|
Renton
|
07-10-2010, 11:23 PM
Post subject: generation zero
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 5,991
|
|
Generation Zero (2010)
Has anyone heard about or seen this movie? I feel like I've always been guilty of using a liberal filter on all of the media I watch, so I was wanting to see the republican version of a michael moore film, if only to keep my thumb on the pulse of our right wing nut base. Would this be a good choice?
Also, addendum question, where can I find this to watch on the internets free lol?
|
|
|
Play for FREE and practice your game at...
Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting!
|
|
Roco415
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 548
|
|
i totally respect why you are watching this but for that same reason i have no desire to watch republican propaganda...would much rather watch some propaganda that is actually feasable and not completely insane...
in terms of finding it....torrent search engines...try...
toorgle.com
it searches all torrent sires simultaneously
|
|
Roco415.
|
|
BooG690
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,439
|
|
Link to trailer: YouTube - Generation Zero - Official Trailer
|
That's how winners play; we convince the other guy he's making all the right moves.
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
That would be like balancing Robin Hood with the Sheriff of Nottingham, science with religion, or reasonable adults with whiny children
Examine public policy and political history and you'll be amazed to find that the opposing sides have nothing to do with balancing or determining correct policy, but equality vs inequality. Always. The GOP and conservatism doesn't bother with anything other than protectionism/welfare for the rich/special and moral authoritarianism. I'm not sure why you'd want to balance policy that attempts to equalize freedoms with policy that attempts to destroy them.
If you want to put your finger on the pulse of the batshit crazy right-wing voters or diabolical overlords who drive their engine watch Alexandra Pelosi docs or TYT or Krugman or something. It's not about left vs right, but about equality vs inequality/more power for the less powerful vs more powerful for the already very powerful
Besides, we already know that the GOP and its conservatism is full of shit. People are just retards who refuse to fact-check or use their cognitive capacity
|
|
|
|
AvatarKava
|
|
Flush
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 464
|
|
90% of Moore's stuff is no more feasible than 90% of the right-wing nut stuff.
Not all of the GOP/conservatism is bad. Making it black/white and about rich vs. poor is a gross oversimplification. It also fails to differentiate between economic and social policies, where many people's views can be diametrically opposed (take for example libertarianism which is socially liberal while economically conservative).
In reality, most analysis shows that a large portion of the electorate falls into a moderate/centrist category. The problem is that both political parties here in the US have become focused on catering to the "core" and then trying to pull a majority of moderates with small concessions as a strategy to win elections. Without any viable third party, both parties work actively to keep it a "good vs. evil" two party system, and voters consistently head to the voting booth trying to select between what they consider the lesser of two evils.
My personal belief is that greed/evil is a universal constant in society and it gravitates towards wherever power lies - basically, the shit rises to the top. Negative maybe, but every instance I've seen of an imbalance between corporate / gov't power results in the general populace being screwed.
|
|
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AvatarKava
90% of Moore's stuff is no more feasible than 90% of the right-wing nut stuff.
|
This is common theme, but it's just not true. People like to conflate issues and falsely frame the debate which fools them into making false comparisons. While liberals are not correct all the time, the facts support them to a vastly greater degree than conservatives.
Quote:
|
Not all of the GOP/conservatism is bad.
|
Actually, it is. Sounds like a pompous thing to say, but all you have to do is understand ideology, history, and follow the money. Consevatism has always been on the wrong side. This is a very difficult thing for people to understand because a lot of what they claim to be conservative is actually liberal. Conservatism is protectionism for the status quo. They only jump on the bandwagons of good things after they forgot they opposed them. This is a hard fact of history
Quote:
|
Making it black/white and about rich vs. poor is a gross oversimplification.
|
Well, I didn't do exactly that, but it's not an oversimplification to represent the facts.
Quote:
|
It also fails to differentiate between economic and social policies, where many people's views can be diametrically opposed (take for example libertarianism which is socially liberal while economically conservative).
|
It doesn't fail to acknowledge this though. Besides, libertarianism is a skew between the extremes and doesn't operate under a different paradigm. Its overall effects are sadly conservative, however.
