Time Magazine's "Person of the Year"

[DQ12]

i'm sorry but the Arab spring has been a failure.  It was started as a democratic movement.  Now we have hardline muslim groups coming to power in Egypt.  Syria is on the bring of civil war with no one doing anything to help.  Libya is about to descend into tribal based civil war.  Yemen still has their dictator in power with no intervention. Yemen still has AQ running training camps in their backyard.  

At the very least, self-determination and a sort of democracy has been accomplished in Egypt.  I'm sorry it's not the brand of self-determination that most Americans prefer.

If the standard for success for the Arab Spring was a peaceful, secular, democratic transition, then yes, it failed.  Although, that's a ridiculous standard that has really never happened anywhere in the world.

the Arab spring was started by pro democracy advocates, not by Muslim Brotherhood cronies.  That is why the Glenn Beck talking point falls short.  The problem is that the government has been so full of fail that the Muslim Brotherhood had stepped in to provide basic social services in the slums.  Now those people only know which hand has been feeding and 'educating' them.  The people in the slums only know the Brotherhood talking points .  That is why the Arab Spring is failing.

In Egypt's case, the phrase "pro-democracy advocates" is a complicated term.  Tahrir Square never really had a cohesive identity other than one characterized by (1) opposition to the existing government, which I'm sure we both agree, was deserving of being overthrown and (2) advocation of effectively ambiguous terms like "freedom" and "democracy."  I say "ambiguous" because virtually the entire population is completely unfamiliar with what "freedom" and "democracy" require, which is why organizations like the Egyptian Democratic Academy exist.  Point is, is that the "pro-democracy advocates" that flooded Tahrir were, understandably, probably a bit naive.  What's easy to forget is that transitioning from the Mubarak regime to "democracy" is tough.  It will take time; it won't be (and hasn't been) pretty; and the end result will be far from the secular democracies we see in the US and in Europe.

The power vacuum in Egypt will take time to sort out, but to characterize the MB as some kind of big, bad manipulation organization is pretty unfair.  It, along with the rest of Egypt, is trying to find its own identity despite its internal factions.  It needs find its role within Egypt's political landscape.  Whether that role is constricted to things like social work, outreach, furthering theological objectives outside the government, etc. or evolves into another political party remains to be seen.  At this juncture, though, arguing that the Arab Spring, in Egypt at least, is a "failure" due to the MB's current role within Egyptian politics is extremely premature.

[8manpick]

It is important to remember that pro-democratically elected leaders is not necessarily equivalent to pro-American.

[ednksu]

i'm sorry but the Arab spring has been a failure.  It was started as a democratic movement.  Now we have hardline muslim groups coming to power in Egypt.  Syria is on the bring of civil war with no one doing anything to help.  Libya is about to descend into tribal based civil war.  Yemen still has their dictator in power with no intervention. Yemen still has AQ running training camps in their backyard.  

At the very least, self-determination and a sort of democracy has been accomplished in Egypt.  I'm sorry it's not the brand of self-determination that most Americans prefer.

If the standard for success for the Arab Spring was a peaceful, secular, democratic transition, then yes, it failed.  Although, that's a ridiculous standard that has really never happened anywhere in the world.

the Arab spring was started by pro democracy advocates, not by Muslim Brotherhood cronies.  That is why the Glenn Beck talking point falls short.  The problem is that the government has been so full of fail that the Muslim Brotherhood had stepped in to provide basic social services in the slums.  Now those people only know which hand has been feeding and 'educating' them.  The people in the slums only know the Brotherhood talking points .  That is why the Arab Spring is failing.

In Egypt's case, the phrase "pro-democracy advocates" is a complicated term.  Tahrir Square never really had a cohesive identity other than one characterized by (1) opposition to the existing government, which I'm sure we both agree, was deserving of being overthrown and (2) advocation of effectively ambiguous terms like "freedom" and "democracy."  I say "ambiguous" because virtually the entire population is completely unfamiliar with what "freedom" and "democracy" require, which is why organizations like the Egyptian Democratic Academy exist.  Point is, is that the "pro-democracy advocates" that flooded Tahrir were, understandably, probably a bit naive.  What's easy to forget is that transitioning from the Mubarak regime to "democracy" is tough.  It will take time; it won't be (and hasn't been) pretty; and the end result will be far from the secular democracies we see in the US and in Europe.

