>> ^jerryku:
Interesting stuff but I gotta wonder what this guy really thinks about black and Latino crime in the States, and if he's holding back on the topic for fear of having his career destroyed.


You bet.

Racial, ethnic and cultural differences are the ultimate black sheep for social scientists and genetic researchers.

They have a lingering paranoia that it's unethical to even consider differences and instead tippy toe around any findings they produce. I think it was Gladwell or perhaps another popular statistician that stumbled upon data so shocking concerning races in America that he intentionally refused to publish the results or even discuss them on camera.

I disagree with Gladwell in that cultures are malleable. Cultures can transform themselves, but to expect a culture to change is ridiculous.

Will a jetliner pilot learn to speak English if he wants to keep his job? Of course.

Is it ethical or even worth consideration to "improve" a culture through injection of xenoethnic aptitudes? Absolutely not.

Cultures will evolve as they see fit. Social engineering is no-one's business, which is why multiculturalism is a failed policy.

Then you're saying democracy isn't a good idea? Or is it only a good idea when a party you're complacent about wins?

Suddenly the media is averse to political parties receiving money for funding: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191424/BNP-5million-cash-boost-party-celebrates-Euro-election-successes.html and apparently violence against a party chief has become normal in Britain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQOfykEImeg

It is unfortunate but inevitable that it has come to this, but the "right wing" will become increasingly prominent until the parties who've enjoyed decade-long governances realize that it is the common man who is most affected by their social engineering attempts. I can assure you that chauffeured MP and MEPs do not often take the bus with rowdy Africans or witness first-hand the injustice of affirmative action.

To anyone who has violent objections (or any objections at all to these "right wing" parties' right to exist), please imagine you were alive 50 years ago when minorities were fighting for the right to vote or 100 years ago when women had few legal rights.

Would you have been against them? Most probably, because that was the orthodoxy at the time.

Those concepts were primitive in retrospect, but the majority thought like that. It was only by perseverance that women and minorities swayed the tides and established what are today commonly accepted principles of equality.

Imagine that in 100 years from now it turns out multiculturalism was indeed a catastrophic failure that not only destroyed once healthy societies but so diluted European culture that it ceased to exist, that dozens of countries who've contributed so much to humanity have become so ethnically identical that they've lost all discernible elements.

Suppose people like the BNP voters are correct, just as women were in the early 1900s. If most people could go back in time, I'm certain they'd at least provide the Suffragettes at least some respect and dignity.

I'd expect any civil person to exercise that same respect for ideas outside the current orthodoxy today.

If it were not for people who challenge the status quo, nothing in the history of the world would have ever changed.

under the bush administration the DEA and other related federal institutions (DOJ)were given the authority to over-ride state laws.
i believe it was in 2004.
they have been selective in their prosecution of said authority,mainly in california.
the question of state rights/laws trumping federal law has been a contentious subject since the beginning of america.
i would refer to the federalist papers,article 51,in which alexander hamilton and james madison make such an argument on state vs federal powers.
i swear,its almost like we are living in bizzaro world,where republican and democrat have flipped ideologies on these matters.
how can something you do in the privacy of your own home,harm noone,can be considered against the law?
thanks to henry anslinger and his propaganda machine in the late 30's and early 40's demonizing weed,the american citizen has had to endure this egregious breach in our right to privacy.
its an inane,ill-thought and redundant law,based on bad science and even worse social engineering.
and we call ourselves free..pfffft.

>> ^BansheeX:
This is more of a tax dispute than anything. Government is only in the business of licensing marriage because we tax the heterosexually married less than we tax single people and gays, and they need licensure to enforce that. Seriously, all the people in this thread still fundamentally support a tax code that says "if you're a woman in an abusive marriage, we will penalize you the minute you get a divorce." If you truly wanted marriage to become about love again, you would create an environment in which government licensure was unnecessary.
Sorry to blow up your conservative/liberal pissing contest with libertarian logic, but I have a simple rule when it comes to taxes: the tax code should not be used as a social engineering tool to incentivize one legal behavior over another.


You're forgetting about child support, alimony and property that can be disputed before a divorce settlement can be reached. These are some of the protections gays are denied.

Sorry your tax code logic is pretty flawed.If you're a childless couple it's really not much of a difference, if anything the married couple is more likely to get screwed come tax season. If you do have children the system is set up to reward who ever has custody. If you're an abused spouse and can prove it,you'll have a better shot and getting custody of any children and recieving child support.

>> ^BansheeX:
This is more of a tax dispute than anything.
Sorry to blow up your conservative/liberal pissing contest with libertarian logic, but I have a simple rule when it comes to taxes: the tax code should not be used as a social engineering tool to incentivize one legal behavior over another.


"Libertarian Logic" - two words I've rarely seen used together, and for good reason.

I guess it escaped your purview that tax codes are not even on the list of why NOM wants to discriminate against homosexuals, or why any social conservative chooses to for that matter.

I guess "Libertarian Logic" is a euphemism for "missing the point."

This is more of a tax dispute than anything. Government is only in the business of licensing marriage because we tax the heterosexually married less than we tax single people and gays, and they need licensure to enforce that. Seriously, all the people in this thread still fundamentally support a tax code that says "if you're a woman in an abusive marriage, we will penalize you the minute you get a divorce." If you truly wanted marriage to become about love again, you would create an environment in which government licensure was unnecessary.

Sorry to blow up your conservative/liberal pissing contest with libertarian logic, but I have a simple rule when it comes to taxes: the tax code should not be used as a social engineering tool to incentivize one legal behavior over another.

Statism is too polite a word, but that's what leftists are: statists. To them the State's power is more important than individual rights and should hold the most power. In their view, you live to serve the state; most statists don't have the huevos to say this plainly so they hide their tyranny behind words like "fairness" and "leveling the playing field" and making up new "rights" for non-Americans like illegal immigrants and foreign terrorists.

The free market and "deregulation" didn't wreck the economy, government social engineering and socialist policies did.

Caution and a firewall are enough to protect you from the vast majority of threats. It's been years since I last saw a virus/worm/exploit that didn't rely at least partially on social engineering.

Antivirus is always helpful. Avoid anything that tries to replace the Windows Firewall (like Norton Internet Security). They all seem to really fuck up your system, in my experience, and there's no reason to replace a perfectly good software firewall anyway. If you're using commercial AV, make sure you've got a subscription or it's a waste. A lot of people swear by AVG or clamwin; I'm a fan of avast.

If you want extra tinfoil for your hat, you can make use of virtual machines (http://www.virtualbox.org/) or sandboxes (http://www.sandboxie.com/) to isolate activities from the main system. There's also RVS (http://www.returnilvirtualsystem.com/) and Windows SteadyState (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/sharedaccess/default.mspx) if you're just looking for a way to quickly restore your system if/when you believe it to be compromised.

Rather than be overly paranoid about security, I usually just make sure I can wipe my computer clean at any time with no risk of losing data. If I suspect something is wrong, I do a new install rather than screwing around trying to diagnose the issue. It's far more practical at work, but it's still not too bad at home.

Assume you are the unitary executive of the US, and don't need to worry about Congress, the Constitution, the Geneva conventions, or deficit caps (i.e. pretend you're Bush, only smarter).

I would publicly execute the bankers convicted of fraud, nothing special, just a bag and bullet to the head. Their assets would be seized and given to charities to pass out to the needy. Government would be drastically reduced. No more welfare state. I believe people would step up and help their fellow man when government is not used as an excuse not to help. No more social engineering through legislation, do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, if you're hurting yourself don't expect the government to bail you out. Anytime the military is needed war must be declared by the congress. In fact no more standing army except for nuke guardians. Any invasion of the US would not last long, almost everyone should be armed. Balanced budgets, hard money, no more fractional reserve banking. Now that the power is back in the people's hands, it will be written into the constitution in lawyer speak so there will be no misunderstanding and no loopholes, no more power grabs by Presidents and no more fucking with the currency no matter how well intentioned. Then I'll return to plowing my fields.

honestly, thanks for the grain of salt

it really just looks like a couple of nervy nitwits' "theories" ... with a cultured british accent thrown over that and stock video taken out of context and rather coincidentally rearranged

shouldn't be too hard for me to provide another "grain" for all of us to consider rubbing together with the former...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#History_of_the_name

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2108588&postcount=9

there you go...

something else just occurred to me from the video's mention of the "military-industrial complex" -- this being that we often don't consider much of the context of that particularly insightful eisenhower speech:

here's a gem that just precedes the now-iconic reference...

"Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment."

