I believe he is right in speaking on state's rights but I think his example is not well thought out. He compares many of his and others views on rights and says that it's their turn to act like the rednecks in the 60s who wanted to maintain segregation. Well if he looks back at what happened he won't be too happy. The US government stepped in and said Nope ain't gonna happen and used the courts, military, and other resources to force the beginning of the end of segregation. So to carry his analogy to it's logical conclusion then the US government would step in and say Nope to their sanctuary cities, gay marriage,women's choice, and all of the other concepts he listed.

Like I said I believe in state's rights and agree with him in concept on what he was saying. Just think he used a very poor analogy to make his point.

Your video, The US Government's $983 Freeze-Dried Urine, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

@Mordhaus @ChaosEngine
I knew about the 2012 referendum, and the lack of overwhelming support for the direct yes/no question to change the current status or stay with the status quo (about 55% wanted to change, 45% wanted to stay back then). Didn't know about the most recent vote on it -- thanks for the heads up.


Personally I'd like to see PR become the 51st state, but I think my opinion is drastically less important than that of the people actually living there. Basically, I think they should make the choice and the US government should honor it whichever way they choose.

I'm not in the know enough to have a good opinion on whether or not they would need some sort of payout / debt severance / whatever, but I'd be OK with it if it was deemed a good thing to do. On the other hand, if they went independent they'd have the right to set corporate tax rates etc. to pay off debts and/or chase out US based businesses that are taking unfair advantage. Maybe that'd be enough of an olive branch without requiring an additional "severance package", I dunno.

@newtboy
gonna have to disagree with ya there mate.

not so much on the speculation in regards to trump involvement,or some kind of capitulation with russia.there quite possibly be some co-ordination between the kremlin and the trump administration.trumps alleged ties with putin may all be true,but until i see some actual evidence,that is all it will ever be;speculation.

and i think chomsky's criticism is a valid one.
the "russia russia russia" drum beating is reminiscent of the republicans and their meth-induced media barrage of "benghazi benghazi benghazi",and even after their precious political whipping tool had been debunked,they STILL beat that drum.

and of course it is hypocritical of the US government to cry about political election interference! america has been interfering with other,sovereign countries democratic elections for decades!

because here in murica' we like our allies to be either be run by despotic leaders,or rigid theocracies,because democracies are hard to manipulate and control.can't be bribing an entire citizenry now can we? we like our foreign allies like we like our meat,juicy and tender and easy pickings.

now i am not here to defend putin.the man is a brutal authoritarian,who may appear to some as a russian patriot,but i just see a ruthless and saavy political player who appeases the only constituency that matters to him.the russian oligarchs,and they OWN that fucking joint.

but it was NATO who began to encroach on russian borders,not the other way around.in fact,as early as the 80's we began that encroachment.we lied to gorbachev,who was removed as president in shame,to be replaced by yeltsin.who was america's pick for their own little tool of the kremlin.

russia's military build-up has been a direct response to our ever-increasing wars of aggression in the middle east.putin has stated so publicly.

russia's biggest export is oil and natural gas,and russia pretty much is the sole provider for all of europe.with our wars in the middle east,and now qatar aggressively seeking to push through their own oil and gas pipeline to sell to europe.(what?you thought yemen and syria were about civil wars and terrorists?).

what did you THINK russia was going to do?
sit back and let their only major export be challenged?

and now that trump,like the buffoon he is,publicly stated that if the baltic states are not willing to pay their fair share towards NATO,then they will be removed.opening the door for putin.

poor latvia...

but lets waste all this time on "russia russia russia",while ignoring the larger implications of a fucking world war.

did russia manipulate US elections?
possibly..probably..
was the trump administration complicit?
possibly..probably..

is their any evidence beside speculation,and coincidence?
nope.

chomsky makes a valid point.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html

You conflate illegal immigrants with immigrants.

Learn the difference and your first paragraph is pure nonsense. Also, what support do you have for the conclusion that illegal immigration has more negatives than positives? Illegal immigrants in general have a lower crime rate, support businesses, they work hard and pay taxes (which is more than can be said for Trump). Give me some data, ANY data to support your claim.

