The Sage Garden

[LastVoter]

I'll start it off with a classic:

It began as peaceful protest. The reason why it escalated was because Gaddafi slaughtered his own people.

Oh really?  I'm skeptical.  Anyway what else could he do with a load of Islamists?

Decide to not start killing them out of hand without provocation? (Also: Only some of the protesters were Islamists.)

Anyway, like Sol said, Cyrenaican autonomy is hardly an automatically bad thing.

Debatable given the values dissonance between even Muslim-majority states that aren't "Islamist" and non-Islamic states. Why are there more Islamic countries where women are mandated to cover their entire bodies and hold the status of property than where homosexual acts are legal, and why don't "moderate" Muslims take any vocal stand against this?

[Oakvale]

As President he was more of a Social Democrat

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How depressing.

Unfortunately, socialism (especially democratic socialism) tends to do badly when confined to one small country, as international investors will invariably favor states where they can extract a greater profit. Socialism, like capitalism, has to be a global system (or at least a significant portion of the globe) to succeed.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Authoritarian corporatist war criminal thug.

[Oakvale]

Authoritarian corporatist war criminal thug.

The really sage part is the "like most people in politics" that he followed that with.

[Oakvale]

Inaugural non-Snowstalker entry:

Personhood begins whenever a majority of other sentient beings (or, rather, just the most powerful ones) deem a specific organism worthy of carrying such a distinction.  Slaves were not people before their emancipation just like rubicks cubes are not people today, for example.

[Sewer]

What is this thread?

[Oakvale]

What is this thread?

It's for failed attempts at edginess or profundity. Preferably both.

[Sewer]

What is this thread?

It's for failed attempts at edginess or profundity. Preferably both.

Why do we need two threads for "posts I don't like"? Isn't that what the Deluge is for?

[Napoleon]

Snowstalker's posts on Islam are just trolling, right?

[free my dawg]

The favorite of the forum Democrats (and real Democrats to an even greater extent) in 2016 seems to be former First Lady/CarpetbaggerSenator/Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Given her name recognition and the fact that she's admittedly done a good enough job as SoS, this current frontrunner status is natural. A lot could change over four years, but it seems likely that she will be in the public eye of speculation for at least the next two years (if she chooses not to run).

I've made it apparent before, but I do not support Hillary Clinton. Though Obama was at least perceived as a progressive and may yet move a little left in his second term, Clinton seems to be fairly "moderate" on domestic policy. If her husband is any indication (plus, you know, the 2008 campaign), she's at best a centrist and at worst a mainstream European conservative. In an effort to counter the crypto-fascist trend of the Republican Party since Reagan, Democratic politicians including Gary Hart and the Clintons have advocated retaining (or doubling down on) cultural liberalism while moving towards a neoliberal economic position.

Though big money has done a good job hiding it, the new attitude of unrestricted free trade, austerity, deregulation, and privatization has fundamentally failed, yet the Democratic Party has failed to move towards sensible leftism on anything besides same-sex marriage and possibly immigration. Obama is being tarnished as a "socialist" at the bare minimum for being marginally to the left of Bill and Hillary.

I will concede that Hillary Clinton would not really be different from Obama in terms of her policy as hypothetical president. If she's the nominee, I'd probably vote for her, and she'd probably be at least an okay president. So what really got me mad? Her supporters. In the forum, in the media (I could make a second rant about how all the liberal talking heads, even the so-called "progressives", are shilling her as much as possible and failing to talk to any Democrat who isn't also on board), and with most of the Democrats I meet. Every other new topic in the 2016 boards is about her.

When anyone, Democratic, Republican, or Independent, says anything remotely negative, they're faced with a swarm of mindless drones, many of whom probably viscerally opposed Hillary's 2008 run (for good reason). The enthusiasm of their support when Obama's second term has just started really reminds me of the hordes of Ron Paul supporters we thankfully won't have to deal with again.

My advice to the Clintards? Before mindlessly jumping on the bandwagon that the voice on the TV is telling you to jump on, take a good look at Hillary's record in the Senate, her statements during the 2008 campaign (also remember that her campaign was the first to dig up the birther crap). If you're still a Hillary supporter, then at least you have something to back it up with.

The first known sage from our Dear Leader.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Nothing good will come out of the 2016 election; then again, pretty much every president has been a ruling class war criminal. The thug in office now will be replaced by something no better.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Nothing good will come out of the 2016 election; then again, pretty much every president has been a ruling class war criminal. The thug in office now will be replaced by something no better.

Came here to post that. He's outdone himself yet again.

[Paul Kemp]

It's a bit more complicated than that.  The real war is between the owning class and the working class.  The owning class does what it can to incite the working class into racial conflict as a distraction from the true conflict. 

[Cassius]

What is sage?

[Grumpier Than Thou]

What is sage?

A sage is someone who is wise.

[Cassius]

What is sage?

A sage is someone who is wise.

Of course! (metaphorical facepalm)

[morgieb]

What is sage?

One of Snowstalker's classes at high school is called sage class - a 'stupid name' for the Gifted & Talented students.

I think Snowstalker makes a lot of edgy posts and appears a self-parody which leads to his posts being described as sage. Ask oakvale or Hashemite or someone.

