Guccifer casts out Hillary

[kandrathe]

...

Listing some of the confirmed names so far from the big 2 party:

Dems:
-Hillary Clinton
-Bernie Sanders

...

Sanders dropped the P word, Plutocracy, that's different. Not sure how much traction that will get, but definitely different. I will not underestimate Clinton, but the brand name is a double edged sword.
...

I would say we are a republican representative oligarchy, if not plutocracy. The candidates are selected by the very rich, to serve the needs of the very rich, and placate the masses. By the time we plebeians get a say, it is choosing between lesser evils. Much like mother Marie's trick of offering the child spinach or peas, but we do get to choose the vegetable. Hence, the relatively poor approval ratings of our leaders. It is a small matter of original design in the electoral college. It probably can't be abolished, but it might be tweaked to allocate proportionally, rather than winner take all. Also, eliminate the super delegates who only represent special interests (i.e. corporate interests).

Problem is, do you ever get the feeling of watching a contest, and at the end you suspect that what you've just watched was a contest between cola X, and soda y, but they're actually both made by the same company?

Well, yes, more like companies rather than just one.

Cake is not on the menu.

[Hammerskjold]

Well, yes, more like companies rather than just one.

Cake is not on the menu.

I mean it in a more abstract sense.

We were closer on the wavelength when you said this.

Much like mother Marie's trick of offering the child spinach or peas, but we do get to choose the vegetable.

It's true that there might be more than just one mother Mary, a whole franchise of them, but usually there is still some sort of head office.

Plutocracy vs\and or oligarchy might be splitting hairs, at this point I'm more interested in seeing the larger pattern. And it's not a good one, for most people anyway.

Back to more concrete details, I wonder if the subject of TPP, Trans Pacific Partnership will be discussed in any upcoming debates.

[shoju_dos]

So far, I have yet to see a candidate emerge (outside of Sanders) that I have absolutely any interest in voting for. I'm a rather moderate person when it comes down to it, but the problem with Hilary for me isn't the scandals and baggage. It's that I want fresh faces.

But, I want those fresh faces to be people who aren't interested in shoving their religion down my throat, or into my home, or trying to dictate which people get to have "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" based on religion, race, age, money, etc...

It's a pipe dream. At this point, I will probably be voting Sanders in the Primaries, unless someone comes in and wows me.

[Hammerskjold]

So far, I have yet to see a candidate emerge (outside of Sanders) that I have absolutely any interest in voting for. I'm a rather moderate person when it comes down to it, but the problem with Hilary for me isn't the scandals and baggage. It's that I want fresh faces.

But, I want those fresh faces to be people who aren't interested in shoving their religion down my throat, or into my home, or trying to dictate which people get to have "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" based on religion, race, age, money, etc...

It's a pipe dream. At this point, I will probably be voting Sanders in the Primaries, unless someone comes in and wows me.

People (not just politicians either) who have sanity and moderation are needed now more than ever. I've noticed in the West of late, there is a form of virulent extremism being packaged and sold, as socially aware slacktivism. I wonder sometimes, if some of the true believers were given a copy of 1984, Animal Farm, Brave New World, and Harrison Bergeron to read. Would they'd think it's a how-to manual, instead of a cautionary tale.




It's a cookbook!

[kandrathe]

It's a pipe dream. At this point, I will probably be voting Sanders in the Primaries, unless someone comes in and wows me.

Sanders is far too liberal for my taste. Liberal as in spending other peoples money. $300 billion a year for his "free college" plan -- which I fear is a gross under estimate. To me, this move smacks of pandering to the younger voters. Politics as usual. Buying votes with other peoples money by F'ing with the tax codes.

Sanders says, "We have got to make sure that every qualified American in this country who wants to go to college can go to college -- regardless of income ..."

What do he mean by "qualified"? Why do they need to go to college? I'd say what we need to do is ensure that all high school graduates have an opportunity to find employment and pursue their dreams. Since when is it the governments job to dole out dream insurance? But, if you really want to go to college, then you work hard and get good grades. Then, you study hard and get really high ACT and SAT scores. Then, you get lot's of scholarships, to supplement your student loans. In other words, you need to work really hard to get to college, while in college, then work hard after college to pay for it. Opportunity yes, free ride no. The American Dream to me is a level playing field where everyone can pull themselves up, not queue up for an expensive government sponsored elevator.

