PDA

View Full Version : How Rand Paul will create a new generation of Black Republicans


Taco John
09-21-2013, 12:26 AM
PAUL: The devastating collateral damage of an insidious drug-war weapon

By Rand Paul Friday,
September 20, 2013

If I told you that in America almost 1 million black Americans were forever forbidden from voting, you might think I was talking about Jim Crow 50 years ago, but you would be wrong. According to the Sentencing Project, a staggering number of nonviolent individuals who have been released from prison, are not on probation or parole and who have committed no further crimes, are forever prohibited from voting.

Many black Americans are prevented from ever voting because of the war on drugs.

On Wednesday, I testified before the SenateJudiciary Committee and described the injustice and effects of mandatory-minimum sentences.
These sentences are disproportionally affecting minorities and low-income communities. A recent report from the American Civil Liberties Union reports that blacks are four to five times more likely to be convicted for drug possession. Some dismiss this because they think blacks are committing more drug crimes, but in June, The New York Times reported that although black Americans were four times more likely to be arrested than whites for marijuana possession, both groups used the drug at similar rates.

Why are the arrest rates so lopsided? One widely cited study by The San Jose Mercury News reviewed 700,000 criminal cases that were matched by crime and criminal history of the defendant. The analysis revealed that similarly situated whites were far more successful than blacks and Hispanics in the plea-bargaining process.

Today, the United States incarcerates more people than any other country in the world, and the racial disparity in arrest rates has been absolutely devastating to the black community. Professor Michelle Alexander has even called the war on drugs “the New Jim Crow.”

It’s not just black Americans. Regardless of the color of your skin, the war on drugs has ruined the lives of thousands of young people.

I know a man about my age in Kentucky who grew marijuana plants in his apartment closet in college. Thirty years later, he still can’t vote, can’t own a gun, and when he looks for work, he must check the box that basically says: “I’m a convicted felon, and I guess I’ll always be one.” Getting a job is nearly impossible for him.

John Horner was a 46-year-old father of three when he sold some of his prescription painkillers to a friend. His friend turned out to be a police informant, and he was charged with dealing drugs. Horner pleaded guilty and was later sentenced to the mandatory minimum of 25 years in prison.

John will be 72 years old by the time he is released, and his three young children will have grown up without him. The informant, who had a long history of drug offenses, was more fortunate — he received a reduced sentence of just 18 months, and is now free.

So many judges oppose mandatory-minimum sentencing precisely because such an arbitrary law does not take into account that each case is different.
I want to be clear: I am not advocating for any type of get-out-of-jail-free passes for individuals who break the law. I am simply arguing that the federal government should get out of the way, and allow local and state judges to do their jobs.

Mandatory-minimum sentences automatically impose a minimum number of years in prison for specific crimes — usually related to drugs. By design, mandatory-sentencing laws take discretion away from prosecutors and judges so as to impose harsh sentences, regardless of circumstances.

Since mandatory sentencing began in the 1970s in response to a growing drug-and-crime epidemic, America’s prison population has quadrupled, to 2.4 million. America now jails a higher percentage of its citizens than any other country, including China and Iran, at the staggering cost of $80 billion a year. Drug offenders in the United States spend more time under the criminal justice system’s formal control than drug offenders anywhere else in the world.

Most public officials — liberals, conservatives and libertarians — have decided that mandatory-minimum sentencing is unnecessary. At least 20 states, both red and blue, have reformed their mandatory-sentencing laws in some way, and Congress is considering a bipartisan bill that would do the same for federal crimes.

About 1.3 million people — more than half the total prison population — are behind bars for nonviolent crimes, and federal prisons are 40 percent over capacity. “It’s a waste of tax dollars and human lives,” said Anthony Papa of the Drug Policy Alliance.

It’s time for these unjust laws to end.

On March 20, I introduced the Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013 with the Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat. We have been joined by Sens. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat; Angus King, Maine independent; and Kristen Gillibrand, New York Democrat, in the Senate, and Rep. Robert C. “Bobby” Scott, Virginia Democrat, joined by 11 others, introduced similar legislation in the House. The legislation is short and simple. It amends current law to provide “authority to impose a sentence below a statutory mandatory minimum” if certain requirements are met.

Mandatory-minimum sentencing has done little to address the very real problem of drug abuse, while also doing great damage by destroying so many lives. Each case should be judged on its own merits, yet mandatory minimums prevent this from happening. The Justice Safety Valve Act will be an important step in improving justice in our nation’s courtrooms.

Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Homeland Security committees.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/20/paul-the-devastating-effect-of-a-drug-war-weapon/#ixzz2fVQQDKo8
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

W*GS
09-21-2013, 09:24 AM
How come Paul is the only GOPer that wants to do this?

It will take a lot more than this one bill to get blacks to consider Republicans. The GOP must purge many members and radically alter its ideology to get support from blacks. It will have to become a different party.

Besides, why is a libertarian plumping for a Republican? Becoming a LINO, TJ?

houghtam
09-21-2013, 11:24 AM
How come Paul is the only GOPer that wants to do this?

It will take a lot more than this one bill to get blacks to consider Republicans. The GOP must purge many members and radically alter its ideology to get support from blacks. It will have to become a different party.

Besides, why is a libertarian plumping for a Republican? Becoming a LINO, TJ?

They can start with canceling every one of their Voter ID initiatives. That would go a long way.

Taco John
09-21-2013, 12:25 PM
They can start with canceling every one of their Voter ID initiatives. That would go a long way.

A long way towards what? Voter ID initiatives poll very well across the board.

Rohirrim
09-21-2013, 12:39 PM
I'm still trying to find the place in the Constitution where it says the government can tell citizens what they can and cannot ingest, and then throw them in prison and seize their property and assets if they don't obey.

houghtam
09-21-2013, 12:46 PM
A long way towards what? Voter ID initiatives poll very well across the board.

Okay, let's be more specific here.

We're talking about Voter ID.

We're also talking about eliminating early voting.

We're also talking about eliminating same-day registration.

We're also talking about reducing the number of polling places.

You can't seriously think that these initiatives didn't contribute to the Republican epic fail in every demographic except white males, can you? Or are you another one of those like Reverend who believe that black people just voted for Obama because he's black?

If that's the case, God help you and your party...you're the reason why they'll never win another national election.

houghtam
09-21-2013, 12:52 PM
Analysis: 201,000 in Florida didn't vote because of long lines

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-01-29/business/os-voter-lines-statewide-20130118_1_long-lines-sentinel-analysis-state-ken-detzner

No One in America Should Have to Wait 7 Hours to Vote

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/no-one-in-america-should-have-to-wait-7-hours-to-vote/264506/

Representative John Becker (R-Union Township) introduced House Bill 250, which would cut early voting days from 35 to 17 and also would stop early voting on the weekends and Mondays before a Tuesday election.

http://crawfordcountynow.com/local/early-voting-in-ohio-why-cut-something-that-works/

But yeah...voter suppression is the way to win over the hearts and minds of the minorities. Good luck with that.

Fedaykin
09-21-2013, 01:14 PM
A long way towards what? Voter ID initiatives poll very well across the board.

The only reason they poll well is because the propaganda has convinced people that there is a serious problem of voter fraud (which is absolutely, laughably not true) and that the target of these initiatives is illegals and other non-citizens (which is also absolutely not true).

There's also a serious contingent of folks that know what the initiatives are actually targeting (the poor, minorities, etc.) and support those initiatives because of it.

houghtam
09-21-2013, 01:35 PM
The only reason they poll well is because the propaganda has convinced people that there is a serious problem of voter fraud (which is absolutely, laughably not true) and that the target of these initiatives is illegals and other non-citizens (which is also absolutely not true).

There's also a serious contingent of folks that know what the initiatives are actually targeting (the poor, minorities, etc.) and support those initiatives because of it.

And there's also a serious contingent of folks that know what the initiatives are actually targeting (the poor, minorities, etc.) and refuse to support anyone who is in favor of them.

As long as the right is going to keep with the mantra that voter fraud is a big problem, that these initiatives are needed, and...oh! What a coincidence! The people most adversely affected by this are people just happen to be a demographic that generally doesn't vote Republican!...they will continue to lose and lose big with minorities.

Just like their obsession with abortion and birth control...and women's private parts in general.

The funny thing is, despite the attempt...they STILL lost Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and North Carolina. How they think it will be any better next time around is hilarious. It will only get worse.

Just wait until Texas comes into play the election cycle after next. Hilarious!

Taco John
09-21-2013, 02:26 PM
Okay, let's be more specific here.

We're talking about Voter ID.

We're also talking about eliminating early voting.

We're also talking about eliminating same-day registration.

We're also talking about reducing the number of polling places.

You can't seriously think that these initiatives didn't contribute to the Republican epic fail in every demographic except white males, can you? Or are you another one of those like Reverend who believe that black people just voted for Obama because he's black?

If that's the case, God help you and your party...you're the reason why they'll never win another national election.


I don't really have a party. In fact, there isn't a single presidential vote I've ever cast for a Republican. So party affiliation means nothing to me in this discussion.

As far as this issue goes, I think that voter ID laws are just the reality of having a welfare state. I don't like ID laws any more than anyone else, but they're a symptom of the system, not a means unto themselves.

They're not something that I personally advocate for. I just see them as an eventual next step. And it's hard to understand why everything else in our system should require ID but voting not. That doesn't make any sense to me.

If the argument against that is that it makes it harder to vote - I think that's a very good argument, and I wish you'd apply that logic to everything else that government gets involved in and makes harder to do.

peacepipe
09-21-2013, 02:31 PM
I don't really have a party. In fact, there isn't a single presidential vote I've ever cast for a Republican. So party affiliation means nothing to me in this discussion.

As far as this issue goes, I think that voter ID laws are just the reality of having a welfare state. I don't like ID laws any more than anyone else, but they're a symptom of the system, not a means unto themselves.

They're not something that I personally advocate for. I just see them as an eventual next step. And it's hard to understand why everything else in our system should require ID but voting not. That doesn't make any sense to me.

If the argument against that is that it makes it harder to vote - I think that's a very good argument, and I wish you'd apply that logic to everything else that government gets involved in and makes harder to do.that's the entire point these "voter id laws" aren't about voter IDs it about limiting the minority vote. Voter ID is the bogus sales pitch being used to sell the idea of limiting minority voters. it's a trojan horse.

Taco John
09-21-2013, 02:56 PM
If you guys say so. I mean, it's not racist to ask people to get IDs to drive, so I'm not sure why you'd think it would be racist to ask people to show ID to vote. If showing ID is inherently racist, then we need to do away with this wicked infrastructure, right?

Like I say, I don't advocate for it. It just seems like natural governmental creep.

houghtam
09-21-2013, 02:57 PM
I don't really have a party. In fact, there isn't a single presidential vote I've ever cast for a Republican. So party affiliation means nothing to me in this discussion.

As far as this issue goes, I think that voter ID laws are just the reality of having a welfare state. I don't like ID laws any more than anyone else, but they're a symptom of the system, not a means unto themselves.

They're not something that I personally advocate for. I just see them as an eventual next step. And it's hard to understand why everything else in our system should require ID but voting not. That doesn't make any sense to me.

If the argument against that is that it makes it harder to vote - I think that's a very good argument, and I wish you'd apply that logic to everything else that government gets involved in and makes harder to do.

It's not just that it makes it harder to vote...it makes it in effect a poll tax, it unfairly and disproportionately targets a minority segment of the population, and it's done subversively.

I'm on record saying I have no problem with Voter ID laws, as long as they are done responsibly, in plenty of time for the election, and at no cost to the voter.

But they are not. In the last election, the laws were pushed through in the 11th hour, with those supporting the measures knowing that there wouldn't be enough time for those affected to get the IDs in time to vote.

If you were paying attention, a legislator went on record before the election saying the Voter ID laws in PA were going to give Romney the election. A separate legislator confirmed they gained 5 points after the election because of them. That says it all right there.

houghtam
09-21-2013, 03:02 PM
If you guys say so. I mean, it's not racist to ask people to get IDs to drive, so I'm not sure why you'd think it would be racist to ask people to show ID to vote. If showing ID is inherently racist, then we need to do away with this wicked infrastructure, right?

