Congress does not have a century of a generally poor track record. The US has been the most prosperous country in the history of the planet the last century, and it's not even close. And much of what has made the US so economically prosperous had a lot to do with gov't decisions on where to spend money such as creation of the Fed, FDIC, etc., funding the industrial/military complex which led to things like NASA, computers, the internet; federal grants, scholarships, and funding for public universities; nuclear technologies that led to things from nuclear reactors to home microwaves, electrification with programs like the TVA and the Hoover Dam which developed entire regions economically, medical funding, I could go on and on and on.

You completely, utterly lack any historical perspective. No civilization on the planet prospered as well as the US did in the last century. I'm not crediting Congress for it all, but it's lunacy to say federal gov't spending didn't play a major role. Just because debts were run doesn't mean they made poor decisions.

So let's talk about those million voters. Have you looked at the kind of financial decisions we Americans are making. With all the talk about how banks screwed consumers in mortgages, who were the idiots who agreed to said mortgages? Way too many Americans, even during the boom, were a paycheck or two away from being broke, had virtually no savings, overpaid for houses, weren't investing/saving for retirement, etc. I'm sorry, but the general public, including voters, are god awful at handling money. Even some people who are generally financially responsible are this way because of hardline rules they refuse to break like never using credit to buy anything other than a house or MAYBE a car. Can you imagine how many businesses would exist if loans weren't taken out to start them? Such people have no idea how to be entrepreneurial and borrow money to increase productivity.

I'm sorry, but no. I'd take even the foolish budgetary decisions of the last 10 years than allow the general public to allocate the federal budget. They're clueless.

Dude, Schiff is the one spewing the most ridiculous things from a historical perspective I've ever heard, not West. Are you saying right now that Schiff is right that child labor was ended by the free market, not gov't regulation?! That's just patently absurd!

He's saying that a guarantee of deposits by the FDIC fueled speculation. Okay, so when and why was it instituted? In *1933*, it was instituted *after* massive stock speculation among other causes triggered the Stock Market Crash of 1929, which triggered the Great Depression. As banks had invested in stocks, etc themselves (outlawed by Glass-Steagall), made bad loans, including to allow people to buy stocks on credit, etc. etc. people made runs on the banks to get their deposits out before the banks went belly up, regardless of if individual banks themselves participated in the speculation because no one knew which banks were actually in trouble. Some Depression era people put their money "under their mattresses" and a few kept that attitude up until their deaths because of those runs on the banks. The FDIC was instituted to get people to put money back into banks to rebuild on hand deposits, so banks would be able to lend again and actually stay in business. We had the FDIC for almost 80 years now, and the banking system has remarkably MORE stable than it was before the FDIC without any doubt, and this clown says it fuels speculation?! You know what you didn't see in the last recession when the market tanked? MASSIVE RUNS ON MOST BANKS! That's precisely why we have it! And it's logically ridiculous on the surface of it. Just think about it. The FDIC guarantees that I get MY money back if I deposit it to a bank that is FDIC insured, and the bank goes belly up. What happens to the bank if it makes bad decisions? It goes belly up. So why would the bank speculate in that situation due specifically to the FDIC?! THEY STILL GO BELLY UP! You can say the bank bailouts had something to do with it because now the Goldman Sachs of the world know that gov't won't let too big to fails fail. I'm sympathetic to that argument, but the FDIC's insurance on deposits?! RIDICULOUS!

Peter Schiff is not correct here. It's some of the most patently ridiculous things I've heard yet about the economy. If you've read my posts, I'm as pragmatic as one could possibly be, and I'm without a doubt a moderate. I don't give a crap whether specific gov't regulations work or not, but I don't attempt to blind myself with ideology, but this clown is going to great lengths to fundamentally rewrite historical record that's basic freaking fact about the US prior, during, and after the Great Depression that even a basic historical understanding would allow anyone to realize he's an idiot, or is at best making a disingenuous argument to trumpet free market economics for the sake of itself.

>> ^bobknight33:

Peter Schiff is correct. Cornell West foolishly wrong. He teaches African studies which teaches jack about how economies work.

That, and the movie. Mostly the movie.