[FireIceTalon]

It's called the American "Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it -- George Carlin (RIP). The American Dream is and always has been a myth.

Asking for free education isn't a free ride (and even if it is, I don't see anything wrong with that) - education is (supposed to be) a right, not a privilege. There is no such thing as equality of opportunity in a capitalist system - those who are born into wealth or obtain it because they happen to know the "right" people or circumstances of nepotism will ALWAYS, ALWAYS have an huge advantage over those who come from poor or working class backgrounds. And fuck equality of opportunity anyway, I want simple and plain equality period. There is no reason why we should have a small privileged few in society, fuck that. They are the reason why the world is such a shitty place to live in. The philosophy of "equality of opportunity" is that someone HAS to be better than someone else, which is pretty deplorable to say the least.

C®apitalism is chock filled with contradictions, but one of the most glaring ones is that employers want the most qualified and educated candidates, but then the system says that to go to college (which is required for almost any job that pays even a decent wage, though even a degree is rarely enough anymore), you have to put yourself in exorbitant debt to do it. Why should I have to suffer financial hardship to be a so-called "productive" member of society (whatever the hell that even means)? This is both irrational and mean spirited at the same time. Higher education right now is really more of a burden or a road block for most people than it is a benefit.

And don't give me that mumbo jumbo about scholarships supplementing student loans. Anyone with even a hint of common sense knows that scholarships are EXTREMELY rare (with the ones worth anything being just as difficult to get should you find it), and only available to a select few - if they weren't, everyone would have them but its very clear that they don't as evidenced by the fact that student debt is now the second highest debt in the States after mortgages. Yet we can spend 2 trillion a year on military, go figure. And not only are we saddled with debt if we are lucky enough to get to go to college, but we also get rewarded with boring, unrewarding jobs that pay shitty wages even if we do have a degree. Of course, many higher paying jobs are pretty useless anyways (see advertising execs). As a result, considering all of this....

I don't believe in that whole bourgeois rhetoric or values of hard work. Hard work doesn't bring you success, all it brings you is misery and pain. It's a load of crap and I reject it completely. I deplore the fact I have to work AT ALL, though ofc I do because I am coerced to. Why should I work (or even like working) when it is me and my fellow working class citizens who produce all social value in society, while the capitalist class sits on their lazy asses while producing absolutely nothing of value, leeches off our productivity and pockets all the profits (unpaid labor) for themselves to produce yet more capital - all because they own private property. Last I checked, this was called THEFT. Yet the capitalist class has a State and police force to legitimize and protect this theft, meanwhile using the media and other institutions they control to obfuscate people into believing it to be some sort of "fair or voluntary exchange" even though it isn't anything of the sort. I have to give them credit, their propaganda seems to work well, and they have MANY people fooled. I am not one of them, however. I see through this whole system for what it really is, and I think more people are starting to.

You claim to be worried about bourgeois politicians spending other peoples money. Fucking A, they already do that! Who do you think funds our military imperialist agenda and racist (bordering on fascist) police force? Working class people, thats who, because they have no choice in the matter. Capitalism is MUCH better at "redistributing the wealth" than socialism ever was - redistributing it right from the pockets of the workers (who produce everything) into the pockets of the capitalist parasites! (who produce absolutely nothing, except oppression and misery for working people everywhere)

All that being said, Sanders is way "too liberal" for me as well - too liberal in the sense that he is a representative of the bourgeois state apparatus and isn't revolutionary in the least bit. He is the other side of the same exact shitty capitalist coin, and nothing more. He can pay all the lip service he wants to working people/students/the rest of his constituents, but his purpose at the end of the day is to protect ruling class interests and that is exactly what he will do should he be elected, just like any of the other candidates. So fuck him and fuck the republicans too. A victory for either party is a victory for the capitalist class. Hopefully more people will soon wise up and realize that voting in bourgeois elections is about as productive as watching paint dry.

[Hammerskjold]

Sanders says, "We have got to make sure that every qualified American in this country who wants to go to college can go to college -- regardless of income ..."

What do he mean by "qualified"? Why do they need to go to college? I'd say what we need to do is ensure that all high school graduates have an opportunity to find employment and pursue their dreams. Since when is it the governments job to dole out dream insurance? But, if you really want to go to college, then you work hard and get good grades. Then, you study hard and get really high ACT and SAT scores. Then, you get lot's of scholarships, to supplement your student loans. In other words, you need to work really hard to get to college, while in college, then work hard after college to pay for it. Opportunity yes, free ride no. The American Dream to me is a level playing field where everyone can pull themselves up, not queue up for an expensive government sponsored elevator.

