DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Brassmask on October 09, 2011, 05:47:57 PM
-
What is the difference between a right wing libertarian who wants a little government as possible (perhaps none at all) and an anarchist?
(Hello all.)
-
Hey Brass, is this you?
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/08/article-2046586-0E481DB700000578-865_634x366.jpg)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2046586/Occupy-Wall-Street-Shocking-photos-protester-defecating-POLICE-CAR.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2046586/Occupy-Wall-Street-Shocking-photos-protester-defecating-POLICE-CAR.html)
-
What is the difference between a right wing libertarian who wants a little government as possible (perhaps none at all) and an anarchist?
(Hello all.)
The Libertarian could possibly be a Christian but the Anarchist surely would be a Atheist!
-
For one libertarians believe in property rights and anarchists don't.
Libertarians don't necessarily have problems with police or the courts that protect individual rights.
Anarchists do.
-
Hey Brass, is this you?
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/08/article-2046586-0E481DB700000578-865_634x366.jpg)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2046586/Occupy-Wall-Street-Shocking-photos-protester-defecating-POLICE-CAR.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2046586/Occupy-Wall-Street-Shocking-photos-protester-defecating-POLICE-CAR.html)
Not that I know of.
If it was me, I would have been smiling at the camera and flashing a peace sign. :)
-
Hey Brass, is this you?
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/08/article-2046586-0E481DB700000578-865_634x366.jpg)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2046586/Occupy-Wall-Street-Shocking-photos-protester-defecating-POLICE-CAR.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2046586/Occupy-Wall-Street-Shocking-photos-protester-defecating-POLICE-CAR.html)
Not that I know of.
If it was me, I would have been smiling at the camera and flashing a peace sign. :)
Is your definition of 'peace' crapping on a Peace Officers car?
-
For one libertarians believe in property rights and anarchists don't.
Libertarians don't necessarily have problems with police or the courts that protect individual rights.
Anarchists do.
What came first the Atheist or the Anarchist?
-
No but when ya gotta go, ya gotta go. Are we certain that guy is crapping?
-
No but when ya gotta go, ya gotta go. Are we certain that guy is crapping?
yeah I guess he's waxing the patrol car.
-
For one libertarians believe in property rights and anarchists don't.
Libertarians don't necessarily have problems with police or the courts that protect individual rights.
Anarchists do.
What came first the Atheist or the Anarchist?
Everyone in the world for all of humanity's existence is and was born both an atheist and an anarchist.
-
What is the difference between a right wing libertarian who wants a little government as possible (perhaps none at all) and an anarchist?
(Hello all.)
There must be some overlap.
Libertarians seem to approve of some well regulated government.
Anarchists seem to think that a well ordered society would work fine with no government at all.
The US government employs more musicians than any other agency on Earth, that is what it takes to sing your own praises.
-
Nice to see you BM are you here to improve the advradge ?
-
For one libertarians believe in property rights and anarchists don't.
Libertarians don't necessarily have problems with police or the courts that protect individual rights.
Anarchists do.
What came first the Atheist or the Anarchist?
I don't see where an anarchist could not be a person of faith. They may not attend a church, because they have a problem with authoritarian structures, but that is not the same as not believing.
-
Nice to see you too, Plane. Just dropping in to see what's what. Feeling a little energized by the 99% movement thing. Wondered what was being said about it here, if anything.
-
Nice to see you too, Plane. Just dropping in to see what's what. Feeling a little energized by the 99% movement thing. Wondered what was being said about it here, if anything.
We can talk about it if you wish.
First of all , 99% is a plumb lie.
Secondly the 1% are being taxed more money than the lower 75% all together, with all of those payments I expect them to claim ownership rightfully one of these days.
-
For one libertarians believe in property rights and anarchists don't.
Libertarians don't necessarily have problems with police or the courts that protect individual rights.
Anarchists do.
What came first the Atheist or the Anarchist?
Everyone in the world for all of humanity's existence is and was born both an atheist and an anarchist.
When born without help a baby will surely die. After being born and raised by its parents a child becomes what he becomes, not necessarily an Atheist or Anarchist but either good or evil.
Some people proudly crap on a police car, grinning, whilst flashing the peace sign, other people choose a different path in life. A more positive and happy path. I think Anarchists are a combination of angry, lazy, confused, and misguided people that pretty much think about nobody but themselves. They either grow up and change for the better or end up dying unhappy, lonely, divorced, and eventually their children turn away from them because they want happiness or worse they become just as unhappy and dysfunctional as their parents, thus, the cycle keeps repeating itself.
Instead of blaming everybody for your problems Anarchists need to look no further than themselves. That is the one narcissistic thing they do is NOT blame themselves for their poor situation, yet again that's narcissistic after all.
-
A baby is easily brainwashed when young. Belief or nonbelief in a deity is unrelated to the existence of same.
Belief in a deity is unrelated to good and bad.
I see no reason to crap on a cop car. That one looks particularly uncomfortable as a crapper.
-
http://www.lp.org/platform (http://www.lp.org/platform)
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.
We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.
In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
http://anarchism.net/ (http://anarchism.net/) This one is precious!
Lets get it together Anarchists!
Anarchists shouldn't be so hard to unite and so easy to divide.
Hehehehehe!
.....anarchism is used in a number of ways--by people who want to abolish the government, abolish capitalism, abolish violence, abolish technology, abolish large-scale production, or abolish society. But what does anarchism mean?
The new Anarchism.net tries to answer this question. The new site is what the name says--an anarchisms’ network, a network of, for, and by anarchisms. The organizers of the site of course believe in a certain kind of anarchism, but it is our hope and goal to provide a basis for discussion. All anarchists are welcome!
This new site will cover different views on anarchism and the abolishment of the state, and try to put them together. As the ideological concept of “anarchism” and the name of this site shows, we are building an all-anarchist network of radical ideas of freedom and liberty.
It is true that there are many different kinds of anarchism which cannot go well together--collectivist and individualist, socialist and capitalist, pacifist and revolutionist etc. But they all provide the anarchist movement with important and powerful insights and arguments for abolishing the state!
-
I haven't posted anything about it because i am waiting for them to reach consensus. I do know they treated Congressman John Lewis rudely.
I also know this is not a spontaneous action. Did you know that the park across from Wall Street that is ground zero for the Owwies is chairman of the board for a corporation that received energy grants for windmill farms two days after the holding company bought the parkland.
-
I haven't posted anything about it because i am waiting for them to reach consensus.
How long are you willing to wait?
-
For one libertarians believe in property rights and anarchists don't.
Libertarians don't necessarily have problems with police or the courts that protect individual rights.
Anarchists do.
What came first the Atheist or the Anarchist?
I don't see where an anarchist could not be a person of faith. They may not attend a church, because they have a problem with authoritarian structures, but that is not the same as not believing.
I agree. It takes a certain amount of faith to believe in man made global warming. Faith is one thing, Christianity is another. A fully Christian person, following the Bible, would not be an Anarchist because it would go against the teaching of the Bible. A person of faith, on the other hand, could surely be an Anarchist. Just look no further than Obama and William Ayers.
-
A fully Christian person, following the Bible, would not be an Anarchist because it would go against the teaching of the Bible.
What part of the Bible mandates the support of a government?
-
I haven't posted anything about it because i am waiting for them to reach consensus.
How long are you willing to wait?
As long as it takes. How long will they try to reach consensus as the weather turns colder?
-
A fully Christian person, following the Bible, would not be an Anarchist because it would go against the teaching of the Bible.
What part of the Bible mandates the support of a government?
I doubt any, so what does the have to do with the the subject matter anyway?
I don't think the Bible says go out an buy a Prius either. There is nothing specific in the Bible that says not to crap on police cars either but I doubt the Bible would say it's the right thing to do either.
-
<<What part of the Bible mandates the support of a government?>>
Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's . . .
-
<<What part of the Bible mandates the support of a government?>>
Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's . . .
good one
-
Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's . . .
======================================
This simply meant "I am not in rebellion against the Romans." That which is Caesars would be the Roman coinage, that bore Caesar's face on it. The graven image of a man who claimed to be a god.
It was simply another way of saying "my kingdom is not of this world."
Jesus had no opinion about crapping on police cars, but I am pretty sure he would have opposed public crapping as a non kosher act.
-
I thought it meant "Pay your taxes," which effectively meant to support "your" government, i.e., the Roman Empire.
-
It meant that Jesus was not going to be tricked into being labeled by the Romans as a rebel.
In the Temple, Roman money was profane, since it had the face of Caesar, who claimed to be a god, on it.
Original pre-Roman money was used in the temple. Money changers exchanged it outside the Temple. The rate of exchange seems to have ticked Jesus off and he threw a fit.So he was not against showing disapproval of at least some of his fellow Jews.
-
<<So he was not against showing disapproval of at least some of his fellow Jews.>>
That's OK, it's in the best Jewish prophetic tradition. That's what a jeremiad is all about. One thing the Jews are not afraid of is self-criticism. We really need it because at bottom we're nothing but a bunch of hook-nosed, low-down, no-good speculators and money-changers. Fuckin' Jesus, man, he had our number.
-
So do you think that the money changer episode was anti-Semetic?
I imagine that Jesus was a champion of the poorer Jews from the small towns and farms who was enraged that the moneychangers in the Temple were overcharging for their money changing and sacrificial animal selling monopoly.
I don't think that "supporting" a government was the way that Jesus would have thought of the Roman government. The deal was pretty well understood: those with Roman citizenship were first-class citizens and had a few rights others did not have: everyone else was seen by the Romans more or less as a farmer regards his livestock: if you obeyed the Romans and paid your taxes, they left you alone, unless you were in their way. Otherwise, you would be punished as an example to everyone else that the Romans had complete power. Crucifixion was painful, it took forever to die, and was ideal as a way of convincing rebellious subjects to comply.
Jesus did not want to be crucified, he only accepted it as what he understood was necessary to spread his gospel. At the moment in which he was questioned about "rendering unto Caesar" he was not ready or was unaware of the necessity of his crucifixion.
Together with the ritual cannibalism of the Last Supper and the sacrifice of Jesus, this was a powerful message to his followers, and combined with the Resurrection, it is how the story of Jesus survived and the tales of many other would be prophets did not. Of course, Paul was essential to spreading the word. It was effective because it incorporated religious symbolism of many of the religions extant at the time. Cannibalism, even ritual cannibalism is clearly unkosher. Drinking any sort of blood is about as trayf as one can get.
-
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Politics/4aaaa63b.jpg)
-
<<So do you think that the money changer episode was anti-Semetic?>>
I wrote the last bit tongue-in-cheek and had a lot of fun writing it. I thought it was hilarious. Only the first part (about the Jewish prophetic tradition and the jeremiads) had any serious intent.
I think the money-changer episode was about as anti-Semitic as the demands of the Wall Street Occupation for the banks to get out of the government, in other words, not at all anti-Semitic, although it's been used by anti-Semites for two thousand years now to condemn the Jews. The usual take on the topic (Jesus driving the money-changers out of the Temple with a whip) has been the subject of at least one classical painting by El Greco and by others as well IIRC. There's a powerful juxtaposition of imagery (the Temple and the money-changers) which speaks to one of the anti-Semites' favourite slanders, "Their God is money," or "They worship Mammon."
-
<<So do you think that the money changer episode was anti-Semetic?>>
I wrote the last bit tongue-in-cheek and had a lot of fun writing it. I thought it was hilarious. Only the first part (about the Jewish prophetic tradition and the jeremiads) had any serious intent.
I think the money-changer episode was about as anti-Semitic as the demands of the Wall Street Occupation for the banks to get out of the government, in other words, not at all anti-Semitic, although it's been used by anti-Semites for two thousand years now to condemn the Jews. The usual take on the topic (Jesus driving the money-changers out of the Temple with a whip) has been the subject of at least one classical painting by El Greco and by others as well IIRC. There's a powerful juxtaposition of imagery (the Temple and the money-changers) which speaks to one of the anti-Semites' favourite slanders, "Their God is money," or "They worship Mammon."
In other words you made a joke and XO fell for it... XO, you crack me up you big dummy!
-
XO can speak for himself, but (a) not getting a joke doesn't automatically equate to being a "big dummy" and (b) sometimes when somebody doesn't get the joke, it means that the joke wasn't really all that much of a joke.
I'm kind of wondering whether YOU would have gotten the joke if I hadn't mentioned that it was a joke.
-
XO can speak for himself, but (a) not getting a joke doesn't automatically equate to being a "big dummy" and (b) sometimes when somebody doesn't get the joke, it means that the joke wasn't really all that much of a joke.
I'm kind of wondering whether YOU would have gotten the joke if I hadn't mentioned that it was a joke.
The threshold for me is less than XO since he claims to be a gifted intellectual.
It's like this:
We all know Bush was a dummy and not qualified for the job so nobody was surprised when his presidency was about a 6 on a scale of 1-10.
But Obama was the smartest guy in the world, the gifted one, the best of the best but then we all find out all he does is talk, no action, no follow through and no ability. Now we find out that he's a big fat zero and full of shit. I think XO is as smart and accomplished and full of it just like the guy he voted for back in 2008. In other words Obama and XO are full of shit and have visions of grandiose. The emperors have no cloths. XO has been pretending to be a gifted teacher for the last 35 years and Obama has been pretending to be presidential for about the last 3 years.
-
Yet XO makes more sense than 99% of the other posters in this group. Go figure.
-
Yet XO makes more sense than 99% of the other posters in this group. Go figure.
That coming from a guy that thinks the protesters are right and XO having voted for the worst president in this nations history. Not a good batting average on insight, common sense, intuition, and good choices.
-
In other words Obama and XO are full of shit and have visions of grandiose(sic). The emperors have no cloths (sic).
===========================================
Yeah, formidable competition from Kramer.
I realized from your commentary on "hook-nosed Jews" that you were being humorous. I have seen the paintings you mention, and they are anti-Semetic, of course, but the episode in the Gospels seems to be more of an expression of anger of Jesus, who was from the backwoods of Galilee, against the money changers of the Temple who were using religious dogma to profit from a monopoly.
Obama is trying to do a good job, and has been stopped at every turn by the Republican'ts who only want his downfall and have said so from the start. They do not want this country to succeed. I do and so does Obama.
I say, May God rot the Republican Party, the Tea Party and all their Lumpenproletarian cheerleaders.
-
Kramer, you have no common sense, good judgment, insight or intuition, and show no signs of excelling at anything except being annoying and ignorant to a fault.
-
<<Obama is trying to do a good job, and has been stopped at every turn by the Republican'ts who only want his downfall and have said so from the start. They do not want this country to succeed. I do and so does Obama.>>
How's the country going to "succeed" when it's led by a President who murders his fellow citizens without due process of law, effectively shitting all over the Constitution? Who attacks Libya without any Congressional authorization, again shitting all over the Constitution? The guy's a former law professor, yet he argues that he can't prosecute torturers DESPITE THE OBLIGATION TO PROSECUTE IMPOSED BY UNCAT, A BINDING LAWFUL TREATY OBLIGATION, on the excuse that such a prosecution would be "looking backward!" What criminal prosecution in the world doesn't have to "look backward?"
The protestors occupying Wall Street are starting to see what you still don't - - that Obama is part of the problem. You can't keep electing the same shills for the same corporate paymasters, and somehow expect that this time, now, things are finally going to be different. That is just crazy. The Republicans and the Democrats are both getting their water from the same well. Re-electing Obama won't change a God-damned thing. Cain is actually the better choice because he will fuck things up worse than Obama ever could. Things have to get worse before they can become better. Think of Cain as GW Bush II. It's only when the country is driven to the brink of ruin that any real change can come about.
-
Obama is trying to do a good job, and has been stopped at every turn by the Republican'ts
I guess you forgot Obama had a Democrat controlled House & Senate for 2 straight years and passed stimulus bills and healthcare without any Republican help and the Republicans weren't able to stop them.
And your point is what?
-
It's only when the country is driven to the brink of ruin that any real change can come about.
===================================================
Now there's a thought. Elect Hitler, because the utter destruction of the Reich must occur before the New Germany can arise: that seems to be your message. I would prefer not to be in Dresden or Berlin for the utter destruction part.
I won't be voting for Cain. Sorry.
