MSM

[redrum]

12 hours ago, IpMan said:

Ok, so you said what you feel it was not however that was not my question. My question was quite simple and straightforward so let me ask it one more time...with feeling 

Please explain what you would call this. Do you define his actions as acceptable?

I really don't know what you expect me to say, but do you really take his words literally without the slightest grain of salt? I sure don't. But I do like the fact still that he makes the 'establishment' (left AND right) very uncomfortable and it's fun to watch them squirm at times, especially the wimpy Republicans and the Mueller gang. My girlfriend never lets up on him, but I just hold my tongue. We are polar opposites when it comes to politics. That, and we are not at war with Russia. Peace!  

[Strider]

6 hours ago, redrum said:

I really don't know what you expect me to say, but do you really take his words literally without the slightest grain of salt? I sure don't. But I do like the fact still that he makes the 'establishment' (left AND right) very uncomfortable and it's fun to watch them squirm at times, especially the wimpy Republicans and the Mueller gang. My girlfriend never lets up on him, but I just hold my tongue. We are polar opposites when it comes to politics. That, and we are not at war with Russia. Peace!  

We may not be at war with Russia but Russia and other countries aren't just sitting around playing tiddly-winks. There are constant attempts to break into our systems to steal sensitive data, software technology, financial info, thwart our elections, and in general create chaos.

The media did not put words in Trump's mouth. This whole "don't take what he says and tweets seriously and at face value" line is a joke. He's the President ferchrissakes. Act like one. 

We didn't hire him to be a reality tv host. If all you care about and demand from Trump is that he makes people squirm no matter that what, you are shirking your duty as an American citizen as much as Trump is shirking his duty as President.

The man is constantly lying...so much so that there are now several independent tracking sites devoted solely to recording each and every lie Trump spews. The number is unprecedented in the history of politics. Even Nixon would be aghast. 

If your response is he's just doing that to toy with the media or piss off the establishment, then I pity you that your bar for Presidential behaviour is set so low. Who would want a leader whose words can't be trusted by allies and his own citizens? Who shows more affection and kowtowing to brutal dictators than our own allies.

Look, I don't even care about whether Trump colluded or not. It doesn't really matter. But he sure acts like he did...his actions so far in all of this are the actions of a guilty man.

But even if you believe Trump is innocent, Trump has a duty to prevent further meddling by Russia or other countries. He swore an oath to serve and protect this country. Even conservatives such as Senator Lindsey Graham and George Will have asked Trump to sit down seriously with Congress and figure out how they are going to prevent what happened in 2016 from happening again.

Of course, part of the problem is Trump's colossal insecurity and narcissism. By even admitting there was Russian interference, Trump's insecurity about his own legitimacy causes him to fear the public would then question his election, even though the FBI and CIA have announced that the election result wasn't significantly changed by way of the Russian tampering.

Instead of worrying about the country, Trump is worrying about himself. He doesn't even have the balls to enact and enforce sanctions against Putin.

By the way, the Mueller gang is fine. I don't recall any of you having a problem with Kenneth Starr and the Whitewater probe....which was far more partisan and went on for years and cost hundreds of millions of dollars with little to show. The original intent was a flimsy real estate deal. It ended with one blowjob conviction. So, now you are going to gripe about Mueller? His probe has resulted in far more actual arrests and evidence of wrongdoing than the Starr debacle...and it has cost the taxpayers far less than Trump's endless golf trips on our dime.

Oh wait...he's sticking it to the libtards so it's okay in your eyes.

Whatever.

[Bong-Man]

Not everyone @ Fox News tows the line.  Lol....pretty funny clip actually.

 

 

[redrum]

Round and round we go. Hollywood wacko's should not be allowed to buy pickaxes. 🤪 Where is the instant background check?

[apantherfrommd]

 

On ‎7‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 10:19 AM, Strider said:

We didn't hire him to be a reality tv host. If all you care about and demand from Trump is that he makes people squirm no matter that what, you are shirking your duty as an American citizen as much as Trump is shirking his duty as President.

By the way, the Mueller gang is fine. I don't recall any of you having a problem with Kenneth Starr and the Whitewater probe....which was far more partisan and went on for years and cost hundreds of millions of dollars with little to show.

Oh wait...he's sticking it to the libtards so it's okay in your eyes.

Whatever.