Hmm, there might be a difference, or change over time of definitions of college and universities here. I remember there was a point in time when college was where you go if you want to learn a trade, or a trades like field, in order to get a job related to what you studied. University had a more academic, both hard and soft sciences and research fields, but there was no explicit guarantee of a job coming out.

Nowadays it seems tomaytoe tomahtoe, with more colleges aiming to have more 4-5 years university-like programs, and universities wanting to become more like colleges trying to entice people to enroll with hints of, "you NEED a uni diploma to even get an interview these days!".

And that's the best case scenarios I've seen. Worst is a diploma mill, churning out students who don't even have a basic grasp on how to verify their beliefs, and how to check their "facts". Example: someone who fancies themselves a poli-sci buff, yet can not check where, and how far back the origin of the term "politically correct" actually goes. Well maybe that is too much hard work, and work is an uncouth, 4 letter word to some folks.

In any case, while I can agree if you're saying that high school in general can use a lot of improvement. The circumstances where someone can say, get a stable, good paying manufacturing job with just a HS diploma looks severely reduced. Unless you mean HS should be geared so students can handle how to function at least at a moderate level in society, then yes sure, I also certainly agree with that idea. And maybe stop with the practice of failing students upward, because that is just passing the buck and shortchanging the student, and potentially society in the long run. What I'm saying is the devil is in the details, as always.

Looking at my own local area, the prediction I've heard is something like in 10 years (maybe sooner) there will be a labor vacuum in the trades. Trades people will be retiring, there are still not enough new blood to refill the ranks, and high schools with a trade program\facilities are either getting cut or severely reduced. (Vicious cycle). Which is kinda nuts, considering you can't really outsource someone like a carpenter or a plumber.

[FireIceTalon]

And that's the best case scenarios I've seen. Worst is a diploma mill, churning out students who don't even have a basic grasp on how to verify their beliefs, and how to check their "facts". Example: someone who fancies themselves a poli-sci buff, yet can not check where, and how far back the origin of the term "politically correct" actually goes. Well maybe that is too much hard work, and work is an uncouth, 4 letter word to some folks.

*Facepalm*. I know you are really good at making yourself look completely stupid, but you really outdid yourself with this one. I think you just reached Greater Rift of stupidity level 1000 (might be missing a couple zeros there, not sure), grats. Now...

If you actually read my post on page 1, you would know I wasn't describing the place or time of 'political' correctness' origin, but describing how and what the term has come to mean and how it's used in the present.

If you did read it, your reading comprehension (or lack thereof) or interpreting things in CONTEXT is nonexistent, probably serving as a shining example that is the epic failure of what we call the public education system. The same education system that has become the topic of this thread, the same education system we don't fund because were too busy funding more profitable things, such as fighting counter-terrorist wars and expanding the corporate welfare state that runs the empire.

Nor did said post describe any "beliefs" I hold, but rather described and pointed out observable FACTS as they actually are regarding the usage of "political correctness" in a present day context, independent of any moral or political viewpoints I may have. There is a difference between stating your beliefs and the observation and/or description of existing material conditions, the latter of which I did in my post.

So, no matter how many underhanded jabs you throw at me, in the end it is you who just makes a fool of himself. But have at it, it makes for great entertainment for me on the very rare occasion I decide to read one of your deluded posts.

Oh and lastly, yep, "work" is a 4 letter unruly word for me But at least if my boss tells me to jump off a cliff, I won't reply with "which one?". Enjoy planet Stockholm Syndrome, chap.

[Hammerskjold]

If you actually read my post on page 1, you would know I wasn't describing the place or time of 'political' correctness' origin, but describing how and what the term has come to mean and how it's used in the present.

Funny how that post was edited, today. Maybe someone became suddenly modest when they found out when and where the term actually came from. Man alive, what would Orwell make of our digital world today, where memory holes are virtually real.

Oh and lastly, yep, "work" is a 4 letter unruly word for me

No big surprise there. "Lazy" is also a 4 letter word.

But at least if my boss tells me to jump off a cliff, I won't reply with "which one?".

