Red Mosquito • View topic - Cynicism, skepticism, idealism, naiveté, anger, and apathy

Human Bass · **Posted:** Tue Sep 11, 2012 9:11 pm

LittleWing wrote:

Quote:

We are socialized into a state of learned helplessness in all sorts of ways. - Stip

What do you expect with the blithe pablum of "centralized planning vs. nihilism" arguments coming from the Democratic Party? If you want to reform social security you want seniors to die, if you want a voucher system for medicare you want seniors to die, if you don't support the auto bailouts you create zero jobs instead of 250,000. If you don't support wind and solar you want the world to burn and be a place of calamitous natural disasters. If you support school vouchers, you want kids to be dumb and uneducated. If you don't support Obama's socialization of student loans then you don't want people to get a college education. If you don't support food stamps you want children to starve. If you don't support right to work, you want America to be like 18th century France. If you don't support the minimum wage, you want people to be homeless and starve.

See what I did there?

That's not original. :wink:

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain." - Bastiat

stip · **Posted:** Tue Sep 11, 2012 9:39 pm

Human Bass wrote:

LittleWing wrote:

Quote:

We are socialized into a state of learned helplessness in all sorts of ways. - Stip

What do you expect with the blithe pablum of "centralized planning vs. nihilism" arguments coming from the Democratic Party? If you want to reform social security you want seniors to die, if you want a voucher system for medicare you want seniors to die, if you don't support the auto bailouts you create zero jobs instead of 250,000. If you don't support wind and solar you want the world to burn and be a place of calamitous natural disasters. If you support school vouchers, you want kids to be dumb and uneducated. If you don't support Obama's socialization of student loans then you don't want people to get a college education. If you don't support food stamps you want children to starve. If you don't support right to work, you want America to be like 18th century France. If you don't support the minimum wage, you want people to be homeless and starve.

See what I did there?

That's not original. :wink:

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain." - Bastiat

fortunately it is just as clever in the original.

Do either of you know what the word socialized actually means in this context, or is this something you have ready to cut and paste into an e-mail as soon as you see a certain configuration of consonants and vowels?

LittleWing · **Joined:** Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:43 am **Posts:** 10694

stip wrote:

TortureFollowsReward wrote:

stip wrote:

LittleWing wrote:

Quote:

We are socialized into a state of learned helplessness in all sorts of ways. - Stip

What do you expect with the blithe pablum of "centralized planning vs. nihilism" arguments coming from the Democratic Party? If you want to reform social security you want seniors to die, if you want a voucher system for medicare you want seniors to die, if you don't support the auto bailouts you create zero jobs instead of 250,000. If you don't support wind and solar you want the world to burn and be a place of calamitous natural disasters. If you support school vouchers, you want kids to be dumb and uneducated. If you don't support Obama's socialization of student loans then you don't want people to get a college education. If you don't support food stamps you want children to starve. If you don't support right to work, you want America to be like 18th century France. If you don't support the minimum wage, you want people to be homeless and starve.

See what I did there?

I see that you posted an (at best) tangentially related rant.

Of course this is from someone who thinks the Republican party has gone more conservative. So HW and W are more conservative than Reagan?

And the Democrat party is only slightly more liberal than 20 years ago?

I beg to differ, my friend.

HW is why we got Clinton. The Republican party 2002-2006 (W and Congress) is a major reason we got Barry O.

Oh, plus they're both really cool.

Me? Idealistic.
You? Naive.

I'm not sure I followed most of this.

At any rate, you can beg to differ all you like, but you are incorrect. That you might prefer this not be the case is irrelevant. I can cite the researchers who explore this if you're interested (chapter 1 of Off Center by Hacker and Pierson is particularly good on this), talk about the data they use, their methodology, etc. It is highly regarded within the field. They came up with their assessment by looking at how far the policies and voting records of the parties have differed from where they were 30 years ago and how far they have pulled from the center of American political life (which has changed little over the last decades). The movement on the democratic side also reflects the abandonment of the conservative elements in the party. Dems aren't more liberal than they were before. They just aren't sharing time with conservatives within the party. The republicans, on the other hand, have dramatically shifted what it means to be conservative.

