Got a crazy forwarded political email from your family? Post them here.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Got a crazy forwarded political email from your family? Post them here.

Econosaurus: Sep 22, 2008; Successfully predicted nine of the last five recessions

quote:

Subject: Excelent Commencement Speech
>
>
>
>
>
> Take the time to read this, though it is long. It contains advice that
> is no longer given young people. You may agree or disagree in part or
> all, but you won't find such thoughts expressed so clearly in many if
> any other places of which I am aware. Norm
>
> -----
>
>
>
> It is the season of commencement speeches. Many are boringly
> predictable.
> Neal Boortz, a Texan lawyer, Texas AGGIE, now nationally syndicated
> talk
> show host from Atlanta is an exception. Agree or not you will find his
> views
> thought provoking. It would have been particularly entertaining to have
> witnessed the faculty's reaction.
>
>
> Commencement Address...
>
> I am honored by the invitation to address you on this august occasion.
> It's
> about time.
> Be warned, however, that I am not here to impress you; you'll have
> enough
> smoke blown up your bloomers today. And you can bet your tassels I'm not
> here to impress the faculty and administration. You may not like much of
> what I have to say, and that's fine. You will remember it though.
> Especially
> after about 10 years out there in the real world. This, it goes without
> saying, does not apply to those of you who will seek your careers and
> your
> fortunes as government employees.
>
> This gowned gaggle behind me is your faculty. You've heard the old
> saying
> that those who can - do. Those who can't - teach. That sounds
> deliciously
> insensitive. But there is often raw truth in insensitivity, just as you
> often find feel-good falsehoods and lies in compassion. Say good-bye to
> your
> faculty because now you are getting ready to go out there and do. These
> folks behind me are going to stay right here and teach .
>
> By the way, just because you are leaving this place with a diploma
> doesn't
> mean the learning is over. When an FAA flight examiner handed me my
> private
> pilot's license many years ago, he said, 'Here, this is your ticket to
> learn.' The same can be said for your diploma. Believe me, the learning
> has
> just begun.
>
> Now, I realize that most of you consider yourselves Liberals. In fact,
> you
> are probably very proud of your liberal views. You care so much. You
> feel so
> much. You want to help so much. After all, you're a compassionate and
> caring
> person, aren't you now? Well, isn't that just so extraordinarily
> special.
> Now, at this age, is as good a time as any to be a liberal; as good a
> time
> as any to know absolutely everything. You have plenty of time, starting
> tomorrow, for the truth to set in.
>
> Over the next few years, as you begin to feel the cold breath of reality
> down your neck, things are going to start changing pretty fast ..
> including
> your own assessment of just how much you really know.
>
> So here are the first assignments for your initial class in reality: Pay
> attention to the news, read newspapers, and listen to the words and
> phrases
> that proud Liberals use to promote their causes. Then, compare the words
> of
> the left to the words and phrases you hear from those evil, heartless,
> greedy conservatives. From the Left you will hear "I feel." From the
> Right
> you will hear "I think." From the Liberals you will hear references to
> groups --The Blacks, The Poor, The Rich, The Disadvantaged, The Less
> Fortunate. From the Right you will hear references to individuals. On
> the
> Left you hear talk of group rights; on the Right, individual rights.
>
> That about sums it up, really: Liberals feel. Liberals care. They are
> pack
> animals whose identity is tied up in group dynamics. Conservatives and
> Libertarians think -- and, setting aside the theocracy crowd, their
> identity
> is centered on the individual.
>
> Liberals feel that their favored groups, have enforceable rights to the
> property and services of productive individuals. Conservatives and
> Libertarians, myself among them I might add, think that individuals have
> the
> right to protect their lives and their property from the plunder of the
> masses.
>
> In college you developed a group mentality, but if you look closely at
> your
> diplomas you will see that they have your individual names on them. Not
> the
> name of your school mascot, or of your fraternity or sorority, but your
> name. Your group identity is going away. Your recognition and
> appreciation
> of your individual identity starts now.
>
> If, by the time you reach the age of 30, you do not consider yourself to
> be
> a libertarian or a conservative, rush right back here as quickly as you
> can
> and apply for a faculty position. These people will welcome you with
> open
> arms. They will welcome you, that is, so long as you haven't developed
> an
> individual identity. Once again you will have to be willing to sign on
> to
> the group mentality you embraced during the past four years.
>
> Something is going to happen soon that is going to really open your
> eyes.
> You're going to actually get a full time job!
>
> You're also going to get a lifelong work partner. This partner isn't
> going
> to help you do your job. This partner is just going to sit back and wait
> for
> payday. This partner doesn't want to share in your effort, but in your
> earnings.
>
> Your new lifelong partner is actually an agent. An agent representing a
> strange and diverse group of people. An agent for every teenager with an
> illegitimate child. An agent for a research scientist who wanted to make
> some cash answering the age-old question of why monkeys grind their
> teeth.
> An agent for some poor demented hippie who considers herself to be a
> meaningful and talented artist ... but who just can't manage to sell any
> of
> her artwork on the open market.
>
> Your new partner is an agent for every person with limited, if any, job
> skills .. but who wanted a job at City Hall. An agent for tin-horn
> dictators
> in fancy military uniforms grasping for American foreign aid. An agent
> for
> multi-million-dollar companies who want someone else to pay for their
> overseas advertising. An agent for everybody who wants to use the
> unimaginable power of this agent's for their personal enrichment and
> benefit.
>
> That agent is our wonderful, caring, compassionate, oppressive
> government.
> Believe me, you will be awed by the unimaginable power this agent has.
> Power
> that you do not have. A power that no individual has, or will have. This
> agent has the legal power to use force deadly force to accomplish its
> goals.
>
>
> You have no choice here. Your new friend is just going to walk up to
> you,
> introduce itself rather gruffly, hand you a few forms to fill out, and
> move
> right on in. Say hello to your own personal one ton gorilla. It will
> sleep
> anywhere it wants to.
>
> Now, let me tell you, this agent is not cheap. As you become successful
> it
> will seize about 40% of everything you earn. And no, I'm sorry, there
> just
> isn't any way you can fire this agent of plunder, and you can't decrease
> it's share of your income. That power rests with him, not you.
>
> So, here I am saying negative things to you about government. Well, be
> clear
> on this: It is not wrong to distrust government. It is not wrong to fear
> government. In certain cases it is not even wrong to despise government
> for
> government is inherently evil. Yes . a necessary evil, but dangerous
> nonetheless ... somewhat like a drug. Just as a drug that in the proper
> dosage can save your life, an overdose of government can be fatal.
>
>
> Now let's address a few things that have been crammed into your minds at
> this university. There are some ideas you need to expunge as soon as
> possible. These ideas may work well in academic environment, but they
> fail
> miserably out there in the real world.
>
> First that favorite buzz word of the media, government and academia:
> Diversity!
> You have been taught that the real value of any group of people - be it
> a
> social group, an employee group, a management group, whatever - is based
> on
> diversity. This is a favored liberal ideal because diversity is based
> not on
> an individual's abilities or character, but on a person's identity and
> status as a member of a group. Yes, it's that liberal group identity
> thing
> again.
>
> Within the great diversity movement group identification - be it racial,
> gender based, or some other minority status - means more than the
> individual's integrity, character or other qualifications.
>
> Brace yourself. You are about to move from this academic atmosphere
> where
> diversity rules, to a workplace and a culture where individual
> achievement
> and excellence actually count. No matter what your professors have
> taught
> you over the last four years, you are about to learn that diversity is
> absolutely no replacement for excellence, ability, and individual hard
> work.
> From this day on every single time you hear the word "diversity" you can
> rest assured that there is someone close by who is determined to rob you
> of
> every vestige of individuality you possess.
>
> We also need to address this thing you seem to have about "rights." We
> have
> witnessed an obscene explosion of so-called "rights" in the last few
> decades, usually emanating from college campuses.
>
> You know the mantra: You have the right to a job. The right to a place
> to
> live. The right to a living wage. The right to health care. The right to
> an
> education. You probably even have your own pet right - the right to a
> Beemer, for instance, or the right to have someone else provide for that
> child you plan on downloading in a year or so.
>
> Forget it. Forget those rights! I'll tell you what your rights are! You
> have
> a right to live free, and to the results of 60% -75% of your labor. I'll
> also tell you have no right to any portion of the life or labor of
> another.
>
> You may, for instance, think that you have a right to health care. After
> all, Hillary said so, didn't she? But you cannot receive health care
> unless
> some doctor or health practitioner surrenders some of his time - his
> life -
> to you. He may be willing to do this for compensation, but that's his
> choice. You have no "right" to his time or property. You have no right
> to
