I wonder what these Republicans behind the Lincoln Project will do after November though, win or lose? They themselves made Trump a reality through a cumulative process of dividing and dumbing down America for decades. You think Trump is a freak show? No, it's their modern-day ideological standard bearing manifest, just magnified by a factor of 10. Some republicans just don't agree HOW Trump says things, not what he DOES. I don't see they can come up with a leader nearing worthy of bearing the mantle of the classic "GOP" of "Lincoln." It's been FUBAR.

You want for Fiscal Conservative & Social Liberals (nevermind whether you can really balance the two IRL with that much debt and social ills already)? Look elsewhere, it's not in the GOP.

"Let's lay it right on the line. Bigotry and racism are among the deadliest social ills plaguing the world today. But, unlike a team of costumed super-villains, they can’t be halted with a punch in the snoot, or a zap from a ray gun. The only way to destroy them is to expose them—to reveal them for the insidious evils they really are. The bigot is an unreasoning hater—one who hates blindly, fanatically, indiscriminately. If his hang-up is black men, he hates ALL black men. If a redhead once offended him, he hates ALL redheads. If some foreigner beat him to a job, he’s down on ALL foreigners. He hates people he’s never seen—people he’s never known—with equal intensity—with equal venom.
Now, we’re not trying to say it’s unreasonable for one human being to bug another. But, although anyone has the right to dislike another individual, it’s totally irrational, patently insane to condemn an entire race—to despise an entire nation—to vilify an entire religion. Sooner or later, we must learn to judge each other on our own merits. Sooner or later, if man is ever to be worthy of his destiny, we must fill out hearts with tolerance. For then, and only then, will we be truly worthy of the concept that man was created in the image of God–a God who calls us ALL—His children.

Pax et Justitia,
Stan"

We lost Stan and Clownface Von Fuckstick is still alive.
There is no justice.

Oops! I posted to the wrong profile. Sorry about that! Glad we were able to continue our dialogue.

My comments/responses interspersed:

> "economics has never been my strong suit."

I know, my friend, I know. As soon as I hear some defense of "socialism," I know.

> "but i AM quite literate in history and government and of
> course politics."

Yes, my dear friend, but history is tied to economics, and these days, unfortunately, politics too.

> "while you are correct that a socialist state can become a
> fascist one,so too can a democracy."

Again, we agree! Yes, in fact, fascism is the offspring of democracy. And while not strictly a fascist, was not Hitler elected?
Is there here some assumption that I regard "Democracy" as some sort of "holy cow?" On the contrary, "democracy" is a type of "soft" socialism.
At least as practiced and typically defined.
Not market democracy, however, which is the same as the free market, and not problematic. But pandering political democracy is something else.

> "it is really the forces of ideology"

Yes, in fact the book I am now reading makes this point throughout. So did Mises. But I will say that Mises was not altogether correct in dismissing Marx' assertion that systems and structures influence ideology and not the other way around. Mises was mostly correct, ideology creates systems and structures and institutions, but Marx was a little bit correct, there is also some influence in the other direction.

> "i do apologize for my oftentimes rambling.maybe because i
> am a little out of my comfort zone when it comes to
> economics"

Do not worry my friend, this is the case with most people who have strong political/economic opinions. It has been called afterall the "dismal science." If people knew about economics, we'd have a totally different system of government or no government at all.

> "your last post really cleared so many misconceptions i was
> having during this conversation."

Glad to hear. Some of my other "debaters" get very little out of our debate so it is a refreshing situation.

> "i knew we were more in agreement than disagreement.
> and we are."

I think most people are actually in agreement about goals, they just disagree about means, mostly because of lack of economic education. But once that is cleared, the agreements become more evident.

> "the banks need to held accountable."

1. yes banks need to be held accountable for fraud, like any other business or person.

> "which by inference means the governments role should be
> as fraud detector and protector of the consumer."

2. if you still want a government, meaning you still want a monopolist to do this. But a monopoly is inefficient (this is one of those "economics" laws, but one I think is almost self-evident). So asking a monopoly run by kleptocrats to do this is like asking the wolves to look over the sheep.

> "you didnt mention it but i hope you agree the corporate
> charter needs to be rewritten in a way where they are NOT a
> person and therefore shall be removed from the political
> landscape."

3. Since I don't think government (monopolist) are necessary, I don't think it should be inventing legal entities and forcing those on everyone else. Corporations are the creation of the state. Without a state monopoly, they would look much different than they do at present. In actuality, regardless of legal definitions, a corporation is a group of persons, like a union or social club or a partnership.

> "this will (or should) re-balance our political system (which is
> diseased at the moment)."

4. Corporations are a symptom, not the cause of all our social ills. Lack of economic calculation is much more problematic on all levels. In short, government is not a solution, but the major contributor to the problem. And we still have not gone into the whole issue of how the government is not "we" or "the people" in any meaningful way and how having coercive rulers is a problem.

> "which will return this country to a more level playing field and
> equate to=more liberty."

5. I don't know that we agree here. Corporations are not the cause of lack of liberties. Government is. Corporations won't throw you in jail for not obeying the rulers; government will. Corporations will not garnish your wages. Government will.

> "this will open innovation,progress and advancements in ALL
> fields AND due to competitive forces ,will lower prices."

6. Things like getting rid of IP laws will do so. So will getting rid of most/all taxation and arbitrary regulation.

> "how am i doing so far?"

Doing great!

> "what is governments role"?

I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."
I don't want government to do anything for me, and I don't want it to force me at gunpoint to do anything at all.
A monopoly cannot do anything good that a free competitive market cannot do better.

> "the anarchist finds it perfectly acceptable to tear down that
> government to build a new one."

If you want someone to rule over you by force, you are not an anarchist. What kind of government would you consider "anarchy?"

> "if something aint working the way it was meant to,get rid of
> it and try another."

What if I don't want you or anyone else imposing rulers on me? What if I believe I have a right to self-ownership and voluntary interactions and property?
What if I don't want your form of "government?' Then what? You still want to impose it on me?
I thought you were my friend.

> "well in an unrestricted market and pesky government out of
> the way what do YOU think is going to happen to a system
> driven by self interest and profit?"

Everything will improve. But government had to be totally out of the way. btw, where do you get that government is not driven itself by self-interest and profit?

> "and i am ok with that."

Well, the difference between what you want and what I want is that what I want is not to be imposed on you but what you want is to be forcefully imposed on me, violently too, if I don't comply.

> "illegal to have an employee owned business."

Like I said, government is a problem.

> "i dont know why it was illegal in this area and i dont see how
> employee owned companies would threaten a free market."

In a free market anyone can own any business they want or else it is not a free market.

> "but as you figured out.
> economics is not my strong suit."

Just because there is a law prohibiting co-op ownership of a bar, it does not mean that it is there for some reason that makes economic sense. It actually makes no economic sense so it must be there for some political reason or because someone somewhere profits from this restriction, as is always the case with regulations.

> "and my man,cant tell ya how grateful i am to have had this
> conversation with you.i learned tons,about you and your
> views and even some about free markets."

Remember, a free market means free, not "semi" free. Not privilege for some, like regulations tend to do.
Always a pleasure.

So what?? Let him rant-This is as effective a way as any to hand the shit to the DuncanvilleISD, a critically-thinking student ranting on a worldwide forum.

Change starts with outrage like this and too many people think education in the United States benefits you beyond a ticket to another cog-like existence, a "career"

Perhaps though, Jeff should quit now, get a G.E.D., and get on with living. Or maybe he should run for superintendent.

You know Yogi, the best way to fix systemic social ills in the form of piss-poor eduindoctrination? Pull your fucking kids out of public schools (home school) and encourage others in similar boycotts. But hey, no one can because everyone's working for shit-tickets and has no time-What a conundrum, eh?

>> ^Sagemind:

Emotions, hate and everything negative create a killer - thereby emotion, forgiveness and love shall set him free.
...And by free, I mean free to remorse and begin a process of feeling what it is to be human again.
Since negative forces create a killer, condemnation and negativity will never penetrate to hard shell he has around him. The unexpected realization that someone is reaching out, someone you expect only condemnation from can be the chisels to start the first crack of remorse and acceptance that maybe someone out there cares.


Very well put.

He is so used to negative feedback from people, it probably just fuels how he validates his actions. It is the unexpected act of kindness that he was not prepared for.

When I see someone who is sick, I see a symptom of that illness. When I see a member of society acting in this fashion I see a symptom of a social illness. We are all responsible for our own actions, don't get me wrong. However I wonder if there was any point in this man's upbringing where something could have been done differently so that he wouldn't have brought so much pain to others.