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

now *that's* thought-provoking =)

expounding on that in a much-later newspaper editorial is ike's close friend and former naval aide to the president:

"The science community is paralyzed by a phony, egotistical self-
guilt, and the technophobes in academia have had a field day for a
generation, teaching our young people to scorn the sciences and feel
guilty for being Americans. Aided by a couple of administration in
which "social engineering" was more fashionable than science, techno-
logical leadership is passing from the United States to nations who
have struck a more rational balance."

http://www.fortfreedom.org/n09.htm

heh heh, i think something really "got his goat"

anyway, i've always felt that the surest way of losing an argument is to overstate it... i guess i feel that that's exactly what the first video does

here's what we can take from it, at least overwhelmingly so (in the court of public opinion)

- america's "reaction" to the attacks of september 11th made al-qaeda both a household name *and* target #1 of the us government (durr)

- this most likely helped consolidate bin laden's organization, and surely polarized islamic radicalism ever further, thus increasing al-qaeda's magenetism to ends both in funding and recruiting

- prolonged military action in the "war on terror" is CONTINUING to make our "military-industrial complex" lots of money (do you really think that strong ties between "death merchantry" and government didn't exist before 2001... or even long before ike's speech??)

- america's (and the world's) "military-industrial complex" will continue to thrive until (ha) there is peace... and then probably a bit longer

- the "war on terror" probably won't end even if we get every member of al-qaeda into the same denny's restaurant and then nuke it (in a similar fashion as to arresting al capone not ending the fbi's war on organized crime)

- this will continue to make both you and me sad, and the "desth merchants" happy

...

but maybe, just maybe, we should take note of what ike first said we *should* be... STRONG ... and *then* consider our thinking on maintaining the BALANCE he warned us all should be sought in his now-pop-culture reference

Compulsory education should be scrapped and the Department of Education abolished. Government schools are directly responsible for most of the problems in America today.

You cannot have a populace well-versed in history and healthily distrustful of government power when taught by social engineers and educrats with a government-solution-for-everything message.

Generation after generation of ill-informed American ignorati (but with high self-esteem) have brought America to the precipice. There can't even be a proper revolution when the cattle don't know what they're fighting for or against.

It will take decades to undo the damage, but it's that or the coming barbarism.

http://www.schoolandstate.org/

>> ^volumptuous:
I've watched every video clip of Schiff, and listened to Ron Paul in the senate hearings with the banks.
I have yet to hear either one of them to tell the rest of us what they think can help us get out of this mess. Neither of them, as far as I can find, have said anything productive.


I sincerely hope you're joking, because they constantly state that withdrawal symptoms after the inflationary high are unavoidable and can't be fixed, but that the best thing the government can do is see the hangover as the solution and stop administering more drugs and shock therapy. The recovery to a viable economy can happen a lot sooner if the government stops trying to inflate and redistribute its way out. We need to immediately start cutting Federal government excess to reduce the financial burden on our citizens. Their retirement schemes are unsustainable no matter what and need to be phased out over many years. Entire departments like FEMA, Homeland Security, and the Department of Education have to go, along with our military empire, so that we can abolish the 40% of Federal revenue attributed to Federal Income Tax. With a flat tax or no income tax, the IRS is then superfluous and can be abolished. GSEs like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will have to be outlawed, subsidies and marriage debates will be resolved because without an income tax, it will be impossible for government to issue tax differences on particular types of marriage, families, incomes, or investments based on social engineering concepts.

The constitution will then need to be clarified to abolish the central bank, because congress has no constitutional authority to create a fiat money or delegate such powers to the private industry. This will require some new judicial appointments. I'm also quite certain a Paul presidency would look at every piece of legislature and ask "was this a lobby bill? does it prevent a cheaper product or service from being chosen?" I hear these are prevalent in the medical industry where he was an OBGYN. For example, there are regulations that bar nurses from performing services doctors can. Lots of licensure and red tape protects that industry. And I'm 100% sure he would immediately end the Federal ban on marijuana bought by the drug industry, that would consequently save billions wasted by the FBI and our prison system trying to fight something 10x less harmful than legal drugs.

Social Engineering?

McCain, you're too nice to the leftists destroying this country with their social engineering.

Six trillion wasted on a failed "War on poverty."

Socialist: raising the top tax rate from 35% to 39%, then raising taxes on property, investments, estates, etc.

Free-Market: nationalizing the banks, massive investment in insurance agencies, limiting certain types of trades, raising the debt ceiling, and promoting government investment into stocks and bonds. And an emphasis on Red States.

Democrats were too busy with their social engineering projects and vote-buying with taxpayer money to heed fiscal warnings. Now they cry like babies and blame Republicans for their failed socialist schemes when the bill comes due.

NOBAMA.