The power vacuum in Egypt will take time to sort out, but to characterize the MB as some kind of big, bad manipulation organization is pretty unfair.  It, along with the rest of Egypt, is trying to find its own identity despite its internal factions.  It needs find its role within Egypt's political landscape.  Whether that role is constricted to things like social work, outreach, furthering theological objectives outside the government, etc. or evolves into another political party remains to be seen.  At this juncture, though, arguing that the Arab Spring, in Egypt at least, is a "failure" due to the MB's current role within Egyptian politics is extremely premature.

Can you source me on your quote?  I would like to read what else that author has to say on the situation.


I do agree that the power vacuum has to be sorted out, on their own, over time.  The best thing about the Arab Spring is the fact that it was organic and it was self made.  We/ the West did not attempt to impose democracy on anyone.  In order for true democratic reform to take place, I think we all can agree, it has to take place from within.  The problem is that in Egypt in the city urban areas the MB has take up the role of providing basic services.  Now the people are electing the MB to power.  Is that a good thing or bad?  I'm sure there are hardline elements and more moderate elements.  But just like the evangelical movement in the US, mixing any religion with government is a bad thing IMO.  What we know is that the MB has been getting a plurality in the recent elections (47% in the last LA times piece).  The problem for me of great concern is that more conservative forces like Al Nour party have been getting a legitimate portion of parliament (20%).  They are already on record from what I've seen as being a conservative Muslim group that would restrict the rights of women and civil liberties.  So now we have gone from a plurality to a majority of Egypt's parliament having conservative Muslim leanings.  Now maybe the freedom approaching the new Egypt will allow the MB to moderate their tone and accept a new moderate line.  Hopefully newer younger elements in all these groups who want true democracy and reform will prevent a new theocracy from forming.



LA Time Story]http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/middleeast/la-fg-egypt-elections-20111225,0,4907137.story]LA Time Story
MB info piece from Slate]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/dispatches/2011/02/sibling_rivalries.2.html]MB info piece from Slate

[DQ12]

In Egypt's case, the phrase "pro-democracy advocates" is a complicated term.  Tahrir Square never really had a cohesive identity other than one characterized by (1) opposition to the existing government, which I'm sure we both agree, was deserving of being overthrown and (2) advocation of effectively ambiguous terms like "freedom" and "democracy."  I say "ambiguous" because virtually the entire population is completely unfamiliar with what "freedom" and "democracy" require, which is why organizations like the Egyptian Democratic Academy exist.  Point is, is that the "pro-democracy advocates" that flooded Tahrir were, understandably, probably a bit naive.  What's easy to forget is that transitioning from the Mubarak regime to "democracy" is tough.  It will take time; it won't be (and hasn't been) pretty; and the end result will be far from the secular democracies we see in the US and in Europe.

The power vacuum in Egypt will take time to sort out, but to characterize the MB as some kind of big, bad manipulation organization is pretty unfair.  It, along with the rest of Egypt, is trying to find its own identity despite its internal factions.  It needs find its role within Egypt's political landscape.  Whether that role is constricted to things like social work, outreach, furthering theological objectives outside the government, etc. or evolves into another political party remains to be seen.  At this juncture, though, arguing that the Arab Spring, in Egypt at least, is a "failure" due to the MB's current role within Egyptian politics is extremely premature.

Can you source me on your quote?  I would like to read what else that author has to say on the situation.

What quote?

I do agree that the power vacuum has to be sorted out, on their own, over time.  The best thing about the Arab Spring is the fact that it was organic and it was self made.  We/ the West did not attempt to impose democracy on anyone.  In order for true democratic reform to take place, I think we all can agree, it has to take place from within.  The problem is that in Egypt in the city urban areas the MB has take up the role of providing basic services.  Now the people are electing the MB to power.  Is that a good thing or bad?  I'm sure there are hardline elements and more moderate elements.  But just like the evangelical movement in the US, mixing any religion with government is a bad thing IMO.  What we know is that the MB has been getting a plurality in the recent elections (47% in the last LA times piece).  The problem for me of great concern is that more conservative forces like Al Nour party have been getting a legitimate portion of parliament (20%).  They are already on record from what I've seen as being a conservative Muslim group that would restrict the rights of women and civil liberties.  So now we have gone from a plurality to a majority of Egypt's parliament having conservative Muslim leanings.  Now maybe the freedom approaching the new Egypt will allow the MB to moderate their tone and accept a new moderate line.  Hopefully newer younger elements in all these groups who want true democracy and reform will prevent a new theocracy from forming.
LA Time Story]http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/middleeast/la-fg-egypt-elections-20111225,0,4907137.story]LA Time Story
MB info piece from Slate]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/dispatches/2011/02/sibling_rivalries.2.html]MB info piece from Slate