Quote:
|
My personal belief is that greed/evil is a universal constant in society and it gravitates towards wherever power lies - basically, the shit rises to the top. Negative maybe, but every instance I've seen of an imbalance between corporate / gov't power results in the general populace being screwed.
|
Which = conservatism. This is undeniable when you examine the ideology and practical effects
The distinction made between equality/inequality is the correct one, and all of public policy can be broken down into it. I'm the last person to make dichotomies since they are so easily false, but this is very solid.
It is important to call liberalism and conservatism what they really are. For example, if you ask people if the Second Amendment is a conservative policy, the vast majority would say yes, but reality is that it's not conservative in the slightest. It's very liberal, and the real conservative Second Amendment would have been its opposite. The exact same applies to virtually everything. Go over the liberal/conservative positions on anything; slavery, womens rights, health care, economic prosperity, etc, and you'll find that liberalism was/is on the side that benefits the commoner while conservatism was/is on the side that benefits the special. This is true without fail
Right-wing voters are hellbent on opposing correct policy, yet when they sometimes lose the battle they jump on the bandwagon. Just because conservatives say things like how they support the Constitution doesn't mean that it wasn't the biggest liberal policy action in all of history, their conservative ancestors and ideologies were/are opposed to it, yet they've simply just switched some sides by cherry picking policy without switching ideology
|
|
|
|
spoonitnow
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: IRC Chat Room
Posts: 5,406
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by avatarkava
90% of moore's stuff is no more feasible than 90% of the right-wing nut stuff.
Not all of the gop/conservatism is bad. Making it black/white and about rich vs. Poor is a gross oversimplification. It also fails to differentiate between economic and social policies, where many people's views can be diametrically opposed (take for example libertarianism which is socially liberal while economically conservative).
In reality, most analysis shows that a large portion of the electorate falls into a moderate/centrist category. The problem is that both political parties here in the us have become focused on catering to the "core" and then trying to pull a majority of moderates with small concessions as a strategy to win elections. Without any viable third party, both parties work actively to keep it a "good vs. Evil" two party system, and voters consistently head to the voting booth trying to select between what they consider the lesser of two evils.
My personal belief is that greed/evil is a universal constant in society and it gravitates towards wherever power lies - basically, the shit rises to the top. Negative maybe, but every instance i've seen of an imbalance between corporate / gov't power results in the general populace being screwed.
|
HAHA YOU'RE WRONG AND I'M RIGHT FUCK YOU AND THE REPUBLICAN HORSE YOU RODE IN ON YOU ALWAYS-WRONG PIECE OF SHIT BOW DOWN TO MY MOTHERFUCKING PARAGRAPHS RAWWWWRRRRRRRRRRR *burp*
I BET YOU VOTED FOR BUSH TWICE AND GO TO CHURCH 4 TIMES A WEEK
AND I LIKE BLACK WOMEN
FUCK SOCCER
[/wufwugy impersonation]
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ripptyde
I only have 2 simple rules when I am coaching a new student.
Rule # 1: don't ask questions
Rule # 2: don't ask questions
I have no interest in discussing strategy with a protege'. Your job is to remain quiet and listen. I have a very systematic approach that I will share with the right candidate and I promise that I will turn you into a force of nature and show you elements of the game of poker that you never knew existed.
|
|
|
spoonitnow
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: IRC Chat Room
Posts: 5,406
|
|
Note I agree with the majority of the opinions of the wuf impression
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ripptyde
I only have 2 simple rules when I am coaching a new student.
Rule # 1: don't ask questions
Rule # 2: don't ask questions
I have no interest in discussing strategy with a protege'. Your job is to remain quiet and listen. I have a very systematic approach that I will share with the right candidate and I promise that I will turn you into a force of nature and show you elements of the game of poker that you never knew existed.
|
|
|
Renton
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 5,991
|
|
Well, I've just always been left leaning, but as I get older it seems like I more and more am sympathizing with some right wing views.
For example, I was just watching Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story, and while I agree that its pretty fucked up that people got tricked into losing their homes, I still feel like they were ultimately to blame for their own plight. There's one scene where this heavy set bumpkin chick is boohooing about "why do they do this to the hard working people?", and I was just like dude, you were the fucking one who took out a massive loan on your fucking house that there was no way you could pay back. I also have an extreme disdain for the obsession with homeownership we have in this country.
