Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 07, 2015, 12:38:23 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 350 351 352 353 354 [355] 356 357 358 359 360 ... 448
8851  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Is fascist antifa an oxymoron? on: October 31, 2007, 07:22:08 pm
Define "Fascist". If you mean Fascistic, then no, it's not an oxymoron (which is what I referred to in the other threads) if you mean fascist in the 20s and 30s sense ala Mussolini and Company then obviously yeah.

Of course it's mostly not the case.. with Antifa being extremely left-wing and everything and probably more intelligent than BRTD.

(Am I becoming the new CARLHAYDEN? I think this is the third thread you have made about something I've said since Monday.)
8852  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Surnames :) on: October 31, 2007, 06:12:56 pm
Won't say my actual Surname. But my direct relations have had Rogers, O'Grady, MacGrath, Lowe and Dickinson among others.
8853  General Politics / Book Reviews and Discussion / Re: The Southern Victory Series by Harry Turtledove on: October 31, 2007, 05:01:22 pm
Quote
Very common misconception about the South before the Civil War is that it was almost exclusively agricultural.  Not true, Atlanta, the Piedmont of North Carolina and Richmond were already developing into industrial cities, the very start of the war kick started that growth until those three areas were just as industrialized as the North by 1864.  Had the war ended in 1862 or 1863 then the South still would have had major industrial centers.  Eventually, someone would have discovered the iron ore and coal deposits near Birmingham, which would have led to the industrial development on that city, even more so than the OTL, since people would have been encouraged to "buy Confederate."  Also, Chatanooga would have still developed into a major industrial center because of the raw materials and rail lines linking up there.  New Orleans would have remained the major center of commerce it was before the war, since years of Federal occupation would not have stiffled the economic growth of the city.  Also, the remaining 100,000-150,000 or so Confederates who would not have died in the war in the NTL would have needed jobs.  The Confederates would have needed to keep thier army and navy running and supplied, which would mean more industry, esspecially for Norfolk and Charleston, both of which would have had active Navy Yards long before they did in real life.

Well here I bow to superior historical knowledge (assuming the above is true) but it should be pointed out that the confedracy was ruled by agrarianists which makes it quite different to the North in many ways. Though what would have happened afterwards depends on alot of things; especially the price of cotton worldwide and of course what happens to southern society afterwards. It's values based around traditional Jeffersonian agrarianism would it create a society of dynamic citizens who were aiming towards economic (meaning Industrial) success. What happens to the American Dream? And so on. I often find in history that what I might as well call the "spirtual" dimensions are ignored; as in how did Americans sense of identity shape their economy (it made them a superpower); development of American culture would of course be quite different. And would probably significantly diverge (Actually would there even be an America; after all the Confedracy would set a precedence of seccession whenever a state was not on good terms with Washington so what would happen in this Alternative scenario to America, the idea? Would Americans even have wiped out the buffalo and spread out as far as they did into Indian Terriority (Probably is the answer; but while fighting among themselves. Further more minor wars are certainly possibilities.)

Quote
The CSA would have never have charged the US reperations.  It was never even mentioned as a consideration.  And, yes, the US economy would have taken quite a hit, but not so bad that it would turn what was left of the US into a banana republic, and it would have recovered if, for no other reason, because of the massive deposits of raw materials present.  Also, lose in the war probably would have acctually help spur on western growth, since the higher population would have driven people out of the Northeast and into the Midwest and Pacific.

See My point on the Indian terriority for the last bit. I agree that the Author probably took it too far in his deciption of the Future US as a total backwater; but I think it addresses issues in history which most books ignore. (Plus Tyss, the book store owner is a fantastic character and hey, It was the Authors book.)

Quote
The forces that were going to create the economic growth of the last half of the 20th century were already well in place by the time the civil war came.  If the divergence were decades earlier, I could see a better argument for your points.

It might have shock American Self-Belief. Which is a pretty invaluable resource imo. Plus with a significant "other" as a rival who has already beaten you in a war just to your southern border would have a significant influence on American Trade. Not to mention, as you said the possibility of immigration from the Northeast; which I imagine would distrupt their foreign trade quite a bit (perhaps becoming more a self-sufficient country?)

Quote
The forces that were going to create the economic growth of the last half of the 20th century were already well in place by the time the civil war came.  If the divergence were decades earlier, I could see a better argument for your points.

