Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Russia and China don't listen and won't ever listen to us when people like you gripe about human rights and democracy. People like you have no teeth or willingness to shed blood for such causes and therefore you are viewed as being no major threat to them.

False analogy. We are neither China nor Russia, and we should not try to imitate the political orders of either.

Human rights and democracy are precious. Without them one is at the mercy of the powerful who have their own agenda, typically the most selfish and rapacious assault on humanity in the country that they rule. Both China and Russia are in effect plutocratic oligarchies -- and America seems headed in that direction. What's in that for you?

Bloodshed itself achieves nothing. Ask yourself -- did Ryan Lanza achieve anything at Sandy Hook, Connecticut? Torture achieves nothing except the debasement of the victims.

Teeth and a willingness to shed blood... cats, bears, wolves, hyenas, birds of prey, sharks... OK, humans and chimps.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Al Qaeda and ISIS are free to do whatever they want to US citizens and US personal who end up in their custody.

The word is "Personnel". Address your envelope with cover letter and curriculum vitae to "Personal", as in

PERSONAL
General Electric Company
(PO Box number for the mail drop not shown)

and you will never get the interview.

...They are not free to murder and torture Americans. They simply get away with it for a while. Osama bin Laden is having a great time due to the his "Breakfast with Seal Team 6" -- right? Does anyone want to guess what sort of retribution top leaders of ISIL will get when they end up under the custody of the Kurds and Shiites? I predict a "suspended-by-the-neck" sentence as the norm.

Originally Posted by Mary Kate 1982

Really? Russia has attempted very recently to annex Ukraine. This flouts several treaties. In China, it is par for the course for when they do something wrong, say, harvest organs from prisoners without their consent or knowledge, or force women to abort their babies even when they're just weeks away from giving birth, that they will attempt to deflect their bad behavior with ours: "why are you picking on us when you have done the same thing? You don't have anything to back up the argument except do as I say not as I do." It is a very common hat trick of Chinese politicians to portray us as foreign devils and emphasizing the negative of US policy. And I hate to break it to you, but even our allies are listening.

I fear that America could become the Evil Empire with a government responsible only to the most ruthless and rapacious, with wars for profit (market share in captive markets, cheap resources, suppression of anti-American ... maybe in truth, anti-plutocratic... tendencies, increasingly-harsh legal and penal systems, and not to mention profits to war contractors) as normal policy. We have long been the 800-pound gorilla, relatively harmless so long as nobody does something stupid. Now we have the prospect of becoming something like an 800-pound bear. What do most Americans get for that? The potential for becoming cannon fodder in war, brutal management in the workplace, a much-reduced standard of living, fear of political hacks, and a complete loss of freedom and security. No thanks. The 2016 election will be the choice between freedom and fascism. To be sure, the fascism will be resoundingly and undeniably American. For many of us it will be the worst attributes of America that come to the fore.

For me, being an American means that one can love this image:



and this music:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvuitFzDxDg

while holding whatever religious beliefs fit one's culture and what philosophy one has without any question of one's identity as an American.

We hold no moral high ground by torturing anyone. As I said earlier, we signed a contract. Just because we are the United States does not mean we should do whatever we want however we want. To paraphrase Shakespeare, else let them know/the ills we do, our ills instruct them so. By acting in accord with international norms on torture, we take away a very big weapon from our enemies. I speak more of the wars of ideas, like democracy and human rights, ideology ... How does becoming more like our enemy by wiping our butts with the Geneva Convention make us a stronger nation?

The first Bush Administration was able to convince Mikhail Gorbachev of the wisdom of signing the Geneva Convention by assuring him that the Soviet Union would be more effective in a war against an aggressor because people would no longer fear treatment similar to that of the Soviet Union toward captured Axis prisoners during World War II. (War criminals would still be in deep trouble -- not that they deserve lenient treatment). Beyond any question, American (and Coalition) treatment of captive Iraqi prisoners in the First Gulf War was unobjectionable. The younger Bush wrecked that. If America is to get into another Crisis War, then it must clean up its act lest it endure some horrible consequences.

Islam is much more compatible with America than is torture.

If we are to have another war, then let us at least conduct it honorably. Such makes for an easier victory. Or as Abraham Lincoln put it,

"Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right."


http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/qu...iCJEsOqqQOX.99

Originally Posted by Mary Kate 1982

Second, the next election: I am rather nervous as to what is coming next. It is still early days, but looking at the current roster I am more than a little dismayed. My mother was born in 1955. I have tried numerous times to explain to her that her ambitions to see a woman become president have to come second to what might actually be good for the country; her ideas and dreams are rooted in the 1970s, our country's problems are rooted in now. She does not understand that part of the reason the DNC is putting her up as a candidate is that it's a sly dirty trick, a classic case of identity politics. They know perfectly well that women her age will flock to Hillary simply because she is a woman, and not really think hard about her background, qualifications, and above all her record. no matter what I say to my mother or other women of her generation, they will hear no different: it is a man's world and by God they must break that glass ceiling anyway they can, ignoring that their children have been used to the idea of women in power since the fourth grade running for class president and at work most of their sons do not stand up when a woman enters the room since more likely she enters with them as an equal. (I am merely using this as an example of male Millennials being used to seeing women in positions of power and do not intend to start a debate of whether other posters on this board stand up or sit down when a girl enters the room: males born between 1981–2004 have watched their mothers go off to work in pantsuits and the lunch room at work in the present day is decidedly mixed sex, very unlike the early 1970s.)

To me, this is the strongest argument for Elizabeth Warren to run, even if she doesn't ultimately get the nomination. Someone needs to hold Hillary accountable and not let her just take half of the population for granted.

And I generally agree with you about not being fans of the Clintons. Still, the GOP is just so despicable that I'll hold my nose and vote for Hillary if that is what it takes to keep them out of the White House.

Originally Posted by Mary Kate 1982

Second, the next election: I am rather nervous as to what is coming next. It is still early days, but looking at the current roster I am more than a little dismayed. My mother was born in 1955. I have tried numerous times to explain to her that her ambitions to see a woman become president have to come second to what might actually be good for the country; her ideas and dreams are rooted in the 1970s, our country's problems are rooted in now. She does not understand that part of the reason the DNC is putting her up as a candidate is that it's a sly dirty trick, a classic case of identity politics. They know perfectly well that women her age will flock to Hillary simply because she is a woman, and not really think hard about her background, qualifications, and above all her record. no matter what I say to my mother or other women of her generation, they will hear no different: it is a man's world and by God they must break that glass ceiling anyway they can, ignoring that their children have been used to the idea of women in power since the fourth grade running for class president and at work most of their sons do not stand up when a woman enters the room since more likely she enters with them as an equal. (I am merely using this as an example of male Millennials being used to seeing women in positions of power and do not intend to start a debate of whether other posters on this board stand up or sit down when a girl enters the room: males born between 1981–2004 have watched their mothers go off to work in pantsuits and the lunch room at work in the present day is decidedly mixed sex, very unlike the early 1970s.)

I'm close in age to your mother. Like your mother, I will vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election against a GOPer because I favor a strong Federal government that helps the lower and middle-classes, not the 1%. Unlike your mother, I hope that a real Democrat runs and will support the real Democrat in the primary. Not all middle-aged women are rooting for Hillary just to get a Woman in the White House.

My 84-year-old mother feels the same way. Neither of us supported Clinton in 2008 (although, ironically, that's what we got, in suit and tie).

I apologize for the length, but I bet everyone to read: I put a lot of effort in and if I may not be too boastful I think I've made a few good points.

Wonkette, you still sound like my mother. In my eyes, too many Boomers simply don't understand that voting for the opposition will not yield results. If you were to get online and go over the actual record, you would notice something very interesting: the Republican Party is merely the more overt in supporting the 1%. The Democratic Party often just upholds the desires of the rich by putting up a very weak fight against any proposals of the Republican Party, and often through sins of omission do they allow a very tiny number of super rich people control policy in Congress.

Let's take an actual look at who funds either party, starting with the Democrats: most Democratic candidates are funded by new technology companies and to a degree media companies. This means companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Tesla, and other Silicon Valley giants, plus several companies headquartered in Los Angeles that have a whole lot of access to public media: Disney, Paramount, Warner Bros., Fox, and NBC Universal. Taken together, all of these companies make up an enormous chunk of the US economy and nearly all have business practices as dirty as Wall Street ever did, often operating by the same rules. All of these companies are socially liberal, but financially are just as cutthroat.

