No, I don't. Reagan and Bush (not W) used it as a slur, transforming the word from any standard meanings into some kind of put-down. Sorry if it doesn't make sense, as it's more of an 80's reference to the "bleeding-heart liberal" and "card carrying member of the ACLU" double-talk by the militaristic right (Reagan, Bush, Ollie, Limbaugh). Google "liberal" and "dirty word" for a few references and opinions on the subject.
Doesn't matter whether their intention is peaceful protest. The media will paint them differently, and the Repugs might even send some people in to infiltrate and make sure it turns violent. It's been done before.
You're absolutely correct. The "liberal" media will focus on the negative acts of a few kids who think that vandalism equates "fucking the system" and that anarchism's means to an end is violence. Of course those in power at the moment will paint all of the protesters with a very wide brush, labeling all who oppose them as barbaric traitorous morality-deprived leftist scum. I'm a little skeptical that infiltration for the sake of stirring up violence will occur because one whistle blower could turn an operation like that into a shitstorm headed the other direction. History does show us that situation will probably occur, even if it seems to reek of tinfoil. (Anyone else note the irony of the DNC occuring near Haymarket?)
I completely understand your point, but you are perpetuating the myth that protest is the same thing as violence. Protest is theoretically guaranteed by the Constitution. Just because a group of people assemble to attempt to be heard does not mean they are engaging in "bad conduct". What about the "bad conduct" of lies, manipulation, murder, coup de tat, jingoist isolationism and supression?
This junta is going down whether it wants to or not.
Guess that puts the left on the same equal ground as the right now. Only the right doesn't use "hate speech" just "terrorist", "traitor", "liberal" and "girly man".
The time necessary for this formidable task can be estimated from the capabilities of planned radio telescopes- such as SETI's 1-hectare Allen Telescope Array and the internationally run Square Kilometre Array- and expected increases in the power of the microchips that sift through radio signals from space.
It's insensitve and wrong for your government and ISP to ignore requests for abuse investigation. Seems pretty black and white to me. What would *you* do if your business was being bombarded by trash traffic and transactions(causing you to actually lose money) from countries who you do a miniscule amount of legitamite business with in the first place and the ISP/local government has no interest in dealing with the abuse?
I worry about the people who take LSD, then see a monster when they look in the mirror.
This reminds me of a time I looked in a mirror while using LSD. Instead of seeing a simple reflection of my physical appearance I found that I was gazing upon history. The history of myself, my parents, my ancestors from Europe and Japan. I was looking through a genetic temporal looking-glass. The sum of the people who came before me.
This description is a little simplistic and, of course, I can't describe the emotional impact this had. Overall, it was quite interesting and very positive.
Fearmongering has surrounded the culture of drugs for quite some time and it's not going to go away any time soon. Unfortunately, all drugs tend to get lumped into one category by the vast majority of people. Then there are those who go way overboard on drug use that also help to increase the stigma, fear and ignorance.
Not sure what my point was... and I'm not high. Actually I haven't had my coffee yet.
"Free market" is a trait of the right. Your link even uses that as indication of being on the right economically when the article states the "opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)". Neo-liberalism is shown clearly on the extreme right end of the left-right arrow.
Thanks for the link. I've seen similiar in Libertarian party literature.
Good post. Just to let you know, at my core I am a diehard over-30 anarchist that refuses to let go of that dream. In reality, though, I fall into what I would consider the extreme left - although by no means do I agree with everything left or what is considered left by the right.
Damn labels. Guess I should stop slacking and get back to work.
As a libertarian (generally), I don't fit in really well with left or right, but at least those on the right are a bit more tolerable to be around.
Obviously the Daily Show (in general) is funny to those of a left leaning. The show is openly biased - although to give them credit they don't pull punches with the Dem's either.
Nice of you to group all those on the left as having "self-righteous holier-,smarter-,and generally better-than-thou attitude". Your claim to be somewhat objective by separating yourself from "the right" by stating your libertarianism doesn't work here. You trash one side and then talk aobut how the other side is more tolerable.
By the way, the Democrats are really not that left of the dial, ya know. The Democrats give nods to issues that the left cares about but never really stands behind those issues and instead favors their contributors, just as the Republicans do.My point - try not to lump Democrats with the left and I'll promise not to lump Libertarians in with the Republicans and Neo-Conservatives (side note: it was my understanding that Libertarians are on the right - small govt, privatization, strict constitutional interpretation, etc - I'll admit to being wrong).
