/lit/ - Literature

Is there anything more ironic than Glenn Beck's very existence?

No.

I may actually hate Glenn Beck more than I hate Sarah Palin

>>411148
His existence isn't ironic.

It's just everything he ever says or does.

god his face makes me so furious

This.

Oh fuck you guys, we actually criticized Glenn Fucking Beck without a bunch of 13-year-old neocons barging in screaming about Libruls and Obongo and other dumb shit.

/lit/ may just be one of the good boards.

>>411160
I think Palin is actually more sincere than this motherfucker, fake crying and putting on gold ads.

Love his jacket. Looks to be Austrian manufacture, ca. 1939?

>>411171
>Glenn Beck's book in the same section as Where The Wild Things Are

I lol'd a little bit. I think that's funnier than the fact that it's in the "Enlighten Your Mind" section.

>>411171

Next to a Dan Brown book... Damn, I think that's even more ironic. Glenn Beck -- asshattery aside -- gets your blood moving.

>>411180
It's because people who read a lot tend to be more intellectual and people who are more intellectual tend to be more liberal.

No offense meant to anyone.

his church quote may be one of the worst things I've ever heard, talk about a conservative American misunderstanding of Christianity... but then, he is actually a Mormon

Book store i frequent had a whole pallet of this turds books sitting in the middle of an isle for months and i never once saw an open space. i don't think anyone bought it.

>>411200
Really? I though he was "Generic protestant that has the most rage appeal in America".

Anyone else watch the Daily Show? they just did a bit about glenn beck.

I found it amusing.

>>411220
Yeah, it's why I made this thread. I was going to make it Sunday after I visited the bookstore but I forgot. The piece on the Daily Show just reminded me.

I laughed my ass off when Jon said that "I think he found his new sign off" joke.

>>411205
heh. yeah, I doubt many conservatives go to bookstores. I imagine they get the few books they read at Walmart

>>411180
>its ok for me to call people who disagree with me names because they call me names.

derp.jpg

>>411129
Out of curiousity does this have anthing on his crazy dollar bill theories? Because that would make it just golden.

>>411220
I want to see someone go on his show and confront him about his bullshit. That's the only way some of his viewers will even see it.

>>411231

ha yeah that was pretty good.

>>411210
nope, he just has that image going, as Mormons do, of a conservative type of Christian. Mormons actually have beliefs more akin to Hinduism though, believe it or not. all this living perfectly bullshit so that you can be god of your own planet

>>411237

Fox would probably edit the tits off it and make it seem like beck ripped them a new one.

>>411247
Mormons believed Jesus visited the North American continent and hid a holy idol in the ground. They also believe Native Americans are descendants of Jesuit peoples.

The "prophet" of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, conveniently found the holy book and idol just a little time after America had been established.

It's an OBVIOUS fraud, and I hate it probably the most out all religions.

That really has nothing to do with your post, I was just saying I hate this goddamn religion.

>>411231
Which date was this skit on?

>>411274
About 10 minutes ago.

Thinly-veiled /new/ post.

I literally WTF'd when I first saw this cover. Out loud. In the bookstore.

Really, dressing as a Commissar? What the hell is he trying to say with that cover? That if you change your position, he will shoot you in the back of the head?

>>411274

tonight

>>411129

I'd hate fuck him so hard.

>>411279
>>411285
Well....tits

What's the book actually about?

From what I get from the cover and the title, it seems as if Beck has issues with the government and military, and seeing as how he's a conservative media cocksucker, I highly doubt it.

>>411295

Fuck Me Like You Hate Me lol

i like that song.

Conservative atheist here. What's up guys?

>>411301
I don't think he has anything against military, but all conservatives are against big government.

>>411327

Though they can't seem to agree on what big government actually is.

>>411304
>implying that's not a contradiction in terms.

>>411335
Its THE MAN. Pretty much anyone with official power. They seem to ignore the extent of the force that corporations already have over government today.

>>411129
The choice of photo on the cover of that book speaks volumes.

>>411327

Conservatives are all for government restricting birth control, but against government restricting gun sales.

Conservatives ARE Big Government.

The cover is meant to be ironic, dressing up as a communist or fascist officer because he is
Because he defends
Freedom is important to

I cannot complete this sentence. Every cell in my body screams in contempt every time I try to imply that Glenn Beck cares about democracy even a tenth as much as he cares about his paycheck.

>>411415

Not all conservatives think that.

>>411362

Yes, but whenever they manage to be THE MAN they then decide that big government is a pretty keen idea.

patriot act, wire taps, morality police

>>411180
Go back to Tsukihime, Arc

the fact that he's low enough to call the people he selectively argues with "idiots" shows what kind of a guy he is

he doesn't want to converse, he wants reaffirmation and a scapegoat

>>411427
All elected conservatives do, which is what matters.

>>411415
>Chucklefucks in the so-called Moral Majority are all for government restricting birth control, genuine conservatives are against government restricting gun sales.

Fixed.

Can we not simply agree that all political ideology that deals in absolutes or is not flexible enough to be changed in the face of new information is bullshit and the cancer killing the world?

>>411457
Life is the cancer killing the world.

this thread = dumbfucks who dont know that conservatives have been around long before Regan.

>>411471

Uh OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH

NEOCON ALERT

>>411471

in this post a faggot that thinks that it matters.

this is politics, if it happened more than a week ago it no longer holds any power over events or opinions.

>>411477
>Proving my point

>>411467

...wut

>>411492

>implying you had a point

>>411467
.........fuck, you figured it out.

>>411471
Yes, we know idiots predate Regan.

>>411471

ITT - Intellectually bankrupt cuntservatives who refuse to admit that their ideology has been and always will be a force for repression.

>>411511
I really would prefer they would just out and admit it, like in the old days. Oh late 19th century, how I long for thee.

Zombie Reagan says Tear down this wall... so i can eat your brains!

>>411520
I wish they would try to defend it on intellectual merits (whether possible or not), rather than saying intellect is for the "Elitists".

