In other words, what Thomas Sowell is saying in relation to the poor is that it is not the government's job to feed and clothe citizens in a society but rather to create the economic conditions in which individuals will be able to achieve these things for themselves and the best way of doing that is by government removing arbitrary barriers and government intervention.
Thomas Sowell is a mastermind of reason and logic!
Having read many of Dr. Sowells treatises and listened to him speak on countless occasions I've come to the conclusion that there is hope for the black race and for America. If our form of government can turn out such men, of whatever race, then we have hope. Please America, let us recognize that barry obama is not a man of this caliber. Obama could never be a man of this caliber and intellect. God bless you Mr. Sowells.
we need more black men more like Thomas Sowell, Selby Steele, Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, Fredrick Douglas, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Marcus Garvey, Booker T.Washinghton, the Niggas we don't need black men following examples of, Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Michael Eric Dyson, Tavis Smiley, Louis Farrakhan, Cornell West, Barack Obama, Jeremiar Wright, these are the baffoons that have been infront of black america, for 50 yrs and got us confused.
Why is he an "asshole" for "talking about black people"?
The fact is, he's not "talking about black people." He talking about SOCIAL POLICY, and more specifically, the failures of LIBERAL social policy. And because so much of liberal social policy revolves around identity politics and demagoguery of race issues, you cannot talk about liberal social policy with race coming up.
Instead of focusing on irrelevant details, why don't you focus on HIS POINT. He's a brilliant man.
One of the most awesome men of all time. A kind sowell and a man that his writings will live in infamy!!! Dr. Sowell, I love ya and you will live forever to me and may you and your writing influence future generations!!!!
Sowell was educated in Harlem, dropped out of school due to an unstable family life, joined the marine corps, and eventually graduated from some of the most prestigious universities of America before there were affirmative action programs to "help him along." At one point, he was a marxist. He worked for the federal government at one point as well. He is a self-made man and is seemingly beholden to no one at this point. It is difficult, from an objective standpoint, to find faults in his views.
Sowell is dead on target! These educated elitists are WRONG. They have no right to decide for us what is best. And I am tired of government telling me what is best for me.
Dude is right, the government has a responsibility to educate us properly and protect the borders! And they refuse to do both. For as I can see it's plan for self destruction.
I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
This man is as much an Uncle Tom as Obama is a conservative. From the year 1990 and moving forward . . . Being a Democrat OR a Republican is as productive as being a tomato at a lemonade stand.
@chapaev36 Sowell thinks the Americans with Disablities Act was govt. overreach. It actully harmed many disabled Americans, and has served as a racket for trial lawyers. Sowell looks at most things from a private property rights perspective. So: the state has no business telling the owners of private property (busineses) what size their bathrooms should be; the width of theri hallways; require ramps, etc. Some businesses will cater to the disabled for profit without govt. coercion.
Policy X didn't work but there is nothing wrong with us. It must be that there must be more policy X. Demcrats STILL know everything today. But their hero is Rick Maddow. Add lesbian righteousness and you have triple policy X lol
Charlie Rose got served hahahahaha sorry I literally smiled when Rose had to back down and say "well I don't know what he would say" after Dr. Sowell states that Justice Thomas succeeded pre-AA...classic
In November 1983 Clarence Thomas stated that affirmative action is ''critical to minorities and women in this society", speacking to his staff at the federal Equal Employment Opportunities Commission. Moreover, he also said that but for affirmative action laws, "God only knows where I would be today. These laws and their proper application are all that stand between the first 17 years of my life and the second 17 years.''
This fella is brilliant. Very charismatic, unlike most academics, who send me to sleep.........So frustrating when you have an interviewer who interrupts, and pipes up a load of gibberish, as if we have forgotten that he is there...... Do me a favour, bruv.......Sit there....Shut up....and listen to the Dr.
THOMAS SOWELL IS A PHILOSOPHER ON THE LEVEL OF THE GREATEST WESTERN PHILOSOPHERS IN ALL OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION'S HISTORY.... THOMAS SOWELL IS A GENIUS. AN ABSOLUTE GENIUS. A MAN WHO THINKS, WHO OBSERVES WITH AN OPEN MIND..... GOD BLESS YOU DR. SOWELL!!!
@Ipetratz Ron Paul Supports going after the terrorist who where behind 9-11 not using the attack as a means to invade the middle east.....But i will have to look into Sowells Foreign Policy. On other issues tho i really like what he has to say
@larkydozer You need to read more of what Dr. Paul has to say on the subject of American relations with the Middle East. I can think of few men more learned on the subject. Calling Dr. Paul an isolationist crank who, as you imply, does not have a deep understanding of world history is a completely unfounded insult. I think you will find that Dr. Sowell and Dr. Paul have very similar views on many issues, including foreign policy.
I've read three quarters of Sowell's output and have witnessed Ron Paul's campaigns and televised arguments for what he believes to be causation with regards to Islamic terrorists. There's absolutely no common ground with Sowell and Paul on foreign policy.
As far as being knowledgable about the Middle East, I'd recommend reading anything by Bernard Lewis. "What Went Wrong" is the easiest to digest.
Ron Paul. Isolationist crank and cultural relativist.
Personally i think we should have remained more or less isolationist as our forefathers advised, but at this point in our history it is not a plausible alternative anymore. We can't just ignore the Middle East today.
@larkydozer Quoted from a federalist(Madison). Some of our forefatheres where anti-federalist so good job using one quote from Madisons arguement to support your biased opinion. Next time quote an anti-federalist as well and perhaps you will see that our forefathers disagreed ALOT.
@larkydozer She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition,The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force….She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit- John Adams July 4th 1821
@larkydozer "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties"-George Washington Farewell
@larkydozer Quote# 3 continued: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." -Thomas Jefferson March 4, 1801
What's really absurd about your comment is the fact the Bernard Lewis is the premiere scholar on the topic of the Middle East, having written numerous volumes, whereas Paul has a single book "A Foreign Policy of Freedom" which isn't at all a focused history of the M.E., it's simply floor speeches.
Can anyone tell me how "Economics and Politics of Race", "Ethnic America", "Race and Cultures", "Migrations and Culture", and "Conquest and Culture" are any different from one another? Which one is better?
Can anyone tell me how "Visions of the Anointed", "The Quest for Cosmic Justice", "A Conflict of Visions", and "Intellectuals and Society" are any different from one another? Which one is better?
@whitesox889: I have read Race and Culture, & Conquest and Culture, & Migrations and Culture. I can't answer the others. Each is meant to debunk the common leftist cliches about the given subject. Race and Culture addresses how different people who could be regarded as having the same race have developed or been taken to different cultures & have faired very differently as a result. Culture has far more to do w/ how we act & thus is far more significant in its effect.
How are "Vision of the Anointed", "The Quest for Cosmic Justice", "A Conflict of Vision", and "Intellectuals and Society" any different from one another? Which one is the best (I haven't read them yet.)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
i have found that too many conservatives are gun nuts and obsessed with illegal immigration. both of these aspects of conservatism are a huge turnoff for me
I do not hunt, but know that if a country cannot control it's borders, it ceases to be a country. I believe in the Constitution of US and that is what our leaders are sworn to uphold and protect. So, we have a right to own guns and I uphold that. This secures freedom that you are using on this website.
I never said I am against gun ownership. on the contrary, the right to defend ourselves with weapons is an even more basic right than our right to freedom of speech. but i also think that gun advocates take things to too far of an extreme, such as when they do not believe in background checks. should all of us have the right to have a nuclear bomb? how about a machine gun? we should have the right to a simple gun for self-defense, acquired after a two week background check, and that is all
The goofy nuclear bomb argument is merely a straw man, as is the "machine gun" argument.
