The Republicans need to get the now-seventy-five-year-old Ron Paul in the White House. He is thoughtful, intelligent, a true Constitutionalist/libertarian/classic liberal, not a warmonger, and is against American imperialism, all of which somewhat sexy Sarah is not. Unfortunately, he seems not to be a friend of Israel.
I think the stats about black protestants getting more STDs is WAY MORE DAMNING than the one about Evangelical women. Probably 70% of the women in this country are white and more than half are evangelical where as such a small percent of women are black and are probably all christian. That was a pretty damning piece of data for the point this slimy Alinsky-tactic-using worm used.
Never Heard of this guy before. He is very good. Presentation is a little wobbly here and there, but content is EXCELLENT. I think we'd all prefer a diamond in the rough to a polished turd (O'Reilly)
I'm really hoping Pale-one runs in 2012 in order for Obama to gain enough political leverage to fight the moneyed interests of war and take America out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Then America can get on with its lunacy from 2016.
If Palin were fat and ugly would anyone listen to her? Of course not. Her appeal is sexual, pure and simple. More, she has an 'attainable', 'hot neighbor' appeal (unlike snotty fashion models, actresses and other American female celebrities) that ordinary Joes find irresistible. Simple, really.
@RookhKshatriya All true. Palin's greatest appeal lay in her being different than the largely panned John McCain. She was a conservative when he was not.
However, she is not presidential material. She is simple-minded, provincial, and crude, all traits admired by the white working class set.
She will long have a place at the debate I'm afraid, but she has no hope of becoming President of the US.
@ContrarianExpatriate People like Palin make me wonder whether uneducated people should be allowed to vote. Perhaps people should have to pass an elementary IQ test (registering a score of 100 or more) before they are given the franchise.
Since, as an American, I speak Czech, German and French,( I pulled myself up by my bootstraps to LEARN languages BEFORE I travel), and actually HAVE a passport , I will move quite easily when this craziness breaks out. Good luck selling what few manufactured goods we still make to a world you can't even speak to! The ELITE who SPEAK other languages can do that for you, but there seems to be no interest in us from the "REAL" America. Cool. Enjoy. I'm learning Mandarin right now!
she is humble. the american elite do not understand it. nor are people like Ron Paul arrogant. Being humble is appealing. The political and financial elite are about fall.... getting ready?
Fundamentalist Christians believe liberals are somehow threatened by Palin and the media was somehow unfairly biased against her to try to make her look stupid.
its honestly disturbing to think that 'liberals' think people are upset with Obama because he's of mixed race. Seriously disturbs me because if they're serious about their accusations, they haven't been paying attention to the real issues.
Breitbart has put this guy to the forefront this week. Sad personality. Blumenthal is one of these folks that point to people's religious belief and indicts saying either, "She doesn't really believe it." or "She actually believes it."
Prediction: His soft tone will grow louder over the next year as he is increasingly marginalized.
@fdzwes Breitbart raised his voice over Max's just to indicate that he was winning an argument which is BS. besides max was in their base. but aside from that we could all agree that sarah palin is a bitch. oh and BTW max blumenthal's name is getting more popular by the minute.
BORING! oh wow a berkley speech griping and sniping about Palin. How original. I thinked he's lusting after Palin. I guess he is a lustful pig as well. Hysterical displays like lawful assembly. Then is loser has to throw in Hitler who was a socialist so I thought he would like Hitler. Oh that's right they don't like to talk about Hitler being a socialist because that brings him a little too close to their side of the aisle.
@Vader21690 For the last time, dubass conservodog, Hitler used the term "socialist" in the name of his party to lure the working class into voting for him. He was not, nor was he ever, anything resembling a "socialist." Ever read Mein Kampf? Apparently not. In it Hitler is adamant about his loathing of the leftists inhabiting the Weimar gov. Hitler sent communists to the death camps. He outlawed all leftist parties in his Germany. Fascism & Nazism were hard RIGHT WING philosophies you dope!
@bapyou You're wrong facts are facts. If Hitler hated socialists so much why were He and Stalin so close before the war? Why did they call themselves socialists? Why did they accept Soviet help for training and supplying them to start WW2? Why did they make sure to put the red in their flag to attract the communists? He only turned on them when Stalin abandoned his part in the invasion of Poland to make it look like Hitler started the war. I don't want to read the words of madman Hitler.
@Vader21690 "I don't want to read the words of madman Hitler." Well, then. You'll never understand Hitler if you don't read his own words. Therefore you have no irght to comment about things about which you truly don't wish to know. But I understand. You don't value knowledge; only simple concepts you can throw into a YouTube comments to make it look as thugh you know something. Learn this: communists were one of the main categories of people targeted by the Nazi extermination policy.
@bapyou How many times can you be wrong and think you're right. Who cares what the hell his book says his actions speak for what really happened. Nationalist Socialists...duh do you get that? Hitler and Stalin had a pact before the war and Stalin betrayed him. Jews were the main target of the extermination policy. Damn have you read anything besides Mein Kampf? The histerical rantings of a madman but what he did is who he was not some stupid book he wrote while in jail. Get a damn clue!
If you'd read Mein Kampf, you actually see how fallacious is calling Hitler a "socialist." Hitler was in league with the large German private corporations of the time, i.e. Krupp, etc.
"Jews were the main target" And communists were another major category of people targeted for extermination, a fact you can't ignore unless you're trying to make false associations such as "Hitler was a socialist."
This is the dumb ass Fox News version of history. Again: Hitler used the name "socialist" in the name of his party to garner votes from the working class. It was a ploy. I'm real real sorry to have to tax your brain and introduce you to a new concept: It's called COMPLEXITY. Complexity is not something they discuss all that often on Fox News. (Just thought I'd let you in on a little-known fact about your favorite source of information.)
@bapyou What the hell does Fox News have to do with your total disregard for the facts of history. And that stupid comment about well we must be socialist too because we signed a pack with stalin. This has become really boring arguing with an idiot but it was your lame attempt at trying to say nazis hated socialists so much they sided with them. Sorry but once again you don't have a clue. You can't refute any fact I've made just start bashing fox news for some reason. Evade the issue dumbas
"What the hell does Fox News have to do" I live w/o TV, but I'm aware Becky Glenn & his ilk promulgate this fiction that Hitler was a socialist. That's what it has to do with the topic. OK? You claim Hitler was socialist do you not? And you also claim as proof of Hitler's socialism that fact that Hitler & Stalin were in league with one another prior to WW2. So, by the same logic (Hitler + Stalin = socialist Germany) one can infer that Roosevelt + Stalin = US is socialist. That's your logic.
@bapyou Oh I live w/o TV who gives a shit? You say don't watch tv but you know what glenn beck says and fox news is bad. You are so full of shit it's not funny. US is socialist duh..that's your logic. I've been in better conversations with teen agers than stupid wind bags like you. It must pain you to know that hitler was one of your beloved socialists and you can't come to admit it. How pathetic you want to save the socialist image but not admitting the truth. Nazis were socialists
No ... as I've explained, that is YOUR logic. Not mine, YOURS.
You wrote: Hitler + Stalin = socialist
Therefore: It must follow ... Roosevelt + Stalin = socialist. Get it now?
This is the logic YOU are using to characterize Hitler as socialist. Therefore I am using YOUR logic to show that America must also be socialist also. Got it? OK?
The only thing socialist about nazis was in the name. Their ideology was FAR RIGHT anti-communist & nationalist.
"It must pain you to know that hitler was one of your beloved socialists and you can't come to admit it." Clearly, the pain is on your side. Obviously no one has ever pointed out to you that Nazism & fascism are far RIGHT philosophies. Let me teach you something: In Italy there is a very strong communist party today. Why? Because during WW2 COMMUNISTS -- not capitalists or conservatives -- led the resistance against Mussolini. The great Antonio Gramsci died in Mussolini's prison.
"Damn have you read anything besides Mein Kampf?" Yes. Quite a bit, thanks. Which is why I know that Hitler being a "socialist" is a stupid, moronic version of history.
Let me ask: Do you do anything besdies sit with baited breath in front of your television watching Glenn Beck every night drawing his diagrams on his black board? Do you think he's a smart guy? He has a high school education.
"Hitler and Stalin had a pact before the war and Stalin betrayed him." & because of this association Hitler was a socialist? Allow me to use the exact same logic as you have just used to make a different claim. Let's go: During WW 2 the U.S. also allied itself with Stalin. Therefore, using YOUR logic - not my twisted leftist logic - YOUR unassailable RIGHT WING FOX NEWS logic, the United States is ALSO a socialist country. OK? I have proved the US is a socialist country using RIGHT WING logic.
@Vader21690 Damn you are really stupid aren't you. They call themselves socialists and you say they weren't. They natiionalize their industries and you say they're not socialists. They employ socialist ideology to fit their social needs and you say they're not socialists. You say they're a right wing group when the political spectrum says far right is no government. So a government that uses every socialist method to govern is right wing. Damn you are stupid. I know it's hard to get it.
@Vader21690 "They natiionalize their industries" The German government had a close relationship with German industry (Krupp, et al), which is what fascist governments do. (Mussolini called fascism the ultimate merger of corporate & state power; kind of like America in 2010.) It was not nationalization in the sense of the means of production was given to the people, which is the communist ideal. AGAIN: HITLER SENT COMMUNISTS TO THE DEATH CAMPS! You have dumbed-down Fox News view of history.
@bapyou Why are you so infatuated with Fox? You are a weird dude but you keep spewing the same non sense and won't dispute the facts. Look at the political spectrum and even you will see nationalist socialism is on the left dumbass. When is it ring wing to take over industries and the government and the every faze of people's lives? And what is it with you stupid quotation marks. You won't dispute the political spectrum showing that you're wrong so go and read mein kampf or something
@Vader21690 "When is it ring (sic) wing to take over industries and the government and the every faze of people's lives?" But that is not what happened in Nazi Germany DUMBASS. The Nazis were in league with industry, not controlling it. You are buying the present-day conservative bullshit about WW2 history. All of which is revisionist idiocy.
Francisco Franco, the fascist dictator of Spain, killed thousands of Anarchists (true leftists) in Catalonia.
@bapyou Last time since you keep repeating how wrong you are and it's boring..So in your mind since the nazis called themselves socialists and did everything that stalin like russia did to be socialists that means in your mind that they weren't socialists because of a book written years before. OK since that doesn't make any sense and you still can't look at a political spectrum map you don't want ot admit the truth. The funniest one is anarchist are true leftiists LOL You don't have a clue
"nazis called themselves socialists & did everything like russia did to be socialists"
This is a lie. There wasn't anything resembling the Russian Revolution in Germany. Stalin was a totalitarian dictator. He was not a communist. He sent the true leftists to the gulags. In the 1930s the American right-wing praised Stalin for his crackdowns. Hitler targeted communists for extermination.
Furthermore, as I've explained, it was COMMUNISTS in Italy who led the resistance. You know nothing.
@bapyou So Stalin wasn't a communist? Now I know you are far too stupid to even talk to. Either or just lying for some reason or you are truly this ignorant. I'm through wasting my time talking to someone who is this damn ignorant. I have no clue where you got your education but I would ask for my money back because they failed you miserably. You have risen to the rank of stupidest person I've heard from on youtube and that's saying something. Get your head out of your ass and wake up.
@Vader21690 In the true sense of the term, Stalin was not a communist, he was a totalitarian dictator. Such a figure -- by definition -- is not a communist.