Kinda got off on a tangent there, I'd just like to see one right winger with integrity to balance out all of the liberal shit I watch all the time.
|
|
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
For example, I was just watching Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story, and while I agree that its pretty fucked up that people got tricked into losing their homes, I still feel like they were ultimately to blame for their own plight. There's one scene where this heavy set bumpkin chick is boohooing about "why do they do this to the hard working people?", and I was just like dude, you were the fucking one who took out a massive loan on your fucking house that there was no way you could pay back. I also have an extreme disdain for the obsession with homeownership we have in this country.
|
While this is true in particular contexts, it's a mistake to put much emphasis on it in the scope of the real problems. Also, blaming the commoner has been a popular conservative/corporate propaganda tool for several decades now.
Blaming the commoners for systemic problems handed down by the powerful is like blaming the serfs for the problems created by the lords or blaming the unruly child for the problems handed down by the shoddy parents
Without getting into it, I'll just state that when you get into the details of our economic/financial issues, greed and stupidity from the consumers is barely a blip on the screen of relevancy. In fact, the existence of an abundance of consumer greed and stupidity is even a tough position to argue. The numbers just simply do not support placing almost any of the blame on consumption. Many will be surprised to learn that this 'consumer greed' thing has dramatically decreased over the last several decades, not increased. The problems are all coming from the top and the highway robbery they've been dishing out
|
|
|
|
Ash256
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1,760
|
|
wuf, if you're distinguishing between policies and ideological attributes, isn't business regulation (which is obv correct) kinda illiberal?
|
|
|
|
BennyLaRue
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 646
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
Well, I've just always been left leaning, but as I get older it seems like I more and more am sympathizing with some right wing views.
|
Because you're getting older or because you have more money now?
|
|
|
|
Renton
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 5,991
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Without getting into it, I'll just state that when you get into the details of our economic/financial issues, greed and stupidity from the consumers is barely a blip on the screen of relevancy.
|
I'm not learned enough to have a strong position opposite this, but I really disagree. Maybe not so much greed and stupidity, but definitely fiscal ignorance has to play a big factor in the problems we have. The fiscal problems in this country are strongly pushed for by the top 1% and the government that serves primarily them; the treasury department primarily consisting of goldman-sachs people, the huge subsidies on homeowner credit, the advertising campaigns pushing for homeownership and refinancing. But people choose to fall for this stuff don't they?
|
|
|
|
Renton
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 5,991
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BennyLaRue
Because you're getting older or because you have more money now?
|
Well, I only make like 50-60k a year fwiw. But yeah thats probably part of it; not out of self interest or anything, I don't have any problem with taxes and don't own a business or anything. I just am seeing more and more how irresponsible poor people are with their money, so I'm developing a mild hatred for the poor, lol.
|
|
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash256
wuf, if you're distinguishing between policies and ideological attributes, isn't business regulation (which is obv correct) kinda illiberal?
|
Naw, regulation is a liberal attribute. Think of rules and refs in a game. Liberalism is like rules and refs for fair play, conservatism is like letting the players ref themselves.
|
|
|
|
Ash256
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1,760
|
|
Ok, cheers, I just read up on it and found that social liberalism allows for regulation whereas classic liberalism doesn't.
I agree with Renton though, that one attribute of a sizeable chunk of the working poor is awful money management.
|
|
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by renton
I'm not learned enough to have a strong position opposite this, but I really disagree. Maybe not so much greed and stupidity, but definitely fiscal ignorance has to play a big factor in the problems we have. The fiscal problems in this country are strongly pushed for by the top 1% and the government that serves primarily them; the treasury department primarily consisting of goldman-sachs people, the huge subsidies on homeowner credit, the advertising campaigns pushing for homeownership and refinancing. But people choose to fall for this stuff don't they?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash256
I agree with Renton though, that one attribute of a sizeable chunk of the working poor is awful money management.
|
Putting the emphasis for systemic economic failures on the working class is like putting the emphasis for a lost war on the soldiers (instead of the administrators, generals, and those who ran/operated the war). Under some hypotheticals, it works, but under reality, it's impractical and misses the truth entirely. It's important to make the micro and macroeconomic distinctions
While the populace is naturally fiscally irresponsible, the numbers and facts show us that this microeconomic irresponsibility doesn't really affect macroeconomics. In fact, median purchasing power has been plummeting over the last few decades, which puts the blame on the shoulders of the working class even less.