I would wager the one piece of legislation that will never be invoked is the Sherman Act: One of the oldest antitrust laws on the books, since all of these are monopolies. NBC Universal owns Comcast, NBC, and several other smaller companies. Google owns YouTube. Tesla is just one of more than a dozen companies in the arsenal of Elon Musk. All of these are headed by multi billionaires Who make more than 300 times what any company employee makes, and recent history would suggest that they're looking to make more: the real reason why Mark Zuckerberg wants "immigration reform" is so he can take advantage of the US visa program as it stands and import IT and programming professionals from countries like India and not have to pay them as much as a US college graduate with the same skill. Nearly all of these companies have sold out the American worker by sending a lot of work to Asia: Apple for example has not manufactured anything in America on a large scale since the 1990s. Film studios like Disney have farmed out a lot of their digital work for Pixar films to Singapore, where there is much less regulation or ability of the worker to form a union. They are contributing to the hollowing out of the middle class with practices like these. And the cherries on top of the shitcake are that many of these companies are based in the most populous state in the union: California. That would mean the politicians they pretty much buy no thanks to corporations being people make up an enormous chunk of the House of Representatives. I should also add that it's no accident that Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein are so powerful in the Senate in spite of having voting records that are atrocious.

The Republicans merely represent older and more traditional industries, like coal, agriculture, and finance. A lot of their base is found in rural areas in which natural resources abound, with a large interest in Wall Street going back to the time of FDR. (Go look at a map: I am right. Go look at a map of the South and realize there's very little industry down there that isn't connected to agriculture, mining, or bottom of the barrel industrial manufacture, the kind that used to take place in Detroit...and realize the South has been anti-union since the time of Teddy Roosevelt.) Thus it is no surprise that they are pro – free market and pro – deregulation of financial markets and environmental laws. However I would like to remind you that such laws actually also benefit the constituents, the rich fatcats of new industries, of the Democratic Party. All any Democratic congressman or senator has to do is not speak up when the party of Wall Street demands yet another defense of the public against the 1% is taken away. If they can't do that, they will window dress and fight for very weak clauses that do not solve the problem or stop Wall Street from destroying us all, because of who THEIR bosses REALLY are.

We live in a dangerous times. Neither party gives a shit about the average American anymore. We have near total regulatory capture and only a tiny number of public figures, like Elizabeth Warren, willing to even give voice to any kind of dissent. When one politician will not represent you, it is no longer an option to go and vote for his opponent. A lot of Millennials have cottoned on to this fact. Barack Obama should never have let this generation down by behaving like Bill Clinton lite, since it has caused an entire generation to look deeper. Politicians should take a closer look at why the Hunger Games movies are so popular with teenagers up to people in their early 30s and be very, very frightened.

Those movies speak to what the young see all around them. Their parents can't see it yet because they are too used to the idea that the system can still function as it is: they've never lived through a time when everything fell apart and didn't listen hard enough to the life lessons of the GIs, who were so badly scarred by events in the 1930s and 1940s that they totally and mistakenly insulated their children from any kind of hardship. Caesar Flickerman could be a doppelgänger for any late-night talkshow host or brainless morning show reporter. Unlike in the past, Milennials are paying attention to the man behind the curtain, to paraphrase the Wizard of Oz. They can see the cheap colored lights and the army of stylists, publicists, spin doctors, and image consultants whose sole job is to make a politician, celebrity, or business fatcat likable and lure people into buying their product or brand… Even if what they are really selling is toxic and harmful. (You might also notice that only the super rich would see it as the natural order of things: just as in the film, in real life they applaud mindlessly, they rejoice at the puerile and superficial, like getting on the cover of Vogue, and do not understand that their tastes, the stuff that drives trends in culture like music and media, often are a far cry from the realities of their main consumers to the point of being insulting.) In the aftermath of the stock market crash of 2008, Millennilas have fared the worst. They face an economic landscape whose likeness has not been seen in 100 years – in the job market it really is survival of the fittest. They buy the message of present-day politicians as much as the characters in the film buy the propaganda of the Capitol.

Meanwhile take a look at real life: civil unrest is escalating, even with the market picking up. Millennials did not show up at the voting booth. They are showing up on the streets. The song The Hanging Tree is a huge hit, and one with legs: it is getting played and replayed on YouTube now over a month since Mockingjay was released. If I were a politician, I would be quite scared of the youth response to the content of Mockingjay: it would suggest that, in time, if certain anger among the young is not met with real change, unlike the 1960s, Millennials will resort to violence of the torch and pitchfork variety. If peaceful protest does not yield results, if politicians no longer fear that citizens will resort to much more destructive and ruthless action than singing We Shall Overcome or participating in marches with Al Sharpton or Occupy Wall Street, The citizenry will revolt and it will be their necks swinging from the hanging tree.

Don't vote for Hillary Clinton. Instead heed my words.

Originally Posted by Odin

The fact that this kind of shameless utilitarianism is considered a valid argument just goes to show how far the cultural rot within American society has gone. I feel dirty just reading your post.

I don't think it's utilitarianism.
More like a belief that people who have done wrong to deserve to have wrong done to them.

Originally Posted by Mary Kate 1982

I apologize for the length, but I bet everyone to read: I put a lot of effort in and if I may not be too boastful I think I've made a few good points.

Wonkette, you still sound like my mother. In my eyes, too many Boomers simply don't understand that voting for the opposition will not yield results. If you were to get online and go over the actual record, you would notice something very interesting: the Republican Party is merely the more overt in supporting the 1%. The Democratic Party often just upholds the desires of the rich by putting up a very weak fight against any proposals of the Republican Party, and often through sins of omission do they allow a very tiny number of super rich people control policy in Congress.

Let's take an actual look at who funds either party, starting with the Democrats: most Democratic candidates are funded by new technology companies and to a degree media companies. This means companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Tesla, and other Silicon Valley giants, plus several companies headquartered in Los Angeles that have a whole lot of access to public media: Disney, Paramount, Warner Bros., Fox, and NBC Universal. Taken together, all of these companies make up an enormous chunk of the US economy and nearly all have business practices as dirty as Wall Street ever did, often operating by the same rules. All of these companies are socially liberal, but financially are just as cutthroat.

I would wager the one piece of legislation that will never be invoked is the Sherman Act: One of the oldest antitrust laws on the books, since all of these are monopolies. NBC Universal owns Comcast, NBC, and several other smaller companies. Google owns YouTube. Tesla is just one of more than a dozen companies in the arsenal of Elon Musk. All of these are headed by multi billionaires Who make more than 300 times what any company employee makes, and recent history would suggest that they're looking to make more: the real reason why Mark Zuckerberg wants "immigration reform" is so he can take advantage of the US visa program as it stands and import IT and programming professionals from countries like India and not have to pay them as much as a US college graduate with the same skill. Nearly all of these companies have sold out the American worker by sending a lot of work to Asia: Apple for example has not manufactured anything in America on a large scale since the 1990s. Film studios like Disney have farmed out a lot of their digital work for Pixar films to Singapore, where there is much less regulation or ability of the worker to form a union. They are contributing to the hollowing out of the middle class with practices like these. And the cherries on top of the shitcake are that many of these companies are based in the most populous state in the union: California. That would mean the politicians they pretty much buy no thanks to corporations being people make up an enormous chunk of the House of Representatives. I should also add that it's no accident that Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein are so powerful in the Senate in spite of having voting records that are atrocious.

The Republicans merely represent older and more traditional industries, like coal, agriculture, and finance. A lot of their base is found in rural areas in which natural resources abound, with a large interest in Wall Street going back to the time of FDR. (Go look at a map: I am right. Go look at a map of the South and realize there's very little industry down there that isn't connected to agriculture, mining, or bottom of the barrel industrial manufacture, the kind that used to take place in Detroit...and realize the South has been anti-union since the time of Teddy Roosevelt.) Thus it is no surprise that they are pro – free market and pro – deregulation of financial markets and environmental laws. However I would like to remind you that such laws actually also benefit the constituents, the rich fatcats of new industries, of the Democratic Party. All any Democratic congressman or senator has to do is not speak up when the party of Wall Street demands yet another defense of the public against the 1% is taken away. If they can't do that, they will window dress and fight for very weak clauses that do not solve the problem or stop Wall Street from destroying us all, because of who THEIR bosses REALLY are.

We live in a dangerous times. Neither party gives a shit about the average American anymore. We have near total regulatory capture and only a tiny number of public figures, like Elizabeth Warren, willing to even give voice to any kind of dissent. When one politician will not represent you, it is no longer an option to go and vote for his opponent. A lot of Millennials have cottoned on to this fact. Barack Obama should never have let this generation down by behaving like Bill Clinton lite, since it has caused an entire generation to look deeper. Politicians should take a closer look at why the Hunger Games movies are so popular with teenagers up to people in their early 30s and be very, very frightened.

