Let The Weeping, And Gnashing Of Teeth (for Liberals), Begin.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Well - it's not like they're all getting along these days - used to be as thick as thieves...

These next two years will be amazing. They'll (now) want to look like a party that can compromise - but will try to avoid anything they might have to compromise on - whilst (yes, whilst) fighting each other to see who can look the most president-y

Many funny things will be said, outrageous things will be proposed - it's an amazing show. And, we have front row seats

:-)

Always a silver lining

a reply to: nenothtu

Can we just call it "public domain" instead?

Call it what you like - it's a free country (so far)

Is he not still taking blame for that time period as well?

People are still blaming him - I think he's been busy painting. Opinions vary - but I think on career day - he should have gone with painting

I really don't mind if you all take back the legislature in 2016, or the executive - but I DO mind of BOTH get taken over again - OR if both get steamrolled by the Republicans. That sort of folly brought us "Obamacare" last time it happened, and "The Patriot Act" last time it happened before that.

Can't no good come from it.

Honestly, sometimes fascism just seems easier. Definitely less thinking, much less paperwork - and no advertising

:-)

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis

People are still blaming him - I think he's been busy painting. Opinions vary - but I think on career day - he should have gone with painting

That might not have been a sterling choice for him, either - I wouldn't even let him paint my house. He'd probably have to call in a half-dozen PMCs, build a "coalition" of painting contractors from all over the planet for my one little house, ring the place with troops, and might never figure out that he was painting the wrong house even after all that.

That would, of course, just piss of the neighbor that DID own the house (his name is "Big Daddy Al" or "Al Big Daddy" or something like that - a really scary dude - I think they called him "Bubba" in prison), who would then call in people from all over the world, give them paintball guns (supplied by the original painting contractors, of course) and claim they could do a better job of painting it - but then just mess up all the houses in the neighborhood with multicolor paintball splats.

Honestly, sometimes fascism just seems easier. Definitely less thinking, much less paperwork - and no advertising

:-)

Well, it seems to have been working for "them", on both sides of the aisles, for the past several years! You may be on to something there!

Aiight, I'm done editing now. I think I'll go back to reading about how this Chomsky character thinks he would fix this mess now.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

What? I thought Reaganomics saved the nation? Haven't things been getting better all around since Reagan came into office?

a reply to: nenothtu

Definition of socialism? Well, let's see, Google it!

define:socialism [enter]

a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Can't find much wrong with that definition (nor with a good implementation, which I haven't seen yet). Note it does not contain the word "state" or "government" or "kingdom", "cooporation", "union" .. whatever. Simply "community as a whole". I like the word in that definition: "social organisation", "advocates" and "community". Good words.

Compare this to the definition of communism:

define:communism [enter]

a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

Bad words: "war" and "owned" and "paid" and "abilities and needs"...

How about anarchism?

define:anarchism [enter]

belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.

Nice! "Belief" and "organisation" and "voluntary" and "cooperative" and "WITHOUT recourse to force" :-). Good.

Weird, isn't it how Googles definitions reflect certain opinions? Seems the Google ghost does not like communism much, but does like socialism and loves anarchism..

BTW: maybe you should also read Kropotkin.

Association and mutual aid are the rule with mammals. We find social habits even among the carnivores, and we can only name the cat tribe (lions, tigers, leopards, etc.) as a division the members of which decidedly prefer isolation to society, and are but seldom met with even in small groups. And yet, even among lions this is a very common practice to hunt in company.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Sometimes I honestly feel like the fastest path to change is to stop fighting fascism, I do get nihilistic from time to time. Let the foxes have full watch of the hen houses... all of them, everywhere and right now. It's like trying to teach a toddler not to touch anything hot or sharp, they don't know what hot or sharp is until you let them feel it then they get it.

a reply to: Kali74


It's weird watching all this. I'm sure it seems to some like all the moaning is because the Dems lost some seats and whatnot. That it's only about losing. If only

It's like watching your house catch fire in slow motion - and still not be able to save it

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

BTW: maybe you should also read Kropotkin.

Association and mutual aid are the rule with mammals. We find social habits even among the carnivores, and we can only name the cat tribe (lions, tigers, leopards, etc.) as a division the members of which decidedly prefer isolation to society, and are but seldom met with even in small groups. And yet, even among lions this is a very common practice to hunt in company.

Good gosh! ANOTHER one? Chomsky is giving me fits - I've found a lot of political rhetoric from him, but not very much in the way of political theory at all!

Funny how the definition of socialism you post is vague, as in "community as a whole" - WHICH community? Is it limited to the production factory? The whole town? County? State? Nation? World? Solar system? And "community as a whole" - are geographical areas even involved? Or only social bonds? What happens to folks who just don't want to BE a part of that particular "community as a whole"? Do they get to opt-out of the social/economic bonds, or do they have to leave the geographical area?

It seems that such a system could be ripe for brigandry, depending on how tight the iron fist holds.

Bakunin wasn't too bad - I could find enough to pin down what he thought, at least in a cursory manner. Chomsky is being a pill - he's a slippery devil. I'll add Kropotkin to the reading list after I finish wrestling with Chomsky.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Kali74


It's weird watching all this. I'm sure it seems to some like all the moaning is because the Dems lost some seats and whatnot. That it's only about losing. If only

It's like watching your house catch fire in slow motion - and still not be able to save it

The other side knows the feeling - I've felt it several times myself. It's just that some folks have to be insufferable pricks about it - crowing and bragging about how "their side" won - and kicking the opposition while they're down in the process.

They seem to forget that they've lain in that patch of dirt before, too.

I have to wonder just how much of it is basic insecurity on the WINNER'S part, too... whichever side is the "winner" at the moment. I wonder how much of it is "better brag while we can - we might be at the bottom of the heap next year".

Sure enough, the future comes, and eventually there they are.

Sometimes, I want to jump into the bipartisan bucket brigade to keep the house from burning down, and sometimes I think it would just be better to hook up the firehose to a gas pump instead of a hydrant. Then again, I'm ALWAYS at the bottom of the heap these days.

a reply to: nenothtu

Therein lay the conundrum of modern society in general. People who wish to "opt-out" but still wish to enjoy the luxuries of the infrastructure that the society, in general, has in place. Make that infrastructure communally owned and you're down one slippery slope - allow it to all be privatized and unregulated and you're down another ( the one we currently are sliding down ).

IMO the reality of it all is easy to boil down. If you bring nothing to the banquet - then don't eat.

originally posted by: Hefficide

IMO the reality of it all is easy to boil down. If you bring nothing to the banquet - then don't eat.

Exactly! That's the only way to be fair about it. the converse of that is don't try to FORCE anyone to eat who doesn't want to (us hillbillies are bad about that - can't even walk in for a visit without someone trying to force feed ya!).

In my reading of late, trying to get a good solid grip on Chomsky, I ran across this:

Two hundred years ago, Rousseau wrote with withering contempt about his civilized countrymen who have lost the very concept of freedom and "do nothing but boast incessantly of the peace and repose they enjoy in their chains.... But when I see the others sacrifice pleasures, repose, wealth, power, and life itself for the preservation of this sole good which is so disdained by those who have lost it; when I see animals born free and despising captivity break their heads against the bars of their prison; when I see multitudes of entirely naked savages scorn European voluptuousness and endure hunger, fire, the sword, and death to preserve only their independence, I feel that it does not behoove slaves to reason about freedom."

Other folks can have their infrastructure and ease, and more power to 'em. I don't begrudge them that, if it's really what they want. All I want is freedom, fresh air, and a few sticks of dynamite!

I believe I've found a potential reason that I've been so far unsuccessful in finding any political doctrine from Chomsky. In his own words:

Recall that truly sophisticated propagandists understand that it is a mistake to articulate basic doctrines, thus opening them to critical reflection. Rather, they are to be presupposed, setting the bounds of thinkable thought.

Source

No one can say the man ain't sophisticated.

Some may say the quote is "out of context", but I say it's more along the lines of a Freudian slip - or some form of "projection" - given the circumstances.

a reply to: tavi45

What? I thought Reaganomics saved the nation? Haven't things been getting better all around since Reagan came into office?

Things were better. For a while.

Reagan Destroyed American Dream
Reaganomics Killed Americas Middle Class

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Isn't it ironic that more people are on food stamps under a President who promotes socialism?

Ironic? No. The middle class is disappearing due to the wealth inequality. Without any way for Obama to get laws passed to prevent that inequality, I'd say more food assistance is going to be necessary.

You'd probably hate Jesus for supplying the hungry with food. That commie socialist...

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Why wouldn't I? Because it's none of your business or anyone else here. You are making outrageous surface judgements. You obviously believe that if I am not gung ho for socialist programs than I must be one of them 1% ers
or at least one of them's gots more than $250,000 a year.

Because it gives perspective on your argument. Without that perspective, people can only assume that you're well off enough to not need any kind of assistance and consider anyone needing assistance to have a lack of personal accountability or character.

I'm well off now, paying a mortgage and have food in the fridge, but I wasn't always there. I needed assistance in my youth. Had I not gotten that assistance, I wouldn't be here to tell you about it today.

Really, your answers just show that you have a lack of compassion and empathy, and really truly tell us all we need (or want) to know about you. Socialism isn't an ill in the world. To give others who don't have something is a higher calling to service. One you probably won't understand, which makes you as dangerous an adversary to civilization as any anarchist or neocon.