Lee Harvey Oswald posted:

Here's a letter to the editor from my local paper

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/jul/27/letters-editors/?opinionletters


Wont someone think of the rich!

Saint Sputnik posted:

the poor population in 2009 was 14.3 percent, five percentage points lower than in 1964 when Lyndon Johnson announced a “War on Poverty.” Today’s poor, however, have a far different profile than they did back then.

Literally "gently caress the poor, God doesn't even want you to bother praying for them."

Bruce Leroy posted:

He's a war criminal?

Bruce Leroy posted:

What the gently caress does "a private-sector job that depends on the regulatory state" mean?

Is that just someone who works a job that is regulated by the federal government, e.g. working at a pharmaceutical company regulated by the FDA, or is this just some ambiguous catchall that allows this douche to artificially inflate his alleged numbers to 60%?

Doesn't nearly every American "depend on the regulatory state" just by virtue of living in the US, even if their jobs don't involve regular contact with federal regulators?

Saint Sputnik posted:

Oh! says the nurse... and the blood bank wants their blood back with interest doctor. Not to worry nurse we'll just take it from someone else.

Dr. Tough posted:

Response to an article about school vouchers:

Bruce Leroy posted:

They just parrot the same talking points they get from chain emails and right-wing talk radio about how "50% of the country pays no taxes and top 10% pays 90% of the taxes!!!!!"

Saint Sputnik posted:

When a society refuses to impose a moral code in its schools, homes and culture, pandemonium is the result – think Detroit, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C.

Bruce Leroy posted:

In 2004 President Bush campaigned in favor of a Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that says that marriage is between one man and one woman. However, when he was elected, he said no more about it. If he had put as much importance on it as he did in reforming Social Security, the Marriage Amendment would have passed through Congress.

Sock on a Fish posted:

I think I've read that the first president to invite Muslims to the White House for an end of Ramadan feast was Jefferson.

quote:

In his autobiography, Jefferson recounted with satisfaction that in the struggle to pass his landmark Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom (1786), the Virginia legislature "rejected by a great majority" an effort to limit the bill's scope "in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan."

Saint Sputnik posted:

What we get is the inexpensive, environmentally sound snatching of enough energy from deep-down solid stone to make us free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, free at last.

Bruce Leroy posted:

Bryan Fischer: I'm with the gay porn actor: fine gays for unprotected sex
Burts and others are now collecting signatures for a ballot initiative sponsored by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation which, if passed by voters in 2012, will require all performers in adult films shot in L.A. to wear condoms during filming, whether the sex is gay or straight. The only standards in place right now are strictly voluntary, and ask performers to be tested every 30 days.

Armyman25 posted:

Just respond with this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taz1ANj6X7Y&feature=related

What the Bible Teaches About Capitalism posted:

Who would have expected that in a Republican primary campaign the single biggest complaint among candidates would be that the front-runner has taken capitalism too far? As if his success and achievement were evidence of something unethical and immoral? President Obama and other redistributionists must be rejoicing that their assumptions about rugged capitalism and the 1% have been given such legitimacy.

More than any other nation, the United States was founded on broad themes of morality rooted in a specific religious perspective. We call this the Judeo-Christian ethos, and within it resides a ringing endorsement of capitalism as a moral endeavor.

Regarding mankind, no theme is more salient in the Bible than the morality of personal responsibility, for it is through this that man cultivates the inner development leading to his own growth, good citizenship and happiness. The entitlement/welfare state is a paradigm that undermines that noble goal.

The Bible's proclamation that "Six days shall ye work" is its recognition that on a day-to-day basis work is the engine that brings about man's inner state of personal responsibility. Work develops the qualities of accountability and urgency, including the need for comity with others as a means for the accomplishment of tasks. With work, he becomes imbued with the knowledge that he is to be productive and that his well-being is not an entitlement. And work keeps him away from the idleness that Proverbs warns leads inevitably to actions and attitudes injurious to himself and those around him.

Yet capitalism is not content with people only being laborers and holders of jobs, indistinguishable members of the masses punching in and out of mammoth factories or functioning as service employees in government agencies. Nor is the Bible. Unlike socialism, mired as it is in the static reproduction of things already invented, capitalism is dynamic and energetic. It cheerfully fosters and encourages creativity, unspoken possibilities, and dreams of the individual. Because the Hebrew Bible sees us not simply as "workers" and members of the masses but, rather, as individuals, it heralds that characteristic which endows us with individuality: our creativity.

At the opening bell, Genesis announces: "Man is created in the image of God"—in other words, like Him, with individuality and creative intelligence. Unlike animals, the human being is not only a hunter and gatherer but a creative dreamer with the potential of unlocking all the hidden treasures implanted by God in our universe. The mechanism of capitalism, as manifest through investment and reasoned speculation, helps facilitate our partnership with God by bringing to the surface that which the Almighty embedded in nature for our eventual extraction and activation.

Capitalism makes possible entrepreneurship, which is the realization of an idea birthed in human creativity. Whereas statism demands that citizens think small and bow to a top-down conformity, capitalism, as has been practiced in the U.S., maximizes human potential. It provides a home for aspiration, referred to in the Bible as "the spirit of life."

The Bible speaks positively of payment and profit: "For why else should a man so labor but to receive reward?" Thus do laborers get paid wages for their hours of work and investors receive profit for their investment and risk.

The Bible is not a business-school manual. While it is comfortable with wealth creation and the need for speculation in economic markets, it has nothing to say about financial instruments and models such as private equity, hedge funds or other forms of monetary capitalization. What it does demand is honesty, fair weights and measures, respect for a borrower's collateral, timely payments of wages, resisting usury, and empathy for those injured by life's misfortunes and charity.

It also demands transparency and honesty regarding one's intentions. The command, "Thou shalt not place a stumbling block in front of the blind man" also means that you should not act deceitfully or obscure the truth from those whose choice depends upon the information you give them. There's nothing to indicate that Mitt Romney breached this biblical code of ethics, and his wealth and success should not be seen as automatic causes for suspicion.

No country has achieved such broad-based prosperity as has America, or invented as many useful things, or seen as many people achieve personal promise. This is not an accident. It is the direct result of centuries lived by the free-market ethos embodied in the Judeo-Christian outlook.

Furthermore, only a prosperous nation can protect itself from outside threats, for without prosperity the funds to support a robust military are unavailable. Having radically enlarged the welfare state and hoping to further expand it, President Obama is attempting to justify his cuts to our military by asserting that defense needs must give way to domestic programs.

Both history and the Bible show the way that leads. Countries that were once economic powerhouses atrophied and declined, like England after World War II, once they began adopting socialism. Even King Solomon's thriving kingdom crashed once his son decided to impose onerous taxes.

At the end of Genesis, we hear how after years of famine the people in Egypt gave all their property to the government in return for the promise of food. The architect of this plan was Joseph, son of Jacob, who had risen to become the pharaoh's top official, thus: "Joseph exchanged all the land of Egypt for pharaoh and the land became pharaoh's." The result was that Egyptians became indentured to the ruler and state, and Joseph's descendants ended up enslaved to the state.


Many on the religious left criticize capitalism because all do not end up monetarily equal—or, as Churchill quipped, "all equally miserable." But the Bible's prescription of equality means equality under the law, as in Deuteronomy's saying that "Judges and officers . . . shall judge the people with a just judgment: Do not . . . favor one over the other." Nowhere does the Bible refer to a utopian equality that is contrary to human nature and has never been achieved.

The motive of capitalism's detractors is a quest for their own power and an envy of those who have more money. But envy is a cardinal sin and something that ought not to be.

God begins the Ten Commandments with "I am the Lord your God" and concludes with "Thou shalt not envy your neighbor, not for his wife, nor his house, nor for any of his holdings." Envy is corrosive to the individual and to those societies that embrace it. Nations that throw over capitalism for socialism have made an immoral choice.

Rabbi Spero has led congregations in Ohio and New York and is president of Caucus for America.

Borneo Jimmy posted:

Here's a really wienery editorial.

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/138590849.html


Oh no those politicians might be slightly inconvenienced we need to take this kind of bullying seriously

ts12 posted:

Saint Sputnik posted:

I'm at work and wouldn't be comfortable googling the KKK just now, but comparing either party now to what its members did 100 years ago is just asinine.

icantfindaname posted:

Wait a minute, did this just say that segregation was "a nearly universally accepted good"?

Or are they referring to getting rid of segregation as a nearly universally accepted good? Because the way things are going, I'm not sure which it is.

Family Values posted:

Ezra Klein thinks that 'left' and 'right' are misused in American media as shorthand for whatever the two major parties' positions are (this part is true). And then abdicates any responsibility on the journalists' part to fix the problem, or even to fact check partisan statements. "it wouldn’t be a good idea for us to try." Why!? This is everything wrong with American political reporting and commentary in one post.
e: fixed link

Kro-Bar posted:

Jonathan Brooks is a civil engineering sophomore.

Bruce Leroy posted:

I think that's a few dozen IQ points too high for Rush. I mean, the guy thinks that women have to take birth control pills every time they have sex. If he gets something that simple wrong, then it's unlikely that he'd have much insight or awareness about reasonable, critical thought in our political discourse.

Shasta Orange Soda posted:

Does Boeing have double coupon day? If so, we should only buy F-22 Raptors on Tuesdays.

Dr. Tough posted:

George Soros: a modern day Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

Lee Harvey Oswald posted:

Here's a winner from my local paper today.


George Washington didn't want no niggers or fags in his military

PostNouveau posted:

Oof, what an rear end in a top hat. "Hey let me tell you scholars what you should really be writing about."

And she pulls the Fox News tactic of putting words in people's mouths through questions. "The subprime lending crisis was about the profitability of racism?" Nope. You cherry-picked one sentence out of an entire dissertation, and it didn't even say that.

Duck_King posted:

There's just something about this way of thinking with a lot of the far right. They seem to assume that everyone they hate is just as crazy and vindictive as they are, and you see it a lot in the Freep thread.

quote:

“At least among some samples and for some conspiracy theories, the perception that ‘they did it’ is fueled by the perception that ‘I would do it,’” University of Kent psychologists Karen Douglas and Robbie Sutton write in the British Journal of Social Psychology.

natetimm posted:

Good god is LZ an idiot. A journalist tells everyone it's none of their business when the government does bad poo poo because his guy is in office.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/26/opinion/granderson-fast-furious/index.html

quote:

Were they legal?
Hell no.
Were they effective?
Who knows?
Were they done as a way to keep America safe?
Yes.

King Dopplepopolos posted:

Oh gods, Family Security Matters. They had a piece written by someone who said - I poo poo you not - that we should basically kill all the Iraqis and make Iraq an American state. That superdouche also said we should kill or enslave all the Mexicans. None of this is exaggeration or hyperbole. They pulled both articles without acknowledging their prior existence, but nothing truly disappears from the web.

Philip Atkinson posted:

Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy

President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.

Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.

The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable -- for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.

When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.

This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.

The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.

The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation's powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.

As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.

By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.

However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.

When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.

Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.

If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.

He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.

President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become "President-for-Life" Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.

CrushedB posted:

Cal Thomas: "Democracy is evil, Abraham Lincoln freeing slaves is like opposing gay marriage, gay marriage supporters are like vigilantes, the Supreme Court should have no power whatsoever"

Some liberals believe the Constitution is a "living" document that must constantly evolve to fit the times.

quote:

I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

Pixelboy posted:

Isn't there some sort of character litmus test for passing the bar?

Wouldn't a printout or two of this kibosh anything like that?

Armyman25 posted:

Flash mobs are a black thing?

Mo_Steel posted:

Emphasis mine. Poor people are poor because they are immoral idiots who can't handle their lives unless society imposes upon them sexual norms and legally enforced morals. They are morally and culturally inferior to rich elites.

quote:

Abstract
Seven studies using experimental and naturalistic methods reveal that upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower-class individuals. In studies 1 and 2, upper-class individuals were more likely to break the law while driving, relative to lower-class individuals. In follow-up laboratory studies, upper-class individuals were more likely to exhibit unethical decision-making tendencies (study 3), take valued goods from others (study 4), lie in a negotiation (study 5), cheat to increase their chances of winning a prize (study 6), and endorse unethical behavior at work (study 7) than were lower-class individuals. Mediator and moderator data demonstrated that upper-class individuals’ unethical tendencies are accounted for, in part, by their more favorable attitudes toward greed.

OwlBot 2000 posted:

ObamaCare 2016: Happy Yet? The website problems were finally solved. But the doctor shortage is a nightmare.

OwlBot 2000 posted:

Every day is 'Buy Nothing Day' in North Korea—and look where that’s gotten themopen their doors on a day that everyone has off but no one has anything to do.

Strudel Man posted:

???

Strudel Man posted:

Yeah, that's still not "anything that harms people in any way," and clearly is focused on, you know, physical violence. Since it's either doing it, or threatening to do it.

blackguy32 posted:

Those are all defining aspects of violence. They all use power as a way to harm other individuals. Telling someone to shut up or else you are going to go to their house and kill them is a form of violence. It isn't physical, the threat is there, and it usually gives some psychological damage to the person it is being done to. To not call that violence is selling the definition of violence short.

Strudel Man posted:

I don't really know how you come to that conclusion. If "physical" only modified "force," the entire first half would be pointless, as unqualified "power" is a far broader concept.

quote:

The inclusion of the word ‘‘power’’, in addition to the phrase ‘‘use of physical force’’, broadens the nature of a violent act and expands the conventional understanding of violence to include those acts that result from a power relationship, including threats and intimidation. The ‘‘use of power’’ also serves to include neglect or acts of omission, in addition to the more obvious violent acts of commission. Thus, ‘‘the use of physical force or power’’ should be understood to include neglect and all types of physical, sexual and psychological abuse, as well as suicide and other self-abusive acts.

This definition covers a broad range of outcomes – including psychological harm, deprivation and maldevelopment. This reflects a growing recognition among researchers and practitioners of the need to include violence that does not necessarily result in injury or death, but that nonetheless poses a substantial burden on individuals, families, communities and health care systems worldwide. Many forms of violence against women, children and the elderly, for instance, can result in physical, psychological and social problems that do not necessarily lead to injury, disability or death. These consequences can be immediate, as well as latent, and can last for years after the initial abuse. Defining outcomes solely in terms of injury or death thus limits the understanding of the full impact of violence on individuals, communities and society at large.

N00ba the Hutt posted:

Have a fantastic, in all senses of the word, editorial from Carly Fiorina: