50 thoughts on “Ouch”

  1. The Republican Party is to the U.S. as the Catholic Church is to the Philippines. Although the Republican Party is indeed a legitimate party in the traditional sense of the word, the Catholic Church in the Philippines is de jure not a party but de facto acts like one. Both deny science, hate the LGBT community, insist on a so-called “traditional marriage” and in the case of the Philippines, the single-most retrogressive institution in its midst. The video practically captures the gist of their hypocrisy.

  2. I think that was a wonderful little blurb. Fictional source or not, it aligns with all sorts of other things I’ve been reading, and it really does bundle everything together in a nice package. I plan on sharing it with my friends in the hope of educating them.

  3. That was fantastic and made my day. Good comments here so far. I’m looking forward to Penboys rant.

  4. Go Bill Pullman!!!!! He made a very credible “President” in Independence Day

    Even though, “fake” (only because of an actor saying this), this is probably one of the very best, but definitely truthful, synopses of the Republican Party/religious right I’ve ever listened to. The very best part is pointing out how the USA was actually founded (not the arrogant religious right dreams) and the words of our First Amendment. Yes, “American Taliban” — best description of that entire right wing establishment.

    Now, I’m really curious to where this came from — from which movie or TV show? Gutsy and ballsy to be sure, and I commend them for it.

    Thanks for posting this great (and truthful) commentary.

    1. The clip is from the HBO series “The Newsroom.” It was a mesh of scenes from the season finale that aired this Sunday night. It’s a great series, and I’m looking forward to season two already!

      It’s from the same director as “The Social Network” and shares some similarities to the film as it documents the (fictional) behind the scenes look at putting together a “real” news show (as opposed to the garbage they feed us on other news shows). I highly recommend it to anyone; it really gets you to stop and take a second look at what’s actually happening in the country.

      1. “The clip is from the HBO series The Newsroom.’ . . . It’s from the same director as ‘The Social Network’ … ”

        Thank you for that information. Unfortunately, I don’t get HBO so I’ll have to look elsewhere to see more of this very interesting series. And thanks for responding so quickly.

    2. That’s Jeff Daniels, not Bill Pullman. I do see the resemblance, but Jeff is a bit taller than Bill, if I remember correctly. Either way, very well delivered.

      1. Yes, you are most definitely correct. Sorry about that. I couldn’t remember off the top of my head who was the ‘President’ in that movie, so I looked it up and as soon as I saw the name, Bill Pullman, I just immediately assumed it was him [above] because (as you stated) their physical similarity as well as their mannerisms.

        Thank you for catching that and correcting me.

  5. Unfortunately, the facts are not quite right. In Tennessee, residents of nursing homes are able to vote in their facilities and without ID. Seniors over 65 who wish to vote absentee can do so without ID. If you don’t have an ID, you can get one for free at any of the 48 driver service centers around the state. See here: http://www.tn.gov/safety/photoids.shtml

    As a libertarian, I’m not crazy about the necessity of government ID cards for driving, flying, purchasing booze, etc. But a recent election in my state was decided by one vote. I wouldn’t want my vote negated by someone who wasn’t eligible.

    I’d like to ask, in other countries can anyone vote without showing some identification?

    1. no, in my country you have to show ID.
      on the other hand I’d guess 99% of the citzens have a passport here…

    2. In Australia, you don’t need to show any identification to vote and it is also compulsory to vote or you are fined. All you need to do is attend a polling station and give your name and address and have it crossed off their list.

      Even prisoners in jail get to vote here. There is no eligibility list.

      1. Because you *have* to vote or they will track you down lol.

        “If you are serving a full-time prison sentence of less than three years you can vote in federal elections.”

    3. Here in Canada, you must be on a voter’s list to vote, and they simply cross off your name when you go to vote. If you’re not on the registered list, then you must show ID to prove your residence and citizenship.

      1. In the UK, everyone who wishes to vote has to enrol onto the electoral register.

        Every time there’s an election/referendum voter cards are sent out to each person on the register and that is sufficient ID to vote.

  6. Voting doesn’t result into democracy, but oligarchy. People must be able to directly elaborate and vote laws, and representatives must be chosen by drawing lots, to get a real democracy, as in ancient Greece.