[free my dawg]

What is sage?

Pseudo-intellectual edginess.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

I'd like to be selfish and nominate this gem:

I'm 100% sure I'm not a Libertarian and I'm wearing the avatar for ornamental purposes.

What you fail to realize is that long before Government was the "big, evil, awful" thing that Libertarians view it as, markets were making people richer than would ever be necessary. Tell me, how would the free market resolve wealth inequality? The answer is, it doesn't.

Libertarians like to believe that the free market is the answer to all of America's (and the world's) problems, when in fact it caused most of those problems in the first place. It was the free market that created wealth inequality, and encouraged/encourages it in modern society. The first "rich" people--the ones that made more money than others when America was first becoming an industrial nation--did not hold that much more wealth than say the "poorer" Americans. What happened was, the industrialization expanded and corporations were born.

Corporations exist to ensure that a sort of oligarchical system be upheld throughout the monetary system. Meaning, the CEOs of the biggest companies are ensured a lot more money than the lower classes (about 350-400 times as much money, to be exact) for doing quantities less work. They deliver a cheap, but "okay enough" product onto the market, and consumerism ensures that it is eaten up without questioning exactly what it is or how it was made.

The problem is that such a small amount of people control such a disturbingly large portion of the wealth in this country (and world) and will only end up controlling more. Is Government doing anything to stop it? Not really, and certainly not as much as we should be doing. But that's because corporations have the power of Government. We need leaders that will not be afraid to stand up to corporations and strip them of their power. The voice needs to be returned to the average citizen, and the wealth with it.

I'm not talking about full-fledged socialism, I'm talking about equality. Where the poor aren't as poor and the rich aren't as rich. No one in this world could possibly need a billion dollars for their own use. They just invest it so they can make more money that they won't spend.

[angus]

What is sage?

Study one of Boomhauer's soliloquys, grasshopper. 

[morgieb]

The favorite of the forum Democrats (and real Democrats to an even greater extent) in 2016 seems to be former First Lady/CarpetbaggerSenator/Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Given her name recognition and the fact that she's admittedly done a good enough job as SoS, this current frontrunner status is natural. A lot could change over four years, but it seems likely that she will be in the public eye of speculation for at least the next two years (if she chooses not to run).

I've made it apparent before, but I do not support Hillary Clinton. Though Obama was at least perceived as a progressive and may yet move a little left in his second term, Clinton seems to be fairly "moderate" on domestic policy. If her husband is any indication (plus, you know, the 2008 campaign), she's at best a centrist and at worst a mainstream European conservative. In an effort to counter the crypto-fascist trend of the Republican Party since Reagan, Democratic politicians including Gary Hart and the Clintons have advocated retaining (or doubling down on) cultural liberalism while moving towards a neoliberal economic position.

Though big money has done a good job hiding it, the new attitude of unrestricted free trade, austerity, deregulation, and privatization has fundamentally failed, yet the Democratic Party has failed to move towards sensible leftism on anything besides same-sex marriage and possibly immigration. Obama is being tarnished as a "socialist" at the bare minimum for being marginally to the left of Bill and Hillary.

I will concede that Hillary Clinton would not really be different from Obama in terms of her policy as hypothetical president. If she's the nominee, I'd probably vote for her, and she'd probably be at least an okay president. So what really got me mad? Her supporters. In the forum, in the media (I could make a second rant about how all the liberal talking heads, even the so-called "progressives", are shilling her as much as possible and failing to talk to any Democrat who isn't also on board), and with most of the Democrats I meet. Every other new topic in the 2016 boards is about her.

When anyone, Democratic, Republican, or Independent, says anything remotely negative, they're faced with a swarm of mindless drones, many of whom probably viscerally opposed Hillary's 2008 run (for good reason). The enthusiasm of their support when Obama's second term has just started really reminds me of the hordes of Ron Paul supporters we thankfully won't have to deal with again.

My advice to the Clintards? Before mindlessly jumping on the bandwagon that the voice on the TV is telling you to jump on, take a good look at Hillary's record in the Senate, her statements during the 2008 campaign (also remember that her campaign was the first to dig up the birther crap). If you're still a Hillary supporter, then at least you have something to back it up with.

The first known sage from our Dear Leader.

It's a shame he deleted his 'new ideology' post.

[morgieb]

http://pastebin.com/i5qqBjJ3 for the sagest post out.

[free my dawg]

The stupidest? Well, once I may have said it is unfortunate the USSR did not emerge from the Cold War as the world's sole superpower. Also, along similar lines, I may have once lamented that with no Soviet Union left to challenge the U.S. there is no longer much hope for the U.S. to be defeated in arms and its downtrodden workers liberated.

Glad to see Redalgo's at least moved on from sage.

[morgieb]

Another victory for the international financiers and another blow to the Mexican worker and farmer.

Given that the sitting president of Mexico is literally a murderer (seriously look it up) and almost certainly a cartel puppet, also utterly unsurprising.

[Deus Naturae]

From the perspective of a proud True Leftist,

The optimal Senate is one that does not exist.

this is ridiculous.

He supports a unicameral legislature. I don't agree, but what's so "sage" about that?