I understand what you're saying and the concern you have about a potential mingling of Islam and democracy, but I've got news for you: any new democracy in any Middle Eastern state is going to have an Islamic flavor for a pretty lengthy period of time.  That's the reality and discussing the merits and defects of that reality aren't really important, because right or wrong, it's what's going to happen.  You discuss how Egypt should be weary of the impending restrictions on civil liberties, specifically in relation to women, and I find that kind of odd.  After all, civil liberties have been oppressed for decades.  At least now Egyptian women have some kind of a political voice.* The fact that a "party" like the MB can find seats in parliament, even if those votes were garnered by doing (gasp) social work, is a far cry from the Mubarak era. 

The truth is, the vast majority of Egyptians want a state that imposes the tenets of Islam.  The degree to which it is imposed is unclear and will be the result of democratic elections.  Like you said, hopefully the MB moderates itself and Sharia isn't imposed in a police state fashion.  However, like I said earlier, it is entirely too early, and probably flat out incorrect, to declare the Arab Spring in Egypt a failure, unless the goals you had in mind were far different from those of the actual revolutionaries. 

*Admittedly, I'm not very familiar with the political rights of women in Egypt.  I know that they have some kind of a vote.  I forget whether they're allowed to vote directly or their husbands have to cast the vote for them, but if it's the latter, I'm pretty sure it's actually legitimate.  It's complicated and I don't have the information in front of me.  Regardless, they have rights that are not strictly nominal.

[ednksu]

In Egypt's case, the phrase "pro-democracy advocates" is a complicated term.  Tahrir Square never really had a cohesive identity other than one characterized by (1) opposition to the existing government, which I'm sure we both agree, was deserving of being overthrown and (2) advocation of effectively ambiguous terms like "freedom" and "democracy."  I say "ambiguous" because virtually the entire population is completely unfamiliar with what "freedom" and "democracy" require, which is why organizations like the Egyptian Democratic Academy exist.  Point is, is that the "pro-democracy advocates" that flooded Tahrir were, understandably, probably a bit naive.  What's easy to forget is that transitioning from the Mubarak regime to "democracy" is tough.  It will take time; it won't be (and hasn't been) pretty; and the end result will be far from the secular democracies we see in the US and in Europe.

The power vacuum in Egypt will take time to sort out, but to characterize the MB as some kind of big, bad manipulation organization is pretty unfair.  It, along with the rest of Egypt, is trying to find its own identity despite its internal factions.  It needs find its role within Egypt's political landscape.  Whether that role is constricted to things like social work, outreach, furthering theological objectives outside the government, etc. or evolves into another political party remains to be seen.  At this juncture, though, arguing that the Arab Spring, in Egypt at least, is a "failure" due to the MB's current role within Egyptian politics is extremely premature.

Can you source me on your quote?  I would like to read what else that author has to say on the situation.

What quote?

I do agree that the power vacuum has to be sorted out, on their own, over time.  The best thing about the Arab Spring is the fact that it was organic and it was self made.  We/ the West did not attempt to impose democracy on anyone.  In order for true democratic reform to take place, I think we all can agree, it has to take place from within.  The problem is that in Egypt in the city urban areas the MB has take up the role of providing basic services.  Now the people are electing the MB to power.  Is that a good thing or bad?  I'm sure there are hardline elements and more moderate elements.  But just like the evangelical movement in the US, mixing any religion with government is a bad thing IMO.  What we know is that the MB has been getting a plurality in the recent elections (47% in the last LA times piece).  The problem for me of great concern is that more conservative forces like Al Nour party have been getting a legitimate portion of parliament (20%).  They are already on record from what I've seen as being a conservative Muslim group that would restrict the rights of women and civil liberties.  So now we have gone from a plurality to a majority of Egypt's parliament having conservative Muslim leanings.  Now maybe the freedom approaching the new Egypt will allow the MB to moderate their tone and accept a new moderate line.  Hopefully newer younger elements in all these groups who want true democracy and reform will prevent a new theocracy from forming.
LA Time Story]http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/middleeast/la-fg-egypt-elections-20111225,0,4907137.story]LA Time Story
MB info piece from Slate]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/dispatches/2011/02/sibling_rivalries.2.html]MB info piece from Slate

I understand what you're saying and the concern you have about a potential mingling of Islam and democracy, but I've got news for you: any new democracy in any Middle Eastern state is going to have an Islamic flavor for a pretty lengthy period of time.  That's the reality and discussing the merits and defects of that reality aren't really important, because right or wrong, it's what's going to happen.  You discuss how Egypt should be weary of the impending restrictions on civil liberties, specifically in relation to women, and I find that kind of odd.  After all, civil liberties have been oppressed for decades.  At least now Egyptian women have some kind of a political voice.* The fact that a "party" like the MB can find seats in parliament, even if those votes were garnered by doing (gasp) social work, is a far cry from the Mubarak era. 

