OK what's the answer?

medicineman said:

So you consider Ann Rand to be a relevant voice in philosophy. She is a raver. She is a one minded oppressor of Ideas other than her own. Yes I agree, she definently speils greed is good, or greed is God for that matter, however that does not make her right.

Click to expand...

medicineman said:

Just one small question: If academia is slanted towards the left as you alluded to, and academia is where knowledge is stored, Maybe they actually have a valid point. Maybe our country has been overtaken by the "military industrial complex". Maybe greed has destroyed the country and the average "Dude" has not a chance of ever achieving the "American dream". Maybe the right is wrong. It seems that greed is the engine that drives capitalism. In every philosophical treatise known to man, Greed has been shown to be a destroyer of all things human. Maybe it is time for a change. The how to is the difficult part as greed is "human nature". This however does not make it right.

Click to expand...

MuyLocoNC said:

I think I like the new and soft-spoken Medicineman, I guess I left RIU a little while before you did, so I wasn't aware you had left. Welcome back. I do have a response.

First of all, academia is not where knowledge is stored. I reserve that description for my public library or even Amazon.com. To quote Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting "you dropped a hundred and fifty grand on a fuckin education you coulda got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library ". It wasn't until I left school that I started to gain knowledge without the obvious bias of a professor interfering with that goal.

The point is the same as the long running exchange of emails I've had with news coordinators of Yahoo. I continue to chastise them for their obvious bias in providing only stories that support a progressive agenda. I provide them with statistics that show the bias and always get back polite emails saying that they aren't responsible for the content of the articles, so they aren't showing bias and that I need to contact the author of the story or report. The bias is in the selection of articles, not the articles individually. This is the same bias that pervades academia, either ignoring ideas, authors, studies or viewpoints that don't gibe with the professor or showing thinly disguised contempt as these are presented. It is indoctrination of progressive ideals, pure and simple. And it's rubbish.

I'm living proof that the average dude can achieve the American Dream. No degree, self educated, low income background, military service, started a small business and worked hard. Retired almost four years ago at age 37 and haven't actually worked a day in 6 years. Fortunately, I listened to all the nutjobs like Peter Schiff and Glenn Beck and took my investments out of the stock market in the summer of 08 before the market tanked. Then I listened to them again and reinvested this spring and caught it on the way up. Man, I wish I wasn't such a moron, listening to these guys who keep getting it right.

Click to expand...

Fortunately, I listened to all the nutjobs like Peter Schiff and Glenn Beck and took my investments out of the stock market in the summer of 08 before the market tanked.

Click to expand...

Yale University economics professor Robert Shiller, whose book Irrational Exuberance, predicted the end of the high-tech stock bubble, warned that the housing crisis may well trigger a recession despite interest rate cuts.

"I am worried that the collapse of home prices might turn out to be the most severe since the Great Depression," Shiller, a longtime analyst of real estate, said in testimony before a Congressional committee.

Click to expand...

I certainly wasn't suggesting that Mr. Schiff was the only person screaming into the wind about the upcoming financial crisis. There were many. I point to Mr. Schiff specifically because of the numerous times he was mocked and outright laughed at by all the financial experts on MSNBC, Fox News and many others. And I actually learn more from these individuals by reading their works than I could ever get from the small amount of exposure they get on TV.

It's not just about getting my info from pundits, I listen to what they're saying and usually go with my gut feeling. When there's a guy making perfect sense and another guy that is telling me to risk my hard earned savings on some flowery, rediculous belief the emperor has clothes, my decision is easy.

Click to expand...

medicineman said:

Yes, one step at a time, remove the sinister players, good. I believe the removal of lobbiests is the most crucial element of change to our government.

Click to expand...

I thought you left the forum. Just couldn't stay away, could you?

medicineman said:

It seems everyone has a bitch about the current and past governments of this and other countries, But no solutions. So, what are some solutions? What can "we the people do"? Outside of all out insurgency, and even including that, what are your solutions? Remember, anyone can bitch. My first order of business would be to quit this partisan bullshit and get organized, I know, the hardest part, And no, I don't know how to accomplish this.

Click to expand...

Cap K said:

Medicineman started a good thread here with an important question and for the first few pages it stayed on topic. Now the thread has been highjacked by people insulting each other and not really offering too much helpful information. I post this with the hopes that someone will help get
Med's thread back on point.

Click to expand...

TheBrutalTruth said:

1. Expand the size of the House to 10,034 or Population of United States/30,000 (1 Representative per 30,000 citizens)

I personally think that action alone would cause the lobbyists to lose a lot of influence as where it is possible for them to influence two or three elections in each state monetarily it would be infinitely harder for them to do so with thirty or forty elections in each state, because the return on investment would go down, and their attempts to purchase influence would likely result in them costing the politicans votes instead of gaining politicians votes.

2. Require any state that is benefitting from pork to fund the pork out of their own budget, and for any budget deficits to be balanced by the states (as it is routinely their senators and representatives that are passing the pork.) This would provide an incentive for states to keep a tight rein on the largesse of their senators and representatives as their actions would directly impact the states.

3. Balanced budget Amendment (ties into the above.)

4. Term limits for Senators (but not the members of the newly expanded house as they will be under infinitely more scrutiny if they are held directly accountable by their neighbors. Makes it much harder for them to say they remembered what was in the best interests of their community if their community can point to the fact that the bill the representative voted for cost them jobs, and thus it would ensure a higher turnover of bad politicians in favor of good statesman.)

5. Specifically ban the usage of the fictional power of Executive Orders

6. Audit the Federal Reserve (and if it is truly guilty of manipulating the markets for its own benefit, or that of its members dissolve it.)

7. Require the states to operate within a balanced budget (as they were required to do by having the authority to issue bills of credit stripped out of their hands by the Constitution.)

8. Reduce Government wages so that the average (including benefits) matches that offered by private enterprises.

I think that's a sufficiently major, non-partisan list.

Click to expand...

Cap K said:

Medicineman started a good thread here with an important question and for the first few pages it stayed on topic. Now the thread has been highjacked by people insulting each other and not really offering too much helpful information. I post this with the hopes that someone will help get Med's thread back on point.

Click to expand...

TheBrutalTruth said:

I said my piece.

Click to expand...