I wonder, though, do you think the woman who wants a gun to defend against a stalker can call a time-out for two weeks while they do your background check?
During the LA Riots, the people who supported waiting periods were enraged that they had to abide by them to get defensive guns to protect their families, and there have been instances of people dying while waiting for a defensive gun.
those people going through those riots should have had the good sense to already be prepared for such an experience. also, if gun sellers would freely hand out guns to anybody claiming to need it for self defense, what would stop the rioters from getting guns that same way and that easily? why are you against a background check anyway? owning a gun is no light matter, it needs to be taken seriously
1. We currently do background checks, and they do not take 2 weeks. For the most part they are instant. Your argument was for a 2 week background check.
2. An FBI study showed that the vast majority of guns used in crimes weren't obtained legally from a gun retailer.
3. I have reservations about allowing the govt to dictate who can and cannot own firearms, when the purpose of the 2nd AoA was to keep the govt in check.
I also have my concerns about what your definition of a "simple" gun is...
okay, I will admit that sometimes my thinking is stuck in the pre-computer age. if nowadays due to computers and improved technology, that we can do a background check instantaneously, then so much the better.
it is true that real criminals will get guns regardless, which is why I am for gun ownership in the first place. we need to be able to defend ourselves. but efforts should be made to at least try to make it harder for the bad guys to get guns.
I used to agree. The problem is that you can only make it harder for the law abiding to get a gun. Those are the only people who follow the regulations, and so those are the only people who you can disarm or impede.
The average background check now takes around 5 minutes. Longer during hunting seasons simply because you are put on hold.
as for your third point, that is actually an interesting perspective, one I have to think more about. at least domestically, i gravitate toward libertarianism, wanting the government out of our lives as much as possible. however, the one area where the government does not do enough, is in controlling violent crime. doing what one can to at least try to keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys, is one of the ways that the government can help reduce violent crime
The government doesn't control violent crime. If you want violent crime to stop, the best way to do that is to cut their funding, and you can cut their funding by ending the war on drugs. It is having the same effect on violent crime as prohibition had.
Look into Kennesaw, Georgia, and how they handled their problem of an extraordinarily high violent crime rate. Compare the effects of their actions vs. the effects of Chicago's gun control...
as it so happens, while personally have never taken a mind altering drug, nor would i, i am for the full legalization and regulation of all drugs. if somebody wants to destroy their brain, that is their problem. victimless crimes are not the government's business.
you keep painting me as some kind of gun grabbing liberal. i am not. I am for gun ownership. but care must be taken to make sure we play minimal if any part in giving guns to violent criminals
I neither do drugs, nor drink. But like you said, it isn't the government's business. Plus, as I said, the War on Drugs does more harm than good.
All I know is that you are in favor of restricting access to guns. And that you think people should only be able to own *a* "simple" gun (whatever that is).
Regardless of what your intentions are, the only thing you are doing is impeding the law abiding from owning firearms.
Yes, and here is someone that would not hand him a gun.
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.
so if I oppose handing out guns indiscriminately to whoever asks for one, that means I am against gun ownership? isn't that just a bit of a leap? you are the kind of gun nut that i was talking about earlier. i bet you have bear skin rugs and just get such a thrill out of hunting, causing pain, and killing innocent animals
And are you really suggesting that the person and their family would be acceptable collateral damage because they were not prepare simply to satisfy your unreasonable insistence on a 2 week long background check?
I've got news for you: Criminals do not buy guns from law abiding gun retailers, and the people they do buy from don't honor waiting periods or background checks...
so you would honestly support no background checks at all, that anybody coming into a store to buy a gun, should be sold that gun immediately, just as long as he has the money to pay for it? what if the person's name was mohammed, and he wore a turban, with a Death to America bumper sticker on the camel he rides?
I don't know of many gun retailers who would sell a gun to someone wearing a "death to America" sticker.
Not that long ago, we had no background checks on firearms. Imposing backgrounds checks has made no discernible differences in our violent crime rates. CCW seems to lower it, however. The general trend seems to be the more guns in private possession, the lower the violent crime rates. Criminals aren't as apt to attack targets who may be armed.
that reminds me of those people who oppose the death penalty, on the grounds that it does not deter murder. I happen to not believe that, but even if that would be true, the fact would remain that putting a murderer to death detracts that particular murderer from ever murdering again.
same with guns. background checks may or may not help the crime situation, but stopping a particular criminal from having a gun, would at least discourage that particular person from doing more harm
You are still assuming that you ARE stopping a particular criminal from having a gun. You are not. Do you really think a criminal is going say "DARN! Oh well, I guess I better get a real job since I can't legally buy a gun."
There is no parallel between that an executing violent offenders (which I am certainly not opposed to.) Executed criminals cannot get a different life illegally elsewhere. Refused criminals CAN buy a different gun, illegally elsewhere.
but why make it easier for criminals to have guns? perhaps you would like to go to wherever murderers are released from prison, and hand each of them guns?
Now you are using the usual gun-banner argument. If I am not in favor of restricting the law-abiding's access to firearms, OBVIOUSLY I am in favor of "handing" guns out to violent criminals.
Of course, I've never mentioned giving a gun to anyone.
I wonder, though, why do you think murderers should be released from prison?
If you gravitate towards libertarianism, surely you could see that more people taking personal responsibility for their safety rather than relying on protection from the police who **won't** be there when you need them (what criminal is going to attack you in front of a police officer?) is going to be a deterrent to crime rates and highly preferable from a libertarian perspective than being dependent on the government for defense....
absolutely! that is just plain common sense, which is why the socialists are against gun ownership. socialists hate common sense, and they hate self-reliance, as it impedes the government takeover of our lives
see, all this time you have spoken to me as if I am some kind of left wing liberal lunatic, when i have never voted for a Dummycrat for President, and think that Adolf Hussein Obama is our worst leader since that notorious antisemite by the name of Dhimmi Carter
So how, then, shall the people keep the government in check with their private arms when they are only allowed to purchase "simple" guns, and when they must get permission from the government to purchase those guns?
It's like expecting the home-owner to ask the home-invader for permission to get his defensive gun, don't you agree?
i am not for the government giving anybody permission to have a gun. but i am for the government doing its part to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals
Yes, you are in favor of the government keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals, by restricting the access of the law abiding to firearms. I get that.
Because we all know that criminals will be unwilling to break the law to get a gun illegally.
Who cares if the gun control doesn't work? Who cares if the gun control causes more harm than good? The important thing is that we've done something, right?
I couldn't care less what you *think* you are for.
What you are advocating is impeding the law abiding from owning arms, government intrusion on our privacy and the free exercise of rights, and desensitizing the public to the idea of the government having the authority to dictate to us when, where, and how we can exercise our rights.
