So...the feds holding property they've held at least since 1907 as a wildlife refuge, or surroundings they've purchased since then, and leasing it to people like these at ridiculously low prices is 'creeping into our lives' and 'overgrowth of government'?
Um...yeah...how does that work?
These people committed arson on federal land DURING A WILDFIRE and were found guilty, and are sentenced under federal MINIMUM guidelines, not given the max, and these Bundy people are finding that an overreach of government...how?
The cognitive dissonance in their last statement would be hilarious if it wasn't an actual mindset so many people AGREE with when talking about white groups, but scoff at as self serving drivel when applied to black groups.
THESE people think the law is rigged against them? What should the Black Lives Matter people think when it's PROVEN the law is rigged against them, and it's their LIFE at stake, not their right to do whatever they want on other people's property, including arson, without consequence.
And can you imagine the terrified outrage on Fox if a group of armed BLM (Black Lives Matter) people took over a BLM (Bureau of Land Management) office, like these nutjobs did? Now consider the ridicule if they did it to 'protest' the mandatory sentencing of a convicted arsonist....who's black.

Oh...interesting to find out this as well....
-Many of the tactics and talking points being used were popularized in the 1970s by the white supremacist group Posse Comitatus. This group promoted the “Christian Patriot” movement, advocated the formation of “Citizens Militias,” helped forge an idiosyncratic reading of the Constitution, said the county sheriff was the highest elected official that should be obeyed, and opposed federal environmental restrictions.

Sweet Zombie Jesus!

Automatically replaced video embed code with backup #1907 (supplied by member GDGD) - video declared dead by member mxxcon.

Slavery is irrelevant to the plight of the black man today.

All people have equal chance at freedom for the last 50 years.


Most poor folks would rather take government handouts than lift themselves out of poverty. If I was in that position I suppose I would also take the handout.



Democratic policies and Democratic control of major cities have destroyed the black community


Out of the 10 poorest cities
Five cities have been led by Democrats for more than 45 years.
Two other cities, Miami, El Paso, have never had Republican mayors. Not ever.

Poverty
Rank City Democrat
Since
1 Detroit, MI 1961
2 Buffalo, NY 1954
3 Cincinnati, OH 1984
4 Cleveland, OH 1989
5 Miami, FL forever
6 St. Lewis, MO 1949
7 El Paso, TX forever
8 Milwaukee, WI 1908
9 Philadelphia, PA 1952
10 Newark, NJ 1907

Democratic policies and Democratic control of major cities have destroyed the black community.

If you want to help end racism and help black communities turn around then stop voting democrat.

"I think the best way of doing good to the poor is not making them easy in poverty but leading them or driving them out of it."
... Ben Franklin

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but Ron Paul is running a distant last place campaign with dismal national polling numbers. He has yet to win a single state primary and has no realistic chance at winning the race. Despite all of this, he gets plenty of news coverage - nearly 10,000 articles on google news.
To contrast, both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich - the second and third place winners in the nomination fight - are getting far less coverage than Paul. Why no tears for the media BLACKOUT on Rick and Newt?
I agree with you that all of the other candidates suck too.


I'm sorry to break it to you, but Ron Paul is running a close second, possibly first in delegates. Wikipedia shows him having won 2 primaries, contrary to your claim, and coming in second in 13 more with up to 36% of the vote. The rub is that is primary vote results, not delegates. The Paul campaign has made no secret that they are working for delegates, not votes...they are not the same thing. The delegates are elected in meetings held AFTER the primary vote, and are not required to vote with the populace...and Paul supporters more than anyone stayed and voted for delegates, and voted for themselves AS delegates, so Paul MAY have the most delegates and be the candidate at this point, there's no real telling until the convention. That was his clearly and publicly stated methodology at the beginning of the campaign, and is one more thing about Paul that was either barely or completely not reported on so few know, and fewer understand.
Hits on Google news are NOT the same as 'media coverage'...on broadcast/print media, Paul is almost completely ignored, is removed from polls AND primary result reporting repeatedly (even when he's close second or even first in polls), and when he is mentioned it's nearly always with derision and mockery. The most Paul reporting I've seen on broadcast was about the voting irregularities that put Romney in first in some states where Paul was somehow completely omitted before results had been reported from precincts, and the like. Again, fuel for conspiracy theorists if not actual conspiracy.
As for Santorum and Gingrich, they are NOT candidates, but are still mentioned (usually with a semblance of respect) on broadcast 'news' infinitely more than Paul, and he is at worst running second (out of 2 candidates left). It is the consistency of the omission and derision of his name in broadcast/print news that creates the APPEARANCE of conspiracy, especially when you consider he's one of two remaining candidates.

Sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but Ron Paul is running a distant last place campaign with dismal national polling numbers. He has yet to win a single state primary and has no realistic chance at winning the race. Despite all of this, he gets plenty of news coverage - nearly 10,000 articles on google news.

To contrast, both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich - the second and third place winners in the nomination fight - are getting far less coverage than Paul. Why no tears for the media BLACKOUT on Rick and Newt?

I agree with you that all of the other candidates suck too.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Your confusing the meaning of big. Big here is referring to scope. Like the thought experiment, the scope of the police force went from local to national...that is the size difference he was talking about.
How do you address the claim that large central government misrepresent larger portions of the populations due to their non-regional considerations?
US airports are not government facilities.
It is foolish to assume that local governments are more corrupt than distant ones. If the people right under your nose are muxing things up, how about the people 1400 miles away...how much more corrupt can they be without your constant eye? And when they are corrupt, they do it with a larger portion of pie. Granted, that pie might add up to the same pie that would be lost to local corruption of the whole system...but like the video suggests, you are more likely to catch and correct it on the local level.
Also, can you name one super large corporation that isn't also highly regulated, I can't. Microsoft is protected by intellectual property laws, the news giants all started as legal monopoly telco and cable providers, Energy has been quazi-government/private for decades, Rail roads where publicly sponsored then privately owned. Can you name one truly organic natural monopoly that arose from someones good business practices and not its status with government and regulations?

>> ^vaporlock:
I haven't finished watching this yet but hasn't everything been "getting bigger"? Our population, corporations, number of consumer products, number of food items in a supermarket, number of schools, number of airline flights, number of roads, etc, etc. Has government really grown at a rate greater than everything else? Can I really believe that my local town can regulate or even protect itself from big corporations? For example if a BP gas station leaks fuel into the water-table. Mind you my hometown has a problem even cutting the grass on the side of the highway.
I'm all for controlling how the government exploits the rest of the earth, but the airports, national parks, national laboratories, and roadways in the US are some of the best in the world. These were done partially by our "big government". You just have to look at the small governments in the South and local communities across the US to see real corruption.
OK... rant over... start video
After watching. I can say that I agree with the analysis but not the conclusion. Government is not the problem, it's corporate control over government. When you consider the growth of the military alone, his point about the growth of the government is mute. How big was the military in 1907, how big in 2007. The military is a huge percentage of the government, even bigger when you consider government contractors and corporations with contracts, etc. I'm guessing that the growth of the "military industrial complex" alone accounts for much of the 30% difference between 1907 and 2007.
Cut the military, stop f'cking with the rest of the world, guarantee civil rights for everybody, protect the environment, make sure the food and other consumer products are safe, maintain the roadways, support science and education, and I'm all for a big atheist government of the people.




I'm guessing he meant without federal funding of infrastructure our airports, for instance, wouldn't be as good as they are. example Yes, there are private options to this, but when you want to take a global edge in something at a large scale, the only option is the federal option.

The video is ostensibly true in that smaller governments are more efficient, with greater accountability in their daily minutia. However, there is a certain efficiency in extending 'good' programs to the entire country at once rather than requiring every small subsection to enact it independently. It's also pointless at this point(I'll do it anyway) to even mention that many inefficient programs are as a result of undue influence of special interest groups. Public campaign funding, greater transparency and more effective dissemination of information from watchdog groups are all ways of making the federal government more efficient. In this age, it should be possible to catch more of the bullshit happening, which the political media coverage consistently fails to do for various reasons.

Of course, there are many watchdog groups that examine the inner workings of the federal government, because it's large, centralized and presents a larger impact on the country. They often detect corruption but don't have the platform to spread their findings to the larger public unless a larger media conglomerate picks up on it. The geographic distance from a centralized government is not a significant factor in detecting corruption as it is balanced by the large number of eyes focusing on it. If you mean local populaces remaining unaware of how terrible their national representatives are, then you have a point. But this factor will hopefully be alleviated in the future through continuing improvement in getting information to the public.

Don't pretend oversight at the local level isn't without it's problems, though they tend to take a different form from the federal level.