>>411530

anti-intellectualism is in vogue in the united states.

it is much easier to appeal to an emotional response.

>>411530
To try to defend it critically would be intellectual suicide. The best they can do is convince people that either slavery is their only option (too big to fail) or that slavery is preferable to the alternative (think derogatory articles about Bolivian populism, or even coverage of Haiti earthquake "Look what happens when you become free!")

I like how he was shooped to look thin on the cover. That just gets me for some reason.

Is there any place where I can read about this dude's exploits other than having to watch and listen to his show?

>>411850

I heard he raped and killed a ten year-old girl in 1992.

But he still refuses to deny it.

>>411941
no he murdered and then raped her in 1990

If Glenn Beck was on fire I wouldn't cross the street to piss on him.

>>411941

Glenn Beck is Gregor Clegane?

Oh shi-

Jeez is Glenn Beck going to become the new Ayn Rand? I really hope not.

Anyway I watch his show time to time just because I get a laugh at his antics. Today he talked about his daughter who has cerebral palsy joining track and field and how she was always far distant last place but she was proud of herself because she was able to beat her own time every race. Made me sad for him and his daughter, I can't imagine life being anywhere near easy to live with such a disorder.

>>412452
you feel sad for him because his daughter has c. palsy even though he has actively campaigned against government spending money in public school systems to take care of kids with disorders just like his?

I don't feel sad for the fucking hypocrite. I feel sad his daughter has such a fucktard for a father.

>>412458
Yes he's not a fan of government schools as he's for private schooling. And I am too, private schools are far better than public.

I don't think he's ever said to stop programs that help the disabled, he just bitches about text books that he believes promote a far left agenda.

>>412467
I honestly doubt you have the amount of knowledge/expertise to make such as claim as private schools are better than public schools. Private schools are great until you consider the fact that they can teach complete fiction (every religious private school ever). They don't necessarily have better teachers, better methods, or better supplies. They don't filter out any of the idiots either, they just filter the poor from the rich.

You're just dumb and think that because daddy could afford a private school for you that they are better.

ps I went to both. Public schools are better. Private schools just encourage inbreeding and an unfounded holier-than-thou attitude in their spoiled students.

>>412467

>private schools are far better than public

maybe, if all the students are rich and white. Who the fuck would open a private (for-profit) school in the inner city? The students would all end up learning Pepsinomics. There's all sorts of corruption and waste in the public school system, but getting rid of it is an awful awful idea.

>>412452

>she was proud of herself because she was able to beat her own time every race.

Isn't Beck one of those Fox asshats who claim that Mr. Rogers doomed america because he said that everyone is special, so the younger generation is self-entitled and lazy? Sure sounds good unless it's your own daughter.

>>412477
Well first of all I think the way you're talking down to me is very insulting and I find it rather rude. Unless you've done research on the subject you're just as "dumb" as me when it comes to the topic at hand.

Onto the main point I went to a secular private school, there was no drug activity or any big shenanigans going on. During lectures everyone would take notes and at most there would be a few people playing around with their phones during class.

The public high school that I would have gone to otherwise was filled with Tweekers and other shifty types. The classrooms were overfilled and the students would carelessly talk during a teacher's lecture.

Now of course as we all know mileage varies. I take your word for it that the private school you attended was shitty and snobby. But on a whole I would trust that the majority of private schools are better than public because they simply have to be. With private schools if they turn to complete garbage parents will just stop paying tuition and that will mean the end for them. With Public Schools they can be complete and utter shit and no one will care. And that's why I think we have such high drop out rates in this nation, because the public schools really don't care.

>>412507
Yeah he talked about that yesterday. It is really convoluted but what do you expect it is Glenn Beck.

Basically he hates "Everyone Gets A Trophy" because that tries to cover the fact that there are winners and losers in life. That such a concept makes people complacent with their failure.

At the same he feels that sports like Track and field (which is what is C. Palsy daughter did) is less about racing against other people and racing against yourself.

So simply put. If you're a loser you're a loser. But you still did good if you gave it your best.

Once again I'm not trying to defend the guy, I just agree with him on some small issues and find his spiel funny. Hearing him hype up Eric Massa for a while and then having Massa only talk about tickling interns was one of the funniest things I've seen in a while.

browse /new/ for a few seconds to see if it's still /stormfront/

Ihateniggers thread #1
Ihateniggers thread #2
Ihatespics thread #3
FUCKING COMMIES SHITTY HEALTHCARE SYSTEM thread #4

I love you /lit. I really do.

>>412509
It's not that public school systems don't care. It's that we higher shitty teachers and shitty people become teachers because the salary is so low and it's not "hard" (in some states, IIRC in Oregon you have to have at least a Master's degree to teach, not that that means you're going to be a good teacher) to become a teacher. Private school teachers are better because the better teachers work in private schools because of the higher salaries, more severe enforcement of rules, and more freedom in their teaching style and curriculum (instead of being told what to teach by the state).

However, I still don't think that the shortcomings of public schools can be chalked up to them being public schools... I mean, you can talk about the disillusioned and disruptive students, but is that really a problem with public schools? It seems to me that that problem lies on the shortcomings of the parents, and in turn the shortcomings of public schools could be fixed with MORE government control and spending (like increased salary for teachers, a better hiring process for teachers, etc.)... But again, there are problems with that. The Teacher's Union, one of the largest unions in America, would oppose a lot of legislation and government control that I think is needed, although I don't think that the union is wrong about everything. The fact is that any "pruning" of government employees that are inept is never going to happen because they are the ones that are part of the system and know how to play it.

Ehh, this probably seems like rambling at this point.

>>412560
hire*

>>412560
Actually what you said made a lot of sense. I know I can come off that I believe that Public Schools should be destroyed, but that isn't the case. I think a lot of heavy reform needs to occur. I think Vouchers for Private School should be one of them though.

