waitforufo

So if Donald Trump gets elected, almost impossible I know, but if he does you want his administration and his justice department enforcing these laws? Besides, the supreme court has ruled. The government can't control free speech in the ways you would like. Individuals are responsible for believing or not believing what journalist tell them. Also, it is not just what Chet Huntley reported. It is what he didn't report. Who decides what is news? The government? The news editors?

As Sato said above, that would just be putting other biases in charge. There is no law enforcing the scientific method. The scientific method is best practiced by individual scientist. The same goes with journalism and those that rely on it. How hard is it to ask "who is trying to sell me soap?"

I do all the time. Do you question your own political beliefs? Why just look at the CEOs. There are an army of people paid thousands on top of thousands for participating. There kids have seen a lot of adds about the new Nintendo and they expect mom and dad to deliver. So mom and dad need there bonus. I believe ever one of them thinks they are doing the correct thing in participating. You don't think their are lower level executives waiting to take the spot of the current CEO who will do just exactly the same thing. Think about why we need to have the scientific method. The scientific method prevents us from falling victim to our human nature. Humans have a tendency to find what the want to believe and dismiss detracting data.

Very well written post. I agree completely. The program is the vehicle for delivering the advertising. It is really all one in the same at this point. Kind of like the circus in ancient Rome. It's all selling consumerism. The above two posts are too conspiratorial for me. I think it is much more organic in origin. It doesn't need corporate titans or a cabal of marketers. Just average people working to meet there quarterly objectives in order to get their bonus. They all have the same imperative. So at this point they (we) all work together like ants in a nest. The problem isn't with some boogeyman. The problem is our human nature. The above is proof to me that the problem is organic. What chance does a kid have who thinks pumpkin chunking is science, that believes ancient aliens built the pyramids, or believes the Kardashians have lives to aspire to? We put our kids in front of the TV to watch this crap. How many generations of advertising did it take to get to this point. I would say about 5 (120 years). The only way to stop it is to question every deeply held conviction you have. You have to ask who planted the conviction in my mind? Coke, Maytag, Dunkan Yoyo, Verizon, your favorite political party, or all of the above.

The media makes its money from advertising. The purpose of advertising isn't to inform consumers about products, services, and ideas. The purpose of advertising is to create demand for products, services and ideas. Advertisers target their demand creation activities to specific demographic groups. To attract advertisers, the media's product must appeal to those demographic groups targeted by advertisers. Advertisers could care less about the content carried by media outlets. Advertisers don't care what people watch or read, they just care about who and how many. If advertisers don't care, then neither does the media. So the media is simply responding to their advertising customers. Media outlets that attract the largest targeted demographics groups make the most money. Media outlets that attract smaller populations of targeted demographic groups, then generally follow the winning strategy of their competitors. So if you are looking for culpability, look no further than advertisers and people who respond to the demand created by those advertisers. The downfall of newspapers was and is the internet, and specifically sites like craigslist and ebay. News papers used to make a large percentage of there advertising revenue from the want adds. If you have ever placed an want add in a newspaper, you know how expensive that advertising can be. The advantage of want add revenue is that it allows news papers to be more independent because the individual sellers and buyers aren't in the demand creation game. The old saw still holds true. You should never watch or read anything without asking yourself "what soap are they trying to sell me?" I think nothing would make advertisers happier than to have us all too terrified to leave our homes, glued to our televisions, while purchasing products off the internet. I don't think any of us know just how manipulated we are by the demand creation game.

I have never met a person like this in my life. People who live rags to riches stories in their lives are seen as heroes. I have read stories where the old rich look down on the new vo riche in high society, but I have never read on where the new rich cared. Well maybe The Great Gatsby, but that was about a man's infatuation with a woman. Besides, the people in low society have more fun. Utopia is a fantasy. You should wish for more realistic goals. Perhaps you knowledge lacks wisdom. Perhaps those that were once poor and are now prosperous understand that the only path to prosperity is hard work. You can't give people prosperity. Look at all those born in the middle class or above who end up in rags. Also, perhaps they found that hard work to be enjoyable. Like an athlete training to compete does. Prosperous people buy more products, so they want more prosperous people. They also provide employment to people working there way up. For the 22 trillion dollars spent, the curve is flat as a pancake from '64 to today.