Hi Red and Strider. We all make comments on political angles, but we cannot have back and forth continual dialogue or "discussions" drawn out back and forth of political nature. I don't fault redrum for that. Those were just comments. He got pressed about it to be turned into an unwanted discussion. We can all agree that we've grown a bit more mature (at least a little) in the past couple years on the site. But we don't need to press others to the point of "political discussions". Again, with "comments", we've been granted leniency it seems.

My comment on yours, is that I don't believe that what I have quoted in bold print from you, is all that redrum cares about - making people squirm. It's just that he made a comment, here or there. Not a discussion. His duty as an American is to know what's going on in his community, and to respect others' opinions, as are we all. A lot of us, myself included, have been guilty of shirking our responsibilities on that one. Wouldn't you agree? Let's respect his as well.

My comment on K. Starr, I had a problem. I thought it was a distraction to the country. I see this current thing as a divide as well. Another divide. But Strider, this is mainly a topic on MSM. It would be great if there was one topic called politics where people could vent. With respect to you and others, this is not that topic. The occasional political comment is fine. But no "discussions" on politics, please. I was tempted myself.

I haven't something for you, if you're willing to read. It's interesting, if you have the patience and I could trust you to watch (read the subs without bias). It pertains to your post, and in a way, as well as redrum's. It also turns your post onto topic of this thread re: Russia press (MSM) over there. Somehow, at different times, it agrees with both you and red.  It's Russia MSM - their version of Crossfire, if you will. Do they still have Crossfire here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HxXx3l6UzM  But please keep discussions or attacks on others away. Comments are fine with me. But let's turn over a new leaf (self included, and not press on anyone else.) We've can do better. Best, Strider.

On ‎7‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 3:41 AM, redrum said:

I really don't know what you expect me to say, but do you really take his words literally without the slightest grain of salt? I sure don't. But I do like the fact still that he makes the 'establishment' (left AND right) very uncomfortable and it's fun to watch them squirm at times, especially the wimpy Republicans and the Mueller gang. My girlfriend never lets up on him, but I just hold my tongue. We are polar opposites when it comes to politics. That, and we are not at war with Russia. Peace!  

That's one of the things I enjoy as well. In recent decades, the overhaul of the corporate press is the most powerful weapon deployed by the establishment. They are special interest for the most part. They will lie and do have an agenda. They are lobbied, here and their tentacles reaches world wide in the Western World trying to shape public opinion.
For the most part they (MSM) are establishment. Like you, it's just one of the things, I would enjoy watching thrown off.

Russia MSM - (Like Crossfire) Even though, this part of the clip shows only one dude getting a majority of the time. It mainly speaks on Strider's and IpMan's quandary of the press conference. Yet it somehow agrees with both redrum and Strider at times. They seem confused too in Russia MSM, on why the airing of dirty laundry during a world wide press conference. Would you call this fair and balanced MSM? That's for above video. I'm sorry you went through what you did, Red. IpMan, this is not a political discussion, we shouldn't continually press for discussions because of the occasional comments.

On ‎7‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 1:56 PM, Bong-Man said:

Not everyone @ Fox News tows the line.  Lol....pretty funny clip actually.

 

 

Hi Bong-Man. I think this is a great post. This is kind of what I'm looking for in this thread a bit. Dumb question by me, but of MSM, is Fox the only conservative news? I take it that they are usually more biased based on the negative notes that he's reading from fans of the show.

[Strider]

...

 

[Strider]

On 7/25/2018 at 10:56 AM, Bong-Man said:

Not everyone @ Fox News tows the line.  Lol....pretty funny clip actually.

 

 

Shepard Smith is fairly decent, too.

[Bong-Man]

Quote

Hi Bong-Man. I think this is a great post. This is kind of what I'm looking for in this thread a bit. Dumb question by me, but of MSM, is Fox the only conservative news? I take it that they are usually more biased based on the negative notes that he's reading from fans o

I'm not even sure what the term mainstream media even means anymore.  Most people with any kind of cable tv package in America have access to pretty much anything you want to hear, including Canadian channels and the BBC.  Personalities seem to rule the day.  Using Fox as an example, Chris Wallace, Shep Smith, and Cavuto, will at least try to give some straight-forward reporting when something news-worthy occurs.....usually still surrounding the traditional dinner news hour.  However most people don't watch until the evening when 'entertainment & tribal news' takes over the air-waves....."Fair & balanced reporting" from your side of the teeter- totter.  All are guilty....some more than others.