The truth is, the vast majority of Egyptians want a state that imposes the tenets of Islam.  The degree to which it is imposed is unclear and will be the result of democratic elections.  Like you said, hopefully the MB moderates itself and Sharia isn't imposed in a police state fashion.  However, like I said earlier, it is entirely too early, and probably flat out incorrect, to declare the Arab Spring in Egypt a failure, unless the goals you had in mind were far different from those of the actual revolutionaries. 

*Admittedly, I'm not very familiar with the political rights of women in Egypt.  I know that they have some kind of a vote.  I forget whether they're allowed to vote directly or their husbands have to cast the vote for them, but if it's the latter, I'm pretty sure it's actually legitimate.  It's complicated and I don't have the information in front of me.  Regardless, they have rights that are not strictly nominal.

Honestly the first block of your post seemed like an academic writing.  I'm used to the drivel that Fake spews so it seemed like something copied rather than something posted.  Nice thoughts. 

With respect to democracy and civil rights I think we need to look at Egypt's past.  My understanding is that during the height of the cold war Egypt was an extremely educated populace.  They embraced western thinking and education.  In the 60s, 70s and 80s we saw a devolution of thinking in the entire middle east, most notably Iran.  I have no problem with Islamic flavored democracy as long as women have a voice and rights.  I worry about parties like Al Nour who have no interest in protecting people they don't want to have rights.  The problem with many of these places (Egypt's inner cities, Hezbollah controlled towns, Taliban controlled areas) is that there is such an information and education vacuum more and more people become convinced that the policies of hard line Islamic are correct.

I would disagree that the people who started the Arab Spring on twitter and faceboook were the youth and actual democratic reformers.  They wanted real democratic institutions.  Now I would say the tipping point for the regime came when more people came to the movement who may not have been interested in actual reform but were more interested not being kidnapped in the middle of the night by security forces.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

you should really read up about the OWS movement.  Every time you post about them it makes you look really ignorant.

Both groups complain about the union between big government and big corporations.  Both bitch about the Fed and concurrency manipulation.  Both complain about the banks holding the average American hostage while corrupting the government into making their losses socialized losses.

One wants less government, the other wants more. One wants less union power, the other wants more. One abhors socialism, the other thinks that's just the ticket. One is a group of law-abiding citizens who engage in lawful, orderly protest, the other is a group of thugs, druggies, homeless, and anarchists.

If you want to make idiotic equivalencies between the Tea Party and OWS, we've already got a thread for that.

you bring up the biggest mistake of the OWS movement and why it is doomed to failure.  It was great to start off as an organic movement for all the qualities mentioned.  The problem with OWS is that there is no one there to police the message and separate the movement from the radicals.  The TEA party did a great job of that.  When the media tried to construct the Tea Party as being racists the organizers like Beck touted their one black friend.  When the message shifted to Tea party being closer to anti gov militias they tied their wagon to the Palins of the world.  Coincidentally what has the Tea party done that has been good for America?  oh thats right, NOTHING.  In fact they have hurt America because they allied themselves with the evangelicals and radicals of the Republican party instead of courting small government, fiscally conservative voters.

I'd like to think OWS is doomed to failure because a majority of Americans find the movement's socialist views repugnant. You are correct, however, that an inherent flaw of any group of people who are immature, uncivil, and do not respect authority is that they lack any means of organizing and policing themselves. They quickly descend into mobs. OWS also suffered from a lack of a consistent, coherent message.

You seem to be suggesting that the Tea Party succeeded because it was somehow less "organic" than OWS. This is ridiculous. The Tea Party maintained a consistent message and effectively policed the crazies because it is by and large a collection of mature, law-abiding, civil people. OWS is not.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I understand what you're saying and the concern you have about a potential mingling of Islam and democracy, but I've got news for you: any new democracy in any Middle Eastern state is going to have an Islamic flavor for a pretty lengthy period of time.  That's the reality and discussing the merits and defects of that reality aren't really important, because right or wrong, it's what's going to happen.

