Say what you want about the Right (and being an equal opportunity center-of-the-aisle kind of snark, I've said a lot...), they have much thicker skins than the Left, I've noticed."
Except if you make a comment about religion, or abortion, or raising taxes, or anything that makes the pundits on Fox News and AM radio go nutty. If they really were thick-skinned, they wouldn't be reacting with so much illogical rage to everything.
Every joke made about the current administration can never really be just a joke about the current administration, it's either borne of "racism" or a "disturbing indication of a growing violence and unrest."
Except that they actually are making death threats to Obama (at twice the rate that Bush got them), most notably in their "water the tree of liberty" signs (which is a reference to an old quote about violent action). Or have you not noticed the Birthers and Teabaggers carrying those signs (many of which involve racist images of Obama as a witch doctor, monkey, or eating fried chicken and Kool-Aid)?
Funny how you use anecdotal evidence to show a lack of outrage on the part of the right (as we know that works so well) whiloe giving no evidence for your claims that the left is obsessed with being cool (last I looked, the "cool" factor was about being outside of the mainstream, whether people are on the left or right).
That is a load of pseudo-scientific neo-nazi bullshit. Modern science does not recognize race as a natural construct, but as a social construct. None of what you said would be accepted by any real biologist living in this century. It's sad that something like this gets treated as "insightful" on a website that is supposed to have people educated in science amongst its membership.
No, you are not, for the most part, racist; what you are is classist, which, at least in the United States, is heavily tied to racism. You might behave that way for different reasons, but it is still bigotry with basically the same effects.
Who said anarchists are violent? They are amongst the protesters, and they did not plan any sort of violence. Your stereotypical statement about them sounds like an attempt to legitimatize what the FBI did, not argue against it. It's ignorance like this that allows them to carry out raids like this.
Here's an idea: Instead of wasting money, time, and medical work on chipping the rich, how about fixing the poverty crisis in Mexico? You know, the main source of crime? I'll never understand why the wealthy waste so much money on security when it would be better spent on decreasing/ending the problems that tend to cause crime in the first place. It'd work a lot better in the long run, especially since chipping won't protect them against the next tortilla riot.
No. As you can clearly see, there was not one mention of prostitutes or even women in general (who, if this were a Frank Miller piece, would default to being prostitutes).
That's not true. Humans, as social animals, survive well because we work together as societies. If we just killed and didn't try to work together, we'd be wiped out.
Ron Paul wasn't even in congress when those newsletters were written. He had gone back to his practice in Texas.
That doesn't change anything.
Those letters WERE written by a ghostwriter, and have been widely discredited.
No they haven't. Only Paul and his followers say they aren't his work. Nobody independent of his campaign has proven that he didn't write them.
When Ron Paul finally saw what was going on, he fired the people responsible.
Then why did they continue to get published after the first time it was pointed out to him?
I'm also pretty sure Ron Paul wouldn't be endorsed by the NAACP if they thought those letters contained even a hint of truth.
Actually, just one guy from the NAACP backs him. The fact that he holds a high position in a local chapter of it doesn't mean the whole organization backs him.
Actually, Paul is the exception to his statement. With his policies, he's so likely to run the the country into the ground that no amount of military budget reduction can offset it (unless he completely eliminates the military altogether, allowing the people to revolt against the quagmire government he'll create).
Seriously, that's the choice in many situations - crazy meth'd-up homeless guy charges cop with knife...cop tases or cop shoots.
And I'm sure tons of crazy meth'd-up homeless guy charge cop with knifes. Honestly, you're trying to make a rare scenario look like it happens constantly, when in fact you never even hear of situations like the one you are describing.
It's worth noting that 41% are on the left (liberals, socialists, communists, and anarchists) according to that poll. Libertarians, like in real life, are still just a small crowd without enough backing to hold significant power.
They already work together, and that's the problem. They are business-class parties with corporate funding, often from the same corporations. As a result, they aren't that much different from each other.
In a totalitarian state, only one party rules. In ours, two parties rule, but they act as one.
Honestly, do you have any clue how ignorant you sound claiming that poor people actually have the ability to go to increasingly expensive college courses? Or claiming they should work somewhere else when Wal-mart is shutting down competition nationwide, destroying other job choices? And as a result, decreasing the amount of places to shop?
Your argument is typical upper/upper-middle class foolishness based on a complete disconnection from the reality of poverty.
Actually, a democracy didn't create this moral panic. Politicians did to distract us from real problems. If anything, a democracy would not bother with this "problem" and focus on real problems like health care and poverty.
I'd like to hope that most people can entertain the notion of a middle road which characterizes both Moore and the health care industry as neither impeccable nor pure evil, ascribing to both the property of providing some information which is both true and valid.
This isn't about general censorship; it's about censorship for the sake of a corporation. The grandparent post was talking about the unfair power of corporations, which really is only that bad in America.
Slashdot Mirror
Say what you want about the Right (and being an equal opportunity center-of-the-aisle kind of snark, I've said a lot...), they have much thicker skins than the Left, I've noticed."
Except if you make a comment about religion, or abortion, or raising taxes, or anything that makes the pundits on Fox News and AM radio go nutty. If they really were thick-skinned, they wouldn't be reacting with so much illogical rage to everything.
Every joke made about the current administration can never really be just a joke about the current administration, it's either borne of "racism" or a "disturbing indication of a growing violence and unrest."
Except that they actually are making death threats to Obama (at twice the rate that Bush got them), most notably in their "water the tree of liberty" signs (which is a reference to an old quote about violent action). Or have you not noticed the Birthers and Teabaggers carrying those signs (many of which involve racist images of Obama as a witch doctor, monkey, or eating fried chicken and Kool-Aid)?
Funny how you use anecdotal evidence to show a lack of outrage on the part of the right (as we know that works so well) whiloe giving no evidence for your claims that the left is obsessed with being cool (last I looked, the "cool" factor was about being outside of the mainstream, whether people are on the left or right).
That is a load of pseudo-scientific neo-nazi bullshit. Modern science does not recognize race as a natural construct, but as a social construct. None of what you said would be accepted by any real biologist living in this century. It's sad that something like this gets treated as "insightful" on a website that is supposed to have people educated in science amongst its membership.
No, you are not, for the most part, racist; what you are is classist, which, at least in the United States, is heavily tied to racism. You might behave that way for different reasons, but it is still bigotry with basically the same effects.
Who said anarchists are violent? They are amongst the protesters, and they did not plan any sort of violence. Your stereotypical statement about them sounds like an attempt to legitimatize what the FBI did, not argue against it. It's ignorance like this that allows them to carry out raids like this.
Here's an idea: Instead of wasting money, time, and medical work on chipping the rich, how about fixing the poverty crisis in Mexico? You know, the main source of crime? I'll never understand why the wealthy waste so much money on security when it would be better spent on decreasing/ending the problems that tend to cause crime in the first place. It'd work a lot better in the long run, especially since chipping won't protect them against the next tortilla riot.
No. As you can clearly see, there was not one mention of prostitutes or even women in general (who, if this were a Frank Miller piece, would default to being prostitutes).
That's not true. Humans, as social animals, survive well because we work together as societies. If we just killed and didn't try to work together, we'd be wiped out.
The LHC in action: http://wearscience.com/img450/martian_next_door.gif
Actually, Xenu is supposed to be OT, but given that we're talking about McCain I can see why you're confused.
Not the white supremacists. They were pretty happy to see a guy who spent 20 publishing propaganda for them run for office.
Genetic code.
Actually, it you really want to understand the original purpose of the BoR, check this link: http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/article/id1206/pg1/index.html
Actually, Paul is the exception to his statement. With his policies, he's so likely to run the the country into the ground that no amount of military budget reduction can offset it (unless he completely eliminates the military altogether, allowing the people to revolt against the quagmire government he'll create).
They didn't mention Kucinich or Gravel, and allowed more Republicans on the list than Democrats. This seems a bit biased to me.
That's also what prevents them from winning elections. You can't get poor people to back any of those stances.
It's worth noting that 41% are on the left (liberals, socialists, communists, and anarchists) according to that poll. Libertarians, like in real life, are still just a small crowd without enough backing to hold significant power.
They already work together, and that's the problem. They are business-class parties with corporate funding, often from the same corporations. As a result, they aren't that much different from each other.
In a totalitarian state, only one party rules. In ours, two parties rule, but they act as one.
In other words, let them eat cake?
Honestly, do you have any clue how ignorant you sound claiming that poor people actually have the ability to go to increasingly expensive college courses? Or claiming they should work somewhere else when Wal-mart is shutting down competition nationwide, destroying other job choices? And as a result, decreasing the amount of places to shop?
Your argument is typical upper/upper-middle class foolishness based on a complete disconnection from the reality of poverty.
Actually, a democracy didn't create this moral panic. Politicians did to distract us from real problems. If anything, a democracy would not bother with this "problem" and focus on real problems like health care and poverty.
This isn't about general censorship; it's about censorship for the sake of a corporation. The grandparent post was talking about the unfair power of corporations, which really is only that bad in America.