If you want some recent tangible examples, Obamacare and Cap and Trade were both conservative ideas within the last 15 years.

This is an argument about the broad direction of the parties (their bases and officials), not particular people. Reagan may or may not be more conservative than other important party figures since him (although even Reagan repeatedly raised taxes and while bush's rhetoric is softer than Reagans, in terms of policy he has had far more success making the welfare state much more conservative, social policy as well). But the stance of the party itself, and the policies they pursue, has changed.

The welfare state did nothing but grow under Bush...

I'd be interested to read the studies and examine the objectivity of their analysis. I think it's pretty obvious that American society on the whole has liberalized socially. Even places that are still racist aren't nearly as racist as they once were.

I'd be willing to bet that if you really looked votes by party, and transposed that on top of whether a particular rep was an R or a D, that you'd really do nothing but bear witness to the accretion of each party through party. African Americans were split 50/50 during the of Martin Luther King Jr, African American's have some socially conservative viewpoints, but they've aggregated toward the Democratic party. But they've always been economically progressive. If you look at the south, there are many white southerners who are actually very liberal economically and resent the wealth that has accrued at the top. Romney might have problems down south and I'd bet anything he'll poll worse than McCain did. But southerners have still generally progressed to the Republicans.

Thing is - the views all these people really haven't gotten any more conservative. In almost all cases I'd suspect that last generations really conservative people carry far more liberal views than their parents did in both social and economic policy. You've just seen the Reagan Democrats go away, and you've seen the socially conservative Democrats erode out of the Democratic party. There are very few split candidates anymore, where there used to be economically liberal, but socially conservative southern Democrats. The same holds true for economically right, but socially liberal northern Republicans. You've just seen the middle ground pushed out, leaving two extremes fighting over the gutless moderates. Are seeing who's emotional appeals can get out the vote.

I find the idea that the actual viewpoints of the PEOPLE who've inhabited these areas through the generations to have grown more conservative to be highly dubious. The same can be said for the left. California liberals aren't any more liberal than they used to be.

Black churches aren't on fire any more. Gay marriage is far more socially acceptable. Texas isn't jailing people for sodomy. Virginia isn't ever going back to barring white people from marrying black people. The minimum wage is never going away, it has just as much support as it does now.

But again, I'd be open to reading it.

stip · **Posted:** Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:33 am

LittleWing wrote:

stip wrote:

TortureFollowsReward wrote:

stip wrote:

LittleWing wrote:

Quote:

We are socialized into a state of learned helplessness in all sorts of ways. - Stip

What do you expect with the blithe pablum of "centralized planning vs. nihilism" arguments coming from the Democratic Party? If you want to reform social security you want seniors to die, if you want a voucher system for medicare you want seniors to die, if you don't support the auto bailouts you create zero jobs instead of 250,000. If you don't support wind and solar you want the world to burn and be a place of calamitous natural disasters. If you support school vouchers, you want kids to be dumb and uneducated. If you don't support Obama's socialization of student loans then you don't want people to get a college education. If you don't support food stamps you want children to starve. If you don't support right to work, you want America to be like 18th century France. If you don't support the minimum wage, you want people to be homeless and starve.

See what I did there?

I see that you posted an (at best) tangentially related rant.

Of course this is from someone who thinks the Republican party has gone more conservative. So HW and W are more conservative than Reagan?

And the Democrat party is only slightly more liberal than 20 years ago?

I beg to differ, my friend.

HW is why we got Clinton. The Republican party 2002-2006 (W and Congress) is a major reason we got Barry O.

Oh, plus they're both really cool.

Me? Idealistic.
You? Naive.

I'm not sure I followed most of this.