Like I say, I don't advocate for it. It just seems like natural governmental creep.

Which one of these is a privilege?

[ ] Driving a car

[ ] Voting

Which one of these is a right?

[ ] Driving a car

[ ] Voting

Fedaykin
09-21-2013, 03:04 PM
If you guys say so. I mean, it's not racist to ask people to get IDs to drive, so I'm not sure why you'd think it would be racist to ask people to show ID to vote. If showing ID is inherently racist, then we need to do away with this wicked infrastructure, right?

Like I say, I don't advocate for it. It just seems like natural governmental creep.

You miss the point. It's not about "racism" other than the fact that it so happens that minorities (and poor people, including poor whites) tend to vote against the interests of the people that are pushing for the voter id laws.

Voter ID laws are about voter suppression.

Also, driving is a privilege that a person is required to demonstrate competency at by being licensed. It's not a "right".

Fedaykin
09-21-2013, 03:07 PM
If the argument against that is that it makes it harder to vote - I think that's a very good argument, and I wish you'd apply that logic to everything else that government gets involved in and makes harder to do.

The problem isn't that I disagree with yourdiagnoses. It's that I disagree with your treatment. In the past you've advocated for the abolishment is nearly all regulation. That won't solve a damn thing.

The purpose of government is to make things harder. Particularly those things that allow one person or group to injure another. Often the group doing the injuring is the government, but that does not mean no government is the answer.

Taco John
09-21-2013, 04:10 PM
It's not just that it makes it harder to vote...it makes it in effect a poll tax, it unfairly and disproportionately targets a minority segment of the population, and it's done subversively.

I don't agree with either of these points. I understand why you're demagoguing like this though. That's politics. But no, it's not a poll tax, and no, it's not trying to racistly oppress minorities. Minorities aren't oppressed by needing drivers licenses, I don't see where it should be seen as racism to require ID at the polling station.

Rohirrim
09-21-2013, 04:15 PM
I don't agree with either of these points. I understand why you're demagoguing like this though. That's politics. But no, it's not a poll tax, and no, it's not trying to racistly oppress minorities. Minorities aren't oppressed by needing drivers licenses, I don't see where it should be seen as racism to require ID at the polling station.

What ill does it cure? Why take the action? Is voting fraud rampant? Why now? What is the sudden need for such legislation? IMO, it's a treatment for a disease that doesn't exist. And if that's the case, is there an ulterior motive here, like suppressing the black vote, for instance?

houghtam
09-21-2013, 04:18 PM
I don't agree with either of these points. I understand why you're demagoguing like this though. That's politics. But no, it's not a poll tax, and no, it's not trying to racistly oppress minorities. Minorities aren't oppressed by needing drivers licenses, I don't see where it should be seen as racism to require ID at the polling station.

Because driving isn't a right, it's a privilege. Voting is a right, not a privilege. You do realize that in order to get a Voter ID in many of these states, you needed a copy of your birth certificate...which many blacks were not issued prior to 1964?

Don't understand how hard that is for you to comprehend.

How much does it cost to get a Voter ID?

These facts were all argued on this board before the election. I'm not going to go through them again with you...I'll just point you to the several discussions and you can educate yourself.

Fedaykin
09-21-2013, 04:18 PM
I don't agree with either of these points. I understand why you're demagoguing like this though. That's politics. But no, it's not a poll tax, and no, it's not trying to racistly oppress minorities. Minorities aren't oppressed by needing drivers licenses, I don't see where it should be seen as racism to require ID at the polling station.

What is the motive for voter id laws? You seem to be arguing that it's not about voter suppression. Are you arguing that?

Taco John
09-21-2013, 04:18 PM
The problem isn't that I disagree with yourdiagnoses. It's that I disagree with your treatment. In the past you've advocated for the abolishment is nearly all regulation. That won't solve a damn thing.

I've never advocated for the abolishment of nearly all regulation. I'm a strong believer in appropriate regulation, especially favoring market regulations. You happen to think that government regulations are the best kind, and I think reality has proven otherwise. Government has a role, but when they go out of their bounds, it's usually to give some business or another an unfair competitive advantage against others.

The purpose of government is to make things harder.

Poor people everywhere know this to be the case. Government has made things a lot harder on everyone, and this is the economy we have to show for it.

houghtam
09-21-2013, 04:24 PM
Here's some light reading for you, TJ. Start with these.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=106797

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=107556

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=106842

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=106607

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=106528

Taco John
09-21-2013, 04:31 PM
What is the motive for voter id laws? You seem to be arguing that it's not about voter suppression. Are you arguing that?

What is the purpose of any ID law?

Why do I have to show my ID to travel? Why do I have to show my ID to buy beer? Why do I have to show my ID to purchase a pack of cigarettes? Why do I have to show my ID to drive a car?

ID laws are put in place to make certain that people who are doing the things they are doing have the credentials to do those things.

Like I said, I'm not advocating ID laws. But if we're going to have this big, expansive nanny state, identification documents end up being part and parcel with the program.

Now I understand you want to make this about race. That's your prerogative. Everyone has their go-to demagogue cards to play, even me. I'm just not going to really engage in that part of the discussion because I don't find it to be valuable and it doesn't really interest me.

Fedaykin
09-21-2013, 04:32 PM
I've never advocated for the abolishment of nearly all regulation. I'm a strong believer in appropriate regulation, especially favoring market regulations.


LMAO Total Bull****:


http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2748596&postcount=118

I'm a fan of the Rockwell 30 day plan to a brighter future...

DAY ONE: The federal income tax is abolished and April 15th is declared a national holiday. The 40% reduction in federal revenues is matched by a 40% cut in spending. The budget is still almost twice as big as Jimmy Carter's.

DAY TWO: All other federal taxes are abolished, including the corporate income tax, the capital gains tax, the gasoline tax, "sin" taxes, excise taxes, etc. Businesses boom, and the few legitimate federal functions are funded with an inexpensive head tax. People who choose not to vote need not pay it. (Note: this was a mainstream view in the 19th century.)

DAY THREE: The federal government sells all its land, freeing up tens of millions of acres for development, mining, farming, forestry, oil drilling, private parks, etc. The government uses the revenue to pay off the national debt and other liabilities.

DAY FOUR: The minimum wage is reduced to zero, creating jobs for ex-federal bureaucrats at their market wage. All pro-union laws and regulations are scrapped. The jobless rate falls dramatically.

DAY FIVE: The Bureau of Labor Statistics, like the rest of the Labor Department, is sent to that big hiring hall in the sky. Without detailed economic statistics, future economic planners will be blind and deaf.

DAY SIX: The Department of Commerce is abolished. Big business has to make its own way in the world, without subsidies and privileges at the expense of its competitors and customers.

DAY SEVEN: The plug is pulled on the Department of Energy. Oil and gas prices plummet.

DAY EIGHT: All regulatory agencies, from the Interstate Commerce Commission to the Federal Trade Commission, are deep-sixed. Competition is legalized.

DAY NINE: HUD is squashed like a bug. There's a building boom in cheap, private, apartments.

DAY TEN: The interstate highways reopen as private businesses. Road entrepreneurs price travel according to consumer demand. Using modern technology, drivers get bills once a month. Credit risks – and drunks and dangerous drivers – aren't allowed on the road. Non-drivers no longer subsidize car owners.

DAY ELEVEN: Government welfare is wiped out. Bums work or starve. The deserving poor find a cornucopia of private services designed to make them independent. Private charity explodes, as the American people, already the most generous in the world, find their incomes almost doubled, thanks to the tax cuts.

DAY TWELVE: The Federal Reserve closes its open-market operations and stops protecting the banking industry from competition. But banks can now engage in all the non-bank financial activities previously forbidden to them. The business cycle, which is caused by monetary expansion through the credit markets, is liquidated.

DAY THIRTEEN: Federal deposit insurance is scrapped. All insured deposits are redeemed from federal assets, which include the personal assets of high-level government employees. The threat of bank runs forces banks to keep 100% reserves for their demand deposits, and prudent reserves on all other accounts. There are no more inherently bankrupt banks propped up by the government, at taxpayer expense, and no more bail-outs.

DAY FOURTEEN: The shaky fiat dollar is defined in terms of gold, with the ratio determined by dividing the government's gold stock by all existing dollars on that day.

DAY FIFTEEN: The federal government sells National and Dulles airports to the highest bidder, and stops all subsidies to other socialist airports around the country. All constraints on airline prices and service cease. It costs more to fly during peak hours than off-peak, but overall, air travel drops in price.

DAY SIXTEEN: All government regulations that create and sustain cartels are abolished, including those for the post office, telephones, television, radio, and cable TV. Prices plummet, and a host of new and unforeseen services becomes available.

DAY SEVENTEEN: Centrally planned agriculture, as imposed by Hoover and Roosevelt, is repealed: there are no more subsidies, payments-in-kind, marketing orders, low-interest loans, etc. Farm prices drop. Entrepreneurial farmers get rich. Welfare farmers go into another line of work. The poor eat like kings.

DAY EIGHTEEN: The Justice Department shutters its anti-trust division. Companies, big and small, are free to merge – up, down, or sideways. Stockholders can buy any other company, or sell their stock to anyone else. Marginal producers can no longer battle their competitors with bureaucratic weapons.

DAY NINETEEN: The Department of Education flunks the constitutionality test, and is kicked out. Private charities set up remedial reading and writing programs for the former bureaucrats. Federally subsidized sex education and other anti-family programs go out of business. Local school districts become responsive to parents or close, pressured by a fast-growing private school sector (which many more parents can now afford).

DAY TWENTY: All federal monuments are sold, in some cases to non-profit groups based on the Mt. Vernon Ladies Association, which owns and runs George Washington's home. The VFW buys the Vietnam memorial. There is much bidding for the Jefferson and Washington monuments. Nobody wants FDR's, so it's torn down and the land sold to a farmer. (With the federal government cut back to its constitutional size, much of Washington reverts to productive uses like agriculture, as in late 18th century.)

DAY TWENTY-ONE: The computerized financial and political dossier maintained by the government on every American is erased. The public wanders through the federal offices to make sure, in a reprise of the East Berliners' visits to Stasi headquarters.

DAY TWENTY-TWO: Equal rights are granted to all Americans, even members of non-victim groups. There is no affirmative action, no quotas, no set-asides, no public accommodations laws. Private property and freedom of association are fully restored.

DAY TWENTY-THREE: The EPA is cleaned out, with all "clean air" and similar big-government laws repealed. Ten thousand lawyers leap from their balconies. Private property is established in air and water. Americans harmed by pollution are free to sue the polluters, who are no longer protected by the federal government.

DAY TWENTY-FOUR: Americans are given complete freedom of contract, restoring rationality to malpractice and product liability law.

DAY TWENTY-FIVE: Government scrambles for more assets to sell (i.e., the National Zoo, also known as Washington, D.C.) to pay off the liabilities of the privatized Social Security system.

DAY TWENTY-SIX: Porno artists have to earn their own livings, as the National Endowment for the Arts tries to raise its budget through sidewalk painting sales.

DAY TWENTY-SEVEN: Foreign aid is outlawed as unconstitutional, unjust, and un-economic. Foreign politicians have to steal their own money. The World Bank, IMF, and United Nations close their super-luxurious doors.

DAY TWENTY-EIGHT: The American people are given the unrestricted right to keep and bear arms.

DAY TWENTY-NINE: The Defense Department is reoriented towards defense. American troops come home from all around the world. We adopt a policy of armed neutrality, remembering the Founding Fathers' teaching that we could not have an empire abroad and a constitutional republic at home.

DAY THIRTY: All tariffs, quotas, and trade agreements are put through the shredder. Americans can trade with anyone in the world, without barriers or subsidies. Japanese car prices drop an immediate 25%.





You happen to think that government regulations are the best kind, and I think reality has proven otherwise. Government has a role, but when they go out of their bounds, it's usually to give some business or another an unfair competitive advantage against others.


Where has laissez-faire capitalism worked? It's just as flawed a policy as communism.


Poor people everywhere know this to be the case. Government has made things a lot harder on everyone, and this is the economy we have to show for it.

The people making it harder on everyone are the corporations who have subverted government for their own purposes.

"Market Regulation" is nothing but code for "he who has the most money, wins".

Fedaykin
09-21-2013, 04:38 PM
What is the purpose of any ID law?

Why do I have to show my ID to travel? Why do I have to show my ID to buy beer? Why do I have to show my ID to purchase a pack of cigarettes? Why do I have to show my ID to drive a car?

ID laws are put in place to make certain that people who are doing the things they are doing have the credentials to do those things.


ID laws are put in place to stop problem. Drug use by children. Incompetent drivers. Terrorists boarding planes.

What problem is being addressed by voter id laws?



Now I understand you want to make this about race. That's your prerogative. Everyone has their go-to demagogue cards to play, even me. I'm just not going to really engage in that part of the discussion because I don't find it to be valuable and it doesn't really interest me.

Nice attempt at trying to deflect our conversation. I've already said it's not about race, but about suppressing the votes of people that don't agree with certain factions.

Rohirrim
09-21-2013, 04:43 PM
What the poor people of America need is their own lobbyist.

Oh, that's right. They can't afford one.

Fedaykin
09-21-2013, 04:45 PM
This one is particularly fun:


DAY TWELVE: The Federal Reserve closes its open-market operations and stops protecting the banking industry from competition. But banks can now engage in all the non-bank financial activities previously forbidden to them. The business cycle, which is caused by monetary expansion through the credit markets, is liquidated.


Pretty much the root cause of the current fiasco: the removal of Glass–Steagall. All in the name of "Market Regulation"

Taco John
09-21-2013, 04:59 PM
Where has laissez-faire capitalism worked? It's just as flawed a policy as communism.



It worked here. It made us the richest nation in the world. We've since done what we could to muzzle it, but it worked here pretty great. It wasn't perfect, but it was better than anything else going.


The people making it harder on everyone are the corporations who have subverted government for their own purposes.

I definitely agree with this. That's why I advocate shrinking the influence of government, because it is the tool that the corporations use to stuff their cushions.


"Market Regulation" is nothing but code for "he who has the most money, wins".

That's kind of an embarrassing thing to say, don't you think? It's such an empty statement. Every system you can imagine results in "he who has the most money, wins." To ascribe it to "market regulation" is a little cringey in it's blanket obtuseness.

I get that you think "Market Regulation" mean anarchy, but it's misguided to think so. "Market Regulation" means that consumers have to care about their consumption. "Government Regulation" has the opposite effect - consumers stop caring because they think government is capable of doing their jobs - they're not. Corporations end up manning the wheels of government, and then using the vehicle to drive over the top of the rest of us.

You and I ultimately have the same enemy - the out of control people who can't get enough. The difference is, you think that you can harness them through government, and I think that government is the greatest tool that they have to harness us with. So you work to give the machine more power for the good of the people, and I work to give the machine less power for the good of the people.

The rich are always going to exist. There will always be the haves and have nots. I'd just rather have a system where the have nots have a chance for more upward mobility, and that's through making the entry into business ownership easier for them, not harder.

Tying this back to voter regulation - I would rather have less regulations than more. But I don't see it as inherently racist to think people should be credentialed to vote.

Taco John
09-21-2013, 05:00 PM
This one is particularly fun:



Pretty much the root cause of the current fiasco: the removal of Glass–Steagall. All in the name of "Market Regulation"

Day Twelve is easily the best one, but it has nothing to do with Glass-Steagall. This is the second time you've made me cringe. I think I'm going to go wash my car so I don't have to suffer a third.

Taco John
09-21-2013, 05:02 PM
What the poor people of America need is their own lobbyist.

Oh, that's right. They can't afford one.

They could be their own lobbyist in a true Republic where the power of the Federal Government yields to the power of the States - like it's supposed to be. It's easier for people to drive to their own capital than to drive to DC.

W*GS
09-21-2013, 05:23 PM
Love the Rockwell "plan". Pure liberfoolian porn.

peacepipe
09-21-2013, 05:28 PM
They could be their own lobbyist in a true Republic where the power of the Federal Government yields to the power of the States - like it's supposed to be. It's easier for people to drive to their own capital than to drive to DC.
that war was lost over a century ago. this is the United states of america not 50 seperate countries of N. america. you want this country to turn into the EU?

peacepipe
09-21-2013, 05:38 PM
It worked here. It made us the richest nation in the world. We've since done what we could to muzzle it, but it worked here pretty great. It wasn't perfect, but it was better than anything else going.




I definitely agree with this. That's why I advocate shrinking the influence of government, because it is the tool that the corporations use to stuff their cushions.




That's kind of an embarrassing thing to say, don't you think? It's such an empty statement. Every system you can imagine results in "he who has the most money, wins." To ascribe it to "market regulation" is a little cringey in it's blanket obtuseness.

I get that you think "Market Regulation" mean anarchy, but it's misguided to think so. "Market Regulation" means that consumers have to care about their consumption. "Government Regulation" has the opposite effect - consumers stop caring because they think government is capable of doing their jobs - they're not. Corporations end up manning the wheels of government, and then using the vehicle to drive over the top of the rest of us.

You and I ultimately have the same enemy - the out of control people who can't get enough. The difference is, you think that you can harness them through government, and I think that government is the greatest tool that they have to harness us with. So you work to give the machine more power for the good of the people, and I work to give the machine less power for the good of the people.

The rich are always going to exist. There will always be the haves and have nots. I'd just rather have a system where the have nots have a chance for more upward mobility, and that's through making the entry into business ownership easier for them, not harder.

Tying this back to voter regulation - I would rather have less regulations than more. But I don't see it as inherently racist to think people should be credentialed to vote.

that's flat out assinine. what you do is shrink the influence of corporation over government,and return it to the people. Shrink government!? you got it ass backwards,but then again most liberatarians do. you agree there's a problem with the corporations influence over gov. and your answer is to go after the government. why not go after the core root of the problem,which is these corporations and these corparate lapdogs,such as liberatarians,rethugs and dems who sell out there constituents to these corporate raiders,for lack of a better word.

houghtam
09-21-2013, 06:07 PM
Let's take an even closer look at some of these polls, too. First up is the McClatchy poll Breitbart references here:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/26/Poll-Media-Out-of-touch-on-voter-id-laws-83-percent-approve

And the link to the actual poll:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/07/25/197687/marist-poll-for-mcclatchy-on-voting.html

First question we'll look at is:

Do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing to require voters to show ID in order to vote?

83% of non-whites say yes...notice though, the poll question says nothing about requiring a long, convoluted process to get said ID. I wonder what the results would be then?

Second question:


Do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing to allow early voting before Election Day?

74% of non-whites and 65% of whites say it's a good thing.


Do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing to allow voters to vote on the Sunday before the election?

60% of whites, 64% of non-whites say it's a good thing.


Do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing to have same day registration?

53% of whites, 66% of non-whites say it's a good thing.



So you have to ask yourself...which party is seeking to institute convoluted Voter ID laws, close down polling places and shrink voting days?

Which party does Rand Paul belong to?

How exactly does Paul plan on winning over black and other non-white voters when his own party embarks on phony crusades such as these again?

Taco John
09-21-2013, 06:29 PM
Let's take an even closer look at some of these polls, too. First up is the McClatchy poll Breitbart references here:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/26/Poll-Media-Out-of-touch-on-voter-id-laws-83-percent-approve

And the link to the actual poll:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/07/25/197687/marist-poll-for-mcclatchy-on-voting.html

First question we'll look at is:

Do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing to require voters to show ID in order to vote?

83% of non-whites say yes...notice though, the poll question says nothing about requiring a long, convoluted process to get said ID. I wonder what the results would be then?

Second question:


Do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing to allow early voting before Election Day?

74% of non-whites and 65% of whites say it's a good thing.


Do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing to allow voters to vote on the Sunday before the election?

60% of whites, 64% of non-whites say it's a good thing.


Do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing to have same day registration?

53% of whites, 66% of non-whites say it's a good thing.



So you have to ask yourself...which party is seeking to institute convoluted Voter ID laws, close down polling places and shrink voting days?

Which party does Rand Paul belong to?

How exactly does Paul plan on winning over black and other non-white voters when his own party embarks on phony crusades such as these again?

Again, I'm not interested in the demagoguery aspect of this. There is nothing fundamentally racist with requiring ID for things like driving, voting, or buying beer.

Taco John
09-21-2013, 06:33 PM
that's flat out assinine. what you do is shrink the influence of corporation over government,and return it to the people. Shrink government!? you got it ass backwards,but then again most liberatarians do. you agree there's a problem with the corporations influence over gov. and your answer is to go after the government. why not go after the core root of the problem,which is these corporations and these corparate lapdogs,such as liberatarians,rethugs and dems who sell out there constituents to these corporate raiders,for lack of a better word.


The only way to shrink the influence of corporations over government is to shrink the influence of government itself. Government is great when kept chained to its proper societal role. It's awful, though, when it grows too big, and can reach as far as it wishes.

W*GS
09-21-2013, 06:45 PM
Is voting a right or a privilege? If it's a right, no ID required. Why does a libertarian approve of requiring an ID to enact a right?

houghtam
09-21-2013, 06:52 PM
Again, I'm not interested in the demagoguery aspect of this. There is nothing fundamentally racist with requiring ID for things like driving, voting, or buying beer.

Weren't you the one who brought up the polling?

And where did we say this was racist? We simply said (time and time again) that Voter ID laws (as well as the other issues you fail to address) target minorities moreso than any other voting bloc.

And on top of that, as it relates to the topic of this thread...You can be as uninterested in the "demagoguery" as you like. I'm telling you that Rand Paul's stance on mandatory minimum sentences will do next to nothing to help his status with non-white voters when his party is seen as trying to shrink the electorate.

So keep dodging and deflecting in the name of "not getting into demagoguery" Uhh, but the basic premise of your thread is fundamentally flawed, bud.

ant1999e
09-21-2013, 07:20 PM
Is voting a right or a privilege? If it's a right, no ID required. Why does a libertarian approve of requiring an ID to enact a right?

Right to bear arms. ..

Rohirrim
09-21-2013, 07:49 PM
The only way to shrink the influence of corporations over government is to shrink the influence of government itself. Government is great when kept chained to its proper societal role. It's awful, though, when it grows too big, and can reach as far as it wishes.

As Lincoln and TR talked about, the Industrial Revolution created a new reality. As TR said, we unleashed corporate powers the founders could not have foreseen. If we did not put reins on them, they would do exactly what they are doing now. As he put it, "In our day it appears as the struggle of freemen to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will."

It doesn't matter what size the government is if it's for sale to the highest bidder.

Taco John
09-21-2013, 10:14 PM
Is voting a right or a privilege? If it's a right, no ID required. Why does a libertarian approve of requiring an ID to enact a right?

I don't approve. I don't object. This issue is pretty much a wash for me. If people want a large welfare state, things like ID at voting booths seem like table stakes to me. I won't advocate for them, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend it's inherently racist to ask for ID at the voting booth.

Taco John
09-21-2013, 10:19 PM
And where did we say this was racist? We simply said (time and time again) that Voter ID laws (as well as the other issues you fail to address) target minorities moreso than any other voting bloc.

IDs don't target any one group. It's a blanket requirement that everyone has to conform to.

Taco John
09-21-2013, 10:22 PM
As Lincoln and TR talked about, the Industrial Revolution created a new reality. As TR said, we unleashed corporate powers the founders could not have foreseen. If we did not put reins on them, they would do exactly what they are doing now. As he put it, "In our day it appears as the struggle of freemen to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will."

It doesn't matter what size the government is if it's for sale to the highest bidder.

Government is always for sale to the highest bidder, period. That's why it needs to be limited in its scope so that those who would try to buy it get diminished returns.