> his or any other person's life or to any portion thereof.
>
> You may also think you have some "right" to a job; a job with a living
> wage,
> whatever that is. Do you mean to tell me that you have a right to force
> your
> services on another person, and then the right to demand that this
> person
> compensate you with their money? Sorry, forget it. I am sure you would
> scream if some urban outdoorsmen (that would be "homeless person" for
> those
> of you who don't want to give these less fortunate people a romantic and
> adventurous title) came to you and demanded his job and your money.
>
> The people who have been telling you about all the rights you have are
> simply exercising one of theirs - the right to be imbeciles. Their being
> imbeciles didn't cost anyone else either property or time. It's their
> right,
> and they exercise it brilliantly.
>
> By the way, did you catch my use of the phrase "less fortunate" a bit
> ago
> when I was talking about the urban outdoorsmen? That phrase is a
> favorite of
> the Left. Think about it, and you'll understand why.
>
> To imply that one person is homeless, destitute, dirty, drunk, spaced
> out on
> drugs, unemployable, and generally miserable because he is "less
> fortunate"
> is to imply that a successful person - one with a job, a home and a
> future -
> is in that position because he or she was "fortunate." The dictionary
> says
> that fortunate means "having derived good from an unexpected place."
> There
> is nothing unexpected about deriving good from hard work. There is also
> nothing unexpected about deriving misery from choosing drugs, alcohol,
> and
> the street.
>
> If the Liberal Left can create the common perception that success and
> failure are simple matters of "fortune" or "luck," then it is easy to
> promote and justify their various income redistribution schemes. After
> all,
> we are just evening out the odds a little bit. This "success equals
> luck"
> idea the liberals like to push is seen everywhere. Former Democratic
> presidential candidate Richard Gephardt refers to high-achievers as
> "people
> who have won life's lottery." He wants you to believe they are making
> the
> big bucks because they are lucky. It's not luck, my friends. It's
> choice.
>
> One of the greatest lessons I ever learned was in a book by Og Mandino,
> entitled "The Greatest Secret in the World." The lesson? Very simple:
> "Use
> wisely your power of choice."
>
> That bum sitting on a heating grate, smelling like a wharf rat? He's
> there
> by choice. He is there because of the sum total of the choices he has
> made
> in his life. This truism is absolutely the hardest thing for some people
> to
> accept, especially those who consider themselves to be victims of
> something
> or other - victims of discrimination, bad luck, the system, capitalism,
> whatever. After all, nobody really wants to accept the blame for his or
> her
> position in life. Not when it is so much easier to point and say, "Look!
>
>
> He did this to me!" than it is to look into a mirror and say, "You
> S.O.B.!
> You did this to me!"
>
> The key to accepting responsibility for your life is to accept the fact
> that
> your choices, every one of them, are leading you inexorably to either
> success or failure, however you define those terms.
>
> Some of the choices are obvious: Whether or not to stay in school.
> Whether
> or not to get pregnant. Whether or not to hit the bottle. Whether or not
> to
> keep this job you hate until you get another better-paying job. Whether
> or
> not to save some of your money, or saddle yourself with huge payments
> for
> that new car.
>
> Some of the choices are seemingly insignificant: Whom to go to the
> movies
> with. Whose car to ride home in. Whether to watch the tube tonight, or
> read
> a book on investing. But, and you can be sure of this, each choice
> counts.
> Each choice is a building block - some large, some small. But each one
> is a
> part of the structure of your life. If you make the right choices, or if
> you
> make more right choices than wrong ones, something absolutely terrible
> may
> happen to you. Something unthinkable. You, my friend, could become one
> of
> the hated, the evil, the ugly, the feared, the filthy,, the successful,
> the
> rich.
>
> The rich basically serve two purposes in this country. First, they
> provide
> the investments, the investment capital, and the brains for the
> formation of
> new businesses. Businesses that hire people. Businesses that send
> millions
> of paychecks home each week to the un-rich.
>
> Second, the rich are a wonderful object of ridicule, distrust, and
> hatred.
> Few things are more valuable to a politician than the envy most
> Americans
> feel for the evil rich.
>
> Envy is a powerful emotion. Even more powerful than the emotional
> minefield
> that surrounded Bill Clinton when he reviewed his last batch of White
> House
> interns. Politicians use envy to get votes and power. And they keep that
> power by promising the envious that the envied will be punished: "The
> rich
> will pay their fair share of taxes if I have anything to do with it.'
> The
> truth is that the top 10% of income earners in this country pays almost
> 50%
> of all income taxes collected. I shudder to think what these job
> producers
> would be paying if our tax system were any more "fair."
>
> You have heard, no doubt, that the rich get richer and the poor get
> poorer.
> Interestingly enough, our government's own numbers show that many of the
> poor actually get richer, and that quite a few of the rich actually get
> poorer. But for the rich who do actually get richer, and the poor who
> remain
> poor .. there's an explanation -- a reason. The rich, you see, keep
> doing
> the things that make them rich; while the poor keep doing the things
> that
> make them poor.
>
> Speaking of the poor, during your adult life you are going to hear an
> endless string of politicians bemoaning the plight of the poor in . So,
> you
> need to know that under our government's definition of "poor" you can
> have a
> $5 million net worth, a $300,000 home and a new $90,000 Mercedes, all
> completely paid for. You can also have a maid, cook, and valet, and $1
> million in your checking account, and you can still be officially
> defined by
> our government as "living in poverty." Now there's something you haven't
> seen on the evening news.
>
> How does the government pull this one off? Very simple, really. To
> determine
> whether or not some poor soul is "living in poverty," the government
> measures one thing -- just one thing. Income. It doesn't matter one bit
> how
> much you have, how much you own, how many cars you drive or how big they
> are, whether or not your pool is heated, whether you winter in Aspen and
> spend the summers in the Bahamas, or how much is in your savings
> account. It
> only matters how much income you claim in that particular year. This
> means
> that if you take a one-year leave of absence from your high-paying job
> and
> decide to live off the money in your savings and checking accounts while
> you
> write the next great American novel, the government says you are 'living
> in
> poverty."
>
> This isn't exactly what you had in mind when you heard these gloomy
> statistics, is it?
> Do you need more convincing? Try this. The government's own statistics
> show
> that people who are said to be "living in poverty" spend more than $1.50
> for
> each dollar of income they claim. Something is a bit fishy here. just
> remember all this the next time Peter Jennings puffs up and tells you
> about
> some hideous new poverty statistics.
>
> Why has the government concocted this phony poverty scam? Because the
> government needs an excuse to grow and to expand its social welfare
> programs, which translates into an expansion of its power. If the
> government
> can convince you, in all your compassion, that the number of "poor" is
> increasing, it will have all the excuse it needs to sway an electorate
> suffering from the advanced stages of Obsessive-Compulsive Compassion
> Disorder.
>
> I'm about to be stoned by the faculty here. They've already changed
> their
> minds about that honorary degree I was going to get.
>
> That's OK, though. I still have my Ph.D. in Insensitivity from the Neal
> Boortz Institute for Insensitivity Training. I learned that, in short,
> sensitivity sucks. It's a trap. Think about it - the truth knows no
> sensitivity. Life can be insensitive. Wallow too much in sensitivity and
> you'll be unable to dealwith life, or the truth. So, get over it.
>
> Now, before the dean has me shackled and hauled off, I have a few random
> thoughts.
>
> * You need to register to vote, unless you are on welfare. If you are
> living
> off the efforts of others, please do us the favor of sitting down and
> shutting up until you are on your own again.
>
> * When you do vote, your votes for the House and the Senate are more
> important than your vote for president. The House controls the purse
> strings, so concentrate your awareness there.
>
> * Don't bow to the temptation to use the government as an instrument of
> plunder. If it is wrong for you to take money from someone else who
> earned
> it -- to take their money by force for your own needs -- then it is
> certainly just as wrong for you to demand that the government step
> forward
> and do this dirty work for you.
>
> * Don't look in other people's pockets. You have no business there. What
> they earn is theirs. What you earn is yours. Keep it that way. Nobody
> owes
> you anything, except to respect your privacy and your rights, and leave
> you
> the hell alone.
>
> * Speaking of earning, the revered 40-hour workweek is for losers. Forty
> hours should be considered the minimum, not the maximum. You don't see
> highly successful people clocking out of the office every afternoon at
> five.
> The losers are the ones caught up in that afternoon rush hour. The
> winners
> drive home in the dark.
>
> * Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by
> definition, needs no protection.
>
> * Finally (and aren't you glad to hear that word), as Og Mandino wrote,
>
> 1. Proclaim your rarity. Each of you is a rare and unique human being.
>
> 2. Use wisely your power of choice.
>
> 3. Go the extra mile ... drive home in the dark.
>
> Oh, and put off buying a television set as long as you can.
>
> Now, if you have any idea at all what's good for you, you will get the
> hell
> out of here and never come back.
>
> Class dismissed.