Those movies speak to what the young see all around them. Their parents can't see it yet because they are too used to the idea that the system can still function as it is: they've never lived through a time when everything fell apart and didn't listen hard enough to the life lessons of the GIs, who were so badly scarred by events in the 1930s and 1940s that they totally and mistakenly insulated their children from any kind of hardship. Caesar Flickerman could be a doppelgänger for any late-night talkshow host or brainless morning show reporter. Unlike in the past, Milennials are paying attention to the man behind the curtain, to paraphrase the Wizard of Oz. They can see the cheap colored lights and the army of stylists, publicists, spin doctors, and image consultants whose sole job is to make a politician, celebrity, or business fatcat likable and lure people into buying their product or brand… Even if what they are really selling is toxic and harmful. (You might also notice that only the super rich would see it as the natural order of things: just as in the film, in real life they applaud mindlessly, they rejoice at the puerile and superficial, like getting on the cover of Vogue, and do not understand that their tastes, the stuff that drives trends in culture like music and media, often are a far cry from the realities of their main consumers to the point of being insulting.) In the aftermath of the stock market crash of 2008, Millennilas have fared the worst. They face an economic landscape whose likeness has not been seen in 100 years – in the job market it really is survival of the fittest. They buy the message of present-day politicians as much as the characters in the film buy the propaganda of the Capitol.

Meanwhile take a look at real life: civil unrest is escalating, even with the market picking up. Millennials did not show up at the voting booth. They are showing up on the streets. The song The Hanging Tree is a huge hit, and one with legs: it is getting played and replayed on YouTube now over a month since Mockingjay was released. If I were a politician, I would be quite scared of the youth response to the content of Mockingjay: it would suggest that, in time, if certain anger among the young is not met with real change, unlike the 1960s, Millennials will resort to violence of the torch and pitchfork variety. If peaceful protest does not yield results, if politicians no longer fear that citizens will resort to much more destructive and ruthless action than singing We Shall Overcome or participating in marches with Al Sharpton or Occupy Wall Street, The citizenry will revolt and it will be their necks swinging from the hanging tree.

Don't vote for Hillary Clinton. Instead heed my words.

I agree with you completely, Mary Kate!

A few days ago I saw a news article about a young mother working at a fast food place being the local leader of the movement to demand unions and higher pay. The protestors were doing the Mockingjay salute. The out of touch old Boomers over at Democratic Underground were bitching that it looked like a Nazi salute and that "those stupid kids" should not do it because it confuses old people. LOL.

The Powers That Be should be terrified.

Originally Posted by Mary Kate 1982

I apologize for the length, but I bet everyone to read: I put a lot of effort in and if I may not be too boastful I think I've made a few good points.

Wonkette, you still sound like my mother. In my eyes, too many Boomers simply don't understand that voting for the opposition will not yield results. If you were to get online and go over the actual record, you would notice something very interesting: the Republican Party is merely the more overt in supporting the 1%. The Democratic Party often just upholds the desires of the rich by putting up a very weak fight against any proposals of the Republican Party, and often through sins of omission do they allow a very tiny number of super rich people control policy in Congress.

Let's take an actual look at who funds either party, starting with the Democrats: most Democratic candidates are funded by new technology companies and to a degree media companies. This means companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Tesla, and other Silicon Valley giants, plus several companies headquartered in Los Angeles that have a whole lot of access to public media: Disney, Paramount, Warner Bros., Fox, and NBC Universal. Taken together, all of these companies make up an enormous chunk of the US economy and nearly all have business practices as dirty as Wall Street ever did, often operating by the same rules. All of these companies are socially liberal, but financially are just as cutthroat.

I would wager the one piece of legislation that will never be invoked is the Sherman Act: One of the oldest antitrust laws on the books, since all of these are monopolies. NBC Universal owns Comcast, NBC, and several other smaller companies. Google owns YouTube. Tesla is just one of more than a dozen companies in the arsenal of Elon Musk. All of these are headed by multi billionaires Who make more than 300 times what any company employee makes, and recent history would suggest that they're looking to make more: the real reason why Mark Zuckerberg wants "immigration reform" is so he can take advantage of the US visa program as it stands and import IT and programming professionals from countries like India and not have to pay them as much as a US college graduate with the same skill. Nearly all of these companies have sold out the American worker by sending a lot of work to Asia: Apple for example has not manufactured anything in America on a large scale since the 1990s. Film studios like Disney have farmed out a lot of their digital work for Pixar films to Singapore, where there is much less regulation or ability of the worker to form a union. They are contributing to the hollowing out of the middle class with practices like these. And the cherries on top of the shitcake are that many of these companies are based in the most populous state in the union: California. That would mean the politicians they pretty much buy no thanks to corporations being people make up an enormous chunk of the House of Representatives. I should also add that it's no accident that Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein are so powerful in the Senate in spite of having voting records that are atrocious.

The Republicans merely represent older and more traditional industries, like coal, agriculture, and finance. A lot of their base is found in rural areas in which natural resources abound, with a large interest in Wall Street going back to the time of FDR. (Go look at a map: I am right. Go look at a map of the South and realize there's very little industry down there that isn't connected to agriculture, mining, or bottom of the barrel industrial manufacture, the kind that used to take place in Detroit...and realize the South has been anti-union since the time of Teddy Roosevelt.) Thus it is no surprise that they are pro – free market and pro – deregulation of financial markets and environmental laws. However I would like to remind you that such laws actually also benefit the constituents, the rich fatcats of new industries, of the Democratic Party. All any Democratic congressman or senator has to do is not speak up when the party of Wall Street demands yet another defense of the public against the 1% is taken away. If they can't do that, they will window dress and fight for very weak clauses that do not solve the problem or stop Wall Street from destroying us all, because of who THEIR bosses REALLY are.

We live in a dangerous times. Neither party gives a shit about the average American anymore. We have near total regulatory capture and only a tiny number of public figures, like Elizabeth Warren, willing to even give voice to any kind of dissent. When one politician will not represent you, it is no longer an option to go and vote for his opponent. A lot of Millennials have cottoned on to this fact. Barack Obama should never have let this generation down by behaving like Bill Clinton lite, since it has caused an entire generation to look deeper. Politicians should take a closer look at why the Hunger Games movies are so popular with teenagers up to people in their early 30s and be very, very frightened.

Those movies speak to what the young see all around them. Their parents can't see it yet because they are too used to the idea that the system can still function as it is: they've never lived through a time when everything fell apart and didn't listen hard enough to the life lessons of the GIs, who were so badly scarred by events in the 1930s and 1940s that they totally and mistakenly insulated their children from any kind of hardship. Caesar Flickerman could be a doppelgänger for any late-night talkshow host or brainless morning show reporter. Unlike in the past, Milennials are paying attention to the man behind the curtain, to paraphrase the Wizard of Oz. They can see the cheap colored lights and the army of stylists, publicists, spin doctors, and image consultants whose sole job is to make a politician, celebrity, or business fatcat likable and lure people into buying their product or brand… Even if what they are really selling is toxic and harmful. (You might also notice that only the super rich would see it as the natural order of things: just as in the film, in real life they applaud mindlessly, they rejoice at the puerile and superficial, like getting on the cover of Vogue, and do not understand that their tastes, the stuff that drives trends in culture like music and media, often are a far cry from the realities of their main consumers to the point of being insulting.) In the aftermath of the stock market crash of 2008, Millennilas have fared the worst. They face an economic landscape whose likeness has not been seen in 100 years – in the job market it really is survival of the fittest. They buy the message of present-day politicians as much as the characters in the film buy the propaganda of the Capitol.

Meanwhile take a look at real life: civil unrest is escalating, even with the market picking up. Millennials did not show up at the voting booth. They are showing up on the streets. The song The Hanging Tree is a huge hit, and one with legs: it is getting played and replayed on YouTube now over a month since Mockingjay was released. If I were a politician, I would be quite scared of the youth response to the content of Mockingjay: it would suggest that, in time, if certain anger among the young is not met with real change, unlike the 1960s, Millennials will resort to violence of the torch and pitchfork variety. If peaceful protest does not yield results, if politicians no longer fear that citizens will resort to much more destructive and ruthless action than singing We Shall Overcome or participating in marches with Al Sharpton or Occupy Wall Street, The citizenry will revolt and it will be their necks swinging from the hanging tree.

Don't vote for Hillary Clinton. Instead heed my words.

A leading edge (say, mid 1980s cohort) Millie vet with hands on tactical war experience and an axe to grind could rapidly become a hero of the people, a quasi Anarchistic Arch General as it were. This type of scenario is looking more and more plausible to me. I just hope when (not if) this occurs, the person is of a benevolent, anti totalitarian bent, and we don't end up with a Hitler clone.

Originally Posted by Mary Kate 1982

Let's take an actual look at who funds either party, starting with the Democrats: most Democratic candidates are funded by new technology companies and to a degree media companies. This means companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Tesla, and other Silicon Valley giants, plus several companies headquartered in Los Angeles that have a whole lot of access to public media: Disney, Paramount, Warner Bros., Fox, and NBC Universal. Taken together, all of these companies make up an enormous chunk of the US economy and nearly all have business practices as dirty as Wall Street ever did, often operating by the same rules. All of these companies are socially liberal, but financially are just as cutthroat.

These corporations rely heavily upon innovation and intellectual creativity. As such they need imaginative, open-minded people capable of creating new content and finding new markets. "Silicon Valley" has largely farmed out manufacturing to such dirty businesses as FoxConn, operator of the sweatshops in China whence many of our electronic toys come from. The cost of living is so high in Silicon Valley that manufacturing is priced out in the area. Innovators tend to out-compete laggers who often face price-based competition and can compete only by squeezing workers harder. Think of what the auto industry, the arch-example of an innovative industry a century ago, did to the sweatshops of Detroit.

I would wager the one piece of legislation that will never be invoked is the Sherman Act: One of the oldest antitrust laws on the books, since all of these are monopolies. NBC Universal owns Comcast, NBC, and several other smaller companies. Google owns YouTube. Tesla is just one of more than a dozen companies in the arsenal of Elon Musk. All of these are headed by multi billionaires Who make more than 300 times what any company employee makes, and recent history would suggest that they're looking to make more: the real reason why Mark Zuckerberg wants "immigration reform" is so he can take advantage of the US visa program as it stands and import IT and programming professionals from countries like India and not have to pay them as much as a US college graduate with the same skill. Nearly all of these companies have sold out the American worker by sending a lot of work to Asia: Apple for example has not manufactured anything in America on a large scale since the 1990s. Film studios like Disney have farmed out a lot of their digital work for Pixar films to Singapore, where there is much less regulation or ability of the worker to form a union. They are contributing to the hollowing out of the middle class with practices like these. And the cherries on top of the shitcake are that many of these companies are based in the most populous state in the union: California. That would mean the politicians they pretty much buy no thanks to corporations being people make up an enormous chunk of the House of Representatives. I should also add that it's no accident that Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein are so powerful in the Senate in spite of having voting records that are atrocious.

Conservatives in California used to be tied heavily to agribusiness and petroleum interests... and they have been marginalized in statewide politics. Contrast Texas, where agribusiness and petroleum still dominate statewide politics. As late as 1976 Texas voted for Carter and California voted for Ford... both states have voted together only in landslides since the 1950s. But it was Texas that was usually Democratic and California that was usually Republican.

The Republicans merely represent older and more traditional industries, like coal, agriculture, and finance. A lot of their base is found in rural areas in which natural resources abound, with a large interest in Wall Street going back to the time of FDR. (Go look at a map: I am right. Go look at a map of the South and realize there's very little industry down there that isn't connected to agriculture, mining, or bottom of the barrel industrial manufacture, the kind that used to take place in Detroit...and realize the South has been anti-union since the time of Teddy Roosevelt.) Thus it is no surprise that they are pro – free market and pro – deregulation of financial markets and environmental laws. However I would like to remind you that such laws actually also benefit the constituents, the rich fatcats of new industries, of the Democratic Party. All any Democratic congressman or senator has to do is not speak up when the party of Wall Street demands yet another defense of the public against the 1% is taken away. If they can't do that, they will window dress and fight for very weak clauses that do not solve the problem or stop Wall Street from destroying us all, because of who THEIR bosses REALLY are.

Energy is about as reactionary as any industry gets. Just think of the coal barons pressing workers to show support for Republican politicians; the United Mine Workers must have gotten very weak.

We live in a dangerous times. Neither party gives a (cuss word deleted) about the average American anymore. We have near total regulatory capture and only a tiny number of public figures, like Elizabeth Warren, willing to even give voice to any kind of dissent. When one politician will not represent you, it is no longer an option to go and vote for his opponent. A lot of Millennials have cottoned on to this fact. Barack Obama should never have let this generation down by behaving like Bill Clinton lite, since it has caused an entire generation to look deeper. Politicians should take a closer look at why the Hunger Games movies are so popular with teenagers up to people in their early 30s and be very, very frightened.

Just as important -- GOP fronts have successfully made elections unfair by giving any right-winger an advantage with below-the-belt attacks on the Democrat in close elections. I can imagine the current Supreme Court deciding that intimidating voters with such warnings as "If you want to keep your job, then vote for the politician of our choosing in November" constitutes free speech. Workers are scared of their employers as they have not been since the early 1930s. Much of the current right-wing agenda is to eviscerate unions so that Big Business can drive wages down and to get the freedom to cut wages and demand unpaid overtime. The 'libertarians' of our time are best described as believers in freedom for the elites of Big Business and hunger for everyone else.

Those movies speak to what the young see all around them. Their parents can't see it yet because they are too used to the idea that the system can still function as it is: they've never lived through a time when everything fell apart and didn't listen hard enough to the life lessons of the GIs, who were so badly scarred by events in the 1930s and 1940s that they totally and mistakenly insulated their children from any kind of hardship. Caesar Flickerman could be a doppelgänger for any late-night talkshow host or brainless morning show reporter. Unlike in the past, Milennials are paying attention to the man behind the curtain, to paraphrase the Wizard of Oz. They can see the cheap colored lights and the army of stylists, publicists, spin doctors, and image consultants whose sole job is to make a politician, celebrity, or business fatcat likable and lure people into buying their product or brand… Even if what they are really selling is toxic and harmful. (You might also notice that only the super rich would see it as the natural order of things: just as in the film, in real life they applaud mindlessly, they rejoice at the puerile and superficial, like getting on the cover of Vogue, and do not understand that their tastes, the stuff that drives trends in culture like music and media, often are a far cry from the realities of their main consumers to the point of being insulting.) In the aftermath of the stock market crash of 2008, Millennilas have fared the worst. They face an economic landscape whose likeness has not been seen in 100 years – in the job market it really is survival of the fittest. They buy the message of present-day politicians as much as the characters in the film buy the propaganda of the Capitol.

I think that I need to see that movie to truly understand the Millennial Generation. But that said -- there's nothing like the implosion of the economic order to compel people to give up on the idea of every-man-for-himself, Devil-take-the-hindmost ethos of the 1920s and the Double-Zero decade. Americans will need to re-learn the virtues of thrift, entrepreneurship, customer development, and group solidarity as they did in the 1930s to deal with the Great Depression. Politics based on ethnic identity is what the Right wants -- because white people will still be the majority or near-majority.

I see us in for another market crash as severe as that of 1929-1932, if not worse, should the GOP fully consolidate power in 2016; it would be worse because there would be more to lose. Such would have some positive effect upon American politics; there just wouldn't be enough money to fund the GOP fronts as there was in 2010. We would need a more complete solution of the political mess that has festered since the 1980s, to wit trickle-down economics. Barack Obama may have prevented a meltdown from getting as bad as it might have gotten -- but at a price: Big Business still had the funds with which to organize the Tea Party, and the financial industry learned nothing from its bad behavior in the Double-Zero decade.

Give America a President and Congress whose sole solution to an economic calamity is to cut wages, gut workers' rights, destroy the welfare state, and start showing signs of a Dirty War -- and Americans will find some form of socialism attractive.

Meanwhile take a look at real life: civil unrest is escalating, even with the market picking up. Millennials did not show up at the voting booth. They are showing up on the streets. The song The Hanging Tree is a huge hit, and one with legs: it is getting played and replayed on YouTube now over a month since Mockingjay was released. If I were a politician, I would be quite scared of the youth response to the content of Mockingjay: it would suggest that, in time, if certain anger among the young is not met with real change, unlike the 1960s, Millennials will resort to violence of the torch and pitchfork variety. If peaceful protest does not yield results, if politicians no longer fear that citizens will resort to much more destructive and ruthless action than singing We Shall Overcome or participating in marches with Al Sharpton or Occupy Wall Street, The citizenry will revolt and it will be their necks swinging from the hanging tree.

