Greg Palast: The War Between the Billionaires, And Election Theft

[Raz]

Re: Greg Palast: The War Between the Billionaires, And Election Theft

[QUOTE=debu;242680]Some of the above responses to Augstein's remark that "The downfall of the American empire has begun. It could be that the country's citizens wouldn't be able to stop it no matter how hard they tried. But they aren't even trying." pretty much confirm his point. A bit of thou doth protest too much it seems. Wonder why...[/QUOTE]

I have the opposite take: the most thoughtful and articulate response - that of dcarrigg - clearly refutes Augstein. I stand by every single word I wrote and I can produce more rebuttals based on facts.

Perhaps you could elaborate upon your soft indictment of the aforementioned iTulipers?

[dcarrigg]

Re: Greg Palast: The War Between the Billionaires, And Election Theft

Some of the above responses to Augstein's remark that "The downfall of the American empire has begun. It could be that the country's citizens wouldn't be able to stop it no matter how hard they tried. But they aren't even trying." pretty much confirm his point. A bit of thou doth protest too much it seems. Wonder why...

Let me be clear, brief and direct. I wrote that because I believe the stories of America's demise are exaggerated. New York City was hit with a 30 foot storm surge. Despite the fact that it's a substantially bigger city, it faired better than Hamburg did in the '62 North Sea flood. Wooden poles not withstanding.

Sure, Americans are more religious in general, but comparing them with the Taliban is over the top and disingenuous.

Moreover, I'm fairly sure elites have great influence in both societies.

And if the Democrats were so right wing, why did my examples of left wing policy in blue states that goes beyond European progressivism exist?

Put more simply, if the SPD were truly left wing, why did it shove Hartz IV down Germans' throats?

The argument then rests on Foreign policy. But were America to pull out of Europe and retire its carrier fleets, I think you'd find a Germany that would be forced to militarize rather quickly.

The stories of America's demise have been greatly exaggerated. And the differences between America and Europe have been greatly exaggerated as well.

[Shakespear]

Re: Greg Palast: The War Between the Billionaires, And Election Theft

The argument then rests on Foreign policy. But were America to pull out of Europe and retire its carrier fleets, I think you'd find a Germany that would be forced to militarize rather quickly.

I say scr%w them. Let the chips fall where they may because the way I see it the American people are getting Royally Scr%wed. To back me up I will use Hoorbert Hoover

http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Betray...Herbert+Hoover

He saw the cluster fu%k coming and he was watching what and how he said it. Sad but that is where we are.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012...ts-stealthier/

But we live in an age where gay marriage is legal in several states in the US, and where it is not in France. This is a time where marijuana is decriminalized, made legally available for medical use, and now perhaps even legal for recreational use, in some states, but it is not in Germany. Muslim girls and women may not wear headscarfs to school in France, something that would be unthinkable in the US. Even in labor-friendly Germany, there is no minimum wage, and some end up working for less than what is allowable in the states.

These are our great accomplishments over the decades of jaw boning this crap in DC ?

[dcarrigg]

Re: Greg Palast: The War Between the Billionaires, And Election Theft

These are our great accomplishments over the decades of jaw boning this crap in DC ?

I never called these great accomplishments. Although they may be. History will decide. I merely used them as evidence that Europe was not more left wing than America. They are accomplishments depending on whom you ask. But they exist in a system of federalism where states decide. States allowing for a variety of social policy was the accomplishment of which I spoke. Federalism is the value which I espoused.

[Shakespear]

Re: Greg Palast: The War Between the Billionaires, And Election Theft

I never called these great accomplishments. Although they may be. History will decide. I merely used them as evidence that Europe was not more left wing than America. They are accomplishments depending on whom you ask. But they exist in a system of federalism where states decide. States allowing for a variety of social policy was the accomplishment of which I spoke. Federalism is the value which I espoused.

I merely used them as evidence that Europe was not more left wing than America.

To be honest I have no idea what we are any more. However pragmatic approach would have gotten us a lot further. Namely, let Hitler duke it out with Stalin until Hitler chokes and Stalin is done in. Let UK slowly slide into the North Sea with her Empire, this was to be be seen on the horizon (you can fool people only so long before they call your game). The French ... well let them just be. We were suckered into playing the Imperial Game and are now paying the heavy cost the game demands on many levels in the US. I have my sampling point in the US from which I draw this conclusion, hence this is just my opinion.