And, yes, I assumed you were a liberal because you were initially talking about making people wait two weeks for a background check, and calling them "gun nuts" for not liking it. The fact is, not liking the government intruding on my 2nd Amendment rights make me no more of a "gun nut" than you not liking the government intruding on your 1st amendment rights makes you a "speech nut" or a "religion nut", etc
And it certainly isn't "sad" that people do not take kindly to government intrusion (cont
What IS sad is the number of people who willingly accept, and even beg for government intrusion in their lives. The people who rationalize, justify, and happily accept the erosion of our rights are the nuts. And what is really "sad" is that so many view those of us who expect our 2nd AoA rights to be honored and respected as "gun nuts," and thus summarily dismiss us.
when I think of gun nuts, i think of people obsessed with their guns, who take pride in their guns, who talk about guns, etc etc etc
to me, guns are something that is necessary for us to have, for the purposes of self-defense, but is not something to feel proud of or form our identity from. perhaps a comparison can be made with taking medicine: it may be necessary to take, but that does not mean i enjoy the experience
if asking for a two-week background check before a person can be allowed to buy a deadly weapon makes gun nuts enraged, that is pretty sad. if wanting to give our fellow human beings a chance at the American dream even if they are not White Anglo Saxon Protestants, makes the immigrant haters enraged, that, too, is pretty sad
I live in the heart of what you call "gun nut land". No one I know has problems with background checks. No country will every survive unregulated immigration. If you believe this you are naive and dangerous. I can see you have brought this down to race with your last comment. This is not a surprise seeing that your argument is falling apart. And thats not sad.
because hunters are overwhelmingly conservative. just think of the animal rights activists...they tend to be leftists. personally, i think both extremes are nuts: it is cruel to hunt for sport, but it is also insane to treat animals as if they have as much rights as human beings. we humans rule over animals, but we should never give them unnecessary pain
While machine guns and bombs are out of the question, guns should not be background checked. What I mean is to avoid the slippery slope of gov. control. This right is provided by all citizens in the constitution. if you are a felon, you forfiet that right. If some had carried guns to Va. Tech. that bastard would not have killed as many b4 being killed. Same as ft. hood. An armed people would make crimminals think twice. We have crime, lets try this way and watch it plummit.
no background checks because everybody has a right to own a gun? so then let's go on the local street corner and start handing out guns to everyone, even those with names like Lee H Oswald, John W Booth, Charles Manson, and John Hinckley. See how dangerous it can get?
As for what happened in Virginia Tech and Fort Hood, those massacres came to an end only when good people who happened to have had a gun, shot the murderer. background checks help insures that more good than bad people own guns
1. Is it unnecessary? No, it is not. Some hunt for sustenance. In some situations, also hunting is a VERY useful skill and it is good to keep it honed. Perhaps more importantly, though: Hunting is necessary to keep animal populations in check. Otherwise the animals themselves would die of disease and starvation, as well as many other problems they would cause for us and the environment in their wake.
almost no American needs to hunt for food for the sake of his survival. i have never fired a gun in my life, yet somehow manage to eat meat several times every day. that because I buy my meat at meat stores. i have no need to go hunting.
my objection to hunting are those people who hunt for sport. somehow, they find killing animals to be fun. somehow, they feel a need to prove their manliness by killing animals. the only skill such behavior hones is how to be unnecessarily cruel
Actually, quite a few of the people in Alaska still depend on hunting for their sustenance. That is one reason why they make such an effort to keep the wolf population in check.
Hunting is a skill. People who hunt for are honing that skill. Many people in my area hunt for sustenance, and quite a bit of the meat that the sport hunters bring in are donated to charities. Do you wish to take that meat from the mouths of hungry children so you can end sport hunting?
I find it very hard to believe that the average person living in Alaska needs to hunt for his food. Alaska is part of the United States, not some G-d forsaken communist country
The fact is that a sizable portion of Alaskans rely on hunting for sustenance. I guess you don't realize that hunting large game especially can provide food for quite some time because the meat can be frozen. Some people depend on the meat acquired during hunting season for most of the year. It isn't exactly a secret that many people are struggling with poverty and hunger in the US right now.
if you are going to bring the beautiful Sarah Palin into this discussion, I cannot really respond in any adequate way. I happen to be head over heels in love with that adorable woman, hoping and praying that she will become our President in 2012, with Michelle Bachmann as our Vice President. basically, anything Sarah Palin does, I find to be absolutely adorable and lovable. She is the hot sexy beautiful female version of Ronald Reagan
I liked her, but there were a few of her views that troubled me. For instance, the idea that the Constitution has "wiggle room."
None-the-less, she has a reputation for actually representing the people, and she actually knows what it's like to be "the people" so I supported her whole-heartedly.
Anyway, that is why she legalized the hunting of wolves from helicopters. Partially because of their dependence on tourist hunters, and partially because so many there depend on hunting for meat.
Sarah Palin has a rare gift of instinctively knowing what America is all about. let me give you an example of what I mean. I saw a clip of some stupid reporter asking Sarah Palin for her views on Israel. the reporter worded it in a way that would give doubt as to whether America should side with Israel. Although Sarah Palin stumbled over her words, she was shocked that anybody would even question supporting Israel. THAT is the kind of leader that would be the perfect cure for Obamunism
my impression of those who hunt for sport, are the same sort of people who have bear skin rugs, or heads of bears nailed to their walls. they are trying to convey the message that they are superior to animals, stronger than animals, more macho than animals...it is all so disgusting to me. that is a FAR cry from people who truly do hunt for their survival
Ah, so we can hunt for survival, but we can't hunt for meat if we can buy it (even though that could possibly result in the extinction of certain wildlife, decimation of crops, and destruction of wild-lands, but that's beside the point.)
And those who do hunt are not allowed to keep the skins of the animal. The rest of the animal must go to waste. Only the meat may be used. I see...
2. It is significantly less painful than the death they face anyway: Whether that be death by disease; the slow, agonizing death by starvation; death by injury; or being ripped apart alive by predators. If anything, dying by a hunter's hand is more humane that they can ever hope to get from nature.
It is doublespeak to claim that killing animals is a merciful act. killing animals is not being merciful. taking them as pets to care for is, but not killing them
So putting down a sick dog who is dying a painful death is not merciful? Better to make the dog suffer?
Besides, I did try to paint it as an act of mercy. I was merely putting it into perspective. Hunting is absolutely necessary from an ecological standpoint, and it is far more humane than the death that will otherwise be waiting for those animals. Thus, your argument is without merit.
who said the dog wants to die? nobody asked the dog what he thinks of being put to death. when such dogs are put to sleep, the dog owner is thinking about his own feelings, how he cannot stand to see his dog suffering. but that does not mean the dog wants to die.
hunting for sport is pure evil. thus, your argument is without merit
And it would be much better to allow the populations to grow unchecked, damaging crops and wild-lands while losing entire populations to disease and famines, right?
No, your argument is without merit.
Tell me, how are you morally superior to the hunter because you pay another person to kill the animal you are eating? Are those cows somehow less dead than the hunter's deer? Ever heard how distressing it is for cows who are herded to slaughter?
the meat i eat is kosher meat. when kosher animals are killed the kosher way, any possible pain that the animal feels, is minimized as much as possible. contrast this with those millions of innocent baby seals clubbed to death in Canada, dragged by hooks put into their eyes
Again, are you really suggesting that you are morally superior because you don't kill the animals yourself? Because you pay others to do it for you?
And your argument is without merit because you completely neglect the ecological ramifications of banning sport hunting. Not to mention the skills acquired while hunting AND that much of the revenue generated goes towards preserving wild-lands and wild-life.
So you think any rube can go out and successfully hunt for sustenance? You don't believe that it is a skill to be maintained in case it is needed?
And are we to allow animals to destroy our wild-lands and destroy our crops so as to not "cause them pain"? (Because we all know that hunters are the only pain they will ever encounter in the wild...)
Further, I've repeatedly referred to hunters "shooting" animals, so you are trying to change the discussion by bringing up clubbing seals, which does not happen here anyway.
I am not defending the practice of clubbing seals.Unless, of course, you know of some way to shoot a club that I do not.
Which is probably why I don't support it. It is utterly irrelevant, however, because it is not what we are talking about. Trying to shift the focus to clubbing seals is just dishonest.
I actually find this debate interesting given your name. A year or so ago there was a debate over legalizing the hunting of Bison. Unfortunately I never heard the outcome.
The problem was that Bison in some States had become so overpopulated that they were exhausting their food supplies, and the threat of massive diseases was becoming immenent. The DNR was trying to get them removed from the endangered list so they could be hunted because failure to do so may result in their extinction.
Now, the animal rights groups took action, and began fighting legalizing the hunting of bison because, as you say, hunting is evil. They say nobody NEEDS to hunt bison, that hunting is immoral, etc, etc... Just as you are doing.
At the time, it was up in the air as to what the legislators would decide, but those who actually study the ecology (Such as the DNR) were trying to impress that failure to legalize hunting could result in their extinction...
Hunting is a coservative act since hunting demonstrates an independence and ability to survive without an all powerful central government providing the masses a meal
we don't have affirmative action to help asians yet they get accepted to colleges and get new jobs at higher rates than any other race. Is that because of racial favoritisms towards asians? Hardly, people still call them chinks and there are still people that harbor racist feelings towards them yet they achieve more than anyone else. You know why, bc they take care of business, they work hard, study and they don't look for handouts. They earn their achievements and prove you don't need AA.
it has come to the point where measures have been taken to discriminate against Asians because they are so successful. such thinking is just so insane. should we discriminate against those Black basketball players that play basketball so well?
In other words, what Thomas Sowell is saying in relation to the poor is that it is not the government's job to feed and clothe citizens in a society but rather to create the economic conditions in which individuals will be able to achieve these things for themselves and the best way of doing that is by government removing arbitrary barriers and government intervention.
Thomas Sowell is a mastermind of reason and logic!
TheModerateViewer 1 month ago 2
Having read many of Dr. Sowells treatises and listened to him speak on countless occasions I've come to the conclusion that there is hope for the black race and for America. If our form of government can turn out such men, of whatever race, then we have hope. Please America, let us recognize that barry obama is not a man of this caliber. Obama could never be a man of this caliber and intellect. God bless you Mr. Sowells.
TheJustmike2010 2 months ago
Dr Sowell, you sir are a bad ass!!
MAGMADIVER1 2 months ago in playlist conservatives ahoy! 2
we need more black men more like Thomas Sowell, Selby Steele, Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, Fredrick Douglas, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Marcus Garvey, Booker T.Washinghton, the Niggas we don't need black men following examples of, Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Michael Eric Dyson, Tavis Smiley, Louis Farrakhan, Cornell West, Barack Obama, Jeremiar Wright, these are the baffoons that have been infront of black america, for 50 yrs and got us confused.
erijones1ify 2 months ago
this guy cant handle 5 minutes without talking about black people... asshole
diogotomediogo 4 months ago in playlist Mais vídeos de LibertyPen
@diogotomediogo
Why is he an "asshole" for "talking about black people"?
The fact is, he's not "talking about black people." He talking about SOCIAL POLICY, and more specifically, the failures of LIBERAL social policy. And because so much of liberal social policy revolves around identity politics and demagoguery of race issues, you cannot talk about liberal social policy with race coming up.
Instead of focusing on irrelevant details, why don't you focus on HIS POINT. He's a brilliant man.
UncleIrv 4 months ago in playlist Interesting stuff
This has been flagged as spam show
@diogotomediogo It doesn't take much for you, now does it.
nannyberries 4 months ago
Yes, I wrote the textbook.
Cornampoo 5 months ago
One of the most awesome men of all time. A kind sowell and a man that his writings will live in infamy!!! Dr. Sowell, I love ya and you will live forever to me and may you and your writing influence future generations!!!!
Patriot751 6 months ago
Greatest living intellectual.
Estese 7 months ago
thomas sowell may be the most profound person i've ever come across
AmandaFeetJeansFan 7 months ago 3
What a man....there is not one bloated, demagogic, talking head in the media that possesses even 1/100 the clarity and reason of Thomas Sowell.
sammyh1982 7 months ago 2
Sowell was educated in Harlem, dropped out of school due to an unstable family life, joined the marine corps, and eventually graduated from some of the most prestigious universities of America before there were affirmative action programs to "help him along." At one point, he was a marxist. He worked for the federal government at one point as well. He is a self-made man and is seemingly beholden to no one at this point. It is difficult, from an objective standpoint, to find faults in his views.
craig4252 7 months ago 5
@craig4252 And they would even have the gaul to call him uncle tom.
nannyberries 4 months ago
Sowell is dead on target! These educated elitists are WRONG. They have no right to decide for us what is best. And I am tired of government telling me what is best for me.
Brontefan47 8 months ago
Dude is right, the government has a responsibility to educate us properly and protect the borders! And they refuse to do both. For as I can see it's plan for self destruction.
VRtechman 8 months ago
One of the best things he has every said, he tells on his buddies, what a snitch, jailhouse snitch,
comptonproduction 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
shieldsff 9 months ago
I don't care if he's 80, if he ran for president I'd vote for him.
KenMacMillan 9 months ago
Wow! how old is this interview? He is talking about the Fools that control the country!
VRRA4 10 months ago
On the last chapter; what a stunning book. Very serious reading, that should make certain people very, very uncomfortable.
byquist 10 months ago
Thomas Sowell: Instant Respect
nuclide 11 months ago 2
I'm a white middle class male who is 27. I believe that American blacks, as a culture, is deteriorating. However,...
I would Vote for Thomas Sowell as President ANY DAY!
elvisfan22 11 months ago
@elvisfan22 I am not black and i concur.
nuclide 11 months ago
@elvisfan22 it's not deteriorating. trust me.
Ravengaurd6 10 months ago
@elvisfan22
Uhh, I have news for you America in general as a culture is deteriorating, and has been for a while.
Califacience 8 months ago
The fact that Sowell has been on Rose's show once tells you all you need to know about the intellectual narrowness of the establishment.
dskillz1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A Cute, latin Girls for you busizz4me.info
RoseanYoksi 1 year ago
This man is as much an Uncle Tom as Obama is a conservative. From the year 1990 and moving forward . . . Being a Democrat OR a Republican is as productive as being a tomato at a lemonade stand.
giannifragali 1 year ago
What is Sowell's view on affirmative action for the disabled? Does anyone know?
chapaev36 1 year ago
@chapaev36 Sowell thinks the Americans with Disablities Act was govt. overreach. It actully harmed many disabled Americans, and has served as a racket for trial lawyers. Sowell looks at most things from a private property rights perspective. So: the state has no business telling the owners of private property (busineses) what size their bathrooms should be; the width of theri hallways; require ramps, etc. Some businesses will cater to the disabled for profit without govt. coercion.
joepeeler34 1 year ago
@joepeeler34 That's very interesting. Thank you for your response.
chapaev36 1 year ago
@joepeeler34
That is some interesting insight!
VRRA4 10 months ago
@chapaev36 idk but i remember Penn and teller did an episode on that topic
mana2432 1 year ago
Policy X didn't work but there is nothing wrong with us. It must be that there must be more policy X. Demcrats STILL know everything today. But their hero is Rick Maddow. Add lesbian righteousness and you have triple policy X lol
bush1tman 1 year ago
The smartest people in the world are libratarians, the rest are opinionated idiots.