I dont even know where to start, any comments?

# ¿ Dec 25, 2009 03:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 12, 2024 18:20

Econosaurus: Sep 22, 2008; Successfully predicted nine of the last five recessions

Not from my family, but i'm in an argument with someone on the comments section of my school newspaper (I know I know)

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434

Marxist political coalition
Was active from 1992-1998
Endorsed Barack Obama for Illinois state senate seat in 1996

Co-founded in 1992 by Daniel Cantor (a former staffer for Jesse Jackson's 1988 presidential campaign) and Joel Rogers (a sociology and law professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison), the New Party was a Marxist political coalition whose objective was to endorse and elect leftist public officials -- most often Democrats. The New Party's short-term objective was to move the Democratic Party leftward, thereby setting the stage for the eventual rise of new Marxist third party.

Most New Party members hailed from the Democratic Socialists of America and the militant organization ACORN. The party's Chicago chapter also included a large contingent from the Committees of Correspondence, a Marxist coalition of former Maoists, Trotskyists, and Communist Party USA members.

The New Party's modus operandi included the political strategy of "electoral fusion," where it would nominate, for various political offices, candidates from other parties (usually Democrats), thereby enabling each of those candidates to occupy more than one ballot line in the voting booth. By so doing, the New Party often was able to influence candidates' platforms. (Fusion of this type is permitted in seven states -- Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Mississippi, New York, South Carolina, and Vermont -- but is common only in New York.)

Though Illinois was not one of the states that permitted electoral fusion, in 1995 Barack Obama nonetheless sought the New Party's endorsement for his 1996 state senate run. He was successful in obtaining that endorsement, and he used a number of New Party volunteers as campaign workers. By 1996, Obama had become a member of the New Party.

In 1996, three of the four candidates endorsed by the New Party won their electoral primaries. The three victors included Barack Obama (in the 13th State Senate District), Danny Davis (in the 7th Congressional District), and Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in the 7th Subcircuit Court. All four candidates attended an April 11, 1996 New Party membership meeting to express their gratitude for the party's support.

The New Party's various chapters similarly helped to elect dozens of other political candidates in a host of American cities.

One of the more notable New Party members was Carl Davidson, a Chicago-based Marxist who became a political supporter of Barack Obama in the mid-1990s.

Other high-profile New Party members included Elaine Bernard, Michael Chandler, Noam Chomsky, Steve Cobble, Bruce Colburn, Danny K. Davis, Willie Delgado, Barbara Ehrenreich, Bill Fletcher, Maude Hurd, Manning Marable, Patricia Martin, Frances Fox Piven, Raphael Pizzaro, Zach Polett, Wade Rathke, Gloria Steinem, Madeline Talbott, Ted Thomas, Cornel West, Quentin Young and Howard Zinn.

In 1997 the New Party's influence declined precipitously after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that electoral fusion was not protected by the First Amendment's freedom of association clause. By 1998 the party was essentially defunct. Daniel Cantor and other key party members went on to establish a new organization with similar ideals, the Working Families Party of New York.

# ¿ Feb 23, 2010 21:20

Econosaurus: Sep 22, 2008; Successfully predicted nine of the last five recessions

Childlike Empress posted:

Glad to see that the guy who sent that got fired over it.

It's a little sad though. He probably didnt think it was a big deal and is now more than likely blackballed from any employment in his field for the forseeable future :smith:

.

The email was a loving stupid thing to forward though

# ¿ Mar 10, 2010 04:21

Econosaurus: Sep 22, 2008; Successfully predicted nine of the last five recessions

Econosaurus fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Oct 24, 2010

# ¿ Mar 10, 2010 05:02

Econosaurus: Sep 22, 2008; Successfully predicted nine of the last five recessions

quote:

"I'm 63 and Im Tired"

by Robert A. Hall

I'm 63. Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting every day, I've worked, hard, since I was 18. Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven't called in sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but I didn't inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there's no retirement in sight, and I'm tired. Very tired.

I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth" to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy to earn it.

I'm tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to "keep people in their homes." Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I'm willing to help. But if they bought McMansions at three times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the left-wing Congress-critters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them with their own money.

I'm tired of being told how bad America is by left-wing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros and Hollywood Entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers. In thirty years, if they get their way, the United States will have the economy of Zimbabwe , the freedom of the press of China , the crime and violence of Mexico , the tolerance for Christian people of Iran , and the freedom of speech of Venezuela .

I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor"; of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't "believers"; of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery"; of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Shari'a law tells them to.

