Automatically replaced video embed code with backup #1930 (supplied by member brunopuntzjones) - video declared dead by member Xax.

He sounds like a 1930's announcer. Looks like one too.

In case anyone thinks this is a shocking case of casual domestic violence in 1930s America, I think you almost got the point of the scene. Tom Powers (played by Jimmy) is a sadistic gang leader that isn't just running bootleg alcohol - he's demanding booze for breakfast. He would eventually be gunned down by police in a similar 'Rise and Fall' as Pacino went through in Scarface.

So if you thought Cagney was being an asshole - that's because that was precisely what he was being directed to be and precisely why the film was regarded so highly (since previous Tough Guys/criminals had all been portrayed by attractive, well-spoken Thespians!).

Date: April 27th, 2010

The Forgotten Man

By Robert Ringer

Why have the combined mudslinging voices of the media (so called), Congressional Democrats, and the thin-skinned boy wonder who occupies the Oval Office not been able to turn the tide against the tea partiers? If you look at the poll numbers, the answer is obvious: Most Americans are tea partiers.

However, most of them are not yet in enough pain to skip a day at the ball park and stand in a crowd of thousands (sometimes tens of thousands) and listen to tea-party speakers. That’s a shame, but it doesn’t change the fact that they identify with the tea-party movement.

So, what is the common bond with which they identify? Taxes? Healthcare? Financial regulation? I thought about this question as I was rereading Amity Shlaes’ landmark book, The Forgotten Man. In it, she quotes Yale philosopher William Graham Sumner, who, clear back in 1883, explained the crux of the moral problem with progressivism as follows:

”As soon as A observes something which seems to him to be wrong, from which X is suffering, A talks it over with B, and A and B then propose to get a law passed to remedy the evil and help X. Their law always proposes to determine … what A, B, and C shall do for X.”

Shlaes goes on to add: ”But what about C? There was nothing wrong with A and B helping X. What was wrong was the law, and the indenturing of C to the cause. C was the forgotten man, the man who paid, ‘the man who never is thought of.”’

In other words, C is the guy who isn’t bothering anyone, but is forced to supply the funds to help the X’s of the world, those whom power holders unilaterally decide have been treated unfairly and must be compensated.

FDR, however, did a switcheroo on Sumner’s point by removing the moniker of ”the forgotten man” from C and giving it to X – ”the poor man, the old man, labor, or any other recipient of government help.” Very clever … very Obamanistic. As I recall, FDR originally used the phrase the forgotten man to refer to the victims of the dust bowl in the 1930s. Zap! Just like that, Sumner’s forgotten man was transformed into the opposite of what he was meant to be.

Today, I believe it is the tea-party people who represent Sumner’s Forgotten Man. They are taxed and told what they must do and what they must give up in the way of freedom and personal wealth every time a new law is passed. I believe it is this reality that bonds the tea-party people together.

Put another way, it is not healthcare or any other single issue the tea-party people are most angry about. It is all of the issues combined that have to do with impinging on their individual liberty. Above all, they are outraged by the fact that immoral politicians and bureaucrats not only violate their God-given right to live their lives as they please, they dismiss them as ”extremists.” Collectively, the tea-party people are today’s Forgotten Man.

In his essay (http://mises.org/books/forgottenman.pdf), Sumner went on to say:

”All history is only one long story to this effect: men have struggled for power over their fellow-men in order that they might win the joys of earth at the expense of others and might shift the burdens of life from their own shoulders upon those of others. It is true that, until this time, the proletariat, the mass of mankind, have rarely had the power and they have not made such a record as kings and nobles and priests have made of the abuses they would perpetrate against their fellow-men when they could and dared.

”But what folly it is to think that vice and passion are limited by classes, that liberty consists only in taking power away from nobles and priests and giving it to artisans and peasants and that these latter will never abuse it! They will abuse it just as all others have done unless they are put under checks and guarantees, and there can be no civil liberty anywhere unless rights are guaranteed against all abuses, as well from proletarians as from generals, aristocrats, and ecclesiastics.”

Sumner was a man of great insight. He saw the absurdity of assuming that the poor man is morally superior to the rich man. This is where I believe that sincere revolutionaries go wrong. While their initial intentions (to help ”the poor”) may, at least in their own minds, be well-meant, they begin with a false premise (that the misfortunes of those at the bottom of the economic ladder are a result of the evil actions of those who are more successful) and, from there, leap from one false conclusion to another.

Which is why politicians who pose as conservatives to get elected so often take the Mush McCain-Lindsey Graham-Charlie Crist route and continually rush to the aid of their progressive Democratic pals. I believe that these philosophically lost souls do the bidding of the intimidating left because they have never given any serious thought to the possibility that the very premise of progressivism is morally wrong.