Can't watch Rachel Maddow.  She goes on and on and on like a constipated energizer bunny with an expression of pain to match.  I call it the 'Maddow on Midol Hour'.  I watch Hannity occasionally just for the absurdity of it all.  Chris Cuomo is a jerk.  I laugh whenever a CNN host says, "Let's bring on our panel of EIGHT (8) experts."  I like Jeffrey Toobin.  His lawyer arguments with anybody, including Dershowitz, are usually interesting.  He's the Elton John of reporting....wish I had that many pairs of specs in my collection.  I'd like to have dinner and more with Pamela Brown.    

In the end though, I think my father said it best.  "Son, who are these people talking at me and why should I give a god-damn what they think ?"    

[IpMan]

3 hours ago, Bong-Man said:

I'm not even sure what the term mainstream media even means anymore.  Most people with any kind of cable tv package in America have access to pretty much anything you want to hear, including Canadian channels and the BBC.  Personalities seem to rule the day.  Using Fox as an example, Chris Wallace, Shep Smith, and Cavuto, will at least try to give some straight-forward reporting when something news-worthy occurs.....usually still surrounding the traditional dinner news hour.  However most people don't watch until the evening when 'entertainment & tribal news' takes over the air-waves....."Fair & balanced reporting" from your side of the teeter- totter.  All are guilty....some more than others.

Can't watch Rachel Maddow.  She goes on and on and on like a constipated energizer bunny with an expression of pain to match.  I call it the 'Maddow on Midol Hour'.  I watch Hannity occasionally just for the absurdity of it all.  Chris Cuomo is a jerk.  I laugh whenever a CNN host says, "Let's bring on our panel of EIGHT (8) experts."  I like Jeffrey Toobin.  His lawyer arguments with anybody, including Dershowitz, are usually interesting.  He's the Elton John of reporting....wish I had that many pairs of specs in my collection.  I'd like to have dinner and more with Pamela Brown.    

In the end though, I think my father said it best.  "Son, who are these people talking at me and why should I give a god-damn what they think ?"    

Never could stand Maddow, she comes across as rather smarmy and self-righteous IMO.

Now both Thom Hartmann & Lawrence O'Donnell I really like. Both are always respectful of their guests, and / or callers, both are a wealth of knowledge and I have never seen either one stumped or at a factual loss by a guest or caller. Also, both are willing to call out their own (liberals) and do so often. Two very classy guys who present only 100% factual & truthful information in a kind, respectful manner. This is the way all journalist should behave IMO.

[redrum]

[redrum]

"Son, who are these people talking at me and why should I give a god-damn what they think ?"    

😆

[nemophilist]

If any news outlet takes money or influence of some sort from NGO's, governments, intelligence agencies, or any large corporations (such as big pharma, big agriculture, military industrial complex, tax exempt foundations) then you're (at least partially) a biased propaganda outlet and not truly independent journalism. There will always be a a conflict of interest and a lack of independence when it comes to key issues. One example is war and the alleged justifications of military action which almost always comes from "official" sources as if "official" sources have no conflict of interest of possibility of becoming corrupted. As if the military-industrial complex isn't one of the most powerful and prominent lobbying groups out there. There are a host of other topics and issues that all mainstream outlets align on at one time or another but that would probably lead to discussions on other topics.

But whether it be BBC, MSNBC, FOX, CNN, Infowars, Al Jazeera, The Young Turks (Cenk was on MSNBC himself, thus he's not anti-establishment and certainly isn't intelligent or trustworthy) it doesn't matter they  are all totally untrustworthy at the end of the day. For instance Alex Jones has a major trump bias while attempting to present himself as a principled libertarian who questions everything (he isn't and no longer truly questions everything). But people actually are totally oblivious to the fact that Alex Jones essentially just goes over news articles from numerous mainstream sources on his show (the guardian, daily mail, breitbart, reuters, FOX, msnbc, etc), he doesn't sit there and people stuff out of his rear all day. Personally I think he is just there to give the masses the false perception that those who question official narratives are totally crazy and illegitimate. Trump sort of does the same in his own limited way as he now calls them the fake news media even though the guy has been a msm darling since the 80's. Now if you say the mainstream media fabricates you're synonymous with Trump.

