Sometimes there is such intolerance of opposition in opinion here at the Sift. When your typical liberal Sifter decries the greed of the private sector, vilifies "big business" and slams Fox News, it is hailed throughout the ranks as a battle cry, but when bobknight33 suggests the inefficiency of government-controlled industry and criticizes MSNBC, he is bombarded by the mob with accusations of naivety, not substantiating his remarks and being a "troll." For instance, take a post like CrushBug's -- "Fucking Harper. I am glad they have spent the time and money to change the name of the gov't to "The Harper Government" so once this horrible aberration of politics is voted out we can easily identify and kill this kind of evil bullshit." This is the quintessence of unsubstantiated, ad hominem attack. Yet it is met with resounding approval and hardy back slaps aplenty, buoyed up by the inertia of the throng.

"You didn't want to come. The average man don't like trouble and danger. YOU don't like trouble and danger. But if only HALF a man—like Buck Harkness, there—shouts 'Lynch him! lynch him!' you're afraid to back down—afraid you'll be found out to be what you are—COWARDS—and so you raise a yell, and hang yourselves on to that half-a-man's coat-tail, and come raging up here, swearing what big things you're going to do. The pitifulest thing out is a mob; that's what an army is—a mob; they don't fight with courage that's born in them, but with courage that's borrowed from their mass, and from their officers. But a mob without any MAN at the head of it is BENEATH pitifulness. Now the thing for YOU to do is to droop your tails and go home and crawl in a hole. If any real lynching's going to be done it will be done in the dark, Southern fashion; and when they come they'll bring their masks, and fetch a MAN along."
-Mark Twain

>> ^messenger:

Dear all,
Stop feeding the troll please. bobknight33 is a troll, and his claims in this thread are wrong or cannot be substantiated. We all know that. I understand that "Someone's wrong on the Internet" is considered an emergency that requires your intervention, but really, it's not. bk33 has no influence here other than to disrupt threads, and it's you who give him that power by responding.
Ignoring is having the last word.
Thank you.

>> ^lantern53:

Makes you wonder why so many are interested in whether Obama was born in the US when there are so many more important things to be concerned about, such as the national debt, the economy, foreign relations, why Ronan Farrow makes $115,000 a year pushing 'global youth issues' when the youth here in the US are chronically unemployed, why Democrats are avoiding their convention, Obama's 'laser-like' focus on jobs (lol), his record-setting golf outings and fund-raisers, why he won't meet with CIA chiefs or even his cabinet...
so much to be concerned about...


I'll say it again...change his skin color and name, leave his policies and actions exactly as they have been. Drop Obama 15 years in the past, and the Republicans would hail him as their conquering hero, the new incarnation of Saint Reagan.

His every action is that of a big-business Republican. His healthcare reform...a Republican-created plan. His economic advisors, from Goldman-Sachs and Wall Street, every one. His handling of the wars...nothing changed, just keep pumping money to the mega-corps we hired on no-bid contracts.

He IS a Republican, in all ways that matter. But to the Republicans, apparently the only ways that matter are skin color, a funny sounding name, and that he claims to be a Democrat. Actions are meaningless and count for nothing to them.

@lantern53

Hi, old grumpy dude.

1.)
Do you enjoy social security benefits yet? Medicare mayhaps?

You're a socialist.

[I guarantee you would never turn down a social security check if they suddenly arrived in your mail.]

2.)
Congress and congressional lobbyists have the majority of power over policy.

Big business controls the Congress and the Lobbyist. Therefore, Big Business has the majority of power over government policies that affect our lives. i.e. stagant wages; unstable food, housing, and energy; endless war

The President is just a placeholder.

Obama and Romney are just masks for Oligarchs to hide behind.

You don't blame the banks for corrupting politicians, but you do blame the politicians for being given so much power? And you think that less regulation is the answer? Banking regulations are irrelevant in this conversation. The only question is whether it should be legal for banks to bribe politicians. As long as politicians are open to bribery, the rich will have enormous sway over them, and most regulations the politicians produce will favour the rich. If campaign contributions were illegal or limited to an amount that most interested parties could afford -- an amount that might help them in a small way, but not in a disproportionate way -- then the rich wouldn't be able to write themselves blank cheques.

So politicians who accept bribes AND banks who bribe them are out of order. The power doesn't like with society, nor with the clients, nor the market, and certainly not with doing good business. The power could lie with those groups if the system were less corrupted by unchecked campaign financing.>> ^renatojj:

@Porksandwich The question is, who is out of order? The banks for bribing politicians, or politicians for having so much power to forcibly regulate banking/monetary/financial practices and institutions?
Politicians have their hands all over their businesses, the financial, monetary and banking sectors are already heavily regulated. I'm not saying they're WELL regulated, not at all, but there are tons of regulations in place on everything and that screams to big bankers and businesses, "the power lies with us, politicians. Not with society, not with your clients, not with the market, not with doing good business and taking calculated risks. We dictate everything that is and isn't allowed. If you're not on our good side, we will screw you over".
What you don't seem to realize is that, big banks and big businesses usually lobby for more regulations that benefit them, because the more regulations you have, the bigger the burden is for smaller competitors.

@Porksandwich The question is, who is out of order? The banks for bribing politicians, or politicians for having so much power to forcibly regulate banking/monetary/financial practices and institutions?

Politicians have their hands all over their businesses, the financial, monetary and banking sectors are already heavily regulated. I'm not saying they're WELL regulated, not at all, but there are tons of regulations in place on everything and that screams to big bankers and businesses, "the power lies with us, politicians. Not with society, not with your clients, not with the market, not with doing good business and taking calculated risks. We dictate everything that is and isn't allowed. If you're not on our good side, we will screw you over".

What you don't seem to realize is that, big banks and big businesses usually lobby for more regulations that benefit them, because the more regulations you have, the bigger the burden is for smaller competitors.

Big business is naturally conspiratorial, so that's certainly no strike against your theory. Seems reasonable. or it just may be that not enough people know about it yet and they simply lack the venture capital.>> ^RadHazG:

AT this point I have to think that any truly good idea's (like this one) are really being held back for the most part due to oil or other companies that stand to take massive profit losses interfering with them legally. It stands to reason that if a technology threatens their bottom line significantly enough it would warrant the expenditure of resources to halt or delay the deployment of said tech for as long as possible. It's a bit conspiratorial but it also makes perfect sense from a financial pov on the part of the Co.>> ^PalmliX:
WHY ARENT THEY BUILDING THIS NOW!?!?!

First off, Romney does not equal Obama. This kind of thinking is truly what frightens me, and it's not because of the reasons you probably think.

Some 20 years ago, the overwhelming majority of the population were ignorant of politics and apathetic. Political games were played, cheap shots were utilized, but in the end, in the big scheme of things, on the truly big issues, both sides would compromise and do the right thing. Clinton and the GOP Congress balancing the budget, Bush Sr. raising taxes, etc. etc. Stuff got done. And the majority of people were wholly ignorant on things like federal budgets, that kind of thing. There was also some kind of understanding on basic principles where regardless of your ideology, you couldn't do catastrophic things just because it suited your ideology.

Now, that's gone. Extremists in both parties are labelled fascists or communists, or whatever, but now moderates are being labelled as either part of the same extremist groups, or they're called sell-outs, part of a completely corrupt system, and perpetrators of that system, not as agents trying to work within a system that was built long before they got there, who could change the system while they work within it. When they do the right thing that violates ideology, it's not because it was the bipartisan right thing to do; it's because they're extensions of the corrupt system. The bailouts are an absolutely perfect example. I hate to break it to people here, and I know most won't agree with me, but the bailouts were the right thing to do, even if you're against too big to fail, etc. The banking system was already in place when the economy collapsed. It's like being in a boat as its sinking. You can critique the design of the boat all you want, but the boat sinking kills you all. It's ridiculous to talk about actions that will blow up the boat. Plug the holes, do what you need to do to get the boat to land. THEN figure out how to fix the design, or build a new boat. But what happened? The bipartisan policy by both a Democrat and Republican president was tarred and feathered as government being in the pocket of big business. Those same people don't seem to realize the boat didn't sink. We didn't face another depression. Be critical the banking system wasn't significantly reformed after that was done, I have no issues with that.