Yes, I'm deeply concerned with the government handing out monopolies like candy. I favor copyright/patent reform.

tl;dr Government requires constant supervision and representatives should be treated like children and changed when they crap themselves. But we love them anyway because they're essential for society to continue.

Your confusing the meaning of big. Big here is referring to scope. Like the thought experiment, the scope of the police force went from local to national...that is the size difference he was talking about.

How do you address the claim that large central government misrepresent larger portions of the populations do to their non-regional considerations?

US airports are not government facilities.

It is foolish to assume that local governments are more corrupt than distant ones. If the people right under your nose are muxing things up, how about the people 1400 miles away...how much more corrupt can they be without your constant eye? And when they are corrupt, they do it with a larger portion of pie. Granted, that pie might add up to the same pie that would be lost to local corruption of the whole system...but like the video suggests, you are more likely to catch and correct it on the local level.

Also, can you name one super large corporation that isn't also highly regulated, I can't. Microsoft is protected by intellectual property laws, the news giants all started as legal monopoly telco and cable providers, Energy has been quazi-government/private for decades, Rail roads where publicly sponsored then privately owned. Can you name one truly organic natural monopoly that arose from someones good business practices and not its status with government and regulations?


>> ^vaporlock:

I haven't finished watching this yet but hasn't everything been "getting bigger"? Our population, corporations, number of consumer products, number of food items in a supermarket, number of schools, number of airline flights, number of roads, etc, etc. Has government really grown at a rate greater than everything else? Can I really believe that my local town can regulate or even protect itself from big corporations? For example if a BP gas station leaks fuel into the water-table. Mind you my hometown has a problem even cutting the grass on the side of the highway.
I'm all for controlling how the government exploits the rest of the earth, but the airports, national parks, national laboratories, and roadways in the US are some of the best in the world. These were done partially by our "big government". You just have to look at the small governments in the South and local communities across the US to see real corruption.
OK... rant over... start video
After watching. I can say that I agree with the analysis but not the conclusion. Government is not the problem, it's corporate control over government. When you consider the growth of the military alone, his point about the growth of the government is mute. How big was the military in 1907, how big in 2007. The military is a huge percentage of the government, even bigger when you consider government contractors and corporations with contracts, etc. I'm guessing that the growth of the "military industrial complex" alone accounts for much of the 30% difference between 1907 and 2007.
Cut the military, stop f'cking with the rest of the world, guarantee civil rights for everybody, protect the environment, make sure the food and other consumer products are safe, maintain the roadways, support science and education, and I'm all for a big atheist government of the people.

I haven't finished watching this yet but hasn't everything been "getting bigger"? Our population, corporations, number of consumer products, number of food items in a supermarket, number of schools, number of airline flights, number of roads, etc, etc. Has government really grown at a rate greater than everything else? Can I really believe that my local town can regulate or even protect itself from big corporations? For example if a BP gas station leaks fuel into the water-table. Mind you my hometown has a problem even cutting the grass on the side of the highway.

I'm all for controlling how the government exploits the rest of the earth, but the airports, national parks, national laboratories, and roadways in the US are some of the best in the world. These were done partially by our "big government". You just have to look at the small governments in the South and local communities across the US to see real corruption.

OK... rant over... start video

After watching. I can say that I agree with the analysis but not the conclusion. Government is not the problem, it's corporate control over government. When you consider the growth of the military alone, his point about the growth of the government is mute. How big was the military in 1907, how big in 2007. The military is a huge percentage of the government, even bigger when you consider government contractors and corporations with contracts, etc. I'm guessing that the growth of the "military industrial complex" alone accounts for much of the 30% difference between 1907 and 2007.

Cut the military, stop f'cking with the rest of the world, guarantee civil rights for everybody, protect the environment, make sure the food and other consumer products are safe, maintain the roadways, support science and education, and I'm all for a big atheist government of the people.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'pig, dancing, lady, 1907, french' to 'pig, dancing, lady, 1907, french, le chochon danseur' - edited by oxdottir

I beg to differ...