On a side note I have a ton of respect (despite his tendency towards believing in mythology) for a man who can forgive another for such a devastating act of cruelty.

>> ^Pprt:

DerHasisttot, I fear you've been totally consumed by two particularly devious and masochistic mental afflictions, counterproductive critical theory and cultural Marxism.
I have just read someone who honestly believes that a lowly bird is worth protection but would not lift a finger to defend human culture because "all cultures are equal and none is more worthwhile than another". Correspondingly, it does not matter if one of them disappears or if all of them disappear. Effectively, you believe in everything and nothing at the same time.
You are a destroyer of nations because you do not believe in nations.
My only advice is that you realize that we live in a world where Europeans are the ONLY people who are affected by these social ills. No other culture is masochistic, they are proud of themselves for who they are.. for better or for worse.
I can only hope that, through time and personal experience, you may come to realize that your own culture (and every culture) is worthy of conservation.
That's if it's still around you in old age.


You have not understood how I thoroughly deconstructed your premise. Cultures are inconservable. I never said that all cultures are equal. I said they are enhancing each other. The best things stay, the others fall away.

You are either a troll or an enormous, racist ideological (maybe even Nazi) -asshole whose life would be best spend scrubbing sewers so your brainfarts do not stink up the place. I will not respond to you anymore.

DerHasisttot, I fear you've been totally consumed by two particularly devious and masochistic mental afflictions, counterproductive critical theory and cultural Marxism.

I have just read someone who honestly believes that a lowly bird is worth protection but would not lift a finger to defend human culture because "all cultures are equal and none is more worthwhile than another". Correspondingly, it does not matter if one of them disappears or if all of them disappear. Effectively, you believe in everything and nothing at the same time.

You are a destroyer of nations because you do not believe in nations.

My only advice is that you realize that we live in a world where Europeans are the ONLY people who are affected by these social ills. No other culture is masochistic, they are proud of themselves for who they are.. for better or for worse.

I can only hope that, through time and personal experience, you may come to realize that your own culture (and every culture) is worthy of conservation.

That's if it's still around you in old age.

>> ^SDGundamX:


@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/crotchflame" title="member since June 26th, 2007" class="profilelink">crotchflame I think the ads are both the cause and effect at the same time. They're the effect of a cultural norm that says its okay to treat women as (usually sexual) objects but they also cause that norm to be reinforced--so much so that some women even embrace that norm to their own detriment.


Our own detriment how, though? What social ill is growing as a consequence? Violence against women? Divorce? Low self-esteem? I would take any such argument seriously but most the commentary here seems to be at the introduction and not the conclusion.

There are counterpoints as well. Such as advertisers using artistic license in presenting an ideal of female beauty that we can't just assume people are taking seriously. There are women that match better to the ideal than others and we can't pretend that isn't the case any more than we should shut down the NBA because we can't all dunk a basketball. It should also be remembered that it's the ad's job to catch people's attention and it does that by bending cultural norms. We all spend much more time interacting with real people than with photo-shopped magazine prints.

I'm not defending anything here. I just feel like the subject is a great deal more complex than it's being made out to be. Not that that justifies the ugly, whiny feminist line of thought in the comments though.

Are the ads the cause or the effect, though? And she's also not terribly specific about what social ills this trend is bringing about. Anorexia is on the rise but not catastrophically so. General vanity and self-consciousness aren't really anything new - and here, again, they never tell us what an idealized image of female beauty is costing us. I'm not unsympathetic but if we're supposed to be doing anything about it we have to really decide what exactly the problem is.

is it possible that your professor misunderstood it? i don't know who he was or his credentials, but lew rockwell is the president of the ludwig von mises institute--one of the most frequently cited economic sources in the world. have you read the original work, ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas? or any of bastiat's contemporaries? has your professor read smith, hazlitt, or mises?

i was not taught in university, but i have explored it for myself, and what rockwell presents in that video is, to me, very much in line with both the intent of the original author, and his subsequent contemporaries.

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
Am sorry but this is stupid, I just can't believe someone would misread the broken window theory in such a way.

The broken window theory was taught to me as a function of multipliers across the economy not as a net GDP gain scenario. i.e. as an incentive to drive economic activity across a model small scale economy to make students understand the multiplier effect.