 

Additionally All of those major news outlets are just there to keep the masses locked into the false left-right paradigm and keep us under the false perception that republican and democrat are any different. Sure, in rhetoric they are but in action they're basically the same and this is why everything is continuously regressing for individuals and thus society as a whole. The middle-class in the US (and elsewhere really) has been dwindling since the 1960's (from centralization of power, excessive spending and taxation), war is endless with its justifications based in lies and manipulations (when you actually do your own research), natural rights are incrementally eroded and the whole technological surveillance state (data analytics, facial recognition) which will get a major boost with the internet of things is continuously advanced. Those are important issues for all individuals as they pertain to liberty and individual well being. Yet they are all incrementally advanced by politicians on both the left and the right.

[apantherfrommd]

2 hours ago, nemophilist said:

If any news outlet takes money or influence of some sort from NGO's, governments, intelligence agencies, or any large corporations (such as big pharma, big agriculture, military industrial complex, tax exempt foundations) then you're (at least partially) a biased propaganda outlet and not truly independent journalism. There will always be a a conflict of interest and a lack of independence when it comes to key issues. One example is war and the alleged justifications of military action which almost always comes from "official" sources as if "official" sources have no conflict of interest of possibility of becoming corrupted. As if the military-industrial complex isn't one of the most powerful and prominent lobbying groups out there. There are a host of other topics and issues that all mainstream outlets align on at one time or another but that would probably lead to discussions on other topics.

But whether it be BBC, MSNBC, FOX, CNN, Infowars, Al Jazeera, The Young Turks (Cenk was on MSNBC himself, thus he's not anti-establishment and certainly isn't intelligent or trustworthy) it doesn't matter they  are all totally untrustworthy at the end of the day. For instance Alex Jones has a major trump bias while attempting to present himself as a principled libertarian who questions everything (he isn't and no longer truly questions everything). But people actually are totally oblivious to the fact that Alex Jones essentially just goes over news articles from numerous mainstream sources on his show (the guardian, daily mail, breitbart, reuters, FOX, msnbc, etc), he doesn't sit there and people stuff out of his rear all day. Personally I think he is just there to give the masses the false perception that those who question official narratives are totally crazy and illegitimate. Trump sort of does the same in his own limited way as he now calls them the fake news media even though the guy has been a msm darling since the 80's. Now if you say the mainstream media fabricates you're synonymous with Trump.

 

Additionally All of those major news outlets are just there to keep the masses locked into the false left-right paradigm and keep us under the false perception that republican and democrat are any different. Sure, in rhetoric they are but in action they're basically the same and this is why everything is continuously regressing for individuals and thus society as a whole. The middle-class in the US (and elsewhere really) has been dwindling since the 1960's (from centralization of power, excessive spending and taxation), war is endless with its justifications based in lies and manipulations (when you actually do your own research), natural rights are incrementally eroded and the whole technological surveillance state (data analytics, facial recognition) which will get a major boost with the internet of things is continuously advanced. Those are important issues for all individuals as they pertain to liberty and individual well being. Yet they are all incrementally advanced by politicians on both the left and the right.

[IpMan]

4 hours ago, nemophilist said:

If any news outlet takes money or influence of some sort from NGO's, governments, intelligence agencies, or any large corporations (such as big pharma, big agriculture, military industrial complex, tax exempt foundations) then you're (at least partially) a biased propaganda outlet and not truly independent journalism. There will always be a a conflict of interest and a lack of independence when it comes to key issues. One example is war and the alleged justifications of military action which almost always comes from "official" sources as if "official" sources have no conflict of interest of possibility of becoming corrupted. As if the military-industrial complex isn't one of the most powerful and prominent lobbying groups out there. There are a host of other topics and issues that all mainstream outlets align on at one time or another but that would probably lead to discussions on other topics.

But whether it be BBC, MSNBC, FOX, CNN, Infowars, Al Jazeera, The Young Turks (Cenk was on MSNBC himself, thus he's not anti-establishment and certainly isn't intelligent or trustworthy) it doesn't matter they  are all totally untrustworthy at the end of the day. For instance Alex Jones has a major trump bias while attempting to present himself as a principled libertarian who questions everything (he isn't and no longer truly questions everything). But people actually are totally oblivious to the fact that Alex Jones essentially just goes over news articles from numerous mainstream sources on his show (the guardian, daily mail, breitbart, reuters, FOX, msnbc, etc), he doesn't sit there and people stuff out of his rear all day. Personally I think he is just there to give the masses the false perception that those who question official narratives are totally crazy and illegitimate. Trump sort of does the same in his own limited way as he now calls them the fake news media even though the guy has been a msm darling since the 80's. Now if you say the mainstream media fabricates you're synonymous with Trump.

