Jesus Christ, what a great fit this lunatic is with FOX.

im ted . i’ll take 4 ! with gummy bears !

Affirmative Action exists in order to systematically create a more diverse society.

As an example, travel to Europe where racial integration is piss poor. Affirmative Action (“positive discrimination” in UK English) is virtually unheard of there. And guess what? Universities have extremely few amounts of minorities (only ones are foreign asian students basically). Minorities don’t run businesses. They don’t serve in high offices. They hardly have any exposure in the media.

John Stossel is such a hardcore anti-government ideologue that he’d probably defend slavery if it were around today. I’m surprised he hasn’t gone out against child labor laws yet.

This was done several years back on the SMU campus and the university also shut it down. The truth hurts, and is not always politically correct.

Fox News is now competing with comedy central, and winning.

m said:
John Stossel is such a hardcore anti-government ideologue that he’d probably defend slavery if it were around today.

Ummm . . . why would someone who is “anti-government” defend slavery? Wasn’t slavery institutionalized and perpetuated by a government run amok? Isn’t slavery the exact opposite of libertarianism (of which Stossel is a proponent)?

im ted . i ordered cupcakes a long time ago and do not see them yet .

m said:
positive discrimination

Sounds a Newspeak phrase right out of 1984.

By the way. Stossel is apparently a “perfectly fine” and “acceptable” media figure in our society, while if you took his opinions and did a complete inverse: have a rampant communist who want to nationalize all industries – would somehow have completely unacceptable views for any mainstream program. Just another example of right-wing bias in the mainstream media.

Basically Stossel is so far to the right and so extreme in his ideology, the Anti-Stossel would be have to be Vlademir Lenin himself.

m said:
Affirmative Action exists in order to systematically create a more diverse society.

As an example, travel to Europe where racial integration is piss poor. Affirmative Action (“positive discrimination” in UK English) is virtually unheard of there. And guess what? Universities have extremely few amounts of minorities (only ones are foreign asian students basically). Minorities don’t run businesses. They don’t serve in high offices. They hardly have any exposure in the media.

John Stossel is such a hardcore anti-government ideologue that he’d probably defend slavery if it were around today. I’m surprised he hasn’t gone out against child labor laws yet.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe there just aren’t that many minorities living in Europe? There aren’t. There never has been. They’ve been importing Asians and Muslims for the last decade just to feel good about themselves, and the Muslims won’t work.

John Stossel Will Give You A Cupcake Discount If You Are Black Or Latino”

So will liberals!

m said:
have a rampant communist who want to nationalize all industries – would somehow have completely unacceptable views for any mainstream program

Doesn’t that describe every single host in the MSNBC line-up? Please name for me one industry that Keith Olbermann thinks should be left to the free market.

AnonymousFinch said:
Ummm . . . why would someone who is “anti-government” defend slavery? Wasn’t slavery institutionalized and perpetuated by a government run amok? Isn’t slavery the exact opposite of libertarianism (of which Stossel is a proponent)?

lol?

Slavery was individuals owning other individuals. No government involved. Slavery existed before the federal government even existed.

And no. According to Stossel’s extremist views slavery is perfectly fine because government should not grant rights to people (because the government is inherently evil in every action it takes). Thus, Stossel’s belief is that even if slavery existed, through the “freedom of the marketplace” people would stop buying products and avoid corporations and/or individuals who owned black people, thus somehow magically make the entire thing disappear like a fuzzy cloud with rainbows and sparkles.

100% correct. Stossel says what A LOT of people won’t .

Progs will just call you racist… Ah well.

Let’s hire someone less qualified because of there race !1

If minority cupcake aficionados were historically and empirically either overcharged for or denied the opportunity to buy cupcakes, then this analogy would at least pretend to begin to make sense.

“Kelly did finally get Stossel to express approval of using race as a factor in college admissions, as long as they are one of many factors that play into a student’s admission, for the sake of diversity.”

So was Stossel’s cupcake analogy outlandish or not, Francis?

AnonymousFinch said:
Doesn’t that describe every single host in the MSNBC line-up? Please name for me one industry that Keith Olbermann thinks should be left to the free market.

Maybe cupcakes? But I doubt it.

m said:
lol?

Slavery was individuals owning other individuals. No government involved. Slavery existed before the federal government even existed.

And no. According to Stossel’s extremist views slavery is perfectly fine because government should not grant rights to people (because the government is inherently evil in every action it takes). Thus, Stossel’s belief is that even if slavery existed, through the “freedom of the marketplace” people would stop buying products and avoid corporations and/or individuals who owned black people, thus somehow magically make the entire thing disappear like a fuzzy cloud with rainbows and sparkles.

A perfect example of liberal logic. Make something up and generalize without reference to reality.

m said:
By the way. Stossel is apparently a “perfectly fine” and “acceptable” media figure in our society, while if you took his opinions and did a complete inverse: have a rampant communist who want to nationalize all industries – would somehow have completely unacceptable views for any mainstream program. Just another example of right-wing bias in the mainstream media. Basically Stossel is so far to the right and so extreme in his ideology, the Anti-Stossel would be have to be Vlademir Lenin himself.

What ?… So, your mad because that media (as of yet) has no commie station ?… Are you really insane or just trying to stir things up ?

disenlightened said:
A perfect example of liberal logic. Make something up and generalize without reference to reality.

Very funny. I’ll bet you don’t listen to Limbaugh. You should, he’s very funny without meaning to be.

m said:
lol?

Slavery was individuals owning other individuals. No government involved. Slavery existed before the federal government even existed.

And no. According to Stossel’s extremist views slavery is perfectly fine because government should not grant rights to people (because the government is inherently evil in every action it takes). Thus, Stossel’s belief is that even if slavery existed, through the “freedom of the marketplace” people would stop buying products and avoid corporations and/or individuals who owned black people, thus somehow magically make the entire thing disappear like a fuzzy cloud with rainbows and sparkles.

You are insane.

