Free Republic

The comment is lost on me. What was it that you meant by this.

7 minutes of Reagan's farewell address.

7 minutes of Reagan's farewell address.

7 minutes of Reagan's farewell address.

There’s some disturbing and seemingly bi-polar stuff in the Sherrod source video that’s now posted at the NAACP. The overall message Mrs. Sherrod gets across about overcoming racism is very well done. But I want to put that to the side after acknowledging it. This was the NAACP’s “Freedom Fund Banquet” [freedom in what context?] and notice what things were discussed and what was revealed at certain minute markers:

1:44 - 2:14 Jobs at the USDA...anyone ever heard of losing their job at the federal government? [Strive to find federal governments jobs...even those jobs in agencies that might be off-putting because of their category/naming...make a career in government]

6:13 - 7:05 story of Sheriff “Gator” Johnson..Corrupt government official who had his deputies stop out-of-towners and cite them for things to raise revenue and line their pockets. [message: don’t trust the government]

14:25 - 14:43 mother became first black elected official and has served her county’s board of education for 34 years. [again, strive for public service and the make it a career, Y’all]

17:19 - 17:48 this is a portion of the ‘White Farmer’ story that’s now become infamous...deciding how much help to give not giving full attention or “force” of what she could do. [now, it is fair to note that this story did not involve incidents at a government agency; instead this happened at a non-for-profit organization. However, this does reveal the nature of the attitudes that a great many [certainly not all] people have who gravitate toward public service. Many people who gravitate toward public service see themselves as having the power to dispense other people’s money based on whatever criteria that they personally hold near and dear. Again, strive toward public service jobs but what does this say about corruption?]

21:02 [after obvious edit] - 21:25 It’s about poor versus those that have..so, serve in government to try and correct the economic injustices [steeped in Marxist language about haves and have not, class struggles, at best you can say is that it’s no longer about racism, but now this leads to something every bit a sinister]

21:28 - 24:13 The history lesson of indentured servitude and what led to racial divisions. [there is a wealth of information here in this short portion of this recording. Mrs. Sherrod doesn’t seem to notice that it was government laws — not wealthy people — which caused the problems that she speaks of. Then she makes the penultimate acknowledgement while failing to realize where the blame needs to be properly placed when she talks about the need to stay in power. Also, the fact that she brings up racism being perpetuated through divisive politics is lost on everybody including herself considering the venue of this speech]

25:49 - 27:00 Mrs. Sherrod laments that racial divisions still exist and wishes that there were more whites in the audience [this reveals a fundamental ignorance by Mrs. Sherrod: if what she is lamenting about didn’t exist any longer, would the venue for her speech at an NAACP event be happening in the first place. Would any white non-politicians be welcome there? Would any white non-Marxists be welcomed there? Would Booker Taliaferro Washington even be welcomed there if he were still alive? Now answer this: if it’s all about keeping power, why in the hell would the leadership of the NAACP want the black/white divide to really go away?]

29:50 - 30:31 $80 million and not one dime is from the agency she used to work in is going to businesses with black ownership. [don’t know what to add for commentary on this one other than, as a minarchist, why is any money going to anyone for starting a business. Sink or swim!]

30:39 - 32:10 discussion of government programs where young people can intern in government jobs while in college and then nab that government job after school. [Why promote the government jobs when you just spent time suggesting, wrongfully in my opinion, that people should take government money to RUN an agricultural business of their own? Schizophrenia, I’m guessing]

The story of the White Farmer is an interesting one. Guy’s farm was going into foreclosure. Mrs. Sherrod laments that the farmers attorney was not representing the farmer well [and this is likely very true] even though the farmer was paying for the legal services. The attorney’s advice was to put the farm on the market. I have to ask at this point: who wasn’t getting paid while the farmer stopped making mortgage payments? That’s right; use government when you can in order to get bailed out. I have no idea if the White Farmer was upside down on the farm or not but obviously the idea of muting market signals by protecting people from dumb decisions that ordinarily would cause losses has been well ingrained in society for quite some time.

Shut down much of the government handouts that are doled out to all Americans, allow more people to come to this country legally [having them pay for the cost of their own paperwork, health screenings, and background checks], and I don’t see what the problem of immigrants would be thereafter.

Rick Santelli!!!

Martha Coakley — riding on coattails long enough to go from D.C. to the 2016 Summer Games in Rio de Janeiro!

Jobs themselves do not need to be created, for they are among the most abundant opportunities in our midst.

In any case , why doesn’t he just release the documents and records pertaining to his birth place and let a Court rule that he is a legal citizen ?

Tranparency you can believe in!

The cost-of-living adjustment are not linked to the goods and servives CPI, it’s adjusted to the inflation of wages.

Bill O’Reilly is a nanny-state-loving, paternalistic popoulist with no true appetite for a more limited government. There, I said it!

Fiscal multipliers? I’ve heard this argument for many years. Yes, spending creates a multiplier effect greater than one. The problem with this Keynesian bullshit is that for the government to spend it (and therefore get the multiplier to work), it has to remove spending from the private economy where the multiplier is the greatest.

He could release his actual birth certificate and not some certification of the birth certificate. I am surprise Obama worshipers do not want to know which hospital Obama was born or who was the doctor who delivered him.

State DMVs will not accept a certificate of live birth for identification; they want an actual birth certificate. The president's supporters say he has one -- this includes record keepers in Hawaii that vouch that it is there in their files. You'd think that this president -- who campaigned on a platform of transparency -- would just produce the birth certificate to shut the birthers up. That would be transparency we can believe in.

What's the alternative to parking wealth? Aside from foreign assets, there's only real estate, commodities, debt instruments, and stocks. Commodities have already had their run and are not cheap. The interest on debt instruments will not cover the erosion of purchasing power, after taxes, going forward. Real estate is probably still over valued in too many markets. So, equities, by default, are the think to buy; not because of their outlook, but because the U.S. demoninated alternatives suck even more.

It's all about family and social values Joey, you prattle on about 'economic liberty' to the exclusion of all else, which tells everyone all they need to know about you, which is: in your world, it's all about MONEY.

This is actually important and the only reason why I'm replying: it's all about having choices within the marketplace to exchange your property if you wish to do so. Money is just a tool to eliminate the double coincidents of wants. And we trade our property with others to get the things we want in exchange in order to bring us satisfaction or utility. Statists have no respect for this natural behavior on the part of individuals. Statists legislate the seizing of this property (for vote-buying redistribution purposes) and the meddling into this process of exchange. Ending the statists ability to do this is what my priority is. This has nothing to do with lining my own pockets, this has to do with the core of liberty principles. The morality is something I will help shape through persuasion and the strength of the Church -- and if an issue has to be addressed legislatively, best to work at it at the most local level of government, first.

Not at all LowJoe, actually your eagerness to put the topic on the shelf suggests that you don't like talking about it.

Hmm, maybe you're not as stupid as you seem because you actually understood that I didn't want to talk about it any longer. Or did you think that restating the obvious was somehow clever on your part?

Don't confuse infatuation with admiration Joe, homosexuals do that all the time.

And you, of course, speak definitively from experience, Jessup.

And don't assume I know nothing about economic liberty.

Okay. But I can guess that you're no big fan of it either.

and don't get excited with those letters 'A,S,S' in 'assume', ok?

I'm not excited in the least -- it's nothing like your desire to keep the homosexual topic from going on the shelf. That could be viewed as somewhat queer, Jessup. And stop embarrasing yourself with the feeble attempts at humor; you're out of your element.

Gay marriage, gay adoption , open homosexuality in the military, gay boy scout leaders all of these are real world, current political issues that are driving voters to choose which party to vote for, that is of the utmost importance.

So, you're not going to leave 'it' alone, then. Well, I'm done here if this is the way you insist on taking the discussion. To me, what's of the utmost importance is limiting the role of and the spending of the federal government. Reducing significantly its interference with the markets would be great as well. You obviously see the priorties differntly.

Why should he?

Because it's a 'gay' topic and it should be put to bed already. Does the thought of continuing this topic arouse you in any special way, Jessup? Is that why you chimed in?

You got a hot date?

While my wife is hot, we do not have plans to go out for the evening. So that's not it. I just would rather discuss the SoCon's issues with economic liberty -- you being infatuated with Duncan Hunter probably know nothing about economic liberties, do ya, Jessup!

Anytime you wish to put the homosexual topic down would be great.