Does your boss say that to you a lot throughout the day? Because that sounds adorable, like some mid 90's work sitcom. Anyway, I haven't had a boss in years, since I'm classified as a freelancer.

[kandrathe]

... education is (supposed to be) a right, not a privilege.

And... where exactly is that spelled out in our societal contracts, constitution, or inalienable rights?

And don't give me that mumbo jumbo about scholarships supplementing student loans. Anyone with even a hint of common sense knows that scholarships are EXTREMELY rare (with the ones worth anything being just as difficult to get should you find it), and only available to a select few - if they weren't, everyone would have them but its very clear that they don't as evidenced by the fact that student debt is now the second highest debt in the States after mortgages.

Stanford Free Tuition

The university where I work has a small endowment, but we still give every student grant aid and discount tuition (on average) 33% from list price. There is a high demand for housing, and it is expensive beyond a years wages. Hence, many, many people are in debt for mortgages. The same applies to student loans. My criticism is that they are easy to get, painless while you are in school, and most students don't have any experience with finances when they agree to the burden. But, the bottom line is;

• you want something you cannot afford
• you have not saved for it
• you are unwilling to wait until you can afford it
• you qualify and have access to easy credit
• the interest rate is low enough to ransom your future earnings

It's really not too bad an idea if your debt to earning ratio is small, allowing one to also buy the other necessities, such as housing, food, transport, insurance, clothing, high speed internet... The theory being that with additional skills you've learned, you've improved your life long earning power justifying borrowing what is equivalent to a year, or two of salary. Assuming, like most people, you graduate in about 5 years, or at about 23 or 24 years old. High school graduates can expect, on average, to earn $1.2 million in lifetime income. Those with a bachelor's degree, $2.1 million over a lifetime increase of almost a million dollars. If you'd go on to a master's degree, you'd earn $2.5 million in your lifetime, or 1.3 million more than high school alone. Borrowing, even the extreme of $100K seems a sound investment into your future. But, there is no guarantee you've selected or acquired the skills for which employers are willing to pay much. Plus, we've not even mentioned to ways to have student loans "forgiven" in exchange for some years of service (again, a fair exchange of labor for equity).

I don't believe in that whole bourgeois rhetoric or values of hard work. Hard work doesn't bring you success, all it brings you is misery and pain. It's a load of crap and I reject it completely. I deplore the fact I have to work AT ALL, though ofc I do because I am coerced to. Why should I work (or even like working) when it is me and my fellow working class citizens who produce all social value in society, while the capitalist class sits on their lazy asses while producing absolutely nothing of value, leeches off our productivity and pockets all the profits (unpaid labor) for themselves to produce yet more capital - all because they own private property. Last I checked, this was called THEFT. Yet the capitalist class has a State and police force to legitimize and protect this theft, meanwhile using the media and other institutions they control to obfuscate people into believing it to be some sort of "fair or voluntary exchange" even though it isn't anything of the sort. I have to give them credit, their propaganda seems to work well, and they have MANY people fooled. I am not one of them, however. I see through this whole system for what it really is, and I think more people are starting to.

You have justified bank robbery. Go for it. You see... I believe in a fair exchange. I give you something I value, and then in trade, you give me something of equal value. We just need to quibble over what my item is worth, and whether I feel the item you are trading is equal. Labor (my time and skills) is a unlimited resource I can trade for goods (often in the form of currency). For me, with my experience and skills, I do computational analysis for an hour and they give me $50. It seems fair to me.

... Hopefully more people will soon wise up and realize that voting in bourgeois elections is about as productive as watching paint dry.

I'd have to say that strategy is not working so well in our democratic system...

[kandrathe]

In any case, while I can agree if you're saying that high school in general can use a lot of improvement. The circumstances where someone can say, get a stable, good paying manufacturing job with just a HS diploma looks severely reduced. Unless you mean HS should be geared so students can handle how to function at least at a moderate level in society, then yes sure, I also certainly agree with that idea. And maybe stop with the practice of failing students upward, because that is just passing the buck and shortchanging the student, and potentially society in the long run. What I'm saying is the devil is in the details, as always.

High Schools in the US appear to get most people to what used to be the 8th grade level, many beyond that. In our more modern, services and information age economy, it's not sufficient to have mere fundamentals. Competition is in nuances of added value, and customer service. Soft skills such as attitude, organization, problem solving, critical thinking are as important as the core of mathematics, reading comprehension, written and oral communications. We should give equal weight, value and emphasis to trade oriented schools -- designated to train for specific areas of employment, such as robotics repair technician, graphic design, or CNC programmmer.