What I have noticed over the years ,in my case, was the fact that many of the issues "within" the US I could not "see" until I left the US. Trips to Sweden, Denmark, Holland, France, Germany, Argentina and on and on, resulted in a gradual shift in my focus when coming back home as to what is and isn't an issue here. I'm not saying I have some infallible observational power but I had this Epiphany that we are spin are wheels on issues that are of negligible national importance. I vividly recall that this process was somewhat started when I was listening to an NPR program with the Comptroller of the United States speak about the national debt and its dire consequences if nothing is done. This was in the mid 90's!!! And what was the number one topic at the time? Abortion. My reaction was "This is an upside down world".

Same was with the Solar Energy Dept. at my university. It was full speed ahead after the Arab Embargo, then years later I came back to visit the campus only to hear that it has long ago disappeared. If we would have only spent a fraction of the money that goes into this goofball plane,
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012...ts-stealthier/
we would be simply in a different world. I know it is not that simple

[flintlock]

Re: Greg Palast: The War Between the Billionaires, And Election Theft

Wow, talk about hate.

Yes. I've never seen a time when exaggeration and complete lies were spread so effectively. Apparently you either agree completely or you are Hitler. There is no room for compromise. And this works both ways. I see Republicans with the same mentality.

[flintlock]

Re: Greg Palast: The War Between the Billionaires, And Election Theft

You have discovered America's "feet of clay"' thats all.

[Raz]

Re: Greg Palast: The War Between the Billionaires, And Election Theft

I never called these great accomplishments. Although they may be. History will decide. I merely used them as evidence that Europe was not more left wing than America. They are accomplishments depending on whom you ask. But they exist in a system of federalism where states decide. States allowing for a variety of social policy was the accomplishment of which I spoke. Federalism is the value which I espoused.

Amen to that. The more activist and radical among the Left would apparently like a Unitary system where their social values are forced upon everyone. With the country as divided as it currently is, deliberately diminishing the Federal system could well clear a path to the civil dissolution of the United States.

[shiny!]

Re: Greg Palast: The War Between the Billionaires, And Election Theft

The more activist and radical among the Left would apparently like a Unitary system where their social values are forced upon everyone.

Respectfully, it appears to this libertarian that both liberals and conservatives wish to force their beliefs upon everyone. Both sides consider their beliefs to be facts (while considering the other side's beliefs to only be beliefs) and consider their "facts" to be sufficiently righteous that they should be the law of the land: Liberals with their social values of "greenism", "tolerance" (for those who agree with them) and "it takes a village" (at taxpayer expense). Conservatives with their Christian beliefs that "life begins at conception" and "homosexuality is an abomination", therefore abortions and homosexual marriages should be illegal.

IMO, liberals forget TANSTAFL, and conservative Christians disregard the fact that there are other beliefs besides theirs that are entitled to equal protection under the law.

With the country as divided as it currently is, deliberately diminishing the Federal system could well clear a path to the civil dissolution of the United States.

It's already started. Several states have now legalized marijuana, directly flaunting federal law, and Montana just declared Citizens United null and void in their state. Montana also forbade local governments from imposing health insurance mandates and forbade the providing of government services to undocumented immigrants.

As other states perceive federal laws to be working against their interests, expect more to follow...

[Raz]

Re: Greg Palast: The War Between the Billionaires, And Election Theft

Respectfully, it appears to this libertarian that both liberals and conservatives wish to force their beliefs upon everyone. Both sides consider their beliefs to be facts (while considering the other side's beliefs to only be beliefs) and consider their "facts" to be sufficiently righteous that they should be the law of the land: Liberals with their social values of "greenism", "tolerance" (for those who agree with them) and "it takes a village" (at taxpayer expense). Conservatives with their Christian beliefs that "life begins at conception" and "homosexuality is an abomination", therefore abortions and homosexual marriages should be illegal.

IMO, liberals forget TANSTAFL, and conservative Christians disregard the fact that there are other beliefs besides theirs that are entitled to equal protection under the law.

It's already started. Several states have now legalized marijuana, directly flaunting federal law, and Montana just declared Citizens United null and void in their state. Montana also forbade local governments from imposing health insurance mandates and forbade the providing of government services to undocumented immigrants.

