I have to wonder how many platitudes about income inequality were in her speech and how the government could fix it.
Currently consuming: Gatto: "Underground history of education..", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football
That's all I got. Ratings. Better "entertainment" of sorts.
Maybe they don't care about dividing us, creating outrage, moral culpability etc. Maybe they just want ad revenues.
Interestingly, as I reflect on my outraged Facebook feed, sometimes a cop shoots somebody and it's like "what a terrible person.". This one I'm getting "what a terrible country." People are suggesting that this particular shooting is some grand culmination of centuries of race war that hasn't been resolved.
At least the thousands of statist experiments throughout history have proved to be dispute-free successes.
How much democide happened in Galt's gulch? Did they manage to bomb any Arabs? Is there prison population similar to ours?
"I mostly blame the politicians" is both a good and bad line. I like that it pins the troubles on them (and hopefully the government itself) but 99 out of 100 people would take that to mean it's the politicians who should get their game straight and fix it by DOING something.
The War on Drugs and the War on Poverty are a fine mix to create fatherless homes and violent income. It's like a factory that produces poverty, soldiers and prisoners.
If we could get rid of the drug ware and welfare we could wait a generation or so and see if it really is that white people are racists or if black people were more criminal.
My bet would be that neither are true. At least as the rule, not the exception.
There's not really a side to pick. It's murderous police on one side and looting, violent store burners on the other. Condemn them both.
Why do the protesters go after stores instead of the police station, cop cars or court house?
Is it because they know the later is armed?
Or because there is nothing valuable to take from the court house?
and let them be homesteaded. Not sure.
It can be shot after shot of him walking into strangers houses and randomly sitting at families' dinner tables.
Maybe in the end the subject of property rights never comes up, and instead everybody just breaks bread together.
Wouldn't it still draw attention to the process and not be morally abhorrent?
Hopefully he votes against it.
Your first paragraph presumes that we own the US like it was our private property. Let them come in and procure their own private property and then they can use their own food and entertainment system.
This whole 'breaking the law' and criminality bent is off target. It's a bad law. Breaking a bad law is a good thing. And if you reverse the law, they are no longer law-breakers.
We have arbitrary law here. I'm not sure they'll have some big learning curve.
You say "These people just want to make money and send the money back to their family or bring their family here eventually." Yea, of course. Who doesn't? Do you not have empathy?
Why should anyone assimilate? We're not a collective. Who wants to be like every body else?
They will make us richer, not poorer. If the welfare system gums this up, than so be it. Let this be the hammer that breaks the camel's back and rids us of it.
And then Walter decided to take it out on Stefan Molyneux for some reason.
Here's a facebook group of atheist anarchists:
The laws didn't prevent the 9/11 crews from coming in and I believe they may have broken a few other laws as well, such as stealing airplanes, destroying property and killing people.
I agree that Obama did not adhere to a constitutional process, and if we think that process is good, than how he executed was bad.
But I think constitutionalism is long gone. They don't follow it and it sits next to a million page code. Both documents, both the law. Arbitrary law at this point.
But in the end, borders are a feature of the state and people should get to move to where they want. I'd want that for myself and my family. Call it empathy. No need to mark these incoming refugees as criminals for wanting to move.
And, immigrants make us wealthier.
And just start calling them "People who moved here" and "howdididdly do, neighbor!"
Obama is right on this one, even if the Kingly posture is disgusting.
Lawmaking process, even when strictly executed to the rules, seems like theatre anyways. The code is a million pages long. They've obviously have learned to stick anything and everything in there.
The means (executive order) may not be right, but the outcome is net good. It's even strange to get upset at the decision making process since rule of law was thrown out the window decades if not centuries ago.
A king will do something nice for their subjects now and then.
They spun it as if Rand was pro-NSA. They could've headlined "Rand tries to weaken/get rid of Patriot Act", but chose the low blow however they could.
The either/or on the bill was pretty dicey. Like, headache inducing. Do you weaken the NSA and extend Patriot act? Do you not extend Patriot act and keep NSA stronger.
The joke is probably that the Leahey bill would probably not really sap any strength from the NSA. I'd guess the NSA had full support of it.
I should stop reading about current events.
If you think back 40 years ago, there was only three TV stations, all of whom had to go through the FCC. No internet. No cable. Nothing to fact check against accept the newspaper.
They probably had an easier time shoveling bullshit than they do now. We're just marginally more skeptical now. (I'm guessing, I don't really know)
This said, despite 500 channels, five 24 hour news channels and a billion websites, they've done a remarkable job hiding the human carnage and death of the American wars. Anybody ever see any bodies or anything?
He's had weeks to prepare for the climate question. BM already publicly made that complaint against him after their lunch together.
Not sure why rand evaded the corporatism question about republicans. It was a cream puff he could've knocked out of the park.
"Hillary will finally end the corporate stranglehold over Washington"
"Hillary will be the one to finally end these senseless wars"
"Hillary will work for the people, not the power elite."
Paul Sr.: "Sure I don't need these laws!"
Paul Sr. "We should apply the teachings of Jesus to our foreign policy"
Just don't see these types of zingers being a boon for Rand's ambitions or campaign.
(quotes paraphrased from memory)
You know they are pandering to us when the newscasters can double as pin-up girls:
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: