Greatest Threat to World Peace: A Gallup Survey

NYskier wrote

mattchuck2 wrote

or actively hate on those people like Republicans do.

  Oh shut the fuck up you immature little punk.  That would be insulting if it weren't so fucking stupid.  

Do you want to have a conversation or a fuckin' temper tantrum?

Wait, why the clapping emoticon with this message? Seems weird.

Just referring to the latest blasts from that Party about immigrants, Muslims, gays, poors, and Black Lives Matter activists. I'm sure you're not one of the people who hates on those groups, so don't take offense.

NYskier wrote

"Means of production".  Read your own quote.  Good grief.  I think that's what's called being hoisted on your own petard.

"And/or social control"

Continue reading, and you figure out what I mean.

Interesting you post this as I believe this refers to the Leadville miner's strike. I would agree that this represents a time in our History much like today where the imbalance of power was growing between the wealthy and everybody else, where much of the resources were in the hands of a few who also controlled much of the opportunities. But reading how this passage is written I can see how this author in not out to educate us on history but rather inflame us with emotion. I don't believe I have ever seen this kind of embellishment in a book by John Milton Cooper, and certainly not McCullough or even Goodwin a journalist historian or any of the other authors of the many texts on American history in my collection many written by the people who actually lived it. I am actually surprised you would use it as an example of solid objective historical writing.

I would agree with you that to understand an era in history you need to read several different books that cover that period so that you don't get just one persons insight. But don't waist your time with books written by people whos agenda is something other than the topic they are covering. If you want politically charged commentary, listen to Fox.

MC2 Unhinged.... You one grouchy som'bit.

PeeTex wrote

I would agree with you that to understand an era in history you need to read several different books that cover that period so that you don't get just one persons insight. But don't waist your time with books written by people whos agenda is something other than the topic they are covering.

Right. But reading this book really opened my eyes to a lot of things they don't teach you in school. You hear about Andrew Jackson, but you don't hear about his mistreatment of Native Americans, you hear about the Progressive movement, but you don't hear about all of the strikes and violence that came before it. You hear about Reconstruction, but you don't hear about how many blacks were elected to public office in the mid 1800s until racism started going haywire.

I had never even known about the Patroon system, which enabled rich assholes to behave like Feudal lords in Albany and Rennselaer counties (charging farmers rent to farm on their land, then taking all the food and profits at harvest time to pay back debts owed). Yes it's emotional. And I wasn't using it as an example of objective historical writing (did I say that?), I was trying to move the conversation along.

Greatest threat: combo of ignorance, arrogance and violence.

Wait, how did NY skier get banned?

witch hobble wrote

Greatest threat: combo of ignorance, arrogance and violence.

True dat.

NYskier is my hero.  I'd vote for him.

Banned in 7 posts......is that a record?

The most important history book ever written is Buried my Heart at Wounded Knee.

Harvey wrote

This is quite a thread.

I have no idea what socialism is.

I thought that socialism was the pooling of public money to provide services, like roads or social security. If it has more to do with ownership than funding, then who owns the roads in the US?

I also wonder if Bernie is actually a socialist. I've heard him talk a lot about spending but not ownership at all.

Whether he is one or not, seems politically smart to say you are one, then nobody "accuses" you of being one. Sort of makes it a non-issue.

Hey X ... what is that picture?

That picture is just proof that man not only lived with dinosaurs but domesticated them.

NYskier wrote

Germany has extremely high taxes, universal health care and a broad public safety net

They also have beer in vending machines.  What else would you expect from a country that was absolutely decimated and humiliated on the world stage not once, but twice!

Reagan would never make it in today's climate, he's practically the Buddha in comparison to the "build a wall" crowd.

That is incredible.  

I never understood how Reagan became a Republican folk hero.  The right seems to idolize him.

Could he win a single primary today?

Thanks for sharing that video

We need to remember the context of that time.  1979 we had the whole Carter mess with 20% interest rates and the equal to $5 gas that you had to wait in lines to get plus unemployment was much higher than today.   Cheap mexican labor was seen as a way to put downward pressure on inflation.

What also changed since then was the cartel drug wars in Mexico that both make crossing the border more attractive and more dangerous for us.  Mexico is 100 times more strict enforcing thier own border to thier south to prevent Central Americans from coming to Mexico than we are with our southern boarder.  Then the final major difference is the potential for terrorist to use a weak boarder to gain entry to the us.  

My thoughts match both Bush and Reagan from the video.  Make it hard to impossible to get here illegally but easier with more access to do it the right way for those that want to be productive members of our country.  That is the American way compared to come here illegally and get free stuff as long as you vote for the donkey.

Coach Z wrote

We need to remember the context of that time.  1979 we had the whole Carter mess with 20% interest rates and the equal to $5 gas that you had to wait in lines to get plus unemployment was much higher than today.   Cheap mexican labor was seen as a way to put downward pressure on inflation.

Some would argue that companies are pressuring the government to do the same today. There certainly hasn't been much wage inflation since the time of Reagan. In fact, that's almost exactly the point at which the productivity and wage graphs diverge.

What also changed since then was the cartel drug wars in Mexico that both make crossing the border more attractive and more dangerous for us.  Mexico is 100 times more strict enforcing thier own border to thier south to prevent Central Americans from coming to Mexico than we are with our southern boarder.  Then the final major difference is the potential for terrorist to use a weak boarder to gain entry to the us.  

Pretty sure there was a solid drug trade in the early 80's too. And remind me how the 9/11 terrorists got in again. I must have forgotten. Also, did Timothy McVeigh get in through that porous border? How about Eric Rudolph?

My thoughts match both Bush and Reagan from the video.  Make it hard to impossible to get here illegally but easier with more access to do it the right way for those that want to be productive members of our country.  That is the American way compared to come here illegally and get free stuff as long as you vote for the donkey.

Those are the things everyone agrees on (besides that stupid "free stuff" blast that Bush just used about Black people). The question of the day is: what do you do about the 11 million people in the country illegally now? Are you on the Trump "deport them immediately" side? Or the Rubio "make them wait 10-12 years" side?

Also, immigrants from Mexico are actually following the real "American way", the way Chinese immigrants, Irish immigrants and Italian immigrants came in 1880-1930: come to the country by whatever means you can, get shit on horribly through oppression and hostility for a few decades, then eventually convince enough people that you're actual human beings who should be treated like human beings. Trump's candidacy is supported by people who have trouble with that last part and want to stay in the second part.

The issue with immigration today is not that we allow people who want a better life in whether it be legally or illegally, but rather, what they do when they get here. Those arguing for more inclusiveness for immigrants are also complaining about the lack of opportunities and inequality between the classes. Many of the working poor who choose the immigration issue as their economic issue to latch onto the republican party feel that more people entering the job market at the low end create even fewer opportunities for them, drive down wages and create a security issue. A good indication of what the effects are is the issue of minimum wage. Those opposed to a higher minimum wage use the unemployment statistics to  justify their position, it will result in fewer jobs at the low end so in effect - open immigration policy results in downward political pressure on minimum wage. Here is a relatively balanced article that supports some of what I say - and you can connect the dots to get the rest of the way: http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/04/01/why-upping-the-minimum-wage-requires-immigration-reform/ I believe that what this article is missing is not only the coupling of immigration and minimum wage as issues, but also the coupling of tax reform, economic reform which all drive the opportunities at the low end and without opportunities we should not be letting in a flood of immigrants because - and now here it comes - we run the risk of creating a massive home grown terrorism problem as the disenfranchised turn on each other and our institutions. These issues are all interrelated. I feel extremely sad about the state of people in Syria, Mexico, Africa and other regions where people desperately want a better life but we need to fix the root causes, you never cure a chronic disease by only treating the symptoms and if we can't fix the problems there, than lets make sure we have something for them to do when they get here. I love the arguments made, they will work hard and take jobs others don't want - which of course never includes at less than the minimum wage or in unsafe conditions or long work hours. We are returning to the same labor conditions that existed during the age of the Leadville miners strike where workers were forced to work in miserable conditions for low wages. The problem today is that if those financiers who actually run the companies don't like the economic conditions here, they go someplace else. To fix that we need to make sure that when they do, they no longer have the safe heaven of the US to fall back on, in for a penny, in for a pound. However, that's another story.

concur with this smart guy^^^