Anyway I'm going to take a nap because, shit I've got a college class in 4 hours, it was good to hear another perspective on this.

>>412560

Higher salaries to HIRE better teachers isn't solution, knucklehead, because on average inner city schools already pay more than suburban ones.

Good teachers aren't going to teach in what are essentially warehouses full of violent animals no matter how much you pay them. The only teachers who are going to teach there are those who cannot get hired elsewhere: i.e. shitty teachers.

Urban school districts spend obscene amounts of money per student and get shitty results because A) the unions and governments involved require top heavy administration structures which soak up funds, B) the animals housed in those school don't want to be there, and C) the parents who shit out those animals don't see any value in a traditional education.

What is needed is a parallel system which can take the "students" uninterested in conventional education and put them through job skills programs. Insisting that the needs of all students are met by the same educational track it utter nonsense.

Special education should also be completely reworked. Mainstreaming retards and other defectives hurts the education of the future taxpayers who will be subsidizing their existence without helping the Short Bus Squad one bit. Mainstreaming is nothing but a "feel good" solution that wastes shit tons of money.

>>412560

>Private school teachers are better because the better teachers work in private schools because of the higher salaries, more severe enforcement of rules, and more freedom in their teaching style and curriculum (instead of being told what to teach by the state).

Teacher here.

This is nonsense. Private school teachers often make LESS than public school teachers. In my state(Florida) the average starting yearly salary for public school teachers is ~30k, and for private school teachers it's ~20k.

Second, public school teachers have to go through a lengthy certification process to make sure they know their subject and have some understanding of pedagogy. Private school teachers need absolutely no certification. Teachers in private school are a mixed bag at best. With public school, at least you know the teacher meets a certain baseline, and isn't just someone who is buddies with the principal and needed a job(it happens, a lot).

Sorry, I'm not a part of you guy's discussion, but I just had to chime in and correct that.

>>411129

I wanted to slap this guy even before I heard him speak. He just has a really slappable face.

Know what's ironic? Marxist hating Idiots.

What gets me is; apart from anti-intellectualism, he doesn't even have an ideology. He might spend ten minutes railing against the government, then spend ten minutes ranting about how we need to give the government the power to torture people. He'll criticize censorship in one show, then proclaim his love for it in the next.

The only constants are his hatred for elitists, intellectuals and liberals.

>>411171

Who the fuck buys books at Best Buy?

Oh, right.

>It's not that public school systems don't care. It's that we higher shitty teachers and shitty people become teachers

Which you can't kick out due to God-tier unions.

>Private school teachers are better because the better teachers work in private schools because of the higher salaries, more severe enforcement of rules, and more freedom in their teaching style and curriculum (instead of being told what to teach by the state).

Private schools are better since if the school is shitty

people stop going and they lose money
which makes them work harder or close down.

>However, I still don't think that the shortcomings of public schools can be chalked up to them being public schools... I mean, you can talk about the disillusioned and disruptive students, but is that really a problem with public schools?

Free shit isn't really the best.

With shit you have to pay for people become picky and that makes the schools become cheaper and better.

>It seems to me that that problem lies on the shortcomings of the parents, and in turn the shortcomings of public schools could be fixed with MORE government control and spending (like increased salary for teachers, a better hiring process for teachers, etc.)... But again, there are problems with that.

Let's take peoples rights away!

>The Teacher's Union, one of the largest unions in America, would oppose a lot of legislation and government control that I think is needed, although I don't think that the union is wrong about everything. The fact is that any "pruning" of government employees that are inept is never going to happen because they are the ones that are part of the system and know how to play it.

The union is Dicksucking the government.

The only reason people listen to them is because the government forces people to meet their standards.

>>412650

Elitists, intellectuals and liberals are shitty most of the time.

>>411415
>Doesn't know the difference between conservatives and Republicans

>>412664

If you're anti-intellectual, what the fuck are you even doing on /lit/? do you think stupid people write books?

...good books, that is.

>>412670

Alot of stupid people write books.

Also what is "Good" is subjective.

>>411265
>They also believe Native Americans are descendants of Jesuit peoples.

Yeah, the Jesuits weren't sent there to convert they Indians, they GAVE BIRTH to the Indians!

>>412674 Alot of stupid people write books.

Crappy books, sure.

>>412674 Also what is "Good" is subjective.

People only say that when they're trying to defend something that is objectively bad. Like Glenn Beck, or books written by stupid people.

>>412689
What is "Good" is subjective.

Doesn't matter when people say it.

>>412693
>>412693
But when one individual repeatedly misrepresents the facts when writing so-called 'non-fiction' books, it is fair to say that he is crap at representing the truth through his work.

>>412702

Who like Elitists, intellectuals and liberals?

>>412705
Sure, but along with anarcho-capitalists, right-libertarians, Glenn Beck, and other highly-politicised fucking idiots.

>>412720


Right-libertarians?

>>412734
Primarily those who advocate capitalism; as opposed to those 'left-libertarians' who consider it to be a coercive economic system.

Can we all stop complaining about how batshit crazy he is now and remember how hilarious he was when he was a drunk?

>>412744
What's wrong with capitalism again?

>>412750

Everything.

>implying any decent human being with an IQ higher than 75 watches Glenn Beck for anything other than rage induced hilarity

>>412750
That depends entirely on your opinion, and, to a lesser extent, your moral stances.

>>412756
The problem with 99% of people who are against capitalism is that they're just as gullible as the far right. They actually believe that the capitalism Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and all the NeoCons talk about is actually capitalism. Read a book on the subject rather than listening to talking points from people who know even less about it than you do.

>>412759
>>412756

How so?

Larger government controlled systems are more moral?

>>412770

Absolutely.

Which is more moral?

Large government:
Provides health care
Provides education
Provides protection

Small government:
Sick? Pay me or die.
Stupid? Pay me or fuck off.
In danger? Pay me or die.

>>412770
Morality is subjective; what one man thinks is immoral, another may think is moral. Go figure.

