How to get fire from Fox News in 5 Minutes...HA HA HA

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

Mad truth all up in here!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QT8Q-Hcll0

[Thondalar]

Love this dude.

[Tgo01]

The thread title is misleading, I kept waiting for him to spontaneously combust :(

[TheEschaton]

I don't get it, was that guy fired?

All he's parroting is traditional Tea Party nonsense. The truth is they would never want a far left, or Socialist President, and most moderates are willing to compromise their ideals a bit to avoid reactionary candidates of the other side from becoming more electable. It's a business where you only see the fruition of your ideals in watered down format lest your opponent gain traction against the truly radical things you believe. Ron Paul wants to get rid of the Department of Education, I think that's insane enough to want a more moderate Republican party, Dennis Kucinich wants a Department of Peace, that's insane enough for most Republicans to want a more moderate Democrat party.

[4a6c1]

Holy shit. My propaganda professor was talking about one of these points in class last week. The "What if the biggest difference between most candidates was not substance but style....to reinforce the illusion of difference between Republicans and Democrats." He illustrated this use of style to describe how GW won the second election campaign with a dramatic show of patriotism and classic shows of leadership. Polls were down and GW was not looking good. So overnight before a speech the production team took a cue from when George Bushes approval ratings were the best. This turned out to be the week after 9-11 when George Bush was pictured with his arm around a relief worker. The viewer vantage point was from below. His posture indicated a reassuring leadership figure. The production team recreated the picture and gave GW a raised stage to stand on for every speech from then on. Themes were simplified. He was coached on his posture and speech to be a figurehead in a time of need. Most importantly in the background was bright lights and american flags. His tone was patriotic and hopeful and he mopped up votes after that night. In politics these days style is everything. Style is power.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Bush_Ground_Zero.jpg

The picture that helped GW into his second term.

[Tgo01]

I hear John Kerry voted for Bush before he voted against Bush.

[Jeril]

If you go by that though it means that real choice is but an illusion and there is no freedom, and who wants to believe it?

[Thondalar]

All he's parroting is traditional Tea Party nonsense. The truth is they would never want a far left, or Socialist President, and most moderates are willing to compromise their ideals a bit to avoid reactionary candidates of the other side from becoming more electable. It's a business where you only see the fruition of your ideals in watered down format lest your opponent gain traction against the truly radical things you believe. Ron Paul wants to get rid of the Department of Education, I think that's insane enough to want a more moderate Republican party, Dennis Kucinich wants a Department of Peace, that's insane enough for most Republicans to want a more moderate Democrat party.

I'd love to get rid of the Department of Education. Along with most other federal "departments'.

Name one good thing the Department of Education has done. Do you even know what it's purpose for existing is? It has education in it's name! IT MUST BE GOOD!

[Taernath]

He's a 9/11 truther too.

Fox has some weirdos on. Van Susteren's a scientologist.

[4a6c1]

If you go by that though it means that real choice is but an illusion and there is no freedom, and who wants to believe it?

Meh, I think peoples intentions will always be muddled by power but at the top there are some really wonderful people to balance out the really terrible people. I have faith that we're on the right track and we'll get there eventually.

[Thondalar]

Meh, I think peoples intentions will always be muddled by power but at the top there are some really wonderful people to balance out the really terrible people. I have faith that we're on the right track and we'll get there eventually.

I firmly believe we're heading further and further away from the "right track".

[Jeril]

Sadly I am with Thond on this one, our government is too top heavy and most of those people are more interested in keeping the power they have then doing the right thing.

[4a6c1]

Maybe it's because people like yourselves choose not to become involved in the process despite such strong feelings on the issue?

I think we are positioning for dramatic reform, yes. But the government and more importantly our way of life will go on.

[Jeril]

Maybe it's because people like yourselves choose not to become involved in the process despite such strong feelings on the issue?

I think we are positioning for dramatic reform, yes. But the government and more importantly our way of life will go on.

The process as you call it, or system, is part of the problem. And yes, we will likely see a time where dramatic reform will be a very real possibility but that isn't here quite yet.

[tyrant-201]

Dude is on point. Been waiting awhile to hear someone in the media really put all that out there. Even if he is a 9/11 truther, doesn't make everything he said invalid.

[TheEschaton]

Been awhile, that guy said that in like 2011.

[4a6c1]

The process as you call it, or system, is part of the problem. And yes, we will likely see a time where dramatic reform will be a very real possibility but that isn't here quite yet.

Hmm. Some of the process is problematic but to describe the entire process as stagnant is defeatist. Instead you might say some peope are the problem, or all people are the problem, some laws are the problem, or some politicians are the problem. But all of it? I've heard that lobbyists are the problem or that there are too many restrictions on lobbyists or not the right kind of restrictions. From legislators I've been told that they have their hands tied with civility and socializing by the laws themselves. 20 and 30 years ago a senators chief of staff could take another senators chief of staff out to dinner to lobby in the direction of getting the two respective senators to work together. This cannot happen anymore. The line is drawn in the sand as far as "gift giving" (example:http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/ethicshome/50-state-table-gift-laws.aspx) and politics have gotten dirtier, if that is possible. In other words (the way it was put to me), the days of political animals breaking bread together are over. However, anything that has been done can always be reversed. One law can't ruin this country just like one president cannot ruin this country. And I'm not sure if the people who think we've hit the point of no return are basing those opinions on actual legislation or social issues (which I won't argue for or against). In any case, yes, I somewhat agree with you. I think some people and some laws are the problem. Also for completely selfish reasons I wish the restrictions on lobbyists would be lifted. It's hard to sell someone on an idea in a worky work place in worky work clothes over worky work bagels and coffee.

[Jeril]

Hmm. Some of the process is problematic but to describe the entire process as stagnant is defeatist.

I am pretty sure if I was being defeatist I'd say that there was no hope for better and I'd be throwing in the towel. There might be some small parts of our system that are worth saving but on the whole it is rather broken, it needs to be torn down and rebuilt.

[Thondalar]

I am pretty sure if I was being defeatist I'd say that there was no hope for better and I'd be throwing in the towel. There might be some small parts of our system that are worth saving but on the whole it is rather broken, it needs to be torn down and rebuilt.

It was built correctly to begin with, we've just spent 200 years slowly fucking it up. It's been so gradual we haven't even noticed...until BOOM here we are. Patriot Act, trillions in debt...I won't rant, but we need to revert, not rebuild.

[Jeril]

No, we need to rebuild. While I am sure there are some things from back then that still pertain today there have been many changes that can't be accounted for. And while you claim it was built correctly to begin with, if it had been, we wouldn't be where we are today.

[Thondalar]

No, we need to rebuild. While I am sure there are some things from back then that still pertain today there have been many changes that can't be accounted for. And while you claim it was built correctly to begin with, if it had been, we wouldn't be where we are today.

Name one "change" that can't be accounted for.

It was built correctly to begin with. The only reason we're where we are today is because we've changed it.

[Methais]

Are people just now hearing about this? It happened like a year and a half ago.

The movie Idiocracy is rapidly becoming a reality. It will be in full effect in far less than 500 years.


Holy shit. My propaganda professor was talking about one of these points in class last week. The "What if the biggest difference between most candidates was not substance but style....to reinforce the illusion of difference between Republicans and Democrats." He illustrated this use of style to describe how GW won the second election campaign with a dramatic show of patriotism and classic shows of leadership. Polls were down and GW was not looking good. So overnight before a speech the production team took a cue from when George Bushes approval ratings were the best. This turned out to be the week after 9-11 when George Bush was pictured with his arm around a relief worker. The viewer vantage point was from below. His posture indicated a reassuring leadership figure. The production team recreated the picture and gave GW a raised stage to stand on for every speech from then on. Themes were simplified. He was coached on his posture and speech to be a figurehead in a time of need. Most importantly in the background was bright lights and american flags. His tone was patriotic and hopeful and he mopped up votes after that night. In politics these days style is everything. Style is power.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Bush_Ground_Zero.jpg

The picture that helped GW into his second term.

The fact that he was running against Kerry probably had something to do with it.

[Jeril]

Name one "change" that can't be accounted for.

It was built correctly to begin with. The only reason we're where we are today is because we've changed it.

Population is the first thing that comes to mind. I am sure you've seen PBs avatar for suggesting the first 535 layoffs. I highly doubt it was intended that 535 idiots make the choices governing this country. Also, aren't you one of those odd ball people who think we need practically no federal government and instead each state run things? Or am I misremembering that?

[Thondalar]

Population is the first thing that comes to mind.

You don't think the framers thought our population would grow? The system they laid out works regardless of population, because it's not overly complicated.


I am sure you've seen PBs avatar for suggesting the first 535 layoffs. I highly doubt it was intended that 535 idiots make the choices governing this country.

Article 1, sections 2 and 3 deal with the House and Senate, respectively. But this is a good example of how we've destroyed the original intent. Representatives and Senators are supposed to have day jobs, and only meet a few times a year to vote on changing or introducing laws. This idea of a career politician would make Jefferson turn in his grave.


Also, aren't you one of those odd ball people who think we need practically no federal government and instead each state run things? Or am I misremembering that?

Yes, for the most part. Why is that odd?


Also, to the completely ignorant person who neg repped me with some reference to the 3/5 clause....you realize that was instituted by Republicans because slave-owning Democrats were using their slave numbers to fix elections, right? Get educated.

[ClydeR]

My propaganda professor was talking about one of these points in class last week.

You're taking a course in propaganda? I didn't know they offered those. What's it about?

[Methais]

You're taking a course in propaganda? I didn't know they offered those. What's it about?

How to be a liberal.

[Taernath]

Are people just now hearing about this? It happened like a year and a half ago.

The movie Idiocracy is rapidly becoming a reality. It will be in full effect in far less than 500 years.

Well to be fair what she mentioned sounds like pretty basic 100 level stuff.

[Jeril]

But this is a good example of how we've destroyed the original intent. Representatives and Senators are supposed to have day jobs, and only meet a few times a year to vote on changing or introducing laws. This idea of a career politician would make Jefferson turn in his grave.

The original intent was also for wise and reasoned men to be making the decisions for the people, but we see how well that has worked out. Its like a theory, it sounds good on paper but it doesn't work the same when put into practice.

Each state being able to do its own thing is how we have ended up with laws like ducks can't wear pants on Sundays. We are also supposed to be one country and if we lack unified laws across the whole, how would one be able to really consider it a country? Allowing each state to run things would just divide us further when our strength is our unity, what little we have anyway. After all when you look at the way people campaign they target specific groups, or divisions of people, instead of the populous as a whole. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone got the same message regardless of age, location, race, sex, religion, sexual preference?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

How to be a liberal.

and hate anything resembling a penis.

[Latrinsorm]

I'd love to get rid of the Department of Education. Along with most other federal "departments'.

Name one good thing the Department of Education has done.Pell grants.
It was built correctly to begin with, we've just spent 200 years slowly fucking it up. It's been so gradual we haven't even noticed...until BOOM here we are. Patriot Act, trillions in debt...I won't rant, but we need to revert, not rebuild.This type of belief occurs throughout history: the fundamentals of the system as seen in the distant past are fine, and if we just remove the detrimental accretions we've picked up in the intervening time period things will turn around from the current state of decline (perceived or actual). The most obvious current example is in the Islamic world, but you can see it in any organization that's existed for long enough. Rome and France are great examples, even the United States. Check out thir editorial (http://www.loyolamaroon.com/2.6713/editorial-the-great-depression-marks-the-death-of-capitalism-for-us-1.2729534#.UkCeh4brwx0) from the Great Depression denouncing capitalism and industrialism, closing with "It is now time to go backward to better and older things." Check out these cartoons (http://www.bearishnews.com/post/1039) from the same era.

There is nothing new except what has been forgotten. No matter what time you point to as our golden age, there were people at that time who thought it was a big pile of poop and some other, earlier time was the golden age. Put more broadly:
Sadly I am with Thond on this one, our government is too top heavy and most of those people are more interested in keeping the power they have then doing the right thing.I think what you have to ask yourself is whether people are fundamentally different than they have been for the last 100,000 years.

[Latrinsorm]

Wouldn't it be nice if everyone got the same message regardless of age, location, race, sex, religion, sexual preference?People target campaigns because different demographics want different things, sometimes (most of the time) [always] mutually exclusive. I can't tell old white men that I'm going to keep minorities in their place and tell gays and Mexicans that I'm going to treat them like human beings. I mean, I can tell them that, but at least one will be a lie.

[m444w]

As I was saying, she stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly ninety-nine percent of the test subjects accepted the program provided they were given a choice - even if they were only aware of it at a near-unconscious level. While this solution worked, it was fundamentally flawed, creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly, that, if left unchecked, might threaten the system itself. Ergo, those who refused the program, while a minority, would constitute an escalating probability of disaster.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

As I was saying, she stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly ninety-nine percent of the test subjects accepted the program provided they were given a choice - even if they were only aware of it at a near-unconscious level. While this solution worked, it was fundamentally flawed, creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly, that, if left unchecked, might threaten the system itself. Ergo, those who refused the program, while a minority, would constitute an escalating probability of disaster.



I actually liked all 3 of the matrix movies...

[Taernath]

I think what you have to ask yourself is whether people are fundamentally different than they have been for the last 100,000 years.


"Early man walked away, as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same, to conquer was his goal. So he built his great empire and slaughtered his own kind, then he died a confused man, killed himself with his own mind. We're only gonna die from our own arrogance." (Graffin, 1982)

[Methais]

As I was saying, she stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly ninety-nine percent of the test subjects accepted the program provided they were given a choice - even if they were only aware of it at a near-unconscious level. While this solution worked, it was fundamentally flawed, creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly, that, if left unchecked, might threaten the system itself. Ergo, those who refused the program, while a minority, would constitute an escalating probability of disaster.



This post reminded me of this:

http://youtu.be/skw3_Kl8c5Q?t=9m15s

[TheEschaton]

I actually liked all 3 of the matrix movies...

I did too. People don't recognize. Hell, Cornel West thought they were awesome enough to make cameos in the latter two.

[Thondalar]

Pell grants.

You know what I meant. I forgot I have to be semantically exact with you....name one thing the Department of Education does that couldn't be done better without it.


This type of belief occurs throughout history: the fundamentals of the system as seen in the distant past are fine, and if we just remove the detrimental accretions we've picked up in the intervening time period things will turn around from the current state of decline (perceived or actual). The most obvious current example is in the Islamic world, but you can see it in any organization that's existed for long enough. Rome and France are great examples, even the United States.

Rome is a great example of what we'll turn in to on our present course. France is further along that path than we are. The fundamentals of our system had never been seen before in the world, at least not in the complete form we created. Mankind fought for real freedom for thousands of years, and we finally had it, and we've slowly been losing it. To blow it off as some sort of philosophical groundhog day is irresponsible at best.


Check out thir editorial (http://www.loyolamaroon.com/2.6713/editorial-the-great-depression-marks-the-death-of-capitalism-for-us-1.2729534#.UkCeh4brwx0) from the Great Depression denouncing capitalism and industrialism, closing with "It is now time to go backward to better and older things." Check out these cartoons (http://www.bearishnews.com/post/1039) from the same era.

The editorial writer was correct, but not for the reasons he thought....cartoon 5 more clearly illustrates what killed capitalism in the US...although I would point at 1913 as the more specific culprit. Ignorance to the real cause of things is certainly nothing new.


There is nothing new except what has been forgotten. No matter what time you point to as our golden age, there were people at that time who thought it was a big pile of poop and some other, earlier time was the golden age. Put more broadly:I think what you have to ask yourself is whether people are fundamentally different than they have been for the last 100,000 years.

This is one of the sillier things I've ever seen you type. Our Constitution was completely new. The first of it's kind in the history of our Earth. There had been Magna Cartas and whatnot before, but nothing like what we did. It fostered the US's meteoric rise to a level of prosperity not seen before on this planet. But people are fundamentally the same as they've always been, in that there will always be those who desire power, and want to rule their fellow man. The sloth and greed such prosperity allowed is what has destroyed the system.

To me, these are the opposing forces of good and evil. Good men want other men to be free, and do as they please....Evil men want to control other men, and tell them what they can and cannot do.

[Thondalar]

The original intent was also for wise and reasoned men to be making the decisions for the people, but we see how well that has worked out. Its like a theory, it sounds good on paper but it doesn't work the same when put into practice.

Well, the assumption there was that people would actually take an active role in getting to know who they were voting on. We also weren't pigeonholed to two parties...there was more variety in who you were voting for. Just because that's not so now doesn't mean we should just say fuck it to everything else. Term limits and removing (or at least heavily reducing) pay and benefits for politicians would be wonderful first steps to fixing a lot of problems. Is it a cure-all? Nothing is. Is it better than what we have now? Hell yes.


Each state being able to do its own thing is how we have ended up with laws like ducks can't wear pants on Sundays. We are also supposed to be one country and if we lack unified laws across the whole, how would one be able to really consider it a country? Allowing each state to run things would just divide us further when our strength is our unity, what little we have anyway.

This sounds good in the rah-rah sense....but I don't think you're really thinking about this all the way through. We already have our own state and local laws. Our strength is our diversity, you're right...which is precisely why this "one law fits all" does not and will not work. The US is too big of a place, with too many races, creeds, religions to get everyone to agree. This is why we fight constantly on a national level over drugs, over abortion, over gay rights...our federal government is what is dividing us by trying to unify us against our will. The ONLY thing that will work is for the people in their own community to agree on what their rules should be, and agree to leave everyone else alone.


Wouldn't it be nice if everyone got the same message regardless of age, location, race, sex, religion, sexual preference?

Yes. Yes it would.

[Tgo01]

Do you even know what it's purpose for existing is?

I honestly had no idea exactly what the Department of Education actually did so of course I checked out the best source in the universe for some answers; Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education).

It's funny reading it because you can tell whoever wrote it really had no clue what to say about the Department of Education so they were just throwing random shit together until they got to the "Functions" part of the page and even that is mostly vague bullshit or "information gathering" or mentioning things that the Department of Education has no direct public control of, like accreditation.

But holy shit in 2009 they had almost a 150 billion dollar budget...for what exactly? What does this department do? Besides apparently piss away money?

[Thondalar]

But holy shit in 2009 they had almost a 150 billion dollar budget...for what exactly? What does this department do? Besides apparently piss away money?

This is what the federal government does. It takes money from the states, filters it through thousands of grubby hands, and passes the leftovers back down to the states.

[crb]

This is what the federal government does. It takes money from the states, filters it through thousands of grubby hands, and passes the leftovers back down to the states.

Precisely. Originally our system was designed with few discrete obvious powers for the federal government, with all else reserved to the states. The 16th amendment changed that by allowing an income tax, which was originally sold as something that'd only affect a few rich white dudes. Suddenly awash in cash, the federal government realized they could tax and crowd out state funding, then send that money back to the states with strings attached, and thus meddle in areas that constitutionally they were limited from doing. Of course, it is all voluntary for the states, they don't have to accept the offer.

And yes, I think we could do very well without the department of education. You want to maintain things like pell grants? Block grant low income higher education funding to the states, and let them decide how to distribute it. Do it based on population, you'll not need a cabinet level department for this, one accountant in the treasury department could do the figures and write the checks in half a day, well, okay, a private sector accountant could, we'll give him a week since he is a public employee. Get rid of all the other federal meddling in education, let the states experiment and compete. The ones who hit upon the best system will be copied, and everyone will get better, this is how innovation happens.

[Latrinsorm]

You know what I meant. I forgot I have to be semantically exact with you....name one thing the Department of Education does that couldn't be done better without it.Everything could be done better without our version of government. The trouble is that it didn't and wouldn't. The wealthy could have charitably funded the educations of millions of underprivileged, removing the need for bureaucracy and the inevitable inefficiency that carries, but they didn't and wouldn't.
Rome is a great example of what we'll turn in to on our present course. France is further along that path than we are. The fundamentals of our system had never been seen before in the world, at least not in the complete form we created. Mankind fought for real freedom for thousands of years, and we finally had it, and we've slowly been losing it. To blow it off as some sort of philosophical groundhog day is irresponsible at best.I am pretty confident we are not going to become an agrarian military dictatorship. I also think it would come as quite a surprise to the African American community that they've lost freedom since the days of the Founders.
The editorial writer was correct, but not for the reasons he thought....cartoon 5 more clearly illustrates what killed capitalism in the US...although I would point at 1913 as the more specific culprit. Ignorance to the real cause of things is certainly nothing new.I'm having a little trouble following this response. Are you saying that capitalism died in the 1930s?
This is one of the sillier things I've ever seen you type. Our Constitution was completely new. The first of it's kind in the history of our Earth. There had been Magna Cartas and whatnot before, but nothing like what we did. It fostered the US's meteoric rise to a level of prosperity not seen before on this planet.I can't make you see the parallels. All I'll ask is you look over these quotes:

"the freedom of speech and debates ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place"
"subjects may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law"
"excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"

If you can read those (excerpts from the 1689 Bill of Rights) and still tell me the Constitution was completely new, there's nothing more I can say to you. As for our prosperity, to attribute any economy of millions of people over hundred years to a single cause seems a little simplistic.
To me, these are the opposing forces of good and evil. Good men want other men to be free, and do as they please....Evil men want to control other men, and tell them what they can and cannot do.Surely you agree that no men should be allowed to murder, rape, or in general do violence on their fellow man. Therefore your disagreement is not with the definition of government, but certain specific "can and cannot"s. If you would like to specify some of them, I would be happy to discuss whether the government should or should not have power over them.
Well, the assumption there was that people would actually take an active role in getting to know who they were voting on. We also weren't pigeonholed to two parties...there was more variety in who you were voting for. Just because that's not so now doesn't mean we should just say fuck it to everything else. Term limits and removing (or at least heavily reducing) pay and benefits for politicians would be wonderful first steps to fixing a lot of problems. Is it a cure-all? Nothing is. Is it better than what we have now? Hell yes.The only poly-party bulge in American history came in the mid-1800s. Of the first 20 Congresses, all 20 had 0 members who didn't identify with one of the two ascendant parties. Topically, the first third party were the Nullifiers, who proposed that states could nullify federal laws within their borders.
This sounds good in the rah-rah sense....but I don't think you're really thinking about this all the way through. We already have our own state and local laws. Our strength is our diversity, you're right...which is precisely why this "one law fits all" does not and will not work. The US is too big of a place, with too many races, creeds, religions to get everyone to agree. This is why we fight constantly on a national level over drugs, over abortion, over gay rights...our federal government is what is dividing us by trying to unify us against our will. The ONLY thing that will work is for the people in their own community to agree on what their rules should be, and agree to leave everyone else alone.The top-down model of federal government has enforced interstate peace for over a hundred years. The model where we let each state decide led to Bleeding Kansas in less than a year and a half, and that was when people had to read newspapers and drive horses and buggies. With the Internet and jets you'd have border wars today in about a day.
And yes, I think we could do very well without the department of education. You want to maintain things like pell grants? Block grant low income higher education funding to the states, and let them decide how to distribute it. Do it based on population, you'll not need a cabinet level department for this, one accountant in the treasury department could do the figures and write the checks in half a day, well, okay, a private sector accountant could, we'll give him a week since he is a public employee. Get rid of all the other federal meddling in education, let the states experiment and compete. The ones who hit upon the best system will be copied, and everyone will get better, this is how innovation happens.And when Mississippi says no blacks allowed, what recourse do said blacks have if not the federal government?

[Tgo01]

And when Mississippi says no blacks allowed, what recourse do said blacks have if not the federal government?

Jesus.

[Latrinsorm]

I like Jesus very much. But he no help with segregation.

[Tgo01]

I like Jesus very much. But he no help with segregation.

Hey he parted the red sea, surely he can help with segregation.

[Latrinsorm]

He can't even make the Redskins change their name for Redman, or so I read.

[JackWhisper]

That was Moses.

Even Jesus had someone doing his work for him.

Fucking lazy white guys.

INB4 Craig Christ 2016

[~Rocktar~]

and hate anything resembling a penis.

That's a 300 level course in Women's Studies.

[Thondalar]

INB4 Craig Christ 2016

What? The team to beat in 2016 is Weiner/Holder.

5684

[TheEschaton]

I did too. People don't recognize. Hell, Cornel West thought they were awesome enough to make cameos in the latter two.

lol, neg rep for Cornel West, calling one of the most pre-eminent theologians of our time "an ideological buffoon." Nice.

[Warriorbird]

Sometimes states are just not ever going to accomplish things. An excellent example is the interstate highway system. Another example is the dollar.

Simultaneously we probably could survive rather well without DHS and the Department of Education.

[Methais]

I like Jesus very much. But he no help with segregation.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Eth5FZrX-L4/T4yvMPtNP_I/AAAAAAAAAV0/na_39HntWXI/s320/Eddie%2BHarris.jpg

[Tenlaar]

lol, neg rep for Cornel West, calling one of the most pre-eminent theologians of our time "an ideological buffoon." Nice.

At least there is the faintest glimmer of hope that the person has some potentially thought out reasons for that. I got neg rep that, while I can't remember the wording now, insinuated that I am gay and therefore not worthy of an opinion (I guess?) just for not thinking that an episode of a TV show was as bad as some people did.

[Thondalar]

Sometimes states are just not ever going to accomplish things. An excellent example is the interstate highway system. Another example is the dollar.

Just because the federal government jumped on it as a way to artificially stimulate the economy doesn't mean it couldn't have been done by private industry. I don't know if you've been on many interstates lately, but the ones around where I live are in a constant state of disrepair. By comparison, the private toll road near my house is very well maintained. Privatizing would also put the burden of cost on the people who actually use the road, instead of taxing everyone for something only a percentage of the population uses. It's been proven over and over and over and over and over again that there is NOTHING the federal government does that can't be done better and more efficiently by private business.

edit: oh, and the dollar is monopoly money. 57115712


Simultaneously we probably could survive rather well without DHS and the Department of Education.

Surprised to hear you say this. There is hope yet!

[Latrinsorm]

Just because the federal government jumped on it as a way to artificially stimulate the economy doesn't mean it couldn't have been done by private industry. I don't know if you've been on many interstates lately, but the ones around where I live are in a constant state of disrepair. By comparison, the private toll road near my house is very well maintained. Privatizing would also put the burden of cost on the people who actually use the road, instead of taxing everyone for something only a percentage of the population uses. It's been proven over and over and over and over and over again that there is NOTHING the federal government does that can't be done better and more efficiently by private business.Hasn't it been proven at least as many times that while business can do whatever better in theory, they don't in practice?

And also I just want to warn you, you compared a single private toll road with the Interstate Highway System of America. You are going to get quite a lecture about how those are not at all comparable, that you're an idiot for even thinking it, etc. Any minute now, I'm sure certain people are going to give you that lecture. Any minute now.

[Thondalar]

Hasn't it been proven at least as many times that while business can do whatever better in theory, they don't in practice?

I don't speak in theories.


And also I just want to warn you, you compared a single private toll road with the Interstate Highway System of America. You are going to get quite a lecture about how those are not at all comparable, that you're an idiot for even thinking it, etc. Any minute now, I'm sure certain people are going to give you that lecture. Any minute now.

I encourage anyone to do their own research. It's quite big in California right now, bastion of screaming liberals it is. Good place to start.

[Latrinsorm]

I don't speak in theories.Brother, that's all you speak in. You theorize that private industry could have built the IHS, you theorize that anti-federalism would solve the abortion debate, you theorize that a federal government based on the Constitution of 1787 would work (and work better than the current version) in today's world.

[Thondalar]

Brother, that's all you speak in. You theorize that private industry could have built the IHS, you theorize that anti-federalism would solve the abortion debate, you theorize that a federal government based on the Constitution of 1787 would work (and work better than the current version) in today's world.

These are truths, backed by facts.

[Latrinsorm]

These are truths, backed by facts.I was hoping they were just truths or just facts, but truths backed by facts? You win this round, Addict Cat!

[diethx]

I encourage anyone to do their own research. It's quite big in California right now, bastion of screaming liberals it is. Good place to start.

Okay. And the private road that my mother lives on is in complete disrepair because the private party who owns it refuses to make improvements. There are gargantuan pot holes, it's nearly impossible to drive up to my mom's driveway in any sort of snow, and she has fallen twice now on the road and needs a hip replacement due to injuries sustained in her fall. She's and the other road residents tried to repair the road out of their own pockets, and the owner refused. So now she and others are suing him.

See? There are issues with privately-owned shit, too.

[Gelston]

Okay. And the private road that my mother lives on is in complete disrepair because the private party who owns it refuses to make improvements. There are gargantuan pot holes, it's nearly impossible to drive up to my mom's driveway in any sort of snow, and she has fallen twice now on the road and needs a hip replacement due to injuries sustained in her fall. She's and the other road residents tried to repair the road out of their own pockets, and the owner refused. So now she and others are suing him.

See? There are issues with privately-owned shit, too.

Definitely sue. I imagine there is a way that the city/county can take possession of the road.

[diethx]

Definitely sue. I imagine there is a way that the city/county can take possession of the road.

Unfortunately this sort of thing can take a long time, but yep, she's got quite the case. Also, this has been the case for YEARS. Literally, years. Like 5+. She's tried time and again to get the sheriff and whoever else out... the fire marshall. Somehow the owner always gets prior notice as to when there's going to be a visit (apparently it's some small town political bullshit, who knows), and so he fills the holes with gravel, sand, etc. So they come out, see it's filled, and do nothing. The next time it rains, it washes away. It's so fucking unbelievable.

[Thondalar]

Okay. And the private road that my mother lives on is in complete disrepair because the private party who owns it refuses to make improvements. There are gargantuan pot holes, it's nearly impossible to drive up to my mom's driveway in any sort of snow, and she has fallen twice now on the road and needs a hip replacement due to injuries sustained in her fall. She's and the other road residents tried to repair the road out of their own pockets, and the owner refused. So now she and others are suing him.

See? There are issues with privately-owned shit, too.

Are you paying this company to use their road? How does this company own an obviously residential road to begin with? You're telling me there is no access to your mother's house other than a privately owned road, that someone else owns?

Regardless, we're talking about Interstates and toll roads. Not your mother's driveway.

[Gelston]

Unfortunately this sort of thing can take a long time, but yep, she's got quite the case. Also, this has been the case for YEARS. Literally, years. Like 5+. She's tried time and again to get the sheriff and whoever else out... the fire marshall. Somehow the owner always gets prior notice as to when there's going to be a visit (apparently it's some small town political bullshit, who knows), and so he fills the holes with gravel, sand, etc. So they come out, see it's filled, and do nothing. The next time it rains, it washes away. It's so fucking unbelievable.

I hope she has taken a lot of pictures. Also, she/they should look at consulting a highway engineer to check out the road and right up their professional opinion on the state of the road.


Are you paying this company to use their road? How does this company own an obviously residential road to begin with? You're telling me there is no access to your mother's house other than a privately owned road, that someone else owns?

Regardless, we're talking about Interstates and toll roads. Not your mother's driveway.

And yes, there are a few privately owned roads that are a homes only access. It usually happens when someone owns/developes property behind someone else's road front property and common access to the city/county/state owned road is required. Usually the Government will take control of this road, but not always.