I don't agree with everything Obama has done, but I feel he is better by far than McCain would have been, and if not for the obstructionists, I think we would be better off than we are.
I blame the conservative Democrats for failing to approve of Obama's program, notably health care, for not getting more done the first two years. Obama lacked clout. He was not Lyndon Johnson, he was not Hillary Clinton. I would have preferred either to him, but they were not running.
-
It's only when the country is driven to the brink of ruin that any real change can come about.
===================================================
Now there's a thought. Elect Hitler, because the utter destruction of the Reich must occur before the New Germany can arise: that seems to be your message. I would prefer not to be in Dresden or Berlin for the utter destruction part.
I won't be voting for Cain. Sorry.
I don't agree with everything Obama has done, but I feel he is better by far than McCain would have been, and if not for the obstructionists, I think we would be better off than we are.
I blame the conservative Democrats for failing to approve of Obama's program, notably health care, for not getting more done the first two years. Obama lacked clout. He was not Lyndon Johnson, he was not Hillary Clinton. I would have preferred either to him, but they were not running.
When did Bush have a Republican controlled House & Senate? He didn't and the Democrats obstructed.
So your point is what? Oh I get it you were just sniveling like a baby (like your boy president does) because some people have a different set of principals & character than you.
-
You are incapable, as ever, of admitting to see the point because you are both deliberately annoying as well as a total imbecile.
-
deliberately annoying as well as a total imbecile
How is that possible? If I am an imbecile how could I be DELIBERATELY annoying. Wouldn't I have to be pretty smart to be DELIBERATELY annoying? A retard has too low an IQ.
So one again you are wrong.
-
<<I don't agree with everything Obama has done, but I feel he is better by far than McCain would have been, and if not for the obstructionists, I think we would be better off than we are.>>
I guess one of the major differences between us is that you don't seem to attach the same degree of significance as I do to the extra-judicial murder of a citizen. To me, it's a deal-breaker, a red line that's been crossed. Ditto, though to a lesser degree, the refusal to prosecute war criminals despite clear-cut international obligations to do so, the abrogation of habeas corpus rights and the ongoing wars.
You seem to think that the country can still struggle along with him, on the "lesser of two evils" theory. I think that Occupy Wall Street is coming around to the view that "lesser of two evils" is irrelevant when the degree of difference is marginal and a much greater result would arise from doing away with BOTH evils (and the system they represent) and making a fresh start.
And BTW, yes, if the choice were between Hitler and the more pragmatic Himmler, both representing the same constituency, but Hitler crazier and likelier to bring the whole temple down on his own head, I would pick him over Himmler, given the choice.
-
I do not think we will be given a choice between Heinrich and Adolf.
I am all for fresh starts, but this country has never done one. If it did, it would be like Burma or Mongolia having a space program, or Netanyahu investing in Hormel Hams, Inc.
We are not revolutionaries in this country, not anymore. All change will be transitional, and even mild transitions will be labeled "extremist".
-
<<I do not think we will be given a choice between Heinrich and Adolf.>>
That'd narrow it down for you. In your first analogy, it was Adolf and Obama.
<<I am all for fresh starts, but this country has never done one.>>
The New Deal came close enough. The post-Vietnam era made some major reforms as well.
<<If it did, it would be like Burma or Mongolia having a space program, or Netanyahu investing in Hormel Hams, Inc.>>
http://www.mongolianviews.com/2011/03/mongolias-historical-space-flight.html (http://www.mongolianviews.com/2011/03/mongolias-historical-space-flight.html)
Mongolia already HAS a space program - - and you wouldn't wanna know what Netanyahu invests in. Hormel Hams would be the LEAST surprising of his investment picks.
<<We are not revolutionaries in this country, not anymore. All change will be transitional, and even mild transitions will be labeled "extremist".>>
You're probably right. Things will have to get a lot worse before they can become better.
-
<<Obama is trying to do a good job, and has been stopped at every turn by the Republican'ts who only want his downfall and have said so from the start. They do not want this country to succeed. I do and so does Obama.>>
How's the country going to "succeed" when it's led by a President who murders his fellow citizens without due process of law, effectively shitting all over the Constitution? Who attacks Libya without any Congressional authorization, again shitting all over the Constitution? The guy's a former law professor, yet he argues that he can't prosecute torturers DESPITE THE OBLIGATION TO PROSECUTE IMPOSED BY UNCAT, A BINDING LAWFUL TREATY OBLIGATION, on the excuse that such a prosecution would be "looking backward!" What criminal prosecution in the world doesn't have to "look backward?"