>>412770
All options to capitalism = large state control?

gb2 school you fucking tard.

>>412783
perhaps the most retarded division of the politic spectrum that I have ever seen (and I'm a leftist)

>>412792

This is the problem with elitist liberals. No solidarity.

The right has learned to exploit its stupid extremists, but the left is too far up its own ass to do the same.

>>412783

Small government doesn't Provides protection?

Private schools do better then most public schools?

Private healthcare tends to be better and much faster.

Public healthcare care only rises the price of drugs,due to the cost spending caps are set and that makes very long waiting lines?

Also people who don't use Public healthcare are forced to pay with there taxes?

>>412788

Explain?

>>412797
No, the real problem with modern liberals is their inability to have and maintain principles. In general, liberals (especially in the United States) are a bunch of compromising, bourgeois fools.

>>412819

Whats so good about principles?

>>412802

>Small government doesn't Provides protection?

Not ideally. State run police/firemen/etc are fundamentally socialist ideas, therefore not 'small government'.

>Private schools do better then most public schools?

Actually, they don't. Just because they're expensive doesn't mean they're good.

>Public healthcare care only rises the price of drugs,due to the cost spending caps are set and that makes very long waiting lines?

I'm not entirely sure this sentence makes sense, but I'll do me best. Drugs are already expensive as hell, I don't really care if they go higher at this point. As for waiting lines, I'll take waiting for care over no care.

>Also people who don't use Public healthcare are forced to pay with there taxes?

Absolutely. Why not?

>>412803
He was possibly referring to the various schools of anti-capitalist, anti-statist political thought - e.g. anarcho-syndicalism.

>>412802
Man I don't know where you're getting your info but all that is just total bullshit. I live in Canada, wait times are totally reasonable, drugs are way LESS expensive here (http://drugs.about.com/od/faqsaboutyourdrugs/f/Canada_cheap.htm http://healthmad.com/medicine/possibly-why-prescription-drugs-are-expensive-in-the-united-states/).). And it is not like healthcare is something people can reasonably opt out of and then complain about paying for with their taxes. Everyone gets sick, or knows someone close to them who will get sick, and I imagine it would be small solace to them if they couldn't afford poor little Jimmy's chemo treatment, but they still weren't paying for it with their taxes.

>>412827

>>Not ideally. State run police/firemen/etc are fundamentally socialist ideas, therefore not 'small government'

Socialist=big government?

>Private schools do better then most public schools?

Actually, they don't. Just because they're expensive doesn't mean they're good.
>Public healthcare care only rises the price of drugs,due to the cost spending caps are set and that makes very long waiting lines?

>Drugs are already expensive as hell, I don't really care if they go higher at this point.

Since you don't care and since people don't need to be picky They can raise them without anyone caring.

>As for waiting lines, I'll take waiting for care over no care.

You don't care for everyone paying for your heath care.Tho as soon as you have to pay yourself

Your not paying.

>Also people who don't use Public healthcare are forced to pay with there taxes?

Absolutely. Why not?

Because they don't want too?

But screw freedom these days.

>>412830

Of the three biggest health care expenses, the amount spent on pharmaceuticals has increased the most. In 1997 the total price of drugs surpassed that of doctors. In 1975 the three biggest health costs were hospitals ($5.5B/44.7%), physicians ($1.8B/15.1% ), and medications ($1.1B/8.8% ) well in 2007 the three biggest costs were hospitals ($45.4B/28.2% ), medications ($26.5B/16.5% ), and physicians ($21.5B/13.4% ).-wiki

>>412830

Health Canada, a federal department, publishes a series of surveys of the health care system in Canada based on Canadians first hand experience of the health care system.[52]
Although life threatening cases are dealt with immediately, some services needed are non urgent and patients are seen at the next available appointment in their local chosen facility.
The median wait time in Canada to see a special physician is a little over four weeks with 89.5% waiting less than 3 months.
The median wait time for diagnostic services such as MRI and CAT scans is two weeks with 86.4% waiting less than 3 months.[
The median wait time for surgery is four weeks with 82.2% waiting less than 3 months.
Another study by the Commonwealth Fund found that 57% of Canadians reported waiting 4 weeks or more to see a specialist, broadly in line with the current official statistics; 24% of Canadians waited 4 hours or more in the emergency room.-wiki

>>412862
misquoted myself abit there..

>>411168
YES. that alone is enough to troll me. fuckin' a.

without the government no safety standards would be followed. capitalist pigs would take advantage and also put children back into the labor force. with the government your water standards would be shit. fucking big government with traffic lights too fuuuuuu

>>412862

>Socialist=big government?

Yeah... usually. Unless you're of the anarcho-socialist mind, socialism usually means more government control.

>Since you don't care and since people don't need to be picky They can raise them without anyone caring.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

>You don't care for everyone paying for your heath care.Tho as soon as you have to pay yourself

>Your not paying.

Again, no idea.

>Because they don't want too?

Why wouldn't they want to? Are they so selfish as to ignore the people in their community who are sick and can't afford care?

>>412901
>without the government no safety standards would be followed.

If people think what their buying is unsafe they won't buy it.

>capitalist pigs would take advantage and also put children back into the labor force.

Unlike the government they can't force you to do shit.

And if Kids what to work why not?

>with the government your water standards would be shit. fucking big government with traffic lights too fuuuuuu

Because bottle water isn't popular.

and business wouldn't make roads.

>>412911
no. people buy shit they don't need and shit that is unsafe for them all the time! without government involvement it'll just be worse.

children shouldn't work. they're stupid and need to be in school. if they knew better they wouldn't need parents or the law telling them to go to school. god damn you're stupid, man.

>implying there aren't standards for bottled water even though its a rip off scheme.

>the government can't force you to do shit
oh god you're stupid. and probably a little kid. if the government can infringe on constitutional rights then it can make you do shit.

>>412905

>Yeah... usually. Unless you're of the anarcho-socialist mind, socialism usually means more government control.

