(Part 2) Best products from r/progressive

Just curious, have you read this book?

http://www.amazon.com/Spirit-Level-Equality-Societies-Stronger/dp/1608193411/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348444014&sr=1-1&keywords=the+spirit+level

http://www.amazon.com/Gifted-Hands-Ben-Carson-Story/dp/0310214696/ref=la_B001IGOK4M_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1419302742&sr=1-1

read that and then tell me how much of a joke he is

Sonia Nazario, the reporter talked about in that story, wrote a book on illegal immigration called Enrique's Journey, which follows an immigrant as he tries to reach America. It's well worth reading if you're interested on the subject.

Isn't this similar to Machiavellianism?

Read: Unite & Conquer by Krysten Sinema, if you want more strategies such as this.

He's famous for writing "What's the matter with Kansas?"

Giant Meteor 2016

Michael Lewis knocks it out of the park. Again.

David Brock documented this quite nicely in his book "The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy" - in 2004.

Totally relevant.

The Shape of the River by William G. Bowen, Derek Bok, Princeton University Press,
1998.

http://www.amazon.com/Shape-River-Consequences-Considering-University/dp/0691002746/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=1-1&qid=1393788490

http://www.amazon.com/Free-Market-Environmentalism-Terry-Anderson/dp/0312235038

You're arguing against a massive corpus of historical and biological evidence as well as evolutionary theory. If you don't find this argument convincing, can I suggest you first read a very important book: The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. In my view, the transformation of an electoral system into a tool of private interests is as inevitable and predictable as the return trajectory of a falling apple. To call the apple "flying" before it lands is as disingenuous as calling the electoral system "democratic" before it fails.

Worse yet, have you seen Glenn Beck's new book "Broke"? If that isn't the biggest insult to intelligence I'm not sure what is. He profits from people's misery and wants to suggest that what he earned from his book shouldn't be taxes accordingly, so its a double slap for those who cling to his words out of the fear he instills.

Now, as far as your comment on "raising taxes on everyone" I would add one thing. Some people are so down and out, there is nothing left to tax. Should we ask for a section of the cardboard box they live in? I agree that in hard times perhaps everyone across the board should pitch in, but don't forget in terms of discretionary income I would suggest that people at certain levels may pay more just to tread water which is the subject of "Nickeled and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich. Now some people can argue with her methodology, but how about Elizabeth Warren? She can cite how the inequality across the spectrum grew.

I would rather take a page out of Warren Buffet's book that suggests that people of his level should pay at least the same percentage as their secretaries. I don't think he is making that up. And I think those who are well enough off are whistling past the graveyard knowing that he's right, and hoping no critical mass will ever put 2+2 together to swing the tide. (Edit: typo)

Some liberals have internalized political correctness and some have not. The trouble is, people who aren't PC know that the PC folks would fall upon us like wolves if we expressed politically inconvenient truths. For example, I can talk to my wife, a former teacher, about how black kids need military-style educational systems because of the fucked-up situations they grow up in, but a lot of my friends would probably find that suggestion scandalous.

This is a systemic problem in the liberal movement, because, as described in The Death of the Liberal Class, establishment liberals immediately marginalize the gadflies, soothsayers, radicals and colorful characters who used to give the movement its vigor.

>Second, you're full of shit. I'm asking for proof of the US Federal government taking on projects that are central to the Red Cross' mission that Red Cross will not.

FEMA and similar actions large grew out of the failure of the Red Cross duing the 1927 Mississippi flooding.

I seriously don't think you have any idea about self-ownership and why that terminology is used. That you think receipts or social values are what entitles you, and you alone, to your own body is just nuts and I can't tell if you are being sarcastic. And are you trying to say nothing has intrinsic value? Lost me there.... b/c that would be WTF.

> Classical liberalism is not Libertarianism. John Locke was not a libertarian nor were any of the founders. They did not believe in the things people who call themselves libertarian today believe. Libertarianism originated in the 1970's with the birth of the Libertarian Party.

No actually, it goes back to the 1830s with the abolitionist and utopian movements in the U.S. at least. Hence the terminology "self-ownership". In a world of slavery, that was a radical position. So can you comprehend it now? Historical context matters. And the libertarian party in the 70s, had it's roots in the 30 and 40s when it founders were being influenced by others before them. So, Libertarianism didn't just spring up out of nowhere as a political party in the 70s. It has a very long tradition, and Locke natural rights arguments is a part of that.

> Then they are not libertarians. If you believe the state has the right to regulate commercial activity you do not believe in the free market.

Oh, so no shades of grey or compromise is possible with libertarians? Why can't one believe the state has no right to regulate commercial activity (people buying and selling things?) and still be able to compromise when it is beneficial to society and freedom to do so? Who are you to dictate the labels of others? We are perfectly willing to compromise and work towards freedom one vote at a time. That is literally all we can do. And if you have any love for any 3rd parties, you know the circumstances they are trying to do it under.

> If we are attacked as a nation I am in favor of going after the attackers. Afghanistan gave shelter to those responsible for leading an attack against the US. So I was in favor of us going in. There is much about Bush's prosecution of the war I disagree with but not the war itself.

Well, my only concern is for the dead and dying and the fact that the more they kill over there, the more anger we create. Creating a never ending cycle. And you accused me of not knowing history. I mean, Syria, Iraq, Afganistan, ....every day, more and more dead... But I'm glad you agree with it. I'm sure Bush and Obama appreciate your support.

> No. No more than any presidential pardon could make any crime legal.

Excuses. It would nullify the law de facto.

> Wrong yet again. They can in my state and in several others.

Actually didn't know that this varied so much state by state. So congratulations on living in one of these two states. My state is the opposite end of the spectrum. And I was wrong about the number of disenfranchised: the number is closer to 5 million.

> According to The Sentencing Project, 5.3 million Americans (1 in 40 adults) were unable to vote due to a felony conviction in the 2008 elections. This included 1.4 million African-American men, more than 676,000 women, and 2.1 million ex-offenders who have completed their sentences.


And your final point:

> FUCK YOU.

Stay classy. I guess my point stung. Have another helping: "Don't be an idiot and vote against your interests like those poor folks who just don't know no better", you more or less said. Ya didn't even notice until I called you out and can't even muster a defense.