To the person who said Obama's policies haven't worked in three years? Again, are we in a depression? No. Those policies worked. And how can you expect a macro-economic shift within a year or two of his other policies? Go back and look at economic history. Things don't change on a dime just from macro-economic policies instituted by the government. It takes several years before the effect can be measured. Again, sheer ignorance. The difference today is the ignorant are far more willing to participate in the political debate even though they don't have a clue what they're talking about. This is a problem on both sides.

Both sides are stoking the ignorant to get involved in the public debates, and not encouraging a very very basic understanding of crucial facts about history. Like... WWII was a Keynesian economic exercise effectively, which in the end was a gigantic gov't deficit that did end the Great Depression. This is a very straight forward basic economical historical fact. But there's 30% of the population that will not believe it because it blows apart what they politically favor today. It's ridiculous.

I disagree with Romney, and I probably won't vote for him. But he's not a fascist. There's a significant difference between him and Santorum. And there's a significant difference between him and Obama. Is there a choice as clearly different as say Ron Paul vs. Ralph Nader? No. Is that a bad thing? Not in my book.

My fear is in our political ecosystem, the moderates, the good ones who truly aren't compromising for the wrong reasons, but do it to get things done, and have a willingness to ignore ideology for practical solutions that help the country are getting drowned out, and characterized as corrupt when they're not. I disagree with Romney, but he's not corrupt. I disagree with Obama, but he's not corrupt. We don't need a revolution to fix our current political system, but an increasing number of people think we do. And the last decade we're seeing a rise in the extremists on both sides enough to drown out the political moderates we desperately need. This just can't continue indefinitely.

>> ^deathcow:

>> ^lantern53:
Obama's policies have not worked for the past 3 years. If you believe some improvement is coming, you have far more faith than the average Catholic bishop.

obama = romney = anyone else they put forward

If the essential goal of free markets is to conquer competition to ensure your own survivability & market dominance then how come Friedman also acknowledges at the end of this video that monopolies are a negative influence?, if the market REALLY worked in the manner in which he claims then wouldn't these monopolies be nothing but 'The Best Companies?'.

This viewpoint of only caring about markets because supposedly markets are the best option to help individuals forgets the key problem that 'people create markets' & people are greedy (basically the same problem as communism) 'power corrupts', and this ideology has zero respect or tolerance for the people it claims to be helping while also making them support big business unquestioningly being made into pawns of ITS GAME. To believe that the leaders of these companies main concern is to serve the interests of the individual is nothing short of nonsensical and taps into an egocentric self-focused Gordon Gekko like system while group worth is tossed aside in favour of profit at any cost.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

>> ^renatojj:
United States knows the importance of free speech but doesn't have a free economy. China is reaping the benefits of a freer economy but is still scared of free speech.

Yeah, Go Foxconn, the employees are reaping some really good suicide benefits there! Or how 'bout all those miners killed every year in China. Those guys really reaped some benefits.
Melamine in your milk = Benefit of a freer economy
School collapses and kills your children because contractor cheaped out on concrete = Benefit of freer economy
People make unhealthy fake eggs through chemistry and sell them at the market = Benefit of a freer economy
Sign me up, sounds GREAT!
Yes, they actually do make fake eggs and sell them to unsuspecting customers in China, it's a big business.
Thank you, but no. I'd like some restrictions on the economy. China is a perfect example of why Libertarians are so damn wrong.


Get off your soapbox Snoopy, there wouldn't be a powerful China without American capitalists offshoring everything to take advantage of cheap labour/costs and then importing the products back. Or do Apple (a US company last time I checked) get off scott free because somehow they didn't know their products were being produced by near slavery..?

>> ^njjh201:

Cool let's now see the sequel, "Chinese Youth Discuss what is Wrong with what happened at Tiannenmen Square in June 1989"
No?
Oh OK then.


