Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx
Yeah, I saw the art on facebook. I'm half convinced the artist did this on purpose, the idiots had no clue (having failed history), and the artist walked away with their money laughing.
And yeah, this is the end-game of a 30 year effort by essentially the same people who brought us the 1870s, the 1890s, the 1910s, the 1930s (all depressions from reckless speculation and manipulation by unregulated banks/corporations and international trading companies). They want to return to those "good old times" where they made a lot of money and the other 90% of us took it in the backside.
|
I'm hoping the artist did it as a joke as well, but it's still boggling that it wasn't caught before going to print. It's iconic communist imagery. Even stranger is that this is at least a week old. I thought there'd be more coverage of it given how crazy this election is. Perhaps it's too tame, heh.
The Cato group advocating taking a page from Lenin to dismantle (er, I mean privatize) Social Security is even more eyebrow raising. What is especially fascinating about it is the era (early 80's) and how it proposes accomplishing it: employing the FIRE economy giants to form a coalition that would "educate" people about the "evils" of the program so that they can collect a buck for themselves. I noted one part where it suggests not angering the elderly, due to their voting power, by letting them stay on the program if they're on it. I can see a lot of the Ryan plan in the paper....which just goes to show how long some of these plans are worked on. Definitely long term thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro
Well the hang up seems to be the word "marriage" and its modern religious meanings. The logical approach would be to take the religious part out and make that the seperate but equal section. Everything else would be civil and secular, the only added feature for a "marriage" would be religious based and that varies by religion already anyway.
|
The only reason it's actually an issue is because a "legal marriage" provides government benefits and legal defenses in case of relationship dispute (like child support). "Defining marriage" is a red herring used by politicians and activists to excite their religious and nonreligious bases. The reality is that Jane and Sara love each other, but Sara went to war and got killed, and now Jane can't get military benefits. The reality is that Jeff and Bob loved each other, but Bob found another man and now there is a custody battle over their adopted daughter Mary.
Those are the types of benefits and complications of legal marriage. Not what part of what genital goes where.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ganbaru
|
Ugh, the anniversary. I'll do what I always do, a silent vigil for all those who lost so much because of it and all that followed it. I'll pass on the coverage and silly punditry.
This year will be interesting though, since no politicians are allowed to speak during the ceremonies.