SuperFifthwheel 1 year ago
Charlie Rose got served hahahahaha sorry I literally smiled when Rose had to back down and say "well I don't know what he would say" after Dr. Sowell states that Justice Thomas succeeded pre-AA...classic
soccerjones84 1 year ago
I like this guy. He speaks the truth.
fred9099 1 year ago
In November 1983 Clarence Thomas stated that affirmative action is ''critical to minorities and women in this society", speacking to his staff at the federal Equal Employment Opportunities Commission. Moreover, he also said that but for affirmative action laws, "God only knows where I would be today. These laws and their proper application are all that stand between the first 17 years of my life and the second 17 years.''
metavoice 1 year ago
Comment removed
metavoice 1 year ago
That's my black president baby!
pinegrove33 1 year ago 4
This fella is brilliant. Very charismatic, unlike most academics, who send me to sleep.........So frustrating when you have an interviewer who interrupts, and pipes up a load of gibberish, as if we have forgotten that he is there...... Do me a favour, bruv.......Sit there....Shut up....and listen to the Dr.
Thatcheriteme 1 year ago
Ever since I started reading Dr Sowell, it has totally changed my way of thinking. This man is a sage of all sages. I ♥ Thomas Sowell!
uberchrist33 1 year ago 5
THOMAS SOWELL IS A PHILOSOPHER ON THE LEVEL OF THE GREATEST WESTERN PHILOSOPHERS IN ALL OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION'S HISTORY.... THOMAS SOWELL IS A GENIUS. AN ABSOLUTE GENIUS. A MAN WHO THINKS, WHO OBSERVES WITH AN OPEN MIND..... GOD BLESS YOU DR. SOWELL!!!
JoeLoro 1 year ago 6
If you double the volume on your videos i will hear them all..
I can hear S#!t! thx
7Solucion 1 year ago
Thomas Sowell and Ron Paul are very similar
rast123456789 1 year ago 3
@rast123456789
Sowell wouldn't approve of Paul's foreign policy.
Ipetratz 1 year ago 2
@Ipetratz what is Sowells Foreign Policy?
rast123456789 1 year ago
@rast123456789
Well, he supports the wars- where Ron Paul constantly said we have no business being in Afghanistan and that we provoked 9/11.
Ipetratz 1 year ago
@Ipetratz Ron Paul Supports going after the terrorist who where behind 9-11 not using the attack as a means to invade the middle east.....But i will have to look into Sowells Foreign Policy. On other issues tho i really like what he has to say
rast123456789 1 year ago
@Ipetratz
Because Ron Paul is an isolationist crank, whereas Sowell has a deep understanding of world history.
larkydozer 1 year ago
@larkydozer You need to read more of what Dr. Paul has to say on the subject of American relations with the Middle East. I can think of few men more learned on the subject. Calling Dr. Paul an isolationist crank who, as you imply, does not have a deep understanding of world history is a completely unfounded insult. I think you will find that Dr. Sowell and Dr. Paul have very similar views on many issues, including foreign policy.
BillyWillis89 1 year ago
@BillyWillis89
I've read three quarters of Sowell's output and have witnessed Ron Paul's campaigns and televised arguments for what he believes to be causation with regards to Islamic terrorists. There's absolutely no common ground with Sowell and Paul on foreign policy.
As far as being knowledgable about the Middle East, I'd recommend reading anything by Bernard Lewis. "What Went Wrong" is the easiest to digest.
Ron Paul. Isolationist crank and cultural relativist.
larkydozer 1 year ago
@larkydozer
Personally i think we should have remained more or less isolationist as our forefathers advised, but at this point in our history it is not a plausible alternative anymore. We can't just ignore the Middle East today.
Califacience 1 year ago
@Califacience
Our forefather didn't advise an isolationist policy.
"How could a readiness for war in time of peace be
safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like
manner, the preparations and establishments of every
hostile nation?"
~James Madison, Federalist No. 41, January 1788
larkydozer 1 year ago
@larkydozer Quoted from a federalist(Madison). Some of our forefatheres where anti-federalist so good job using one quote from Madisons arguement to support your biased opinion. Next time quote an anti-federalist as well and perhaps you will see that our forefathers disagreed ALOT.
SuperFifthwheel 1 year ago
@larkydozer She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition,The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force….She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit- John Adams July 4th 1821
SuperFifthwheel 1 year ago
@SuperFifthwheel
Who asked you to interrupt our debate?
larkydozer 1 year ago
@SuperFifthwheel Good quote. Just one little correction. It was John Quincy Adams, John Adams' son.
DaddyRTO 11 months ago
@larkydozer "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties"-George Washington Farewell
SuperFifthwheel 1 year ago
@larkydozer Quote# 3 continued: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." -Thomas Jefferson March 4, 1801
SuperFifthwheel 1 year ago
@BillyWillis89
What's really absurd about your comment is the fact the Bernard Lewis is the premiere scholar on the topic of the Middle East, having written numerous volumes, whereas Paul has a single book "A Foreign Policy of Freedom" which isn't at all a focused history of the M.E., it's simply floor speeches.
larkydozer 1 year ago
Tom Sowell is smart, but more importantly, he is wise.
voodooshizzle 1 year ago 66
Can anyone tell me how "Economics and Politics of Race", "Ethnic America", "Race and Cultures", "Migrations and Culture", and "Conquest and Culture" are any different from one another? Which one is better?
Can anyone tell me how "Visions of the Anointed", "The Quest for Cosmic Justice", "A Conflict of Visions", and "Intellectuals and Society" are any different from one another? Which one is better?
whitesox889 1 year ago
@whitesox889
A Conflict of Visions is probably his best work. As for the others, read the topics and decide which would interest you the most.
periechontology 1 year ago
@periechontology A Conflict of Visions is a freaking masterpiece. I love that book.
natedaug1 1 year ago 4
@whitesox889: I have read Race and Culture, & Conquest and Culture, & Migrations and Culture. I can't answer the others. Each is meant to debunk the common leftist cliches about the given subject. Race and Culture addresses how different people who could be regarded as having the same race have developed or been taken to different cultures & have faired very differently as a result. Culture has far more to do w/ how we act & thus is far more significant in its effect.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
Can anyone tell me how Inside American Education and Education: Assumptions versus History are any different from one another? Which one is better?
whitesox889 1 year ago
How are "Vision of the Anointed", "The Quest for Cosmic Justice", "A Conflict of Vision", and "Intellectuals and Society" any different from one another? Which one is the best (I haven't read them yet.)
whitesox889 1 year ago
@whitesox889
Read "Conflict" and then "Quest"
They're keys to understanding the other two.
larkydozer 1 year ago
Sowell, the anti-Obama for president.
psionicdfw 1 year ago 2
I just bought this book and I got a feeling it's gonna be a very interesting read.
sonofthunder79 1 year ago
Sowell once again shows why he is one of the foremost intellectuals in academia today.
jamo387 1 year ago 67
@jamo387 too bad he will never be a household name. the ignorance would be laughable if it wasnt so sad.
NecxZhor9 1 month ago
nakedBison69 needs to lurk moar.
pantsdailyon 1 year ago
I love Thomas Sowell!
natedaug1 1 year ago 3
Genius & Common Sense
THE RAREST of combinations in people - wow!!!!
Tommy for President !
unsheepled 2 years ago 17
"I am soft on illegal immigration, despise hunting for sport, and am no gun nut. "
What is a gun nut other than another of the addled-minded cliche? What does hunting have to do with Conservatism?
Coowallsky 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i have found that too many conservatives are gun nuts and obsessed with illegal immigration. both of these aspects of conservatism are a huge turnoff for me
nakedBison69 2 years ago
I do not hunt, but know that if a country cannot control it's borders, it ceases to be a country. I believe in the Constitution of US and that is what our leaders are sworn to uphold and protect. So, we have a right to own guns and I uphold that. This secures freedom that you are using on this website.
kmh196700 2 years ago
I never said I am against gun ownership. on the contrary, the right to defend ourselves with weapons is an even more basic right than our right to freedom of speech. but i also think that gun advocates take things to too far of an extreme, such as when they do not believe in background checks. should all of us have the right to have a nuclear bomb? how about a machine gun? we should have the right to a simple gun for self-defense, acquired after a two week background check, and that is all
nakedBison69 2 years ago
The goofy nuclear bomb argument is merely a straw man, as is the "machine gun" argument.