Hanging tree? The Jacobins brought forth the guillotine as a 'humane' way to terminate the life of evil-doers. In a Jacobin-style America it would likely be nitrogen asphyxia. In essence the nitrogen-oxygen mixture of normal air is replaced by pure oxygen, and the condemned dies quickly because he can no longer get oxygen.

Don't vote for Hillary Clinton. Instead heed my words.

The alternative may be the pols who promise their handlers to cut wages, gut workers' rights, destroy the welfare state, and start a Dirty War in America. After all, if one does not appreciate the merits of working to exhaustion for near-starvation wages one might be the equivalent of Christians that Romans offered the bears, lions, and tigers in their amphitheaters -- being offered to sharks or crocodiles tank in an aquarium with cameras rolling?

I can think of the most obvious candidates for execution by nitrogen asphyxiation. The sorts of people culpable of casting people to a crocodile or shark tank or offering such perverse 'entertainment'?

I get it now.
Torturing terrorists is wrong.
Killing Republicans humanely is just great.
Liberals trying to claim moral superiority over conservatives is one gigantic joke.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

I get it now.
Torturing terrorists is wrong.
Killing Republicans humanely is just great.
Liberals trying to claim moral superiority over conservatives is one gigantic joke.

Meh.

1962 : year of the prophets of dystopias.

Hunger Games trilogy
Fight Club
Reinventing Collapse

I see Mary Kay and Odin are fans of the first one.
Pbrower seems to be a fan of the 3rd one. When an empire is into the bread and debased circus gig, the jig is almost up.

Originally Posted by Mary Kate 1982

I apologize for the length, but I bet everyone to read: I put a lot of effort in and if I may not be too boastful I think I've made a few good points.

Wonkette, you still sound like my mother. In my eyes, too many Boomers simply don't understand that voting for the opposition will not yield results. If you were to get online and go over the actual record, you would notice something very interesting: the Republican Party is merely the more overt in supporting the 1%. The Democratic Party often just upholds the desires of the rich by putting up a very weak fight against any proposals of the Republican Party, and often through sins of omission do they allow a very tiny number of super rich people control policy in Congress.

Let's take an actual look at who funds either party, starting with the Democrats: most Democratic candidates are funded by new technology companies and to a degree media companies. This means companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Tesla, and other Silicon Valley giants, plus several companies headquartered in Los Angeles that have a whole lot of access to public media: Disney, Paramount, Warner Bros., Fox, and NBC Universal. Taken together, all of these companies make up an enormous chunk of the US economy and nearly all have business practices as dirty as Wall Street ever did, often operating by the same rules. All of these companies are socially liberal, but financially are just as cutthroat.

Mary, I appreciate your post, and I don't disagree. There are things to keep in mind though. The Democrats have proposed and voted for reform of the financing of elections. Republicans have taken a hatchet to any financial reform that already existed. That's quite a big difference between the parties, and it's not the only one. Voting records are starkly different between the parties on a whole host of issues. Who appointed the Justices that gave us Citizens United and the other decisions that opened the floodgates to money in politics? All 5 were appointed by Republican presidents; the 4 who opposed this decision were all appointed by Democratic presidents. That's no accident. If we ever want to reform the system, instead of just being cynical and moaning about it, progressive Democrats will have to be elected at all levels. Unless that happens, reform won't happen either; it's that simple.

I would wager the one piece of legislation that will never be invoked is the Sherman Act: One of the oldest antitrust laws on the books, since all of these are monopolies. NBC Universal owns Comcast, NBC, and several other smaller companies. Google owns YouTube. Tesla is just one of more than a dozen companies in the arsenal of Elon Musk. All of these are headed by multi billionaires Who make more than 300 times what any company employee makes, and recent history would suggest that they're looking to make more: the real reason why Mark Zuckerberg wants "immigration reform" is so he can take advantage of the US visa program as it stands and import IT and programming professionals from countries like India and not have to pay them as much as a US college graduate with the same skill. Nearly all of these companies have sold out the American worker by sending a lot of work to Asia: Apple for example has not manufactured anything in America on a large scale since the 1990s. Film studios like Disney have farmed out a lot of their digital work for Pixar films to Singapore, where there is much less regulation or ability of the worker to form a union. They are contributing to the hollowing out of the middle class with practices like these. And the cherries on top of the shitcake are that many of these companies are based in the most populous state in the union: California. That would mean the politicians they pretty much buy no thanks to corporations being people make up an enormous chunk of the House of Representatives. I should also add that it's no accident that Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein are so powerful in the Senate in spite of having voting records that are atrocious.

I don't think their records are atrocious; they do the right things often. Ideal candidates are not going to be elected in our lifetimes. This is America: the people are not smart enough to vote for the best candidates. The best we can hope for are folks like Obama and Boxer. A country that re-elected George W. Bush and the Tea Party congress, is not going to elect Bernie Sanders or Ralph Nader president. That's just the reality we have to deal with. The Republicans enable all this corporate power. They are the ones that, since Reagan, have removed the regulations and tarriffs and subsidized overseas operations the most. There are no Democratic corporations and Republican ones; the unregulated free market dominates solely because of the Republican free-market ideology that enables it.

Yes, Democrats are complicit. The difference is this, as I have explained: if the people really want progressive policies on trade and regulation, they have to push for it. Democrats in office can be pushed in this direction by the people; Republicans cannot be. And liberals and progressives must adopt the Tea Party strategy against DINOs (Democrats in Name Only); primary them if they don't tow the line. If liberals don't vote for progressives, including Democrats if possible, and push the politicians for their policies, then they lose. The people are responsible for the plight of our nation; not the politicians. We are the ones who put these idiots in office; including the worst congress ever. If people are voting this way, how can you expect anything but complicity on the part of Democrats? Politicians bow to the expressed will of the people, and to the money system that the people have allowed by electing Republicans to office.

The Republicans merely represent older and more traditional industries, like coal, agriculture, and finance. A lot of their base is found in rural areas in which natural resources abound, with a large interest in Wall Street going back to the time of FDR. (Go look at a map: I am right. Go look at a map of the South and realize there's very little industry down there that isn't connected to agriculture, mining, or bottom of the barrel industrial manufacture, the kind that used to take place in Detroit...and realize the South has been anti-union since the time of Teddy Roosevelt.) Thus it is no surprise that they are pro – free market and pro – deregulation of financial markets and environmental laws. However I would like to remind you that such laws actually also benefit the constituents, the rich fatcats of new industries, of the Democratic Party. All any Democratic congressman or senator has to do is not speak up when the party of Wall Street demands yet another defense of the public against the 1% is taken away. If they can't do that, they will window dress and fight for very weak clauses that do not solve the problem or stop Wall Street from destroying us all, because of who THEIR bosses REALLY are.

Only the people can show who is boss. Demonstrations and riots are not enough; political organization is necessary. That must include working in the Democratic Party, because that's the level American politics is at. I support the Greens too, but I must be realistic. America is too stupid to vote Green; so we must vote strategically: vote Green or some other party where we can; vote Democratic where we must.

If peaceful protest does not yield results, if politicians no longer fear that citizens will resort to much more destructive and ruthless action than singing We Shall Overcome or participating in marches with Al Sharpton or Occupy Wall Street, The citizenry will revolt and it will be their necks swinging from the hanging tree.

Don't get your hopes up that anything like this is in the cards, or will work. No revolution can succeed unless most of the people support it, and preferably the military too. No, the people have to be convinced to change their voting ways before any change, whether revolutionary or political, can occur. Right now, the people are wedded to the Republican trickle-down free-market libertarian-economics ideology. That ideology must be debunked or defanged in any way possible. It is the obstacle. See the problem described here.

Don't vote for Hillary Clinton. Instead heed my words.

And I ask you to heed mine. (please )

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

I get it now.
Torturing terrorists is wrong.
Killing Republicans humanely is just great.

I don't think anyone said that.

Liberals trying to claim moral superiority over conservatives is one gigantic joke.

No, the gigantic joke is that anyone would disagree that liberals are morally superior to conservatives!

Originally Posted by Mary Kate 1982

I apologize for the length, but I bet everyone to read: I put a lot of effort in and if I may not be too boastful I think I've made a few good points.

Wonkette, you still sound like my mother. In my eyes, too many Boomers simply don't understand that voting for the opposition will not yield results. If you were to get online and go over the actual record, you would notice something very interesting: the Republican Party is merely the more overt in supporting the 1%. The Democratic Party often just upholds the desires of the rich by putting up a very weak fight against any proposals of the Republican Party, and often through sins of omission do they allow a very tiny number of super rich people control policy in Congress.

