restaurant instead of just using a drive-through. If you're using a drive-through, you're not hungry enough"
[quote name='depascal22']Yes, Obama was a lawyer that represented ACORN. It's called doing his job. You might not agree with everyone that comes into your door asking for help but you do your job to the best of your ability and move on.
Also, ACORN biggest problems stem from volunteers and not from the management. Obama's link to a couple of lazy guys on the street is unsubstantiated at best.
We can all agree that some people saw that they could get paid to do little to no work. The took advantage of the system and I still don't see how Obama ties in with that. You fail to mention that ACORN can't just throw out registration forms even if they suspect they're fraudulent. They have to submit them for review and then the government agency in charge makes the decision.
Also, if ACORN has been such a blight on democracy for so long, why hasn't anyone said anything until now? ACORN has been operating since 1970 and now there's a big to do about all of this. Where were you the last two elections? Oh, I forgot. Bush won those.[/QUOTE]
I'm not refuting the fats about Obama but in relation to the point of the interview your points are moot. We were talking about Biden's denial of any association between ACORN and Obama. And that their campaign had not given "one dime" to ACORN's get out the vote campaign. Both of Biden's answers were blatant lies and countered with a "who's writing your questions" retort as if some questions really are of limits in a so-called free press.
Also, ACORN biggest problems stem from volunteers and not from the management. Obama's link to a couple of lazy guys on the street is unsubstantiated at best.
We can all agree that some people saw that they could get paid to do little to no work. The took advantage of the system and I still don't see how Obama ties in with that. You fail to mention that ACORN can't just throw out registration forms even if they suspect they're fraudulent. They have to submit them for review and then the government agency in charge makes the decision.
Also, if ACORN has been such a blight on democracy for so long, why hasn't anyone said anything until now? ACORN has been operating since 1970 and now there's a big to do about all of this. Where were you the last two elections? Oh, I forgot. Bush won those.[/QUOTE]
I'm not refuting the fats about Obama but in relation to the point of the interview your points are moot. We were talking about Biden's denial of any association between ACORN and Obama. And that their campaign had not given "one dime" to ACORN's get out the vote campaign. Both of Biden's answers were blatant lies and countered with a "who's writing your questions" retort as if some questions really are of limits in a so-called free press.
[quote name='mykevermin']Joe didn't say they were lies. Moreover, the phrasing of them by West shows the inherent bias, because it treats ACRN's malfeasance as intentional, deliberate FACT. Now, I know YOU think that they are, but you know what? You can't prove a ing thing about it, and you can't prove a single erroneous vote occurred because of ACRN. So, when West says "Aren't you embarrassed by the blatant attempts to register phony voters by ACRN and other organizations that Barack Obama has been tied to in the past?" it's music to your biased ears. You see nothing wrong with it because you can't see anything wrong with it. It's your own blinders, hombre.[/quote]
I've never argued that the interviewer wasn't biased, only that the questions were legitimate and his answers were blatant lies. So, My argument fails because Palin didn't get asked tough questions. Okay, you're a nutcase. I suppose you think Charlie Gibson's questions to Palin about her experience were unbiased? Probably your own blinders getting in the way?
From each his ability, to each his need? That question should have been answered, was perfectly legitimate, and would have been the most damning had Biden not completely avoided it with his "Is this a joke?" retort. . We already know your answer, myke. You repeat is in almost every post with your economic justice fevor.
Also a legitimate question that should have been asked of Palin, among others. And what about McCain's involvement in Iran-Contra, The S&L/Keating five debacle, the purposeful repression of free speech with McCain-Feingold, his support for the financial bailout, among others.
Again you are using the "they do it too" argument as if it automatically cancels out your candidate's misdeeds. It can't. Your mind is continually playing this zero sum gain scenario where lowering McCain automatically raises Obama. It's completely illogical, definitively childish, borderline insane.
ing thing about it, and you can't prove a single erroneous vote occurred because of ACRN. So, when West says "Aren't you embarrassed by the blatant attempts to register phony voters by ACRN and other organizations that Barack Obama has been tied to in the past?" it's music to your biased ears. You see nothing wrong with it because you can't see anything wrong with it. It's your own blinders, hombre.[/quote]I've never argued that the interviewer wasn't biased, only that the questions were legitimate and his answers were blatant lies. So, My argument fails because Palin didn't get asked tough questions. Okay, you're a nutcase. I suppose you think Charlie Gibson's questions to Palin about her experience were unbiased? Probably your own blinders getting in the way?
From each his ability, to each his need? That question should have been answered, was perfectly legitimate, and would have been the most damning had Biden not completely avoided it with his "Is this a joke?" retort. . We already know your answer, myke. You repeat is in almost every post with your economic justice fevor.
Also a legitimate question that should have been asked of Palin, among others. And what about McCain's involvement in Iran-Contra, The S&L/Keating five debacle, the purposeful repression of free speech with McCain-Feingold, his support for the financial bailout, among others.
Again you are using the "they do it too" argument as if it automatically cancels out your candidate's misdeeds. It can't. Your mind is continually playing this zero sum gain scenario where lowering McCain automatically raises Obama. It's completely illogical, definitively childish, borderline insane.
Yes, this comment coming from a sociologist. In a REAL meritocracy, where people achieve through their own effort, there wouldn't even be a need for someone like you. With that in mind, I think I'd do just fine.You're
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='bmulligan']I'm not refuting the fats about Obama but in relation to the point of the interview your points are moot. We were talking about Biden's denial of any association between ACORN and Obama. And that their campaign had not given "one dime" to ACORN's get out the vote campaign. Both of Biden's answers were blatant lies and countered with a "who's writing your questions" retort as if some questions really are of limits in a so-called free press.[/QUOTE]
The dumb thing about that interview is that both the questions and the answers were bullshit. The questions were the typical GOP talking-point "gotcha" crap and the answers were by and large verifiable lies, if not extreme misrepresentations. I guess it's better than no serious questions at all, which is what Obama/Biden have been the beneficiaries of this whole campaign.
The dumb thing about that interview is that both the questions and the answers were bullshit. The questions were the typical GOP talking-point "gotcha" crap and the answers were by and large verifiable lies, if not extreme misrepresentations. I guess it's better than no serious questions at all, which is what Obama/Biden have been the beneficiaries of this whole campaign.
HowStern
CAGiversary!
[quote name='elprincipe']The dumb thing about that interview is that both the questions and the answers were bullshit. The questions were the typical GOP talking-point "gotcha" crap and the answers were by and large verifiable lies, if not extreme misrepresentations. I guess it's better than no serious questions at all, which is what Obama/Biden have been the beneficiaries of this whole campaign.[/quote]
Yeah, because McCain/Palin have been hailstormed with some tough ones, like "So, Sarah what newspapers do you enjoy reading?"
Yeah, because McCain/Palin have been hailstormed with some tough ones, like "So, Sarah what newspapers do you enjoy reading?"
Reality's Fringe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 8 (100%)
So it seems that a lot of people still don't know thatt Communism is an economic system and not a political one.
Sorry, just an Economics major pet-peeve (in the same way people confusing a deficit with a debt makes me grind my teeth).
Sorry, just an Economics major pet-peeve (in the same way people confusing a deficit with a debt makes me grind my teeth).
bread's done