Quote:Original post by LessBread
How do you put people in a mindset? What does putting people in a mindset mean? What does it look like? Does it look like torture? Does it look like propaganda?

I don't know. I'm sure it doesn't look like torture. It might look like propaganda. Most disturbingly of all, it might look like the very make-up and character of our society itself, although I hope it doesn't. I think people's sense of collective identity has a strong effect on how much they value being successful. Exactly how all this works is something I'm neither smart nor knowledgeable enough to comment on, but it's something I'm interested exploring.

Quote:
Does it look like intimidation? Does it look like sedation? Who is taking control of whom in this picture of putting people in a "take control" mindset?

In my mind, it's people taking control of themselves. Admittedly, I don't spend a lot of time around people whose lives have derailed, but I have seen it firsthand a few times. From what I've seen, poor upbringing has a tremendously negative impact, to the point where subsidizing someone's existence isn't very likely to help them better themselves, with some exceptions.

Quote:Does America need to go to boot camp?

If you meant it literally, it's unarguably 'yes!' ;)

Quote:There is no escaping the connections. There is no guarantee that telling others how to live their lives will in the long run alleviate their problems.

It's more than just telling people how to live their lives. It's creating an environment where living your life properly is valued and where social pressure exists to influence peoples' priorities.

Quote:The principle is the same only scaled for larger populations and vastly different economies.

Therein lies the problem. The principle doesn't scale.

Quote:... and providing a fellow member of the community with something that they will need to earn a living. How interesting. How does subsidizing a person's life interfere with their ability to invest? Does subsidizing a corporation interfere with its ability to invest? Can the double standard be rationalized away?

Here's the difference: you assume that every individual will invest in constructive things. I'm arguing that there isn't enough social pressure (I don't know the right term, maybe it ties into the concept of social capital and social structure) to want to make people invest in their lives and in their community.

Why would you not want to subsidize a corporation? Presumably because there is something wrong with it if it can't function on its own. The company probably made bad investments, is out of touch, and will continue to make bad investments. Not only that, but maybe other companies will begin to think they can take irresponsible risks because the government will be there to help them out.

The analogy doesn't apply directly to people and we have to be careful because different moral standards apply to how we treat corporations and people. People are obviously the fundamental constituent part of society.

Quote:There was no period at the end of the sentence and the word "without" was hanging out there all by itself. Without what?

I know that the sentence was unfinished. I'm just saying I don't know why that happened. I thought I had finished my thought but maybe accidentally undid my work. Anyway, I tried to respond with what I had intended to write.

Quote:Should we blame kids in elementary school today for growing up at a time when the dollar is tanking? They'll be suffering from far more than self-inflicted problems. The external problems that they didn't create will have a far greater impact on their lives.

We can't blame them but the reality is that they're going to be faced with this problem whether they like it or not and they are responsible for reacting to it responsibly.

Quote:
You talk about the need to wake up to reality but you're not ready to throw advertising overboard? Not every nation rewrites it's laws to open the door to predatory lending either.

This isn't the fault of advertising.

Quote:

Quote:Original post by trzy
Sadly, I predict a McCain win this election.

Making a prediction before labor day, eh? I think the election is Obama's to lose.

He's making it all too easy. Obama's a real dud candidate, I'm afraid. His character simply isn't there. I've always seen him as an empty suit. Not an idiot by any means -- and capable of attracting smart people, capable of reasonable compromise -- but empty of any real character. And in a race where it's all about character (thanks to his inexperience), he's on shakier ground than those infatuated with him are willing to admit.

It was supposed to be the Republicans' election to lose. The War in Iraq, the tanking economy, an uninspiring primary, corruption at the highest levels and within the Republican party... and yet, Obama doesn't have the staying power to pull a convincing lead.

I hope he wins but I think McCain is rapidly turning the tables. More rapidly than the Obama camp knows how to react.

Quote:Original post by Silvermyst

Quote:Original post by Mithrandir
Explain his rabid racist rantings please.

You believe Ron Paul to be a racist?

Yep.


Over 20 years of racist rantings in the "Ron Paul Political Report" newsletter. Such gems as:

Quote:
Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions

Quote:
Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

Quote:
Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.

Could go on for days, really.