The protestors occupying Wall Street are starting to see what you still don't - - that Obama is part of the problem. You can't keep electing the same shills for the same corporate paymasters, and somehow expect that this time, now, things are finally going to be different. That is just crazy. The Republicans and the Democrats are both getting their water from the same well. Re-electing Obama won't change a God-damned thing. Cain is actually the better choice because he will fuck things up worse than Obama ever could. Things have to get worse before they can become better. Think of Cain as GW Bush II. It's only when the country is driven to the brink of ruin that any real change can come about.
Wow , do you think that there could be a contrarian (99%) Herman Cain voter?
-
It's only when the country is driven to the brink of ruin that any real change can come about.
===================================================
Now there's a thought. Elect Hitler, because the utter destruction of the Reich must occur before the New Germany can arise: that seems to be your message. I would prefer not to be in Dresden or Berlin for the utter destruction part.
I won't be voting for Cain. Sorry.
I don't agree with everything Obama has done, but I feel he is better by far than McCain would have been, and if not for the obstructionists, I think we would be better off than we are.
I blame the conservative Democrats for failing to approve of Obama's program, notably health care, for not getting more done the first two years. Obama lacked clout. He was not Lyndon Johnson, he was not Hillary Clinton. I would have preferred either to him, but they were not running.
Have you a specific example of this obstructionism?
I think you are being very general because the ice is thin underfoot.
-
<<Wow , do you think that there could be a contrarian (99%) Herman Cain voter?>>
99%? Nah, the division of the RNC responsible for stealing elections would never permit such a high margin of victory. Might call the results into suspicion. 78% would do just fine.
On a more serious note, I'm just hoping that those who were fooled the first time into supporting Obama just sit on their hands till the election is over - - no canvassing, no speechifying, no internet campaigning, no getting out the vote and no voting. Obama would still have the votes of those of his black supporters who voted for him only for the colour of his skin; Cain couldn't peel off very many of them because they know a Tom when they see one. But without the help, support or votes of his most idealistic younger supporters, Obama would be unable to beat Cain's GOP and/or TP supporters at the polls and he'd vanish into the dustbin of history.
-
Now why would you want that?
Barak H. Obama is the most foreign oriented and left winged president we have ever elected , I don't think it possible that the American people will ever elect anyone further Left nor anyone more popular overseas.
I credit his Lefty orientation with his really bad choices , of course I do< I think we were too far bumped to the left by George Bush one and two.
Would you want another Clinton? That could happen.
-
I would be happy for Hillary to be president. But dorks like Cantor and McConnell would oppose everything she tried to do as well. The main problem we have is the asshole Republicans.
-
I would be happy for Hillary to be president. But dorks like Cantor and McConnell would oppose everything she tried to do as well. The main problem we have is the asshole Republicans.
This is totally invalidated by two (count them two) years of unified government with a very liberal President and both houses of Congress in his party.
Your problem should be with Nancy Peloshi who was more scary than competant and prone to say that the bills shoudl be passed just to find out what was in them, easyer I suppose, than reading them first.
-
<<Barak H. Obama is the most foreign oriented and left winged president we have ever elected. . . >>
No he's not. Not even close. The most "foreign oriented" Prez was probably FDR, simply because the alliances forged in WWII required his close attention to foreign affairs in all corners of the globe, and work closely on the shape of the post-war world including the UN with the leaders of the USSR, the UK, France and China, to name just a few. The "most left winged" Prez was probably also FDR, who left a solid network of regulatory reforms and social benefits behind him that future politicians would have to work their butts off to dismantle. Obama, on the contrary, is all left-wing talk and no left-wing action, and whereas FDR said that he welcomed the hatred of the upper class and wore it as a badge of honour, Obama again and again tries to compromise with them and ends up giving away the store to them. "Left-wing" my ass - - he's a sell-out artist, pure and simple.
<< . . . I don't think it possible that the American people will ever elect anyone further Left >>
LMFAO - - well, at least ya got THAT right. Now that the ruling class has both parties bought and paid for, owns the MSM and the judiciary, it's hard to see how anyone can be elected to ANY federal political office who isn't already solidly in the pockets of the special interests. One of the major themes that I see is that the elections are clearly a farce and can solve nothing. I would like to say that the only solution is the Revolution, but I see a different kind of consensus coming out of the Occupy Wall Street etc. movements, and that is that only direct mass action (a.k.a. civil disobedience) can force change on the system.
Yesterday or today, I posted a very powerful message from Prof. Jeffrey Sachs dealing with the tactic of civil disobedience and explaining how in the absence of any real hope of change through the electoral system, it would be the protestors' best hope. I hope that the protestors and their supporters like Prof. Sachs are correct and that they will attain their goals through civil disobedience only. However, personally, I remain committed to the belief that only violent and massive revolutionary action can break the stranglehold of the special interests on the U.S. government and return government to the people. Unfortunately, I don't see any force capable of leading such a revolution. What is required is the discipline, focus and commitment of the Communist Party, but I'm afraid that the CP today is a spent force.
here are some videos in which Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer-Prize-winning reporter, analyzes the situation today. For each video I had to post two URLs, since I wasn't sure which one would get you to the video:
April 15, 2011- Chris Hedges speaking in advance of the start of Occupy Wall Street
Chris Hedges in a foreshadowing of the Occupy Wall Street protests ... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYAmxy0TZ6c#ws)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=nYAmxy0TZ6c#t=357s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=nYAmxy0TZ6c#t=357s)
Chris Hedges at Occupy Washington
Chris Hedges - Freedom Plaza - DC .m4v (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANtDDfmW8Js#ws)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ANtDDfmW8Js#t=467s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ANtDDfmW8Js#t=467s)
nor anyone more popular overseas.
I credit his Lefty orientation with his really bad choices , of course I do< I think we were too far bumped to the left by George Bush one and two.
Would you want another Clinton? That could happen.
-
What makes a violent revolution more likely to produce a government you would like than one you would not like?
-
<<What makes a violent revolution more likely to produce a government you would like than one you would not like?>>
I meant that for these guys, Occupy Wall Street, violent revolution is really the only answer. They're against what I'm against, they're for what I'm for, I'd bet there's a good chance that if they won a revolutionary struggle, they'd establish a government I'd like. Through electoral politics they'll get nowhere because the system is rigged against them and they at least know that much right now.
Look at Cuba - - I had a lot of sympathy with Fidel's revolution as the struggle developed and when the Triumph of the Revolution arrived, Cuba got the best government on the face of the earth. I guess I knew from the values that they were fighting for that I'd love the government they ultimately succeeded in establishing.
-
You think that Cuba had the best government on Earth and you think that the USA had one near the other end of the scale.
You are in complete disagreement with 99% of the people who ever had the choice of which to move to.
I know you think that money alone explains this , this is just another symnptom of your disgust with the common human being.
-
<<You think that Cuba had the best government on Earth and you think that the USA had one near the other end of the scale.>>
Only half true. I love the Cuban government and I love Fidel, but I think the US government has been hijacked. If the people can get it back from Wall Street and the corporations, it won't be the worst by a long shot. It's one of the worst now but it doesn't have to remain so.
<<You are in complete disagreement with 99% of the people who ever had the choice of which to move to.>>
That is just totally ridiculous. The vast majority of the Cuban people choose to remain in Cuba and build socialism there. The gusanos who leave for the U.S. are just greed-driven swine but their story of danger on the high seas is a dramatic one and catches a lot of MSM attention.
<<I know you think that money alone explains this , this is just another symnptom of your disgust with the common human being.>>
Well, thanks for explaining to me how I think, but I believe that my assessment of those gusano scumbags is pretty much on the money, and your inability to appreciate the financial side of their decision is just another symptom of your naivete and susceptibility to the nonstop propaganda brainwashing bullshit of your government and your corporate-owned MSM.