 

Additionally All of those major news outlets are just there to keep the masses locked into the false left-right paradigm and keep us under the false perception that republican and democrat are any different. Sure, in rhetoric they are but in action they're basically the same and this is why everything is continuously regressing for individuals and thus society as a whole. The middle-class in the US (and elsewhere really) has been dwindling since the 1960's (from centralization of power, excessive spending and taxation), war is endless with its justifications based in lies and manipulations (when you actually do your own research), natural rights are incrementally eroded and the whole technological surveillance state (data analytics, facial recognition) which will get a major boost with the internet of things is continuously advanced. Those are important issues for all individuals as they pertain to liberty and individual well being. Yet they are all incrementally advanced by politicians on both the left and the right.

You get my vote

However, just to set the record straight, Cenk was a republican until 2002 and was a right wing darling until the Afghani Invasion

[rm2551]

6 hours ago, apantherfrommd said:

Additionally All of those major news outlets are just there to keep the masses locked into the false left-right paradigm and keep us under the false perception that republican and democrat are any different.

Boom! I have been saying this for a few years now. It is a false paradigm that serves powerful entities, NOT the electorate. Democracy should work much better, but is at the mercy of elected officials who wholly and solely buy into the current framework of political discourse. This is a complete corruption of what a democracy and political dialogue should be. Like how organised religion is a complete corruption of real spirituality.

Until we have a smarter electorate and a candidate who is universally recognised as (and actually is) being genuinely driven by a agenda to advance the country (whatever modern western country that happens to be), and who has a very astute political brain as well as an agenda supported by his/her parliament/congress/house of reps - we aren't going to make much headway. A lot of the current disillusion also falls on the MSM for no longer being about a service industry. It is now just another arm of a media entity that also needs to maximise profits. This alone renders MSM unworkable (a profit driven model) in my view.

[nemophilist]

18 hours ago, IpMan said:

You get my vote

However, just to set the record straight, Cenk was a republican until 2002 and was a right wing darling until the Afghani Invasion

I actually didn't know that about him. The guy makes the absolute worst arguments against free markets or libertarian principles.

[nemophilist]

14 hours ago, rm2551 said:

Boom! I have been saying this for a few years now. It is a false paradigm that serves powerful entities, NOT the electorate. Democracy should work much better, but is at the mercy of elected officials who wholly and solely buy into the current framework of political discourse. This is a complete corruption of what a democracy and political dialogue should be. Like how organised religion is a complete corruption of real spirituality.

Until we have a smarter electorate and a candidate who is universally recognised as (and actually is) being genuinely driven by a agenda to advance the country (whatever modern western country that happens to be), and who has a very astute political brain as well as an agenda supported by his/her parliament/congress/house of reps - we aren't going to make much headway. A lot of the current disillusion also falls on the MSM for no longer being about a service industry. It is now just another arm of a media entity that also needs to maximise profits. This alone renders MSM unworkable (a profit driven model) in my view.

Totally true. I think that's the entire point of "democracy" though. It's pretty collectivist in its base principles (it really becomes majority rule, yet as we see the majority is continuously manipulated) and thus ends up doing little to protect the individual without putting constraints on government. It's really just a gateway to totalitarianism. It really just pushed the monarchy to behind the scenes (where they still rule through corporations, silicon valley and mega-banks; although in England the Queen is still head of state on numerous issues) and gives the people the illusion of choice. Democratic principles or features are obviously great though. But I totally agree with you, especially on how organized religion suppresses true spirituality. Then you have academia and mainstream science pushing this illusory debate of organized religion vs. Darwinism (which If im remembering correctly was pushed by the Royal Society and other very nefarious royal elites who went on to basically build the world we see today) while trying to suppress a whole century of studies which show in various ways that we are just spirits or waveform energy having a physical or human experience. That we can only see a small frequency spectrum which is dubbed visible light. Which is known as quantum physics and just becomes more credible by the year. But yeah media outlets have always been corrupt or bias even going back to the 18th century but when you have something so central that the masses focus their attention such as TV and social media it makes the control and consolidation of media both much more prevalent and much more important for wealthy elites who have the resources to continuously engineer society towards their own desires and needs. This is why all the media we outside of the internet is owned by just six corporations.