Much like Hitler -- who sent German commuinists to the death camps -- Stalin sent those on the real left in Russia to the gulags. Are we clear?
__________
You keep saying you're through commenting to me, but you keep replying. I can assure you my head is not in my ass and I am fully awake and cognizant.
i'll tell you what seems to be appealing about Sarah Failin. she appeals to straight men on the basis of lust. deep down inside conserve men really are base pigs when it comes to their sexuality. look at all the scandalized g.o.p. ers. the men like her cause she talks their lingo and secretly they'd like to fuck her. the women who support her are women who have no sense of themselves beyond being WANTED BY MEN, and having men take care of them like they're children.
So what was his point? Was there one? What a bizarre critique--not one mention of any political activity of Gov. Palin. I'm sure he would find Catholics and confirmation ceremonies equally strange. Gee, why do these people do these things, how spooky! This is the weird world of the elite.
If you listen to the entire Rev Wright sermon, he clearly said that God will damn America for committing genocide against the natives,enslaving Africans,nuking Japanese,using chemical weapons on Vietnamese,depleted uranium on Iraqis and being the wealthiest nation in the world with the highest disparity of wealth in the world.
Palin believes in end time prophecy that is dangerous because it is a self fulfilling prophecy. One that involves WWIII.Would she nuke Iran for Jesus? You betcha!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
So let me get this straight... Sarah Palin's religious beliefs and church matter, but not Barack Obama's??? Reverend Wright ring a bell? "God DAMN America!!!!"
Amazing hypocrisy coming from the Left. I LOVE how Palin freaks them out... and its not for ANY of the reasons they claim.
The difference is Obama's beliefs don't affect his politics. Palin's beliefs greatly influence her politics and her actions. If you can't see this difference then I suggest you just not ever talk about politics again as your analytical skills are lacking that of even a chimp.
If you believe that Obama's beliefs - in black liberation theology - don't influence his policies, it's you that needs to review your analytical skills. The facts that this guy's credibility rests upon Rachel Madcow and Keith Oberbite reveals all.
LMFAO. Give me one thing he has done during his presidency to make you think he has a "black liberation theology" name just ONE.
And if this guy's credibility rested on 2 people why would he be popular with the rest of the world?
All you are doing is making baseless claims and until you back them up you look like nothing more than an idiot who can't stop crying because someone you didn't like became president. Suck it up buttercup, obama's gonna be here a long time.
Yes, she does freak you all out. You won't admit it, but we both know the truth. If Palin was really just a non-threatening joke to you, then you wouldn't work overtime attacking her ad-hominemly. Neither Palin or her supporters lack intelligence. You just ATTACK their intelligence because they don't agree with you. Trust me... you are far from setting the standard on intelligence. You don't set the bar very high at all.
She keeps appearing on the media because people like YOU can't stay away from her! They know she is great for ratings because those who love her AND hate her can't resist watching her in the media! You are actually HELPING HER STAY RELEVANT!! If you truly think she is so irrelevant... then just ignore her! How difficult is this to understand??? Wow...
I don't own a television, so I don't help anyone's ratings. I came on here to discuss her with her "fans" because I am fascinated that anyone could 1. take her seriously, and 2. take her seriously.
I appreciate you sharing wisdom, even if it was delivered contentiously.
You don't have to have a television to help someone's ratings. Giving her attention on the internet or talking about her to friends also indirectly contributes to driving the public's interest in her.
I'd be happy to discuss it with you in a non-contentious way, if you have a genuine interest... but I am suspicious that you don't.
Many Americans have embraced her because they feel they can relate to her. We are tired of the status quo "Washington Establishment".
I agree, by discussing her, I am helping to perpetuate her presence. The problem is, she represents such a fascinating development in American politics, that it is impossible for someone who pays attention not to take notice.
I also agree that the primary factor contributing to her success is the "identification" aspect you mention.
However, this frustrates educated people like myself to no end because we shouldn't be electing people who are "just like us".
OK, I am glad we can at least agree on that point. She is a fascinating development in American politics... but I submit not for the reasons you imply.
As for the second half of your comment... Honestly it was a pretty elitist thing to say. I am also educated. And yes, arguably we should be electing people "like us". Look where NOT electing people "like us" is getting us! "Leaders" who are making decisions for us but are completely out of touch! No more Washington Elitist Establishment!
Corporate cash pollutes our election process, ensuring that people "like us" cannot get elected. You have to be rich to run for office, and over 400 members of our congress are millionaires.
I'm curious, because you refuted my notion that corporate America had taken over our govt, and that was the source of most malfeasance- what do you think the main problems are with our system and society today?
OK... you and I clearly have different outlooks on money. I don't see cash as a "pollutant". I don't see "profit" or "success" as bad words. They are often a sign of achievement... but I suspect we also have very different outlooks on achievement as well.
There are ways of getting money without haveing to be a disconnected elitist. I don't have any problem with millionaires. I have a problem with out of touch elitists. You don't have to rich to run for office. You can get financial support.
Wow... that is a really sad statement. Money puts a roof over your head, food on your table and gas in your tank. You earn it by working and use it to pay for things you need and want. Money hasn't "destroyed humanity" (a little melodramatic, don't you think?) You could put a wad of cash on a table and leave it there and it would never destroy anything... until someone uses it destructively. It is what we DO with the money that can be the problem. HUMAN NATURE is the problem, not money.
Industrialization and urbanization have destroyed man and woman kind. Money is obviously central, but it was around for many, many years while humanity was largely agrarian in nature.
This isn't anything new- Thoreau, Rousseau, even Jefferson discussed this- Jefferson once said that the US govt would maintain its integrity so long as it remained agrarian.
You mentioned work. Work for works sake is ridiculous. Work should have personal meaning and community benefits.
Industrialization has allowed us to make radical advances in medicine, health, nutrition, technology, and many other areas. It has helped us reduce costs, produce more, and advance our ability to communicate and deliver goods. It has also improved standards of living throughout the world. I think it is a little sad how cynical you seem to be about the amazing advances we have made in the last century... advances that so many other nations could benefit from if they embraced the free market.
It's great to name Thoreau, Rousseau and Jefferson... and your agrarian theory is adorable. But wishing for the US and the rest of the world to go back to our agrarian youth is absurd. Trust me... you would not enjoy living in an agrarian society. After all... what would you do without your beloved YouTube? ;)
Why wouldn't I enjoy living in an agrarian society? I wouldn't miss the internet or cars, etc.
In fact, the only reason I have a computer right now is because I'm in an online program getting another degree. As soon as I'm finished, in a few months, I will get rid of my computer.
I also don't own a TV.
I think I could function just fine in an agrarian society.
Industrialization comes at too high a cost- our souls.
Then why don't you relocate to an agrarian society if that's what you want so badly? Because I can PROMISE you that the vast majority of your fellow Americans don't share your desire to play "Pioneer House". Almost everyone enjoys being able to drive to work, have air conditioner, running water, electricity, microwave ovens, gas heat, flush toilets, cell phones and the internet. You are very much in the minority on that front.
I don't mind being in the minority. In fact, as a misanthrope, I would be concerned if I WASN'T in the minority.
I contend that most people in developed societies are not happy- are generally dysfunctional. Thoreau has so many great quotes (have you read Walden???)- one of them states the following: most men lead lives of quiet desperation.
Wow, that's a fancy word there... but kind of a sad thing to be, don't you think?
OK... go ahead and contend that. I guess just not my kind of reading. Don't seem like my flavor. Too depressing and cynical.
Really? Do I really have to answer that? You don't think, just for example, that NOT getting malaria might make someone kind of happy? How about NOT having to sleep in extreme heat or cold?
Tell you what... We CLEARLY don't agree much on politics... and I doubt we ever will. That's fine with me. Neither of us is probably going to persuade the other... but that was never my intention here. You expressed that you wanted to understand what was behind people supporting and embracing Palin. I attempted to explain it, but you apparently couldn't accept my explanation. That's fine, but I was merely trying to help. Perhaps we should stop wasting each other's time here.
I just wish that BOTH sides could stop hating each other because they disagree politically. Let's stop ad hominem attacking and attacking people's character and intelligence just because we disagree. Just because you love socialism and I love capitalism doesn't make either of us more intelligent than the other. Doesn't make one of us evil and the other noble. It simply means we disagree. We both care about this country. We simply disagree on solutions. That doesn't make us enemies. Just American
I cannot say the left is entirely innocent, they are not- there is plenty of hatred and vitriol on my side.
HOWEVER, the main source of hatred in this country is coming from right wing hate-radio programs today. Look at the way so many conservatives call their ideological opponents "libshits" or "libtards".
People like mark Levin, Savage and Limbaugh LIVE off the hate- it pays all their bills.
Wasn't accusing you of being a Socialist necessarily. But if you espouse taking money from some and giving it to others in one form or another, then you espouse some socialist ideals. Not sure why Socialists never admit they are socialists. After all, socialism shouldn't be a bad word to a socialist... not that you are one.
Not a big fan of Savage at all, but Levin and Limbaugh don't live off hate. Hate has almost nothing to do with what they do. You only think that because you disagree.
You have to learn to stop accusing people of being HATEFUL just because they disagree with you. That would be like me saying you hate freedom, success, hard work, ethics, and honesty just because you are a liberal (again... if you were one). I doubt you truly hate those things, many on both sides of the aisle make ad-hominem attacks like this against each other every day and it is terrible. We are on the same side. We have REAL enemies out there in the world. Let's not fight each other.
i don't hate freedom nieten but what do you mean by it? the freedom to make a buck by any means you can. the freedom to own something that was only meant for the national guard, police and military. success? it usually comes nowadays working as a team. you folks act like marlboro men when it comes to teamwork. hard work? it is really admired so long as you aren't fully appreciated for that work; or are underpaid;or are overworked, and can EASILY be replaced for someone who could be paid NOTHING!
Yes I did. Well, that's not entirely true, but I am not sure there is such a thing. Some work because it is their passion. Some because they know that it is the right thing to do. Most however work to earn a paycheck so they can support their families, pay their bills, and prepare for retirement. They work to subsidize what matters to them. Those are perfectly valid reasons to work and have personal meaning and provide community benefits. What kind of work does not? Yes, I enjoy my job usually.
I agree with W. H. Auden when he writes, in his essay "My Belief" that "The vast majority of jobs in a modern community do people harm". Auden goes on to write, "The only jobs known to me which seem worthy of respect, both from the point of view of the individual and society, are being a creative artist, a highly skilled craftsmen, a research scientist,a doctor, a teacher, or a farmer."
Think of those poor creatures sitting at cubicles staring at screens. What a TRAGEDY!!!!
OK, well I couldn't agree less with Auden. These jobs do harm how exactly? Those are the only jobs that deserve respect? Can you say "elitism"? WOW that is elitist.
I sit in a cubicle and stare at a screen all day... and I am happy. I work with fun people, do creative things, and have a good time. I consider myself blessed. Don't bother feeling sorry for me. I actually feel sorry for you a little bit. You sound like a really unhappy person.
I pity anyone who sits on their ass all day staring at a screen. It's an empty, pathetic existence.
Back to Thoreau, American genius:
"When sometimes I am reminded that the mechanics and shopkeepers stay in their shops not only all the forenoon, but all the afternoon too, sitting with crossed legs, so many of them--as if legs were made to sit upon, and not to stand or walk upon- I think that they deserve some credit for not having all committed suicide long ago" (essay: "Walking")
OK... but I create really rich and creative learning experiences for a health network. I don't find it empty or pathetic at all. I make a good living at it too. What do you do all day?
