2013 = 1984

[chang50]

Nearly all political activity in the US is right.

What passes for left wing in the US would be described as centre right in the majority of the rest of the world.

Developed world at least.Curiously many Americans seem unaware of this.

[BigBallinStalin]

Really? How so?

You think the TP is similar to a paramilitary group?

Yes, but not quite there. They certainly bully people into their way of thinking.

They bully people? If that's your standard, then Green Peace and any environmental group--or hey, any activist group which has protested against anything--has also bullied people. So, applying your reasoning consistently, you'd find that all activists are brown shirts--even if you agreed with their ideology.

Their ideology is national socialist?

Far right is far right.

The left-right dichotomy is pretty stupid. If you think about it, there's not much of a difference between national socialism and communism.

What's even funnier is that using the Left-Right dichotomy, you'd have Mother Theresa as far left as Stalin, and Ron Paul as far right as Hitler. That spectrum is meaningless.

[BigBallinStalin]

Really? How so?

You think the TP is similar to a paramilitary group?

Yes, but not quite there. They certainly bully people into their way of thinking.

Their ideology is national socialist?

Far right is far right.

You don't know what you're talking about.

PS is correct.

I was expected a more rugged defense from Nordik, but it doesn't seem he knows much about the Tea Party. I wouldn't be surprised if he was regurgitating some negative feelings about the TP from his favored media.

[Woodruff]

What's even funnier is that using the Left-Right dichotomy, you'd have Mother Theresa as far left as Stalin, and Ron Paul as far right as Hitler. That spectrum is meaningless.

Outside of your argument here, Mother Theresa was not a particularly good person. She just had good PR folks.

[chang50]

Really? How so?

You think the TP is similar to a paramilitary group?

Yes, but not quite there. They certainly bully people into their way of thinking.

They bully people? If that's your standard, then Green Peace and any environmental group--or hey, any activist group which has protested against anything--has also bullied people. So, applying your reasoning consistently, you'd find that all activists are brown shirts--even if you agreed with their ideology.

Their ideology is national socialist?

Far right is far right.

The left-right dichotomy is pretty stupid. If you think about it, there's not much of a difference between national socialism and communism.

What's even funnier is that using the Left-Right dichotomy, you'd have Mother Theresa as far left as Stalin, and Ron Paul as far right as Hitler. That spectrum is meaningless.

I'm curious why you would put MT on the left even if it was to demonstrate the meaningless of such labels?

[BigBallinStalin]

What's even funnier is that using the Left-Right dichotomy, you'd have Mother Theresa as far left as Stalin, and Ron Paul as far right as Hitler. That spectrum is meaningless.

Outside of your argument here, Mother Theresa was not a particularly good person. She just had good PR folks.

Ooohh, what do you mean?

(I've never heard of this before!)

[BigBallinStalin]

Really? How so?

You think the TP is similar to a paramilitary group?

Yes, but not quite there. They certainly bully people into their way of thinking.

They bully people? If that's your standard, then Green Peace and any environmental group--or hey, any activist group which has protested against anything--has also bullied people. So, applying your reasoning consistently, you'd find that all activists are brown shirts--even if you agreed with their ideology.

Their ideology is national socialist?

Far right is far right.

The left-right dichotomy is pretty stupid. If you think about it, there's not much of a difference between national socialism and communism.

What's even funnier is that using the Left-Right dichotomy, you'd have Mother Theresa as far left as Stalin, and Ron Paul as far right as Hitler. That spectrum is meaningless.

I'm curious why you would put MT on the left even if it was to demonstrate the meaningless of such labels?

She fits the "helping the poor" rhetoric which is often associated with the Left wing. The meaningless is exposed when you have key individuals sitting right next to Stalin and Hitler on either side of the spectrum. Hopefully, people look at that and think, "gee, reductio ad absurdum; therefore, what a stupid spectrum."

• *Caveat: the dichotomy is meaningful in the sense that people attribute meaning to it--regardless of their interpretations being baseless and completely wrong. For example, if you think that so-and-so is Right Wing, then he most certainly 'is'. Of course, when pressured to define exactly what that means, (e.g. MT and Ron Paul), then trouble abounds. But, that involves critical thinking, so... here we are: working this out while most neglect to do so.

[chang50]

Really? How so?

You think the TP is similar to a paramilitary group?

Yes, but not quite there. They certainly bully people into their way of thinking.

They bully people? If that's your standard, then Green Peace and any environmental group--or hey, any activist group which has protested against anything--has also bullied people. So, applying your reasoning consistently, you'd find that all activists are brown shirts--even if you agreed with their ideology.

Their ideology is national socialist?

Far right is far right.

The left-right dichotomy is pretty stupid. If you think about it, there's not much of a difference between national socialism and communism.

What's even funnier is that using the Left-Right dichotomy, you'd have Mother Theresa as far left as Stalin, and Ron Paul as far right as Hitler. That spectrum is meaningless.

I'm curious why you would put MT on the left even if it was to demonstrate the meaningless of such labels?

She fits the "helping the poor" rhetoric which is often associated with the Left wing. The meaningless is exposed when you have key individuals sitting right next to Stalin and Hitler on either side of the spectrum. Hopefully, people look at that and think, "gee, reductio ad absurdum; therefore, what a stupid spectrum."

• *Caveat: the dichotomy is meaningful in the sense that people attribute meaning to it--regardless of their interpretations being baseless and completely wrong. For example, if you think that so-and-so is Right Wing, then he most certainly 'is'. Of course, when pressured to define exactly what that means, (e.g. MT and Ron Paul), then trouble abounds. But, that involves critical thinking, so... here we are: working this out while most neglect to do so.

The reason I asked is some recent commentators question how much she did help the poor and she was affiliated to a reactionary organisation the RC church,although in a sense this reinforces your main point.

[Woodruff]

What's even funnier is that using the Left-Right dichotomy, you'd have Mother Theresa as far left as Stalin, and Ron Paul as far right as Hitler. That spectrum is meaningless.

Outside of your argument here, Mother Theresa was not a particularly good person. She just had good PR folks.

Ooohh, what do you mean?

(I've never heard of this before!)

Really? I hate to derail the thread, so as a start you should look into "Hell's Angel" and "The Missionary Position", both by Christopher Hitchens.

[tzor]

She fits the "helping the poor" rhetoric which is often associated with the Left wing.

Actually it's the exact opposite, but you need to drill down on "helping the poor."

The Left Wing wants the Government to help the poor, not the average person. If you look at good examples of the left wing (Nanny Bloomberg is a good example) they try to prevent the average person from helping the poor, (You can't donate your food to the hungry; I don't know how much salt is in that food).

She, on the other hand, helped the poor directly and told everyone else to do likewise. Now one could argue that "she" was the royal "we" meaning her and her order, but she still directly took responsibility as opposed to giving it to a third party (the government) and thinking ones non action was action.

[BigBallinStalin]

She fits the "helping the poor" rhetoric which is often associated with the Left wing.

Actually it's the exact opposite, but you need to drill down on "helping the poor."

The Left Wing wants the Government to help the poor, not the average person. If you look at good examples of the left wing (Nanny Bloomberg is a good example) they try to prevent the average person from helping the poor, (You can't donate your food to the hungry; I don't know how much salt is in that food).

She, on the other hand, helped the poor directly and told everyone else to do likewise. Now one could argue that "she" was the royal "we" meaning her and her order, but she still directly took responsibility as opposed to giving it to a third party (the government) and thinking ones non action was action.

Assuming the underlined is true, then I thank you for supporting my position about the meaningless left-right dichotomy.

[thegreekdog]

It always amuses me when Europeans say that the United States is center-right as if that has caused us problems.

[Woodruff]

The Left Wing wants the Government to help the poor, not the average person.

That's really not true. Yes, they do want the Government as part of helping the poor certainly, but it's ludicrous to try to pretend they don't like charities and the like.

If you look at good examples of the left wing (Nanny Bloomberg is a good example) they try to prevent the average person from helping the poor, (You can't donate your food to the hungry; I don't know how much salt is in that food).

I've never heard such a thing before, to be honest.

[Woodruff]

It always amuses me when Europeans say that the United States is center-right as if that has caused us problems.

I never took it that way as much as I took it as simply making the point that "even our liberals aren't very liberal". Which is largely true.

[ooge]

What's even funnier is that using the Left-Right dichotomy, you'd have Mother Theresa as far left as Stalin, and Ron Paul as far right as Hitler. That spectrum is meaningless.

Outside of your argument here, Mother Theresa was not a particularly good person. She just had good PR folks.