Does your boss say that to you a lot throughout the day? Because that sounds adorable, like some mid 90's work sitcom. Anyway, I haven't had a boss in years, since I'm classified as a freelancer.

You can kick your own ass. Also, adorable. :-)

[FireIceTalon]

*Edited* Nevermind. I had a reply typed out for you Kandrathe, but we have had this discussion many times in the past and I think its pointless now, since neither of us will ever change our viewpoint. We just see the world in fundamentally different ways: you see them as how you THINK they are, or at least should be. I see them for what they ACTUALLY are. That is all.

[Hammerskjold]

High Schools in the US appear to get most people to what used to be the 8th grade level, many beyond that. In our more modern, services and information age economy, it's not sufficient to have mere fundamentals.

It can depend on the field though, no? In some field mastery of the fundamentals is what separates the scrubs from the pros. In other fields, it's a bare minimum that must be surpassed to even earn a passing glance. Sometimes it's a combo of the two. Though the larger point you bring up is valid IMO.

Jumping back for a second.

There is a high demand for housing, and it is expensive beyond a years wages. Hence, many, many people are in debt for mortgages.

Student housing is definitely a close second, sometimes same level of expense as tuition. Seems like a common problem for colleges and unis. Maybe just an echo of the larger pattern in N.America.

Competition is in nuances of added value, and customer service. Soft skills such as attitude, organization, problem solving, critical thinking are as important as the core of mathematics, reading comprehension, written and oral communications. We should give equal weight, value and emphasis to trade oriented schools -- designated to train for specific areas of employment, such as robotics repair technician, graphic design, or CNC programmmer.

Quite agreed here. Unfortunately there still seems to be some moldy stigma attached left to the trades. As well, I have encountered more than one situations where the cart is put before the horse in terms of training. The hardware is present, but fostering the skills and understanding needed to operate the tools are sometimes missing, or not as emphasized.

Ideally it's a balanced tool set of soft skills and hard skills that makes for a well rounded person. Too hard, it can become brittle, and runs the risk of confusing lab condition = real world condition. Too soft, it can become mushy and unable to support anything.

Does your boss say that to you a lot throughout the day? Because that sounds adorable, like some mid 90's work sitcom. Anyway, I haven't had a boss in years, since I'm classified as a freelancer.

You can kick your own ass. Also, adorable. :-)

The best thing about it is the freedom. The worst thing about it is the freedom. For the things that I can control, I can't hide behind any excuses of "it's always someone \ something else's fault!".

[kandrathe]

*Edited* Nevermind. I had a reply typed out for you Kandrathe, but we have had this discussion many times in the past and I think its pointless now, since neither of us will ever change our viewpoint. We just see the world in fundamentally different ways: you see them as how you THINK they are, or at least should be. I see them for what they ACTUALLY are. That is all.

Yes, at least one of us is deluded. We won't agree on who that is.

[kandrathe]

There is a high demand for housing, and it is expensive beyond a years wages. Hence, many, many people are in debt for mortgages.

Student housing is definitely a close second, sometimes same level of expense as tuition. Seems like a common problem for colleges and unis. Maybe just an echo of the larger pattern in N.America.

Well, I was referring to housing in general.

But, my analysis of Student Housing is more that it is roughly competitive with apartment living in the same area, which tends to be inflated due to excess local demand during the fall and spring. Our university resident housing offers most of the amenities you'd find in upper scale apartment complexes, like work out center, high speed internet, pool/sauna/whirlpool, coffee shop/ ala carte cafe. Although, our housing costs also include amenities that many apartment complexes do not offer, such as; resident advising, improved security, and computer labs.

The dorm of now is not really comparable to what was served 50 years ago. Competition drives us to try to have appeal in most every part of the student experience. Not too many colleges and universities are going the "Budget Experience" route, except the "paper mills".

[Hammerskjold]

Well, I was referring to housing in general.

Ah, right then. A year ago there was some real estate ads here for cheap properties in Detroit and Florida. IIRC it was touted as a real bargain, a bit of a fixer upper perhaps.