The government wasn’t involved in slavery? This is from the Library of Congress:

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/awlaw3/slavery.html

Slavery and Indentured Servants

Before the Civil War, slaves and indentured servants were considered personal property, and they or their descendants could be sold or inherited like any other personalty. Like other property, human chattel was governed largely by laws of individual states. Generally, these laws concerning indentured servants and slaves did not differentiate between the sexes. Some, however, addressed only women. Regardless of their country of origin, many early immigrants were indentured servants, people who sold their labor in exchange for passage to the New World and housing on their arrival. Initially, most laws passed concerned indentured servants, but around the middle of the seventeenth century, colonial laws began to reflect differences between indentured servants and slaves. More important, the laws began to differentiate between races: the association of “servitude for natural life” with people of African descent became common. Re Negro John Punch (1640) was one of the early cases that made a racial distinction among indentured servants.35

Virginia was one of the first states to acknowledge slavery in its laws, initially enacting such a law in 1661.36 The following year, Virginia passed two laws that pertained solely to women who were slaves or indentured servants and to their illegitimate children. Women servants who produced children by their masters could be punished by having to do two years of servitude with the churchwardens after the expiration of the term with their masters. The law reads, “that each woman servant gott with child by her master shall after her time by indenture or custome is expired be by the churchwardens of the parish where she lived when she was brought to bed of such bastard, sold for two years. . . .”37

The second law, which concerned the birthright of children born of “Negro” or mulatto women, would have a profound effect on the continuance of slavery, especially after the slave trade was abolished—and on the future descendants of these women. Great Britain had a very structured primogeniture system, under which children always claimed lineage through the father, even those born without the legitimacy of marriage. Virginia was one of the first colonies to legislate a change:

Act XII

Negro womens children to serve according to the condition of the mother.

WHEREAS some doubts have arrisen whether children got by any Englishman upon a Negro woman should be slave or free, Be it therefore enacted and declared by this present grand assembly, that all children borne in this country shalbe held bond or free only according to the condition of the mother, And that if any christian shall committ ffornication with a Negro man or woman, hee or shee soe offending shall pay double the ffines imposed by the former act.38

Most slave colonies or states enacted similar laws. After the slave trade officially ended, many slave owners tried to ensure that sufficient numbers of slaves were available to work their plantations. Slave women of childbearing age became more valuable. There are a number of court cases concerning slave women who either killed their masters who forced them to have sexual relations or killed the children rather than have the children enslaved.39

Miscegenation laws, forbidding marriage between races, were prevalent in the South and the West. Because English masters had had little regard for indentured servants of non-Anglo ethnic groups, they allowed and sometimes encouraged commingling of their servants. Being seen in public or bringing legitimacy to these relations, however, was not lawful. This is evinced by a court decision from 1630, the first court decision in which a Negro woman and a white man figured prominently. Re Davis (1630) concerned sexual relations between them, the decision stating, “Hugh Davis to be soundly whipt . . . for abusing himself to the dishonor of God and shame of Christianity by defiling his body in lying with a Negro, which fault he is to actk. next sabbath day.”40

Virginia passed its first miscegenation law in 1691 as part of “An act for suppressing outlying Slaves.”

And for prevention of that abominable mixture and spurious issue which hereafter may encrease in this dominion, as well by negroes, mulattoes, and Indians intermarrying with English, or other white women, as by their unlawfull accompanying with one another, Be it enacted by the authoritie aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted, that for the time to come, whatsoever English or other white man or woman being free shall intermarry with a negroe, mulatto, or Indian man or woman bond or free shall within three months after such marriage be banished and removed from this dominion forever. . . .41

Another section of the law closed the loophole created by the 1662 birthright law, which mandated that children born of a free white mother and Negro father were technically free. This amendment stated that a free white woman who had a bastard child by a Negro or mulatto man had to pay fifteen pounds sterling within one month of the birth. If she could not pay, she would become an indentured servant for five years. Whether or not the fine was paid, however, the child would be bound in service for thirty years.

The laws that restricted slaves or indentured servants generally addressed the owners and penalized them for breaking the law. Laws governing slaves allowed masters to beat or kill them under certain circumstances. Nor could they go to court to seek redress. A person of color was not permitted to testify against a white Christian, as illustrated by the 1717 Maryland law:

II. Be it Therefore Enacted, by the right honourable the Lord Proprietary, by and with the advice and consent of his Lordship’s Governor, and the Upper and Lower Houses of Assembly, and by the authority of the same, That from and after the end of this present session of assembly, no Negro or mulatto slave, free Negro, or mulatto born of a white woman, during his time of servitude by law, or any Indian slave, or free Indian natives, of this or the neighbouring provinces, be admitted and received as good and valid evidence in law, in any matter or thing whatsoever depending before any court of record, or before any magistrate within this province, wherein any christian white person is concerned.42

Against these overwhelming restrictions, there were a number of court cases in which slaves filed suit seeking their freedom or freed Negroes claimed property that had been inherited from their former owners. Elizabeth Freeman (1732/ 34-1829), a slave, presented her case for freedom in a Massachusetts court pro se in 1783 and won.43 In addition there were cases where the slave or freed person was the defendant; Celia, a Slave is a narrative account of such a trial in Missouri in 1855.44

White women were often involved in litigation concerning slaves through the workings of the dower laws. In some states women could inherit personalty but could only receive a life estate in real property.45 This situation created many problems, particularly if slaves were needed to make profits from the land. For example, if a woman chose to free her inherited personalty at death, her descendants would have no one to work the land unless they farmed it with paid workers or purchased new slaves. Frequently, wills or contracts that granted freedom or conveyed realty or personalty as dower were contested in court.

The laws and resulting court cases that involved slavery and indentured servants have had a major impact on America, its men and women alike, in both the past and the present. Through the years, the laws that the states passed became steadily more restrictive toward slaves, mulattoes, and freed Negroes. In 1850, the federal government’s involvement deepened with the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act, responding to strong lobbying efforts by slaveholders wanting to counteract abolitionist forces.46 In the face of these all-encompassing laws, women with extraordinary courage fought for a better life. For example, Harriet Tubman (ca. 1821-1913) returned to the South nineteen times to bring more than three hundred fugitives to freedom, and Charlotte Forten (1837-1914), a free black woman from Philadelphia, went to South Carolina during the early Civil War to teach “the contrabands of war” (slaves who had escaped to Union lines).47

In 1865, the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ended slavery and involuntary servitude. Nevertheless, many laws and judicial precedents that had been established before that date would not be changed until the mid- or late-twentieth century.

AnonymousFinch said:
Doesn’t that describe every single host in the MSNBC line-up? Please name for me one industry that Keith Olbermann thinks should be left to the free market.

Please spare the hyperbole. That’s such a stupid thing to ask for. You know it’s not true. It’s such a god damn stupid thing to even request.

Keith sleeps in his bed. It might be made by IKEA. Maybe not. But he has an affinity for soft beds. That’s why he got one.