I wonder, though, do you think the woman who wants a gun to defend against a stalker can call a time-out for two weeks while they do your background check?
During the LA Riots, the people who supported waiting periods were enraged that they had to abide by them to get defensive guns to protect their families, and there have been instances of people dying while waiting for a defensive gun.
bldgy 1 year ago
those people going through those riots should have had the good sense to already be prepared for such an experience. also, if gun sellers would freely hand out guns to anybody claiming to need it for self defense, what would stop the rioters from getting guns that same way and that easily? why are you against a background check anyway? owning a gun is no light matter, it needs to be taken seriously
nakedBison69 1 year ago
1. We currently do background checks, and they do not take 2 weeks. For the most part they are instant. Your argument was for a 2 week background check.
2. An FBI study showed that the vast majority of guns used in crimes weren't obtained legally from a gun retailer.
3. I have reservations about allowing the govt to dictate who can and cannot own firearms, when the purpose of the 2nd AoA was to keep the govt in check.
I also have my concerns about what your definition of a "simple" gun is...
bldgy 1 year ago
okay, I will admit that sometimes my thinking is stuck in the pre-computer age. if nowadays due to computers and improved technology, that we can do a background check instantaneously, then so much the better.
it is true that real criminals will get guns regardless, which is why I am for gun ownership in the first place. we need to be able to defend ourselves. but efforts should be made to at least try to make it harder for the bad guys to get guns.
nakedBison69 1 year ago
I used to agree. The problem is that you can only make it harder for the law abiding to get a gun. Those are the only people who follow the regulations, and so those are the only people who you can disarm or impede.
The average background check now takes around 5 minutes. Longer during hunting seasons simply because you are put on hold.
bldgy 1 year ago
as for your third point, that is actually an interesting perspective, one I have to think more about. at least domestically, i gravitate toward libertarianism, wanting the government out of our lives as much as possible. however, the one area where the government does not do enough, is in controlling violent crime. doing what one can to at least try to keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys, is one of the ways that the government can help reduce violent crime
nakedBison69 1 year ago
The government doesn't control violent crime. If you want violent crime to stop, the best way to do that is to cut their funding, and you can cut their funding by ending the war on drugs. It is having the same effect on violent crime as prohibition had.
Look into Kennesaw, Georgia, and how they handled their problem of an extraordinarily high violent crime rate. Compare the effects of their actions vs. the effects of Chicago's gun control...
bldgy 1 year ago
as it so happens, while personally have never taken a mind altering drug, nor would i, i am for the full legalization and regulation of all drugs. if somebody wants to destroy their brain, that is their problem. victimless crimes are not the government's business.
you keep painting me as some kind of gun grabbing liberal. i am not. I am for gun ownership. but care must be taken to make sure we play minimal if any part in giving guns to violent criminals
nakedBison69 1 year ago
I neither do drugs, nor drink. But like you said, it isn't the government's business. Plus, as I said, the War on Drugs does more harm than good.
All I know is that you are in favor of restricting access to guns. And that you think people should only be able to own *a* "simple" gun (whatever that is).
Regardless of what your intentions are, the only thing you are doing is impeding the law abiding from owning firearms.
bldgy 1 year ago
what i am for, is for law abiding citizens to play no direct role in supplying violent criminals with guns
nakedBison69 1 year ago
"Good intentions are pleaded for every assumption of authority. The Constitution was created to guard against the dangers of good intentions."
~Noah Webster (roughly paraphrased)
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
~2nd AoA
bldgy 1 year ago
do you honestly believe that Thomas Jefferson would gladly hand a gun over to Charles Manson?
nakedBison69 1 year ago
Yes, and here is someone that would not hand him a gun.
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.
-- Hitler, April 11 1942
musclecarlo72 1 year ago
so if I oppose handing out guns indiscriminately to whoever asks for one, that means I am against gun ownership? isn't that just a bit of a leap? you are the kind of gun nut that i was talking about earlier. i bet you have bear skin rugs and just get such a thrill out of hunting, causing pain, and killing innocent animals
nakedBison69 1 year ago
musclecarlo72 loves to quote his hero, adolf shitler
nakedBison69 1 year ago
Do you honestly believe Thomas Jefferson would be in favor of releasing Charles Manson in the first place?
Ever actually read any of Jefferson's writings?
bldgy 1 year ago
bldgy, who never read Thomas Jefferson's writings, favors releasing Charles Manson in the first place
nakedBison69 1 year ago
And are you really suggesting that the person and their family would be acceptable collateral damage because they were not prepare simply to satisfy your unreasonable insistence on a 2 week long background check?
I've got news for you: Criminals do not buy guns from law abiding gun retailers, and the people they do buy from don't honor waiting periods or background checks...
bldgy 1 year ago
so you would honestly support no background checks at all, that anybody coming into a store to buy a gun, should be sold that gun immediately, just as long as he has the money to pay for it? what if the person's name was mohammed, and he wore a turban, with a Death to America bumper sticker on the camel he rides?
nakedBison69 1 year ago
I don't know of many gun retailers who would sell a gun to someone wearing a "death to America" sticker.
Not that long ago, we had no background checks on firearms. Imposing backgrounds checks has made no discernible differences in our violent crime rates. CCW seems to lower it, however. The general trend seems to be the more guns in private possession, the lower the violent crime rates. Criminals aren't as apt to attack targets who may be armed.
bldgy 1 year ago
that reminds me of those people who oppose the death penalty, on the grounds that it does not deter murder. I happen to not believe that, but even if that would be true, the fact would remain that putting a murderer to death detracts that particular murderer from ever murdering again.
same with guns. background checks may or may not help the crime situation, but stopping a particular criminal from having a gun, would at least discourage that particular person from doing more harm
nakedBison69 1 year ago
You are still assuming that you ARE stopping a particular criminal from having a gun. You are not. Do you really think a criminal is going say "DARN! Oh well, I guess I better get a real job since I can't legally buy a gun."
There is no parallel between that an executing violent offenders (which I am certainly not opposed to.) Executed criminals cannot get a different life illegally elsewhere. Refused criminals CAN buy a different gun, illegally elsewhere.
bldgy 1 year ago
but why make it easier for criminals to have guns? perhaps you would like to go to wherever murderers are released from prison, and hand each of them guns?
nakedBison69 1 year ago
Now you are using the usual gun-banner argument. If I am not in favor of restricting the law-abiding's access to firearms, OBVIOUSLY I am in favor of "handing" guns out to violent criminals.
Of course, I've never mentioned giving a gun to anyone.
I wonder, though, why do you think murderers should be released from prison?
bldgy 1 year ago
bldgy OBVIOUSLY favors handing guns out to violent criminals. bldgy thinks murderers should be released from prison
nakedBison69 1 year ago
@nakedBison69 Ah, so now you show your true colors as a troll....
bldgy 1 year ago
bldgy has shown his true colors as a troll
nakedBison69 1 year ago
If you gravitate towards libertarianism, surely you could see that more people taking personal responsibility for their safety rather than relying on protection from the police who **won't** be there when you need them (what criminal is going to attack you in front of a police officer?) is going to be a deterrent to crime rates and highly preferable from a libertarian perspective than being dependent on the government for defense....
bldgy 1 year ago
absolutely! that is just plain common sense, which is why the socialists are against gun ownership. socialists hate common sense, and they hate self-reliance, as it impedes the government takeover of our lives
see, all this time you have spoken to me as if I am some kind of left wing liberal lunatic, when i have never voted for a Dummycrat for President, and think that Adolf Hussein Obama is our worst leader since that notorious antisemite by the name of Dhimmi Carter
nakedBison69 1 year ago
So how, then, shall the people keep the government in check with their private arms when they are only allowed to purchase "simple" guns, and when they must get permission from the government to purchase those guns?
It's like expecting the home-owner to ask the home-invader for permission to get his defensive gun, don't you agree?
bldgy 1 year ago
i am not for the government giving anybody permission to have a gun. but i am for the government doing its part to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals
nakedBison69 1 year ago
Yes, you are in favor of the government keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals, by restricting the access of the law abiding to firearms. I get that.
Because we all know that criminals will be unwilling to break the law to get a gun illegally.
Who cares if the gun control doesn't work? Who cares if the gun control causes more harm than good? The important thing is that we've done something, right?
bldgy 1 year ago
bldgy loves handing out guns to violent criminals
nakedBison69 1 year ago
I couldn't care less what you *think* you are for.
What you are advocating is impeding the law abiding from owning arms, government intrusion on our privacy and the free exercise of rights, and desensitizing the public to the idea of the government having the authority to dictate to us when, where, and how we can exercise our rights.
Why you are in favor of this is irrelevant.
bldgy 1 year ago
And, yes, I assumed you were a liberal because you were initially talking about making people wait two weeks for a background check, and calling them "gun nuts" for not liking it. The fact is, not liking the government intruding on my 2nd Amendment rights make me no more of a "gun nut" than you not liking the government intruding on your 1st amendment rights makes you a "speech nut" or a "religion nut", etc
And it certainly isn't "sad" that people do not take kindly to government intrusion (cont
bldgy 1 year ago
What IS sad is the number of people who willingly accept, and even beg for government intrusion in their lives. The people who rationalize, justify, and happily accept the erosion of our rights are the nuts. And what is really "sad" is that so many view those of us who expect our 2nd AoA rights to be honored and respected as "gun nuts," and thus summarily dismiss us.
bldgy 1 year ago
when I think of gun nuts, i think of people obsessed with their guns, who take pride in their guns, who talk about guns, etc etc etc
to me, guns are something that is necessary for us to have, for the purposes of self-defense, but is not something to feel proud of or form our identity from. perhaps a comparison can be made with taking medicine: it may be necessary to take, but that does not mean i enjoy the experience
nakedBison69 1 year ago
So I shouldn't take pride in the exercise of a right that is for all intents and purposes banned virtually everywhere else?
I shouldn't be allowed to enjoy target shooting?
I shouldn't be allowed to talk about guns? What else should I not be allowed to talk about?
Perhaps you really should read the many writings of Thomas Jefferson...
bldgy 1 year ago
bldgy does not allow people to read the many writings of Thomas Jefferson
nakedBison69 1 year ago
A RESPONSIBLE person maintains proficiency with a firearm. There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking pride in such a skill.
A RESPONSIBLE person will seek to educate themselves about firearms if they are to own them. The transfer of knowledge requires talking.
Under your definition of a "nut," no one would be allowed to talk about, take pride in, do, or enjoy anything.
bldgy 1 year ago
bldgy takes pride in causing pain to others. bldgy forbids anybody from talking
nakedBison69 1 year ago
If the right to bear arms AND the protection of our economy and society through controlled immigration is a turn off to you thats pretty sad.
Minionuup 2 years ago
if asking for a two-week background check before a person can be allowed to buy a deadly weapon makes gun nuts enraged, that is pretty sad. if wanting to give our fellow human beings a chance at the American dream even if they are not White Anglo Saxon Protestants, makes the immigrant haters enraged, that, too, is pretty sad
nakedBison69 2 years ago
@nakedBison69
I live in the heart of what you call "gun nut land". No one I know has problems with background checks. No country will every survive unregulated immigration. If you believe this you are naive and dangerous. I can see you have brought this down to race with your last comment. This is not a surprise seeing that your argument is falling apart. And thats not sad.
Minionuup 2 years ago
minionuup's naive and dangerous arguments are sadly falling apart
nakedBison69 2 years ago
minionuup is not pretty but he is sad
nakedBison69 1 year ago
because hunters are overwhelmingly conservative. just think of the animal rights activists...they tend to be leftists. personally, i think both extremes are nuts: it is cruel to hunt for sport, but it is also insane to treat animals as if they have as much rights as human beings. we humans rule over animals, but we should never give them unnecessary pain
nakedBison69 2 years ago
While machine guns and bombs are out of the question, guns should not be background checked. What I mean is to avoid the slippery slope of gov. control. This right is provided by all citizens in the constitution. if you are a felon, you forfiet that right. If some had carried guns to Va. Tech. that bastard would not have killed as many b4 being killed. Same as ft. hood. An armed people would make crimminals think twice. We have crime, lets try this way and watch it plummit.
kmh196700 2 years ago
no background checks because everybody has a right to own a gun? so then let's go on the local street corner and start handing out guns to everyone, even those with names like Lee H Oswald, John W Booth, Charles Manson, and John Hinckley. See how dangerous it can get?
As for what happened in Virginia Tech and Fort Hood, those massacres came to an end only when good people who happened to have had a gun, shot the murderer. background checks help insures that more good than bad people own guns
nakedBison69 2 years ago
If you think hunting gives animals "unnecessary pain," I suggest you watch a nature show some time and compare it to a hunting show.
Tell me if you think the animal shot down by a hunter experiences more pain than the animal ripped apart alive by wolves...
bldgy 1 year ago
so it is okay to inflict unnecessary pain on animals, just as long as one is not quite as brutal as wolves who are only acting by instinct?
nakedBison69 1 year ago
1. Is it unnecessary? No, it is not. Some hunt for sustenance. In some situations, also hunting is a VERY useful skill and it is good to keep it honed. Perhaps more importantly, though: Hunting is necessary to keep animal populations in check. Otherwise the animals themselves would die of disease and starvation, as well as many other problems they would cause for us and the environment in their wake.
bldgy 1 year ago
almost no American needs to hunt for food for the sake of his survival. i have never fired a gun in my life, yet somehow manage to eat meat several times every day. that because I buy my meat at meat stores. i have no need to go hunting.
my objection to hunting are those people who hunt for sport. somehow, they find killing animals to be fun. somehow, they feel a need to prove their manliness by killing animals. the only skill such behavior hones is how to be unnecessarily cruel
nakedBison69 1 year ago
Actually, quite a few of the people in Alaska still depend on hunting for their sustenance. That is one reason why they make such an effort to keep the wolf population in check.
Hunting is a skill. People who hunt for are honing that skill. Many people in my area hunt for sustenance, and quite a bit of the meat that the sport hunters bring in are donated to charities. Do you wish to take that meat from the mouths of hungry children so you can end sport hunting?
bldgy 1 year ago
I find it very hard to believe that the average person living in Alaska needs to hunt for his food. Alaska is part of the United States, not some G-d forsaken communist country
nakedBison69 1 year ago
The fact is that a sizable portion of Alaskans rely on hunting for sustenance. I guess you don't realize that hunting large game especially can provide food for quite some time because the meat can be frozen. Some people depend on the meat acquired during hunting season for most of the year. It isn't exactly a secret that many people are struggling with poverty and hunger in the US right now.
bldgy 1 year ago
Look into the explanation of why Palin made it legal for wildlife officials (not hunters) to hunt wolves from helicopters.