Consumers' microeconomic decisions have zero to do with macroeconomic policy. Our monetary policy, banking policy, corporate policy, etc have nothing to do with what consumers decide to do. It's ALL on the shoulders of those in charge who game the system because they want two dozen yachts instead of just four. The ONLY role that commoners play here is in voting for liars and whores who stab us in the back. That's a really big deal and I think it puts a ton of weight on retard voters' shoulders, but that shouldn't be conflated with economics.
I don't think I'm explaining this well. It's a very elaborate issue with inroads and outroads everwhere. For example: If we were to blame our economic woes on three factors, they would all be macroeconomic and enormous issues that have been working for a long time
1. Crony banking. Basically, commercial and investment banks merged and pushed for huge vacancies in regulations which produces nothing other than reverse-Robin Hood. Over just a few decades, Wall Street has stolen countless trillions from the economy, and they create exactly nothing for it. We haven't seen even remotely close to the worst of it. The prediction is along the lines of derivatives hold a 600 trillion $ market over the next couple decades, and absolutely nothing is being done to stop them. This market, however, has zero benefit to the economy, and whatever wealth gains are made out of it is purely a reverse-Robin Hood
2. Imbalances in global monetary and regulatory policy. Lax corporate regulations by the US and artificial depression of purchasing power by China has pretty much forced the US median class to abandon manufacturing and savings for services and debt. We're not in debt because we're greedy, we're in debt because of decades of our purchasing power being sapped up by the top echelon. In fact, we spend substantially less on consumer product than we did decades ago, yet vastly more on necessities. We now have an enormous trade deficit and joblessness without the ability to deflate our way out of it like normal
3. Energy issues. If you wanna create an instant recession, bump oil prices up to 100$ for about a week. US economy is designed on cheap and stable energy costs, yet it's no longer cheap, and stability is a pipedream due to the relatively new issues of massive industrialization of poor nations (mainly just China) and financial speculation. This problem is so fundamental it's difficult to explain. The point is that we're basically screwed by design of how we consume energy. Things like a 40 minute one-way commute on gasoline is just unsustainable, and it's catching up to us
I pointed those out because they have nothing to do with fiscal irresponsibility of the masses. It's like giving a man 20$ to eat for a week then find out he's out of money by day four then blaming him for being irresponsible because there was some way he could have made that 20$ last for seven days. No. The real irresponsibility comes from the greed of the royal class who give no thought to raping and pillaging the masses
On the individual level, fiscal responsibility is important, but it has absolutely nothing to do with macroeconomics, which is what we're talking about
|
|
|
|
spoonitnow
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: IRC Chat Room
Posts: 5,406
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash256
Ok, cheers, I just read up on it and found that social liberalism allows for regulation whereas classic liberalism doesn't.
I agree with Renton though, that one attribute of a sizeable chunk of everyone is awful money management.
|
bold imo
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ripptyde
I only have 2 simple rules when I am coaching a new student.
Rule # 1: don't ask questions
Rule # 2: don't ask questions
I have no interest in discussing strategy with a protege'. Your job is to remain quiet and listen. I have a very systematic approach that I will share with the right candidate and I promise that I will turn you into a force of nature and show you elements of the game of poker that you never knew existed.
|
|
|
a500lbgorilla
|
|
JESUS TAKE THE KEYBOARD
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: This room is a good place to be
Posts: 8,379
|
|
Has anyone managed to hunt this down? I've got some time tonight, I'd like to give it a watch through.
|
Smithers, use the amnesia ray.
You mean the revolver, sir?
Precisely.
|
|
Renton
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 5,991
|
|
nah, i can't find a torrent anywhere
Sean Hannity devoted an entire one of his shows to it though, so im intrigued and disgusted by the thought of seeing this movie at the same time.
|
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Pусский
Svenska
05-26-2012, 03:08 PM Australia Legalized Online Poker coming up in next 6 to 12 Months
Linear Mode