And there's American arrogance, assuming that everything is exactly how you believe it is... The chinese government certainly represses knowledge of Tiannenmen, but you'd have to be a moron to believe people don't remember and word doesn't spread, and people are told to not get caught talking about it...

ps. Funny how the greatest assistant to the repression of knowledge re: Tiannenmen square is *drumroll* the US company Google and their willingness to allow regions to dictate what appears on their localised Google.

>> ^renatojj:

United States knows the importance of free speech but doesn't have a free economy. China is reaping the benefits of a freer economy but is still scared of free speech.


Yeah, Go Foxconn, the employees are reaping some really good suicide benefits there! Or how 'bout all those miners killed every year in China. Those guys really reaped some benefits.

Melamine in your milk = Benefit of a freer economy
School collapses and kills your children because contractor cheaped out on concrete = Benefit of freer economy
People make unhealthy fake eggs through chemistry and sell them at the market = Benefit of a freer economy

Sign me up, sounds GREAT!

Yes, they actually do make fake eggs and sell them to unsuspecting customers in China, it's a big business.

Thank you, but no. I'd like some restrictions on the economy. China is a perfect example of why Libertarians are so damn wrong.

Even when I was in high school in the late 80's there was a definite attitude of 'those aren't cut out for college do the menial work.' We have a real campaign for college educations in this country (and of course all the big business that goes along with that) and have shoved all other necessary professions to the way side, suggesting them only to the kids in remedial classes, etc. It's a major issue. Some say the illegals are filling that gap but it's not true. They simply don't have the training for the real work that needs to be done.

As others have said as well, it's not like these are low paying jobs either. A skill welder can live very comfortably, as can a plumber, or a mason, or any skilled laborer. And for those that say we cant afford to spend the money, to add to the deficit, the money that would be required for this would be miniscule compared to the trillions we've given the banks, etc.

>> ^renatojj:

@ChaosEngine, I think it's the opposite. Allowing different sets of rules for smaller communities rather than enforcing them on a larger scale is what counters the inherent injustice of democracy. It gives people more options as to which rules they want to live by and it reduces the potential for damage to society caused by bad rules voted into effect by majorities.

I have no problem with smaller communities deciding local issues. But certain things are universal and allowing states to decide them is simply wrong. If you were a minority in the south in the 60s, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't think it was a good idea to "let the states decide".

>> ^renatojj:
I'm pro-choice on abortion myself, but I'm also pro-choice on communities choosing their own sets of rules. As sure as you are about pro-choice, there are many people as convinced about being pro-life. Who's right? Let freedom sort it out. Btw, abortion is a fundamental human right? Never heard that before, I've heard that life is a fundamental right, but let's not argue. Like I said, I'm pro-choice too but not cool with imposing my pro-choiceness on others.

Allowing a woman to control her reproductive cycle and to have access to safe medical procedures is absolutely a fundamental human right.

I'm not imposing anything on anyone. FWIW, on a personal level, I hate the idea of abortion as contraception. However, that is not my decision to make, I don't have to carry a child to term and then deal with the consequences. I find it ironic that I have to convince a libertarian that creating a law controlling what a woman does to her own body is a bad thing.

>> ^renatojj:
Also, I'd tell the woman to buy a bus ticket to another state where she can perform her abortion, is that too much to ask? And she can use her compelling story to convince her own community to change their pro-life laws.


And what if every state bans it? What about the case where a woman dies in a hospital because a doctor can't perform a surgery that saves the life of the mother over the child? Should she get out of the operating room and get on a bus then?

>> ^renatojj:

I think it takes a lot of critical thinking to challenge the Fed, endorse austrian economics, adopt libertarianism, and dispute our foreign policy. C'mon, what you call lack of critical thinking, is mostly just you disagreeing with his opinions on controversial issues and his christian faith.
Look, I'm an atheist and I believe in evolution. My critical thinking saved me from being a christian. However, if I were still a religious person, I'd value the integrity of my christian ideology, and I'd probably reject evolution too (or maybe try to find a way to fit evolution into the whole Adam & Eve story, idk). I value that integrity in Ron Paul.

The "Christian" excuse doesn't cut it. It is not a "get out of jail free" card that allows you to suspend your faculties. Obama is a christian and he accepts evolution. Hell, Huntsman is a mormon and he doesn't have a problem with it. How would you feel if he said he didn't believe in gravity?