I'm tired of being told that "race doesn't matter" in the post-racial world of Obama, when it's all that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation standards for minorities (harming them the most), government contract set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone, and in the appointment of U.S. Senators from Illinois.

I think it's very cool that we have a black president and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. I just wish the black president was Condi Rice, or someone who believes more in freedom and the individual and less arrogantly of an all-knowing government.

I'm tired of a news media that thinks Bush's fundraising and inaugural expenses were obscene, but that think Obama's, at triple the cost, were wonderful; that thinks Bush exercising daily was a waste of presidential time, but Obama exercising is a great example for the public to control weight and stress; that picked over every line of Bush's military records, but never demanded that Kerry release his; that slammed Palin, with two years as governor, for being too inexperienced for VP, but touted Obama with three years as senator as potentially the best president ever. Wonder why people are dropping their subscriptions or switching to Fox News? Get a clue. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000, but the media and Kerry drove me to his camp in 2004.

I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and madrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America , while no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.

I'm tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate. My wife and I live in a two-bedroom apartment and carpool together five miles to our jobs. We also own a three-bedroom condo where our daughter and granddaughter live. Our carbon footprint is about 5% of Al Gore's, and if you're greener than Gore, you're green enough.

I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off? I don't think Gay people choose to be Gay, but I drat sure think druggies chose to take drugs. And I'm tired of harassment from cool people treating me like a freak when I tell them I never tried marijuana.

I'm tired of illegal aliens being called "undocumented workers," especially the ones who aren't working, but are living on welfare or crime. What's next? Calling drug dealers, "Undocumented Pharmacists"? And, no, I'm not against Hispanics. Most of them are Catholic, and it's been a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to kill me for my religion. I'm willing to fast track for citizenship any Hispanic person, who can speak English, doesn't have a criminal record and who is self-supporting without family on welfare, or who serves honorably for three years in our military.... Those are the citizens we need.

I'm tired of latte liberals and journalists, who would never wear the uniform of the Republic themselves, or let their entitlement-handicapped kids near a recruiting station, trashing our military. They and their kids can sit at home, never having to make split-second decisions under life and death circumstances, and bad mouth better people than themselves. Do bad things happen in war? You bet. Do our troops sometimes misbehave? Sure. Does this compare with the atrocities that were the policy of our enemies for the last fifty years and still are? Not even close. So here's the deal. I'll let myself be subjected to all the humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, and the critics can let themselves be subject to captivity by the Muslims, who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia, because the girls were Christian. Then we'll compare notes. British and American soldiers are the only troops in history that civilians came to for help and handouts, instead of hiding from in fear.

I'm tired of people telling me that their party has a corner on virtue and the other party has a corner on corruption. Read the papers; bums are bipartisan. And I'm tired of people telling me we need bipartisanship. I live in Illinois , where the "Illinois Combine" of Democrats has worked to loot the public for years. Not to mention the tax cheats in Obama's cabinet.

I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught. I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.

Speaking of poor, I'm tired of hearing people with air-conditioned homes, color TVs and two cars called poor. The majority of Americans didn't have that in 1970, but we didn't know we were "poor." The poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of poor to keep the dollars flowing.

I'm real tired of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination or big-whatever for their problems.

Yes, I'm drat tired. But I'm also glad to be 63. Because, mostly, I'm not going to have to see the world these people are making. I'm just sorry for my granddaughter.

Robert A. Hall is a Marine Vietnam veteran who served five terms in the Massachusetts State Senate.

There is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on!

This is your chance to make a difference.

# ¿ Mar 27, 2010 05:35

Econosaurus: Sep 22, 2008; Successfully predicted nine of the last five recessions

quote:

LEADERSHIP BRIEFING

ISRAEL'S DEPUTY FM AYALON BRIEFS JEWISH LEADERS ON GAZA FLOTILLA INCIDENT

June 1, 2010

Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon briefed hundreds of Jewish leaders today about the Mediterranean Sea flotilla incident, saying the violence erupted when an "armada" of activists with weapons attacked Israeli military personnel trying to enforce Israel's legal blockade of the Hamas-run Gaza Strip.

"We had to exercise self-defense and stop this armada," he said. Israel Defense Forces commandoes, who were lightly armed, never expected they would encounter a violent mob scene reminiscent of the 'Black Hawk Down' battle in Somalia, where U.S. soldiers were killed.

"It was like Mogadishu, when U.S. soldiers were mobbed, beaten and shot with hand-made weapons."

In Monday's clash, nine civilians were killed, two Israeli soldiers seriously wounded, and others injured. "We very much regret the loss of human life," he said. "This was never our intention."

The deputy foreign minister spoke with more than 765 professionals and lay leaders of Jewish Federations, Jewish Community Relations Councils, and other groups via a teleconference that The Jewish Federations of North America and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs organized to help keep the community informed.

Despite some initial reports that the incident was the result of Israeli commandoes attacking peaceful demonstrators, the clash was really the result of a highly organized "PR provocation campaign," Ayalon said. The Turkish-based group leading the armada was the IHH Humanitarian Relief Foundation, which has ties to global Islamist groups, he said.

Israel requested the flotilla of six ships dock at the Ashkelon port to be inspected, following protocol. Five of the ships peacefully complied, but the sixth refused. Israel, acting to defend its borders, had no other choice but to board that ship, Ayalon added.

The former Israeli Ambassador to the United States thanked the Jewish leaders for their support and urged them to help Israel publicly advocate around this and related issues.

"This is a critical time for Israeli diplomatic efforts," he said. "We have to make sure the effects of yesterday's event will not carry over to a diplomatic front between Israel and her friends."

While the incident is the focus right now, it diverts from the wider issues in the region - Iran's attempts to develop nuclear capabilities, he said, and that Hamas - a terrorist organization dedicated to Israel's destruction - is losing its political following in Gaza and hopes to rally new political support while acquiring cash for weapons.

Referring to these broader issues, he said that in advocating for Israel, "we must keep our eye on the ball."

Ayalon also said Israel would no doubt learn from this incident and adjust its defense tactics should similar attempts occur. He added that once inspected, any humanitarian supplies on the ships would be delivered to Gaza.

For a JFNA resource page on the incident and related issues - including backgrounders, videos, news coverage and more, click here. JFNA will continue to keep the Federation movement informed on the situation as it develops.

# ¿ Jun 3, 2010 01:56

Econosaurus: Sep 22, 2008; Successfully predicted nine of the last five recessions

quote:

Obama is the most dangerous of all anti- semites. He appears to court Jews in America even as his policies towards Israel endanger the survival of the Jewish State.
Besides his Muslim upbringing, and his strong affection for Arab potentates, Obama has displayed visceral and visible dislike for the political leadership in Israel.
Liberal, self hating Jews in America who support Obama, will ultimately have to reconcile themselves with their Maker when Jewish boys and girls are forced to give their lives defending the Jewish State because of Obama's hatred for Jews policies towards Israel. One would do well to remember that Hitler graced Time Magazine's cover as Man of the Year in 1933, based largely on his considerable oratorical skills.
Obama's petulant and arrogant behavior towards Netenyahu is further factual evidence of his deep seated anti-semitism.
Jimmy Carter was not perceived as being anti-semitic while in the White House, but based on his writings and speeches in recent years, he is clearly an anti-semite.
Obama is not on record as having rejected the anti-semitc rantings and ravings of the Rev. Wright although he sat through TWENTY YEARS of these garbage sermons.
The gathering of Jews summonds to the White House that your email refers to is reminiscent of the Jewish concentration camp inmates at Tireizenstadt who were "fattened" up and displayed for the visiting Red Cross to assuage world doubts about what was really going on in the camps.
How many history lessons do we Jews need to learn before history repeats itself? That's why I am such an ardent supporter of the ultimate signature on the document that guarantees Jewish survival- that of the I.D.F.
Please take particular note of todays date, July 4th. It was exactly 34 years ago today that the rescue of the Jewish passengers held captive in Entebbe took place.
It was the IDF who carried out this rescue.
Enjoy your July 4th.

# ¿ Jul 6, 2010 22:03

Econosaurus: Sep 22, 2008; Successfully predicted nine of the last five recessions

I don't really know where else to post this, I just want a little help with this. I'm having a debate with a big Paul Ryan supporter, and I'm frankly not well educated enough in this area to make an intelligent response to this. Does anyone know anything about these facts/are they true/what makes them not true/whatever? I'm having trouble writing a response to this

quote:

But fundamentally, why do you think we should tax the wealthy more? Is it an issue of revenues? Or an issue of justice? From a revenue standpoint, you can't soak enough away from the rich to pay for our unfunded liabilities. I'm not even talking about the effect on job creation, simply that you cannot raise $75 trillion by just hammering away at the wealthy. We have data on this if you want but I hope you agree that's a fair point.

Now, if it's an issue of justice, I don't feel like that's a debate I want to have.
Econosaurus, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but your facts are wrong. 1/3 of the stimulus was NOT tax cuts. We do not consider REFUNDABLE tax credits tax cuts - these are simply spending via checks handed out. We would never defend that part of ARRA. And we would consider tax credits that are not refundable to also be "spending" through the tax code, not rate reductions. There were no real rate reductions in the stimulus.

As far as "dropping" the Bush tax cuts, it may have given us some slack with deficits (although not as much as you'd expect if you use a dynamic score, which means figuring in the second, third, and so on, order impacts of what tax increases do to capital formation and job creation), but the way budgeting works is that these are already assumed to expire as part of the baseline. It's called the "current law" approach. And under the baseline, debt will reach 90% of GDP by 2020 - this ASSUMES the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthy, again. I don't have to tell you that the reason why debt will skyrocket is because of Medicare and Social Security (we'll have 80 million baby boomers retiring), and to some extent Medicaid because of rising health care costs. We're up the creek without a paddle here, unless of course we adopt Paul Ryan's Roadmap for America. You've heard how politicians love to defend these benefit systems for their constituents - after all, who wants to "privatize" social security or "voucherize" Medicare for seniors? - but the fact is that these programs are walking their way right into extinction on their current path, and you cannot tax the wealthy enough to pay for them. Even worse, they will cause shocks in the debt markets way before the day of reckoning, leading to higher interest rates, private sector crowding out, lower growth, etc, if we do nothing.

One other thing we should get straight about the the Bush tax cuts. It's a misnomer to think that most of these were directed at the wealthy. The non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation says that 31.1% of taxes paid from 2001-06 (latest data available) come from taxpayers making over $200,000. If you look at just the individual rate cuts, it's closer to 23%. There were plenty of other components to the Bush tax cuts - income tax cuts for those under $200K, child credits, marriage penalty breaks, education breaks, pensions, AMT, etc. And I know the Bush tax cuts have become the poster children for how much Republicans love to support the wealthy, but in all fairness, when they were passed we had a $3.38 trillion 10-year budget surplus projected. I may have done things a little differently given the impending entitlement crisis - I don't defend all of Bush's policies and think he was not a true fiscal conservative - but it's important to understand the argument from all sides.

# ¿ Jul 9, 2010 17:50

Econosaurus: Sep 22, 2008; Successfully predicted nine of the last five recessions

xanthig posted:

Who wrote that, the person you are arguing with? Or is it quoted from some other source? This is basically a lot of jargon and made up numbers strung together with good grammar. It sounds credible if you don't know anything about the subject it discusses, but it is basically a rehash of conservative economic talking points.

The person wrote it, she works with republicans but is smart as hell. Could you point out why this stuff is wrong specifically? I don't want to respond with "those are all talking points :smug:

# ¿ Jul 9, 2010 21:43

Econosaurus: Sep 22, 2008; Successfully predicted nine of the last five recessions

This is all really great, thanks guys. What about her assertions that we can't afford social security/medicare?

Edit: did paul ryan vote for the f-22? I can't find the house vote count. I also can't find a good source on military spending as a % of gdp

Econosaurus fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Jul 10, 2010

# ¿ Jul 10, 2010 20:45

Econosaurus: Sep 22, 2008; Successfully predicted nine of the last five recessions

Someone please put together an email with all of these quotes in some sort of narrative. The humor potential is astounding

# ¿ Aug 19, 2010 22:18

Econosaurus: Sep 22, 2008; Successfully predicted nine of the last five recessions

That pun is hilarious, what are you guys talking about

# ¿ Sep 20, 2010 17:48

Econosaurus: Sep 22, 2008; Successfully predicted nine of the last five recessions

From a facebook conversation, linking this - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/06/opinion/06krugman.html?_r=4&hp

I mentioned liking the article, here was the response.

quote:

*sigh* I'm sure you did like it. you, like krugman, haven't the first clue about economics and are looking at an economic issue as a political one instead. since you're both committed socialists, the solution to everything is to spend more money and have the government fix everything. you and I can go back and forth about that on a political level, but why is it wrong, economically speaking?

the 'keynesian' macroeconomic theory krugman is basing his column on basically says that recessions happen sometimes - let's not bother with why, it's just people's animal spirits waning - and that do get out of recession, the government must come in and spend money to 'stimulate' the economy and get those animal spirits going again. krugman views the economy as a circular flow of investment and income, and the faster the flow, the stronger the economy (until it overheats, of course, but that's another issue). under this view, the economy is sort of like a car, and when it slows down you just have the government step on the gas a little, either by spending money or printing it (fiscal or monetary policy, respectively).

so what's ridiculous about that? well, first off, it's absolutely ridiculous. I mean, come on. but why, exactly?

well, the first problem is that the economy is not made up of 'output' or any aggregated statistics like gdp or employment. it's made up of companies and firms and entrepreneurs - individual actors. any attempt to aggregate individual economic actors into simplistic variables and then trying to analyze how the variables interact with each other is a recipe for disaster. the economy doesn't increase investment or spend more, individuals do. the basic conception of the economy as a circular flow between aggregates has nothing to do with how economic decisions are actually made in real life, where individuals use price signals (including the interest rate) to coordinate investment and consumption.

nowhere is the problem of aggregation worse than in dealing with capital structure, which keynesian economics completely ignores. it's just 'k.' it's not even 'factories,' it's just one letter. but in real life capital is single family houses and automobile plants and railroad tracks - different types of capital for different uses. lumping it all together is absurd - think maybe it's important if all of a sudden we have no auto plants left but a bazillion houses? krugman's model can't incorporate these distinctions. he even views saving as a bad thing, given his circular flow model - he thinks it's like draining money from the economy like water from a bathtub. in reality, savings are what allow capital formation and new investments. but krugman has no clue.

but again, the more fundamental problem is that keynesian economics is a top-down view of the economy, whereas all economic decisions are made by individual actors at ground level. so he's starting out from a crappy model. I believe locke's definition of a madman is someone who draws the right conclusion from wrong premises...

so why can't spending money - fiscal policy - get us out of a recession? well, of course krugman has no capital theory to work with, and on top of that didn't bother to even ask why we had a financial crisis (it was greed! or something). so naturally, there's no way he could recognize that there were a number of bad investments ('malinvestments') made, specifically in the housing sector. years earlier, the federal reserve artificially lowered interest rates to get out of the previous recession, but that distorted price signal - interest rates are the price of money across time - made investors think there was a larger pool of savings than was really available. so more houses were built than there were people who could afford them - maninvestments - and eventually when this became apparent there was a financial crisis.

now, how to get out of a financial crisis caused by malinvestment? well, you liquidate the malinvestments. you don't spend more money (which you're borrowing in the first place) to fund more malinvestments. you can't just spend a shitton of money to inflate the gdp number and expect that to realign these malinvestments. spending money gathered through taxation or borrowed takes capital out of the economy and funnels it to politicians' pet projects. maybe it keeps some people off the streets, but it doesn't address the longer term issue of the malinvestments.

to boot, krugman has his history wrong. the keynesian narrative is that roosevelt was doing his best to get us out of the depression, but evil republicans made him pull funding from the economy in '37 and that caused another economic downturn, and we didn't really get out of the mess until we had a massive public works project called WWII. this is a load of poo poo.

the depression was caused by - you guessed it - monetary expansion in the 20's which distorted the interest rate and caused malinvestments. instead of letting these malinvestments liquidate, the hoover and roosevelt administrations employed all sorts of schemes which just made things infinitely worse. the downturn in '38 was largely caused by a hostile political environment for business after roosevelt threatened to pack the supreme court and unfavorable labor legislation (wagner act). you might not like that story, but that's what happened.

and how did we get out of it in the end? yes, the war did finally reduce unemployment. great. I guess all we have to do to get out of our current troubles is to send 16 million workers overseas (and shoot 400k of them). however, I wouldn't exactly call wartime rationing and making tanks and bullets the definition of a 'recovery.' indeed, this was mainly financed with debt and the remaining savings of the general population (war bonds). the actual recovery took place because after the war we allowed the structure of production to realign itself to make chevys and televisions.

so fast-forward to today: unless we let the malinvestments in housing be liquidated and our strucutre of production realign itself, we're just going to keep going until we can't borrow anymore. then we'll just print it. oh, wait... http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-economy-flight-666-our-one-way-ticket-zimbabwe

# ¿ Feb 19, 2011 01:04

Econosaurus: Sep 22, 2008; Successfully predicted nine of the last five recessions

I'm actually angry about this email.

quote:

(Frosty Wooldridge (born 1947) is a US journalist, writer, environmentalist, traveler)

By Frosty Wooldridge

For 15 years, from the mid 1970's to 1990, I worked in Detroit , Michigan . I watched it descend into the abyss of crime, debauchery, gun play, drugs, school truancy, car-jacking, gangs, and human depravity. I watched entire city blocks burned out. I watched graffiti explode on buildings, cars, trucks, buses, and school yards. Trash everywhere!

Detroiters walked through it, tossed more into it, and ignored it. Tens of thousands, and then hundreds of thousands today exist on federal welfare, free housing, and food stamps!

With Aid to Dependent Children, minority women birthed eight to 10, and in one case, one woman birthed 24 children as reported by the Detroit Free Press, all on American taxpayer dollars.

A new child meant a new car payment, new TV, and whatever mom wanted. I saw Lyndon Baines Johnson's 'Great Society' flourish in Detroit . If you give money for doing nothing, you will get more hands out taking money for doing nothing.

Mayor Coleman Young, perhaps the most corrupt mayor in America , outside of Richard Daley in Chicago, rode Detroit down to its knees... He set the benchmark for cronyism, incompetence, and arrogance. As a black man, he said, "I am the MFIC." The IC meant "in charge".

You can figure out the rest. Detroit became a majority black city with 67 percent African-Americans.

As a United Van Lines truck driver for my summer job from teaching math and science, I loaded hundreds of American families into my van for a new life in another city or state.

Detroit plummeted from 1.8 million citizens to 912,000 today. At the same time, legal and illegal immigrants converged on the city, so much so, that Muslims number over 300,000. Mexicans number 400,000 throughout Michigan, but most work in Detroit . As the whites moved out, the Muslims moved in.

As the crimes became more violent, the whites fled. Finally, unlawful Mexicans moved in at a torrid pace. Detroit suffers so much shoplifting that grocery stores no longer operate in many inner city locations. You could cut the racial tension in the air with a knife!

Detroit may be one of our best examples of multiculturalism: pure dislike, and total separation from America .

Today, you hear Muslim calls to worship over the city like a new American Baghdad with hundreds of Islamic mosquesin Michigan, paid for by Saudi Arabia oil money. High school flunk out rates reached 76 percent last June, according to NBC's Brian Williams. Classrooms resemble more foreign countries than America . English? Few speak it! The city features a 50 percent illiteracy rate and growing.

Unemployment hit 28.9 percent in 2009 as the auto industry vacated the city. In Time Magazine's October 4, 2009, "The Tragedy of Detroit: How a great city fell, and how it can rise again," I choked on the writer's description of what happened. "If Detroit had been ravaged by a hurricane, and submerged by a ravenous flood, we'd know a lot more about it," saidDaniel Okrent. "If drought, and carelessness had spread brush fires across the city, we'd see it on the evening news every night."

Earthquake, tornadoes, you name it, if natural disaster had devastated the city that was once the living proof of American prosperity, the rest of the country might take notice.

But Detroit , once our fourth largest city, now 11th, and slipping rapidly, has had no such luck. Its disaster has long been a slow unwinding that seemed to remove it from the rest of the country.

Even the death rattle that in the past year emanated from its signature industry brought more attention to the auto executives than to the people of the city, who had for so long been victimized by their dreadful decision making."

As Coleman Young's corruption brought the city to its knees, no amount of federal dollars could save the incredible payoffs, kick backs, and illegality permeating his administration. I witnessed the city's death from the seat of my 18-wheeler tractor trailer because I moved people out of every sector of decaying Detroit .

"By any quantifiable standard, the city is on life support. Detroit 's treasury is $300 million short of the funds needed to provide the barest municipal services," Okrent said. "The school system, which six years ago was compelled by the teachers' union to reject a philanthropist's offer of $200 million to build 15 small, independent charter high schools, is in receivership. The murder rate is soaring, and 7 out of 10 remain unsolved. Three years after Katrina devastated New Orleans , unemployment in that city hit a peak of 11%. In Detroit , the unemployment rate is 28.9%.

That's worth spelling out: twenty-eight point nine percent." At the end of Okrent's report, and he will write a dozen more about Detroit, he said, "That's because the story of Detroit is not simply one of a great city's collapse, it's also about the erosion of the industries that helped build the country we know today. The ultimate fate of Detroit will reveal much about the character of America in the 21st century. If what was once the most prosperous manufacturing city in the nation has been brought to its knees, what does that say about our recent past? And if it can't find a way to get up, what does that say about our future?"

As you read in my book review of Chris Steiner's book, "$20 Per Gallon", the auto industry won't come back. Immigration will keep pouring more, and more uneducated third world immigrants from the Middle East into Detroit , thus creating a beachhead for Islamic hegemony in America . If 50 percent illiteracy continues, we will see more homegrown terrorists spawned out of the Muslim ghettos of Detroit . Illiteracy plus Islam equals walking human bombs.

You have already seen it in Madrid , Spain; London , England and Paris , France with train bombings, subway bombings and riots. As their numbers grow, so will their power to enact their barbaric Sharia Law that negates republican forms of government, first amendment rights, and subjugates women to the lowest rungs on the human ladder. We will see more honor killings by upset husbands, fathers, and brothers that demand subjugation by their daughters, sisters and wives. Muslims prefer beheadings of women to scare the hell out of any other members of their sect from straying. Multiculturalism: what a perfect method to kill our language, culture, country, and way of life.

I PRAY EVERYONE THAT READS THIS REALIZES THAT IF WE DON'T STAND UP, AND SCREAM AT WASHINGTON , AND OUR STATE, CITY, AND LOCAL LEADERS THIS IS WHAT AWAITS THE REST OF AMERICA . IF YOU FOLLOW THE NEWS AT ALL YOU KNOW THIS HAS HAPPENED IN ENGLAND , AND FRANCE AND SPAIN .

IF YOU THINK THIS IS JUST A BUNCH OF HOOEY AND YOU FEEL NO DUTY TO FIGHT FOR THIS COUNTRY, THEN I'M SORRY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WILL TAKE FOR YOU TO STAND AND FIGHT.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin

# ¿ Feb 22, 2011 00:11

Econosaurus: Sep 22, 2008; Successfully predicted nine of the last five recessions

Oh my god.

quote:

Historical note:

Dead white guys, all of them Englishmen (Richard Overton, John Milton, John Locke, Adam Smith, Tom Paine, etc.), with their ideology of "Natural Liberty," were the first to argue that everybody has a right to be free.

200 years before anybody ever heard of the totalitarian Karl Marx, dead white Englishman Richard Overton said:

"To every individual in nature is given an individual property by nature not to be invaded or usurped by any. For every one, as he is himself, so he has a self-propriety, else could he not be himself; and of this no second may presume to deprive any of without manifest violation and affront to the very principles of nature and of the rules of equity and justice between man and man. Mine and Thine cannot be, except this be. No man has power over my rights and liberties, and I over no man�s." (1646)

It was dead white Englishman Locke who said "every man has a property in his own person; this nobody has any right to but himself." (1690)

This ideology did not condone slavery, but condemned it to death.

The leading defenders of slavery, on the other hand, lauded communism. In 1854, after communism had long eclipsed classical liberalism as the cool thing to be, slaveholder George Fitzhugh, the dean of pro-slavery, boasted, "We provide for each slave, in old age and infancy, in sickness and in health, not according to his labor, but according to his wants....A southern farm is the beau ideal of communism." (1854)

What about the Founding Fathers? Shouldn't we reject the ideology of these dead white guys -- these slaveholders?

People pretend its "ironic" classical liberalism arose alongside American slavery. It is not ironic. In fact, it's closer to a case of cause and effect. The classical liberalism of the Founders was a natural reaction to seeing slavery close up and personal. It's no coincidence Locke, Washington, and Jefferson were intimately familiar with slavery.

Jefferson had a half dozen children with his de facto wife Sally Hemings (his virtual wife in fact, if not in law). By contrast, he had only 2 children by Martha, his first wife. Sally Hemings was 3/4 white, and the half-sister of his first wife. Martha and Sally had the same father, i.e., Jefferson's father in law.

In other words, most of Jefferson's children were slaves (and 7/8 white to boot). Do you really imagine he didn't love them?

Jefferson was against slavery in principle, and I think one of the first cases he took as a young lawyer was to argue that an African-American child was by natural right born into freedom and not slavery.

It's clear that Franklin, Jefferson, and several other founding fathers would have ended slavery at the convention, if they could have gotten away with it. As it was, they got a promise that the slave trade would be banned within one generation. It was half a loaf, or none.

George Washington did not have the power to free "his" slaves, since they belonged to his wife, whose family could have gone to court to stop the loss of "their" property. Washington and Jefferson also knew what we tend to forget, which that "freeing" a slave in his old age is in effect stealing his retirement pension. That's why Washington had to wait until Martha's death, and why he gave the slaves a choice to remain, if they chose to do so.

You might say that Jefferson could have set his slaves free and given them a lump sum payment to cover what he owed them as such a pension. But he didn't have any money. He was in debt from spending too much on Monticello. You could say he spent too much on Monticello, making it too fancy. But part of making it fancier than the neighbors', was making the slaves houses a lot bigger and nicer than the average. Should he have refrained from borrowing, made their houses and clothes cheaper, and sent them away with the difference, as a lump sum of cash? Is this what we do with our kids? Not really.

Jefferson took Sally and her brother to France, where they were free to leave. Sally was a teenager then, and considered doing so. Jefferson bought her a whole bunch of expensive clothes, and talked her into staying with him, and going back to the US with him. When she agreed to the deal, the "affair" began, in France. That looks an awful lot like a marriage.

Washington says, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence � it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and fearful master."

He says, "I could wish, I own, that the dispute had been left to Posterity to determine, but the Crisis is arriv'd when we must assert our Rights, or Submit to every Imposition that can be heap'd upon us; till custom and use, will make us as tame, & abject Slaves, as the Blacks we Rule over with such arbitrary Sway."

That doesn't sound like the words of a man who thinks slavery is just peachy.

http://www.amazon.com/Jeffersons-Children-Story-American-Family/dp/0375821686/

Should we suppose Jefferson was unaware of Locke's political philosophy? The whole of that philosophy was based on the founding principle that "Every man has a property in his own person; this nobody has any right to but himself."

Jefferson had a striking pair of portraits hanging in his home, which he explained to vistors depicted "the two greatest men who ever lived." When that noob Hamilton saw them, he stupidly complained that neither one was of Hamilton's preferred "greatest man who ever lived," Julius Caesar.

Unlike Hamilton, Jefferson rightly understood who, at that time, were the two greatest men who had ever lived: Isaac Newton and John Locke.

Jefferson wasn't stupid. Are we supposed to think he didn't NOTICE the Declaration of Independence, of which he wrote several drafts, logically condemned slavery in principle? He knew what he was saying.

Jefferson also said, "Sometimes it is said that Man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?"

# ¿ Apr 5, 2011 02:03

Econosaurus: Sep 22, 2008; Successfully predicted nine of the last five recessions

Is there a good article on why the keystone pipeline is a bad idea that anybody could link?

# ¿ Feb 16, 2012 03:58

Econosaurus: Sep 22, 2008; Successfully predicted nine of the last five recessions

quote:

Let's get this right, the actual facts.

Even those who aren't particularly sympathetic to Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu could get a good measure of satisfaction from this interview with British Television during the retaliation against Hamas' shelling of Israel.

The interviewer asked him: "How come so many more Palestinians have been killed in this conflict than Israelis?"

Netanyahu: "Are you sure that you want to start asking in that direction?"

Interviewer: "Why not?"

Netanyahu: "Because in World War II more Germans were killed than British and Americans combined, but there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the war was caused by Germany 's aggression.

And in response to the German blitz on London, the British wiped out the entire city of Dresden, burning to death more German civilians than the number of people killed in Hiroshima. Moreover, I could remind you that in 1944, when the R.A.F. tried to bomb the Gestapo Headquarters in Copenhagen, some of the bombs missed their target and fell on a Danish children's hospital, killing 83 little children.