But, my analysis of Student Housing is more that it is roughly competitive with apartment living in the same area, which tends to be inflated due to excess local demand during the fall and spring. Our university resident housing offers most of the amenities you'd find in upper scale apartment complexes, like work out center, high speed internet, pool/sauna/whirlpool, coffee shop/ ala carte cafe. Although, our housing costs also include amenities that many apartment complexes do not offer, such as; resident advising, improved security, and computer labs.

The dorm of now is not really comparable to what was served 50 years ago. Competition drives us to try to have appeal in most every part of the student experience.

Yeah, during my college years my particular school was just finishing up it's dorms in my graduating year. Last time I was in an upgrading course , most on campus housing was fairly nice. Though depending on the location space and food was still an area where valid complaints and concerns arises.

Not too many colleges and universities are going the "Budget Experience" route, except the "paper mills".

That's just like, classicist Borscht Mumbo Gumbo, man. Mmmm, gumbo.

But getting back on track with the more interesting discussions previously. Though it is still early in the pre-show, will there be a defining idea(s) and issue(s) for 2016. Even going back to your first post, technology has changed many of the old routines and standbys. IIRC Clinton did not even have a traditional bid announcement. Will things just descend into a neo-tribal allegiance, and ultimately boring and shallow identity politics. Will a voting bloc emerge similar to previous eras, or has digital media and delivery changed that pattern.

Before the true believer tantrum sidetrack, we've touched on issues of higher education. We already mentioned Sanders. Jeb Bush, if he throws his hat in (and he seems to be strongly hinting at the possibility), how would his record on education be scrutinized and parsed. He's big on education reform as Florida's guvnah, and a supporter of Common Core.

[FireIceTalon]

I was at the local movie theater the other day, and at this particular theater, you select your seating (while you are purchasing the tickets) before you go into the auditorium to watch the movie. There was this young girl, in her early teens or so I'm guessing, with 3 of her friends and she proceeds to say to the casheir "why do I have to pick my seats, you are taking my freedom away, everything is becoming more restricted". I could barely contain myself from bursting out into laughter. I couldn't tell if she was serious or trolling (pretty sure it was the former), but damn, LOLbertarian ideology is truly a sickness.

Sadly, this right-wing hipsterism is spreading to all facets of society, to the point where brain dead Americans think picking your seats at a movie theater is some government conspiracy theory to take away their freedom fries. ROFL. I've heard it all now. Bourgeois propaganda and misinformation truly is a powerful tool. I wanted to explain to her that the pros of selecting your seats beforehand far outweigh the cons for several reasons, but I couldn't be bothered cause I was so perplexed by her outburst, and I think several of the other customers were too.

[kandrathe]

I couldn't tell if she was serious or trolling (pretty sure it was the former), but damn, LOLbertarian ideology is truly a sickness.

Did you query her political leanings, or her understanding of philosophies? How do you know she wasn't a fascist, or communist? Do good commies know how to stand in lines, and do as they are told? If someone complains about a "lack of freedom", are they "branded" by you as libertarian? I don't remember reading any party platform plank in any party, in any State, on the freedom of theater seating.

It seems to be a rather bigoted inference, especially since you mean it as a slur.

She was exercising her rights of free speech to voice her opinion, perhaps in hearing of management. If not, she can choose in the future to vote with her pocket book, and avoid theaters who make you choose your seats at purchase time. It seems a more entitled democratic, or liberal position to me (I have the right to sit wherever I want). The libertarian would have reflected that as the theater was privately owned, the owner can negotiate freely their part of the transaction. In other words, it is their theater, and it is their rules. Perhaps it is really "entitlement" which is the disease?

Perhaps, though, this is just a colorful anecdote you can smugly snicker about with your comrades, distorting by example, to condemn those things with which you disagree? Is it really, merely, propaganda?

As News Media, if you want to discredit a political protest the first thing you do is find the most outrageous ham handed loud mouth, whose views are not only hateful, but full on crazy, then interview them as if they were representative of that mass of people. It is intellectually dishonest, as are your analysis and conclusions in this case.

She was just disgruntled with having to have assigned seating. It is not any commentary on the general state of any ideology.

[FireIceTalon]

Except, no one said anything about "entitlement" in this situation. Entitlement is just another buzz-word anyway, much like the words "freedom" or "democracy" are in the context of the current order of things.

The point is, the whole notion of having to choose your seats at the time of purchase being some sort of infringement upon your "freedom" (however you wish to define that word, whether in a libertarian context or otherwise) is utterly absurd.