You should note that I am just putting ideas out into the open. With Alternative History pretty much anything is possible; perhaps Haggershaven might not have been the invention of a 1950s Author? There is no reason why it shouldn't except for the limits of our minds?

Quote
Again, I see no evidence that the US would suddenly just plunge down a hole.  In fact, history has shown that war can acctually be very kind to the loser, since it tends to spur on desire for imporvement and innovation.  Who is to say thatr instead of one Thomas Edison, we might not have had two (perhaps one in the North and South).  And why would the distribution have differed?

Possibly; and what would the impact of having Two Thomas Edison's have; increased competition between Rivals? Oh for the Record I suspect that had the confedracy won the war US technologically advances would have been significantly retarded though would probably have continued at a slower pace (assuming no other crisises happen in the mean time); so there would probably be no Spanish-American War (At least not involving the USA; but maybe the CSA?) it is also likely that in place of US becoming the centre of technological power and industry the newly formed German Empire would do so instead. Which would probably we would have slightly different technologies today. (The technology we have after all is an accident of history; for Example there is no reason for Cars to be the way they are; except they are modelling on Horse driven carriages) What this all mean.. well.. only the imagination of a novelist could sort that out.

Quote
DC is clealry inferior to AC as a means of distibuting power.  And even had the discover come in Europe, it wouldn't have taken long to get to the US and then someone with a bit of time would start tinkering with it and invent new uses.

True; but it wouldn't be Americans distributing it to the world like GE did (Actually here America might have a situation of reserve globalisation where European Industries make profits  off American consumers while also exporting their cultures); perhaps also they would find uses for the technology no-one else ever has. Edison only invented the Electric Chair to spite Telsa so when personal issues like this get involved it's impossible to tell.

Oh btw, Please tell me you don't believe that "Reagan won the cold war" Crapola, do you? (And would there even been a Soviet Union. Actually there's another thing in post-civil war America there was alot of Class tension in the North; with perhaps it's most important point being the Putnam strikes. With a defeated and demoralized nation with a significantly weaker economy there would perhaps be a significant degree of internal instability. Perhaps even Socialism would have caught on, as it threatened to do until FDR stole it's most obvious clothes.)

Quote
or the end of the Industrial Revolution and Coperations would occur just because someone lost a war.

Corporations (I assume this is what you meant) were pretty much unleashed onto the war after the Union victory; and reached the aphex of power (and haven't left it since) with the 1876 supreme court Santa Clara v Pacific Railroad decision. So yes had the Union lost the war the history of Corporations would have been very different (not to mention there would probably be no GE, no coke, no Kodak, no Ford, etc. That isn't say that Cameras or Coke would not have been invented; just probably not in the US - or at least marketed in such a way)

Quote
... like saying that because Pittsburgh was never settled there would be no steel industry, or because there is no Stalin, there would be no Soviet communism or...

I don't really see the Parellels with the book in these examples.

Quote
in this case, the North losing the war somehow wipes away decades of historical currents and scientific, technological and economic developments that had occured up to the point the divergence and assuming that things that don't make any sense

Historical patterns are very easy to spot once they have happened; probably didn't feel that way at the time.
8854  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Describe a Typical Post by the Preceding Poster on: October 31, 2007, 04:18:01 pm
I'm no longer a member of a cult; I have seen the light and have renounced my libertarian ways.
8855  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: Australia 2007 on: October 31, 2007, 03:28:40 pm
State results from the last few Newspolls:

NSW: 52% ALP, 32% Lib, 5% Nats, 5% Greenies [Two Party: ALP 59%]
SA: 52% ALP, 38% Lib, 3% Greenies [Two Party: ALP 58%]
Qld: 52% ALP, 33% Lib, 7% Nats, 3% Greenies [Two Party: ALP 56%]
Vic: 45% ALP, 40% Lib, 7% Greenies, 2% Nats [Two Party: ALP 54%]
WA: 46% Lib, 43% ALP, 4% Greenies [Two Party: Lib 51%]

Which on a Uniform Swing would give us (Supposing TAS, NT and ACT vote the way they are expected to - which is all ALP.):

ALP 105 Coalition 45 Indies 2.
8856  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Tancredo resigning on: October 30, 2007, 06:19:10 pm
I do hope that Inks is but parody.
8857  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Describe a Typical Post by the Preceding Poster on: October 30, 2007, 05:51:43 pm
Bump.

