Politics (formerly Election 2012)

[fuzzygeek]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLBiqrxpehk

Video published in 2013; the phrase was used as a pejorative long before. Actually watching the video, I think what you're trying to reference is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... ehk#t=256s

and it refers specifically from learning from the Taliban "...the way they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire process. ... And these Taliban -- is an example of how you go about to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that Insurgency may be required when [dealing with] the other side."

The quote speaks specifically of Insurgency, and in a very specific context. I don't see this as a bunch of idiot Republican politicians putting on funny hats and saying "We are the American Taliban! Go 'Murica or go home! Yee haw."

I don't think this video supports your contention. Do you have another cite?

[Lieris]

You won't get nationalised medicine, free education and a liveable benefits system under a libertarian government.

Libertarianism is the most morally bankrupt and naive political ideologies around, putting the needs of "the market" ahead of human beings and the welfare of the planet with its poisonous "boot-straps" rhetoric. There's a reason why libertarians are almost exclusively male and white.

Well it was said tongue in cheek. I know quite little about the actual formal party here in the US to be honest. I know many small gov't conservatives (like myself) though that are about the only people really serious about equal rights, the political left here most certainly is not. And that while that's a much more varied group, gov't schools, medicine, and social welfare are entirely consistent with it, just not necessarily at a federal level in each case.

Out of curiosity, what is the reason that the people with the most morally bankrupt political ideology are almost exclusively white men?

Because it exclusively protects their interests.

Women are far more likely to work in the public sector than men and be the recipients of state benefits. We're not going to vote for a political system whose main reason of existing attacks these two things.

It's an ideology that preaches that "you get what you deserve", completely ignoring all advantages and disadvantages people have just because of who they were born to and that real wealth is almost always inherited. It ignores that class, race, gender, education and disability are all factors in how successful you will be. Most white men are sadly blind to this.

It's also naive in that it expects corporations to behave responsibly and demonises any state intervention as "nanny state" even if it's in the best interests of civilians. A libertarian would argue for smoking in public spaces and be okay with tobacco advertising aimed at teenagers or for letting betting shops expand as much as they want and advertise whenever and wherever because hey, let the market decide! Nevermind the social and health cost.

[Lieris]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLBiqrxpehk

Video published in 2013; the phrase was used as a pejorative long before. Actually watching the video, I think what you're trying to reference is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... ehk#t=256s

and it refers specifically from learning from the Taliban "...the way they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire process. ... And these Taliban -- is an example of how you go about to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that Insurgency may be required when [dealing with] the other side."

The quote speaks specifically of Insurgency, and in a very specific context. I don't see this as a bunch of idiot Republican politicians putting on funny hats and saying "We are the American Taliban! Go 'Murica or go home! Yee haw."

I don't think this video supports your contention. Do you have another cite?

My reason for calling them that is entirely different. I just thought it was funny that they invoked the taliban themselves without a hint of irony.

[Klaudandus]

In other news: http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20 ... ?p=1&tc=pg

Goldsberry wasn't arrested or shot despite pointing a gun at a cop, so Wiggins said, “She sure shouldn't be going to the press.”

Not sure I like a US Marshall saying things like this.

[Koatanga]

You won't get nationalised medicine, free education and a liveable benefits system under a libertarian government.

Libertarianism is the most morally bankrupt and naive political ideologies around, putting the needs of "the market" ahead of human beings and the welfare of the planet with its poisonous "boot-straps" rhetoric. There's a reason why libertarians are almost exclusively male and white.

Well it was said tongue in cheek. I know quite little about the actual formal party here in the US to be honest. I know many small gov't conservatives (like myself) though that are about the only people really serious about equal rights, the political left here most certainly is not. And that while that's a much more varied group, gov't schools, medicine, and social welfare are entirely consistent with it, just not necessarily at a federal level in each case.

Out of curiosity, what is the reason that the people with the most morally bankrupt political ideology are almost exclusively white men?

1: White people make up the vast majority of the 1% of richest people in the US, who directly hold roughly 40% of the wealth of the US and indirectly control far more of it via their influence.
2: In traditionally conservative families, the men look after the money while the women look after the family.
3: People in the top 1% tend to be more conservative than the rest of the population.