As a result, they have no feeling for the (perceived) rich man. In plotting their do-gooder schemes, he is easy to forget. They see nothing whatsoever wrong with society’s sacrificing his liberty for the ”public good.” Bring out the guillotine! As Montaigne said, ”Men are most apt to believe what they least understand.”

What gave birth to the tea parties is that the Forgotten Man syndrome is like a metastasizing disease. As politicians long ago realized, there aren’t enough rich people to support all of the X’s. As the number of X’s (i.e., those who live off the surpluses of others) increases, a lot of A’s and B’s must, by necessity, be reclassified as C’s. And that is when they become candidates for joining the tea-party movement.

Put simply: When A’s and B’s are transformed into C’s, they mysteriously lose their enthusiasm for new laws to help out X. Put even more simply, they suddenly realize that they are now the Forgotten Man. And that realization is what automatically qualifies them as tea-party people. No recruitment necessary, thank you.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'government photo project, 1930s' to 'government photo project, 1930s, great depression, color, photos, america, history' - edited by lucky760

"Almost two-thirds of those who are out of work do not qualify for unemployment benefits. The law that created unemployment insurance was passed in response to the Great Depression of the 1930s."

If EBM was sincerely trying to get his shoes shined then I'd agree with you and call him the victim.
But come on man... you really think anyone outside stereotypical subserviant black men of the 1930s or street urchins from Dickens would solicit a shoe shining on a city bus?

I reread the transcript - EBM said stuff like "Sit your little black ass down"... " and "boy".

Can we agree at least that everyone involved was an idiot?

>> ^RadHazG:
If you read the transcript on ED you can see that it was simply a case of EBM either misinterpreting something the black dude said or the black dude said some shit and EBM thought he was seriously offering a service not being insulted. The transcript pretty much just says exactly how I saw it. EBM was very calm at the start, and seemed genuinely interested in trying to get his shoes shined. Unfortunate coincidence.


EBM wasn't trying to start a fight, he was trying to belittle and dominate the black man. Get on your knees and shine my shoes boy, and kiss my pinky finger while you're at it.... that kind of thing. But when the black man didn't back down he moved to the front of the bus because he knows his temper can get him arrested. But he kept barking stuff back and the black man the whole time. Maybe I'm wrong but I think that's vastly more likely than a simple misunderstanding by a man looking for a shoe shiner. Regardless... everyone involved were idiots.

>> ^rottenseed:
If the white guy was trying to start something, why would he move up front? Especially when he obviously wasn't scared. Dude was poppin' off at the mouth and trying to instigate. He wanted the fight...and he got the fight right in his face.>> >

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^cindercone:
The point I was making is this: I propose that since our current society is Theologically based, the conversion to rational reasoning would be disastrous. Society would fail. If I proposed this, you might argue my proposal. You would argue that the new ascendant rationale could not be determined in advance, or you would argue that rational reasoning would ascend. So either an unknown reasoning would emerge, or we would be dependent upon a historically flawed human assumption of rational reasoning for anything short of total anarchy. THAT is the proof.

First of all, "society" has frequently changed the structure on which it is based throughout history, and though it has gone through some tough times as a result, it doesn't simply "fail". Furthermore, the fear of the outcome of such a change has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of religion in the first place.
Because of the nature of theological indoctrination, even in ideal circumstances it would take generations to remove religion from society. During that time, people will develop other moral codes, whether it is "enlightened self-interest" or something else. Those ethics will be hotly debated, but at least they won't be founded on irrational fairy tales, and therefor will not be available for use as justification for war.
>> ^cindercone:
Obviously, HE doesn’t spend the emotional energy arguing nuclear proliferation and abortion. For him to imply that gay marriage and abortion are issues that are only emotionally contested because of the presence of theology is ridiculous.
How can you say that? It is patently obvious that abortion and gay marriage are only contested on theological grounds. Even if you could find examples of non-religious people who are anti-abortion or anti-gay marriage (which I doubt), those would be so few in number as to be laughable.
The point is that these issues are stupid fights that are distracting people from the real threats to society. In order to move attention from a distraction to a real issue, you have to attack the distraction.


The fallacy here is that the smallness of the number of anti-abortion or anti-gay Atheists would be ridiculous while the smallness of the number of Atheists themselves wouldn't.
What is the percentage of Atheists that hold conservative such as anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion? I don't know. You don't either. In this context any counter proof for your feeling that there ain't no such people can't be simply dismissed on the grounds of being numerically insignificant.

All that said I'm an anti gay marriage Atheist. And in fact, the Soviet Union criminalized homosexuality from the 1930's up to it's dissolution. The law was only repealed in 1993. None of the 5 current communist states accept gay marriage either. Since communism is a generally Atheist ideology, there you have your share of anti gay marriage Atheists, historically and currently.

Just please let's not get on logical implication nonsense here. I know Atheism doesn't imply Communism. I'm not a Communist myself. But it's the other way around: Communism largely implies Atheism. Plus Communism provides you with the one instance of an Atheist society, so it's quite relevant to determine what kind of morals can exist in the absence of religious guidance.

lying

Rubber - meet glue. Of course it isn't lying. It's truth. You just don't like it. I already said Reagan increased military spending. No denying that he did. He cut taxes as well, but those tax cuts resulted in an increase in federal tax recipts, rather than a decrease in budgets. The missing piece of the puzzle - which took place in 1982 - was not having Congress to push through on domestic spending decreases. It was Democrat control of congress that stymied that 3rd (and arguably most critical) pieces.

So yes - despite what you're being spoon fed on leftist blogs or liberal revisionist history pages - Reagan was a fiscal conservative. Sadly, without Congress on board he wasn't able to force through domestic spending cuts like he did the tax cuts in 80-81. That left him with only two-thirds of his agenda. It was enough to give the country over 20 years of prosperity, but with ever-increasing domestic spending it was borrowed prosperity.

I hope you get what's coming to you

Why - thank you. I appreciate when people acknowledge my hard work, personal diligence, self-sacrifice, and financial prudence with the suggestion of appropriate rewards. Your realization of my deserved remuneration and accolades certainly indicates that you are not without wisdom even though you allow your reason to occasionally be eclipsed by stooping to profanity and generalized name calling. Keep working on it!

while maintaining popular support

I'd cut all these spending programs and reduce the Federal budget to 1930 levels because it is necessary for the survival of the Republic. There is no money to support our network of socialist inspired domestic programs any longer. We have gone too far, and it has to be cut. Not reduced. Not 'frozen'. CUT. People will be unhappy with that. I understand that reality. I also understand that the nation is destined for financial collapse and subsequent balkanization (or worse) unless we cut federal spending radically, painfully, and permenantly. That is how I see this debt problem. The debt is a time bomb that is leading to the eventual collapse of the entire system. The loss of a few cushy social programs pales in comparison. So - in all honesty - I don't care about 'public support' for the cuts. The cuts are necessities. The programs are luxuries. People who cling to luxuries at the expense of necessities are either selfish or stupid - and I don't have any sympathy for such persons.

^ no i Hate advertising in general , As i said at the bottem its just a common ploy for Manny advertizers to use , and so young turks would hsave to call out 90% of adverts rather than just this one , making there specific focus on this one a silly thing to do.

allso i don't see one culture having a specif food preference as a negative strio typ. Its only Racist if the person that says it is a racist for example me saying "Indeans love curry" , is not racist . but if was actually a racist and said "FUCKIN paki curry munchers" then that would be racist If i was not a racist and i said "fukin paki curry munchers" then it would be a parady of racisum. in all examples the food is pretty much irrelevant.

Only in the context of a racist remark or when produced with racist intention is the Food or stereo typ then racist.


Obviously racist words are invented by cultures and words and Meems in general will have a statistical probability on weather they were being used for racist intention or not. This will allso depend on who is saying it and where it is coming from.

an example

"Nigro" when used in modern usa by a average white male has a high probablity that it is ment as a racail slure
"Nigro" When used in the 1930s by English people was very unlikely to be a racial slure and commonly to used to describe color of objects

In the end you could never tell from the words images alone 100% if they were Produced with racist intention , you can only take an educated guess off of the information at hand . But you would have to be curfull not to inflict your cultural bias.

That's your opinion coming from a pro capitalistic viewpoint, almost all these industries themselves pressed for government intervention and consequentially benefited massively from protectionist policies (see big 3 auto industry case vs Japan auto industry in the 70s oil crisis), the government representatives benefit because the states where these firms are based would vote with their jobs and lively hood. So on a economic standpoint you can argue its wrong, but not from a social one, an economist would allow GM to fail but we live in a society that needs to support its workers.

Such collusion is not the fault of the government, because they way you phrase it you make it sound like its a government initiative, when in reality its the industries themselves that consistently press for protectionist policies to distort the market for their own benefits and profit. The EU farming fiasco right now taking place in France is a clear example, the agricultural sector is pressing for a return to a quota system to allow prices to rise artificially, Brussels has stated it will take no such action as right now agro prices are completely out of sync with world prices and this only benefits the minority agricultural sector.

Am sorry but your opinions fail to ever encompass reality of the situation. Rather you simply have a pro-right beef with what you call government growth, because its a buzz word of the republican right wing. You rail against taxes and government spending without ever thinking that government spending in the 40s and 50s has built up the very infrastructure right that connects America with roads and telecom systems, government subsidies in cases like Canada have allowed the sprouting of a telecom network in its early years because no profit orientated firm would ever dream to lay down telecom networks because its a cost loss.

Its just like when I watch C-SPAN and see republicans complain about stimulus and subsidy packages when i know full well their state presses for the same stimulus and subsidy packages year on year to support their state industries.

