|kennethmw| Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Friggin' hilarious, and right on point. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/09/bill-maher-casey-anthony-republican_n_893926.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Finklestein Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 [quote name='kennethmw' timestamp='1310491725' post='1000632'] Friggin' hilarious, and right on point. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/09/bill-maher-casey-anthony-republican_n_893926.html [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatorclaws Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 based on the title, i thought he died Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalBacker Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMS_P09dKbc[/media] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 Except for all the religion stuff, Bill Maher rocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalBacker Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1322560884' post='1069061'] Except for all the religion stuff, Bill Maher rocks. [/quote] So, you're saying you're a Socialist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CincyInDC Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 lol. Did you even watch the video? Maybe you forgot the ninja? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalBacker Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 [quote name='CincyInDC' timestamp='1322640368' post='1069414'] lol. Did you even watch the video? Maybe you forgot the ninja? [/quote] Yes I watched the video, hell I posted it. Sounded to me like Maher and all of his guests were saying, "don't be scared of Socialism, it's not what you think it is." Did I miss something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CincyInDC Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 As you mention, one of the points being made in the video is that the population has been trained to think "socialism baaaad!" without really understanding what it is. Your comment to Jamie made me think you were accusing him of being a socialist (ostensibly a bad thing), although now that I read it again, maybe it's not so much an accusation, and maybe I jumped to conclusions. Incidentally, European-style socialism is indeed nothing to be feared -- unless you're a CEO or board member of a Fortune 500 company. And even then, CEOs and board members of companies like EADS, Siemens, VW, Peugeot, etc. do pretty well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalBacker Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 It's funny, yet scary how those of you on the left used to ridicule people when they said you were socialists. Now you are all right on the verge of completely embracing it. Championing it. I think the population is being trained to think, "socialism gooooood". My post to Jamie wasn't so much accusatory, as it was an attempt to get those of you on the left to admit to what it is you really want. You want socialism. Until you all admit that, debate about it's merits and consequences are pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CincyInDC Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 it's hard to say anyone is embracing something when its definition is a moving target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 [quote name='BengalBacker' timestamp='1322647916' post='1069421'] It's funny, yet scary how those of you on the left used to ridicule people when they said you were socialists. Now you are all right on the verge of completely embracing it. Championing it. I think the population is being trained to think, "socialism gooooood". My post to Jamie wasn't so much accusatory, as it was an attempt to get those of you on the left to admit to what it is you really want. You want socialism. Until you all admit that, debate about it's merits and consequences are pointless. [/quote] I'd be interested in a more substantial argument for these claims, Backer. Especially your claim that the population is being trained to think that socialism is good. It's pretty clear to me that the vast weight of the media in the U.S. is not only militantly anti-socialist, but that it makes a pretty good buck doing so. This should not be surprising because the result of neo-liberal deregulation over the past 30 years or so has resulted in a potentially dangerous consolidation of media enterprises (to traditionally/historically held notions of freedom of the press.) The FCC is pretty much a weak sister now--a hand-maiden to corporate interests. I believe this to be true even with the advent of the internet and the ease with which a diversity of views can be presented. It's all about how power is wielded. In any case, here is my view on the matter. Of all the folks in those two Maher clips, the most interesting person, imo, is Ratigan. His journey from a quasi-corporate shill to defender of economic sanity is worthy of respect. My journey is in a way opposite from his, yet we each have ended up in similar ideological space. Whereas he is a conservative who has "stepped back from the brink" of the future social implications of his party's current tendencies, I have, over time, done the same from the other end of the spectrum. I cut my political teeth on Marx and the traditions of the "old" left as it transitioned to the "New Left" in the wake of the sixties. I have come to believe that much of the New Left is a swamp of moral ambiguity and licentiousness not too dissimilar from the moral ambiguity and licentiousness of the "new" right--if that is what we can call the ideological path of the Republican party over the past 40 years. A pox on both their houses, I say. For example, I find it somewhat ironic that it is considered "radical" to embrace Ron Paul, even though the practical impact of the implementation of libertarian policies would be to further entrench the power of the oligarchy--despite all the rhetoric in opposition to it. And, by the way, that is the key to modern day socialism, too, at least in the U.S. Were the U.S. to adopt the radical platform of [i]what is viewed as socialism [/i]in current times, then those who are currently in power would remain so. For example, the whole point of environmentalism (as a political force) is to preserve the status quo--to halt technological progress, to