    What we call democracy nowadays is just a system to abuse and exploit people, by getting their consent through the illusion of choice. Still better than a hard dictatorship, though. But the difference is just like between Norwegian prisons and Chinese prisons : you’d definitely prefer to be in the first ones; yet in both cases you’re still in jail.

    1. The Greek democracy you’re so in love with allowed about 10% of the population to vote. Only adult males who had completed military training were given the ballot. So much for ‘real’ democracy. The Roman Republic was much better, with the plebian class represented by tribunes who had the authority to veto legislation deemed not in the interest of the poor.

      Our Founding Fathers rejected direct democracy. They saw it for what it was – mob rule- with no protection for the minority position. They chose instead a Republic, with a divided government set up to check and balance itself. Originally, the House of Representatives spoke for the people, the Senate spoke for the states, and the President, elected indirectly by popularly selected electors voting by state in the Elctoral College, spoke for the nation as a whole. The Supreme Court kept it all within the boundaries of the Constitution. No mob rule. No oligarchy. No monarchy. And with the empowerment and enfranchisement brought about by the civil rights and voter rights movements – Perfection.

      Your cynicism is your problem. I am not abused or exploited, and I never have been. The choice we’re given in each election is real. The 2 parties are not the same, and with President Obama, the differences have never been so apparent. Vote! It matters!

      My parents never gave me a dime because after their divorce when I was 16, they didn’t have it to give. But, because America is a land of opportunity, I have enjoyed several careers-I have been an entrepreneur, over the years owning 3 restaurants and 2 retail stores, an independent contractor driving a taxi cab and selling cars, and just an employee working in a gas station, several restaurants (worked my way up from line cook to district manager), and a phone center. I enjoyed the taxi cab and the phone jobs the most. I’m also a small scale landlord, with 1 tenant. Yippee! Now in my senior years, I am a published author and working on my second book. What an adventure life is! My only genuine regrets are not having served in the armed forces, or run for public office, and dropping out of college. Yeah-I’m a dropout!

      Thomas, my friend, “quit yer bitchin’.” Forget your defeatist and depressing ideology. Re-inflate your spirit. Illegitimati non carborundum. (Don’t let the bastards get you down.)

      1. “Your cynicism is your problem. I am not abused or exploited, and I never have been. The choice we’re given in each election is real.”

        Funny shit.

        1. If you don’t think it makes any difference, that the Democrat and Republican parties and candidates don’t represent a genuine choice, please vote for Romney. After all, according to your reasoning, what have you got to lose?

          1. Nah. Obama is just less bad than Romney, that it isn’t saying he is actually good though.

  7. Well, we in sweden have 3 options:
    #1 Drivers licence
    #2 passport
    #3 Id card (issued by the bank or police)

    1. Indeed, but the sad thing in USA is that some can’t afford any of them and in some states in that country, the nearest office where you can apply for the id can be houndreds of km’s away and is open something like a couple of hours the first tuesday of every month!

  8. Of all the nonsense I suffer on a daily basis, this video takes today’s blue ribbon. Just GOOGLE “examples of voter fraud” and learn -especially the article by Judicial Watch. Quote:

    Election fraud was a significant concern during the 2008 and 2010 election seasons, with ACORN/Project Vote being linked to massive voter registration fraud. A total of 70 ACORN employees in 12 states have been convicted of voter registration fraud. As documented in a July 2009 report by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, of the 1.3 million registrations Project Vote/ACORN submitted in the 2008 election cycle, more than one-third were invalid.

    That’s 400,000 fraudulent voter registrations. There are many more cases nationwide. The lie that citizens who don’t have photo IDs can’t get them is outrageous -states that require them provide them free of charge and even arrange free transportation to the issuing office.

    The present panic is founded partly on President Obama requiring the 2010 Census to count illegal aliens as if they were citizens. The census is used to allocate Congressional representation. Non-citizens should never be represented. Incidents of illegal alien voter registration are common in Democratic controlled counties, where they are known, but never fully investigated for obvious reasons.

    Voting by the dead, especially in Chicago is legendary. Needless to say, the Democratic machine that controls the city has killed any and all investigations into the extent of it. Consider the famous quote by Louisiana’s former Governor Long : “When I die, I want to be buried in Louisiana, so I can remain active in politics.”

    Should we have to wait until an election is corrupted before we act? Or is it prudent to secure the validity of the process before a candidate is elected on fraudulent votes?

