Everything is relative of course, but the poor in America are the ones suffering from obesity. The rich have a blind spot most of them think they deserve what they have, they aren't will to accept that to a great extent it is the accident of birth, or the willingness to cheat and steal. The powerful Rich think they don't need solidarity with the rest of us.

I used to kick myself for not being more ruthless, risk loving, and egoistic. I could have been a stock broker, back in the eighties they would take anyone, I could have been a banker and steal the black inner-city families blind, I could have sold insurance, but my soul relatively unblemished, and I haven't let myself be cheated too badly.

It is one life's great mysteries that it is easier to swindle a thief than to swindle an honest man. It is much easier to sell Zirkon to someone who thinks he is buying a stolen diamond, and safer too, he won't call the cops and admit he that he wanted to commit a crime....

We should figure out a way to just pay them to be poor. That will fix it and I'm sure when they get that feeling of success, they'll jump up off the couch in grateful ambition and actually get a job.

So quit buying from the "Big Corp." Vote with your wallet for a change. Stay out of McDonalds, put down the Pepsi, stay out of Bank of America, turn off the Samsung, park the Mitsu, tell Time-Warner to stuff it, throw away the cell phone, turn off the internet, yada, yada, yada...

I do my very best to not support big business, small imdependent businesses are always my first choice, local credit unions, the very best I can do. reality is what it is there are a few that are unaviodable

And for your big government; you are now POTUS and can have anything, any kind of government you want. Your current government costs you 3 Tril anum. The problem is you are 13 Tril in the hole and you have a tax stifled economy. How now?

Great post, Saladin. You truly raise the bar with regards to, not only your ideas, keeping Current a forum for some honest, critical, and thought provoking debate. I, for one, am happy to share ideas and thoughts with anyone who can reason them out without resorting to ad hominems, straw mans and red herrings. Kudos to you.

I will be the first to admit that a purely free market system is as inherently flawed as a centrally planned one. It's not because of ideologies and the like--it's because of human nature.

And not all of us reject the rule of law and the idea of governance. To the contrary, many people believe that the greatest amount of government should be local as opposed to national--where people can work together, and with the greatest opportunity for people to be heard, to solve problems ranging from healthcare to infrastructure.

With that being said, I'm going back through my handy-dandy copy of the Federalist papers, and shall reply to your post on the cartoon thread.

It is true thedirtman , health , decent food and connection with loved ones are what heal us . I guess that is why people with no indoor plumbing or lighting , have cell phones (India) . v'd up !

How does peaceful interaction harm the poor? How does voluntarism hurt the poor? Statist corporate socialism is what is destroying ALL of us. There is no capitalism on this planet. You don't even understand the term....

Haha I don't think you do... that is what capitalism is underneath or what it eventually becomes.

Because poor, desperate people will work any job in any conditions.

And then sociopathic businessmen provide it for them, at pennies on the hour with conditions that will kill them.

You're delusional mike, grow up.

...and the government doesn't? You live in a vacuum.

How could I live in a vacuum? That's impossible. My example could have been in a vacuum, my ideology might be in a vacuum, but people do not live in vacuums. I can't LIVE on my own assumptions, reality interferes when my assumptions are incorrect.

You meant to say that I'm ignorant.

And no, the government doesn't provide jobs for people at pennies to the hour while ignoring basic safety concerns. Not in this country anyway. And if they do, it's because there's so much damn pressure on their budgets thanks to lobbying from "limited government" assholes.

Plus your point is a red herring. Who CARES if the government does it as well? If they do, they should be stopped with regulation for wages and safety. That's the whole damn point of my post.

Then try not to take in any benzine or Corexit while you pick tar balls from the beach. Maybe you could help clean up ground zero without dying of a lung disease. Of course, we'll make sure it's safe for you first. The FDA; how many carcinogens can you cram into breakfast and call it "recomended?" AMA: What causes cancer? How do we test for it? OSHA: cares nothing of the worker, only the bottom line. It is the insurance companies that benifit. See if you can find any Monsanto execs in the past OR current cabinet. The agent orange people. GM foods & round-up? Did you just think eugenics? You are in a vacuum because your flow is in only one direction. If I thought you were ignorant, I would have said so. What I did say is that you are misinformed, Electrolux.

