1. Notes: 7264 / 2 years ago  from queen-of-puns (originally from climax--climax)



Mirrored Sunglasses. It’s safe to blink now.

…I love fandom. XD





    Mirrored Sunglasses. It’s safe to blink now.


    …I love fandom. XD


    (Source: climax--climax)

  2. 2 years ago 

    Occupy and Tea Party Movements Hurt Independents

    In the midst of the past four years of political turmoil and partisan politics, we all have witnessed the rise of two particular movements that, while initially offering populist messages, have grotesquely transformed into influential and divisive partisan movements, corrupted by our two-party system just as every other political movement of recent times. What I’m referring to, of course, are the Tea Party and Occupy movements.

    The Tea Party initially was a response to the bank bailouts of 2008-9. The people of the Tea Party wanted our massive federal government to stop spending so much money and balance the budget. They wanted an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. They wanted lower taxes. This later ended up being primarily about lower taxes, seemingly under the guise of following the Constitution, in many cases (although it appears rare that the true Tea Party figureheads, e.g. Bachmann, have any real idea of how to interpret such a document). The main rationale for this change was that the Republican Party co-opted the Tea Party movement, mainstream-ing its populist message to fit large government designs.

    So it shouldn’t have been any surprise that when the Occupy movement first arrived on Wall Street, the Democratic Party wanted their own piece of the populist pie. Although initially promoting accountability on Wall Street for the bailouts and bonuses from the same TARP of the Tea Party, the movement was not only rapidly consumed by (primarily) anti-capitalists, but supported hastily by Democratic leaders.

    It should be clear that the intent of the Democratic Party is the same as the GOP of ’09: the populist movement is, well, popular. The Republican base was energized by the assimilation of the Tea Party; the Democrats reason similarly that co-opting (or appearing to attempt to co-opt) the Occupy movement is a calculated political move to bring populists to the party and energise the base for Obama’s re-election campaign and beyond.

    Nice play, Democrats. The only problem with this whole idea is the whole idea. Politically, it’s suicidal. The Republican Party has already been burned by the Tea Party in a number of different ways; I wouldn’t expect much different to come from Occupy. The whole concept is basically this flawed idea that extremism is countered best by… extremism! So when the primaries necessarily occur in 2016 or 2020 for both parties, they’re going to have the problem of dealing with this “energized” base that is so extreme that it threatens to throw the respective party off the cliff.

    The coveted independent vote is the one that seems to be ignored here. Independents are being increasingly forced to choose between the perceived lesser of two evils, especially as the contenders drift further and further apart on the political spectrum. It’s almost enough to make one worry that one day we’ll have a fascist Republican running against a communist Democrat (I really don’t anticipate that problem). But the principle is there!

    Independents  are unlikely to get their real world concerns met as parties must bow further and further to ideological pressures and political goals. This means that politics as usual will become meaningless to the common American who only wants to make a living for themselves.

    This problem I largely perceive to be a direct result of the “benevolent” two-party system. By offering two diametrically opposed parties that become orders of magnitude further apart each election cycle, there is no compromise. A completely viable solution would be if the Libertarian Party were to be brought into prominence, but I won’t hold my breath. Right now the package problem exists: take social and economic conservatism, take social and economic liberalism, or just hope that the divisive elements within the two parties can stay quiet long enough to accept a moderate candidate to represent them.

    This country isn’t about having a government that you hate the least – it’s about voting for a candidate that has most of your interests at heart. With so many voters being increasingly alienated from the two parties, is it possible that we could see the two-party system fall apart?

  3. Notes: 6 / 3 years ago  from whataboutliberty-deactivated201


    Heres a clip from our march on friday in front of the Fed, its a big step, we have to keep pressing this issue to OWS. The fed is an issue that affects the left and the right.  

  4. Notes: 102 / 3 years ago  from whataboutliberty-deactivated201




  5. Notes: 2 / 3 years ago  from whataboutliberty-deactivated201
    What About Liberty?: Clarifying "Guns,Missiles,Tanks"


    I just want to clarify what i meant by my comment about guns missiles and tanks being America’s only exports. I didn’t mean that in the literal sense. What I meant is we have a Military Industrial Complex in this country, another world America never sees. We currently have 700 bases in 150 

  6. Notes: 5 / 3 years ago 

    An excellent video explaining why it is not “American exceptionalism”, freedom, or Christianity that has caused America to be the target of terrorists. Ron Paul’s foreign policy is the ONLY policy that will truly keep us safe.