As other states perceive federal laws to be working against their interests, expect more to follow...

With all due respect, life does begin at conception. That is a biological fact and anyone who denies it is either woefully ignorant or deliberately, willfully blind to manifest truth. What they should admit is, "We don't care! We demand the "right" to commit murder for the sake of our convenience". What about equal protection for preborn women? Half of the babies killed in abortuaries are female.

Conservatives are trying to maintain those beliefs that have been enscribed in our laws and recognized to be sensible and workable for a century or more. Liberals are the ones who attempt to rewrite moral codes and demand that water flow uphill.

Harry Blackmon and his ilk decided to "discover" some hitherto unknown "privacy" that was "hidden" in the Constitution so they could force their amoral views upon the entire United States. They struck down the laws enacted by the legislatures of 45 states because it would take too long and be too messy to allow the constitutional, legislative process to decide the issue. Roe is bad law.

Liberals consistently talk of the Constitution as being a "living document", which by their interpretation it really doesn't mean anything and they can activate the Mad Hatter translation protocol - "Words mean just what I want them to mean; nothing more and nothing less".

The Constitution of the United States is in fact a living document. Mr. Madison and his compatriots designed it to be so - Amendment through the legislative power, NOT the tyranny of an activist judiciary.

[Prazak]

Re: Greg Palast: The War Between the Billionaires, And Election Theft

It has always amazed me, and continues to amaze me, how freely my European friends will insult and criticize the U.S., without any solicitation on my part, right in front of me, a U.S. citizen. I could never imagine freely talking down, say, Hungary to Hungarians, or Poland to Poles, or Spain to Spaniards. It is insensitive and unnecessary, but I guess the price we pay for asserting ourselves so globally. Even when invited to criticize France by a Frenchman, I will decline at least twice before being pushed into ever-so-gently expressing my views on, say, how the Front National and the open racism of the Le Pens have much more widespread support in the country of Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite than any right-wing group we have in the U.S., how surprised I am at the barely concealed anti-semitism among the British, etc. Whenever I do take that bait, it tends to provoke an irrational reaction attacking all the various ills of American society and politics, usually revolving around racism.

Which leads to my favorite challenge to issue when under attack for America's racism: name another country that has made more effort to confront its own racism -- culturally, politically, legally -- than the United States (South Africa, maybe); name another country whose national minorities control a greater percentage of its corporations, universities, and political organs than the United States (Indonesia, maybe); name another country who would elect one of its national minorities as supreme political leader (Peru, I suppose). Can any of my European friends imagine Germany electing a Turk to the Chancellorship, or the Czech Republic electing a Roma as President, or Britain elevating a Pakistani as Prime Minister (and so on)?

There is much to criticize about the U.S. But much more to be proud of.

[vinoveri]

Re: Greg Palast: The War Between the Billionaires, And Election Theft

Respectfully, it appears to this libertarian that both liberals and conservatives wish to force their beliefs upon everyone. Both sides consider their beliefs to be facts (while considering the other side's beliefs to only be beliefs) and consider their "facts" to be sufficiently righteous that they should be the law of the land: Liberals with their social values of "greenism", "tolerance" (for those who agree with them) and "it takes a village" (at taxpayer expense). Conservatives with their Christian beliefs that "life begins at conception" and "homosexuality is an abomination", therefore abortions and homosexual marriages should be illegal.

IMO, liberals forget TANSTAFL, and conservative Christians disregard the fact that there are other beliefs besides theirs that are entitled to equal protection under the law.



It's already started. Several states have now legalized marijuana, directly flaunting federal law, and Montana just declared Citizens United null and void in their state. Montana also forbade local governments from imposing health insurance mandates and forbade the providing of government services to undocumented immigrants.

As other states perceive federal laws to be working against their interests, expect more to follow...

Shiny, you seem to be a kind and thoughtful person sensitive to the needs and considerate of the views of others.