Keith wakes up at 8 AM. His iPhone set to beep. He likes his iPhone. It’s his utility for emails, pictures and Twitter.

Keith eats breakfast. He’s loves cereal. Especially Kellog’s Cornflakes. Because he’s lactose intolerant he buys special milk as well.

Keith reads both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, including an assortment of other publications. He still likes the fabric and touch of regular newspapers for his morning routine.

Keith then goes down to the garage. There he’s got a Volvo. It’s his favorite type of car. They put safety first and he likes feeling safe when he drives.

blah blah blah blah blah

See, your comment is a prime example of the cesspool reality of modern conservatism. Basically conservatives accuse everyone to the left of Glenn Beck as “communists” and “radical socialists”, not really looking at policy and reality – but instead accusing liberals of what they dream up in a dreamworld that they are.

You probably have never met a real socialist in your life. I have. I’ve been to socialist gatherings. I have friends who are marxists.

Liberalism in America is, without a doubt, absolutely not socialism and is not anything remotely close to any writing of Karl Marx. Suggesting anything else is intellectually dishonest of the highest order.

m said:
And no. According to Stossel’s extremist views slavery is perfectly fine because government should not grant rights to people (because the government is inherently evil in every action it takes). Thus, Stossel’s belief is that even if slavery existed, through the “freedom of the marketplace” people would stop buying products and avoid corporations and/or individuals who owned black people, thus somehow magically make the entire thing disappear like a fuzzy cloud with rainbows and sparkles.

No libertarian believes in slavery. Libertarianism is the antithesis of slavery. Libertarianism does not mean no laws or no government; that’s called anarchy. Libertarianism stands for the proposition that you should have the least amount of government necessary to protect the freedom of others. Government is there is protect people from force, fraud, theft, etc.

I dont know where you “learned” the crap that you spout here, but you should get a refund. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

m said:
Please spare the hyperbole. That’s such a stupid thing to ask for. You know it’s not true. It’s such a god damn stupid thing to even request.

Keith sleeps in his bed. It might be made by IKEA. Maybe not. But he has an affinity for soft beds. That’s why he got one.

Keith wakes up at 8 AM. His iPhone set to beep. He likes his iPhone. It’s his utility for emails, pictures and Twitter.

Keith eats breakfast. He’s loves cereal. Especially Kellog’s Cornflakes. Because he’s lactose intolerant he buys special milk as well.

Keith reads both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, including an assortment of other publications. He still likes the fabric and touch of regular newspapers for his morning routine.

Keith then goes down to the garage. There he’s got a Volvo. It’s his favorite type of car. They put safety first and he likes feeling safe when he drives.

blah blah blah blah blah

See, your comment is a prime example of the cesspool reality of modern conservatism. Basically conservatives accuse everyone to the left of Glenn Beck as “communists” and “radical socialists”, not really looking at policy and reality – but instead accusing liberals of what they dream up in a dreamworld that they are.

You probably have never met a real socialist in your life. I have. I’ve been to socialist gatherings. I have friends who are marxists.

Liberalism in America is, without a doubt, absolutely not socialism and is not anything remotely close to any writing of Karl Marx. Suggesting anything else is intellectually dishonest of the highest order.

You didn’t answer the question. What industry does keith think should be left to the free market?

every person’s reaction should be exactly the same as your feelings about affirmative action – whether you know it or not. you are revolted because it is revolting. except that whites are expected to take it in the ass. when latinos surpass whites, will we then receive their tuition benefits? do you see how stupid and degrading affirmative action is yet?

AnonymousFinch said:
m said:

AnonymousFinch said:
You are insane.

The government wasn’t involved in slavery? This is from the Library of Congress:

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/awlaw3/slavery.html

TLDR part

I never said government wasn’t involved in slavery. I said you don’t need government for slavery to exist. You started to blame government as if it’s the root cause of slavery. I said slavery would still exist if you removed government. Then you start copy/pasting something completely irrelevant to the discussion.

It all boils down to this:

If you remove government – something which is what extremist Stossel advocates, you de facto reinstitute slavery. Government is the only thing that ensures slavery doesn’t exist anymore. This is through law and through granting of rights. Government is the only entity that protects individuals and ensures we’re all equal in society. That’s its job. Stossel is against this.

SarahP said:
Very funny. I’ll bet you don’t listen to Limbaugh. You should, he’s very funny without meaning to be.

You know you don’t listen to him.

m said:
I never said government wasn’t involved in slavery.

Bullshit. Here is exactly what you said:

m said:
Slavery was individuals owning other individuals. No government involved.

How in the fucking world can you say “NO GOVERNMENT INVOLVED” one minute, and then a minute later say “I NEVER SAID GOVERNMENT WASN’T INVOLVED IN SLAVERY.” Wow! You are truly, truly, pathologically insane.

m said, no government involved. exact words

m said:
If you remove government – something which is what extremist Stossel advocates, you de facto reinstitute slavery. Government is the only thing that ensures slavery doesn’t exist anymore. This is through law and through granting of rights. Government is the only entity that protects individuals and ensures we’re all equal in society. That’s its job. Stossel is against this.

No libertarianism believes in the abolition of all government. That is anarchy, not libertarianism.

AnonymousFinch said:
You didn’t answer the question. What industry does keith think should be left to the free market?

I’m not Keith Olbermann. Instead I wrote you a long-ass list of hypothetical examples that include Olbermann’s daily life where he’s been granted more opportunity through having the ability to choose for his own liking. If you think Keith advocates for having the government make, design and manufacture cell phones, cereal, beds, milk, newspapers, foreign cars, then you’re obviously past the point of no return in imaginary Conservativeland.

disenlightened said:
You know you don’t listen to him.

Oh but I do. He’s funnier than Colbert, but it’s unintentional.

no m , just if we are allowed transfat, a happy meal, if we want to buy health insurance( we must buy it now)

fuck i could smoke on a airplane 30 yrs ago, now i cant even at the fucking airport

librals just make more laws for shit i cant do, and laws for shit i have to do

what the fuck is next no ice cream toooooooooooo fattyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

im ted . ok . forget the gummy bears .

John Stossel is right, why are blacks offended at paying $0.5 for a cupcake when that’s exactly what affirmative action does? I know black republicans who HATE affirmative action, they are successful and have never believed they needed a special program to get them accepted to a good school or to a good job.

Affirmative action is racist because it presumes that racial minorities can’t do good or can do too well like Asians in SAT scores. So instead of judging individuals as individuals, it lumps everyone into categories.

As for slavery, slavery was regulated at the state level, it was illegal for example to give a slave a gun, even if you wanted him to go hunting. It was also illegal to steal or help slaves scape. Slave owners also had to participate in programs to prevent slave rebellions and protect each others properties.

Libertarianism would never allow slavery because libertarians believe your freedom ends where your neighbors’ nose begins. Thus, you can carry an AK-47, smoke crack, have ten abortions at your expense, stick a carrot up your ass, get a sex change, and libertarians don’t care as long as you don’t shoot somebody.

Instead we have gun control laws that keep the criminals armed and the law-abiding unarmed in states like New York, drug laws that make drug dealers rich while drug users rot in prison, taxpayer-funded sex-change operations in San Francisco, and Obama traveling to India like a King.

http://politicallyincorrectlibertarian.wordpress.com/2010/11/10/affirmative-action-or-affirmative-racism/

AnonymousFinch said:
Bullshit. Here is exactly what you said:

How in the fucking world can you say “NO GOVERNMENT INVOLVED” one minute, and then a minute later say “I NEVER SAID GOVERNMENT WASN’T INVOLVED IN SLAVERY.” Wow! You are truly, truly, pathologically insane.

Thanks for grabbing quotes out of context and misinterpreting them. The ****act**** of owning slaves has nothing to do with government. There is (quoting myself) “no government involved” in having one individual own another individual. Government is not the middle-man here. The government is not an institution that owns the slaves and lease them to the slave owner.

I never said government wasn’t involved with the ***issue*** of slavery, because – no description required, slave ownership was prevalent throughout this country.

AnonymousFinch said:
No libertarianism believes in the abolition of all government. That is anarchy, not libertarianism.

Libertarianistic attitudes led to the larger role of government. That larger role of government led to the abolition of slavery and, eventually, civil rights. There are certain things with no free market solutions, and being that racial politics is intrinsically tied to socioeconomics, minorities (how ever you want to define them, be it economically or ethnically or otherwise) face a tougher uphill battle than those born into a more agreeable financial situation. More often than not, those with economic power wave that power over those who don’t, sometimes abusing those who struggle. That’s why the government had to get involved. That’s why regulation makes sense. And that’s why libertarianism that challenges social systems by condescendingly comparing cupcakes to real socioeconomic, and often racial struggle, is not only shockingly out of touch but all around rank, especially if it’s for the sake of ratings or water cooler talk.

m said:
Thanks for grabbing quotes out of context and misinterpreting them. The ****act**** of owning slaves has nothing to do with government. There is (quoting myself) “no government involved” in having one individual own another individual. Government is not the middle-man here. The government is not an institution that owns the slaves and lease them to the slave owner.

I never said government wasn’t involved with the ***issue*** of slavery, because – no description required, slave ownership was prevalent throughout this country.

Yes, government is involved in one person owning another. Property is a legal concept, defined by the state. It was government that said certain people were property. It was, in your terms, the middleman.

And you’re full of shit. I didn’t quote you out of context. You just don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. That’s why you are making the asinine argument that libertarians believe in no government.

the key word is power, who has it, and who uses it, that is the question

I will take a chocolate one please.

no ice cream for you

Big_F-ing_Deal said:
Jesus Christ, what a great fit this lunatic is with FOX.

You libs REALLY cling on to your racial hatred and inability to truly treat people equally. There’s something collectively wrong with your mental state.

People get angry when you price a cupcake according to skin color. But they are perfectly happy handing out jobs, scholarships, etc. on that basis. What’s wrong with this picture?

AnonymousFinch said:
No libertarianism believes in the abolition of all government. That is anarchy, not libertarianism.

Thanks for the Libertarian sermon. I don’t think it’s likely to sweep the nation any time soon. Mean, arrogant people who seem largely unbalanced. To-wit: Ron Paul and Ayn Rand Paul. Cuckoo! Cuckoo! Cuckoo!

I heard a story on the BBC today of a South African medical care company indicted for buying children’s kidneys from their parents and selling them to wealthy Israelis. Free enterprise!

AnonymousFinch said:
No libertarianism believes in the abolition of all government. That is anarchy, not libertarianism.

Same shit, different names.

PoliticallyIncorrectLibertarian said:
Libertarianism would never allow slavery because libertarians believe your freedom ends where your neighbors’ nose begins. Thus, you can carry an AK-47, smoke crack, have ten abortions at your expense, stick a carrot up your ass, get a sex change, and libertarians don’t care as long as you don’t shoot somebody.

Define “freedom”. Define “neighbors’ nose”.

If you remove all rules and regulations in society and only keep the government as a minimalist night-watcher whose purpose is to enforce whatever paragraphs of duties they may have in whatever conservative-libertarian utopia might exist, you can de facto enable slavery practices and the ownership of other human beings:

Remove all regulations for working conditions, hours, habitat, rules. Age. Condition. Everything. A decent work place isn’t necessary for freedom.
Remove the right for education. Nobody is obliged to educate themselves. Reading isn’t necessary for freedom.
Remove the right to organize. Any attempts to counter the existing conditions aren’t supported by governmental law.
Nobody pays taxes and there exist no governmental obligations to anything. Government doesn’t know you exist as an individual because they have no power to know who you are or keep track of you in any possible way.
Humans are beholden to nobody, only have the bare amount of rights possible and are only prohibited towards using deadly force towards others.

Basically in an ideal libertarian society, you can perfectly reasonably own slaves because ownership of someone else doesn’t necessarily mean you technically restrict their freedom. As long as they have the basic liberty of existing and don’t commit the act of infringing on someone else’s liberty (physical/murder). If they’re brought up to not read, not go to school – only work in the fields or in factories with no outside experiences or interaction – how would they know what different types of freedoms there are? How would they know the different types of interpretations of “neighbors’ nose” begins or ends?

Libertarianism is as big of a sham as marxism. The end.

Not to worry. I am sure Stossel wouldn’t give a cupcake to a starving child. All he has ever given anyone is a icky feeling about facial hair on males. Much as the Drop Out Governor did for facial hair on females.

so name the bad guys King

m said:
Thanks for grabbing quotes out of context and misinterpreting them. The ****act**** of owning slaves has nothing to do with government. There is (quoting myself) “no government involved” in having one individual own another individual. Government is not the middle-man here. The government is not an institution that owns the slaves and lease them to the slave owner. I never said government wasn’t involved with the ***issue*** of slavery, because – no description required, slave ownership was prevalent throughout this country.

Give it up m, you lost this one.

