i may have voted for hillary ten years ago (i can't actually vote in the united states), and i supported her by default as the more left choice over obama (although there was incredible ignorance on the topic in '07) during the last primaries, but she's since proven herself as right-wing as obama. continuing with hillary would just be extending the bush administration into a fifth term.

she lost last time because the banks wouldn't support her. again: people were easily manipulated into being confused over the establishment candidate. obama was the establishment candidate, and he was run by the establishment to defeat hillary, who was rejected by the establishment.

i'm not expecting that hillary will be the establishment candidate this time, either. yes, she just spent the last six years trying to prove she's right-wing enough for office - and she's convinced me, but i doubt she's convinced wall street. i don't know who wall street is going to run to beat her, but they'll find some puppet or other and construct some outlandish media narrative.

but i'm hoping she's lost or will lose enough support that it won't matter. this is a woman who has been trying to break through the establishment for thirty years. she had some good ideas when she was younger, but she's shown clearly that she's not a reformer or a visionary but somebody that is willing to do exactly what she's told in order to advance her career. if she's the anti-establishment candidate, we're fucked.

rather, i'm hoping that a serious candidate will emerge out of the ground. now, i don't expect most people will learn from the obama debacle, but i was able to clearly see what was coming and so were many others. so, it's no surprise that obama carried the bush legacy forward. if you actually listened to him directly, rather than relying on media, you wouldn't have ever thought otherwise. what that *does* mean is that independent media should be able to play a role in debunking the establishment candidate when it appears.

further, this serious candidate isn't going to appear out of nowhere. the american left needs to get to work. it's running out of time....

i'm really fucking sick of this political message that we need to just accept fat people. i wouldn't care so much if resources were infinite, but they're not. so, markets are not able to solve anything (unless they can make resources infinite). every time a doctor is forced to treat somebody that lives like a fucking animal, it takes away resources from somebody that is more entitled to them. i'd be just as happy to round all these fucking pigs up, put them in a rocket and eject them into space.

it's true that people have a very hard time keeping the weight off. the report tries to gloss over this with the politically correct bullshit that it's a "mix of biological and social factors". what that means is that people go back to their old shitty lifestyles again, and deal with the consequences over again. the fact that they were able to lose weight in the first place clearly demonstrates that we're dealing with lifestyle and not biology. going back to it just means relapsing.

the conclusion is not that it's impossible to lose weight, but that most north americans are disgusting, vile creatures that cannot take care of their own health and deserve to be ground up and fed to cattle. that's the uncomfortable message that isn't getting out, and that reports like this are trying to obscure.

stop the bullshit. fat=lazy. deal with it.

"they eat more than their fair share, they waste medical services.....they take up two seats on the bus...."

applauds

if only more people would just cut them off...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v97JhEz4ZPQ

it actually sounds very similar to the ideas put forward by the stephen harper government.

deathtokoalas
public castration is a good idea, sometimes.

Kriegsmarschall Grim

Who are you suggesting be castrated?

deathtokoalas

that racist, murdering, scumbag piece of shit, obviously

there's lots of fun things you can do with a waste of oxygen like that, but it should be public and horrific to act as a disincentive for other dipshits that think he has good ideas.

you could disembowel him in public, or feed his carcass to vultures in the town center, or feed him, live, to hungry pigs.

whatever it is, the key needs to be to demonstrate that he doesn't have good ideas and there are consequences for adopting his mentality.

we need to get tougher on nazis, not continue spewing a bunch of liberal nonsense about freedom of expression.

Vinum Sabbathi

that doesn't make you very much different from the actual "nazis". Also how is Varg a "nazi"? Because you disagree with him? You must be "open-minded liberal" or something. 

deathtokoalas

naw, i'm a communist-anarchist that isn't delusional enough to equate hate speech with free speech. these barbaric lunatics will kill if they're not killed, and the general society needs to stop being naive about it. what i'm proposing is the only kind of message that they're ever going to understand. he needs to be made an example of.

this guy's politics are well known. he's killed people for not being satanist enough, and justified it by citing his barbaric value system. his musical movement is openly anti-semitic and openly white supremacist. he's been involved in violent acts of terrorism that have specifically targeted religious groups. the russian government would not be lenient on this guy, and the french government should not be lenient on him, either.

i don't expect that they will give him what he deserves, but they really should.

this isn't about economics or social policy or anything that can be fixed with different approaches. its just violent hate, drawn out of an ideology of immorality, and it needs to be stopped by any means necessary.

i see the sentence has come down and it's a fine. that's bullshit.

i spend far more time criticizing liberalism than identifying as a liberal, but as an anarchist i do have some overlap. while i do support individual rights up to a point, i believe society has the right to protect itself from these kinds of people and that takes precedent over individual rights. as this is purely a speech issue, i believe he should have been removed from society. the anarchist literature would refer to this as ostracizing him, and could mean anything from denying him the right to work to physically expelling him.

ideally, they should have sent him to siberia.

(several deleted posts)

deathtokoalas

i love how the responses i've deleted indicate that it was alright to kill the guy because he wasn't masculine enough, thereby demonstrating my point that this movement is driven by an ideology of immorality. you can't reason with these kinds of extremists, you just have to eliminate them.

"you killed him?"

"well, yeah. he was a fag."

"well, ok then."

fucking idiots...