-
Just for clarification are you saying the Owwies are gusanos for refusing to accept the cards dealt to them and doing something about it? Since the majority of their complaint is that they aren't getting their fair share of the pie, doesn't that make them as greedy as any cuban refugee who risked life and limb on the promise of a better life? And if you aren't saying that, why aren't you?
-
<<You think that Cuba had the best government on Earth and you think that the USA had one near the other end of the scale.>>
Only half true. I love the Cuban government and I love Fidel, but I think the US government has been hijacked. If the people can get it back from Wall Street and the corporations, it won't be the worst by a long shot. It's one of the worst now but it doesn't have to remain so.
Well thanks , frankly I never was enamored of Obama so I feel less let down than you do.
<<You are in complete disagreement with 99% of the people who ever had the choice of which to move to.>>
That is just totally ridiculous. The vast majority of the Cuban people choose to remain in Cuba and build socialism there. The gusanos who leave for the U.S. are just greed-driven swine but their story of danger on the high seas is a dramatic one and catches a lot of MSM attention.
It isn't rediculous the numnber who needed to leave badly enough to accept the rediculous risk is huge, if evolution is the truth then Cuba must be the home of the mildest and tamest human beings on the planet , because everyone who has the slightest problem with accepting orders and swallowing lies has swum away like a drove of Lemmings. Or of course, having trhe smallest evidence of courage has been shot.
<<I know you think that money alone explains this , this is just another symnptom of your disgust with the common human being.>>
Well, thanks for explaining to me how I think, but I believe that my assessment of those gusano scumbags is pretty much on the money, and your inability to appreciate the financial side of their decision is just another symptom of your naivete and susceptibility to the nonstop propaganda brainwashing bullshit of your government and your corporate-owned MSM.
If you understood the nature of money a little better , you would be offended at a government claiming the right to direct every bit of it.
-
Obama would still have the votes of those of his black supporters who voted for him only for the colour of his skin; .....................
Have you an opinion or estimate for the magnitude of this faction?
-
<<Just for clarification are you saying the Owwies are gusanos for refusing to accept the cards dealt to them and doing something about it?>>
ROTFLMFAO. What you've done here is create your own definition of both the gusanos and the Occupy! people by totally misrepresenting both and then asking me if I can now equate one with the other. Hilarious, but don't think I don't appreciate the inventiveness of it.
Occupy! wants to build socialism in America and the non-gusanos (the stay-at-home Cubans) want to build socialism in Cuba. So I'd say that Occupy! and the gusanos are at opposite ends of the spectrum.
<<Since the majority of their complaint is that they aren't getting their fair share of the pie, doesn't that make them as greedy as any cuban refugee who risked life and limb on the promise of a better life? >>
LOL. For one thing, I'm not sure that "the majority of their complaint" relates to their share of the pie. A lot of the complaints relate also to war and pollution and the death of the planet. But let's play. Let's assume that their ONLY complaint is that they're not getting a fair share. They're still not gusanos, because gusanos START with a fair share of the pie under socialism - - free cradle to grave medical and dental care, free JK to grad school education and guaranteed liveable housing, plus numerous subsidies for sporting and cultural activities. Not content with a fair share of the pie they abandon the effort to build socialism and head instead to the imperialist enemy of their country driven by pure greed - - greed not for a fair share but for more than a fair share. While I couldn't fault the Occupy! movement even if all they were fighting for was a fair share, I sure as hell fault the gusanos, fighting for more than a fair share and abandoning the fight to build socialism.
<<And if you aren't saying that, why aren't you?>>
LOL. I dunno. And if you haven't stopped beating your wife, why haven't you?
-
Another example of greed being good.
I am surprised to learn today that Greed is the oppsite of slavery.
Who would have thought?
-
<< Another example of greed being good.>>
[bad joke deleted by author]
Greed is not good. Caring for others and cooperation are good.
-
<< Another example of greed being good.>>
Not if the sharks get you when you're halfway across. Although in that case I guess it would have been good for the sharks.
(Bad joke, but I'm leaving it in cuz it's still kind of funny except not really. I'll take it down in a few hours. Shouldn't laugh at this even if it's a gusano.)
I don't mind a bit of tastefull gallows humor.
I can imagine Castro himself making this joke , or Jeff Davis about an escaping slave of an earlyer era.