  7. 3 years ago 

    Why Ron Paul Can (and Should) Win the GOP Nomination

    Ron Paul is typically viewed in Republican circles to be little more than a minor nuisance – a libertarian crank who has no real chance at winning the GOP nomination and is generally unelectable. Paul ran as a Libertarian Party candidate in 1988 and a Republican Party candidate in 2008 with limited success.

    But this time around, Ron Paul has a legitimate shot at winning the nomination, as well as the general election. A number of new developments have energised the Texas Representative’s campaign, bringing him to the forefront of this election cycle’s events.

    Some modifications to the GOP nomination rules by the Republican National Committee favour Paul much more than in previous years. This time around, states traditionally using winner-take-all primaries will have to wait until April, according to the new rule. If states with winner-take-all setups decide upon an earlier date, they will be stripped of half of their candidates (with the exceptions of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina). Additionally, a rule already exists that penalises states that move their primaries up (except Iowa), meaning that if New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina move their dates up (as they historically have), they will also lose delegates.

    Ron Paul benefits from this largely because the proportional voting states will likely hold a larger influence than they have in the past, and Paul is more likely to gain momentum by sticking through the race. Paul’s campaign scales well with time, and it’s likely that he would win a war of attrition through March and April. Additionally, Paul’s major focus this campaign has been in Iowa, which will have all of its delegates. Paul already has a strong history here, coming in a statistical tie for first with Michelle Bachmann in the Iowa Straw Poll and holding numerous endorsements from the Republican State Central Committee. The caucus format also suits Paul, and it is likely that if he grabs the majority, he’ll snowball through the rest of the process.

    In addition to these rule changes, Paul’s campaign offers something that the Republican Party desperately needs: passion. Ron Paul supporters are typically very active and vocal. Overall, Paul’s organisation is unmatched. His grassroots base appeals to the populist element in the nomination cycle and has propelled him to the top tier of fundraising without “bundlers” like many of the other top candidates utilise. The main reason the Party needs him is because he appeals not only to baby boomers, but also to young voters. Paul’s ability to draw young voters to the Republican Party is indispensable, and the GOP should be careful not to alienate their future mainstay.

    Overall this translates to the fact that he’s very electable. Because his national supporters don’t naturally fall along party lines, he’s able to steal even liberal voters while gathering masses of independent voters that enjoy his Constitutionally-based message of freedom. Polls show Ron Paul consistently even with or beating Obama in 2012, performing in the top tier of Republican hopefuls. A Harris poll in mid-September shows Paul beating Obama by a 51-49 margin; similarly, a Reuters/Ipsos poll during the same time period shows Paul vs. Obama at 49-51. This shows Ron Paul is definitely competitive, and would become more so if he were nominated and the Republican Party gave him some legitimacy instead of ignoring the introducer of ideas that have so far shaped the GOP campaigns.

    Perhaps this should have been expected. Ron Paul has so far been the only truly consistent and principled statesman that we’ve seen in years. Americans today seem more concerned with packaging than with substance. But after seeing what that led to with the election of Obama, conservatives and liberals alike are coming around to the need for something new. Ron Paul has an authenticity and intellectual honesty that befuddles the current GOP offering. He has had the experience in legislature, he has predicted all of the economic problems with uncanny accuracy, and he has offered solutions that have not been taken. If the GOP does decide to take Ron Paul, it will signal a fundamental change – a realignment – in the party that would usher in another age of prosperity. Really, the only question is an elementary one: Do we elect Ron Paul now or kowtow to a base so far to the right that it alienates the rest of the country and leads the GOP into oblivion? I know what my answer is.