At any rate, you can beg to differ all you like, but you are incorrect. That you might prefer this not be the case is irrelevant. I can cite the researchers who explore this if you're interested (chapter 1 of Off Center by Hacker and Pierson is particularly good on this), talk about the data they use, their methodology, etc. It is highly regarded within the field. They came up with their assessment by looking at how far the policies and voting records of the parties have differed from where they were 30 years ago and how far they have pulled from the center of American political life (which has changed little over the last decades). The movement on the democratic side also reflects the abandonment of the conservative elements in the party. Dems aren't more liberal than they were before. They just aren't sharing time with conservatives within the party. The republicans, on the other hand, have dramatically shifted what it means to be conservative.

If you want some recent tangible examples, Obamacare and Cap and Trade were both conservative ideas within the last 15 years.

This is an argument about the broad direction of the parties (their bases and officials), not particular people. Reagan may or may not be more conservative than other important party figures since him (although even Reagan repeatedly raised taxes and while bush's rhetoric is softer than Reagans, in terms of policy he has had far more success making the welfare state much more conservative, social policy as well). But the stance of the party itself, and the policies they pursue, has changed.

I'd be interested to read the studies and examine the objectivity of their analysis. I think it's pretty obvious that American society on the whole has liberalized socially. Even places that are still racist aren't nearly as racist as they once were.

These guys are pros, LWing. They are pretty highly regarded, and the book was published through Yale, which is a serious press (they've also published more conventionally political work, but that's gone out through different presses that don't have the peer review process yale would). Whatever they publish will be VERY well vetted. The actual discipline of political science is actually fairly apolitical in terms of the professional work it produces (again I'm talking about the work, not necessarily the personal politics of its members). More 'science' than politics. There are 30 some odd sections in our professional organization and only one is self consciously political in terms of its orientations, and it is one of the smaller and less prestigious sections at that. Books that take an open political stance (like mine, for instance) are definitely the exception rather than the rule, and usually don't end up at the powerhouse presses since there would be a concern that the politics might compromise the science. So if/when a book like this makes an argument, whatever the politics of its authors, it is going to be a conclusion that is pretty meticulously researched.

They aren't claiming that America as a whole hasn't become more liberal (I don't recall if they address that at all. Certainly in some areas we've moved in that direction (gay rights, for instance, as well as the permissiveness of our culture), but with other liberal causes (gun control, abortion rights) it is a move in the opposite direction. Actually one of the things that strikes them as curious is how phenomenally successful the republicans have been politically given how far out of the mainstream (which they operationalize through data from the national election surveys given out every election, probably the single most comprehensive assessment of voter attitudes that we have). To be honest i forget exactly how they defined mainstream, but it was pretty reasonable and no one really called them on it, to my recollection.. And academics are very petty and enjoy nothing more than taking down their competitors.

LittleWing wrote:

I'd be willing to bet that if you really looked votes by party, and transposed that on top of whether a particular rep was an R or a D, that you'd really do nothing but bear witness to the accretion of each party through party. African Americans were split 50/50 during the of Martin Luther King Jr, African American's have some socially conservative viewpoints, but they've aggregated toward the Democratic party. But they've always been economically progressive. If you look at the south, there are many white southerners who are actually very liberal economically and resent the wealth that has accrued at the top. Romney might have problems down south and I'd bet anything he'll poll worse than McCain did. But southerners have still generally progressed to the Republicans.

Certainly the parties have become much more unified than they were, but again what their study finds is that the democrats haven't really become any more liberal in that process (more consistnetly liberal, but where the average democrat falls politically hasn't shifted), but where the average republican has ended up has shifted dramatically to the right. The fringe of the republican party even a decade ago has become increasingly mainstream within the party.

LittleWing wrote:

Thing is - the views all these people really haven't gotten any more conservative. In almost all cases I'd suspect that last generations really conservative people carry far more liberal views than their parents did in both social and economic policy. You've just seen the Reagan Democrats go away, and you've seen the socially conservative Democrats erode out of the Democratic party. There are very few split candidates anymore, where there used to be economically liberal, but socially conservative southern Democrats. The same holds true for economically right, but socially liberal northern Republicans. You've just seen the middle ground pushed out, leaving two extremes fighting over the gutless moderates. Are seeing who's emotional appeals can get out the vote.

