|
On April 27 2009 13:37 only_human89 wrote:
rofl nothing new here. Ron Paul 2012, the only true conservative left that has a senate seat. sick of this socialist bull. And the U.S. federal gov. are a bunch of communist's. Limited gov ftw y0.
r... o... f... l...
I hate so much republicans that it almost burns in my chest.
|
On April 27 2009 15:03 Railz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2009 14:51 Jibba wrote:On April 27 2009 14:34 Railz wrote:On April 27 2009 13:37 only_human89 wrote:
rofl nothing new here. Ron Paul 2012, the only true conservative left that has a senate seat. sick of this socialist bull. And the U.S. federal gov. are a bunch of communist's. Limited gov ftw y0. For one, Ron Paul is a Rep, which alone means he has far less power as an individual congressmen then a Senator. Secondly, socialism and communism are not the same theory, not by a long shot, so this tells me you're either an idiot who believes, verbatim what any of the talking heads on Fox says, or second, have no real idea with socialism or communism is. Socialism is emphasis on people, communism is emphasis on the state - when practiced communism results in a highly organized government with no checks and balances on who makes the laws. Socialism is a regard on how the welfare of a nations people is created, but does not result in a specialized form of government; Socialism favors a democratic government, whereas communism favors the complete opposite. Technically, communism eventually favors very little government, except you need authoritarianism to get there. Communism, as written, would actually favor more community based government over any national one. As is, China is not a communist state at all, but a Capitalistic state with an oligarchy based government. The label they used as communism is almost as silly as saying the United States is a Democracy when it is a Democratic Republic; meaning the individual means a lot in their own state, but means very little to the Federal Government - The state acts as the voter there.
That's pretty much the problem of Communism: the first communist exeprience was Paris Commune, in 1870, and got raped by the "regular" French army, because it was structurally too weak to survive its ennemy.
The second one are all the XX century communist experiences, which failed badly because the revolutionary state necessary to win the revolution and the war was too strong and authoritative. In Marx mind, authority had to progressively disappear under a Communist regim. Didn't work that well...
I guess soon or late we'll have a third attempt. That would be actually good, because without a counter power, savage capitalism is driving humanity to ruin, as we have seen theses last 20 years.
China is everything but communist. And communism in its non-perverted form hasn't existed yet.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 27 2009 18:28 Railxp wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2009 12:34 Jibba wrote:
Your post makes no sense. You complain about journalism being unfree, and then post about Barstow's NYT article (hint: NYT is the largest circulating newspaper in the country) being ignored by privately owned news networks, who are free to cover whatever they want to cover. GE owns NBC, Disney owns ABC, News Corp owns Fox. Stop bitching about cable news and read a goddamn newspaper. If you've read through the articles, i think it becomes painfully obvious that cable news are precisely NOT free to report anything other than what the pentagon wanted them to. To do otherwise would essentially be corporate suicide. In the article, even among the "military analysts" there were those who wanted to report the other side, but were systematically shut down and blacked out when they tried to do so. They are like starving prisoners who are only fed when they obey. Being forced to choose between starving and suicide isn't really freedom. The injustice, imHUMBLEo is painfully obvious here. Just ignoring cable and reading the newspaper is not the solution. TV News has far more power than newspapers to sway popular opinion. It is precisely the "stop bitching you cant do anything abt it anyways" attitude that lets the gov+newsnetworks get away with this. I dont mean for this to come off as a personal attack, i know plenty of people who share that notion and I'll be the first to admit that I dont know what to do about it either, but it is precisely that attitude that landed USA in the war in the first place. Which is why i think it is problematic and dangerous to just ignore/overlook the bad.
Cables news stations are private companies and they are entirely free to do whatever they want. There is no government coercion there. What makes you think the government is capable of pushing around the subsidiaries of GE and Disney? Political coercion works the other way around. Do you know why the cable news programs didn't give more coverage to the NYT article? It's not because the government stopped them, it's because it makes them look terrible. Why would they self-report their own flaws?