embrace a weird form of zero sum economics, and thus to condemn the vast bulk of the population to poverty and not much of a future. During the political campaigning over the next months we are likely to hear a great deal about the "Founders" beliefs and the "constitutionality" of various proposals. Most of that will come from the so-called Right. And most of it will be bowdlerized to the point of meaninglessness. This will be a sad thing, too, as the course of a normal political cycle, combined with the genuine crises we now face, represents a wonderful opportunity for motivated citizens to actually learn something about the birth of the republic. And to put some of the shared wisdom of the founders to work again for us in our present day needs. And, imo, among the ideas which our founders implicitly understood and expressly organized around, this one seems most relevant as a guide for us today: humans are capable of the divine at times and any government ought to nourish and allow for the possibility of the expression of genius within a culture, but it is best to structure a society firmly grounded in the notion that as rare as genius is, society is mostly captivated by venal graspers and the faulty blinders of horse-sense. [i]This practical truth[/i] was so commonly accepted by all sides in the founding debates that the hashing out of the concepts of "separation of powers" and "checks and balances" was not an ideological impediment, just a technical one. Ratigan was right when he said that people don't like "isms" in general, and that discussions without "facts and arithmetic" only serve those who are currently in power. The choice is, as it always ultimately is, a personal one: each human being has the option to be informed or uninformed. It follows that the meaning of the term "socialism" will vary according to the predilections of the individual citizen [i]on that basis.[/i] tl;dr: As Roosevelt said, "We have nothing to fear but fear, itself." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 This is why I continue to write "Joe Walsh" onto every Presidential ballot I vote with every four years. I keep thinking "someday, it'll happen for old Joe" and people keep voting for the two big parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 [quote name='BengalBacker' timestamp='1322638130' post='1069410'] So, you're saying you're a Socialist? [/quote] Mahaer is a socialist? (and no, I'm anti-neo-liberalism) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrlnutz Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 [quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1322661652' post='1069439'] For example, I find it somewhat ironic that it is considered "radical" to embrace Ron Paul, [b]even though the practical impact of the implementation of libertarian policies would be to further entrench the power of the oligarchy[/b]--despite all the rhetoric in opposition to it. And, by the way, that is the key to modern day socialism, too, at least in the U.S. Were the U.S. to adopt the radical platform of [i]what is viewed as socialism [/i]in current times, then those who are currently in power would remain so.[b] For example, the whole point of environmentalism (as a political force) is to preserve the status quo[/b]--to halt technological progress, to embrace a weird form of zero sum economics, and thus to condemn the vast bulk of the population to poverty and not much of a future.[/quote] Any interest in expanding on those two points or linking some reading? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 She pretty much nails it (as always) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQrc81Coemk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Finklestein Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 To me the whole Socialist thing that gets thrown around in the US is a red herring. Most of the times it is mentioned is in regards to health care, thanks to a very successful campaign by the AMA denigrating "socialized medicine". Nobody argues that all people deserve police and fire protection, so they don't have a problem with "socialized police and fire protection". I guess some of us just include health care as a basic human need like police and fire protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 [quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1322661652' post='1069439'] For example, the whole point of environmentalism (as a political force) is to preserve the status quo--to halt technological progress, to embrace a weird form of zero sum economics, and thus to condemn the vast bulk of the population to poverty and not much of a future. [/quote] Can you expound on this as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krP8e4O81Qk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 [quote name='Squirrlnutz' timestamp='1322672667' post='1069472'] Any interest in expanding on those two points or linking some reading? [/quote] Okay. Paul/Austrian School economics this post, then the post after that on environmentalism. As for reading, serious 'googling' will turn up much. I'd be happy to reference a number of books re my remarks about the Constitution. First, a little preface. The key to ratifying the Constitution came down to two states: New York and Virginia. Both had entrenched factions that desired a defeat of the Constitution: the Clinton faction in NY and in Virginia, folks centered around George Mason and Patrick Henry. In general, from a practical standpoint, these factions preferred withholding a transfer of power to a central government because it affected the power they already held. This is particularly true in the case of NY. In Virginia, there was a strong ideological component, essentially a philosophy of human nature and its relation to government which we might associate today with forms of anarchy/libertarianism. Hume, Locke, and French [i]philosophes[/i] such as Voltaire and Rousseau tended towards an [i]egoistic[/i] definition of human nature which had certain implications for society and government. These views were well known in the colonies and some adopted many of the tenets at the extremes of humans in a "state of nature." Briefly, consider the well-known [url="http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html"]Patrick Henry speech [/url] from 1775, which ends with his