Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit UVA's column >>

UVA

Seeing Is Believing
Articles Posted: 5  Links Seeded: 38
Member Since: 8/2008  Last Seen: 5/16/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Who Controls USA Adult Human Behavior?

Wed Aug 11, 2010 11:17 AM EDT
us-news, american, drug, economic, mental, population, suburban, suburbs
By UVA
Advertise | AdChoices

On a road that leads to Southern Guilford High School in North Carolina a work crew painted "shcool" on the surface to warn drivers they had entered a lower speed zone.

The road had been recently repaved and the crew had just repainted the pavement when this photo was snapped.

The company [contractor] responsible said it had "made a mistake" and would fix the problem (assuming they, by this time, had figured out the "problem").

But, to complicate the matter, a spokesperson for the company said the paint was "interim paint" ... that is used before the final paint is applied. This would, by simple analysis, constitute a "justification" of some sort for the misspelling.

This would be a completely unacceptable response from a child who has been taught the virtues of accountability, honesty, and of conscientious execution of a simple work task.

But a large, and growing, segment of America's adult population has now lost both its understanding and value of these virtues. Accountability has become not only a "non-concern", but has become the "hot-potato" of what has become an adult population focused on personal gain and pleasure only. America's adults now believe it is societally acceptable to gain as an individual at any cost ... even if it means taking from another person.

The use of the timber rattlesnake as a symbol of the American colonies can be traced back to the publications of Benjamin Franklin. In 1751, he made the first reference to the rattlesnake in a satirical commentary published in his Pennsylvania Gazette. It had been the policy of Great Britain to send convicted criminals to America, so Franklin suggested that they thank the British by sending rattlesnakes to England. From this satire, the "Don't Tread On Me" symbol was derived. And today, the symbol has been again transformed, from the US Marine Corp flag icon to the motto icon of the most self-driven group of humans ever witnessed on these shores.

The "Don't Tread On Me" bumper stick on vehicles are now euphemisms, which, in effect, say to others: "I am all about ME, and I don't care about your problems".

That we now see this kind of adult behavior as not only normal, but preferred, we can certainly more easily understand the observed resistance to the use of USA Tax Dollars to benefit working-class citizens.

Middle-class working Americans are now barely able to pay their bills and feed their families. They are relegated to economically-impossible, lives, in what remains of the "White-Flight" suburbs that developed beginning in the 1960's ... a concept that convinced them that they could escape from urban environments, where the population of "Dark People" was growing to discomforting levels.

The 2000 Census showed more than 50% of the US Population resided in "Suburbs". As fuel prices, home prices, automobile prices, college tuitions, secondary schools fees, and recreational costs began to increase in leaps by 1990, suburban Americans began feeling the most anxiety-producing economic squeezes in the history of human existence. Suburban Americans had been "suckered" into an existence that was intended to suck the economic life out of them And to this day, most of those suburbanites still cannot locate the source of the pain this existence has imposed.

The economic machine that is doing no more than sitting the "back room", and counting the cash as it rolls in from the bank accounts, retirement funds, and now the social safety net of individual Americans, cares nothing about the health, mental nor physical, of the very humans they are shaking down.

The resulting economic stresses have imposed so severe a set of mental and physical illnesses on those citizens that the next logical remedy to ensuring the flow of cash was the over-prescription of pharmaceutical drugs, that would finish the behavior modification process.

Today, 60% of the more than 155 Million Suburban Americans are consuming several doctor-prescribed, mind-altering medications daily ... and are drifting ever-farther away from having the ability to rationally analyze the social and economic obstructions in their paths. And many within that population is under the age of 15 ... headed for a shortened life of mind-altering drug dependence. And in this state, nothing matters, including continually-lowered education and human-health standards, something the economic machine finds is working to its advantage. The "Machine" simply sucks the economic resources from this unsuspecting population ... and then it dies off earlier every year, keeping life-sustaining costs to minimums.

And so, the next time we laugh at a misspelled word on a public safety display, remember ... this was part of the plan: they want you dumber, and then dead.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • UVA's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: Writers
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (117)
UVA

If anyone thinks the Tea-Bagger and extreme right-wing behavior is not programmed, then you would be one of them.

  • 2 votes
#1 - Wed Aug 11, 2010 11:19 AM EDT
Marshall James

http://www.foundingfathers.info/stories/gadsden.html

I suggest you should of given a bit more information on Franklin and his use of the snake..so i linked it.

What we have now is a society that thinks there is no cosequences to behavior....mediocrity is rewarded....entitlements abound...kids get trophies for coming in 32nd place.....no one is a loser...everyone wins....its all about you.

thank you for the last 40 years liberals....our country is much better off now.

peace.

  • 2 votes
#1.1 - Wed Aug 11, 2010 12:48 PM EDT
UVA

What we have now is a society that thinks there is no cosequences to behavior....mediocrity is rewarded....entitlements abound...kids get trophies for coming in 32nd place.....no one is a loser...everyone wins....its all about you.

thank you for the last 40 years liberals....our country is much better off now

My sons were all in Little Leagues that did exactly what you said here ... but there was only one "liberal" family in the entire little league ... and that was my family.

This area of Virginia they grew up in is all Right-Wing Republican.

  • 1 vote
#1.2 - Wed Aug 11, 2010 12:57 PM EDT
Marshall James

little league i agree is not as liberal and does not give out trophies to those that come in last place.

and it doesnt matter if you live in a right wing area as much when liberalism has affected our very society.....you cant get away from it when the liberal agenda has infiltrated state and federal laws.

so you can live in a nice little conservative neighborhood...doesnt matter.

the government is in control of nearly everything.....from now healthcare......education, travel, oh you get the picture.

cradle to grave baby....cradle to grave....we are servents.

peace.

  • 1 vote
#1.3 - Wed Aug 11, 2010 1:22 PM EDT
Tip4ya

James, I agree with your first post. We have raised so many self centered individuals, that most of them can't see past their own nose. When I was in school, if you weren't good enough for the sport, you didn't play on the team, it was called tryouts. You either made it or you didn't, there was no group there to protest why you didn't make the team. You learned to improve your game for the next tryouts, or you moved on to something else. Now, everyone is picked for the team, therefore taking ambition away from our newer generations. I could go on and on with examples such as this.

P.S. I don't put the blame on liberals or conservatives, I blame the parents for starters, and society would be next on my list. Consequences are a thing of the past.

  • 1 vote
#1.4 - Wed Aug 11, 2010 1:48 PM EDT
UVA

the government is in control of nearly everything.....from now healthcare......education, travel, oh you get the picture.

it is not the government that is in control ... it is the few ultra-wealthy, who control many of us, and who almost control the government.

  • 2 votes
#1.5 - Wed Aug 11, 2010 2:27 PM EDT
UVA

I don't put the blame on liberals or conservatives, I blame the parents for starters, and society would be next on my list. Consequences are a thing of the past.

I agree ... I too place the responsibility for our demise on "parents". But now ... just think for one moment why it was that "parents" wanted this for their children.

Think of why it would have been so important for "parents" to knock one another down in shopping lines to buy a "Cabbage-Patch Doll".

  • 1 vote
#1.6 - Wed Aug 11, 2010 2:30 PM EDT
Marshall James

uva

i stand corrected it is a few who control the government who control us....but think about this.....if you want to control the masses what better way to do it than through a belief system that thinks the government should be the be all end all...hence progressives/liberals.

true conservatives...ie libertarians want none of this nonsense....dont think we should be so controlled.

peace.

  • 1 vote
#1.7 - Wed Aug 11, 2010 2:54 PM EDT
UVA

if you want to control the masses what better way to do it than through a belief system that thinks the government should be the be all end all...hence progressives/liberals.

Your theory falls apart at the very beginning.

I cannot speak for "liberals" because I have both children and grandchildren, and do not want or expect them to believe that "anything goes" in this world.

And I am "progressive" to the extent that I do NOT want to live under a monarchy again, like some of our ancestors did before fleeing to this land.

But more than all those things, please tell me you do understand that hte "government" you speak of happens to be me and you.

Please tell me you understand that!

    #1.8 - Wed Aug 11, 2010 3:04 PM EDT
    Marshall James

    if the government was me and you they wouldnt of passed a healthcare reform bill that the majority was against....states are challenging it left and right and last i saw missouri just voted and 75% of people against it.

    sounds like the government isnt for the people anymore...they are doing what is "best for us"

    progressives always had a soft spot for fascism ....hence their love for mussolini...putting him on film in hollywood..

    this was set a long time ago.

    people are manipulated by PR into thinking something is good for them when in reality its not.

    read bernays and lippmann.

      #1.9 - Wed Aug 11, 2010 3:18 PM EDT
      UVA

      if the government was me and you they wouldnt of passed a healthcare reform bill that the majority was against....

      They passed exactly what the People wanted. The problem is the American people didn't know what they wanted ... and therefore, th government did what it does in this sort of state.

      Don't keep pushing your constitutional responsibility off on someone else to take care of.

      "WE THE PEOPLE ..." was always me and you, and it is still.

      You who call yourselves "libertarians" need to understand that you have a responsibility to make a country of 310 Million work.

      • 1 vote
      #1.10 - Wed Aug 11, 2010 4:26 PM EDT
      Marshall James

      the american people didnt know what they wanted????? well they know they didnt want the government to force us to purchase from insurance companies....lol

      just like howard dean said.....its a travesty...the majority was against it and you know it.

      stop making excuses for it.

      even my progressive friends think its wrong the way it came about.......and that is saying something.

      • 1 vote
      #1.11 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 2:18 AM EDT
      UVA

      the american people didnt know what they wanted????? well they know they didnt want the government to force us to purchase from insurance companies..

      Assuming you actually have "progressive" friends, you folks have reduced the issue to a childish one, similar to having your parents tell you that you have to start paying for your own car insurance.

      To you folks, it is not a matter of this being the best solution for the times we live in .... it is a matter of being told you have to bear personal responsibility - and not spread your untreated diseases around the rest of society because you prefer spending your money on iPhones instead of health care.

      You don't have that choice anymore ... you have to be responsible for what you bring to society.

        #1.12 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 8:28 AM EDT
        Marshall James

        i dont own a car so dont have to have car insurance....what kind of mentality equates this to car insurance???? not one based in reality.

        I dont bring untreated diseases to society...i dont drive a motorcycle I dont partake in risky behavior why should I have to pay for people who do???

        who gives you the moral authority and right to tell me how I should live my life??? what gives you the right to think you have control over my life?

        this is one of the stalwarts of fascism my friend....forcing the public to participate for their own good and the country's.

        fine line, fine line.

        you dont have the moral authority to tell a free man what he should do with his money.

        that is the practice of tyrants and dictators.

        peace.

        • 1 vote
        #1.13 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:07 AM EDT
        UVA

        what kind of mentality equates this to car insurance???? not one based in reality.

        You state requires that you have auto insurance if you operate an automobile.

        In your very juvenile way of thinking, you want to equate Health Care with the kinds of items you ship through the mail.

        Buying insurance for an item of this kind is optional; and if it is destroyed or lost in shipping, then without insurance it is only your loss.

        But in this real 21st Century World, if you contract a communicable disease, it is NOT your option to spread it among the rest of us if you so desire, just because you didn't want to pay the medical costs to prevent it.

          #1.14 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:24 AM EDT
          Marshall James

          i dont own a car...you didnt hear me....its not mandatory you carry car insurance just for breathing.

          and being that I work in healthcare and you want to talk about communicable diseases....are you suggesting quarantines??? that is the only true way to stop the spread of communicable diseases. contact precautions work for many but for the most deadly it does not always work.

          so that would mean that you advocate the quarantine of those with hiv/aids. hmmmmmm sure that is going to go over well. lock them up for the rest of their lives. there is no preventing it...condoms are not 100% effective....people can lie...you can only be with one partner and get it...you can have a cheating partner that gives it to you.

          not really sure where you are going with this.

          its not my place or yours to tell me or you or others how to live their life...not only socially but economically....if something unfortunate happens well lets hope that person has taken the appropriate step to cover themself and if they didnt and were not responsible then its their bed......and if it is a unlikely circumstance then there are charities out there that would help. you would be free to give as much as you want as well as others to this...but guess what it would be a CHOICE you make not FORCED.

          you do not have the right to tell me how to live my life socially or economically....its my life if I make a bad decision I have to live with it....it shouldnt be others that have to burden my irresponsibility as well.