What you said is that conservatives believe welfare is "parties and the lazy life." Welfare holds people in poverty. Poverty is suffering. Nobody thinks poverty is "parties and the lazy life." I have never expressed hatred toward minorities. I have never expressed hatred of welfare recipients. I would appreciate an apology. Your link show the following chart. Your chart does not show that less than 4% of welfare recipients are dependent on welfare, it shows that 4% of Americans are dependent on welfare. That's or 12 million people and 25% of welfare recipients that the government says are dependent on welfare. It also shows that 15 percent of Americans are recipients of welfare. Your link does not define how the government decides who is dependent and who is not. Working and collecting welfare still creates dependence. I own no vinyl. I did find this interesting in your link Now my guess is that Daniel Moynihan was familiar with 78s but I don't think anyone would call him anything but a liberal. Nor do I think anyone would call him a racist. Yet he understood the tragedy of welfare and the problems it has caused to minorities. Employment is the solution to poverty. Entitlement programs such as welfare have failed to reduce poverty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States 22 trillion dollars has purchased the above.

This is not what conservatives think. Conservatives think welfare is a poverty trap. The government is simply holding welfare recipients in poverty. Since 1964 they have created sub cultures of poverty dependent on government. 22 trillion dollars (today's dollars) and the poverty rate has had no significant change since 1964. It's time to try something different.

The decision was unanimous, so Scalia's decision lives on without him on the court. The ruling also gives guidance on interpreting US v. Miller.

Interesting Supreme Court decision today regarding the Second Amendment. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/stun-guns-second-amendment_us_56effe0de4b03a640a6afebb http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf They saved the best for last. Read the whole thing. Its a great decision.

Generally VPs are selected based on how many electoral college votes they can bring in the general election. Vermont doesn't have many. So if Sanders could help bring in a State with a high electoral college count that Hillary could not get herself then he would be considered. If he can't then Hillary will pick someone from a state like Florida, Ohio or Texas. Other considerations would be to pull in a large voting block. We all assume Hillary will do strong with women, minorities, and liberals, so a moderate white male might be a good pick.

I was talking about entitlement programs.

Look folks you can try and lay all the guilt trips on me you want about not wanting to help the poor. I give 10% of my gross income to charity. In fact I have given five grand to the food bank in my area every year for the last ten years. How much do you give? I also give that much to homeless shelters and shelters for derelict families which are mostly battered women and their children. My conscience is clear. I don't need the government to help other people or be compassionate. Neither do you. Also, the money I give can't be diverted by politicians to things I don't want to pay for. You can't say that about your tax dollars? 22 trillion dollars and poverty rate stays the same. People in poverty need jobs. Think of the jobs that would have been created if that money would have been left in the hands of the people pursuing happiness as they saw fit. You know the most common human failing is the belief that if you do something and fail, you weren't trying hard enough. This is what creates political and religious extremism. Wake up. The great society and war on poverty programs are not working. Trying harder by increasing government spending will only put us further down the rat hole. No, I think Trump won't get his plan through congress. So, if elected, he will have to come up with a different plan. Again, Trump is not my preferred candidate. Obviously you haven't been paying attention to Obama. Every speech is full of Me and I and executive orders. I have answered that question from you many times. You see there was this big war. We won. After that we had the largest industrial base in the world. We also had time to build brand loyalty behind our products. Well the world has caught up. We have lost our brand loyalty. Also there are new big players like China and India. You don't like that answer so you reject it. I continue to read how you folks blame everything on Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and the Bush's and it makes me laugh. It's not those men. It's the government. The government will never produce the utopia you are looking for. Government always leads to oppression. Read history, because its the same story over and over. Our founders knew that and created a government that was intended to be limited with the intention of keeping the oppression on a short leash. That is why we have three branches of government. That is why they wrote. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Well the governed don't feel like they have given consent That is why Trump is winning.

The only group stepping on poor people's necks is the government. They have an entire incentive system to keep the poor in poverty. It's called welfare. It's called entitlements. The tax payers pay plenty to keep the poor down for the benefit of government. The government has buildings full of the department of this and that designed for no other purpose but to keep that boot on the neck of the poor. Good intentions are not a justification for this abuse. It needs to stop. Civil Rights and Women's rights (Suffrage) are Republican ideas. Why don't I ever hear you complaining about Obama's contribution to the national debt? You have no idea what Trump will do. Neither do I. I'm just not fear mongering. Turn off your TV and calm down.

Not true. I pay my taxes. I vote for school levies. I like my streets paved, garbage collected, water pressure, and to be able to flush my toilet. I like law and order. I like my country well defended. I'm happy to pay for those things. The government however has an unquenchable thrust for money. The government has a never ending list of people they insist are entitled to the earnings of people who work. The only thing to stop their taking is citizens who say enough. I think we are well past enough. In many things, like military spending, I believe you do too. 22 trillion dollars (in today's dollars) spent on great society and war on poverty programs with nothing to show for it. The poverty rate hasn't changed in any meaningful way since 1964. But then again, why work when you are entitled?

Perhaps you have seen signs like this one. A rather famous example from Los Angeles. Baptists in particular seem to love putting signs like these on their churches. I asked a baptist friend of mine why. He said it was a reminder. When you see one you're supposed to remember two things. Jesus saves, and that your name isn't Jesus. Words to live by. You seem to be confusing religion and politics. We have a separation of church and state in my country. How about yours? I have no problem with people giving money to the church to help the poor. I give money to church run shelters for homeless people for example. The government takes. There is a difference. Most churches also think that the poor are deserving of the generosity of others, but not entitled. There is a difference there too. I guess those considering Hillary will now have to reconsider. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/12192975/The-KKK-leader-who-says-he-backs-Hillary-Clinton.html

Overtone was making references to slavery. Part of my response was to overtone. Jim crow was in place in my lifetime by Democrats like George Wallace. Unions, mostly democrats, made every attempt to keep minorities out of there unions into the 70's. I'm only in my mid fifties so that is not ancient history. If I were a democrat I would hide from my history too. Trump is not my preferred candidate. I simply think many aspects of his campaign are working brilliantly for him. He is not yet been nominated but if he is I will likely vote for him over Hillary or Sanders. Hillary is a serial liar and a criminal. Sanders is a socialist who will lead us to serfdom. Trump will likely simply let his cabinet and VP run the show and parade around like a leader. Much better than the other two.

You are talking about Democrats here correct? The Democratic party is the party of slavery, sedition, civil war, jim crow, voting suppression, and opposition to civil rights. Now they simultaneously oppress minority citizens though welfare while making them a consistent voting block through welfare. True economic slavery. 22 trillion dollars (in today's dollars) spent on the war on poverty and the great society and what do we have to show for it? The poverty rate in this country hasn't dropped since since 1964. Surely this proves that creating government dependence doesn't reduce poverty, but the Democrats not only want to continue welfare spending but increase spending on it. The only true justification can be to secure a voting block made from these dependents. Every place I have ever worked incentivized employees by paying paying more for more productivity. It always worked for me, and my pay is very good. Welfare reduces payouts to those that work. We all know where that has ended up. Democrats just won't admit it. Why is it that Democrats are always willing to result to violence on there fellow citizens to achieve there goals? Just look to the history I mention above. Slapping is not only an assault, it is an intentional insult. My my such talk of violence. Assault and insult a person and you are inviting an ass kicking and deserve one. I'm unlikely to take even that path because I would likely not turn out well for me. I may however have you arrested. I can assure you that no guns or knives would be involved. Why all the intense emotion and talk of violence? Can't we all just get along? Can't we all just vote our differences and live with the outcome? I do. This one is a hoot. What party is always trying to change behavior through legislation and regulation? Is that not authoritative?

Nice diversion Willie. Their are lots of bad actors around the world that haven't killed Americans. But they have killed plenty good people and enslaved many others. Some of those people are our friends and allies. Those bad actors intend to continue. Do you care about those people? Are you hoping the alligator will eat you last? What kind of people would we be if we simply stood idly by. I think the people of Syria know. "Not born to wealthy families" Since you scorn the wealth, can you tell me what the threshold of wealthy is? Again just something simple. A dollar figure of net worth will do. I ask the above because I think you believe I was born to a wealth family. I was not. My parents parents raised 8 children in a modest home. I shared a room with 4 brothers. My parents had a mortgage, car payments and struggled to put food on the table and clothes on their children's backs. That is why I had a paper route at 12. Started making a paycheck at a car wash, where I had to get a work permit for being under 16 at 14. During that time I also worked at a horse racing track mucking stalls for a dollar a stall. Worked at a grocery store cleaning the butchers shop and produce prep area at 16. Believe me when I say meat is cleaner the produce. I know. I went to government public schools. I worked my way through state college. In part I did that by postponing starting college until I was 20 so I could save save money to pay for it. Sure I could have taken out loans but was adverse to the idea of taking on debt to pay for something I doubted I would be capable of finishing. I graduated from high school with at 2.8 mostly because I'm dyslectic, took only the minimum state requirements, and shop classes. The shop classes were the best education I had in my life. Without them I likely couldn't have gotten the construction job I have held. I worked my way through college because my parents still had mouths at home to feed and backs to clothe. Those would be my sibling whom I love. They are great people. I'm sure you would like them. When I graduated college my wife was 8 months pregnant. After paying rent on my first home in LA, over 1000 miles from from my home in Washington State, I was broke. I had to take an advance on my salary to by food and prepare for the coming of my first child. I still remember how happy I was when I could buy my wife a used car. A 1970 dodge dart sport. That was 1985. I remember a lot of good times in that car. I got my masters degree while working full time as an engineer while adding children to my family. In my career, I then moved to LA, Atlanta Georga, Cleveland Ohio, and then back to home. I put my three kids though college. It was a wonderful ride. I look back on almost all of it with fondness. Sure it was a lot of work, but It was really great fun. Even recovering from my mistakes of which there were plenty. I have no complaints. I was successful in my career beyond my wildest dreams. Sticking your neck out pays. Now I'm nearing the end of my career and I'm looking forward to retirement. With every job I have ever held, I have given 10% of my gross income to charity. Yes, even mucking horse stalls at 14. Blame my parents for being my role model on charity. I have also always paid my taxes. Kind of hard not to when you have been a salary earner you entire life. I have voted for most school levies. The only ones I recall voting against were mostly for what I considered to be extravagant sports facilities. Now people tell me I don't deserve my Social Security because I took advice from my parents, society, and government and saved money. I hear my kids don't deserve any money I might leave behind because they did not earn it. What a laugh. I could have spent more of that money on my kids, but life has trade offs. I hope my kids understand. I'm glad my kids won't have to worry about me. I always paid my way, so I figure others can too. In your eyes, that makes me a bad person. I think it is strange that you feel that way. Maybe you can explain to me how that simply isn't envy. I'm not shaking in my boots. Are you? I know how to get by because I've done it. I'm still doing it. Do you know how?

iNow I come and go from this form as my interest waxes and wains. Never once have I heard you scold a liberal in such a way. Many of your comments are intentionally abrasive and trollish. I'm sure you do it for the same reason I do. There is none so blind as those who refuse to see. To get them to see, there are times you have to shake them up a bit. Sure there is a risk of simply making them more entrenched, but both of us are willing to take that risk aren't we? With regard to taking by force. That is what the government does. Pretending otherwise is dismissing the seriousness of the matter. Do liberals ever think "what give me the right to take something from another person earned from the sweat of that other person's brow. Not all are born to wealth, nor does it simply fall in their lap. Also there is nothing morally wrong with accumulating wealth for yourself and your decedents. I more than pay for my share of the infrastructure, and I'm happy that others enjoy what I helped pay for through my labor. Particularly those who have been less fortunate the myself. Perhaps you can answer my question about who is rich and who is not. Why s it that liberals are simply unwilling to answer this question? What is it about that question that so hard to answer. My guess is because they would set the bar very low, and by doing so would loose many supporters. My answer would be something north of 10 million in net worth and I wouldn't give any consideration to income. That net worth would include the present value of pensions and all assets. See, that wasn't so hard. Now, I would expect you to set that bar lower. My guess is you will simply condemn my response and provide none of your own.

You are on a roll today. BTW, thank you for reminding me why I liked Ronald Reagan so much. I wasn't referring to your little story. I was referring to your response to my comment about government being irrelevant to many in the american middle. That is politics, and what I said it is correct and it is not juvenile. That's why voter turn out is so low. Why is it liberals like yourself always rail against the rich and their children, but will never define just who is rich? I wasn't asking for some detailed response. You could have simply said anyone who makes more than me. You could have said anyone with a job and a bank account. You could have said one million dollars. You could have said anyone who makes over $100k. You could have said a lot of things. Instead you said it is completely irrelevant. Well if you can't define who the rich are, then there must be no rich people. You say "Nobody "deserves" inherited wealth from relatives they did not support, financially or economically in some way, thereby acquiring a contractual interest of some kind. " But don't children pay a price when their parents save for retirement. There parents could have spent more on them. Better education, better clothes, better food, better neighborhoods, and better schools all cost money. But their parents also worry about not being a burden on there children in old age. Isn't it fair that their parents then compensate their children upon death? Why do you begrudge these children their remittance? Don't you know that most every parent wishes they would have done more for their children? Especially those in middle america. You say of the people who played by the rules and followed the advice of there government by saving for retirement "The only venom involved is the observation that when trying to get one of these people to not abet the ruination of their country and everything they claim to value, one must provide them with reasons they can fit into their preconceptions." What I see in those people are what we should hope from all the people. Good citizens who worked hard, paid there taxes, obeyed the law, and sacrificed for there children. People who insured that they and their children would not be burdens to others. Without people like them the nation would truly be ruined. Are you really surprised that you have to provide reasons to people when you want to take from them by force the product of there labors? For someone who claims "I'm not, actually, very interested in politics" you sure spend a lot of time on the politics section of Science Forums.

Wow, quite the diatribe. Why is it that people very interested in a subject, politics in this case, think everyone else is as well? Next time you are in a public social setting like a bar, why not try to strike up a conversation with a stranger about politics. Most will be polite as their eyes glass over in boredom almost instantly. Why do you think voter turnout in the US generally runs between 40 to 60%? I am interested in this little bit however. Could you please give me some meaningful definition of what makes a person rich when you say "children of the rich don't deserve inherited wealth". I'm thinking something like a dollar value of there net worth, their income, or perhaps some combination of both. It would be great if you worked age into that as well. I'm sure you don't want to point that venom at people who are simply successful middle class retirees or nearly retired persons. Nor do I think you want to point that venom at the children of such people who's lives were impacted by their parents saving for retirement.

You have frequently posted about how we would all be better off in uninformed voters should not vote. Young people tend to be the least informed voters. Also they have little personal wisdom, due to their youth, to guide their reasoning. Young people are often quite correctly preoccupied with their personal lives doing such things as finding and building a carrier, finding a mate, and building their own families. These preoccupations make them less engaged voters. Finally, young people are generally striving to be independent making most uninterested in government and therefor less likely to become informed. It seems to me, based on your past comments, that you would encourage most young people not to vote. My guess is most young people see social pressure and behavioral nudging simply as nagging, harping, and manipulating. I see it as not likely to get out the youth vote. When they feel personally informed and ready to vote, then they will vote. You also seem to be blind to the fact the there are "rabid voters" of all political persuasions who, in the main, cancel each other out. The problem is that no political party can currently sway the majority, making the majority also split 50/50. In such cases the rabid voter coin toss may just make a difference. Instead of focusing on the rabid voter focus on the majority and the rabid voter will again be irrelevant. About half the people will always be disappointed in every election. Even in a landslide election 40% will be disappointed. Many in the american middle quite correctly see the government as irrelevant in their lives. They understand that they have to rely on themselves while being kind to there neighbors and those they interact with in their lives. They understand that they are and must always be the ones that pay and that government will always want them to pay more regardless of what political party is in power. They don't mind paying for schools. sewers, roads, trash collection, public safety, criminal justice, and national defense, but they wonder about paying for the person across the street who is not working while they trudge off to work. They wonder "what am I a sucker?" Then they remind themselves of the value of self worth. Politics is just a circus with mostly warn out acts they have all seen before. This year however is presenting them with side shows call Sanders and Trump that might attract a few more ultimately disappointed spectators.

George Bush

Scratch away and welcome to the United States. I made no reference to race in my comment about H1B visa holders. Here was my comment. H1B visas are permitted because of a claim that there is a shortage of engineers, computer scientist, and programmers in the US. There are plenty of all of these in the US. Employers just want to pay less than domestic US engineers, computer scientists and programmers are willing to accept. To employers this means their must be a shortage. As I said, more supply will equal less pay. The same goes for all fields. http://www.wsj.com/articles/labor-shortage-pinches-home-builders-1444688976 There is nothing evil about H1B visa holds. I'm sure I would be looking to come to the US if I lived in another country as well, but H1B visa holders are just pawns in a game with at goal to lower wages. As I said, for the religious person, Jesus clearly said all things belong to the creator. By the way, I was not the one who introduced the words of Jesus into this conversation. That was Overtone. I was just pointing out the errors in overtone's argument. With regard to the US growing more prosperous between '33 and '82, this was the result of the rest of the industrial world taking until '82 to fully recover from wars that destroyed their industrial base. Once they caught up and could provide meaningful competition the decline you mention started to occur. That coupled with the US environmental movement gaining meaningful force in the '70s shutting down smokestack industries. Sure our environment is better, but at the expense of middle class jobs. A trade-off many are willing to accept, but not admit. A meaningful endorsement to Trump's campaign to secure the Republican nomination. Like I said, Trump is running a brilliant campaign. This endorsement could push Trump to meaningful victories on Super Tuesday. If it does, Trump could be unstoppable. I think Peggy Noonan is on to something with this article. http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-and-the-rise-of-the-unprotected-1456448550 I expect there will be a lot of first time "unprotected" voters in the upcoming general election if it is between Clinton and Trump.