PDA

View Full Version : Interesting...



Ringramjr1
8th December 2009, 20:11
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1022

What is Truth?
8th December 2009, 20:18
Glenn Beck's gold-gate problem

Tue Dec 8, 3:47 pm ET
Yet another controversy appears to be brewing around Fox News host Glenn Beck. Some are accusing him of a blatant conflict of interest concerning his frequent on-air promotion of an investment sold by one of his main advertisers: Gold.

For some time Beck critics have cried foul over his relationship with Goldline International, a precious metals vendor that features the TV and radio host's endorsement prominently on their website. Critics charge that Beck is guilty of misleading his audience by often advising them to purchase gold in advance of the potential collapse of the value of the dollar on the world currency market, without disclosing that he is in fact a "paid spokesman" for Goldline. Beck's on-air promotion of gold, which includes advising viewers to construct "fruit cellars" and to rely on a "three G system" of "God, Gold, and Guns" in the event of America's collapse, dates back to his time as a host for CNN Headline News.

Glenn Beck also regularly talks up gold on his nationally syndicated radio show, where he often endorses Goldline during live commercial segments. Additionally, Beck has had the company's CEO on as a guest. Advertisements for Goldline are also featured prominently on Beck's own website, where he recently promoted gold in an audio clip warning of an apocalyptic future:

When the system eventually collapses, and the government comes with guns and confiscates, you know, everything in your home and all your possessions, and then you fight off the raving mad cannibalistic crowds that Ted Turner talked about, don't come crying to me. I told you: get gold.

Back in October, the liberal media company Air America made this video mocking the conflict of interest:







Beck's promotion of gold presents a potential problem for Fox News, which strictly prohibits on-air personalities from making paid product endorsements. When contacted by Daily Finance for a comment on the matter, Fox News senior vice-president for development Joel Cheatwood said the network "makes an exception for its commentators who are also radio hosts," adding that they knew upfront that hiring Beck came with the understanding that he was also a radio host and that they "had to be accepting of certain elements of that." Nevertheless, a Fox spokeswoman said that the company is addressing the matter with Beck's agent, George Hiltzik.

However, Beck, who responded to the conflict of interest allegations on his show last Thursday by saying "So I shouldn't make money?", isn't devoid of defenders on the matter. Business Insider called the controversy "nonsense," adding "there's nothing wrong with a commentator advising viewers, listeners, or readers to take positions that he is taking himself. In fact, you might wonder about the motivations of someone giving financial advice he wouldn't take himself."

In Beck's defense, some have also noted that the price of gold has spiked since he started at Fox News. Nevertheless, you can probably bet that any and all future Jon Stewart impressions of Beck will include numerous references to the virtues of gold.

-- Brett Michael Dykes is a contributor to the Yahoo! News Blog

Katwoman
8th December 2009, 20:49
I am so sick of the trucks loads of "Democrap" being spewed by the liberals about Palin and Beck while they say nothing about Fancy Pants Pelosi thinking she is entitled to a Boeing 757 to fly her fat behind across the continent.

The hypocrisy is nothing short of sickening.

Ardent Listener
8th December 2009, 21:03
It wouldn't kill Glenn to disclose that he has that relationship with Goldline everytime he tells people to buy gold. Heck, I'm sure Goldline wouldn't mind the free plugs.

SilverLite
9th December 2009, 01:07
Amen to that Kat! The Decepticrats will never say a damn word about Phat-Pants Pelosi or Dirty Harry Reid...Glenn Beck rocks!

Az2Africa
9th December 2009, 08:14
Amen to that Kat! The Decepticrats will never say a damn word about Phat-Pants Pelosi or Dirty Harry Reid...Glenn Beck rocks!

I must agree.

UmassSteve
9th December 2009, 09:19
Nancy pelosi has practically nothing in with a run-of-the-mill democrats, much less the average american of either side of the aisle. Her sense of entitlement, her arrogance, and her sense of fashion are all appalling.

Harry Reid seems to be completely ineffectual and useless as a senate majority leader.

Glenn Beck is a lunatic who spouts nonsense, fear, and fallacies in the most compelling way possible. He frightens me, to my very core, because people seem to listen to him, and to love him, despite the fact that he seems so utterly unbalanced and uncaring about actual journalism.

Hey look, I'm more fair and balanced than Fox. Whodathunkit?

Katwoman
9th December 2009, 09:32
He frightens me, to my very core, because people seem to listen to him, and to love him, despite the fact that he seems so utterly unbalanced and uncaring about actual journalism.

Steve, did you ever stop to think that it is the behavior of far left loons that is driving the otherwise silent majority in this country to take up with Glen etc. in opposition to what they see as an outrageous power grab by a group of people who have aligned themselves with a dysfunctional organization like the UN, repeatedly tried to disarm we the people, and are directily responsible for establishment of the FED and IRS (Woodrow Wilson) confiscation of the people's gold(FDR) overturning of the coinage act (Johnson) and now want to take over healthcare to bailout their failed mismanaged baby called Medicare? Ironically it is the fiat money that they bought us that allowed congress to fund the invasion of Iraq without a congressional declaration of war.

If you cannot see how the historical behavior of the DemoRats brings about the anger that underlies the Tea Parties etc. after my having spelled it out so clearly for you right here you may literally be beyond help.

YOu have nothing to fear but fear itself. Take responsibility for your own destiny my friend ........the empowerment you feel may be life changing.;)

Argyria
9th December 2009, 10:06
Nancy Pelosi is hawt & sexxxy! How can I get me some of that?

SilverJim
9th December 2009, 10:57
Nancy Pelosi is hawt & sexxxy! How can I get me some of that?

Here I was just sipping my coffee and having an ok morning and you come along to burn my eyes with your words. Now I feel sick. :(

akak
9th December 2009, 15:26
Nancy Pelosi is hawt & sexxxy! How can I get me some of that?

$$$$, my friend --- it's all about the $$$$$!

(That, and the power to control the lives of all the "useless eaters".)

hippiebrian
10th December 2009, 13:06
Steve, did you ever stop to think that it is the behavior of far left loons that is driving the otherwise silent majority in this country to take up with Glen etc. in opposition to what they see as an outrageous power grab by a group of people who have aligned themselves with a dysfunctional organization like the UN, repeatedly tried to disarm we the people, and are directily responsible for establishment of the FED and IRS (Woodrow Wilson) confiscation of the people's gold(FDR) overturning of the coinage act (Johnson) and now want to take over healthcare to bailout their failed mismanaged baby called Medicare? Ironically it is the fiat money that they bought us that allowed congress to fund the invasion of Iraq without a congressional declaration of war.

If you cannot see how the historical behavior of the DemoRats brings about the anger that underlies the Tea Parties etc. after my having spelled it out so clearly for you right here you may literally be beyond help.

YOu have nothing to fear but fear itself. Take responsibility for your own destiny my friend ........the empowerment you feel may be life changing.;)

Because he disagrees with you he needs "help"? Once again I must point out that both extremes, the right and the left, are a little right AND a little wrong, and the truth is actually somewhere in between. Healthy debate should be encouraged by open-minded people, not shut down by people who cling to the theory that I'm right and everyone else is wrong with no flexibility.

valerb
10th December 2009, 13:30
Glenn Beck is a lunatic who spouts nonsense, fear, and fallacies in the most compelling way possible. He frightens me, to my very core, because people seem to listen to him, and to love him, despite the fact that he seems so utterly unbalanced and uncaring about actual journalism.



I think Becks show is funny as hell. He's such a drama queen. "Now listen everyone, in just a few minutes, I'm going to rip this bed sheet off the blackboard and you will not believe what I'm about to show you. So hang in there while I lead up to it. But first I'm going to show you the other blackboard covered with a throw rug, that will make the first blackboard as clear as mud when I actually unveil it!"

I know he means well and some of what he says is for real, but why put me through all that torture and 30 minutes later show us some scribbling on a chalk board, that really isn't much of anything. But it is, because he says so.

metalbull
10th December 2009, 13:37
Because he disagrees with you he needs "help"? Once again I must point out that both extremes, the right and the left, are a little right AND a little wrong, and the truth is actually somewhere in between. Healthy debate should be encouraged by open-minded people, not shut down by people who cling to the theory that I'm right and everyone else is wrong with no flexibility.

Here is the problem. If you disagree with Glenn Beck or anyone else for that matter, please for hells sake DEBATE!!!! Do you understand the term? I am not talking about hits on his personality, past, etc. DEBATE with facts as to why you think what he is saying is false. So please inform us fear mongering negative types, what specifically do you think Glenn Beck is telling us that is not correct. Please include links etc, so we can have a healthy DEBATE.

Can you do it?

hippiebrian
10th December 2009, 13:41
Here is the problem. If you disagree with Glenn Beck or anyone else for that matter, please for hells sake DEBATE!!!! Do you understand the term? I am not talking about hits on his personality, past, etc. DEBATE with facts as to why you think what he is saying is false. So please inform us fear mongering negative types, what specifically do you think Glenn Beck is telling us that is not correct. Please include links etc, so we can have a healthy DEBATE.

Can you do it?

I don't know enough about Beck to debate the matter. Never watch the news or listen to advice from industry insiders. If you will read what I quoted, you would know that my only problem is that someone was told they needed "help" just for being a bit more liberal than other members here, and saying something like that just cuts off any healthy debate.

Please read my entire posts before shouting, thanks!

DannyBoy
10th December 2009, 13:52
He's encouraging people to purchase overpriced gold from Goldline.

Screw him.

metalbull
10th December 2009, 14:03
I don't know enough about Beck to debate the matter. Never watch the news or listen to advice from industry insiders. If you will read what I quoted, you would know that my only problem is that someone was told they needed "help" just for being a bit more liberal than other members here, and saying something like that just cuts off any healthy debate.

Please read my entire posts before shouting, thanks!

This post was not directed to you specifically, I should have been more specific and not selected your response, and just made a general statement.
I just get so tired of folks dismissing reality as negativity or fear mongering etc, with no debate. I have yet to talk to anyone who disagrees and has any intelligent response to the current state of affairs we are in. Its always the same buzz words... extreme, fear mongering, negative, racist, blah blah blah....

metalbull
10th December 2009, 14:05
He's encouraging people to purchase overpriced gold from Goldline.

Screw him.

Lol.... case and point......

hippiebrian
10th December 2009, 14:09
Lol.... case and point......


He makes a good point. Part of the reason I don't read the guy for a source is that he obviously has an agenda. The more he gets people to buy gold, right or wrong (which I'm not debating here) the more money he makes. I'd be more apt to listen to someone who doesn't make their living selling bullion, personally. They are much more apt to be objective.

metalbull
10th December 2009, 14:26
He makes a good point. Part of the reason I don't read the guy for a source is that he obviously has an agenda. The more he gets people to buy gold, right or wrong (which I'm not debating here) the more money he makes. I'd be more apt to listen to someone who doesn't make their living selling bullion, personally. They are much more apt to be objective.

I see your point, but I think it would be wise to listen to, or read his info before coming to a conclusion.

Personally I will listen to anyone, factor in agendas etc, and then form a conclusion.

It is pointless to dismiss him because he profits on bullion sales when no one will debate him on the issues... see my logic?

hippiebrian
10th December 2009, 14:29
I see your point, but I think it would be wise to listen to, or read his info before coming to a conclusion.

Personally I will listen to anyone, factor in agendas etc, and then form a conclusion.

It is pointless to dismiss him because he profits on bullion sales when no one will debate him on the issues... see my logic?

I see where you're coming from, but still get the feeling that it would be like debating the benefits of a used car with the salesman, and that it would be smarter to get my information elsewhere.

Jake
10th December 2009, 14:34
```````````````

skijake
10th December 2009, 14:45
He makes a good point. Part of the reason I don't read the guy for a source is that he obviously has an agenda. The more he gets people to buy gold, right or wrong (which I'm not debating here) the more money he makes. I'd be more apt to listen to someone who doesn't make their living selling bullion, personally. They are much more apt to be objective.

Yeah, When my "Check Engine" light comes on the dash of my car and it's running rough I never ask my mechanic because of course he has a vested interest in seeing what's wrong my car.
I usually ask the Mail-man, The Pizza Delivery dude and my neighbor [equities broker] although not always in that order.
If two or more have the same answer I'll go with that. Democracy in action.
As a side note, it's amazing how often they mention fuel or air filter.
I guess they go bad all the time. :p

gottago
10th December 2009, 14:50
Yeah, When my "Check Engine" light comes on the dash of my car and it's running rough I never ask my mechanic because of course he has a vested interest in seeing what's wrong my car.
I usually ask the Mail-man, The Pizza Delivery dude and my neighbor [equities broker] although not always in that order.
If two or more have the same answer I'll go with that. Democracy in action.
As a side note, it's amazing how often they mention fuel or air filter.
I guess they go bad all the time. :p

well that explains why i got a flat, thanks:)

skijake
10th December 2009, 14:56
well that explains why i got a flat, thanks:)

Did you check the tire air filter? ;)

hippiebrian
10th December 2009, 15:35
Yeah, When my "Check Engine" light comes on the dash of my car and it's running rough I never ask my mechanic because of course he has a vested interest in seeing what's wrong my car.
I usually ask the Mail-man, The Pizza Delivery dude and my neighbor [equities broker] although not always in that order.
If two or more have the same answer I'll go with that. Democracy in action.
As a side note, it's amazing how often they mention fuel or air filter.
I guess they go bad all the time. :p

Well, I'd trust a mechanic, however the reason why may upset some people here. You see, if my mechanic lies to me, I have avenues to use through the local and federal governments. Socialism in action. There isn't such protection against bullion dealers.

hippiebrian
10th December 2009, 15:38
[QUOTE=Jake;82301]
There is no debating liberals, there is only "defeating them". They will always be around because of envy, laziness and gutlessness.

Sorry, we aren't all lazy. I work over 40 hours a week, and volunteer through my church. I am not envious of anyone, and I enjoy the fruits of my labors. I make more than enough to pay my taxes, bills, and stash some for a rainy day. I am not gutless, and I know you would hesitate to call me such to my face. Seriously, get some intelligence, and come back with some real stats or opinions based on them. Namecalling will get you nowhere, didn't your Mommy teach you that?

UmassSteve
10th December 2009, 15:56
Here is the problem. If you disagree with Glenn Beck or anyone else for that matter, please for hells sake DEBATE!!!! Do you understand the term? I am not talking about hits on his personality, past, etc. DEBATE with facts as to why you think what he is saying is false. So please inform us fear mongering negative types, what specifically do you think Glenn Beck is telling us that is not correct. Please include links etc, so we can have a healthy DEBATE.

Can you do it?

Simply put, he has a long and sordid history of "making things up" and presenting them as fact. Or, if he's feeling like he should show a little journalistic credibility, distorting the holy hell out of things until they're taken so out of context that its almost hilarious. Except that he's serious, and people believe him.

He claims that the science czar Holdren proposed forced abortions and putting sterilizing agents in the water, to say how similar Obama's government is to China of a decade or more ago. This is not really true.

He makes absurd claims as to the waste and fraud of the stimulus (e.g. he claims 1.4 million dollars spent to fix a door at dyess AFB- not true!), and presents his "made up crap" as "facts" on air. And people buy him.

There's an amusing video up of the view with Glenn Beck where he gets called out something awful by Whoopie Goldberg (Weird, I know) for completely lying about an encounter he had with her an a host of the View.

He blamed a foreign policy blunder from 1992 on Bill Clinton. You know, that guy who wasn't president at the time.

The point is, Glenn Beck doesn't fact check. He doesn't have any investigative or journalistic scruples. He is a commentator who presents his views, and his lies, as facts to the masses. These are some weaker examples, its true, but he does the same thing with most of his major stories on a day to day basis. They're either based on a lie or riddled with over exaggeration and distorted truths, but he always presents them as a fact. Its terrifying, really, that so many millions of people tune in every day to be spoon fed his made up news. And its more terrifying that people LOVE this man, and would act on whatever he says. No matter how ridiculous or untrue his words are.

Would you like more? Looking into this was kind of fun, so if you want some more reasons why I dislike Glenn Beck, it would be my pleasure to provide for you.

SilverJim
10th December 2009, 16:04
While you guys are all busy in your right-left paradigm arguring about insignifcant bs, TPTB are busy stealing our money, governemt and futrue. That is by design. You are being saps. As a recovering Republican, I find the GOP as bad as the Dems. Both suck, it's just a matter of technique. :p

akak
10th December 2009, 16:08
While you guys are all busy in your right-left paradigm arguring about insignifcant bs, TPTB are busy stealing our money, governemt and futrue. That is by design. You are being saps. As a recovering Republican, I find the GOP as bad as the Dems. Both suck, it's just a matter of technique. :p

Here here!

Yes, exactly, the left-wingers and "liberals" are ALWAYS just as bad as the right-wingers and "conservatives", and vice-versa. It took me years to fully realize that. Both are almost always spot-on when criticizing the other, and both are almost always wrong in their proposals and results. I put the two words "liberal" and "conservative" in quotes, because what passes today for those two political outlooks (I will not and can not say "philosophies") is almost diametrically opposed to what those two words REALLY mean, and used to mean. They are just two sides of the same debased and worthless coin.

skijake
10th December 2009, 16:08
While you guys are all busy in your right-left paradigm arguring about insignifcant bs, TPTB are busy stealing our money, governemt and futrue. That is by design. You are being saps. As a recovering Republican, I find the GOP as bad as the Dems. Both suck, it's just a matter of technique. :p

Good point.:cool:
What's the answer?

metalbull
10th December 2009, 16:53
Simply put, he has a long and sordid history of "making things up" and presenting them as fact. Or, if he's feeling like he should show a little journalistic credibility, distorting the holy hell out of things until they're taken so out of context that its almost hilarious. Except that he's serious, and people believe him.

He claims that the science czar Holdren proposed forced abortions and putting sterilizing agents in the water, to say how similar Obama's government is to China of a decade or more ago. This is not really true.

He makes absurd claims as to the waste and fraud of the stimulus (e.g. he claims 1.4 million dollars spent to fix a door at dyess AFB- not true!), and presents his "made up crap" as "facts" on air. And people buy him.

There's an amusing video up of the view with Glenn Beck where he gets called out something awful by Whoopie Goldberg (Weird, I know) for completely lying about an encounter he had with her an a host of the View.

He blamed a foreign policy blunder from 1992 on Bill Clinton. You know, that guy who wasn't president at the time.

The point is, Glenn Beck doesn't fact check. He doesn't have any investigative or journalistic scruples. He is a commentator who presents his views, and his lies, as facts to the masses. These are some weaker examples, its true, but he does the same thing with most of his major stories on a day to day basis. They're either based on a lie or riddled with over exaggeration and distorted truths, but he always presents them as a fact. Its terrifying, really, that so many millions of people tune in every day to be spoon fed his made up news. And its more terrifying that people LOVE this man, and would act on whatever he says. No matter how ridiculous or untrue his words are.

Would you like more? Looking into this was kind of fun, so if you want some more reasons why I dislike Glenn Beck, it would be my pleasure to provide for you.

So are you suggesting that I believe you because you said it on a forum? I put no weight in anything you said because you did not substantiate it. Before you credit or discredit someone bring more to the game than just name calling, opinions, or something you were fed by liberals with an "agenda". The agenda you really need to be worrying about is liberal elitism control and seizure of our liberties..... Unless of course your are part of that agenda....

Glenn can be extreme, and the few times I have watched him wished he would tone it down a bit, because he could in my opinion enlighten more people.

But seriously, please post a link with factual information to back up you claims, otherwise it is just blah, blah, blah, wast of time for alll...

Jake
10th December 2009, 16:54
`````````````

metalbull
10th December 2009, 17:02
Wow!
So...Only Moderates can Save Us?
There were four people on the "republican side" who IMO fit this description as closely as I can remember as long as I've been following politics.

John McCain, Bob Dole, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins

On the Democrat Side:

Joe Lieberman

If you can tell me why moderation will save us, I'd love to hear it.

Jake do you ever find it interesting that the founding fathers, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington etc. etc. etc. would be considered right wing extremists today? LOL seriously there is no debate. What we have had (freedom/prosperity) for the last 200 plus years is a direct result of conservative principles period. The problems we face today are a direct result of usurpations of our conservative constitution.

akak
10th December 2009, 17:07
Wow!
So...Only Moderates can Save Us?
There were four people on the "republican side" who IMO fit this description as closely as I can remember as long as I've been following politics.

John McCain, Bob Dole, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins

On the Democrat Side:

Joe Lieberman

If you can tell me why moderation will save us, I'd love to hear it.

NO! "Moderates" are just the worst of both statist camps!

The position that is missing in the whole idiotic and restricted left-right so-called "spectrum" is LIBERTY! Those who take a truly consistent, pro-liberty, pro-individual rights stance have no place in the left-right paradigm whatsoever, and I always laugh (and cry!) at the desperate attempts by statists of all stripes to squeeze the round pro-liberty peg into the square anti-freedom, pro-state hole.

As a libertarian, I automatically do not fit on the hopelessly myopic left-right "spectrum". I am NOT right wing, and I am NOT left wing, and I am certainly NOT a "moderate"!

hippiebrian
10th December 2009, 17:19
Jake do you ever find it interesting that the founding fathers, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington etc. etc. etc. would be considered right wing extremists today? LOL seriously there is no debate. What we have had (freedom/prosperity) for the last 200 plus years is a direct result of conservative principles period. The problems we face today are a direct result of usurpations of our conservative constitution.

What are you basing this on? The health care crisis in this country is the fault of conservatives forcing privitized insurance for those who can get and afford it, while not taking into consideration those who cannot. The bank failures/housing forclosures was a direct result of the conservative move to remove the protections, placed into effect in the 30's, which made interest-only loans illegal. They were made illegal as it was found to be a major cause of the failures during the Great Depression. Much of the homeless problem, at least for the mentally handicapped, in California was and is directly due to Reagan closing the mental health facilities where these people lived, and forcing them into the streets, as they are mentally incapable of getting a job which would support them, and removing the access to the meds that allowed them to make decent decisions. A large portion of the elderly can at least, if nothing else as it's pitifully small, can afford to eat because they get a social security check, and aren't in debt to hospitals due to Medicare, both liberal institutions by your definition. More elderly could live more comfortably, however in a conservative decision, companies are no longer required to give, or to protect, retirement, leaving many elderly on a fixed income, barely scraping by. Prison recividism is atrocious compared to when many states in this country provided rehabilitation to inmates alongside punishment. Conservative ideals removed any trade training and most schooling in our prisons (at least here in California), so when these people get oout, they are no better off as far as sellable job skills go than they were when they went in, and when it comes time for them to make some money, they go back to what they know best. Teenage pregnancy has skyrocketed due to the removal of any sex education in the schools outside abstinence. Another conservative idea that just doesn't work. And you say there's no debate?

Jake
10th December 2009, 17:21
`````````````````

akak
10th December 2009, 17:27
And yes, Our Founding Fathers Would Fall Over Dead If They Met The Kind Of People we now call "leaders" today.


I agree with you there 100%!

I have absolutely no doubt that if any of the Founding Fathers could see the state of politics in this country today, they would have immediately given up any hope of liberating this country from the British. In fact, if we today only had the level of taxation and government control that the American colonists of the 1770's had, we would probably feel like we had died and gone to heaven!

As an experiment in freedom, the United States is an almost unmitigated failure. And before any knee-jerk believers in "God Bless the USA!" and "My country right or wrong!" come to the attack and try comparing us to China or the USSR or North Korea, those would NOT be valid comparisons. The valid comparison would be what we are today vs. what we were in the past, which was a vastly freer people.

hippiebrian
10th December 2009, 17:36
I agree with you there 100%!

I have absolutely no doubt that if any of the Founding Fathers could see the state of politics in this country today, they would have immediately given up any hope of liberating this country from the British. In fact, if we today only had the level of taxation and government control that the American colonists of the 1770's had, we would probably feel like we had died and gone to heaven!

As an experiment in freedom, the United States is an almost unmitigated failure. And before any knee-jerk believers in "God Bless the USA!" and "My country right or wrong!" come to the attack and try comparing us to China or the USSR or North Korea, those would NOT be valid comparisons. The valid comparison would be what we are today vs. what we were in the past, which was a vastly freer people.

That depends on what you mean by "vastly freer". I'm sure blacks in the south might disagree with you. Likewise, I'm sure Native Americans across the nation might disagree with you, although we have a long way to go still with them. I like being able to vote whether I own land or not. I like that I can opt out of belonging to a church and still vote and be counted. I appreciate a 40 hour work week, freeing my time for more of my own personal pursuits. I like being able to get any book I'd like, because now, since the patriot act is no longer in effect, the bookbanning of the 1800's and early 1900's is no longer practiced. That's just a few examples, off the top of my head...

Jake
10th December 2009, 17:49
````````````````````

akak
10th December 2009, 17:52
That depends on what you mean by "vastly freer". I'm sure blacks in the south might disagree with you. Likewise, I'm sure Native Americans across the nation might disagree with you, although we have a long way to go still with them. I like being able to vote whether I own land or not. I like that I can opt out of belonging to a church and still vote and be counted. I appreciate a 40 hour work week, freeing my time for more of my own personal pursuits. I like being able to get any book I'd like, because now, since the patriot act is no longer in effect, the bookbanning of the 1800's and early 1900's is no longer practiced. That's just a few examples, off the top of my head...

How did I know you were going to make such a (weak) argument, almost word for word?

Notice that I did not say our society was PERFECT, just that we were much more free overall. Yes, obviously, there were violations of liberty in the past just as there are in the present, but overall they were much less than today. Yes, blacks used to be slaves --- but is it such an improvement that EVERYONE today is a near-slave, burdened by millions of conflicting and onerous laws and constantly prodded into dependency on the government, corporations and the narcotic of debt peddled by the banking establishment?

Americans (and Canadians, and Europeans) are much less free today than they were 100 years ago, and the trend is not only still downhill, but accelerating. Government power can only grow at the expense of individual freedom, and continue to grow governmental power certainly does.

hippiebrian
10th December 2009, 18:07
How did I know you were going to make such a (weak) argument, almost word for word?

Notice that I did not say our society was PERFECT, just that we were much more free overall. Yes, obviously, there were violations of liberty in the past just as there are in the present, but overall they were much less than today. Yes, blacks used to be slaves --- but is it such an improvement that EVERYONE today is a near-slave, burdened by millions of conflicting and onerous laws and constantly prodded into dependency on the government, corporations and the narcotic of debt peddled by the banking establishment?

Americans (and Canadians, and Europeans) are much less free today than they were 100 years ago, and the trend is not only still downhill, but accelerating. Government power can only grow at the expense of individual freedom, and continue to grow governmental power certainly does.


Actually I think I made a good arguement. Could you please specify which rights I don't have that my grandfather did when he got here? Or maybe that people did in, let's say, 1800? Overall, we have a better standard of living (on average) and we have the freedome I mentioned which we didn't have either time.

akak
10th December 2009, 18:14
Actually I think I made a good arguement. Could you please specify which rights I don't have that my grandfather did when he got here? Or maybe that people did in, let's say, 1800? Overall, we have a better standard of living (on average) and we have the freedome I mentioned which we didn't have either time.

It is specious to try to compare a better standard of living (which is incidentally falling, and has been for some time now) with greater freedom. The rights and freedoms we have lost are simply too innumerable to mention.

JesterJay
10th December 2009, 18:18
Freedom of religion.
At least for Christians.
JesterJay



It is specious to try to compare a better standard of living (which is incidentally falling, and has been for some time now) with greater freedom. The rights and freedoms we have lost are simply too innumerable to mention.

hippiebrian
10th December 2009, 18:33
It is specious to try to compare a better standard of living (which is incidentally falling, and has been for some time now) with greater freedom. The rights and freedoms we have lost are simply too innumerable to mention.

I'm still unsure of what freedoms we've lost...

hippiebrian
10th December 2009, 18:34
Freedom of religion.
At least for Christians.
JesterJay

Are you not free to worship? Which freedom of religion have you lost?

JesterJay
10th December 2009, 18:42
ALL outspoken Christians have become targets in recent years.
That's why I LOVED it when the Prez said "We are not a Christian nation".
Thanks for the support, Barry.
JesterJay



Are you not free to worship? Which freedom of religion have you lost?

hippiebrian
10th December 2009, 18:48
ALL outspoken Christians have become targets in recent years.
That's why I LOVED it when the Prez said "We are not a Christian nation".
Thanks for the support, Barry.
JesterJay

Fortunately, if someone disagrees with you in a free nation they have the right to speak up about it. I haven't seen anyone's freedom to worship taken away, I haven't seen anyone's right to assemble in a church taken away (although it was almost accomplished for the Muslims). In fact, I believe that your church is free from paying taxes just to make sure that there's no government involvement, and vice versa. Despite anyone's disagreeing with you, you have the right STILL to worship God as you see fit. Also, I disagree with Obama's statement that we're a Christian nation. In fact, George Washington, when trying to get a trade agreement with what is now the Middle East, stated that in no way is the United States a Christian nation.

akak
10th December 2009, 19:00
I'm still unsure of what freedoms we've lost...

Here's some off the top of my head:

The freedom to go into business without having to deal with a myriad of taxes, regulations and roadblocks that increasingly inhibit or prevent people from being independent of being a wage-slave to some faceless corporation,

The right to compete freely in a society without having to deal with the unfair advantages of giant corporations, which are NOT creatures of the free market but are the offspring of government,

The right to use whatever form of money one wishes, without the severe penalties imposed under legal tender laws (which are, by the way, expressly forbidden in the US Constitution except as regards gold and silver),

The right to privacy! In 100,001 ways, anonomity and privacy have been declared "enemies of the state", particularly in the financial realm, where merely posessing more than the officially-approved amount of cash automatically makes one a criminal,

The right to ingest whatever substance one wishes, without prohibitionist stormtroopers breaking down ones' door,

The right to not have to pay for one's children to be indoctrinated in government-controlled schools,

The right to fly without being treated as a criminal,

The right to build on one's property without being required to first gain approval from multiple government agencies,

The right to NOT pay upwards of 50% of one's income in taxes to an ever-growing government --- the American colonists went to war over taxation levels that were LESS than 5%!

The right to not have one's every communication subject to intrusive and secretive governmental scrutiny,

The right to not be subject to terrrorists attacks fomented by an aggressively interventionistic foreign policy,

The right to not be subject to military slavery (a.k.a, the draft) in time of war,

The right to vote in an open ballot, without meaningful choice being all but prohibited by only two establishment parties,

The right to protest against the government without being labeled as "subversives" and "terrorists", and increasingly harassed by a militarized and hostile police force.


Those are just a smattering. Give me some time and I can find you examples of many, many more.

hippiebrian
10th December 2009, 19:30
"The freedom to go into business without having to deal with a myriad of taxes, regulations and roadblocks that increasingly inhibit or prevent people from being independent of being a wage-slave to some faceless corporation,"

There is no protection against taxes in the Constitution.



"The right to compete freely in a society without having to deal with the unfair advantages of giant corporations, which are NOT creatures of the free market but are the offspring of government"

I beg to disagree with this one, major corporations are a direct result of an uncontrolled free market, a market in which he with the most money wins by hook or crook.


"The right to use whatever form of money one wishes, without the severe penalties imposed under legal tender laws (which are, by the way, expressly forbidden in the US Constitution except as regards gold and silver),"

Although the Constitution forbids states to mint any coinage other than gold or silver, it does not forbid a legal tender, which is one of the first things Jefferson and co. embarked upon after the Constitution was instituted.

"The right to privacy! In 100,001 ways, anonomity and privacy have been declared "enemies of the state", particularly in the financial realm, where merely posessing more than the officially-approved amount of cash automatically makes one a criminal,"

O.K., I have no arguement with this whatsoever...

"The right to ingest whatever substance one wishes, without prohibitionist stormtroopers breaking down ones' door"

I might agree with this if there were no societal cost to drug addiction, however this is an attempt to keep me safe from the crime that goes hand and hand with that. I agree, however, if we were to stick just to marijuana, which is one of the benign drugs available. That being said, I don't want heroin to be legal, either. A line has to be drawn somewhere.


"The right to not have to pay for one's children to be indoctrinated in government-controlled schools,"

The requirement for school was originally made to stop child labor. That being said, are you saying that only parents who can afford to send their kids to school should have that right, and we should keep the poor illiterate? Some things just have to be paid for as a cost of living in a civilized society. Also, the Constitution does not bar specifically the raising of money for schools.

The right to fly without being treated as a criminal

O.K., when the Constitution was written, if someone brought up the right to fly, they would have been locked up for their own good. Actually, I tend to support the freedom of Airlines to keep the skies safe over my right not to get searched. Airlines are private industry, therefore the illegal search and seizure laws do not apply.


"The right to build on one's property without being required to first gain approval from multiple government agencies"

O.K., have to agree with you there, also!


"The right to NOT pay upwards of 50% of one's income in taxes to an ever-growing government --- the American colonists went to war over taxation levels that were LESS than 5%!"

Actually, the war was over taxation without representation and the subsequent removal of elected officials by the British government. Besides that, I am single, make 6 digits, and live in California, and pay no where near 50% taxes. You may need a new tax man.

"The right to not have one's every communication subject to intrusive and secretive governmental scrutiny"

I agree with you there, too. The removal of the Patriot Act helped that some, but not enough.

"The right to not be subject to terrrorists attacks fomented by an aggressively interventionistic foreign policy,"

I agree there too, however I have to bring up the war of 1812 as an example of that being a freedom we never really had...

"The right to not be subject to military slavery (a.k.a, the draft) in time of war"

Another freedom that's never existed for the masses who couldn't afford to buy their way out of the draft. The United States drafted in every war, including the Revolution. I hate that we have one too, however that isn't a freedom we've lost, it's one we never had.

"The right to vote in an open ballot, without meaningful choice being all but prohibited by only two establishment parties"

Another one I totally agree with. I balme Jefferson and Adams for that one. We've had a two party system since the election of 1800, though, so really, it isn't a freedom we've lost recently.


"The right to protest against the government without being labeled as "subversives" and "terrorists", and increasingly harassed by a militarized and hostile police force."

Another that I agree with 100%!!! While I'm glad the patriot act is no more, still, more has to be done in that respect.

All that being said, I'll take the life of the average American today over the average American in any other era in this country. As bad off as it is, it's been much worse!

TheLoneRanger
10th December 2009, 19:58
The patriot act is still in full force.. nothing has changed

and everybody forgot right to bear full auto weapons which was perfectly legal until 1934 and was why Gatling, Maxium, Browning, Thompson, and Colt the 5 inventors of the machine gun and the various ways to make it a practical working weapon were all Americans.
And yes I know hand powered gatling guns are still perfectly legal and are not per BATFE concidered technically Machine guns.. but the electriclly powered one are so much cooler. And yes I know I can legally own a michine gun if I do all the paper work and if the machine gun was made before a certain date in 1981.. but that just makes the legal ones incredibly rare and expensive strictly thru goverment infringements and violations by congress of the 2nd Admendment to the Constitution.

metalbull
10th December 2009, 19:58
What are you basing this on? The health care crisis in this country is the fault of conservatives forcing privitized insurance for those who can get and afford it, while not taking into consideration those who cannot. The bank failures/housing forclosures was a direct result of the conservative move to remove the protections, placed into effect in the 30's, which made interest-only loans illegal. They were made illegal as it was found to be a major cause of the failures during the Great Depression. Much of the homeless problem, at least for the mentally handicapped, in California was and is directly due to Reagan closing the mental health facilities where these people lived, and forcing them into the streets, as they are mentally incapable of getting a job which would support them, and removing the access to the meds that allowed them to make decent decisions. A large portion of the elderly can at least, if nothing else as it's pitifully small, can afford to eat because they get a social security check, and aren't in debt to hospitals due to Medicare, both liberal institutions by your definition. More elderly could live more comfortably, however in a conservative decision, companies are no longer required to give, or to protect, retirement, leaving many elderly on a fixed income, barely scraping by. Prison recividism is atrocious compared to when many states in this country provided rehabilitation to inmates alongside punishment. Conservative ideals removed any trade training and most schooling in our prisons (at least here in California), so when these people get oout, they are no better off as far as sellable job skills go than they were when they went in, and when it comes time for them to make some money, they go back to what they know best. Teenage pregnancy has skyrocketed due to the removal of any sex education in the schools outside abstinence. Another conservative idea that just doesn't work. And you say there's no debate?

Bro, where to start…. There is a much bigger picture we need to look at. Conservative reactions to unsustainable socialist programs are not the root cause of the crumbling foundation of the United States.

You presume that without government programs stable society is unattainable, but that has been proven wrong with the advent of early America. The encroachment of the governments control of the supply of fractonal money via 1913 federal reserve act creates the boom/bust periods, and real hidden agendas.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
Thomas Jefferson

Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.
Thomas Jefferson

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
Thomas Jefferson

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
Thomas Jefferson

I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.
Thomas Jefferson

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
Thomas Jefferson

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
Thomas Jefferson

Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.
Thomas Jefferson

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.
Thomas Jefferson

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.
Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

skijake
10th December 2009, 21:02
Bro, where to start…. There is a much bigger picture we need to look at. Conservative reactions to unsustainable socialist programs are not the root cause of the crumbling foundation of the United States.

You presume that without government programs stable society is unattainable, but that has been proven wrong with the advent of early America. The encroachment of the governments control of the supply of fractonal money via 1913 federal reserve act creates the boom/bust periods, and real hidden agendas.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
Thomas Jefferson

Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.
Thomas Jefferson

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
Thomas Jefferson

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
Thomas Jefferson

I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.
Thomas Jefferson

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
Thomas Jefferson

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
Thomas Jefferson

Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.
Thomas Jefferson

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.
Thomas Jefferson

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.
Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

Man, Who is this Thomas Jefferson guy?
What a smart dude.
Is he running for National Office?
Will Katie Couric or David Letterman interview him?
Looks like things are looking up!:rolleyes:

UmassSteve
11th December 2009, 01:02
Here's some off the top of my head:


The right to ingest whatever substance one wishes, without prohibitionist stormtroopers breaking down ones' door,

Please, do enjoy your hard narcotics. There is no way in which your right to do hard drugs could at all impinge on anyone else's rights to safety and well being.


The right to build on one's property without being required to first gain approval from multiple government agencies,

Sounds good now. Until I buy the plot of land next to yours. And then I build the largest, most anatomically-correct, veiney, throbbing penis statue you have ever seen. Facing your child's room.



The right to protest against the government without being labeled as "subversives" and "terrorists", and increasingly harassed by a militarized and hostile police force.

I agree with you, until you show up a presidential rally with your Ak-47, demanding to see the president. "But I just want to talk with him face to face! With this gun!"



Just my two cents.

akak
11th December 2009, 03:43
Just my two cents.

Thanks for the irrelevant, strawman examples.

1) Narcotics, and ALL drugs of all kinds, were in fact legal until 1913 (there's that year again!). And while they were of course abused, the abuse was small potatoes compared to the rampant use of such drugs today --- and they did not have to deal with the concomitant crime due to prohibition, or the runaway police state that uses the so-called "War on Drugs" as an excuse to expand its powers. If somebody in an impaired state is behind the wheel, or creating some kind of danger while using drugs, then we have plenty of laws to handle such situations already without resorting to the 100% failed policy of prohibition --- and that includes those who use legal drugs such as alcohol, as well as those who are impaired due to lack of sleep. Trying to justify prohibitionism using such an argument is as vacuous and ridiculous as every other attempted argument in favor of it.

The fact is, prohibition NEVER works, never has worked, and never will work, and is an immoral, hypocritical and utterly absurd policy that saps respect for the law and wealth that is only funneled into furthering abuses against our freedoms. Next strawman to be slain?

2) Is building a giant penis statue some special dream of yours? Perhaps you have greater problems than your neighbor's land use issues.

3) So is the very real and growing harassment of honest and innocent protesters justified by one man's suspicious (but peaceful and utterly lawful) action? Is the president God, that the normal rules and rights of society must be suspended just because he is present? That is what happens in increasingly statist societies --- the serfs must NEVER dare challenge their masters, and the heavy hand of the State will fall on any who try!

valerb
11th December 2009, 03:48
All that being said, I'll take the life of the average American today over the average American in any other era in this country. As bad off as it is, it's been much worse!

I'd say that is a sentiment shared mostly by the older members on this forum as they've had the opportunity to live through tough times as well as good. Kind of like the roller coaster of the Silver market in the past ten years. If you were here from the start, the ups and downs don't bother you that much, because it continuously gets better.

So many from our younger generation have only experienced an up cycle and now their first down and it seems like the world is coming to an end. Just as those new to Silver last year when they bought in at $20 and may still be regretting it today.

Sometimes there are set backs in life and you end up moving back home with your parents, you and your family.

I know I sure as hell would not ever want to go back to a life style in the 50's, 60's, 70 's or even 80's. Life just keeps getting better. On the down side it is also getting a hell of a lot shorter.

akak
11th December 2009, 03:55
I know I sure as hell would not ever want to go back to a life style in the 50's, 60's, 70 's or even 80's. Life just keeps getting better. On the down side it is also getting a hell of a lot shorter.


Valerb, and Hippie, I think you both are making a common mistake of logic in addressing this issue. The fact that I and others would like to enjoy the much greater freedoms enjoyed by our great-grandfathers does NOT mean nor imply that we want to roll back the clock or jump into some time machine and go back to 1900 to live. Why can't we have the freedom that they had TODAY??

It makes no sense to assume that because I say that our freedoms were much greater 100 or 150 years ago that I necessarily want to live back then. Last I checked, that was not an option anyway, unless you have made some fundamental Einsteinian/quantum-mechanical breakthroughs in time travel --- and I still would probably not chose that route even if I could.

And funny, Valerb, for most people I only see life getting harder and harder, not better and better. We are sliding backward in both prosperity AND freedom, and really, that is only to be expected, as the two are inextricably linked. Do not mistake scientific or technological progress for societal or political progress.

Argyria
11th December 2009, 03:59
Thanks for the irrelevant, strawman examples.


2) Is building a giant penis statue some special dream of yours? Perhaps you have greater problems than your neighbor's land use issues.


While I agree with your other points, to be fair, land use can indeed be a problem for the neighbors. I think the saying goes, 'your freedom ends where mine begins.'

Instead of a silly example, try this on for size. After you've invested your life's work into owning your own home, someone opens up a chicken farm right next door. Do you have any idea how much those things stink? Or how about a meth lab, which could explode at any time and take your home out with it? I agree prohibition on illegal substances is a failed policy, but does that extend all the way to the right to build a time bomb next door to you? Or how about a coal fired power plant? Coats everything in your house with coal dust and tar. Including your lungs. Or how about an airport? Perhaps you'd rather not be kept awake all night by incoming 747's?

Some land use laws make sense, they protect others who thought they were making themselves a home in a safe, clean, quiet area.

akak
11th December 2009, 04:05
While I agree with your other points, to be fair, land use can indeed be a problem for the neighbors. I think the saying goes, 'your freedom ends where mine begins.'

Instead of a silly example, try this on for size. After you've invested your life's work into owning your own home, someone opens up a chicken farm right next door. Do you have any idea how much those things stink? Or how about a meth lab, which could explode at any time and take your home out with it? I agree prohibition on illegal substances is a failed policy, but does that extend all the way to the right to build a time bomb next door to you? Or how about a coal fired power plant? Coats everything in your house with coal dust and tar. Including your lungs. Or how about an airport? Perhaps you'd rather not be kept awake all night by incoming 747's?

Some land use laws make sense, they protect others who thought they were making themselves a home in a safe, clean, quiet area.

No, I agree that some neighboring land use issues are very real. For example, the coal plant you mentioned would be a direct violation of the homeowner's rights, by dumping pollution onto his property. As for less tangible problems, such as giant veiny penis statues, I would no more like to see such a thing than most here (although UMS might differ), but I have to believe that there is a better and more equitable way to deal with such problems than instantly creating a myriad of laws. But I will admit that that particular issue is a much-argued and especially murky topic in libertarian political theory, along with children's rights and abortion.

akak
11th December 2009, 04:08
The right to build on one's property without being required to first gain approval from multiple government agencies,

Sounds good now. Until I buy the plot of land next to yours. And then I build the largest, most anatomically-correct, veiney, throbbing penis statue you have ever seen. Facing your child's room.


Steve, I recommend you never visit central Turkey:


http://drweather.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/turkey-cappadocia-goreme-penis-rock-love-valley.jpg

Argyria
11th December 2009, 04:12
No, I agree that some neighboring land use issues are very real. For example, the coal plant you mentioned would be a direct violation of the homeowner's rights, by dumping pollution onto his property. As for less tangible problems, such as giant veiny penis statues, I would no more like to see such a thing than most here (although UMS might differ), but I have to believe that there is a better and more equitable way to deal with such problems than instantly creating a myriad of laws. But I will admit that that particular issue is a much-argued and especially murky topic in libertarian political theory, along with children's rights and abortion.

Well, if you want to talk about community associations for neighborhoods where they tell you what colors you can paint your house and what style your mailbox must be and whether you can leave cars parked out in your driveway, I'd have to agree with you. Just because you don't like the type or color of the house I build on my property, tough. Somewhere between those extremes is a line. My father's neighbors didn't care for the motor home he parked in his driveway at times for weeks at a time, but then, they had dogs that would routinely **** on our berm, so screw em.

akak
11th December 2009, 04:16
Well, if you want to talk about community associations for neighborhoods where they tell you what colors you can paint your house and what style your mailbox must be and whether you can leave cars parked out in your driveway, I'd have to agree with you. Just because you don't like the type or color of the house I build on my property, tough. Somewhere between those extremes is a line. My father's neighbors didn't care for the motor home he parked in his driveway at times for weeks at a time, but then, they had dogs that would routinely **** on our berm, so screw em.

Personally, I could not stand to live in what passes for home for probably over 90% of Americans: apartments, tightly-packed condos or cookie-cutter tract houses. Being forced to live in such close proximity to dozens or hundreds of neighbors would be, for me, simply soul-sapping and intolerable. So I am especially sensitive to how my neighbors affect or could affect me, believe me!

As for neighbors with constantly barking dogs, don't even get me started!

Argyria
11th December 2009, 04:22
Personally, I could not stand to live in what passes for home for probably over 90% of Americans: apartments, tightly-packed condos or cookie-cutter tract houses. Being forced to live in such close proximity to dozens or hundreds of neighbors would be, for me, simply soul-sapping and intolerable. So I am especially sensitive to how my neighbors affect or could affect me, believe me!

As for neighbors with constantly barking dogs, don't even get me started!

Fortunately, in this subdivision we were far enough apart that dogs barking wasn't really a problem. Each home had between 1 and 2 acres, and only a couple of people had dogs that were kept outside.

Another property rights issue:

Woodpeckers are considered endangered, and it is illegal to kill them.

At one point the neighborhood was being damaged by them, several people's homes had a number of holes in them. After our house got attacked a couple times, my father was getting irritated. One summer morning, it was probably about 6:30 or so, and the birds were singing, was a typical peaceful summer morning in the woods. Then I heard pecking on the house. I kept dozing on for a couple more minutes, then the quiet of the summer morning was punctuated by a loud 'KA-BLAM'. My dad had shot the thing right off the house with his .410. Later that day I looked for the remains of that woodpecker. Never found a piece of it.

If the woodpecker had chosen one of the many large oak trees around the house to make its home, I very much doubt it would have gotten shot. It wasn't the noise it was making that did it. It was drilling holes in the house.

akak
11th December 2009, 05:10
Fortunately, in this subdivision we were far enough apart that dogs barking wasn't really a problem. Each home had between 1 and 2 acres, and only a couple of people had dogs that were kept outside.

Another property rights issue:

Woodpeckers are considered endangered, and it is illegal to kill them.

At one point the neighborhood was being damaged by them, several people's homes had a number of holes in them. After our house got attacked a couple times, my father was getting irritated. One summer morning, it was probably about 6:30 or so, and the birds were singing, was a typical peaceful summer morning in the woods. Then I heard pecking on the house. I kept dozing on for a couple more minutes, then the quiet of the summer morning was punctuated by a loud 'KA-BLAM'. My dad had shot the thing right off the house with his .410. Later that day I looked for the remains of that woodpecker. Never found a piece of it.

If the woodpecker had chosen one of the many large oak trees around the house to make its home, I very much doubt it would have gotten shot. It wasn't the noise it was making that did it. It was drilling holes in the house.

Too funny! I remember one summer in high school being woken up at the crack of dawn by a woodpecker drilling into the house right outside my bedroom window! I didn't have a gun, but repeated thrown rocks and sprayings with a high-pressure hose seemed to finally deter him.

People here have the same problem writ large with moose, which of course are semi-protected and cannot be shot in many places, or outside of hunting season, yet they can devastate one's garden and landscaping in a matter of minutes. I have been fortunate to have only had to chase one away once, by again throwing rocks at it, which by itself is illegal, but I'll be damned if I am going to let a moose eat 20 years' growth of a crabapple tree in five minutes just for a snack!

valerb
11th December 2009, 05:23
as well as those who are impaired due to lack of sleep.

I agreed with everything you said, with the exception of the above. It's one thing for an over the road truck driver to endanger the public by violating his allowable hours on the road. However I believe your going too far including this with drug and alcohol abuse. I know there is an argument that the lack of sleep kills far too many people, but it is not the same as driving under the influence.

There are many reasons people are driving in that condition thru no fault of their own. You should try driving home from work when your forced to work double shifts seven days in a row for a month straight. Is that your fault that you finally fall asleep and kill yourself and or others? There are probably millions of people in this country that are on call 24 hours a day. They go to bed at 11 PM and the phone rings at midnight. It's time to get up and go, no matter how tired you are. Are these people guilty of violating any laws, no. They are just victims of circumstances. Then we have literally millions of people that can't get enough sleep, not matter how long they lay in bed. I'm not talking about the insomniacs, which is another health problem. I'm talking about people who can not for whatever reason enter into what is called Delta sleep. That's stages three and four of the sleep cycle. Many of these people are stuck in stages one and two, which will never provide the restorative rest needed. They are dead tired when they go to sleep and they are dead tired when they wake up. Should we ban these millions of people from the highways because they are sleep deprived for medical reasons and there are numerous causes? So after all of the work related and health related millions driving around sleep deprived. We have the occasional millions that were sick half the night or their spouse or child or pet was ill and kept them up half the night. What are they to do, call in sick? There are a thousand valid reasons people are driving while being sleep deprived. Now it is something all together different for someone to party all night and only get a couple hours sleep. That is being irresponsible. The problem is, we have no way of determining who has a legitimate reason versus who doesn't. If you go down that road of making it illegal to drive when not fully alert, where does it end and what do the literally millions of people who fall into that category do for transportation? This is not the 1950's when we had mass public transportation, this is the age of the automobile, period!

Besides all that, it is dead wrong to lump someone that is driving while tired in the same category as someone intentionally driving under the influence. To me, that is like labeling an 18 year old for sleeping with his seventeen year old girlfriend a sex offender. In some states it's legal and not in others. Once you get the label of being a registered sex offender, your looked at like you had slept with a young teen or committed rape. There are legitimate reasons to lump things into categories, but sometimes we go beyond what is reasonable and I believe what you are suggesting is unreasonable.

Now that I've gone down this path, there is a solution for the vast majority of our population and the sleep deprivation problem and it used to be an over the counter product in our health food stores. It was called GHB. A natural hormone in our systems that helps us enter and stay in the deep restful sleep cycles we all need. Of course it was not a problem until the US Government turned in into one. They couldn't legally force it off the market, so they eventually got all 50 states to make it an illegal drug to possess. It's now known as the date rape drug, why, because it's knocks you into such a deep sleep state that you can be raped and not even know it. But that requires a much larger dose than someone would normally take for sleep. GHB is available as a legal drug, but for one illness and one illness only. You have to have proven narcolepsy with cataplexy. A very small group of individuals. So what's the difference between GHB and any other controlled substance. If you have a prescription your fine if you don't your not. The theory is, for one, it's very cheap to make, but is an expensive pharmaceutical drug today and it would replace most sleeping pills on the market. Not good for the competition. Yes I'm one of those millions and I have to take three different types of sleeping pills every night. Then they allow me to take an illegal narcotic to keep me awake during the day. It's Ritalin, the same thing they load our kids up on at school to settle them down. The street name of this drug is SPEED. If your hyperactive, it slows you down. If your not, it speeds you up and keeps you awake. I believe it is one of those drugs that you can take and stay up for days, but at much higher dosage than I take.

If nothing else, you can't accuse me of not providing an argument for my disagreement.

valerb
11th December 2009, 07:59
And funny, Valerb, for most people I only see life getting harder and harder, not better and better. We are sliding backward in both prosperity AND freedom, and really, that is only to be expected, as the two are inextricably linked. Do not mistake scientific or technological progress for societal or political progress.

I'm sorry that's how you see life or are experiencing it yourself, but there's an awful lot of us out here that have not been impacted by this current financial crisis at all. As Brian stated he has a six figure income and is apparently content with that. My wife also has a six figure income. I realize that costs are rising for some products and falling for others. The reality is, those minimal changes in prices have a much greater impact on those at the lower end of the income scale than those with more income. Same as always. Actually those at the higher income levels are widening the gap between themselves and those at the lower end. This is nothing new, it's always been that way. Didn't you ever hear any of the ads that proclaim that a college degree will increase your income by a million dollars more on average than a non-college degreed person makes in a life time. The key to that ad is the word "average". Many with degrees never make a dime more in income, while other will make tens of millions in salary during their career and some make that much per year. You know all these people who are having problems and I personally don't know a single one. My daughter in Texas is the only person I'm related to that has lost her job and that is only for four weeks, while the new owners remodel before opening back up. It just dawned on me how odd it is that so many people related to me have dodged this bullet.

A more direct answer to your question is that my wife received a $9,100 increase in pay last September. Our house was paid off in October and she received her annual Christmas bonus of $10,000. We owe absolutely no one a dime. So, from a financial standpoint, life "is" getting better and better every year and not just for my wife, but for millions of Americans. Yes there is a large number of people who are in serious financial trouble now and they are not all hourly workers either. People of all walks of life and salary levels have been impacted by this mess. The pain is not being felt equally, as many have "not" been free spending and actually have managed to save substantial sums of money.

While there is the constant threat of losing our freedom, I really don't have a problem with anything to date. I can leave my house right now and fly or drive anywhere in the US or Canada. We're taking our granddaughter on a trip to Europe in May. I still own my hand gun, shot gun and Semi-automatic rifle. I have a years plus worth of food on the shelf and another 27 five gallon buckets of food I hope to just pitch some day. I really don't buy into this conspiracy crap, but having been through a category 3 hurricane and rode the waves in San Fransisco during their big quake. I've had an up close and personal look at what natural disasters are like and what life is like in the aftermath. I can still vote, but I choose not to. The only thing that has been a loss to me was in Las Vegas, when I went through security. They made me throw away a partial bottle of mouth wash and toothpaste that was over the limit. Atlanta security had no problem with the items. Some people see all this security as a loss of freedom, I see it as protecting my ass. Now when these hypothetical FEMA camps open up and they confiscate my guns, I'll start to worry, but until those things really happen. I'm going to continue to enjoy life.

"Societal or political progress", you make it sound like our country is being turned inside out and we are all set for a communist takeover or something. Obama can try as hard as he likes and even upset the apple cart to some degree, but it's all just one election away from being reversed. Hopefully that election will be next November. Hell, I might even vote in that election. I'm not worried about the dollars demise, unless it just drops to zero overnight, then I would get screwed. Short of that, I'll trade my FRN's into some other currency or PM's on the way down.

learjet035
11th December 2009, 08:05
http://gb1990.net/

Argyria
11th December 2009, 08:20
Godamn val, what a smart outlook. While I'm not sure what the future will bring, the chicken littles don't really upset me much. I'll figure something out. I just like to be prepared for inflation. As one caveat, though, you should read patriot 1 and patriot 2. Patriot 2 didn't even pass as a complete bill, it passed as fragments riding on other bills, because they knew it would raise a lot of ire in its entirety.

valerb
11th December 2009, 08:48
Godamn val, what a smart outlook. While I'm not sure what the future will bring, the chicken littles don't really upset me much. I'll figure something out. I just like to be prepared for inflation. As one caveat, though, you should read patriot 1 and patriot 2. Patriot 2 didn't even pass as a complete bill, it passed as fragments riding on other bills, because they knew it would raise a lot of ire in its entirety.

The one thing that really pisses me off. You can have a flight attendant do or say anything she wants and there is nothing you can do about without landing in jail under some terrorist act for interfering with the flight crew.

I wonder if you were to get in an argument with a bus driver, if you would be arrested for inhibiting the free flow of traffic on a US highway?

I'd like to believe that those laws were passed for the express purpose of denying terrorist the same protection from abusive power that we enjoy. The anti gubmit crowd believes everything is designed to destroy our constitutional rights and terrorism is just an excuse.

hippiebrian
12th December 2009, 23:43
The one thing that really pisses me off. You can have a flight attendant do or say anything she wants and there is nothing you can do about without landing in jail under some terrorist act for interfering with the flight crew.

I wonder if you were to get in an argument with a bus driver, if you would be arrested for inhibiting the free flow of traffic on a US highway?

I'd like to believe that those laws were passed for the express purpose of denying terrorist the same protection from abusive power that we enjoy. The anti gubmit crowd believes everything is designed to destroy our constitutional rights and terrorism is just an excuse.


Actually, it is illegal to even engage a bus driver in conversation in most states. As far as how a flight attendant treats or is treated, remember, the airline is a private industry. Wouldn't you have someone arrested or at least removed from your property if they were rude to you, despite what you may have said? If you have a problem with an attendant, keep your cool and report them to the airline when the flight is over. Everyone comes out better.

valerb
13th December 2009, 04:05
Actually, it is illegal to even engage a bus driver in conversation in most states. As far as how a flight attendant treats or is treated, remember, the airline is a private industry. Wouldn't you have someone arrested or at least removed from your property if they were rude to you, despite what you may have said? If you have a problem with an attendant, keep your cool and report them to the airline when the flight is over. Everyone comes out better.

I'm not talking about a companies right to run their business as they see fit. Actually, If I found out one of my employees was rude to a customer and cause a problem, I would more than likely discipline or fire the employee. I'm referring to the right to be arrested by the feds for terrorist related activities for an argument with a flight attendant. I have never had that problem, but some have and the consequences are ridiculous. Kind of on line with schools zero drug policies, when they suspend some kid for taking an aspirin. Some people just take a policy or law and stretch it beyond all rational logic.

hippiebrian
13th December 2009, 06:28
I'm not talking about a companies right to run their business as they see fit. Actually, If I found out one of my employees was rude to a customer and cause a problem, I would more than likely discipline or fire the employee. I'm referring to the right to be arrested by the feds for terrorist related activities for an argument with a flight attendant. I have never had that problem, but some have and the consequences are ridiculous. Kind of on line with schools zero drug policies, when they suspend some kid for taking an aspirin. Some people just take a policy or law and stretch it beyond all rational logic.

O.K., this may seem like a cop out, but I just don't argue with the attendant, and have no problems. It may be harsh, but the solution is pretty simple to me, and I do wonder how obnoxious these passengers were, as I've seen some pretty obnoxious ones where nothing at all happened to them.

UmassSteve
13th December 2009, 11:32
I do kind of side with valerb on this one. A lot of times society will overreact to problems and swing towards to far in one extreme to solve the problem. Zero tolerance policies haven't made schools any better or any safer, they've only made them more paranoid and made students that much more resentful. Fortunately, zero tolerance is getting hammered pretty hard and will hopefully soon fall by the wayside. Hopefully air lines will loosen up just a little bit to come to the right amount of safety vs. consumer hassle.

valerb
13th December 2009, 16:30
O.K., this may seem like a cop out, but I just don't argue with the attendant, and have no problems. It may be harsh, but the solution is pretty simple to me, and I do wonder how obnoxious these passengers were, as I've seen some pretty obnoxious ones where nothing at all happened to them.

Between 1985 and 1990, I accumulated over a million frequent flier miles and saw very little conflict between crew and passengers. However it the last few years, I've seen more aggressive flight attendants, barking orders at passengers as if they were school children. You tell someone the passengers are not allowed to argue with you and the power just seems to go to some of their heads. It's not like it's rampant, but much more than in past decades. Or maybe it is, because I fly very seldom these day and I've seen it more than in the past. It's one thing if a passenger gives a flight attendant crap, but it's all together different if a flight attendant pissed off a passenger with their bad attitude and a passenger barks back. The worst thing that can happen to the flight attendant is to lose her job, while the passenger can be charged with a federal crime under the anti-terrorist act, even if the flight attendant starts the feud. Not that I've actually seen that happen, but I've read about it. But I have witnessed the feuds started by both sides. Since I have flown so many times it makes my head spin and I know what I'm supposed to do and what not to do. But the general public isn't always aware of the proper procedures and what is acceptable and expected of all passengers.

I must admit I did have a minor incident once, but it was health related. We were coming in for a landing and I got hit with a full blown kidney stone attack and couldn't sit upright in my seat. I released my seatbelt to the maximum length and was like stretched out on an angle trying to relieve the pain. The attendant came running up and telling me to set down, I can't, you must, I can't. I told her to shoot me or go sit down, but I can't sit down. So she did, sit down that is and promptly came right back was giving me a rash of **** for not following orders. Now I'm not feeling any better because we have landed, but I can at least stand up and get a drink of water and take a Demerol for the pain. Today, I could have been arrested for that failure to follow orders. Sure a hell I would have run into some federal agent who would not know anything about what a kidney stone attack could feel like and press charges. Of course I would have been able to beat the charges in front of a jury, but at what cost. I've had seventeen of those miserable stones in my life and that incident was by far the most painful I had ever experienced. I guess if I was having a heart attack she might have been more understanding because I was slumped over and unconscious.

SilverLite
13th December 2009, 23:55
Here is Glenn's own words regarding the original statement made about this post...

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/videos/?uri=channels/338017/727555

UmassSteve
14th December 2009, 01:10
Great Scott! This thread was originally about Glenn Beck?

I honestly did not remember that...

LETMYSILVERGO
14th December 2009, 01:47
Between 1985 and 1990, I accumulated over a million frequent flier miles and saw very little conflict between crew and passengers. However it the last few years, I've seen more aggressive flight attendants, barking orders at passengers as if they were school children. You tell someone the passengers are not allowed to argue with you and the power just seems to go to some of their heads. It's not like it's rampant, but much more than in past decades. Or maybe it is, because I fly very seldom these day and I've seen it more than in the past. It's one thing if a passenger gives a flight attendant crap, but it's all together different if a flight attendant pissed off a passenger with their bad attitude and a passenger barks back. The worst thing that can happen to the flight attendant is to lose her job, while the passenger can be charged with a federal crime under the anti-terrorist act, even if the flight attendant starts the feud. Not that I've actually seen that happen, but I've read about it. But I have witnessed the feuds started by both sides. Since I have flown so many times it makes my head spin and I know what I'm supposed to do and what not to do. But the general public isn't always aware of the proper procedures and what is acceptable and expected of all passengers.

I must admit I did have a minor incident once, but it was health related. We were coming in for a landing and I got hit with a full blown kidney stone attack and couldn't sit upright in my seat. I released my seatbelt to the maximum length and was like stretched out on an angle trying to relieve the pain. The attendant came running up and telling me to set down, I can't, you must, I can't. I told her to shoot me or go sit down, but I can't sit down. So she did, sit down that is and promptly came right back was giving me a rash of **** for not following orders. Now I'm not feeling any better because we have landed, but I can at least stand up and get a drink of water and take a Demerol for the pain. Today, I could have been arrested for that failure to follow orders. Sure a hell I would have run into some federal agent who would not know anything about what a kidney stone attack could feel like and press charges. Of course I would have been able to beat the charges in front of a jury, but at what cost. I've had seventeen of those miserable stones in my life and that incident was by far the most painful I had ever experienced. I guess if I was having a heart attack she might have been more understanding because I was slumped over and unconscious.

BACK IN 1968, HEADING FOR BOOT CAMP, I WAS SMOKING A CIGAR AND WE WHERE BEGINING TO LAND, the Sterwardist " fly me to Miami" -- ask me to put it out , i said i would when I was good and ready--( I WAS A SMART ASS 18 YEAR OLD PISSED OFF DRAFTEE --- TODAY THEY WOULD
PUT ME IN A FIRING SQUAD"

2 YEARS ago i flew back a forth to australia, I will never fly again, for at least another 5 years---

SOUNDS LIKE THEY PUT U THROUGH THE WRINGER

ONE OTHER THING-- I'M ABOUT HALF CRIPLED FROM SOME HEAD ON CRASHES, THEY MAKE U TAKE YOUR SHOES OFF, BUT THERE ARE NO CHAIRS TO SIT AND PUT THEM BACK ON--- I Ask the newbie SECURITY DUDE-" hOW ABOUT GETTING US SOME CHAIRS?? LUCKY THEY DID NOT DETAIN ME FOR BEING A WANNA BE TROUBLE MAKER

Relayer
20th December 2009, 17:15
LOL!!! Great post!

Life experience is so valuable for perspective!! N'est pas?



Keep em coming brother!

silverheartbone
21st February 2013, 05:51
Fortunately, in this subdivision we were far enough apart that dogs barking wasn't really a problem. Each home had between 1 and 2 acres, and only a couple of people had dogs that were kept outside.

Another property rights issue:

Woodpeckers are considered endangered, and it is illegal to kill them.

At one point the neighborhood was being damaged by them, several people's homes had a number of holes in them. After our house got attacked a couple times, my father was getting irritated. One summer morning, it was probably about 6:30 or so, and the birds were singing, was a typical peaceful summer morning in the woods. Then I heard pecking on the house. I kept dozing on for a couple more minutes, then the quiet of the summer morning was punctuated by a loud 'KA-BLAM'. My dad had shot the thing right off the house with his .410. Later that day I looked for the remains of that woodpecker. Never found a piece of it.

If the woodpecker had chosen one of the many large oak trees around the house to make its home, I very much doubt it would have gotten shot. It wasn't the noise it was making that did it. It was drilling holes in the house.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyEz79jsKFw

silverheartbone
9th July 2013, 13:59
Bro, where to start…. There is a much bigger picture we need to look at. Conservative reactions to unsustainable socialist programs are not the root cause of the crumbling foundation of the United States.

You presume that without government programs stable society is unattainable, but that has been proven wrong with the advent of early America. The encroachment of the governments control of the supply of fractonal money via 1913 federal reserve act creates the boom/bust periods, and real hidden agendas.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
Thomas Jefferson

Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.
Thomas Jefferson

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
Thomas Jefferson

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
Thomas Jefferson

I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.
Thomas Jefferson

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
Thomas Jefferson

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
Thomas Jefferson

Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.
Thomas Jefferson

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.
Thomas Jefferson

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.
Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DY0EhaavlVk

That is just plain old nasty.

this from above...

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.
Thomas Jefferson
Were hosed.

jimi
9th July 2013, 14:17
I want to play:

http://news.sky.com/story/1113339/peeping-tom-fished-out-of-septic-tank

Xizang
9th July 2013, 14:32
Which one of you guys is that?