    1. “Should we have to wait until an election is corrupted before we act?”

      2000, Florida. That ship already sailed.

      Conservative supreme court refused to do recount that would give Gore the presidency, after the most widespread voting irregularities in US history.

      1. Did you really have to spell it out? But then again, maybe it really does need to be spelled out in every detail.

    2. Actually, I think there’s a distinction between “election fraud” and “voter fraud”. Election fraud is as you describe, with a concerted effort made to register dead, fake or otherwise illegitimate voters (probably to send in “write-in” ballots), to manipulate the outcome of the election through other means, and other forms of misconduct. Voter fraud, as referenced in the video and which the mentioned bills apparently seek to reduce, is where a voter goes to a polling station and misrepresents him or herself to vote again. Voter fraud is extremely rare and kind of stupid, because it only increases the vote for candidate by 1 each time at risk of 5 years in prison and a $10000 fine.

      A great explanation about the difference and about how over-hyped voter fraud is can be found here: http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_the_truth_about_voter_fraud/

  9. Even if the info shown on this video is true. majority of it is info cut bit pieces from large comments and text. A whole lot is removed from the whole picture here. I hope when you watched this you realized its done by supporters of socialist and left wing Obama supporters. Make sure you get 100% of the info before deciding.

    1. If you believe Obama, or any other member of the Democratic party for that matter, comes anywhere close to being a socialist you have no fucking clue about politics.

      In most European countries Obama would be seen as center-right at best and we’re not talking about socialist countries here (since there aren’t any).

      The only two American politicians who would be called left-wing anywhere in the world but America are Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy and in Europe they would probably be Social Democrats (Sanders even said so himself) which means there not even left-wing, just center-left.

      So your pathological fear of “socialists” in America is absurd because you don’t even have a single socialist in any political position whatsoever. Which is sad if you ask me because as Thomas pointed out in his comment above you don’t have a democracy, you have an oligarchy and maybe a few socialists would be able to move the country into the general direction of democracy.

      1. thx. i’m so sick of this bullshit of using the word socialism as a curse word.

        if people would actually take the time to understand what socialism is about they might realise that socialism is a lot more democratic than the capitalistic oligarchy we have everywhere now.

        socialism means the people own the means of productions hence they also all own the wealth. but i guess greedy people can’t stand the idea of a world where the wealth is shared so everyone has enough because it would mean that they couldn’t become filthy rich even though 99,9% will never become rich anyway so they would be just as well or most likely even better off under socialism than they are right now -_-

        1. Jesus was a socialist,

          Mark 10:21-22 Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.

          and we know how American leaders feel about him as an example.

      2. In American connotation, Obama is indeed a socialist. In European connotation, he might not be, who knows?

        The definition of “socialist” is no longer limited to classical marxist theory. Just as “capitalism” is no longer a pure thing. There is mixed capitalism, mixed socialism, and every shade in between. It’s the same with the term “Liberal.” The classical definition of “liberal” is 180 degrees from the contemporary meaning. History’s liberals, advocated separation of church & state, limited government, equal justice, free enterprise, individual liberty & responsibility (essentially Freemasonry), and are actually today’s conservatives. Today’s liberals are totalitarian progressives advocating class warfare, forced redistribution of wealth through punitive taxation and controlled entitlements, atheism, gun control, multiculturalism, political correctness and government control of the economy. American Democrats today live the LIE that they are classical liberals – they are not. They are much closer to traditional economic fascists.

        America’s political graph may not be like Europe’s. The farther you go to the right on our political graph, the closer you get to libertaranism and finally, anarchy. The farther left you go, the closer you get to big government, socialism, and finally totalitarianism.

        Any politician advocating a policy of comprehensive entitlements funded by wealth-destroying taxation and appropriation is a socialist, regardless of the ownership of the means of production. A politician advocating the very same entitlements funded by wealth-creating and self-sustaining privatized investment and endowment would be a conservative.
        Viva la difference.

        1. I’m still something of a democrate, I think, but I will have to admit, you certainly defined todays American liberal.

        2. “horselips” wrote”
          ‘In American connotation, Obama is indeed a socialist.’

          Yanks, as so often. debase the language. A socialistic society is one in which there is no difference between rich and poor – everybody is equal. Obama, like his opponents, is a slave of mammon; in this respect there is hardly any difference between them.