famous, "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" At the Virginia ratifying convention, on July 5, 1788, Edmund Pendleton got up and made a profound remark in counterpoint to the views of Mason and Henry, whose view was basically that a stronger union, as proposed in the Constitution, would be harmful to the "rights of the people." (Especially Henry as he was a major speaker at this convention.) Pendleton said: [quote]"There is no quarrel between government and liberty; the former is the shield and protector of the latter. The war is between government and licentiousness, faction, turbulence, and other violations of the rules of society, to preserve liberty." --cited by Carl Van Doren in [u]The Great Rehearsal[/u], pg.220[/quote] It's worth taking the time to parse out just what Pendleton meant by this at it represents a more moderate view of then prevailing notions of human nature and liberty. The tension between these two views has been a thread throughout our history and is certainly a factor today, when imbalances in social justice are so pointedly obvious. I've often remarked on Austrian economics in this forum, so I won't go into too much detail here. For those interested, here is a worthwhile link to an essay by Murray Rothbard which explores the premises of Austrian thought: [url="http://www.rothbard.it/essays/praxeology-as-the-method.pdf"]Praxeology as the Method of the Social Sciences.[/url] (pdf) Suffice it to say that, economically speaking, the Austrian school is extremely attached to the notion of [i]laissez-faire.[/i] In essence, it presupposes that humans will "do the right thing" and it suggests that price mechanisms self-regulate the market. I've heard Austrian school economics described as anarcho-capitalism, which strikes me as being appropriate. Ron Paul is a self-confirmed follower of the Austrian school. (Googling will turn up much by Paul on the Austrian school.) Yet, as I mentioned previously, our system of government is premised by the cold, hard realism of the founders who knew that most of the time, humans will act in self-interest, and that such self-interest was not often the same as the best interests of a society as a whole. So, [url="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/29/ron_pauls_phony_populism/singleton/"]see this article on Paul, published yesterday.[/url] Then go to his [url="http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/"]campaign website and review his "Plan to Restore America."[/url] Let's look at a few specifics, keeping in mind what the practical implications of his policies would entail: Look at the "Conclusion" on page one: [quote]Dr. Paul is the only candidate with a plan to cut spending and truly balance the budget. This is the only plan that will deliver what America needs in these difficult times: Major regulatory relief, large spending cuts, sound monetary policy, and a balanced budget.[/quote] In other words, Paul's remedy for our economic woes neatly fits into the ideological straitjacket of Austrian economics. With the added notion that a balanced budget is somehow [i]a priori[/i] a good thing. This is simply not true, e,g, consider the large amounts of capital formation required to fund the many investments necessary to modern life. Credit, in some cases, is a necessity. Now take a look the spreadsheet on page 2 to review what Paul would do budgetarily and then consider whom would benefit from these policies. Hint: look for the word "eliminated" and the dollar value of "0." Then ask yourself if these kinds of moves would serve the best interests of the people. No more departments of Energy, Education, Commerce, HUD, Interior. No more international aid. A privatized FAA, severe reductions in many basic elements of the social safety net. Who benefits? Also, for all of Paul's rhetoric contra the oligarchy and the military-industrial complex, note that the reductions in Homeland Security and Defense are minimal in comparison. Who benefits? This should suffice for the libertarian outlook, as represented by Paul. Draw your own conclusions with regard to how the country would be affected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 laissez faire is basically the same thing as the invisible hand correct? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qjvwQrZmpk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTBengalsFan Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 [quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1322661652' post='1069439']For example, I find it somewhat ironic that it is considered "radical" to embrace Ron Paul, even though the practical impact of the implementation of libertarian policies would be to further entrench the power of the oligarchy--despite all the rhetoric in opposition to it. [/quote] I don't disagree that this may be true, but if it is, why does he get not only no support from the entrenched oligarchy, but derision from said oligarchy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrlnutz Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 [quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1322702640' post='1069617'] Okay. Paul/Austrian School economics this post, then the post after that on environmentalism. As for reading, serious 'googling' will turn up much. I'd be happy to reference a number of books re my remarks about the Constitution. First, a little preface. The key to ratifying the Constitution came down to two states: New York and Virginia. Both had entrenched factions that desired a defeat of the Constitution: the Clinton faction in NY and in Virginia, folks centered around George Mason and Patrick Henry. In general, from a practical standpoint, these factions preferred withholding a transfer of power to a central government because it affected the power they already held. This is particularly true in the case of NY. In Virginia, there was a strong ideological component, essentially a philosophy of human nature and its relation to government which we might associate today with forms of anarchy/libertarianism. Hume, Locke, and French [i]philosophes[/i] such as Voltaire and Rousseau tended towards an [i]egoistic[/i] definition of human nature which had certain implications for society and government. These views were well known in the colonies and some adopted many of the tenets at the extremes of humans in a "state of