Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Johnny-Crass wrote:


I have never agreed with something stated on Fox more than what has been stated by this man

Everything he said was undeniably correct and righteous. I am astounded at this man's courage.

I saw him on the daily show a couple weeks ago, and I thought he was a smart guy, but I wouldn't expect such an expose on our political system from him. What balls. I just can't believe it.

dogma wrote:
Everything before about minute 2 is totally true.

And I say this as someone who is paid to tell other people how to manipulate common people.

Yep, he sounds like Noam Chomsky for the first half of that clip.

Samus_aran115 wrote:

Johnny-Crass wrote:


I have never agreed with something stated on Fox more than what has been stated by this man

Everything he said was undeniably correct and righteous. I am astounded at this man's courage.

I saw him on the daily show a couple weeks ago, and I thought he was a smart guy, but I wouldn't expect such an expose on our political system from him. What balls. I just can't believe it.

Agreed. The only reason they're actually allowing Ron Paul to run is to draw out "Enemies of the state" (Those with the gall to actually think for themselves and not just lay back and take the mass media brainwashing.) That's right folks, your votes do not count. See below if you disagree.

warpcrafter wrote:Agreed. The only reason they're actually allowing Ron Paul to run is to draw out "Enemies of the state" (Those with the gall to actually think for themselves and not just lay back and take the mass media brainwashing.) That's right folks, your votes do not count. See below if you disagree.

I watched the first five or so minutes of that video before I stopped. That entire video boils down to a lack of understanding of polling and predictions.

warpcrafter wrote:
Agreed. The only reason they're actually allowing Ron Paul to run is to draw out "Enemies of the state" (Those with the gall to actually think for themselves and not just lay back and take the mass media brainwashing.) That's right folks, your votes do not count. See below if you disagree.

Ah, the brainwashing argument, that hasn't come up for a while. Time to dust this off again.

dogma wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:
Agreed. The only reason they're actually allowing Ron Paul to run is to draw out "Enemies of the state" (Those with the gall to actually think for themselves and not just lay back and take the mass media brainwashing.) That's right folks, your votes do not count. See below if you disagree.

Ah, the brainwashing argument, that hasn't come up for a while. Time to dust this off again.

He made another good one recently.

Chowderhead wrote:
He made another good one recently.

Reminds me of...

dogma wrote: Time to dust this off again.

The reason you need to "dust it off" is because anybody who really looks into this issue sees how absurd and shallow such a response really is. It's a sign of your fear, simple as that.

I think we wouldn't have a lot of the problems we have today if Mat Ward were president.

warpcrafter wrote:
The reason you need to "dust it off" is because anybody who really looks into this issue sees how absurd and shallow such a response really is.

It was a comment about the age of the comic.

warpcrafter wrote:
It's a sign of your fear, simple as that.

Funnily enough, I suspect that your love of conspiracy theories is based on fearing the absence of control in the world. At least that's a common trope among conspiracy theorists.

dogma wrote:Funnily enough, I suspect that your love of conspiracy theories is based on fearing the absence of control in the world. At least that's a common trope among conspiracy theorists.

The Zionist Lizard Aliens are real, and they live in the moon. Yes, in the moon. It's a space station.

warpcrafter wrote:The only reason they're actually allowing Ron Paul to run is to draw out "Enemies of the state" (Those with the gall to actually think for themselves and not just lay back and take the mass media brainwashing.)

If Ron Paul supporters are the ones who think for themselves, why do they believe such ridiculous nonsense?

And if Ron Paul is such an icon of democracy, why is he bragging that the caucus system directly favours him over more popular candidates?

sebster wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:The only reason they're actually allowing Ron Paul to run is to draw out "Enemies of the state" (Those with the gall to actually think for themselves and not just lay back and take the mass media brainwashing.)

If Ron Paul supporters are the ones who think for themselves, why do they believe such ridiculous nonsense?

And if Ron Paul is such an icon of democracy, why is he bragging that the caucus system directly favours him over more popular candidates?

What nonsense are you referring to?

Monster Rain wrote:
The Zionist Lizard Aliens are real, and they live in the moon. Yes, in the moon. It's a space station.

Our cruisers can't repel firepower of that magnitude!

But his...



...can.

Ronin-Sage wrote:What nonsense are you referring to?

Ron Paul has gone against his libertarian credentials in opposing abortion, because, in his words “the state has a primary duty to protect life”. Which is okay, in and of itself, except that in the same week he announced that policy (as part of a build towards another presidential run), he opposed a bill to fund additional disaster relief work undertaken by FEMA. Apparently the state needs to protect life, but not from stuff like hurricanes.

Ron Paul is a stern critic of fiat currency, claiming time and again that inflation is unsustainable. It doesn’t seem to matter to him that inflation has been between 2 and 3.5% in 22 of the past 25 years (or thereabouts, I looked it up recently for another poster here, and that’s just me going off memory), while gold has been vastly less stable.

Similarly, he’s warned of imminent hyperinflation every year since he first came to office in 1983. He’s been wrong every single time, but its never stopped him being absolutely certain that hyperinflation was just around the corner.

He considers himself a student of Freidrich Hayek, of the Austrian school of economics, and has written books on the subject. The Austrian school was basically the collection of economists opposed to Keynes and his idea of government taking a role in maintaining aggregate demand. The Austrian school opposed this idea as they believed there was no need for government to interfere in the economy to supplement or restrict aggregate demand, because every dollar earned was always spent again, and as such overall demand remained constant. It wasn’t such an unreasonable idea at the time, because there wasn’t any substantial evidence tracking national economic activity, but with the development and steady increase in sophistication of measures to track GDP it became increasingly obvious GDP does fluctuate over time, and that a business cycle repeated itself through the economy. Hayek, who contributed many useful economic ideas outside of this, more or less conceded the point in the end. But Paul continues to pretend the Austrian school wasn’t wrong on this key issue, despite the issue being entirely settled more than fifty years ago.

He wanted to issue letters of marque to kill terrorists.

He thinks Global Warming is a hoax.

He thinks private property rights trump the need for environmental protection.

He believes the Civil Rights Act has been an overall negative for racial equality.

sebster wrote:

Ronin-Sage wrote:What nonsense are you referring to?

Ron Paul has gone against his libertarian credentials in opposing abortion, because, in his words “the state has a primary duty to protect life”. Which is okay, in and of itself, except that in the same week he announced that policy (as part of a build towards another presidential run), he opposed a bill to fund additional disaster relief work undertaken by FEMA. Apparently the state needs to protect life, but not from stuff like hurricanes.

Ron Paul is a stern critic of fiat currency, claiming time and again that inflation is unsustainable. It doesn’t seem to matter to him that inflation has been between 2 and 3.5% in 22 of the past 25 years (or thereabouts, I looked it up recently for another poster here, and that’s just me going off memory), while gold has been vastly less stable.

Similarly, he’s warned of imminent hyperinflation every year since he first came to office in 1983. He’s been wrong every single time, but its never stopped him being absolutely certain that hyperinflation was just around the corner.

He considers himself a student of Freidrich Hayek, of the Austrian school of economics, and has written books on the subject. The Austrian school was basically the collection of economists opposed to Keynes and his idea of government taking a role in maintaining aggregate demand. The Austrian school opposed this idea as they believed there was no need for government to interfere in the economy to supplement or restrict aggregate demand, because every dollar earned was always spent again, and as such overall demand remained constant. It wasn’t such an unreasonable idea at the time, because there wasn’t any substantial evidence tracking national economic activity, but with the development and steady increase in sophistication of measures to track GDP it became increasingly obvious GDP does fluctuate over time, and that a business cycle repeated itself through the economy. Hayek, who contributed many useful economic ideas outside of this, more or less conceded the point in the end. But Paul continues to pretend the Austrian school wasn’t wrong on this key issue, despite the issue being entirely settled more than fifty years ago.

He wanted to issue letters of marque to kill terrorists.

He thinks Global Warming is a hoax.

He thinks private property rights trump the need for environmental protection.

He believes the Civil Rights Act has been an overall negative for racial equality.

Let me clarify something that has been misunderstood about my position. I also think that Ron Paul is a nut. Just because I subscribe to certain non-mainstream beliefs doesn't mean that I follow all of the so-called "Conspiracy theorist" talking points. I was just making the point that politicians like Ron Paul and Ross Perot have been allowed out like court jesters so that the contrarians in society, rightly or not will have something to do. George Bush Jr. proved to us twice that our votes don't count, and Obama proved that our votes can be picked from our pockets by a well-rehearsed line of bs. No amount of trying to fix the system from the inside is going to have any effect. But hey, it doesn't matter, because it's all going to collapse pretty soon, and then those of you (And you know who you are...) who claim you're so smart and politically educated can build something better. Or you can leave it to the doomsday preppers in their bunkers, because they're the sort who will be mad their whole lives that they were denied their chance to put Ron Paul in the White House.