          • 2 votes
          #1.15 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:53 AM EDT
          Marshall James

          still waiting???

            #1.16 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 12:41 PM EDT
            UVA

            i dont own a car...you didnt hear me....its not mandatory you carry car insurance just for breathing

            If you operate a car, you must have auto insurance.

            If you breathe, you must have health insurance.

              #1.17 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:01 PM EDT
              UVA

              so that would mean that you advocate the quarantine of those with hiv/aids. hmmmmmm sure that is going to go over well. lock them up for the rest of their lives.

              Only you have suggested a "quaranteen" of anyone.

              But please stay on topic ... thanks!

                #1.18 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:03 PM EDT
                UVA

                .if something unfortunate happens well lets hope that person has taken the appropriate step to cover themself and if they didnt and were not responsible then its their bed..

                No this is not at all an option. We are not talking about shipping packages.

                We are talking about people like you who are sending sick children to schools to infect others, and sick adults going to work and infecting others.

                That is no longer an option because you would rather spend your money on an iPhone than an inoculation.

                  #1.19 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:05 PM EDT
                  Marshall James

                  if someone doesnt care to get immunized against something or engage in risky behavior that gives them a communicable disease...well then that is their fault....so sorry. I should not have to pay for others choices.

                  I understand you do not want freedom i will leave but would love you to watch this entire video...its about 8 minutes. I hope you watch it.

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2kTy7glZ9s

                  • 1 vote
                  #1.20 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:12 PM EDT
                  shaunb

                  yea...that whooping cough exposure on the west coast, albeit small, was difficult to take in considering vaccinations exist but some chose not to participate, increasing the risk to all...others not being able to visit the doctor yet coming to work sick is an issue for me--i can't stand it.

                  someone else's freedom conflicting with what i consider my freedom from illness thru medicine/better health practices. who's freedom is the more correct freedom?

                    #1.21 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:47 PM EDT
                    Marshall James

                    that should be up to your employer if he/she allows sick people to come to work...if he wants people to come to work sick...then dont work for him

                    in regards to a disease that would be fatal to the populace as a whole.....well part of the job of the federal government is to protect its citizens. that would be the job of the federal government...if they choose to set certain standards in place in regards to protecting the people against death.. and someone were to go against that.....then murder or assault charges should be brought up against that person.

                    but for the common cold or another type communicable disease process that is not considered an imminent threat by the CDC....its just one of those things.

                    freedom doesnt mean everything will be rosey...some good and some bad...but the difference is you have freedom from oppression.

                    • 1 vote
                    #1.22 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 2:00 PM EDT
                    shaunb

                    in practicality, is the employer really going to do a sickness test as they enter the building? what about this...what if the employee doesn't get paid sick leave & their rent's due along with plenty of other bills--if they feel they can function properly, they just might show up. at any rate, somebody's going to see that whooping cough vaccination as oppressive (especially due to how people contort the meaning of words today) & not take it. or they're gonna want to be free, exposing others to the bacteria willfully. but OK, lock & jail the offenders.

                    the point is, one person's freedom might be another person's conflict.

                    i listened to friedman. several of those clips. i like how he said capitalism is a requirement of a prosperous society, but it's not a sufficient requirement, basically saying more needs to be done than just capitalism. i love the legalize drugs stuff too.

                    back to the topic: i think the author makes a plausible story through some very basic observations. really quickly, america's getting more obese--correct? i'm really betting that the bigger one gets, the less likely they are to take to the streets & protest until something really infringes on a core belief.

                    however, the opinion did not bog one down with a bunch of stats & figures. but the generalizations about the elements--right on. but, yea, are most TP members fat...eh, i'm not so sure? i think TPers do care less about education...i've seen enough signs & poor phrases & "obama don't you lay your gov't hands on my medicaid" all while saying the gov't is bad--that's just being uninformed at its worst, but i'm biased. and i do think suburbanites were sold an unsustainable dream. i mean, it's built on the car which is based on oil & we see where that future is heading. maybe technology will save the day? let's hope.

                      #1.23 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 3:09 PM EDT
                      Marshall James

                      you missed my point....something like the whooping cough would just have to be tolerated just as it is now.....

                      in regards to the tea party not caring about education....there were polls that showed that hte teaparty was in all actuality very educated. I for one think the dept of education should be ended but that does not mean i dont care about education.

                      i applaud you for watching friedman. you are more open about ideas than most on here. if you watch then do not agree I have to respect that. at least you took the opportunity to try. in regards to capitalism and freedom....to have freedom you have to have capitialism....that is his contention....that no free society in the history of the earth has had freedom without capitalism....which is true...but being sufficient like he said it was not. you need to have a government that also promotes freedom....when you live in a society where you have economic and social freedom you will be living in a truly great place.

                      unfortunately we dont....

                      ohhh check out what friedmans solutions to the dept of education are....very interesting. but to most libertarians not quite enough....but it would be a great step in the right direction.

                      thanks for looking into him.

                      peace.

                        #1.24 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 3:50 PM EDT
                        shaunb

                        ok. i missed the point. let me re-examine...so i should stop going to work for my employer when they allow some sick co-workers to attend. wow, that seems like an awful lot of change when it isn't practical for the employer to tell all the non-vaccinated individuals to go home or for me to quit. just go find another job cuz someone else isn't practicing heightened hygiene. just slightly impractical, to me.

                        i read "the underground history of education." it highlighted how several generations of people were against nationalized education. but were it not for nationalized education, where do you think we'd be? i want to go a step further: what would happen to ethnicities with less resources to fund the schools? i think you would find an amazing disparity between certain groups of people & again, civil issues would crop up.

                        i believe in freedom. i just think that altruism takes over & freedom transforms into power for some & oppression for others, sometimes.

                          #1.25 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:23 PM EDT
                          shaunb

                          james-1416766, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Drucker

                          it's all about a little education on the matters. you offered a source, now i'll offer a source.

                            #1.26 - Fri Aug 13, 2010 11:02 AM EDT
                            Marshall James

                            shaun b

                            you still missed the point...you get sick from coworkers.....just like now...nothing would change in regards to that...

                            if you understand friedman he would believe in a voucher system where every child would get a check and be able to pick any school. its called competition and with everything in this world competition would breed an education system that would excel and compete to get the vouchers....how do you get those vouchers?? by getting parents to want to send their kids to you...how do you get that??? by offering what they want....and what most parents want is for their child to get a great education that will prepare them for college and life.

                            freedom is not scary...a government that controls nearly every aspect of our lives is. I know its hard because we have been brainwashed since birth that we are not able to do things ourselves....that we would fail without big brother to protect us. but that simply isnt true.

                            as far as oppression with freedom for some....... I suppose that is so....if you do not put forth an effort or try you will fail....so yes it would be oppressing. but with our current system now...the majority are oppressed.

                            small amount oppressed vs. large amount oppressed......seems like a no brainer to me.

                            but that just me....

                              #1.27 - Fri Aug 13, 2010 11:05 AM EDT
                              shaunb

                              anyway, your mind is open. did you check out drucker? i know it isn't much on the wikipedia page, but there's plenty of other stuff.

                              i think you missed my point too. i understand you get sick from coworkers. your point was don't continue to go to my place of employment--get another job. well OK. i thought that was a lot of change. your point was that the health of the coworker isn't anyone else's business except that individual. OK. that individual chose not to vaccinate, thus making others sick--it's no longer just his problem. he got sick due to his freedom to be uninformed & made an unwise choice. 10 others got sick. some had healthcare & some didn't. the one's without healthcare ran into the hospital emergency room because they had no access to care otherwise. it is now the hospital's problem. the community's problem.

                              i'm thinking it's a no brainer until you're the one oppressed.

                              i want you to know, i appreciate what friedman was talking about. unfortunately, i've just seen way too many people abuse the freedom they have. the concept of freedom relies heavily on an informed populace...informed not only how to create profit, but how to care for one's community. as we have seen by wall street, insurance industries, non-profits & politicians, they become 'aware' of their freedom & it turns into selfishness--quite often.

                              recently, the banks had the freedom to grant home loans to a larger population due to deregulation. many people ran the numbers & saw that this was not sustainable. loan officers & those applying for loans rarely if ever ran the numbers on what they could actually afford. the officers got a kickback on the size of the loan despite not having the ability for the loan to be paid off. the banks had the freedom & information to not extend those loans--and some did not. but what did the majority do? they sold those loans. and people accepted those loans. and no longer is the problem isolated to the people that exercised their freedom--it's all of our problem now.

                                #1.28 - Fri Aug 13, 2010 11:49 AM EDT
                                Marshall James

                                shaun and my point is that if someone chooses to not get vaccinated and then infects others...that means they chose not to get vaccinated also.....it was a risk they took and their choice. as far as more nuisance sicknesses that is what they are....and it wouldnt be a violation of someones rights if a virus spreads or bacteria. I work in healthcare and understand the freedom point you are trying to make....its the same fearmongering extremism with freedom that many who are against it take. its called common sense. we dont prosecute against people who transmit a bug now...why would we in a free libertarian society as well??? someone who knowingly transmits hiv will get prosecuted now just like in the free society. you are overreaching there.

                                i somehow missed the post on drucker will check out when done posting here.

                                you are waaayyyyyyyy off on the bank assessment. the banks were mandated by our government or would face sanctions if they did not give out those high risk loans. please dont believe what you have heard. freddie and fannie were government created entities whose policies were set by our government. the federal reserve kept the intrest rate artifically low for wwaayyyyy to long against the advise of all free market economists and caused the housing boom and bust.

                                it was a government created crisis...caused by regulations...manipulation of intrest rates and by inefficeint banking practices.

                                There is an incredible read on this very subject. short book and to the point called

                                the housing boom and bust

                                by thomas sowell

                                read it..can pick it up on amazon used with shipping for about 5 bucks probably.

                                the government was behind this whole thing and now wants to gain even more control over a situation that was caused by them. If you are uneducated on the subject you will believe their lies.

                                ok let me check out drucker

                                  #1.29 - Fri Aug 13, 2010 12:40 PM EDT
                                  Marshall James

                                  i read up on drucker....sounds like at one time he was a very smart individual...even if he believed in the failed model of keynesian economics.....basically credited with inventing management. later in life he blamed capitalism though for what was going on in the world. basically greed. while I dont disagree that people can become greedy....it would be a fallacy to blame capitalism on that...what we had was corporatism. so he was a bit wrong later on.....but then how sharp can your mind be at 95? He did however make quite a contribution it seems to our society and although an immigrant, like many great minds are...was a great american.

                                    #1.30 - Fri Aug 13, 2010 12:54 PM EDT
                                    shaunb

                                    vaccinations drastically reduce the possibility of catching a bug. but it doesn't eliminate them. so they don't necessarily have to partake in the same freedom to be infected. but i don't want to get caught up in being too literal about that one particular instance. my point is that one person's freedoms can infringe on anothers & i'm glad you understood what i was saying there. there's a point in which it's not just the individual that's being adversely effected & then it becomes a community problem.

                                    sowell's book is going to tell me that the gov't forced banking institutions to make loans to people that wouldn't be able to pay them back? if i understand your words correctly, that's your point. i'll check out the book, send a friend request & catch up with you later on that. i do know there was a push for home ownership. i wasn't quite sure it equated to a gov't mandate that forced a banking institution to lend money to those that would never be able to pay them back all while paying the loan officers more based on the size of the loan. to me, it would seem that the size of any sanction would be smaller than the loss of revenue. but i'll check out the book. in my opinion, people did what was legal--not what was right.

                                    back in the day, it was common practice for farmers to leave a few corners of their field for people less fortunate to pick from. that's taking care of community. business seems to have lost that principle.i think drucker is saying & believing that freedom is great, but people have to exercise responsibility too & that just hasn't happened. here goes a quote:

                                    Few companies that installed computers to reduce the employment of clerks have realized their expectations... They now need more, and more expensive clerks even though they call them 'operators' or 'programmers.'
                                    Peter Drucker

                                    seriously off topic now, but i still think there's some validity to the author's opine. but it's also conspiracy theory-ish & that always brings out the skeptic in me. but is it plausible...oh yea.

                                      #1.31 - Fri Aug 13, 2010 1:49 PM EDT
                                      Marshall James

                                      "affordable housing" was the big word in the 90's and claims of racism in regards to home loans. Sowell being an economist brings in statistics to prove that was never the case. banks were mandated and faced sanctions by the federal government if they did not provide the high risk loans. that is a fact. of course there is greed with corporations....but when coupled with government strength it becomes a monster.