Let's take an actual look at who funds either party, starting with the Democrats: most Democratic candidates are funded by new technology companies and to a degree media companies. This means companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Tesla, and other Silicon Valley giants, plus several companies headquartered in Los Angeles that have a whole lot of access to public media: Disney, Paramount, Warner Bros., Fox, and NBC Universal. Taken together, all of these companies make up an enormous chunk of the US economy and nearly all have business practices as dirty as Wall Street ever did, often operating by the same rules. All of these companies are socially liberal, but financially are just as cutthroat.

I would wager the one piece of legislation that will never be invoked is the Sherman Act: One of the oldest antitrust laws on the books, since all of these are monopolies. NBC Universal owns Comcast, NBC, and several other smaller companies. Google owns YouTube. Tesla is just one of more than a dozen companies in the arsenal of Elon Musk. All of these are headed by multi billionaires Who make more than 300 times what any company employee makes, and recent history would suggest that they're looking to make more: the real reason why Mark Zuckerberg wants "immigration reform" is so he can take advantage of the US visa program as it stands and import IT and programming professionals from countries like India and not have to pay them as much as a US college graduate with the same skill. Nearly all of these companies have sold out the American worker by sending a lot of work to Asia: Apple for example has not manufactured anything in America on a large scale since the 1990s. Film studios like Disney have farmed out a lot of their digital work for Pixar films to Singapore, where there is much less regulation or ability of the worker to form a union. They are contributing to the hollowing out of the middle class with practices like these. And the cherries on top of the shitcake are that many of these companies are based in the most populous state in the union: California. That would mean the politicians they pretty much buy no thanks to corporations being people make up an enormous chunk of the House of Representatives. I should also add that it's no accident that Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein are so powerful in the Senate in spite of having voting records that are atrocious.

The Republicans merely represent older and more traditional industries, like coal, agriculture, and finance. A lot of their base is found in rural areas in which natural resources abound, with a large interest in Wall Street going back to the time of FDR. (Go look at a map: I am right. Go look at a map of the South and realize there's very little industry down there that isn't connected to agriculture, mining, or bottom of the barrel industrial manufacture, the kind that used to take place in Detroit...and realize the South has been anti-union since the time of Teddy Roosevelt.) Thus it is no surprise that they are pro – free market and pro – deregulation of financial markets and environmental laws. However I would like to remind you that such laws actually also benefit the constituents, the rich fatcats of new industries, of the Democratic Party. All any Democratic congressman or senator has to do is not speak up when the party of Wall Street demands yet another defense of the public against the 1% is taken away. If they can't do that, they will window dress and fight for very weak clauses that do not solve the problem or stop Wall Street from destroying us all, because of who THEIR bosses REALLY are.

We live in a dangerous times. Neither party gives a shit about the average American anymore. We have near total regulatory capture and only a tiny number of public figures, like Elizabeth Warren, willing to even give voice to any kind of dissent. When one politician will not represent you, it is no longer an option to go and vote for his opponent. A lot of Millennials have cottoned on to this fact. Barack Obama should never have let this generation down by behaving like Bill Clinton lite, since it has caused an entire generation to look deeper. Politicians should take a closer look at why the Hunger Games movies are so popular with teenagers up to people in their early 30s and be very, very frightened.

Those movies speak to what the young see all around them. Their parents can't see it yet because they are too used to the idea that the system can still function as it is: they've never lived through a time when everything fell apart and didn't listen hard enough to the life lessons of the GIs, who were so badly scarred by events in the 1930s and 1940s that they totally and mistakenly insulated their children from any kind of hardship. Caesar Flickerman could be a doppelgänger for any late-night talkshow host or brainless morning show reporter. Unlike in the past, Milennials are paying attention to the man behind the curtain, to paraphrase the Wizard of Oz. They can see the cheap colored lights and the army of stylists, publicists, spin doctors, and image consultants whose sole job is to make a politician, celebrity, or business fatcat likable and lure people into buying their product or brand… Even if what they are really selling is toxic and harmful. (You might also notice that only the super rich would see it as the natural order of things: just as in the film, in real life they applaud mindlessly, they rejoice at the puerile and superficial, like getting on the cover of Vogue, and do not understand that their tastes, the stuff that drives trends in culture like music and media, often are a far cry from the realities of their main consumers to the point of being insulting.) In the aftermath of the stock market crash of 2008, Millennilas have fared the worst. They face an economic landscape whose likeness has not been seen in 100 years – in the job market it really is survival of the fittest. They buy the message of present-day politicians as much as the characters in the film buy the propaganda of the Capitol.

Meanwhile take a look at real life: civil unrest is escalating, even with the market picking up. Millennials did not show up at the voting booth. They are showing up on the streets. The song The Hanging Tree is a huge hit, and one with legs: it is getting played and replayed on YouTube now over a month since Mockingjay was released. If I were a politician, I would be quite scared of the youth response to the content of Mockingjay: it would suggest that, in time, if certain anger among the young is not met with real change, unlike the 1960s, Millennials will resort to violence of the torch and pitchfork variety. If peaceful protest does not yield results, if politicians no longer fear that citizens will resort to much more destructive and ruthless action than singing We Shall Overcome or participating in marches with Al Sharpton or Occupy Wall Street, The citizenry will revolt and it will be their necks swinging from the hanging tree.

Don't vote for Hillary Clinton. Instead heed my words.

I'm a Millie and I know a "normal" path in life won't work for individuals, especially when the workplace is hostile to individuality. It would be better to risk it all to get to the top than have to stand having to mute yourself. What about people who pull themselves from the bottom to the top or those who are leaders and could only be at the bottom or top? Why should they be punished for having enough creativity to make it themselves?

I think we will break the monopolies through the internet. People are using cable far less than they did and are listening to mainstream radio far less than they did before. Taxing people who outsource jobs much more should do the trick. They key is to tax them enough so that there is actually a financial disadvantage of labor leaving the country.

I'm for unions and benefits, but I'm not for incredibly high taxes that restrict the average person's ability to spend money (like ear marks and pet projects that keep adding up and inefficient programs). Personally, I think the public schools were places that were there to make everyone fit into the same collective mold instead of praising people for being themselves. They were like a prison more than a place I actually found myself.

I think the more involved government gets into things, the more things cost. There are several bubbles needed to be popped because of easy lending. The key is to pop the bubbles and have deflation so that everything becomes less expensive and it becomes far easier for people wanting to own small businesses and buy up property and housing. People's savings would go much further. Also no bailouts for Wall Street. Creating a deflationary scenario will just reverse the damage done by inflation. Much like losing weight undoes the damage of excessive weight gain.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Meh.

1962 : year of the prophets of dystopias.

Hunger Games trilogy
Fight Club
Reinventing Collapse

I see Mary Kay and Odin are fans of the first one.
Pbrower seems to be a fan of the 3rd one. When an empire is into the bread and debased circus gig, the jig is almost up.

Ok so liberals aren't immoral they're just full of shit.
Agreed that our country's turn at empire is nearing its end.
Merry Christmas.

I am enough of a realist to hold that if one must choose between a piece of work like Schuschnigg and a monster like Hitler... go with Schuschnigg.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

I get it now.
Torturing terrorists is wrong.

Beyond any doubt.

Killing Republicans humanely is just great.

Ted Bundy was a Republican. That was the least of his problems.

I suggested that many Republicans could morph into fascists due to their sadism (and support of torture is evidence of sadism). I don't care what one's political identity is... should one ever do horrible deeds that violate legal statutes one must pay the price. If the Republican Party fully transforms itself into a totalitarian party with the usual brutality that one associates with such, and that it effectively excludes alternatives from meaningful roles, then it can set itself up for a violent revolution.

I do not need to endorse Jacobin terror to recognize its possibility under some circumstances. Really -- the Millennial Generation is the sort of generation that can become arrogant in its belief in its own scientific rationality to the extent that it considers old moral standards 'expendable superstition'.

Liberals trying to claim moral superiority over conservatives is one gigantic joke.

I would like to see conservatives redeem some of the virtues that I used to find in conservatives -- like respect for difference, caution, and in general a trust for precedent. 'Conservatism' has become a euphemism for dangerous trends.

I do not need to endorse Jacobin terror to recognize its possibility under some circumstances. Really -- the Millennial Generation is the sort of generation that can become arrogant in its belief in its own scientific rationality to the extent that it considers old moral standards 'expendable superstition'.

This is one way I can't relate to the Millennials (my generation) or the Xers. I'm very spiritual and anything that is not completely proven by science is shut down. The spritual world is made fun of. They also talk about statistics without examining reasons and assume you are stupid if you ever go against statistics. Neither seem to understand the concept of meaning or intuition. I can't wait until the next 2T when I can happily watch the new prophets create a better society.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Russia and China don't listen and won't ever listen to us when people like you gripe about human rights and democracy. People like you have no teeth or willingness to shed blood for such causes and therefore you are viewed as being no major threat to them.