I'm another guy with an Orange Avatar.
8858  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Name the ideology of the preceding poster... on: October 30, 2007, 05:42:57 pm
Fashionable.
8859  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Which of the following do you believe? on: October 30, 2007, 05:38:06 pm
I'm wondering how all those who vote option five can back it up.

No, I don't think typing "Proof of Evolution" into google and then copy-pasting the results back here counts.
8860  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: UK: Half of all new jobs created since 1997 went to migrants on: October 30, 2007, 05:27:30 pm
Quote
It's just not worth nearly as many votes for democratic political parties now as it was in the '60's and '70's, but politicians (as a collective whole) haven't worked this out yet.

Might this be another thing we can blame on the Gutter press?
8861  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Which of the following ideas do you agree with? on: October 30, 2007, 05:25:56 pm
Support:

1. Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment
2. Ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (adopted by the UN in 1979, but not ratified by the US)
3. The "morning-after" pill is legal without prescription
4. Abortion legal regardless of age or marital status
5. Contraception included in health coverage
8. Repeal 1996 welfare reform
12. Banning discrimination on the basis of language in voting rights
13. National program encouraging all citizens to be fluent in at least two languages
14. Ratification of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
15. Same-sex marriage
16. Banning discrimination against intersex persons
17. Banning forced genital mutilation of intersex persons
19. Fund in-home support services to allow the disabled to hire personal care attendants while remaining at home
20. Ending discriminatory federal, state, and local laws against particular religious beliefs, and non-belief
25. Ending governmental use of the doctrines of specific religions to define the nature of family, marriage, and the type and character of personal relationships between consenting adults
26. Ending religiously-based curricula in government-funded public schools There shouldn't be in theory "Government-funded Public Schools" but I approve of this in the present.
29. Youth given the right to survive by being provided adequate food, shelter and comprehensive health care, including prenatal care for mothers
30. Increase the current pay levels, monthly imminent danger pay, and family separation allowances for  U.S. soldiers
31. Provide better care for the wounded, sick, and injured soldiers returning home
32. Laws to protect corporate "whistle blowers"
33. Repeal the PATRIOT Act
34. Preventing communities from being coerced by governmental agencies or corporations into siting hazardous materials
37. No embargo or economic sanction that would cause the suffering or death of civilians should be enacted In theory yes; not sure about the reality of this though but Approve obviously
40. Comprehensive benefits, as good or better than existing plans, including dental, vision, mental health care, hospice, long-term care, substance abuse treatment and medication coverage
42. Allowing all prisoners affected with AIDS/HIV in all countries to have the same access as free citizens to education, treatment, preventive measures (including condom use), and medical care
43. Protecting the confidentiality of all people diagnosed with AIDS/HIV or tested for HIV
44. Make drug treatment and other programs available for all addicts who seek help
45. Providing housing for homeless and poor people with AIDS/HIV
46. Lifting the ban prohibiting HIV positive people from entering the U.S. as visitors or as immigrants
48. Maximize restrictions on police use of weapons and restraining techniques such as pepper spray, stun belts, and choke holds
49. Abolish the death penalty
50. Repeal "three strikes" laws

Please Define:
7. Passage of a national pay equity law
11. Banning racial profiling
18. Legislation against hate crimes
23. Ending faith-based initiatives and charitable choice programs
27. Ending the use of religion as a justification to deny children necessary medical care or subject them to physical and emotional abuse
38. A publicly funded health care insurance program
41. Increased funding for comprehensive sex education that includes AIDS education Define Sex Ed.
8862  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Which of the following do you believe? on: October 30, 2007, 08:57:20 am
NOTA.
8863  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: How many "f**ks per minute" would a movie directed by the previous poster ha on: October 30, 2007, 07:10:32 am
.03
8864  General Politics / Political Essays & Deliberation / Excellent Article on Anti-Politics on: October 29, 2007, 06:58:36 pm
Actually it's about two years old but I feel like posting it anyway simply because it's still so very relevant (though some Americans might not get some references). Personally I might as well name this the "Frank Furedi" thread.

http://www.frankfuredi.com/index.php/site/article/57/

Quote
Welcome to this New Age of Deference
The collapse of respect for authority hasn’t freed us -it’s just made us slaves to a new set of masters

THESE DAYS we don’t take authority very seriously. Everyone, from the Pope to members of the Royal Family, needs to earn his keep and demonstrate his contribution. People no longer unquestioningly do as they are told and those who claim authority without having earned it are rightly treated with derision and contempt.