I hope you don't find this post flammable. At one time, I actually thought Libertarians represented where I thought the country should head - and I believe some of their ideals hold merit. Probably the only reason I don't vote that way any more is that it seems the Libertarian way takes power away from the state and hands it to the corporations. That doesn't sit well with me any better than an overpowered state.
Kinda like everyone in the Bush Administraton, who get to spin their version of things on the news every night.
Yeah... on the "liberal" media. Something in Moore's favor is how allows the "liberal" media to show their true colors. They are not "liberal" - just overzealous rabid newshounds.
I don't know what the actual law says regarding this and a quick-and-dirty Google search didn't reveal it. But... what is interesting is I found an article which states that a man that pleaded guilty to 75 counts of grand theft auto and embezzlement got four years.
Spot on. Everyone knows that if you go to prison, you're likely to get raped or worse - unless you're already high-up on the criminal food chain.
Yet... these things aren't discussed openly. We all know that getting 3 years means getting literally ass-raped. So, in essence, you're getting sentenced to ass-raping.
Thank god we're at least we're spreading our freedoms to others!!
We'll probably know pretty soon. If there is one person like this, there are probably many, so it should be possible to do a study of families in which this allele is present.
The article states that this is the first recorded human with this condition.
My initial reply to this was a little on the flaming side so here I go again.....
I respect the fact that (I'm assuming here) you adhere to your religious beliefs. However, you have to remember that you live in a world populated by people who are not all Christians. We believe many different things.
When you refer to the 'media' as being officially ahtiestic, I have to wonder what you're talking about. I never see athiests in the news in a positive light. I can't even name one well-known living person who claims to be an athiest, except for the nutcase that took the state to court over the pledge.
Maybe the fact that the media attempts to be unbiased towards religion comes across to you as being athiestic. I really don't see this official athiesm in the media. If you're really interested in the religious bias in the media, you might be interested to know that the Washington Times (considered a more conservative media outlet) is owned by a cult leader. While most likely not your own religion, I don't think that makes the Times athiestic.
I'm not sure how you think religion is taboo in America. Religion (or the pretense of it) is absolutely required for a presidential candidate - why do you think that is? Because the established religion in the U.S. is..... Christianity! Name one politician who doesn't claim to believe in a higher power.
Meanwhile, Bush pushes faith-based charities for receiving government funding, "Under God" was added to the pledge in the 50's, "In God We Trust" was added to the dollar, we still say "So Help Me God" in the courtroom, Congress still prays before every meeting, televangelists are still on the airwaves, the Promisemakers still tour.
It seems you might be interpreting things wrong here, perhaps it looks that way from the pews. When you claim that you can't speak about religion outside of "an enviroment were it is expected" perhaps what's actually going on is that people expect you to respect their beliefs? Some people think that trying to push beliefs on someone else, especially in work or casual social settings is extremely rude and obnoxious. Maybe you see that and think that everyone is an athiest. Somehow, I find it hard to believe that you've had an actual conversation on this topic with the masses of people you're claiming are now suddenly athiests.
There is no way religion is taboo in America. Religion gave us all of our taboos. The Whipping of the Christ raked in millions of dollars. We have multitudes of churches, synagogues, mosques, cults and so many varieties of belief systems that it's dizzying. All existing in one country while peacefully coexisting. Ah.. that peacefully coexisting thing - yes there are some religious people who can't stand that and attempt to influence the media, government and public opinion. I guess the latest tactic is to appear as the underdog. You'll find that most people don't buy that.
You are very safe from Athiesm becoming the official "religion" of the United States.
I also find the attitude to discuss religion in a public forum to be refreshing compared to almost official atheism in the U.S.A. (the ACLU's attitude about this not withstanding).
Official atheism? Are you in Bizarro U.S.A.? I'll give you one since you seem to not be from the U.S. We have an official "seperation" of church and state - but not official athiesm. Christianity and theism is the accepted belief system. If you can, watch close as the U.S. presidential debates begin - I guarantee they will try to out-religion each other.
Why do you say that? I think "gigantic, soulless corporation that manipulates and underpays its workers and offers inferior merchandise solely to funnel money to their shareholders from those consumers so infinitely stupid that they would prefer to saving eleven cents to getting something worthwhile" sums up capitalism fairly well.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I don't. Reagan and Bush (not W) used it as a slur, transforming the word from any standard meanings into some kind of put-down. Sorry if it doesn't make sense, as it's more of an 80's reference to the "bleeding-heart liberal" and "card carrying member of the ACLU" double-talk by the militaristic right (Reagan, Bush, Ollie, Limbaugh). Google "liberal" and "dirty word" for a few references and opinions on the subject.
Doesn't matter whether their intention is peaceful protest. The media will paint them differently, and the Repugs might even send some people in to infiltrate and make sure it turns violent. It's been done before.
You're absolutely correct. The "liberal" media will focus on the negative acts of a few kids who think that vandalism equates "fucking the system" and that anarchism's means to an end is violence. Of course those in power at the moment will paint all of the protesters with a very wide brush, labeling all who oppose them as barbaric traitorous morality-deprived leftist scum. I'm a little skeptical that infiltration for the sake of stirring up violence will occur because one whistle blower could turn an operation like that into a shitstorm headed the other direction. History does show us that situation will probably occur, even if it seems to reek of tinfoil. (Anyone else note the irony of the DNC occuring near Haymarket?)
Nice comeback spin!
I completely understand your point, but you are perpetuating the myth that protest is the same thing as violence. Protest is theoretically guaranteed by the Constitution. Just because a group of people assemble to attempt to be heard does not mean they are engaging in "bad conduct". What about the "bad conduct" of lies, manipulation, murder, coup de tat, jingoist isolationism and supression?
This junta is going down whether it wants to or not.
Guess that puts the left on the same equal ground as the right now. Only the right doesn't use "hate speech" just "terrorist", "traitor", "liberal" and "girly man".
The article states:
The time necessary for this formidable task can be estimated from the capabilities of planned radio telescopes- such as SETI's 1-hectare Allen Telescope Array and the internationally run Square Kilometre Array- and expected increases in the power of the microchips that sift through radio signals from space.
We need a nostalgic mod point.
It's called "redundant".
It's insensitve and wrong for your government and ISP to ignore requests for abuse investigation. Seems pretty black and white to me. What would *you* do if your business was being bombarded by trash traffic and transactions(causing you to actually lose money) from countries who you do a miniscule amount of legitamite business with in the first place and the ISP/local government has no interest in dealing with the abuse?
I worry about the people who take LSD, then see a monster when they look in the mirror.
This reminds me of a time I looked in a mirror while using LSD. Instead of seeing a simple reflection of my physical appearance I found that I was gazing upon history. The history of myself, my parents, my ancestors from Europe and Japan. I was looking through a genetic temporal looking-glass. The sum of the people who came before me.
This description is a little simplistic and, of course, I can't describe the emotional impact this had. Overall, it was quite interesting and very positive.
Fearmongering has surrounded the culture of drugs for quite some time and it's not going to go away any time soon. Unfortunately, all drugs tend to get lumped into one category by the vast majority of people. Then there are those who go way overboard on drug use that also help to increase the stigma, fear and ignorance.
Not sure what my point was... and I'm not high. Actually I haven't had my coffee yet.
Those are s'mores.
I was actually speaking of the party.
Speaking of Christians, I wonder what most would think if they knew of the Christian contributions to anarcho thought.
"Free market" is a trait of the right. Your link even uses that as indication of being on the right economically when the article states the "opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)". Neo-liberalism is shown clearly on the extreme right end of the left-right arrow.
Thanks for the link. I've seen similiar in Libertarian party literature.
Good post. Just to let you know, at my core I am a diehard over-30 anarchist that refuses to let go of that dream. In reality, though, I fall into what I would consider the extreme left - although by no means do I agree with everything left or what is considered left by the right.
Damn labels. Guess I should stop slacking and get back to work.
As a libertarian (generally), I don't fit in really well with left or right, but at least those on the right are a bit more tolerable to be around.
Obviously the Daily Show (in general) is funny to those of a left leaning. The show is openly biased - although to give them credit they don't pull punches with the Dem's either.
Nice of you to group all those on the left as having "self-righteous holier-,smarter-,and generally better-than-thou attitude". Your claim to be somewhat objective by separating yourself from "the right" by stating your libertarianism doesn't work here. You trash one side and then talk aobut how the other side is more tolerable.
By the way, the Democrats are really not that left of the dial, ya know. The Democrats give nods to issues that the left cares about but never really stands behind those issues and instead favors their contributors, just as the Republicans do.My point - try not to lump Democrats with the left and I'll promise not to lump Libertarians in with the Republicans and Neo-Conservatives (side note: it was my understanding that Libertarians are on the right - small govt, privatization, strict constitutional interpretation, etc - I'll admit to being wrong).