If you refuse to trade with China until they comply with your demands, they can be changed. I believe any situation can be changed. It would hurt them too much to say no.

Or we can extract information from people by promising them the things they want for the information then revoking it once all the necessary information is collected. That person could be put in solitary confinement without communication to the outside world so that there is no execution on the news and so that the tactic doesn't get out. False promises get people elected and it will get people to admit to things just to get the reward. Use people's own psychology against them. If necessary, use a "good cop" willing to cut a deal and a "bad cop" that treats him horribly. Use the "bad cop" or "bad cops" first then use the good cop willing to cut a deal. Never underestimate the power of psychological warfare.

Originally Posted by decadeologist101

This is one way I can't relate to the Millennials (my generation) or the Xers. I'm very spiritual and anything that is not completely proven by science is shut down. The spritual world is made fun of. They also talk about statistics without examining reasons and assume you are stupid if you ever go against statistics. Neither seem to understand the concept of meaning or intuition. I can't wait until the next 2T when I can happily watch the new prophets create a better society.

The 'spiritual' world is good for personal consolation (how to deal with the fact that a social worker makes far less than a pornographer). Conscience is not a rational response, but anyone without it goes very bad very fast. A market driven solely by profit and loss and bureaucratic organizations driven by the disparity of power and powerlessness hardly foster any workable morality.

Statistics are good for measuring things. What they are not good for is telling whether those statistics have relevance to what one discusses. Are people happy because the stock market goes up ten times in one year? Not if that reflects a 1000% inflation rate! (A good reason for changing the tax laws to protect investors from getting clipped for inflationary gains!)

Denying the statistics is stupid unless you can prove the spuriousness of the statistics. Drawing flawed conclusions is also a bad idea.

...We have history, and the French Revolution happened. The Bourbon court was profligate in its spending, dishonest in its business dealings, and utterly incompetent. Bad rulers and their lackeys can get away with such in ordinary times, but when crops fail they rightly become scapegoats. Civic generations have shown themselves prone to amoral rationalism devoid of conscience.

Look what happens when both the Adaptive and Idealist components of life are off the scene. One example is Nazi Germany, where middle-aged Reactive leaders set the 'moral' agenda after largely casting out the elder figures with some morals from the political scene. The Reactive types were excellent at getting their message out and organizing campaigns of hatred and self-sacrifice. The younger Civic types followed the orders of the Reactive generation. High moral principles? That was for 'bourgeois', decadent types like Churchill and FDR... let alone Buber.

I admit -- we Boomers have done a horrible job in establishing moral principles that can work fairly in America. The Boomer economic elites have dominated, and they show a combination of fanatical self-righteousness and heartless selfishness unlikely to ever forge a community except as resistance. Those elites have also ensured that alternatives get shut out of any debate except as objects of skewering. Trickle-down economics perfectly fits the infantile mentality that says "If I don't get everything that I want, then you will get absolutely nothing!"

If Boomers are to have any role in shaping the world at the end of the Crisis, then those will have to be a group of Boomers that the Boom economic elites have shut out since the 1970s.

"French Revolution" certainly beats "Fourth Reich" or "Evil Empire in the middle of North America".

Hanging tree? The Jacobins brought forth the guillotine as a 'humane' way to terminate the life of evil-doers. In a Jacobin-style America it would likely be nitrogen asphyxia. In essence the nitrogen-oxygen mixture of normal air is replaced by pure oxygen, and the condemned dies quickly because he can no longer get oxygen.

I was referring to a song called The Hanging Tree; it is a chilling song that Katniss sings in the Hunger Games series and starts off as a song she learned as a child and becomes a revolutionary anthem. The song is about a man accused of murder is hung for his crimes, and as the song goes on one realizes his corpse is calling for her, for his lover who has escaped, asking if she will join him in death. For people living in the dystopian world of Panem, it becomes a metaphor for their condition: The song only states that the man was accused of murder, and likewise in extension the forces that hung him abused their power. Part of the song asks, thus, the people to risk their lives and risk everything for freedom, freeing themselves of being afraid of their captors.

That song is a top 10 hit in the real world. This is the level of anger among the young. It is here. It showed up at Ferguson. It was present during Occupy Wall Street and has grown stronger. You seem to take what happened during the 1930s for granted. Everyone came together and magically made their communities function, is that it? If we just get a functioning Congress full of Democrats, all our problems will melt away, is that what you really think?– Sorry, that view is rather idealistic. People froze to death in the cold because they lost their houses. People had to patch up their shoes on past the point that they were falling apart because they couldn't afford to get new ones. Hobo jungles weren't just a place of last resort, but they can also be dangerous: violence could and did break out. Bonnie and Clyde, Babyface Nelson, John Dillinger, Al Capone: all of these people emerged during that period. So were demagogues like Father Coughlin.

America got very lucky when FDR won the election in 1932. Up to that point, Democrats indeed advocated for labor rights, but were noticeably silent on banking practices & certain aspects of the tax code that made income inequality similar to what we have now. He made people want to get together and come together. The scoreboard of the present-day looks a little different. We have actually had a president, a Democratic president, destroy a very important piece of the New Deal. Many people in power still follow his methodology of economic liberalism and see no conflict of interest in owning massive amounts of stock in new industries while at the same time being a Senator, a Congressman, or a member of the Executive Branch. Who would vote for a tax reform bill, for example, that would conflict with his need to be rich? Say what you want, but I have never once seen Charles Schumer raise his voice even a little to a Wall Street tycoon since if you look closer you'll realize he himself hasn't lived in anything below a penthouse in decades, plus on top of that, who do you think funds him at election time? And do you not realize that the wealthy New York Senator, the Wall Street tycoon, and the Media giant probably send their kids to the same schools? (Go check out a roster for a school like Horace Mann, I am right.) THAT is social circle too many Congress people live in. And I am not talking about the disparity between which candidates and poor candidates for office. I'm talking about the fact that this interconnected network of elites forms a Congress person's frame of reference. It is gotten to the point that they don't even see it as corruption. And when I say they, I also mean the Democratic Party.

I am sorry to break it to you, but just voting for good liberal Democrats is not going to work. There are just a few of them, like Elizabeth Warren. The people that control the money, are on the key committees, the ones with the power within the Democratic Party do not lean that way. And they will make damn sure the amount of liberals remains small. Most voters are unaware of their dirty deeds behind the scenes, something along the lines of not voting to tax Apple Pay because Tim Cook is a long time golf buddy, not to mention they own stock. On top of that, a candidate needs DNC backing during primary season and at the National Convention. A lot of policymakers from the Clinton era occupy those offices. Even if candidate somehow got through the maelstrom of debates, it would be all too easy for petty party bosses loyal to Hillary to sabotage the campaign by withdrawing their support behind the scenes.

if indeed there is no real choice between a Republican and a Democrat anymore, that leaves one thing: the streets. A possible scenario is that a candidate "wins", but the turnout is so low as to be laughable, like the total number of votes equaling the population of Wyoming. It could imply that neither candidate got elected, because the majority withheld their votes from candidates that did not represent them. The people protesting in the streets and screaming that they do not recognize this man or woman as their leader and will not obey him or his mandates, will not recognize the inauguration is valid, and start a movement. With any luck a real leader will arise out of that. It's happened before in this country, in 1776 when the colonists had no representation in Parliament.

I certainly do not want a Jacobin style uprising, but I worry that the establishment takes for granted that protests will take the form they took in the 1960s: nonviolent, And mostly marching. If they know that, they can use it to their advantage – Occupy Wall Street died in part because it would've been so easy to infiltrate. Republican national convention in New York cordoned off a section for protesters away from the camera's and exploited a loophole in the first amendment-they knew the protesters would not fight back and go silently like sheep into their little pens. Power concedes nothing without a fight. It just might be time to switch tactics.

Originally Posted by decadeologist101

This is one way I can't relate to the Millennials (my generation) or the Xers. I'm very spiritual and anything that is not completely proven by science is shut down. The spritual world is made fun of. They also talk about statistics without examining reasons and assume you are stupid if you ever go against statistics. Neither seem to understand the concept of meaning or intuition. I can't wait until the next 2T when I can happily watch the new prophets create a better society.

Good statement; I agree.