                                      i to am in to conspiracy theories....you have to be if you look at evidence. the people that run our government are not stupid. they know about PR. they know how to manipulate..they know there will be negative outcomes to giving out high risk loans...keeping rates artificially low......yet they do it anyway.....why???? why ignore respected economists who were screaming that we were going to deflate and destory the housing industry which at the very least would send us into a depression?

                                      if its not a conspiracy then it shows how stupid keynesian economics is. either way its wrong

                                      there was one man who predicted this latest recession and the one in 87 watch this whole entire video...gives you a better understanding on the thought process of a libertarian....as someone stated in comments. no one talks like this in congress....that he has balls. he is what we need more of. someone who has some common sense and cares about americans and not his own self interests....as he also gives back part of his salary. he is the new milton friedman....at least to many libertarians.

                                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04B3Wl2qouw&feature=related

                                      i would love for anyone to argue against what he states in this video....he predicts the recession and points out why.....well part of the reasons.....the housing boom and bust he had mentioned back in 02... anway would love for someone to argue against him and what he says.

                                      anyone.

                                        #1.32 - Fri Aug 13, 2010 2:31 PM EDT
                                        shaunb

                                        so the racist claims weren't true. sanctions were a threat & mandate & corporatism/greed took over to create a bubble that burst & hurt plenty. and the gov't knew.

                                        capitalism creates imbalance--winners & losers. the losers don't necessarily die after they've lost, so when the losers continue to populate & they have a voice in gov't, policy can/will ensue to help prevent their continued loss. this "try harder" mantra...i understand. but life ain't fair--right? sounds like it might lead to oppression by attrition, but what do i know.

                                        from what i gather about keynesiasn econ...it's describing what happened, what we went thru & how we emerged from the great depression--which further bolstered his argument. i think these are different times though. i think back then, the attitude was a more communal attitude & people cared more for their neighbor.

                                        i believe now that personal gain has trumped positive neighborly feelings (community) & that's what drucker's saying.

                                        so...where has friedman's model worked best?

                                          #1.33 - Fri Aug 13, 2010 3:20 PM EDT
                                          Marshall James

                                          pure free market capitalism???america , hong kong, switzerland

                                          america of course prior to the 20th century...it was what made us the greatest nation on earth.

                                          keynesian economics hurts the poor and destoys the middle class and causes bubbles

                                          here is another video where Ron Paul talks about the housing boom and bust and msnbc hosts reads part of his speech where he predicted it in 2003. talks a bit about how keynesian economics is not feasible and how its proven it over the last 30 years.

                                            #1.34 - Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:10 PM EDT
                                            MeHere-1865442

                                            Hello,

                                            Actually, Amartya Sen (Nobel Prize {Welfare Economics} 1998) accurately predicted both housing and bank collapse in 2002.Ron Paul use to be a reliable centrist, but was never a Pressler or Eisenhower and therefore ignored Sen’s whys and inserted his rhetoric. Ron Paul was educated as a medical doctor. Though Paul didn’t go as far as fellow Texan Rep. Joe Barton (R), who called the fund a “shakedown,” he nevertheless said the “process is sort of suspicious.” “They have agreed to this and this is sort of a PR stunt as far as I’m concerned,” Paul told Fox News. “BP had already been making a lot of payments to people who had been injured.” He said this on television while the crisis is still happening.

                                            PR allows you to think Reagan’s policy allowed us to prosper. The inflation rate, 13.5% in 1980, fell to 4.1% in 1988, which was achieved by applying high interest rates by the Federal Reserve (peaked at 20% in June 1981).[13] The latter caused a brief recession in 1982: unemployment rose to 9.7% and GDP fell by 1.9%.

                                            Reagan very significantly increased public expenditure, primarily the Department of Defense, which rose (in constant 2000 dollars) from $267.1 billion in 1980 (4.9% of GDP and 22.7% of public expenditure) to $393.1 billion in 1988 (5.8% of GDP and 27.3% of public expenditure); most of those years military spending was about 6% of GDP, exceeding this numbers in 4 different years. All these numbers had not been seen since the end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War in 1973.[14] In 1981, Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the very wealthy, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%; in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%.[15] As a result of all this, the budget deficit and federal debt increased considerably: debt grew from 33.3% of GDP in 1980 to 51.9% at the end of 1988 [16] and the deficit increased from 2.7% in 1980 to more than double in 1983, when it reached 6%; in 1984, 1985 and 1986 it was around 5%.[17] In order to cover new federal budget deficits, the United States borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion,[18] and the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.[19] Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.[18]

                                            The number of Americans below the poverty level increased from 29.272 million in 1980 to 31.745 in 1988, which means that, as a percentage of the total population, it remained almost stationary, from 12.95% in 1980 to 13% in 1988.[20] The poverty level for people under the age of 18 increased from 11.543 million in 1980 (18.3% of all child population) to 12.455 (19.5%) in 1988.[21] In addition, the situation of low income groups was affected by the reduction of social spending. Inequality also increased. The share of total income going to the 5% highest-income households grew from 16.5% in 1980 to 18.3% in 1988 and the share of the highest fifth increased from 44.1% to 46.3% in same years. In contrast, the share of total income of the lowest fifth fell from 4.2% in 1980 to 3.8% in 1988 and the second poorest fifth from 10.2% to 9.6%.

                                            Political opponents chided his policies as "Trickle-down economics, due to the significant cuts in the upper tax brackets.

                                            Donald Regan, the President's former Secretary of the Treasury, and later Chief of Staff, criticized Reagan for his lack of attention to economics: "In the four years that I served as Secretary of the Treasury, I never saw President Reagan alone and never discussed economic philosophy or fiscal and monetary policy with him one-on-one. The President never told me what he believed or what he wanted to accomplish in the field of economics.

                                            Be Well,

                                              #1.35 - Fri Aug 13, 2010 11:44 PM EDT
                                              Marshall James

                                              i find your post to be a bit confusing....especially in regards to ron paul. Ron Paul stated there was payments during the crisis??? I would love to see that video...give me a link

                                                #1.36 - Sat Aug 14, 2010 3:13 AM EDT
                                                MeHere-1865442

                                                Hello,

                                                I got the Ron Paul quote from a NYT article. However, if you will give me a day, I am certain I can substantiate the quote or discover if it is fraudulent. I most work my shifts, but I will continue my research. The rest of the comment was to demonstrate how PR can give an impression that all was/is well, whereas factually, terrible economic events and no real plans. Ron Paul alluded to the military and ignored huge amounts are for privatization of military operations. However, I will credit him with mentioning we waste our treasure and resources defending Europe. Europe is capable of self-defense and should spend their money and use their resources.

                                                Be Well,

                                                  #1.37 - Sat Aug 14, 2010 11:18 AM EDT
                                                  Marshall James

                                                  i would love even a link to that article.

                                                    #1.38 - Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:13 AM EDT
                                                    MeHere-1865442

                                                    Hello,

                                                    Ron Paul:” I mean, by what authority do presidents make deals with big companies? I mean, that isn’t part of our law, that isn’t part of our constitution.” From: http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-06-22/ron-paul-on-the-bp-oil-spill-gen-mcchrystal-and-rand-paul/

                                                    “I am very suspicious of what BP and our government is doing, and the Obama administration.” Paul stated. “That’s why I’ve even challenged the principle of this agreement they have to set up this $20 billion fund. It sounds like a lot of money, and it sounds like there could be a lot of mischief too.” From: http://www.prisonplanet.com/congressman-ron-paul-suspicious-of-bp-u-s-government-response-to-spill.html

                                                    Be Well,

                                                      #1.39 - Mon Aug 16, 2010 5:13 PM EDT
                                                      Marshall James

                                                      nowhere does that state as you said in your original claim that Ron Paul stated BP was making payments before they were.

                                                      if anything Ron Paul is very skeptical about BP and the government marriage that is going on. did you watch the video or read the whole text?

                                                        #1.40 - Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:41 AM EDT
                                                        shaunb

                                                        james-1416766, we're going to have to agree to disagree. i read the lead chapter that broke down the economics of what sowell believed to be the causes of the housing boom/bust. from what i read, it was not the gov't, but people that escalated housing prices through self-interests (minimum housing lots = local self interest, which lead to soaring home values, which lead to unobtainable homes, greedy desire by rich/poor alike, eased regulation & the push for affordable housing (i will agree that the "social program" backfired; i.e., push for housing), which lead to banks eventually giving out loans to those that couldn't afford them & incentives to individuals selling the biggest loans.

                                                        there were multiple crossroads where people could have done the "right" thing. but they didn't--did they? the rich could have eased or never created those zoning restrictions & shared their neighborhood--right?; the banks could have not released those loans with those creative financing options to individuals that could never pay principle; the loan officers could've said, "hey, let's do something reasonable--something you could really afford."; the 'poor' could've done their homework & been realistic about what they could borrow (although i know a few people that got home loans at that time & the loan officers were telling them to 'buy, you'll be able to re-fi in 2 years...').

                                                        rarely do things of this nature (an economy) fail at one point--there were many failures. it all points to these 'freedoms' of an uninformed populace compared to those with the knowledge. those not truly aware of the cause & effect.

                                                        finally, let's consider those that prospered. either by accident or on purpose, they were in "the know" & benefitted. they absolutely suckered people with their authority on matters & didn't practice restraint.

                                                          #1.41 - Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:14 AM EDT
                                                          Marshall James

                                                          for one that was just the lead chapter. However you cannot argue with his reasoning or conclusions on what you have read so far. That of course was just the opening salvo. If you would of read any further he goes into the government. The reason the banks gave those loans were because of government quotas on affordable housing and fighting racism. one of the other causes as you pointed out were increased regulation and zoning....environmentalism....basically the government has a hand in everything that caused it. The one thing the public had was to take those loans in the first place....yes greed on the part of our citizens. I have always said that. While many on the left were blasting on banks I always pointed out that the public didnt have to take those loans.

                                                          also many of those loans that defaulted were people who were buying mulitiple houses with high risk loans because they expected to sell the home before first payment was due and make a profit.

                                                          There were many reasons for our housing boom and bust....but it all could of been prevented if the federal reserve didnt manipulate rates, freddie and fannie did not have the policies they had as set by our government and there were no quotos on banks by our government to give loans out to high risk people.

                                                          it wouldnt of mattered if the public wanted those loans or not...if those three things were not in place this all would not of happened.

                                                          but hey you read the first chapter. cant fault you for that. you are a smarter individual than most...or at least open to opposing views.

                                                            #1.42 - Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:21 AM EDT
                                                            shaunb

                                                            in writing classes, one is taught to put the most powerful content first. the first chapter described the economics, which encompassed all the other chapters' details. the chapter spoke on policy, behavior & the culprits. sowell made his statement about what he's going to set out to prove in his book & what he's going to examine in order to prove his theories--all first chapter stuff. i realize i can gain more details by reading the entire book, but the summary was provided.

                                                            to take your words:

                                                            basically the government has a hand in everything that caused it

                                                            the government is made of people who also have the option to do "right".

                                                            but, as stated, the poor folks weren't trying to flip homes. the majority of the poor were trying to get a place to stay.

                                                            but this is way off thread by now...this got into paul & BP & booms & busts. food is a motivator & it absolutely influences day-to-day decision making. people are getting mad fat & less active; i think they're still interested but only mentally. people taking action for the self interest of people is quite different & definitely not in the interests of corporations. it makes sense that corporate factions would want to gain control by chemical means. it's less ugly than war. highly plausible opine.

                                                              #1.43 - Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:14 PM EDT
                                                              Marshall James

                                                              yes the government is made of people who also have the option to do "right" but they didnt did they??

                                                              the fed manipulated the rate...freddie and fannie...quotas....they were presented to the public as doing right by the people were they not???? low rates...good for the poor.....quotas...good for the poor...but in essence they were against the poor were they not and have hurt us even more. The history of america is full of bad outcomes from supposed good intentions.

                                                              as far as this thread goes..we are controlled by PR to think things are good for us when they are not and are just for the rich to get richer, separating the classes even more....both parties are behind it.