And that cartoon that Dogma keep trotting out because it's the only thing that he can think of in response to me is totally lame.

warpcrafter wrote:Let me clarify something that has been misunderstood about my position. I also think that Ron Paul is a nut.

That's good news.

Just because I subscribe to certain non-mainstream beliefs doesn't mean that I follow all of the so-called "Conspiracy theorist" talking points. I was just making the point that politicians like Ron Paul and Ross Perot have been allowed out like court jesters so that the contrarians in society, rightly or not will have something to do.

I think your point is a lot more reasonable once you identify it with 'contrarian' thinkers, who might be drawn to an idea simply because it is different, rather than your earlier claim that he appeals to 'people who think for themselves'.

There's still a problem though, in your belief that people like Paul and Perot are 'allowed out', because it doesn't work like that. There really aren't secretive people controlling any of this stuff. It's just the chaos of personalities and powerplays you see everyday. Ron Paul is out there because he wants to be, and for some reason a decent number of people can't figure out he's completely bonkers. That's it. It'd be exciting and much, much easier to pretend there's a secretive cabal puling the strings and if only we could expose them then there'd be a better tomorrow but it just isn't true.

George Bush Jr. proved to us twice that our votes don't count, and Obama proved that our votes can be picked from our pockets by a well-rehearsed line of bs. No amount of trying to fix the system from the inside is going to have any effect.

This is nonsense. Seriously, it just doesn't line up with how government operates at all.

But hey, it doesn't matter, because it's all going to collapse pretty soon, and then those of you (And you know who you are...) who claim you're so smart and politically educated can build something better. Or you can leave it to the doomsday preppers in their bunkers, because they're the sort who will be mad their whole lives that they were denied their chance to put Ron Paul in the White House.

Ron Paul has been calling for imminent doom from hyperinflation since 1983. He's been wrong all that time.

The system isn't about to collapse. All that stuff is just replacing boring real world realities with exciting comic book fantasies.

warpcrafter wrote:George Bush Jr. proved to us twice that our votes don't count, and Obama proved that our votes can be picked from our pockets by a well-rehearsed line of bs.

The word you're looking for is "convinced".

warpcrafter wrote:
And that cartoon that Dogma keep trotting out because it's the only thing that he can think of in response to me is totally lame.

No, its simply the most appropriate response. You argue from nothing but belief, against someone that agrees with many of your supposed convictions, and then talk about "sheeple" by direct statement or allegory.

Its not only annoying, its lame, unconvincing, and trite.

Well the guy in the video I think pretty much hits the nail on the head, regarding control by government. I have to go back some years to my time at Uni, but I believe the term is 'Gramscian Hegemony' i.e. the US government behaves like a Hegemony, both over its own nation and that of others, but tries to convince everyone it does not behave in this manner. People think that they have freedom and choice of government and their lives, but really it is not the case, and the two parties represent different areas of corporate interest rather than having any real desire to help the common people. The misdirection works across many levels; countries are invaded under the banner of 'liberty and democracy', while at the same time (as Gore Vidal said) people go to the polling booths to solemnly vote against their own best interests.

What the hell was this guy doing on Fox though? I'm not surprised his viewing figures went down, I shouldn't think most of the people watching could follow him after the first sentence.

And I say this as someone who is paid to tell other people how to manipulate common people.

Dogma I'm intrigued, please say more!

Pacific wrote:Well the guy in the video I think pretty much hits the nail on the head, regarding control by government. I have to go back some years to my time at Uni, but I believe the term is 'Gramscian Hegemony' i.e. the US government behaves like a Hegemony, both over its own nation and that of others, but tries to convince everyone it does not behave in this manner. People think that they have freedom and choice of government and their lives, but really it is not the case, and the two parties represent different areas of corporate interest rather than having any real desire to help the common people. The misdirection works across many levels; countries are invaded under the banner of 'liberty and democracy', while at the same time (as Gore Vidal said) people go to the polling booths to solemnly vote against their own best interests.