You've pinpointed the reason why the left should be forbidden from crafting government policy.  They have no sense of actual reality, only their opinion of what reality should be.  They then craft policy based on that false reality and expect everything to sort of figure itself out going backwards.  It's idiotic.

Let's say there was a duck lost in the desert.  Rather than move the duck to a pond in Kansas, they'd insist the government to start pouring water on the sand until a pond developed "naturally", because they don't think it's fair that the duck should have to move, "why shouldn't a duck be able to live in the desert I ask you?".  

This is their approach to welfare, energy, the manufacturing industry (well, those with labor unions), healthcare, taxes, literally every issue this country faces.  

[ednksu]

you should really read up about the OWS movement.  Every time you post about them it makes you look really ignorant.

Both groups complain about the union between big government and big corporations.  Both bitch about the Fed and concurrency manipulation.  Both complain about the banks holding the average American hostage while corrupting the government into making their losses socialized losses.

One wants less government, the other wants more. One wants less union power, the other wants more. One abhors socialism, the other thinks that's just the ticket. One is a group of law-abiding citizens who engage in lawful, orderly protest, the other is a group of thugs, druggies, homeless, and anarchists.

If you want to make idiotic equivalencies between the Tea Party and OWS, we've already got a thread for that.

you bring up the biggest mistake of the OWS movement and why it is doomed to failure.  It was great to start off as an organic movement for all the qualities mentioned.  The problem with OWS is that there is no one there to police the message and separate the movement from the radicals.  The TEA party did a great job of that.  When the media tried to construct the Tea Party as being racists the organizers like Beck touted their one black friend.  When the message shifted to Tea party being closer to anti gov militias they tied their wagon to the Palins of the world.  Coincidentally what has the Tea party done that has been good for America?  oh thats right, NOTHING.  In fact they have hurt America because they allied themselves with the evangelicals and radicals of the Republican party instead of courting small government, fiscally conservative voters.

I'd like to think OWS is doomed to failure because a majority of Americans find the movement's socialist views repugnant. You are correct, however, that an inherent flaw of any group of people who are immature, uncivil, and do not respect authority is that they lack any means of organizing and policing themselves. They quickly descend into mobs. OWS also suffered from a lack of a consistent, coherent message.

You seem to be suggesting that the Tea Party succeeded because it was somehow less "organic" than OWS. This is ridiculous. The Tea Party maintained a consistent message and effectively policed the crazies because it is by and large a collection of mature, law-abiding, civil people. OWS is not.

Nice talking points from foxnews.

The OWS movement failed because they didn't to repeat the mistakes of the Tea Party.  Lets be real here, the Tea Party has failed.  Its goals were to reduce taxation and end the collaboration between big gov and big biz.  They have been subsumed into a branch of the Republican party's conservative elements who have no interest in fixing this country.  If anything they have done a successful  job in convincing rubes of the middle class that they have more in common and as much in stake with the richest 1% rather than the bottom 47% of this country. 

The OWS movement is not inherently socialist.  They don't advocate a centrally planned government economy.  They advocate keeping big biz out of big gov.  They advocate the Fed being ended or radically changed.  They advocate income redistribution by opening the economy up to legitimate competition rather than government directed redistribution.  The problem is that the talking points from the right have convinced people that the OWS is bad for them.  Its not. 

I do agree that the OWS movement has done such a terrible job of homogenizing around a single point(s) and policing their group that they have marginalized themselves better than any counter movement could.  Its a damn shame.  We have two very boisterous groups dancing around the same themes.  Either one would be good for America if they could keep their groups on message and kept from extremist hijackers, whether conservative retards like Palin or socialists/ anarchists who just want to destroy our society.

[DQ12]

I understand what you're saying and the concern you have about a potential mingling of Islam and democracy, but I've got news for you: any new democracy in any Middle Eastern state is going to have an Islamic flavor for a pretty lengthy period of time.  That's the reality and discussing the merits and defects of that reality aren't really important, because right or wrong, it's what's going to happen. 
[/quote]

You've pinpointed the reason why the left should be forbidden from crafting government policy.  They have no sense of actual reality, only their opinion of what reality should be.  They then craft policy based on that false reality and expect everything to sort of figure itself out going backwards.  It's idiotic.

Let's say there was a duck lost in the desert.  Rather than move the duck to a pond in Kansas, they'd insist the government to start pouring water on the sand until a pond developed "naturally", because they don't think it's fair that the duck should have to move, "why shouldn't a duck be able to live in the desert I ask you?". 

