Anyone looking at the history of the Democratic Party could reasonably assume it was trying to destroy Blacks. From the klan days to the "War on Poverty's" futile government attempts to act as surrogate parent (annihilating the Black family unit) to today's modern celebration of victimhood and the soft bigotry of lowered expectations and standards.

Plus the libmedia (aka everyone but FOX and the WSJ) gives a free pass to stupid/racist things liberals say, particularly about Black conservatives.

All that aside, this sift is just weak. Liberalsift wouldn't stand for a similar collage of out-of-context remarks by liberals and so, downvote.

@quantumushroom So get rid of welfare and food stamps, despite the fact that it helps a shitload of unemployed white people maintain the semblance of "middle class" living. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. Every program that helps blacks that white people hate, helps whites many times more; that includes affirmative action. That's why the politicians who have been railing against these programs for your votes will never get rid of them; the backlash would be overwhelming.

QM, please answer this: Can you point to the gains that black Americans made as a result of the policy prescriptions put in place by the republicans when they had power, since the Newt House and the Bush administration? Even if they were race neutral policies. What has compassionate conservatism and the Contract with America yielded for African Americans? Newt's pretty silent about it, given his famous loquacity.

Hell, can you point the gains that white americans made, for that matter (1% excepted of course)?
>> ^eric3579:

Dont you think maybe these results may be more closely tied to money (poverty) and or education then your statistics which seem to infer that it has something to do with the color of your skin. ...or maybe I just don't understand what you are trying to say.
>> ^quantumushroom:
68.7% of Blacks are born out of wedlock
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19.pdf
62% of ALL black births are paid for by the US government
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/pubd/2319_69.htm [archived]
Though only 12% of the population, Blacks take 38.3% of the total of all welfare payments. Whites are 72% of the population, and take 30.5% of the total.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/leavers99/race.htm#fig1
Though only 12% of the population, Blacks take 38% of taxpayer-subsidized housing
http://www.huduser.org/datasets/assthsg/statedata96/descript.htm

What percentage of these stats are the direct result of the welfare state acting as a morality-free surrogate for Black fathers and husbands? A near-70% illegitimacy rate is unsustainable, and Whites are 'catching up' with a present illegitimacy rate of 40%.
How has being loyal Democrats "helped" Black Americans?

Dont you think maybe these results may be more closely tied to money (poverty) and or education then your statistics which seem to infer that it has something to do with the color of your skin. ...or maybe I just don't understand what you are trying to say.
>> ^quantumushroom:

68.7% of Blacks are born out of wedlock
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19.pdf
62% of ALL black births are paid for by the US government
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/pubd/2319_69.htm [archived]
Though only 12% of the population, Blacks take 38.3% of the total of all welfare payments. Whites are 72% of the population, and take 30.5% of the total.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/leavers99/race.htm#fig1
Though only 12% of the population, Blacks take 38% of taxpayer-subsidized housing
http://www.huduser.org/datasets/assthsg/statedata96/descript.htm

What percentage of these stats are the direct result of the welfare state acting as a morality-free surrogate for Black fathers and husbands? A near-70% illegitimacy rate is unsustainable, and Whites are 'catching up' with a present illegitimacy rate of 40%.
How has being loyal Democrats "helped" Black Americans?

68.7% of Blacks are born out of wedlock

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19.pdf

62% of ALL black births are paid for by the US government

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/pubd/2319_69.htm [archived]

Though only 12% of the population, Blacks take 38.3% of the total of all welfare payments. Whites are 72% of the population, and take 30.5% of the total.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/leavers99/race.htm#fig1

Though only 12% of the population, Blacks take 38% of taxpayer-subsidized housing

http://www.huduser.org/datasets/assthsg/statedata96/descript.htm


What percentage of these stats are the direct result of the welfare state acting as a morality-free surrogate for Black fathers and husbands? A near-70% illegitimacy rate is unsustainable, and Whites are 'catching up' with a present illegitimacy rate of 40%.

How has being loyal Democrats "helped" Black Americans?

TYT isn't asking the right questions.

Why isn't there a financial blockade on New York Times, Guardian, and Der Spiegel?

Who are wikileaks' funders, past and present?

How much does it cost to run a website that stopped accepting submissions years ago, and only hosts text and a few video files that are actually published by surrogates?

Why not use other funding methods? There's plenty of other payment processors and p2p solutions. Funny there's been a financial blockade in the US on online gambling for 5+ years, but you can find a way to send and receive funds if you really want to.

Okay, explain how this magical fixed money system works? What would be used to fix the money supply? How could we ensure that people don't decide to keep their money in banks, where the banks can issue "bank notes" which people then use as surrogates for your fixed money supply? When we had a specie backed currency, these problems still existed.

Also, yes, the derivative securities market is the largest driver of inflation out there at the moment. Many estimates put the value of all these unregulated securities (that's right, poof, I have money, securities) at around $600 Trillion dollars. Makes our debt seem kinda trite doesn't it?

>> ^davidraine:

First, to my original point, a fixed money supply does not allow for fractional reserve banking -- By definition, fractional reserve banking varies the supply of money. Second, I don't remember massive inflation caused by the sale of unregulated securities, though I do remember a massive speculative bubble bursting and an economic crash.
>> ^bmacs27:

Fractional reserve banking has nothing to do with the medium of exchange. Banks have engaged in fractional reserve banking since long before the abolition of the gold standard. A better argument is that the securitization of debt (deregulation of finance) has caused massive inflation by encouraging the underwriting of bad debt by allowing the risk to be sold off.

First, I'm not proposing anything -- I was just pointing out that inflation and speculative bubbles could be largely mitigated making the supply of money fixed. Second, a fixed money supply does not presuppose (or require) price fixing, so you can still use various property as a value store.
>> ^bmacs27:
Further, the video doesn't seem to explain that in our current system I can use my wages to purchase gold at market, and can thus use it as a store of value (if I actually believed it to be fairly valued against e.g. wages or real estate). In the government price fixing system you are proposing that wouldn't be possible, and the value of my gold would be subject to systemic risk (bad policy) just like currency is today.
>> ^davidraine:
I don't think they're calling for anything -- Simply explaining. Also, the point is that everything they point out is not true for any medium of exchange. The hallmark of fiat currency that makes it true is banks' ability to conjure money out of nowhere, which starts the inflationary and speculative balls rolling. With a fixed money supply, this can't happen.

>> ^Sagemind:

That's right...,
Who are these people that will hand over their iPad to a three or four year olds like a toy they can use and abuse?
Crazy!


Don't underestimate a parent's desire to provide a supervisor surrogate.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^mgittle:
The problem with fractional reserve systems using fiat currency is their reliance on growth.
I haven't watched the documentary you linked, but the only part of what you said I'd really contest is this part.
How is fiat currency reliant on growth?
Perhaps you meant it the other way around -- that fiat currency is just one more tool that's used to cajole the human race into participating in this "growth" whose value has become increasingly dubious?
That's how I see it, at least on the days when I see the face and not the vase. Most days I still see markets and capitalism as a positive net influence on the welfare of the human race, but their most fervent advocates sure do work hard at making me think otherwise.


Yeah, well put rearding the "fervent advocates". I did kind of mean it the other way around. Thank you for actually taking a second to understand my meaning rather than arguing literal points only (the literal-only thing being my definition for nerdiness).

It's not fiat currency alone that makes our economy reliant on growth. I should have been more specific, but such is life when you have to get to sleep...haha. Fiat currency just a part of the whole Fractional Reserve banking + legal tender law + fiat currency system. In my mind, the growth thing is probably tied most to the fractional reserve system. Hopefully none of this sounds condescending because I'm not sure how much of this you already know, but here's my understanding:

Because the money supply is variable and dependent on debt, an expanding economy is extremely good and a contracting one is extremely bad. Because banks are allowed to loan more money than they possess *and* charge interest, you run into a problem. Where do individuals get the money needed to pay the interest on their loan if it was created from nothing? You have to get it from the overall money supply, which is made up of money created by banks from other peoples' promises to pay.

Thus, with every new credit card swipe, mortgage signing, etc, more money is owed to banks than actually exists at any given time. It's only the time lag between borrowing and repayment that keeps the entire system from collapsing. This means that unless the total amount of debt continually increases at a sufficient rate, it's impossible for everyone to succeed in paying back their loans...there must be foreclosures. This is why people constantly get offers of new credit, *and* why recessions are such a bitch. It's very hard to get things growing again after the money supply decreases.

The system is also one in which individuals paying off debts have more money (less income goes to paying interest), but everyone paying off their debts leaves society with no money. Therefore, anyone who pays off their debt to increase their own personal financial security actually hurts the overall economy. It makes no sense for markets to rely on rational individuals' decisions if their individual decisions are bad for the economy in aggregate. For this reason alone, the system is extremely fragile.

Hope all that makes some sort of sense. Maybe I'm wrong in parts. I'm partially regurgitating the videos I linked earlier while adding in stuff I've learned from other sources. I've nor heard anyone refute the premise of the video, but I'm sure it's not infallible in its interpretation. I'd love to hear what other people think. It got sifted long ago but there was little discussion.

As for your comments about markets being a net positive, I don't disagree with you at all. It's when people rely on markets to solve every problem (including moral ones) and don't realize that there are some places markets ought not go that there becomes a problem. (Should courts enforce a custody contract between an infertile couple and a surrogate mother? ...and and endless list of other similar questions)

If you ask a conservative or liberal or left libertarian or right libertarian, they will all tell you they overwhelmingly support small business. The doctrines of these respective factions are also supportive of small business. If you could force our elected officials to all take lie detector tests, I'm certain that almost all of them support small business in their hearts too.

So, if everyone supports small business, then why does government seem to be a never ending stream of corporate wars, no bid contracts, bailouts, austerity, corporate tax giveaways and subsidies? If everyone supports the little guy, then why does he always get fucked over in favor of big money?

Because multinational corporations hold our government's balls (and ovaries) in a financial vice. Because multinational corporations fund our elections and control our media.

Step out of line and you find yourself with no election funds or bad press or a sex scandal or a real estate scandal, or perhaps a faulty engine on your campaign leer jet. Any dirt you may have on you in life is sitting in a filing cabinet, waiting for the day you fuck up, at which point you are booted from office and humiliated in front of friends, family, colleagues and constituents.

Time and again we see idealistic politicians full of hope and promises become corporate lackeys after they are sworn in. Does this have to happen to Ron Paul too before market libertarians figure out that our campaign finance system is fatally flawed? It's funny to see all of these anti-democracy, anti-two party system market libertarians all of a sudden hyping on a Republican candidate for the 2012 elections. It's funny because you seem to believe we live in a democracy - which you supposedly hate.

It's not the people. it's not the ideology. It's not even the politicians. It's the system. The system is fucked. There is no hope for the kind of serious change we need in this country until we unfuck it. And for it to be unfucked, we the people need to do it for ourselves. We can't sit around waiting for political surrogates to do this work for us. We need to demand it in large numbers, and to strike and protest for as long as it takes until it gets done.

And time is running out. The deficit grows. The temperature of the globe rises. Our jobs are being shipped off to the 3rd world. Our money is being shipped off to Caribbean tax shelters. We need to act soon. At some point it will be too late.

>> ^blankfist:

The American "right" doesn't like small government. It's a talking point, yes. But never is it put into practice.

>> ^pyloricvalve:

Strictly speaking, it's more like 10 people since I'm paying double the normal rate due to progressive taxes. But I don't understand why you consider my earnings theft. Even if there is a limited supply of money, my money has been received through consensual exchange. If I buy a car which is in limited supply is it by definition stolen? Surely we should reserve the word theft for when things are taken from people against there will. Personally I think taxation is an example of this.


Ah yes...the standard Libertarian view of earnings = consensual exchange and taxation = stealing. The problem is, in a democracy, no amount of tax will ever be consensual to every citizen. That's kind of why we have majority rule, right? So, if one person thinks one penny in tax is theft on the part of government, does that mean we have to have zero taxes? Thankfully, the answer is no.

Most Libertarians favor some sort of basic tax for a defensive military, so consider this. For a time during the Civil War, you could buy your way out of the draft. That was consensual exchange under the law. Do you consider that type of exchange morally acceptable? If a rich father pays for a surrogate soldier for his son, is that fair? The son did nothing to earn that money through free exchange other than be born to a rich family...why does he deserve to have someone fight in his place?

With a truly free market, prostitution would be legal free exchange, you could sell body parts, offer your womb up to carry other peoples' babies, etc. If your answer is "well, let's not go that far" then where do you stop? If you sign a contract to offer up your eggs and a baby for someone else and you change your mind, who do the courts rule in favor of when someone sues?

These are real world questions that beg to be answered when you take the hardcore Libertarian position. Few people successfully argue in favor of their Libertarian position without inviting heavy criticism from wide swathes of the population...hence the lack of a strong Libertarian party in the country. This general line of thought just doesn't hold up in specific real world cases which come up, often making it to the Supreme Court.

You've got a lot of hate in your heart, buddy. I think you'd be a better person if you were motivated by compassion instead of fear - and I don't think you are a bad guy as is it. Your lord and savior was motivated by compassion. Shouldn't you strive to be a little more like your savior? >> ^quantumushroom:

Once again, the responsible have to pay for their own birth control and the birth control of irresponsible idiots.
"Free" birth control for idiots sounds great, but the state has far too many enticements for 'making babby' and keeping the state as pimp and surrogate fadda.
Anyone on welfare for more than 6 months should be forced to take birth control until they're back on their feet, with their legs safely out of the air.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Once again, the responsible have to pay for their own birth control and the birth control of irresponsible idiots.
"Free" birth control for idiots sounds great, but the state has far too many enticements for 'making babby' and keeping the state as pimp and surrogate fadda.
Anyone on welfare for more than 6 months should be forced to take birth control until they're back on their feet, with their legs safely out of the air.


Yeah except when people look at their crappy paycheck they think "Hmmm do I want to eat this week or not get pregnant?"

See you QM actually made a point that makes sense in a fiscally conservative way...and with a lot of douchebaggery. Still you made a fucking argument with the facts on hand. My problem is the people who bypass the facts and an argument and just go to "NO...because God Says So!"

We're not even having the same discussion at that point...there's no give no talk there's just everything we do is fundamentally wrong and we're going to hell. That's amazing, people who make an argument like that should simply be ignored because they're clearly insane. Nobody knows where you go when you die.

Once again, the responsible have to pay for their own birth control and the birth control of irresponsible idiots.

"Free" birth control for idiots sounds great, but the state has far too many enticements for 'making babby' and keeping the state as pimp and surrogate fadda.

Anyone on welfare for more than 6 months should be forced to take birth control until they're back on their feet, with their legs safely out of the air.

If the citizens hate the law against front yard gardens (yardens?) so much they should change it. Until then, if the law is proven to define no front yardens, then that's the law.

It's all a matter of degree, isn't it liberals? You're upset about THIS when your eco-fascism is now fully one-third of fedguv's laws...LOOK at the arbitrary power you've given your masters!

All of a sudden you're FOR private property rights? Out-RAGEOUS!



Here's some of the voices of reason of your heroes:

"We already have too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure."

--Paul Elrich, Stanford University biologist and Advisor to Albert Gore

"I think if we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecological society under socialism. I don't think it's possible under capitalism."

--Judi Barri of Earth First!

"Capitalism is a cancer in the biosphere."

--Dave Foreman, Founder, Earth First!

"The northern spotted owl is the wildlife species of choice to act as a surrogate for old-growth forest protection," explained Andy Stahl, staff forester for the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, at a 1988 law clinic for other environmentalists. "Thank goodness the spotted owl evolved in the Pacific Northwest," he joked, "for if it hadn't, we'd have to genetically engineer it."

--Andy Stahl at a 1988 law clinic for environmentalists, staff forester, Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund

"Now, in a widening sphere of decisions, the costs of error are so exorbitant that we need to act on theory alone, which is to say on prediction alone. It follows that the reputation of scientific prediction needs to be enhanced. But that can happen, paradoxically, only if scientists disavow the certainty and precision that they normally insist on. Above all, we need to learn to act decisively to forestall predicted perils, even while knowing that they may never materialize. We must take action, in a manner of speaking, to preserve our ignorance. There are perils that we can be certain of avoiding only at the cost of never knowing with certainty that they were real."

--Jonathan Shell, author of Our Fragile Earth

"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect."

--Richard Benedict, an employee for the State Department working on assignment for the Conservation Foundation

"[W]e have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

--Stephen Schneider, Stanford University Professor and author Quoted by Dixey Lee Ray in Trashing the Planet (1990)


"More science and more technology are not going to get us out of the present ecological crises until we find a new religion, or rethink our old one."

--Lynn White, Jr. "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis," Science, (Mar. 10 1967), p 1206

"Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license.... All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."

--David Brower, Friends of the Earth

"The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state."

--Keith Boulding, originator of the "Spaceship Earth" concept

"If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS. It [AIDS] has the potential to end industrialism, which is the main force behind the environmental crises."

--Earth First! newsletter

>> ^hpqp:

Cosmetic/aesthetic (non-medical) procedures that modify a person's body should be that person's informed decision/choice, and no one else's. How hard is it to grasp such a simple ethical concept?


It's not a simple ethical concept at all because it is not simply a modification to a person's body. From the Wiki Bioethics of Circumcision Page:

The practice of medicine has long respected an adult's right to self-determination in health care decision-making. This principle has been operationalized through the doctrine of informed consent. The process of informed consent obligates the physician to explain any procedure or treatment and to enumerate the risks, benefits, and alternatives for the patient to make an informed choice. For infants and young children who lack the capacity to decide for themselves, a surrogate, generally a parent, must make such choices.

– American Academy of Pediatrics: Circumcision Policy Statement

Parents have a right to make decisions for their children that they believe will improve their children's future. They're not just doing it because they think it looks nice. Here are the issues that most parents consider:

1) They belong to a group where this is the norm and they want their child to fit in socially. By doing it while the child is still a baby they ensure that the child will have no recollection of the procedure. Furthermore, the child is obviously not sexually active yet. Delaying the procedure until age of consent (which I assume you define as sometime after puberty) guarantees that the person will have to abstain from sexual actions while healing takes place and that they'll have full memories of both the procedure and the subsequent recovery pain.

2) Circumcision will guarantee that the child does not ever have to deal with an infected foreskin. Although proper cleaning can help prevent such an infection in non-circumcised males, only circumcision guarantees (100%) the child will never have to deal with it. The medical research waffles a lot on the reduction of penile cancer and AIDS transmission rates, but the medical consensus is still that circumcision may help in both of these areas.

Given these two facts--and the lack of any conclusive evidence that the procedure is harmful--I see no reason to deny parent's the right to choose to have the practice done on their own child. If they think it will benefit their child, then they should feel free to do so.

Does that answer your question?