So what's the deal? If he wrote the newsletters, he's a racist. If he didn't write them and isn't actually racist, then he's violently incompetent to have let someone write such bullshit in his name for two decades.

Either way, I see a man who is entirely unfit for political office.

Quote:Original post by Mithrandir
If he wrote the newsletters, he's a racist.

It's hard for me to believe that he wrote the racist statements in the newsletters that carried his name, as in a political history spanning decades, as lenghty as his speeches and writings tend to be, there's not a single racist statement that can be dragged up that can be actually attributed to him.

Quote:If he didn't write them and isn't actually racist, then he's violently incompetent to have let someone write such bullshit in his name for two decades.

"His violent incompetence" is a lot different from "his rabid racist rantings".

His handling of the newsletters would be more troubling to me if he were the kind of politician who wants to micromanage my life.

Quote:Original post by Silvermyst

Quote:Original post by Mithrandir
If he wrote the newsletters, he's a racist.

It's hard for me to believe that he wrote the racist statements in the newsletters that carried his name, as in a political history spanning decades, as lenghty as his speeches and writings tend to be, there's not a single racist statement that can be dragged up that can be actually attributed to him.

Quote:If he didn't write them and isn't actually racist, then he's violently incompetent to have let someone write such bullshit in his name for two decades.

"His violent incompetence" is a lot different from "his rabid racist rantings".

His handling of the newsletters would be more troubling to me if he were the kind of politician who wants to micromanage my life.

So in essence what you're saying is that you would leave your country up to a person who lends his name to the writings of others without thought?

"Here sir, this is the document putting together the extermination of all Blacks in America."

"Ok..."

Like, honestly now... If it's been published under his name, all credit must be given where due. He's a racist whether or not the words were actually written by him because he's the "Author" and had full capability of removing his name from it.

Quote:Original post by Silvermyst

Quote:Original post by Mithrandir
If he wrote the newsletters, he's a racist.

It's hard for me to believe that he wrote the racist statements in the newsletters that carried his name, as in a political history spanning decades, as lenghty as his speeches and writings tend to be, there's not a single racist statement that can be dragged up that can be actually attributed to him.

Quote:If he didn't write them and isn't actually racist, then he's violently incompetent to have let someone write such bullshit in his name for two decades.

"His violent incompetence" is a lot different from "his rabid racist rantings".

His handling of the newsletters would be more troubling to me if he were the kind of politician who wants to micromanage my life.

His "handling" of the newsletters is to say "that's old news" and "I didn't write it". That's it. You'd think that if he didn't actually write it, he would actually put forth some kind of effort to find out who did?


Whether he wrote it or not, his name is on it, and he gave implicit endorsement of those racist rantings for years until the media finally called him on it. He's nothing more than a racist who is backpedaling on his opinion because it would hurt him in the polls.

why would he put any effort into finding out who wrote an article so long ago? what would that even accomplish? Even if he did write those, it wouldn't even bother me. I grew up around black communities, and knew a lot of the people there. most of those aren't far from the truth when applied to my experience.

Quote:Original post by Terlenth
If it's been published under his name, all credit must be given where due.

In other words: the moral responsibility for the statements printed in the newsletters rests solely on his shoulders.

Quote:Original post by Mithrandir
He's nothing more than a racist who is backpedaling on his opinion because it would hurt him in the polls.

Right, because he is known to let polls guide his (public) opinion.

It all comes down to whether or not you believe him when he says that he was unaware of the racist statements that appeared in his newsletters.

Quote:Original post by Chris Reynolds
why would he put any effort into finding out who wrote an article so long ago?

He should have found out who wrote the article as soon as he became aware of the statements, if only to make sure that person would never again be in a position to soil his name. At this point in time, though, finding out who wrote the statements and outing that person seems to go directly against his position that he assumes full moral responsibility for any statements that appeared in the newsletters.

Quote:Original post by Chris Reynolds
why would he put any effort into finding out who wrote an article so long ago? what would that even accomplish? Even if he did write those, it wouldn't even bother me. I grew up around black communities, and knew a lot of the people there. most of those aren't far from the truth when applied to my experience.

Well that explains everything about you then. Thanks for playing, irrelevant racist.