I kind of think Thoreau's perspectives (the few that I have seen anyway) are kind of pathetic. He sounds elitist, emotionally imature... and lazy.
The Industrial Revolution has been a disaster??? Unbelievable. I thought "progressives" LOVED progress? Apparently not. And... you have just exposed yourself as an irrational idealog with no sense of reality.
one man's progress is another's regress. look at this society of ours- highest prison population, highest drug use- legal and illegal, highest violent crime in developed world, highest national and personal debt.
I could go on all day.
If you think this is the best we can do- that we live in a healthy society with mentally and physically healthy citizens, I think you are setting the bar too low.
I guess, but it seems to me a little difficult to argue with the advances we have made and how much they have done for the world. Just one example... millions die from malaria every year... but not in the U.S. Sure, not everyone in the world is benefitting from those advances equally, but this COULD be changed if we worked to help other nations learn from the secrets of our success and promote economic advancement in their country so they could enjoy higher standards of living as well.
I understand your argument FOR industrialization, and certainly, I cannot refute that many advances have been made.
However, my contention is that while we have increased the quantity of life, we have severely decreased the quality- which is far more important to me.
Well, that's good at least. But... not having malaria, being able to flush our bodily waste away from us, being able to live in climate controlled homes, having refridgerators to keep our food fresh longer, having access to more and better information on demand, being able to cure diseases, being able to travel across the world in only a few hours... this isn't improving QUALITY at all? Well, I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on that... but that's pretty amazing to me.
Yes, you do... Not so sure about the genius part. Yeah, I think it is clear by your heros that we don't at all share the same values. Maybe that's why I can be happy in my existense and you can be happy in yours? Because our values are so COMPLETELY different? Just a theory.
Oh, I'm not at all saying that this is the best we can do, but I am saying that in many ways it is the best we have ever done. Not in every way, but we have access to more information, we have higher mortality rates, we know more about health issues and have made HUGE medical advances. No, we can't force anyone to learn or be healthy, but we have the information and the freedom to choose whether or not we take advantage of it. But as a society we are both physically and mentally lazy, I agree.
The main problems with our society today? Wow... where to start? Well, our abandonment of God and morality? How about political correctness? How about making everything relative? What happened to meaning what you say and saying what you mean? Sticks and stones? A hard day's work? Merit? Winners? Honesty? Integrity? Intellectual honesty? Consequences? Personal responsibility? Calling a "spade a spade"? Why do we have to either be offended or feel guilty about everything?How's that for a start? ;)
all nonsense. follow the money. the rest of that social bullshit your spewing only serve to divide and assist the grand larceny taking place under our noses.
No, but seriously... I think it is really sad that God, values like honesty and hard work are "social bullshit" to you. That is unbelievably sad. I hope you will someday reconsider this outlook of yours. I fear you are far more cynical about life than you should be.
God is a waste of time. And the fact that god is so important to you, especially, apparently, in politics, makes you totally UN-AMERICAN in my book. This is NOT a theocracy- if you want to live in a "christian" nation, go find yourself a new country.
Fact is, agnostic and atheists are the fastest growing "religious" group in the USA. It's at 16% now. In another 20 years it will be 30%.
Before I'm dead (47 years to go), we will have an agnostic president in the USA.
That is really sad that you think God is a waste of time, but your choice. Also... really sad that you feel that me making God a priority makes me un-American. A little frightening, actually. How do my religious beliefs make me un-American exactly? So much for freedom of religion. That is just a really sad and un-informed thing to say as an American. Am I misunderstanding you? If not... you really need to re-think that attitude.
I don't think god has a place in politics and I am concerned that many on the right seem to want this country to be a theocracy- with all its laws and regulations coming straight out of their bible.
Ask a gay person if religious beliefs have had a negative impact on his or her life.
Why am I not surprised? There is a HUGE difference between totally theocratizing and simply allowing prayer or the occasional Christian image or Biblical reference. Do we really need to sanitize every single speck of religion from public arenas? Most conservatives don't want to base all laws on just the Bible. That is absurd.
I don't really care what gays think about religion. After all... they don't seem to care what I think about homosexuality.
Not so. Not at all. No one is surpressing gays. They have the same rights as the rest of us.
Yes we do... and I feel the same toward you. It is refreshing to have civil dialogue and be able to agree to disagree. I wish more Americans could get to this place and we could all get past all of the hatred and ugliness. We ALL care about this country and our fellow man. We just disagree on the specific solutions. That is no reason for us to hate each other, wouldn't you agree?
Are you actually quoting statistics in regard to religion? That's a bit ironic, but that's OK though.
So... I am just curious... How old are you, if you don't mind me asking? The reason I ask is... the paradigms you are expressing sound like paradigms that are commonly held by young adults. Are you a guy or a gal? If you don't want to answer, you don't have to. Not trying to get too personal, just curious as to how I am talking to. I am a 37 year old male from Indiana.
Actually... that's not what I was doing at all, but you are very sensitive, aren't you? I don't think you are an idiot at all. I think you are very wrong about a lot of things, but not an idiot. You seem intelligent enough... but you don't seem to have much common sense or good judgement... just in my opinion.
Again... wasn't trying to patronize you. I was honestly curious... but I take it I guessed correctly by your reaction.
Well, I don't know if "extensively" is the best word to use, but I have read a great deal, enjoy reading history books, etc.
Hmm... no, not those three, but I do love the Declaration of Indepence, the Constitution, and the Federal Papers. I have also read a decent amount about and by the Founding Fathers, former U.S. Presidents, and lots of independent research sessions on historical and political events. Just off the top of my head.
And Palin? Well, many of us feel that she is closer to on target in regard to MOST of these issues than the status quo. She embraces God, her husband, her children, her state, her country, hard work, traditional values, straight talk, letting the American people keep more of their hard-earned money, getting out of the way of REAL progress, and standing up for real God-given liberty. Washington elitists think they know better than we do what is best for us. Palin actually shares our values.
See... liberals think that the best qualities in a leader are smooth talk, making everyone feel great about themselves (despite what is going on), making sure everyone likes them (polls) and "social justice". Conservatives are more interested traditional values: God, the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, free market forces, and commitment to doing the right thing even in tough times and even if we might lose a "friend" or two in the process.
I answered your question... and this is the best you can do? "Sigh"? Interesting, to say the least. Perhaps this is why you can't grasp the Palin phenom?
I just think it is tragic that all of the things I just mentioned... God, family, values, hard work and liberty... these thinks seem to mean NOTHING to you. You don't seem to value ANY of these. If that is truly the case, what DO you value? Anything? Your lackluster response to those concepts sadly illustrates my previous point.
Come on. Neither of us "knows" definitively what she is truly like as a person since we don't know her. But you are asking me to prove to you that she is not shallow or opportunistic? You know I can't do that any more than you can prove to me that she IS.
Oh, OK. How is that exactly? What have I said about Palin that is not intellectually honest?
OK, perhaps I should have said it this way: "Oh, you don't know that she is shallow, empty or an opportunist." Is that better? Fact stands, neither of us truly knows... but you were the first one to declare her as "shallow, empty, and an opportunist", so I think YOU should be the one backing of their original statement, not me. ;) I can play that game too.
You DO hate her for irrational reasons. You hate her because she disagree with you politically. That IS an irrational reason. That is no reason to hate someone. That is just a reason to disagree with them. I clearly disagree with you on quite a bit... but I don't hate you at all. I disagree with President Obama on lots... but I dont' HATE him. That would be absurd.
I despise Palin because she is a shallow opportunist who lacks the intellectual fortitude to do any valuable "leading".
It's not so much an issue based hatred- I don't hate George Will, and I disagree with his politics. He is a reasonably well edcuated man who should be listened to, even if he is wrong about a LOT.
Palin is an idiot. THAT is why I don't like her.
You can believe what you want- I know the truth of my own reasons.
No, it is because you disagree with her politics. See... you are on shakey ground when it comes to intellectual honesty again. At the time of our last Presidential election, Palin had demonstrated these qualifications WELL beyond Barack Obama... but I'd put money on you having voted for him. Am I right? At least she had executive experience. Obama was only a "community organizer". But you are willing to give Obama a pass because he is Liberal. Just admit it.
You think Palin is an idiot because she dares disagree with YOU. Kind of arrogant, don't you think? I agree with Obama on almost nothing, but I don't think he is an idiot. Just really, REALLY wrong on SO many levels.
And Biden... he gaffes left and right. He is even more wrong than Obama in my opinion, but I don't think he is an idiot either. Idiot is a pretty strong word. I'd be tempted to use it to describe Biden... but if I did it would not be in the literal sense.
You hate Palin because she symbolizes a wife and mother who has worked hard, earned success, embraces family values, faith, morality, hard work, the free market, life, liberty, sovereignty, the constitution, energy independence, and more... and you have expressed that you HATE many of those things.
Umm... OK, but I suspect I am at least a little bit right.
If she was just at a bar and you didn't know her as "the" Sarah Palin, and you sat next to her at the bar (an agrarian establishment, of course) and had a beer... and the two of you started talking about non-political things... do you think that you would honestly think she was an absolute idiot still? Or is it just in the political arena that she is an idiot to you? Or just as a Presidential prospect?
I don't agree with Obama on his version of healthcare reform, cap and trade, energy policies, economic policies, foreign policy, war policy, "climate change", socialism, Marxism, "Fairness Doctrine", the "stimulus package", and most other things... but I don't hate him. I will debate his policies, but I have no interest in calling him names or attacking his character. I don't like it when people on the Right do that. I watched the Left be completely unfair to Bush over bullshit for 8 years.
Did you seriously miss my entire point about hate??? Wow...
Tell me, which of those "talking points" as you refer to them... which of them is not a real and meaningful issue on the table right now?
I realize that is one of the Left's favorite methods to employ in an attempt to avoid any real discussion of real issues... by dismissing them with the dengrating "talking points" title in hopes that they will just somehow vaporize into thin air... but that doesn't work with me either.
That juvenile "talking points" tactic is popular with liberals and is basically an ad-hominem attack on an idea instead of an individual. Instead of confronting the substance of the point (because they usually can't), why not just attack the credibility of the point itself? "Did you hear that from Limbaugh or Hannity?" How "gotcha" of you!
Republicans (and again, I am not a Republican) don't insist on anything of the kind. You really need to learn that people who disagree with you aren't automatically morons or fools. Reagan was one of the (if not THE ) greatest Presidents of the past century. Bush was also a great president. You just disgree with their politics. Arguably, Johnson, Carter were the WORST presidents of this century. Clinton was pretty terrible on some fronts too... but again, I feel this way since I am not liberal .
Bush killed scores of thousands of people needlessly, and almost ran our economy off a cliff.
He was a great president???
Reagan oversaw arms shipments to Iran, Iraq; he engaged in the Iran Contra affair; he created the savings and loan scandal- the largest economic fraud in our nation's history- up to that point. Reagan raised taxes and ran up a record deficit.
Reagan also sent money to the top 1% while cutting social programs for the poor.
OK... here we go with the liberal talking points. I knew it would really kick in sooner or later. No, Bush did not kill thousands of people needlessly. He did not run our economy off a cliff.