I find the idea that the actual viewpoints of the PEOPLE who've inhabited these areas through the generations to have grown more conservative to be highly dubious. The same can be said for the left. California liberals aren't any more liberal than they used to be.

Again, the average American hasn't necessarily moved. He is talking about the party itself, the views held by its elected officials compared to the views held by the rest of the country.

LittleWing wrote:

Black churches aren't on fire any more.

That's why we have mosques!

anyway, this is a good book. I recommend it, but it is somewhat technical.

Orpheus · **Posted:** Wed Sep 12, 2012 3:05 am

LittleWing wrote:

I find the idea that the actual viewpoints of the PEOPLE who've inhabited these areas through the generations to have grown more conservative to be highly dubious. The same can be said for the left. California liberals aren't any more liberal than they used to be.

Black churches aren't on fire any more. Gay marriage is far more socially acceptable. Texas isn't jailing people for sodomy. Virginia isn't ever going back to barring white people from marrying black people. The minimum wage is never going away, it has just as much support as it does now.

Ohhhhh boy. As someone who grew up with these people, you're right that they haven't gotten conservative--socially. They've stayed as conservative as they were in that department for the last 70 years. And that's why they've moved away from the democrats. It used to be you could vote for Huey Long, get your social programs, but you didn't have to deal with black people or gays. Ask yourself, why do poor, Southern white people vote Republican now? If they were only voting for their self-interest, why would they vote for rich guys from Connecticut and Massachusetts to keep their taxes? They didn't use to vote that way. These were the people they used to malign. Where they parties have changed is in social terms, and that's why people who were voting for income redistribution and deficit spending a few generations ago are now hellbent against these things. Trust me, the South is really no less racist. Just because these things are allowed now doesn't mean they're accepted. You should have seen my facebook after Obama was elected; it really wasn't that far from people making speeches at a Klan rally.

I've given you a lot of shit before LW, but I believe you're probably for the things you are for mostly philosophical and political reasons. Most people in the South however, are not. "Trickle down economics" is the bitter pill that they swallow so that they can vote for a guy who opposes gay marriage, abortion, affirmative action, and all the other things that threaten their way of life. Think of racism as a photo album. In the 30's you could show it to everyone coming to your door. In the 50's you kept it in the parlor for your bridge group. In the 70's you only took it out late at night with your drinking buddies. Nowadays you're forced to keep it in the basement and only peek at it when no one is looking. But that doesn't mean it's not there. One reason Ron Paul is popular in the South is because he supports state's rights. What kind of social order do you think people in rural Mississippi would resort to if they didn't have a federal government looking over their shoulder?

Sorry to rant, but I heard too many awful things growing up in small town Texas to believe that the shift to the Rebublicans in the South has happened for anything more than social reasons.

px · **Joined:** Wed Nov 30, 2005 4:38 am **Posts:** 18049

I think I fall into the angry skeptic categories. I'm angry at "we the people" because of their naive, lazy thinking and I'm skeptical of idealistic politicians.

Sandler · **Posted:** Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:36 pm

Orpheus wrote:

"Trickle down economics" is the bitter pill that they swallow so that they can vote for a guy who opposes gay marriage, abortion, affirmative action, and all the other things that threaten their way of life.

Exactly. I believe that this is what they mean when they say "we've got to take this country back."

malice · **Posted:** Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:14 pm

Orpheus wrote:

LittleWing wrote:

I find the idea that the actual viewpoints of the PEOPLE who've inhabited these areas through the generations to have grown more conservative to be highly dubious. The same can be said for the left. California liberals aren't any more liberal than they used to be.

Black churches aren't on fire any more. Gay marriage is far more socially acceptable. Texas isn't jailing people for sodomy. Virginia isn't ever going back to barring white people from marrying black people. The minimum wage is never going away, it has just as much support as it does now.