Point taken. Thanks.

Someone that "insensitive" should NOT be in a position to make policy or lead people . Do you know what a sociopath is ? Extremely insensitive . Socially inept . This guy , may be one .

You go, elevator...most USA poor would look rich in the eyes of other countries poor......oops, I did another, what you said....

artemis, don't you think you're being a little extreme in saying his statements make him a sociopath? Really?

Yes, because being politically "correct" is mandate of all living human beings.
But, otherwise, I understand what your saying. Rand is a rookie at this thing and should probably learn when is the right time to say what. Or, at least, word it better.

I said , he MAY be one . I don't know him . He's certainly not leadership material , WHY would anyone even SAY that ? He would fit in well at FOX "news" though . What I do believe , is Leaders should be held to a higher standard that the shmuck in the average Tavern .

Political correctness is a myth . You either are honest , lying or just stupid .

Please stop and think about this for moment if you will: Apart from the late
night comedy show entitled that phrase, doesn't the term " Politicaly correct "
smack of Communism ? You don't have to get involved with politics any
more than politics necessarily has to get involved with you. So who the hell
is ANYONE to presume to tell you, or anyone else, what is or is not correct ?
By any standard that isn't called for nor required in any way, such as the law,
it makes no sense to me that any self respecting American would be so
hypocritcaly insipid to use a term polished by Communists who invented that.
You are entitled to your opinion as to what may or may not be correct, but
to have a bunch of busybodies presume they're sidewalk superintendants
and act on another's views, for or against just goes against the grain. By the
way I like how you simplified that. It's a myth all right.

I totally agree, we've been dropping that ball for years.

Fascism seems more to the mark . Really it is a tool some use to "win " weak arguments .

Ain't that the truth !

Just the ones down South. My homeless friend in Chi Town says witer's a bitch there.

How's that "humanitarian" party you're working on coming along?

I mean I agree Rand is a a douche but you claim to be a "humanist" and something about a "foundation of love", but you are never slow to say something hateful.

And blanket statements are wonderful rallying cries, and a great for propaganda, but there is something a little dehumanizing about them.

I'd love to be able to hate everyone who embraces an ideology I don't agree with (especially when if you asked 100 different people the definition of said ideology you're liable to get 100 different if only somewhat varied answers) but it's not very fair or realistic to refer to people who take a "libertarian position" as morally depraved and intellectually bankrupt.

More than anything you're comments in reference to "libertarians" reflect your own mental laziness, and unwillingness to treat a group of people (some of whom you might disagree with) as separate "human" beings worthy of individual consideration.

the libertarian position advocates the morally depraved and intellectually bankrupt principle of freedom. how dare those scumbags advocate freedom and individual rights. how dare they say individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives. who do they think they are? freedom is completely un-american. get a load of this rubbish from the preamble and statement of principles from their platform:

Preamble

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.

These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.

Statement of Principles

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

don't these idiots know that freedom is slavery? these people should be ashamed of themselves.

The only person talking about hate is you, little buddy. I believe Libertarians are deeply mistaken, but I don't hate them.

I find Libertarianism to be a simple-minded right-wing ideology ideally suited to those unable or unwilling to see past their own sociopathic self-regard.

I find Libertarian ideology intellectually naive and morally bankrupt. As a compassionate and caring agent I am compelled to warn my fellows of the dangers this misguided ideological position presents. I only wish to help those suffering under the influence of Libertarianism to think their way out of their conceptual confusion, while warning others of the danger.

Peace be with you my friend.

Rather than cutting and pasting from the club rules, I encourage you to think for yourself.

I believe Libertarianism is likely the least selfish and sociopathic, self-regarding, "ideology" there is.

And out of all that I cannot see how some are so belligerently hostile to Libertarianism and what it stands for.

But those are the same principles that you say are "morally depraved" and "intellectually bankrupt". Honestly, I don't see the problem. I don't see the moral depravity you tout, but rather a moral of the highest order that only wishes freedom and liberty for EVERY person. I don't see the intellectual bankruptcy, but rather a concept that is simple, yet completely revolutionary in what it could achieve if only given the chance.

Where do we go wrong? How are we immoral? How are we unintelligent?

gosh no, freedom to think for myself would be way too libertarian for me.

Agreed . And well said . Sudan is where they need to go . No government is there right now . They should move there and see how well they do . It they had the courage of their convictions , they would .

afloyd60 , do corporations count as individuals ? Churches ? How about the uber weathy ? Look at the country of Sudan . Libertarian paridise . No government , no organization , except criminals . Muslim extremists are cracking down there , and they will fill the vaccume . Read about History much ? I think not .

What has you convinced you cannot think for yourself right now , if you so choose ?

Sudan--sounds like anarchist paradise to me, not libertarian. although i would love to believe in anarchy as a political philosophy, you're right there will always be someone, usually the group with the most guns, that fills the vacuum. anarchy would only work in a fantasy world where everyone treats everyone else as they would want to be treated. judging from your sudan statement, you obviously really don't understand what libertarianism is.

read history much? yes, i do. quite a bit actually and history is full of people toiling and dying under the yoke of tyranny, striving for freedom. perhaps you should read up on libertarianism so you would know what it is actually all about instead of the incorrect generalization you give here.

peace

obviously, it was meant to be facetious

How is what he said morally bankrupt? Who is responsible for you and your actions?
Maybe he is ethically chalenged? But morally?

you go, afloyd60. We the people want individual freedom to work for and own our own problems and to fix them ourselves. No one needs to give me anything...

Me and mine help others who are in need of it. We help them get back on their feet so they can heve the dignity to take care of theirs and themselves. And we see them return to thank us on holidays, year after year. Give to others the ability to do it themselves.....

But we don't believe in NO government! Just limited, small government.

Give me an example of where this has worked . Surely there must be one somewhere ? - So , in a world of global multinational corporations , that already sway governments to their whim , you want WHAT ?

I doubt there is an example where it has worked. But if you
want to be certain we can always contact Shirley.

I concur, Unimatrix. I am frankly stunned by representations that Libertarianism is a compassionate or selfless political and economic philosophy. Among their fundamental principles is the elimination of many of the programs that provide a "safety net" in an attempt to keep our poorest and most-challenged citizens from falling into the kind of deep, hopeless poverty seen in third world countries.

Libertarianism is merely a justification for people who are financially stable to turn their backs on those less prosperous than themselves. They are in a race to the bottom with Reagan conservatives to see who can pursue the most selfish, insensitive and hypocritical agenda -- when one of them falls on hard times, they are at the front of the line screaming for government intervention on their behalf.

well said as usual

You aren't even trying . How about one where "the people " are the government ? Oh , wait ....

heres a flag pin...lol

couldn't have said it better. as soon as i read that headline i thought the exact same thing. it's like telling a person with cancer "It could be worse you could have aids". you just don't make statments like that.

I think he'll enjoy six years as a United States senator. His opponent isn't all that much better, and the corporate press just keeps on smearing him on superficial issues. People are seeing through the facade--clearly, he's a threat to their little corporatocracy.

i disagree. this guy makes stupid comment after stupid comment, its only a matter of time before he talks himself into a hole not even the tea party can handle.

I really don't follow Rand Paul--even though I am a big fan of his dad. My feelings come from the talking heads on TV saying this and that about him and not really giving the guy a chance to discuss the issues. I saw the Rachel Maddow interview, and it was more of an ambush than an interview--she didn't even give the guy a chance to discuss issues in a modern context--just the same old "if you're not in favor of federal civil rights laws, then you're a racist...if you're not in favor of federal housing laws, then you hate poor people...if you're not in favor of the federal government steering the economy, then you're a simpleton."

I don't live in Kentucky, so I don't have a direct say in whether he'll win or lose. I just know that people are sick of the same old crap, and they want some real change from the same corporate garbage they've seen for decades. And the way I feel is that if the corporate press hates you, then you must be doing something right.

But there's no way you can defend this type of comment.

It is defensible in the context in which Mr. Paul used it. I agree that the poor in out country are comparably better off than those of other countries (The question that's been brought up in this post is whether that level of comparable poverty is relevant or even politically correct)
It is not defensible in the way that some have taken it, but as I said, i don't believe he meant it in that way. He did say, "That does not mean we can't do better". Of course we can and should try to do better about poverty in our country, and the way in which we go about that could be debated for hours.

He actually went to school and obtained his M.D. at Duke. And went on to become an Ophthalmologist.

You definition of capitalism is correct, but that isn't what we have in the U.S. and supply and demand as it should be is not alive and well.

We have a centrally planned economy, the center of which is the Federal Reserve, a collection of private backs tasked with "overseeing" our money supply and in turn controlling our entire economy through inflation. In a free-market, not only is there no need for a central bank such as the federal reserve, but it doesn't work and the only conceivable reason for the creation of a central bank in a free-market economy is to turn said economy from a free one into a centrally-planned one. (Such as what happened in 1913 when the Federal Reserve was established.)

When our economy is artificially controlled through inflation, supply and demand is hard to implement at best, seeing as how the consumers don't know when they can buy and producers don't know when they should produce. Since interests in a free-market are set naturally, without interference, they tell consumers, producers, and investors when the best time is to buy, sell, and invest. Low interest rates indicate a surplus of savings and capital, allowing investors to invest their capital in projects and businesses and telling consumers that there is enough savings to buy more while telling producers that the consumers have the money to spend on their products. While high interest rates indicate the opposite.

We don't have that free-market, self regulation of interest rates because the Fed can control the interest rates through inflation via control over the money supply currently in circulation. Inject money and the rates fluctuate to the liking of the bankers at the Fed.

Keynesian economics DOES NOT work. It restricts the freedom of the individual and retracts individual liberty. Only freedom works.

See? It's all rigged. They can control our economy for the betterment of the elitists in our government and big business. No entity should have that power. The government has the jobs of enforcing contracts and preventing fraud. And that is IT. No regulation of prices, no regulation of wages, no subsidies for companies, etc.

I don't think I could have stated it better myself. It baffles me to see so many people who perceive wealth, income, jobs and the like as the most important thing in life. It isn't.

It's about freedom--pure and simple. And if Rand Paul can do something to restore REAL freedom in this country, then more power to him.

Briefly, capitalism includes an element of wage labour. From Wikipedia, wage labour is the socioeconomic relationship between a worker and an employer in which the worker sells their labour under a contract (employment), and the employer buys it, often in a labour market.

The past ten years in America has seen circumstances where employees have been told that they must surrender their marketable skills, particularly in IT. Employees are given an ultimatum to train their replacements or be fired. In other instances executive managers (such as former HP CEO Carly Fiorina, a current candidate for California senate) have argued there is no natural right to work at all.

I consider this compromises capitalism, and question whether capitalism still exists in America.

Great post.

P.S. and it still is being built on the back of slaves.............many slaves don't even know it!

We aren't blind to it, but it's been pointed out to you repeatedly that truly free markets aren't better, they're worse. That doesn't mean I support Corporatism, all it means is that I think replacing it with an environment in which businesses can do whatever the fuck they want would, by no means, stop the shitty behavior or make us more "wealthy." Again, it's been tried. The Gilded Age, the "roaring" 20's. Way shittier even than Corporatism because "free markets" do NOT prevent business corruption, which is what the problem has been all along.

What you need is a government which is completely hostile to business at all times, with draconian laws for bribery or other impediments to its activities.

In a "free" market, things like the BP spill would happen all the time since there'd be no laws protecting people from externalization. And no, it couldn't be settled by property rights because court systems are obviously susceptible to bribery, drawn out proceedings and high attorney fees. One more idea not thought out well, starting to see a pattern here?