TV News does not have more power than newspapers. Look at the ratings the cable news programs actually get. They're miniscule, and by not watching them, you are sending a message to them. Again, they are private companies in it for profit, so they want $$$. We know cables news is bad, but you can't tell them what they can and cannot cover or who they choose to air. There's a great big market for news sources so choose one that's actually reliable.
And it is not the attitude that landed the USA in war. That statement is just ridiculous.
And yes, I did read the article, when it first came out because I read newspapers instead of getting it from terrible websites like commondreams.org.
|
Who was that black news anchor on MSNBC that it was discovered the white house was paying him to support No Child Left Behind?
|
On April 27 2009 20:31 pyrogenetix wrote:
government influencing media happens -everywhere-
i just find it funny when people scream in my face that china controls the media and then think that the news they get is 100% unbiased information.
get real son. spies are everywhere, everyone wants oil and no one wants to shell out money for renewable energy sources. it's that simple.
China is control, US is influence. Still fucked, but it's a big leap. Yeah, you can report on what you want, but gl trying to get a scoop after that. Or, you'll have a source giving crappy info, like the military. They've got guidelines on how to deal with the media, letting out only certain info and balancing bad news with good, etc.
|
Hollywood has a lot of power. It's pretty much monopoly in terms of movies created.
Seriously am I the only one being disturbed by Hollywood movies having 'terrorists' from Middle-East or North Korea or from places like that? 'Yeah lets make some movie with a lot of terrorists from these places, give them nuclear weapons and lets have special forces or president himself deal with them and add some special effects' >) 'The clock is ticking. We only have 24hours to release their friends or send them 10 billion' How many people read news from various sources? How many people will end up looking at such films? Especially kids who pick up some bad guy/good guy out of it.
Or some war-patriot related movies like Saving Private Ryan, Pearl Harbor etc. that are way one sided.
Goebbels would be laughing out loud. People actually paying money and wasting their time to get brainwashed. It seems like the more time you spend reading news or keeping up with them the more frustrated you get and the more emotionas you put into your arguments. I've noticed that on many occasions. People who don't take so much time keeping up tend to come up with better pros and cons and can take different approach.
|
On April 27 2009 20:48 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2009 15:03 Railz wrote:On April 27 2009 14:51 Jibba wrote:On April 27 2009 14:34 Railz wrote:On April 27 2009 13:37 only_human89 wrote:
rofl nothing new here. Ron Paul 2012, the only true conservative left that has a senate seat. sick of this socialist bull. And the U.S. federal gov. are a bunch of communist's. Limited gov ftw y0. For one, Ron Paul is a Rep, which alone means he has far less power as an individual congressmen then a Senator. Secondly, socialism and communism are not the same theory, not by a long shot, so this tells me you're either an idiot who believes, verbatim what any of the talking heads on Fox says, or second, have no real idea with socialism or communism is. Socialism is emphasis on people, communism is emphasis on the state - when practiced communism results in a highly organized government with no checks and balances on who makes the laws. Socialism is a regard on how the welfare of a nations people is created, but does not result in a specialized form of government; Socialism favors a democratic government, whereas communism favors the complete opposite. Technically, communism eventually favors very little government, except you need authoritarianism to get there. Communism, as written, would actually favor more community based government over any national one. As is, China is not a communist state at all, but a Capitalistic state with an oligarchy based government. The label they used as communism is almost as silly as saying the United States is a Democracy when it is a Democratic Republic; meaning the individual means a lot in their own state, but means very little to the Federal Government - The state acts as the voter there. That's pretty much the problem of Communism: the first communist exeprience was Paris Commune, in 1870, and got raped by the "regular" French army, because it was structurally too weak to survive its ennemy. The second one are all the XX century communist experiences, which failed badly because the revolutionary state necessary to win the revolution and the war was too strong and authoritative. In Marx mind, authority had to progressively disappear under a Communist regim. Didn't work that well... I guess soon or late we'll have a third attempt. That would be actually good, because without a counter power, savage capitalism is driving humanity to ruin, as we have seen theses last 20 years.