[IpMan]

3 hours ago, nemophilist said:

I actually didn't know that about him. The guy makes the absolute worst arguments against free markets or libertarian principles.

The US has never truly had a free market system, nor has any country since 19th century industrialization came about and everything became pay to play. We see this every day. The one with the money either buys up or forces out the smaller companies until all we have left are mega-corporations, too big to fail, corporate-welfare nations. Whatever happened to the Sherman Anti-Trust Laws? Whatever happened to T. Roosevelt style common sense?

And libertarianism...that shit is in reality a joke. You want to see what true Libertarianism looks like? Look no further than the 1st century bc Rome and Crassius whereas this principal was put into practice. It was so successful (sarcasm) that it was one of the main reasons Julius Caesar became dictator and Octavian became emperor, thus destroying the Roman Republic.

Libertarianism, like communism will never work until humankind evolves psychologically to the point whereas we can adapt these concepts without our egos and self-interests stepping in and causing the whole shithouse to go up in flames.

[rm2551]

4 hours ago, IpMan said:

Libertarianism, like communism will never work until humankind evolves psychologically to the point whereas we can adapt these concepts without our egos and self-interests stepping in and causing the whole shithouse to go up in flames.

Boom!!!!!

The principles we try to build into our democratic systems far exceed the intellectual capacities and the current intelligence levels of the general public. Bill Maher hits the nail on the head when he hammers the American public as being stupid - but he misses a key point. It is not just the American public. They are not unique. It is the middle and lower middle classes in all the modern developed countries. So easily lead into the bullshit political reality without any real push back or challenge for our leaders to be better leaders. to actually change/improve the political discourse. Either the best of us and our leaders are incapable of delivering real change, or they do not care to. While political change must be like turning around an Aircraft Carrier, (it takes a lot of time, planning and detailed execution, *not my best analogy, but the only one I can think of right now), you will find most leaders in a 3 to 5 year political cycle are unwilling to sacrifice their political ambition in favour of what they believe to truly be the best thing for their country. It's not a "conspiracy" so much as just human nature and the way the modern free market capitalist 2 party system is structured.

The relatively few humans that do possess a far greater intellect and disposition are far too up against it to effect fundamental shifts. It is generational. The best we can do is target our educational systems to churn out students of a generally higher caliber. How we do that is where one of the most crucial debate lies (IMHO). Jettisoning organised religion - when it finally happens, will detach a massive anchor and humanity will start to move forward unlike we have so far. A different focus. Spirituality. Exploration. Ambition. These may come back to the fore. But for now, we wallow in the first half of the 21st century. Not even as "great" as the early second half of the last century. At least then we put almost a dozen humans on the moon! We all knew who the enemy was (totalitarian systems of government). And had the greatest decade in music in human history.

[SteveAJones]

12 hours ago, nemophilist said:

Totally true. I think that's the entire point of "democracy" though. It's pretty collectivist in its base principles (it really becomes majority rule, yet as we see the majority is continuously manipulated) and thus ends up doing little to protect the individual without putting constraints on government. It's really just a gateway to totalitarianism.

Sorry, but you just jumped the shark with this community college level bullshit.

[nemophilist]

50 minutes ago, SteveAJones said:

Sorry, but you just jumped the shark with this community college level bullshit.

Lol Okay, I guess you're all knowing. What's that supposed to scare me away from my beliefs? I think I'm right based off of my research and If you think I'm wrong then good for you. First of all you would probably never even be taught anything like that in community college or any educational establishment. All they do is preach democracy (which I know is a superior system to most) without even considering what I stated. You have no clue how much time I've dedicated to reading numerous kinds of history books. I form my thoughts from my own research not what some programmed teacher regurgitates out of a corporate text book full of revisionist details. I learned the same info, repeated every year for like 12 years. It's programming. Essentially refuting my point kind of proved my point especially by attacking me instead of actually making a counter argument. If you don't think elections are charades where people are lied into accepting a candidate, and that the ensuing presidency is more of the same then well I'd say you're being manipulated because you're not looking at the actions of those individuals when they step away from the podium. Nor do you see the policies of their bureaucratic agencies which aren't often given too much time on air and you'd have to take your time finding and reading the policies themselves, or find an article on them.