True...look at what Christopher Hitchens wrote about her. edit woody already mentioned hitchens.

[ooge]

She fits the "helping the poor" rhetoric which is often associated with the Left wing.

Actually it's the exact opposite, but you need to drill down on "helping the poor."

The Left Wing wants the Government to help the poor, not the average person. If you look at good examples of the left wing (Nanny Bloomberg is a good example) they try to prevent the average person from helping the poor, (You can't donate your food to the hungry; I don't know how much salt is in that food).

She, on the other hand, helped the poor directly and told everyone else to do likewise. Now one could argue that "she" was the royal "we" meaning her and her order, but she still directly took responsibility as opposed to giving it to a third party (the government) and thinking ones non action was action.

I realize it fits the rights narrative to say Bloomberg is a lefty,but he was elected as a republican then switched party's to independent.The way I describe Bloomberg now is to say he has taken the worst things about repubs and Dems and made it his own.

[ooge]

It always amuses me when Europeans say that the United States is center-right as if that has caused us problems.

I never took it that way as much as I took it as simply making the point that "even our liberals aren't very liberal". Which is largely true.

and becoming less liberal all the time,look at Bernie sanders he gets elected as a independent socialist, with ideas that are out of step today,mostly due to the right controlling the news medias narrative. but he does not differ much from old Rockefeller republicans.

[Juan_Bottom]

The Left Wing wants the Government to help the poor, not the average person.

That's really not true. Yes, they do want the Government as part of helping the poor certainly, but it's ludicrous to try to pretend they don't like charities and the like.

The left wants the government to help everyone, with resources directed based on need.

[BigBallinStalin]

The Left Wing wants the Government to help the poor, not the average person.

That's really not true. Yes, they do want the Government as part of helping the poor certainly, but it's ludicrous to try to pretend they don't like charities and the like.

The left wants the government to help everyone, with resources directed based on need.

Does the left include state socialism/communism? (Yes).

So, given that, how is your statement correct? (It isn't unless one wishes hard enough).

Then, even if their intentions are good, do they actually help everyone? (No). How do their outcomes compared to other systems? (Not well).

Again, this left-right dichotomy is for uninformed simpletons, or for people who understand yet wish to reduce time spent typing--since mutual understanding is at play. I'd imagine most conversations involving the left-right dichotomy lack that mutual understanding. Simpletons.

[ooge]

I cant find the video. Michael Moore interviews Stephen Moore who thinks that Capitalism is better than democracy.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/6740016 Stephen Moore is a long time defender of low taxes on the wealthy less regulation..blah...blah..blah.

[BigBallinStalin]

I cant find the video. Michael Moore interviews Stephen Moore who thinks that Capitalism is better than democracy.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/6740016 Stephen Moore is a long time defender of low taxes on the wealthy less regulation..blah...blah..blah.

Anything in particular you want to talk about in that article?

[chang50]

It always amuses me when Europeans say that the United States is center-right as if that has caused us problems.

I never took it that way as much as I took it as simply making the point that "even our liberals aren't very liberal". Which is largely true.

As someone who has said this you are 100% correct Woody,I mostly used it descriptively,and perhaps to emphasise the point that often Americans are globally unaware and self absorbed.Any regular poster here can vouch for that.Hard to say if that has caused America problems or not..

[ooge]

2007 The guy who hooked it up.

[ooge]

If I had a Big Brother, he'd look like Obama.

If Obama ran on a platform against this exact thing, and then did the opposite of what he said he would do (Obama EXPANDED the program), yer damn right he is to blame. I told Republicans at the time not to support Bush with this power, because you don't know who the next president will be that will most certainly expand that power.

It's pretty clear now who is full of it.


This is the civil rights movement of our time.

as did those on the left,using the same argument.This is why Nixon should have been put in jail as well as Reagan,Presidents get away with it, the powers are expanded and the next president no matter what party never gives up the expanded power.

That's because they are always growing the government and spending more than they have. Power isn't limited when government takes and spends another trillion out of the economy, and then another trillion, and another trillion. That is expanding power and government. The only way to shrink power is to shrink government.

Agree? If not, how do we shrink expanded government powers?

I am responded to your commentary over your question with this.

#9. "Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."