Ohhhhh boy. As someone who grew up with these people, you're right that they haven't gotten conservative--socially. They've stayed as conservative as they were in that department for the last 70 years. And that's why they've moved away from the democrats. It used to be you could vote for Huey Long, get your social programs, but you didn't have to deal with black people or gays. Ask yourself, why do poor, Southern white people vote Republican now? If they were only voting for their self-interest, why would they vote for rich guys from Connecticut and Massachusetts to keep their taxes? They didn't use to vote that way. These were the people they used to malign. Where they parties have changed is in social terms, and that's why people who were voting for income redistribution and deficit spending a few generations ago are now hellbent against these things. Trust me, the South is really no less racist. Just because these things are allowed now doesn't mean they're accepted. You should have seen my facebook after Obama was elected; it really wasn't that far from people making speeches at a Klan rally.

I've given you a lot of shit before LW, but I believe you're probably for the things you are for mostly philosophical and political reasons. Most people in the South however, are not. "Trickle down economics" is the bitter pill that they swallow so that they can vote for a guy who opposes gay marriage, abortion, affirmative action, and all the other things that threaten their way of life. Think of racism as a photo album. In the 30's you could show it to everyone coming to your door. In the 50's you kept it in the parlor for your bridge group. In the 70's you only took it out late at night with your drinking buddies. Nowadays you're forced to keep it in the basement and only peek at it when no one is looking. But that doesn't mean it's not there. One reason Ron Paul is popular in the South is because he supports state's rights. What kind of social order do you think people in rural Mississippi would resort to if they didn't have a federal government looking over their shoulder?

Sorry to rant, but I heard too many awful things growing up in small town Texas to believe that the shift to the Rebublicans in the South has happened for anything more than social reasons.

good post, nate. I liked the photo album analogy. I think that's true of most of the country.

Alex · **Posted:** Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:27 pm

malice wrote:

Orpheus wrote:

LittleWing wrote:

I find the idea that the actual viewpoints of the PEOPLE who've inhabited these areas through the generations to have grown more conservative to be highly dubious. The same can be said for the left. California liberals aren't any more liberal than they used to be.

Black churches aren't on fire any more. Gay marriage is far more socially acceptable. Texas isn't jailing people for sodomy. Virginia isn't ever going back to barring white people from marrying black people. The minimum wage is never going away, it has just as much support as it does now.

Ohhhhh boy. As someone who grew up with these people, you're right that they haven't gotten conservative--socially. They've stayed as conservative as they were in that department for the last 70 years. And that's why they've moved away from the democrats. It used to be you could vote for Huey Long, get your social programs, but you didn't have to deal with black people or gays. Ask yourself, why do poor, Southern white people vote Republican now? If they were only voting for their self-interest, why would they vote for rich guys from Connecticut and Massachusetts to keep their taxes? They didn't use to vote that way. These were the people they used to malign. Where they parties have changed is in social terms, and that's why people who were voting for income redistribution and deficit spending a few generations ago are now hellbent against these things. Trust me, the South is really no less racist. Just because these things are allowed now doesn't mean they're accepted. You should have seen my facebook after Obama was elected; it really wasn't that far from people making speeches at a Klan rally.

I've given you a lot of shit before LW, but I believe you're probably for the things you are for mostly philosophical and political reasons. Most people in the South however, are not. "Trickle down economics" is the bitter pill that they swallow so that they can vote for a guy who opposes gay marriage, abortion, affirmative action, and all the other things that threaten their way of life. Think of racism as a photo album. In the 30's you could show it to everyone coming to your door. In the 50's you kept it in the parlor for your bridge group. In the 70's you only took it out late at night with your drinking buddies. Nowadays you're forced to keep it in the basement and only peek at it when no one is looking. But that doesn't mean it's not there. One reason Ron Paul is popular in the South is because he supports state's rights. What kind of social order do you think people in rural Mississippi would resort to if they didn't have a federal government looking over their shoulder?

Sorry to rant, but I heard too many awful things growing up in small town Texas to believe that the shift to the Rebublicans in the South has happened for anything more than social reasons.

good post, nate. I liked the photo album analogy. I think that's true of most of the country.

that photo album is displayed proudly at entrance of the thodoxicon

simple schoolboy · **Posted:** Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:36 am

Is Ron Paul especially popular in the south? Didn't his delegation get at least a plurality in Maine? Sure, he's pro life, but its not like he talks up gay marriage or any other traditional social conservative issues nearly to the same degree that he harps on economic or foreign policy issues*. The only issue I'm familiar with that he harps on 'states rights' over is abortion. Its convenient to say that people vote for Ron Paul because of racist leanings, but I don't see it. Its not as if Jim Crow south was the result of hands off state and federal government. Racism was first and foremost institutionalised, with the force of the state behind it. Its not as if free association resulted in segregation.

But to be fair, folks in the south were happy to get their social security and medicare up until the point that black folks got welfare. Then they weren't so keen on a social safety net.

*Speaking of which, since when was it cool for POTUS to have a kill list? How much of a slather would Huffington Post have built up if Bush was killing American citizens with drones?

stip · **Posted:** Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:57 am

simple schoolboy wrote:

Is Ron Paul especially popular in the south? Didn't his delegation get at least a plurality in Maine? Sure, he's pro life, but its not like he talks up gay marriage or any other traditional social conservative issues nearly to the same degree that he harps on economic or foreign policy issues*. The only issue I'm familiar with that he harps on 'states rights' over is abortion. Its convenient to say that people vote for Ron Paul because of racist leanings, but I don't see it. Its not as if Jim Crow south was the result of hands off state and federal government. Racism was first and foremost institutionalised, with the force of the state behind it. Its not as if free association resulted in segregation.

But to be fair, folks in the south were happy to get their social security and medicare up until the point that black folks got welfare. Then they weren't so keen on a social safety net.

*Speaking of which, since when was it cool for POTUS to have a kill list? How much of a slather would Huffington Post have built up if Bush was killing American citizens with drones?

States rights (which is not the same thing as minimal government--it just simply shifts where the seat of government is) will still be associated with libertarians and Paul, regardless of how much he personally mentions it or prefers it. Plus the policies that he supports makes the historical (and contemporary) racialized orientation of various state policies possible.

ajurlacher1 · **Joined:** Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:41 pm **Posts:** 129