Democracy is by nature collectivist as it is majority rule through voting (the illusion of choice), the collective. Without proper restraints put on government (like the Constitution and Bill Of Rights in the US; although those documents are of a republic, not a democracy. They do have some democratic principles which are I do think are beneficial as I said) it will incrementally march towards a totalitarian system or one which doesn't respect or honor the liberty of the individual. Essentially The 51% can vote away the "rights" of the other 49% in a democracy. We see it happening in the US every time someone votes for a candidate that promises to make us "more safe" by eroding some vital liberty while just giving the masses the illusion of security by creating a surveillance state.

[nemophilist]

4 hours ago, rm2551 said:

Boom!!!!!

The principles we try to build into our democratic systems far exceed the intellectual capacities and the current intelligence levels of the general public. Bill Maher hits the nail on the head when he hammers the American public as being stupid - but he misses a key point. It is not just the American public. They are not unique. It is the middle and lower middle classes in all the modern developed countries. So easily lead into the bullshit political reality without any real push back or challenge for our leaders to be better leaders. to actually change/improve the political discourse. Either the best of us and our leaders are incapable of delivering real change, or they do not care to. While political change must be like turning around an Aircraft Carrier, (it takes a lot of time, planning and detailed execution, *not my best analogy, but the only one I can think of right now), you will find most leaders in a 3 to 5 year political cycle are unwilling to sacrifice their political ambition in favour of what they believe to truly be the best thing for their country. It's not a "conspiracy" so much as just human nature and the way the modern free market capitalist 2 party system is structured.

The relatively few humans that do possess a far greater intellect and disposition are far too up against it to effect fundamental shifts. It is generational. The best we can do is target our educational systems to churn out students of a generally higher caliber. How we do that is where one of the most crucial debate lies (IMHO). Jettisoning organised religion - when it finally happens, will detach a massive anchor and humanity will start to move forward unlike we have so far. A different focus. Spirituality. Exploration. Ambition. These may come back to the fore. But for now, we wallow in the first half of the 21st century. Not even as "great" as the early second half of the last century. At least then we put almost a dozen humans on the moon! We all knew who the enemy was (totalitarian systems of government). And had the greatest decade in music in human history.

It's hard to have "better leaders" when there are those who threaten or coerce them into selling their people out. That's why people believe in libertarianism, because power corrupts so it's better to decentralize and have it closer to the individual. Our leaders are quite smart, they do things that seem stupid because it's not for the benefit of their constituents. It's for the benefits of special interests. Essentially when government has power, or any individual, then those with the resources to purchase that power will do so for the own agenda time and time again. It always happens and it always will.

 

The reality is that there is no utopian system. But things should be voluntary. I believe communism can only work when it is voluntary, as it does quite often in communal living scenarios where everyone is working towards a common goal on a small scale. Libertarian political philosophy is a moral system because it isn't predicated on force or violence through the state. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a state, as that takes a population of very high consciousness and morality; but I'm saying people shouldn't be forced into a communist system as it is predicated on violence through the state. It should be voluntary and it would keep society from collapsing like every single totalitarian communist system does. In my opinion from my research it's a phony political philosophy that was made more prominent through the funding of wealthy interests (like the league of just men) who funded people like Marx. It's a parasitical system that is sold to people under the guise of helping the downtrodden. The state (which they call "the people") just parasites the population until they're all poor and thus "equal." Then the wealthy political class who funded the politicians no longer have any competition and then we have a virtual monarchy again. Not rule secession outside of election, but I just mean power is put into the hands of the very few who are extremely wealthy while the rest of the country are a bunch of peasants (essentially). But I do truly believe that communism can work on a voluntary level with those who believe in it, on a very small scale. Not forced on an entire nation, or an entire state or community.

 

And to lpman: I do pretty much agree with what you're saying. I wouldn't say it's a joke though, and I always question what goes behind the scenes even as a far back as that though. But on the surface I do agree with you. I very much agree with you on your first paragraph as well, we've never been truly free market even right after the Revolution. And as I actually said above there would need to be a very moral and extremely aware populace to actually have a truly libertarian system.