Philosophically oriented persons, such as myself (also religious), seek to propose not impose, we seek to persuade with truth, and so a dialog based on good will and right intention at arriving at the truth or what is best is the intent. I believe a good majority of folks are open to this idea however the bull-horn from the secular corner tends to confuse and trip up individuals who are trying to determine what's best. We currently have 2 main competing theory of ethics, utilitarianism and natural law. At the heart of the differences between the 2 views is one of absolutism vs relativism ("a few things are always wrong no matter what" vs "everything can be justified as right given the appropriate circumstances". The former binds the individual to certain absolutes that she may not violate (and these aren't many by the way); the latter allows for sophistry and rationalization of any action in principle. Ultimately in my experience, the intellectual choice of the 2 systems seems to depend on whether someone views the world we like in and the human person as ordered to some end (God) or whether there is no ultimate purpose but only randomness and brief existence. I would encourage anyone to study these two systems and come to their own conclusion about which "feels right" to their mind and spirit. An additional fatal attraction of utilitarianism is that it allows one (including governments) to rationalize any action and attempt to silence their consciences via this rationalization. In my view, the natural law is systematic and self-consistent and moral questions can be answered using reason and logic based on the axioms of the system, whereas utilitariansim relies moreso on emotional and subjective views present in any given circumstance.

With regard to your comment reqarding conservatives forcing their anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage views on everyone JUST LIKE the liberal do the other way, I would ask you to simply observe the facts around you. Abortion is legal and gay-marriage is becoming legal in a number of states. Hate speech and extreme anti-discrimination rules are being enshrined in our laws. When the government criminalizes speech and forces certain associations, it prevents/limits open good-faith dialog, dialog which may persuade. The laws are passed and enforced
to intimidate and limit legitimate discussion and debate. If the opponents were spewing hate and falsehood, they would be ignored, but when truth is spoken, and it is against TPTB or secular power, it will persuade and therefore must be silenced.

[Shakespear]

Re: Greg Palast: The War Between the Billionaires, And Election Theft

It has always amazed me, and continues to amaze me, how freely my European friends will insult and criticize the U.S., without any solicitation on my part, right in front of me, a U.S. citizen. I could never imagine freely talking down, say, Hungary to Hungarians, or Poland to Poles, or Spain to Spaniards. It is insensitive and unnecessary, but I guess the price we pay for asserting ourselves so globally.

You should meet my buddies in Texas

[Raz]

Re: Greg Palast: The War Between the Billionaires, And Election Theft

Shiny, you seem to be a kind and thoughtful person sensitive to the needs and considerate of the views of others.

Philosophically oriented persons, such as myself (also religious), seek to propose not impose, we seek to persuade with truth, and so a dialog based on good will and right intention at arriving at the truth or what is best is the intent. I believe a good majority of folks are open to this idea however the bull-horn from the secular corner tends to confuse and trip up individuals who are trying to determine what's best.

We currently have 2 main competing theory of ethics, utilitarianism and natural law. At the heart of the differences between the 2 views is one of absolutism vs relativism ("a few things are always wrong no matter what" vs "everything can be justified as right given the appropriate circumstances".
The former binds the individual to certain absolutes that she may not violate (and these aren't many by the way); the latter allows for sophistry and rationalization of any action in principle.
Ultimately in my experience, the intellectual choice of the 2 systems seems to depend on whether someone views the world we like in and the human person as ordered to some end (God) or whether there is no ultimate purpose but only randomness and brief existence. I would encourage anyone to study these two systems and come to their own conclusion about which "feels right" to their mind and spirit.

An additional fatal attraction of utilitarianism is that it allows one (including governments) to rationalize any action and attempt to silence their consciences via this rationalization. In my view, the natural law is systematic and self-consistent and moral questions can be answered using reason and logic based on the axioms of the system, whereas utilitariansim relies moreso on emotional and subjective views present in any given circumstance.

With regard to your comment reqarding conservatives forcing their anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage views on everyone JUST LIKE the liberal do the other way, I would ask you to simply observe the facts around you. Abortion is legal and gay-marriage is becoming legal in a number of states. Hate speech and extreme anti-discrimination rules are being enshrined in our laws. When the government criminalizes speech and forces certain associations, it prevents/limits open good-faith dialog, dialog which may persuade. The laws are passed and enforced
to intimidate and limit legitimate discussion and debate. If the opponents were spewing hate and falsehood, they would be ignored, but when truth is spoken, and it is against TPTB or secular power, it will persuade and therefore must be silenced.

+1. Excellent.

[shiny!]

Re: Greg Palast: The War Between the Billionaires, And Election Theft

Shiny, you seem to be a kind and thoughtful person sensitive to the needs and considerate of the views of others.

Philosophically oriented persons, such as myself (also religious), seek to propose not impose, we seek to persuade with truth, and so a dialog based on good will and right intention at arriving at the truth or what is best is the intent. I believe a good majority of folks are open to this idea however the bull-horn from the secular corner tends to confuse and trip up individuals who are trying to determine what's best. We currently have 2 main competing theory of ethics, utilitarianism and natural law. At the heart of the differences between the 2 views is one of absolutism vs relativism ("a few things are always wrong no matter what" vs "everything can be justified as right given the appropriate circumstances". The former binds the individual to certain absolutes that she may not violate (and these aren't many by the way); the latter allows for sophistry and rationalization of any action in principle. Ultimately in my experience, the intellectual choice of the 2 systems seems to depend on whether someone views the world we like in and the human person as ordered to some end (God) or whether there is no ultimate purpose but only randomness and brief existence. I would encourage anyone to study these two systems and come to their own conclusion about which "feels right" to their mind and spirit. An additional fatal attraction of utilitarianism is that it allows one (including governments) to rationalize any action and attempt to silence their consciences via this rationalization. In my view, the natural law is systematic and self-consistent and moral questions can be answered using reason and logic based on the axioms of the system, whereas utilitariansim relies moreso on emotional and subjective views present in any given circumstance.

With regard to your comment reqarding conservatives forcing their anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage views on everyone JUST LIKE the liberal do the other way, I would ask you to simply observe the facts around you. Abortion is legal and gay-marriage is becoming legal in a number of states. Hate speech and extreme anti-discrimination rules are being enshrined in our laws. When the government criminalizes speech and forces certain associations, it prevents/limits open good-faith dialog, dialog which may persuade. The laws are passed and enforced

to intimidate and limit legitimate discussion and debate. If the opponents were spewing hate and falsehood, they would be ignored, but when truth is spoken, and it is against TPTB or secular power, it will persuade and therefore must be silenced.

I appreciate your well thought out comment; you make many good points. I only have a moment to reply to you and Raz as I'm at work. I have the greatest respect for both of you, even though we don't share the same religious beliefs.

I do not believe that it's settled beyond all doubt that life begins at conception. While many believe that life begins at conception, many others like myself believe that life begins with ensoulment. That we are alive when the body contains a soul, and we are dead when the soul leaves the body. When does the soul enter the body? Again, there are different opinions. Some people believe at the end of the third month, others on the 120th day after conception. Prior to ensoulment there is the potential for life, but not life itself.

The time of ensoulment is the time of pregnancy known as "quickening", when the fetus begins to move and kick. Most spontaneous abortions happen before this time; it's nature's way of ensuring that, for the most part, babies are born healthy. Women often feel differently about their pregnancy once they feel the baby kick- they intuitively sense that something has changed. If a woman can't support the pregnancy for some reason, while adoption would be preferable, an abortion before the quickening would not be not be considered murder.

I realize that many people here will find my view absurd, and that's OK. I'm not trying to force it on anybody. But I do want the right to live according to the dictates of my conscience on a matter so personal, just as I respect your right to live according to the dictates of your conscience. I'm hugely in favor of people using all the powers of persuasion they have to convince people of the rightness of their beliefs, if they can. Make this a culture that encourages adoption, that widely disapproves of out-of-wedlock pregnancy and absentee fathers. Proselytize on the public level, but on the legal level, don't try to elevate your religious belief over mine. That, IMO, is what separation of church and state is all about.

Since abortion evokes such passionate opinions, consider this argument in a different context, such as infant circumcision. I am vehemently opposed to routine infant circumcision. I consider it to be profound sexual abuse. From a religious POV, I consider it a contradiction of the will and wisdom of the Creator. But Jews view it differently. They consider infant circumcision a mandatory requirement of their relationship with the Creator, and a matter for celebration. We can't both be right, can we? And what about the parents who circumcise because they believe there's a medical benefit that outweighs the risks? What side should the law take? That of the infants who's screams of agony fall upon deaf ears? Or that of the parents who have responsibility for the children and think they're doing the right thing?

Do I have the right to abridge the religious freedom of well-intentioned parents who disagree with me by legislating my beliefs into the law of the land?

These are very, very difficult issues. I don't know what the answer is.

Someone started a thread about abortion but I don't know where it is. If FRED wants to move this discussion there I'm fine with that. But I really don't have any more to say on the matter.