I really enjoyed the post at the top of this thread. And it's inspired me to get some things off of my chest.
This upcoming rant has been brewing in my head for quite some time, and I don't have many people around me to discuss things of this nature with. So pardon my language, pardon my cynicism, but I think a 24 year old's fresh point of view could do some good.
I'd like to consider myself a mildly intelligent young man. And I'm extremely passionate about my social and political "beliefs." I have a side to me that is really angry about the direction my country, and human society in general is headed. I think we are desperately in need of a cultural wake up call, something on the same wavelength of the late 60's flower power thing, or the civil rights movement.
The rise of the internet over the past 15 or so years has created a massive evolutionary opportunity. At any given time, at any given place, we have a resource of damn near unlimited knowledge at our fingertips. We have the ability to communicate with absolutely anyone instantly, without ever actually looking at them or even speaking to them verbally. Social media is a gateway into the mind of complete strangers. Positive or negative, intentionally or unintentionally, anybody who's active on Facebook or Twitter, is slowly leaking just about everything there is to know about themselves out to the general public. This should be a good thing. The internet should be a tool for progression; we should be learning how to treat each other better. We should be discovering how to better communicate with people from other countries, religions. It's the finest example of how similar we all truly are at our core. We all have insecurities, we all have fears, emotional and spiritual dilemmas. We're all searching for happiness.
Instead, the internet, social media specifically, has become one giant electronic pep rally.
Facebook is just like, JUST LIKE a giant high school experience. The hot chicks post slutty pictures of themselves, dumb guys post some sort of pathetic "wow, ur so hawt" type comment, get absolutely no reaction or response from the girl, who posted the pictures only with the sole intention of somehow gauging how much attention she can get based on her looks. People fight and sever ties over absolutely retarded reasons on Facebook. Twitter wars between rival athletes, political figures, celebrities.
Instead of using the internet to spread the good aspects of our human nature, we have flipped it upside down and butt fucked it, turning it into a digital cesspool of shitheads. Just like we did with tv.
Speaking of tv, I'd like to point out perhaps the biggest thing holding us back as a country right now. There is one media monster who has completely ruined journalism, and led millions of people to believe that their fact skewing reporting is actually unbiased "news." Perhaps the most evil organization since the Nazi's. These people need to go down.
I'm talking, of course, about FoxNews.
It's absolutely disturbing to me that FoxNews has become the most watched news network in the country. It makes me want to fucking puke. O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, these guys are nothing more than a pack of frat boy fuck head bullies. They are not, and will never be anything remotely close to what you'd call a journalist. They have no interest in being "Fair and Balanced." Their intention is to get you to buy into their corporate sponsored bullshit political agenda, nothing more, nothing less. And the fact that they have used a "journalist" disguise as their outlet, and people have actually fed into their bullshit, is terrifying. They have thrown reason, logic, shit, basic human MORALITY completely out the door. They have no sense of right and wrong, and they don't care.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVB1eQn2uwA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrNl6-j9x5w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYA9ufivbDw
This organization, in my opinion, is pure evil. They should be public enemy # 1. I hope, someday, that we look back on the "FoxNews" era and laugh at how easily led we once were.
Politics in this country are at a major crossroads. The Dems and Repubs, still the only 2 viable federal options that we have to choose from, are sooooooo far off from each other. I DO believe that there is a reasonable middle ground somewhere between the two, but neither party seems to have any interest in finding that happy medium. With that being said, how in the fuck are we going to get anywhere? How can we discover some sort of comfortable reason when every issue, whether it be birth control, health care, the economy, is completely separated into two completely different factions? It truly seems as if we are being encouraged to "pick a side." You're either good, or you're evil. There is no option in between. I don't get how this can possibly be perceived to be a good thing.
I don't have the answers to these questions that I'm asking. I'm just a stupid kid, and I recognize that. I don't have children, I don't have a career, I really haven't experienced anything compared to those who are 5-10 plus years older than me. But I think it's VERY important for people my age to at least ASK these questions.
Anyways, round and round we go. If you made it this far, I appreciate you reading.
I'll leave you all with one of my favorite quotes of all time, from Chris Rock in the movie Dogma:
“I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should be malleable and progressive, working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth. New ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant.”

ajurlacher1 · **Joined:** Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:41 pm **Posts:** 129

"It used to be you could vote for Huey Long, get your social programs, but you didn't have to deal with black people or gays. Ask yourself, why do poor, Southern white people vote Republican now? If they were only voting for their self-interest, why would they vote for rich guys from Connecticut and Massachusetts to keep their taxes?"

A fantastic question, something I think about often. I come from a very small, rural area, southwest of the Puget Sound. And there are people like this everywhere. Living in trailers, collecting food stamps and welfare, popping out 15 children they can't afford to take care of without the help of social financial aid. Yet somehow, inexplicably, conservative.
It certainly has a lot to do with the media. I think these are the people who turn on FoxNews, listen to a couple henchman get rawled up about terrorism, immigration, gun control, things that simple minded people identify with. The media is very smart about what they say and don't say. They're manipulative. We have to remember, they are financed by billion dollar corporations, each of whom have their own political agenda (the one that makes them the most moolah). Therefore, how can we possibly trust them to talk about the things that we really need to hear? How can we trust them to be truly unbiased?
They will continue to cater to these people, and tell them exactly what they want to hear. Collecting Bush votes all the while. And the rich will continue to get richer, and the poorer will continue to get poorer.

Harmless · **Joined:** Thu Aug 06, 2009 2:53 pm **Posts:** 11395

If I read the first few lines of the OP, but didn't want to read anymore, can I still say I think this is an important subject?

Cynicism, skepticism, idealism, naiveté, anger, and apathy

Who is online