Not sure where you got the idea the US federal gov't was intended to 'help the common people, obviously not from a read of the Constitution. The constitution acts as a limiter on federal gov't power. As for freedom of choice in gov't and in our lives, we actually have plenty. Local, county and state gov'ts give the people quite a bit of say if they choose to make their voices heard. And we have so much feedom if we don't like the local conditions, we can move where we want, even un-ass the US itself if we feel like it to move to a place more suitable to our personal ideologies. We have freedom to succeed and to fail. Freedom to enter into contracts or choose not to. Here, in the US, we have an incredible amount of freedom if we choose to take advantage of it. Unfortunately many are overcome by that freedom to fail so don't ever try to succeed. But hey, they are free to choose to live that way.

CptJake wrote:Unfortunately many are overcome by that freedom to fail so don't ever try to succeed.

So what happens if you 'try to succeed', go to school, get a good job, but then your company goes bust, your house is repossessed and you and your family end up on the street?


You can eat freedom, right?

No one said you had freedom form consequences, or that freedom was easy.

Go ahead, be the guy scared of failure. No one is stopping you. Go ahead and be so scared of it that you voluntarily relinquish your freedom to some entity you hope will provide for you and your family.

What happens when it goes bust? Or decides not to provide some of the things you want?

Your example is rigged, and you know it. A guy with marketable skills may have to move, but he will find a new job. Yes there is risk inherent in the system. That is part of being free.

Monster Rain wrote:

dogma wrote:Funnily enough, I suspect that your love of conspiracy theories is based on fearing the absence of control in the world. At least that's a common trope among conspiracy theorists.

The Zionist Lizard Aliens are real, and they live in the moon. Yes, in the moon. It's a space station.

Exactly. Where do you think the Space Nazis are getting their supplies and tech? The Zionist Lizard Aliens!

I'm glad I'm not the only person who thought this guy got around to reading Manufacturing Consent. Good book, by the way.

Small Government = People are free to discriminate against anyone they choose. People are free to pollute the air, waters, and land. People are free to exploit workers in the most foul working conditions.

Seriously, we tried this small government thing back in the 1880s and 1890s and it was really awful for the majority of people. We, as a people, decided to use the power of democracy so we could stop things like child labor and snake oil salesmen poisoning us.

Of course, I view this push for small government to be that of corporate interests who realize that the profit has a tendency to fall and one of the few areas of growth they have is to try to cut their tax burden so they can postpone the collapse of capitalism from its inherent contradictions.

purplefood wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

purplefood wrote:Is small government not the idea that the government shouldn't be allowed/able to interfere in anything?

To some extent, you also get into trouble with what should or shouldn't be interfered with. It is more a rhetorical code word than anything that can be objectively pinned down.

Fair enough...

For example, most "small government" people around here still think the government shoudl regulate marraige to block homosexuals from marrying.

But how DARE government try to prevent monopolies, that's big government intrusion. FIGHT THE POWER FIGHT THE POWER!

CptJake wrote:No one said you had freedom form consequences, or that freedom was easy.

If you don't have freedom from consequences, then you don't have freedom; which is why "freedom" means about as much in political discourse as "small government".

Pacific wrote:Well the guy in the video I think pretty much hits the nail on the head, regarding control by government. I have to go back some years to my time at Uni, but I believe the term is 'Gramscian Hegemony' i.e. the US government behaves like a Hegemony, both over its own nation and that of others, but tries to convince everyone it does not behave in this manner. People think that they have freedom and choice of government and their lives, but really it is not the case, and the two parties represent different areas of corporate interest rather than having any real desire to help the common people. The misdirection works across many levels; countries are invaded under the banner of 'liberty and democracy', while at the same time (as Gore Vidal said) people go to the polling booths to solemnly vote against their own best interests.

Its not Gramscian hegemony, that would entail the control over social norms, and I'm not really sure its generic hegemony either. The political apparatus exerts a type of control, but it isn't total, or as pervasive as lots of people imagine. That being said, democracy doesn't have nearly as much to do with choice as many people imagine, largely because choice isn't like what most people imagine. I could wax philosophical, but much of the issue ultimately comes down to will, especially free will.

Pacific wrote:

And I say this as someone who is paid to tell other people how to manipulate common people.

Dogma I'm intrigued, please say more!

I'm under an NDA, so I can't be very specific (there are lot of proprietary analysis methods), but I can give you the company line.