>> ^renatojj:
I'm not sure about global warming, many people aren't, it's controversial, and it's not always just science, the arguments for or against it can be very ideologically/financially motivated. I haven't made my mind about it, but my personal opinion right now is that humanity is probably influencing the climate, but the effort to reverse this change would probably be too oppressive, costly, or not worth any possible benefit.

I'm not going to get into an AGW debate here. I will simply say that I have yet to meet a global warming skeptic who actually understands the science. Hell, I don't understand the science, but I tend to believe the people who actually researched it over the oil companies.

>> ^renatojj:
Liberals see big businesses and corporations as the biggest and most threatening agents of evil in society, while libertarians think that description applies mostly to governments and to corporations that conspire with governments. The motivation, whether profit oriented or not, is not as important as the means by which evil is accomplished.
Don't get me wrong, governments need limits on their powers too. There must be balance, but given the choice I would rather the power reside with the elected representatives than the private sector.

>> ^renatojj:
Ron Paul's answer to keeping the money from the white supremacists was, (I'm paraphrasing from an interview) "if I gave them their money back, then I'm the one supporting their cause, I'd be giving them money so they can do bad things I don't agree with. If I keep the money instead, I can use it to do good things, like supporting my campaign". You're just pushing it when you say he's being disingenuous, the money was donated with no strings attached.

It's not really about the money. In the grand scheme of things $500 is nothing and I'm pretty sure RP can live without it. It's the principle of the thing. Keeping the money sends a message (rightly or wrongly) of tacit approval. If he doesn't want to give them back the money, fine, give it to an anti-hate charity or something. Anything to make the point that you do not agree with these weak and frightened bigots.

>> ^renatojj:
Look, segregation and racism are very touchy subjects that can very easily be misinterpreted. All I'd say is this: if someone speaks in favor of the freedom to discriminate, that doesn't imply an endorsement of bigotry or of the narrow-mindedness of those with questionable criteria. Paul agrees with Civil Rights as it applies to governments, public institutions, public spaces and schools, etc., but thinks it's wrong to apply these same principles to private businesses.
What happens if you walk into a lesbian bar? Chances are you'll be denied service or kicked out for being a man. How dare they discriminate against your gender?? I don't like racism as much as the next guy, but you can't outlaw an idea, and you can't legislate people's motivations.

Nope, but you can outlaw actions. As for your lesbian bar example, I would say they are just as wrong for kicking me out for being a man as I would be for kicking them out for being a lesbian.

The freedom to put up a "no blacks, jews or irish" sign is not a freedom I want to protect.

>> ^renatojj:
Ron Paul wants to be president so that he can show us that it's not the role of the president to decide these many things we think a president should decide, he's not "the decider", he's not our tribal leader, this is supposed to be a free society with rule of law, not a dictatorship. He wants to be president to protect our freedoms.

Thing is, he wants to do the opposite of protecting freedom. Protecting freedom is an active position. RP wants government to get out of the way. Historically, that never works out for the little guy.

edit: btw, props to you for defending your position rationally and eloquently. Nice to be able to debate this without name-calling or screaming matches, and if I've said anything you take as ad hominem, that was not my intention.

@ChaosEngine, I think it's the opposite. Allowing different sets of rules for smaller communities rather than enforcing them on a larger scale is what counters the inherent injustice of democracy. It gives people more options as to which rules they want to live by and it reduces the potential for damage to society caused by bad rules voted into effect by majorities.

I'm pro-choice on abortion myself, but I'm also pro-choice on communities choosing their own sets of rules. As sure as you are about pro-choice, there are many people as convinced about being pro-life. Who's right? Let freedom sort it out. Btw, abortion is a fundamental human right? Never heard that before, I've heard that life is a fundamental right, but let's not argue. Like I said, I'm pro-choice too but not cool with imposing my pro-choiceness on others.

Also, I'd tell the woman to buy a bus ticket to another state where she can perform her abortion, is that too much to ask? And she can use her compelling story to convince her own community to change their pro-life laws.