#10. “The Republicans … will try to make people believe that everything the Government has done for the country is socialism. They will go to the people and say: "Did you see that social security check you received the other day—you thought that was good for you, didn't you? That's just too bad! That's nothing in the world but socialism. Did you see that new flood control dam the Government is building over there for the protection of your property? Sorry—that's awful socialism! That new hospital that they are building is socialism. Price supports, more socialism for the farmers! Minimum wage laws? Socialism for labor! Socialism is bad for you, my friend. Everybody knows that. And here you are, with your new car, and your home, and better opportunities for the kids, and a television set—you are just surrounded by socialism! Now the Republicans say, ‘That's a terrible thing, my friend, and the only way out of this sinkhole of socialism is to vote for the Republican ticket.’" Harry S Truman.

[Phatscotty]

Whistleblower’s NSA warning: ‘Just the tip of the iceberg’

The National Security Agency’s collection of phone data from all of Verizon’s U.S. customers is just the “tip of the iceberg,” says a former NSA official who estimates the agency has data on as many as 20 trillion phone calls and emails by U.S. citizens.

William Binney, an award-winning mathematician and noted NSA whistleblower, says the collection dates back to when the super-secret agency began domestic surveillance after the Sept. 11 attacks.

“I believe they’ve been collecting data about all domestic calls since October 2001,” said Mr. Binney, who worked at NSA for more than 30 years. “That’s more than a billion calls a day.”

He called his figures “back of the envelope” estimates, adding that they include emails as well as telephone calls.

Mr. Binney, who left the agency in October 2001, said the data were collected under a highly classified NSA program code-named “Stellar Wind,” which was part of the warrantless domestic wiretapping effort — the Terrorist Surveillance Program — launched on orders from President George W. Bush.

The Terrorist Surveillance Program was revealed by The New York Times in 2005, but officials said it only monitored calls between Americans and suspected terrorists abroad. The Bush administration said it based the program’s legal authority on the president’s powers as commander-in-chief.

Congress subsequently amended the law governing wiretapping by spy agencies — the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) — to provide legislative authority for the program and require supervision by the special secret court the 1978 act established.

Britain’s Guardian newspaper posted online late Wednesday a copy of the “Top Secret” FISA court order directing telecommunications giant Verizon to hand over “metadata” about every call made or received by all of its customers in the United States. Such metadata include the calling and receiving phone numbers, the time of day and length of the call, and the whereabouts of the two parties.

Mr. Binney noted the order’s serial number, which indicates it is the 80th issued by the FISA court so far this year. The court likely has approved similar orders for the other major U.S. telecom providers, he said, “and they have to be renewed every 90 days.”

The order excludes the actual content of communications, such as the sound of voices on the call or the text of an email.

“On its face, the order reprinted in the [Guardian] article does not allow the Government to listen in on anyone’s telephone calls,” a senior U.S. government official said in an email.

Democrats and Republicans on the congressional intelligence committees defended the order Thursday, asserting that the wide-scale collection of such data had enabled authorities to disrupt at least one terrorist attack and noting that a warrant would still be required to access the actual content of calls.

But Stephen B. Wicker, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at Cornell University, said the practical distinction between the metadata of calls and their content is rapidly disappearing because of technological advances, such as GPS features in mobile phones.

“There is a blurring of the line between content and context,” said Mr. Wicker, whose research focuses on privacy issues in wireless information networks.

Using analytical software, the NSA could use mobile phones’ metadata over time to paint a picture of where their users went, who they talked to and what their habits were, Mr. Wicker said.

“The metadata available is now so fine-grained that it reveals where we’re going, what we’re doing, what our preferences and beliefs might be and who our friends are,” he said.

Federal law and rulings by federal courts have consistently held that metadata, including information about the location of mobile phones, is not covered by the warrant requirements of the U.S. Constitution.

“Unfortunately, technology and the opportunities it presents for surveillance have outpaced our understanding of the Fourth Amendment,” Mr. Wicker said, citing the constitutional ban on unlawful searches and seizures.

Mr. Binney said that, in any case, the NSA already is collecting the content of calls and emails, as well as metadata.

In 2003, according to sworn testimony by a former AT&T engineer, the NSA began building a special room at the company’s switching center in San Francisco and at other AT&T switching centers around the country. Equipment in the room enabled NSA to siphon off a copy of every byte of data running through AT&T’s fiber-optic cable network, according to privacy advocates.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z2VjtzQpIq