The smallest form of a working government I can think of would be.

Protection of your property form others people.

So no fighting and stealing.

Thats all cops/military should be doing.

>I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Since most people don't care about the prices of drugs, drug-companies have no reason "not" to up the prices.


>Again, no idea.

Your fine with people paying taxes for health care they may or may not use.

But your not fine with paying out your own pocket?


>Why wouldn't they want to? Are they so selfish as to ignore the people in their community who are sick and can't afford care?

People do. it's called charity.

But not I am not fine with people being forced to.

>>412915
>>no. people buy shit they don't need and shit that is unsafe for them all the time! without government involvement it'll just be worse.

Isn't their choice?


>children shouldn't work. they're stupid and need to be in school. if they knew better they wouldn't need parents or the law telling them to go to school. god damn you're stupid, man.

Again isn't their choice?

>implying there aren't standards for bottled water
even though its a rip off scheme.

People buy bottle water over free drinking water since to them it's cleaner.

Why Wouldn't they do this "even more" with no standards?

Cleaner water would sell more thus meaning if you want to make it selling water it has to be clean.

>oh god you're stupid. and probably a little kid. if the government can infringe on constitutional rights then it can make you do shit.

Didn't you not see the Unlike?

>Unlike the government they can't force you to do shit.

This is what I stated.

>Arguing politics on /lit/

>>412944
it is their choice. but they could be making shittier choices. there is need for government regulation THATS WHY WE CREATED ONE HURRRR. the founding fathers of this country wanted to limit how much the poor could be exploited. that's what this argument is about. you're saying business owners have a right to exploit as far as they want as long as the people think they're making a choice. that's all a load a shit when various companies work TOGETHER to make sure that pricing and quality maximize the best profits. social acceptibility? businesses and their advertising create such nonsense.

>>412927

>Since most people don't care about the prices of drugs, drug-companies have no reason "not" to up the prices.

The reason I don't care whether drug prices go higher is because I can't afford them now. If they go higher, I still won't be able to afford them, so what difference does it make to me?

Drugs are already a luxury the lower-class can't afford.

>But your not fine with paying out your own pocket?

You're assuming everyone can afford private healthcare. That's absolutely false. It's not that I choose not to pay, it's that I can't pay. My options are:

No health care.
State health care.

Private health care is not an option for me(and thousands in similar or worse financial situations).

>it is their choice. but they could be making shittier choices.

So your kinda saying..

It's their right but, I rather have them doing something else.

>there is need for government regulation THATS WHY WE CREATED ONE HURRRR. the founding fathers of this country wanted to limit how much the poor could be exploited. that's what this argument is about.

Got some proof for that?

>you're saying business owners have a right to exploit as far as they want as long as the people think they're making a choice.

Business owners can't make you anything.

>that's all a load a shit when various companies work TOGETHER to make sure that pricing and quality maximize the best profits. social acceptibility? businesses and their advertising create such nonsense.

Yea until one company Just lowers it's prices and get far higher profits then the others.

You need a government to keep a monopoly your stating going.

>The reason I don't care whether drug prices go higher is because I can't afford them now. If they go higher, I still won't be able to afford them, so what difference does it make to me?

If people cared they would have to lower them.

>Drugs are already a luxury the lower-class can't afford.

They don't have to be.

>You're assuming everyone can afford private healthcare. That's absolutely false. It's not that I choose not to pay, it's that I can't pay. My options are:

No health care.
State health care.

Private health care is not an option for me(and thousands in similar or worse financial situations).

You can thank the government for Private health care being so costly.

I am a conservative and I fucking hate this asshole.

He's our Michael Moore, he makes us look like douchebags.

inb4 you are douchebags

pic related, a real radio host

>>412967

The Founding Fathers LOVED to exploit the poor. A good number of them were SLAVE owners.

>>413047

Owning slaves back then was like owning an SUV. Ugly, dirty, expensive, but if you could afford it, you probably did.

However, the founding father did fear the poor. The US Constitution was means to solidify property rights for the wealthy, and curb the disquieting appeals for "democracy." The founding fathers equated a democratic nation to mob rule.

>>413057

That's why we do not have direct election of the President and all these shennanigans involving the Electoral College.

>>413047

>The Founding Fathers LOVED to exploit the poor.

They had a lot of brilliant ideas, but I agree on this. Out capitalism has been moving more and more left since the nation began. In the beginning it was an unregulated nightmare.

A nice nonprofit nation wide healthcare system is a great fucking idea. Getting funds from people who don't want in on it and making it part of the fucking federal government is a terrible fucking idea.

>>413069

Kinda. In the early days, the founders thought Congress would select the president, which isn't an awful idea, seeing as idiots like GW Bush wouldn't have had a chance, but it relies on the idea that Congress can routinely make better decisions than the American people.

Of course, both are idiots.

Proportional representation is a nice idea, but it works better in a parliamentary system.

>>413070
>>413057
You say they do................but you don't say how they do it.


>>413070

How is unregulated nightmares bad again?

GUBBEMINT IS STEALIN' YOUR MONI

Why so many Marxist here?

>>413085

Since this is /lit/, how about a book?

Democracy for the Few has a solid chapter on exactly how the framing of the Constitution was intended to benefit the people who ratified it.

>>413085

>How is unregulated nightmares bad again?

Given the opportunity, capitalist enterprises will do anything they can to make more profit. Anything. It's just their nature. The more you let them do, the more they will do. If slavery was legalized tomorrow, every major corporation would be sending planes to whatever third world country looked good and they'd start netting the natives.

>>413075

Blue Cross started out as a non-profit.

>>413114

How is the government better?

The government could in that case would just take slaves to build roads,parks and fix pipes .

>>413133

>How is the government better?

It's not, it's just the other extreme. It's important to regulate the government(with some sort of citizen participation, either with revolution, or preferably, democracy) just as it's important to regulate corporations.

>>413114

Slaves? The supermen of capitalism just got "willing" Americans to bail them out to the tune of several TRILLION dollars.

Take a look at how they are using the power of the Imperial British state to threaten the Icelandic people and the Argentinian people RIGHT NOW.

>>413151

>Take a look at how they are using the power of the Imperial British state to threaten the Icelandic people and the Argentinian people RIGHT NOW.

I will. Thanks for the recommendation, comrade.

>>413085
>How is unregulated nightmares bad again?

I recommend you take the time to study the subject of poverty in 19th century Britain. You may be happy to discover that nearly a third of the country's population was either at or below the poverty line. You may also be delighted by the fact that it was the laissez-faire economic system which led to so much suffering, and that it was only when the government decided to intervene that conditions improved for the vast majority of British people.

I'm sorry glenn I just don't trust anyone who dresses as a nazi for a book cover.

>>413146

But how far are you going with your regulation?

Building the government just for the protection of peoples property, should be all the government needs to do?

>>411184

More like Eastern Germany, circa 1982.

>>413151

Capitalist-goverment doesn't care about the state of people or any business it just keeps order.

A bailing-out business is not capitalist.

>Huh !!ELs3OGUount

a fucking troll. narrow-minded as fuck. i understand where you're coming from with some of your points but you totally ignore facts that run contrary to your opinion, sir!

>>413207
Agreed. "Bailouts" are one of the worst ways to destroy a market economy. Critics of capitalism always complain about Greed, but capitalism DOES have a check on greed: risk.

If there is no risk in the markets then greed will run wild and destroy us all.

>>413159

What about war?

>>413207
it was a free choice made my those businesses to accept bailouts, correct?

>>413216

like what?

>>413223

yep.

>>413223

I think those businesses extorted the money from the government.

Ayaguing is not a word.

>>413254

I am a conservative. It is a word if I say it is.

It also means whatever I say it means.

Anything to avoid having to apologize for misusing language.

Death panels.

>>413222
What about it? Are you trying to suggest that war was the reason why people were paid a pittance and treated like utter shit?

>>413284
lol

>>413285
The debate about the start of the Industrial Revolution also concerns the massive lead that Great Britain had over other countries. Some have stressed the importance of natural or financial resources that Britain received from its many overseas colonies or that profits from the British slave trade between Africa and the Caribbean helped fuel industrial investment. It has been pointed out, however, that slave trade and West Indian plantations provided only 5% of the British national income during the years of the Industrial Revolution.[30] Even though slavery accounted for minimal economic profits in Britain during the Industrial Revolution Caribbean-based demand accounted for 12% of England's industrial output.[31]
Alternatively, the greater liberalisation of trade from a large merchant base may have allowed Britain to produce and use emerging scientific and technological developments more effectively than countries with stronger monarchies, particularly China and Russia. Britain emerged from the Napoleonic Wars as the only European nation not ravaged by financial plunder and economic collapse, and possessing the only merchant fleet of any useful size (European merchant fleets having been destroyed during the war by the Royal Navy[32]). Britain's extensive exporting cottage industries also ensured markets were already available for many early forms of manufactured goods. The conflict resulted in most British warfare being conducted overseas, reducing the devastating effects of territorial conquest that affected much of Europe. This was further aided by Britain's geographical position—an island separated from the rest of mainland Europe.-wiki

>>413225
like how you answer issues like it were some math problem without considering people.

>Capitalist-goverment doesn't care about the state of people or any business it just keeps order.

not caring and yet keeping order HURRRRR

we vote for our officials, correct? i'm sure they care about votes anyways. those votes belong to someone.

i have something good for you. why are you against big government when we are a freeeee democracy? people make their choices do they not? the only reason you could be against big government is if you believe we're not a democracy.

You liberal pinkosdeserve to die. Seriously, if you don't agree with Glenn Beck than you need to GTFO America.

Does Mr Beck realise that 'Я' means 'I' in Russian?

>>413297
Your point?

>>413306

>>the only reason you could be against big government is if you believe we're not a democracy.

I will go with that or at least not a good one.

>>413306
>the only reason you could be against big government is if you believe we're not a democracy.

eeeee yeah that's not true. at all. I know Rousseau and all the other Enlightenment people said that, but they were wrong. Read JS Mill or Isaiah Berlin, Two Concepts of Liberty, for some explanation of how fucking wrong this notion is.

>>413340
>Also what is "Good" is subjective.

Presidents: One six year term
Senators: Maximum one term
Representative: Limit of three terms

We need a new government

>political argument on /lit/
>The conservative is an idiot

>>413345

I'm not clear what you think Rousseau would have to say on this matter. Do tell.

>>413364
If you're going to start a whole new form of government, hopefully we can be more imaginative than term limits

>>413373
Government is made legitimate by the general will of the nation; therefore, it can have ultimate power because it would never do anything against the interests of the populace. You shouldn't be afraid of power of government because it is democratically governed.

>>413345
its a halfway troll thought. i'm not saying being against big gov is such. its just the same narrow logic i'm seeing all over this fucking thread. fuck you. lets say some more shit without all the considerations that go with it. oh wait- we just say whatever the hell here without all that.

>>413151
good book.

>>413376
The government is made up of individuals. If you get new individuals, you get a new government.

>>413385
But we could get that now if we just bothered to not vote in incumbents automatically every single time

>>413386
my bro did that hes been ballin since

>>413380
almost agree.

legitimacy can be found through oppresions, subversion etc etc. look at the nazi party. stalin. look at east germany under ulbricht. i think our nation's legitimacy is found through bullshit but much less obvious and not as bad as shit listed above.

>>413385

ORLY?

Looks like we got a semi-permanent shadow government run by private interests to me.

People from Goldman Sachs have been running the Treasury Department for the past decade.

yeah. liberalism is totally a bourgeois dictatorship

>>413324

Not that i think about that didn't really answer your question.

>>413392
But most of that power is exerted through established relationships with people who have been in congress for years upon years. You don't get someone in your pocket overnight, and eventually there will be a lot of people who won't "play ball".

>>413380

Oh right. Of course, the whole point of Rousseau's writings are that the General Will is sovereign -- government exists only as an administrator. The existence of a Legislator (who seems to represent a sort of demi-god in the theory who initially designs the constitution and the laws) slightly complicates matters.

However, Rousseau's ideal polity could not exist in a large nation state: he explicitly states this himself in SC. He said that the last place on Earth with a chance to produce the ideal political system was Corsica.

What you say is how, for example, Robespierre might have interpreted Rousseau. The rationalization for the power of the Committe for Public Safety was that the General Will could not be alienated and so had to be put in the hands of those who knew best.

On a.. related point, Rousseau also considered representative democracy illegitimate. In BRITAIN, he said, people are only free when they are at the ballot box and slaves for the rest of the year. If I didn't think I'd go over the word limit here, I'd mention Carl Schmitt's related criticisms of just how 'democratic' liberal democracies are.

TL;DR: In Roussea, government acts merely as an administrator for the General Will of the people. Not practical. Misappropriated by various political actors.

ON THE EARLIER BERLIN POINT, Berlin's most important suggestion is that he emphasises that 'negative liberty' is the most important kind. Quentin Skinner argues against this myopic view (which, Skinner says, Berlin shares with most contemporary political philosophers) and instead promotes the positive -- i.e. the republican -- idea of liberty. I highly recommend his work 'Liberty Before Liberalism'.

>>413324

My argument to that is conditions were far worse outside of capitalist countries that were making money during the industrial revolution.

Granted, your right about me needed to know more about the subject.

>>413347

I did say I think?

>>413411

Oh i didn't say that but it was a pretty subjective question with a subjective answer.

>>413405
I think that Rousseau is a pretty good exponent of the 'positive-liberty' position that what's important is that the general will be sovereign. that's the only extent to which I was referencing him.

I've read Skinner's "Foundations of Modern Political Thought" and it was quite good. I'll check out "Liberty Before Liberalism" when I get a chance.

>>413405
Why isn't it Not practical?

layman's term would be nice.

>>413408

I'm not sure what period you're referring to as 'the Industrial Revolution'. There was huge contemporary agitation against the IR in Britain. Luddism, Chartism, Romanticism (Blake's 'dark, satanic mills') were all responses to the perceived crises that the massive changes were bringing.

I'm not entirely sure which non-capitalist countries you're referring to either. What is true is that people felt stimulated to agitate for reform and for improvement of living standards (perhaps the result of the development of class consciousness, though this is a slightly outdated view) only from the beginning of the 19th century in the aftermath of the French Revolution and the wars against Napoleonic and Revolutionary France.

THUS, I would argue that conditions (social, economic and political) did improve from maybe 1832 (year of the Great Reform Act) onwards but that the period before this saw massive displacement of peoples from land, especially through the acts of enclosure; the traditional social ties broken up as people moved to anonymous urban sprawls; massive increases in crime; and so on. The nation as a whole became more prosperous but whether that means ordinary people's lives were improved is very questionable.

>>413370

My feelings are hurt.

>>413421
It's not practical because Rousseau more or less wants the entire population of the nation to get together and express their will and its generalness.

To be legitimate for Rousseau, you have to have the consent of the whole body, and that's basically impossible in a polity of any size.

>>413421

I only mean to say that the theory itself is impractical. Most commentators (I think) would agree that for it to succeed, it would require a very small, highly homogeneous group of people who don't see themselves as having competing interests.

You can see in the outcome of the Terror of the FR what it means to actually try to put Rousseau's theory into practice in a diverse society. ALTHOUGH, as a caveat, I should say it's still a topic of some debate whether the Terror can be linked to Rousseau's ideas so straightforwardly.

>>413429

Not the whole body: only the body of the people insofar as it is acting in the interests of all -- it's not a simple numbers game though. That is what makes it so easy for people (SORRY TO GO ON ABOUT THE TERROR) to say that any dissent is simply the product of people acting against the general will. Those people, naturally, must be stopped. In Rousseau's terms, they must be 'forced to be free' -- for Robespierre, this usually meant they must be killed.

>>413457
Oh absolutely, I totally agree with you. Also I really like your style, and I feel that you should post more on /lit/. You're a pretty cool dude.

>>413428
>implying I was trying to hurt your feelings
I was just pointing out that you make all conservatives look like retards. It's people like you who spoil it for the whole party.

>>413494

How so?

>>413506
Sorry I was gone for a while.
Because you say stupid things.

>>413494

But conservatives ARE retards. Repressive retards.

>>413580
Like?

>>413597
How so?

>>411457

Fucking signed!

>>413609
Well for one I'm a troll

>>413609
I see you understand your tripcode as a conversational programme

>>413632

Tripcodes are bad?

>>413609

Since this is /lit/, research the history of the book Ulysses in the U.S. Also Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer.

Check out the annual ALA banned books list.

Nat Hentoff.

Conservatives ban (and burn) books. Liberals fight these bans and burnings.

Now, maybe you want to substitute some Bizarro World revisionist definition of "conservative" for the distasteful facts, but you aren't fooling anyone.

>>413652
did not say that, but you said

> How so?

a couple of times, and your trip is Huh, like in "huh?"
so your trip is your conversational programme/agenda.
nomen est omen.

oh, and, yes, tripcodes are pretty bad, because I want there to be another shitstorm about it right NOW!

why is his left eye lazy

>>413667
Socratic questioning has done me well.

>>413669
stroke from too much buttsex while in a pool with feminist-communist books

>>413677
> implying that asking stupid question is socratic or that you have even the slightest clue about socratic method

q: why is it that professors and teachers are mostly liberal?

a: because they're educated and aren't stupid

xD so much win

>>413682

Come on now.... you just dislike me.

If you only knew the power of Objectivism

>>413694
But my friend: why does he dislike you?