This is their approach to welfare, energy, the manufacturing industry (well, those with labor unions), healthcare, taxes, literally every issue this country faces. 
[/quote]
Well I'll be.

[ednksu]

I understand what you're saying and the concern you have about a potential mingling of Islam and democracy, but I've got news for you: any new democracy in any Middle Eastern state is going to have an Islamic flavor for a pretty lengthy period of time.  That's the reality and discussing the merits and defects of that reality aren't really important, because right or wrong, it's what's going to happen. 

You've pinpointed the reason why the left should be forbidden from crafting government policy.  They have no sense of actual reality, only their opinion of what reality should be.  They then craft policy based on that false reality and expect everything to sort of figure itself out going backwards.  It's idiotic.

Let's say there was a duck lost in the desert.  Rather than move the duck to a pond in Kansas, they'd insist the government to start pouring water on the sand until a pond developed "naturally", because they don't think it's fair that the duck should have to move, "why shouldn't a duck be able to live in the desert I ask you?". 

This is their approach to welfare, energy, the manufacturing industry (well, those with labor unions), healthcare, taxes, literally every issue this country faces. 
[/quote]
Well I'll be.
[/quote]as poor as that characterization is of all liberals I think anyone with common sense can agree that radical conservatism can be just as bad and illogical.  If we left neoconservatism protect the duck they would protect it as an egg and tell it to eff off when asking for basic services or rights because it wasn't born rich.

Let us not misconstrue the current parties in America, neither party is truly good for America, neither want to help real Americans, only the riches of the rich.  The Dems would just keep in power by having the poor support them by giving away the treasures of this country, while the Reps would give away the country to the richest of the rich so they are kept along for the ride.  meanwhile middle america, the engine that makes this country great is left behind and screwed by both sides.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

as poor as that characterization is of all liberals I think anyone with common sense can agree that radical conservatism can be just as bad and illogical.  If we left neoconservatism protect the duck they would protect it as an egg and tell it to eff off when asking for basic services or rights because it wasn't born rich.

Let us not misconstrue the current parties in America, neither party is truly good for America, neither want to help real Americans, only the riches of the rich.  The Dems would just keep in power by having the poor support them by giving away the treasures of this country, while the Reps would give away the country to the richest of the rich so they are kept along for the ride.  meanwhile middle america, the engine that makes this country great is left behind and screwed by both sides.

First of all Radical Conservatism and "Neo" Conservativism are not the same thing.  Your general characterization of the right is adolescent and misinformed.  My characterization of the liberal left is spot on as evidenced by your use of the bassackwards logic I ridiculed and your inability to dispute its veracity.

The terms "basic services" and "basic rights" are platitudes, terms the liberal left use to rile up their witless base.  However your use of these terms is demonstrative of the analogy I offered.  Rather than use an ideology to formulate a definition of these terms, you've taken your own unrealistic definition of the term (which you fail to articulate) and applied it to an ideology (in this case the neocon or radical con).  No doubt, the myriad ideologies comprising the left/right continuum would each have its own definitions of each term.  

You need to realize the fiscal reality of this country.  The left has already promised away the treasures of this country, they just haven't figured a way to pay for it.  By protecting the "basic right" of people to keep their own property, the right isn't taking something away from the poor or middle class.  What's happening is that the left is unable to fiscally fulfill their empty promise and is seeking to shift the blame.  Rather than face the reality that they've "written a check their ass can't cash", they attack those who didn't create the problem and try and convince everyone else of their own misgivings.  Again, my analogy is spot on.  Rather than get at the root of the problem (the "reality") that we've promised more so-called "basic services" and "basic rights" than we can ever afford, the left focuses on who has what and how to justify taking it away from them post facto.  As I said, it's idiotic.  

The "plight of the middle class" is another tired and bored talking point, that I effectively addressed in the preceding paragraph and warrants no further discussion.

I will agree with you that the ability of the super rich to create an unlevel playing field be crafting their own protective laws and regulations through lobbying and special interest groups is a serious threat to the middle class and the overall ability of this country to innovate.   Perhaps your subconscious socialist inner being prohibits from understanding that the wealth of this country does not belong to the government, a hotchpot to be allocated among the masses, but rather an ever expanding sum that belongs to the people, available to anyone willing to work for it.

[ednksu]

as poor as that characterization is of all liberals I think anyone with common sense can agree that radical conservatism can be just as bad and illogical.  If we left neoconservatism protect the duck they would protect it as an egg and tell it to eff off when asking for basic services or rights because it wasn't born rich.