nature." Briefly, consider the well-known [url="http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html"]Patrick Henry speech [/url] from 1775, which ends with his famous, "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" At the Virginia ratifying convention, on July 5, 1788, Edmund Pendleton got up and made a profound remark in counterpoint to the views of Mason and Henry, whose view was basically that a stronger union, as proposed in the Constitution, would be harmful to the "rights of the people." (Especially Henry as he was a major speaker at this convention.) Pendleton said: It's worth taking the time to parse out just what Pendleton meant by this at it represents a more moderate view of then prevailing notions of human nature and liberty. The tension between these two views has been a thread throughout our history and is certainly a factor today, when imbalances in social justice are so pointedly obvious. I've often remarked on Austrian economics in this forum, so I won't go into too much detail here. For those interested, here is a worthwhile link to an essay by Murray Rothbard which explores the premises of Austrian thought: [url="http://www.rothbard.it/essays/praxeology-as-the-method.pdf"]Praxeology as the Method of the Social Sciences.[/url] (pdf) Suffice it to say that, economically speaking, the Austrian school is extremely attached to the notion of [i]laissez-faire.[/i] In essence, it presupposes that humans will "do the right thing" and it suggests that price mechanisms self-regulate the market. I've heard Austrian school economics described as anarcho-capitalism, which strikes me as being appropriate. Ron Paul is a self-confirmed follower of the Austrian school. (Googling will turn up much by Paul on the Austrian school.) Yet, as I mentioned previously, our system of government is premised by the cold, hard realism of the founders who knew that most of the time, humans will act in self-interest, and that such self-interest was not often the same as the best interests of a society as a whole. So, [url="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/29/ron_pauls_phony_populism/singleton/"]see this article on Paul, published yesterday.[/url] Then go to his [url="http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/"]campaign website and review his "Plan to Restore America."[/url] Let's look at a few specifics, keeping in mind what the practical implications of his policies would entail: Look at the "Conclusion" on page one: In other words, Paul's remedy for our economic woes neatly fits into the ideological straitjacket of Austrian economics. With the added notion that a balanced budget is somehow [i]a priori[/i] a good thing. This is simply not true, e,g, consider the large amounts of capital formation required to fund the many investments necessary to modern life. Credit, in some cases, is a necessity. Now take a look the spreadsheet on page 2 to review what Paul would do budgetarily and then consider whom would benefit from these policies. Hint: look for the word "eliminated" and the dollar value of "0." Then ask yourself if these kinds of moves would serve the best interests of the people. No more departments of Energy, Education, Commerce, HUD, Interior. No more international aid. A privatized FAA, severe reductions in many basic elements of the social safety net. Who benefits? Also, for all of Paul's rhetoric contra the oligarchy and the military-industrial complex, note that the reductions in Homeland Security and Defense are minimal in comparison. Who benefits? This should suffice for the libertarian outlook, as represented by Paul. Draw your own conclusions with regard to how the country would be affected.[/quote] Good stuff. I agree with your notion one hundred percent that on paper his Plan to restore America looks like the opposite of what we need. That said when the time comes for nominations, everyone is picking from the same toxic shelf. Is it worth it to gamble on the guy who wants to end the wars, end the war on drugs and have a serious look at the Federal Reserve even though he has some radical ideas about the role of government within the US because, as with any president, they're not likely to get even 25% of the things they want? And unlike any of the other candidates he actually has a pretty transparent, grounded set of beliefs? I imagine after 2012 the Senate and House will look a little different, but as I penned those last questions I'm starting to wonder if the only ideas that he could actually gain traction with are the radical ones, while his feel good anti-military zeal will probably get lost in congressional sludge that slows down any good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrlnutz Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 [quote name='CTBengalsFan' timestamp='1322764337' post='1069751'] I don't disagree that this may be true, but if it is, why does he get not only no support from the entrenched oligarchy, but derision from said oligarchy?[/quote] My guess is that while his policies are pro-oligarchy, they are still on his "crazy old bastard" terms. Everyone else in the race is happily hitching their puppet strings to the terms set forth by their campaign financiers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 [quote name='Squirrlnutz' timestamp='1322766601' post='1069766'] That said when the time comes for nominations, everyone is picking from the same toxic shelf. Is it worth it to gamble on the guy who wants to end the wars, end the war on drugs and have a serious look at the Federal Reserve even though he has some radical ideas about the role of government within the US because, as with any president, they're not likely to get even 25% of the things they want? [/quote] This is a salient point, and what I was thinking too. No president gets all the concessions he wants. Some of Paul's ideas are sound (his belief in "blowback", our meddling in foreign nations/ventures as the cause of "why they hate us", ending the ridiculous war on drugs, take a hard look at the military industrial complex, etc) amidst some of his zanier ones, like Homer mentions (getting rid of the DOE, Education, Interior, etc) that would never have a chance of happening anyway. At least he's principled. How much does him being the father of Rand hurt him, I wonder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.