There is much to welcome in this — but at the same time no society can work unless some forms of authority are respected. Look, for example, at the demise of the authority of teachers. Report after report show how they regularly face threats and abuse in the classroom.

Low-grade disruption of lessons — challenging instructions, answering back, swearing — has become the norm. Is it any surprise, then, that individuals who are routinely abused in this way become less than effective teachers?

And it isn’t just unruly children who are responsible for the erosion of teachers’ authority. Throughout society parents and other adults have few inhibitions about calling teachers’ judgments into question — and in front of their children. Such casual cynicism towards teachers extends to other professions. Even adult authority has been called into question. It is frequently suggested that grown-ups possess no special wisdom and that “children’s rights ” should be celebrated. Notice how in almost every new film the special insight and sensitivity of children are favourably contrasted with the inflexibility of their dimwitted elders. An attempt to guide and inspire the young without the exercise of adult authority is a challenge that no society would welcome.

The erosion of authority is often celebrated by cultural commentators as a symptom of a trend towards an end to deference. Some of them even interpret the declining influence of government, of Parliament and the parliamentary parties as proof that people have become less deferential and become more critical. They welcome the loss of prestige of mainstream politics as an encouragement to the growth of more informal social movements and campaigns of the marginalised, such as the Make Poverty History campaign. Young people who can’t be bothered to vote are frequently rebranded as rebels rejecting deference.

In fact, the affirmation of anti-politics expresses a profoundly pessimistic view of the future and itself represents a new form of deference. Where once people deferred to hierarchical authority, now they are encouraged to defer to fate. But to disengage from public life is to allow others to determine your fate. Anti-politics is not a rejection of particular parties and politicians, but an expression of a deeper conviction that politics is futile.

The very idea that anybody could achieve any positive results through political action is often dismissed as naive or arrogant. But those who perceive some sort of radical imperative behind the rejection of politics ignore that the flip side of anti-politics is the acceptance of the world as it is. In other words, an acquiescence to fate.

Deference to traditional authorities is being replaced by reverence for new ones. While we doubt the word of our doctors, we turn happily to the herbalist, the New Age healer, the osteopath and a multitude of complementary therapists. Increasingly, victims are endowed with a claim to moral authority. Victims of crime are encouraged to make pronouncements on the issue of law and order. Parents of casualties in the Iraq war are treated as if they are experts in military affairs. Victims of an illness are transformed into expert cancer sufferers. And patient groups insist that their representation of their malady is the final word on the subject and that decent people have a duty not to offend them by refusing to affirm their claims.

There is, too, a growing tendency to institutionalise deference to the expert. This month the Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald, indicated that he might press for the right to use expert witnesses to help to boost the low conviction rate in trials of alleged rape. Apparently ordinary jurors are too thick to grasp how rapists and their victims behave, and need an expert psychologist to put them right.

Once pronouncements about who was evil or who had sinned were the prerogative of the priest. Now, with the end of deference to the Church, such mystical powers are bestowed on the professional expert witness. The call for ordinary jurors to ignore their intuition and subjugate themselves to the superior insight of the expert is seldom seen for what it really is — a new form of deference.

Daily we are encouraged to defer to a bewildering variety of “relationship experts”. Parenting coaches, life coaches, makeover gurus, supernannys — all of them apparently possess the authority to tell us how to live our lives. Even the Blairs deferred to a lifestyle guru. When the Prime Minister and his family employed someone to tell them how to dress, exercise, relax and eat we were witnessing the emergence of a new form of authority.

But it does not end there. When Carole Caplin went home, the political class shifted its deference to the authority of the celebrity. Like most of us, our leaders are happy to listen to Bob Geldof moralising about how to save Africans or Jamie Oliver instructing us how to rescue our children from obesity. The end of deference? You got to be kidding.
8865  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Name the ideology of the preceding poster... on: October 29, 2007, 06:55:26 pm
Liberal Conservative

...wait I'm sure I've done this before...
8866  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Ireland General Discussion on: October 29, 2007, 05:32:28 pm
Quote
Yes. But so what?