BBC report who are the bad guys

This was a “case study” created by a child, for children. Only on Fox News.

m said:
Basically in an ideal libertarian society, you can perfectly reasonably own slaves because ownership of someone else doesn’t necessarily mean you technically restrict their freedom. As long as they have the basic liberty of existing and don’t commit the act of infringing on someone else’s liberty (physical/murder). If they’re brought up to not read, not go to school – only work in the fields or in factories with no outside experiences or interaction – how would they know what different types of freedoms there are? How would they know the different types of interpretations of “neighbors’ nose” begins or ends?

Where has any libertarian ever said this? You are pulling this out of your ass. This is the straw man argument. instead of arguing against libertarianism, you making shit up that no libertarian believes (and is wholly inconsistent with libertarian philosophy) and arguing against that.

YES! SLAVERY IS A RESTRICTION ON SOMEONE’S FREEDOM!!!!!!!! I defy you to find and cite for me a libertarian who has argued that slavery isn’t a restriction on someone else’s freedom.

The Real Royal King said:
All he has ever given anyone is a icky feeling about facial hair on males

A little latent homosexuality raising it’s ugly head, eh?

The Real Royal King said:
Mean, arrogant people who seem largely unbalanced.

This comes, of course, from the meanest and most arrogant person I can think of.

“Not to worry. I am sure Stossel wouldn’t give a cupcake to a starving child.”

—Well, he does give to charity and charities do give cupcakes, food, housing and lots of goodies to starving children. Of course, people like you would rather pay higher taxes and have the government do that. Like in New York where mayor bloomberg doesn’t want you to use food stamps to buy Coke.

http://politicallyincorrectlibertarian.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/hungry-let-bloomberg-feed-you/

By the way, have you even read Ayn Rand or did Media Matters tell you not to?

The Real Royal King said:
I heard a story on the BBC today of a South African medical care company indicted for buying children’s kidneys from their parents and selling them to wealthy Israelis. Free enterprise!

That’s not free enterprise. It is child abuse, assault, battery, etc. That is not libertarianism. Again, stop arguing against the straw man.

timzank said:
A little latent homosexuality raising it’s ugly head, eh?

Tim, this is the funniest thing you’ve ever said here. Well done.

AnonymousFinch said:
Yes, government is involved in one person owning another. Property is a legal concept, defined by the state. It was government that said certain people were property. It was, in your terms, the middleman.

And you’re full of shit. I didn’t quote you out of context. You just don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. That’s why you are making the asinine argument that libertarians believe in no government.

Owning slaves was an act by individuals owning other individuals. There is no need for government to declare slaves as property for slavery to exist. Slaves would still belong to someone regardless of not the government declared them as property.

The main difference between anarchists and libertarians is that libertarians don’t want people to kill other people. That’s what it comes down to. Otherwise anarchy and libertarianism is pretty much the same god damn thing.

You know what? Best part of this conservations is knowing that your ideology sucks ass and will only live in the extreme fringes.

AnonymousFinch said:
Tim, this is the funniest thing you’ve ever said here. Well done.

Every once in a while I come through.

m said:
Owning slaves was an act by individuals owning other individuals. There is no need for government to declare slaves as property for slavery to exist. Slaves would still belong to someone regardless of not the government declared them as property.

No, you are wrong. WIthout government, you can confine someone and force them to perform labor for you under the threat of force. But you don’t “own” them. “Ownership” happens under the color of law, not under the threat of force. “Ownership,” by definition, means that the state recognizes your right to property. If you “stole” a person’s slave from them, the government would imprison that person for theft, if your access to the courts to get civil compensation, etc., etc.

m are you kidding, how would slaves belong to someone, who buy ,who sells, who the fuck said i was a slave, prove i am a slave, walk the fuck away and say i aint a slave, its about power dummy

m said:
The main difference between anarchists and libertarians is that libertarians don’t want people to kill other people. That’s what it comes down to. Otherwise anarchy and libertarianism is pretty much the same god damn thing.

No, it is not. Libertarians believe in the full panoply of rights protected by the government. The difference is that they don’t believe in the progressive view of “rights”, which aren’t really rights at all but rather entitlements. Libertarians believe that you can’t take from one person in order to provide for someone else.

Again, rather than making shit up, why don’t you cite a legitimate source for your claims against libertarianism?

AnonymousFinch said:
Where has any libertarian ever said this? You are pulling this out of your ass. This is the straw man argument. instead of arguing against libertarianism, you making shit up that no libertarian believes (and is wholly inconsistent with libertarian philosophy) and arguing against that.

YES! SLAVERY IS A RESTRICTION ON SOMEONE’S FREEDOM!!!!!!!! I defy you to find and cite for me a libertarian who has argued that slavery isn’t a restriction on someone else’s freedom.

In a libertarian society the act of slavery (locked up like cattle, working on fields for no pay) could persist perfectly legally. You just can’t enforce it through force/violence or death.

this guy is talking anarchy

then why would anyone be slaves………………………..force/violence or death…………….. the what could you use to make someone a slave

AnonymousFinch said:
Libertarians believe in the full panoply of rights protected by the government.

M, it’s derived from the word “liberty”, not exactly rocket science. You are “inventing” your own version of libertarians and frankly, it’s kind of embarassing. Might wanna read up before you speak up.

m said:
In a libertarian society the act of slavery (locked up like cattle, working on fields for no pay) could persist perfectly legally. You just can’t enforce it through force/violence or death.

“Locking someone up” is force!!!!! Duh!!

The Real Royal King said:
Thanks for the Libertarian sermon.

Very interesting comment. I have explained libertarianism here, but I haven’t endorsed it or made any normative statements about it.

AnonymousFinch said:
No, it is not. Libertarians believe in the full panoply of rights protected by the government. The difference is that they don’t believe in the progressive view of “rights”, which aren’t really rights at all but rather entitlements. Libertarians believe that you can’t take from one person in order to provide for someone else.

The state of anarchy allows individuals to infringe upon other individuals pretty much without fear of retribution beyond other individuals who do the same thing. To establish order, libertarians grant government exclusivity on the act of deadly violence. Since government is then is the only entity in society which is permitted to kill, its power must be minimized as much as possible.