I think it takes a lot of critical thinking to challenge the Fed, endorse austrian economics, adopt libertarianism, and dispute our foreign policy. C'mon, what you call lack of critical thinking, is mostly just you disagreeing with his opinions on controversial issues and his christian faith.

Look, I'm an atheist and I believe in evolution. My critical thinking saved me from being a christian. However, if I were still a religious person, I'd value the integrity of my christian ideology, and I'd probably reject evolution too (or maybe try to find a way to fit evolution into the whole Adam & Eve story, idk). I value that integrity in Ron Paul.

I'm not sure about global warming, many people aren't, it's controversial, and it's not always just science, the arguments for or against it can be very ideologically/financially motivated. I haven't made my mind about it, but my personal opinion right now is that humanity is probably influencing the climate, but the effort to reverse this change would probably be too oppressive, costly, or not worth any possible benefit.

Liberals see big businesses and corporations as the biggest and most threatening agents of evil in society, while libertarians think that description applies mostly to governments and to corporations that conspire with governments. The motivation, whether profit oriented or not, is not as important as the means by which evil is accomplished.

Maybe you're right about the Panama Canal, idk

Ron Paul's answer to keeping the money from the white supremacists was, (I'm paraphrasing from an interview) "if I gave them their money back, then I'm the one supporting *their* cause, I'd be giving them money so they can do bad things I don't agree with. If I keep the money instead, I can use it to do good things, like supporting my campaign". You're just pushing it when you say he's being disingenuous, the money was donated with no strings attached.

Look, segregation and racism are very touchy subjects that can very easily be misinterpreted. All I'd say is this: if someone speaks in favor of the freedom to discriminate, that doesn't imply an endorsement of bigotry or of the narrow-mindedness of those with questionable criteria. Paul agrees with Civil Rights as it applies to governments, public institutions, public spaces and schools, etc., but thinks it's wrong to apply these same principles to private businesses.

What happens if you walk into a lesbian bar? Chances are you'll be denied service or kicked out for being a man. How dare they discriminate against your gender?? I don't like racism as much as the next guy, but you can't outlaw an idea, and you can't legislate people's motivations.

Ron Paul wants to be president so that he can show us that it's not the role of the president to decide these many things we think a president should decide, he's not "the decider", he's not our tribal leader, this is supposed to be a free society with rule of law, not a dictatorship. He wants to be president to protect our freedoms.

I agree with you that the constitution should be updated with the times, that's why it's amendable. The problem is that many things we allow the Federal government to do today were never properly amended. So it makes sense to set things straight and start by following the constitution.

It'd be refreshing if people would want public policy to be about the public good and not about animosity for the other tribe. It'd also be nice if people on the right had even the slightest grasp on reality.

The whole thing about Romney and healthcare is indeed a perfect example -- Romney should be proud of Romneycare, and should be trying to take credit for Obamacare because people on the right and left should consider that a reason to vote for him. The left because it's a massively empowering system for the average man, and the right because it takes us a long way towards getting a properly functioning market in the healthcare sector, rather than one rife with perverse incentives and government subsidies of big business.

But instead the people who like to vote Republican think that Obamacare is some scary Soviet-style takeover of American society, and that the Republican nominee will be the shining knight to save the world from this threat. And of course, they think that because the Republican party has told them that, and told them that anyone who says different is "liberal" and therefore the enemy of freedom.

I'm pretty tribal myself these days, but my tribe is "sanity", and I'm a partisan against insanity.

And Ron Paul...Paul clearly plays for the other side in that fight.

>> ^jmzero:

In general, it baffles me that the Republicans can't find better candidates; but then again look at the hoops you have to jump through. Romney is a perfect example; as NetRunner says above, it's clear he supports a health plan substantively the same as Obama's - but he HAS TO say he hates it to have any hope. They have to walk a tightrope on social issues and toe a very narrow line on economics. Pander, pander, pander, never be candid, never just say what you think.
...
How refreshing it would be for people to be picking the candidate who actually agreed with them, rather than whoever pretends the best.

"Big Business + Big Government = Big Corruption"