Yes, he was. He responded with strength to a terrorist threat that NO president has every have to deal with before. You liberals LOVE to forget this. Bush caused the economic recession how? Yeah... I'd LOVE to see you try to explain that one. Uh... gas prices and housing bubble... both DEMOCRAT blunders
And Reagan a bad president? I need some of what you are smoking. ENDED the cold war. We were "ALLIES" with Iraq 30 years ago. How did Reagan personally start the savings an loan scandal? Reagan didn't raise taxes. Democrats in congress did (but... why is this a bad thing to you? Aren't you a lib? Don't you LIKE higher taxes?) And... GOOD FOR HIM for lowering taxes for higer incomes and cutting social programs! Rich people create jobs and welfare is plain wealth redistribution.
Right... I forgot that you don't share these values with me. You don't value God, family, country, and character. Apparently that is why you can't understand the Palin phenomenon. Makes total sense to me now. Sad... but now I understand. Probably why all you can do is muster a sign when I mention things that I think every American should hold in high regard... but apparently not all of us do. Thanks for shedding light on that for me.
Americans thirst for REAL change. We are tired of "Republicans" and "Democrats". They are all the same. Neither party represents OUR interests anymore. They deceive us and put their own interests first. They don't have our best interests at heart.
The reason you can't take Palin seriously is that you are holding her up to the status quo standard for Presidency. That is your mistake. No one wants that anymore... and that's why Palin has a real chance at the presidency in my opinion.
I agree 100% that BOTH parties are wholly owned subsidiaries of corporate america, and couldn't care less about the interests of their constituencies.
I think we all understand that.
However, people like Palin are going to perpetuate the status quo, not challenge it. I have yet to hear her discuss the abuses of corporate power on our system- and if she doesn't recognize the central problem, she certainly can't take action to fix it.
I don't think the problem in this country is "Corporate America". It is larger government. It is higher taxes. It is productivity-killing restrictions. Expansion of government and "social justice" aren't the solutions we need. Palin IS discussing the damaging effects of these two dynamics.
Why is Obama so driven when it comes to healthcare, cap and trade and global warming when the American people want him to take meaningful actions to help our economy!?! And you talk about "central problem?
Taxes on top earners have dropped precipitously over the last 50 years.
What high taxes are you talking about?
Productivity killing restrictions? Did we not just witness the catastrophic consequences of 30 years of deregulation?
Even Adam Smith, the founder of modern capitalism, said the financial systems must be regulated. That's just common sense. The problem is, the regulators are often ex-workers from the field they are supposed to regulate- and they work on behalf of their former company
60,000,000 Americans don't even pay taxes. The top 50% of earners pay 96.54% of taxes. The top 10% pays 65.84%. Yes, it has been worse, but it is also about to become worse again.
Obama, despite his claims to the contrary, will force the American people to pay for his healthcare and his "green" initiatives at a time when we are already spread thin. His policies HURT our economy, not help. Business IS our economy. Government is not.
I'm sorry... what specifics did I neglect to site? I thought the specific numbers and percentages were fairly specific, but I guess not.
And "partisan fool"? Weren't you the one who accused me of being "contentious" earlier? Interesting. So... who am I a partisan for exactly? That is very amusing to me. I am not a Republican, just FYI. So... not sure who you think I am a partisan for. And "fool"? Now you are just name calling. Let's try to stick to substantive comments about issues, OK?
Yes, that's right. Restrictions. No, we did not. That is only a liberal interpretation of what we are going through now. Gas prices and a housing bubble set off this recession... both inflicted by government interference. Government forces us to rely on other nations (who don't have our interests at heart) for our energy supply instead of allowing us to produce our own... driving gas prices sky high. Government forced lenders to give loans to people who didn't deserve them, causing the...
Right-wing talking points? Right. I PROMISE you that I could make a FAR more compelling case about how Barney Frank and friends in the late 1990's started forcing lenders to lend money to people who could not afford it or understand the terms of their loans. I PROMISE that I could lay this out FAR better than you could try to convince anyone that the current economy and 10.2% unemployment are George Bush's fault, which I'm sure you probably believe.
Well, don't forget that the FBI investigates criminal activity, not economics. Just FYI. Conventional wisdom is that the economic disaster was caused by the Housing Bubble bursting, which was caused by irresponsible lending, which was largely caused by legislation in the late '90s that facilitated this irresponsible lending. Also... the gas price crisis in '07 and '08. Even non-partisan sources like wikipedia acknowledge this. They list these as the causes of the latest recession.
the only media outlets that have been propagating the fannie/freddie/poor people caused this crisis storyline are right wing outlets- specifically fox news and hate-radio.
I guarantee, if you think the crisis was caused by poor people taking out loans they couldn't afford- your main source of "news" (if you can call it that) is fox and the hate-radio programs.
Um... how about the New York Times article I posted? Or the Wikipedia account? Or are those Right-Wing Conspiracy propaganda outlets too?
And the whole "FOX News" attack... that doesn't work on me. FOX is no more "Right Wing" than NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, and so on are "Left Wing". Come on. Sure, FOX is SLIGHTLY more to the right than everyone else... but they bring BALANCE to the media since everyone else is LEFTIST. I watch them all. You could stand to do the same.
You show a total lack of understanding as it pertains to our media system (along with a whole host of other issues). I do not believe that you have studied history and political science at all.
I have studied our media system. I have read most of the books that claim there is a corporate bias, and most of the books that claim there is a liberal bias.
The books that make the case for a corporate bias are well documented, and well written.
The books that claim a liberal media bias are NOT.
I don't think you will read them, but here are some great books about our media system:
Rich media, poor democracy (richard mcchesney)
The new media monopoly (ben bagdikian)
Manufacturing consent (noam chomsky)
Breaking the sound barrier or ANYTHING ELSE by Amy Goodman.
If you are intellectually honest, you will investigate these claims and find truth for yourself. But hey, it's a lot easier to just watch people confirm your predisposed beliefs on fox entertainment channel.
Are you serious? You aren't familiar with A) the fact that we cannot become energy independent in America because of all of the restrictions we have imposed on domestic energy supplies? Not just oil either. Coal shale, natural gas, nuclear energy too. And because of this we are frequently at the mercies of other nations in regard to energy prices. The skyrocketing gas prices of '07 and '08 were a huge factor in the economic meltdown. Government has failed to deal with this for decades. Then...
Then the housing bubble. Many warned us that the high risk loans the likes of Barney Frank forced lenders to grant would create a false sense of security and inflate the housing market beyond it's true capacity. Then... as many predicted, this "bubble" burst. Many agree that the primary cause of this phenomenon was these high risk loans.
Is that specific enough for you? Energy prices and the housing bubble bursting were the two primary causes of our current economic state.You would not agree?
"many" people also predicted that the repeal of depression era regulations specifying that investment banks and commercial banks be separate (glass-steigel act) would end up with massive abuse and fraud from wall street.
What's the Appeal?
Her tits.
muiroford1 10 months ago
The Republicans need to get the now-seventy-five-year-old Ron Paul in the White House. He is thoughtful, intelligent, a true Constitutionalist/libertarian/classic liberal, not a warmonger, and is against American imperialism, all of which somewhat sexy Sarah is not. Unfortunately, he seems not to be a friend of Israel.
hatmap 11 months ago
I think the stats about black protestants getting more STDs is WAY MORE DAMNING than the one about Evangelical women. Probably 70% of the women in this country are white and more than half are evangelical where as such a small percent of women are black and are probably all christian. That was a pretty damning piece of data for the point this slimy Alinsky-tactic-using worm used.
gombis666 11 months ago
Never Heard of this guy before. He is very good. Presentation is a little wobbly here and there, but content is EXCELLENT. I think we'd all prefer a diamond in the rough to a polished turd (O'Reilly)
acme181169 1 year ago 2
I'm really hoping Pale-one runs in 2012 in order for Obama to gain enough political leverage to fight the moneyed interests of war and take America out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Then America can get on with its lunacy from 2016.
Tsnore 1 year ago
If Palin were fat and ugly would anyone listen to her? Of course not. Her appeal is sexual, pure and simple. More, she has an 'attainable', 'hot neighbor' appeal (unlike snotty fashion models, actresses and other American female celebrities) that ordinary Joes find irresistible. Simple, really.
RookhKshatriya 1 year ago
@RookhKshatriya All true. Palin's greatest appeal lay in her being different than the largely panned John McCain. She was a conservative when he was not.
However, she is not presidential material. She is simple-minded, provincial, and crude, all traits admired by the white working class set.
She will long have a place at the debate I'm afraid, but she has no hope of becoming President of the US.
ContrarianExpatriate 1 year ago
@ContrarianExpatriate People like Palin make me wonder whether uneducated people should be allowed to vote. Perhaps people should have to pass an elementary IQ test (registering a score of 100 or more) before they are given the franchise.
RookhKshatriya 1 year ago
Guys like her because she's fuckable and looks like a naughty librarian.
fantasticHorus 1 year ago
obamadidit2008 - Jesus died for you. I'm asking him to open your eyes to His forgiveness. All of us are sinful and are in need of His saving grace.
fedup1940 1 year ago
She's nothing more than a poorly informed, hate monger.
jkfromcincty 1 year ago
Lucille Ball had more brains than Sarah Palin! Sarah has found her level of intelligence in the tea party movement,
franklindavid 1 year ago
Since, as an American, I speak Czech, German and French,( I pulled myself up by my bootstraps to LEARN languages BEFORE I travel), and actually HAVE a passport , I will move quite easily when this craziness breaks out. Good luck selling what few manufactured goods we still make to a world you can't even speak to! The ELITE who SPEAK other languages can do that for you, but there seems to be no interest in us from the "REAL" America. Cool. Enjoy. I'm learning Mandarin right now!
marschnerj 1 year ago
hey max!
google this video
Evan Coyne Maloney remembers
larrymyclown 1 year ago
lol at naughty monkey heels...
CooperLordOfAll 1 year ago
What does naughty monkey heels mean?
DaHonestAbe 1 year ago
@DaHonestAbe probably something not to want to be called O.o
CooperLordOfAll 1 year ago
Fair enough, lol.
DaHonestAbe 1 year ago
she is humble. the american elite do not understand it. nor are people like Ron Paul arrogant. Being humble is appealing. The political and financial elite are about fall.... getting ready?
mizzoulibertarian 1 year ago
@mizzoulibertarian
Without a doubt the finest example of satirical humor I've seen in some time.
Palin is humble...woo-hoo...I'm splitting my sides over that one. Incredible.
Generatorhead 1 year ago
Fundamentalist Christians believe liberals are somehow threatened by Palin and the media was somehow unfairly biased against her to try to make her look stupid.
AggressiveAtheist 1 year ago
The lisp is pretty annoying.
Jbrouhaha 1 year ago
its honestly disturbing to think that 'liberals' think people are upset with Obama because he's of mixed race. Seriously disturbs me because if they're serious about their accusations, they haven't been paying attention to the real issues.
thecursedland 1 year ago
Did the right wing pay attention to Bush removing peoples freedoms? IE: The patriot act?
LifeIsGood63 1 year ago
Breitbart has put this guy to the forefront this week. Sad personality. Blumenthal is one of these folks that point to people's religious belief and indicts saying either, "She doesn't really believe it." or "She actually believes it."
Prediction: His soft tone will grow louder over the next year as he is increasingly marginalized.
fdzwes 1 year ago
@fdzwes Breitbart raised his voice over Max's just to indicate that he was winning an argument which is BS. besides max was in their base. but aside from that we could all agree that sarah palin is a bitch. oh and BTW max blumenthal's name is getting more popular by the minute.
landesal 1 year ago
BORING! oh wow a berkley speech griping and sniping about Palin. How original. I thinked he's lusting after Palin. I guess he is a lustful pig as well. Hysterical displays like lawful assembly. Then is loser has to throw in Hitler who was a socialist so I thought he would like Hitler. Oh that's right they don't like to talk about Hitler being a socialist because that brings him a little too close to their side of the aisle.
Vader21690 2 years ago
@Vader21690
Vader.... you're a dope.
Diosibundo 2 years ago
@Vader21690 For the last time, dubass conservodog, Hitler used the term "socialist" in the name of his party to lure the working class into voting for him. He was not, nor was he ever, anything resembling a "socialist." Ever read Mein Kampf? Apparently not. In it Hitler is adamant about his loathing of the leftists inhabiting the Weimar gov. Hitler sent communists to the death camps. He outlawed all leftist parties in his Germany. Fascism & Nazism were hard RIGHT WING philosophies you dope!
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou You're wrong facts are facts. If Hitler hated socialists so much why were He and Stalin so close before the war? Why did they call themselves socialists? Why did they accept Soviet help for training and supplying them to start WW2? Why did they make sure to put the red in their flag to attract the communists? He only turned on them when Stalin abandoned his part in the invasion of Poland to make it look like Hitler started the war. I don't want to read the words of madman Hitler.
Vader21690 1 year ago
@Vader21690 "I don't want to read the words of madman Hitler." Well, then. You'll never understand Hitler if you don't read his own words. Therefore you have no irght to comment about things about which you truly don't wish to know. But I understand. You don't value knowledge; only simple concepts you can throw into a YouTube comments to make it look as thugh you know something. Learn this: communists were one of the main categories of people targeted by the Nazi extermination policy.
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou How many times can you be wrong and think you're right. Who cares what the hell his book says his actions speak for what really happened. Nationalist Socialists...duh do you get that? Hitler and Stalin had a pact before the war and Stalin betrayed him. Jews were the main target of the extermination policy. Damn have you read anything besides Mein Kampf? The histerical rantings of a madman but what he did is who he was not some stupid book he wrote while in jail. Get a damn clue!
Vader21690 1 year ago
"Who cares what the hell his book says"
If you'd read Mein Kampf, you actually see how fallacious is calling Hitler a "socialist." Hitler was in league with the large German private corporations of the time, i.e. Krupp, etc.
"Jews were the main target" And communists were another major category of people targeted for extermination, a fact you can't ignore unless you're trying to make false associations such as "Hitler was a socialist."
bapyou 1 year ago
"Nationalist Socialists...duh do you get that?"
This is the dumb ass Fox News version of history. Again: Hitler used the name "socialist" in the name of his party to garner votes from the working class. It was a ploy. I'm real real sorry to have to tax your brain and introduce you to a new concept: It's called COMPLEXITY. Complexity is not something they discuss all that often on Fox News. (Just thought I'd let you in on a little-known fact about your favorite source of information.)
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou What the hell does Fox News have to do with your total disregard for the facts of history. And that stupid comment about well we must be socialist too because we signed a pack with stalin. This has become really boring arguing with an idiot but it was your lame attempt at trying to say nazis hated socialists so much they sided with them. Sorry but once again you don't have a clue. You can't refute any fact I've made just start bashing fox news for some reason. Evade the issue dumbas
Vader21690 1 year ago
"What the hell does Fox News have to do" I live w/o TV, but I'm aware Becky Glenn & his ilk promulgate this fiction that Hitler was a socialist. That's what it has to do with the topic. OK? You claim Hitler was socialist do you not? And you also claim as proof of Hitler's socialism that fact that Hitler & Stalin were in league with one another prior to WW2. So, by the same logic (Hitler + Stalin = socialist Germany) one can infer that Roosevelt + Stalin = US is socialist. That's your logic.
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou Oh I live w/o TV who gives a shit? You say don't watch tv but you know what glenn beck says and fox news is bad. You are so full of shit it's not funny. US is socialist duh..that's your logic. I've been in better conversations with teen agers than stupid wind bags like you. It must pain you to know that hitler was one of your beloved socialists and you can't come to admit it. How pathetic you want to save the socialist image but not admitting the truth. Nazis were socialists
Vader21690 1 year ago
"US is socialist duh..that's your logic"
No ... as I've explained, that is YOUR logic. Not mine, YOURS.
You wrote: Hitler + Stalin = socialist
Therefore: It must follow ... Roosevelt + Stalin = socialist. Get it now?
This is the logic YOU are using to characterize Hitler as socialist. Therefore I am using YOUR logic to show that America must also be socialist also. Got it? OK?
The only thing socialist about nazis was in the name. Their ideology was FAR RIGHT anti-communist & nationalist.
bapyou 1 year ago
"It must pain you to know that hitler was one of your beloved socialists and you can't come to admit it." Clearly, the pain is on your side. Obviously no one has ever pointed out to you that Nazism & fascism are far RIGHT philosophies. Let me teach you something: In Italy there is a very strong communist party today. Why? Because during WW2 COMMUNISTS -- not capitalists or conservatives -- led the resistance against Mussolini. The great Antonio Gramsci died in Mussolini's prison.
bapyou 1 year ago
@Vader21690
"Damn have you read anything besides Mein Kampf?" Yes. Quite a bit, thanks. Which is why I know that Hitler being a "socialist" is a stupid, moronic version of history.
Let me ask: Do you do anything besdies sit with baited breath in front of your television watching Glenn Beck every night drawing his diagrams on his black board? Do you think he's a smart guy? He has a high school education.
bapyou 1 year ago
"Hitler and Stalin had a pact before the war and Stalin betrayed him." & because of this association Hitler was a socialist? Allow me to use the exact same logic as you have just used to make a different claim. Let's go: During WW 2 the U.S. also allied itself with Stalin. Therefore, using YOUR logic - not my twisted leftist logic - YOUR unassailable RIGHT WING FOX NEWS logic, the United States is ALSO a socialist country. OK? I have proved the US is a socialist country using RIGHT WING logic.
bapyou 1 year ago
@Vader21690 Damn you are really stupid aren't you. They call themselves socialists and you say they weren't. They natiionalize their industries and you say they're not socialists. They employ socialist ideology to fit their social needs and you say they're not socialists. You say they're a right wing group when the political spectrum says far right is no government. So a government that uses every socialist method to govern is right wing. Damn you are stupid. I know it's hard to get it.
Vader21690 1 year ago
@Vader21690 "They natiionalize their industries" The German government had a close relationship with German industry (Krupp, et al), which is what fascist governments do. (Mussolini called fascism the ultimate merger of corporate & state power; kind of like America in 2010.) It was not nationalization in the sense of the means of production was given to the people, which is the communist ideal. AGAIN: HITLER SENT COMMUNISTS TO THE DEATH CAMPS! You have dumbed-down Fox News view of history.
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou Why are you so infatuated with Fox? You are a weird dude but you keep spewing the same non sense and won't dispute the facts. Look at the political spectrum and even you will see nationalist socialism is on the left dumbass. When is it ring wing to take over industries and the government and the every faze of people's lives? And what is it with you stupid quotation marks. You won't dispute the political spectrum showing that you're wrong so go and read mein kampf or something
Vader21690 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Vader21690 "When is it ring (sic) wing to take over industries and the government and the every faze of people's lives?" But that is not what happened in Nazi Germany DUMBASS. The Nazis were in league with industry, not controlling it. You are buying the present-day conservative bullshit about WW2 history. All of which is revisionist idiocy.
Francisco Franco, the fascist dictator of Spain, killed thousands of Anarchists (true leftists) in Catalonia.
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou Last time since you keep repeating how wrong you are and it's boring..So in your mind since the nazis called themselves socialists and did everything that stalin like russia did to be socialists that means in your mind that they weren't socialists because of a book written years before. OK since that doesn't make any sense and you still can't look at a political spectrum map you don't want ot admit the truth. The funniest one is anarchist are true leftiists LOL You don't have a clue
Vader21690 1 year ago
"nazis called themselves socialists & did everything like russia did to be socialists"
This is a lie. There wasn't anything resembling the Russian Revolution in Germany. Stalin was a totalitarian dictator. He was not a communist. He sent the true leftists to the gulags. In the 1930s the American right-wing praised Stalin for his crackdowns. Hitler targeted communists for extermination.
Furthermore, as I've explained, it was COMMUNISTS in Italy who led the resistance. You know nothing.
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou So Stalin wasn't a communist? Now I know you are far too stupid to even talk to. Either or just lying for some reason or you are truly this ignorant. I'm through wasting my time talking to someone who is this damn ignorant. I have no clue where you got your education but I would ask for my money back because they failed you miserably. You have risen to the rank of stupidest person I've heard from on youtube and that's saying something. Get your head out of your ass and wake up.
Vader21690 1 year ago
@Vader21690 In the true sense of the term, Stalin was not a communist, he was a totalitarian dictator. Such a figure -- by definition -- is not a communist.
Much like Hitler -- who sent German commuinists to the death camps -- Stalin sent those on the real left in Russia to the gulags. Are we clear?
__________
You keep saying you're through commenting to me, but you keep replying. I can assure you my head is not in my ass and I am fully awake and cognizant.
Cheers.
bapyou 1 year ago
blumenthal you are the man
go fight the power and never give up
and watch out for snipers
Adeebster 2 years ago 7
i'll tell you what seems to be appealing about Sarah Failin. she appeals to straight men on the basis of lust. deep down inside conserve men really are base pigs when it comes to their sexuality. look at all the scandalized g.o.p. ers. the men like her cause she talks their lingo and secretly they'd like to fuck her. the women who support her are women who have no sense of themselves beyond being WANTED BY MEN, and having men take care of them like they're children.
obamadidit2008 2 years ago 13
Comment removed
oneirishpoet 2 years ago
So what was his point? Was there one? What a bizarre critique--not one mention of any political activity of Gov. Palin. I'm sure he would find Catholics and confirmation ceremonies equally strange. Gee, why do these people do these things, how spooky! This is the weird world of the elite.
nilesnelson 2 years ago
Preachers, religious right men, all have one thing in common, they want to fuck Sarah Palin. This is the bottom line.
distressed7 2 years ago
If you listen to the entire Rev Wright sermon, he clearly said that God will damn America for committing genocide against the natives,enslaving Africans,nuking Japanese,using chemical weapons on Vietnamese,depleted uranium on Iraqis and being the wealthiest nation in the world with the highest disparity of wealth in the world.
Palin believes in end time prophecy that is dangerous because it is a self fulfilling prophecy. One that involves WWIII.Would she nuke Iran for Jesus? You betcha!
wervasdeferens 2 years ago
Some are trying to call her the face of a political movement, but it's more like a bowel movement.
InteGrayting 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
oneirishpoet 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There is a demon.. This ass speaking.. It's called Marxism. Why isn't talking about Reveren Wright.? God Dam American.. Obama is a Marxist terrorist.
TomMikeAvaMilan 2 years ago
@TomMikeAvaMilan
All i can say about you is Mentally Special.
JetpackNinjaDinosaur 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So let me get this straight... Sarah Palin's religious beliefs and church matter, but not Barack Obama's??? Reverend Wright ring a bell? "God DAMN America!!!!"
Amazing hypocrisy coming from the Left. I LOVE how Palin freaks them out... and its not for ANY of the reasons they claim.
nieten7642 2 years ago
@nieten7642
The difference is Obama's beliefs don't affect his politics. Palin's beliefs greatly influence her politics and her actions. If you can't see this difference then I suggest you just not ever talk about politics again as your analytical skills are lacking that of even a chimp.
JetpackNinjaDinosaur 2 years ago 2
If you believe that Obama's beliefs - in black liberation theology - don't influence his policies, it's you that needs to review your analytical skills. The facts that this guy's credibility rests upon Rachel Madcow and Keith Oberbite reveals all.
songspiritUSA 2 years ago
@songspiritUSA
LMFAO. Give me one thing he has done during his presidency to make you think he has a "black liberation theology" name just ONE.
And if this guy's credibility rested on 2 people why would he be popular with the rest of the world?
All you are doing is making baseless claims and until you back them up you look like nothing more than an idiot who can't stop crying because someone you didn't like became president. Suck it up buttercup, obama's gonna be here a long time.
JetpackNinjaDinosaur 2 years ago
Comment removed
oneirishpoet 2 years ago
Comment removed
oneirishpoet 2 years ago
Yes, she does freak you all out. You won't admit it, but we both know the truth. If Palin was really just a non-threatening joke to you, then you wouldn't work overtime attacking her ad-hominemly. Neither Palin or her supporters lack intelligence. You just ATTACK their intelligence because they don't agree with you. Trust me... you are far from setting the standard on intelligence. You don't set the bar very high at all.
nieten7642 2 years ago
Comment removed
oneirishpoet 2 years ago
Wow... I'm the moron, but you can't even SPELL moron. How ironic.
nieten7642 2 years ago
she's the one who won't go away- who keeps appearing on the very media she constantly rips on.
If she didn't appear on TV for 6 months, people would forget about her.
I hope we get a chance to test that theory of mine :)
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
She keeps appearing on the media because people like YOU can't stay away from her! They know she is great for ratings because those who love her AND hate her can't resist watching her in the media! You are actually HELPING HER STAY RELEVANT!! If you truly think she is so irrelevant... then just ignore her! How difficult is this to understand??? Wow...
nieten7642 2 years ago
I don't own a television, so I don't help anyone's ratings. I came on here to discuss her with her "fans" because I am fascinated that anyone could 1. take her seriously, and 2. take her seriously.
I appreciate you sharing wisdom, even if it was delivered contentiously.
Have a great day.
Life is the best!
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
You don't have to have a television to help someone's ratings. Giving her attention on the internet or talking about her to friends also indirectly contributes to driving the public's interest in her.
I'd be happy to discuss it with you in a non-contentious way, if you have a genuine interest... but I am suspicious that you don't.
Many Americans have embraced her because they feel they can relate to her. We are tired of the status quo "Washington Establishment".
nieten7642 2 years ago
I agree, by discussing her, I am helping to perpetuate her presence. The problem is, she represents such a fascinating development in American politics, that it is impossible for someone who pays attention not to take notice.
I also agree that the primary factor contributing to her success is the "identification" aspect you mention.
However, this frustrates educated people like myself to no end because we shouldn't be electing people who are "just like us".
I hope you understand that concern.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
OK, I am glad we can at least agree on that point. She is a fascinating development in American politics... but I submit not for the reasons you imply.
As for the second half of your comment... Honestly it was a pretty elitist thing to say. I am also educated. And yes, arguably we should be electing people "like us". Look where NOT electing people "like us" is getting us! "Leaders" who are making decisions for us but are completely out of touch! No more Washington Elitist Establishment!
nieten7642 2 years ago
Corporate cash pollutes our election process, ensuring that people "like us" cannot get elected. You have to be rich to run for office, and over 400 members of our congress are millionaires.
I'm curious, because you refuted my notion that corporate America had taken over our govt, and that was the source of most malfeasance- what do you think the main problems are with our system and society today?
How does Palin fit into that equation?
Have a nice evening.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
OK... you and I clearly have different outlooks on money. I don't see cash as a "pollutant". I don't see "profit" or "success" as bad words. They are often a sign of achievement... but I suspect we also have very different outlooks on achievement as well.
There are ways of getting money without haveing to be a disconnected elitist. I don't have any problem with millionaires. I have a problem with out of touch elitists. You don't have to rich to run for office. You can get financial support.
nieten7642 2 years ago
Money has destroyed humanity- all of our lives have been reduced to a series of mindless monetary transactions.
The industrial revolution has been a disaster.
Have a great day.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
Wow... that is a really sad statement. Money puts a roof over your head, food on your table and gas in your tank. You earn it by working and use it to pay for things you need and want. Money hasn't "destroyed humanity" (a little melodramatic, don't you think?) You could put a wad of cash on a table and leave it there and it would never destroy anything... until someone uses it destructively. It is what we DO with the money that can be the problem. HUMAN NATURE is the problem, not money.
nieten7642 2 years ago
Industrialization and urbanization have destroyed man and woman kind. Money is obviously central, but it was around for many, many years while humanity was largely agrarian in nature.
This isn't anything new- Thoreau, Rousseau, even Jefferson discussed this- Jefferson once said that the US govt would maintain its integrity so long as it remained agrarian.
You mentioned work. Work for works sake is ridiculous. Work should have personal meaning and community benefits.
Does yours?
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
Industrialization has allowed us to make radical advances in medicine, health, nutrition, technology, and many other areas. It has helped us reduce costs, produce more, and advance our ability to communicate and deliver goods. It has also improved standards of living throughout the world. I think it is a little sad how cynical you seem to be about the amazing advances we have made in the last century... advances that so many other nations could benefit from if they embraced the free market.
nieten7642 2 years ago
It's great to name Thoreau, Rousseau and Jefferson... and your agrarian theory is adorable. But wishing for the US and the rest of the world to go back to our agrarian youth is absurd. Trust me... you would not enjoy living in an agrarian society. After all... what would you do without your beloved YouTube? ;)
nieten7642 2 years ago
Why wouldn't I enjoy living in an agrarian society? I wouldn't miss the internet or cars, etc.
In fact, the only reason I have a computer right now is because I'm in an online program getting another degree. As soon as I'm finished, in a few months, I will get rid of my computer.
I also don't own a TV.
I think I could function just fine in an agrarian society.
Industrialization comes at too high a cost- our souls.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
Then why don't you relocate to an agrarian society if that's what you want so badly? Because I can PROMISE you that the vast majority of your fellow Americans don't share your desire to play "Pioneer House". Almost everyone enjoys being able to drive to work, have air conditioner, running water, electricity, microwave ovens, gas heat, flush toilets, cell phones and the internet. You are very much in the minority on that front.
nieten7642 2 years ago
I don't mind being in the minority. In fact, as a misanthrope, I would be concerned if I WASN'T in the minority.
I contend that most people in developed societies are not happy- are generally dysfunctional. Thoreau has so many great quotes (have you read Walden???)- one of them states the following: most men lead lives of quiet desperation.
How have our conveniences made us happier?
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
Wow, that's a fancy word there... but kind of a sad thing to be, don't you think?
OK... go ahead and contend that. I guess just not my kind of reading. Don't seem like my flavor. Too depressing and cynical.
Really? Do I really have to answer that? You don't think, just for example, that NOT getting malaria might make someone kind of happy? How about NOT having to sleep in extreme heat or cold?
nieten7642 2 years ago
Tell you what... We CLEARLY don't agree much on politics... and I doubt we ever will. That's fine with me. Neither of us is probably going to persuade the other... but that was never my intention here. You expressed that you wanted to understand what was behind people supporting and embracing Palin. I attempted to explain it, but you apparently couldn't accept my explanation. That's fine, but I was merely trying to help. Perhaps we should stop wasting each other's time here.
nieten7642 2 years ago
I just wish that BOTH sides could stop hating each other because they disagree politically. Let's stop ad hominem attacking and attacking people's character and intelligence just because we disagree. Just because you love socialism and I love capitalism doesn't make either of us more intelligent than the other. Doesn't make one of us evil and the other noble. It simply means we disagree. We both care about this country. We simply disagree on solutions. That doesn't make us enemies. Just American
nieten7642 2 years ago
I'm not a socialist- never have been.
I am an educationalist.
I cannot say the left is entirely innocent, they are not- there is plenty of hatred and vitriol on my side.
HOWEVER, the main source of hatred in this country is coming from right wing hate-radio programs today. Look at the way so many conservatives call their ideological opponents "libshits" or "libtards".
People like mark Levin, Savage and Limbaugh LIVE off the hate- it pays all their bills.
Take care.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
Wasn't accusing you of being a Socialist necessarily. But if you espouse taking money from some and giving it to others in one form or another, then you espouse some socialist ideals. Not sure why Socialists never admit they are socialists. After all, socialism shouldn't be a bad word to a socialist... not that you are one.
Not a big fan of Savage at all, but Levin and Limbaugh don't live off hate. Hate has almost nothing to do with what they do. You only think that because you disagree.
nieten7642 2 years ago
You have to learn to stop accusing people of being HATEFUL just because they disagree with you. That would be like me saying you hate freedom, success, hard work, ethics, and honesty just because you are a liberal (again... if you were one). I doubt you truly hate those things, many on both sides of the aisle make ad-hominem attacks like this against each other every day and it is terrible. We are on the same side. We have REAL enemies out there in the world. Let's not fight each other.
nieten7642 2 years ago
i don't hate freedom nieten but what do you mean by it? the freedom to make a buck by any means you can. the freedom to own something that was only meant for the national guard, police and military. success? it usually comes nowadays working as a team. you folks act like marlboro men when it comes to teamwork. hard work? it is really admired so long as you aren't fully appreciated for that work; or are underpaid;or are overworked, and can EASILY be replaced for someone who could be paid NOTHING!
obamadidit2008 2 years ago
Yes I did. Well, that's not entirely true, but I am not sure there is such a thing. Some work because it is their passion. Some because they know that it is the right thing to do. Most however work to earn a paycheck so they can support their families, pay their bills, and prepare for retirement. They work to subsidize what matters to them. Those are perfectly valid reasons to work and have personal meaning and provide community benefits. What kind of work does not? Yes, I enjoy my job usually.
nieten7642 2 years ago
I agree with W. H. Auden when he writes, in his essay "My Belief" that "The vast majority of jobs in a modern community do people harm". Auden goes on to write, "The only jobs known to me which seem worthy of respect, both from the point of view of the individual and society, are being a creative artist, a highly skilled craftsmen, a research scientist,a doctor, a teacher, or a farmer."
Think of those poor creatures sitting at cubicles staring at screens. What a TRAGEDY!!!!
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
OK, well I couldn't agree less with Auden. These jobs do harm how exactly? Those are the only jobs that deserve respect? Can you say "elitism"? WOW that is elitist.
I sit in a cubicle and stare at a screen all day... and I am happy. I work with fun people, do creative things, and have a good time. I consider myself blessed. Don't bother feeling sorry for me. I actually feel sorry for you a little bit. You sound like a really unhappy person.
nieten7642 2 years ago
I pity anyone who sits on their ass all day staring at a screen. It's an empty, pathetic existence.
Back to Thoreau, American genius:
"When sometimes I am reminded that the mechanics and shopkeepers stay in their shops not only all the forenoon, but all the afternoon too, sitting with crossed legs, so many of them--as if legs were made to sit upon, and not to stand or walk upon- I think that they deserve some credit for not having all committed suicide long ago" (essay: "Walking")
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
OK... but I create really rich and creative learning experiences for a health network. I don't find it empty or pathetic at all. I make a good living at it too. What do you do all day?
I kind of think Thoreau's perspectives (the few that I have seen anyway) are kind of pathetic. He sounds elitist, emotionally imature... and lazy.
nieten7642 2 years ago
ethics. to the corporate conservative,ethics simply means avoiding getting caught doing things un-ethical, illegal,or amoral. honesty?
obamadidit2008 2 years ago
The Industrial Revolution has been a disaster??? Unbelievable. I thought "progressives" LOVED progress? Apparently not. And... you have just exposed yourself as an irrational idealog with no sense of reality.
nieten7642 2 years ago
one man's progress is another's regress. look at this society of ours- highest prison population, highest drug use- legal and illegal, highest violent crime in developed world, highest national and personal debt.
I could go on all day.
If you think this is the best we can do- that we live in a healthy society with mentally and physically healthy citizens, I think you are setting the bar too low.
Take care.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
I guess, but it seems to me a little difficult to argue with the advances we have made and how much they have done for the world. Just one example... millions die from malaria every year... but not in the U.S. Sure, not everyone in the world is benefitting from those advances equally, but this COULD be changed if we worked to help other nations learn from the secrets of our success and promote economic advancement in their country so they could enjoy higher standards of living as well.
nieten7642 2 years ago
I understand your argument FOR industrialization, and certainly, I cannot refute that many advances have been made.
However, my contention is that while we have increased the quantity of life, we have severely decreased the quality- which is far more important to me.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
Well, that's good at least. But... not having malaria, being able to flush our bodily waste away from us, being able to live in climate controlled homes, having refridgerators to keep our food fresh longer, having access to more and better information on demand, being able to cure diseases, being able to travel across the world in only a few hours... this isn't improving QUALITY at all? Well, I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on that... but that's pretty amazing to me.
nieten7642 2 years ago
I keep going back to Thoreau. What a complete genius he was- what a great American!!!
Here is another quote from Walden which applies to the preceding statement of yours:
"Our inventions are wont to be pretty toys, which distract our attention from serious things. They are but improved means to an unimproved end"
Another key quote from Thoreau that REALLY gets to the core of who I am:
"My greatest skill in life has been to want but little."
What a genius. What a Buddhist!
Viva Sterne!
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
Yes, you do... Not so sure about the genius part. Yeah, I think it is clear by your heros that we don't at all share the same values. Maybe that's why I can be happy in my existense and you can be happy in yours? Because our values are so COMPLETELY different? Just a theory.
nieten7642 2 years ago
Oh, I'm not at all saying that this is the best we can do, but I am saying that in many ways it is the best we have ever done. Not in every way, but we have access to more information, we have higher mortality rates, we know more about health issues and have made HUGE medical advances. No, we can't force anyone to learn or be healthy, but we have the information and the freedom to choose whether or not we take advantage of it. But as a society we are both physically and mentally lazy, I agree.
nieten7642 2 years ago
The main problems with our society today? Wow... where to start? Well, our abandonment of God and morality? How about political correctness? How about making everything relative? What happened to meaning what you say and saying what you mean? Sticks and stones? A hard day's work? Merit? Winners? Honesty? Integrity? Intellectual honesty? Consequences? Personal responsibility? Calling a "spade a spade"? Why do we have to either be offended or feel guilty about everything?How's that for a start? ;)
nieten7642 2 years ago
all nonsense. follow the money. the rest of that social bullshit your spewing only serve to divide and assist the grand larceny taking place under our noses.
Down with wall street!!!
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
Comment removed
nieten7642 2 years ago
No, but seriously... I think it is really sad that God, values like honesty and hard work are "social bullshit" to you. That is unbelievably sad. I hope you will someday reconsider this outlook of yours. I fear you are far more cynical about life than you should be.
nieten7642 2 years ago
God is a waste of time. And the fact that god is so important to you, especially, apparently, in politics, makes you totally UN-AMERICAN in my book. This is NOT a theocracy- if you want to live in a "christian" nation, go find yourself a new country.
Fact is, agnostic and atheists are the fastest growing "religious" group in the USA. It's at 16% now. In another 20 years it will be 30%.
Before I'm dead (47 years to go), we will have an agnostic president in the USA.
Bye bye.
have a great day!
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
That is really sad that you think God is a waste of time, but your choice. Also... really sad that you feel that me making God a priority makes me un-American. A little frightening, actually. How do my religious beliefs make me un-American exactly? So much for freedom of religion. That is just a really sad and un-informed thing to say as an American. Am I misunderstanding you? If not... you really need to re-think that attitude.
nieten7642 2 years ago
I don't think god has a place in politics and I am concerned that many on the right seem to want this country to be a theocracy- with all its laws and regulations coming straight out of their bible.
Ask a gay person if religious beliefs have had a negative impact on his or her life.
Have a nice day.
Life is the greatest!
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
Why am I not surprised? There is a HUGE difference between totally theocratizing and simply allowing prayer or the occasional Christian image or Biblical reference. Do we really need to sanitize every single speck of religion from public arenas? Most conservatives don't want to base all laws on just the Bible. That is absurd.
I don't really care what gays think about religion. After all... they don't seem to care what I think about homosexuality.
nieten7642 2 years ago
But the gay issue represents a clear instance when a group of people, mostly evangelical christians, are using religion to oppress other people.
It is as unamerican as bolshevism.
Have a great day.
We disagree on a lot, but you are an intelligent person, and I respect your opinions.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
Not so. Not at all. No one is surpressing gays. They have the same rights as the rest of us.
Yes we do... and I feel the same toward you. It is refreshing to have civil dialogue and be able to agree to disagree. I wish more Americans could get to this place and we could all get past all of the hatred and ugliness. We ALL care about this country and our fellow man. We just disagree on the specific solutions. That is no reason for us to hate each other, wouldn't you agree?
nieten7642 2 years ago
Are you actually quoting statistics in regard to religion? That's a bit ironic, but that's OK though.
So... I am just curious... How old are you, if you don't mind me asking? The reason I ask is... the paradigms you are expressing sound like paradigms that are commonly held by young adults. Are you a guy or a gal? If you don't want to answer, you don't have to. Not trying to get too personal, just curious as to how I am talking to. I am a 37 year old male from Indiana.
nieten7642 2 years ago
I'm quoting polling results. I have no idea how accurate they are- I think most polls are probably full of it.
What a classy way of telling me I'm an idiot :)
I enjoyed that very much.
I've studied a LOT of history and political science- please don't patronize me.
Thanks.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
Right. Statistics about religion.
Actually... that's not what I was doing at all, but you are very sensitive, aren't you? I don't think you are an idiot at all. I think you are very wrong about a lot of things, but not an idiot. You seem intelligent enough... but you don't seem to have much common sense or good judgement... just in my opinion.
Again... wasn't trying to patronize you. I was honestly curious... but I take it I guessed correctly by your reaction.
Good for you! So have I
nieten7642 2 years ago
really? you have studied political science extensively?
Have you read Aristotle's Politics?
Zinn's "a people's history of the united states"?
De Tocqueville's "Democracy in America"?
Those three books have done more to inform my sense of politics than any others.
What are your most influential political or historical texts?
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
Well, I don't know if "extensively" is the best word to use, but I have read a great deal, enjoy reading history books, etc.
Hmm... no, not those three, but I do love the Declaration of Indepence, the Constitution, and the Federal Papers. I have also read a decent amount about and by the Founding Fathers, former U.S. Presidents, and lots of independent research sessions on historical and political events. Just off the top of my head.
nieten7642 2 years ago
And Palin? Well, many of us feel that she is closer to on target in regard to MOST of these issues than the status quo. She embraces God, her husband, her children, her state, her country, hard work, traditional values, straight talk, letting the American people keep more of their hard-earned money, getting out of the way of REAL progress, and standing up for real God-given liberty. Washington elitists think they know better than we do what is best for us. Palin actually shares our values.
nieten7642 2 years ago
See... liberals think that the best qualities in a leader are smooth talk, making everyone feel great about themselves (despite what is going on), making sure everyone likes them (polls) and "social justice". Conservatives are more interested traditional values: God, the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, free market forces, and commitment to doing the right thing even in tough times and even if we might lose a "friend" or two in the process.
This is where Palin fits in to the equation.
nieten7642 2 years ago
sigh..again.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
I answered your question... and this is the best you can do? "Sigh"? Interesting, to say the least. Perhaps this is why you can't grasp the Palin phenom?
I just think it is tragic that all of the things I just mentioned... God, family, values, hard work and liberty... these thinks seem to mean NOTHING to you. You don't seem to value ANY of these. If that is truly the case, what DO you value? Anything? Your lackluster response to those concepts sadly illustrates my previous point.
nieten7642 2 years ago
The Palin phenom. LOL.
This shallow, empty opportunist represents a new low in American political history.
Why do republicans insist on nominating and worshiping fools?
Reagan, Bush 43, now Palin?
It's as if your side is PROUD to be anti-intellectual. They don't want to be like those awful elites- all educated and well read.
This country is divided.
You can have the southeastern USA, Oklahoma, and Wyoming.
We get the rest.
Goodbye :)
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
Well, you have to admit she is a bit of a phenomenon, no? Isn't she the reason you and I are discussing things right now?
And she is not shallow, empty or an opportunist. You just disagree with her politics. I think you need to be more intellectually honest about this.
nieten7642 2 years ago
How do you know she isn't shallow and opportunistic?
What are you basing that on?
I think someone needs to look in the mirror when they begin discussing intellectual honesty; at least, as it relates to Palin in this debate.
You keep telling me I hate her for irrational reasons. Couldn't I say the reverse? That you love or like her for irrational reasons?
Have a nice day.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
Come on. Neither of us "knows" definitively what she is truly like as a person since we don't know her. But you are asking me to prove to you that she is not shallow or opportunistic? You know I can't do that any more than you can prove to me that she IS.
Oh, OK. How is that exactly? What have I said about Palin that is not intellectually honest?
nieten7642 2 years ago
you stated that "she is not shallow, empty, or an opportunist"
You then stated, in the very next message that neither of us knows what she is really like.
I agree.
So why did you say she wasn't shallow or an opportunist?
That is what I was referring to.
Life is the best.
Time to go to the mountains!!!!
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
OK, perhaps I should have said it this way: "Oh, you don't know that she is shallow, empty or an opportunist." Is that better? Fact stands, neither of us truly knows... but you were the first one to declare her as "shallow, empty, and an opportunist", so I think YOU should be the one backing of their original statement, not me. ;) I can play that game too.
nieten7642 2 years ago
You DO hate her for irrational reasons. You hate her because she disagree with you politically. That IS an irrational reason. That is no reason to hate someone. That is just a reason to disagree with them. I clearly disagree with you on quite a bit... but I don't hate you at all. I disagree with President Obama on lots... but I dont' HATE him. That would be absurd.
nieten7642 2 years ago
you are incorrect.
I despise Palin because she is a shallow opportunist who lacks the intellectual fortitude to do any valuable "leading".
It's not so much an issue based hatred- I don't hate George Will, and I disagree with his politics. He is a reasonably well edcuated man who should be listened to, even if he is wrong about a LOT.
Palin is an idiot. THAT is why I don't like her.
You can believe what you want- I know the truth of my own reasons.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
No, it is because you disagree with her politics. See... you are on shakey ground when it comes to intellectual honesty again. At the time of our last Presidential election, Palin had demonstrated these qualifications WELL beyond Barack Obama... but I'd put money on you having voted for him. Am I right? At least she had executive experience. Obama was only a "community organizer". But you are willing to give Obama a pass because he is Liberal. Just admit it.
nieten7642 2 years ago
You think Palin is an idiot because she dares disagree with YOU. Kind of arrogant, don't you think? I agree with Obama on almost nothing, but I don't think he is an idiot. Just really, REALLY wrong on SO many levels.
And Biden... he gaffes left and right. He is even more wrong than Obama in my opinion, but I don't think he is an idiot either. Idiot is a pretty strong word. I'd be tempted to use it to describe Biden... but if I did it would not be in the literal sense.
nieten7642 2 years ago
You hate Palin because she symbolizes a wife and mother who has worked hard, earned success, embraces family values, faith, morality, hard work, the free market, life, liberty, sovereignty, the constitution, energy independence, and more... and you have expressed that you HATE many of those things.
nieten7642 2 years ago
sigh. wrong, wrong, wrong.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
Umm... OK, but I suspect I am at least a little bit right.
If she was just at a bar and you didn't know her as "the" Sarah Palin, and you sat next to her at the bar (an agrarian establishment, of course) and had a beer... and the two of you started talking about non-political things... do you think that you would honestly think she was an absolute idiot still? Or is it just in the political arena that she is an idiot to you? Or just as a Presidential prospect?
nieten7642 2 years ago
I don't agree with Obama on his version of healthcare reform, cap and trade, energy policies, economic policies, foreign policy, war policy, "climate change", socialism, Marxism, "Fairness Doctrine", the "stimulus package", and most other things... but I don't hate him. I will debate his policies, but I have no interest in calling him names or attacking his character. I don't like it when people on the Right do that. I watched the Left be completely unfair to Bush over bullshit for 8 years.
nieten7642 2 years ago
nice list of right wing talking points.
did you get those from hannity or limbaugh?
LOL.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
Did you seriously miss my entire point about hate??? Wow...
Tell me, which of those "talking points" as you refer to them... which of them is not a real and meaningful issue on the table right now?
I realize that is one of the Left's favorite methods to employ in an attempt to avoid any real discussion of real issues... by dismissing them with the dengrating "talking points" title in hopes that they will just somehow vaporize into thin air... but that doesn't work with me either.
nieten7642 2 years ago
That juvenile "talking points" tactic is popular with liberals and is basically an ad-hominem attack on an idea instead of an individual. Instead of confronting the substance of the point (because they usually can't), why not just attack the credibility of the point itself? "Did you hear that from Limbaugh or Hannity?" How "gotcha" of you!
Doesn't work on me, my friend.
nieten7642 2 years ago
right, the far left never attacks Obama. They hate him for being a Dem and black.
scumbags like Rush will get Obama reelected.
worldmayhem 2 years ago
Republicans (and again, I am not a Republican) don't insist on anything of the kind. You really need to learn that people who disagree with you aren't automatically morons or fools. Reagan was one of the (if not THE ) greatest Presidents of the past century. Bush was also a great president. You just disgree with their politics. Arguably, Johnson, Carter were the WORST presidents of this century. Clinton was pretty terrible on some fronts too... but again, I feel this way since I am not liberal .
nieten7642 2 years ago
Bush killed scores of thousands of people needlessly, and almost ran our economy off a cliff.
He was a great president???
Reagan oversaw arms shipments to Iran, Iraq; he engaged in the Iran Contra affair; he created the savings and loan scandal- the largest economic fraud in our nation's history- up to that point. Reagan raised taxes and ran up a record deficit.
Reagan also sent money to the top 1% while cutting social programs for the poor.
Where are you getting your info from?
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
OK... here we go with the liberal talking points. I knew it would really kick in sooner or later. No, Bush did not kill thousands of people needlessly. He did not run our economy off a cliff.
Yes, he was. He responded with strength to a terrorist threat that NO president has every have to deal with before. You liberals LOVE to forget this. Bush caused the economic recession how? Yeah... I'd LOVE to see you try to explain that one. Uh... gas prices and housing bubble... both DEMOCRAT blunders
nieten7642 2 years ago
And Reagan a bad president? I need some of what you are smoking. ENDED the cold war. We were "ALLIES" with Iraq 30 years ago. How did Reagan personally start the savings an loan scandal? Reagan didn't raise taxes. Democrats in congress did (but... why is this a bad thing to you? Aren't you a lib? Don't you LIKE higher taxes?) And... GOOD FOR HIM for lowering taxes for higer incomes and cutting social programs! Rich people create jobs and welfare is plain wealth redistribution.
Reagan ROCKED!
nieten7642 2 years ago
Right... I forgot that you don't share these values with me. You don't value God, family, country, and character. Apparently that is why you can't understand the Palin phenomenon. Makes total sense to me now. Sad... but now I understand. Probably why all you can do is muster a sign when I mention things that I think every American should hold in high regard... but apparently not all of us do. Thanks for shedding light on that for me.
nieten7642 2 years ago
sigh.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
Americans thirst for REAL change. We are tired of "Republicans" and "Democrats". They are all the same. Neither party represents OUR interests anymore. They deceive us and put their own interests first. They don't have our best interests at heart.
The reason you can't take Palin seriously is that you are holding her up to the status quo standard for Presidency. That is your mistake. No one wants that anymore... and that's why Palin has a real chance at the presidency in my opinion.
nieten7642 2 years ago
I agree 100% that BOTH parties are wholly owned subsidiaries of corporate america, and couldn't care less about the interests of their constituencies.
I think we all understand that.
However, people like Palin are going to perpetuate the status quo, not challenge it. I have yet to hear her discuss the abuses of corporate power on our system- and if she doesn't recognize the central problem, she certainly can't take action to fix it.
All she ever says is: cut taxes. she has no plan.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
I don't think the problem in this country is "Corporate America". It is larger government. It is higher taxes. It is productivity-killing restrictions. Expansion of government and "social justice" aren't the solutions we need. Palin IS discussing the damaging effects of these two dynamics.
Why is Obama so driven when it comes to healthcare, cap and trade and global warming when the American people want him to take meaningful actions to help our economy!?! And you talk about "central problem?
nieten7642 2 years ago
Taxes on top earners have dropped precipitously over the last 50 years.
What high taxes are you talking about?
Productivity killing restrictions? Did we not just witness the catastrophic consequences of 30 years of deregulation?
Even Adam Smith, the founder of modern capitalism, said the financial systems must be regulated. That's just common sense. The problem is, the regulators are often ex-workers from the field they are supposed to regulate- and they work on behalf of their former company
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
60,000,000 Americans don't even pay taxes. The top 50% of earners pay 96.54% of taxes. The top 10% pays 65.84%. Yes, it has been worse, but it is also about to become worse again.
Obama, despite his claims to the contrary, will force the American people to pay for his healthcare and his "green" initiatives at a time when we are already spread thin. His policies HURT our economy, not help. Business IS our economy. Government is not.
nieten7642 2 years ago
your lack of specifics exposes you as a partisan fool.
Take care.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
I'm sorry... what specifics did I neglect to site? I thought the specific numbers and percentages were fairly specific, but I guess not.
And "partisan fool"? Weren't you the one who accused me of being "contentious" earlier? Interesting. So... who am I a partisan for exactly? That is very amusing to me. I am not a Republican, just FYI. So... not sure who you think I am a partisan for. And "fool"? Now you are just name calling. Let's try to stick to substantive comments about issues, OK?
nieten7642 2 years ago
Yes, that's right. Restrictions. No, we did not. That is only a liberal interpretation of what we are going through now. Gas prices and a housing bubble set off this recession... both inflicted by government interference. Government forces us to rely on other nations (who don't have our interests at heart) for our energy supply instead of allowing us to produce our own... driving gas prices sky high. Government forced lenders to give loans to people who didn't deserve them, causing the...
nieten7642 2 years ago
I know those are the right wing talking points.
I also know that if you were asked to back-up your claims, you would have no evidence.
Explain to me SPECIFICALLY how the govt, and not wall street, is responsible for the economic disaster we currently suffer from.
It's one thing to rehash Limbaugh talking points- it's another to be able to back them up- and no righties can.
Take care.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
Right-wing talking points? Right. I PROMISE you that I could make a FAR more compelling case about how Barney Frank and friends in the late 1990's started forcing lenders to lend money to people who could not afford it or understand the terms of their loans. I PROMISE that I could lay this out FAR better than you could try to convince anyone that the current economy and 10.2% unemployment are George Bush's fault, which I'm sure you probably believe.
nieten7642 2 years ago
FBI investigation stated 80% of the economic disaster was caused by malfeasance and abuse from WALL STREET BANKERS.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
Well, don't forget that the FBI investigates criminal activity, not economics. Just FYI. Conventional wisdom is that the economic disaster was caused by the Housing Bubble bursting, which was caused by irresponsible lending, which was largely caused by legislation in the late '90s that facilitated this irresponsible lending. Also... the gas price crisis in '07 and '08. Even non-partisan sources like wikipedia acknowledge this. They list these as the causes of the latest recession.
nieten7642 2 years ago
conventional wisdom huh?
from what source?
the only media outlets that have been propagating the fannie/freddie/poor people caused this crisis storyline are right wing outlets- specifically fox news and hate-radio.
I guarantee, if you think the crisis was caused by poor people taking out loans they couldn't afford- your main source of "news" (if you can call it that) is fox and the hate-radio programs.
I GUARANTEE I am right about that.
Have a nice day.
Diversify your media sources please :)
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
Um... how about the New York Times article I posted? Or the Wikipedia account? Or are those Right-Wing Conspiracy propaganda outlets too?
And the whole "FOX News" attack... that doesn't work on me. FOX is no more "Right Wing" than NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, and so on are "Left Wing". Come on. Sure, FOX is SLIGHTLY more to the right than everyone else... but they bring BALANCE to the media since everyone else is LEFTIST. I watch them all. You could stand to do the same.
nieten7642 2 years ago
You show a total lack of understanding as it pertains to our media system (along with a whole host of other issues). I do not believe that you have studied history and political science at all.
I have studied our media system. I have read most of the books that claim there is a corporate bias, and most of the books that claim there is a liberal bias.
The books that make the case for a corporate bias are well documented, and well written.
The books that claim a liberal media bias are NOT.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
I don't think you will read them, but here are some great books about our media system:
Rich media, poor democracy (richard mcchesney)
The new media monopoly (ben bagdikian)
Manufacturing consent (noam chomsky)
Breaking the sound barrier or ANYTHING ELSE by Amy Goodman.
If you are intellectually honest, you will investigate these claims and find truth for yourself. But hey, it's a lot easier to just watch people confirm your predisposed beliefs on fox entertainment channel.
GOODBYE!
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
Are you serious? You aren't familiar with A) the fact that we cannot become energy independent in America because of all of the restrictions we have imposed on domestic energy supplies? Not just oil either. Coal shale, natural gas, nuclear energy too. And because of this we are frequently at the mercies of other nations in regard to energy prices. The skyrocketing gas prices of '07 and '08 were a huge factor in the economic meltdown. Government has failed to deal with this for decades. Then...
nieten7642 2 years ago
Then the housing bubble. Many warned us that the high risk loans the likes of Barney Frank forced lenders to grant would create a false sense of security and inflate the housing market beyond it's true capacity. Then... as many predicted, this "bubble" burst. Many agree that the primary cause of this phenomenon was these high risk loans.
Is that specific enough for you? Energy prices and the housing bubble bursting were the two primary causes of our current economic state.You would not agree?
nieten7642 2 years ago
"many" agree. OK- can you provide some names?
"many" people also predicted that the repeal of depression era regulations specifying that investment banks and commercial banks be separate (glass-steigel act) would end up with massive abuse and fraud from wall street.
Why are your "many" right and my "many" wrong?
tristramshandy3 2 years ago