bleeding heart

Even the most cursory glance down through the post tells you that Waldo makes a good point--the remarks in question are bolded, so his point is obviously true.

Yes, it's hard to cut through the flak (whether correct or not) without knowing the details of the case.

True Detective is my favourite at the moment. I think the slow burn is working extremely well. The tension between Belief and Disbelief--as well as the internal battles within each--is really good, and matched by the characters' own internal struggles. This is high quality stuff. Also, the constant mood of...dread, as I see it. Outstanding. In my view, this is the best police procedural ever on tv. The three existing episodes are worth more than all the Law and Order franchises combined.

Well, in that case, Haiti is worse than China or Russia...so we shouldn't get worked up about them, either. I think you're deflecting, frankly.

Lol. Ann Coulter defending the Monarchy.

I don't think "class envy" undergirds most of the arguments, either. It's lazy boilerplate.

Capitalism is meant to be amoral in its specificities (and that's arguable) but "moral"--the greater good--in the larger sphere...in its effects. Whatever system, economic or otherwise, that doesn't benefit the majority is a non-starter. that's not my view--that IS the defense of capitalism, from every capitalist theorist of note (with zero exceptions, to my knowledge) outside of the anarcho-capitalists. And no one takes the anarcho-capitalists seriously, because they're stupid.

"I regret nothing! And look at the finery adorning my corpse up there!"

1. Your "meh" response to political power disparity based on wealth is--by definition--an elitist one. 2. If you wish a topic to cease being discussed, continually responding to it is perhaps not the best way to achieve your goal.

And? I mean, you've gone from "the rich can buy stuff" to "some people can print more pamphlets." What gives?

It's telling that you'd conflate political power with "participat[ing] in more goods and services."

Let me amend a little; your argument is not precisely the same. But you do fully concede that money=power (though you've limited it to vote-influencing, for...some reason, unstated). But even there...no way. Unions don't have an awful lot of effect in election, especially outside of localized electoral systems. And "NGO's" can and do contain many pro-business, pro-corporate lobbying groups. they're not just a bunch of "lefties." Further, your statement that "groups like unions or NGO's can overcome any disadvantages caused by wealth disparities" is an idea you have...but which you offer nothing substantive in support. And small wonder. That such groups can in certain ways effect elections and policies doesn't mean they've "overcome...the disparities," and are therefore equal players.

And if I were to agree with every single point you've just made, we could only conclude that my general thesis was precisely correct.

Eyeball is right. The only people who give a rat's derriere about how comparatively wealthy people are--if the subject is wealth itself, in a vacuum--are those who enviously wish themselves in the top .001 percent. Very few folks care about that level of wealth. The issue, as eyeball says, is that of Power, and political influence. The fact that money equals political power is not a debatable subject. It's an uncontroversial truism. And people with more money have more power--which is plainly an issue in any society.

I can't help but think that Kevin O'Leary is a Stalking Horse for economic Marxists, trying like hell to make capitalists look like uncaring, un-self-reflective buffoons. But seriously, he argues not from good faith, but as a part of his entrepreneurship; like many a pundit--Ann Coulter, say, or Mark Steyn or Camille Paglia--he understands that being provocative and outrageous will earn him some more success. And it works quite well (well....Paglia is more or less on a downward public-career turn, and her ravings are becoming correlatively more desperate). But it's working so far for O'Leary, which proves at least part of his arguments on certain points, I suppose.

You're right, Tim, of course, but surely it cuts both ways? People of faith don't seem to...well...trust atheists, and that predates any "militancy" by a long shot. Apparently, without God, atheists must "lack a moral compass"...which of course is a preposterous notion on its face. As for your earlier question about being unaware of any agnostics who also self-identify as atheists: me, Noam Chomsky, the late Bertrand Russell, Raul Hilberg, and (by definition of some of the debates you've been having here with others) several people on this forum. So it would seem we agnostic/atheists are legion.

............

I should also add that the other bumper sticker we get to enjoy--"If you don't stand behind the troops, feel free to stand in front of them"--are a different beast altogether.

No, I explicitly said that most people do NOT feel this way when they adorn their vehicles with the sentiment. I said the reason the sentiment is around in the first place is an unequivocal nod to political foreign policy; but, as with many consumer goods, the public tends to take it in a different direction from its original intent. That doesn't change the intent; nor does it change the fact that (as I pointed out) that those who buy the consumer goods often have their own reason for doing so.

Oh, I bet an assiduous researcher could uncover sly Dem attempts to retain power (or to take it away from other, Inappropriate Dems) on a weekly, if not daily, basis.

Sounds right.

You're of course right about JSOC. I only meant they hadn't entered the public consciousness in a serious way (unlike their discrete parts, of whom everybody knew) until after the bin Laden assassination. Especially since they've been around since the Iran Hostage Crisis...and especially since the Government has plainly not been too keen on advertising their reach. Why Obama decided to go the other way on the de facto secrecy is itself an interesting question. Hell, in the film, when a reporter asked the White House Press Secretary about JSOC's night raids and killings in undeclared war zones....the Press Sec. mocked it as a "conspiracy theory." Now, it's openly conceded. And yeah, I've heard great things about The Gatekeepers, and will definitely check it out.

Yes, my first thought upon reading Argus' post is that this would only underline the partisanship, as posters would mark relatively benign posts as nasty or offensive based only on their distaste for the opinion....or for the poster him- or herself. But on reflection, this would easy to notice, because the same old posters would be dissing the same old "enemies" over and over, while most other posters would not be playing that game.

You are discovering, as we all do, that August's mode of discussion is....quite unique. Especially when it comes to movies. As in, his remark to you presumably made sense to him, but cannot possibly be comprehended by any of us. And that's just the way it is.

The more powerful you are, the less accountable you'll tend to be, at least usually. It's not about the Dems, it's about Power.