          Socialists do not necessarily draw their inspiration from Karl Marx; some find it in the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament, whose social radicalism is conveniently forgotten by most Christians.

          1. I concur absolutely, the arrogance of the septics thinking their mangled version of a global language should hold sway.

            Also, queue peenyweenyboi, if everybody followed the teachings of Christ the world would indutiably be a better place. Unfortunately socialism and xtianity whilst lovely in theory breakdown in reality because most Homo Sapiens are selfish bastards.
            What the followers of this latest cult in the land of the scared don’t realise or maybe care about is that their fundamentalist actions are alienating the rest of the progressive world and their days of overweening superiority are over.
            The Amerikan empire lasted 60 odd years and it won’t be missed.
            I’ve been telling my friends across the pond for a decade that the intelligent among them have to react in a forceful manner to the garbage and gibberish that is spouted by these nut-jobs. It was Reagan that first encouraged the xtians to get involved seriously in politics and of course under that straight shooting sort of guy, duyba, that they became embedded. Now if the opponents of these idiots cannot combat them, maybe you will get the country you deserve or maybe we are watching the dog daze of the USA and it will splinter into 3 or 4 parts.
            Will the south rise again ?

          2. A connotation isn’t a debasement of the language, it’s merely local parlance. The denotation of socialism remains the same. At least to dreaming Marxists, and the big dictionary dudes over at Webster’s and Oxford.

            Wherever did you get the silly notion that Jesus was a socialist? The only equality Jesus ever spoke of concerned the Law, and the mercy and judgment of God. Jesus lived and taught the Scriptures that He came to fulfill – nothing socially radical about that.
            The only thing radical in any sense about Jesus’ teachings was to uncover for his audiences the surpassing love of God for the jewel in the crown of Creation – Man.

            Jesus Christ was NOT a socialist. Jesus never advocated an end to private property, never held the Imperial government, or the people collectively, responsible for the remedy of any social need, never advocated a tax for any purpose, never advocated the forced redistribution of wealth, never advocated civilian disarmament or the equality of economic outcomes. Jesus did acknowledge that coins bearing the image of Caesar belonged to Caesar, but beyond that, never charged Caesar with any responsibility whatsoever. Jesus never advised the people to petition the government for the redress of any grievance.

            Jesus was a CONSERVATIVE, supporting capitalism and profit (by parable), individual accountability and responsibility (never governmental or collective), the right to keep and bear arms, private property, and through His prophets, holding rulers accountable to religious morals. Generosity and compassion are not liberal or conservative virtues, they are Biblical virtues, achieved through individual action, not the state. There is not a single verse in either Testament of the Holy Bible applicable to the progressive agenda.

            1. “horselips” wrote:
              ‘A connotation isn’t a debasement of the language, it’s merely local parlance.’

              Shall we consult the Oxford dictionary?

              connotation |kɒnəˈteɪʃ(ə)n|
              noun
              an idea or feeling which a word invokes for a person in addition to its literal or primary meaning: the word ‘discipline’ has unhappy connotations of punishment and repression | [ mass noun ] : the work functions both by analogy and by connotation.
              • Philosophy the abstract meaning or intension of a term, which forms a principle determining which objects or concepts it applies to. Often contrasted with denotation.

        3. “horselips” wrote:
          ‘Any politician advocating a policy of comprehensive entitlements funded by wealth-destroying taxation and appropriation is a socialist, regardless of the ownership of the means of production.’

          There is a saying in Welsh:
          I’r pant y rhed y dŵr.
          Into the valley flows the water.

          It means that all the wealth that is created flows naturally to those who are already wealthy.In other words, the poor get poorer while the rich get richer. One could also call it socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.

          Surely, ensuring that some of this inflow of riches to the rich is reversed, so that the poor get some of the benefit, is not a destroyer but a redistributor of wealth. There was a time when even conservatives accepted the necessity of the redistribution of income.

  10. You all need to see the series for a whole. If I told you where to get them I’d get torrents of abuse but anyway, I am looking forward to series 2, the issues raised in the first one are very thought provoking (and I’m not even American)

  11. And then there are the evils of the Electoral College….

    Who was it that said if there wasn’t a revolution every two hundred years our great experiment (democracy) would not survive?

  12. As of this post, the above video is the TOP VIDEO on YouTube.

    This is another sobering video (with Jeff Daniels):

Leave a Reply