People in the top 1% are largely concerned with how they can protect their wealth. Yes, you can quote me figures on charitable donations until the sun goes down, but many such donations are to A: dodge taxes, and B: advance their ideology. There are exceptions, of course, but in general rich people don't get rich, and stay rich, by giving all their money away with no expectation of return.

Which leads to

4: They make the rules.

They are the influential senators and PAC funders. They stack the deck for their own benefit. They own the military-industrial giants to whom are awarded the lucrative contracts. They own the businesses that accept the government bailout money and then shift their manufacturing overseas, or sell to foreign companies, eliminating US jobs and being arguably responsible for the eventual bankruptcy of Detroit. They own the companies that take US products and have them made in China in violation of the US patent for the item, knowing they can crush the small-business patent-owner under the weight of legal costs on an extended trial (see: Sears and the story of the "bionic wrench"). They own the companies that flood the US market with cheap Chinese goods, without a care for the US trade deficit. They own the companies that fight against the same kind of social medicine that works in the rest of the western world. They fight against knowledge and science, because an informed population is less easily herded by boogeymen. They seek to control the lives of others, attempting to legislate their own brand of morality as the law of the land. They oppose the metric system (I can't prove that, but it sounded good).

[Lieris]

Probably the biggest libertarian pressure group and think tank in the UK is the TPA (TaxPayers' Alliance) and this is the sort of tax reform they suggest: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... s-alliance

These are not good people. They want an even more unequal society and to further the interests of their wealthy backers.

[Nooska]

That sounds like the Taxplan of the danish "Liberal Alliance" - the term used by satirist is The Saxo Bank Party (they are currently great detractors of showing who gave you how much money (proposal with a lower limit of 2,000 DKR (roughly 265€ / 350$US) for privvate citizens).
It all comes down to a view of "whats good for the richest person, is also okay for the poorest" (I'm surprised they are still talking about proportinal tax, rather than flat tax)
They only poll at around 4-6% but its hard to see a government different from the current without them required in the parliamentary majority (and thus with major influence)

[Fridmarr]

The naivety I agree with, but I don't quite buy the protectionist logic. As far as protectionism goes, it's much, much better to have all the power concentrated among the few, and even better to abstract those few further and further away from the people so they are much easier to influence and much harder to hold accountable.

3: People in the top 1% tend to be more conservative than the rest of the population.

Polling data indicates that this is incorrect. They more often vote republican, but aren't more conservative.

[Koatanga]

The naivety I agree with, but I don't quite buy the protectionist logic. As far as protectionism goes, it's much, much better to have all the power concentrated among the few, and even better to abstract those few further and further away from the people so they are much easier to influence and much harder to hold accountable.

3: People in the top 1% tend to be more conservative than the rest of the population.

Polling data indicates that this is incorrect. They more often vote republican, but aren't more conservative.

I believe with respect to familial groups and roles, you'll find they are. By which I mean the men tend to control the money while the women look after the family. Conservative is probably the wrong term due to its political implications - let's go with "traditional".

[Klaudandus]

http://www.aspentimes.com/news/7382102- ... iety-court
Scalia opened his talk with a reference to the Holocaust, which happened to occur in a society that was, at the time, “the most advanced country in the world.” One of the many mistakes that Germany made in the 1930s was that judges began to interpret the law in ways that reflected “the spirit of the age.” When judges accept this sort of moral authority, as Scalia claims they’re doing now in the U.S., they get themselves and society into trouble.

[fuzzygeek]

Scalia is a strict constructionist. This should come as no surprise.

In other news: http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe ... story.html

Internet service providers in Britain will be asked to automatically block access to pornography sites unless customers opt in, Prime Minister David Cameron announced Monday.

Cameron announced the move as part of measures to stop extreme sexual images he said were ‘‘corroding childhood.’’ Critics, however, said the measures were at best hard to implement and at worst a form of censorship.
...
Cameron said it was not entirely clear how the measures would work, but service providers should be able to come up with solutions.

[KysenMurrin]

Yeah, the whole "OMG, think of the children!" thing has gotten a bit out of hand re: the internet over here. One of the problems with these web filters, of course, is not just that they're there, but that there's no way to make them perfect and avoid false positives. These things will block legitimate, non-pornographic sites, and people will just accept it because it's labelled as a family filter to protect children from porn.

[Nooska]

And they think ISPs can filter these things? I am strictly not supposed to access amongst other sites the pirate bay - using open DNS circumvents all isp restrictions (and this restriction was an order of the court).
You need a great firewall to force restrictions - and thats quite a bit contrary to western philosophy on freedom of information.

[KysenMurrin]

They're allowing the ISPs to decide how to filter things. Some are offering software for the user to install and control, most are implementing filters at the ISP level - in which case the likely scenario is that they'll be buying blacklists from existing filter companies, which is not an ideal situation. A few small ISPs are refusing to comply.

Several of the major ISPs already comply with complete blocking of certain piracy sites. Though you can still access them through certain IP addresses and mirrors, and for every one they block there's half a dozen that offer the same torrent link unblocked.

[fuzzygeek]

http://www.aspentimes.com/news/7382102-113/scalia-judges-society-court
[i]Scalia opened his talk with a reference to the Holocaust,

This article is apparently missing some critical context. Specifically, he was commenting on a presentation named "Law, Justice, and the Holocaust: How the Courts Failed Germany" given by Dr. William F. Meinecke – United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, DC.

So, perhaps not exactly nefarious. Not that this will affect anyone's thinking who doesn't like him already.

[fuzzygeek]

people will just accept it because it's labelled as a family filter to protect children from porn.

I think in the long run it is less about protecting the children and more about getting a censorship platform in place.

I can't think of a single time when legislation intended "for the children" didn't have some kind of ulteriour motive.

[Klaudandus]

http://www.aspentimes.com/news/7382102-113/scalia-judges-society-court
[i]Scalia opened his talk with a reference to the Holocaust,

This article is apparently missing some critical context. Specifically, he was commenting on a presentation named "Law, Justice, and the Holocaust: How the Courts Failed Germany" given by Dr. William F. Meinecke – United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, DC.

So, perhaps not exactly nefarious. Not that this will affect anyone's thinking who doesn't like him already.

Gotta admit being wrong. All the information I had was the link I provided.

[Klaudandus]

Well well well... Looks like Scalia and the SCOTUS were wrong. NC has risen up to the challenge and try to undermine voting rights.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/0 ... ppression/

[Klaudandus]

and a follow up to David Cameron going all "won't you think of the children"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 26991.html

Seems he has backed down a bit.

[KysenMurrin]

Doesn't sound like backing down, it sounds like he has no clear idea of what he wants from this thing and has just been assuming the ISPs would work it out for him.

[Klaudandus]

Point there. Thinking about it, it actually sounds like plausible deniability.

"Hey, I meant to block titties! It's not my fault that the ISPs are blocking information on contraception"

[Koatanga]

Compliance is simple - in the terms and conditions of my ISP, I would insert a line that people agree to be responsible for their own porn filtering, and that they understand there is no such filtering happening at the ISP level. All of my clients can either accept the provision or get another ISP.

It's not that I would want to promote porn; I just wouldn't bear the cost of such censorship.

[KysenMurrin]

One small ISP's site I saw was saying they would comply with the "active choice" by offering a Censorship/no censorship option, and then for anyone who chooses censorship, having a popup that suggests they move to North Korea.

[Klaudandus]

*snerk*

[Fridmarr]

Well well well... Looks like Scalia and the SCOTUS were wrong. NC has risen up to the challenge and try to undermine voting rights.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/0 ... ppression/

That's not a logical summary.
That a legislature may pass laws that violate voting rights doesn't make SCOTUS wrong. I highly doubt that SCOTUS indicated that no legislature will ever again pass a law that violates voting rights.

To be clear, SCOTUS didn't change the rules around what makes a law regarding voting rights constitutional they changed the procedure for challenging those laws, by getting rid of special laws that only affected certain districts based on defunct data. If these new laws do in fact violate the rights of voters, they can be challenged and overturned. Now all jurisdictions are subject to the same procedure, so that all of our citizens have equal rights.