You should read up about 'Technocracy', mixed with Communism, will be the future of modern society if we get past wiping ourselves out. Technocracy involves no form of currency and hard labor is left to technology, to put it bluntly.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 27 2009 23:11 eStoniaNBoY wrote:
Hollywood has a lot of power. It's pretty much monopoly in terms of movies created.
Seriously am I the only one being disturbed by Hollywood movies having 'terrorists' from Middle-East or North Korea or from places like that? 'Yeah lets make some movie with a lot of terrorists from these places, give them nuclear weapons and lets have special forces or president himself deal with them and add some special effects' >) 'The clock is ticking. We only have 24hours to release their friends or send them 10 billion' How many people read news from various sources? How many people will end up looking at such films? Especially kids who pick up some bad guy/good guy out of it.
Or some war-patriot related movies like Saving Private Ryan, Pearl Harbor etc. that are way one sided.
Goebbels would be laughing out loud. People actually paying money and wasting their time to get brainwashed. It seems like the more time you spend reading news or keeping up with them the more frustrated you get and the more emotionas you put into your arguments. I've noticed that on many occasions. People who don't take so much time keeping up tend to come up with better pros and cons and can take different approach.
Your point is well taken, but it's not like this is something new. Moving images have always been used in this way.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On April 27 2009 23:22 Railz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2009 20:48 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 27 2009 15:03 Railz wrote:On April 27 2009 14:51 Jibba wrote:On April 27 2009 14:34 Railz wrote:On April 27 2009 13:37 only_human89 wrote:
rofl nothing new here. Ron Paul 2012, the only true conservative left that has a senate seat. sick of this socialist bull. And the U.S. federal gov. are a bunch of communist's. Limited gov ftw y0. For one, Ron Paul is a Rep, which alone means he has far less power as an individual congressmen then a Senator. Secondly, socialism and communism are not the same theory, not by a long shot, so this tells me you're either an idiot who believes, verbatim what any of the talking heads on Fox says, or second, have no real idea with socialism or communism is. Socialism is emphasis on people, communism is emphasis on the state - when practiced communism results in a highly organized government with no checks and balances on who makes the laws. Socialism is a regard on how the welfare of a nations people is created, but does not result in a specialized form of government; Socialism favors a democratic government, whereas communism favors the complete opposite. Technically, communism eventually favors very little government, except you need authoritarianism to get there. Communism, as written, would actually favor more community based government over any national one. As is, China is not a communist state at all, but a Capitalistic state with an oligarchy based government. The label they used as communism is almost as silly as saying the United States is a Democracy when it is a Democratic Republic; meaning the individual means a lot in their own state, but means very little to the Federal Government - The state acts as the voter there. That's pretty much the problem of Communism: the first communist exeprience was Paris Commune, in 1870, and got raped by the "regular" French army, because it was structurally too weak to survive its ennemy. The second one are all the XX century communist experiences, which failed badly because the revolutionary state necessary to win the revolution and the war was too strong and authoritative. In Marx mind, authority had to progressively disappear under a Communist regim. Didn't work that well... I guess soon or late we'll have a third attempt. That would be actually good, because without a counter power, savage capitalism is driving humanity to ruin, as we have seen theses last 20 years. You should read up about 'Technocracy', mixed with Communism, will be the future of modern society if we get past wiping ourselves out. Technocracy involves no form of currency and hard labor is left to technology, to put it bluntly.