Furthermore the government as a window breaker is a fallacy to claim as a statement. The government stimulus to the economy is to loosen money in the economy, so instead of saving there is expenditure, because the government is expending money, the workers will have added income, so they will spend it and on and on through the application of multiplier effect.

This is why I hate modern economics as a whole, because seemingly educated people like this come out and postulate a economy theory in a model economy to try and explain a far more complex system. Ridicule it and then put forth their own model economic theory and claim that it will cure all social ills, such as constant tax cuts.

Am sorry but this is stupid, I just can't believe someone would misread the broken window theory in such a way.

The broken window theory was taught to me as a function of multipliers across the economy not as a net GDP gain scenario. i.e. as an incentive to drive economic activity across a model small scale economy to make students understand the multiplier effect.

Furthermore the government as a window breaker is a fallacy to claim as a statement. The government stimulus to the economy is to loosen money in the economy, so instead of saving there is expenditure, because the government is expending money, the workers will have added income, so they will spend it and on and on through the application of multiplier effect.

This is why I hate modern economics as a whole, because seemingly educated people like this come out and postulate a economy theory in a model economy to try and explain a far more complex system. Ridicule it and then put forth their own model economic theory and claim that it will cure all social ills, such as constant tax cuts.

The arab doesn't want the destruction of Israel, who would want to destroy something that they can keep their populace entrhalled like this?

I mean if Israel is destroyed or worst a peace deal is made what could Arab world leaders blame then for all the social ills that are transmitted to their populace?

No. Israel is the perfect cover for the continual corruption and lack of democracy in the Middle East.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
The point is that in any case, its all OPINIONS, just like "Allah Ackbar, All infidels are dirt" is an opinion. Both may be good or bad or disgusting, depending on who hears them, but they shouldn't be illegal.

In January 2009 a Dutch court ordered prosecutors to try him for making anti-Islamic statements. "In a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to... draw a clear line," the court in Amsterdam said.

There is already a mass momentum in Europe by certain politicians that are using the foreign immigrants as a scape goat for social ills so they can incite fear and panic in the voting public. Wilders just targeted Muslims instead, or rather Morrocans and Algerians as a whole. I see this move as a way to stop his BS spilling over in Netherlands. The Netherlands has strict laws against such actions for all religions including Christianity and Judaism.

Also did we watch the same film? Fitna is constructed to be a hate piece against all Muslims. Not extremists. Not fundamentalists. Not cultural Muslims. But all Muslims. It doesn't seek to create any form of dialog, but it just wants to create fear and completely mis represent the largest single faith in the world.

Fitna wishes to demonstrate that the Qur'an, and the Islamic culture in general, motivates its followers to hate all who violate the Islamic teachings. Is this true for all Muslims living in Europe or the Netherlands?

Consequently, the film argues, Islam encourages, among others, acts of terrorism, antisemitism, violence against women, and Islamic universalism. Is this true for all Muslims living in Europe or the Netherlands?

Then it connects it back to Islam in Netherlands. The movie ends with a hand seen gripping a page of the Qur'an and a call to action from Wilders to defeat “Islamic ideology”, likening it to Communism and Nazism. I mean please is this for real?

How can you say that it is simply freedom of expression. It's not, its politically motivated to create division and sew fear in the general public against another set of people based around a religion.

You want to go rattle sabres about freedom of expression in Europe go publish anything that denies the holocaust, or print Mein Kampf (also banned in Netherlands), or make any kind of Nazi related object in Germany.

Will you go also defending freedom of expression then?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'TED talks, art, statistics, externalization, pollution, consumption, waste' to 'TED talks, art, statistics, consumption, waste, social ills' - edited by calvados

First Amendment also protects parodies. If you're doing something in parody, then you are protected under free speech because it's a form of criticism. However, some companies use the copyright laws to shut them down because they say they're taking their ideas and profiting from them. It's a sad world that let's the media giants get away with it, considering these parodies have in the past stopped government corruption and helped cure a lot of social ills. But in essence, that's what 5 Second Videos is doing . . . taking someone else's idea and using it as a parody to make a point, which is unmistakably legal. YouTube is in the wrong and acting as a censor . . . and thus violating firth amendment rights. (But don't get that confused with violating their TOS which they can use as a right to censor and are thus doing.)