I'm not going to rehash the points I made in the IBM thread though, since you didn't respond to those ones either.

i think a lot of people on this site misconstrue the word freedom or free markets as being able to "...do whatever the fuck they want." however, that is not the case. freedom means being able to do whatever the fuck you want, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. i think it's extremely important to make that distinction.

""free markets" do NOT prevent business corruption, which is what the problem has been all along." i disagree. the problems we have are due to the marriage of the state and big business otherwise known as corporatism. they work together to make sure that you and i have no power and are economically dominated. this is the new slavery, 21st century serfdom. call it what you will, it is not, nor has it been freedom in probably a hundred years or more. and even before then certain groups of people were not free. true freedom believes in the principle that "all men are created equal".

"What you need is a government which is completely hostile to business at all times..." why then, would any business want to do business in this country? they'd just go elsewhere and take all the jobs with them. pardon me, but that is just ludicrous. we already have laws against bribery, they just have to be enforced by a well informed citizenry.

"...court systems are obviously susceptible to bribery..." you would give that same system even more power to control our lives? freedom is the only system in which everyone could possibly have a fair chance. our forefathers fought against tyranny, yet tyranny returned to this land many decades ago. it has been steadily gaining strength by pretending to be freedom so that it can then demonize freedom. for the enslaved peoples of this planet throughout the ages, freedom has always been the goal. now the very people who used faux freedom to demonize true freedom have people believing in their own enslavement. we've all been bamboozled by the elite of this planet for far too long. it's time we all woke up.

"...government...hostile to business at all times?" I understand and concur with your healthy suspicion of large corporations. But most jobs in this country are provided by small businesses.

I had my own law and consulting firm for three years, and one of the main reasons I left when a large firm came calling was that government paperwork took a staggeringly large amount of my time. I was working enough weekends already without having to sacrifice more of them to tedious, exhausting and demonstrably unnecessary paperwork.

WE THE PEOPLE elect the government that creates policy toward business and that appoints the heads of the state and federal administrative agencies (where they are not directly elected as well). We should not be electing (or reelecting) the kinds of representatives who are inclined to deregulate financial institutions or monopolists. We know that the primary motivation of all businesses is profit and should strive to elect representatives who understand that as well.

Our capitalistic system -- as modified by government rules and regulation where the potential for abuse exits -- works better than any other system that has been tried so far. I agree that skepticism is healthy...but outright hostility seems to me to be along the lines of defecating where we eat...

Disagree strongly. In a free market there would be no congressional enacted 75 million dollar cap on on liability. (1990 Oil Pollution Act caps at $75 million the liability for BP for economic damages caused by the spill.)

In a free market Liability for destruction of person or property would not be artificially limited, therefore no insurance would insure or allow an oil well to be drilled at an unprecedented 5,000 feet, a depth so deep that no one had any idea on how stop a leak if occurred (and still have no clue . )

Hence without insurance, and having to fully pay for the actual damage from an oil leak at that depth(billions) BP would not have drilled an oil well at that depth if it wasn't for the government and Corporatism. A free market would have prevented a situation like the current one from ever existing.

Perfect, my friend!

I don't know where you accepted this ill-thought out preconceived notion about free markets, but you don't appear to have the slightest clue about it.

The "Roaring" 20's and things resembling it were all an illusion created by illusory government and, more specifically, Federal Reserve policies which purported to the masses about the existence of wealth and capital that wasn't actually there. Because of that people and investors thought they could take more risks, invest their money, spend away and everything would be just fine, but we all know how that turned out. It leads to depressions and recessions and economics crises that we can't even begin to imagine.
In the marketplace the price of a good or service helps communicate consumer demand to producers and thus directs the allocation of resources toward consumer, as well as investor, satisfaction. Because of regulatory price controls, we don't have any of that communication.

In a truly and honestly free market, corruption doesn't work because a business that is corrupt doesn't float unless it has the government and it's corporate caring policies to prop it up, because otherwise it would be down the crapper in moments. A free-market relies on people, human action dictates how it operates and the state it is in.

In a free-market, the government plays a neutral role in its administration and legislation of economic activity neither limiting nor actively promoting it (for example neither regulating industries let alone owning economic interests nor offering subsidies to businesses let alone protecting them from internal/external market pressures).

But, we have never given this Free- Market a chance. It's never existed. We've had corporatism for so long, a centrally planned economy and since it's inception we've had an uncountable number of recessions and depresssions of all sorts and with each and every one, the poor and middle class get hurt more and more. And I fear that this one we are currently experiencing, if left unchecked and destructive policies allowed to continue, it may be the end for our poor and the middle class who become the poor, all while the rich and elite get richer and more powerful.

And if BP had to be more conscious of an informed consumer in a free-market, they would have just bought a blasted safety device to prevent such a disaster, but otherwise spot on.

I never said corporations could do whatever they want. You act like free market capitalism means companies can murder. That is not true, even anarchy has common law courts and businesses should only be able to do business voluntarily. The system will never work for you, the government is it's own corporation. It pollutes the most, it arrests people for the wrong kind of vegetation in their pocket...and supporting organized theft only empowers the corporatism...whether you want to admit to it or not. I'm sorry, but the SEC not only hasn't done jack for Wall Street, it actually made things worse by giving Bernie Madoff the green light for over 16 yeeeears! The FDA kills off millions of people (indirectly yet it still kills more people than it saves) many who just want to try test drugs but the government won't let them. The "defense" you get from the military is used against other human beings and has nothing to do with defense. Can't you see it?!? Statism is NOTHING but terrorism. That is the truth. Until you stop pointing guns at people and we can turn to a voluntary society, where actions are created through peace, not coercion and threats of violence on innocent, peaceful citizens.

You know why I'm rejecting this minimal government "revolution", because there is no such thing as small government....the system always games you and I...for the fools we obviously are. We need to cut the beasts head off, go straight for the root, not keep attacking the evergrowing branches. Stop using terrorism on people! A voluntary society based around ostracism and reputation will take humanity much farther. You just continue the war on drugs indirectly because of give credence to statism. You make it possible for them to steal from us and then wonder how things got corrupt. It's obvious, violence in the hands of humans is a bad thing. Stop using force on peaceful people!

I never said it wasn't, it just can't use violence legally to do so.... government is force.

Sudan has no government . Do you want that here ?! Are you like , a crazy person ? Japan among others , has been freely dumping toxic waste in the water there . No more fish , the former fishermen have turned pirate . Travel , learn something .

You do not consider the justice systen , law enforcement to be part of government ? Are laws made by initiative in your world ?

I want this guy to speak at my commencement ceremony when I graduate college. upped.

Bravo, Saladin. Very well expressed. I'm 61 and I've seen things heading
steadily downhill all my adult life. The worship of Capitalism is anything but
the divine inspiration to the promised land that politicians and exploitative crooked
business people palm off on the naive. Though I'm not convinced the jury
still isn't out on the assertion that the USA is THE richest country on Earth...
Relatively, this country is blessed with many natural resources of course.
But the wealth is concentrated in the wrong hands. And the ignorance of
people not motivating themselves to learn the minds of those who built
what they've inherited is sickening. The American civilization is only a few
centuries old, and already it's in decline. Knowledge is power. Freedom is
power. Yet people are living to see both sucked out of them as they breathe.
I'm a highly educated citizen who'll outlive most of the people alive today.
I sure don't want to be part of the public corruption I see 'em yawn at daily.
Empowered humans are capital with the most value because they are supremely positive against all odds. But TV couch potatoes who don't know the score ?
No. They are only sheep to be fleeced. It does no good to condemn the
Corporate raiders who corrupt and steal everything in sight when common
people passively play into their hands allowing themselves to be preyed
upon. As one poet put it, thinking for most people is only another term
they use for rearranging their presumptions & prejudices. Does anyone
for even a minute truly believe, that if all people valued being educated
with the truth above all else, that the People could not rise up and end the
depravity they tolerate every day ? The founding fathers engineered our
system to accomplish exactly that no matter what developments occurred.
The USA has been heading downhill because assholes who are Americans
in name only haven't held faith and done their civic duty which is on the honor system.

You are on a roll!