You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 07, 2016, 10:18:40 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: The lie of the left wing/liberal media  (Read 7172 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Zakharra

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #75 on: December 01, 2010, 06:59:21 PM »
But Cuba isn't doomed. It's survived for fifty years under the embargo, and twenty years under since it's been law, despite shortages of food and medicine it causes. There are some goods that mostly do come from the United States and foreign subsidiaries of US corporations. Some stuff only comes from the United States, and some of it is time sensitive, and prices rise for each middle man gone through.

 Yes they have, but saying this;
Quote
considering the sheer economic starvation the United States is forcing on Cuba,
Is a fallacy and to be blunt, I am thinking it is wishful thinking. There is no way at all that the US is in any way responsible for Cuba's economic situation. We do  have not placed Cuba under a naval blockade. Ships can and do go to and from the nation freely (under Cuba's restrictions).

 The only one limiting Cuba economicaly is Cuba. Cuba is screwing itself. Not the US screwing Cuba.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2010, 07:41:03 PM by Zakharra »

Offline VekseidTopic starter

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #76 on: December 01, 2010, 08:56:20 PM »
Yes they have, but saying this;  Is a fallacy and to be blunt, I am thinking it is wishful thinking. There is no way at all that the US is in any way responsible for Cuba's economic situation. We do  have not placed Cuba under a naval blockade. Ships can and do go to and from the nation freely (under Cuba's restrictions).

 The only one limiting Cuba economicaly is Cuba. Cuba is screwing itself. Not the US screwing Cuba.

As long as US companies - and their subsidiaries - are not allowed to trade with Cuba, this raises Cuba's import prices, and lowers its export capability as people have to go through side channels.

'Sheer' was probably a bad adjective to use, however, Cuba's competitive capability compared to other nations is hindered, as the world's largest consumer and the world's largest agricultural producer are barred from direct trade with it. Its costs are higher and its exports are lower relative to where it would be if Cuba's trade with the US was not so restricted.

Offline Zakharra

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #77 on: December 01, 2010, 11:35:23 PM »
As long as US companies - and their subsidiaries - are not allowed to trade with Cuba, this raises Cuba's import prices, and lowers its export capability as people have to go through side channels.

'Sheer' was probably a bad adjective to use, however, Cuba's competitive capability compared to other nations is hindered, as the world's largest consumer and the world's largest agricultural producer are barred from direct trade with it. Its costs are higher and its exports are lower relative to where it would be if Cuba's trade with the US was not so restricted.

 So?  Would Cuba's economy be helped if they traded with the US? Undoubtedly. But you cannot say that the US is responsible for their economy. They are free to trade and make trade agreements with any other nation. China, Russia, Europe, Central and South America, all of those nations and lands can make nearly everything the US can, for cheaper. If Cuba wants to improve relatons with the US, they need to change their stance.  So I reiterate that Cuba is the only one screwing themselves over.

 Castro, please die! Get his ancient ass out of power and into the ground and maybe Cuba can change for the better.

Offline VekseidTopic starter

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #78 on: December 02, 2010, 12:01:05 AM »
So?  Would Cuba's economy be helped if they traded with the US? Undoubtedly. But you cannot say that the US is responsible for their economy. They are free to trade and make trade agreements with any other nation. China, Russia, Europe, Central and South America, all of those nations and lands can make nearly everything the US can, for cheaper. If Cuba wants to improve relatons with the US, they need to change their stance.  So I reiterate that Cuba is the only one screwing themselves over.

 Castro, please die! Get his ancient ass out of power and into the ground and maybe Cuba can change for the better.

Err. The United States is still one of the largest exporters in the world. That's a trillion dollars worth of goods, per year, that people are buying from the United States rather than elsewhere. A very significant portion of this is food, but also things like heavy machinery, advanced processors, etc.

Name a major CPU manufacturer not US owned. IBM, Intel, AMD... none of them can sell CPUs straight to Cuba. They can get ARM chips from some manufacturers, but ARMs don't power macs or pcs, they power cell phones.

There are a lot of goods that the United States maintains careful - and powerful - control over. And all that manufacturing that got shipped to China, and now from China to Southeast Asia, India and Africa? It's still being produced for US companies. And often with inferior tech.

You still only addressed half of that point - the artificial pressure goes against the value of their exports, too.

The original concept stands, regardless - Cuba is surviving, despite the negative influence of American policies compared to other nations.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #79 on: December 02, 2010, 12:15:06 AM »
And, you know, there's also the fact that putting an embargo on Cuba due to Castro while supporting our economy with Chinese money - not to mention some of the rulers we've gotten into bed with elsewhere - makes us big fat hypocrites.  XD

Offline Zakharra

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #80 on: December 02, 2010, 12:26:51 PM »
Err. The United States is still one of the largest exporters in the world. That's a trillion dollars worth of goods, per year, that people are buying from the United States rather than elsewhere. A very significant portion of this is food, but also things like heavy machinery, advanced processors, etc.

Name a major CPU manufacturer not US owned. IBM, Intel, AMD... none of them can sell CPUs straight to Cuba. They can get ARM chips from some manufacturers, but ARMs don't power macs or pcs, they power cell phones.

There are a lot of goods that the United States maintains careful - and powerful - control over. And all that manufacturing that got shipped to China, and now from China to Southeast Asia, India and Africa? It's still being produced for US companies. And often with inferior tech.

You still only addressed half of that point - the artificial pressure goes against the value of their exports, too.

The original concept stands, regardless - Cuba is surviving, despite the negative influence of American policies compared to other nations.

 That's true, but you cannot blame the US for Cuba's problems. There ARE other ways of getting goods in if Cuba wants. Even if it is a round about way, and there are other computer makers. CRUs and other parts. The US isn't the only one. I doubt Russia or China uses US made computers and comp parts. They make their own. Neither nation would put such sensitive tech infastructure in the US's hands.

 Is the US about the best in high tech? Yes, but we're not the only one out there that makes high tech goods.  Cuba's economy would be a lot better if we did trade with them, but as long as Castro is alive, that will never happen.

 The fact remains that Cuba can get better stuff if they want. If the US brought it's full political weight down on sufficating Cuba, we could drive the nation into the ground easily, but we aren't. As I understand it, it's more of a 'We will not trade with you' embargo.


And, you know, there's also the fact that putting an embargo on Cuba due to Castro while supporting our economy with Chinese money - not to mention some of the rulers we've gotten into bed with elsewhere - makes us big fat hypocrites.  XD

 I have no real disagreement with that.

Offline Remiel

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #81 on: December 02, 2010, 02:37:47 PM »
I've never seen a major libertarian movement, outside of libertarian socialism, that actively supported rules, regulations and penalties for the imposition of externalities, or limitations on corporate rule over those in its territory. "You're free to sue them after they kill you."

This sort of thing leads to quips like "A Libertarian is an anarchist who wants police protection from his slaves." Not many people alive today know what being paid in company scrip meant. A popular song was written about it. Don't like it? Tough.

I've never seen a libertarian movement that was in complete opposition to authoritarianism. In particular, debt slavery. Libertarian socialists - the original libertarians - oppose it, but wanted to prevent private ownership of production, whereas modern libertarians often consider someone fooled or forced into debt slavery as deserving of their situation.

Liberalism, on the other hand, is essentially "the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of property." Nothing against owning the means of production - but intrinsic in that concept is not forcing or fooling others into giving away their own liberty.

I was referring to the etymology of the words.  A "libertarian" is one who espouses personal liberty, or freedom -- freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to own and consume illicit substances.  The logical opposite, or "authoritarian", would be someone who believes in a strong, Big Brother-like state to protect us and look after us--essentially protecting us from ourselves. 

You can see that a lot here in California, where city councils are keen on outlawing sugary sodas from school cafeterias, and increasing "sin" taxes on things like tobacco and alcohol.  We seem to be headed toward authoritarianism, especially with the complete Democratic sweep in our last election.

A "liberal", on the other hand, would be someone who, like you said, would technically be someone who advises change or improvement from the status quo (and conversely, a literal "conservative" would be someone who resists change in social or political policy).

It's entirely possible to be liberal and libertarian, or conservative and authoritarian, just as it is possible to be liberal and authoritarian, or conservative libertarian.

Offline mystictiger

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #82 on: December 04, 2010, 10:37:11 PM »
Quote
The fact remains that Cuba can get better stuff if they want. If the US brought it's full political weight down on sufficating Cuba, we could drive the nation into the ground easily, but we aren't. As I understand it, it's more of a 'We will not trade with you' embargo

There is little more that the US can do legally that it hasn't already done.

The Cuban Democracy Act and the Helms-Burton Act include:

-Potential to deny aid if you trade with Cuba
-Any vessel that has traded with Cuba cannot land / dock in the US for 180 days
-Any company that trades in or with Cuba can have its goods seized and its board members may be refused entry to the US.
-Refuses to recognise any Cuban government that does not pay compensation for the nationalisation / deprivation of US property

Offline Zakharra

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #83 on: December 04, 2010, 11:05:28 PM »
 The US could bring a lot more pressure on Cuba if it wanted to. There's been no real need though. As annoying as Cuba is, it hasn't been a threat.

Offline VekseidTopic starter

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #84 on: December 06, 2010, 04:46:26 AM »
I was referring to the etymology of the words.  A "libertarian" is one who espouses personal liberty, or freedom -- freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to own and consume illicit substances.  The logical opposite, or "authoritarian", would be someone who believes in a strong, Big Brother-like state to protect us and look after us--essentially protecting us from ourselves. 

No.

A central tenet of sustainable libertarianism has always been the prevention of fraud. This requires an informed public, and functions even better with an educated public.

Another central tenet of sustainable libertarianism is being safe and secure in one's own person and property. This means that externalities imposed on a person must be either compensated for or prevented. Again, "You can sue them after they kill you" is not serious option.

Ignoring these two points - as modern people calling themselves libertarian often do - is not libertarian. It's stupid.

Libertarianism is not about legalizing marijuana. Legalizing marijuana is merely a side effect of desired policy.

For example, making a constitutional amendment that declared that no item found in a person's possession shall be used as evidence against them, and that the consumption of chemicals that do not cause externalities shall not be prohibited.

Authoritarianism, however, has several key traits.

The universal refrain of authoritarians is anti-intellectualism. The entire point of authoritarianism is to subject yourself to another authority. What they say goes, and most importantly, you cannot countermand them. You cannot disagree with their authority. If an intellectual source disagrees with the authority, it is the intellectual source that is wrong - because the authority is perfect.

Authoritarianism cannot function without that structure in place. You can only trick people into authoritarianism by convincing them that you are the only authority they should consider. This is a bit dangerous, because it naturally requires that you lie to your audience at times, and either they wise up and leave you, or they become less competitive among their wiser peers. "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time." - in order to capture a country, you actually have to do it pretty quickly.

Note - I'm not referring to the authority itself. A libertarian socialist like Noam Chomsky can have authoritarian followers. People who consider the words of Mises or Rand to be gospel and perfect in nature are even more authoritarian than those they claim to oppose. Most leaders who cultivate authoritarian followings tend to be narcissists, however. Many leaders are themselves narcissists or sociopaths. "Power attracts the corruptible." and all that. But they have a very hard time building things, as a rule.

So you need keep that in mind with the 'protecting us from ourselves' mantra. Most liberals certainly want marijuana legalized. The ban on scientific studies of it is certainly an authoritarian stance by the government - but it's an old one and getting weaker each year.

On the other hand, most liberals oppose pumping toxins into the groundwater. Preventing someone from doing that isn't authoritarian - that person intends to impose externalities on others and needs to either pay for that or be prevented from doing so.

Quote
You can see that a lot here in California, where city councils are keen on outlawing sugary sodas from school cafeterias, and increasing "sin" taxes on things like tobacco and alcohol.

After the raids during the Republican National Convention across the river here, peaceful Bush protesters being arrested, the suspension of habeas corpus and warrantless wiretaps, you're focusing on taxes and corn syrup?

First off, sin taxes should generally be aligned to the externalities they impose. That is actually the logic behind many of them.

Secondly, removing corn syrup drinks from school cafeterias would only be authoritarian if
1) It was imposed on private schools as well, or
2) Was done against the will of parents in the community. Which would be rather hard to do at the local level, or
3) Banned students from bringing it in themselves.

Quote
We seem to be headed toward authoritarianism, especially with the complete Democratic sweep in our last election.

What authoritarian expansion of power did the democrats commit that the republicans did not support?

Offline mystictiger

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #85 on: December 06, 2010, 07:09:40 AM »
The point about legalising canabis is interesting and well made - some people will approach a debate with a theoretical mindset (e.g. Libertarianism) and then justify the conclusions. Others will have a conclusion (e.g. legalise soft drugs) and then find a banner that supports this.

I would object to the characterisation of authoritarianism as one of voluntary suplication. Rather, the whole point about authoritarianism is that someone else is subjecting you to it ;)

What amuses and amazes me about all of this is the gross mischaracterisation that takes place.

Democrats as authoritarians? Obama as Hitler and a communist?

Go and live in a proper dictatorship for a few days and you'll find out what these terms really mean.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #86 on: December 06, 2010, 07:24:10 AM »
I suspect that many of the people throwing 'Hitler' and 'communist' around are using them more as the 'great big bogeyman' that their parents grew up with.  They probably have a vague idea of Hitler as 'that guy we fought in WWII', and communists as 'those guys we were fighting against after WWII'.

Offline Noelle

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #87 on: December 06, 2010, 10:36:33 AM »
I suspect that most people who toss around loaded words like communist, fascist, socialist, Hitler, and authoritarian don't have a great grasp on those words except that they cause a knee-jerk reaction in people so they freely misapply it to anything they don't like because everyone knows that Hitler is pretty much a universally-disliked figure, so what better way to bring down someone's name than to make some kind of ridiculous leap to pair the two?

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #88 on: December 06, 2010, 10:40:52 AM »
The prevalence of cheap-shot debate tactics that violate Godwin's premise make it frustratingly difficult to honestly and rationally discuss Hitler as an historical figure, or corollary figures such as Mengele and Himmler.

Offline VekseidTopic starter

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #89 on: December 07, 2010, 03:07:38 AM »
The point about legalising canabis is interesting and well made - some people will approach a debate with a theoretical mindset (e.g. Libertarianism) and then justify the conclusions. Others will have a conclusion (e.g. legalise soft drugs) and then find a banner that supports this.

I would object to the characterisation of authoritarianism as one of voluntary suplication. Rather, the whole point about authoritarianism is that someone else is subjecting you to it ;)

I was actually referring to the core structure of authoritarian institutions. If everyone ignored them, they would have next to no power. It's through indoctrination that authoritarian civilizations are made, after all.

Authoritarian institutions have very clear and common methods.

1) Attack the educated class, as I mentioned above. Pol Pot's regime had people executed for so much as wearing glasses. You cannot establish a malignant authority in an area where there are a lot of competing authorities. A good way to spot authoritarians in general is to watch for those who attack smart people for being smart or educated. An alternate means sometimes used by authoritarian attempts in the United States is to establish your own 'university' and make sure that it cannot be properly scrutinized and reviewed, via whatever means.

2) Using fear as a motivating factor. "The other person is more crazy/evil than this person! Vote for them!"  This basic message was -extremely- common during the past election and we are only going to hear more of it until the American public is basically inoculated against demagoguery.

3) Controlling the flow of information. Leaving information out, putting extra information in, outright lying, etc. Speaking in code. "Cut down the tall trees." <- the Rwandan genocide. A less graphic example is Fox's habit of turning republicans into democrats whenever a republican is involved in a scandal.

4) Create divisions within the population. Treat one group a little bit better, so that they will suppress the other group for you. This keeps both of them down. Racism was invented for this purpose. Today, there's another division being created where people making over $250k/year are 'rich', whereas the people making ten million or more per year are apparently just as rich.