Let us not misconstrue the current parties in America, neither party is truly good for America, neither want to help real Americans, only the riches of the rich.  The Dems would just keep in power by having the poor support them by giving away the treasures of this country, while the Reps would give away the country to the richest of the rich so they are kept along for the ride.  meanwhile middle america, the engine that makes this country great is left behind and screwed by both sides.

First of all Radical Conservatism and "Neo" Conservativism are not the same thing.  Your general characterization of the right is adolescent and misinformed.  My characterization of the liberal left is spot on as evidenced by your use of the bassackwards logic I ridiculed and your inability to dispute its veracity.

hey its you to a T
http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/toprad.html

The terms "basic services" and "basic rights" are platitudes, terms the liberal left use to rile up their witless base.  However your use of these terms is demonstrative of the analogy I offered.  Rather than use an ideology to formulate a definition of these terms, you've taken your own unrealistic definition of the term (which you fail to articulate) and applied it to an ideology (in this case the neocon or radical con).  No doubt, the myriad ideologies comprising the left/right continuum would each have its own definitions of each term.  

please don't take my comments on Egypt as a critique on the American situation.  We have basic services like healthcare, schools, and basic infrastructure needs.  We have basic human rights which have survived a myriad of attacks from the left and right in this country.  Much to the chagrin of people like you we have these services despite your best efforts to neuter them today. 

You need to realize the fiscal reality of this country.  The left has already promised away the treasures of this country, they just haven't figured a way to pay for it.  By protecting the "basic right" of people to keep their own property, the right isn't taking something away from the poor or middle class.  What's happening is that the left is unable to fiscally fulfill their empty promise and is seeking to shift the blame.  Rather than face the reality that they've "written a check their ass can't cash", they attack those who didn't create the problem and try and convince everyone else of their own misgivings.  Again, my analogy is spot on.  Rather than get at the root of the problem (the "reality") that we've promised more so-called "basic services" and "basic rights" than we can ever afford, the left focuses on who has what and how to justify taking it away from them post facto.  As I said, it's idiotic.  

the problem is that the basic right to property as Locke-ian as you try to come off is not being protected in this country.  People like you support entities like Bank of America stealing homes from families for literally no reason at all, sometimes attempting to foreclose on notes they've never owned.  The inherent problem which people like you fail to realize is that the concentration of wealth in this country is due to a marriage between big gov, big biz which is run by the power elite.  People are NOT getting rich through hard work or innovation.  The smallest percents of this nation who control the policies of this country are staking the deck further and further against the common man.  People like you can't get out of the way of your talking points you swallow full load to see what is happening.  You don't have anything in common with the top 1%.  You are about to become the bottom 50% because of the monetary policies of this country which are designed to do one thing, keep the rich rich. 
The fact is that the gap between rich and poor is growing.  As much as you people like to lie about the facts, its is a great time to be rich. Republicans are giving away free fiat money to the rich, setting up taxation with gives them more and more while asking less and less of them.  The gap between the classes is only getting worse, great depression levels worse.
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#the-gap-between-the-top-1-and-everyone-else-hasnt-been-this-bad-since-the-roaring-twenties-1
There is something wrong when we have developed an aristocracy through financial power.  The bottom percents of this country are losing more and more and the top percents are getting more.  There is something repugnant when only a few people (400) control as much wealth as nearly 1/3 of this country.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/10/michael-moore/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/

 
The "plight of the middle class" is another tired and bored talking point, that I effectively addressed in the preceding paragraph and warrants no further discussion.

You don't address anything about the middle class in your previous paragraph.  The problem is that middle America is the only section of America that our government should be concerned about growing.  If they are growing there will be less poor.  There will be more small business being started which hopefully means more rich people.  As those business grow there will be more jobs created (poor helped).  Instead people like you choose to support policies which are killing middle America.  The fact is that when tax rates are highest for the richest, America does better. 

I will agree with you that the ability of the super rich to create an unlevel playing field be crafting their own protective laws and regulations through lobbying and special interest groups is a serious threat to the middle class and the overall ability of this country to innovate.   Perhaps your subconscious socialist inner being prohibits from understanding that the wealth of this country does not belong to the government, a hotchpot to be allocated among the masses, but rather an ever expanding sum that belongs to the people, available to anyone willing to work for it.

I'm no socialist because I don't believe in the human condition's ability to not be greedy.  If the nature of humanity wasn't to horde resources than yes outright communism is the best form of government.  Lets not get off on an aside on which is the best system in a perfect world.  The problem we face today is that it is harder and harder to get to the next level of wealth because the gap is growing due to policy and not due to hard work and effort.