Shows my comments that some mediums have "innate" natures which leads towards certain things above others. You are not going to see a 7 hour debate on the TV like the Lincoln-Douglas debates, no?

Quote
Just about all forms of mass media are subject to financial considerations - whether that be with regard to production expenditure or profit expectations - so I don't really grant the premise that TV come off worse than Books for this reason

The important word there is "mass". I wasn't neccesarily thinking of the "mass" really. But no objections there.

Quote
The TV and video games are simply responding to the aggression that seems to be widely inherent in young males. I don't think they created this aggression, merely they respond and cater to it (not that this is a good thing).

Probably.

But then again it is a very human trait to see it's cultural attributes as being the "most human". For example we westerners don't eat insects; even though logically there is no reason we shouldn't (Actually some are nutrious) yet because of it this whenever we someone eat an insect on TV or in a book or etc it is meant to show they are "out of the boundaries" of society or in more recent times, for our own peculiar amusement (Reality TV: Could that concept even have been thought up in 1950? By Aldous Huxley maybe, but normal Television producers (if there any were at the time)?

Quote
*laughs* well as someome who spent such formative years infront of Thomas the Tank Engine and whatnot, I might not be able to give an objective opinion on this.

Ah yes and for me it was Christopher Crocodile. Actually I misread my own post; I was meant to show how Television can impact on how people think and how this can be most effective if put at a early age. And yet going back to what I said earlier about insects; and how these cultural prejudices are more effective when thought of as "human". (The Ancient Greeks thought themselves more human than non-Greeks; yet there are certain aspects of their society which we would not consider human in any way. Especially Spartan society.) So making an Objective judgement is probably impossible; in the way you can't make a judgement on how you learned not to eat insects.

Anyway to give the classical historical example, the spread of Printing and the Reformation, by creating books at a much faster rate then which was previously possible with written manuscripts it allowed a much closer study of the bible by scholars then was previously possible; this created a scenario where ideas could spread very quickly (by the standards of the Middle ages) and so once a "heretic" could get around to questioning the hierarchy the hierarchy could not react to suppress it as it had before to previous reformers like Jan Huss. This spread of ideas meant many people rethink their relationship with the Roman Catholic hierarchy. The form of this idea was the printed book; based generally on logical arguement (or at least books considered valid arguements) and the written word; which led to an interpitation not previously possible with only an elite class of Scribs and the Roman Catholic hierachy and it's papal bulls. The only reason the Reformation 'worked' in Germany, England, Scotland and not in most other countries was due to Political reasons.

In other words the book created new possibilities to criticize the world people were living in and by doing so created a scenario where in order for ideas to be taken seriously one needed to trained in the "book style" of thought) or for that matter, just to read ideas at all (and of course here we go into reading as purely a leisure pursuit) and then after generations we have a new way of thinking, which pretty much continued up until the 19th or 20th Century depending on which media ecologist you talk to.

People were trained to accept books from an early age and how to read them (Which is a much more difficult thing than it seems..) and thus needed to be intregrated into this way of thinking. The same is true now; except the mediums are so much different. Plus most modern (or postmodernist) literature isn't even written in the classical "book Style" with lineal narrative which leads from one thing to another (The phrase "I don't follow" comes to mean "I don't understand".) most of these books don't tell "stories" in the classical sense and this is mainly due to the influence of other media. Or in other words, What a 19th century book version of Family Guy look like?
8867  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: How does this video affect your opinion of Ron Paul? on: October 29, 2007, 05:03:09 pm
Unlike most videos involving the Ron Paul for president campaign this one will thankfully involve no loss of semen. Which I think has been a big problem. How will the libertarians reproduce once they realize he as much a chance as I have.
8868  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Ireland General Discussion on: October 29, 2007, 04:54:18 pm
Quote
While all that may be true, I don't think that this offers any truth to the idea than any particular medium is any better than any other.

Better? No. But some mediums are better at conveying different things than others; you can't make an abstract arguement over Television and if you watching two guys arguing abstractly isn't very "Televisual".

Look at TV news; most of the imagery shown on TV news is when you come down to it, meaningless - only vaguely related to what they are talking about. But it is there because no-one will see two newsreaders just talk to the screen for 25 minutes.

Plus here it should be pointed out the nature of Television tends to need biggish budgets to produce programs, so needs to dominated by financial interests or the Goverment. The same can't be said of book reading; though it's increasingly becoming true of the publishing industry.

Quote
Not necessarily. But even if it this is true, that's no guide to quality; nor to which communicates more effectively. I think that the author/producer is more important than the medium.

Somewhat; the medium shapes the world which the producer\director\author is limited to. Obviously who's in creative charge matters and for that matter, whether the 'content' is profitable is also important. Sadly.

Quote
I don't grant the premise that in a book all the information is on the page - nor do I feel that the use of 'enforced imagination' on TV/through visual media is necessarily a bad thing.

I never said it was. (Though it may be if children are over-exposed; but the psychological evidence is inconclusive iirc. I have to ask; why do Children TV-violence so attractive? why are most video games violent? etc. There are reasons for this; something innate in human nature perhaps (that great cop out arguement) or perhaps it is something "programmed" into it. Since the invention of film pretty much continously the "barrier" has been moved, though Hollywood tried to retard it for a while (due to the influence of Ultra-Catholic groups AAMOF until the 1960s) does suggest the need for sensation to increase profit, or what? God knows; I'm just putting ideas out. Most of them probably wrong.)

Quote
Example?

Put a three years old in front of a TV show for children (like Balamory or something) and there's your example.

Quote
I disagree with your reasoning on turnout - I think it has more to do with general economic conditions than confidence or otherwise in the political class. At the lowest common denominator of my view here: when times are bad, people turn out for change, when times are good, people don't care.

There is some element of that; but it doesn't explain everything - why for example are turnouts for referenda lower than they were nor is this is a particularly historical trend - In most European countries (and America) that I think off the turnout has being going down over the past 20 years almost in a straight line and that's nothing to do with the nation's economic performance.

I suggest the distance between Irish Politicans and the "People" is greater than it was before; though obviously alot greater than in most countries. This is contributing to the lower turnouts, that and the other factors we've mentioned.

Quote
I'd never considered before when I first thought of myself as Irish - frankly I've no idea when this idea first became apparant to me. And on thinking about it now, I have no idea what it means to be Irish.

Beats me what it means. But to put things on a superficial level we both support Irish sports teams for example even though our personal connection with the team is very tenuous (non-existant in anything but the flag in most cases) so we must identify ourselves with "Irishness" on some level.
8869  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Name the ideology of the preceding poster... on: October 29, 2007, 04:23:29 pm
Status Quo.
8870  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Name another poster that has the most in common with the preceeding poster on: October 29, 2007, 04:03:25 pm
Rockefeller Republican.
8871  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Name another poster that has the most in common with the preceeding poster on: October 29, 2007, 03:12:53 pm
Fabian_the_Fastman.
8872  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Does a falling tide strand all boats? on: October 29, 2007, 02:46:05 pm
Quote
I should add that I'm of the opinion that the benefits of a consumerist society are grossly exaggerated (though it probably goes without saying that I think that) which puts me at odds with, at guess, the overwhelming majority of posters on the forum. Because even the protectionists are consumerists at heart.

Interesting (and I agree somewhat) but Define "Consumerist Society".
8873  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Name the ideology of the preceding poster... on: October 29, 2007, 02:10:13 pm
Co-Operative British Socialist
8874  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of this organization on: October 29, 2007, 02:08:59 pm
The alcohol industry are massive Freedom Fighters, except the ones that are ran by Republicans (like Coors). But Democrats who make alcohol RULE.

Sometimes I think that you would have been such a Tory had you lived in 19th century Britain...

Sometimes?
8875  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of this organization on: October 29, 2007, 01:35:03 pm
Hasn't happened yet.

Fair enough.

Anyway again my problem isn't people drinking; it's the problems which relate to excess drinking which I believe is caused by something deeper in society than just "I want to drink" the fact that what people spend their money on or find for their amusement is irrelevant except that I'm worried about a culture which promotes (near) self-destruction as a form of amusement. In other words, Alcoholic excess is a much wider symptom of a greater and much more difficult to define malaise.

So BRTD, why do you drink?
Pages: 1 ... 350 351 352 353 354 [355] 356 357 358 359 360 ... 448


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines