What you're saying here is demonstrating the problem I was speaking about earlier. You bought the narrative of the story but failed to investigate the facts. Romney is paying the same tax on that money that he would if it were invested in the USA. He hasn't done anything illegal. The cayman island *used* to be a tax haven, which is why there is this stigma. It isn't anymore. The banks fully cooperate with the IRS. Romney could have the money there simply to attact foreign investors. Do you think that no one is allowed to invest their money anywhere but in the United States?

Here is a statement his campaign released..he doesn't even control the fund that invested that money:

"The Romneys' investments in funds established in the Cayman Islands are taxed in the very same way they would be if the Romneys held their shares of the fund investments directly in the US rather than through a Cayman fund.

Nothing is changed from four years ago in relation to these funds. Governor and Mrs. Romney's assets are managed on a blind basis. They do not control the investment of these assets. The assets are under the control and overall management of an independent trustee.

Furthermore, only the sponsor of the fund decides where it is established. That responsibility is totally outside the control of a passive investor like Gov. Romney or the trustee of this blind trust.

Also, in regards to the Unrelated Business Income Tax: Governor Romney’s IRA is tax deferred, just like the IRA’s of every other American. Its investments are in compliance with rules created to keep it tax deferred, just like it was intended to be."

I wouldn't vote for Romney but the story itself is deliberately portrayed as if Romney has done something illeagl, which he hasn't. They're counting on people not to investigate the facts, which is why I came to state what they are.


>> ^volumptuous:
The guy is running for President of The United States and yet he is evading taxation on the wealth he has generated in our country. (leaving aside the fact that a lot of it came from other people's misery)
Yes, I have an enormous fucking problem with that as do most people in this country.
He's not just your average rich fucker, he's the guy who is running for POTUS. How can you NOT have a problem with him doing this shit? He obviously doesn't give enough of a fuck about the citizens to pay his fair share. He's bilking this country, and firing scores of people his entire life. Fuck this guy in the face.

@dystopianfuturetoday:

I see what you're going for, so here's your Yes. Where our opinions diverge is a matter of perspective.

Slavery is not unique to the Black race, nor even Black Americans, it's a worldwide institution with ancient origins that is still practiced in parts of Africa TODAY. Every race on earth has at one time been enslaved, just as every race on earth has also enslaved other races. As horrible as it seems to us, for centuries slavery was accepted as necessary and a part of life. For Black Americans to feel singled out is, to me, just silly.

So enter the Civil War, a complex struggle involving myriad factors that became more about slavery about halfway through. Republicans ended slavery. Not that is was all sugar and poetry: Lincoln said it didn't matter if he had to keep slavery or end it, he would do whichever it took to save the Union. Lincoln did the paperwork but the Abolitionists did the real work.

We had a Civil Rights movement and it was just. (Now we have a Special Rights movement that is unjust, but that's another chapter).

I don't buy this crap about psychic injuries from slavery. And yes, here is the part where I provide the transcript of Bill Cosby's "Poundcake speech". I know you're going to have your reasons for not liking what he had to say (and I'm sure Jesse Jackson, who was right beside him was shocked and pissed) but all the same, please READ IT.


Yes, there was a time in America where lynchings were common, racism was institutional and opportunities for Blacks were severely limited. That time has passed. Yes, there are remnants of the klan out there, but they're not the ones forcing Blacks to drop out of school, disparage reading books and getting an education as "the White Man's Game" or impregnating young girls like it's nothing.

We've had generation after generation of immigrants now, from Vietnam, India, the failed soviet bloc. They came here with nothing and in a generation or two have risen. And if the excuse is, 'Well, they're not Black," here come Blacks from the Caribbean, working hard and doing just as well. All of these immigrant groups have one HUGE advantage: they haven't suffered decades of this American victim mentality.

I trust your sincerity and the sincerity of all the liberals who want to see Black Americans improve their lot (and they have, most are middle class). But there are forces that demand the dependency of Black Americans and use a victim mentality to get their votes. I don't see why anyone would heed voices that say, 'You Can't Do It'.


RE: the "science" article bashing conservatives. In Japan there are "scientists" whose entire output is exceptionalist-nationalist philosophy (nihonjinron) that is to be taken very seriously. This article is on the same level as, "liberals are better lovers".








>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

qm - Imagine if you and the rest of your ethnic heritage were brought to this country as prisoners, to be sold as property to other people. You are bought and sold and expected to do hard labor without protest. Any resistance could mean your life, or your foot, so you quickly learn to submit yourself to the authority of the ruling racial class. Your ethnic heritage, as a whole, is kept in poverty and ignorance for many generations. Old proud traditions are beaten out of you, and new ones are created in secret, out of the watchful eye of your master. You cannot sing your music, but you can sing in the church choir, so you create your own new culture under the restrictions imposed by your masters.
Then a century down the road, it is decided that slavery is wrong and you are set free. Unfortunately for you, you are in your middle age with no money or education in a culture where you are thought of as subhuman. In this hostile environment, you are expected to compete with people who have been free all their lives, and more sinisterly, people who loathe you and are actively against your progress. They even create organizations to make life worse for you and to form lynch mobs to murder you and your kind.
This new generation continues to pass along the legacy of poverty, lack of education, self doubt, fear and shame to further generations. For the next few generations, laws are set up to discriminate against your people, and it is publicly acceptable to insult, attack and even kill your underclass with minimal consequences. There are new freedoms and a desire to rise above, but there are so very many cultural barriers.
Eventually society decides this underclass should have the same rights as everyone else, but at this point, the legacy of slavery has been imprinted on an entire culture for many generations - Hundreds of years of negative cultural conditioning. Although free in law, there is still much animosity aimed at your group. Not only are ou different in color and culture, but you also carry the stigma of being poor and not having access to the same level of education of the ruling racial class.
Eventually steps are taken to reverse this legacy of hate, poverty and slavery through government assistance programs, and while costly, they do yield success as your underclass rises in wealth and social acceptance. The fact that we, the racial ruling class, see them as equal and expect them to do as well as we do speaks greatly to the change in culture over the last half century. But, just are the legacy of slavery lives on in black culture, so does the legacy of hate live on in white culture. Groups of neo-confederate whites are angry that there is an effort to help remedy a problem created by our forefathers. They don't care whether or not these programs have been successful, they just hate the idea of this long hated underclass getting some help.
Just as the legacy of poverty has made it's way from generation to generation, so has the legacy of hate.
Perhaps the neo-confederates should take the log out of their own eye, before cataloging the failings of others. Or at least, they could attempt some understanding of why these stats are the way they are, how much progress has been made, and what could be done to stop these destructive legacies in the future.

Do you see what I'm going for here, qm? I'd love a yes, even if it comes with heavy reservations.

qm - Imagine if you and the rest of your ethnic heritage were brought to this country as prisoners, to be sold as property to other people. You are bought and sold and expected to do hard labor without protest. Any resistance could mean your life, or your foot, so you quickly learn to submit yourself to the authority of the ruling racial class. Your ethnic heritage, as a whole, is kept in poverty and ignorance for many generations. Old proud traditions are beaten out of you, and new ones are created in secret, out of the watchful eye of your master. You cannot sing your music, but you can sing in the church choir, so you create your own new culture under the restrictions imposed by your masters.

Then a century down the road, it is decided that slavery is wrong and you are set free. Unfortunately for you, you are in your middle age with no money or education in a culture where you are thought of as subhuman. In this hostile environment, you are expected to compete with people who have been free all their lives, and more sinisterly, people who loathe you and are actively against your progress. They even create organizations to make life worse for you and to form lynch mobs to murder you and your kind.

This new generation continues to pass along the legacy of poverty, lack of education, self doubt, fear and shame to further generations. For the next few generations, laws are set up to discriminate against your people, and it is publicly acceptable to insult, attack and even kill your underclass with minimal consequences. There are new freedoms and a desire to rise above, but there are so very many cultural barriers.

Eventually society decides this underclass should have the same rights as everyone else, but at this point, the legacy of slavery has been imprinted on an entire culture for many generations - Hundreds of years of negative cultural conditioning. Although free in law, there is still much animosity aimed at your group. Not only are ou different in color and culture, but you also carry the stigma of being poor and not having access to the same level of education of the ruling racial class.

Eventually steps are taken to reverse this legacy of hate, poverty and slavery through government assistance programs, and while costly, they do yield success as your underclass rises in wealth and social acceptance. The fact that we, the racial ruling class, see them as equal and expect them to do as well as we do speaks greatly to the change in culture over the last half century. But, just are the legacy of slavery lives on in black culture, so does the legacy of hate live on in white culture. Groups of neo-confederate whites are angry that there is an effort to help remedy a problem created by our forefathers. They don't care whether or not these programs have been successful, they just hate the idea of this long hated underclass getting some help.

Just as the legacy of poverty has made it's way from generation to generation, so has the legacy of hate.

Perhaps the neo-confederates should take the log out of their own eye, before cataloging the failings of others. Or at least, they could attempt some understanding of why these stats are the way they are, how much progress has been made, and what could be done to stop these destructive legacies in the future.


Do you see what I'm going for here, qm? I'd love a yes, even if it comes with heavy reservations.

Is there really a stigma attached to "selling out" in politics?

@enoch
I'm gonna respond as I run through your comments.

To talk about fundamentalism, you have to have a foundation (something holy) to be fundamental about. Secular fundamentalism is a misnomer, but I do know what you mean - militant, head-in-the-sand atheists, who are right no matter what, with nothing to back up their case. Those do exist. Heh, I guess the establishment clause or the constitution might be regarded as sacred in some circles.

I am constantly surprised when otherwise very smart people attest to a faith, or indeed a religion. It's not that they are stupid, but they don't apply critical thinking to their faith, for whatever reason, some say "it's meant to by mysterious", "it can't be analyzed with critical thinking", "it's beyond reason". It is like an alcoholic justifying his addiction.

Of course, the word "faith" may mean different things to different people, so to preemptively judge someone before they've said anything about what it means to them is unfair. "I have faith in love".. well la di dah, that so nice.

Stubbornness is the death of discovery, I completely agree there. "The sun revolves around the earth.. because... YOUR FACE that's why!"

I am very open-minded to new ideas, even though it might not seem like it in my comments here, but that's entirely because no one has yet presented any new ideas with any shred of evidence or backup other than, for instance, the bible which is not a credible source. @shinyblurry, I'm looking at you.

I would love to purge you of your faith, enoch, but I don't want to do it by fire. I want you to essentially do it yourself by looking at the world in amazement, looking at how things work, and so on and so on in the same way as I came to this conclusion myself.

I would agree with Harris that all other things being equal, the world would be better without religion than with it. Not a heaven on earth at all, but better.

Harris and Hitchens do go at religion from different angles. Hitchens attack religion, while Harris is attacking faith. You have to remember their background as well, Hitchens was a historian and journalist, while Harris is a neuroscientist. From a neuroscientist standpoint faith is the interesting part, while from an observational position like a journalist the results of faith and religion is the interesting part. So they go after what they think is interesting.

Daniel Dennett also goes against faith, because he's a cognitive scientist (and a bloody brilliant one at that).

Like arguing about God, arguing about Faith requires a definition of the word, otherwise we all just talk about different things.

"the meat of what you are talking about is the prove/disprove god.
this is a futile argument,for neither side can conclusively prove either position.so just as an intelligent person has to leave the option that god MAY exist (though unlikely in their view),the person of faith has to come to the exact same conclusion but in reverse.
my view is that this argument is a waste of time and produces nothing of value."
This cannot be proved either way, but that does not at all mean the two sides are equal. The argument is a waste of time until someone who claims X exists brings some evidence to the table to back up the claim, until that time the discussion is moot.

Why someone has faith, religion etc. is far more interesting, agreed.

Faith carries a stigma, because it implies a whole lot of things, which is why it is judged very quickly.

I'll concede that I may simply not understand people of faith, I don't see the allure of it. I don't have it and I don't miss it, and essentially I see it as a breach of an otherwise floating reasonable boat. heh. I've still not really seen good results of anyone having faith.

>> ^dag:

Red house? I get it! Obama's a communist.
Communism is on the rise people. We have to stand strong against the red menace.
I wonder at what point in the 21st century communism will stop being the bogeyman? Talk about a dead horse. It's a failed ideology with heaps of stigma. Even communists don't call themselves communists anymore. >> ^quantumushroom:
Fox appears imbalanced because they're not 100% propagandists for the obama red house and taxocrat party, like the other guys.
>> ^dag:
North Korean journalism: Still more fair and balanced than Fox News.




Lol, I don't know what's more ridiculous, the 'red house' comment or being so lacking in a sense of humour that he feels he has to rush to the defense of Fox from humorous comment... \= |

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Red house? I get it! Obama's a communist.

Communism is on the rise people. We have to stand strong against the red menace.

I wonder at what point in the 21st century communism will stop being the bogeyman? Talk about a dead horse. It's a failed ideology with heaps of stigma. Even communists don't call themselves communists anymore. >> ^quantumushroom:

Fox appears imbalanced because they're not 100% propagandists for the obama red house and taxocrat party, like the other guys.
>> ^dag:
North Korean journalism: Still more fair and balanced than Fox News.

because honestly... the only power a word, and language itself have... are the power we attribute it

That's a cop out, pure and simple. It's all well and good to post such a sentiment on a message board, but try saying that platitude in the real world to a black person after some white person has called them a nigger. I think you have more sense than that.

It's not just the word, itself. It's not that simple. It's all about the context-- the emotion, the intent, the environment in which the word is used.

White people People who use ethnic slurs against the slurs' targets in a way that could be construed at hostile or insulting are bigots or idiots. I don't mind at all people who use such offensive language because I love to see people self identify.

I don't know who offends me more. White people who use "nigger" a slur, or white people who get upset because they can't use it more freely without the social stigma.

@shinyblurry
thank you for your response..though in bullet form (blech).
i still find your premise a bit flawed but at least now i have a much clearer understanding where you are coming from,which is the nugget is was searching for.

the debate/discussion concerning politics can be boiled down to one simple question:what should we do as a society?
thats it.
i could go in to much further detail but that would make a comment in to a small novel and i am much more interested in your concluding statements.

you seem to be advocating a theocracy based on biblical principles to establish a religious based government.
the idea of something like that frightens me more than dealing with any single despot or tyrant and history has shown that theocratic rule is anything but righteous,fair or benevolent.
see:
dark ages.
the inquisition.
the crusades.
even as recent as ireland in the 70's and 80's.
when the church dominated the politics of europe,before the reformation,there was more :murder,rape,torture,oppression under an iron-fisted authoritarian rule than any despot could even HOPE to match.
all in the name of god.

freedom of religion is one the best and all encompassing tenants of american society because not only does it give you the RIGHT to worship how you choose but gives your neighbor the RIGHT to either worship under a different doctrine,or not at all.
the LAW is the great equalizer (and one of the things that is being corrupted and a main reason for OWS).

but you propose a theocratic government.
ok.
lets think about that for a moment shall we?
what about the hindus? or buddhist?
are they allowed to worship and pray as is their custom?
or will their be forced chrsitian worship and force them to behave one way in public and worship in secret and private under fear of...what?
what would be the government sanctioned punishment for not adhereing to christian dogma?
death? prison?banishment?
would you REALLY support the criminalization of differing religious beliefs?
is the irony lost on you that early christians had to do hide and skulk in fear of reprisal,even death,for even having the gospel in their midst?worshipping in dark caves in the middle of the night.

and what about catholics?
people banter about the word "christian" as some kind of badge of honor but what about differing theologies?
what if those "christians" are not the right kind of "christian"?
do we segregate the right kind from the 'wrong"?
or are those "wrong" christians just ostracized like a social stigma and we give birth to a new kind of racism.one not based on skin color but rather religious theosophy.

what about me?
you already know that i would considered an apostate to the christian church.
would you watch them burn me?
would you watch in horror as my flesh fell of me like melted ice cream and made yourself feel better by reminding yourself that it was gods will and if only i had accepted the "right" way to be a christian? why did i have to be so stubborn and not see god the way that you did.read the gospel the way you did? believe in the way you did?
would you watch?

and i have to say that i dont fully believe your sincerity when you say jesus would not choose sides,because you know full well that christ walked,talked and ministered to the underbelly of his society at the time.he broke bread with pagans,oracles,the diseased and unwanted.he railed with a savagery against the dominance of the church in his time,the aristocracy and the money makers.
he offered a hope and a freedom.a salvation from those who oppressed.
he pointed to the hill of those in power and told the disenfranchised "my father does NOT reside on that hill.you are NOT forsaken.it is THEY who pretend to hold the key that are lost...but YOU can be found.but not through them but rather through me".(paraphrasing of course).
he was the way and the light.

what makes jesus even more intriguing is that,contrary to a common misconception perpetrated by the church (of course).jesus came from an affluent family.
yes..he did.dont argue.
a carpenter now may be seen as common labor but back in jesus's day a carpenter was a craftsman.the ability to build things not only was held in high regard but was usually someone of affluence,wealth and influence.
how humbling is that?
jesus walked away from wealth,power and influence to bring truth to the poor,oppressed and enslaved and started a movement of his own 2000 yrs ago that slowly and totally underground became one of the most powerful messages even to this day.

now of course over the years those who sought power and influence saw the potential of jesus's message and took it over,perverted it and sold it as somehow being divine.
so not only do i think jesus would stand with those at OWS (and all over the world for that matter) i think he would rebuke the church as well.

oh the delicious irony if that ever really happened.it tickles me to no end.
in any case.
i always appreciate when you respond my friend.

Good chart, makes my long winded explanations unneeded, I can just link the chart!

>> ^hpqp:

@Boise_Lib
The term "agnostic" is often used by people who are atheists for all intents and purposes, but fear the stigma that comes with the word atheist, or (worse) think that being atheist means believing no god(s) exist(s).
Gnostic/Agnostic is about one's position towards the knowledge (gnosis="knowledge") of god(s)(and the metaphysical in general); theism/atheism is about one's belief/lack of belief in god(s).
Here's a helpful chart: http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/
I agree with Richard Dawkins' two categories of agnosticism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Atheist
If you meet a self-proclaimed agnostic, ask them whether they are agnostic about vampires, fairies, goblins or Santa Claus. If the answer is a categorical "no", then you can assume that person's "agnosticism" is really just the result of their fear of being rejected/stigmatised as an atheist by religious people.

@Boise_Lib

The term "agnostic" is often used by people who are atheists for all intents and purposes, but fear the stigma that comes with the word atheist, or (worse) think that being atheist means believing no god(s) exist(s).

Gnostic/Agnostic is about one's position towards the knowledge (gnosis="knowledge") of god(s)(and the metaphysical in general); theism/atheism is about one's belief/lack of belief in god(s).

Here's a helpful chart: http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/

I agree with Richard Dawkins' two categories of agnosticism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Atheist

If you meet a self-proclaimed agnostic, ask them whether they are agnostic about vampires, fairies, goblins or Santa Claus. If the answer is a categorical "no", then you can assume that person's "agnosticism" is really just the result of their fear of being rejected/stigmatised as an atheist by religious people.

>> ^mentality:

It has nothing to do with martial rule. China's repression is notorious, but only aimed at politically sensitive topics.


As a matter of fact, China's repression is notoriously aimed at everything that moves. Never heard of the countless stories of chicken thieves sentenced to death? Or of the citizens petitioning the local government over some company dumping stuff in the river, only to get harassed by the cops, because the CEO has connections with The Party?
In China, the police and Justice are famously ineffective and corrupt. To keep up the appearance of strength, they will come down hard on anyone they catch, regardless of their crime or even their guilt. If you are a regular folk, you have no money or connection so you'd better keep quiet if you don't want trouble. Basically if you're a crook, you have less chance to get in trouble than if you make your voice heard. And once again, I'm not saying this explains this specific story, I'm saying this doesn't make for a sane society.

People have this idea of China still being some sort of Stalinist state. It is not. It's the Wild West over there, and the robber barons are in charge.


>> ^mentality:


It is comforting to be in denial, to blame this on our differences. There must be something wrong with THEM; this could NEVER happen in OUR civilized society.


Mmm, maybe you're reading a bit too much in what I said? To the question "dictature or culture", I pretty much answered "not culture". For all you know, I could be Chinese. And that kind of thing could very well happen in an European society; case in point: the "whatever happens, walk by and pretend NOT to notice ANYTHING" attitude reminded me of Central/Western Europe under Communist rule more than anything else. This has left that kind of stigma there to this day (Russia: non-white baby stabbed in stroller in the middle of the street in broad daylight? Sorry, no witnesses!).

>> ^Diogenes:

i have seen and even experienced the same in taiwan, which is democratic. the culture simply puts less value on a human life and welfare than many westerners do... you can see it in their medical system (universal health care is not what you might think here)


Your story about the good Samaritan getting sued on the spot for helping, I do get (if you were talking about mainland China), because I've seen that kind of story several times in reports covering this news here (to explain why people would not stick their neck out).
However the part about Taiwan, care to back that up? Taiwan has the standard of living of Western Europe, and they in fact do have universal health care, something which cannot be said of the USA for example.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Ha. This is actually quite succinct and clever. Corollary: self-interest can't fix everything.

Great video - and I agree that the social stigma and guilt are not worth it. I bet 9 out of 10 times on this show, they did the share. Anyone have the stats?


>> ^direpickle:

>> ^blankfist:
[edit] SPOILERS BELOW. WATCH VIDEO FIRST.
There are a couple truths in Game Theory. Number 1: your best chance is to always steal. In this case if both steal I think they get nothing, so this changes the strategy a bit. Number 2: never trust women.
Alternative vid title: Why Libertarianism won't work.

you're never going to convince enough people it's bad to justify a ban.

you can scream mutilation all you want but even if you're right, it's still too much of a victimless crime. Sure there are exceptions, but the general rule is that either people don't even miss the foreskin, or they don't even know what circumcision is until much later in life so they don't even know they were missing anything so it's an "out of sight, out of mind" situation.

Yes, I'm aware that there have been cases of doctors botching the procedure and there are life long complications, but that's an individual screwing up, not a problem inherent with the procedure itself.

Where's the outrage over mutilation due to body piercings? tattoos?

This is something that should be left up to the parents to choose. This is also where separation of church and state kick in.

If there was some worldwide epidemic of complications due to circumcision running rampant then that would be a different issue, but that isn't happening so.... In other words...where's the fire?

In a perfect world, I would agree that it probably shouldn't happen, there shouldn't be any stigma one way or the other about it. But we don't live in a perfect world and you can't work backwards on something like that. People have to choose. It's the same with abortion, it's the same with smoking, etc. If it's ok to choose to have an abortion, then it's ok to choose to have a circumcision done to your kid.

I have nothing against Black, yellow, green, blue or red super heroes - it's all the same to me. But why "Convert" already established characters? This totally kills off the entire stigma and mysticism which created them and made them famous. Peter Parker is a white male. lets deal with that.

Now, let's create some real Black (or other nationality) (Shi) super heroes. Albert Francis "Al" Simmons is black and what a great series that is/was. Why are the great and almighty comic Gods, DC & Marvel, so afraid of creating new super hero lines? Why do they just keep recycling the old ones? I've got nothing against bringing back old forgotten-about characters but why trash the already established?

Classic Coke anyone? Or was it better when they recycled it and changed the recipe?