[Latrinsorm]

True facts!!!

Also, it's too bad you couldn't ask the government to produce video of the time in question, so they could see for themselves what this guy was up to.

[diethx]

No, she doesn't pay them. Why do you care HOW? The point is, he owns the road. Rather than it being a government-controlled and managed road, it's privately-owned and "maintained". It doesn't matter if it's an interstate, a toll-road, or a private residential road. As Latrin said, just because private parties, in theory, may technically be able to do things "better", it doesn't mean they always will in practice.

And yes, that's exactly what I'm telling you. My mom's house is ON this road. There is no other way to access her house unless you get a four wheeler and ride it through the woods into her backyard. Or do you suggest she does that instead, from now on?

[diethx]

I hope she has taken a lot of pictures. Also, she/they should look at consulting a highway engineer to check out the road and right up their professional opinion on the state of the road.



And yes, there are a few privately owned roads that are a homes only access. It usually happens when someone owns property behind someone else's road front property and common access to the city/county/state owned road is required. Usually the Government will take control of this road, but not always.

Many, many pictures. She also has statements from her doctors, from her neighbors, and when the road residents got together to try to repair the road themselves, they did it all officially with a certified letter and shit. SO, there's proof of that. And written proof of the owner telling them all to fuck off, basically.

[Thondalar]

Rather than it being a government-controlled and managed road, it's privately-owned and "maintained". It doesn't matter if it's an interstate, a toll-road, or a private residential road. As Latrin said, just because private parties, in theory, may technically be able to do things "better", it doesn't mean they always will in practice.

I can bring up a hundred examples of "government-controlled and managed" roads that are in just as bad a shape. And we're talking about BIG roads. Roads with 7 or 8 lanes, reduced to 3 lanes while traffic cones play in the rest of them to make it look like something is getting fixed, but nothing ever does. Nothing is 100%. But privatization would be closer to 100%. That's as much of an absolute as we can have when humans are concerned.


And yes, that's exactly what I'm telling you. My mom's house is ON this road. There is no other way to access her house unless you get a four wheeler and ride it through the woods into her backyard. Or do you suggest she does that instead, from now on?

That just seems like an incredible conflict of interest, and nothing that I've personally witnessed. All of the private roads around here, like the one my grandfather lives on, are owned by the homeowners living on that road, and they all chip in for maintenance of it. I'm sorry your mother's situation is different, and I hope it can be solved in civil court.

[diethx]

How do you know, though? How do you know for sure that privatization would be closer to 100%? How do you know that with no accountability and no one enforcing anything, that private owners wouldn't just shrug and say tough shit, much like the owner of my mom's road?

I don't know where you live, but I know here in Atlanta there is always some sort of construction going on. And while it takes a long time, it gets done. They just did major improvements to both 75/85 and 285 (the former being the main highway running through midtown/downtown, the latter being the highway that encircles and defines the perimeter of Atlanta), and those actually got finished. I've never seen phantom cones or anything of that sort...

[Warriorbird]

Somebody paste in the Libertarian Fire Department picture.

[Thondalar]

How do you know, though? How do you know for sure that privatization would be closer to 100%? How do you know that with no accountability and no one enforcing anything, that private owners wouldn't just shrug and say tough shit, much like the owner of my mom's road?

I know because where it's been done, it works.

[diethx]

I know because where it's been done, it works.

Except when it doesn't.

[Gelston]

Except when it doesn't.

100% of the time it works 60% of the time.

[Tenlaar]

I've also lived on a private road that was owned by a guy who lived at the top of the road, and it was the only access to my home. So yeah, just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it's an incredibly rare thing that's not worth consideration.

[Gelston]

Yeah. If the owner of the road takes care of it, they can definitely make a better road than the Government. They can take care of stuff quicker with less oversight. They can also just say fuck it and make it worse than anything the Government would be allowed to do.

[Kembal]

Also, to the completely ignorant person who neg repped me with some reference to the 3/5 clause....you realize that was instituted by Republicans because slave-owning Democrats were using their slave numbers to fix elections, right? Get educated.

I don't know what it says that no one caught this inaccuracy, but you do realize the 3/5ths clause was written into the Constitution before any American political parties were established? At best, you can blame the Southern slave-owning states.

[Gelston]

I don't know what it says that no one caught this inaccuracy, but you do realize the 3/5ths clause was written into the Constitution before any American political parties were established? At best, you can blame the Southern slave-owning states.

Hey! The Federalists wrote that in there, okay?

Although it was in the Articles of Confederation before the US Constitution existed.