>>413734
kudos to you, citizen.
I will aid you in your pederastic endeavours, from now on I will occupy the pedagogue, allowing you to seduce the youngling.

>>413741
history major detected!

>>413741
>pederasty

>>413722
all power to the hypnorand

I want to bring up the school issue again.

I like the idea of public schools and I agree they should be kept, however, I believe they should teach kids how to be practical, critical thinking citizens as opposed to teaching them to simply memorize advanced algebra that most will probably never use in real life.

I want to put emphasis on on cultural classes already in existence (IE: English, sociology) and make them required, every year for high school students. I would also (I know no better way to say this) have them take classes that would force them to use and develop critical thinking skills. (IE: Philosophy, which I would make required as well.)

In conjunction with this, I would also have shop and home ec classes be made required as well. This would give the student pragmatic skills to fall back in case of emergency.

>>413917
inb4 butthurt engineerfags.

>>413917

I'm not saying get rid of math or science. No no! I'm just saying our public schools need to teach kids how to be informed, rational, useful citizens.

Note: This is all theoretical of course. It would take massive effort on the part of the public to make this plan come true. Also, I say all this without having all the facts on hand. I'm speaking from a viewpoint who still remembers high school.

So fact check me and tell if I'm wrong! I really do want to know if this is a good idea

>>413931

*of a guy who still remembers high school.

Forgive my mistakes.I'm sure since this /lit/ that you guys can forgive grammar mistakes :P

>>413931
Well, it's a great idea, with one huge problem (ignoring funding, politics and personal opinion; all of which are addressed in my all-new, all-inclusive 4th Reich).

How do we determine what knowledge turns people into "rational" citizens. And for that matter, how do we define rational in a socio-political context?

>>413917

Wait, so you want practical courses with a focus on culture and philosophy?

That's kind of contradictory.

>>411265
>implying that all religions aren't complete bullshit

>>413931
liberal arts are good, but if the school is bad then they'll be ruined in a way that objective courses can't be. I'd also say that it's a lot easier to skate through such classes without learning.

so in theory it may sound good, but IRL I think it would be better to expand classes that can't be fucked up by lazy students or teachers.
In addition, liberal arts are a lot easier to learn on your own than higher math or science.

>>413951

Yeah, the practical aspects of how this would be done are beyond me, but I don't think it would be impossible to establish. (Also this would have oversight from people, even though that might cause more problems.)

As for your next part, I don't think we should preach a certain ideology to them but rather we have them learn a variety of ideas from many different backgrounds.

This makes them rational in the sense that, due to their knowledge of different view points, they can make their own decisions.

They may not make the choice I like, but they arrived at it on their own whims and not just because it's what everybody else said was right.

who is glenn beck?

>>413989
I wish I was you

>>413989

You know that crazy right-wing homeless guy yelling things at the highway?

Glenn Beck is that guy in a suit, and he's yelling at a national highway.

>>413967

Very true. But at least they would be EXPOSED to potential new ideas.

That's better than nothing and I believe it might have a cumulative effect the longer it was in place

>>413951

That may not have answered your questions in a socio-political context, but I was speaking more in a general view of life.

>>414002
I'm not American. never saw that guy before now :)

>>414009
go watch the daily show online, you sure will find him to be a comedic mastermind (because seriously, without him the writers at the daily show wouldnt know how to get through 4 shows a week)

Rachel & Keith are pretty shitty too....

Watch 20/20.

I have a theory that Glen Beck is a figurehead that has been built from the ground up as a outlet for hate. Maybe, just maybe, Fox has some secret agenda that has the public's best interest at heart, and is trying to unite us through our hatred.
What other explanation could there be? Just look at his face. He doesn't even have to say anything and you can already tell hes a moron. The theory, as crazy as it is, makes more sense to me than the supposed truth. How could anyone take this man seriously?

>>411187
it says "enrich." learn to read

>>412670
yes. There are like 30 Halo books, and a whole series called Captain Underpants.

>>414022
searched in youtube daily show and I saw this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5EdCt4mUcM
>my face during the video

>>414149
oh god, nevermind that. I'm watching this now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft8LfE7AI2w
I'm at 0:40 and already contemplating suicide, this fag can't be serious. watch it if you want to rage hard.

>>412802

You were hoam-skooled, rite?

Why is he wearing a german military uniform?

>>414715
BECAUSE GERMANS ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT UNDERSTAND HIM.

Ive completely isolated myself from this sort of stuff. Why exactly is he such an idiot? Im honestly completely ignorant about him :3

>>414795
He's like a character from Sinclair Lewis' "It Can't Happen Here"

>>413931

To pick up the theme of Robespierre again, the idea of making citizens rational creatures through an education controlled by the state was one of the major proposals that he made during his time on the Committee. OF COURSE, 'rationality' is a concept better suited precisely to the areas of science, mathematics, engineering and so on. His argument was that anybody can learn those things on a simple rote basis: it does not especially matter how gifted you are, anyone who is sufficiently committed will be able to grasp mathematics and the principles of all of the 'hard sciences.

CONTRARIWISE, he thought tha the so-called 'soft sciences' produce a much less equal understanding. That is because they often rely on one's imaginative abilities; their wit; their ability to form new and often complex perspectives of particular events; and so on.

If 'usefulness' is the ultimate test here, clearly a liberal arts education isn't the way to go. Most people ought to learn practical skills (or theoretical knowledge that can then be put into practice -- history, literature and so on are not especially 'useful' in the sense of utility) and engineering would have to be valued above all else.

I like how the most vocal jackasses in this thread (Huh and GamerGirl) are tripfags. Once again, tripfags suck.

>>415105

How I am a jackass?
Because I stated my opinion?

It's funny that some people on this thread would call me a jackass but their the ones who are resorting to name calling.

>>414180

I don't see how that was so rage worthy..

He's supposed to be dressed like a Russian commissar.

>>414509

Nope.

I normally don't like to link things into /lit/, but this. This is related:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-faCh8BUEts