>> ^Reefie:

>> ^Morganth:
November 5th, really? Okay, those people obsessing over V for Vendetta really need to get over it.

November 5th is the date that Guy Fawkes attempted to blow up parliament in the UK back in 1605, Brits celebrate the occasion every year and it's hard to find someone who doesn't recognise the phrase "Remember remember the fifth of November". I don't think Anonymous chose the date because of a film, I believe it was chosen because of the significance of the date from a historical perspective.

>> ^Morganth:
November 5th, really? Okay, those people obsessing over V for Vendetta really need to get over it.


November 5th is the date that Guy Fawkes attempted to blow up parliament in the UK back in 1605, Brits celebrate the occasion every year and it's hard to find someone who doesn't recognise the phrase "Remember remember the fifth of November". I don't think Anonymous chose the date because of a film, I believe it was chosen because of the significance of the date from a historical perspective.

I wouldn't be surprised if all that is true. Why not? Just about everyone was a professed Christian back then, and church leaders held a lot of sway, so why shouldn't more than half the founding fathers have seminary degrees? Jefferson certainly believed in Jesus, if not the bible. Just from a historical perspective, this is a great sift. If it's also lies, then it's a bit less interesting to me.

Uh, where exactly did Christian influences play a role in that? >> ^Reefie:

>> ^EMPIRE:
yeah... arabic mentality is not exactly the most respectful towards women (surprise, surprise!).

Wasn't always like that so it's not fair to generalise. Take a look at how women used to be treated in Afghanistan, they were worshipped and were easily the equals of men (worth also pointing out that the Koran classes men and women as equals). It's only since the end of the second world war when religions such as Christianity and Islam worked to change the perceived role of women in Afghan society so that the last half a decade has radically altered the standing of women in that country. King Amanullah worked very hard to promote women's empowerment in the early 20th century, but all his work has been undone, and from a historical perspective we only need to look towards the Christian and Taliban influences at work in that country to understand how it all got fucked up.

I wasn't talking about how women were treated in the past, or will be treated in the future. I'm talking about the current mentality towards women in most arabic countries.

Sure there's still a lot of discrimination against women in almost every country in the world. But in arabic countries it's particularly bad.

>> ^Reefie:

>> ^EMPIRE:
yeah... arabic mentality is not exactly the most respectful towards women (surprise, surprise!).

Wasn't always like that so it's not fair to generalise. Take a look at how women used to be treated in Afghanistan, they were worshipped and were easily the equals of men (worth also pointing out that the Koran classes men and women as equals). It's only since the end of the second world war when religions such as Christianity and Islam worked to change the perceived role of women in Afghan society so that the last half a decade has radically altered the standing of women in that country. King Amanullah worked very hard to promote women's empowerment in the early 20th century, but all his work has been undone, and from a historical perspective we only need to look towards the Christian and Taliban influences at work in that country to understand how it all got fucked up.

>> ^EMPIRE:
yeah... arabic mentality is not exactly the most respectful towards women (surprise, surprise!).


Wasn't always like that so it's not fair to generalise. Take a look at how women used to be treated in Afghanistan, they were worshipped and were easily the equals of men (worth also pointing out that the Koran classes men and women as equals). It's only since the end of the second world war when religions such as Christianity and Islam worked to change the perceived role of women in Afghan society so that the last half a decade has radically altered the standing of women in that country. King Amanullah worked very hard to promote women's empowerment in the early 20th century, but all his work has been undone, and from a historical perspective we only need to look towards the Christian and Taliban influences at work in that country to understand how it all got fucked up.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Gee - a video where some guy with an axe to grind portrays himself as an innocent victim and paints the other guy as Satan's toilet paper. This is a unique, never before seen thing on Videosift... :eyeroll:
Unlike many, I have a longer historical perspective. Back before Ted Kennedy ruined the American Health Care system with his forced HMO legislation, the U.S. had a truly 'private' system. Hospitals, doctors, and all related services were private, or funded by charitable donations like churches. There was a 'public' arm as well. If a person couldn't pay, they were sent to the COUNTY clinic. County clinics were much cheaper. Doctors & nurses at the county clinics were either still in residency, or were still in the educational process (college). The poor and needy could go to the local county clinic and get good service for a cut-rate price.
Everyone else negotiated with the doctor or hospital at a 1 to 1 level. Prices were affordable, because hospitals would not charge insane prices at the risk of having their customers go to some other doctor. Competition kept things honest. Insurance still existed, but it was CATASTROPHIC CARE insurance which only kicked in for major medical needs like surgeries and so forth. Because of this, insurance was very very cheap.
The solution is not a fake 'public' system like Canada where the government has its death panel to regulate what is covered and what isn't. The solution is not faux socialism that hides the costs, pretending they are 'free', by cramming it into ever-increasing taxation. The solution is total 100% privitization and the abolition of Ted Kennedy's moronic HMO monstrosity that screwed up the system in the first place.