Where did you find that term? Never heard about it that way. I knew that technocracy means having the country ruled by technical experts (in every domain needed) instead of politicians.
|
On April 27 2009 14:34 Railz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2009 13:37 only_human89 wrote:
rofl nothing new here. Ron Paul 2012, the only true conservative left that has a senate seat. sick of this socialist bull. And the U.S. federal gov. are a bunch of communist's. Limited gov ftw y0. For one, Ron Paul is a Rep, which alone means he has far less power as an individual congressmen then a Senator. Secondly, socialism and communism are not the same theory, not by a long shot, so this tells me you're either an idiot who believes, verbatim what any of the talking heads on Fox says, or second, have no real idea with socialism or communism is. Socialism is emphasis on people, communism is emphasis on the state - when practiced communism results in a highly organized government with no checks and balances on who makes the laws. Socialism is a regard on how the welfare of a nations people is created, but does not result in a specialized form of government; Socialism favors a democratic government, whereas communism favors the complete opposite.
socialism sucks it promotes laziness and gives free handouts fuck that
|
Fed's are taking over! give the states their freedom back!
|
On April 27 2009 20:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2009 13:37 only_human89 wrote:
rofl nothing new here. Ron Paul 2012, the only true conservative left that has a senate seat. sick of this socialist bull. And the U.S. federal gov. are a bunch of communist's. Limited gov ftw y0. r... o... f... l... I hate so much republicans that it almost burns in my chest.
so you hate Ron Paul? saying republicans is pretty general so Idk if that was directed towards me or Ron Paul. idc either way, i don't like socialism or communism. so what, is it wrong for me to have my own opinions? I like Ron Paul because he is a non-interventionist foreign policiy and he believes in sound money. the war in the middle east is bull shit and has wasted lives on both sides. and the federal government is printing fake money that no one has and is stacking up more and more debt. China wants the U.S. dollar to crash and in all seriousness i can't wait untill it does. Than America will finally realize the government can't take care of them. And if you knew anything about the republican and demacratic parties in the U.S. you would realize that other than domestic issues. foreign policies between the two have never been much different.
|
On April 28 2009 01:19 only_human89 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2009 14:34 Railz wrote:On April 27 2009 13:37 only_human89 wrote:
rofl nothing new here. Ron Paul 2012, the only true conservative left that has a senate seat. sick of this socialist bull. And the U.S. federal gov. are a bunch of communist's. Limited gov ftw y0. For one, Ron Paul is a Rep, which alone means he has far less power as an individual congressmen then a Senator. Secondly, socialism and communism are not the same theory, not by a long shot, so this tells me you're either an idiot who believes, verbatim what any of the talking heads on Fox says, or second, have no real idea with socialism or communism is. Socialism is emphasis on people, communism is emphasis on the state - when practiced communism results in a highly organized government with no checks and balances on who makes the laws. Socialism is a regard on how the welfare of a nations people is created, but does not result in a specialized form of government; Socialism favors a democratic government, whereas communism favors the complete opposite. socialism sucks it promotes laziness and gives free handouts fuck that
Again, you're thinking of state communism where a person is in theory is granted as much as the next guy. Socialism puts a small cap on the rich and a trampoline for the poor. No person needs 500 million to live comfortably, not in any nation, not by any stretch of the imagination - it equates their individual production effectivness to be equivalent to a large town? Fuck that.
Capitalism breeds ugly unions which brings down otherwise good companies.
socialism sucks it promotes laziness and gives free handouts fuck that
I first heard of it in the second Zeitgeist (Label me if you please, but I really don't watch that movie to learn.) After that I researched the term because I was curious. The advocating group in the movie believe that government would dissolve under such scientific rule in favor of a communal creative environment.
|
On April 28 2009 01:29 only_human89 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2009 20:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 27 2009 13:37 only_human89 wrote:
rofl nothing new here. Ron Paul 2012, the only true conservative left that has a senate seat. sick of this socialist bull. And the U.S. federal gov. are a bunch of communist's. Limited gov ftw y0. r... o... f... l... I hate so much republicans that it almost burns in my chest. so you hate Ron Paul? saying republicans is pretty general so Idk if that was directed towards me or Ron Paul. idc either way, i don't like socialism or communism. so what, is it wrong for me to have my own opinions? I like Ron Paul because he is a non-interventionist foreign policiy and he believes in sound money. the war in the middle east is bull shit and has wasted lives on both sides. and the federal government is printing fake money that no one has and is stacking up more and more debt. China wants the U.S. dollar to crash and in all seriousness i can't wait untill it does. Than America will finally realize the government can't take care of them. And if you knew anything about the republican and demacratic parties in the U.S. you would realize that other than domestic issues. foreign policies between the two have never been much different.