Originally Posted by Mary Kate 1982

[COLOR=#3E3E3E]

I was referring to a song called The Hanging Tree; it is a chilling song that Katniss sings in the Hunger Games series and starts off as a song she learned as a child and becomes a revolutionary anthem. The song is about a man accused of murder is hung for his crimes, and as the song goes on one realizes his corpse is calling for her, for his lover who has escaped, asking if she will join him in death. For people living in the dystopian world of Panem, it becomes a metaphor for their condition: The song only states that the man was accused of murder, and likewise in extension the forces that hung him abused their power. Part of the song asks, thus, the people to risk their lives and risk everything for freedom, freeing themselves of being afraid of their captors.

Having never seen the movies nor read the book, I can go only on the reputation. It could be interesting. I have my own idea of a dystopia for America, a Union of Christian and Corporate States, a right-wing mirror image of the old Soviet Union. People challenging the plutocratic oligarchy would be hounded by a Cheka-like secret police for the crime of 'being' an Enemy of Prosperity. Peonage approaching slavery would be the norm, and workers' lives would be expendable in the extreme. Monopoly profiteering would be the norm after small business is ruined. Being a non-Christian or even the wrong sort of Christian would practically ensure a miserable and precarious life. Mass suffering is an objective, and slogans like "STRENGTH THROUGH SUFFERING / GREATNESS THROUGH STRENGTH appear everywhere. As one can expect in a plutocratic oligarchy, war is a needed sacrifice to bring the world to the 'freedom' of the Union of Christian and Corporate States. The logo "NC" plastered everywhere is not a reference to North Carolina. Americans have the right to vote in elections with nominal choice -- but employers decide how their livestock vote. Livestock? The rich treat their horses better than they treat 'their' employees.

The horrible system has been intact since a conflict analogous to the Spanish Civil War -- after the National Conservative party has won dictatorial powers in an election, the economy has gone into a meltdown worse than the 1929-1933 disaster, and the National Conservative Party has stopped its certain defeat in the next election by rigging the next election. Hawaii has somehow escaped, only to maintain its democracy by accepting the Emperor of Japan as Head of State.

Do I have a story?

That song is a top 10 hit in the real world. This is the level of anger among the young. It is here. It showed up at Ferguson. It was present during Occupy Wall Street and has grown stronger. You seem to take what happened during the 1930s for granted. Everyone came together and magically made their communities function, is that it? If we just get a functioning Congress full of Democrats, all our problems will melt away, is that what you really think?– Sorry, that view is rather idealistic. People froze to death in the cold because they lost their houses. People had to patch up their shoes on past the point that they were falling apart because they couldn't afford to get new ones. Hobo jungles weren't just a place of last resort, but they can also be dangerous: violence could and did break out. Bonnie and Clyde, Babyface Nelson, John Dillinger, Al Capone: all of these people emerged during that period. So were demagogues like Father Coughlin.

Except on race and homosexuality we Americans are much nastier than the Americans of the 1930s. At least in the 1930s the mass culture was family-friendly. You can safely watch just about any American movie from the 1930s (except for some "stag" films that then had limited audiences) without having to shield a child's face from overt sexuality. Capone went to prison. Bonnie and Clyde, Baby Face Nelson, Machine-Gun Kelly, and John Dillinger ended up dead -- and as models of how not to live.

Do you know what really scares me?





Howe and Strauss warned of the coarsening of political rhetoric and behavior. Torture is one hallmark of a gangster state, and that so many Americans think it acceptable as a response to terrorism, it does not take long for it to become an acceptable response to any demonized menace to the 'nation'. Knowing enough about the debased side of human nature, I recognize cruelty and brutality for their strength in rewarding themselves. Terrorism today can become drugs tomorrow, homosexuality the next day, political dissidents the next, and non-majority religions the next. That 51% of Republicans think it acceptable to threaten a terrorist with harm to his family members and 61% think it acceptable to throw a terror suspect into a wall (good for broken bones) indicates something sick in America.

I would now rather be a German than a German-American.

We have entered the dangerous age of majority-of-a-majority politics in which either a despotic party Boss dominates the leading Party so long as it has a majority or behind-the-scenes fundraisers who deliver ads that demonize the opposition set the agenda. Those who voted 'wrong' get nothing, and those who voted 'right' but got ignored are then ignored even more completely. All that is necessary for tyranny is for the winners of the last election to entrench themselves by reshaping the political process to their favor.

America got very lucky when FDR won the election in 1932. Up to that point, Democrats indeed advocated for labor rights, but were noticeably silent on banking practices & certain aspects of the tax code that made income inequality similar to what we have now. He made people want to get together and come together. The scoreboard of the present-day looks a little different. We have actually had a president, a Democratic president, destroy a very important piece of the New Deal. Many people in power still follow his methodology of economic liberalism and see no conflict of interest in owning massive amounts of stock in new industries while at the same time being a Senator, a Congressman, or a member of the Executive Branch. Who would vote for a tax reform bill, for example, that would conflict with his need to be rich? Say what you want, but I have never once seen Charles Schumer raise his voice even a little to a Wall Street tycoon since if you look closer you'll realize he himself hasn't lived in anything below a penthouse in decades, plus on top of that, who do you think funds him at election time? And do you not realize that the wealthy New York Senator, the Wall Street tycoon, and the Media giant probably send their kids to the same schools? (Go check out a roster for a school like Horace Mann, I am right.) THAT is social circle too many Congress people live in. And I am not talking about the disparity between which candidates and poor candidates for office. I'm talking about the fact that this interconnected network of elites forms a Congress person's frame of reference. It is gotten to the point that they don't even see it as corruption. And when I say they, I also mean the Democratic Party.

I am pragmatic enough to recognize that the Flawed is far better than the Monstrous. I now consider the Republican Party a nearly-fascist party. We have a better chance of maintaining our freedom and our tradition of service-driven government if the Republican Party implodes. There are two other cases in which the second-largest Party imploded in American history with the Federalists and the Whigs, neither of which was as nasty as the Republican Party is now. The Democratic Party became the only game in town for a while, only to then split into two new parties of similar size.

I am sorry to break it to you, but just voting for good liberal Democrats is not going to work. There are just a few of them, like Elizabeth Warren. The people that control the money, are on the key committees, the ones with the power within the Democratic Party do not lean that way. And they will make damn sure the amount of liberals remains small. Most voters are unaware of their dirty deeds behind the scenes, something along the lines of not voting to tax Apple Pay because Tim Cook is a long time golf buddy, not to mention they own stock. On top of that, a candidate needs DNC backing during primary season and at the National Convention. A lot of policymakers from the Clinton era occupy those offices. Even if candidate somehow got through the maelstrom of debates, it would be all too easy for petty party bosses loyal to Hillary to sabotage the campaign by withdrawing their support behind the scenes.

Given the choice between a piece of work like Churchill and a monster like the focus of his hatred from 1933 to 1945, I would go with Churchill. We liberals will need conservatives to defeat American fascism. If we Americans do not defeat American fascism, then who will? How many American cities will be nuked? How many Americans will die in concentration and 'labor' camps? Anyone who now votes Republican risks enabling a scenario out of The Hunger Games.

if indeed there is no real choice between a Republican and a Democrat anymore, that leaves one thing: the streets. A possible scenario is that a candidate "wins", but the turnout is so low as to be laughable, like the total number of votes equaling the population of Wyoming. It could imply that neither candidate got elected, because the majority withheld their votes from candidates that did not represent them. The people protesting in the streets and screaming that they do not recognize this man or woman as their leader and will not obey him or his mandates, will not recognize the inauguration is valid, and start a movement. With any luck a real leader will arise out of that. It's happened before in this country, in 1776 when the colonists had no representation in Parliament.

Our Founding Fathers did not seek to get representation in the British Parliament and wanted no legislative body then as corrupt as the British Parliament, a body then stacked with flunkies of King George III. The elected colonial legislatures were good enough for the time being. Taxation without representation is bad enough. Taxation with sham representation and no service is even more reprehensible.

I certainly do not want a Jacobin style uprising, but I worry that the establishment takes for granted that protests will take the form they took in the 1960s: nonviolent, And mostly marching. If they know that, they can use it to their advantage – Occupy Wall Street died in part because it would've been so easy to infiltrate. Republican national convention in New York cordoned off a section for protesters away from the camera's and exploited a loophole in the first amendment-they knew the protesters would not fight back and go silently like sheep into their little pens. Power concedes nothing without a fight. It just might be time to switch tactics.

We are not in the 1960s. I expect no time like those until at the least the late 2030s, when Boomers like me will not be around in big numbers. Until then I have my idea of the perfect poster for an anti-GOP placard:

HONOR LINCOLN

(image of our 16th President)

SMASH FASCISM!