The generalities of labour laws, how to pay for government, how to organize society, obligations, etc. are exactly the same between anarchists and libertarians. The right to exist as an individual – as a human being, is allowed in a libertarian society. But not any other right.

m said:
The state of anarchy allows individuals to infringe upon other individuals pretty much without fear of retribution beyond other individuals who do the same thing. To establish order, libertarians grant government exclusivity on the act of deadly violence. Since government is then is the only entity in society which is permitted to kill, its power must be minimized as much as possible. The generalities of labour laws, how to pay for government, how to organize society, obligations, etc. are exactly the same between anarchists and libertarians. The right to exist as an individual – as a human being, is allowed in a libertarian society. But not any other right.

Been readin’ eh?

The Real Royal King said:
Not to worry. I am sure Stossel wouldn’t give a cupcake to a starving child. All he has ever given anyone is a icky feeling about facial hair on males. Much as the Drop Out Governor did for facial hair on females.

Now that hurts my feelings Kingy Poo. No cupcake for you tonight. I’ll be laughing it up with The Royal Court Jester.

somebody beam him up

m said:
The state of anarchy allows individuals to infringe upon other individuals pretty much without fear of retribution beyond other individuals who do the same thing. To establish order, libertarians grant government exclusivity on the act of deadly violence. Since government is then is the only entity in society which is permitted to kill, its power must be minimized as much as possible.

The generalities of labour laws, how to pay for government, how to organize society, obligations, etc. are exactly the same between anarchists and libertarians. The right to exist as an individual – as a human being, is allowed in a libertarian society. But not any other right.

According to whom? Name and cite one libertarian who has said that!

You are wrong, again. Libertarians believe that government has a monopoly on the use of force, not just deadly violence. “Force,” for a libertarian, includes physical force (violence), transactional force (fraud, extortion, etc.), and (for most libertarians) economic force (monopoly).

Every libertarian I have ever known or read recognizes every right contained in the Bill of Rights and Civil War amendments to the U.S. Constitution. For God’s sake, the freedom of speech (which obviously is about a hell of a lot more than merely the right to exist as an individual) was first (and in my view best) explained by J.S. Mill’s On Liberty.

M, where do you get this shit? Why do you refuse to back up your assertions with something more than your own ipse dixit?

liberterianism is the view that people have to right to live their life however they like as long as they respect the equal rights of others

Finch, I think he copy & pasted the last bit, he was waiting for your next comment before flipping out a “site” reference I bet. He’s doing a sloppy job of baiting you.

cjd ohio 1 said:
liberterianism is the view that people have to right to live their life however they like as long as they respect the equal rights of others

In a nutshell, bro!

timzank said:
Finch, I think he copy & pasted the last bit, he was waiting for your next comment before flipping out a “site” reference I bet. He’s doing a sloppy job of baiting you.

Agreed. I really shouldn’t be taking the bait.

AnonymousFinch said:
Agreed. I really shouldn’t be taking the bait.

Kinda fun to play along though. Give him a few minutes, he’s searching….

One of my best friends comes from a prominent Lower Rio Grande Valley family of Libertarians who refused to tithe or pledge to their Church because too much money would make the Church bloated and spenthrift and who were fervent believers in coffee enemas (presumably without cream and sugar and only after cooled a bit) and consuming large quantities of aloe vera juice daily (which might seem to make the enemas therapeutically superfluous). They’re pretty much prototypes Libertarians in my experience.

AnonymousFinch said:
“Locking someone up” is force!!!!! Duh!!

You can “lock someone up” in an area with a fully working society indistinguishable from regular society and still call it prison. Freedom is a very broad word.

I still contend that in the ideal libertarian society with absolute minimal amount of government possible, it would be perfectly legal to have individuals in an extremely confined and restricted environment practice and live the exact same as was done with slaves over a hundred years ago. No rules beyond deadly force.

m said:
You can “lock someone up” in an area with a fully working society indistinguishable from regular society and still call it prison. Freedom is a very broad word. I still contend that in the ideal libertarian society with absolute minimal amount of government possible, it would be perfectly legal to have individuals in an extremely confined and restricted environment practice and live the exact same as was done with slaves over a hundred years ago. No rules beyond deadly force.

couldn’t find anything huh?

The Real Royal King said:
One of my best friends comes from a prominent Lower Rio Grande Valley family of Libertarians who refused to tithe or pledge to their Church because too much money would make the Church bloated and spenthrift and who were fervent believers in coffee enemas (presumably without cream and sugar and only after cooled a bit) and consuming large quantities of aloe vera juice daily (which might seem to make the enemas therapeutically superfluous). They’re pretty much prototypes Libertarians in my experience.

key words there “in my experience”.

then m believe what you want and the color green is now gray because i believe

The Real Royal King said:
One of my best friends comes from a prominent Lower Rio Grande Valley family of Libertarians who refused to tithe or pledge to their Church because too much money would make the Church bloated and spenthrift and who were fervent believers in coffee enemas (presumably without cream and sugar and only after cooled a bit) and consuming large quantities of aloe vera juice daily (which might seem to make the enemas therapeutically superfluous). They’re pretty much prototypes Libertarians in my experience.

Don’t you just feel terribly for his JAG clients?…

So, to summarize:

According to m, libertarians believe in slavery because “locking someone up” doesn’t involve force; according to TRRK/Ted/Iris, libertarians believe in coffee enemas and aloe vera juice.

I’m officially calling this match for the libertarians. If you read this thread and think the progressives won, the progressives can have you.

Let’s flip the situation. Imagine that the cupcake seller will front you some cupcakes and charge the exact same price. You can pay him for the cupcakes with interest. The whites are offered 10%, blacks and Latinos are offered 15%.

Welcome to the home mortgage market.

Let’s say Jack and Diane are working for the cupcake seller who will pay them in cupcakes. Jack gets offered 10 cupcakes a week while Diane is offered 7.

Welcome to the labor market.

The Real Royal King said:
coffee enemas

I’ll take mine just black

The Real Royal Queen said:
Now that hurts my feelings Kingy Poo. No cupcake for you tonight. I’ll be laughing it up with The Royal Court Jester.

im ted .your beautiful ! can i ask some questions ? you seem like a country girl . whose your favorite statler brother ? do you like cupcakes ? why do you have a beard ? don’t anser tonite , my darling . we have the rest of our lives together to find out these little things . it will be like the movie – breakfast at moon river ! sleep tite , my queen !

Good news. The cupcake seller just hired Jamal. He was offered 8 cupcakes per week.

Jack just found out Jamal’s daughter got into the university that his son wasn’t accepted into despite having similar grades. Jack’s life is awful because of affirmative action.

AnonymousFinch said:
So, to summarize:

According to m, libertarians believe in slavery because “locking someone up” doesn’t involve force; according to TRRK/Ted/Iris, libertarians believe in coffee enemas and aloe vera juice.

I’m officially calling this match for the libertarians. If you read this thread and think the progressives won, the progressives can have you.

You might not believe in slavery, but your ideology pretty much allows it to happen – and even if you wouldn’t permit it, in your ideal society slavery would be pretty damn easy to do anyway.

By the way, I’m not progressive. I just really hate libertarians, especially extremists like Stossel. I hate them the exact same way I hate marxists and all other type of political theories that are closer to ideology than reality.

m said:
Slavery was individuals owning other individuals. No government involved. Slavery existed before the federal government even existed.

m said:
I never said government wasn’t involved in slavery.

LOL

What a dumb lib!

The Lantern of Truth said:
im ted .your beautiful ! can i ask some questions ? you seem like a country girl . whose your favorite statler brother ? do you like cupcakes ? why do you have a beard ? don’t anser tonite , my darling . we have the rest of our lives together to find out these little things . it will be like the movie – breakfast at moon river ! sleep tite , my queen !

favorite Statler – Jimmy Fortune
cupcakes – Yes
The Royal King likes the beard

PS – you’re cute

m said:
You might not believe in slavery, but your ideology pretty much allows it to happen – and even if you wouldn’t permit it, in your ideal society slavery would be pretty damn easy to do anyway.

By the way, I’m not progressive. I just really hate libertarians, especially extremists like Stossel. I hate them the exact same way I hate marxists and all other type of political theories that are closer to ideology than reality.

Maybe if you understood them instead of basing your beliefs on your own stream of ignorant consciousness, you’d feel differently. In the meantime, I wouldn’t go around lecturing anyone on being in touch with reality.

The Real Royal King says:
Not to worry. I am sure Stossel wouldn’t give a cupcake to a starving child.

You throw around statements like this ALL the time. I’ve heard you tell conservatives they would let people die or wish death on others several times. Do you realize how stupid you sound when you do this? Statements like that are why you have absolutely NO credibility. Congrats on being a subpar human being!

The Real Royal King said:
Not to worry. I am sure Stossel wouldn’t give a cupcake to a starving child.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Statements like that are why you have absolutely NO credibility. Congrats on being a subpar human being!

I will scratch your damn eyes out for speaking to my King in that manner. We already have MichelleF shackled in the dungeon…care to join her?

My sincerest apologies, Queen. I have NO idea how you put up with him, but as they say, there is a lid for every pot.

You are forgiven dear. Let’s do lunch tomorrow at the Royal Castle. Don’t worry, the Royal King will be out golfing at the all-white Royal Country Club.

Stossel is a real piece of shit, doesnt he know his mustache qualifies for subsidized loans from the gubbamint.

@royal king… damn you got some creepy groupies..,.lol,.

Stossel says Affimative Action today shouldn’t be races based. It should be based on socio-economic criteria. We have enough laws on the books to address racial, etthnic, religious and gender discrimination.

Stossel’s cupcake analogy shows how Affirmative Action does not do what it was inrtended to do in the day of age. Why should a rich Black kid buy a cupcake at $1.00 when a poor White kid will have to buy the same cupcake for $2.00? That’s how Affrimative Action works today.

Affirmative Action is used today to favor one race over another. It has run its course.

White Americans just can’t get a break.

Poor Stossel. He’s reduced to stunts like this to get airtime.

m said:
Liberalism in America is, without a doubt, absolutely not socialism

Sure it is, just not in the way that makes you gush with pride:

http://www.essential.org/features/corporatesocialism.html

This is a brilliant idea and it should be discussed. I’m black and against affirmative action. I love Stossel for doing this.

AnonymousFinch said:
Maybe if you understood them instead of basing your beliefs on your own stream of ignorant consciousness, you’d feel differently. In the meantime, I wouldn’t go around lecturing anyone on being in touch with reality.

I’ve always wondered why so many libertarians also are such humungous pricks.

But I can’t blame you – you’re just extremely disturbed because I pointed out a flaw in your favorite political philosophy: nothing prevents anyone to in a libertarian society to setup a slave labor camp equalling the conditions of slavery 100-200 years ago. No wage laws or regulations. No requirements for working conditions. No right for education. The slave owner doesn’t even need a whip or violence in order to keep his slav camp intact – all he needs is methods such as debt bondage. In a society where people are beholden to nobody but themselves, one individual has the ability to replicate the conditions slavery involving free individuals. It exists today with low-wage factories and human trafficking.

AnonymousFinch said:
Agreed. I really shouldn’t be taking the bait.

But I appreciate it – I enjoy reading your comments!

This is madness not Sparta.

m said:
I’ve always wondered why so many libertarians also are such humungous pricks.>

There is the possibility your mind is too small to understand the logic behind a libertarian.

m said:
But I can’t blame you – you’re just extremely disturbed because I pointed out a flaw in your favorite political philosophy: nothing prevents anyone to in a libertarian society to setup a slave labor camp equalling the conditions of slavery 100-200 years ago. No wage laws or regulations. No requirements for working conditions. No right for education.

The only flaw I see is your ignorance of the Constitution. You’d have to point to where in the Constitution government regulates employment and where is the right to education?

The Constitution limits government control over our lives and gives the Feds their mission statement which is stated in the Preamble.

m said:
The slave owner doesn’t even need a whip or violence in order to keep his slav camp intact – all he needs is methods such as debt bondage.

If you think employment is slavery, don’t work.

m said:
In a society where people are beholden to nobody but themselves, one individual has the ability to replicate the conditions slavery involving free individuals. It exists today with low-wage factories and human trafficking.

To whom is the individual deholden to? You have two factories, both make the same item. Factory A gives its employees a fair wage and treats them with dignity. Factory B has a lousy relationship with its employees. Which factory do you think will be able to staff itself with employees to make their product? Will the other factory be able to stay in business?

Why is everyone so afraid to discuss Affirmative Action and I agree with Stossell 100%. It’s time has come and gone. Proof positive? An African American PRESIDENT work for you?

equaljustice said:
Why is everyone so afraid to discuss Affirmative Action and I agree with Stossell 100%. It’s time has come and gone. Proof positive? An African American PRESIDENT work for you?

No one fears talking about Affirmative Action. Cupcake-fueled stunts is not talking about Affirmative Action. In order to talk about Affirmative Action, we have to be willing to talk about race and economics.

On an unrelated matter, remember when people attacked Eric Holder for saying that Americans were afraid to talk about race? What a jerk.