  8. Notes: 1 / 3 years ago 

    Mises University 2011 - Day 2

    So I’m at this awesome Austrian economics institution where for a week we’re undergoing epic lectures on Austrian economics. Today we castrated Keynesian theory and criticised Canadian healthcare, among other things. It’s quite possibly the most satisfying experience to destroy the cloudy presuppositions to which classical/neoclassical economists cling, replacing it with the intuitive and realistic (not to mention completely causal-based and consistent) propositions of Austrian economics. More on this hopefully as the week goes on. I’m feeling more like an Objectivist-influenced libertarian and less of a libertarian-influenced Objectivist. I can’t justify aggression, so I suppose that’d be the hallmark for which I’ve been looking.

  9. Notes: 3 / 3 years ago  from myfavoritecolorisirony
    Su·per·fi·cial:: I wonder if anyone here has every experienced a life change. A...


    I wonder if anyone here has every experienced a life change. A revelation. An epiphany. About anything really. Today, I’m not sure if its the overdose of caffeine or the play I went to go see, but things have seemed to become different. I really want to just type this all out before I lose it,…

  10. 3 years ago 

    Symphony and Metal

    So I was just sitting around, enjoying my weekend, blasting my music (as I tend to do), when I started wondering why the heck I was listening to Korn at all. I mean, I have to be pretty straightforward when I say Korn is not a great band. They’re definitely hit or miss — sometimes they’re just straight up creepy, to be honest. Nonetheless, I have to say, they have this obnoxious habit of popping up with a good song every now and again, keeping them in a few of my Pandora stations. So how did I even get to the point where I could listen to any of it?


    Yes, I’m blaming Van Halen, arguably the best rock band of the time, for my apparent (fleeting) interest in elements of Korn. (WTF, right?) Well, in my defence, they’re musical marijuana (note: I don’t actually believe in “gateway drugs”). 

    Above: A GATEWAY DRUG.

    I first got into them in middle school, and they’re really sorta border hard rock, I’d say, but they’ve got a nice clean sound. I’d definitely have to argue with anyone that said they had a “dirty” sound. The vamping on the guitars is characteristic, sure, but the sound as a whole is very well defined.

    Okay, so one thing leads to another, listening to even border hard rock inevitably leads to some “harder” bands: AC/DC, Black Sabbath, even (oh my gosh) Nickelback!? Regardless, eventually I ended up on the hard-rock/heavy metal boat, and it’s fantastic. That’s not to say that I don’t still enjoy Van Halen (they’re still in my top 10), but I’ve gained a healthy appreciation for the distortion and raw emotion that I think is better portrayed in the sort of bands like Disturbed, Breaking Benjamin, and Metallica.

    Some people argue that these sort of bands lack a true compositional structure, appreciation of subtle elements of music, etc. 

    Symphonic MetalTake a long look at Metallica, the extended structure of their songs, and the complexity of the music, and try to repeat that. The intricacy that tends to be found in not only layering, but actual TEXTURE — sometimes almost tangible — in the music, is remarkable. It’s really how I justify my appreciation of both symphonic and metal (I’m using this as inclusive of the rock genre in general, but it’s the more extreme version) musics (in fact, the best is hybrid: Symphonic Metal).

    The two really aren’t that different! The instrumentation and the volume. But the effect of the music, the goals of the songwriters/composers, and the intensity of the performers are unerringly similar. Eliciting emotion, creating a feeling of personal presence, is what they do, and they do it well. 

    This is true also of some (similar) genres, such as jazz and blues. This somewhat leads into my dis-appreciation of “pop” music. I find that pop music just tends to repeat thoughts without ever really bringing anything new into the mix. It doesn’t bring emotion to the table, only forces the listener, through resonance of a constant idea, to eventually bring themselves to some sort of personal catharsis (and I use that term extremely loosely, since I disagree that there is any catharsis).

    The difference is similar to that between empathy and sympathy (often called empathic concern). Pop features sympathetic forces: they seek to force some sort of connection to the listener and have that “I know what you’re feeling.” influence; symphonic and metal instead seek to create the emotion in you that the writer or performer has had inside themselves — you literally feel what they’re feeling, and it is a much more direct empathic connection.

    The end result of this is really a question: why do so many people find conflict between symphonic and metal music? And why is that divide so commonly an age barrier? Emotion isn’t discrete — why should music be?