Wow, you know, once in a great, great while, you make sense, and come off as someone who actually investigates things and comes up with their own view and opinion. Then invariably, as in your last paragraph, you end up talking out your ass.

Gee - a video where some guy with an axe to grind portrays himself as an innocent victim and paints the other guy as Satan's toilet paper. This is a unique, never before seen thing on Videosift... :eyeroll:

Unlike many, I have a longer historical perspective. Back before Ted Kennedy ruined the American Health Care system with his forced HMO legislation, the U.S. had a truly 'private' system. Hospitals, doctors, and all related services were private, or funded by charitable donations like churches. There was a 'public' arm as well. If a person couldn't pay, they were sent to the COUNTY clinic. County clinics were much cheaper. Doctors & nurses at the county clinics were either still in residency, or were still in the educational process (college). The poor and needy could go to the local county clinic and get good service for a cut-rate price.

Everyone else negotiated with the doctor or hospital at a 1 to 1 level. Prices were affordable, because hospitals would not charge insane prices at the risk of having their customers go to some other doctor. Competition kept things honest. Insurance still existed, but it was CATASTROPHIC CARE insurance which only kicked in for major medical needs like surgeries and so forth. Because of this, insurance was very very cheap.

The solution is not a fake 'public' system like Canada where the government has its death panel to regulate what is covered and what isn't. The solution is not faux socialism that hides the costs, pretending they are 'free', by cramming it into ever-increasing taxation. The solution is total 100% privitization and the abolition of Ted Kennedy's moronic HMO monstrosity that screwed up the system in the first place.

Her -appearance- may moderate their reputation...her words and concepts reek of magical thinking, and have little to do with truth, logic, or historical perspective. Her primary appeal will be to those who value appearance over substance... And frankly, that's pulling supporters from the same shallow end of the gene pool they're already recruiting from.

Who do you consider a great speaker?

Great speakers? Ronald Reagan, JFK, MLKJ. I'd even go so far as to say Bill Clinton was a good public speaker. Obama is an 'adequate' speaker. He does a workman job. He isn't a BAD public speaker, but he's definitely no maven like some people keep saying.

I picked out the man-child's speech register after hearing him only once. Listen to him. Obama has a clearly predictable and generally boring cadance - almost like a 'tide'. He ... PAUSES ... and then he ... CONTINUES to speak for a second before he ... PAUSES again and keeps on rolling and ... ROLLING until he ... STOPS again and ... FINISHES! You can almost set your watch by this little routine of his.

This is an artifact not of rhetorical prowess. It is an artifact of his dependance on his teleprompter. He is pausing and giving the prompter time to scroll up what he's saying next. Then he rushes though a few words to 'catch up' and then he ... PAUSES again, hitting emphasis on whatever word where he picks up his speech on. Not only is he totally dependant on his teleprompter, but he isn't even really very good at using it. Other speakers can use a teleprompter and sound natural. Obama sounds like he's fighting with it.

And don't get me started on his stupid head swing. Watching his head swap from teleprompter screen to teleprompter screen in a speech is like watching a game of tennis. Or maybe it is more like watching a lighthouse. Anyway - the guy just isn't very natural when he's moving his head. Bleh. The point with a teleprompter is to make it look like you AREN'T using it. Obama's method draws attention to his mechanical delivery. He gets the words out fine. He just looks and sounds forced and stilted doing it.

Simply put, the free market system for health worked fine in America until the 60's

BINGO! Nice to finally meet someone with historical perspective. Too many Americans are too young and ignorant of history and fact. Alas it takes a Canadian to point out the bleeding obvious to some of our youth. American health care was screwed up by GOVERNMENT. Ted Kennedy specifically was the one who passed his stupid HMO law which (basically) CREATED the insurance industry in America as we know it today. Up until that point, consumers dealt with doctors directly out of their own pockets. And guess what? When you take middle-men out of the picture, capitalism works just fine. Health care was affordable. Plans existed for catastrophic care, and they were easily affordable by almost everyone. The only thing HMO's accomplished was totally screwing up the relationship between providers and buyers. The solution to America's HC issue is not more government. The solution is LESS.

No Deathcow, he doesn't have to agree with me - but it helps if he doesn't stereotype people (my people, BTW) as 'out of touch with reality'.

Thanks for the geography lesson. In Nunavut, today, the population density is roughly 1 person for every 63 square kilometers. Your point?

I never said people of European descent have no right to live there, don't be thick. I did, however, imply that it was rich for you to complain about THEM, from a historical perspective and all.

And that message wasn't private you hoser, I purposely left it as a public message.

Once one removes 'fear' and 'racism' from conservative playbooks, one removes 90% of what conservatives have to talk about. Mr. Pennypacker and Mr. Quantumushroom are easy examples of this concept.

One should always fear an ideologue who wants to remake America in his bizarre communist image, especially when he has the unquestioning support of state-run media. Anyone with an INKLING of historical perspective knows Obama is a fascist wolf dressed as a centrist lamb.

Bush was booed by taxocrats in '05 for telling the truth during his speech, while Obama was lying through his Teleprompter.

As far as the illegal "controversy" goes, anyone who believes that illegals will somehow be barred from taking advantage of the next round of "free" entitlements deserves a giant F for FOOL branded into their forehead. Illegals are a too-important voting bloc for traitorcrats.

One
Big
Ass
Mistake
America

Whether torture achives information cannot justify it. At least not to a civilized nation.

I gave a framework of acceptable pressure. Everyone else mouths platitudes. ANYTHING is torture if you are doing it to an unwilling subject - including puppy lickings, and force-feeding doughnuts. The cop-out of 'no torture wah!' is a dodge to avoid being specific, and I reject it because no alternative is being offered.

DEFINE what you consider to be an acceptable level of pressure to apply to captured subjects who have intel and are non-cooperative. Until one of you can supply an alternative to 'torture' then you have no case. Specifically, and clearly state what you would do. Then explain why your choice ISN'T torture. If you can't do this, then I dismiss your objections as emotive reactionism.

I said "we created 'this' problem",

Your lack antecedents is poor communication, not my lack of comprehension. I was supposed to deduce from one word (this) that you were talking about Afghanistan circa 1980s? :eyeroll:

Regardless, your selective history seems to be little more than talking points from MoveOn.stupid. "Islamofascism" existed long before the 1980s. America's very first venture into international affairs was a result of radical islamic attacks on private citizens. Please detail what foreign policy offenses the United States had committed in the late 1700s which caused our citizens to be the targets of islamofacists in the First Barbary War...

You do not have my depth of historical perspective perhaps, which makes your opinion amusing and quaint. Your assertion that radical Islamic terrorism 'began' as a result of the lack of follow through in Afghanistan is almost cute in its ignorance.

I would put it to you that you have failed in step 1 of developing a proper understanding of a subject. You started with a conclusion (America created terrorism!) and then you opted to cherry-pick isolated historical examples from baised sources which tangentally appear to support your conclusion. This is a common failure of simple, abecedarian thinkers. I am pleased to open the wider world of proper critical thinking to your inexperienced view.

In the not too distant past we have had it within our power to improve the quality of life for millions of people in third world nations.

You speak as if we stopped having that power. America remains the single largest charitable donor to 3rd world nations. We improve the quality of life for millions. Don't be so blind to the many good things America does. You don't like 'the Bush war' or other policy mess-ups? Fine. But to say America's power to help people is 'in the past' is a stupid thing to say and shows incredible ignorance or incredible bias (pick one).