Muda69

So you currently receive more from the government in the form of social security and medicare benefits than you ever did as a "metal model maker"?

96-0. Never Forget.

Not true, I laugh multiple times daily. Every time you post.

https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes514061.htm Looks like you made good money in that career. Must have provided you with a nice compound, wonder why you even need your socialist social security check.

https://reason.com/2019/10/31/cops-destroyed-this-house-to-arrest-a-shoplifter-a-federal-court-says-police-dont-have-to-pay-for-the-damage/ Despicable. Yet another example of when you give local law enforcement military-grade weaponry they are going to use it like toys, and they apparently don't care what private property gets destroyed/damaged in the process.

You must lead a sad, sorry, existence then.

No, you did not. You ducked, dived, and dodged. Like you usually do. All from the safety of your Hamilton county compound. And please, tell us about your government school degree(s). What are they in again?

https://reason.com/2019/10/30/former-time-editor-and-ceo-of-constitution-center-calls-for-ending-first-amendment-passing-hate-speech-laws/#comments Is he kidding? "Why would a country founded in large part on the Enlightenment values of free speech and religious freedom allow free speech and religious freedom?" doesn't seem like a tough question to answer. He doesn't name the countries his "most sophisticated Arab diplomats represented, so we need to fill that detail in. Let's assume they were from Saudi Arabia, a country completely unworthy of emulation when it comes to respecting basic human rights and whose Prince Mohammed bin Salman has taken responsibility for the brutal torture and murder of Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi. We allow the burning of the Koran for the same reasons we allow the burning of King James and St. Jerome Bibles, the desecration of the U.S. flag, and the potential libeling of elected officials: We believe that individuals have rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. With a few exceptions such as "fighting words," "true threats," and obscenity, we know that it's better to allow more speech rather than less. Surprisingly, people get along better when they can more freely speak their minds. The search for "truth"—or at least consensus—benefits from free expression, too, as ideas and attitudes are subjected to examination from friends and foes alike. But the pragmatic answer is ultimately secondary to the expressive one: We allow free speech because no one, certainly not the government, has a right to curtail it. As befits a man who helmed a legacy media outlet that is slowly being reduced to rubble like a statue of Ozymandias in the desert, Stengel is particularly distraught over "the Internet" and the "Web." He implies that the "marketplace of ideas" worked well enough when John Milton and, a bit later, America's founders pushed an unregulated press, but, well, times have changed. If you're basing the erosion of constitutional rights on the reading comprehension skills of middle schoolers, you're doing it wrong. And by it, I mean journalism, constitutional analysis, politics, and just about everything else, too. Stengel pivots from discussing truth in media to "hate speech," a ridiculously expansive term he never defines with precision (he even writes, "there's no agreed-upon definition of what hate speech actually is"). But because mass shooters such as Dylann Roof, Omar Mateen, and the El Paso shooter "were consumers of hate speech," it's time to chuck out hard-fought victories that allow individuals and groups to express themselves in words and pictures. Hate speech, laments Stengel, doesn't just cause violence (though strangely, violence is declining even as social media is flourishing), it also A quick reading of the First Amendment would have reminded Stengel—the former chairman and CEO of the National Constitution Center, fer chrissakes!—that the First Amendment isn't about limiting speech that bothers the sensibilities of people. It's actually all about Congress not making laws that would create an official religion or restricting individual speech and freedom of the press; it also guarantees that we have the right of assembly and petition. The values it reflects involve pluralism and tolerance, not shutting down, regulating, or restricting speech that makers of "new guardrails" find offensive, annoying, or inconvenient. If you grew up any time in the past 60 years or so, you've taken freedom of speech for granted. That's due to a series of legal rulings that struck down the ability of elected officials to strangle speech they didn't like, ranging from potentially libelous personal attacks to once-banned literary works as Lady Chatterley's Lover, Howl, and Ulysses, along with materials such as the Pentagon Papers and the rise of technology that made producing and consuming all sorts of texts, images, music, video, and other forms of creative expression vastly easier. It's incredibly dispiriting to see baby boomers like Stengel brush aside the incredible wins in free expression because of concerns about vaguely defined terms such as "hate speech." He gives off a strong whiff of internet and Cold War paranoia—"Russian agents assumed fake identities, promulgated false narratives and spread lies on Twitter and Facebook, all protected by the First Amendment"—that seems widely shared by his generational peers. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) is an increasingly strong presidential candidate who has vowed to regulate explicitly political speech, especially its online iterations: Older boomers are syncing with millennials and younger Americans, who show a strong predilection to limiting "bad" speech (a 2015 Pew survey found 40 percent of millennials supported censoring "offensive statements about minorities"). These are not good developments, and neither is an op-ed in The Washington Post calling for an effective revocation of the First Amendment. Throw in bipartisan interest in regulating social media platforms as public utilities, the president's interest in "opening up" the libel laws so he can more easily sue his critics, the rise of "cancel culture," and we're one Zippo lighter short of a good, old-fashioned book burning. Yes we are. And it is frightening. What kind of America are we leaving for our children and grandchildren?

Nice dodge, gonzo. Try again please. Do you believe government could do as good of a job as the free market in producing motor vehicles and/or cheeseburgers? Why or why not? I guess as much like you need to revisit the definition of one of your favorite words, socialism.

But your quote: "Privatization rarely eases cost to consumers, or provide a better quality of service. Plus, it does not lower taxes." logically seems to indicate otherwise. Please explain.

So you believe practically every means of production, from electricity to cars to cheeseburgers, should be owned by the government. Got it. https://liberty-intl.org/1988/10/privatization-providing-better-services-with-lower-taxes/

NCAA Okays Paying Student Athletes, Republican Senator Immediately Wants to Tax Their Scholarships: https://reason.com/2019/10/30/ncaa-okays-paying-student-athletes-republican-senator-richard-burr-north-carolina-immediately-wants-to-tax-their-scholarships/ Typical that a government bureaucrat would demand a piece of the pie.

In this case irrelevant. Perhaps you need to revisit the definition of the word 'socialism'. Government should not be in the utility business, period. https://www.cato.org/publications/tax-budget-bulletin/privatizing-federal-electricity-infrastructure

Yet another remnant of FDR's socialism. It should have privatized years ago: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/think-about-privatizing-the-tva/2013/04/25/3b6bbf34-a860-11e2-b029-8fb7e977ef71_story.html

*sigh* https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/how-electricity-grid-works Not under Dante's socialist system. He would be be content with DC power generated by coal fired plants. After all, you run everything at cost, for public benefit.

So where is the incentives to improve your product/service, if you always operate at cost?

Ahh. Interesting. Thank you.

Where does Boone Grove play it's home football games? I don't know much about the place so I looked it up on Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Boone+Grove+High+School/@41.3958962,-87.1694752,1431m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m13!1m7!3m6!1s0x881193fed4126f33:0xb7498bb4399ae601!2sPorter+County,+IN!3b1!8m2!3d41.5248577!4d-87.1023746!3m4!1s0x88118df4c9d027bf:0xf95e62acc1838505!8m2!3d41.3962682!4d-87.1658599 See what looks to be a practice field, but no competition field with seating? Could be an old image though......

Yep, a socialist like Dante's utopia, if only they could somehow do "socialism better". Whatever the heck that means.

You must be joking. Exactly how would that make them more efficient and more open to market forces?

What about the children who see this?

Thank you for your support.

Using that logic it would seem that schools which don't have an Endzone camera have effectively been winless since their invention/availability in the market. Is this really true?

a) All of my kids are now too old for youth or high school football. Does that mean I should no longer attend high school football games? b) ? Please explain.