I hope you don't find this post flammable. At one time, I actually thought Libertarians represented where I thought the country should head - and I believe some of their ideals hold merit. Probably the only reason I don't vote that way any more is that it seems the Libertarian way takes power away from the state and hands it to the corporations. That doesn't sit well with me any better than an overpowered state.
Where do types of music fit into all this language talk that fall into the following:
- Noise/Power Electronics
- Glitch
- Drone
- Experimental/Found Sound/Chaotic (not in the mathematical sense of the word)
Kinda like everyone in the Bush Administraton, who get to spin their version of things on the news every night.
... on the "liberal" media. Something in Moore's favor is how allows the "liberal" media to show their true colors. They are not "liberal" - just overzealous rabid newshounds.
Yeah
Cato Institute
Yeah, we all know how unbiased "think tanks" are.
I don't know what the actual law says regarding this and a quick-and-dirty Google search didn't reveal it. But... what is interesting is I found an article which states that a man that pleaded guilty to 75 counts of grand theft auto and embezzlement got four years.
Chew on that and put it in perspective.....
Spot on. Everyone knows that if you go to prison, you're likely to get raped or worse - unless you're already high-up on the criminal food chain.
Yet... these things aren't discussed openly. We all know that getting 3 years means getting literally ass-raped. So, in essence, you're getting sentenced to ass-raping.
Thank god we're at least we're spreading our freedoms to others!!
They would eat the weaklings.
We'll probably know pretty soon. If there is one person like this, there are probably many, so it should be possible to do a study of families in which this allele is present.
The article states that this is the first recorded human with this condition.
My initial reply to this was a little on the flaming side so here I go again.....
I respect the fact that (I'm assuming here) you adhere to your religious beliefs. However, you have to remember that you live in a world populated by people who are not all Christians. We believe many different things.
When you refer to the 'media' as being officially ahtiestic, I have to wonder what you're talking about. I never see athiests in the news in a positive light. I can't even name one well-known living person who claims to be an athiest, except for the nutcase that took the state to court over the pledge.
Maybe the fact that the media attempts to be unbiased towards religion comes across to you as being athiestic. I really don't see this official athiesm in the media. If you're really interested in the religious bias in the media, you might be interested to know that the Washington Times (considered a more conservative media outlet) is owned by a cult leader. While most likely not your own religion, I don't think that makes the Times athiestic.
I'm not sure how you think religion is taboo in America. Religion (or the pretense of it) is absolutely required for a presidential candidate - why do you think that is? Because the established religion in the U.S. is..... Christianity! Name one politician who doesn't claim to believe in a higher power.
Meanwhile, Bush pushes faith-based charities for receiving government funding, "Under God" was added to the pledge in the 50's, "In God We Trust" was added to the dollar, we still say "So Help Me God" in the courtroom, Congress still prays before every meeting, televangelists are still on the airwaves, the Promisemakers still tour.
It seems you might be interpreting things wrong here, perhaps it looks that way from the pews. When you claim that you can't speak about religion outside of "an enviroment were it is expected" perhaps what's actually going on is that people expect you to respect their beliefs? Some people think that trying to push beliefs on someone else, especially in work or casual social settings is extremely rude and obnoxious. Maybe you see that and think that everyone is an athiest. Somehow, I find it hard to believe that you've had an actual conversation on this topic with the masses of people you're claiming are now suddenly athiests.
There is no way religion is taboo in America. Religion gave us all of our taboos. The Whipping of the Christ raked in millions of dollars. We have multitudes of churches, synagogues, mosques, cults and so many varieties of belief systems that it's dizzying. All existing in one country while peacefully coexisting. Ah.. that peacefully coexisting thing - yes there are some religious people who can't stand that and attempt to influence the media, government and public opinion. I guess the latest tactic is to appear as the underdog. You'll find that most people don't buy that.
You are very safe from Athiesm becoming the official "religion" of the United States.
I also find the attitude to discuss religion in a public forum to be refreshing compared to almost official atheism in the U.S.A. (the ACLU's attitude about this not withstanding).
Official atheism? Are you in Bizarro U.S.A.? I'll give you one since you seem to not be from the U.S. We have an official "seperation" of church and state - but not official athiesm. Christianity and theism is the accepted belief system. If you can, watch close as the U.S. presidential debates begin - I guarantee they will try to out-religion each other.
Why do you say that? I think "gigantic, soulless corporation that manipulates and underpays its workers and offers inferior merchandise solely to funnel money to their shareholders from those consumers so infinitely stupid that they would prefer to saving eleven cents to getting something worthwhile" sums up capitalism fairly well.