Perhaps you have another question?"

Part TWO:

Benjamin Netanyahu gave another interview and was asked about Israel 's occupation of Arab lands. His response was, "It's our land." The reporter was stunned - read below.

"Yes, it's our land...

It's important information since we don't get fair and accurate reporting from the media and facts tend to get lost in the jumble of daily events."

"Crash Course on the Arab-Israeli Conflict." (1.5 minutes to read!)

Here are overlooked facts in the current & past Middle East situation.

A Christian university professor compiled these:

Facts:

1 Nationhood and Jerusalem: Israel became a nation in 1312 BC, two thousand (2000) years before the rise of Islam.

2. Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the modern State of Israel.

3. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 BC, the Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand (1000) years with a continuous presence in the land for the past 3,300 years.

4. The only Arab dominion since the conquest in 635 lasted no more than 22 years.

5. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they never sought to make it their capital, and Arab leaders did not bother to come visit.

6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanach, the Jewish Holy scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned even once in the Koran.

7. King David founded the city of Jerusalem. Mohammed never came to Jerusalem.

8. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Muslims pray with their backs toward Jerusalem.

9. Arab and Jewish Refugees: in 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews. Sixty-eight percent left (many in fear of retaliation by their own brethren, the Arabs), without ever seeing an Israeli soldier. The ones who stayed were afforded the same peace, civility, and citizenship rights as everyone else.

10. The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to Arab brutality, persecution and pogroms.

11. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is estimated to be the same.

12. Arab refugees were INTENTIONLLY not absorbed or integrated into the Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, theirs is the only refugee group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own people's lands. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel, a country no
larger than the state of New Jersey.

13. The Arab-Israeli Conflict: the Arabs are represented by eight separate nations, not including the Palestinians. There is only one Jewish nation. The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost. Israel defended itself each time and won.

14. The PLO's Charter still calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. Israel has given the Palestinians most of the West Bank land, autonomy under the Palestinian Authority, and has supplied them.

15. Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites were desecrated and the Jews were denied access to places of worship. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to people of all faiths.

16. The UN Record on Israel and the Arabs: of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel.

17. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel.

18. The UN was silent while the Jordanians destroyed 58 Jerusalem synagogues.

19. The UN was silent while the Jordanians systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives.

20. The UN was silent while the Jordanians enforced an apartheid-like a policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the Western Wall. These are incredible times. We have to ask what our role should be. What will we tell our grandchildren about what we did when there was a turning point in Jewish destiny, an opportunity to make a difference?

# ¿ Jul 13, 2012 20:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 12, 2024 18:20

Econosaurus: Sep 22, 2008; Successfully predicted nine of the last five recessions

quote:

Resisting Barbarians
We can't do it with appeasement, accommodation, and sophistry.

By. Clifford D. May
Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, I expected there would soon be consensus across ideological, national, and other lines that terrorism is wrong � that no political goal or grievance justifies intentionally murdering innocent men, women, and children. I was wrong.
Last week, Pew released the results of a poll that found that Iran, the world�s leading state sponsor of terrorism, is viewed favorably by 76 percent of the population of Pakistan, ostensibly one of America�s closest allies among nations self-identifying as Islamic. Iran also is viewed favorably by 39 percent of Tunisians, generally regarded as among the most moderate of Arabs. In Egypt, 19 percent � a not insignificant minority � have a favorable view of al-Qaeda.

In America and Europe, fewer people smile on terrorists but many are determinedly nonjudgmental. Recall Reuters� global head of news, Stephen Jukes, just after 9/11, saying that in the view of his news organization, �one man�s terrorist is another man�s freedom fighter.� Canadian author George Jonas, with his customary verbal precision, called that �an adolescent sophistry.�

Now consider the Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF), created under the leadership of the Obama administration to �provide a unique platform for senior counterterrorism policymakers and experts from around the world to work together to identify urgent needs, devise solutions and mobilize resources for addressing key counterterrorism challenges.� Twenty-nine countries have been admitted, but Israel, arguably targeted by more terrorists than any other nation, has been excluded. In remarks to a meeting of the GCTF in Madrid last week, Under Secretary of State Maria Otero failed even to include Israel in a list of victims of terrorism. Asked about this conspicuous omission, a State Department spokesman replied: �I don�t have the details of the undersecretary�s speech.� Your tax dollars at work.

Also in recent days: A resolution introduced by Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.) and Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) calling on the International Olympic Committee (IOC), at the opening ceremony of the London Olympics on July 27, to observe a moment of silence in honor of the eleven Israeli athletes murdered by Palestinian terrorists 40 years ago in Munich received unanimous Senate support. But the members of the IOC adamantly refuse. Is that because they are not sure whether those who slaughtered the Olympians were terrorists? Or is it because they think it prudent not to offend any terrorists who may be summering in London? Could the fact that the victims were Israelis � or Jews � play a role?

If so, they would be expressing the prejudice most acceptable among certain fashionable elites. For example, Alice Walker has refused to permit a new translation of her novel, The Color Purple, into Hebrew. As Israeli author Daniel Gordis has pointed out, Hebrew �is the only language into which Walker has refused to permit translation.� She has no trouble with translations into Farsi, Dari, Pashto, or Arabic.

In Denver last week, there was the grand reopening of the Counterterrorism Education Learning Lab, a unique museum intended to help teach the public about terrorism of all kinds (not just the Islamic variety), why it�s a threat to all civilizations (not just the West), and how it can be defeated (determination and vigilance will be key). Before an audience of nearly a thousand, Denver Post publisher Dean Singleton moderated a discussion between former secretary of homeland security Michael Chertoff and me. Among the issues with which we attempted to grapple: The destructive potential of cyber-terrorism; the possibility that terrorists will use germs and viruses as weapons; the role of failed states and what it will mean if the rulers of Iran, who have been killing Americans for decades and threatening Israelis with genocide, are not prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Planted throughout the audience were protesters from an organization that calls itself �We Are Change.� Every so often, a member would stand up and begin shouting. One yelled �Terrorism is not real!� Another proclaimed that �bees kill more people than terrorists!� Another angrily insisted that the FBI has no proof that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 � to which Chertoff replied that not only can we be certain that the al-Qaeda leader was behind the attacks, but also that there has been �a landing on the moon.� The protesters were escorted outside, where they joined demonstrators holding a banner that read, �9/11 was an inside job.�

There were not many of these demonstrators, and they do not represent most people in Denver, America, or the West. But, as noted above, anti-anti-terrorists are hardly a rare species. And aren�t the members of the IOC and GCTF closer in outlook to them than to people like Chertoff and me � people who believe that terrorists, their funders, and their supporters must be confronted and crushed, not appeased and accommodated?

A generation before the attacks of 9/11, in 1980, in a book titled The Recovery of Freedom, the great historian Paul Johnson lamented that we have �almost forgotten how to arm ourselves against barbarism. We can, in fact, do it in only one way: by stating that terrorism is always and in every circumstance wrong . . . that it must be resisted by every means at our disposal; and that those who practice it must not only be punished but repudiated by those who share their political aims.� I�ve always found that logic compelling. I would have thought that by now most people � certainly those in the U.S. State Department, and those dedicated to the Olympic ideal, and American novelists concerned with bigotry � would have grasped it. I was wrong.

� Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism and Islamism

# ¿ Jul 20, 2012 16:54

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Got a crazy forwarded political email from your family? Post them here.