It was widely publicized and attacked, but rarely did you hear that only officials were allowed to hunt from helicopters.
They kept the wolves in check to allow the game animals to overproduce for two reasons.
1. Alaska's economy is heavily dependent on sport hunters.
2. Many Alaskans rely heavily on hunting for food.
bldgy 1 year ago
if you are going to bring the beautiful Sarah Palin into this discussion, I cannot really respond in any adequate way. I happen to be head over heels in love with that adorable woman, hoping and praying that she will become our President in 2012, with Michelle Bachmann as our Vice President. basically, anything Sarah Palin does, I find to be absolutely adorable and lovable. She is the hot sexy beautiful female version of Ronald Reagan
nakedBison69 1 year ago
I liked her, but there were a few of her views that troubled me. For instance, the idea that the Constitution has "wiggle room."
None-the-less, she has a reputation for actually representing the people, and she actually knows what it's like to be "the people" so I supported her whole-heartedly.
Anyway, that is why she legalized the hunting of wolves from helicopters. Partially because of their dependence on tourist hunters, and partially because so many there depend on hunting for meat.
bldgy 1 year ago
Sarah Palin has a rare gift of instinctively knowing what America is all about. let me give you an example of what I mean. I saw a clip of some stupid reporter asking Sarah Palin for her views on Israel. the reporter worded it in a way that would give doubt as to whether America should side with Israel. Although Sarah Palin stumbled over her words, she was shocked that anybody would even question supporting Israel. THAT is the kind of leader that would be the perfect cure for Obamunism
nakedBison69 1 year ago
I get the impression that you don't think the meat from "sport hunters" animals is eaten?
bldgy 1 year ago
my impression of those who hunt for sport, are the same sort of people who have bear skin rugs, or heads of bears nailed to their walls. they are trying to convey the message that they are superior to animals, stronger than animals, more macho than animals...it is all so disgusting to me. that is a FAR cry from people who truly do hunt for their survival
nakedBison69 1 year ago
Ah, so we can hunt for survival, but we can't hunt for meat if we can buy it (even though that could possibly result in the extinction of certain wildlife, decimation of crops, and destruction of wild-lands, but that's beside the point.)
And those who do hunt are not allowed to keep the skins of the animal. The rest of the animal must go to waste. Only the meat may be used. I see...
bldgy 1 year ago
2. It is significantly less painful than the death they face anyway: Whether that be death by disease; the slow, agonizing death by starvation; death by injury; or being ripped apart alive by predators. If anything, dying by a hunter's hand is more humane that they can ever hope to get from nature.
bldgy 1 year ago
It is doublespeak to claim that killing animals is a merciful act. killing animals is not being merciful. taking them as pets to care for is, but not killing them
nakedBison69 1 year ago
So putting down a sick dog who is dying a painful death is not merciful? Better to make the dog suffer?
Besides, I did try to paint it as an act of mercy. I was merely putting it into perspective. Hunting is absolutely necessary from an ecological standpoint, and it is far more humane than the death that will otherwise be waiting for those animals. Thus, your argument is without merit.
bldgy 1 year ago
who said the dog wants to die? nobody asked the dog what he thinks of being put to death. when such dogs are put to sleep, the dog owner is thinking about his own feelings, how he cannot stand to see his dog suffering. but that does not mean the dog wants to die.
hunting for sport is pure evil. thus, your argument is without merit
nakedBison69 1 year ago
And it would be much better to allow the populations to grow unchecked, damaging crops and wild-lands while losing entire populations to disease and famines, right?
No, your argument is without merit.
Tell me, how are you morally superior to the hunter because you pay another person to kill the animal you are eating? Are those cows somehow less dead than the hunter's deer? Ever heard how distressing it is for cows who are herded to slaughter?
bldgy 1 year ago
bldgy's argument is without merit
the meat i eat is kosher meat. when kosher animals are killed the kosher way, any possible pain that the animal feels, is minimized as much as possible. contrast this with those millions of innocent baby seals clubbed to death in Canada, dragged by hooks put into their eyes
nakedBison69 1 year ago
Who is clubbing seals in the USA?
Again, are you really suggesting that you are morally superior because you don't kill the animals yourself? Because you pay others to do it for you?
And your argument is without merit because you completely neglect the ecological ramifications of banning sport hunting. Not to mention the skills acquired while hunting AND that much of the revenue generated goes towards preserving wild-lands and wild-life.
bldgy 1 year ago
it is morally superior to eat only those animals killed in such a way so as to minimize their pain as much as possible.
bldgy's arguments are without merit. the only skill learned from hunting for sport is unnecessary cruelty to animals
nakedBison69 1 year ago
So you think any rube can go out and successfully hunt for sustenance? You don't believe that it is a skill to be maintained in case it is needed?
And are we to allow animals to destroy our wild-lands and destroy our crops so as to not "cause them pain"? (Because we all know that hunters are the only pain they will ever encounter in the wild...)
bldgy 1 year ago
bldgy the psychopath loves to torture animals
nakedBison69 1 year ago
Further, I've repeatedly referred to hunters "shooting" animals, so you are trying to change the discussion by bringing up clubbing seals, which does not happen here anyway.
I am not defending the practice of clubbing seals.Unless, of course, you know of some way to shoot a club that I do not.
Don't be dishonest.
bldgy 1 year ago
clubbing seals to death is completely unnecessary and horribly cruel
nakedBison69 1 year ago
Which is probably why I don't support it. It is utterly irrelevant, however, because it is not what we are talking about. Trying to shift the focus to clubbing seals is just dishonest.
bldgy 1 year ago
bldgy the psychopath loves to torture baby seals
nakedBison69 1 year ago
I actually find this debate interesting given your name. A year or so ago there was a debate over legalizing the hunting of Bison. Unfortunately I never heard the outcome.
The problem was that Bison in some States had become so overpopulated that they were exhausting their food supplies, and the threat of massive diseases was becoming immenent. The DNR was trying to get them removed from the endangered list so they could be hunted because failure to do so may result in their extinction.
(cont..)
bldgy 1 year ago
Now, the animal rights groups took action, and began fighting legalizing the hunting of bison because, as you say, hunting is evil. They say nobody NEEDS to hunt bison, that hunting is immoral, etc, etc... Just as you are doing.
At the time, it was up in the air as to what the legislators would decide, but those who actually study the ecology (Such as the DNR) were trying to impress that failure to legalize hunting could result in their extinction...
bldgy 1 year ago
*I did not try to paint it as an act of mercy, rather...
bldgy 1 year ago
"...just as long as one is not quite as brutal..."
"quite as brutal"? Again, you should really watch some educational videos to find out what nature is really like.
bldgy 1 year ago
Hunting is a coservative act since hunting demonstrates an independence and ability to survive without an all powerful central government providing the masses a meal
MrCaptainBlack1 2 years ago
we don't have affirmative action to help asians yet they get accepted to colleges and get new jobs at higher rates than any other race. Is that because of racial favoritisms towards asians? Hardly, people still call them chinks and there are still people that harbor racist feelings towards them yet they achieve more than anyone else. You know why, bc they take care of business, they work hard, study and they don't look for handouts. They earn their achievements and prove you don't need AA.
umrmecheman 2 years ago 5
it has come to the point where measures have been taken to discriminate against Asians because they are so successful. such thinking is just so insane. should we discriminate against those Black basketball players that play basketball so well?
nakedBison69 2 years ago
@nakedBison69 good point. you wonder when the "intellectuals" will ask themselves why it is the asians achieve such high