If anything, having to select your seats beforehand is actually AN ADVANTAGE, since you can see what seats are already taken and back out of the transaction if only the front row is left (unless of course, you are in that tiny minority of people who either enjoys or does not mind sitting in the very front row). As opposed to not having to select them, and going into the theater to find that only shitty seats are remaining and being even more pissed off.

I am certainly no liberal and will not defend them. However, it is libertarians who are usually the ones that seem to appeal to "freedom". Although in most cases, when they say freedom, they mean freedom for THEMSELVES or their privileged position in society, rather than "freedom" for others.

But you want to talk about entitlement? You really want to go there, huh? Lets go there!

You are absolutely right, Entitlement in one sense is a disease - the capitalist class who thinks they are entitled to profits (unpaid labor of the working class), entitled to pay less taxes than the very same people they exploit, entitled to put their money in off-shore bank accounts to ensure that the former happens, entitled to have their losses socialized because they know the working class will be forced to pick up the slack in the form of reduced wages and austerity everytime capitalism falls on its ass, entitled to their religious freedom that allows them to discriminate against same-sex couples and have control over a woman's vagina instead of the woman having control of it herself, and in general subject the rest of society to their bullshit subjective morality. And the list goes on.

Yet the people who demand the basic necessities of life in order to both survive and have a decent quality of life - food, shelter, water, education, and access to decent healthcare are the somehow the ones who are entitled. Go figure.

If I had a dollar for every right-winger or Baby boomer that said my generation or the one after was part of the "entitlement generation", I would be able to purchase a fucking house in the market that THEIR generation ruined and crashed in 2008. How ironic. My generation has and will have a lower standard of living than the Baby boomers, yet somehow we are the "entitlement generation". Really now?

The REAL entitled, welfare queens of society: the capitalists.

I am not being intellectually dishonest, because I am not targeting any particular proponent of libertarian ideology and judging the entire ideology off that person, but rather targeting what the ideology itself is composed of and what its premise is structured around, independent of any major libertarian figures. It would be akin to me attacking fascism because Mussolini or Hitler were fascists. Ideology as an larger general abstract concept, is a type of false consciousness. But we are talking specifically about libertarian ideology right now, which is what this girl was indirectly appealing to even if she didn't come out and say she was a libertarian. It's the same concept as a fascist saying that some races are superior to others, without actually coming out and saying they are a fascist. It still appeals to fascist ideology regardless.

Liberals have their own problems and faults, believe me, but screaming about the loss of freedom and society becoming more controlled by big gubbament is certainly more of a libertarian-like view than it is a liberal one. Liberals and non-libertarian right wingers love big government (however much they wish to deny it). But I don't see liberals spouting crazy conspiracy theories about some big, one world govt takeover of society, or that we are already living under socialism - these are mostly libertarian types that say this sort of stuff. Sorry man, but its true. Liberals spout other types of crap, but that is another discussion.

I don't know, I guess I'm just tired of people in the first world bitching about trivial first world problems, (like picking seats in a movie theater), when there are so many bigger problems in the world, especially the 3rd world where most people are lucky to get the food they need to survive let alone go to a movie theater. *shrugs* But that's capitalism for ya - class oppression and ruling class indoctrination in the home country, imperialism and counter-terrorism abroad.

[kandrathe]

Except, no one said anything about "entitlement" in this situation. Entitlement is just another buzz-word anyway, much like the words "freedom" or "democracy" are in the context of the current order of things.

Not a "buzz word" -- it's a real word, like freedom, or democracy.

entitlement
noun en·ti·tle·ment \-ˈtī-təl-mənt\
: the condition of having a right to have, do, or get something
: the feeling or belief that you deserve to be given something (such as special privileges)
: a type of financial help provided by the government for members of a particular group

A "Buzzword" is a made up word used to impress people, like freakonomics, or stagflation, or lolbertarian.

However, it is libertarians who are usually the ones that seem to appeal to "freedom". Although in most cases, when they say freedom, they mean freedom for THEMSELVES or their privileged position in society, rather than "freedom" for others.