Basically, I'm an analyst at a political consultancy. Broadly, there are 3 types of political consulting firms. Campaign firms that, as it says on the tin, politicians contract to run their campaigns. Regional firms that develop a body of knowledge about a particular region, and provide it to campaign firms; though sometimes there is overlap between the two. And image firms, that again do what it say on the tin by telling clients what to do in order to create a positive image; this is also called gaffe prevention.

The company I work for is the third type of consultancy, and my job is basically to look at polling and focus group data, feed the relevant stuff into a proprietary algorithm, and present my interpretation of the results (in context) to my bosses.

Pacific wrote:Well the guy in the video I think pretty much hits the nail on the head, regarding control by government. I have to go back some years to my time at Uni, but I believe the term is 'Gramscian Hegemony' i.e. the US government behaves like a Hegemony, both over its own nation and that of others, but tries to convince everyone it does not behave in this manner. People think that they have freedom and choice of government and their lives, but really it is not the case, and the two parties represent different areas of corporate interest rather than having any real desire to help the common people. The misdirection works across many levels; countries are invaded under the banner of 'liberty and democracy', while at the same time (as Gore Vidal said) people go to the polling booths to solemnly vote against their own best interests.

I'm going to be honest with you here, I read stuff like the above and I just can't help but think people are introducing as many complex concepts as possible to prevent them from seeing something that's pretty obvious. Yes, corporations and other moneyed interests manipulate the democratic process to their own benefit. Yes, people are convinced to vote against their own best interests. But by looking at those failings and only those failings, and then focussing on concepts that trick you into considering only those failings, you ignore the tremendous strengths of the system.

Melissia wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

purplefood wrote:Is small government not the idea that the government shouldn't be allowed/able to interfere in anything?

To some extent, you also get into trouble with what should or shouldn't be interfered with. It is more a rhetorical code word than anything that can be objectively pinned down.

Fair enough...

For example, most "small government" people around here still think the government shoudl regulate marraige to block homosexuals from marrying.

But how DARE government try to prevent monopolies, that's big government intrusion. FIGHT THE POWER FIGHT THE POWER!

Does the Federal Government have the authority to regulate weddings/marriage?

States do. The Feds DON'T.

The Feds only have the authority to regulate monopolies thanks to biased SCOTUS decisions.

CptJake wrote:Local, county and state gov'ts give the people quite a bit of say if they choose to make their voices heard.

But not the Federal Government, obviously. Because recognising democracy at that level is against the party line.

And we have so much feedom if we don't like the local conditions, we can move where we want, even un-ass the US itself if we feel like it to move to a place more suitable to our personal ideologies. We have freedom to succeed and to fail.

Actually, if you look at basic economic indicators on this, particularly social mobility, the level of freedom one has to succeed is far poorer than other developed countries.

Seriously, the actual plain realities of life are more important than prepackaged ideological talking points.

Unfortunately many are overcome by that freedom to fail so don't ever try to succeed. But hey, they are free to choose to live that way.

That's just gibberish. Unemployment is much higher right now, and it isn't because people all of sudden were overcome by their freedom. Unemployment spiked because of factors external to those individuals, greater economic forces. Any political ideology needs to recognise how much those forces, and countless other things beyond the control of the individual, play a huge part in people's lives.

Your theory fails to do such, and as a result is gibberish.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:I'm under an NDA, so I can't be very specific (there are lot of proprietary analysis methods), but I can give you the company line.

Basically, I'm an analyst at a political consultancy. Broadly, there are 3 types of political consulting firms. Campaign firms that, as it says on the tin, politicians contract to run their campaigns. Regional firms that develop a body of knowledge about a particular region, and provide it to campaign firms; though sometimes there is overlap between the two. And image firms, that again do what it say on the tin by telling clients what to do in order to create a positive image; this is also called gaffe prevention.

The company I work for is the third type of consultancy, and my job is basically to look at polling and focus group data, feed the relevant stuff into a proprietary algorithm, and present my interpretation of the results (in context) to my bosses.

That sounds like a genuinely cool job.

sebster wrote:

CptJake wrote:Local, county and state gov'ts give the people quite a bit of say if they choose to make their voices heard.

But not the Federal Government, obviously. Because recognising democracy at that level is against the party line.

Art. I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have power To..."
9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Your general ignorance of US law, specifically the US Constitution, is generally excusable, but if you're going to talk about something like this, you should at least try to understand the subject matter.

I don't talk about Australia's kangaroo cavalry for a reason.