How about the panic of 1797, lasting 3 years
Depression of 1807 lasting 7 years
Panic of 1819 lasting 5 years
Recession of 1833-34 lasting 1 year
Panic of 1837 lasting 2 years
Depression of 1839-43 lasting 4 years (attributed largely to Jackson, one of the worst in history)
Recession of 1845-46 lasting a year
recession of 1847-48 lasting a year
recession of 1853-54 1 year
Panic of 1857 18 months
recession of 1860-61 8 months
recession of 1865-67 lasting 32 months
recession of 1869-70 lasting 18 months
panic of 1873 and the ensuing long depression lasting 65 months
recession of 1882-85 lasting 38 months
recession of 1887-88 lasting 13 months
recession of 1890-91 lasting 10 months
Panic of 1893 lasting 17 months
Panic of 1896 lasting 18 months
Recession of 1899-1900 lasting 18 months
Recession of 1902-04 lasting 23 months
panic of 1907 lasting 13 months
panic of 1910-11 lasting 24 months

Bang up job the old monetary policy was doing...

America's eugenics program, and individual eugenecists actually inspired (and supported) Hitler, to a certain degree:

Some states sterilized "imbeciles" for much of the 20th century. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1927 Buck v. Bell case that the state of Virginia could sterilize those it thought unfit. The most significant era of eugenic sterilization was between 1907 and 1963, when over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation in the United States.[63] A favorable report on the results of sterilization in California, the state with the most sterilizations by far, was published in book form by the biologist Paul Popenoe and was widely cited by the Nazi government as evidence that wide-reaching sterilization programs were feasible and humane. When Nazi administrators went on trial for war crimes in Nuremberg after World War II, they justified the mass sterilizations (over 450,000 in less than a decade) by citing the United States as their inspiration.[59] American eugenicists inspired and supported Hitler's racial purification laws, and failed to understand the connection between those policies and the eventual genocide of the Holocaust.[64]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#United_States

^ That's not the version of history I've read.

Most people say that we went from the Great Depression to 1973 without any real crashes or panics, and that that was a good thing. We then went from 1974 to now without any real crashes or panics (with a reasonable debate over whether 2001 counts as a real crash too, or if it's attached to 2009's crisis).

There's debate about the 1973 recession, but it seems reasonable to say that was a confluence of conditions that taught us something. Same with 1930. Probably the same will be true of 2009.

Before that, Great Depression-style crashes and panics were happening multiple times a decade (1907, 1901, 1896, 1893, 1893, 1890, etc.).

Most people consider centralized banking and banking regulation to have been at least part of the stabilization we saw in the 20th century, and that stabilization was a net benefit to the economy.

Schiff predicts inflation as a consequence of the massive bailout money that was created by the fed. I'm not convinced that he's wrong just because it isn't happening right now - the money sitting with the banks is going to have to leave sometime. They can do so slowly, so as not to shock the economy, but the amount that has to eventually leave is massive. This isn't to say I'm sure he's right either, though even if he's wrong it may not matter (read past the next paragraph for why).

The article mentions Japan creating a lot of yen to deal with the Asian economic crisis, but what it doesn't mention is that the Japanese government and people save money and have savings, compared to the American governments, and American consumers spending and debt.

One reason for why we shouldn't have a fed controlling the money supply, is that controlling inflation and deflation is not desirable in and of itself. It's only the effects on the economy that are good or bad.

The federal reserve bank has shown time and again that it can keep the currency relatively steady (with a slight increase in inflation every year), and yet we regularly have these economic crises fairly often, about once every decade. This did not happen with nearly the frequency it does now under more naive economic systems, pre 1913. Yes, the federal reserve act was created in response to just one such incident in 1907, but that's the problem with government acts. They're passed in response to rare events, so when the events become significantly more common, it isn't obvious that the frequency increased rather than decreased. By the time the next rare undesirable event happens (a little sooner than it otherwise would have), people conclude that the act is working, but we need to do more of it.

In the long term I see little reason to conclude that the federal reserve has a stabilizing effect on that economy, or that it's even desirable to control the amount of inflation or deflation.

We would be better off not worrying not so much about inflation and deflation, and instead wonder why our economy crashes every 10 years. Which isn't to say I'd like to utterly disband the fed immediately, the effects on our economy would be terrible. I submit to you that our economy wouldn't crash more often or be any worse if we never had a central bank.

Wikipedia has an article entitled
"Torture and the United States"

Here it is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_and_the_United_States

Fascinating read. There's a great picture of a 'whipping chair' in a Delaware prison from 1907.



When you've read that, why not wash it down with "Human Rights Record of the United States"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Record_of_the_United_States

FASCINATING information about American human rights abuses around the world. All of it has been denied of course.

Austrian Economics has been proven wrong so many times that it's laughable to see it even brought up again. The Panic of 1907 was the final nail in the Austrian coffin.