If you believe in the gold currency, you're an idiot.
1) Gold has no tangible use in human survival - it has made up value like any fiat currency, only instead of a nation printing their own money, they'll bomb the shit out another area to steal theirs.
2) If you still believe that gold still has more worth then paper, Gold is more violate in price/worth then any currency on the market.
As for China wanting the dollar to crash, what they want is a global currency, which is illegal under the constitution for any international law to take hold here. If the dollar does fall, the government won't drop it, they'll rough it out like every other 11 recessions we've been through. Besides, The federal government has defaulted on their loans before so really what difference does it make. Forcing us back into a production based economy only hurts China.
|
On April 28 2009 01:19 only_human89 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2009 14:34 Railz wrote:On April 27 2009 13:37 only_human89 wrote:
rofl nothing new here. Ron Paul 2012, the only true conservative left that has a senate seat. sick of this socialist bull. And the U.S. federal gov. are a bunch of communist's. Limited gov ftw y0. For one, Ron Paul is a Rep, which alone means he has far less power as an individual congressmen then a Senator. Secondly, socialism and communism are not the same theory, not by a long shot, so this tells me you're either an idiot who believes, verbatim what any of the talking heads on Fox says, or second, have no real idea with socialism or communism is. Socialism is emphasis on people, communism is emphasis on the state - when practiced communism results in a highly organized government with no checks and balances on who makes the laws. Socialism is a regard on how the welfare of a nations people is created, but does not result in a specialized form of government; Socialism favors a democratic government, whereas communism favors the complete opposite. socialism sucks it promotes laziness and gives free handouts fuck that
What about people who can't actually work due to a disability? What about people who are out of work due to a bad economy? What about people who can't afford health care even though they work full time? You know schools are state funded. School is a free handout. You think people should have to be able to fund their children's education every step of the way?
I know these systems can be abused and have other flaws, but in my opinion the benefits of governments helping the disadvantaged outweigh the negatives of people sponging off the state.
|
On April 28 2009 01:19 only_human89 wrote:
socialism sucks it promotes laziness and gives free handouts fuck that
ahahahahahahh
What if you suddenly lost your job and home and shit? Would you just go live in the street if you wouldn't get another job?
Socialism is fair. Without any socialism, it would be shit <_>
Have fun if you get sick in your country. go and pay your ass off.
meanwhile i enjoy my free healthcare
|
What do you call a US "democrat" in "insert random european country"?
+ Show Spoiler +- A rightwing extremist.[
|
there is a good documentry in how much the US media echo chamber was in effect for the Iraq war called "war made easy".
plenty of footage, and in contrast, what was comming from other media outlets. its really funny to watch in retrospect. war was the only option.
|
US isn't capitalist man we have a mixed economy. we just happen to be less socialist than most other countries. The government is what goes and screws everything up for everyone. I am not an anarchist, but it shouldn't shouldnt be too much too ask for proper representation of the people. The federal Government does'nt even have to tell us what they spend our tax money on.
|
On April 28 2009 02:17 only_human89 wrote:
US isn't capitalist man we have a mixed economy. we just happen to be less socialist than most other countries. The government is what goes and screws everything up for everyone. I am not an anarchist, but it shouldn't shouldnt be too much too ask for proper representation of the people. The federal Government does'nt even have to tell us what they spend our tax money on.
But they do tell us
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/
There is proper representation of the people - problem for you is, the the majority doesn't represent what you like. That is the err of democracy I suppose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://fusedfilm.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/dvd-goldfinger-front.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/PYREU/PP31212~For-Your-Eyes-Only-Posters.jpg)