They "could" have come legally, you say. Well, no, that's the thing, most of them couldn't have. So that's a straight-up lie on your part. Couple that with the incentives the US government gives them to come illegally and why wouldn't they come? Yes, incentives, if the govt doesn't want them they need to take away the jobs, instead they pass rules to protect businesses that hire illegal immigrants.

The rest of your "argument" is mostly nonsense, so I won't even bother with it. WTF does Upton Sinclair have to do with it?

If we are going to start pointing fingers at countries, almost every single country in the world has used immigrant labor to keep itself functional. You can't single out the USA for relying on it, and as I mentioned, the USA is far from being the only country starting to realize that illegal immigration has more negatives than positives.

I have never hired an illegal. It is possible that they US government should increase work visas, I would not care as long as people were here legally. This also isn't 'The Jungle', I am pretty sure that Upton Sinclair would laugh if you compared the living conditions and quality of life that our current immigrants have compared to then.

I disagree with your example, this is not a situation where the people did not have other options. They could have applied to come here legally, choosing not to do so because it is far easier to ignore the law does not make them addicts to a chemical substance.

@Mordhaus

Except that the United States has for many decades relied on undocumented immigrants as a source of low-wage labor to do the jobs most Americans don't want. Now all of a sudden, after using their cheap labor to keep failing American agriculture and manufacturing alive you just want to yank the carpet out from under them?

Most of the people now up in arms about the "scourge" of illegal immigrants have HIRED illegals at one time or another (in the case of Trump, I'm sure he still employs dozens of hundreds). The US Government could simply have issued more work visas and enforced the rules more closely, but why do that when your buddies can charge sub-minimum wage and stiff their employees on the paycheck whenever they feel like it without fear of repercussion? Instead they wink and nod, punishing the immigrants occasionally, but rarely (if ever) touching the businesses who KNEW they were employing illegals.

It's like ignoring the drug dealers and traffickers for decades, then suddenly deciding drug USERS are a scourge who must be punished.

@bcglorf
i feel i have to ask you a question,and i feel quite foolish for not thinking of asking it before.

i do not ask this snidely,or with any disrespect.

are you a neo-conservative?

because this "If he was on America soil, I'd agree with you. If he was living in a European apartment, I'd agree with you. Heck, if he was living in Russia I'd agree with you."

is almost verbatim the counter argument that was published,ad nauseum,in the weekly standard.which is a neo-conservative publication.edited by bill-the bloody-kristol.

and it would also explain why we sometimes just simply cannot agree on some issues.

ok,let's unpack your comment above that quoted.i won;t address the rest of your comment,not because i find it unworthy,it is simply a reiteration of your original argument,which we have addressed already.

so...
you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.

ok,i disagree,but the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012 actually agree with you and give the president cover to deem an american citizen an "enemy combatant".however,the region where this "enemy combatant" is not the deciding factor,though many have tried to make a different case,the simple fact is that the president CAN deem you an "enemy combatant' and CAN order your assassination by drone,or seal team or any military outlet,or spec-ops...regardless of where you are at that moment.

now you attempt to justify this order of death by "The reality is he was supporting mass killing from within a lawless part of the world were no police or courts would touch him. He was living were the only force capable of serving any manner of arrest warrant was military."

if THIS were a true statement,and the ONLY avenue left was for a drone strike.then how do you explain how this man was able to:foment dissent,organize in such a large capacity to incite others to violence and co-ordinate on such an impressive scale?

anwars al awlaki went to yemen to find refuge..yes,this is true.
but a btter qustion is:was the yemeni government being unreasonable and un-co-operative to a point where legal extradition was no longer a viable option?

well,when we look at what the state department was attempting to do and the yemeni response,which was simply:provide evidence that anwars al awlaki has perpetrated a terrorist attack,and we will release him.it is not like they,and the US government,didn't know where he lived.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.

and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

in fact,some people forget that in the days after 9/11 osama actually denied having anything to do with 9/11,though he praised the act.

so here we have the US on one hand.with the largest military on the planet,the largest and most encompassing surveillance system.so vast the stasi would be green with envy.a country whose military and intelligence apparatus is so massive and vast that we pay other countries to house black sites.so when t he president states "america does not torture",he is not lying,we pay OTHER people to torture.

so when i see the counter argument that the US simply cannot adhere to international laws,nevermind their OWN laws,because they cannot "get" their guy.

is bullshit.

it's not that they cannot "find" nor "get" their target.the simple fact is that a sovereign nation has decided to disobey it's master and defy the US.so the US defies international treaties and laws and simply sends in a drone and missiles that fucker down.

mission accomplished.

but lets ask another question.
when do you stop being an american citizen?
at what point do you lose all rights as a citizen?
do we use cell phone coverage as a metric?
the obedience of the country in question?

i am just being a smart ass right now,because the point is moot.
the president can deem me an "enemy combatant" and if he so chose,send a drone to target my house,and he would have the legal protection to have done so.

and considering just how critical i am,and have been,of bush,obama and both the republican and democrats.

it would not be a hard job for the US state department and department of justice to make a case that i was a hardline radical dissident,who was inciting violence and stirring up hatred in people towards the US government,and even though i have never engaged in terrorism,nor engaged in violence against the state.

all they would need to do is link me with ONE person who did happen to perpetrate violence and slap the blame on me.

i wonder if that would be the point where you might..maybe..begin to question the validity of stripping an american citizen of their rights,and outright have them executed.

because that is what is on the line right now.
and i am sorry but "he spoke nasty things about us,and some of those terrorists listened to him,and he praised violence against us".

the argument might as well be:enoch hurt our feelings.

tell ya what.
let's use the same metric that you are using:
that awlaki incited violence and there were deaths directly due to his words.

in 2008 jim david akinsson walked into a unitarian church in tennesee and shot and killed two people,and wounded seven others.

akinsson was ex military and had a rabid hatred of liberals,democrats and homosexuals.

he also happened to own every book by sean hannity,and was an avid watcher of FOX news.akinsson claimed that hannity and his show had convinced him that thsoe dirty liberals were ruining his country,and he targeted the unitarian church because it "was against god".

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

because,again using YOUR logic,yes..yes we do.

i am trying my best to get you to reconsider your position,because..in my opinion...on an elementary moral scale..to strip someone of their rights due to words,praise and/or support..and then to have them executed without due process,or have at least the ability to defend themselves.

is wrong.

i realize i am simply making the same argument,but using different examples.which is why i asked,sincerely,if you were a neo-conservative.

because they believe strongly that the power and authority of the american empire is absolute.they are of the mind that "might makes right",and that they have a legal,and moral,obligation to expand americas interest,be it financial or industrial,and to use the worlds largest military in order to achieve those goals.they also are of the belief that the best defense is the best offense,and to protect the empire by any means necessary.(usually military).

which is pretty reflective of our conversations,and indicative of where our disagreements lie.

i dunno,but i suspect that i have not,nor will i,change your position on this matter.

but i tried dude...i really did try.

I can't really disagree with that, but it has to be said that the issues that are not brought up are distinctly non-partisan--that is, the issues that are not brought up are the ones that are disadvantageous to both parties.

For instance, no one talks about gerrymandering anymore. It clearly benefits both parties, but it is destroying our political system by creating disincentives to working across the aisle with the other party.

In my view, there are three major structural reforms in the US government that need to be addressed: 1) Gerrymandering 2) Campaign finance and 3) regulatory capture. Of these three, only the second one is addressed by either candidate, but not in a satisfying way.

We need major reforms in healthcare and economic wealth distribution, and we need to prepare ourselves for certain worldwide economic changes due to technological innovation and globalization, but until we deal with those three major issues, we won't be able to make any headway.

The ugliness of an idea reflects on the people who hold it. Islam is an utterly abhorrent ideology; it must be correct to say that its followers are in some degree less worthy than those who endorse better ethical systems.

Why do muslims deserve to live safely, to be treated with the dignity afforded to human beings, when they deny the same rights to others? There is such a thing as self-defence.

Hey @newtboy, when was the last time the US government executed someone for the crime of homosexuality?

Go into any community in America practically. If you look you will find churches feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, visiting the sick, and generally providing help for the neediest members of the community. Because I am part of such a community, I see that going on first hand each and every day. I know people who have been tirelessly doing these kinds of things for decades and have never received a penny from any of it. The only reason they do it is because they love God and love people. You dont get to see those kinds of Christians because they don't call attention to themselves. Many of them, especially the older generations, aren't even on the internet.

Inevitably, the US Government will end the tax exemption for the church because that is the way things are going in the world. Eventually, anti-christians will have their wish; Christians will be hated by all nations and there will be an attempt to exterminate them globally as it is happening right now in the middle east. That is prophecy from the Lord Jesus Christ, and when that happens, remember that He said it would happen. I hope and pray for all of you, as the world grows darker and the end looms, that you will know in your soul that what is happening is wrong even if everyone else says it is right. I pray you will have the conviction in your heart to turn to the Lord before it is too late. God bless.

Matthew 24:9

Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake

The economy has of course added jobs under Obama but you really can't talk about the unemployment rate (% unemployed of those actively looking for work) without factoring in the participation rate (% of in the labor force working or looking for work out of the population) which has been dropping since 2000 in the US.

This is not explained by baby boom retirees as even if you take a narrow 25-54 measure you see the same decline. China's acceptance into the WTO ('95) is often talked about as a turning point as it was in some ways an abrupt green light to many companies that opened up a huge labor pool and a led to an influx of outsourcing. I would argue the US government among many others has done a poor job of retraining manufacturing workers and financially supporting them to be mobile to find work elsewhere.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNS11300060

Sigh... Don't care. I know its true. Here's a story about it a year before the russian government propaganda channel decided to "Report it"

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/07/14/pentagons-big-budget-f-35-fighter-cant-turn-cant-climb-cant-run/

My point was that RT could have proof that the US government was responsible for every murder and death the world over since 1776 and I still would not care . Simply because of who is saying it.

1 - Well let me deconstruct that a bit. Presumably you rely on news, how can you rely on any of it to be trustworthy? Several ways obviously, I would say the main are (A) Ownership, (B) Reputation and (C) Funding.

A - Ownership - RT (and it's web of shadowy news sites pretending to be local) are owned by the Kremlin or clearly Kremlin linked oligarchs. Their incentives should be clear, promote the Putin narrative. When all independent TV news has been shuttered within Russia or taken over, you would expect these outfits to be heavily biased towards propaganda. I would similarly have to be suspect of outfits like Voice of America (US government funded). Corporate news sources have their own incentives. I happen to like the Economist but I'm mindful of its ownership involving the Rothschild family and Eric Schmidt (Google) being on the board for example. After all, every news outfit is owned by someone.

B - Reputation - This is the main one to me. You can say what you will about Western media, but there is a cultural expectation among its people and its reporters of the freedom to report newsworthy stories. There are obviously biases and those form part of the news source's reputation. We know TV news tend to be short on fact and sensationalist. Equally, we know Fox News to be right wing. We inevitably find these things out because no matter how much a news owner might want to control its message, freedom of speech sees the reputation leak out. We have reports (regarding Fox for example) that memos go out to use specific language like "Climategate" or we have controversies such as when photos of NYT reporters were photoshopped with yellow teeth.

C - Funding - Advertising vs Subscription, but that's not really relevant here.

My main point is, relying on Putin directly or any of his web of 'news' to get information about Russia or America is particularly silly. We know their ownership, reputation and thereby incentives. Or any state backed news. For corporate news, ultimately any bias from ownership, reputation or say government influence will leak out.

2 - I don't see him as any more politically effective or intelligent than necessarily any other major leader. If I've expressed anything here it should be that what Putin says is just as calculated and manipulative as any politician. Just because it has a veneer of 'speaking truth to power' or recounts some truths does not mean it is true in its entirety. Bluster and waging wars is politically popular in Russia, he is simply playing to a different audience. I would say any notion that he is more 'objective' is farcical. After all the kind of imperialism that he decries of America is the exact kind he's engaged in in Ukraine and now Syria!

The way he explained how those drones are used and how targets are selected make it quite obvious that they're nothing more than weapons of terror.
The implications of that are clear, the US government engages in terrorism, imho.