You claim here is entirely speculative, and unsubstantiated. It is your opinion. You claim to be a political scientist. Where is the science? Where is your evidence? 4 out of 5 dentists prefer freedom, over slavery. Nelson Mandela spoke, and wrote much about "Freedom", and as I recall he was head of the ANC. It seems "Leftists" also appeal to freedom in the face of fascist tyranny. When libertarians appeal to freedom, it is in the same context of being coerced to do things against their will by a powerful government that uses the threat of imprisonment, force, or death. You might laugh at the notion of "death" as extreme, but consider that our government is killing citizen "enemies" and alleged "traitors" mostly without trial. As with all our recent "wars", the first casualty is truth, and the second is freedom. Really, I believe our main disagreement is only that of collective versus the individual.

You are absolutely right...

Thanks. I'm opposed to all the piglets who are needlessly suckling off the teats of a bloated government beast whether they be General Electric, generals in the military, or the general public.

Yet the people who demand the basic necessities of life in order to both survive and have a decent quality of life - food, shelter, water, education, and access to decent health care are the somehow the ones who are entitled.

That is why it is called "the pursuit of happiness", or in other words the needs and wants that alleviate your suffering. You don't have the right to have all your needs(and wants) relieved by the toil of others. You might want to read Galbraith's “The Affluent Society.”

The Theory of Social Balance -- The final problem of the affluent society is the balance of goods it produces. Private goods: TVs, cars, cigarettes, drugs and alcohol are overproduced; public goods: education, healthcare, police services, park provision, mass transport and refuse disposal are underproduced. The consequences are extremely severe for the wellbeing of society. The balance between private and public consumption will be referred to as 'the social balance'. The main reason for this imbalance is relatively straightforward. The forces we have identified which increase consumer demand as production rises (advertising and emulation) act almost entirely on the private sector.

My belief is that we need government sufficient to maintain social order. That does include the equitable use of law, and law enforcement, and the defense of peoples constitutionally guaranteed rights. I also see some limited need to address (possibly by the government) the social balance issues addressed by Galbraith above. Where possible, I feel it is best for government at appropriate levels to instigate, then relinquish much of the controls for these services to the private sector to allow competition to drive down price, provide innovation, and increase quality.

If I had a dollar for every right-winger or Baby boomer that said my generation or the one after was part of the "entitlement generation", I would be able to purchase a house in the market that THEIR generation ruined and crashed in 2008. How ironic. My generation has and will have a lower standard of living than the Baby boomers, yet somehow we are the "entitlement generation". Really now?

Your statement is nonsense. If the housing market crashed, then values would be lower, enabling you to purchase a home. What has changed are the government regulations on the banks on the amount of reserve they need on hand to cover risk of default. This has resulted in more stringent credit requirements. It is the government who has made it harder for you to buy a house when they were affordable, and it has been the federal government doing everything they can to re-inflate the housing market (negating the capital losses of the economic downturn on home owners). The Capitalists want you to be able to afford to buy a home, take out a loan, and pay interest on the loan for 20+ years. It is hard to tell what is going on in the housing market really; owners aren't selling, builders aren't building, and lenders aren't lending. Thus, the lack of a housing supply results in price increases, for those that meet the high qualifications for loans.

Greed, by some large players negotiating in risk laden derivatives (CDS), did cause the crash, but a root cause is also due to pressure by people in government to offer loans to some people who cannot afford them. The two components needed were the availability of a derivative product capable of bearing the risk, and then the accumulation (a snow ball actually) of risks that were sensitive to a falling market. That is, as the market fell, the number and accumulated impact of the risks increased. What is worse, is that the government regulators have done very little to prevent the exact same scenario from repeating itself. A simple analogy would be the regulation of the number of inches of snow a roof can bear. It really depends on the density of the snow. This it is with credit defaults, which increase in number and size in a declining market, thus increasing the load beyond sustainable insurance (ala AIG), or recovery (reserve assets) by the financial products owner. Banks in general have the same issue when they can treat a portion of every loan recursively as an asset. Actually, the fed could do more in helping to define what an asset really is, because EBITDA is often misleading, to deceptive.

I am not being intellectually dishonest.

You twisted an anecdote into an advocacy of your deeply held beliefs without objectivity, or for that matter any corroborating evidence.

I don't know, I guess I'm just tired of people in the first world bitching about trivial first world problems, (like picking seats in a movie theater), when there are so many bigger problems in the world, especially the 3rd world where most people are lucky to get the food they need to survive let alone go to a movie theater. *shrugs*

That statement is an honest assessment of the theater situation. It has nothing to do with politics.