Is there hope? Yes? Does it take years? yes Smoot hawley put into effect one of the largest protectionist drives in the world post great depression it has taken 80yrs for GATT, WTO and other international incentives to return to a trade freedom that comes somewhere close to pre-1930 levels. The system of protectionism and industry subsidization takes years to unravel because industries influence government policy more then government policy influences industries.

Yes, we atheists are neither citizens nor patriots, George.
Your father though, oh boy, what a guy.
Real patriot. Real hard-working, exemplary American citizen. Let's see what he did for his country:

- A director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

- His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

- Even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis' plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty.

- The firm he worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s.

- Evidence shows Bush was the director of the New York-based Union Banking Corporation (UBC) that represented Thyssen's US interests and he continued to work for the bank after America entered the war.

And that's just scratching the surface.

^{From http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar}

>> ^Kreegath:
So there was a spaceship hovering over Johannesburg for 20 years and no nation has even tried to deconstruct or even claim it? You'd think that the US and the Soviet Union would be the first to jump at the chance of an extraterrestrial technology advantage and would go to great lengths to get it, regardless if it had landed in either territory or not.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -Arthur C. Clarke

In the movie you already see that they have no idea how to reverse engineer the alien weapons, even though they've been trying for 20 years. My guess would be that they must have tried the same with the spaceship but also failed. They might have removed interesting bits and just let the rest of the ship hang. They also wouldn't want to break the engines because it would come crashing down on Johannesburg.

Imagine the humans of 1930 (the electron microscope was discovered in 1931) getting their hands on an iPhone. They wouldn't know what to do with it. They wouldn't even be able to see the actual circuits let alone know how they worked. It would be a long time before they could actually discover and use anything of use out of an iPhone.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/US_temps_2008.JPG
Figure 1. U.S. average annual temperature history 1895-2008 (source: National Climatic Data Center
Edit: Note that there is only a change (trend) of 1.5 degrees over the last 100 years!

Quote:
Prior to 1998, there was little of note in the long-term U.S. temperature record. Temperatures fluctuated a bit from year to year, but the long-term trend was slight and driven by the cold string of years in the late 19th and early 20th century rather than by any warmth at the end of the record. In fact, from the period 1930 through 1997, the annual average temperature actually declined a hair—despite the on-going build-up of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. The only suggestion that “global warming” had involved the U.S. was to be found in the post-1997 period—a period unusual in that the temperatures went up and stayed up at near-record levels year after year. It was not so much that temperatures continued to climb after 1998, but just that they never fell. This grouping of warm years nearly doubled the apparent overall warming trend in U.S. temperatures (starting in 1895) from 0.07ºF/dedade (ending in 1997) to 0.13ºF/decade (ending in 2007). And with this doubling of the warming trend came the big push for emissions restrictions.

But then, 2008 comes along and has broken this warm stranglehold. Perhaps this is an indication that the conditions responsible for the unusual string of warm years have broken down—and maybe they weren’t a sudden apparition of anthropogenic global warming after all.

Only time will tell for sure. But, at least for now, things seem like they have returned to a more “normal” state of being.
Again from: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/category/temperature-history/


And so, my point is, Companies will use and major fear tactic to sell us stuff - Ideas, Consumer products, Belief systems and so on...

And a lot of science is driven by interest groups whose only interest is to prove results that further their bottom line.

the population in 1930 was under 100 million. without the cdc ,fda ,government provided highway systems ,etc we can not support our present population. this is true if you like it or not.

The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to the United States Constitution allows the Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on Census results. This amendment overruled Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895), which limited the Congress's authority to levy an income tax.
so, your wrong. now say it,say i was wrong.

without taxes on income..capital gains..inheritance. within a few generations the wealth of the country would be in the hands of a very few. its also regressive in nature. meaning the more you make the less you pay in taxes. because a family of 4 making 40.000 a year consumes all its income, see? so they are taxed on 100% of their income. but a family of 4 making 250.000 a year saves maybe 25 % ,and if interest and capital gains were not taxed they would save even more. becuase the income is tax free and the gains are tax free and i can pass it on to my heirs tax free. woo hoo !!!!so they would live off of 65% of their income ,save the rest,tax free, earn gains,tax free, pass it on,tax free untill they were living off the interest. these fair tax ideas etc, ideas are all republican psychobabble joe the plumber bullshit . you must tax income. that is the only FAIR way to do it. its a rich people method for tricking teabagger dipshits. thats why the fair tax people hired joe the plumber to go to tea partys and promote the fair tax.

republicans always say this stupid ass crap that people should make their own choices, oh..unless they want an abortion. then ill make that choice. oh, unless you gay and wanna get married, then ill make that choice. unless you wanna choose a public health option,uh,then no. republicans are always for choice. as long as you choose what they want you to choose.