                                                              oh and sowell is in economics and not literature. his writing is not perfect. lol

                                                                #1.44 - Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:30 PM EDT
                                                                MeHere-1865442

                                                                Hello,

                                                                My quote was “while the crisis is still happening.” And not your assertion but was more about national good, Read about Exxon and what little good was done for the people and none of that good was assisted by the government. Fact, than President Bush never visited the site and it was never cleaned. You can start with: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/exxon-valdez-20-years-47032401 any guarantee (escrow) would be better than the next to nothing from Exxon.

                                                                Part of my thinking pertaining to Ron Paul is based on him blaming the media for his son’s statements and I therefore no longer see him as an Eisenhower type Republican, but as one that changes with the wind. This maybe excellent politics and public relations, but does not reflect what is right or good. An example might be, he has attempted to defend his son’s belief the Civil Rights Act over extends when it mandates privately owned business open to the public must serve all. That is the thinking and the language for the Dixicrats http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-1366 and not the Republican’s.

                                                                Those names we know nationally are sometimes not the best, but those that best use PR. Someone had you believing Paul predicted this recession. I think it falls to “We the people” to look past all the smoke and mirrors, the glitter and the flash, and see for ourselves if the “man behind the curtain” is deserving of our vote and support.

                                                                Be Well,

                                                                • 1 vote
                                                                #1.45 - Tue Aug 17, 2010 4:14 PM EDT
                                                                Marshall James

                                                                ron paul has never gone against his principle....he stuck by his son because his son is not as good at communicating the libertarian message....some of us like me suck at it. remember the whoopla over his CRA statements??? rand that is...well here is ron paul talking about it.

                                                                On June 4, 2004, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Act. Only Ron Paul dissented. Here are his comments.

                                                                Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

                                                                The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

                                                                This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

                                                                The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

                                                                Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

                                                                In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

                                                                so you see Ron Paul would not of been blasted by the media for it as he was not...his son is not as ariticulate in his speech...or as adapt at politics and how to say things without getting the otherside calling you a racist.

                                                                peace.

                                                                  #1.46 - Tue Aug 17, 2010 4:21 PM EDT
                                                                  MeHere-1865442

                                                                  Hello,

                                                                  Liberty is not some vague esoteric concept, but a physical reality. Dixiecrats have always opposed liberty for Blacks. Paul parroted Strom Thurmond who said, "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress." Did the Act change the hearts of Americans? No, however, because racial hatred is real, does not mean hatred should be the law of my land.

                                                                  Prior to the passage of the 1964 Act and after the first arrest of Klansmen since President Grant, President Johnson said: “To shatter forever not only the barriers of law and public practice, but the walls which bound the condition of many by the color of his skin. To dissolve, as best we can, the antique enmities of the heart which diminish the holder, divide the great democracy, and do wrong — great wrong — to the children of God.” For Ron Paul and his silly son to speak against good without offering good is counterproductive and only fuels the engines of bigotry that would rather my nation be divided.

                                                                  Paul’s wild assertion “reduced individual liberty” is unfounded and silly. If a portion of the population does not have all of the liberties guaranteed the population, then there is a state of reduced liberty. You may accept his rant as truth, but I think you would also need to accept the bigoted politics of the Dixiecrats.

                                                                  Be Well,

                                                                  • 1 vote
                                                                  #1.47 - Tue Aug 17, 2010 5:17 PM EDT
                                                                  notsojingo

                                                                  Right On, Brother!!

                                                                  How are you, MeHere? Miss your input on some of the other storys/responses.

                                                                    #1.48 - Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:19 PM EDT
                                                                    MeHere-1865442

                                                                    Hello,

                                                                    Notsoginso, I am well thank you and hope the same for you and yours. I think you dated yourself with “right on.” ;-) When I left the Marine’s, I was “left off.” Obviously I am still an old, ugly, grouchy man that loves to argue, but I am also a patriot that still thinks we should be “One nation under God” and I have a hard time understanding those that think only those that think, vote, or believe as they are valuable.

                                                                    I check on my friends and read their comments. Like all old guys, I often just listen and when I comment, I want to add my two cents too. One other little comment thing, is that I still work and need to beg patients from others, so sometimes I stay tacit.

                                                                    Be Well,

                                                                      #1.49 - Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:54 PM EDT
                                                                      notsojingo

                                                                      As I do keep up with you, my friend. It is nice to know Patriots of different ilk can be Americans in Brotherhood, as well as Love of Country.

                                                                      Keep well, Sir.

                                                                      Peace

                                                                        #1.50 - Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:01 AM EDT
                                                                        Marshall James

                                                                        I think you missed the part where he said

                                                                        even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

                                                                        or what about when LBJ stated

                                                                        "I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

                                                                        and if you dont think it reduced individual liberty you are not an educated individual or have some serious tunnel vision going on.

                                                                        peace.

                                                                          #1.51 - Wed Aug 18, 2010 2:26 AM EDT
                                                                          MeHere-1865442

                                                                          Hello,

                                                                          It is your right to question the quality of my public school and state university education. Therefore I will use an old idiom. “A clock that does not work is right twice a day.” Johnson was paraphrasing Washington’s speech pertaining to the building of a synagogue. Washington was right to support Jews and their right to worship and Johnson was right to support civil rights. However, maybe you never considered what civil rights are.

                                                                          Civil and political rights are a class of rights and freedoms that protect individuals from unwarranted action by government and private organizations and individuals and ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression. Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical integrity and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as physical or mental disability, gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, national origin, age, and individual rights such as the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, and movement. Political rights include natural justice (procedural fairness) in law, such as the rights of the accused, including the right to a fair trial; due process; the right to seek redress or a legal remedy; and rights of participation in civil society and politics such as freedom of association, the right to assemble, the right to petition, and the right to vote.

                                                                          Civil and political rights comprise the first portion of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (with economic, social and cultural rights comprising the second portion). The theory of three generations of human rights considers this group of rights to be "first-generation rights", and the theory of negative and positive rights considers them to be generally negative rights.

                                                                          Nozick wrote, “social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are to be of greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society." Even the philosopher Rawls who disagreed with Nozick wrote: “in accord with mutually acceptable regulative principles. But given how different our needs and aspirations often are, how can we find principles that are acceptable to each of us?” More to your point he wrote: “Demanding that everyone have exactly the same effective opportunities in life would almost certainly offend the very liberties that are supposedly being equalized. Nonetheless, we would want to ensure at least the "fair worth" of our liberties: wherever one ends up in society, one wants life to be worth living, with enough effective freedom to pursue personal goals. Thus we would be moved to affirm a second principle requiring fair equality of opportunity, paired with the famous (and controversial) difference principle. This second principle ensures that those with comparable talents and motivation face roughly similar life chances, and that inequalities in society work to the benefit of the least advantaged.”

                                                                          My humble point is thinking people agree on the necessity of civil rights. Some think humans should give others civil rights, whereas the more pragmatic accept the necessity of legislative mandates. Those that oppose civil rights are in direct opposition to humanity and although they are guaranteed the right to think, feel, and express those views (I support that right) their ignorance should not be the law of my nation, nor should my nation revert to post construction “Jim Crow.”

                                                                          Be Well,

                                                                            #1.52 - Wed Aug 18, 2010 10:12 PM EDT
                                                                            Marshall James

                                                                            you do not understand you stated

                                                                            Civil and political rights are a class of rights and freedoms that protect individuals from unwarranted action by government

                                                                            but the CRA takes away the civil rights of americans by passing the CRA. it doesnt make any sense. The attitudes of america were changing regardless. we would of made the progress without government intervention. Do you honestly think the CRA passed with 100% of whites against it?

                                                                            you cant know if someone is hiring someone based on race....you cant look in their mind.

                                                                            for the government to give something to one group it has to take away from another. hence taking away civil rights.....but the difference is americans have given up rights for racism to be institutionalized and accepted.

                                                                            you are an example of PR working very well in brainwashing you to think that some racism is a good thing....as long as another group benefits.

                                                                            its an archaic thought process and I would encourage you to look into libertarianism when it comes to race relations.

                                                                            peace.

                                                                              #1.53 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 2:57 AM EDT
                                                                              shaunb

                                                                              james-1416766, you really believe that without legislation, it was headed toward more equality? OK. i can guarantee that legislation sped up the process. people had to boycott, get beat, get killed & placed in jail in order for dialogue to begin for some of the offenders.

                                                                              exactly right. you can't know why one person is hired over another, but you can place a documentation requirement that displays ethnicities hired on any federal money received.

                                                                              i can tell mehere's thoughts aren't that racism is good; you can also tell that mehere's steeped himself in some history. perhaps in some locales gov't laws aren't needed...but when it comes to business, it sure seems necessary.

                                                                              point me to the libertarianism views on race relations. i could search, but you probably have the good stuff bookmarked already.

                                                                              at any rate, some of this stuff isn't PR--some of it's just facts.

                                                                              • 1 vote
                                                                              #1.54 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 9:37 AM EDT
                                                                              Marshall James

                                                                              shaun I would respectfully disagree that legislations sped up the process. But just for arguments sake I will give to you that it did....at what cost?? lawful racism against poor whites??? the rich white folks who made their money during racisms heyday were not affected....it was the poor whites who lost jobs or oppurtunities to affirmative action and the quotas that resulted from CRA. Do you think that if a poor white man who never had racist thoughts finds himself being passed up to a black man in a job or schooling because of his race is not going to harbour resentment???

                                                                              anyway I actually dont have libertarian thoughts on race relations bookmarked but it was easy for me to find. You see its a mindset. If you listen to libertarians they are all about the individual...and against collectivism. I am going to post some videos...the first here is Milton Friedman....in this video he does talk about the plight of black americans...of course its a bit of an older video but quite relevent.

                                                                              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rls8H6MktrA

                                                                              next here is some quotes from Ron Paul on racism and how libertarians view racism and how the government perpetuates it.

                                                                              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qfx0mCW494

                                                                              here is Ayn Rand on racism. this is great also...she is a genius....not really my style of libertarianism but doesnt take away from the fact that she was right on a great many things.

                                                                              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHrHMLeWCrA&feature=related

                                                                              here is who I think is one of the greatest minds in our country right now when it comes to race relations with just a quick thought on affirmative action.

                                                                              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtXLzhbTz5E

                                                                              here is walter williams on how the government pushes racism on the people. really listen to him on businesses and their choices to segregrate.

                                                                              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EobK6-zHbyk

                                                                              If you watch all the videos then you will get what the mindset is of libertarians....its not necessarily a mission statement of the libertarian party to not be racist and to offer equal rights for minorities...its their mission statement for all americans. So in effect race relations is the MAIN point of libertarians.

                                                                              peace.

                                                                                #1.55 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:09 PM EDT
                                                                                Marshall James

                                                                                shaun

                                                                                one final video only 30 seconds long...but it sums up what all the above videos argue and what I concluded with....

                                                                                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnPnAJeVuvw&NR=1

                                                                                but I still encourage you to watch the other videos.

                                                                                peace.

                                                                                  #1.56 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:43 PM EDT
                                                                                  shaunb

                                                                                  i'm all about consuming viewpoints. there's no way to come to a solution without respecting & understanding the opposing viewpoints.

                                                                                  i remain baffled, though, by the lack of historic context. i simply don't understand why it took federal intervention for kids with different skin tones to go to the same school. to take that further, PolicyMaker: "let's just wait until the error of our ways are realized & the ingrained hatred washes away after several more generations of lopsided culture & policy & economic duress. it's going to happen. in the meantime, suffer black folks/minorities.

                                                                                  seriously? you're serious? but i truly understand. i think you mean well & just don't really perceive the hatred spewed by some. you're cool with me for that.

                                                                                  • 1 vote
                                                                                  #1.57 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 3:55 PM EDT
                                                                                  Marshall James

                                                                                  oh I am totally aware of the hatred that is out there. but as I have said and the evidence has proven...the attitudes of americans were shifting prior to the CRA. They change would of come anyway, and probably we would have gotten farther than we are now.

                                                                                  there will always be people filled with hate.....but the majority of americans are not filled with hate.....

                                                                                  libertarians were the abolitionists of the 19th century. in the 19th century libertarians were called "liberals" capitalism ended slavery as an institution worldwide. Is our country perfect of course not. but you dont take away rights or put in legislation that limits individual rights based on our imperfections...you work on them as individuals.

                                                                                  you lead by example and not through the barrel of a gun as we do now.

                                                                                  I dont know if you watched all the videos...I hope you did...there are different generations there I posted of the libertarian movement.,....all are consistent in what they say...all stand for "human" rights.

                                                                                  it may take longer to have equal rights for everyone but to sacrifice rights of americans for that would be wrong.....many have sacrificed for this country and will continue to sacrifice.

                                                                                  peace.

                                                                                    #1.58 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 4:14 PM EDT
                                                                                    MeHere-1865442

                                                                                    Hello,

                                                                                    James, you argue well, however, you missed the thinking of the more learned people; therefore we will use a little more history from the late nineteenth and twentieth century United States. In 1896, the Supreme Court ruled that separate railroad cars for Blacks and Whites did not violate the fourteenth amendment (Plessy v Ferguson). The decent was the constitution is color blind. In 1954, the Supreme Court decided the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. "Racially segregated schools," the Court concluded, are "inherently unequal." In one of the school districts involved in the 1954 school desegregation cases, Prince Edward, Virginia, county officials decided to close public schools altogether rather than integrate. Tuition benefits were provided to children to attend private schools, but the only private schools operating in the county had white-only admission policies.

                                                                                    Although the military was ordered integrated by President Truman in 1948, it began the Korean War (1950) fighting as segregated units. The Eisenhower administration declared racial discrimination a national security issue. He proposed to Congress the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 and signed those acts into law. The 1957 Act for the first time established a permanent civil rights office inside the Justice Department. Although both Acts were weaker than subsequent civil rights legislation, they constituted the first significant civil rights acts since the Civil Rights Act (1875), signed by President Grant.

                                                                                    In Little Rock, the capital city of Arkansas, the Little Rock School Board agreed to comply with the high court's ruling. Virgil Blossom, the Superintendent of Schools, submitted a plan of gradual integration to the school board on May 24, 1955, which the board unanimously approved. The plan would be implemented during the fall of the 1957 school year, which would begin in September 1957. Several segregationist councils threatened to hold protests at Central High and physically block the black students from entering the school. Governor Orval Faubus deployed the Arkansas National Guard to support the segregationists on September 4, 1957. Even President Eisenhower attempted to de-escalate the situation and summoned Governor Faubus to meet him. The President warned the governor not to interfere with the Supreme Court's ruling On September 24th; the President ordered the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock and federalized the entire 10,000 member Arkansas National Guard, taking it out of the hands of Governor Faubus. The 101st took positions immediately, and the nine students successfully entered the school on the next day, Wednesday, September 25, 1957.

                                                                                    The aforementioned and this discussion demonstrates that segregationist have even attempted force to perpetuate their desire to deny civil rights to other humans. You miss that liberty should be inclusive. In a philosophical sense, it can be said that morality must supersede tyranny in any legitimate form of government. Otherwise, people are left with a societal system rooted in backwardness, disorder, and regression. Positive liberty refers to having the power and resources to act to fulfill one's own potential, as opposed to negative liberty, which refers to freedom from restraint. Inherent to the concept of positive liberty is the idea that liberty is defined by the ability of citizens to participate in their government, or in voluntary co-operation in the case of anarchists. Specifically, the concepts of structure and agency are central to the concept of positive liberty because in order to be free, a person should be free from inhibitions of the social structure in carrying out their free will. Structurally speaking classism, sexism or racism can inhibit a person's freedom and positive liberty is primarily concerned with the possession of sociological agency, whereas you are supporting negative liberty. In Berlin's words, "liberty in the negative sense involves an answer to the question: 'What is the area within which the subject — a person or group of persons — is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons'." Restrictions on negative liberty are imposed by a person, not by natural causes or incapacity. Helvetius expresses the point clearly: "The free man is the man who is not in irons, nor imprisoned in a gaol, nor terrorized like a slave by the fear of punishment ... it is not lack of freedom not to fly like an eagle or swim like a whale." Fromm sees the distinction between the two types of freedom emerging alongside humanity's evolution away from the instinctual activity that characterizes lower animal forms. This aspect of freedom, he argues, "is here used not in its positive sense of 'freedom to' but in its negative sense of 'freedom from', namely freedom from instinctual determination of his actions."

                                                                                    We are arguing if Blacks are a lower animal or if segregationist are yielding to their lower animal selves. My humble point is that all humans are equal and if another desires the right to treat another with less than all of the rights and benefits, their lower animal activities should always be considered contrary to morality and law. We have many laws that are opposed to peoples’ lower animal self. (Murder for any reasons, theft, sex with children, non defensive violence, are all rightfully unlawful and I think we agree – those that practice these bestial acts, should be denied the liberty to act upon their lower selves. Bigots’ too desire to act on their lower selves and therefore there should be no protection for their bestial liberty.

                                                                                    Be Well,

                                                                                      #1.59 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 5:57 PM EDT
                                                                                      Marshall James

                                                                                      funny you bring up the late 1890's as walter williams discusses that in the last video I posted. I must state that you do not argue well at all as for one you do not listen or comprehend what the other person is saying.

                                                                                      so I will continue typing as the more "learned" person.

                                                                                      in regards to public school system problems......that is the problem with having the government involved with it........the private schools you mentioned that had whites only. well again you arent either aware of the libertarian stance or you are being willfully ignorant.

                                                                                      in a pure free market society there would be people who discriminate and those who dont. those who dont will make much more money than the ones that do. its called common sense especially with our nation nearing 50/50 divide.

                                                                                      positive liberty vs negative liberty...well its all relative isnt it. negative liberty to me is better than slavery. just a month or so ago when back in Rhode Island I was denied service for who i was....guess what...it didnt bother me....my money would go to someone else who would appreciate it.

                                                                                      I to was once like you and had a limited understanding of the world...I too lived in fear of freedom.....what bad thing might happen to me if i was free. but then I educated myself and also matured.

                                                                                      someday it may happen to you.

                                                                                      I suggest you watch the videos above...maybe you will learn something.....if you are limited in time maybe hit the one with walter williams and the one with ayn rand.

                                                                                      peace

                                                                                        #1.60 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 6:37 PM EDT
                                                                                        Marshall James

                                                                                        of course I was being sarcastic at times. It really irritates me when people dont give capitalism and freedom what it is due. It ended thousands of years of slavery, made this the most prosperous nation and because the transition of thousands of years of traditions didnt end overnight people want to villinize it and want a government in control of them. That has been done many times over and it has always failed.

                                                                                        making an argument for socialism, communism, fascism just doesnt make sense when it has proven to be a failure.

                                                                                        history proves that and to argue against history is just nonsense.

                                                                                          #1.61 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 7:10 PM EDT
                                                                                          MeHere-1865442

                                                                                          Hello,

                                                                                          James, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that libertarianism is attractive because “it provides significant moral liberty of action, it provides significant moral protection against interference from others, and it is sensitive to what the past was like (e.g., what agreements were made and what rights violations took place)." Libertarians generally advocate for the maximization of freedom of thought and action with few exceptions. One exception shared by libertarians is that the actions of an individual should not infringe upon the freedom of any other person, a premise often referred to as the non-aggression principle. Libertarian conservatism, also known as conservative libertarianism (and sometimes called right-libertarianism), describes certain political ideologies that attempt to meld libertarian and conservative ideas, often called "fusionism.”

                                                                                          “Better than slavery” is not libertarian thinking. Again, you miss that as libertarians, it is our personal responsibility to study and learn from historical fact and one of those facts is societies have attempted to codify civil rights for six thousand (6,000) years. In that you too believe in Capitalism, you are not an anarchist. It therefore falls to me to encourage you as a great teacher encouraged me. He said “believe nothing you hear, very little of what you read, but learn to study and learn the truth for yourself.” I have (and will continue) consistently offered not only history, but also the thinking (quotes) that created neo-libertinism. I watch your videos, but I also know you accept political rhetoric as your factual base, whereas I only accept the empirical as fact,

                                                                                          Again, negative and positive liberties are not vague esoteric phrases, but physical realities - or another one of those empirical (quantifiable) facts. I appreciate your détente statement (being sarcastic) and although for civil rights legislation, we agree to disagree, I will gladly continue this argument, or at the least look forward to reading your comments. However, there is an additional issue and that is the fact that many neo-Dixiecrats are cloaking themselves as conservatives, libertarians, independence, and etcetera. They and their evil are the antithesis of our “One nation under God.”

                                                                                          Be Well,

                                                                                            #1.62 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:57 PM EDT
                                                                                            Marshall James

                                                                                            very good post

                                                                                            I do look at history and see what capitalism has given us and what freedom for the most part has given us. It ended slavery as an institution worldwide and changed thousands of years of humans living basically the same.

                                                                                            I see freedom as an inherent right for every human being. It is in our very spirit. so although you consider it political rheotoric for someone to advocate for your freedom...I call it common sense.

                                                                                            Historically large central governments have taken advantage of and used the common man.

                                                                                            again...

                                                                                            its common sense.

                                                                                              #1.63 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:40 PM EDT
                                                                                              shaunb

                                                                                              we've totally hijacked this topic!

                                                                                              anyway, i'm glad you said that the majority of the people don't have this hatred within them. i agree. but even within our own lives, a relatively small amount of people can cause issues for the majority. i just don't think it's practical to wait 100 years while social ills work themselves out naturally.

                                                                                              good posts mehere. i'll be watching the vids today, james.

                                                                                              i believe libertarianism would be an acsension of morals & consequently our political systems. however, it's taking a long time for its fruition, especially in its implementation.

                                                                                                #1.64 - Fri Aug 20, 2010 11:21 AM EDT
                                                                                                Marshall James

                                                                                                enjoy the vids

                                                                                                we should lead by example and not through force.....it doesnt work in our foreign policy...just causes resentment and it doesnt work in our domestic policy...causes resentment.

                                                                                                the best thing we could do with our foreign policy is become non interventionists....and the same goes for our domestic policy.

                                                                                                found this video too....if you have time its a good one on libertarian thought when it comes to our foreign policy. if you are left wing you will enjoy 99% of it.

                                                                                                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqAF-Alc7CM

                                                                                                he gave this speech to the house back in 2009

                                                                                                as far as off topic

                                                                                                this is about who controls usa adult human behavior.

                                                                                                well our talking about policies and attitudes in regards to race would be discussing topics that our issues to americans today...hence with the recent PR it would be relevent.

                                                                                                  #1.65 - Fri Aug 20, 2010 11:40 AM EDT
                                                                                                  shaunb

                                                                                                  as stated, everyone has to arrive at a similar conclusion & some people just aren't there yet. and that fact is why laws & policy take place.

                                                                                                  have you ever heard of a game called civilization? pick that up. it's about $20 to $30 & it's fun & just chocked full of interesting reality. resource conflicts cause issues. technological advancements cause issue. differing religions cause issues--but there's only one planet that's getting smaller all the time. who gets what & who decides that?

                                                                                                  here's another item: read "guns, germs & steel" just an awesome read that opened my eyes to why things happen the way they happened.

                                                                                                  • 1 vote
                                                                                                  #1.66 - Fri Aug 20, 2010 11:50 AM EDT
                                                                                                  Marshall James

                                                                                                  I havent read that book by him but I have read collapse....if you look at my profile its one of my favorites.

                                                                                                  very good author. someday I will get that book, I already have about two dozen books that are in line in front of it though and more get ordered weekly. Just am unable to keep up with what I want to read.

                                                                                                  civilization is an old game. very fun. I have mastered it....lol.

                                                                                                    #1.67 - Fri Aug 20, 2010 11:57 AM EDT
                                                                                                    MeHere-1865442

                                                                                                    Hello,

                                                                                                    Talk about hijacking the topic, I too have played Sid Meier’s Civilization from CVII. The “Deity” option in IV sometimes leaves me as “The Foolish,” but I can guarantee a win at the others. However, I do not play the game as I live, think, or even my politic. Part of my politic is isolationism. I play as an aggressive militaristic expansionist; although you do not need a huge civilization to win in CVIII or CVIV and I have to know that personality is a part of my whole.

                                                                                                    I am rambling, but I think part of my enjoyment for these correspondents is that anyone that successfully plays Civilization knows the importance of a society to learn and evolve. Libertarians’ should be evolved individuals and attempt to teach the benefits of egalitarianism and liberty. Honestly, I do not think one-hundred years is enough time. We should not forget that classical Greece (Athens) was a true democracy and that some historians think it was a failure prior to Macedonia’s occupation and this brings me to this new “right direction” double speak.

                                                                                                    I have heard several erroneous uses of “right direction.” The worse is that the United States was headed in the “right direction” prior to the civil war, whereas the facts demonstrate that no compromise, no activist court rulings, would satisfy some of the southern states that actually succeeded prior to the formation of the Confederate States of America. Or that even the arguments of Sam Houston (Texas) were ignored. It therefore took the formation of the CSA and a force of arms to create as fact what we now accept as our USA.

                                                                                                    Extrapolating that same problem to civil rights, we should note that President Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock Arkansas. There was a strategic and tactical reason they were sent. Airborne units are trained (and take great pride) to successfully fight while surrounded. We forget the commandant for the Arkansas guard resigned after federalizing his forces. Military conflict over civil rights was a very real possibility. We also need to know US forces in Texas and California were placed on alert. “Right direction” is nothing more than political rhetoric used to assert that government of these US is always wrong.

                                                                                                    Only four of the succeeding southern states listed slavery (right to continue and spread) as a grievance against the Union, nor did the Confederate constitution allow for succession. We than see the phrase “states rights” has nothing to do with human rights, but an excuse to not support the US. We should also remember that libertarians at that time (though opposed to slavery) were European communist and had little to do with our abolitionists. Our early abolitionists were congregations like Quakers and Shakers whose religious philosophy affected northern secularism. More important, is that northern industrialism had no need for slavery and considered the southern slave states lazy and backward. It was often this northern elitism and not necessarily morality that allowed slavery to become a political issue.

                                                                                                    George Orwell would flinch at our use of “right direction.”

                                                                                                    Be Well,

                                                                                                      #1.68 - Fri Aug 20, 2010 6:00 PM EDT
                                                                                                      Reply
                                                                                                      Tom88

                                                                                                      You are saying the right wing is trying to control America through doctor prescribed drugs?

                                                                                                      LMFAO.

                                                                                                      The drug war is the way adult behavior is controlled along with the myriad other stupid rules and laws that try to dictate how we should live. Many of these come from those on the left.

                                                                                                        Reply#2 - Wed Aug 11, 2010 12:00 PM EDT
                                                                                                        UVA

                                                                                                        Tom88 ...

                                                                                                        You are saying the right wing is trying to control America through doctor prescribed drugs?

                                                                                                        No my friend ... I am saying the Right Wing is being controlled by an economic machine, that is, among other things (like FOX "News"), using prescription drugs to desensitize them, and to dumb them down to the levels we see manifested in the behaviors shown in today's News clips.

                                                                                                        • 1 vote
                                                                                                        #2.1 - Wed Aug 11, 2010 12:45 PM EDT
                                                                                                        Tom88

                                                                                                        I don't get the drug connection. I think it is a stretch. Exactly what drugs are you referring too? Opiates? Amphetamines like Ritalin? sleeping pills? All of them?? What about illegal drugs?

                                                                                                        Where did you get this 60% figure? That sounds like a stretch too. I suppose if you consider something that lowers cholesterol as mind altering, perhaps, but 60% of people are on mind altering meds? Huh?

                                                                                                        Sounds like hogwash to me

                                                                                                        • 1 vote
                                                                                                        #2.2 - Wed Aug 11, 2010 7:27 PM EDT
                                                                                                        UVA

                                                                                                        Where did you get this 60% figure? That sounds like a stretch too

                                                                                                        Tom88 ... I had 43 students (19-21 year olds) in my economics classes this summer.

                                                                                                        I actually wrote this article as a class exercise for analysis by the class.

                                                                                                        Not one of them had trouble understanding the theme nor the implication.

                                                                                                        And we don't live in the world of "sounds like" ... we actually do our research.

                                                                                                        And no ... the CDC does not include cholesterol-lowering medications as mind altering ... but the data shows they are taking so many drugs together that the ramifications of that could be enormously mind altering.

                                                                                                        Do your homework and then take a position.

                                                                                                        http://www.cdc.gov/

                                                                                                          #2.3 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 8:14 AM EDT
                                                                                                          Tom88

                                                                                                          YOU made the claim, not me. Cite your sources. Not my fault if your class does not care enough or know enough to question the validity of your claim.

                                                                                                          Don't link to the main page of the CDC and expect me to do your work. Researchers properly cite sources.

                                                                                                          • 1 vote
                                                                                                          #2.4 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:12 AM EDT
                                                                                                          UVA

                                                                                                          The source was pasted into that last post of mine.

                                                                                                          My homework has been done, my friend ... and those 19-21 year olds did theirs too.

                                                                                                          So, you see, it is becoming increasingly difficult for someone like you to simply ask unrelated questions, and expect others to see some semblence of logic within them.

                                                                                                          If you don't want to read ... then you would not be able to keep up in the circles that are becoming the new, 21st Century America.

                                                                                                          But be aware that your dependence on the "trickle-down" benefits from Government-provided Corporate Welfare is ending very quickly.

                                                                                                            #2.5 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:20 AM EDT
                                                                                                            Tom88

                                                                                                            The main page to the CDC is not a proper citation--that site is huge. You should know better than that. If I cited my sources in such a manner for a class assignment the teacher would not accept it. Of course i am not expecting APA, but at least a bit more than what you gave me (which is more than what you included in your article).

                                                                                                            From where i am sitting your homework most certainly has not been done. Since you failed to cite your sources and are unwilling to provide them i must assume your information is false. Especially a wild claim like 60% of subarbanites use mind-altering prescription drugs daily. It just does not pass the smell test. I dont need to do research on the internet to know that. I study drug issues. It is your responsibility as the author to properly back your claims, not mine as the reader.

                                                                                                              #2.6 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:26 AM EDT
                                                                                                              UVA

                                                                                                              The main page to the CDC is not a proper citation--that site is huge. You should know better than that.

                                                                                                              Tom88 ...

                                                                                                              Trust me, I understand better than many folks that my articles, and the level of understanding required to participate in discussions of them, are not for everyone.

                                                                                                              One of the problems in America is, as cited in this entire thread, Americans have not kept up with our own societal norms, and are, frankly, just too lazy today to do anything more than wait for a spoon-feeding from entertainment outlets, like FOX.

                                                                                                              No one will force you to read anything, nor do we expect that you would educate yourself when you are used to one-liner, sound-byte laced entertainment.

                                                                                                              Occasionally, I have students who come to our University who show superb grades from America's high schools, but who fail in our environment because they had been conditioned to memorize their way through a curricula.

                                                                                                              They will almost always tell me i have assigned too much for them to read ... and that is my signal they will probably not keep up.

                                                                                                                #2.7 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:52 AM EDT
                                                                                                                UVA

                                                                                                                Since you failed to cite your sources and are unwilling to provide them i must assume your information is false.

                                                                                                                And Tom88 ... as I mentioned, "The Sunday Dallas Morning News" is a "source" ... now, can we at least agree that newspaper is a pretty large "read"?

                                                                                                                But it is, under any definition, a "source".

                                                                                                                  #2.8 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:54 AM EDT
                                                                                                                  Tom88

                                                                                                                  So you are too lazy to properly cite your sources, even when asked, then blame me, the reader for not doing your work for you? LOL

                                                                                                                  I don't watch FOX, i am certainly not a right winger, and i am well educated and in a graduate program. I know how to do research and i know how to properly cite my sources. I would never expect my reader to do the work for me.

                                                                                                                  Before you go about insulting my intelligence why don't you try and show some of your own. This is a badly written scare piece worthy of the circular file. For shame.

                                                                                                                  • 1 vote
                                                                                                                  #2.9 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:59 AM EDT
                                                                                                                  Reply
                                                                                                                  UVA

                                                                                                                  Maybe the greatest testimony to the level of control that economic machine has over the Tea-Baggers and other extremist right-wing political groups of people is in their abject denial of the existence of the very wealthy who are controlling them.

                                                                                                                  • 1 vote
                                                                                                                  Reply#3 - Wed Aug 11, 2010 12:47 PM EDT
                                                                                                                  shaunb

                                                                                                                  UVA,

                                                                                                                  i'm going to start tracking this opinion to see what else it brings up. i too have trouble understanding what seems to be the disconnect between cause & effect with more conservative types.

                                                                                                                    Reply#4 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:52 AM EDT
                                                                                                                    UVA

                                                                                                                    shaunb ...

                                                                                                                    i too have trouble understanding what seems to be the disconnect between cause & effect with more conservative types.

                                                                                                                    If I understand you correctly, I assume you glean from this article what it was intended to stimulate.

                                                                                                                    The basis of this lies in the theory that all human behavior can be explained, and therefore is the result of some kind of stimulus.

                                                                                                                    Many years ago, very sophisticate "Think Tanks", that were hired by both major political parties, conducted well-financed behavioral research on the American population, through research that spanned several years. I have colleagues who made a lot of money as PhD research psychologists, who were hired by some of these groups.

                                                                                                                    They found that the more satisfied they made Americans (easy, cheap fast foods that were full of fat, salt, sugar ... all the foods human animals prefer), and lots of cheap entertainment, the less interested they were in work, education, and government.

                                                                                                                    Today, all the manifestations are in place. And the Tea-Party folks, who are generally under-educated, obese, diabetic, who spend an enormous number of wakeful hours in movie theaters and fast-food outlets, are suddenly aware that something out there is hurting them - but they are having tremendous trouble locating the source of this pain.

                                                                                                                      #4.1 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:17 AM EDT
                                                                                                                      Tom88

                                                                                                                      Today, all the manifestations are in place. And the Tea-Party folks, who are generally under-educated, obese, diabetic, who spend an enormous number of wakeful hours in movie theaters and fast-food outlets

                                                                                                                      lol. Another wild claim. This is a rash generalization not based on facts. That is like saying something like, in general liberals are pot smoking hippies who want to take rich people's money and give it to the poor.

                                                                                                                      At this point i think this is just not worth my time. And your a teacher? THAT is the problem.

                                                                                                                      • 1 vote
                                                                                                                      #4.2 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:33 AM EDT
                                                                                                                      shaunb

                                                                                                                      I haven't consumed for myself any of the data/results from the think tanks & PHd holders, but i do know of the experiments with animals reinforced by incentives like food. if it works for them, it works for us. and history has shown that science has a way of its works being twisted for unintended purposes. i haven't fact checked your opinion; i think it plausible though.

                                                                                                                      yea, i grabbed your premise that drugs alter behavior in some way (all ways not known, especially when drug "cocktails" exist thru multiple medications) & the markedly increased agreement with better living thru chemistry by the public. food & entertainment are major behavioral modifiers; anyone denying that is dead or quickly on their way.

                                                                                                                      definitely more sugar, salt & fat in everything we eat--i do know that. processed food has all the aforementioned in astronomical amounts & lately it became increasingly expensive to eat "healthy", especially in urban areas. this is a highly compelling argument because all of the elements are in plain sight [said as i drink my pepsi with 69 grams of sugar].

                                                                                                                      the connection between those elements & school though--wouldn't it seem that in order to buy these things that taste so great & feel so good, that one would have to increase their knowledge in order to get the job to support their habit? at the same time, if the entertainment/food was provided cheaply enough, the effort would too become cheaper & more easily obtainable for the masses...

                                                                                                                      at any rate, erykah badu & a few other artists (rappers) have mentioned this & it's interesting to read how another person links them together. it's especially interesting to read other people's conflicting opinions.

                                                                                                                      • 2 votes
                                                                                                                      #4.3 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 12:57 PM EDT
                                                                                                                      UVA

                                                                                                                      but i do know of the experiments with animals reinforced by incentives like food. if it works for them, it works for us. and history has shown that science has a way of its works being twisted for unintended purposes.

                                                                                                                      That is exactly right shaunb ... and in this case, the purposes and consequences are both fully intentional.

                                                                                                                      This is precisely why our tax dollars have been used by ALL of Washington in subsidizing the largest agricultural and pharmaceutical cartels on Earth.

                                                                                                                      One supplies the "cheap" fat, sugar, and salt (which are killing most Americans). and the other mind-altering drugs, which produces a stupor these animals desire.

                                                                                                                      And in the case of the politicians and the wealthy, it is a gigantic "win-win".

                                                                                                                      • 1 vote
                                                                                                                      #4.4 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:27 PM EDT
                                                                                                                      Reply
                                                                                                                      UVA

                                                                                                                      That is like saying something like, in general liberals are pot smoking hippies who want to take rich people's money and give it to the poor.

                                                                                                                      No, the evidence is well established. There is too much empirical as well as anecdotal data that shows who the people are who claim allegiance to Rand Paul, and to Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann.

                                                                                                                      There is even quite a profile of data that now knows fully who those people are who watch FOX "News" every day.

                                                                                                                      • 2 votes
                                                                                                                      Reply#5 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:58 AM EDT
                                                                                                                      Tom88

                                                                                                                      Cool: please cite or link to one study that shows the majority, or hell even a sizable minority of people who would associate themselves with the tea party movement are obese, diabetic and under-educated. Otherwise i must assume this is another false claim.

                                                                                                                      • 1 vote
                                                                                                                      #5.1 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 12:02 PM EDT
                                                                                                                      Marshall James

                                                                                                                      uva

                                                                                                                      your overgeneralization is just remarkable. Rand Paul for one is a libertarian while palin and bachmann are not. so you cannot lump them all together.

                                                                                                                        #5.2 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 12:19 PM EDT
                                                                                                                        UVA

                                                                                                                        Cool: please cite or link to one study that shows the majority, or hell even a sizable minority of people who would associate themselves with the tea party movement are obese, diabetic and under-educated

                                                                                                                        People are never asked in any kind of behavioral research what "movements" they are associated with, as the term itself means too many things to different people.

                                                                                                                        But they may be asked what kinds of stresses they experience in their lives.

                                                                                                                        Read the vast amount of CDC data. it contains much that most Americans never care to take the time to look up.

                                                                                                                          #5.3 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 12:34 PM EDT
                                                                                                                          UVA

                                                                                                                          your overgeneralization is just remarkable. Rand Paul for one is a libertarian while palin and bachmann are not. so you cannot lump them all together.

                                                                                                                          No ... Rand Paul's Father is a Libertarian.

                                                                                                                          Rand Paul's platform does not resemble his Father's in any way of form.

                                                                                                                            #5.4 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 12:35 PM EDT
                                                                                                                            Marshall James

                                                                                                                            oh really, lol

                                                                                                                            ok.....seems funny to me every time i hear you liberals crying its about him saying the same thing his father has stated just not as eloquently....only once have I heard him state something that his father would not say...or went against what his father thought...but it wasnt enough to not make him a libertarian

                                                                                                                              #5.5 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 12:41 PM EDT
                                                                                                                              UVA

                                                                                                                              ok.....seems funny to me every time i hear you liberals crying

                                                                                                                              I am both a Father and Grandfather, and my children will assure you I am "liberal" in NO matter involving people or human responsibility.

                                                                                                                              And I consider my responsibility to government as not a "right", but as a "human responsibility".

                                                                                                                              Please stay on the topic if you don't mind ... thanks!

                                                                                                                                #5.6 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 12:59 PM EDT
                                                                                                                                Reply
                                                                                                                                Marshall James

                                                                                                                                uva

                                                                                                                                you brought up rand paul for one.....blasting on republicans and libertarians generally makes you a liberal....since both are considered conservative. you of course put down fox news but not any of the liberal media sites...that sounds liberal to me.

                                                                                                                                this is just in response to your above statements. but if i am wrong i must apologize...what would you be then??? you are not a conservative i can assure you.

                                                                                                                                may i suggest you stay on topic......thanks.

                                                                                                                                peace.

                                                                                                                                  Reply#6 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:05 PM EDT
                                                                                                                                  UVA

                                                                                                                                  blasting on republicans and libertarians generally makes you a liberal....since both are considered conservative. you of course put down fox news but not any of the liberal media sites...that sounds liberal to me.

                                                                                                                                  I "blast" on them all, and in this article, I certainly didn't excuse any political entity from being accessories to what the Money Machine is doing to America.

                                                                                                                                  If you think Republicans and Libertarians, as well as the Tea-Party (whatever it is they stand for - which still eludes me) are NOT just carrying water for a few ultra-wealthy fat-cats, then you are not a "libertarian", you are a fool.

                                                                                                                                    #6.1 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:22 PM EDT
                                                                                                                                    Marshall James

                                                                                                                                    who has been in power over the last 90 years?????? democrats and republicans...who has controlled the congress the most over the last 30 years????? democrats. who has been the president the most the last 30 years....republicans.

                                                                                                                                    seems like the blame lies with those two parties.

                                                                                                                                    libertarians want to end the coporate/government merger...they want to end corporatism.

                                                                                                                                    i believe the fool would be those who think the democrats are for the little guy...or that republicans are any different than democrats and for smaller government.

                                                                                                                                    peace.

                                                                                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                                                                                    #6.2 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:30 PM EDT
                                                                                                                                    UVA

                                                                                                                                    libertarians want to end the coporate/government merger...they want to end corporatism

                                                                                                                                    I don't think so.

                                                                                                                                    Libertarians have neither the support nor the resources to ever stand up to Exxon Mobil, Eli Lilly, Merck, BP or Monsanto.

                                                                                                                                    In no time, those "Libertarians" will be selling you down the same river the Reps and Dems have sold us down.

                                                                                                                                    When you and I decide their game is over ... then it will be over.

                                                                                                                                    I think that has already begun ... because Americans are basically throwing in the towel now ... and White America is going "Dark-People" crazy!

                                                                                                                                    It is a sign of a slow-motion societal implosion, for sure.

                                                                                                                                      #6.3 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:54 PM EDT
                                                                                                                                      Marshall James

                                                                                                                                      wtf are you talking about??

                                                                                                                                      dark people crazy??? ohhhhh stop the indoctrination man....i see this worldwide and it makes me uneasy...the governments of the world seem to want social unrest right now. europe with its anti muslim attitude...france, holland, germany all in the news lately. all brought on by the government and its allowing the proliferation of muslims and adaptation to sharia law in some cases......they are setting us all up.

                                                                                                                                      now the race baiting here being done by the powers that be.

                                                                                                                                      In some ways I agree with you....libertarians do not have the power to go against the system as it is right now. but if libertarians can get enough people thinking against the system....get enough people wanting freedom...then it could eventually happen.

                                                                                                                                      i know its a fairy tale....and I may be crazy for thinking so. I just think that freedom is a good thing and I believe in mankind as a whole.

                                                                                                                                      peace.

                                                                                                                                      • 1 vote
                                                                                                                                      #6.4 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 2:06 PM EDT
                                                                                                                                      UVA

                                                                                                                                      ...the governments of the world seem to want social unrest right now.

                                                                                                                                      Well we see this VERY differently.

                                                                                                                                      When Sharon Angle is out there talking about "2nd Amendment remedies" to matters that involve democratic votes, then you need to think again about who wants social unrest.

                                                                                                                                        #6.5 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 2:10 PM EDT
                                                                                                                                        Marshall James

                                                                                                                                        i dont know about sharon angle too much...one thing about libertarianism which i am not so sure she is...but I know has some of those stances....but that libertarians sometimes do draw some nuts. its the basic nature of libertarians being the strongest third party and being for a limited government....it appeals to anarchists also.

                                                                                                                                        its just the way it is.

                                                                                                                                        angle could be an idiot I dont know. but it is interesting that big business is behind reid and not the free market candidate.

                                                                                                                                        businesses dont want a government that leaves them alone...they want a government they can use.

                                                                                                                                        as far as her saying make alcohol illegal....thats just nonsense...probably her just spouting off one day...just like rand paul quoted as saying only violent crimes should be prosecuted....you take a snippet or a certain thought at that moment or a slip of the tongue and its gospel to the oppossing party to use against them....its bs politics and takes away from the real issues.

                                                                                                                                        i do know however she has been ducking interviews and appearances...even her own press conference...that isnt reassuring at all...but what is the alternative there reid...worst unemployment in the nation...you are already last.......is there a third candidate?? libertarian, green party whatever??? people should vote for them would be my stance on that one.

                                                                                                                                        • 1 vote
                                                                                                                                        #6.6 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 2:39 PM EDT
                                                                                                                                        Reply
                                                                                                                                        UVA

                                                                                                                                        By the way James ... I do trust that your intentions are good, and that you really want to fix the ills in America.

                                                                                                                                        I don't see anything in your words that lead me to believe you would want anything but the best for all of us.

                                                                                                                                        But you still believe the "Government" in America is something other than the People who own it ... US!

                                                                                                                                        • 1 vote
                                                                                                                                        Reply#7 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:57 PM EDT
                                                                                                                                        Marshall James

                                                                                                                                        i believe our government is owned by corporations and uses PR to influence the masses into doing its bidding. they sell a bill of goods to the public for "our own good" and humans being good natured...fall for it. they did it with AT&T back in the day and to think they dont lie to the public to get their own agenda across now would be just naive.

                                                                                                                                        so although I agree we elect our officials...i disagree that it is by untainted knowledge and without manipulation....therefore its not freedom and not our government at the same time that it is.

                                                                                                                                        do you get that?

                                                                                                                                        • 1 vote
                                                                                                                                        #7.1 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 2:09 PM EDT
                                                                                                                                        UVA

                                                                                                                                        therefore its not freedom and not our government at the same time that it is.

                                                                                                                                        do you get that?

                                                                                                                                        No ... please explain further ...

                                                                                                                                          #7.2 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 2:12 PM EDT
                                                                                                                                          Marshall James

                                                                                                                                          people are given the illusion of freedom. democrats dont repeal what republicans put in place...and vice versa....if republicans were so against social security or welfare...they would of repealed it....just like now over 70% of americans are against this healthcare reform...yet when republicans get in power...will they repeal it????? no.

                                                                                                                                          think about that for a second. its been done over and over in history. the patriot act is another one. majority against it...yet what does obama do....extend it...and my guess is that eventually the people will forget about it and it will stand.

                                                                                                                                          so if they really are the opposites then why do they rarely ever repeal laws/bills??? the ones that put in institutions into our society??? I can give you numerous examples of programs that were put in place and the goals they had for them...then when the results were a failure instead of repealing it..they changed the mission statement..

                                                                                                                                          The use of PR is huge. I have done a lot of reading on PR. Bernays, Lippmann, etc. you can manipulate anything to sound like something it is not.

                                                                                                                                          also do we know what goes on behind closed doors in our government???? if not why not?? if the government is us then why shouldnt we know everything that is said???? could special deals be made without our knowledge???? to think not would be naive....compound that times 90 or so years. they know that if they present something to the public a certain way that will illicit a certain type of response. group mentality is different than individual mentality...its easier to direct.....so they know how to manipulate....so if they are lying to us..or we are not gettingthe full truth and we are deciding when we vote based on faulty information is that really the government being us?

                                                                                                                                          yes and no like I said......kinda like the gangster who threatens death to get into office.......was he elected??? sure he was elected...but the iinformation provided to those who voted him in was tainted....or manipulated...so although you could say that he was elected and the government is us...would it truly be??

                                                                                                                                          its hard for me to type put my thoughts into txt sometimes sorry about that...but you are right and thank you.....i do care about my country and want what is best for all of us. I do not have a special agenda for any certain group of americans......just individual rights for all americans....and freedom.

                                                                                                                                          I have found that right wing books are partly right and left wing books are partly right....i became a libertarian by trying to not be a partisan individual. I was trying not to have that tunnel vision...so I started educating myself on both stances. what I found was troubling to me as an american. I therefore concluded for my own sanity and my inner spirit I could only be for my common man. but anarchism was out as I do see a need for a limited government. therefore libertarianism was a perfect fit for me.

                                                                                                                                          anyway back to question...

                                                                                                                                          i hope i havent confused you more. but PR is alive and well and the public is directed into doing what the corporations and government wants. This was per the words of the fathers of PR.

                                                                                                                                          • 2 votes
                                                                                                                                          #7.3 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 2:33 PM EDT
                                                                                                                                          UVA

                                                                                                                                          Of course, as we Americans were busily taking in Disney World, Six Flags, and Branson, the Money Machine was at work, setting us all up with schemes to deliver credit to your door in exchange for your subsequent voluntary imprisonment in a jobless society.

                                                                                                                                          They created one economic "bubble" after another; and once that "bubble" was large enough, they popped it, blowing the Middle Working Class into even more debt.

                                                                                                                                          Trust me, every political and economic entity has been in on this, including those wealthy "libertarians" you want to trust.

                                                                                                                                          • 1 vote
                                                                                                                                          #7.4 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 3:01 PM EDT
                                                                                                                                          shaunb

                                                                                                                                          and james-1416766, you're almost proving the point without pointing to the drugs & food. why don't the people go back & repeal? it's because they're waiting on the government instead of informing themselves about the cause & effect of policy & their environment. that's why i think the opinion piece is plausible.