[_33]

I started paying attention to politics a couple years ago. Followed it really closely and got angry a lot of stuff. Then I stopped following politics and I became a much happier healthier person.

It doesn't matter who is in office or what grassroots movement is doing what. Government is what it is. It will never change. Just accept that and move on. You can be happy.

[Trim]

I started paying attention to politics a couple years ago. Followed it really closely and got angry a lot of stuff. Then I stopped following politics and I became a much happier healthier person.

It doesn't matter who is in office or what grassroots movement is doing what. Government is what it is. It will never change. Just accept that and move on. You can be happy.

Where can I have the papers served for when goEMAW sues you for shutting down its popular politics board?

[the KHAN!]

My personal choice for POY.

[ednksu]

My personal choice for POY.

that story changes so radically when the truth got out from what the liberal media was trying to portray it as. 

[the KHAN!]

Coming from someone who has been pepper sprayed, I can only laugh at the reaction people have when they see someone else get it in the face.

It hurts. Yes. It hurts a lot. But it's not like they are murdering these people. Especially considering they were literally asking for it.

[Rage Against the McKee]

My personal choice for POY.

that story changes so radically when the truth got out from what the liberal media was trying to portray it as. 

When did the truth get out and what was the truth?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

My personal choice for POY.

that story changes so radically when the truth got out from what the liberal media was trying to portray it as. 

When did the truth get out and what was the truth?

That the protestors intentionally encircled the police, locked arms, and refused to move. The police sprayed a small group of students sitting on the path in order to exit the circle. Here's a pretty funny depiction of the events from one of the occupiers. http://boingboing.net/2011/11/20/ucdeyetwitness.html

Silly hippies. So naive, so self-righteous, they're like perpetual teenagers.

[Rage Against the McKee]

My personal choice for POY.

that story changes so radically when the truth got out from what the liberal media was trying to portray it as. 

When did the truth get out and what was the truth?

That the protestors intentionally encircled the police, locked arms, and refused to move. The police sprayed a small group of students sitting on the path in order to exit the circle. Here's a pretty funny depiction of the events from one of the occupiers. http://boingboing.net/2011/11/20/ucdeyetwitness.html

Silly hippies. So naive, so self-righteous, they're like perpetual teenagers.

Why didn't the police just step over them and arrest them?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

My personal choice for POY.

that story changes so radically when the truth got out from what the liberal media was trying to portray it as. 

When did the truth get out and what was the truth?

That the protestors intentionally encircled the police, locked arms, and refused to move. The police sprayed a small group of students sitting on the path in order to exit the circle. Here's a pretty funny depiction of the events from one of the occupiers. http://boingboing.net/2011/11/20/ucdeyetwitness.html

Silly hippies. So naive, so self-righteous, they're like perpetual teenagers.

Why didn't the police just step over them and arrest them?

Because they shouldn't have to. The point is that they intentionally provoked the police and disobeyed an order to clear the path. I would have used the old billy club, or rubber bullets. rough ridin' hippies.

[Rage Against the McKee]

My personal choice for POY.

that story changes so radically when the truth got out from what the liberal media was trying to portray it as. 

When did the truth get out and what was the truth?

That the protestors intentionally encircled the police, locked arms, and refused to move. The police sprayed a small group of students sitting on the path in order to exit the circle. Here's a pretty funny depiction of the events from one of the occupiers. http://boingboing.net/2011/11/20/ucdeyetwitness.html

Silly hippies. So naive, so self-righteous, they're like perpetual teenagers.

Why didn't the police just step over them and arrest them?

Because they shouldn't have to. The point is that they intentionally provoked the police and disobeyed an order to clear the path. I would have used the old billy club, or rubber bullets. rough ridin' hippies.

They absolutely should have to.

[michigancat]

How bad were those riot police? I mean, isn't there something in the riot police handbook about not getting your entire unit trapped in a human chain of hippies?

[Rage Against the McKee]

How bad were those riot police? I mean, isn't there something in the riot police handbook about not getting your entire unit trapped in a human chain of hippies?

They were horrible. They deserved to get pelted with rocks or something.

[Trim]

How bad were those riot police? I mean, isn't there something in the riot police handbook about not getting your entire unit trapped in a human chain of hippies?

Yeah, for all the talk of how disorganized the OWS'rs were, pretty impressive that they blockaded in trained officers from an indian-style seated position.