VRWC Destruction Machine said:
There is the possibility your mind is too small to understand the logic behind a libertarian.

The only flaw I see is your ignorance of the Constitution. You’d have to point to where in the Constitution government regulates employment and where is the right to education?

The Constitution limits government control over our lives and gives the Feds their mission statement which is stated in the Preamble.

If you think employment is slavery, don’t work.

To whom is the individual deholden to? You have two factories, both make the same item. Factory A gives its employees a fair wage and treats them with dignity. Factory B has a lousy relationship with its employees. Which factory do you think will be able to staff itself with employees to make their product? Will the other factory be able to stay in business?

The US Constitution is not the ideal libertarian constitution at all. Not by a long shot. An ideal libertarian government is financed through voluntary donations without any form of taxation at all (this includes the military). At the beginning our fed/confed government was financed solely through bonds (de facto hidden taxation and act of debt) and tariffs (act of protectionism and a tax). Both methods are wrong and unjustified.

Treating employees with dignity has nothing to do with a factory being able to stay in business or perform in the marketplace. It is possible to in many ways create the conditions of which people accept terrible working conditions, close to slavery. The examples we have today are sweatshop factories (average people don’t know or give a shit about those factories, which is why the market will always ensure they exist by finding individuals willing to accept those conditions) and human trafficking (individuals perpetually indebted because they agreed to pay money in exchange for moving to another country for work/other reasons).

m said:
The US Constitution is not the ideal libertarian constitution at all. Not by a long shot. An ideal libertarian government is financed through voluntary donations without any form of taxation at all (this includes the military). At the beginning our fed/confed government was financed solely through bonds (de facto hidden taxation and act of debt) and tariffs (act of protectionism and a tax). Both methods are wrong and unjustified. Treating employees with dignity has nothing to do with a factory being able to stay in business or perform in the marketplace. It is possible to in many ways create the conditions of which people accept terrible working conditions, close to slavery. The examples we have today are sweatshop factories (average people don’t know or give a shit about those factories, which is why the market will always ensure they exist by finding individuals willing to accept those conditions) and human trafficking (individuals perpetually indebted because they agreed to pay money in exchange for moving to another country for work/other reasons).

Taxation is a necessary evil. It should be limited to what is in the Constitution, operating costs of the government bureaucracy, services that are beneficial to all citizens and for the defense of the Republic.

Competition is what drives a business. Without competition a business becomes lazy. We have sweatshops because government allows people to come into this country who don’t care about working conditions. If govenment was more vigilant in controlling our borders, the competition for workers would be fierce. Government doesn’t have the track record to know run a business. Government doesn’t know competition which explains its inefficiency. Government, without batting an eye, will hire 5 people to do a job when one person can do it.

The cost of government controlling every aspect of our lives is more costly than letting the free market to make the determinations.

VRWC Destruction Machine said:
Taxation is a necessary evil. It should be limited to what is in the Constitution, operating costs of the government bureaucracy, services that are beneficial to all citizens and for the defense of the Republic. Competition is what drives a business. Without competition a business becomes lazy. We have sweatshops because government allows people to come into this country who don’t care about working conditions. If govenment was more vigilant in controlling our borders, the competition for workers would be fierce. Government doesn’t have the track record to know run a business. Government doesn’t know competition which explains its inefficiency. Government, without batting an eye, will hire 5 people to do a job when one person can do it. The cost of government controlling every aspect of our lives is more costly than letting the free market to make the determinations.

I oppose large government and illegal immigration but it isn’t government that causes sweat shops its greed. Regulations and controls are as necessary as taxes but the thing, in my opinion, that needs the most controls put on it is government. I don’t understand those who distrust factory owners with peoples livelyhoods but are willing to give everything to governments. Both are equally liable to be corrupt but a corrupt government can do infinitely more to hurt people than a corrupt factory owner.

Another thing, someone here said that governments grant rights. I disagree with this. No need to state why, you either understand or you don’t.

Free speech is an essential part of the college experience, and it must be supported at every avenue. Indeed, Bucknell University claims to support the rights of its students in its own handbook. As a former member of the BUCC — the group who sponsored the bake sale — and a current student at Bucknell University, I recall how upset I was to see my school shutdown my organization’s event, and the resulting issues which arose in the subsequent months. Prompted by this, I helped lead the BUCC’s free-speech campaign both through its events and articles in its magazine “The Counterweight.”

Stossel’s study of this issue is interesting, but the simple fact is that this post — and probably the upcoming show — neglect to note dates, probably because they debunk the pertinence of this issue. This event was over a year ago. Bucknell University hasn’t shut down or limited any of the BUCC’s events since, and it likely won’t make that same mistake again.

We all appreciate FIRE’s support, but its work — either by listing Bucknell University in its worst “abuses of free speech on campus” in “U.S. News & World Report,” participating in columns and broadcasts such as this, the billboard on Route 15, etc. — at the school today appears to be unnecessary. Yes, the issues in policy still exist on paper, but significant progress has been made in practice. Now, with a new administration, students have the opportunity to right Bucknell University’s wrongs once and for all. FIRE’s onslaught, however, has yet to give our new president a chance to think about the issues at hand. Because he hasn’t been given a chance to act, there’s no evidence to suggest that he would allow such issues to ever happen again.

FIRE needs to stop painting a false picture of Bucknell University as a member of the “worst of the worst” until the school has earned that palette, and Stossel and others must stop supplying the brushes.

I believe that discrimination is wrong. ANY discrimination. Affirmative action isn’t “reverse discrimination”. It’s discrimination with a positive-connotation name.

Sooo… I have no idea how that’s supposed to be an insult. Also, your grammar is like a second grader on nitrous oxide. By which I mean, it sucks. If people like you can gather a following of any kind on the internet because of your ideas, our society is already too far lost.

Ummm do you ever read what you post before you post it? Do you ever listen to yourself talk? Just curious.

I agree with you (trust me, I’m as shocked as anybody). I think that people have to fit somewhere on a spectrum between “Whacko’ Insane Conservative” and “Completely Insane Communist Nut Job”. Each end of the spectrum is just as evil as the other end, but the mistake is in people just to one side of the middle accusing the people just to the other side of the middle of being extremists.

Now that I’ve said what I wanted to say, I have to ask: What the hell was the purpose of paragraphs 2-6? Just answer that one question for me. That has to be one of the most bizarre things I have ever read.

Where are you getting your information? Do you say things because they make sense or because they fit with your insane liberal ideology?