                                                                                                                                          i like the vine/Internet. there are definitely some crack pots, but their intelligence shows all too quickly with typed words & fact checking at one's finger tips. it's good to nab some points of interest from opposing views & to challenge the beliefs of others & to direct a person to worthy content. amazing.

                                                                                                                                            #7.5 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 3:26 PM EDT
                                                                                                                                            Marshall James

                                                                                                                                            uva i wouldnt call it imprisonment of society i would call it slavery....and that is basically what it is.

                                                                                                                                            I would disagree that libertarians are behind it.....are they making money...some of them..sure..why not. you have to fund your cause some how. but to say that if libertarians controlled our congress and presidency that they would increase government would be just crazy.

                                                                                                                                            the whole stance of libertarians is freedom and to not put up with the status quo of democrats and those that call themselves republicans......i say that because libertarians are basically the republicans of 100 years ago...antiwar, individual rights, free market.

                                                                                                                                            we are against the status quo and the expansion of what we see as an assault on human rights let alone american citizen rights. we are corporatist in nature now and that is what is considered the transition between capitalism and socialism to some scholars.

                                                                                                                                            we do not believe in socialism although many democrats and republicans do.

                                                                                                                                            so in conclusion i would disagree wholeheartedly that libertarians as a whole would become as corrupt as our current politicians....would there be some.....sure. but as a whole...not even close.

                                                                                                                                              #7.6 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 3:57 PM EDT
                                                                                                                                              UVA

                                                                                                                                              so in conclusion i would disagree wholeheartedly that libertarians as a whole would become as corrupt as our current politicians....would there be some.....sure. but as a whole...not even close.

                                                                                                                                              Money in those sums always corrupts humans. I believe you hope for the best, but I'm telling you that is but a pipe dream.

                                                                                                                                              Money always corrupts!

                                                                                                                                              • 1 vote
                                                                                                                                              #7.7 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 4:17 PM EDT
                                                                                                                                              Marshall James

                                                                                                                                              but to get libertarians into office our whole mindset as americans would have to change from dependence..to repsonsibility.....from servitude...to freedom...it would be a huge shift in ideology and those politicians would have to follow....and also remember that libertarians would cut our federal government down to next to nothing....that would take the corruption level down a little as why would corporations want to spend big money when politicians had no real power???? the alternative to a libertarian would be a politician who would want to enslave the people and that wouldnt fly because of the change in mindset.

                                                                                                                                              i know the chances of this are slim...but it is possible....PR can be used for good purposes too....like telling people they should believe they have rights....that they can decide for their own lives....that they own their body and no one else owns their body.

                                                                                                                                              I doubt we could ever achieve this type of revolution peacefully...but I dream of it.

                                                                                                                                              and you are right money does corrupt...but not all men are corruptable. If you are strong enough in your convictions you will not waiver...its like asking a christian to believe in the devil...its not going to happen....they arent going to change what they worship for anything.

                                                                                                                                              just like a libertarian wont. because that is our dream i know its not a religion...but we are considered radicals and eccentric and many of us are atheist...so it is our religion.

                                                                                                                                              anyway....been a nice chat...and a pleasure

                                                                                                                                              peace.

                                                                                                                                                #7.8 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 4:24 PM EDT
                                                                                                                                                Reply
                                                                                                                                                MeHere-1865442

                                                                                                                                                Hello,

                                                                                                                                                As a conservative, who is also an independent libertarian that believes in isolationism, your belief we blindly follow the dictates of corporatism, is no less acceptable than your argument that government knows better than the people know their needs. I think your argument would better serve if you explained the importance of critical thinking and why/how, it should be used for political activism. Esoteric existentialism in our society, does not differentiate between “pursuit of happiness” and selfishness. Consider the phraseology of the modern proud parent. “Our children are smarter than we were” – and I ask myself, was this parent the “Forest Gump” of their school?

                                                                                                                                                In making this statement, the parents are relieving themselves of the minute-to-minute necessity of being the primary teacher who sends into their community another person that knows and accepts human values and personal responsibility. Community values did not end after instant communication, nor should it be limited to small towns, but should be the values and the accompanying actions of the people. It is distrust of community that drives people toward an “Orwellian” world, where big government replaces individual and community responsibility.

                                                                                                                                                I live and work in an old large industrial city and therefore understanding of the difficulties in maintaining community. Do I think the federal government can or will solve the problems of my community, or my city? Maybe you should ask that question yourselves.

                                                                                                                                                Be Well,

                                                                                                                                                • 2 votes
                                                                                                                                                Reply#8 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 2:31 PM EDT
                                                                                                                                                UVA

                                                                                                                                                is no less acceptable than your argument that government knows better than the people know their needs. I think your argument would better serve if you explained the importance of critical thinking and why/how, it should be used for political activism.

                                                                                                                                                MeHere ...

                                                                                                                                                You have definitely missed my point ... by at least a mile.

                                                                                                                                                First of all, even in my 4th Grade Us History class, we learned the first day that "We The People" means you and I are the government.

                                                                                                                                                What happened to you is nothing unusual.

                                                                                                                                                You see the government as some entity that is not part of our society.

                                                                                                                                                I suggest you go to your nearest mirror, and take a close look.

                                                                                                                                                Because you will be looking at part of our government.

                                                                                                                                                  #8.1 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 3:06 PM EDT
                                                                                                                                                  Reply
                                                                                                                                                  MeHere-1865442

                                                                                                                                                  Hello,

                                                                                                                                                  Okay, I read your post. If you read my post I restated we are the government, but we should oppose large entities (government) that believe they and not we know what is needed. So yes, I am still an excellent shot, you were scoring the wrong target. ;-)

                                                                                                                                                  Be Well,

                                                                                                                                                    Reply#9 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 3:38 PM EDT
                                                                                                                                                    UVA

                                                                                                                                                    If you read my post I restated we are the government, but we should oppose large entities (government) that believe they and not we know what is needed.

                                                                                                                                                    So you are saying "we" should oppose large vestiges of ourselves ... as you agree "We" are the government...???

                                                                                                                                                    How could an entity grow out of ourselves ("We" the Government) into something "large" unless we first initiate it, and then propagate it?

                                                                                                                                                      #9.1 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 3:49 PM EDT
                                                                                                                                                      Reply
                                                                                                                                                      UVA

                                                                                                                                                      And I hope you don't mind my asking if there are now both "conservative" and "liberal" wings of the Libertarian Party too ...?!?!?!

                                                                                                                                                      And you did say you are also an "independent" Libertarian.

                                                                                                                                                      Does that mean you are different from one who is not "independent", but who is a Libertarian?

                                                                                                                                                        Reply#10 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 3:52 PM EDT
                                                                                                                                                        MeHere-1865442

                                                                                                                                                        Hello,

                                                                                                                                                        All valid questions and I will try to keep my answers short. I am a libertarian because I believe in the importance of liberty for the individual. My independence is based on I do not consider party affiliation or non-affiliation when voting for a person. Nor do I consider any party sponsorship for political issues. However, I am not a member of the “Libertarian Party.” Another writer already commented that our ligatures never appeal anything. They have become self-propitiating entities that no longer reflect our image. Yes, we vote our image, but beyond local concerns, those in Washington turn our voting into meaninglessness’, that no longer reflect the peoples’ will.

                                                                                                                                                        As a nation filled with individuals, we ignored the warnings of Eisenhower and others, fell politically asleep, and woke to find our republic changed. Many waking from their sleep are yelling, “The sky is falling,” while their followers never look up and blame those that vote differently. Others use the panic to promote their political agenda, which is nothing less than - more of the same. President Obama was elected because some of those sleepy people knew we needed change. Others believe the change is right of President Bush.

                                                                                                                                                        My conservative is based on an actual return of representative government that accepts its limited role.

                                                                                                                                                        Be Well,

                                                                                                                                                          #10.1 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:00 PM EDT
                                                                                                                                                          MeHere-1865442

                                                                                                                                                          Hello,

                                                                                                                                                          TYPO Alert. “ligatures” should be Legislator.

                                                                                                                                                          Be Well,

                                                                                                                                                            #10.2 - Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:25 PM EDT
                                                                                                                                                            Reply
                                                                                                                                                            MeHere-1865442

                                                                                                                                                            Hello,

                                                                                                                                                            Notsoginso, I am well thank you and hope the same for you and yours. I think you dated yourself with “right on.” ;-) When I left the Marine’s, I was “left off.” Obviously I am still an old, ugly, grouchy man that loves to argue, but I am also a patriot that still thinks we should be “One nation under God” and I have a hard time understanding those that think only those that think, vote, or believe as they are valuable.

                                                                                                                                                            I check on my friends and read their comments. Like all old guys, I often just listen and when I comment, I want to add my two cents too. One other little comment thing, is that I still work and need to beg patients from others, so sometimes I stay tacit.

                                                                                                                                                            Be Well,

                                                                                                                                                              Reply#11 - Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:51 PM EDT
                                                                                                                                                              MeHere-1865442

                                                                                                                                                              Hello,

                                                                                                                                                              It is your right to question the quality of my public school and state university education. Therefore I will use an old idiom. “A clock that does not work is right twice a day.” Johnson was paraphrasing Washington’s speech pertaining to the building of a synagogue. Washington was right to support Jews and their right to worship and Johnson was right to support civil rights. However, maybe you never considered what civil rights are.

                                                                                                                                                              Civil and political rights are a class of rights and freedoms that protect individuals from unwarranted action by government and private organizations and individuals and ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression. Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical integrity and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as physical or mental disability, gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, national origin, age, and individual rights such as the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, and movement. Political rights include natural justice (procedural fairness) in law, such as the rights of the accused, including the right to a fair trial; due process; the right to seek redress or a legal remedy; and rights of participation in civil society and politics such as freedom of association, the right to assemble, the right to petition, and the right to vote.

                                                                                                                                                              Civil and political rights comprise the first portion of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (with economic, social and cultural rights comprising the second portion). The theory of three generations of human rights considers this group of rights to be "first-generation rights", and the theory of negative and positive rights considers them to be generally negative rights.

                                                                                                                                                              Nozick wrote, “social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are to be of greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society." Even the philosopher Rawls who disagreed with Nozick wrote: “in accord with mutually acceptable regulative principles. But given how different our needs and aspirations often are, how can we find principles that are acceptable to each of us?” More to your point he wrote: “Demanding that everyone have exactly the same effective opportunities in life would almost certainly offend the very liberties that are supposedly being equalized. Nonetheless, we would want to ensure at least the "fair worth" of our liberties: wherever one ends up in society, one wants life to be worth living, with enough effective freedom to pursue personal goals. Thus we would be moved to affirm a second principle requiring fair equality of opportunity, paired with the famous (and controversial) difference principle. This second principle ensures that those with comparable talents and motivation face roughly similar life chances, and that inequalities in society work to the benefit of the least advantaged.”

                                                                                                                                                              My humble point is thinking people agree on the necessity of civil rights. Some think humans should give others civil rights, whereas the more pragmatic accept the necessity of legislative mandates. Those that oppose civil rights are in direct opposition to humanity and although they are guaranteed the right to think, feel, and express those views (I support that right) their ignorance should not be the law of my nation, nor should my nation revert to post construction “Jim Crow.”

                                                                                                                                                              Be Well,

                                                                                                                                                                Reply#12 - Wed Aug 18, 2010 10:11 PM EDT
                                                                                                                                                                Leave a Comment:
                                                                                                                                                                You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                                                                                                                                                You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                                                                                                                                                (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                                                                                                                                                Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                                                                                                                                                As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                                                                                                                                                FUN STUFF:
                                                                                                                                                                • Leaderboard |
                                                                                                                                                                • E-Mail Alerts |
                                                                                                                                                                • Top of the Vine |
                                                                                                                                                                • Newsvine Live |
                                                                                                                                                                • Newsvine Archives |
                                                                                                                                                                • The Greenhouse |
                                                                                                                                                                COMPANY STUFF:
                                                                                                                                                                • Code of Honor |
                                                                                                                                                                • Company Info |
                                                                                                                                                                • Contact Us |
                                                                                                                                                                • Jobs |
                                                                                                                                                                • User Agreement |
                                                                                                                                                                • Privacy Policy |
                                                                                                                                                                • About our ads
                                                                                                                                                                LEGAL STUFF:
                                                                                                                                                                • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                                                                                                                • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                                                                                                                • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com