Rohirrim
09-21-2013, 10:49 PM
Government is always for sale to the highest bidder, period. That's why it needs to be limited in its scope so that those who would try to buy it get diminished returns.

Been there, done that. There was a time, between about 1880 and 1900 or so, when the government had less power than some of these corporations. Many of them had their own police forces and their own towns. They were the law. They enslaved people. The workers owed their souls to the company store. Get out of line and they bust your head, fire you from your job and toss you and your family from your company owned home. And if labor tried to come together and protest, they were beaten and killed.

The regulations on corporations didn't come about because bored politicians had nothing else to do. It was in reaction to the tyranny these corporate combines (as they called them back then) imposed on workers. Progressive government rose in answer to a need, not simply out of ideological fantasy. And looked what happened the second the regulations in response to the Depression were dismantled? Right back to the same old ponzi scheme. A weak government and strong corporations just create another type of tyranny.

houghtam
09-21-2013, 10:54 PM
Been there, done that. There was a time, between about 1880 and 1900 or so, when the government had less power than some of these corporations. Many of them had their own police forces and their own towns. They were the law. They enslaved people. The workers owed their souls to the company store. Get out of line and they bust your head, fire you from your job and toss you and your family from your company owned home. And if labor tried to come together and protest, they were beaten and killed.

The regulations on corporations didn't come about because bored politicians had nothing else to do. It was in reaction to the tyranny they imposed on workers. Progressive government rose in answer to a need, not simply out of ideological fantasy. And looked what happened the second the regulations in response to the Depression were dismantled? Right back to the same old ponzi scheme. A weak government and strong corporations just create another type of tyranny.

I have to wonder how many of the people here on this board were either home schooled or just didn't pay attention to 9th grade History class.

Or believe it didn't happen (coughgaffandbajacough).

Fedaykin
09-22-2013, 12:46 AM
It worked here. It made us the richest nation in the world. We've since done what we could to muzzle it, but it worked here pretty great. It wasn't perfect, but it was better than anything else going.


LMAO Please do go into detail. In what period did we become the richest nation in the world? How did the economy of that time align with laissez-faire principals?

Should be a riot!

You take shot about cringing, and then spout the above lunacy. Is this some sort of performance art you're doing to drive traffic?



I definitely agree with this. That's why I advocate shrinking the influence of government, because it is the tool that the corporations use to stuff their cushions.


Are you really daft enough to think that shrinking government in the way and scale you advocate will reduce corporate influence?

What's needed is to create a separation of corporation and state, much like we have a separation of church and state. The responsibility of corporations (to engage in economic activity) should not be mixed with the responsibilities of government (to regulate economic activity).

Your wet dream of getting rid of the regulation aspect is absurd.


That's kind of an embarrassing thing to say, don't you think? It's such an empty statement. Every system you can imagine results in "he who has the most money, wins." To ascribe it to "market regulation" is a little cringey in it's blanket obtuseness. I get that you think "Market Regulation" mean anarchy, but it's misguided to think so. "Market Regulation" means that consumers have to care about their consumption. "Government Regulation" has the opposite effect - consumers stop caring because they think government is capable of doing their jobs - they're not. Corporations end up manning the wheels of government, and then using the vehicle to drive over the top of the rest of us.


It's not at all embarrassing. What's embarrassing is that apparently you can't think outside of extremes and black and whites (which is pretty typical of ideologues).

Pure market regulation (i.e. laissez-faire) is just the opposite side of the coin to pure centralized control (communism). Both look great on paper, and fail miserably in practice. The most successful systems (e.g. the system that actually brought us to be the richest nation in the world) lie in between those two extremes.

Laissez-faire results in all the the wealth and power being concentrated in the hands of a very tiny minority because there is nothing to control the big monied interests from abusing the little guys. Under a system of well regulated capitalism, the large monied interests are restrained from the worst of their excesses.



You and I ultimately have the same enemy - the out of control people who can't get enough. The difference is, you think that you can harness them through government, and I think that government is the greatest tool that they have to harness us with. So you work to give the machine more power for the good of the people, and I work to give the machine less power for the good of the people.


No, I want to separate government and the monied interests. You want to surrender to the monied interests.


The rich are always going to exist. There will always be the haves and have nots. I'd just rather have a system where the have nots have a chance for more upward mobility, and that's through making the entry into business ownership easier for them, not harder.


In a purely market driven system there is effectively zero upward mobility. There is nothing to protect a small business from being destroyed by the bigger businesses.

How successful do you think you'd be starting up an innovative small business when there are no anti-trust laws?


Tying this back to voter regulation - I would rather have less regulations than more. But I don't see it as inherently racist to think people should be credentialed to vote.

Stop with the bullsh*t, dishonest attempts to tie what is being said to racism. You've already been corrected on this several times. Either engage honestly or don't engage.

Taco John
09-22-2013, 04:40 AM
It's all the usual stuff. Nothing new under the sun. Business is bad. Government is good. Everything would be great if it weren't for those pesky humans and their pesky desire to make money. Why can't everyone be like me and not care about money, and just care about people. Hey look at all the stuff I have from all these evil corporations.

And then I get told I'm not engaging honestly... go figure.

barryr
09-22-2013, 07:17 AM
More black republicans? Oh, a liberal's worst nightmare. How to demean all of them and not be racist in the process. What a dilemma. Oh, wait, they have deemed themselves judge and jury what is racism and what isn't, so while it's racist to criticize Obama and all minority democrats, it isn't to do so with minority republicans. That's, uh, different. Yeah.

Fedaykin
09-22-2013, 10:42 AM
It's all the usual stuff. Nothing new under the sun. Business is bad. Government is good. Everything would be great if it weren't for those pesky humans and their pesky desire to make money. Why can't everyone be like me and not care about money, and just care about people. Hey look at all the stuff I have from all these evil corporations.

And then I get told I'm not engaging honestly... go figure.

Oh look, more attempts to avoid the discussion with strawmen arguments -- which is just another form of dishonesty from you.

If you don't like being called dishonest, don't act in a dishonest fashion. Don't continue to prop of strawmen arguments. Respond to what people are saying, don't just make up B.S. to avoid dealing with the actual conversation -- especially after you've already been corrected multiple times.

houghtam
09-22-2013, 11:25 AM
Oh look, more attempts to avoid the discussion with strawmen arguments -- which is just another form of dishonesty from you.

If you don't like being called dishonest, don't act in a dishonest fashion. Don't continue to prop of strawmen arguments. Respond to what people are saying, don't just make up B.S. to avoid dealing with the actual conversation -- especially after you've already been corrected multiple times.

He's a coward.

Or at least gutless...I can't speak to his BAC, though. :)

Blart
09-22-2013, 03:49 PM
Hilarious thread title.

Watch Rand Paul actually try to talk to black people:

<div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><iframe src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:425385" width="512" height="288" frameborder="0"></iframe><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-11-2013/guess-who-s-coming-to-howard">The Daily Show with Jon Stewart</a></b><br/>Get More: <a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></p></div></div>


They're rolling their eyes at him - it's embarrassing to see this delusional, patronizing ass get up in front of people who actually know history.


<div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><iframe src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:425386" width="512" height="288" frameborder="0"></iframe><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-11-2013/guess-who-s-coming-to-howard---larry-wilmore-on-rand-paul">The Daily Show with Jon Stewart</a></b><br/>Get More: <a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></p></div></div>

Frankly, Rand Paul is just as racist and ignorant as his dad. He's not getting the black vote anytime soon. My advice: stick to white psuedo-intellectual males who read mises.org

Taco John
09-22-2013, 04:55 PM
you've already been "corrected multiple times.

lol

I'm always amused at how condescending progressives are.

peacepipe
09-22-2013, 09:42 PM
The only way to shrink the influence of corporations over government is to shrink the influence of government itself. Government is great when kept chained to its proper societal role. It's awful, though, when it grows too big, and can reach as far as it wishes.
JC,limited government is what corporations want. it's what they've always wanted. you're just playing into their hands. our founding fathers set this gov up for the people not the koch brothers who fund every tea party movement you support. the governments proper role is doing what the **** its people tell it to do. I pay taxes just like everybody else if I want my government to open up donut stands you better believe I'm going to push for it. when government has no power to influence what's going on,such as regulations,corporations will bend you over like a cheap 5 dollar whore. liberatarians believe to let corporations do what they want to do,and believe me these corporations couldn't give two ****s about you or this country.

W*GS
09-22-2013, 09:44 PM
lol

I'm always amused at how condescending progressives are.

As if libertarians, with their faith that their dogma would win the day if only people understood it, aren't dripping with arrogance and insist that all other ideologies are completely irrational.

Rohirrim
09-23-2013, 02:33 AM
It's all the usual stuff. Nothing new under the sun. Business is bad. Government is good. Everything would be great if it weren't for those pesky humans and their pesky desire to make money. Why can't everyone be like me and not care about money, and just care about people. Hey look at all the stuff I have from all these evil corporations.

And then I get told I'm not engaging honestly... go figure.

If you think that's an honest assessment of the progressive position, you're kidding yourself. Neither business nor government are inherently bad or good. It's like the preamble of the Constitution pointed out, "...promote the general welfare." What I think that means is that you do what is best for the most. Does it promote the general welfare to have a rigged system where 95% of profits go to 1% of the people?

Fedaykin
09-23-2013, 02:11 PM
lol

I'm always amused at how condescending progressives are.

Oh please, this is just more useless prattle. Your incorrect interpretation was corrected. If you feel threatened by that innocuous terminology (clearly you do) perhaps you should take a closer look inward.

And, coming from someone who's only tools appear to be lame attempts at condescension (several in this thread directed at me) and straw man argumentation (along with a plethora of other logical fallacies), it's just completely hilarious.

And, of course, you're just trying to avoid owning up to the fact that you are arguing against strawmen.

In other words, you're just heaping on more dishonesty instead of manning up and engaging in honest discussion.

BroncoBeavis
09-23-2013, 04:33 PM
If you think that's an honest assessment of the progressive position, you're kidding yourself. Neither business nor government are inherently bad or good. It's like the preamble of the Constitution pointed out, "...promote the general welfare." What I think that means is that you do what is best for the most. Does it promote the general welfare to have a rigged system where 95% of profits go to 1% of the people?

You're reading far too much into the general welfare clause. Madison and Jefferson are both pretty clearly on record about that.

Blart
09-23-2013, 04:57 PM
Yeah he was pretty clear.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v383/SinWithSebastian/Ul3Mo.jpg


I also really like the line directly after that,

"Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right" - Thomas Jefferson (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s32.html)

**** property! Dude belongs at OWS

BroncoBeavis
09-23-2013, 05:03 PM
Yeah he was pretty clear.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v383/SinWithSebastian/Ul3Mo.jpg


I also really like the line directly after that,

"Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right" - Thomas Jefferson (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s32.html)

**** property! Dude belongs at OWS

That's neat and all. But none of it touched the General Welfare clause.

Rohirrim
09-23-2013, 05:21 PM
That's neat and all. But none of it touched the General Welfare clause.

"General welfare" is a principle that goes back to Aristotle. It means govern in a way that is best for the most. It's really not any more complex than that.

houghtam
09-23-2013, 05:34 PM
I love it.

Beavis: You should look at what the Founders said about it.

Blart: Okay, here.

Beavis: Well, not that.

Soon to be folowed by more quotes, then...

Beavis: Well not that, either. But here's one that I found. That applies though.

Hilarious!

El Minion
09-23-2013, 06:39 PM
As Lincoln and TR talked about, the Industrial Revolution created a new reality. As TR said, we unleashed corporate powers the founders could not have foreseen. If we did not put reins on them, they would do exactly what they are doing now. As he put it, "In our day it appears as the struggle of freemen to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will."

It doesn't matter what size the government is if it's for sale to the highest bidder.

The good ol' days of laisser-faire America....

http://21stcenturylearning.sharepoint.com/siteimages/Standard%20Oil.png

....if it wasn't for that damn socialist TR....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/PuckCartoon-TeddyRoosevelt-05-23-1906.jpg